24 / 274
從動態競爭觀點審視作業流程管理的創新與改進
24
In terms of learning barriers, the simulation outcomes (Figure 5a) show a
counterintuitive phenomenon. Low barriers effectively enhance the followerʼs level of
improvement effectiveness. Remarkably, this creates a lock-in effect, i.e., the follower sticks
to incremental changes in its operational process. Hence, the leader effectively restrains the
followerʼs process innovation capability, thus preventing radical changes. This outcome
contradicts the prevailing wisdom in the strategy literature: A leading firm should create
causal ambiguity to raise learning barriers, thus preventing the diffusion of its successful
processes and resources (Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Rather, we
find that the followerʼs process improvement effectiveness increases due to the leaderʼs open
and explicit process, but that the followerʼs motivation to carry out process innovation
simultaneously decreases. As a result, the likelihood for the follower to lock in process
improvement increases. Indeed, it is not rare that many leading firms readily share their
superior business processes even with their rivals. For example, General Electric (GE) and
Motorola enthusiastically exhibited their innovative process methodology, the six sigma, to
the public. Additionally, in our background case, Toyota has never hesitated to give a factory
tour to its rivals that were eager to import its famed JIT system. While the current literature
cannot fully rationalize such behavior, our framework sheds lights on this unexplained
puzzle. Formally:
Proposition 3. In process competition, an increase in investment in process innovation
capabilities leads to a decrease in process improvement effectiveness.
This negative relationship is weakened by process innovation
effectiveness.
The retaliation risk from the leader threatens the success of the followerʼs process
capability development. In particular, the leader is expected to prioritize process innovation
before it is too late (Gimeno and Woo, 1996). Process capability development takes time. To
protect its market position, the leader must be alert to the follower firmʼs actions and prepare
to launch attacks when necessary. Facing an aggressive leader who initiate attacks with an
early (action timing) and continuous fashion (action volume), the follower will experience
difficulties in developing process innovation capabilities (Ferrier et al., 1999). Formally:
Proposition 4a. In process competition, the lock-in effect is positively moderated by the
speed of the leaderʼs attack.
Proposition 4b. In process competition, the lock-in effect is positively moderated by the
volume of the leaderʼs attack.