آیا نوآوری رقبا اهمیت دارد؟ چشم انداز پویایی رقابت در استراتژی محصول شرکت  Does rivals’ innovation matter? A competitive dynamics perspective on firms’ product strategy

1. Theory and hypotheses Research on competitive dynamics conceptualizes competition as a dynamic process of firms’ actions and responses (Chen, 1996). This logic highlights the interdependence between the payoff to a firm and to its rival such that the competitive position of a focal firm will be threatened if the rival undertakes offensive or defensive actions (Rindova, Becerra, & Contardo, 2004). In view of this interdependence, competitive dynamics researchers have conceptualized awareness, motivation and capability (AMC) as the key behavioral drivers of firms’ competitive actions (Chen, 1996). Awareness refers to a firm’s knowledge of competitive signals, motivation captures a firm’s logic and intention to take an action, and capability reflects a firm’s internal strengths that make its actions possible. “Simply stated, a competitor will not be able to respond to an action unless it is aware of the action, motivated to react, and capable of responding” (Chen & Miller, 2014: 2). A logical sequence is apparent in the AMC framework; awareness is the prerequisite in that a firm must be aware of a rival’s action before it can consider motivation and capability and then needs to judge whether an action is advisable (motivation) before determining if it has the capability to carry out the action (Chen & Miller, 2014; Derfus et al., 2008; Ndofor, Sirmon, & He, 2011; Yu, Subramaniam, & Cannella, 2009). Competitive dynamics research, especially the AMC framework, offers a particularly useful perspective for examining firms’ innovation and product strategy in technology industries (Katila & Chen, 2008), in which firms must aggressively invest in innovation and constantly introduce new products. Even then, the competitive advantage associated with any new product may be quickly eroded by rivals’ innovation efforts; as a result, a focal firm must closely follow signals indicating rivals’ innovation efforts so as to predict their actions. This logic has inspired some researchers to examine firms’ innovation strategy on the basis of a “competitive view.” Bowman and Gatignon (1995) have documented that firms tend to react to rivals’ new products and Katila and Chen (2008) found that rivals’ exploration and exploitation can influence the frequency and innovativeness of a focal firm’s new product introductions. ntroductions. A key source of competitive intelligence indicating a rival’s innovation efforts is its R&D intensity, as shown in its financial statements. Indeed, management researchers have long recognized the significance of the competitive information contained in financial statements (Healy & Palepu, 1993; Porter, 1980). For example, information in financial statements may indicate current performance, motivation to change or maintain current strategies, or plans managers have made regarding resource allocations (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). In competitive situations, a particularly important piece of information to be obtained from a rival’s financial statements is R&D intensity, defined as the ratio of the rival’s R&D expenditure to its total revenue (Greve, 2003). Because R&D transforms basic knowledge into “codified outputs” such as patents or commercialized products (Coff, 2003), a rival’s R&D intensity represents its absorptive capacity, which is related to its innovation outputs and future competitive advantage (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), which implies future threats to a focal firm.