(3.235.191.87) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/14 21:12
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:吳淑芬
研究生(外文):Shu-Fen Wu
論文名稱:多國籍企業實務移轉之實證研究-以在台外資企業為例
論文名稱(外文):An Empirical Study on Determinants of Practice Transfer by Taiwanese Subsidiaries within MNCs
指導教授:陳香君陳香君引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsiang-Chun Chen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱:企業管理系碩士班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2005
畢業學年度:93
語文別:英文
論文頁數:143
中文關鍵詞:吸收能力體制距離內部溝通頻率移轉績效知識依賴性實務移轉知識屬性跨單位溝通頻率
外文關鍵詞:and transfer performancedensity of inter- and intraunit communicationabsorptive capacityknowledge dependencePractice transferknowledge characteristicsinstitutional distance
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:147
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
知識經濟時代,知識是企業的競爭優勢之一,而多國籍企業之源起在於其具體優越的效能,能將各地創造的組織實務透過其組織系統運用至全球各地子公司。然而,過去相關文獻指出,知識或實務移轉的過程會遭遇障礙,或組織內部的黏稠性(stickiness)會阻礙移轉之進行。本研究的核心即在探討影響多國籍企業移轉績效的重要因素。
本研究訪問四家多國籍企業在台子公司,並根據個案結果確認研究方向,修正問卷進行問卷調查。以在台投資的多國籍企業為實證研究對象,本研究利用多變量統計分析84份問卷回收所得的資料。研究結果發現,知識的內隱性與專屬性愈高,移轉方與接收方(跨單位)溝通互動愈頻繁;正式體制距離會影響組織對於所移轉的實務執行程度與內部化程度,當正式體制愈有利於該實務,則組織的執行程度愈高,但內部化程度愈低;而非正式體制距離愈大,組織愈難將所移轉的實務加以內部化。此外,本研究亦發現調整實務內容確實會對非正式體制距離與內部化程度產生干擾效果。而知識依賴性方面,如同預期的,當接收方愈仰賴移轉方的知識時,其對移轉的滿意程度有提昇的作用。再者,移轉方與接收方的溝通互動與接收方內部的溝通頻繁程度會增強組織的吸收能力,同時提昇移轉的滿意度及執行程度。
根據研究結果,下述管理意涵可供實務界參考:第一、實務移轉牽涉到「人」的層面居多,使得移轉過程略顯複雜,組織應採取人力資源配套措施,例如員工教育訓練、將移轉與績效考核連結等。第二、組織高層的支持,包括承諾、資源與意願,對移轉的成效有無形的影響。第三、完備的移轉機制是必要的。第四、調整移轉方的實務內容以因應接收方員工的認知與規範,得以促使移轉的實務徹底落實與成為制度中的一環。
An important source of competitive advantage for multinational corporations (MNCs) is their ability to utilize their locally created knowledge worldwide. However, previous literature has indicated that knowledge or practice transfer encounters barriers or stickiness. The core of this study is to discuss the determinants affecting practice transfer within MNCs.
Four case studies and an empirical questionnaire survey are used in this study. Based on the data derived from 84 questionnaires of Taiwanese subsidiaries within MNCs, the results reveal that (1) the more tacit and specific knowledge the more dense interunit communication; (2) formal institutional distance is positively related to implementation, but negatively associated with internalization; (3) informal institutional distance has a negative impact on internalization; (4) adaptation moderates informal institutional distance and internalization (5) as expected, inter- and intraunit communication can enhance absorptive capacity of the receiving unit, and further indirectly affect perceived satisfaction and implementation; (6) knowledge dependence is found to be positively related to perceived satisfaction. Beyond our expectation, knowledge dependence also has an impact on inter- and intraunit communication.
According to the findings, the following managerial implications are offered as references: (1) practice transfer is involved with “persons”, hence, it becomes more complex. Organizations are supposed to exploit human resource practices to support transfer, such as educational training for employees or linking the performance assessment with transfer performance. (2) Support from upper levels can produce intangible influence on the success of transfer. (3) Complete transfer mechanism is necessary. (4) Notice the importance of “ceremonial adoption” or “form-decoupling”.
