IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v19y2017i2p132-149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open or Closed? Technology Sharing, Supplier Investment, and Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Bin Hu

    (Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599)

  • Ming Hu

    (Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada)

  • Yi Yang

    (School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310027, China)

Abstract

Competing technologies in emerging industries create uncertainties that discourage supplier investments. Open technology can induce supplier investments, but may also lead to intensified future competition. In this paper, we study competing manufacturers’ open-technology strategies. We show that despite the risk of intensifying future competition, open technologies by competing manufacturers may constitute an equilibrium and can indeed induce supplier investments. In addition, we identify a technology-risk-pooling benefit; namely, by opening technologies, competing manufacturers can induce supplier investments in both technologies and later adopt the one preferred by the market. However, manufacturers may also exhibit the prisoner’s dilemma and close their technologies despite the risk-pooling benefit. In this case, there is potential for collaborative technology sharing through cross licensing. Finally, we show that manufacturers may sometimes close their technologies to force supplier investments.

Suggested Citation

  • Bin Hu & Ming Hu & Yi Yang, 2017. "Open or Closed? Technology Sharing, Supplier Investment, and Competition," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 132-149, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:19:y:2017:i:2:p:132-149
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2016.0598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2016.0598
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2016.0598?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Onur Boyabatlı & L. Beril Toktay, 2011. "Stochastic Capacity Investment and Flexible vs. Dedicated Technology Choice in Imperfect Capital Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(12), pages 2163-2179, December.
    2. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Gastón Llanes, 2011. "Mixed Source," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1212-1230, July.
    3. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2005. "The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 99-120, Spring.
    4. V. Krishnan & Shantanu Bhattacharya, 2002. "Technology Selection and Commitment in New Product Development: The Role of Uncertainty and Design Flexibility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(3), pages 313-327, March.
    5. Wenbin Wang & Mark E. Ferguson & Shanshan Hu & Gilvan C. Souza, 2013. "Dynamic Capacity Investment with Two Competing Technologies," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 616-629, October.
    6. Nicholas Economides & Evangelos Katsamakas, 2006. "Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1057-1071, July.
    7. Manu Goyal & Serguei Netessine, 2007. "Strategic Technology Choice and Capacity Investment Under Demand Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 192-207, February.
    8. Laurens G. Debo & L. Beril Toktay & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2005. "Market Segmentation and Product Technology Selection for Remanufacturable Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(8), pages 1193-1205, August.
    9. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    10. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Pankaj Ghemawat, 2006. "Dynamic Mixed Duopoly: A Model Motivated by Linux vs. Windows," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1072-1084, July.
    11. Sanjiv Erat & Stylianos Kavadias, 2006. "Introduction of New Technologies to Competing Industrial Customers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1675-1688, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li-Hao Zhang & Shan-Shan Wang, 2022. "Strategic analysis of RFID adoption sequences in a supply chain with Cournot competition: effects of ordering-timing strategies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 315(2), pages 2169-2208, August.
    2. Baozhuang Niu & Kanglin Chen & Lei Chen & Chao Ding & Xiaohang Yue, 2021. "Strategic Waiting for Disruption Forecasts in Cross‐Border E‐Commerce Operations," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(9), pages 2840-2857, September.
    3. Li, Yongjian & Bai, Xuanming & Xue, Kelei, 2020. "Business modes in the sharing economy: How does the OEM cooperate with third-party sharing platforms?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    4. Chen, Junlong & Sun, Chaoqun & Shi, Jiayan & Liu, Jiali, 2022. "Technology R&D and sharing in carbon emission reduction in a duopoly," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    5. Wenjie Tang & Tong Wang & Wenxin Xu, 2022. "Sooner or Later? The Role of Adoption Timing in New Technology Introduction," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(4), pages 1663-1678, April.
