MARKET COMES BEFORE COMPETITION: THE RISE OF OPEN TECHNOLOGY BASED STRATEGIES

Year 2011, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 249 - 260, 17.03.2015

Mehmet Gençer

Abstract

New market formation requires both innovation and product compatibility,
particularly in high technology sectors. Recent years have frequently witnessed
enactment of new business strategies which encourage business organizations to
meet in collaborative spaces. These new strategies based on `open technology' are
built upon the general principle of developing new technologies in a
collective/public space. As different from bilateral strategic alliances, these new
strategies exhibit an ontological commitment to `network' and in turn stimulate
development of both bilateral and multilateral relations.

Keywords

open technology, strategic alliances, high-tech

ÖNCE PAZAR SONRA REKABET: AÇIK TEKNOLOJİ STRATEJİLERİNİN YÜKSELİŞİ

Abstract

Özellikle yüksek teknoloji sektörlerde yeni pazarların oluşumu eşzamanlı
olarak yenilikçiliği ve ürün uyumluluğunu gerektirmektedir. Son yıllarda bu
gereksinimi sağlama ihtiyacının şirketleri işbirliği alanlarında buluşmaya
yönlendirdiği yeni stratejiler sıkça görülmektedir. `Açık teknoloji' temelinde
şekillenen bu yeni stratejiler temel bazı teknolojilerin kollektif/kamusal bir alanda
ortaklaşa geliştilmesi esasına dayanır. Bu stratejilerde ikili stratejik işbirliği
örüntülerinden farklı olarak `ağ'ın kendisi bir gerçeklik kazanmakta ve ikili veya
çoklu ilişkilerin gelişmesine uygun bir ortam sağlamaktadır

Keywords

açık teknoloji, stratejik işbirliği, yüksek teknoloji

References

• ALCHIAN, A. A. Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. The Journal of Political Economy 58 (3), s 211–221. 1950.
• BENKLER, Y. Coase’s penguin, or, linux and the nature of the firm. CODE : Collaborative Ownership and the Digital Economy, Der. R. A. Ghosh, s 169–206. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 2005.
• CAPEK, P. G., S. P. FRANK, S. GERDT, ve D. SHIELDS. A history of IBM’s open-source involvement and strategy. IBM Systems Journal 44 (2), 2005, 249–257.
• CHESBROUGH, H., New puzzles and new findings, Open Innovation: Reaching a new paradigm, Oxford University Press. 2006.
• CHESBROUGH, H. W. ve M. M. APPLEYARD Open innovation and strategy, California Management Review, 50.1, 2007, 57–76.
• DE LAAT, P. B., Copyright or copyleft?: An analysis of property regimes for software development, Research Policy 34 (10), 2005, Aralık, 1511–1532.
• FITZGERALD, B., The transformation of open source software, MIS Quarterly, 30.3, 2006, p587 – 598.
• GENÇER, M., B. OBA, B. ÖZEL, ve V. S. TUNALIOĞLU, Organization of Internet Standards, Open Source Systems, IFIP Working Group 2.13 Foundation on Open Source Software 2006. Springer.
• GULATI, R. ve J. D. WESTPHAL, Cooperative or controlling? the effects of ceoboard relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly 44.3,1999, s 473 – 506.
• JORDER, T. M. ve D. J. TEECE., Competition and cooperation: Striking the right balance, California Management Review , s 25–37. 1989, Bahar.
• JORDE, T. M. ve D. J. TEECE., Innovation and cooperation: Implications for competition and antitrust, The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1990.
• LAKHANI, K. R. ve E. VON HIPPEL., How open source software works: ”free” user-to-user assistance, Research Policy, 32.6, 2003, s 923–943.
• LANGLOIS, R. N., Creating external capabilities: Innovation and vertical disintegration in the microcomputer industry, Business and Economic History 19, 1990, s 93–102.
• LANGLOIS, R. N. ve P. L. ROBERTSON. Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research Policy 21, 1992, s 297–313.
• LERNER, J. ve J. TIROLE. Some simple economics of open source. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 50.2, 2002, s 197–234.
• LIEBESKIND, J. P., A. L. OLIVER, L. G. ZUCKER, ve M. B. BREWER., Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new
• MAZZOLENI, R. ve R. R. NELSON. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 27.3, 1998, s 273–284.
• NALEBUFF, B. J. ve A. M. BRANDENBURGER. Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy & Leadership, 1997, 25 (6), s 28–35.
• OLIVER, A. L. In between markets and hierarchies - networking through the life cycle of new biotechnology firms. Institute for Social Science Research, Working Paper Series issr-1005, Institute for Social Science Research, UCLA. 1994, Kasım.
• OLIVER, A. L. Strategic alliances and the learning life-cycle of biotechnology firms. Organization Studies, 2001, 22.3, s 467–489.
• OLIVER, A. L. On the duality of competition and collaboration: network-based knowledge relations in the biotechnology industry. Scandinavian Journal of Management 20, 2004, s 151–171.
• PENROSE, E. Strategy/organization and the metamorphosis of the large firm. Organization Studies, 2008, 29.8, s 1117–1124.
• PISANO, G. Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research Policy, 2006, 35.8, 1122–1130.
• SCHMIDBAUER, H., M. GENÇER, ve V. S. TUNALIOĞLU., Free/Open Source Software Adoption, Public Policies and Development Indicators: An International Comparison, Open Source Development, Adoption and Innovation: IFIP Working Group 2.13 on Open Source Software, Springer. 2007
• TEECE, D. J. Inter-organizational requirements of the innovation process., Managerial and Decision Economics Special issue, 1989, 35–42.
• VON HIPPEL, E. Domocratizing Innovation. MIT Press. 2006.
• VON HIPPEL, E. ve G. VON KROGH. Open source software and the “privatecollective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science 14.2, 2003, s 209–223.
• WEST, J. How open is open enough?melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32, 2003, s 1259–1285.