国外营销论文97Chen_1996_AMR.pdf

c Academy of Management Review 1996, Vol. 21, No. 1, 100-134. COMPETITOR ANALYSIS AND INTERFIRM RIVALRY: TOWARD A THEORETICAL INTEGRATION MING-JER CHEN Columbia University This article bridges two important subjects in strategy: competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry. Through a refined conceptualization of competitor analysis, the article introduces two firm-specific, theory- based constructs: market commonality, developed from the literature on multiple-point competition, and resource similarity, derived from the resource-based theory of the firm. The joint consideration of these two constructs shows the complementarity of these two prominent but contrasting strategy theories. Each firm has a unique market profile and strategic resource endowment, and a pair-wise comparison with a given competitor along these two dimensions will help to illuminate the prebattle competitive tension between these two firms and to pre- dict how a focal firm may interact with each of its competitors. The idea of competitive asymmetry is introduced, that is, the notion that a given pair of firms may not pose an equal degree of threat to each other. To illustrate competitor mapping, measures of these two con- structs are proposed, and an example is offered. The article ends with a number of implications for research and practice. The study of competitor analysis (Hamel Porac Porter, 1980, 1985; Zajac D'Aveni, 1994; MacMillan, McCaffery, Smith, Grimm, Porter, 1980; Scherer McGee Weitz, 1985). For exam- ple, how can researchers studying competition differentiate among play- ers in an industry to explain each player's market behaviors? How can a firm, before launching an attack, assess its prebattle relationship with a given rival and the resultant likelihood that this rival would retaliate? How can a firm gauge which opponent is most likely to attack its markets? How can strategists differentiate among a set of competitors to allow the firm to allocate appropriate resources and attention to each? Finally, although the importance of competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry is well recognized, there has been no systematic attempt to integrate the two topics. This article seeks to provide a conceptual link by proposing two firm- specific, theory-based constructs: the market commonality and the re- source similarity between a given pair of competitors. Taking the firm as the basis for analysis, I argue that each firm has a unique market profile and resource endowment and that a comparison with a given competitor along these two dimensions will help to illuminate the competitive rela- tionship between them and to predict how they may attack (or respond to) each other in the market. This firm-specific conceptualization also leads 102 Academy of Management Review January to the idea of competitive asymmetry, the notion that a given pair of firms may not pose an equal threat to each other. I first offer a number of propositions that use market commonality and resource similarity to pre- dict competitive attack and response. I also propose measures to assess market commonality and resource similarity along with a demonstration of how such measures could be implemented. The article ends with a number of implications for research and practice. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Competitor Analysis: An Overview Several streams of research have addressed, directly or indirectly, the question of competitor analysis for firms within an industry. Strategy researchers have drawn extensively from industrial organization (IO) eco- nomics (Barney, 1986; Porter, 1980), which holds that firms that exist in the same industry are de facto competitors. This assumption has been chal- lenged by strategic-group literature, whereby authors argue that there are different groups of firms within an industry and that firms are homo- geneous within groups, along a set of strategic attributes, and heteroge- neous between groups.' The strategic-group approach helps one recognize the significance of strategic posture, which is likely to reveal how a firm may be capable of competing in an industry. From the perspective of predicting rivalry, the exclusive emphasis on homogeneity of strategic posture imposes a con- straint. Without examining a firm's strategic attributes in the market(s) where it actually interacts with others, one has little idea against whom it competes directly: Many firms may not be direct or primary competitors because of a different market focus. Two firms will have little motivation to engage each other competitively if they have limited markets in com- mon. Thus, though most strategic-group theorists do not claim to be iden- tifying “competitors,“ a point raised explicitly by Hatten and Hatten (1987), this approach is nevertheless frequently applied to competitor analysis, with problematic results. Some studies unquestioningly rely upon the premise that “when a company chooses to。