企业创新战略外文翻译文献

合集下载

中国技术创新战略英文文献

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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】

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

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]。

企业品牌战略研究的论文外文文献及中文翻译

企业品牌战略研究的论文外文文献及中文翻译

Brand Strategy ResearchResource: Kapferer, J.H Strategic Brand Management[J]. Kogan Page, LondonEconomic globalization, how to adapt to international trends, establish a strong brand and enhance our competitiveness, have become pressing issues facing enterprises. Based on the analysis of the development of corporate marketing brand strategy, based on the content of brand strategy an its functional significance, to discuss the brand strategy in enterprise marketing role. Enterprise needs to use a variety of means of competition to increase brand awareness, improve brand positioning, an create a good brand image.First, Japanese brands across the board defeatNovember 22, 2022 morning, NEC announced that it would withdraw from 2G and 2.5G mobile phone market, which means that, following Sharp, Panasonic, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Sanyo, a Japanese mobile phone manufacturers later withdraw from the Chinese market, Japanese mobile phone has almost all except Kyocera 2G mobile phone market in China out of contention.If we sum up the Chinese household appliance market, today any different from ten years ago, I think the biggest difference is that Japanese companies in China, Japanese home appliance market downturn, thefollowing main reasons: First, rigid enterprise system, decision-making difficult, the reaction was slow, incompatible with the reality of the Chinese market, it is difficult to adapt to the rapidly changing Chinese market; 2 is weak in marketing, product planning capacity is not strong, it is difficult to judge according to their marker launch to meet consumer demand and forecast products, follow the trend has been in a passive situation, can not satisfy market demand; Third, failure to grasp the industry best time to transition is the Japanese home appliance companies lose an important reason for market dominance .Japanese companies come to the edge in the Chinese market is causing companies tothink deeply about our nation? To take the international route and whether the enterprise of “Japanese Company” to the lessons learned behind?Second, the brand strategy implementation in China the Current SituationMany old famous “flash in the pan”Chinese and foreign enterprises in the Chinese market the brand war; just grow up to be a great impact on national brands. The last century, a little-known 80’s brand, not being registered by trademark, is to be acquired, squeeze, even if the residue is hard going down really developed very limited. Here a typical case, the last century 80s to early 90s, he worked in air conditioning sector hit wonders of the Warburg in 1998, wasacquired Kelon, the subsequent decline in brand image is repeated. Brand strategy has been an increasing emphasis on domestic enterprises caused the government to support.Since the 80s of last century reform and opening up, China’s socialist economic construction has made remarkable achievements. From a planned economy to market economy era Chinese companies, brand management has grown out of nothing.Information, local governments at all levels of emphasis on brand-name, organization promoting the efforts, policies measures have greatly enhanced Qinghai, Shenzhen, Wuhan, Ningbo, Shenyang and other cities on the Chinese famous enterprises incentives to 100 million, on Dali an 3 million Yuan, on brand-name companies have been cities for the 100000yuan reward-200000yuan..January 8th 2022 year to January11th,the 40th International Consumer Electronics Show(CES) in Las Vegas Venetian hotel opening. National enterprises in the CES, we achieve superior results.It is understood that this year there are 4000 people registered to participate in China CES, including manufacturers, media and spectators, in the exhibition hall, there are 327 exhibitors. Haier is the world’s most authoritative consumer electronics industry media “TWICE” named for the Chinese consumer electronics brand.3.The status of foreign brands in most sectors is still difficult to shakeHowever, we should also see the face of numerous products on the market, allows consumers blurted out genuinely few domestic brands. With the opening up further, to a number of big companies have to squeeze into the Chinese market, Chinese market, a time filled with “Sony”, “Coca-Cola”, “Rejoice”, “Benz” and various other international brands, many of these names foreign brands violently hitting the national brand in China .Although the appliance industry, led by Haier brand, “Konka” , “Changhong” , “TCL” and other domestic brands have developed well, but with the “Sony” , “Panasonic” “Samsung” and other brands, they are still there competitive disadvantage; in the IT industry, “Lenovo” , “Founder” , “Great Wall” and the brand’s competitiveness has improved significantly, but with Europe and the United States, Japan and other countries compared to, brand awareness is still insufficient; in Consumer Goods market, “P&G”, “Oliver” , “Henkel” , and other international companies have formed the three pillars.Third, the brand strategy implementation in China Problems and Errors Currently, Chinese brands have a huge international marker opportunity and space for international brands has been inevitable, but there are also brand building is not unsatisfactory.Our Enterprise Brand Building ProblemsFactors from the point of micro-enterprises themselves: there is a lace of technology development, brand competitiveness is not strong; brandpersonality, lack of innovation and development capacity; small-scale production and management, brand development lack of overall planning; ability of weak exports and international operations, Brand awareness is not strong; brand positioning is not clear, there is a large range of factors such as blindness. Speaking from the macro social factors: social mechanisms need to be improved, policies and regulations support the need to further strengthen the country’s industrial policy, export-oriented policies for different sectors play different role in the promotion and limitation, the financial environment for business investment capacity and market expansion ability and the important influence. The establishment of market system in China has for many years, despite a significant improvement but still not perfect, there still has not really adapt to the market economy, consumer psychology has not yet fully mature.2. The current situation of global economic integration, the error of the brand strategy implementation(1) Ignore the brand investment, profit-orientedBackground of economic globalization, international competition is increasingly reflected in the brand’s competition, the overwhelming majority of the modern world famous multinational companies with particular emphasis on the use of brand strategy, brand such a full range of output through the form of multinational corporations gradually occupation of the international market, it is no exaggeration to say that now, the brandhas achieved global strategic objectives of transnational corporations sharp weapon, is an important means to achieve capital expansion.Rome was not built in a day cold. Brand never be in the short term invented to be a long process of accumulation. Many enterprises do not clearly recognize this point, attempt to create a brand in a short time, but ignored the long-term planning and strategy.