Getting Competitive Advantages for High-Tech Companies: Model Formation
https://doi.org/10.17747/2078-8886-2017-4-5-88-97
Abstract
Research objective — to create model of obtaining competitive advantages the hi-tech companies. The method of the qualitative and comparative analysis which allows to receive a set of successful and unsuccessful configurations – combinations of factors which bring is chosen or don't lead to desirable result. The model is urged to promote formation of steady competitive advantage — a stable fast conclusion of a large number of qualitative and demanded innovations to the world market. Two successful scenarios for the sector companies "Electronics and technical providing" are revealed. If the company functions in various branches, it needs to concentrate on increase of liquidity and business combination by acquisition affiliated and creations of joint ventures in the macroregion. Managers of the hi-tech companies of the developed countries can use the developed model during the developing and correction of strategy, and also at adoption of administrative decisions. The separate specified factors and were considered earlier in literature, their association in the specified scenario models for obtaining competitive advantages is new development.
About the Author
A. M. Levina
“SIBUR Holding” PJSC
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Chief Specialist of the Investor Relations Department of “SIBUR Holding” PJSC. Scope of scientific research: strategic management, innovation and entrepreneurship.
References
1. Курятников А. Б., Линдер Н. В. (2015) Использование парадигмы «открытых инноваций» при построении корпоративных инновационных систем холдинга: эмпирическое исследование // Стратегии бизнеса. № 7 (14). С. 44–51.
2. Линдер Н. В. (2014) Стратегии диверсифицированного роста и определение оптимальных границ крупных промышленных бизнес-групп // Эффективное Антикризисное Управление. № 1. С. 90–99.
3. Линдер Н. В., Арсенова Е. В. (2016) Инструменты стимулирования инновационной активности холдингов в промышленности // Научные труды Вольного экономического общества России. Т. 198. С. 266–274.
4. Трачук А. В. (2012) Инновации как условие долгосрочной устойчивости российской промышленности // Эффективное Антикризисное Управление. 2012. №6 (75). С. 66–71.
5. Трачук А. В. (2013) Формирование инновационной стратегии компании // Управленческие науки. № 3. С. 16–25.
6. Трачук А. В., Линдер Н. В. (2016 а) Влияние ограничений ликвидности на вложения промышленных компаний в исследования и разработки и результативность инновационной деятельности // Эффективное Антикризисное Управление. № 1. С. 80–89.
7. Трачук А. В., Линдер Н. В. (2016 б) Влияние спилловер – эффектов знаний на эффективность компаний обрабатывающей промышленности // Современный менеджмент: проблемы и перспективы: Сб. ст.: В 2 ч. СПб.: СПбГЭУ. С. 261–271.
8. Трачук А. В., Линдер Н. В. (2017) Инновации и производительность российских промышленных компаний // Инновации. № 4 (222). С. 53–65.
9. Трачук А. В., Линдер Н. В. (2016 в) Методика многофакторной оценки инновационной активности холдингов в промышленности // Научные труды Вольного экономического общества России. Т. 198. С. 298–308.
10. Трачук А. В., Линдер Н. В. (2014) Стратегия формирования устойчивых конкурентных преимуществ инновационно-ориентированными промышленными компаниями // Стратегическое планирование и развитие предприятий: Матер. Пятнадцатого всерос. симпозиума / Под ред. Г. Б. Клейнера. М.: ЦЭМИ РАН,2014. С. 181–183.
11. Трачук А., Тарасов И. (2015) Исследование эффективности инновационной деятельности организации на основе процессного подхода // Проблемы теории и практики управления. № 9. С. 52–61.
12. Bercovitz J.E.L., Feldman M. P. (2007) Fishing up stream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances // Research Policy. Vol. 36. P. 930–948.
