臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

當我們存在一個搜索和獲取資訊愈來愈容易的時代，龐雜的資訊將會掩蓋其真實重要性，也因此變得更難以發掘真正所需的資訊。由資訊轉化而成的「知識」，才能夠為企業及人們帶來競爭力。知識管理（Knowledge Management;KM）顯然為當代最重要的議題，而透過結合資訊科技的知識管理系統，能夠達到事半功倍的效果並獲取競爭優勢。
知識管理系統的崛起後，陸續有許多以知識管理系統的概念所建立起的新資訊科技。此時，企業在引入新科技的情況下，很可能會遭遇組織成員的阻力。因此，為了使新資訊科技的有預期的效用，必須提高組織成員對於KM系統的接受度，此即本研究的目標。本研究運用科技接受模型（Technology Acceptance Model;TAM）來檢視企業所使用科技後的產出效果。藉由外部變數的影響，使成
員的知覺受到改變，進而改變其態度與行為，最後產生個人績效。
本研究主要透過網路問卷的發放，以科技產業中的成員為研究對象，透過TAM來探討對於知識管理系統的滿意度與接受度。並且在著重外部變數中的組織因素，以符合科技業快速變遷的性質。再以因素分析與迴歸分析驗證本研究的假設與架構。
結果發現，外部變數會影響組織成員信念，而組織成員信念會影響組織成員滿意度，滿意度則會影響組織成員接受度。新設定的組織因素對於組織成員的信念影響程度較高，而易用性的影響程度則比有用性高出許多。各構面間存在許多中介效果並且具有高度相關性。根據結果，提出本研究的研究貢獻：
1. 架構KM系統下的TAM
2. 建立以組織因素為主要的外部變數
3. 易用性的高度重要性

When we search and gain information more and more easy, the numerous information will cover the truth of informations, therefore, We are hard to discover the information which we really need. Moreover, the information is only the data after organize. “knowledge”can be more important that brings the competition for the enterprise and the people. Knowledge management（KM） was the most important issue obviously. Knowledge management system through the information technology, could achieve the twice the result with half the effort effect and gain the competitive
advantage.
After the raising of knowledge management system, there were many information technology which was based on the concept of knowledge management system. However, as the enterprise introduces new technical, the member of organization itself could resist servely. Therefore, to promote the information technology to have the anticipated effectiveness, the enterprise itself enhance organization member to accept KM system, this is research goal. This research using Technology Acceptance Model（TAM） to inspect that the enterprise output after using technology. By the exterior variable's influence, causes member's consciousness to receive the change, then changes its attitude and the behavior, finally has individual achievements.
This research mainly through the online questionnaire, take technology industry's in member as the object of study, discusses the knowledge management system's satisfaction and acceptance by TAM. In the exterior variable's organization factor, conforms to the technology industry nature of the fast change emphatically. Finally, confirms this research’ hypothesis and construction by the factor analysis and the regression analysis.
The result discovered that the exterior variable can affect organization member’s faith. Organization member’s r faith can affect organization member’s satisfaction. The satisfaction will affect organization member’s acceptance. The new hypothesis's organization factor has higher influence regarding organization member's faith. The perceived ease of use influence is higher than perceived usefulness. Between each construction dimension has many intermediary effects, and has the relevance highly.
According to the results, the research suggests the contributions:
1. Construct KM system's TAM
2. Establishment the organization factor as the main exterior variable
3. The importance of the Usability

目錄

致 謝 詞 I
中 文 摘 要 II
英 文 摘 要 III
目 錄 V
表 目 錄 VI
圖 目 錄 VIII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究流程 3
第二章 文獻探討 4
第一節 知識管理 4
第二節 科技接受模型理論（TAM） 7
第三節 科技接受模型理論（TAM）之組織因素探討 17
第三章 研究方法 32
第一節 研究架構與研究假說 32
第二節 研究變項之操作型定義與衡量 37
第三節 問卷設計 42
第四節 研究對象與資料分析方法 43
第四章 資料分析 45
第一節 敘述性統計分析 45
第二節 信效度分析 52
第三節 因素分析 53
第四節 相關分析與迴歸分析 56
第五節 構面間之中介效果分析 62
第六節 多元迴歸之路徑分析 68
第五章 結論與建議 70
第一節 研究結果與發現 70
第二節 研究貢獻與管理意涵 74
第三節 研究建議與研究限制 76
參考文獻 78
附錄 88
附錄一、問卷 88


表目錄

表2-1 知識管理定義 5
表2-2 國外TAM之外部變數研究之整理 13
表2-3 國內TAM之外部變數研究之整理 15
表2-4 動態能力之程序構面與定義 17
表2-5 組織學習的定義 20
表2-6 內、外部彈性能力之內涵 23
表2-7 知識管理基礎設施之內涵 24
表2-8 各學者知識管理基礎設施之內涵與說明 24
表2-9有效知識管理的資訊科技構面 27

