企业创新战略外文翻译文献
中国技术创新战略英文文献

中国技术创新战略英文文献Innovation has always been the driving force behindChina's rapid economic growth. The country's strategic focuson technological advancement has led to breakthroughs in various sectors, including telecommunications, renewable energy, and artificial intelligence.The Chinese government's commitment to R&D is evident through its substantial investment in research institutions and tech companies. This has fostered an environmentconducive to innovation, where ideas can be transformed into market-ready products and services.One of the key strategies in China's innovation drive is the emphasis on indigenous technology. By developing its own core technologies, China aims to reduce reliance on foreign imports and establish a competitive edge in the global market.Another aspect of China's innovation strategy is the integration of traditional industries with modern technology. This has resulted in the digital transformation of sectorslike manufacturing and agriculture, enhancing efficiency and productivity.China's innovation strategy also includes nurturingtalent. Educational institutions are encouraged to focus on STEM education, equipping the next generation with the skills needed to contribute to the country's technological progress.International collaboration plays a significant role in China's innovation strategy. By engaging with global partners, China is able to access new ideas and technologies, which can be adapted and integrated into its domestic innovation ecosystem.The impact of China's innovation strategy is not limitedto its borders. As Chinese tech companies expand globally,they bring with them the innovative solutions developedwithin the country, contributing to the global technological landscape.Looking ahead, China's continued investment in technology and innovation is set to shape the future of various industries. With a clear vision and strategic approach, China is poised to become a global leader in technological innovation.。
商业模式创新外文文献翻译

文献信息:文献标题:Business Model Innovation: It’s Not Just about Technology Anymore(商业模式创新:超越技术问题)国外作者:Henry Chesbrough文献出处:Strategy & Leadership, 2007(6) Vol.35:12-17字数统计:英文1764单词,9111字符;中文2436汉字外文文献:Business Model Innovation: It’s Not Just about Techno logyAnymoreWhat is a business model?Every company has a business model, whether they articulate it or not. At its heart, a business model performs two important functions: value creation and value capture. First, it defines a series of activities, from procuring raw materials to satisfying the final consumer, which will yield a new product or service in such a way that there is net value created throughout the various activities. This is crucial, because if there is no net creation of value, the other companies involved in the set of activities won’t participate. Second, a business model captures value from a portion of those activities for the firm developing and operating it. This is equally critical, for a company that cannot earn a profit from some portion of its activities cannot sustain those activities over time.There can be real tensions between the aspects of a business model that create value and those that help to capture a portion of that value. A high-value proprietary technology, for example, easily earns a profit for the firm, if alternatives offer lesser value. But in many circumstances customers are reluctant to buy such products (because of price, limited availability, or delivery or service issues).Yet making thetechnology more open, which makes it more appealing to customers, makes it harder to capture value from the offering. So these offsetting factors must be balanced. How to define a business model? The term ‘‘business model’’ is often used, but not often clearly defined. Richard S. Rosenbloom, Professor Emeritus of Harvard, and I have developed a specific working definition (see Exhibit 1).A better business model often will beat a better idea or technology.One benefit of this working definition is that each of its six parameters identifies where innovation might generate new value in an industry.Value proposition. The GE Aircraft engines unit crafted an innovative value proposition when they shifted from selling airlines jet engines to selling them flight hours. This shifted the risk of downtime from the airline customer to GE, and enabled GE to establish a very profitable service operation.Target market. Ryanair, a growing European discount airline, innovated a different target market by going after leisure travelers, instead of the usual business travelers.Value chain. Wal-Mart (which targeted an innovative market by going after underserved rural communities in its early days) is celebrated for its management of its supply chain.Revenue mechanism(s). Xerox got its start in the copier business by leasing its copiers, instead of selling them. Air Products gets paid for the delivery of its industrialgases right to the manufacturing station inside the plant, instead of by the box car.Value network or ecosystem. Ryanair again innovated here, by striking novel arrangements with underutilized regional airports. Ryanair gets a percentage of concession sales at these airports, and in some circumstances even gets paid for landing passengers at the airports.Competitive strategy. One interesting aspect of business models is how difficult it is for others to imitate them. Many airlines have tried to emulate Southwest’s low cost approach. Most of their attempts have not fared well. Copying the Southwest model apparently creates too many co nflicts with the airlines’ established business model.Thus this working definition points the way to certain improvements that can be made to a business model. But more can be done to improve a specific business model if managers think of stages of business model advancement. The Business Model Framework (BMF) is a model that sequences possible business models from very basic (and not very valuable) models to far more advanced (and very valuable) models. Using the BMF, companies can assess where their current business model stands in relation to its potential and then define appropriate next steps for the further advancement of that model.The Business Model FrameworkType 1 – Company has an undifferentiated business modelThe vast majority of companies operating today do not articulate a distinct business model, and lack a process for managing it. These companies are operating with Type 1 business models. A business using the undifferentiated model competes on price and availability, and serves customers who buy on those criteria. In a word, firms utilizing Type 1 business models are selling commodities, and are doing so in ways that are no different from many, many other firms. They often are caught in the ‘‘commodity trap’’. Think of restaurants and barbe r shops as examples of this commodity model.Type 2 – Company has some differentiation in its business modelIn companies using Type 2 business models, the company has created some degree of differentiation in its products or services. This differentiation can also lead to a different business model from that of the Type 1 company, allowing the company to target a customer other than those that buy simply upon price and availability (such as a performance-oriented customer). This allows the Type 2 company to serve a different and less congested market segment from that served by its Type 1 counterpart.The Type 2 company may lack the resources and staying power to invest in the supporting innovations to sustain its differentiated position. This gives rise to the pattern of so-called ‘‘one hit wonders’’, where a company or inventor has a successful first product, but is unable to follow up this success with additional products of similar success. Many technology startup companies fall into this type.Type 3 – Company develops a segmented business modelThe company now can compete in different segments simultaneously. More of the market is thus served, and more profit is extracted from the market as well. The price sensitive segment provides the volume base for high volume, low cost production. The performance segment supplies high margins for the business. Other niches can now be addressed, creating a stronger presence in the distribution channels. The firm’s business model now is more distinctive and profitab le, which supports the firm’s ability to plan for its future via product and technology roadmaps.While its greater level of planning helps the Type 3 company avert the one-hit wonder syndrome, problems still remain. The Type 3 firm remains vulnerable to any major new technical shift beyond the scope of their current business and innovation activities, and also to major shifts in the market. Think of a mature, vertically integrated industrial company, as an example of this kind of model. Or in the IT space, think of an ERP system that is deeply connected to business processes, but has few ways to link in other software on top of its own code.Type 4 – Company has an externally aware business modelIn this business model, the company has started to open itself to external ideas and technologies in the development and execution of the business. This unlocks asignificantly greater set of resources available to such a company.The roadmaps of the Type 4 firm provide a shopping list of needs within the firm for external ideas and technologies. Relationships with outsiders help identify external projects that fulfill some of these needs. This reduces the cost of serving the business, reduces the time it takes to get new offerings to market, and shares the risks of new products and processes with external parties.Internal roadmaps are now shared with suppliers and customers on a frequent basis. This enables the firm to make much more systematic use of innovative ideas from suppliers and from customers. It also allows suppliers and customers to plan their own activities in concert with the innovative activities of the firm. Companies that make it a practice to share real-time information with their suppliers exemplify this approach.Type 5 – Company integrates its innovation process with its business model In a Type 5 model, the company’s business model now plays a key integrative role within the company. Suppliers and customers now enjoy formalized institutional access to the firm’s innovation process, and this access is now reciprocated by the suppliers and customers. Customers and suppliers now share their own roadmaps with the company, giving the company much better visibility into the customers’ future requirements.In this stage, companies begin to experiment more directly with the business model itself. Type 5 companies now take the time to understand the supply chain all the way back to the basic raw materials, as they look for major technical shifts or cost reduction opportunities. Type 5 companies also invest substantial resources to study ‘‘the customer’s customer’’ to learn about the deeper unmet needs and opportunities in the market. Some experimentation is conducted on alternative distribution channels, and indeed, upon alternative configurations of the business model. Companies that are moving from offering products to offering services, and are bringing in external technologies to support this new approach are examples of Type 5 models.Type 6 –Company’s business model is an adaptive platformThe Type 6 business model is an even more open and adaptive model than types4 or 5. This ability to adapt requires a commitment to experimentation with one or more business model variants. This experimentation can take a number of different forms. Some companies utilize corporate venture capital as a means to explore alternative business models in small startup companies. Some utilize spin-offs and joint ventures as means to commercialize technologies outside of their own current business model. Some have created internal incubators to cultivate promising ideas that are not yet ready for high volume commercialization.In Type 6 firms, key suppliers and customers become business partners, entering into relationships in which both technical and business risk may be shared. The business models of suppliers are now integrated into the planning processes of the company. The company in turn has integrated its business model into the business model of its key customers. Intel, Microsoft and Wal-Mart are examples here.One important capability that enables this integration of business models throughout a value chain is the ability of the company to establish its technologies as the basis for a platform of innovation for that value chain. In this way, the company can attract other companies to invest their resources, expanding the value of the platform without consuming extra investment by the platform maker. For example, anyone making software for PCs, accessories for iPods, or games for cell phones is indirectly contributing to the value of each of these platforms.中文译文:商业模式创新:超越技术问题商业模式的定义每个公司都有其商业模式,无论他们是否能清楚地表明。