13. Berg-Schlosser D., De Meur G. (2009) Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
14. Baptista R., Swann P. (1998) Do firms in clusters innovate more? // Research Policy. Vol. 27. P. 525–540.
15. Bloomberg Professional Sevices ([s.a.]). URL: https://www.bloomberg.com/professional.
16. Top 100 Global Innovators Report2016 ([s.a.]) //Clarivate Analytics. URL: http://top100innovators.stateofinnovation.com/sites/default/files/content/top100/L178_Cvt_Top_100_Innovators_Report_008.pdf.
17. COMPASSS ([s.a.]). URL: http://www.compasss.org.
18. Tosmana [Version 1.521] / University of Trier ([s.a.]). URL: http://www.tosmana.net.
19. Fiss P. C., Sharapov D., Cronqvist L. (2013) Opposites attract? Opportunities and challenges for integrating large-N QCA and econometric analysis// Political Research Quarterly. Vol. 46. P. 191–198.
20. Karagozoglu N. (1993) Environmental Uncertainty, Strategic Planning, and Technological Competetive Advantage // Technovation. Vol. 13, N 6. P. 335-347
21. Science and Engineering Indicators 2016 // National Science Board Report. URL: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/
22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), White Paper, In collaboration with A.T. Kearney, Technology and Innovation for the Future of Production: Accelerating Value Creation. URL: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_White_Paper_Technology_Innovation_Future_of_Production_2017.pdf
23. Prahalad C. K., Hamel G. (1990) The core competence of the corporation // Harvard Business Review. Vol. 68, N 3. P. 79–91.
24. PwC 2016 Global Innovation 1000 Study Press Release. URL: http://www.pwc.com/us/en/press-releases/2016/pwc-2016-global-innovation-1000-study-press-release.html.
25. Ragin C. (1987) The comparative method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26. Ragin C., Rihoux B. (2009)Configurational Comparative Methods: QCA And Related Techniques // Applied Social Research Methods Series. Vol. 51. P. 91–114.
27. Rihoux B., De Meur G. (2009) Crisp-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA) // Configurational Comparative Methods. Vol. 75. P. 33–69.
28. SanDisk. Investors Portal. URL: https://www.sandisk.com/about/media-center.
29. Schneider C., Wagemann C. (2010) Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets // Comparative Sociology. Vol. 9. P. 397–418.
30. Thomson Reuters 2015 Top 100 Global Innovators Report. URL: http://static.latribune.fr/521753/classement-entreprises-innovantes.pdf.
31. Thomson Reuters 2014 Top 100 Global Innovators Report. URL: http://www.innovationmanagement.se/downloads/TR-Top-100-Global-Innovators-2014.pdf.
32. Thomson Reuters 2013 Top 100 Global Innovators Report. URL: http://boletin.interesa.es/resolver_adjunto_noticia.ashx?id=_51B19295-63AC-4D48-9069-FB107D01D690_E09078F4-BB4C-4FB1-B1F3-C492DB8F81C2__F7DA52F8-305C-4D35-9BBF-59CA6AD070C8.
33. Thomson Reuters 2012 Top 100 Global Innovators Report. URL: http://innovation.tums.ac.ir/upfiles/127406694.pdf.
34. Thomson Reuters 2011 Top 100 Global Innovators Report. URL: http://www.lemoci.com/media/Top100.pdf.
35. Vis B. (2012) The comparative advantages of fsQCA and regression analysis for moderately large-N analyses // Sociological Methods & Research. Vol.41(1). P. 168–198.
36. WIFI Alliance. Member Companies. ([s.a.]) URL: https://www.wi-fi.org/who-we-are/member-companies
37. Zawislak P. A., Schaeffer P. R. (2015) Innovative Performance and Capabilities of Interacting Firms // IAMOT 2015 Conference. The Westin, CapeTown. P. 386–394.
Review
For citations:
Levina A.M. Getting Competitive Advantages for High-Tech Companies: Model Formation. Strategic decisions and risk management. 2017;(4-5):88-97. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17747/2078-8886-2017-4-5-88-97
Views:
3701
Email this article 