表3-1 組織成員信念之衡量問項 37
表3-2 社會因素構面之衡量問項 38
表3-3 組織因素構面之衡量問項 39
表3-4 個體因素構面之衡量問項 40
表3-5 組織成員滿意度之衡量問項 40
表3-6 組織成員接受度之衡量問項 41
表3-7 問卷內容之彙整 42

表4-1 人口統計之次數分配 45
表4-2 社會因素之敘述性分析 46
表4-3 組織因素之敘述性分析 47
表4-4 個體因素之敘述性分析 48
表4-5 組織成員信念之敘述性分析 49
表4-6 組織成員滿意度與接受度之敘述性分析 50
表4-7 各構面之整體平均數彙整 51
表4-8 各構面之信效度分析 52
表4-9 社會因素之因素分析相關數據 53
表4-10 組織因素之因素分析相關數據 54
表4-11 組織成員滿意度之因素分析相關數據 54
表4-12 相關矩陣 56
表4-13 知覺KM易用性與知覺KM有用性之迴歸分析 57
表4-14 知覺KM易用性、知覺KM有用性與接受度之迴歸分析 58
表4-15 知覺KM易用性、知覺KM有用性與滿意度之迴歸分析 58
表4-16 社會因素與知覺KM易用性之迴歸分析 59
表4-17 社會因素與知覺KM有用性之迴歸分析 60
表4-18 組織因素與知覺KM易用性之迴歸分析 60
表4-19 組織因素與知覺KM有用性之迴歸分析 61
表4-20 組織成員滿意度與組織成員接受度之迴歸分析 61
表4-21 外部變數影響知覺KM有用性之中介效果分析 63
表4-22 外部變數影響組織成員滿意度之中介效果分析 63
表4-23 外部變數影響組織成員接受度之中介效果分析 64
表4-24 外部變數影響組織成員滿意度之中介效果分析 65
表4-25 外部變數影響組織成員接受度之中介效果分析 66
表4-26 知覺KM易用性影響組織成員滿意度之中介效果分析 66
表4-27 組織成員信念影響組織成員接受度之中介效果分析 67
表4-28 TAM路徑分析之各項效果分解說明 68

表5-1 迴歸分析之假設驗證彙整表 72
表5-2 各構面中介效果之彙整 73

圖目錄

圖1-1 研究流程圖 3

圖2-1 理性行為理論（TRA） 7
圖2-2 計劃行為理論（TPB） 8
圖2-3 科技接受模型（TAM） 9
圖2-4 修正後科技接受模型 11
圖2-5 彈性能力之分類 22
圖2-6 基礎設施與流程能力之結構模型 25

