14 / 274
從動態競爭觀點審視作業流程管理的創新與改進
14
O
=
z
‧
N
.
(16)
4.4 Methodology and Justification
Davis et al. (2007), Harrison et al. (2007), and Nair et al. (2009) note that when a study
does not seek to predict the outcome of a particular set of equations, as is the case in our
study, a computational model using a set of parameter values qualifies as a carefully planned
and valid experimentation process as long as it satisfies the general conditions of the
problem being studied and shows the existence of some property of general interest. If the
outcome from computer simulations matches the behavior of the dynamic systems theorized,
the computational model then presents a viable explanation, at least until another contender
better matches or more parsimoniously matches it (Vancouver et al., 2010). In the next
section, we follow the practice for developing dynamic computational theory through a
computer simulation (Sterman, 2000).
5. Analysis
In this section, we evaluate the follower firmʼs various process capability development
trade-offs. We begin by addressing the effect of competition on process improvement and
innovation, emphasized by Rahmandad (2012), and follow Laamanen and Wallin (2009)
process of varying the three types of capability development trade-offs: constant-fraction,
short-termism, and long-term development. We then evaluate how each trade-off shapes the
followerʼs process management and development to address its competitive interactions with
the leader. We derive the subsequent effect of the investment on followerʼs ability to survive
and grow in a competitive environment.
Specifically, the followerʼs capability development trade-off with constant fraction
between innovation and improvement capabilities is consistent with prior studies in the
absence of competition (Repenning and Sterman, 2002). In this case, the follower does not
consider competitive tension at all and is likely to develop process improvement capability
as a general rule as long as it has adequate resources to support learning from the leader.
Otherwise, the follower will shift its investment to continuously develop its process
innovation capabilities. Second, a short-termism follower might appreciate the value of
process innovation, but the competition will pressure it to commit only to incremental
process improvement (Rahmandad, 2012). In this case, the percentage of innovation
capability is negatively related to competitive tension. Finally, the follower adopting a long-
term-growth capability development trade-off is not satisfied with the small wins from its