臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

由於技術快速進步，使得今日的企業面臨激烈的產業競爭環境，因此，知識與知識管理對於企業能不斷產生創新以提升其競爭力而言，是相當重要的。企業在從事研發與創新的活動時，除了善用本身具備的知識與能力外，為因應產業的快速變化，也可透過產業內的網絡關係取得必要之知識與資源，再透過積極有效的知識管理，進而提升創新能力及改善組織績效。因此，如何建置有助於組織創新與知識管理的網絡關係成為一項重要之課題，這也是本研究所欲探討之標的。
知識與創新是促使整體產業進步的主要驅動要素。半導體產業屬於知識密集型的產業，技術與知識的交流與傳遞相較於其他產業而言較為頻繁，並且經過數十年所發展出的專業分工合作模式，型塑出該產業特有的產業結構與關係網絡。而且，在半導體產業中，專業晶圓代工廠的存在，對於該產業的重要性越來越不容忽視。因此本研究選定半導體產業為研究對象進行資料收集與分析，更進一步聚焦於探討該產業中，以台灣積體電路製造股份有限公司（TSMC）為例的專業晶圓代工廠之網絡關係與結構，對於其知識管理及組織績效的影響。本研究目的有四：分析及描繪台灣積體電路製造股份有限公司（TSMC）之網絡關係及其結構鑲嵌性、探究其網絡關係及結構對知識管理活動之影響、檢視知識管理活動對組織績效之影響、並針對該產業的網絡鑲嵌特性與知識管理提出命題與管理建議。
台灣積體電路製造股份有限公司(TSMC)於半導體產業中位居技術領先地位，其相當重視知識管理，並為在技術或創新方面擁有卓越表現的專業晶圓代工廠。本研究先分析歸納台灣積體電路製造股份有限公司之網絡關係及其結構鑲嵌性，再探討其網絡關係及結構鑲嵌性對知識管理與組織績效之影響，並將台灣積體電路有限公司的實務應用共同納入探討。本研究發現，緊密的網絡關係與獨特的網絡結構性位置對於組織知識管理以及組織績效會產生正面影響。

Knowledge is widely recognized as an important source for a firm to gain competitive advantage. A firm can use its internal knowledge and capability to create innovation, and it can acquire external knowledge and resources from its network as well. Network is a critical mechanism for a company to acquire external knowledge to enhance its own internal capabilities. Network embeddedness refers a firm’s relational and structural embeddedness in the network, and it is an important characteristic of a firm when leveraging its social capital, and thereby to have superior performance.
Although the importance of network embeddeness is increasing, little has been done in the literature in examining the relationships among network embeddedness, knowledge management and organizational performance. Therefore, this study attempts to fill the gap in the literature by providing a research framework through extensive literature review to identify the key constructs to explore the relationships among these three dimensions.
The research object of this study is the leading foundry in the world, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). This study provides an exploratory analysis of network relationships about TSMC in semiconductor industry and examines the application of theory to practice. Since TSMC is the focal firm of the network addressed in this study, the research purpose is to clarify how the relational embeddedness and structural embeddedness of TSMC in its network affect its knowledge management to gain superior organizational performance.
The major findings of this study include: First, the relational and structural embeddedness are inferred to positively influence the focal firm’s knowledge management. Second, knowledge management is positively related to organizational performance.

中文摘要..................................................i
ABSTRACT.................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................iii
LIST OF TABLES...........................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...................................1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW..............................3
2.1 Knowledge Management..................................3
2.2 Network Perspective..................................11
2.2.1 Network Embeddedness...............................15
2.2.2 Network Ties.......................................16
2.2.3 Network Position...................................18
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS..............................23
3.1 Case Methodology.....................................24
3.2 Data Collection and Analysis.........................25
3.3 Research Framework...................................27
3.4 Study Profile........................................28
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS..............................33
4.1 The Network of TSMC..................................33
4.2 Knowledge Management System of TSMC..................47
4.3 Network Embeddedness and Knowledge Management........49
4.4 Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance..56
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS....................61
5.1 Conclusions..........................................61
5.2 Management Implications..............................62
5.3 Research Limitations.................................63
5.4 Further Research.....................................63
REFERENCES...............................................65

[1].Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S-W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 17-40.
[2].Ahuja G. 2000. The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (March special issue): 317-343.
[3].Allport, G. W. 1961. Patterns in growth and personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
[4].Andersson, U., Holm, D. B., & Johanson, M. 2007. Moving or doing? Knowledge flow, problem solving, and change in industrial networks. Journal of Business Research, 60(1):32-40.
[5].Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4):571-582.
[6].Baker, W. E. 1990. Market Networks and Corporate Behavior, American Journal of Sociology, 96(3): 589-625.
[7].Burt, R. S. & Knez, M. 1995. Kinds of third-party effects on trust, Rationality and Society, 7: 255-292.
[8].Burt, R. S. 1976. Positions in networks. Social Forces, 55: 93-122.
[9].Burt, R. S. 1987. Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence, American Journal of Sociology, 92:1287-1335.
[10].Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
[11].Burt, R. S. 2000. The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22:345–423.
[12].Chen, J. 2004. The effects of knowledge attribute, alliance characteristics, and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance. R&D Management, 34(3): 311-321.
[13].Chen, J., & Huang, J. 2007. How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management: The social interaction perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 27:104-118.
[14].Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(supplement):95-120.
[15].Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
[16].Cooke, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. 1993. Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2:373-390.
[17].Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3):555-590.
[18].Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Massachusetts.
[19].Droge, C., Claycomb, C., & Germain, R. 2003. Does knowledge mediate the effect of context on performance? Some initial evidence. Decision Sciences, 34(3): 541-568.
[20].Dubini, P., & Aldrich, H. 1991. Personal and extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 6:305-313.
[21].Dyer, J., & Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3):345-367.
[22].Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14:532-550.
[23].Freeman, L.C. 1979. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarifications. Social Network, 1:215-239.
[24].Galunic, D.C., & Rodan, S. 1998. Resource recombination in the firms: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12):1193-1201.
[25].Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. 2001. Knowledge management: An organizational capability perspective. Journal of Management Information System, 18(1):185-214.
[26].Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American journal of Sociology, 6:1360-1380.
[27].Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91(3):481-510.
[28].Granovetter, M. 1992. Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria and R. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 25-56.
[29].Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(winter):109-122.
[30].Gulati, R. 1995a. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances, Academy of Management Journal, 38:85-112.
[31].Gulati, R. 1995b. Social structure and alliance formation pattern: A longitudinal analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40:619-652.
[32].Gulati, R. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4):293–317.
[33].Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44:82-111.
[34].Hansen, M. T. 2002. Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3):232-248.
[35].Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. 1994. Measuring competence: Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15:63-84.
[36].Kenis P. & Knoke, D. 2002. How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Review, 27(2):275-293.
[37].Kogut, B. 2000. The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3):405-425.
[38].Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3):383-397.
[39].Koka, B. R. & Prescott, J. E. 2002. Strategic alliances as social capital: A multidimensional view. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7):795-816.
[40].Koka, B. R., & Prescott, J. E. 2008. Designing alliance networks: The influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29:639-661.
[41].Koskinen, K. U., Pihlanto, P., & Vanharanta, H. 2003. Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4): 281–290.
[42].Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 691-710.
[43].Larson A. 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1): 76-104.
[44].Laumann, E. O., Galaskiewicz, J., & Marsden, P. V. (1978). Community structure as inter-organizational linkages, Annual Review of Sociology, 4:455-484.
[45].Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. 1998. The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: Conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(4): 13-29.
[46].Lin, N., & Dumin, M, 1986. Access to occupations through social ties. Social Networks, 8:365-385.
[47].Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. 1981. Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46:393-405.
[48].Marsden, P. V. 1981. Introducing influence processes into a system of collective decisions, American Journal of Sociology, 86: 1203-1235.
[49].Marsden, P. V. & Hurlbert, J.S. 1988. Social resources and mobility outcomes: A replication and extension. Social Forces, 67:1038-1059.
[50].Marsden, P. V. and N. E. Friedkin. 1993. Network studies of social influence, Sociological Methods and Research, 22:127-151.
[51].Matusik, S. F., & Hill, C. W. L. 1998. The utilization of contingent work, knowledge creation, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 680-697.
[52].McCutcheon, D. M., & Meredith, J. R. 1993. Conducting case study research in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 11:239-256.
[53].McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20:1133-1156.
[54].McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A. 2004. Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5): 735-746.
[55].Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. 1998. Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23(4):698-723.
[56].Nahapiet J., & Ghoshal S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242-260
[57].Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Boston: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
[58].Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6): 96-104.
[59].Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1):14-37.
[60].Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. 1998. The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3):40-54.
[61].Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
[62].Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. 2000. A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1):1-20.
[63].Norman, P. M. 2004. Knowledge acquisition, knowledge loss, and satisfaction in high technology alliances. Journal of Business Research, 57:610-619.
[64].Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed). London: Sage.
[65].Podolny, J. M. 1993. A status-based model of market competition, American Journal of Sociology, 98:829-872.
[66].Podolny, J. M. 1994. Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39:458-483.
[67].Podolny, J. M. 2001. Networks as pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107(1):33-60.
[68].Podolny, J. M., & Page, K. L. 1998. Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 57-76.
[69].Podolny, J. M., Stuart, T. E., & Hannan, M. T. 1996. Networks, knowledge, and niches: Competition in the worldwide semiconductor industry, 1984-1991. The American Journal of Sociology, 102(3):659-689.
[70].Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension, New York: Anchor Day Books
[71].Powell, W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization, Research in Organizational Behavior, 12:295-336.
[72].Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1):116–145.
[73].Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48:240-267.
[74].Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt D. 2000. Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (March special issue):369–386.
[75].Sarin, S., & McDermott, C. 2003. The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application and performance of cross-functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences, 34(4):707-739.
[76].Spender, J. C. 1994. Knowing, managing and learning: A dynamic managerial epistemology. Management Learning, 25:387-412.
[77].Spender, J. C. 1996. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(winter): 45-62.
[78].Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M. 1996. Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17(winter):5-9.
[79].Subramaniam, M. & Youndt, M. A. 2005. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3):450-463.
[80].Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploiting internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practices. Strategic Management Journal, 17:27-43.
[81].Teece, D. J. 1998. Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3): 55-79.
[82].Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5):996-1004.
[83].Tsai, W. 2002. Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intra-organizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2):179-190.
[84].Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4):464-476.
[85].Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4): 674-698.
[86].Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42:35-67.
[87].von Krogh, G. 1998. Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3):133-153.
[88].Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Kellermanns, F. W. 2007. Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners: Private versus collective benefits of social capital. Journal of Business Research, 60:698-710.
[89].Wiig, K. M. 1997. Knowledge Management: An Introduction and Perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(1): 6-14.
[90].Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
[91].Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. 2001. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22:587-613.
[92].EE Times http://www.eetimes.com/
[93].Digitimes http://www.digitimes.com.tw
[94].TSMC http://www.tsmc.com/
[95].USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) Database