استراتژی نوآورانه همخواری در صنعت فناوری اطلاعات ایران

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری دانشگاه الزهرا (س) تهران

2 عضو هیات علمی دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری پردیس فارابی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

شرکت‌­ها چند محصول مرتبط را به سه دلیل اصلی عرضه می‌­کنند: اول برای ارائه تنوع به مصرف­‌کنندگان، دوم برای جذب حداکثر سهم بازار و سوم برای ایجاد فشار رقابتی؛ اما گاهی محصول جدید موقعیت خود را با کارکرد  محصول متنوع به دست نمی­‌آورد و شروع به رقابت با محصول قدیمی شرکت خودی می­‌کند و مفهوم همخواری آغاز می‌­شود. هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی راهبرد نوآورانه همخواری در صنعت فناوری اطلاعات است. جامعه آماری پژوهش، شرکت­‌های فعال در حوزهIT و ICT سه کلان­شهر تهران، شیراز و تبریز بوده و حجم آن 600 است. ابتدا طبق جدول کرجسی و مورگان، تعداد 234 نمونه انتخاب شد و در مرحله دوم با استفاده از نمونه­‌گیری طبقه­‌ای از هر شهر نمونه­‌های لازم انتخاب شدند. برای آزمون فرضیه‌­ها از مدل‌سازی معادلات ساختاری استفاده و تجزیه‌­وتحلیل‌­ها از طریق نرم‌­افزارهای Spss24 و WARPPLS5 انجام شده است. نتایج نشان داد که تمرکز بازار آینده و قابلیت حس­گری بازار بر تمایل به همخواری تأثیر معنادار و مثبت دارند. تمایل به همخواری بر عملکرد کلی بازار نیز تأثیر معنادار و مثبت دارد، قابلیت نوآوری رابطه بین تمرکز بازار آینده و تمایل به همخواری و همچنین رابطه بین قابلیت حس­گری بازار و تمایل به همخواری را تعدیل می­‌کند، امّا در رابطه بین تمایل به همخواری و عملکرد کلی بازار نقش تعدیل‌گری ندارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Cannibalization Innovative strategy in IT industry of Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Maryam Golestani 1
  • morteza soltani 2
1 PhD student of AlZahra University, Tehran
2 faculty of management and accounting, college of farabi, university of tehran
چکیده [English]

Aim and Introduction: A Cannibal corporate is a corporate that introduces a new product line or product that actually competes with one of its existing product lines to gain market share. The technology industry known for this strategy. They do this to stay ahead of the competition. Firms offer multiple related products for three major reasons; first to provide variety to their consumers, second to capture maximum market share and third to competitive pressure, but sometimes the new product not positioned as a variety product and start competing with company old product so the concept of cannibalization started. The aim of this research is Conceptualization and presentation willingness to cannibalize model in the IT industry. The process of developing a new product has a great impact on the performance of a company. Identifying and predicting cannibalization is an integral part of strategic decisions about introducing new products. Because the intensity of competition is so high, especially in the IT industry, only companies can succeed in this market and in fact have a more effective market performance, which can be constantly innovated and move faster than competitors have. As mentioned, one of the most widely used innovation strategies in the world is cannibalization strategy. Therefore, in this study, the strategy of using the dimensions of the Willingness to cannibalize in order to improve the overall market performance of companies is proposed.
Methodology: The present research based on the applied purpose and in terms of research design, quantitative, descriptive-analytical method and correlation. The main tool for data collection was a questionnaire. In order to assess the validity of the research tool, a questionnaire was provided to experts (12 professors of management at the University of Tehran). To assess the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach's alpha calculated by using SPSS software and also the combined reliability was calculated that the values ​​for all variables were above 0.7 and as a result the questionnaire had acceptable reliability.The statistical population of this study is companies active in the field of IT and ICT in the three metropolises of Tehran, Shiraz and Tabriz and its volume is 600. First, according to Krejcie and Morgan table, 234 samples were selected and in the second stage, the necessary samples were selected from each city using stratified sampling. A total of 510 questionnaires were distributed and finally 240 questionnaires were received and analyzed. The data analysis method presented in both descriptive and analytical forms. In the descriptive part, information about companies is presented using SPSS software, and in the analytical part, structural equation modeling is used to test the hypotheses, and analyzes are performed through WARP PLS
Finding: Findings indicate that Future market focus and Market Sensing Capability to have a significant and positive effect on the willingness to cannibalize willingness to cannibalize also to have a significant and positive effect on the Total market performance. The innovation capability modifies the relationship between the future market focus and the willingness to cannibalize, as well as the relationship between Market Sensing Capability and willingness to cannibalize, However, there is no moderating relationship between the willingness to cannibalize and the Total market performance.
Discussion and Conclusion: In the present study, the cannibalization innovative strategy in the information technology industry investigated. According to the results of path analysis, five hypotheses confirmed and one hypothesis has been rejected. In the first hypothesis, the effect of future market focus on companies' willingness to cannibalizeexamined. The present hypothesis with a value of β = 0.46 and P <0.01 has a statistically significant and positive effect and this indicates the confirmation of this hypothesis. In the second hypothesis, the effect of Market Sensing Capability on the willingness to cannibalize examined. The results of path analysis show a significant and positive effect of Market Sensing Capability on the willingness to cannibalize, because β = 0.37 and P <0.01. In the third hypothesis, the effect of willingness to cannibalize on the Total market performance (total profitability, total sales and total market share) of companies was examined. Since β = 0.69 and P <0.01, it can be said that willingness to cannibalize has a statistically significant and positive effect on the Total market performance In the fourth hypothesis, the moderating role of innovation capability in the relationship between future market focus and willingness to cannibalize is examined. The results show that the innovation capability modulates the relationship between future market focus and the willingness to cannibalize in the present study, because according to the results of path analysis, β = 0.16 and P <0.01. In the fifth hypothesis, the moderating role of innovation capability in the relationship between Market Sensing Capability and willingness to cannibalize examined. Since β = 0.20 and α is P <0.0, therefore, it can be said that innovation capability has a moderating role in the relationship between Market Sensing Capability and willingness to cannibalize, and this hypothesis is confirmed. In the sixth hypothesis, the moderating role of innovation capability in relation to willingness to cannibalize and Total market performance was examined. The results of path analysis show that innovation capability in relation willingness to cannibalize and the Total market performance in the present study does not have a moderating role, because β = 0.01 and p = 0.12, so this hypothesis in the present study is rejected. According to the research results, managers recommended to adapt their organizational procedures and processes, methods and tasks in accordance with the market conditions and life cycle of their product, methods and tasks in accordance with the needs of the new product or service. To change. Whenever the marketing or research and development department recognizes the need to replace existing systems and machines with new systems and devices, managers must make such replacements. New global and invest in them to try even if such an action makes obsolete systems and production facilities, their current services because in the long run will have positive results and overall profitability.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Willingness to cannibalize
  • Future market focus
  • Total market performance
  • Market Sensing Capability
  • Innovation capability
  1. Afolabi, A., Choudary, J.A., & Shirazi R. (2013). Minimizing the effects of cannibalization on firms’ market share, Conference Technology Innovation Management, December 12.
  2. Amato, S., Vinzi, V., & Tenenhaus M. (2004). A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS structural equation modeling. Oral Communication to PLS Club France: HEC School of Management. 1(2), 739-742.
  3. Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model, European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233.
  4. Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition, CD-ROM, Encyclopadia Britannica, Inc.
  5. Burgelman, R., Maidique, M., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). Strategic management of technology and innovation, Times Mirror Higher Education Group.
  6. Chandrasekaran, D.,  Tellis, G.J., & James, G.M. (2021). Leapfrogging, cannibalization, and survival during disruptive technological change: the critical role of rate of disengagement, Journal of Marketing, 86(1), 149-166.
  7. Chandy R. K., & Tellis G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize, Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 474-487.
  8. Chang S., & Lee, M. (2008). The linkage between knowledge accumulation capability and organizational innovation, Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 3-20.
  9. Chin W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structioral equation modeling. In G. A, Marcoulides (Ed) Modern methods for business research, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 295-336.
  10. Christensen, C.M., & Bower, J.L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms, Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197-218.
  11. Chung, H., & Lee, E. (2014). Does channel decentralization lead to low quality product lines, European Journal of Marketing, 48(9/10), 1870 – 1891.
  12. Cravens, D.W., Piercy, N.F., & Prentice, A. (2000). Developing market-driven product strategies, Journal of product and management, 9(6), 369-388.
  13. Day G. S. (2002). Managing the Market Learning Process, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(4), 240-52.
  14. Drezner, T. (2011), Cannibalization in a competitive environment, nternational Regional Science Review, 34(3), 306-322.
  15. Ethiraj, S., Kale, P., Krishnan, M., & Singh, J. (2005). Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A Study in the Software Services Industry, Strategic Management Journal, 26(1), 25-45.
  16. Farrukh, (2014).Cannibalization and product life cycle management.Middle-East, Journal of Scientific Research, 19(8), 1080-1084.
  17. Forsman, H. (2011). Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises; a comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors, Research Policy, 40(5), 739–750.
  18. Guidolin, M., & Guseo, R. (2016). On product cannibalization, A new Lotka-Volterra model for asymmetric competition in the ICTs, Department of Statistical Sciences Via Cesare Battisti, 7, Padova Italy.
  19. Guidolin, M., & Guseo, R. (2020). Has the iPhone cannibalized the iPad? An asymmetric competition model, Applied Stochastic Models in business and industry, 36(3), 305-520.
  20. Harmancioglu, N., Sääksjärvi, M., & Hultink, E.J. (2020). Cannibalize and combine? The impact of ambidextrous innovation on organizational outcomes under market competition, Industrial Marketing Management, 85, 44-57.
  21. Hooley, G.J., Greenley, G.E., Cadogan J.W., & Fahy J. )( The performance impact of marketing resources, Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 18-27.
