Construct · 3 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · keeping up with rivals, several framings Nearest construct by meaningtrading partner pressurecompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to competitive pressure is trading partner pressure.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The degree to which a firm feels pressure from rivals in its industry, treated in the technology-organization-environment framework as an environmental-context driver of adoption. In Zhu, Kraemer, and Xu's cross-country study The Process of Innovation Assimilation by Firms in Different Countries, competition intensity sits in the environmental context beside the regulatory environment and pushes firms through initiation, adoption, and routinization of e-business. Zhu and Kraemer's retail-industry study likewise placed competitive pressure among the environmental factors shaping e-business use and value. Here the referent is a property of the firm's competitive environment, an external force that raises the perceived cost of falling behind, reported at the firm level as the intensity of rivalry the firm faces.[1][2]
Competitive pressure recast as an institutional force: under uncertainty a firm models itself on its rivals, so an innovation spreads less because it pays than because peers have adopted it. DiMaggio and Powell's The Iron Cage Revisited named three mechanisms of institutional isomorphism, of which mimetic processes are the imitation of successful competitors when goals or means are ambiguous, and coercive isomorphism is pressure from organizations a firm depends on. In this reading the pressure a firm feels from rivals is the mimetic force that homogenizes an organizational field, and adoption is a bid for legitimacy rather than for advantage. What differs from the TOE reading is the motive: keeping up as conformity, not as competition on the merits.[3]
In research on inter-organizational systems and electronic data interchange, competitive pressure appears inside a broader external-pressure construct that drives small firms to adopt. Iacovou, Benbasat, and Dexter's framework Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organizations identified external pressure, beside organizational readiness and perceived benefits, as a determinant of EDI adoption, with external pressure comprising both competitive pressure from the industry and imposition by powerful trading partners. Because EDI is a network technology whose value grows with partner participation, a small firm often adopts less from its own reading of the market than because rivals are moving or a dominant customer requires it. Here competitive pressure is one leg of external pressure, and the literature's contribution is to keep the diffuse industry force apart from the specific partner demand.[4]
Next
See how competitive pressure sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct