2.1 Types of Interorganizational Competition in Business Strategy2.2 Exploration and Exploitation of Knowledge in Schumpeterian competition2.3 Interdisciplinary Integration in Research Capabilities─ 10 ─diversity.In this analysis, we first objectively define the fields of specialization and application of related authors from the perspective of co-authorship information using the analytical framework of Mizukami et al (2018)3). We then superimpose author information by country to show the connection of research fields by country. Specifically, the intrapersonal diversity of each researcher is grasped, accumulated, and evaluated as the organization’s competitiveness. In this study, the analytical framework and its position in interorganizational competition are not yet clearly defined. It is defined as measuring the “intrapersonal diversity” of Schumpeterian competition, which is an innovation strategy. Next, the analytical framework of Mizukami and Nakano (2020) is used to quantitatively compare the research field connections4). In this analytical framework, hierarchical clustering and principal component analyses are used. Subsequently, the method for displaying cross-disciplinary collaboration is used, which is newly defined in this study, to show the connection patterns of research fields in a network graph. We apply these analyses to Big Data technologies, respectively.For the study data, 3-year bibliographic data (2016‒2018) from the top 10 countries in terms of the number of papers in big data technologies were included in the analysis.Barney (1986) stated that there are three types of interorganizational competition: industrial organization (IO), Chamberlainian, and Schumpeterian2). The analytical approach in this study provides a measurable framework for the concept of intrapersonal diversity in Schumpeterian competition. It also provides an extended framework for evaluating organizations’ competitiveness by gathering information on intrapersonal diversity. In addition, the position of the analytical method in interorganizational competition was defined for the first time in this study. The following sections describe the characteristics of the Schumpeterian interorganizational competition to illustrate the position of the analytical method used in this study.In Schumpeterian competition, March (1991) defined ambidexterity as the importance of a considerably high balance between the activities of “exploration of knowledge” and “exploitation of knowledge” for an organization’s long-term growth1). However, the organization is often biased toward “Exploitation of knowledge” activities and not “Exploration of knowledge” activities, resulting in the exhaustion of ideas. This phenomenon is defined as a “Competency trap.” The difference in the characteristics of “Exploration of knowledge” and “Exploitation of knowledge” is cited as a factor that leads to an organization falling in to a state of competency trap. As “Exploration of knowledge” is an activity to recognize distant knowledge (new knowledge), acquiring these values systematically is challenging and involves risks. However, “Exploitation of knowledge” is an activity to combine existing knowledge, so the prospect is more certain and it is easier to plan the activity. When organizations seek short-term efficiency, they can benefit from proactively working on “Exploitation of knowledge.” However, from a medium-to long-term perspective, March (1991) stated that without “exploration of knowledge,” ideas will eventually dry up and innovation-type growth will slow down1).Organizations try to avoid falling into a competency trap by activating “exploration of knowledge.” First, there is Chesbrough’s (2003) Open Innovation, which seeks the source of knowledge from outside5), and Rothaermel and Alexandre (2009) as an empirical study, who conducted a questionnaire survey on 4195 employees of 41 business units of 10 multinational companies6). The survey investigated whether they outsourced (procured externally) or produced internally using existing technologies while acquiring new technologies. The survey results showed that companies that used a balanced both in-house production and outsourcing when acquiring new technologies had higher ex-post return on equity (ROE) and the number of patents acquired.Leydesdorff and Ivanova (2021) argued that policymakers often explore the effects of “synergy” when they seek “cross-disciplinary fusion,” because crossing disciplinary boundaries is often needed to address problems7). This study discusses recent advances in the application and measurement of “cross-disciplinary fusion” and proposes an information theory-based method for measuring “synergy.”Such interdisciplinary approach in the field of academic studies include “joint research between different organizations,” “joint research between different research fields,” and “joint research through industry—academia—government collaboration.”2. Review of Related Areas
元のページ ../index.html#12