Tables of Contents
Thesis Abstract……………………………………………………………………....…i
Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………………...…..…v
English Abstract…………………………………………………………………...….vi
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………….…...…vii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………….viii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………….….………....x
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….…..xii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Motivation 1
1.2 Research Issues 3
1.3 Research Procedure 4
2 Literature review 7
2.1 Practice Transfer 7
2.1.1 Organizational Practice 8
2.1.2 Practice Transfer Process 10
2.1.3 Past Research on Knowledge and Practice Transfer 14
2.2 Institutional Distance 18
2.2.1 Institutional Theory 20
2.2.2 Institutional Profile versus Practice Transfer 25
2.3 Knowledge Characteristics 31
2.3.1 Tacitness 33
2.3.2 Complexity 34
2.3.3 Specificity 34
2.4 Characteristics of Receiving Unit 35
2.4.1 Absorptive capacity 36
2.4.2 Knowledge Dependence 41
2.4.3 Density of Inter- and intraunit communication 42
2.5 Adaptation 43
2.6 Practice Transfer Performance 44
3 Case Study 47
3.1 Case Study Data 48
3.2 Case Study Analysis 51
4 Research Method 55
4.1 Research Framework 55
4.2 Research Hypothesis 57
4.3 Variables and Measures 61
4.4 Samples selection and Analytic Methods 66
4.4.1 Sample selection 66
4.4.2 Analytic Methods 66
4.5 Reliability and Validity 67
5 Survey Analysis 69
5.1 Survey Data 69
5.1.1 Respondent Rate 69
5.1.2 Descriptive Statistics 70
5.1.3 Mean and Standard Deviation 73
5.2 Survey Result 76
5.2.1 Factor Analysis 76
5.2.2 Correlation Analysis 79
5.2.3 Path Analysis 80
5.3 Test of Hypotheses 86
5 Conclusion and Suggestions 96
5.1 Conclusion and Discussion 96
5.2 Managerial Implication 100
5.3 Research Contribution 103
5.4 Research Limitations 104
5.5 Suggestion for Future Research 106
Appendix I Summary of Cases Interview 117
Appendix II Questionnaire 124

List of Tables
Page
Table 2-1 Knowledge Domains 9
Table 2- 2 Empirical Studies on Knowledge and Practice Transfer 15
Table 2- 3 The Old and New Institutionalisms 23
Table 2- 4 Institutional Pillars and Carriers 26
Table 2- 5 Three Pillars of Institutions 28
Table 2- 6 Characteristics of Knowledge and Practice 32
Table 2-7 Influences of Internal Factors on A Firm’s Absorptive Capacity 38
Table 2- 8 Argument of Transfer Performance 46
Table 3- 1 Corporate Profile in Cases Study 47
Table 3-2 Summarized Data of Cases Study 54
Table 4-1 Operational definition of practice transfer performance 61
Table 4-2 Operational Definition of Knowledge Characteristics 62
Table 4-3 Operational Definition of Density of Communication 63
Table 4-4 Operational Definition of Institutional Distance 64
Table 4-5 Operational Definition of Knowledge Dependence 64
Table 4-6 Operational Definition of Absorptive Capacity 65
Table 4-7 Cronbach α Value 68
Table 5-1 Collection Procedure 70
Table 5-2 Collection channel 70
Table 5-3 A Frequency Table of Respondent Structure 71
Table 5- 4 Table of Mean Value and Standard Deviation 73
Table 5-5 Factor Analysis of Knowledge Characteristics 76
Table 5-6 Factor Analysis of Density of Communication 77
Table 5-7 Factor Analysis of Institutional Distance 78
Table 5-8 Factor Analysis of Performance of Practice Transfer 78
Table 5- 9 Correlation Coefficients among All Variables under Research 79
Table 5-10 Table of the Result of Path Analysis I 80
Table 5-11 Table of the Result of Path Analysis II 81
Table 5-12 Table of the Result of Path Analysis III 82
Table 5-13 summarizes the results from the four path analyses 83
Table 5-14 Regression Analysis of Moderating Effect of Adaptation on the Association between Formal Institutional Distance and Transfer Performance 86
Table 5-15 Regression Analysis of Moderating Effect of Adaptation on the Association between Formal Institutional Distance and Transfer Performance 87
Table 5- 16 Summarized Table of Hypotheses Test 93
Table 6-1 The result Comparison with Kostova and Roth’s Empirical Study in 2002 98


List of Figures
Page
Figure 1-1 Research Procedure 4
Figure 2-1 The Process of Practice Transfer 10
Figure 2- 2 Five-Stage Model of Knowledge Transfer 13
Figure 3-1 Dynamic Transfer Process in Our Case Study 53
Figure 5- 1 Source of Transferred Practice 72
Figure 5-2 Industry Category 72
Figure 5-3 Established Year 72
Figure 5- 5 Path Diagram among Specificity and Density of Interunit Communication 88
Figure 5-6 Path Diagram for Formal Institutional Distance, Implementation and Internalization 89
Figure 5- 7 Path Diagram for Informal Institutional Distance and Internalization 90
Figure 5- 8 Path Diagram for Knowledge Dependence and Perceived Satisfaction 90
Figure 5-9 Path Diagram for Density of Interunit Communication, Absorptive Capacity, Perceived Satisfaction and Implementation 91
Figure 5-10 Path Diagram for Density of Intraunit Communication, Absorptive Capacity, Perceived Satisfaction and Implementation 92
Chinese Part
1.吳思華(民89),策略九說,臉譜出版社,台北
Wu, Si-Hua, 2000, “The Nature of The Strategy”, Lian-pu Press, Taipei
2.呂鴻德,朱倍瑩(民91),知識整合、創新策略與知識移轉績效關係之研究,中華管理學報,第三卷,第一期,第59-74頁
Leu, H.D, Chu, P.Y, 2002, “Knowledge Integration, Innovation Strategy and Performance of Knowledge Transfer”, CHUNG HUA JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, Vol.3, Issue1, pp.59-74
3.許健輝(民90),知識模糊性與知識接收可能性在知識移轉過程中所扮演角色之探討,台灣科技大學企業管理系碩士班論文
Hsiu, Jen-Hei, 2001, “A Study of the Role of Knowledge Ambiguity and Possibility of Knowledge Reception Plays in the Process of Knowledge Transfer”, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Master Thesis
4.陳心田、周正樑(民92),連鎖商店知識特性、知識移轉機制與知識移轉績效關聯性之探討,商管科技季刊,第四卷、第四期,第331-358頁
Chen, S.T. & Jou C.L., 2003, “The Relationships among Knowledge Characteristics, Knowledge Transfer Mechanism, and Knowledge Transfer Performance for Chain Stores in Taiwan ”, Commerce & Management Quarterly, Vol.4, Issue.4, pp.331-358
5.曾義明(民92),台商對大陸投資事業之行銷知識移轉研究,管理評論,第二十三卷,第一期,第135-158頁
Tseng, Yi-Ming, 2003, “The Transfer of the Marketing Knowledge to China Subsidiaries of Taiwanese Enterprises”, Management Review, Vol.23, pp.135-158
6.童景郁(民89),多國籍企業組織知識管理模式及實證研究,國立雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士班論文
Tung, Ching-Yu, 2000, An Empirical Research of The Organization Knowledge Management Model in Taiwan’s Foreign Multinational Corporations, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Master Thesis
7.黃家齊、洪國堅(民92) 台灣大陸母子公司間知識移轉與吸收影響因素之研究,中原企管評論 第一卷第一期 民國九十二年六月 第1-22頁
Huang, Jia-Chi & Hung, Kuo-Chien 2003, “A Research of Relationship between Absorptive factors and Knowledge Transfer in Chinese Subsidiaries of Taiwanese Enterprises”, Chung Yuan Management Review, Vol.1 Issue 1, pp.1-22
8.謝甄晏(民90),市場導向、市場知識管理、產品創新與績效之實證研究-以台灣高科技產業為例,國立雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士班論文
Shien, Jean-Yann, 2001, An Empirical Study of Market Orientation, Market Knowledge Management, Product Innovation and Performance in Taiwan’s High-Technology Industry, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Master Thesis
9.在台外資企業名錄2001/2002,台灣鄧白氏國際徵信股份有限公司
D&B Foreign Enterprises in Taiwan,Dun & Bradstreet International Ltd. Taiwan Branch
English Part
1.Andersson, U. & Forsgren, M., Holm, U., 2002, “The Strategic Impact of External Networks: Subsidiary Performance and Competence Development in the Multinational Corporation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.23, pp.979-996
2.Appleyard, M., 1996 “How Does Knowledge Flow? Interfirm Patterns In the Semiconductor Industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.17 Winter Special Issue, pp.137-154
3.Argote, L. & Ingram, P., 2000, “Knowledge transfer: A Basis for the Competitive Advantage of Firm’s”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.82, Issue1, pp.1-8
4.Becerra-Fernandez, I. & Sabherwal, R., 2001, “Organizational Knowledge Management: A Contingency Perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, No.1, pp.23-55
5.Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T., 1967, The Social Construction of Reality, Doubleday, New York
6.Bessey, Christian, 2002, “Institutional Embeddedness of Economic Exchange: Convergence between New Institutional Economics and the Economics of Conventions ”, in Oliver Farereau (Ed.), Conventions and Structures in Economics Organization-Markets, Networks and hierarchies, pp.79-92, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar
7.Björkman, I. & Barner-Rasmussen, W., 2004, „Managing Knowledge Transfer in MNCs: The Impact of Headquarters Control Mechanisms“, Journal of International Business Studies, Sep2004, Vol. 35 Issue 5, pp.443-455
8.Buckley, P. & Carter, M. J., 2004, “A Formal Analysis of Knowledge Combination in Multinational Enterprises”, Journal of International Business Studies, Sep2004, Vol. 35 Issue 5, pp.371-384
9.Chen, C. Y. & Wey, S. C., 2003, “Market Orientation, Entrepreneurial Orientation, Market Knowledge Management and Performance—An Empirical Research on Taiwan’s High-tech Industry”, 2003 Annual Meeting of the Northeast Decision Sciences Institute
10.Chen, Chung-Jen, 2004, “The Determinants of Knowledge Transfer Through Strategic Alliances”, Academy of Management Best Conference Paper, TIM:H1
11.Choi, C.J. & Lee, S.H., 1997, “A Knowledge-Based View of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationship”, Cooperative Strategies: European Perspectives, New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA, pp.33-58
12.Choy, C.L., 1983, “Multinational Business and National Development”, Singapore: Maruzen Asia.
13.Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A., 1990, “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective On Learning and Innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.35, pp.128-152
14.Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S., 2003, “Business Research Methods”, eight Edition, McGRAW-Hill
15.Daghfous, A., 2004, “Absorptive Capacity and the Implementation of Knowledge-Intensive Best Practice”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 69 Issue 2, pp.21-27
16.Deihl, L.W, 1987, “The Transferability of Management Technology to Third World Countries”, Akron Business and Economic Review, Vol.18, Issue3, pp.70-81
17.Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M. A., Steensma, H. K. & Tihanyi, L., 2004, “ Managing Tacit and Explicit Knowledge Transfer in IJVs: The Role of Relational Embeddedness and The Impact on Performance”, Journal of International Business Studies, Sep2004, Vol. 35 Issue 5, pp.428-442
18.DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W., 1991, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields ”, in Powell and DiMaggio (Ed.), The New Institutional in Organizational Analysis, The University of Chicago Press, pp.63-82
19.Foss, N. & Pedersen, T., 2002, “Transferring Knowledge in MNCs: the Role of Sources of Subsidiary Knowledge and Organizational Context”, Journal of International Management, Vol.8, pp.49-67
20.Foss, N. & Pedersen, T., 2004, “Organizing Knowledge Process in The Multinational Corporation: An Introduction”, Journal of International Business Studies, Sep2004, Vol. 35 Issue 5, p340-349
21.Friedland, R. & Alford, R.R, 1987, “Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Structures and Institutional Contradiction”, Paper presented at Conference on Institutional Change, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Science, Stanford, CA,
22.Galunic, C. & Rodan, S., 1998, “Resource Recombinations in the Firm: Knowledge Structures and the Potential for Schumpeterian Innovation”, Strategic Management Journal, vol 19, Issue 12, pp1193-1201
23.Garud, R. & Nayyar, P.R., 1994, “Transformative Capacity: Continual Structuring by Intertemporal Technology Transfer” Strategic Management Journal, Vol15, Issue5, pp.365-85
24.George, G., Zahra, S., Wheatley, K.K. & Khan, R., 2001, “The Effects of Alliance Portfolio Characteristics and Absorptive Capacity on Performance: A Study of Biotechnology Firms”, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol.12, pp.205-226
25.Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C., 1988, “Creation, Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.16, pp.81-96
26.Ghoshal, S., Korine, H. & Szulanski, G., 1994, „Interunit Communication in Multinational Corporations“, Management Science, Vol.40, No.1, pp.96-110
27.Gilbert, M. & Cordey-Hayes, M., 1996, “Understanding the Process of Knowledge Transfer to Achieve Successful Technological Innovation”, Technovation, Vol.16, pp.301-312
28.Grand, R. M., 1996, “Toward A Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.17(Winter Special Issue), 109-122
29.Grand, E.B. & Gregory, M.J., 1997, “Tacit Knowledge, the Life Cycle and International Manufacturing Transfer”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol.9, pp.149
30.Gupta. A. K., & Govindarajan, V., 1991, “Knowledge Flows and the Structure of Control within Multinational Corporations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.16, pp.768-792
31.Gupta. A. K., & Govindarajan, V., 2000, “Knowledge Flows Within Multinational Corporations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.21, pp.473-496
32.Hamel, G., 1991, “Competition for Competence and Interparter Learning within International Strategic Alliance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.12, pp.83-103
33.Hemmert, M., 2004, “The Influence of Institutional Factors on the Technology Acquisition Performance of High-tech Firms: Survey Results from Germany and Japan”, Research Policy, Sep2004, Vol. 33 Issue 6/7, p1019-1038
34.Hofstede, G., 1980, Culture’s Consequence: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage Publication, Beverly Hills
35.Jarrar, Y. F. & Zairi, M., 2000, „Best Practice Transfer for Future Competitiveness: A Study of Best Practices “, Total Quality management, Vol.11, pp.734-740
36.Jensen, R. & Szulanski, G., 2003, “Templates and the Effectiveness of Knowledge Transfer”, Academy of Management Best Conference Paper, BPS:HH1
37.Kogut, B., & Zander, U., 1992, “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology”, Organization Science, Vol.3, pp.383-397
38.Kogut, B., & Zander, U., 1993, “Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.4, pp.625-645
39.Kostova, T., 1999, “Transnational Transfer of Strategic organizational Practice: A Contextual Perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.24, pp.308-324
40.Kostova, T. & Roth, K., 2002, “Adoption of Organizational Practice By Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.45, pp.215-233
41.Lane, P.J. & Lubakin, M., 1998, “Relative Absorptive Capacity and Interorganizational Learning”, Strategic Management Journal. Vol.19, pp.461-477
42.Lane, P.J., Salk, J.E. & Lyles, M.A., 2001, “Absorptive Capacity, Learning, and Performance In International Joint Ventures”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.22, pp.1139-1161
43.Lam, Alice, 1997, “Embedded Firms, Embedded Knowledge: Problems of Collaboration and Knowledge Transfer in Global Cooperative Ventures”, Organization Studies, Vol.18, pp.973-996
44.Mansfield, E., 1982, Technology Transfer, Productivity, and Economic Policy, W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.
45.Markusen, J.R. & Venables, A.J, 1998, “Multinational Firms and the New Trade Theory”, Journal of International Economics, Vol.46, Issue 2, pp.203
46.Marquardt, M., 1996, Building the Learning Organization, McGraw Hill, New York.
47.Martin, X. & Salomon, R., 2003, “Tacitness, Learning, and International Expansion: A Study of Foreign Direct Investment in a Knowledge-Intensive Industry”, Organization Science, Vol.14, pp.297-311
48.Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B., 1991, “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony”, in Powell and DiMaggio (Ed.), The New Institutional in Organizational Analysis, The University of Chicago Press, pp.41-62
49.Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Björkman, I., Fey, C. & Park, H.J., 2002, „MNC Knowledge Transfer, Subsidiary Absorptive Capacity and HRM“, Academy of Management Proceedings, IM:F1
50.Mir, R. & Sharpe, D., 2004, “Transferring Managerial Practices within Multinationals: Control, Resistance and empowerment”, Academy of Management Proceedings
51.Nelson, R. & Winter, S., 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, MA: Belknap Press, Cambridge
52.Nohria, N., & Ghoshal, S., 1994, “Differentiated Fit and Shared Values: Alternatives for Managing headquarters-Subsidiary Relations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.15, Issue 6, pp.491-502
53.Nonaka, I., 1994, “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation”, Organization Science, Vol.5, pp.14-37
54.North, Douglass C., 1990, “Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance”, Cambridge University Press.
55.Nunnally, J.C. 1978, “Psychometric Theory”, McGraw-Hill, New York
56.Orrù, M., Biggart, N.W. & Hamilton, G.G, 1991, “Organizational Isomorphism in East Asia”, in Powell and DiMaggio (Ed.), The New Institutional in Organizational Analysis, The University of Chicago Press, pp.361-389
57.Osman-Gani, A. A. M, 1999, “International Technology Transfer for Competitive Advantage: A Conceptual Analysis of the Role of HRD”, Competitiveness Review, 1999, Vol. 9 Issue 1, pp.9-18
58.Parise, S. & Henderson, J.C, 2001, “Knowledge Resource Exchange in Strategic Alliances”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol.40, pp.908-924
59.Place, S. & Park, R., 2004, “Knowledge Flows within Multinational Corporations: Why are Some Subsidiaries Isolated”, Academy of Management Best Conference Paper, IM:B1
60.Powell, W.W., 1991, “Expanding The Scope of Institutional Analysis”, , in Powell and DiMaggio (Ed.), The New Institutional in Organizational Analysis, The University of Chicago Press, pp.183-203
61.Powell, W.W. & DiMaggio, P. (editors), 1991, The New Institutionalism In Organizational Analysis, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
62.Reed, R.R. & DeFillippi, R.J, 1990, “Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.15, pp.88-102
63.Satikarn, M., 1981, Technology Transfer: A Case Study Singapore, Singapore University Press
64.Schlegelmilch, B. B. & Chini, T. C., 2002, „Knowledge Transfer between Marketing Functions in Multinational Companies: A Conceptual Model“, International Business Review, Vol.12, pp.215-232
65.Schulz, M., 2001,”The Uncertain Relevance of Newness: Organizational Learning and Knowledge Flows”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.44, no. 4, pp.661-681
66.Scott, Richard, 1987, “The Adolescence of Institutional Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp.493-511
67.Scott, Richard, 1995, Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
68.Selznick, Philip, 1957, “leadership in Administration”, Harper & Row, New York
69.Simonin, B.L., 1999, “Transfer of Marketing Know-How in International Strategic Alliance: An Empirical investigation of the Role and Antecedents of knowledge Ambiguity”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.30, pp.463-490
70.Simonin, B.L., 2004, “An Empirical Investigation of the Process of Knowledge Transfer in International Strategic Alliances”, Journal of International Business Studies, Sep2004, Vol. 35 Issue 5, pp.407-427
71.Sjöstrand, S-E, 1995, “Towards a Theory of Institutional Change”, in John Groenewegen (Ed.) On Economic Institution, pp.19-44.
72.Spender, J., 1996, “Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Memory: Three Concepts In Search Of A Theory”, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol.9, pp.63-78
73.Stock, G.N., Greis, N.P. & Fischer, W.A., 2001, “Absorptive Capacity and New Product Development”, Journal of High Technology Management, Vol.12, pp.77-91
74.Szulanski, G., 1993, “Intra-Firm Transfer of Best Practice, Appropriative Capabilities, and Organizational Barriers to Appropriation”, Academy of Management Proceeding, pp.47-52
75.Szulanski, G., 1996, “Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter Special Issue, pp.27-43
76.Teece, D. J., 1977, “Technology Transfer by Multinational Corporations: the Resource Cost of Transferring Technological Know-how”, Economic Journal, pp.242-261
77.Tsai, W., 2001, “Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capability on Business Unit Innovation and Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.44, pp.996-1004
78.Westney, E., 1993, “Institutional Theory and the Multinational Corporation”, In S. Goshal & E. Westney (Ed.), Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation, St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp. 53-75.
79.Williamson, O., 1985, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting, The Free Press, New York
80.Winter, S., 1987, “Knowledge and Competence as Strategic Assets”, in David Teece (Ed.), The Competitive Challenge—Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp.59-183
81.Winter, S., 1990, “Survival, Selection, and Inheritance in Evolutionary Theories of Organization”, In J. V. Singh (Ed.), Organizational Evolution: New Direction, Sage Publication, Newbury Park
82.Wright, R.W., 1994 “The Effects of Tacitness and Tangibility on the Diffusion of Knowledge-based Resource”, Academy of Management Proceedings, pp.52-56
83.Wuthnow et al., 1984, Cultural Analysis, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston
84.Zander, U. & Kogut, B., 1995, “Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An empirical Test”, Organization Science, Vol. 6, no.1, pp.76-92
85.Zahra, S.A. & George, G., 2002, “Absorptive Capacity: A Review Reconceptualization, and Extension”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.27, pp.185-203
86.Zucker, L.G., 1977, “The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 42, pp.726-743
87.Zucker, L.G., 1983, “Organizations as Institutions” In Samuel B. Bacharach (ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, CT: JAI Press, Greenwich
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top