ginal costs on old services, as equipment development and software inv terjemahan - ginal costs on old services, as equipment development and software inv Bahasa Indonesia Bagaimana mengatakan

ginal costs on old services, as equ

ginal costs on old services, as equipment development and software investments are allocated over a broader line of ser¬vices (Quinn and Gagnon 1986). Therefore, relative to sin¬gle business firms, multi-business firms have the opportu¬nity to (1) reduce costs by sharing activities between busi¬nesses; (2) increase revenues by cross-selling to customers of different businesses in the firm's portfolio; and (3) share knowledge and skills. For instance, a multibusiness firm such as ServiceMaster—whose subsidiaries include Ter-minix (termite and pest control service), ChemLawn and True Green (lawn care service), and American Home Shield (appliance insurance service)—has an opportunity to exploit demand synergies by cross-selling of services, and cost synergies by centralizing the accounts processing for various services. More importantly, competitive cost and dif¬ferentiation advantages associated with synergy are less likely to be imitated, because these are often achieved under a unique set of circumstances as well as on the basis of unique firm specific resources and skill base. Case in point:
In 1990, when AT&T launched its AT&T Universal Visa and MasterCard credit cards, it had access to the credit his¬tories of 70 million AT&T long-distance customers (a firm-specific resource). By qualifying these potential cus¬tomers in advance, the firm was in a position to respond quickly to inquiries from households that were good credit risks and lower its vulnerability to bad credit risks (Blattberg and Deighton 1991). An additional incentive it could offer to its credit card customers (a 10% discount on long-distance calls made over the AT&T network by using its cards), also attributable to a firm-specific re¬source, could be matched only by some of its larger com-petitors by entering into alliances with competing long dis¬tance carriers such as MCI and U.S. Sprint.
P3: The greater the cost (demand) interrelationships between a particular service business in a firm's portfolio and other businesses in its portfolio, the greater the cost (de¬mand) synergies as a source of competitive cost and/or dif¬ferentiation advantage.
Product, Process, and Managerial Innovations
Product, process, and managerial innovations can be used to gain a competitive advantage, to the extent that the tech¬nology underlying such innovations remain proprietary. Technology held proprietary through patents, copyrights, or secrecy can deter new entrants, as well as achieve a compet¬itive advantage by exploiting economies of scale and scope and/or through differentiation. Teece (1988, p.48) character¬izes regime of appropriability as those aspects of the com¬mercial environment, excluding firm and market structure, that govern an innovator's ability to capture the rents asso¬ciated with the innovation. Relative to goods industries, in service industries, technology suffers from a weak regime of appropriability, which implies that patents can be ' 'in-
9It is not clear, however, whether it was Merrill Lynch's patent applica¬tion, the time it took for competitors to develop the technology needed to offer a similar service, the uncertainty created by the legal opposition to the service raised by banks and state governments, or a combination of these factors that gave Merrill Lynch a five-year head start and market ex¬clusivity (see Wall Street Journal 1989, 1993; Kerin, Varadarajan, and Pe¬terson 1992).

vented around." For example, though Merrill Lynch ob-tained a patent for its Cash Management Account (CMA), which integrated four basic investor services into a single ac-count, and holds a dominant share of the market, practically all its major competitors offers a similar service.9 Trade se¬crets, an alternative to patents, can offer protection from im¬itation, provided the secret is kept in the form of tacit knowl¬edge. Whereas codified knowledge is transferable and more prone to be copied, tacit knowledge, being difficult to artic¬ulate, is difficult to transfer or copy (Teece 1981, 1988). A number of service firms have successfully used information technology to capture tacit organizational knowledge and re¬tain property rights over the resulting innovations. For exam¬ple, American Express developed an expert system called Authorizer's Assistant to facilitate credit authorization judg¬ments. As a result, a decision that traditionally created a bot¬tleneck (involving the scanning of 13 data bases or necessi¬tating a judgment call) can now be made in a few seconds. The presence of cospecialized assets or the lack thereof also impacts on the imitability of innovations. When com¬mercializing an innovation requires other specialized assets in marketing and/or production, and these assets are spe¬cific to the particular innovation, the imitability of the inno¬vation will be impeded to the degree of complexity and num¬ber of cospecialized assets needed to put the innovation to work. Even if competing firms were to find it easy to copy the innovation, they might face difficulties in putting to¬gether the organizational apparatus needed to bring the inno¬vation to market. A complex set of cospecialized assets may therefore protect the innovation and allow it to con¬tinue to yield value (see Teece 1987). For example, it took more than two years for competitors to respond to Ameri¬can Hospital Supply Corporation's ASAP system, because they needed to computerize their inventory systems first (Vi-tale 1988). Though entering certain service businesses could require a firm to possess complex and/or multiple co-specialized assets, entering into other service businesses may not be inhibited by such requirements.
P4: The greater the complexity of assets needed to market a
service, the greater the importance of innovation as a
source of competitive advantage. P5: The greater the number of cospecialized assets needed to
market a service, the greater the importance of innovation
a source of competitive advantage.
Brand Equity10
Aaker (1991, p. 15) defines brand equity as "a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add or subtract from the value provided by a product to a firm and/or that firm's customers." He distinguishes be¬tween five categories of assets that give rise to a brand's eq¬uity: (1) brand loyalty, (2) name awareness, (3) perceived quality, (4) brand associations, and (5) proprietary brand as¬sets such as patents and symbols. In the context of market¬ing of services, Berry and Parasuraman (1991) note that brand equity also could reside in the name of the firm itself. Here, the absence of a tangible physical product on which a
,0Vne discussion presented in this section builds on literature on brand eq¬uity in the marketing discipline and on reputation in the management and economics disciplines.

Sustainable Competitive Advantage / 89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
0/5000
Dari: -
Ke: -
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]
Disalin!
ginal costs on old services, as equipment development and software investments are allocated over a broader line of ser¬vices (Quinn and Gagnon 1986). Therefore, relative to sin¬gle business firms, multi-business firms have the opportu¬nity to (1) reduce costs by sharing activities between busi¬nesses; (2) increase revenues by cross-selling to customers of different businesses in the firm's portfolio; and (3) share knowledge and skills. For instance, a multibusiness firm such as ServiceMaster—whose subsidiaries include Ter-minix (termite and pest control service), ChemLawn and True Green (lawn care service), and American Home Shield (appliance insurance service)—has an opportunity to exploit demand synergies by cross-selling of services, and cost synergies by centralizing the accounts processing for various services. More importantly, competitive cost and dif¬ferentiation advantages associated with synergy are less likely to be imitated, because these are often achieved under a unique set of circumstances as well as on the basis of unique firm specific resources and skill base. Case in point:In 1990, when AT&T launched its AT&T Universal Visa and MasterCard credit cards, it had access to the credit his¬tories of 70 million AT&T long-distance customers (a firm-specific resource). By qualifying these potential cus¬tomers in advance, the firm was in a position to respond quickly to inquiries from households that were good credit risks and lower its vulnerability to bad credit risks (Blattberg and Deighton 1991). An additional incentive it could offer to its credit card customers (a 10% discount on long-distance calls made over the AT&T network by using its cards), also attributable to a firm-specific re¬source, could be matched only by some of its larger com-petitors by entering into alliances with competing long dis¬tance carriers such as MCI and U.S. Sprint.P3: The greater the cost (demand) interrelationships between a particular service business in a firm's portfolio and other businesses in its portfolio, the greater the cost (de¬mand) synergies as a source of competitive cost and/or dif¬ferentiation advantage.
Product, Process, and Managerial Innovations
Product, process, and managerial innovations can be used to gain a competitive advantage, to the extent that the tech¬nology underlying such innovations remain proprietary. Technology held proprietary through patents, copyrights, or secrecy can deter new entrants, as well as achieve a compet¬itive advantage by exploiting economies of scale and scope and/or through differentiation. Teece (1988, p.48) character¬izes regime of appropriability as those aspects of the com¬mercial environment, excluding firm and market structure, that govern an innovator's ability to capture the rents asso¬ciated with the innovation. Relative to goods industries, in service industries, technology suffers from a weak regime of appropriability, which implies that patents can be ' 'in-
9It is not clear, however, whether it was Merrill Lynch's patent applica¬tion, the time it took for competitors to develop the technology needed to offer a similar service, the uncertainty created by the legal opposition to the service raised by banks and state governments, or a combination of these factors that gave Merrill Lynch a five-year head start and market ex¬clusivity (see Wall Street Journal 1989, 1993; Kerin, Varadarajan, and Pe¬terson 1992).

vented around." For example, though Merrill Lynch ob-tained a patent for its Cash Management Account (CMA), which integrated four basic investor services into a single ac-count, and holds a dominant share of the market, practically all its major competitors offers a similar service.9 Trade se¬crets, an alternative to patents, can offer protection from im¬itation, provided the secret is kept in the form of tacit knowl¬edge. Whereas codified knowledge is transferable and more prone to be copied, tacit knowledge, being difficult to artic¬ulate, is difficult to transfer or copy (Teece 1981, 1988). A number of service firms have successfully used information technology to capture tacit organizational knowledge and re¬tain property rights over the resulting innovations. For exam¬ple, American Express developed an expert system called Authorizer's Assistant to facilitate credit authorization judg¬ments. As a result, a decision that traditionally created a bot¬tleneck (involving the scanning of 13 data bases or necessi¬tating a judgment call) can now be made in a few seconds. The presence of cospecialized assets or the lack thereof also impacts on the imitability of innovations. When com¬mercializing an innovation requires other specialized assets in marketing and/or production, and these assets are spe¬cific to the particular innovation, the imitability of the inno¬vation will be impeded to the degree of complexity and num¬ber of cospecialized assets needed to put the innovation to work. Even if competing firms were to find it easy to copy the innovation, they might face difficulties in putting to¬gether the organizational apparatus needed to bring the inno¬vation to market. A complex set of cospecialized assets may therefore protect the innovation and allow it to con¬tinue to yield value (see Teece 1987). For example, it took more than two years for competitors to respond to Ameri¬can Hospital Supply Corporation's ASAP system, because they needed to computerize their inventory systems first (Vi-tale 1988). Though entering certain service businesses could require a firm to possess complex and/or multiple co-specialized assets, entering into other service businesses may not be inhibited by such requirements.
P4: The greater the complexity of assets needed to market a
service, the greater the importance of innovation as a
source of competitive advantage. P5: The greater the number of cospecialized assets needed to
market a service, the greater the importance of innovation
a source of competitive advantage.
Brand Equity10
Aaker (1991, p. 15) defines brand equity as "a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add or subtract from the value provided by a product to a firm and/or that firm's customers." He distinguishes be¬tween five categories of assets that give rise to a brand's eq¬uity: (1) brand loyalty, (2) name awareness, (3) perceived quality, (4) brand associations, and (5) proprietary brand as¬sets such as patents and symbols. In the context of market¬ing of services, Berry and Parasuraman (1991) note that brand equity also could reside in the name of the firm itself. Here, the absence of a tangible physical product on which a
,0Vne discussion presented in this section builds on literature on brand eq¬uity in the marketing discipline and on reputation in the management and economics disciplines.

Sustainable Competitive Advantage / 89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]
Disalin!
ginal biaya pada layanan tua, pengembangan peralatan dan perangkat lunak investasi dialokasikan melalui jalur yang lebih luas dari ser¬vices (Quinn dan Gagnon 1986). Oleh karena itu, relatif terhadap sin¬gle perusahaan bisnis, perusahaan multi-bisnis memiliki opportu¬nity untuk (1) mengurangi biaya dengan berbagi kegiatan antara busi¬nesses; (2) peningkatan pendapatan dengan cross-selling kepada pelanggan bisnis yang berbeda dalam portofolio perusahaan; dan (3) pengetahuan dan keterampilan saham. Misalnya, sebuah perusahaan multibisnis seperti ServiceMaster-anak yang termasuk Ter-minix (rayap dan layanan pengendalian hama), ChemLawn dan Benar Hijau (layanan perawatan kebun), dan American Home Perisai (layanan asuransi alat) -telah kesempatan untuk mengeksploitasi permintaan sinergi dengan cross-selling layanan, dan sinergi biaya dengan memusatkan pengolahan account untuk berbagai layanan. Lebih penting lagi, biaya dan dif¬ferentiation keunggulan kompetitif terkait dengan sinergi cenderung ditiru, karena ini sering dicapai di bawah situasi yang unik serta atas dasar sumber daya yang spesifik yang unik perusahaan dan basis keterampilan. Contoh kasus:
Pada tahun 1990, ketika AT & T meluncurkan kartu kredit AT & T Universal Visa dan MasterCard, ia memiliki akses ke his¬tories kredit 70 juta pelanggan jarak jauh AT & T (sumber daya khusus perusahaan). Dengan kualifikasi ini cus¬tomers potensial di muka, perusahaan berada dalam posisi untuk merespon dengan cepat permintaan dari rumah tangga yang risiko kredit yang baik dan menurunkan kerentanan terhadap risiko kredit macet (Blattberg dan Deighton 1991). Insentif tambahan itu bisa menawarkan kepada pelanggan kartu kredit (diskon 10% untuk panggilan jarak jauh dilakukan melalui jaringan AT & T dengan menggunakan kartu nya), juga disebabkan oleh re¬source-perusahaan spesifik, bisa cocok hanya oleh beberapa lebih besar com-petitors nya dengan memasukkan ke dalam aliansi dengan bersaing operator dis¬tance panjang seperti MCI dan Sprint US.
P3: Semakin besar biaya (demand) keterkaitan antara bisnis layanan tertentu dalam portofolio perusahaan dan bisnis lain dalam portofolio nya, besar biaya (de¬mand) sinergi sebagai sumber biaya yang kompetitif dan / atau dif¬ferentiation keuntungan.
Produk, Proses, dan Manajerial Inovasi
Produk, proses, dan inovasi manajerial dapat digunakan untuk mendapatkan keuntungan kompetitif, sejauh bahwa inovasi seperti tech¬nology mendasari tetap proprietary. Teknologi diadakan proprietary melalui paten, hak cipta, atau kerahasiaan dapat menghalangi pendatang baru, serta mencapai keunggulan compet¬itive dengan memanfaatkan skala ekonomi dan ruang lingkup dan / atau melalui diferensiasi. Teece (1988, p.48) character¬izes rezim kepantasan sebagai aspek-aspek lingkungan com¬mercial, tidak termasuk perusahaan dan struktur pasar, yang mengatur kemampuan inovator untuk menangkap sewa asso¬ciated dengan inovasi. Sehubungan dengan industri barang, dalam industri jasa, teknologi menderita rezim lemah kepantasan, yang menyiratkan bahwa paten bisa '' in-
9It tidak jelas, bagaimanapun, apakah itu Merrill Lynch paten applica¬tion, waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk pesaing untuk mengembangkan teknologi yang dibutuhkan untuk menawarkan layanan serupa, ketidakpastian yang diciptakan oleh oposisi hukum untuk layanan yang diangkat oleh bank dan pemerintah negara bagian, atau kombinasi dari faktor-faktor ini yang memberi Merrill Lynch kepala lima tahun mulai dan ex¬clusivity pasar (lihat Wall Street Journal tahun 1989, 1993; Kerin, Varadarajan, dan Pe¬terson 1992). vented sekitar "Misalnya, meskipun Merrill Lynch ob-tained paten