探索、开发和市场进入模式:亚马逊和Alphabet的收购与内部开发

IF 2.8 4区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS Industrial and Corporate Change Pub Date : 2023-05-18 DOI:10.1093/icc/dtad015
Gwendolyn K Lee, M. Lieberman
{"title":"探索、开发和市场进入模式:亚马逊和Alphabet的收购与内部开发","authors":"Gwendolyn K Lee, M. Lieberman","doi":"10.1093/icc/dtad015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Research on the tension between exploration and exploitation has made fundamental contributions to our understanding of firm growth via entry into new businesses. While there is consensus about the merits of balancing exploration and exploitation, there has been debate about the best means for achieving balance. In our prior analysis of firms’ choices between acquisition and internal development as entry modes, we found that the role of acquisitions tends to differ inside versus outside a firm’s primary business domain: firms use within-domain acquisitions largely for exploitation, while out-of-domain acquisitions support exploration. To examine these issues in greater depth, we focus here on the historical use of acquisition versus internal development by two major technology firms, Amazon and Alphabet. We show that the two firms have been remarkably different in their use of acquisitions versus internal development. Consistent with our prior analysis, Amazon has emphasized internal development but has used acquisitions to strengthen its existing businesses and to enter new products and services that were (initially) outside Amazon’s primary business domain. In contrast, Alphabet has relied heavily on acquisitions to enter new businesses within its primary domain but has emphasized internal development of “moonshot” businesses outside this domain. These differences illuminate the use of acquisitions in market entry and make clear that there is no single right way to utilize acquisition versus internal development in the pursuit of balance between exploration and exploitation.","PeriodicalId":48243,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Corporate Change","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploration, exploitation, and mode of market entry: acquisition versus internal development by Amazon and Alphabet\",\"authors\":\"Gwendolyn K Lee, M. Lieberman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/icc/dtad015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Research on the tension between exploration and exploitation has made fundamental contributions to our understanding of firm growth via entry into new businesses. While there is consensus about the merits of balancing exploration and exploitation, there has been debate about the best means for achieving balance. In our prior analysis of firms’ choices between acquisition and internal development as entry modes, we found that the role of acquisitions tends to differ inside versus outside a firm’s primary business domain: firms use within-domain acquisitions largely for exploitation, while out-of-domain acquisitions support exploration. To examine these issues in greater depth, we focus here on the historical use of acquisition versus internal development by two major technology firms, Amazon and Alphabet. We show that the two firms have been remarkably different in their use of acquisitions versus internal development. Consistent with our prior analysis, Amazon has emphasized internal development but has used acquisitions to strengthen its existing businesses and to enter new products and services that were (initially) outside Amazon’s primary business domain. In contrast, Alphabet has relied heavily on acquisitions to enter new businesses within its primary domain but has emphasized internal development of “moonshot” businesses outside this domain. These differences illuminate the use of acquisitions in market entry and make clear that there is no single right way to utilize acquisition versus internal development in the pursuit of balance between exploration and exploitation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial and Corporate Change\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Industrial and Corporate Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtad015\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial and Corporate Change","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtad015","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对勘探和开发之间紧张关系的研究为我们理解企业通过进入新业务而增长做出了根本性贡献。尽管人们对平衡勘探和开采的好处达成了共识,但对实现平衡的最佳方式也存在争议。在我们之前对企业在收购和内部发展作为进入模式之间的选择进行的分析中,我们发现收购在企业主要业务领域内外的作用往往不同:企业主要利用领域内收购进行开发,而领域外收购支持勘探。为了更深入地研究这些问题,我们在这里重点关注亚马逊和Alphabet这两家主要科技公司收购与内部开发的历史使用。我们发现,这两家公司在收购和内部发展方面有着显著的不同。与我们之前的分析一致,亚马逊强调内部发展,但利用收购来加强其现有业务,并进入(最初)亚马逊主要业务领域之外的新产品和服务。相比之下,Alphabet在很大程度上依赖收购进入其主要领域内的新业务,但强调在该领域外的“登月计划”业务的内部发展。这些差异说明了收购在进入市场中的使用,并表明在寻求勘探和开发之间的平衡时,没有一种正确的方式可以利用收购与内部开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploration, exploitation, and mode of market entry: acquisition versus internal development by Amazon and Alphabet
Research on the tension between exploration and exploitation has made fundamental contributions to our understanding of firm growth via entry into new businesses. While there is consensus about the merits of balancing exploration and exploitation, there has been debate about the best means for achieving balance. In our prior analysis of firms’ choices between acquisition and internal development as entry modes, we found that the role of acquisitions tends to differ inside versus outside a firm’s primary business domain: firms use within-domain acquisitions largely for exploitation, while out-of-domain acquisitions support exploration. To examine these issues in greater depth, we focus here on the historical use of acquisition versus internal development by two major technology firms, Amazon and Alphabet. We show that the two firms have been remarkably different in their use of acquisitions versus internal development. Consistent with our prior analysis, Amazon has emphasized internal development but has used acquisitions to strengthen its existing businesses and to enter new products and services that were (initially) outside Amazon’s primary business domain. In contrast, Alphabet has relied heavily on acquisitions to enter new businesses within its primary domain but has emphasized internal development of “moonshot” businesses outside this domain. These differences illuminate the use of acquisitions in market entry and make clear that there is no single right way to utilize acquisition versus internal development in the pursuit of balance between exploration and exploitation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: The journal covers the following: the internal structures of firms; the history of technologies; the evolution of industries; the nature of competition; the decision rules and strategies; the relationship between firms" characteristics and the institutional environment; the sociology of management and of the workforce; the performance of industries over time; the labour process and the organization of production; the relationship between, and boundaries of, organizations and markets; the nature of the learning process underlying technological and organizational change.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge-based approaches to the firm: an idea-driven perspective Homeowners’ financial vulnerability over the house price cycle How heuristic pricing shapes the aggregate market: the “Cheap Twin Paradox” Beyond trading: knowledge spillovers and learning-by-exporting in global value chains Export performance, innovation, and sectoral efficiency: a multilevel model for Argentinian manufacturing firms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1