臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

對大多數台灣高科技廠商而言，產品創新已是公司生存及精進之必要。根據研究文獻的探討，我們發現影響產品創新的因素有三個，它們分別是：技術相關性、市場能力、及公司在吸收新知以轉換、內化並應用到新產品開發的能力。每一個因素我們皆根據文獻探討以給予定義的解釋，接著再將三因素皆分為”高” 及“低”兩方向來看。在行成一個三維的矩陣後，我們將其簡化成三個二維矩陣並一一解釋。每一矩陣皆有四個象限，皆有舉例說明探討。
接著，我們在產品創新中考慮路徑相依的特性並以實際個案分析之。首先，我們配合個案公司在過去曾經歷過的變革挑戰依時間點畫出”雙技術樹狀圖”(DTT)，接著我們分析出研究個案公司的產品發展路徑。所得出的研究資料告訴我們，在公司產品創新的路徑相依歷程中，產品及客戶能力兩者是彼此互相影響的。
接著，我們討論本研究個案中產品銷售的路徑順序。我們以每五年為一分斷點再各別作出一矩陣並一一分析之。我們發現，個案大多數產品線在不同客戶屬性間銷售路徑幾乎一致。即產品銷售皆由具有技術背景的系統整合商開始，接著銷售及於區域性或連鎖性之代理商，最後在一段時間後當公司產品達到穩定且做出公司名聲後，一些潛在全美國性質或泛歐洲的大通路商、甚至或具有大量銷售能力的競爭對手，雙方便開始以ODM或OEM方式合作。
最後，我們再以策略技術領域(STA)矩陣來分析一公司技術領域之強點與弱點。以公司的技術能力及各個產品線組成此一二維矩陣。研究發現所研究的個案公司其核心能力是在資訊產品元件中的硬體及韌體，而軟體為其弱點。本研究的個案公司以其對區域網路所擁有的專業知識、韌體能力，公司適當的切入策略(以能讓資訊週邊產品具有網附分享功能的周邊加值廠商)及其對PC週邊設備的瞭解，將持續增加個案公司在其網路領域的相對競爭優勢。

For most Taiwanese high-tech companies, their product innovations have been recognized as a primary means of corporate renewal. Based on the literature review, we concluded that three factors affect the product innovations. They are: technology-relevance, marketing-capability and assimilation-capability. Each factor is divided into “high” and “low” conditions. We gave the definition to each factor and depicted their inter-relationships by three 2-dimension matrices accordingly. Each 2-diemsion matrix has four patterns. We explain each of these patterns by examples.
Take into account of path dependence in product innovations, we analysis the real situation from our study case (TDK Corp.). We draw out the DTT (Dual Technology Tree) matching with the firm’s technological challenges in time sequence. We also analysis the TDK product developing paths, this figure offers insight into the resource dynamics through product innovation over time. The present data from TDK suggest that the reciprocal interplay between product and customer competence accounts for these path dependencies.
Following, we also discuss the selling paths and sequence to TDK LAN products by a customers and products segmentation matrix in time sequence (with three different stages and each last 5 years). It shows that almost every of TDK’s product selling sequence is beginning from system integrators or small retail (with tech. background) first then accepted by national distributors. After achieving a good level in product quality and company reputation, some key customers or even competitors will do ODM/OEM business with the firm.
Finally, we analysis a firm’s core abilities by STA(Strategic Technical Area) matrix. This matrix consists of technological abilities and product lines. Our research result shows that the TDK Corp. core competences are both LAN and firmware fields. However, the software area is its weakness. With its LAN knowledge, firmware competence, an appropriate strategy (as an embedded IT company to penetrate into niche markets around PC peripherals with network sharing functions), and the knowledge in different PC peripherals are continuously increasing the firm’s core abilities with higher comparative competition advantages than other firms in LAN field.

Acknowledgements
Abstract
Chapter 1：Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Objectives and Questions 4
1.3 Outline of This Research 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review 8
2.1 Introduction and Research Framework 8
2.2 Technology Relevancy 11
2.2.1 Technological Trajectories 11
2.2.2 The Dual Technology Tree 15
2.3 Marketing Capability 21
2.4 Assimilation Capability 25
2.5 Path dependency 29
2.6 Synthesis 31
2.6.1 Relations between Activities of Product Innovation Strategy
- ATM Matrix 32
2.6.2 Linking Technology and Marketing 33
2.6.3 Linking Technology and Assimilation 37
2.6.4 Linking Marketing and Assimilation 41
Chapter 3 Research Methodology 44
3.1 Research Scope 44
3.2 Case selection 45
3.3 Data collection 46
3.4 Research Limitation 47
Chapter 4 Cases Study 48
4.1 TDK Introduction 48
4.2 Technology Innovation and Product Evolution 50
4.3 Path Dependence in Product Development 54
4.4 Product Selling Paths in Product-Customer Segmentations 59
4.5 Core Technology Competencies Analysis by the Strategic Technical Area (STA)/Product Line Matrix 66
Chapter 5 Propositions 69
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Implications 76
6.1 Conclusion 76
6.2 Managerial Implications 81
6.3 Suggestions for Future Research 83
References 85
Appendices 91

Lists of Tables
Table 2.1 Product innovations as linkage of technology and customer
competences 23
Table 3.1 The interview records of this research 46

Lists of Figures
Figure 1.1 Research Process 7
Figure 2.1 Research Framework 10
Figure 2.2 Innovation and technological “seams”, Radical, micro-radical
and incremental innovations. 14
Figure 2.3 Dual technology tree 15
Figure 2.4 Innovation and technological “seams”. Radical, micro-radical
and incremental innovatioins and dual technology trees.
A discrete continuum. 18
Figure 2.5 Nature and intensity of technological innovation. Radical, micro-radical, incremental innovations in public switching. 19
Figure 2.6 The Relation Matrix of Marketing-capability,
Assimilation-capability, and Technology-relevancy 32
Figure 2.7 The Marketing-capability and Technology-relevancy Matrix 34
Figure 2.8 The Technology-relevancy and Assimilation-capability Matrix 37
Figure 2.9 The Marketing-capability and Assimilation-capability Matrix 43
Figure 4.1 TDK Network Products’ Evolution By DTT Figure
In Time Sequence 52
Figure 4.2 TDK Network Products’ Evolution With Technology Change
In Time Sequence 53
Figure 4.3 Path Dependence in TDK Product Innovation 57
Figure 4.4 The TDK Product and Customer segmentations for marketing
in high-technology products--1993 63
Figure 4.5 The TDK Product and Customer segmentations for marketing
in high-technology products--1998 64
Figure 4.6 The TDK Product and Customer segmentations for marketing
In high-technology products--2003 65
Figure 4.7 The STA/Product Line Matrix for a Telecommunication Product
Business Unit 67
Figure 4.8 The STA/Product Line Matrix for TDK Corp. 68

1. Abernathy, W.J. & Utterback, J.M. (1978). Patterns of Industrial Innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), pp.40-47.
2. Abernathy, W.J. & Clark, K.B. (1985). Innovation : Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction. Research Policy, 14, pp.2-22.
3. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 99(394), pp.116-131.
4. Arthur, B. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
5. Bright, J.R. (1969). Some Management Lessons from Technological Innovation Research. Long Range Planning, 2(1), pp.36-41.
6. Chang, H.C. (2002). A Research of Innovation Capabilities and Innovation Strategies of Taiwanese Start-Up Companies : Telecommunications and Internet Industry, Unpublished Master Dissertation, National Cheng Chi University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C..
7. Christensen, CM. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
8. Christensen, CM. & Brower, JL. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), pp.197-218.
9. Cooper, RG. (1993). Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
10. Danneels, Erwins. (1998). A competence-based new product typology. ISBM Report 17, University Park, PA: The institute for the Study of Business Markets.
11. Danneels, Erwins & Kleinschmidt, Elko J. (2001). Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: Its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, pp.357-373.
12. Danneels, Erwins. (2002). The Dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategy Management Journal, 23, pp.1095-1121
13. David, P. (1988). Path-dependence: putting the past into the future of economics, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences Technical Report 533, Standford University.
14. Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), pp.1504-1514.
15. Dosi, G.. (1982). Technological paradigm and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11, pp.147-162
16. Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), pp.1120-1171.
17. Durand, T. (1992). Dual technological trees: Assessing the intensity and strategic significance of technological change, Research Policy, 21(4), pp.361-380.
18. Doughterty, D.(1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 13, pp.77-92.
19. Eisenhard, Kathleen M. & Martin, Jeffery M. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they?. Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp.1105-1121.
20. Fowler, S. W., King, A. W., Marsh, S. J., Victor, B. (2000). Beyond Products: New Strategic Imperatives for Developing Competencies in Dynamic Environments. J. Eng. Technol. Manage, 17, pp.357-377.
21. Ghemawat, P. (1991a). Market incumbency and technological inertia. Marketing Science, 10(2), pp.161-171.
22. Ghemawat, P. (1991b). Commitment: The Dynamic of Strategy. Free Press: New York.
23. Gorman, P & Thomas, H (1997). The theory and Practice of Competence-based Competition. Long Range Planning, 30(4), pp.615-620.
24. Grant, RM (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(2), pp. 114-135.
25. Halman, Johannes I. M., Hofer Adrian P., Vurren, Wim van. (2003). Platform-driven development of product families: Linking theory with practice, The journal of product innovation management, 20, pp.149-162.
26. Henderson, R. & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 15, pp.63-84.
27. Helfat, CE. (1994). Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Science, 40, pp.1720-1747.
28. Helfat, CE. & Raubitschek, RS. (2000). Product sequencing: co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategy Management Journal, Special Issue 21(10/11), pp.961-979.
29. Hsieh, C.J. (2003). Research on New Product Development Process, Unpublished Master Dissertation, National Cheng Chi University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C..
30. Jiang, H.S. (2003). Dynamic Platform Strategy, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, National Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C..
31. Kamel, Michael., Rochford, Linda., Wotruba Thomas R. (2003). How new product introductions after sales management strategy: The impact of type of “Newness” of the new product. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, pp.270-283.
32. Kolter P. (2003). Marketing Management, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p.255.
33. Lauglaug, A.S. (1993). Technical-market research - get customers to collaborate in developing products, Long Range Planning, 26 (2), pp.78-82.
34. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 13, pp.111-125.
35. March, JG.. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), pp.71-87.
36. Miller, CC., Cardinal, LB., Glick, WH. (1997). Retrospective reports in organization research: a reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), pp.189-204.
37. McGrath, RG., MacMilan, IC., Venkataraman, S. (1995). Defining and developing competence: a strategic process paradigm. Strategic Management Journal, 16(4), pp.251-275.
38. Meyer, M.H. (1999). The strategic Integration of Markets and Competencies, Int. Journal Technology Management, vol. 17, no. 6, pp.677-695.
39. Martin, Michael J.C. (1994). Managing Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Technology-Based Firms, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. pp.39-41.
40. Mitchell, Graham R. (1986). New approaches for the strategic management of technology. Technology and the Modern Corporation: A strategic perspective, Edited by Mel Horwitch, New York: Pergamon press, p.134.
41. Miyazaki, K. (1999). Building Technology Competencies in Japanese Firms. Research Technology Management, 42(5), pp.39-45.
42. Nelson, RR., Winter, SG.. (1982). An evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Pine, J.B. (1993). Mass customization: the new frontier in business competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
44. Prahald, C. K. & Hamel, G.. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), pp.79-91.
45. Priem, RL. & Bulter, JE. (2001). Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), pp.22-40.
46. Redding, Stephen. (2002). Path dependence, endogenous innovation, and growth, International Economic Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.1215-1248.
47. Ruttan, VW. (1997). Induced innovation, evolutionary theory and path dependence: sources of technical change. Economic Journal, 107(444), pp.1520-1529
48. Sahal, D. (1985). Technological Guideposts and Innovation Avenues. Research Policy, 14, pp. 61-82.
49. Schilling, MA. (1998). Technological lockout: an integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), pp.267-284.
50. Tidd, Joe., Bessant, John., Pavitt, Keith. (2001). Managing innovation : integrating technology, market and organizational change, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New York, pp.170-178.
51. Teece, D. J. 1988. ‘Technological change and the nature of the firm’. Technical Change and Economic Theory, Printer Publishers, New York, pp.256-281.
52. Teece, DJ., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp.509-534.
53. Th. Durand, Th. & Stymne, B. (1988) Lessons from the Public Switching Past Technological Evolution in the Telecoms, Proceeding Prince Bertil Symposium, Stockholm.
54. Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24(3), pp.419 – 440.