untuk yang Account Management Cash (CMA), yang terintegrasi empat layanan dasar investor. menjadi ac-hitungan tunggal, dan memegang saham dominan dari pasar, hampir semua pesaing utama menawarkan se¬crets Perdagangan service.9 sama, alternatif untuk paten, dapat menawarkan perlindungan dari im¬itation, asalkan rahasia yang disimpan dalam bentuk knowl¬edge tacit. Sedangkan pengetahuan dikodifikasi adalah dipindahtangankan dan lebih rentan untuk disalin, pengetahuan tacit, menjadi sulit untuk artic¬ulate, sulit untuk mentransfer atau copy (Teece 1981, 1988). Sejumlah perusahaan jasa telah berhasil menggunakan teknologi informasi untuk menangkap pengetahuan organisasi tacit dan hak milik re¬tain atas inovasi yang dihasilkan. Untuk exam¬ple, American Express mengembangkan sistem pakar disebut Kuasa Asisten memfasilitasi judg¬ments otorisasi kredit. Akibatnya, keputusan yang secara tradisional dibuat bot¬tleneck (melibatkan pemindaian dari 13 basis data atau necessi¬tating panggilan penilaian) sekarang dapat dibuat dalam beberapa detik. Kehadiran aset cospecialized atau kekurangan itu juga berdampak pada imitability inovasi. Ketika com¬mercializing sebuah inovasi memerlukan aset khusus lainnya dalam pemasaran dan / atau produksi, dan aset-aset ini adalah spe¬cific untuk inovasi khusus, imitability dari inno¬vation akan terhambat dengan tingkat kompleksitas dan num¬ber dari cospecialized aset diperlukan untuk menempatkan inovasi untuk bekerja. Bahkan jika perusahaan yang bersaing adalah untuk merasa mudah untuk menyalin inovasi, mereka mungkin menghadapi kesulitan dalam menempatkan to¬gether aparat organisasi yang dibutuhkan untuk membawa inno¬vation ke pasar. Satu set kompleks aset cospecialized karena itu dapat melindungi inovasi dan memungkinkan untuk con¬tinue untuk menghasilkan nilai (lihat Teece 1987). Sebagai contoh, butuh lebih dari dua tahun bagi pesaing untuk menanggapi Rumah Sakit Ameri¬can Pasokan Corporation secepatnya sistem, karena mereka dibutuhkan untuk komputerisasi sistem persediaan mereka pertama (Vi-kisah 1988). Meskipun memasuki bisnis jasa tertentu bisa memerlukan perusahaan untuk memiliki dan / atau beberapa aset co-khusus kompleks, masuk ke bisnis jasa lainnya mungkin tidak dihambat oleh persyaratan tersebut. P4: Semakin besar kompleksitas aset yang diperlukan untuk memasarkan layanan, semakin besar pentingnya inovasi sebagai sumber keunggulan kompetitif. P5: Semakin besar jumlah aset cospecialized diperlukan untuk memasarkan layanan, semakin besar pentingnya inovasi. Sumber keunggulan kompetitif Merek Equity10 Aaker (. 1991, p 15) mendefinisikan ekuitas merek sebagai "seperangkat aset dan kewajiban merek terkait untuk merek, nama dan simbol, yang menambah atau mengurangi dari nilai yang diberikan oleh sebuah produk untuk sebuah perusahaan dan / atau pelanggan yang perusahaan. " Dia membedakan be¬tween lima kategori aset yang menimbulkan eq¬uity suatu merek: (1) loyalitas merek, (2) nama kesadaran, (3) persepsi kualitas, (4) asosiasi merek, dan (5) merek milik sebagai ¬sets seperti paten dan simbol. Dalam konteks market¬ing layanan, Berry dan Parasuraman (1991) mencatat bahwa ekuitas merek juga bisa berada dalam nama perusahaan itu sendiri. Di sini, tidak adanya produk fisik yang nyata pada mana, diskusi 0Vne disajikan dalam bagian ini didasarkan pada literatur tentang merek eq¬uity dalam disiplin pemasaran dan reputasi dalam manajemen dan ekonomi disiplin. Keunggulan Kompetitif Berkelanjutan / 89 Direproduksi dengan izin dari pemilik hak cipta. Reproduksi lanjut dilarang tanpa izin













Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
 
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.

Copyright ©2024 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: