All
 
|
 
 


Evolution of a Firm in a Digital Economy
 
PIIS013122270006208-9-1
DOI10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-8-21-28
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Nadezhda M. Rozanova 
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE)
Address: 20, Myasnitskaya Str., Moscow. 101000, Russian Federation
Journal nameMirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia
EditionVolume 63 Issue 8
Pages21-28
Abstract

The latest investigations in the area of firms’ behavior in a digital economy have revealed a wide variety of new phenomena that have to be analyzed, systemized and interpreted. The article presents a conceptual approach to deal with these current novelties. In a digital economy, many traditional features of firm, competition, and market have been wearing off. Rapidly changing digital environment caters for agility, network interactions, flexible ICT architecture, and entrepreneurship. Information technologies have changed their role from simple infrastructure resource to a key driver of contemporary business. IT are now an important organizational resource for competitive agility, improving firm performance during economic turbulence. The IT principles presented in Agile Manifesto have applied to project management, with high results in firm financial and economic performance. This process has revealed the necessity of new competence, for both employees and employers. New key positions have arisen in the firms; Chief Digital Officer is an example. The current firm activity is traced out with increasing intensity of global competition that stimulates business actors to form business digital networks. Complex business systems have evolved into scale-free networks the main feature of which is clusterization. In scale-free economic networks, the traditional principle of free competition as random walk is no more valid. The business units form clusters within their digital network, some companies being dominant actors with network market power. Among the determinants of dominant position in the digital network are as follows: agent costs, business experience, access to key resources, capital and labor assets, investment potential. Free competition has evolved into network digital rivalry. The network digital rivalry has a dynamic wavy pattern. Competitive pressure may increase or decrease when key players enter or exit from the digital network. Thus, the network digital rivalry has become a new factor in economic cycles. As more and more firms are in global business networks having less and less independent production, sales, or consumption activity, and when firms use to more and more extent mobile organizational devices instead of visible working areas, the traditional viewpoint for a company as a solid well-defined organization should be replaced by a concept of firm as a flexible function not an organization. The evolution of business activity has been going from companies and markets to business digital networks.

Keywordsfirm, management, digitalization, agile organization, organizational behavior, network structures
Received13.08.2019
Publication date24.09.2019
Number of characters24344
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

Table of contents

СЕТЕВАЯ ЦИФРОВАЯ КОНКУРЕНЦИЯ: БАЛАНС СИЛ И НОВЫЕ РИСКИ
ИНФОРМАЦИОННЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ КАК ДРАЙВЕР БИЗНЕСА
СЕТЕВЫЕ ЦИФРОВЫЕ СТРАТЕГИИ В XXI ВЕКЕ
НОВЫЕ ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКИ ФИРМЫ
***
1 Середина 2000-х годов привнесла в наш мир большое число технологических, организационных, экономических, социальных и прочих инноваций, которые трансформируют деловую среду и бизнес-процессы современной фирмы. Наблюдается отчетливая тенденция к росту цифрового уклада. Эффект цифровизации распространяется по экономике в возрастающем масштабе. Если в 2010 г. удельный вес сектора ИКТ в валовом внутреннем продукте стран мира составлял в лучшем случае 1–2%, то к 2016 г. его доля в ВВП достигла 10.4% в Республике Корея, 7.3 в Швеции, 6.9 в Финляндии, 6.0 в Японии и США, по 4–5 в Великобритании, Германии, Франции и Канаде, 2.9% в России [1, с. 85]. Специалисты по информационно-коммуникационным технологиям насчитывают 6.6% занятых в Финляндии, 6.3 в Швеции, более 5 в Великобритании и Эстонии, около 4% в США, Франции и Германии [1, с. 69].
2 Доступ к Интернету имеют и активно используют 100% бизнес-организаций Финляндии, 98–99% фирм Республики Корея, Канады, Швеции, Франции, Германии, 95 Великобритании, 86% бизнес-организаций России [1, с. 38]. При этом 30–50% деловых компаний применяют сложные типы ИТ-архитектуры, например, такие как “облачные” сервисы [1, с. 47]. Абоненты высокоскоростного широкополосного доступа к интернету на 100 человек населения составляли в 2016 г. 43 человека в Дании и Франции, 40 в Республике Корея и Норвегии, 21 человек в России [2, с. 94]. Беспроводным доступом в Интернет пользовались (на 100 человек населения) 153 человек в Финляндии, 120–130 в большинстве европейских стран, 72 человека в России [2, с. 99].
3 Еще в 2008 г. было замечено, что развитие информационных технологий как главной модифицирующей силы современного мира кардинальным образом воздействует на поведение компаний, изменяя привычные модели бизнес-поведения [3]. Экономическая жизнь не стоит на месте. За последнее десятилетие ранее наметившиеся тенденции углубились и приняли разнообразные формы. Пришло время подвести итог, оценить, каким образом нарастающие процессы цифровизации преображают деловой ландшафт глобального мира, проанализировать, как под действием новой реальности цифровой экономики меняется конфигурация фирмы и ее оптимальные стратегии.
4