企业可持续发展战略研究论文中英文外文翻译文献

企业可持续发展战略研究论文中英文外文翻译文献文献1:Sustainable Development Strategies for Businesses该研究论文介绍了企业可持续发展战略的重要性以及相关的实施策略。
可持续发展不仅关注经济利益,还需兼顾社会和环境的利益。
本文提出了几种实施可持续发展战略的方法,包括资源管理、供应链管理和利益相关者合作。
企业应该采取综合性的战略,以确保其经营活动对社会和环境带来积极影响。
文献2:The Role of Corporate Governance in Sustainable Development该文献探讨了公司治理在可持续发展中的作用。
有效的公司治理可以确保企业在经济、社会和环境层面上实现可持续发展目标。
文章讨论了几个与公司治理相关的因素,包括股东权益保护、透明度和问责制。
作者强调了公司治理在促进可持续发展中的重要性,并提出了一些改善公司治理的建议。
文献3:Innovation Strategies for Sustainable Development该研究论文研究了创新战略在可持续发展中的作用。
创新可以推动经济发展,并帮助解决环境和社会问题。
本文提出了几种创新策略,包括技术创新、商业模式创新和社会创新。
作者认为,企业应该将创新作为实现可持续发展的关键策略,并呼吁政府和社会各界提供支持。
文献4:The Importance of Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainable Development该文献强调了利益相关者参与在可持续发展中的重要性。
利益相关者包括员工、股东、政府、社区和其他利益相关的组织。
作者认为,企业应该积极参与利益相关者,并尊重他们的权益和意见。
文章提出了一些有效的利益相关者参与策略,包括沟通、合作和共同决策。
该文献强调了利益相关者参与对企业可持续发展的重要性。
文献5:Measuring and Reporting Sustainability Performance of Businesses该研究论文研究了测量和报告企业可持续发展绩效的方法和指标。
中小企业营销创新和产品创新外文文献翻译中英文

中小企业营销创新和产品创新外文文献翻译中英文(节选重点翻译)英文How do innovation culture, marketing innovation and product innovation affect the market performance of small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs)?Hasan AksoyIntroductionIt is known that innovation has a significant impact on the performance of firms. Most studies that focus on the relationship between innovation efficiency and firm size only sought to understand the findings in terms of the improvement of market performance and the exploitation of new market opportunities. This specific relationship was further established for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as large companies. Because of their number and the significant share of the workforce involved, SMEs play a crucial role in the economies. Thus, strengthening the innovative aspects and knowledge of SMEs brings major opportunities, as innovation is a key to long-term competitiveness and promises further gains regarding private sector performance and economic development.In this light, this paper aims to contribute to the literature by providing a better understanding of the links between the layers ofinnovation and market performance. Equally, the study empirically tests the resource-based view (RBV) and is extended from Terziovski's work. In contrast to numerous previous studies that indicate market performance as a dimension of the firm's performance, this study provides a clearer view upon the relationship between the constructs of innovation that drive market performance.The first objective implies highlighting the importance of market innovation and innovation culture on product innovation in SMEs. Thus, it should be mentioned that innovation is significant at all stages of competition and creates wealth in the business environment for companies. Some researchers argue that small firms invest more in product innovation than they do in process innovation. Therefore, this study approaches only the effect of product innovation on market performance. Companies need to apply innovation culture in their practices, such as to allow them to succeed in terms of innovative products and services. It is creativity, empowerment, and change of organizational culture that drives innovation. Empirical evidence suggests that it is important to build, maintain, and promote a culture of innovation, if companies want to remain successful and create new products. However, despite the attention towards the topic of marketing innovation and innovation culture in the literature, previous research did not sufficiently analyzed the contribution of innovation culture and theimpact of marketing innovation on product innovation.The second objective of the study is to address the importance of marketing innovation strategies and product innovation when considering superior market performance. The primary idea behind this research is that marketing innovation is a prerequisite when trying to improve market performance. Marketing and product innovation strategies are the key contributors to market performance. Competitiveness has become an indispensable element of survival in the marketplace, while innovation activities create superior value and benefits, such as allowing a company to differentiate itself from its' competitors. SMEs can effectively use market innovation to sell differentiated products and services in complex environments. The innovation literature suggests that product innovation affects performance. In the research, the focus was on the influence innovative activities have on market performance. This study contributes to the present literature by revealing the manner in which the development of a unique innovation culture and marketing innovation provides SMEs with product innovation success. It also sustains that the creation of innovative marketing strategies and product innovation capabilities maintain superior market performance on the part of SMEs.The researcher theoretically approaches the fact that an RBV plays a major role in explaining and answering the following questions in the model. Firstly, to what degree do marketing innovation and productinnovation efforts influence the market performance of SMEs? Secondly, how does innovation culture impact on both marketing and product innovation in SMEs? Thirdly, to what degree do marketing and product innovation interact with each other to affect the market performance of SMEs? In this light, the SPSS Amos from listed Turkish SMEs was used to test the hypothesis.The study begins by discussing the literature and theoretical background of the model, followed by the description of the methodology and the examined samples and measures. The final sections present the results, while highlighting a critical review and possible avenues for future research.Innovation cultureThe findings in the literature indicate a significant relationship between culture and innovation [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. Innovation is a crucial precursor to competition and generates wealth in the business environment [13], [14], [15]. However, the application of innovation is not easy to embrace without having a culture that encourages the organization to innovate [84]. Innovation occurs when firms motivate their employees to share their skills with the rest of the organization [47]. As such, values, beliefs, and behaviors are shared by organizational members in a manner that builds an innovation culture [85], [86]. This empowers company development and the obtaining of new knowledgethat improves the innovation [87], [88].Marketing innovationMarketing adds value to the sales interface and to the innovation performance of the company [103]. Market innovation focuses on developing the mix of a target market, while determining how companies can serve the target markets best [37]. It is also described as a progress in marketing mix [53], [61]. Nevertheless, innovation and marketing must go hand in hand. Innovation reveals the buyer's needs beyond the product, while marketing innovation has to evaluate customer value perceptions and generate opportunities for unmet customer needs, based on which companies may provide new innovative products [40], [104].Product innovation is significant in the marketing context because it attracts new customers by promising superior value and by enlarging market segments and product lines [91], [105]. Many studies support the positive relationship between marketing innovation and product innovation. For example, some indicate that marketing innovation has a positive effect on product innovation [106], [107]. Additionally, marketing innovation empowers the offer of cheaper and better quality products [108]. Marketing innovations produce a higher diversification of products [109], which helps companies expand their offerings, while acting as one of the important sources of competitive advantage [110]. As such, firms should use new methods and innovative marketing ideas topromote their products that are not well-known in the market [111].The marketing capability and innovation performance of companies are strongly related [112]. Innovation is also a significant function of marketing, as it is linked to firm performance. Thus, the remarkable interest on the part of researchers towards the ability of marketing innovation to increase firm performance is reasoned . Equally, marketing innovation has a positive effect on firm performance [117], [118] and an ability to improve, strengthen, and maintain the firm's competitive advantage.Product innovationAs innovation can be applied in different forms, the study regards product innovation as one of the significant types of innovation. There are several studies in the literature discussing product innovation . Product innovation is defined as the development and radical change in the performance attributes of the supplied product or service . The concept dominated most discussions on innovation; since it has the strategic importance to satisfy the customer's needs and enter into new markets. The innovation literature suggests that product innovation affects company performance. Despite SMEs' flexibility and ability to rapidly respond to market needs, the tendency for product innovation is higher in larger firms than is the case in smaller enterprises . Equally, while analyzing the SMEs associated with the development of productinnovation and the relationship between product innovation and firms' performance, a study reveals that the product innovation has a positive relationship with a firm's performance [. In addition, the positive relationship between new product development and performance is also supported.Discussion of the findings and conclusionInnovation is a prerequisite for being successful in a competitive environment. In SMEs, innovation culture is an important construct that can sustain product innovation and foster marketing strategies. As such, understanding marketing innovation can help to encourage product innovation and SME market performance. Terziovski's model ensures a framework for considering SME performance and the impact of innovation constructs on it. While building on this model, the present study considers in an empirical context how distinct layers of innovation can support SME market performance. The tests reported here indicate that innovation constructs support SME market performance.Theoretical implicationsThe study extends a model suggested by literature. In Terziovski's model, SME performance depends on strategies, capabilities, culture, relationships, and structure. In this paper, SMEs market performance depends on more focused constructs, in the form of innovation culture, market innovation, and product innovation.Thus, the findings of this study seek to bring several contributions to the literature with regard to organizational practices. It contributes to the overall understanding of market performance by analyzing the innovative structure of SMEs. The theoretical model investigates the relationships among innovation culture, product innovation, marketing innovation, and the market performance of SMEs. The findings show that innovation culture is an effective source of both marketing innovation and product innovation (H1aand H1b). Furthermore, there are some reasonable statements about these results. Firstly, innovation culture is a prior condition for achieving organizational, marketing, and managerial success in competitive markets. Although previous research revealed the importance of innovation culture in an organization, various questions remain regarding the relationships between innovation culture and the innovative marketing strategies of SMEs.SMEs' innovation culture not only positively impacts on marketing strategies, but also positively strengthens product innovation performance. When a firm's innovation culture is strong, it has the ability to sustain marketing strategies and foster the generation of new ideas and services to satisfy customers. Also, the creation of an innovation culture may help to develop the process of product innovation and performance.The study reveals that a marketing innovation strategy has a significant and positive relationship with both product innovation andmarket performance (H2a and H2b). In the same light, previous studies noted the important role of marketing innovation on market performance, business performance, and SME performance. However, this study extends previous research studies by testing marketing innovation in an integrated model, focusing on SME and market performance. New products are successful when the associated development and marketing activities are well performed. Nevertheless, potential customers know little about a product when it is initially released on the market. Therefore, companies need new tools to introduce and promote it, which will ultimately lead to marketing innovation.Numerous studies argued that product innovation plays a critical role in the development of new products, process efficiency, and sustained competitive advantage, in terms of extending market share. The findings show that product innovation has a significant and positive relationship with market performance (H3). Moreover, unique new products have the effect of enhancing performance.The results of the model highlight that innovation culture and marketing innovation in SMEs have a positive direct relationship with product innovation. The results of the study offer a valuable perspective for researchers, implying that innovation culture stimulates the SMEs to differentiate their organizational culture and products from those of their competitors. As such, the present study contributes to the innovationliterature by improving the understanding of the relationship between innovation and the market performance of SMEs. Mainly, it extends the understanding of the relationships between innovation and market performance by analyzing the impact of marketing innovation and product innovation.Managerial implicationsThe findings of the study point out some implications for managers in terms of the importance of SME marketing innovation strategies and product innovation, with regard to increasing the market share. Firstly, SMEs should improve marketing innovation to achieve a competitive advantage, by building an innovative culture within the company and following the trends. Marketing innovation is crucial for SME managers when it comes to creating new and unique products, and for attaining superior market performance.Secondly, the findings of the study also propose that SMEs should balance their investment in terms of an innovational learning culture, marketing, and innovation processes, as part of the pursuit of improving market performance. These results help managers to achieve superior market performance. Thirdly, SMEs should improve their product innovation capability, by investing in promotion techniques, and introducing innovative marketing programs within the company. Furthermore, SMEs should be responsive to this type of innovationresulting from their organization environment and marketing related activities, as improving such capability in order to encourage innovation can the develop market performance.As one can observe, the model described in the study opens the door for a new approach on the part of managers regarding the manner in which SMEs make use of marketing and innovative skills, ensuring successful market performance. Additionally, embedding an innovation culture in the organizational structure can support a higher level of marketing and product innovation. Thus, managers can guide employee behavior, conduct, and integrate their new ideas in such a way as to achieve better market performance outcomes.中文创新文化,营销创新和产品创新如何影响中小企业的市场表现?引言众所周知,创新对公司的绩效有重大影响。
企业创新战略外文翻译文献

企业创新战略外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)翻译之一:Choosing an innovation strategy: theory and practiceAuthor:Joseph T. GilbertNationality:AmericaDerivation:Business Horizons, Nov-Dec, 1994Innovations come as both inventions and adoptions. They come in many types and vary greatly in complexity and scope. Companies attempting tomake a profit cannot continue for long periods without innovating. If they try, their customers will leave them for firms with more up-to-date products or services. It is an observed fact that different companies take different approaches to the use of innovation in attempting to improve their performance.Both academic and practitioner publications in recent years have contained a great deal of writing about innovation, the subjects of which have ranged from comparisons of national patterns of innovation to studies of individual innovations. However, little has been published regarding one issue of both theoretical and practical importance: the innovation policy or strategy of individual firms.Business strategy as a field of study is concerned with how a company competes in its chosen business. It deals with the analysis of a firm's strengths and weaknesses and the opportunities and threats presented by the firm's environment. Strategy looks toward consistent execution of broad plans to achieve certain levels of performance. Innovation strategy determines to what degree and in what way a firm attempts to use innovation to execute its business strategy and improve its performance.To choose an innovation strategy, managers might logically start by thinking about various kinds of innovations and their requirements. We shall discuss three major features of innovation, and analyze each in terms of distinct opposites, even though innovations found in the real world more often appear at various points between these opposites.Innovation is sometimes used in a limited sense to refer only to inventions (products, services, or administrative procedures that no other firm has introduced). More often, however, it applies in a more general sense that includes both invention as described above and imitation (adoption by a firm of a product, service, or administrative procedure that is not an invention but is new to that firm). We use the term in this second sense.Innovations can be characterized in a variety of ways. In the followingsections we will review three ways of describing innovations: incremental/radical; first mover/late mover; and imitative/inventive. The three categories are not mutually exclusive. However, each points to a different feature of innovation and reveals insights not found as readily in the other two. DEGREE OF INNOVATION--FROM RADICAL TO INCREMENTALHow new or different does something have to be before it can be called an innovation at all? If a paint company that currently offers 12 shades of white adds a thirteenth, is this an innovation? If a store that is presently open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. adopts a policy of staying open around the clock, this would seem to be an innovation. But what if it changes its opening time from 8 a.m. to 7:45--is this an innovation? If an airline that now offers ten flights a day from New York to Chicago adds an eleventh flight, is this innovative?At the other extreme, if a flower shop owner decides there is no hope for her business, and so closes up her shop and reopens it a month later as a used book store, is this an innovation? How about when U.S. Steel decided to branch out into oil and natural gas and change its name to USX? Was that an innovation? These issues may appear to be so trivial as to involve only word games, but in all the writings on innovation we have found no clear definition of the concept. To think clearly about an issue, it is helpful to define its limits. There are some innovations that are so minor they are barely perceived as changes. Clearly they have no impact on a firm's basic strategies. At the other extreme, some innovations are so great that they result in a fundamental change in the very nature of a business, leaving behind nothing of the old business. Both these extremes are beyond the scope of our discussion; instead, we are concerned with the vast middle ground.Some innovations are dramatic in their scope and impact and clearly fall into the category of radical. For example, the introduction of automatic teller machines made a fundamental change in the availability of some retail banking services. The personal computer, though still a computer, is a radically different way of providing computing power to many people who previouslyhad access to it only through the medium of mainframes or minicomputers and the intervention of information systems professionals. The use of high-yield bonds to finance takeovers brought fundamental changes to corporate ownership in the 1980s.Several studies, such as Mitchell (1989) and Tushman and Anderson (1986), have indicated that radical innovations tend to be introduced by companies outside an industry or by newcomers rather than by industry incumbents. These authors demonstrate that radical innovations that enhance skills possessed within an industry tend to be introduced by incumbents, whereas those that destroy existing skills tend to be introduced by new firms or industry outsiders. They also have shown that the timing of the introduction of radical innovations presents different problems for the two groups (industry incumbents and outsiders).Innovations that are radical when first introduced appear less so after they have become popular and their adoption is widespread. Apple's introduction of the personal computer was a radical innovation. When IBM introduced its first PC several years later, the innovation was less radical. When Dell and Gateway 2000 began retailing personal computers, the product was commonplace, but the method of distribution (direct mail) was seen by some as a radical departure from previous sales methods.The slightest of incremental innovations begins at whatever point we decide there is an innovation at all. Because they build on existing products, services, or routines and modify them to some degree, incremental innovations are generally easier to plan and implement, and involve less change than radical innovations. This is not to say that they do not have strategic value, or that the total result of a series of incremental innovations cannot be quite impressive when compared to the starting point.The single lens reflex 35mm camera has been on the market for a number of years. Many small improvements have been made since its first introduction. And although each would qualify as an incremental innovation, today's 35mmSLR camera is nonetheless quite different from the first one introduced. STIMULUS FOR INNOVATION--FROM FIRST MOVERS TO LATE MOVERS Inventions are, by definition, only introduced by one firm, or at most by a small handful of firms that bring a new product or service to market simultaneously. Companies that attempt to introduce an invention should logically stand to gain some substantial advantage, because there is a real risk of coming late to the finish line and gaining no prize. Companies that succeed in commercializing an invention are sometimes known as first movers. There are three basic types of advantages that can go to first movers.If an invention involves proprietary technology (prescription drugs, computer software) then the first firm to obtain the patent or copyright wins the exclusive right to market the product. The lack of competition can be a definite strategic advantage. For instance, Xerox was the first to introduce plain paper copier technology. The company was so successful in patenting this technology that it was able to build up a huge competitive lead before its first competitor entered the market.Preemption of scarce assets can sometimes provide an advantage to one or a few first movers that will not be available to those that adopt the innovation later. Examples of this include scarce landing slots at a major airport and oceanfront property for real estate development.The creation of buyer switching costs can also provide an advantage to one or a few first movers that is denied to followers. Once people learn how to use a word-processing program, they will usually stay with that program even in the face of a new one with more features. Travelers who have accumulated frequent flier miles on one airline will not readily switch to another.选择创新战略:理论与实践作者:詹斯夫·吉尔伯特国籍:美国出处:商业视野,1994年11—12月期创新既是发明也是吸收采纳。
企业服务营销策略外文文献翻译最新2016年

企业服务营销策略外文文献翻译最新2016年XXX market。
simply offering high-quality products is not XXX customer service and create a strong brand image in order to XXX marketing strategies。
including customer nship management。
service n。
and service recovery。
and provides examples of XXX.摘要本文探讨了企业开发有效的服务营销策略的重要性。
作者认为,在当今竞争激烈的市场中,仅仅提供高质量的产品是不足以的。
企业必须还提供优秀的客户服务,并创建强大的品牌形象,以吸引和留住客户。
本文研究了各种服务营销策略,包括客户关系管理、服务创新和服务恢复,并提供了成功实施的示例。
作者得出结论,优先考虑服务营销的企业将更好地为长期成功做好准备。
nXXX market。
XXX simply providing high-quality productsis no XXX success。
In order to stand out from the n。
XXX astrong brand image。
This requires the development of effective service marketing XXX.介绍在当今全球化和高度竞争的市场中,企业面临前所未有的挑战。
仅仅提供高质量的产品的传统方法已经不足以保证成功。
为了在竞争中脱颖而出,企业还必须专注于提供优秀的客户服务和创建强大的品牌形象。
这需要开发有效的服务营销策略,帮助企业区别于竞争对手,吸引和留住客户。
XXXXXX new field that has emerged in response to the growing importance of services in the global XXX marketing。
中小企业营销创新和产品创新外文文献翻译中英文
中小企业营销创新和产品创新外文文献翻译中英文(节选重点翻译)英文How do innovation culture, marketing innovation and product innovation affect the market performance of small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs)?Hasan AksoyIntroductionIt is known that innovation has a significant impact on the performance of firms. Most studies that focus on the relationship between innovation efficiency and firm size only sought to understand the findings in terms of the improvement of market performance and the exploitation of new market opportunities. This specific relationship was further established for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as large companies. Because of their number and the significant share of the workforce involved, SMEs play a crucial role in the economies. Thus, strengthening the innovative aspects and knowledge of SMEs brings major opportunities, as innovation is a key to long-term competitiveness and promises further gains regarding private sector performance and economic development.In this light, this paper aims to contribute to the literature by providing a better understanding of the links between the layers ofinnovation and market performance. Equally, the study empirically tests the resource-based view (RBV) and is extended from Terziovski's work. In contrast to numerous previous studies that indicate market performance as a dimension of the firm's performance, this study provides a clearer view upon the relationship between the constructs of innovation that drive market performance.The first objective implies highlighting the importance of market innovation and innovation culture on product innovation in SMEs. Thus, it should be mentioned that innovation is significant at all stages of competition and creates wealth in the business environment for companies. Some researchers argue that small firms invest more in product innovation than they do in process innovation. Therefore, this study approaches only the effect of product innovation on market performance. Companies need to apply innovation culture in their practices, such as to allow them to succeed in terms of innovative products and services. It is creativity, empowerment, and change of organizational culture that drives innovation. Empirical evidence suggests that it is important to build, maintain, and promote a culture of innovation, if companies want to remain successful and create new products. However, despite the attention towards the topic of marketing innovation and innovation culture in the literature, previous research did not sufficiently analyzed the contribution of innovation culture and theimpact of marketing innovation on product innovation.The second objective of the study is to address the importance of marketing innovation strategies and product innovation when considering superior market performance. The primary idea behind this research is that marketing innovation is a prerequisite when trying to improve market performance. Marketing and product innovation strategies are the key contributors to market performance. Competitiveness has become an indispensable element of survival in the marketplace, while innovation activities create superior value and benefits, such as allowing a company to differentiate itself from its' competitors. SMEs can effectively use market innovation to sell differentiated products and services in complex environments. The innovation literature suggests that product innovation affects performance. In the research, the focus was on the influence innovative activities have on market performance. This study contributes to the present literature by revealing the manner in which the development of a unique innovation culture and marketing innovation provides SMEs with product innovation success. It also sustains that the creation of innovative marketing strategies and product innovation capabilities maintain superior market performance on the part of SMEs.The researcher theoretically approaches the fact that an RBV plays a major role in explaining and answering the following questions in the model. Firstly, to what degree do marketing innovation and productinnovation efforts influence the market performance of SMEs? Secondly, how does innovation culture impact on both marketing and product innovation in SMEs? Thirdly, to what degree do marketing and product innovation interact with each other to affect the market performance of SMEs? In this light, the SPSS Amos from listed Turkish SMEs was used to test the hypothesis.The study begins by discussing the literature and theoretical background of the model, followed by the description of the methodology and the examined samples and measures. The final sections present the results, while highlighting a critical review and possible avenues for future research.Innovation cultureThe findings in the literature indicate a significant relationship between culture and innovation [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. Innovation is a crucial precursor to competition and generates wealth in the business environment [13], [14], [15]. However, the application of innovation is not easy to embrace without having a culture that encourages the organization to innovate [84]. Innovation occurs when firms motivate their employees to share their skills with the rest of the organization [47]. As such, values, beliefs, and behaviors are shared by organizational members in a manner that builds an innovation culture [85], [86]. This empowers company development and the obtaining of new knowledgethat improves the innovation [87], [88].Marketing innovationMarketing adds value to the sales interface and to the innovation performance of the company [103]. Market innovation focuses on developing the mix of a target market, while determining how companies can serve the target markets best [37]. It is also described as a progress in marketing mix [53], [61]. Nevertheless, innovation and marketing must go hand in hand. Innovation reveals the buyer's needs beyond the product, while marketing innovation has to evaluate customer value perceptions and generate opportunities for unmet customer needs, based on which companies may provide new innovative products [40], [104].Product innovation is significant in the marketing context because it attracts new customers by promising superior value and by enlarging market segments and product lines [91], [105]. Many studies support the positive relationship between marketing innovation and product innovation. For example, some indicate that marketing innovation has a positive effect on product innovation [106], [107]. Additionally, marketing innovation empowers the offer of cheaper and better quality products [108]. Marketing innovations produce a higher diversification of products [109], which helps companies expand their offerings, while acting as one of the important sources of competitive advantage [110]. As such, firms should use new methods and innovative marketing ideas topromote their products that are not well-known in the market [111].The marketing capability and innovation performance of companies are strongly related [112]. Innovation is also a significant function of marketing, as it is linked to firm performance. Thus, the remarkable interest on the part of researchers towards the ability of marketing innovation to increase firm performance is reasoned . Equally, marketing innovation has a positive effect on firm performance [117], [118] and an ability to improve, strengthen, and maintain the firm's competitive advantage.Product innovationAs innovation can be applied in different forms, the study regards product innovation as one of the significant types of innovation. There are several studies in the literature discussing product innovation . Product innovation is defined as the development and radical change in the performance attributes of the supplied product or service . The concept dominated most discussions on innovation; since it has the strategic importance to satisfy the customer's needs and enter into new markets. The innovation literature suggests that product innovation affects company performance. Despite SMEs' flexibility and ability to rapidly respond to market needs, the tendency for product innovation is higher in larger firms than is the case in smaller enterprises . Equally, while analyzing the SMEs associated with the development of productinnovation and the relationship between product innovation and firms' performance, a study reveals that the product innovation has a positive relationship with a firm's performance [. In addition, the positive relationship between new product development and performance is also supported.Discussion of the findings and conclusionInnovation is a prerequisite for being successful in a competitive environment. In SMEs, innovation culture is an important construct that can sustain product innovation and foster marketing strategies. As such, understanding marketing innovation can help to encourage product innovation and SME market performance. Terziovski's model ensures a framework for considering SME performance and the impact of innovation constructs on it. While building on this model, the present study considers in an empirical context how distinct layers of innovation can support SME market performance. The tests reported here indicate that innovation constructs support SME market performance.Theoretical implicationsThe study extends a model suggested by literature. In Terziovski's model, SME performance depends on strategies, capabilities, culture, relationships, and structure. In this paper, SMEs market performance depends on more focused constructs, in the form of innovation culture, market innovation, and product innovation.Thus, the findings of this study seek to bring several contributions to the literature with regard to organizational practices. It contributes to the overall understanding of market performance by analyzing the innovative structure of SMEs. The theoretical model investigates the relationships among innovation culture, product innovation, marketing innovation, and the market performance of SMEs. The findings show that innovation culture is an effective source of both marketing innovation and product innovation (H1aand H1b). Furthermore, there are some reasonable statements about these results. Firstly, innovation culture is a prior condition for achieving organizational, marketing, and managerial success in competitive markets. Although previous research revealed the importance of innovation culture in an organization, various questions remain regarding the relationships between innovation culture and the innovative marketing strategies of SMEs.SMEs' innovation culture not only positively impacts on marketing strategies, but also positively strengthens product innovation performance. When a firm's innovation culture is strong, it has the ability to sustain marketing strategies and foster the generation of new ideas and services to satisfy customers. Also, the creation of an innovation culture may help to develop the process of product innovation and performance.The study reveals that a marketing innovation strategy has a significant and positive relationship with both product innovation andmarket performance (H2a and H2b). In the same light, previous studies noted the important role of marketing innovation on market performance, business performance, and SME performance. However, this study extends previous research studies by testing marketing innovation in an integrated model, focusing on SME and market performance. New products are successful when the associated development and marketing activities are well performed. Nevertheless, potential customers know little about a product when it is initially released on the market. Therefore, companies need new tools to introduce and promote it, which will ultimately lead to marketing innovation.Numerous studies argued that product innovation plays a critical role in the development of new products, process efficiency, and sustained competitive advantage, in terms of extending market share. The findings show that product innovation has a significant and positive relationship with market performance (H3). Moreover, unique new products have the effect of enhancing performance.The results of the model highlight that innovation culture and marketing innovation in SMEs have a positive direct relationship with product innovation. The results of the study offer a valuable perspective for researchers, implying that innovation culture stimulates the SMEs to differentiate their organizational culture and products from those of their competitors. As such, the present study contributes to the innovationliterature by improving the understanding of the relationship between innovation and the market performance of SMEs. Mainly, it extends the understanding of the relationships between innovation and market performance by analyzing the impact of marketing innovation and product innovation.Managerial implicationsThe findings of the study point out some implications for managers in terms of the importance of SME marketing innovation strategies and product innovation, with regard to increasing the market share. Firstly, SMEs should improve marketing innovation to achieve a competitive advantage, by building an innovative culture within the company and following the trends. Marketing innovation is crucial for SME managers when it comes to creating new and unique products, and for attaining superior market performance.Secondly, the findings of the study also propose that SMEs should balance their investment in terms of an innovational learning culture, marketing, and innovation processes, as part of the pursuit of improving market performance. These results help managers to achieve superior market performance. Thirdly, SMEs should improve their product innovation capability, by investing in promotion techniques, and introducing innovative marketing programs within the company. Furthermore, SMEs should be responsive to this type of innovationresulting from their organization environment and marketing related activities, as improving such capability in order to encourage innovation can the develop market performance.As one can observe, the model described in the study opens the door for a new approach on the part of managers regarding the manner in which SMEs make use of marketing and innovative skills, ensuring successful market performance. Additionally, embedding an innovation culture in the organizational structure can support a higher level of marketing and product innovation. Thus, managers can guide employee behavior, conduct, and integrate their new ideas in such a way as to achieve better market performance outcomes.中文创新文化,营销创新和产品创新如何影响中小企业的市场表现?引言众所周知,创新对公司的绩效有重大影响。
外文翻译 外文文献 英文文献 国内混合动力汽车发展
China Hybrid Electric Vehicle DevelopmentWith the depletion of oil resources, increase awareness of environmental protection, hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles will become the first decades of the new century, the development of mainstream cars and automobile industry become the consensus of all of the industry. The Chinese government also has the National High Technology Research and Development Program (863 Program) specifically listed, including hybrid vehicles, including electric cars of major projects. At present, China's independent innovation of new energy vehicles in the process, adhere to the government support to core technology, key components and system integration focusing on the principles established in hybrid electric vehicles, pure electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles as a "three vertical "To vehicle control systems, motor drive systems, power battery / fuel cell for the "three horizontal" distribution of R & D, through close links between production cooperation, China's independent innovation of hybrid cars has made significant progress.With completely independent intellectual property rights form the power system technology platform, established a hybrid electric vehicle technology development. Is the core of hybrid vehicles batteries (including battery management system) technology. In addition, also include engine technology, motor control, vehicle control technology, engine and electrical interface between the power conversion and is also the key. From the current situation, China has established a hybrid electric vehicle power system through Cooperative R & D technology platforms and systems, made a series of breakthroughs for vehicle development has laid a solid foundation. As of January 31, 2009,Technology in hybrid vehicles, China Intellectual Property Office to receive and open for the 1116 patent applications in China. In 1116 patent applications, invention 782 (authority for the 107), utility model for the 334.Mastered the entire vehicle key development, the formation of a capability to develop various types of electric vehicles. Hybrid cars in China in systems integration, reliability, fuel economy and other aspects of the marked progress in achieving fueleconomy of different technical solutions can be 10% -40%. Meanwhile, the hybrid vehicle automotive enterprises and industrial R & D investment significantly enhanced, accelerating the pace of industrialization. Currently, domestic automakers have hybrid vehicles as the next major competitive products in the strategic high priority, FAW, Dongfeng, SAIC Motor, Changan, Chery, BYD, etc. have put a lot of manpower, material resources,Hybrid prototyping has been completed, and some models have achieved low-volume market.FAW GroupDevelopment Goal: By 2012, the Group plans to build an annual capacity of 11,000 hybrid cars, hybrid bus production base of 1000.FAW Group since 1999 and a new energy vehicles for theoretical research and development work, and the development of a red car performance hybrid sample. "15" period, the FAW Group is committed to the national "863" major project in the "red card in series hybrid electric vehicle research and development" mission, officially began the research and development of new energy vehicles. Beginning in 2006, FAW B70 in the Besturn, based on the technology for hybrid-based research, the original longitudinal into transverse engine assembly engine assembly, using a transverse engine and dual-motor hybrid technology. At the same time, FAW also pay close attention to the engine, mechanical and electrical integration, transmission, vehicle control networks, vehicle control systems development, the current FAW hybrid electric car has achieved 42% fuel saving effect, reached the international advanced level.Jiefang CA6100HEV Hybrid Electric BusFAW "Liberation brand CA6100HEV Hybrid Electric Bus" project is a national "863" electric vehicle major projects funded project, with pure electric drive, the engine alone drives (and charge), the joint drive motor starts the engine, and sliding regenerative braking 5 kinds of basic operation. The power hybrid electric bus and economy to the leading level, 38% fuel economy than traditional buses, emissions reduced by 30%.Red Flag CA7180AE hybrid carsRed Flag hybrid cars CA7180AE according to the national "863 Plan" is the first in complete with industrial prospects of the car, it is built on the basis of red car with good performance and operational smoothness. Series which is a hybrid sedan, the luxury car ,0-100km acceleration time of 14s, fuel-efficient than traditional cars by about 50%, Euro Ⅲemission standard.Besturn B70 hybrid carsBesturn B70 Hybrid cars using petrol - electric hybrid approach. Dual motor power system programs, mixed degree of 40/103, is all mixed (Full-Hybrid, also known as re-mixed) configurations. Besturn B70 Hybrid cars are petrol version costs two to three times Besturn models, mass production will be gradually reduced after the costs, even if this hybrid version Besturn market, the price certainly higher than the existing Besturn models, but high the price of petrol will not exceed 30% version of Besturn models.SAICDevelopment Goals: 2010 launch in the mixed hybrid cars, plug-in 2012, SAIC strong mix of cars and pure electric cars will be on the market.In the R & D on new energy vehicles, SAIC made clear to focus on hybrid, fuel cell for the direction, and speed up the development of alternative products. Hybrid vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles as a new energy strategy SAIC three key.2010 SAIC Roewe 750 hybrid cars in the mix will be put on the market, during the World Expo in Shanghai, SAIC will put 150 hybrid cars in the Expo Line on the River Run. 2012 Roewe 550 plug-in hybrid cars will be strong market, the current car's power system has been launched early development and progress.Apply the new hybrid bus moving on the 1stApply the new hybrid bus moving on the 1st Academy of Engineering by the SAIC and Shanghai Jiaotong University and other units jointly developed with independent intellectual property rights. Existing cities in the Sunwin Bus Powerplatform, "the new dynamic application No. 1" uses a parallel hybrid electric vehicle drive program, so that hybrid electric vehicle operating conditions in the electric air-conditioning, steering, braking and other accessories still able to work without additional electric system, while use of super capacitors, to improve starting power, braking energy recovery efficiency, thereby enhancing vehicle dynamic performance, reduce fuel consumption. Car length 10m, width 2.5m, high-3.2m, can accommodate 76 people.Roewe 750 hybrid carsRoewe 750 hybrid cars in the mixed system with BSG (Belt drive start generating one machine), with "smart stop zero-emission" and "environmental protection and the power of both the" two prominent features of a top speed of 205 km / h, the maximum added driving range of up to 500 km. As for the industrialization of SAIC's first own-brand hybrid car, the Roewe 750 hybrid integrated hybrid fuel-efficient cars can achieve rates of around 20%.Dongfeng Motor GroupDevelopment Goals: Plans move into 33 billion in 10 years to develop a range of environmentally friendly hybrid vehicles, including cars.EQ7200HEV hybrid carsEQ7200HEV hybrid cars are "863" project of major projects and major strategic projects of Dongfeng Motor Corporation. The car is EQ7200-Ⅱmodel (Fengshen Bluebird cars) is based on an electronically controlled automatic transmission with innovative electromechanical coupling in parallel programs, configure DC brushless motor and nickel-hydrogen batteries, plans to "10 5 "during the industrialization. Industrialization, the vehicle cost more than EQ7200 cars increase in costs ≤30%.EQ61100HEV Hybrid Electric BusEQ61100HEV electric hybrid bus by Dongfeng Vehicle Company Limited Joint Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China Textile Co., Ltd. and Hunan sharp Electromechanical Technology Co., Ltd. jointly developed Shenzhou. EQ61100HEV hybrid electric bus with switched reluctance motor, Cummins ISBe1504 cylinder common rail electronic injection diesel engine, new chassis design of the system,electronically controlled automatic transmission and innovative electromechanical coupling parallel program. In the annual output reached 200, the vehicle cost more than the increase in automobile engine equipped with 6CT ≤30%.China ChanganDevelopment Goals: the next three years, the formation of different grades, different purposes, carry a different system of mixed platforms, weak mix of scale, strong mixed industrial R & D capabilities, covering commercial, A grade, B grade, C grade products. 2014 will achieve sales of new energy vehicles 150 000 2020 sales of new energy vehicles for more than 500,000."Eleventh Five-Year Plan" period, Chang-an increased investment in clean energy vehicles, a diversified energy technologies to carry out exploratory research. Environmental protection through energy-saving models continues to introduce new technology to lead the industry to upgrade and fully utilize and mobilize global resources, Chang'an in the middle hybrid cars, hybrid cars and other technological strength of the field are explored. Chang's first hybrid car long Anjie Xun HEV was successfully listed in June 2009; the first batch of 20 hybrid taxis Long An Zhixiang in January of this year officially put into operation in Chongqing.CheryDevelopment Goals: after 2010, more than half of Chery's products carry different levels of hybrid systems.From 2003 to 2008, mainly mixed with moderate Chery hybrid cars and energy saving system development, and industrialization; Chery in Wuhu, a taxi has been carried out on probation, fuel consumption will be reduced by 10% to 30% to reach Europe ⅣStandard. Since 2004, Chery hybrid cars mainly for the development of strong and industrialization. Chery hybrid car fuel consumption target to reach 100 km 3 liters, to reach Europe and the United States emissions regulations.Chery A5BSGChery A5BSG is a weak parallel hybrid electric car, using fuel engines, electric engines complementary mode, the two different power sources in the car while driving to work together or separately, through this combination to achieve the leastfuel consumption and exhaust emissions, in order to achieve fuel efficiency and environmental protection purposes. Compared with the conventional car, the car in urban conditions can save 10% -15% of fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 12%, while costs increased by only about 25% -30%.Chery A5ISGChery A5 ISG hybrid power system consists of "1.3L gasoline engine + 5-speed manual transmission +10 kW motor +144 V Ni-MH battery," the composition of the battery system used by the Johnson Controls developed "plug-in" nickel metal hydride (Ni-MH), motor with permanent magnet synchronous motor and with the motor control system, inverter and DC / DC converters. The system enables the vehicle power to 1.6L displacement level and rate of 30% fuel savings and significantly reduce the emissions of Euro V standards.Cherry A3ISGChery A3 ISG has 1.3L473F gasoline engine and equipped with 10KW motor. By gasoline engines and electric motors with torque overlay approach to dynamic mixed to provide the best vehicle power operating efficiency and energy saving environmental protection goals. Chery A3 ISG also has Stop_Restart the idling stop function such as flame start to start (BSG function), to reduce red light in the vehicle stopped or suspended when the fuel consumption and emissions expenses.FY 2BSGFY 2 BSG carry 1.5LSQR477F inline four-cylinder engine configuration BSG start / stop and so one electric motor, red light in the vehicle stopped the driver into the gap, it will automatically enter standby mode to turn off the engine, starting moments after the entry block automatically start the engine. FY 2 BSG vehicle average fuel consumption than the 1.5L petrol cars reduce about 5-10%, average fuel consumption can be reduced up to 15%.BYD AutoDevelopment Goal: to electric cars as a transitional mode, the electric car as the ultimate goal, the development of new energy cars BYD.BYD follow the "independent research and development, independent production, independent brand" development path, and the "core technology, vertical integration" development strategy, as the transition to dual-mode electric vehicles, electric vehicles as the ultimate goal, the development of BYD new energy vehicles.国内混合动力汽车发展随着石油资源的枯竭、人们环保意识的提高,混合动力汽车及电动汽车将成为新世纪前几十年汽车发展的主流,并成为我国汽车界所有业内人士的共识。
科学、技术和创新的政策【外文翻译】
外文翻译原文Science, Technology and Innovation PolicyMaterial Source:Innovation Handbook. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Pages 599-631Author:Jan, Mowery, David C. and Nelson, Richard R….to technology policyTechnology policy refers to policies that focus on technologies and sectors. The era of technology policy is one where especially science-based technologies such as nuclear power, space technology, computers, drugs and genetic engineering are seen as being at the very core of economic growth. These technologies get into focus for several reasons. On the one hand they stimulate imagination because they make it possible to do surprising things - they combine science with fiction. On the other hand they open up new commercial opportunities. They are characterized by a high rate of innovation and they address rapidly growing markets.Technology policy means different things for catching up countries than it does for high-income countries and it might also mean different things for small and big countries. In big high-income countries the focus will be on establishing a capacity in producing the most recent science-based technologies, as well as applying these innovations. In smaller countries it might be a question about being able to absorb and use these technologies as they come on the market. Catching-up countries may make efforts to enter into specific promising established industries using new technologies in the process of doing so.Common for these strategies is that they tend to define ‘strategic technologies’and sometimes the sectors producing them are also defined as strategic sectors. The idea of strategic sectors may be related to Perroux and to Hirschman, both students of Schumpeter. Perroux used concepts such as ‘industria lizing industries’and growth poles while Hirschman introduced unbalanced growth as a possible strategy for less developed countries (Perroux, 1969; Hirschman, 1969).In the lead countries, government initiatives of the technology policy kind were triggered when national political or economic interests were threatened and thethreats could be linked to the command of specific technologies. Sputnik gave extra impetus to a focus on space technology and the cold war motivated the most ambitious technology poli cy effort ever in the US. In Europe, Servan Schreiber’s book ‘Le Defi Americain’ (Servan Schreiber 1967) gave a picture of a growing dominance of the US multi-national firms especially in high technology sectors. It gave the big European countries such as France, the UK and Germany incentives to develop a policy of promoting national champions in specific sectors. A specific important event triggering French and later on European efforts was the export embargo of computer technology that was seen in France as blocking its progress in the development of nuclear technology.The motivation behind the technology policy in Japan –and later on in countries such as Taiwan and Korea - is different. It is driven by a national strategy aiming at catching up and in the Japanese case it has roots back to the Meiji revolution when the first ideas of modernization based on imitating the technology of the West were formed.One fundamental question in technology policy is if it is at all legitimate and effective for the state to intervene for commercial reasons promoting specific sectors or technologies. Or is the only legitimate technology policy one where national societal issues are at stake, including establishing national military power? It is a paradox that in the country having the most massive public intervention in terms of technology policy, the US, most of the policy has been motivated by non-commercial arguments and the discourse has been anti-state. Japan is the country with the most explicitly commercially driven technology policy with a recognition of a role for the state and here the intervention has been much more modest, at least in terms of the amount of public money involved.A second issue concerns what technologies should be supported. Is it always the case that high tech- and science-based sectors should be given first priority? Again the Japanese government as well as governments in smaller countries has been more apt to think about the modernization of old industries than the US and the big European countries.A third issue is at what stage the support should be given. Should it be given only to ‘pre-competitive’ stages or should it also be helpful in bringing the new products to the market? In the second case there might be a combination of government support of new technology and more or less open protectionism.A fourth issue is about the limits for public sector competence. Technology policy may be pursued with competence where government operates as a major user but when it comes to developing new technologies for the market, the role of governments must be more modest. To be more specific, there are several historical examples of how government ambitions to make technological choices that reduce diversity have ended in failure, for example, the ‘minitel’ experience in France, and the High Definition TV policy in the EU, both in the early 1990s.A fifth issue concerns how promoting a technology or a sector can best be combined with competition. The period in the eighties of promoting single firms as national champions in the bigger European countries was not a great success while the Japanese public strategy to promote ‘controlled competition’ among a handful of firms was more successfulThe objectives of technology policy are not very different from those of science policy but – at least to begin with – it represented a shift from broader philosophical considerations to a more instrumental focus on national prestige and economic objectives. Technology policies were developed in an era of technology optimism. But later on –in the wake of the 1968 student revolt –more critical and broader concerns relating to technology assessment and citizen participation came onto the agenda (OECD 1970).The elements of the innovation system in focus remain universities, research institutions, technological institutes and R&D laboratories. But the attention moves from universities toward engineering and from the internal organization of universities toward how they link to industry. Technology policy may go even further and include the commercialization of technologies, but then we approach what we will call innovation policy.In some countries such as the US, the main technology policy actors in the public sector are sector ministries promoting and sometimes procuring technology for purposes of telecommunications, defense, health, transport, energy etc. while in others, such as Japan, they are ministries in charge of industry and trade. Ministries of education and research are important since they organize the education and training of scientists and engineers. Authorities in charge of regulating competition as well as other regulating authorities may have a major impact on technology policy and on technological development. Public authorities may, as elements of technology policy, organize technology assessment and other ways of involving citizens.There are many possible instruments to be used in promoting specific technologies and sectors. Most efficient may be combinations of instruments in fields where public procurement is involved. When the government has the leading user competence, it is in a better position to judge what kind of instruments will work (Edquist et al. 2000). Besides public procurement direct economic incentives in terms of subsidies and tax reductions may be offered to firms. Supporting research at universities in the science fields in which the new technologies are rooted may be an important part of a public mission policy. The danger of these kinds of policies is that ‘industrial complexes’ combini ng the vested interests of a segment of public users with those of a segment of industry emerge and that a lack of transparency is exploited by vested interests. A more subtle problem is the kind of convergence and agreement on the direction of technological trajectories that might develop in such complexes, excluding new and more promising venues (Lundvall, 1985).In areas where the main application of the new technologies is commercial, the set of instruments used may be a combination of sector or technology specific economic incentives with more or less protectionist trade policy. An example might be the high definition TV policy of the EU in the early 1990s, where the attempt to define a compulsory analogical standard would have been a technical trade barrier to emerging digital standards, combined with specific economic incentives for European producers. Such packages may create a sheltered atmosphere for the firms involved. More promising may be project organized support bringing different firms and knowledge institutions together in order to focus on generic and common and new technological problems while making sure that the use of the new knowledge takes place in a global competitive climate. Experience also shows that making the projects well defined both in terms of content and time but open in terms of what specific type of technical solutions should be aimed at, limits the negative impact on competition.While the evaluation of research is important in science policy there are similar general policy tools that are useful when designing and redesigning technology policy. Technology forecasting is a way of capturing new technological trends. Asking leading expertise among scientists and among the most advanced producers and users about what technologies are rising on the horizon helps to scout the next generation of ‘strategic technologies’. In order to limit the capturing of public interest by private firms independent policy evaluation of specific initiatives may beuseful. Many evaluations end up addressing users of the programs with questions about the efficacy of the program. Not surprisingly, such studies often end up reporting that the program was very good and that more of the same would be welcome. In this situation, as in many other situations, where too much agreement among partners threatens to become a lock-in, it should be considered whether to give ‘outsiders’ a strong role as evaluators. It is as important for public policy as it is for science-based firms to promote ‘job rotation’ and ‘i nter-functional teams.As pointed out, science and technology policy are ideal types, which serve our broad analytical purposes. In the real world of advanced capitalist economies, however, the policy focus, instruments and actors involved in science and technology policy-making are not always easily grouped in one or the other of these categories. As we will examine now, innovation policy takes a step further by bringing in an even broader set of policy issues...and to innovation policyInnovation policy appears in two different versions. One –the laissez faire-version - puts the emphasis on non-interventionism and signals that the focus should be on ‘framework conditions’ rather than specific sectors or technologies. This often goes with a vocabulary where any kind of specific measure gets grouped under the negative heading ‘picking the winners’. The extreme version of this type of innovation policy is one where basic research and general education are seen as the only legitimate public activities and intellectual property right protection as the only legitimate field for government regulation. In more moderate versions public initiatives aiming a fostering ‘entrepreneurship’ and promoting a positive attitude to science and technology in the population may be endorsed.The other version may be presented as the ‘systemic’ version and by referring to the concept of ‘innovation system’. This perspective implies that most major policy fields need to be considered in the light of how they contribute to innovation.A fundamental aspect of innovation policy becomes to review and redesign the linkages between the parts of the system. The first approach is built upon the standard assumption made in economics that firms always know what is best for them and that they normally (in the absence of market failure) act accordingly. The second perspective takes into account that competence is unequally distributed among firms and that good practice in terms of developing, absorbing and using new technology is not immediatel y diffused among firms. And that ‘failures’ may extendbeyond neoclassical ‘market failure’ to subsume ‘failures’ of institutions to coordinate, link, or address various systemic needs, etc. (see chapter by Edquist).Both of these approaches cover all aspects of the innovation process –including diffusion, use and marketing of new technologies and in a sense they may be seen as an important form of ‘economic policy’ where the focus is more on innovation than on allocation. Both tend to put stronger emphasi s on ‘institutions’ and ‘organizations’ than do science and technology policy. In the laissez faire-version, the predominance of the market and of competition becomes the most important prerequisite for innovation –there is in principle one single recommendation for institutional design valid for all countries.In the systemic approach the importance of competition is recognized but so is the need for closer co-operation vertically between users and producers and sometimes even horizontally among competitors when it comes to develop generic technologies. In the system’s approach it is recognized that the institutional set up differs across national economies and that this has implications for what types of technologies and sectors thrive in the national context. To design a suitable innovation policy requires specific insights in the institutional characteristics of the national system.Innovation policy does not imply any a priori preference for high versus low technology. The systems approach introduces a vertical perspective on the industrial system seeing it as a network and as value chains where certain stages might be more suitable for firms in a specific country.The theoretical foundation of the two different versions of innovation policy is respectively an application of standard neo-classical economics on innovation and, respectively, a long-term outcome of research on innovation and economic evolution (Metcalfe, 1995; Metcalfe and Georghiou, 1998). The innovation system approach may be seen as bringing together the most important stylized facts of innovation. It makes use of empirical material and analytical models developed in innovation research, as well as in institutional and evolutionary economics.The major reason for innovation policy becoming more broadly used as a concept was the slow down in economic growth around 1970 and the persistence of sluggish growth as compared to the first post-war decades. The reasons for the slow down in the growth in ‘total factor productivity’ were, and still ar e, not well understood but there was a feeling that it had to do with the lacking capability to exploit technological opportunities. At the same time, the restrictions imposed ongeneral economic policy by fear of inflation made it important to understand the possibilities to promote growth from the supply side.This implies that the major objectives of innovation policy are economic growth and international competitiveness. In the European Union discourse these objectives are combined with ‘social cohesion’ and equality. Innovation might also be seen as a way to solve important problems relating to pollution, energy, urbanism and poverty. But the main focus is on the creation of economic wealth.Among the instruments to be used are the regulation of intellectual property rights and access to venture capital. One fundamental distinction in innovation policy goes between initiatives aiming at promoting innovation within the institutional context and, respectively, policies aiming at changing the institutional context in order to promote innovation. The first category overlaps with instruments used in science and technology policy. The second may include reforms of universities, education, labor markets, capital markets, regulated industries and competition laws.译文科学、技术和创新的政策资料来源:《创新手册》,牛津:牛津大学出版社,2005(599-631).作者:简·莫薇尔, 大卫C. 和尼尔森·理查德R.技术政策技术政策是指注重技术和部门的政策。
5、外文文献翻译(附原文)产业集群,区域品牌,Industrial cluster ,Regional brand
外文文献翻译(附原文)外文译文一:产业集群的竞争优势——以中国大连软件工业园为例Weilin Zhao,Chihiro Watanabe,Charla-Griffy-Brown[J]. Marketing Science,2009(2):123-125.摘要:本文本着为促进工业的发展的初衷探讨了中国软件公园的竞争优势。
产业集群深植于当地的制度系统,因此拥有特殊的竞争优势。
根据波特的“钻石”模型、SWOT模型的测试结果对中国大连软件园的案例进行了定性的分析。
产业集群是包括一系列在指定地理上集聚的公司,它扎根于当地政府、行业和学术的当地制度系统,以此获得大量的资源,从而获得产业经济发展的竞争优势。
为了成功驾驭中国经济范式从批量生产到开发新产品的转换,持续加强产业集群的竞争优势,促进工业和区域的经济发展是非常有必要的。
关键词:竞争优势;产业集群;当地制度系统;大连软件工业园;中国;科技园区;创新;区域发展产业集群产业集群是波特[1]也推而广之的一个经济发展的前沿概念。
作为一个在全球经济战略公认的专家,他指出了产业集群在促进区域经济发展中的作用。
他写道:集群的概念,“或出现在特定的地理位置与产业相关联的公司、供应商和机构,已成为了公司和政府思考和评估当地竞争优势和制定公共决策的一种新的要素。
但是,他至今也没有对产业集群做出准确的定义。
最近根据德瑞克、泰克拉[2]和李维[3]检查的关于产业集群和识别为“地理浓度的行业优势的文献取得了进展”。
“地理集中”定义了产业集群的一个关键而鲜明的基本性质。
产业由地区上特定的众多公司集聚而成,他们通常有共同市场、,有着共同的供应商,交易对象,教育机构和其它像知识及信息一样无形的东西,同样地,他们也面临相似的机会和威胁。
在全球产业集群有许多种发展模式。
比如美国加州的硅谷和马萨诸塞州的128鲁特都是知名的产业集群。
前者以微电子、生物技术、和风险资本市场而闻名,而后者则是以软件、计算机和通讯硬件享誉天下[4]。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
企业创新战略外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)翻译之一:Choosing an innovation strategy: theory and practiceAuthor:Joseph T. GilbertNationality:AmericaDerivation:Business Horizons, Nov-Dec, 1994Innovations come as both inventions and adoptions. They come in many types and vary greatly in complexity and scope. Companies attempting tomake a profit cannot continue for long periods without innovating. If they try, their customers will leave them for firms with more up-to-date products or services. It is an observed fact that different companies take different approaches to the use of innovation in attempting to improve their performance.Both academic and practitioner publications in recent years have contained a great deal of writing about innovation, the subjects of which have ranged from comparisons of national patterns of innovation to studies of individual innovations. However, little has been published regarding one issue of both theoretical and practical importance: the innovation policy or strategy of individual firms.Business strategy as a field of study is concerned with how a company competes in its chosen business. It deals with the analysis of a firm's strengths and weaknesses and the opportunities and threats presented by the firm's environment. Strategy looks toward consistent execution of broad plans to achieve certain levels of performance. Innovation strategy determines to what degree and in what way a firm attempts to use innovation to execute its business strategy and improve its performance.To choose an innovation strategy, managers might logically start by thinking about various kinds of innovations and their requirements. We shall discuss three major features of innovation, and analyze each in terms of distinct opposites, even though innovations found in the real world more often appear at various points between these opposites.Innovation is sometimes used in a limited sense to refer only to inventions (products, services, or administrative procedures that no other firm has introduced). More often, however, it applies in a more general sense that includes both invention as described above and imitation (adoption by a firm of a product, service, or administrative procedure that is not an invention but is new to that firm). We use the term in this second sense.Innovations can be characterized in a variety of ways. In the followingsections we will review three ways of describing innovations: incremental/radical; first mover/late mover; and imitative/inventive. The three categories are not mutually exclusive. However, each points to a different feature of innovation and reveals insights not found as readily in the other two. DEGREE OF INNOVATION--FROM RADICAL TO INCREMENTALHow new or different does something have to be before it can be called an innovation at all? If a paint company that currently offers 12 shades of white adds a thirteenth, is this an innovation? If a store that is presently open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. adopts a policy of staying open around the clock, this would seem to be an innovation. But what if it changes its opening time from 8 a.m. to 7:45--is this an innovation? If an airline that now offers ten flights a day from New York to Chicago adds an eleventh flight, is this innovative?At the other extreme, if a flower shop owner decides there is no hope for her business, and so closes up her shop and reopens it a month later as a used book store, is this an innovation? How about when U.S. Steel decided to branch out into oil and natural gas and change its name to USX? Was that an innovation? These issues may appear to be so trivial as to involve only word games, but in all the writings on innovation we have found no clear definition of the concept. To think clearly about an issue, it is helpful to define its limits. There are some innovations that are so minor they are barely perceived as changes. Clearly they have no impact on a firm's basic strategies. At the other extreme, some innovations are so great that they result in a fundamental change in the very nature of a business, leaving behind nothing of the old business. Both these extremes are beyond the scope of our discussion; instead, we are concerned with the vast middle ground.Some innovations are dramatic in their scope and impact and clearly fall into the category of radical. For example, the introduction of automatic teller machines made a fundamental change in the availability of some retail banking services. The personal computer, though still a computer, is a radically different way of providing computing power to many people who previouslyhad access to it only through the medium of mainframes or minicomputers and the intervention of information systems professionals. The use of high-yield bonds to finance takeovers brought fundamental changes to corporate ownership in the 1980s.Several studies, such as Mitchell (1989) and Tushman and Anderson (1986), have indicated that radical innovations tend to be introduced by companies outside an industry or by newcomers rather than by industry incumbents. These authors demonstrate that radical innovations that enhance skills possessed within an industry tend to be introduced by incumbents, whereas those that destroy existing skills tend to be introduced by new firms or industry outsiders. They also have shown that the timing of the introduction of radical innovations presents different problems for the two groups (industry incumbents and outsiders).Innovations that are radical when first introduced appear less so after they have become popular and their adoption is widespread. Apple's introduction of the personal computer was a radical innovation. When IBM introduced its first PC several years later, the innovation was less radical. When Dell and Gateway 2000 began retailing personal computers, the product was commonplace, but the method of distribution (direct mail) was seen by some as a radical departure from previous sales methods.The slightest of incremental innovations begins at whatever point we decide there is an innovation at all. Because they build on existing products, services, or routines and modify them to some degree, incremental innovations are generally easier to plan and implement, and involve less change than radical innovations. This is not to say that they do not have strategic value, or that the total result of a series of incremental innovations cannot be quite impressive when compared to the starting point.The single lens reflex 35mm camera has been on the market for a number of years. Many small improvements have been made since its first introduction. And although each would qualify as an incremental innovation, today's 35mmSLR camera is nonetheless quite different from the first one introduced. STIMULUS FOR INNOVATION--FROM FIRST MOVERS TO LATE MOVERS Inventions are, by definition, only introduced by one firm, or at most by a small handful of firms that bring a new product or service to market simultaneously. Companies that attempt to introduce an invention should logically stand to gain some substantial advantage, because there is a real risk of coming late to the finish line and gaining no prize. Companies that succeed in commercializing an invention are sometimes known as first movers. There are three basic types of advantages that can go to first movers.If an invention involves proprietary technology (prescription drugs, computer software) then the first firm to obtain the patent or copyright wins the exclusive right to market the product. The lack of competition can be a definite strategic advantage. For instance, Xerox was the first to introduce plain paper copier technology. The company was so successful in patenting this technology that it was able to build up a huge competitive lead before its first competitor entered the market.Preemption of scarce assets can sometimes provide an advantage to one or a few first movers that will not be available to those that adopt the innovation later. Examples of this include scarce landing slots at a major airport and oceanfront property for real estate development.The creation of buyer switching costs can also provide an advantage to one or a few first movers that is denied to followers. Once people learn how to use a word-processing program, they will usually stay with that program even in the face of a new one with more features. Travelers who have accumulated frequent flier miles on one airline will not readily switch to another.选择创新战略:理论与实践作者:詹斯夫·吉尔伯特国籍:美国出处:商业视野,1994年11—12月期创新既是发明也是吸收采纳。