100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 12 - 14 out of 18 pages.
Next, we move to the discussion of the propositions.6.3. DiscussionThe first proposition was confirmed only in EQUIPCOMPANY, in which strategic workshops with representatives from almost all subsidiaries and departments establish a five-year scenario and main technological and corporate strategies. On the other hand, in NETCOMPANY, the te-chnological strategy is a consequence of the corporate strategy; more specifically, it is derived from the market vision of the future. The process of technology strategy formulation proposed by Chiesa (1998) better explains the way EQUIPCOMPANY establishes its strategy. NETCOM-PANY, on the other hand, does not have a formal process.Developing dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997) can seem especially important for equi-pment companies whose determined path creates path dependency (Barney, 1991; Dierickx and Cool, 1989), and therefore limiting its technological options in the future, and on the other pp: 16-33
GCG GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY - UNIVERSIA SEPTIEMBRE-DICIEMBRE 2012 VOL. 6 NUM. 3 ISSN: 1988-7116 28hand, creating barriers to imitation. The companies in this layer deal with developments that demand a long time period to be completed. They also need to disseminate their vision of the future among clients (network companies) to convince them to adopt their technology. This phenomenon points to the increased importance of developing the capacity to identify future opportunities, thus blurring the dividing line between technology strategy and corporate stra-tegy. The network layer, however, doesn’t develop, but applies new technologies developed by the equipment layer, which is simpler and less time-consuming. Because of this, they can wait and postpone the adoption of these new technologies until they have a clearer view of the dominant patterns emerging. Path dependency in the network layer appears to be less critical than in the equipment layer. Marketing, because it monitors market and consumer tendencies, appears to be the area that can best identify the ideal time to offer new products/services that will demand new technologies.The second proposition was confirmed only in EQUIPCOMPANY, in which subsidiaries have a role as global creators. In NETCOMPANY, however, subsidiaries have a role as international adaptors. As was discussed, we adopted Nobel and Birkinshaw’s (1998) classification typo-logy on subsidiary involvement in the innovation process in order to discuss specifically their involvement in technology formulation strategy. The adopted typology is quite well adjusted to the context, but this research allowed us to identify another important dimension of the strategy formulation that has to do with decision-making power in the elaboration of strate-gy to be adopted. In the researched cases, EQUIPCOMPANY participated in the technology formulation strategy, as did NETCOMPANY, in a decentralized process. In addition to these two approaches, there may be cases of companies with an authoritarian process in which the headquarters dictates the technology guidelines to be adopted by the subsidiaries. Figure 2