СЕТЕВАЯ ЦИФРОВАЯ КОНКУРЕНЦИЯ: БАЛАНС СИЛ И НОВЫЕ РИСКИ
5 Цифровая трансформация затрагивает прежде всего сетевую конкуренцию как базовую экономическую среду межфирменных взаимодействий. Традиционно в экономической теории принята концепция “невидимой руки” Адама Смита, которая отдает приоритет свободной конкуренции как управляющего принципа экономической жизни. И хотя среди экономистов ведутся дискуссии по поводу оптимальной степени конкуренции и государственного вмешательства, все специалисты признают, что конкуренция – это хаотичное движение, случайное блуждание. Однако, по мере наблюдения за развитием цифровых эффектов в области сетевизации в современной экономике, появляются работы, которые подвергают сомнению это ключевое положение.

Number of purchasers: 4, views: 1982

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Tsifrovaya ehkonomika. Kratkij statisticheskij sbornik. Moskva, NIU VShEh, 2018. 96 s. [Digital Economy. A Short Statistical Review. Moscow, HSE Publ., 2018. 96 r. (In Russ.)]
2. Indikatory tsifrovoj ehkonomiki 2018. Statisticheskij sbornik. Moskva, NIU VShEh, 2018. 268 s. [Indicators of Digital Economy. Statistical Review. Moscow, HSE Publ., 2018. 268 r. (In Russ.)]
3. Strelets I.A. Vliyanie novykh tekhnologij na ehkonomicheskoe povedenie potrebitelej i firm. SShA–Kanada: Ehkonomika, politika, kul'tura, 2008, № 8, cs. 63-72. [Strelets I.A. Vliyanie novykh tekhnologii na ekonomicheskoe povedenie potrebitelei i firm [Influence of new technologies on economic behavior of consumers and firms]. USA-Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, 2008, no. 8, pp. 63-72.]
4. Gualdi S., Mandel A. On the Emergence of Scale-Free Production Networks. Journal of Economics Dynamics and Control, 2016, vol. 73, pp. 61-77.
5. Anghel M., Toroczkai Z., Bassler K., Korniss G. Competition-Driven Network Dynamics: Emergence of a Scale-Free Leadership Structure and Collective Efficiency. The American Physical Society, 2004, vol. 92, pp. 1-4.
6. Riccaboni M., Pammolli F. On Firm Growth in Networks. Research Policy. Special Issue on the Nelson and Winter Conference, 2001, September 15, pp. 1-18.
7. Chuluun T., Prevost A., Upadhyay A. Firm Network Structure and Innovation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2017, vol. 44, pp. 193-214.
8. Konno T. Network Effect of Knowledge Spillover: Scale-Free Networks Stimulate R&D Activities and Accelerate Economic Growth. Physica A, 2016, vol. 458, pp. 157-167.
9. Hochberg Y., Lindsey L., Westerfield M. Resource Accumulation through Economic Ties: Evidence from Venture Capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 2015, vol. 118, pp. 245-267.
10. Barone M., Coscia M. Birds of a Feather Scam Together: Trustworthiness Homophily in a Business Network. Social Networks, 2018, vol. 54, pp. 228-237.
11. Karpf A., Mandel A., Battiston S. Price and Network Dynamics in the European Carbon Market. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2018, vol. 153, pp. 103-123.
12. Lambert D., Vanni F. Complexity and Heterogeneity in a Dynamic Network. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 2018, vol. 108, pp. 94-103.
13. Hazama M., Uesugi I. Measuring the Systemic Risk in Interfirm Transaction Networks. Journal of Economics Behavior and Organization, 2017, vol. 137, pp. 259-281.
14. Anthonisen N. Microeconomics Shocks and Macroeconomic Fluctuations in a Dynamic Network Economy. Journal of Macroeconomics, 2016, vol. 47, pp. 233-254.
15. Giroud X., Mueller H. Firms’ Internal Networks and Local Economic Shocks. NBER Working Paper no. 23176, February 2017. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23176  (accessed 05.08.2018).
16. Hou R., Yang J., Yao C., McKelvey B. How Does Competition Structure Affect Industry Merger Waves? A Network Analysis Perspective. Physica A, 2015, vol. 429, pp. 140-156.
17. Ricciardi F., Zardini A., Rossignoli C. Business Network Commons and Their Fragilities: Emerging Configurations of Local Organizational Fields. Journal of Business Research, 2018, vol. 89, pp. 328-335.