    6. Arkadiusz Świadek & Jadwiga Gorączkowska & Karolina Godzisz, 2021. "Conditions Driving Low-Carbon Innovation in a Medium-Sized European Country That Is Catching Up–Case Study of Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Xu, Hongyan & Liu, Xiaomin & Huang, He, 2023. "Information sharing and order allocation rule in dual-sourcing," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Qing Zhang & Juan Li & Tiaojun Xiao, 2022. "Contract design for technology sharing between two farmers," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 314(2), pages 677-707, July.
    9. Bin Hu & Yunke Mai & Saša Pekeč, 2020. "Managing Innovation Spillover in Outsourcing," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(10), pages 2252-2267, October.
    10. Jasper Veldman & Edward Anderson & Niels J. Pulles & Gerard Gaalman, 2023. "Developing a shared supplier with endogenous spillovers," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(3), pages 723-739, March.
    11. Huang, Qiuping & Zhao, Xiande & Yeung, KwanHo & Ma, Lijun & Yeung, Jeff Hoi-yan, 2021. "Effects of information-processing mechanisms on Internet-based purchase order financing," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    12. Zhang, Qi & Zhu, Xide & Lin, Gui-Hua, 2024. "Green technological licensing strategies with fixed-fee among rival firms under emissions trading scheme," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 318(1), pages 110-130.
    13. Chen, Xu & Wang, Xiaojun & Zhou, Mingmei, 2019. "Firms’ green R&D cooperation behaviour in a supply chain: Technological spillover, power and coordination," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 118-134.
    14. Liu, Lu & Feng, Lipan & Jiang, Tao & Zhang, Qian, 2021. "The impact of supply chain competition on the introduction of clean development mechanisms," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eric Darmon & Dominique Torre, 2010. "Open source, dual licensing and software compétition," Post-Print halshs-00497623, HAL.
    2. Llanes, Gastón & de Elejalde, Ramiro, 2013. "Industry equilibrium with open-source and proprietary firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 36-49.
    3. Luigi Di Gaetano, 2015. "A Model of corporate donations to open source under hardware–software complementarity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 163-190.
    4. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Gastón Llanes, 2011. "Mixed Source," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1212-1230, July.
    5. Wei Zhang & Hsiao-Hui Lee, 2022. "Investment Strategies for Sourcing a New Technology in the Presence of a Mature Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4631-4644, June.
    6. Chung‐Hui Chou, 2023. "Does possessing an installed base induce a proprietary software producer to act aggressively or mildly in pricing and intrinsic quality provision?," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 70(2), pages 133-143, May.
    7. Tesoriere, Antonio & Balletta, Luigi, 2017. "A dynamic model of open source vs proprietary R&D," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 221-239.
    8. Jiajia Cong & Wen Zhou, 2020. "Inflexible Repositioning: Commitment in Competition and Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 4207-4225, September.
    9. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    10. Vineet Kumar & Brett R. Gordon & Kannan Srinivasan, 2011. "Competitive Strategy for Open Source Software," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1066-1078, November.
    11. Chung‐Hui Chou, 2021. "Could coexistence of open‐source and proprietary platforms be an equilibrium outcome?," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 89(3), pages 297-309, June.
    12. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    13. Bitzer, Jürgen & Geishecker, Ingo, 2010. "Who contributes voluntarily to OSS? An investigation among German IT employees," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 165-172, February.
    14. Gauguier, Jean-Jacques, 2009. "L’industrialisation de l’Open Source," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/4388 edited by Toledano, Joëlle.
    15. Luigi Balletta & Antonio Tesoriere, 2020. "Cumulative innovation, open source, and distance to frontier," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(6), pages 1875-1920, December.
    16. Terrence August & Hyoduk Shin & Tunay I. Tunca, 2018. "Generating Value Through Open Source: Software Service Market Regulation and Licensing Policy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 186-205, March.
    17. Alexia Gaudeul, 2008. "Consumer Welfare and Market Structure in a Model of Competition between Open Source and Proprietary Software," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2008-31, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    18. Wu, Cheng-Han, 2015. "Strategic and operational decisions under sales competition and collection competition for end-of-use products in remanufacturing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 11-20.
    19. Ma, Xin & Talluri, Srinivas & Ferguson, Mark & Tiwari, Sunil, 2022. "Strategic production and responsible sourcing decisions under an emissions trading scheme," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1429-1443.
    20. Burcu Tan & Edward G. Anderson, Jr. & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2020. "Platform Pricing and Investment to Drive Third-Party Value Creation in Two-Sided Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 217-239, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:19:y:2017:i:2:p:132-149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.