(2) Brand strategy is a systematicThe implementation of brand strategy is a systematic, enterprise strategy and the overall development of an important component of competitive strategy. The implementation of brand strategy is to rely on their overall quality and overall image enhancement, the need for scientific management idea and superb operational skills, but quit a few brand planner in this regard was particularly poor performance and immediate impact brand development, practical work in the emergence of many such errors: If that job is to create a brand to take a good name to the product, improve product awareness, or what the product packaging; good brand is drawing a satisfactory visual signs only; Advertising is the only way to cultivate well-known brands, in addition to advertising in the media, big, the other no attention; scale enterprise product once formed, well-known brands on the naturally established; well-known brand is equivalent to high price, to be unrealistically improve the product price. Some companies even go further in the brand Wrong Operation not hesitate to give up theirown brand business, with foreign companies, brands, or to sell its own brand low-cost transfer, such as our present more than 20 million “three capital” enterprises, there 90% of the joint venture using the foreign brands; clean silver toothpaste factory in Ghuangzhou to 2 million yuan cheap to transfer to joint ventures and other brands, is one such outstanding example of the terrible consequences of today has become increasingly apparent-lost domestic enterprises own brand, product and intellectual property rights, national industrial competitiveness lie!(3) Product is the enterprise competitive advantage in the market can be quickly imitated by competitors, beyond, the brand is insurmountable, real and lasting competitive advantage comes from innovation, in order to “change” should be “ status quo”Brand is the concentrated expression of the core competitiveness. The market is constantly changing face of any brand at any time to be out of danger. Too much emphasis on the existing achievements, do not attach importance to innovation, leading to a lot of brand-name “dismount” the major reason. Coca-Cola’s former chief marketing officer Sergio Zyman, “The brand is only the company logo products and services are different from competitors, is the most effective weapon to open up the market, excellent brand can make your product stand out . ” Products physical properties, quantity, price, quality, service is very easy to imitate competitors, Er brands, along with the product itself, also includes anattached product to cultural background, emotional, consumer cognition invisible things, so that enterprises Yong Yuan Li in the competition undefeated. Consumer awareness deciding the fate of the brand has a direct impact on consumer awareness. Brand is the difference between the market enterprise important symbols is the benchmark for consumer spending to brand as the core has become a corporate restructuring and reallocation of resources an important mechanism.Fourth, national enterprises in brand internationalization process of how to brand positioningBacked by science and technology, establish a “quality first, winning by quality”business philosophy, the brand’s fashion elements, the outstanding individualProduct quality is the cornerstone of creating brand. Competitiveness of their products performance in the competition for the brand, and brand competition while relying on the inherent quality of products. Growth for the brand through a brand is the quality of a brand in the market down are also in most of a problem because of the quality. Therefore, it can be said, quality is the brand of life depends.In addition, enterprises should learn from successful experiences abroad to enhance their design and development capability. Enterprises should dare to challenge the new technology revolution to create their own brand, and increase market competitiveness; we must work hard in thetransformation. Personalization trend in the world changes, the value of customer experience and the value of differentiation has been directly determined to achieve the final product sales, personal services are indispensable!2. To strengthen marketing, improve brand awareness, brand strategy will be organically integrated in their overall strategy to promote the overall development strategyThe implementation of brand marketing is an important part of the strategy. By choosing the right marketing approach can be effectively used to brand a household name brand, expand market share. Brand strategy is not an isolated task, but the overall development strategy and business are closely related. A successful brand names more than just a brand its own thing, related to business management of all major strategic decision, these major strategic decisions were consciously carried out around the brand to expand.3. Follow the laws of the brand design, brand image, brand and accurate market positioning, brand performance and outstanding value emotional communicationBrand competition is not all-round competition; each brand has its own market position. The basic method is not positioning to create a novel or unique issues, but to manipulate what already exists in the heart, the eyes of potential customers to buy soon tapped desire to make it into consumerimpulse. Enterprises should take the market as guide, technology as a means to adapt to changes in its requirements, such as the establishment of information feedback system to collect information about changes in consumer, and constantly develop new products, provide consumers with personalized service, and meet the consumers to make their own in a good position in the competition.The world has entered the 21st century brand international competition, branding has become a new international language into millions of households. To establish the brand products in the market position establish a corporate image, is effective competition in the market means business. Brand is the core product; brand marketing is to defy the other. Enterprise management system must be adopted, technological innovation, and constantly improve the quality of products and services. At the same time to increase the international competitiveness of the strategic brand research and planning, and the comprehensive to enhance the brand’s international competitiveness. Most Chinese enterprises in the growth stage now, brand strength is weak, it is undoubted fact, however, based on industry, market and enterprise resources, while avoiding disadvantages, choose the best brand strategy is a wise choice. Such as is now more prevalent and has a well-known brand outside the company’s co-production, reverse merger; use the link strategy to redefine the brand image; with two or more brands collaborate effectively formed alliances to improve their social acceptanceof such brand. In short choose the right brand strategy, brand marketing creativety and attention to service; in order to achieve a sensational effect and a strong brand impact, can the brand maintain vigor, forest stand in the world brand.11。