  22. Ivanov, S. (2007). Conceptualizing cannibalisation: the case of tourist companies, Yearbook of International University College, 39(4), 20-36.
  23. Khan, S.H. (2012).Concentric Diversification is a New Product Offering or Cannibalization. A Descriptive Study, International Review of Management and Business Research 1(1), 18-25.
  24. Kohli, A., & Jaworski, B.G. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, 54, 1-18.
  25. Kotler P. G., Armstrong J., & Saunders V. W. (2002). Principles of Harlow, Prentice Hall, 3rd ed.
  26. Krishna Varshney, N. (2016). An analysis of market cannibalization, International Journal of Advanced Tecnology in Ingineering and Science, 4(4), 177-181.
  27. Krush, M.T., Agnihotri, R., Trainor, K.J., & Nowlin, E.L. (2013). Enhancing organizational sensemaking: An examination of the interactive effects of sales capabilities and marketing, journal of Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 267-277.
  28. Laruccia M., Loureiro S., & Lopes, R. (2012). A conceptual approach for cannibalism between goods, Chinese Business Review, ISSN 1537-1506, 11(11), 989-995.
  29. Leal, A., & Luis Roldan, J. (2001). Benchmarking and knowledge management. OR Insight, 14(4), 11-12.
  30. Lin, CH. Y., & Okudan Kremer, G.E. (2014). Strategic decision making for multiple-generation product lines using dynamic state variable models: The cannibalization case, Computers in Industry, 65, 79–90.
  31. LouAnn, Sh., Daily Herald, W., & Wis, W. (2015). Halloween and investing: Don't be scared, 5.
  32. Madhavi, K. (2014). The impact of product cannibalization on consumer purchasing decision- an attitudinal conflict paradigm, International Journal of Research in Business Management (IMPACT: IJRBM): 2(8), 41-48.
  33. Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2008). The asymmetric role of market orientation on the ambidexterity firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders, Industrial Marketing Management, 37 (4), 455-470.
  34. Morgan, N. A., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Vorhies, D. W. (2009). Linking marketing capabilities with profit growth, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 284–293.
  35. Munawar Khan, M., & Jabeen, Sh. (2016). Firm, s willingness to cannibalize on brand loyalty with customer satisfaction as moderating variable, Pakistan Business Review, 18(2), 424-450.
  36. Nguyen, , Yu, X., Melewar, T.C., & Gupta S. (2016). Critical brand innovation factors (CBIF): Understanding innovation and market performance in the Chinese high-tech service industry, Journal of Business Research. 69(7), 2471-2479.
  37. Nijssen, E.J., Hillebrand, B., Vermeulen, P.A.M., & Kemp, R. (2004). Understanding the role of willingness to cannibalize in new service development, SCientific AnaLysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Research Report H200308.
  38. Patriotta G., & Brown A. (2011). Sensemaking, metaphors and performance evaluation, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(1), 34-43.
  39. Pe´rez-Caban˜ ero, , Gonza´lez-Cruz, T., & Cruz-Ros, S. (2011). Do family SME managers value marketing capabilities contribution to firm performance, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(2), 116-142.
  40. Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, M.G., Moreno, P., & Tejada, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation and performance of SMEs in the services industry, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28)2), 194-212.
  41. Sahebodari, , Soltani, M & kordenaeij, A. (2021). Antecedents Of Formation Of Cooprtitive Relationships, Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 12(48), 15-48. (|In Persian)
  42. Samiee, S., Saaksjarvi, M., Harmancioglu, N., & Jan Hultink, E. (2019). Intentional cannibalization, radical innovation, and performance: a comparison of Chinese and western enterprises in China. Journal of International Marketing. 28(2), 40-58.
  43. Soltani, M., Jafari, S.M.B., & Binandeh, R. (2016). Improving economic firms perfromance through Co-opetition Strategy, Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 7(26), 23-46. (|In Persian)
  44. Srinivasan S., Ramakrishnan S., Grasman S. E. (2005). Identifying the effects of cannibalization on the product portfolio, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(4), 359 – 371.
  45. Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M., & Gioia, D.A. (1993). Strategic sense making and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes, Academy of Management Journal. 36(2), 239–270.
  46. Traylor M. B. (1986). Cannibalism in multibrand Firms, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3 (2), 69 – 75.
  47. Tutar, H., Nart, S., & Bingö, D. (2015). The effects of strategic orientations on innovation capabilities and market performance: The Case of ASEM, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 709 – 719.
  48. Verhulst J. (2014). Is the willingness to cannibalize part of the assimilation or the demarcation, approach? An empirical study of the antecedents of the willingness to cannibalize in a new product and a new service innovation context", Master Thesis Organization Studies.1-95.
  49. Wang, X., & Wang. L.F.S. (2021). Corporate cannibalism in an oligopolistic market International Journal of Economic Theory, 50(2) 1-16.
  50. Yung, I.S., & Lai, M.H. (2012). Dynamic capabilities in new product development: The case of Asus in motherboard production, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(9-10), 1125-1134.