18. Asimakopoulos G., Whalley J. Market Leadership, Technological Progress and Relative Performance in the Mobile Telecommunications Industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2017, vol. 123, pp. 57-67.
19. Lucas H.C. Information Technology and the Productivity Paradox. Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999. 225 p.
20. Sambamurthy V., Bharadwaj A., Grover V. Shaping Agility through Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the Role of Information Technology in Contemporary Firms. MIS Quarterly, 2003, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 237-263.
21. Ravichandran T. Exploring the Relationships between IT Competence, Innovation Capacity and Organizational Agility. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2017. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.07.002  (accessed 30.08.2018).
22. Agile Manifesto. Available at: http://agilemanifesto.org/  (accessed 05.09.2018).
23. Kane G.C., Palmer D., Phillips A.N., Kiron D., Buckley N. Strategy, not Technology, Drives Digital Transformation: Becoming a Digitally Mature Enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2015, July, pp. 1-29.
24. Hirt M., Willmott P. Strategic Principles for Competing in the Digital Age. McKinsey Quarterly, 2014, May, pp. 1-13.
25. Chen R., Ravichandar R., Proctor D. Managing the Transition to the New Agile Business and Product Development Model: Lessons from Cisco Systems. Business Horizons, 2016, vol. 59, pp. 635-644.
26. Liu S., Chan F., Yang J., Niu B. Understanding the Effect of Cloud Computing on Organizational Agility: An Empirical Examination. International Journal of Information Management, 2018, vol. 43, pp. 98-111.
27. Hazen B., Bradley R., Bell J., In J., Byrd T. Enterprise Architecture: A Competence-Based Approach to Achieving Agility and Firm Performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 2017, vol. 193, pp. 566-577.
28. Karimi J., Somers T., Gupta Y. Impact of Information Technology Management Practices on Customer Service. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2001, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 125-158.
29. Youssef A., Martin L., Omrani N. The Complementarities between Information Technologies Use, New Organizational Practices and Employees’ Contextual Performance: Evidence from Europe in 2005 and 2010. Review d’Economie Politique, 2014, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 493-504.
30. Chandra Y., Wilkinson I. Firm Internationalization from a Network-Centric Complex-Systems Perspective. Journal of World Business, 2017, vol. 52, pp. 691-701.
31. Odlin D., Benson-Rea M. Competing on the Edge: Implications of Network Position for Internationalizing Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises. International Business Review, 2017, vol. 26, pp. 736-748.
32. Lee H. Peer Networks in Venture Capital. Journal of Empirical Finance, 2017, vol. 41, pp. 19-30.
33. Francioni B., Vissak T., Musso F. Small Italian Wine Producers’ Internationalization: The Role of Network Relationships in the Emergence of Late Starters. International Business Review, 2017, vol. 26, pp. 12-22.
34. Zhang J., Pezeshkan A. Host Country Network, Industry Experience, and International Alliance Formation: Evidence from the Venture Capital Industry. Journal of World Business, 2016, vol. 51, pp. 264-277.
35. Cai J., Szeidl A. Interfirm Relationships and Business Performance. NBER Working Paper no. 22951, 2016, December. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22951  (accessed 10.08.2018).
36. Star S., Griesemer J. Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects. Social Studies of Science, 1989, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 387-420.
37. Harrison D., Hoholm T., Prenkert F., Olsen P.I. Boundary Objects in Network Interactions. Industrial Marketing Management, 2018. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.04.006  (accessed 10.08.2018).
38. Slaughter R. The IT Revolution Reassessed Part Two: Case Studies and Implications. Futures, 2018, vol. 98, pp. 19-31.
39. Zuboff S. Big Other. Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects for an Information Civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 2015, vol. l30, pp. 75-89.
40. Drucker P. The Concept of the Corporation. 1993. New York, Routledge, 1946. 329 p.
41. Aoki M. Corporations in Evolving Diversity. Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press, 2010. 244 p.
42. Bresnahan T., Brynjolfsson E., Hitt L. Information Technology, Workplace Organization, and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence. NBER Working Paper no. 7136, 1999, May. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7136  (accessed 05.08.2018).
43. Acemoglu D., Aghion P., Lelarge C., van Reenen J., Zilibotti F. Technology, Information and the Decentralization of the Firm. NBER Working Paper no. 12206, 2006, April. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12206  (accessed 05.08.2018).
44. Bloom N., Garicano L., Sadun R., van Reenen J. The Distinct Effects of Information Technology and Communication Technology on Firm Organization. NBER Working Paper no. 14975, 2009, May. Available at: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/17417216/bloom,garicano,sadun,et-al_the-distinct-effects-of-it%20and%20communication.pdf?sequence=1  (accessed 05.08.2018).
45. Bloom N., Sadun R., van Reenen J. The Organization of Firms across Countries. NBER Working Paper no. 15129, 2009, July. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15129  (accessed 05.08.2018).
46. Rozanova N.M., Varivoda I.A. Menedzhment v KhKhI veke: k gibkim formam upravleniya i organizatsii. Vestnik instituta ehkonomiki RAN, 2018, № 3, cs. 78-90. [Rozanova N.M., Varivoda I.A. Menedzment v XXI veke: k gibkim formam upravleniya i organizatsii [Management in the 21st century: to flexible forms of management and organization]. Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki RAN, 2018, no. 3, pp. 78-90.]
47. Samdantsoodol A., Cang S., Yu H., Eardley A. Predicting the Relationships between Virtual Enterprises and Agility in Supply Chains. Expert Systems with Applications, 2017, vol. 84, pp. 58-73.
48. Yang S., Nam C., Kim S. The Effects of M&As within the Mobile Ecosystem on the Rival’s Shareholder Value: The Case of Google and Apple. Telecommunications Policy, 2017. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.07.004  (accessed 08.08.2018).
49. Teece D. Dynamic Capabilities and Entrepreneurial Management in Large Organizations: Toward a Theory of the (Entrepreneurial) Firm. European Economic Review, 2016, vol. 86, pp. 202-216.
50. Ryzhikov V. Pochemu v Rossii tak i ne nachalas' tsifrovaya revolyutsiya. Forbes Russia, 04.12.2018. [Ryzikov V. Pochemy v Rossii tak i ne nachalas chifrovaya revolutchiya? [Why has digital revolution in Russia not begun?] Forbes Russia, 04.12.2018.] Available at: http://www.forbes.ru/tehnologii/369891-pochemu-v-rossii-tak-i-ne-nachalas-cifrovaya-revolyuciya  (accessed 04.12.2018).
51. Fally T., Hillberry R. A Coasian Model of International Production Chains. NBER Working Paper 21520, 2015, September. Available at: https://are.berkeley.edu/~fally/Papers/FallyHillberry_JIE.pdf  (accessed 10.08.2018).
52. Bernard A., Moxnes A., Saito Y. Production Networks, Geography and Firm Performance. NBER Working Paper no. 21082, 2015, April. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21082  (accessed 10.08.2018).
53. Alfaro L., Antras P., Chor D., Conconi P. Internalizing Global Value Chains: A Firm-Level Analysis. NBER Working Paper no. 21582, 2015, September. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21582  (accessed 08.08.2018).
54. Bernard A., Jensen J.B., Redding S., Schott P. Global Firms. NBER Working Paper no. 22727, 2016, October. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22727  (accessed 08.08.2018).

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up