外文文献翻译

外文文献翻译

两级分离的热管式换热器在载人航天器乘员舱环境控制中的应用David B. Sarraf摘要:目前环境控制的热管理系统采用一二回路,其存在潜在的有害物质氨和氟利昂,两器安排在热循环阶段。

但是这种隔离方法不是容错,也不提供换热器泄露预警。

一个热管换热器在发展中提高现有的系统并提供两级分离之间的流体流。

新的热交换器容错和可提供的泄露预警。

本文介绍了换热器的设计,测试结果,从一个小规模的换热器段开始,到最后的结果设计优化与贸易研究。

1引言环境控制系统在载人飞船的一个关键功能是从机组散热。

必须改变原有方法使引入危险液体很少或没有风险或材料进入乘员舱就发生失效或故障。

航天飞机和空间站目前使用的系统是两流体环和两个热交换器。

空气从热的一面换热器加热后通过乘员舱转移到水环。

那水循环运动的第二换热,然后热量基于氟利昂21(飞机)或氨(空间站)传递到外部循环泵系统。

在外环的氟利昂或氨通过散热板作为循环的最终热井。

外环流体传动需要一二换热器系统。

即使船员吸入少量的气体,也是很危险的。

小批量的氨气有难闻的气味,在稍大量会刺激或损伤黏膜如眼睛和呼吸系统,两氨和氟利昂可以取代空气引起窒息。

问题是由流体具有低沸点,流体泄露的液体会很容易扩展到气体几百倍甚至更大的体积。

两环系统可以提供隔离以及泄露警告,换热器需要两表面同时被破坏氨才可以达到乘员舱。

由于水循环周期性采样,换热器出现一个漏洞前氨桥第二换热器会变的很明显。

系统还提供了氨与乘员舱的物理隔离系统。

管道和水循环使氨器被放置足够远的距离之外,在氨系统泄露时不能到达乘员舱。

虽然这个系统提供回路之间的隔离和泄露预警,但这不是理想的。

隔离障碍可以被适度的泄露。

如果一个氨泄露并大量进入水环,它将排入除氧器,由水循环部分进入船员舱。

同时,该系统无法立即区分大和一个小的泄露。

相反,次要指标如在氨蓄电池液面必须监测。

由于现有系统的缺点和外环流体的危险性,合成氨换热器需要添加容错侧,其本身就会为流体回路之间提供两级隔离和泄露预警。

企业可持续发展研究外文文献翻译2014年译文3000多字

企业可持续发展研究外文文献翻译2014年译文3000多字

企业可持续发展研究外文文献翻译2014年译文3000多字XXX essential for its sustained。

stable。

and healthy growth。

as well as for prolonging XXX。

it is vital for the development of the enterprise and the improvement of the natural environment。

leading to the n of social development。

This article XXX enterprises。

analyzes the XXX。

XXX.Key words: Enterprise XXX。

key factors。

countermeasures.n:Enterprises in the process of development must adhere toXXX will increase market share and guarantee profit growth。

At the same time。

it is XXX。

By using natural resources and energy in a reasonable way。

enterprises XXX increase profits and expand their scale。

This will XXX.Enterprise XXX。

it XXX。

It is essential to ensure the sustained use of natural resources and energy while also XXX。

and every enterprise must walk the path of XXX.The assurance of long-term economic benefits is possible only through XXX development。

企业绿色创新研究外文文献翻译

企业绿色创新研究外文文献翻译

企业绿色创新研究外文文献翻译本文旨在介绍企业绿色创新研究的主题和目的。

研究背景本文旨在介绍企业绿色创新研究的主题和目的。

研究背景企业绿色创新是指企业在产品开发、生产流程和经营模式等方面,采用环境友好型的技术、管理和创新方式,以实现可持续发展的目标。

随着全球环境问题的日益严重和消费者环保意识的增强,企业绿色创新已经成为许多企业必须面临的重要议题。

企业绿色创新是指企业在产品开发、生产流程和经营模式等方面,采用环境友好型的技术、管理和创新方式,以实现可持续发展的目标。

随着全球环境问题的日益严重和消费者环保意识的增强,企业绿色创新已经成为许多企业必须面临的重要议题。

当前,全球生态环境面临严重威胁,气候变化、资源短缺、环境污染等问题已经引起了广泛关注。

政府和社会各界对企业的环保责任提出了更高的要求。

在这种背景下,企业绿色创新成为推动经济可持续发展的重要途径。

企业绿色创新不仅可以减少对环境的负面影响,还可以提高企业的竞争力。

绿色创新可以通过节约资源、降低能耗和减少废物排放等方式,实现企业的经济增长和环境保护的双赢。

因此,研究企业绿色创新的背景和重要性对于推动企业可持续发展具有重要意义,这不仅有助于理解企业绿色创新的内涵和特点,还可以提供指导和借鉴经验,促进企业绿色创新的实践和发展。

研究内容本研究将涵盖以下内容和方法:绿色创新的概念与特征:探讨绿色创新的定义,包括其在企业环境中的特点和重要性。

绿色创新的驱动因素:分析影响企业进行绿色创新的因素,包括政策和法规、市场需求、技术进步等。

绿色创新的实施策略:研究企业进行绿色创新的策略和方法,包括产品开发、生产过程优化、资源利用等。

绿色创新的效益评估:评估绿色创新对企业的经济、环境和社会效益,并探讨评估方法和指标。

绿色创新的成功案例:介绍一些在绿色创新实施方面取得成功的企业案例,以便其他企业借鉴。

通过对以上研究内容的深入探讨,本研究旨在为企业绿色创新提供理论和实践的支持,促进可持续发展。

关于企业创新的英文作文

关于企业创新的英文作文

关于企业创新的英文作文Innovation is the lifeblood of any successful enterprise. It is the driving force behind growth, competitiveness, and adaptability in today's fast-paced business environment. Without innovation, companies risk becoming stagnant and being left behind by their more innovative competitors.Innovation is not just about coming up with new ideas; it is about implementing those ideas and bringing them to market. It requires a willingness to take risks, to challenge the status quo, and to embrace change. Innovation is about thinking outside the box and finding new ways to solve problems and meet customer needs.One of the key ingredients for fostering innovation in an organization is a culture that encourages and rewards creativity. This means creating an environment where employees feel empowered to share their ideas, take risks, and learn from failure. It also means providing thenecessary resources and support for innovation to thrive, such as dedicated time for brainstorming and experimentation, access to cutting-edge technology, and opportunities for professional development.Another important factor in driving innovation is collaboration. Innovation rarely happens in isolation; it requires the input and expertise of multiple stakeholders. This could include employees from different departments or teams, external partners, customers, and even competitors. By bringing together diverse perspectives and knowledge, companies can generate new insights and ideas that may not have been possible otherwise.Innovation also requires a customer-centric approach.It is not enough to simply come up with new products or services; they must also meet the needs and desires of customers. This means understanding their pain points, listening to their feedback, and continuously iterating and improving based on their input. By putting the customer at the center of the innovation process, companies can ensure that their offerings are relevant, valuable, and in demand.Lastly, innovation is not a one-time event; it is an ongoing process. It requires a commitment to continuous learning, experimentation, and improvement. Companies that are successful at innovation are those that are constantly seeking new opportunities, adapting to changing market conditions, and staying ahead of the curve. They understand that innovation is not a destination, but a journey that requires constant effort and dedication.In conclusion, innovation is essential for the success and survival of any enterprise. It requires a culture of creativity, collaboration, customer-centricity, and continuous improvement. By embracing innovation, companies can stay competitive, drive growth, and create value for their customers and stakeholders.。

外文翻译--创新的源泉

外文翻译--创新的源泉

毕业论文外文翻译外文题目:THE SOURCES OF INNOV ATION出处:University of California作者:Eric von Hippel1 overviewIt has long been assumed that product innovations are typically developed by product manufacturers. Because this assumption deals with the basic matter of who the innovator is, it has inevitably had a major impact on innovation-related research, on firms' management of research and development, and on government innovation policy .However, it now appears that this basic assumption is often wrong.In this book I begin by presenting a series of studies showing that the sources of innovation vary greatly.In some fields, innovation users develop most innovations. In others, suppliers of innovation-related components and materials are the typical sources of innovation.In still other fields, conventional wisdom holds and product manufacturers are indeed the typical innovators. Next, I explore why this variation in the functional sources of innovation occurs and how it might be predicted.Finally, I propose and test some implications of replacing a manufacturer-as-innovator assumption with a view of the innovation process as predictably distributed across users, manufacturers,suppliers, and others.2 variations in the Functional Source of InnovationWe have seen that users sometimes innovate. But do they always? Or does the functional source of innovation vary in some manner between users, manufacturers, suppliers, and others? To be able to answer these questions, we must have data on the sources of innovation characteristic of at least a few more types of innovation. Therefore, my students and I undertook the six brief studies I will describe in this chapter.Each of the six studies examines a different type of innovation. The first four I will review consider innovation categories chosen to match my own areas of technicalknowledge and those of the graduate students participating in our project. The choice of topics for the last two studies I will review was made on a different basis, which I will spell out when discussing them.Each study uses identical methods, so that their results are commensurable, and each is tightly focused on a single issue: What are the sources of innovation? These studies find that the functional source of innovation differs strikingly across the several types of product and process innovation Ihave explored.Manufacturers as Innovators: The Tractor ShovelThe tractor shovel is a very useful machine often used in the construction industry. Initial conversations with experts in construction led us to suspect that users would in fact be innovators in tractor shovels. Everyone had a story to tell about a construction firm that, facing an unusual challenge and a tight deadline, performed an overnight modification to some item of constructionequipment that solved the problem and saved the day. In fact, however, tractor shovel manufacturers turned out to be the dominant source of commerdally successful tractor shovel innovations.The tractor shovel can be visualized as a four-wheeled, rubber-tired machine with a large, movable scoop mounted at the front end. It is normally used for excavation and other construction tasks as well as for the general handling of bulk materials, ranging from coal to chemicals to soybeans. Householders who live in states with severe winters may have a clear visual image of tractor shovels: They are typically the machines that dig out roads after ordinary trucks have been halted bydeep snow.Tractor shovels are built in many sizes. Today, one can find large tractor shovels with massive, 20 cu-yd scoops working in open-pit mines loading ore into trucks; one can also find small tractor shovels working in warehouses shifting various materials from place to place 1 cu yd at a time.Approximately 41,000 tractor shovels of all sizes were manufactured in the United States in 1980, with an aggregate value of $1.5 billion dollars.The SampleThe basic tractor shovel was developed in 1939. The sample consists of that basic innovation plus all significant improvements to the tractor shovel commercialized prior to 1970.4 The major improvements category in Table 3-3 consists of innovations that are installed in virtually all tractor shovels and that are of value to essentially all users. For example, articulation, an innovation that hinges the tractor shovel in the middle and greatly improves steering and traction, is valuable to essentially all users and is now incorporated in almost all tractor shovels. In contrast, the special-purpose accessories listed are innovations that are only of value in some specialized tasks. Thus, the lengthened boom arms are used primarily by those who load high-sided trucks, whereas the log grapples are primarily used by lumber companies in their logging operations. Of course, many other special-purpose accessories exist, ranging from asphalt payers to snow blowers. The five chosen for study serve relatively large user groups.Finding :The Sources of Tractor Shovel InnovationAs can clearly be seen in Table 3-4, almost all of the innovations studied were developed by tractor shovel manufacturers. In two instances these innovating manufacturers were what is known in the trade as allied manufacturers or allied vendors. These are firms that make a specialty of manufacturing attachments for tractor shovels and similar machines. Sometimes they are simply equipment dealers who run a small manufacturing operation on the side.(Tractor shovel manufacturers will often cooperate with such firms because the accessories they build enhance the utility of the basic tractor shovel by tailoring it to various specialized users.Only one innovation studied was completely developed by a user: the attachment coupler system, which was developed by a farmer for use on his farm. But users did some innovation work related to some of the other special attachments studied (see the appendix).For example, before steel-shod tires were developed by a manufacturer (they are used to protect tractor shovel tires from cuts),some tractor shovel users were protecting the tires of their machines by wrapping them with heavy steel chains.Manufacturers as Innovators: Engineering Thermoplastics Engineering plastics are triumphs of organic chemistry and most were created after World War II. The term engineering plastic simply means a plastic that can be used in demanding engineering applications. Examples of such applicadons are parts placed under mechanical stress or mechanical shock (e.g.,gears or mallet heads) or parts placed in demanding temperatures and/or chemical environments (e.g.,parts used in automobile engines).Prior to the advent of engineering plastics, such parts could only have been made of a material like metal or glass. Now they can often be made better and more cheaply from plastic.All engineering plastics are produced in low volume but with a relatively high selling price when judged against such bulk plastics as polyethylene. In 1976engineering plastics counted for about 2% by but accounted for about 6% of the total value volume of all plastics produced of all plastics produced.sThe SampleThe sample of engineering plastics innovations consists of all commercially successful engineering thermoplastic monomers* introduced to the market after 1955 that achieved sales of at least 10 million lbs annually by 1975.(This definition of commercial success was suggested by plastics manufacturer interviewees.) The five engineering thermoplastics innovations that met these sample selection criteria are identified in Table 3-5.Findings: The Sources of Engineering Thermoplastics InnovationAs can be seen in Table 3-6, "four and one-half" of the five engineeringplastics in the sample were developed by plastics manufacturers. Thus, this very small sample shows a strong manufacturer-as-innovator pattern.The innovation coded as 50% user developed and 50% manufacturer developed was polycarbonate resin (Lexan),which was developed by General Electric in 1960. GE is both a major producer and a major user of polycarbonate. In the period immediately following commercialization when production capacity was low relative to that of today, GE personnel estimate that as much as 50% of GE polycarbonate production was consumed internally. Currently, GE consumes only a small percentage of annual polycarbonate production.(See the appendix for further details.) Happily, cases such as GE, where a single firm holds more than one functional role with respect to an innovation, are very rare in our samples. Whendual or multiple roles are held by the same innovating firm or individual,severe coding problems emerge. Often, one cannot determine which role the innovator was "really" motivatedby during the development work.Manufacturers as Innovators: Plastics AdditivesPlastics additives are used to modify the properties of a basic polymer in desired ways. An enormous number of additives exist, and they are generally categorized according to the function they perform. Thus, there are coloring agents, flame retardants, fungicides, filling materials, reinforcing materials,and so on. Each of these categories contains a number of materials of varying properties to serve the specified function.I decided to examine the sources of innovation in two categories of plastics additives: plasticizers and ultraviolet (UV) stabilizers. These two additive types address markets of very different size. (In 1983 more than 600,000 metric tons of plasticizers of all types were sold.b In that same year, approximately 2300 metric tons of UV stabilizers of all types were sold.' I do not have data on dollar volumes in these two categories: Ultraviolet stabilizer prices are typically somewhat higher than plasticizer prices, however.)Plasticizers are materials that are incorporated into plastics to improveproperties such as workability and flexibility. Without plasticizers, plastics such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) would be hard and brittle. Ultraviolet stabilizers are added to plastics to protect them from the effect of ultraviolet light such as that present in sunlight. Without such protection, susceptible plastics would quickly discolor, become brittle, or show other undesirable changes.The SampleThe sample of plasticizes and ultraviolet stabilizer innovations included all commercialized compounds that met four criteria. First, the additive was appropriate for use with at least one of the four largest plastics in commercial use: polyethylene,polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, and polypropylene. Second, the additive must have been first commercialized after the World War II-a requirement added under the assumption that data on more recent innovations would be of high quality. Third, the additive must have been commercially successful,that is, it had to have been sold on the open market and regarded as a successful product by expert interviewees in the additivesindustry. Fourth, the additive was included only if it represented an improvement over previously commercialized additives on a property of importance to users other than cost, for example, decreased toxicity or increased ease of use.The sample of plasticizers and ultraviolet stabilizers selected as meeting these criteria is identified in Table 3-7.Findings: The Sources of Plastics Additives InnovationAs can be seen in Table 3-8, more than 90% of the plastics additives innovadons studied were developed by firms that manufactured them. (Interestingly, two UV stabilizer innovations coded as manufacturer developed showed a pattern I had not found before: A single manufacturer did not develop the innovation on its own. Instead, an association of manufacturers funded the required R&D work at a private research firm.)Suppliers as InnovatorsUp to this point in the research on the functional sources of innovation, mystudents and I had conducted six studies in total and had only observed innovation by users and/or manufacturers. But experience gained in these studies was leading me to speculate as to the cause of the striking variations in the functional source of innovation that we had been observing.I will discuss this matter in the next chapter. For present purposes, however, let me just say my speculation was that innovation appeared to be"caused" by potential innovators' relative preinnovation expectations ofinnovation-related benefit. And, therefore, it seemed to me that innovation in any number of functional loci should exist, given only the proper level and distribution of benefit expectations.So, Pieter VanderWerf (Ph.D. candidate) and I set out deliberately to findinnovation in a third functional locus, suppliers. (Suppliers are firms or individuals whose relationship to an innovation is that of supplying components or materials required in the innovation's manufacture or use.)It seemed reasonable in a rough way that suppliers might develop an innovation that they did not expect to use or sell if that innovation would result in a large increase in demand for something they did want to sell. (Thus, gas utilities might develop novel gas appliances and give the designs away to appliance manufacturers, hoping to capture rents from increased gas sales, rather than from making or using the innovative appliance itself.)Based on this logic, we looked for innovation categories that might contain supplier innovation by looking for processes using a great deal of relatively expensive material or components as an input.译文:创新的源泉Eric von Hippel一总论长时间以来,人们通常假定产品创新主要是由产品制造商完成的,由于这一假定与谁是创新者这一根本问题相关,所以它不可避免地影响到与创新相关的研究,企业的研究开发管理和政府的创新政策。

外文翻译--创新和企业绩效

外文翻译--创新和企业绩效

本科毕业论文(设计)外文翻译原文:Innovation and firm performanceFactors influencing the decision to innovateSeveral studies empirically test the propensity of firms to innovate. Felder, et al. (1996) used the Mannheim Innovation Panel to test the relation between R&D and other innovation expenditures. The data set contains a small firm subset containing firms with 5 up till 49 workers. The participation decision to innovate raises strongly with size. However, once innovating, the amounts invested as percentage of total sales is larger with small firms than with large firms. This is confirmed by Vossen & Nooteboom (1996). This effect is most pronounced for the total innovation expenditures. The relationship between firm size and R&D seems U-shaped. Vossen & Nooteboom conclude that small firms participate less in R&D, but at a greater intensity and with a greater productivity once they participate (Vossen & Nooteboom, 1996, 167). Also Kleinknecht (2000) and Kleinknecht and Mohnen (2002) found that the propensity to innovate is positively related with size although the relationship may not be linear and that among the innovators, smaller firms tend to have higher shares in sales of innovative products.Lööf et al. (2001) used OECD and CIS data in their empirical work. Using a Cobb-Douglas production function they try to explain variation in productivity growth between the Nordic countries, using standard inputs (labour and capital) and the innovation investment variable, which substitutes the R&D variable. Using a Crépon, Duguet and Mairesse model (1998) they estimate the following four equations:(1) firms’ prosperity to innovate/decision to innovate;(2) innovation inputs (innovation investment per worker);(3) innovation output (log of innovation sales per worker); and(4) productivity (sales per employee).Throughput is not formally included in this set of equations. A two-step investment model is applied: First, the decision to engage in research must be taken (eq. 1);Next, conditional on engaging in research, the amount of investment must be decided upon (eq. 2). The decision to innovate is modelled as a Probit [0,1] model. To explain the propensity to innovate Lööf et al. (2001) use the following variables: firm size (employees), export intensity, prior patent applications, % non-R&D engineers, % administrators and several control variables. Firm size and patent applications are significant in all three countries, export intensity in two countries, the other variables in only one country. The control variables were not significant.Technological opportunities, factor intensity and sector characteristics also influence the innovation decision (Lööf et al., 2001). In a sector with high technological potentials, firms are more inclined to innovate. If they do not innovate, they may lose their market position. To estimate the effects of these variables, dummies were included in the regression, however, the results are not reported.To summarize, the decision to innovate is an important decision for companies. Once a company decides to be active in innovation, the company has to dedicate resources to the innovation process. The decision is influenced by the size of the firm, the export intensity, prior R&D and characteristics of the employees (level of education).Also process characteristics such as the mission of the firm influence the innovation decision.Innovative intensityConditional on engaging in innovations, the innovation intensity must be assessed. It concentrates on understanding the determinants that influence the level of resources dedicated to the innovation process. These resources are typical financial or human.The literature provides us with several indicators of the innovation intensity. Traditionally and still the most popular input indicator is the expenditures on R&D (Klomp and Van Leeuwen, 1999, Lööf et al., 2001). The expenditures are often divided by total sales to come to the R&D intensity of a company. The R&D indicatoris still further developed as an indicator. The main advantage of this indicator is that it is relatively easy to measure and collect. The extensive use of this indicator also improves the comparability of the different studies. However, several weaknesses can be mentioned (see Kleinknecht, 2000, for an extensive review). First, R&D expenditures are merely an input to the innovation process, but it states nothing on the results, or the efficiency. Second, R&D related inputs make for a minority of innovation expenditures, varying from 25-50 percent. Third, R&D data tend to underestimate innovations in services. Finally, R&D questionnaires underestimate the small scale and often informal R&D activities in smaller companies. Complex questioning may result in such underestimation.Several new definitions and improved R&D expenditures have been proposed. First, the 1992 Oslo-manual of the OECD posits a new definition of expenditures related to (technological) effort. It added to R&D expenditures six other cost categories, namely product/industrial design, trials, market analysis/introduction, training, patents and licensing, and innovation-related fixed asset investments (Felder et al., 1996: 129;Klomp, 2001: 3). Vossen & Nooteboom (1996) claim that the relationship between firm size and the amounts of money allocated to innovations is most pronounced for total innovation expenditures. This innovation intensity variable was preceded by R&D intensity, denoting the (internal and external) R&D expenditures scaled by total sales. R&D and innovation expenditures are highly correlated (Mohnen & Dagenais, 2002, 13).Total R&D expenditures, also called R&D investments, consist of internal R&D, external R&D and R&D in collaboration with universities and research institutes (Klomp & Van Leeuwen, 1999: 12). These three subsets together and respectively list the ‘make, buy,or co-operate’ alternatives to management decisions on innovation investments. Empirical results prove the importance of these distinct expenditures. It turns out that in a sample of 3,000 German industrial enterprises internal R&D covers slightly above 40 percent of total innovation expenditures (Felder, et al., 1996: 130). This is supported by the CIS research, from where it is concluded that internal R&Damounts for less than 50 percent of the total innovation expenditures (Klomp, 2001: 3). When services are included a percentage even as low as 25 percent was arrived at (Kleinknecht, 2000: 3). This new indicator has as a downside that including non-R&D-items in the questionnaire lowers the response rates and lowers also the precision of answers. The reason is that many firms do not keep related records (Kleinknecht, 2000: 3).Another traditional indicator is the number of employees dedicated to R&D. It is also easy to measure and is better suitable for services sectors. Also this indicator has several weaknesses, partly overlapping the weaknesses of R&D expenditures (e.g. no information on efficiency, minority of total expenditures). Furthermore, it does not include the quality of the employment input and the time devoted to innovation.Mairesse and Mohnen (2001) take the share of new products in total sales as indicator for innovation intensity. It has the advantage that the final objectives of innovation trajectories are taken into account, i.e. extra turnover and/or profit. However, the share-in sales variable is better used for output measurement. This will be further discussed below.In this study, we use the number of employees dedicated to R&D as an indicator for innovative intensity. This indicator is improved by correcting for the average time the employees spent on innovation. This variable is also appropriate for small companies.Factors influencing the innovative intensity Several studies examined the factors that influence the innovation intensity. Innovation intensity is usually defined as the total of innovation expenditures divided by the total turnover of companies in a country or the number of employees dedicated to innovation. This dependent variable is modelled as a Tobit model, conditional on having decided to invest in innovations (Lööf, et al. 2001, p. 11). The literature provides us with several variables that influence the innovation intensity.Lööf et al. (2001) include the same variables so as to explain the propensity to innovate (firm size (employees), export intensity, prior patent applications, % non-R&D engineers, % administrators and several control variables) plus obstacles toinnovate, information for innovation, innovation strategies/innovation objectives, cooperation (domestic and foreign). The results are somewhat confusing at cross-country level. For example in Finland, firm size has a negative effect on innovation investment, in Norway the effect was positive and in Sweden the effect was not significant. Of the extra variables only the innovation objective extending the product range, information sources within the firm itself and customers and domestic cooperation with customers are significant and positively related with the innovation investment in all three countries.Klomp en Van Leeuwen (1999) developed a simultaneous-equation model for the relationship between innovation and firm performance. They explained the innovation intensity by the following variables: prior total sales, prior cash flows, technological opportunities, age of the firm, subsidies, R&D on a permanent base, cooperation and innovation push and/or pull factors. There are feedback loops from the performance (development of the sales). They also include sector dummies and dummies for sector-size interactions. They test the model for all innovative firms and innovative firms with innovative output. They used a single-equation approach and the simultaneous approach. In the single-equation approach most of the variables proved to be significant, with the exception of push and pull factors. In the simultaneous-equation model prior cash flow, prior sales, development of sales and subsidies proved to be significant in various models.In a study on the causality between R&D intensity and export intensity, Kleinknecht and Oostendorp (2002) proved that an increase in the export intensity of a firm significantly and positively influences the R&D intensity.In a recent paper, Statistics Netherlands together with TNO detailed the input, throughput and output order of the innovation process for the Knowledge Based Economy (Klomp, et al., 2002). The input stage consists of human capital (students, secondary vocational training, graduates finding a job, company-financed courses, and, finally, human resources in science and technology), next to the technological knowledge base of Dutch institutes (research institutes, universities, and private firms). The paper is descriptive in principle. The elaborate and multi-faceted concept seemspromising but a shortage of data will make it hard to test it.Innovation intensity can be seen as the effort a firm puts in innovation. It is often measured by the R&D expenditures divided by total sales or the number of employees dedicated to innovation. The innovation intensity is influenced by the firm size, export intensity, prior sales level or education of the employees, external support (subsidies) and innovation process characteristics.The following conclusions can be drawn from our empirical test. The innovative input is explained for small and medium-sized firms by different factors. The size effect becomes clear for the use of subsidies. Small firms use national subsidies, medium-sized firms use European subsidies. Small firms have more innovative input if they innovate in a continuous way. Also medium-sized firms have higher innovative input if they innovate in a continuous way. For small firms also performance market research, having contacts with an intermediate organization and cooperation with other firms and research institutes have a positive effect on the innovative input. If we only look at firms with innovative sales in the last three years (i.e. firms that have been successful in the innovation process in the past), we get a somewhat different picture. For small firms national subsidies and continuous innovation remain important. Market research, contacts with the intermediate organization and cooperation with research institutes are not significant anymore. For medium-sized firms, only European subsidies and continuous innovation have a weak effect on the innovative input.Based on these results, one may conclude that the national innovation policy has a positive effect on the level of innovative input of small firms. The use of national subsidies and contact with the (government-supported) intermediate organization has a significant and positive effect on the level of innovative input. Once small firms have innovative output, these variables do not have an effect anymore on the level of the innovative output. The absence of this effect may be explained by the fact that small firms that have innovative output are relatively homogeneous concerning these variables. As a result these variables cannot explain the level of innovative input anymore. The variables help to discriminate between firms having innovative outputand firms not having innovative output. If the variables of the national innovation policy are studied in isolation, it appears that companies that use (national) subsidies or have contacts with the intermediate organization have higher innovative input and output.Another interesting finding is that the level of innovative input of small firms with innovative output is not anymore influenced by the cooperation with other firms. Also this variable seems to help to discriminate between firms with innovative output and firms with no innovative output.Furthermore, we found a negative relationship between firm size (measured in turnover) and innovative input. Export growth has a positive effect on innovative input. If the sample is split up in small and medium-sized firms, these relationships are only significant for small firms. This finding is in line with previous empirical research (Vossen and Nooteboom, 1996; Kleinknecht, 2000; Lööf, 2001). Our findings indicate that the negative relationship is especially relevant for small firms. If the firms are bigger and more homogeneous (in our research ten or more employees), the negative relationship disappears. A similar argument can be given for the positive relationship between export growth and innovative input.The effects of different variables on the innovative output are tested with two different Tobit models. The decision to have innovative output is positively influenced by the continuity of the innovation efforts, changes in the organization, the measurement of customer satisfaction and the focus on product innovations. Strikingly, contacts with the intermediate organization have a negative effect on the decision to have innovative output. The effect disappears for medium-sized firms. This might indicate that contacts with the intermediate organization have a negative effect on the transformation process from innovative input to innovative output. On the other hand, firms may get in contact with the intermediate organization once there are not successful in transforming input into innovative output. It may take time before the contact with the intermediate organization results in innovative output.Our results suggest that innovation contributes to the turnover and employee growth. The employment growth is also influenced by turnover growth. For smallfirms, the innovative output does not influence the level of the employee growth. The innovative output has no effect on the profitability and productivity of the firm.To conclude, our research shows that the innovation process of small firms differs from medium-sized firms. Therefore, it is important to treat both groups differently. Our results furthermore suggest that the national innovation policy stimulates especially small firms to increase their innovative input. On the other hand, the innovation policy does not have a direct effect on the innovative output. This might ask for slight change in policy, focusing more on the transformation process from innovative input to innovative output. Stressing the importance of continuous innovation, measuring customer satis faction and the importance of product innovation may lead to an increase of the number of firms that have innovative output. Once they have innovative output, the level of input is important. As stated before, policy on this aspect seems to be effective, at least for small firms.Finally, innovation seems to have a positive effect on the turnover growth and employment growth of organizations, although the size of the effect is relatively small. We could not find an effect on the profitability of the firm or the productivity.Source: R.G.M. Kemp; M. Folkeringa; J.P.J. de Jong; E.F.M. Wubben; Zoetermeer, 2003.“Innovation and firm performance” . Research Report H200207译文:创新和企业绩效决定进行创新的影响因素:几项研究实证证实了企业创新的倾向。

  1. 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. 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. 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。

相关文档
最新文档