圖3-1 研究架構圖 33

圖4-1 TAM之路徑圖 73

參考文獻
中文文獻
1. 余雅文（2003），企業動態能力之探究與衡量，國立嘉義大學管理研究所碩士論文。
2. 李雅靖（2007），以科技接受模型分析數位有線電視之使用者採用行為，國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所碩士論文。
3. 林東清（2003），「知識管理」，智勝文化出版，台北。
4. 吳思華（2001）「知識經濟、知識資本與知識管理」，遠流出版公司。
5. 林義屏（2001），市場導向、組織學習、組織創新與組織績效間關係之研究--以科學園區資訊電子產業為例，國立中山大學企業管理學系研究所博士論文。
6. 侯嘉政、桑儷倩（2009），以科技接受模型探討影響銷售人員應用顧客關係管理系統與其績效之關係，電子商務研究，2009年即將出版。
7. 侯嘉政、鐘岳群（2009），以動態能力觀點探討顧客知識管理能力對公司經營績效影響之研究：汽車經銷業與保險業之實證分析，電子商務學報，2009年即將出版。
8. 洪憶如（2005），以組織學習觀點探討知識管理系統應用之績效，國立中山大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
9. 洪儒瑤（1999），台灣企業知識管理應用現況及其模式之研究，國立台北大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
10. 唐福元（2007），建構虛擬社群之顧客關係管理-應用科技接受模型分析租屋資訊部落格，華梵大學工業工程與經營資訊學系碩士班碩士論文。
11. 陳宏昌（2005），以科技接受模式探討影響「學務系統」使用程度之因素，大葉大學教育專業發展研究所碩士論文。
12. 陳郁芬（2004），企業員工e-Learning系統之使用意願影響因素研究，國立中山大學資訊管理學系研究所碩士論文。
13. 郭達沂（2003），以科技接受模型探討失業勞工對公共職業訓練採用線上學習的使用意願，國立中正大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
14. 陳慧巧（2004），以科技接受模式探討台灣企業內部稽核人員使用電腦輔助審計技術之意圖，國立中正大學會計與資訊科技研究所碩士論文。
15. 葉芳枝（2003），軍醫院主管採用顧客關係管理之意願及影響關鍵因素之研究--以國軍醫院為例，國立中正大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
16. 覃業明（2001），科技接受模型之實證研究－以國內醫療網站為例，國立成功大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
17. 張鴻昌（2003），員工對企業內部網路的接受度之研究－以中鋼公司為例，國立中山大學企業管理學系研究所碩士論文。
18. 劉常勇（1997），「技術資源管理能力對新產品開發績效之影響」，國科會專題研究計畫。
19. 饒靜宜（2007），影響業務人員採用銷售力自動化系統之因素探討－TAM 模式的延伸與應用，崑山科技大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
英文文獻
1. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R. and Todd, P. A. （1992）, “Perceived usefulness, ease of use and usage of information,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16（22）, pp. 227-247.
2. Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. （1998）, “A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 9（2）, pp. 204-215.
3. Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. （1997）, “The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 28（3）, pp. 557-582.
4. Ajzen, I. （1985）. “From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior in action control from cognition to behavior,” In Kuhl, J. and Bechkmann, J. （Eds）. Action control: From cognition to behavior （pp.11-39）. New York: Springer-Verlag.
5. Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. E. （2001）, “Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25（1）, pp. 107-136.
6. Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. J.（1993）, “Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp.33-46.
7. Andrew H. G., Arvind M. and Albert H. S.（2001）, “Knowledge Management：An Organizational Capabilities Perspective,” Journal of Management Information System,Vol.18（1）pp.185-214
8. Ansoff, H. I.（1965）, “Corporate Strategy”, New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
9. Ansoff, H. I. and Brandenburg, R. G.（1971）, “A Language for Organization Design: Parts I and II,” Management Science, Vol. 17（12）, pp. 705-731.
10. Argyris, C. and Schon, D.（1978）, “Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11. Argryis, C. and Schon, D. （1996）, “Organizational learning II: theory, method, and practice” Reading, MA: Addison-wesley.
12. Arthur Anderson and The APQC （American Productivity and Quality Center）. （1996）, “The Knowledge Management Assessment Tool: External Benchmarking Version,” Winter.
13. Avlonitis, G. J. and Panagopoulos, N. G. （2005）, “Antecedents and　Consequences of CRM Technology Acceptance in the Sales Force,” Industrial　Marketing Management, Vol. 34（4）, pp. 355-368.
14. Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A.（1986）, “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51（6）, pp.1173-1182.
15. Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M.（1961）, “The Management of Innovation,” London: Tavistock.
16. Chandler, A. D. Jr. （1962）, “Strategy and Structure,” Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
17. Chandler, A. D. Jr. （1977）, “The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in America,” Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap press.
18. Chuang, S. H. （2004）, “A resource-based perspective on knowledge management capability and competitive advantage: an empirical investigation,” Expert systems with Applications, Vol. 27（3）, 459-465.
19. Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A. and Huff, S. （1999）, “Social Cognitive Theory and　Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study,” MIS　Quarterly, Vol. 23（2）, pp.145-158.
20. Cyert, R. and March, J. G.（1963）, “A Behavioral Theory of the Firm,” New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
21. Daft, R.L. （1998）, “Organization Theory and Design, 6th ed,” Ohio: South-Western College Publishing.
22. D'Aveni, R. （1995）, “Hypenampetilive Rivalrie.s,” New York: The Free Press.
23. Davenport. T., DcLong. D. and Beers, M.（1998）“Successful knowledge management projects,” Sloan Management Review. T9, 43-57.
24. Davenport. T. and Klahr, P. （1998）,”Managing customer support knowledge. Califomia Management Review,” Vol. 40（3）, 195-208.
25. Davenport, T. and Prusak. L. （1998）, ”Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know,”Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
26. Davis, F. D. （1986）, “A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new-user information system: Theory and results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation thsis,” Sloan School of Management, MIT.
27. Davis, F. D. （1989）, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13（3）, 319-340.
28. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. （1989）, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science, Vol. 35（8）, pp. 982-1003.
29. De Long, D. W. and Fahey, L. （2000）, “Diagnose cultural barriers to knowledge management,” Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14（4）, 113-127.
30. DeLone, W. H. and McLean, E. R.（1992）, “information Systems Sustems Success:the Quest for the Dependent Variables,” information Systems Research, Vol. 3（1）, pp.60-95.
31. Dietz,J.L., Goldkuhl,G., Lind,M. and Van R.V.E.（1998）,”The communicative action paradigm for business modelling－ a research agenda,”In Proceedings of the third international workshop on the language action perspective on communication modeling （LAP’98）.
32. Dixon, N.（1994）, “The Organizational Learning Cycle,” Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill.
33. Dodgson, M. （1993）, “Organizational learning: A review of some literatures,” Organization Studies, Vol. 14（3） 375-394.
34. Drucker, P. F. （1993）“Post-Capitalist Society”, New York: Harper Collins.
35. Ducan, R. B. and Weiss, A.（1979）, “Organizational Learning: Implications for Organizational Design,” Research in Organizational Behavior, In Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L.（Eds.）, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 75-123.
36. Duffy,J.（2000）, “The KM Infrastructure,” Information Management Journal,　Apr, pp. 62-66.
37. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin J. A.（2000）, “Dynamic Capability: What Are They?” Strategic Management Journal, 21（10/11）, pp. 1105-1121.
38. Eppink, D. J.（1978）, “Managing the Unforeseen: A study of Flexibility,” dissertation thesis Ermelo: Administratief Centrum.
39. Folorunso, O. and Ogunseye, S.O. （2008）, “Applying an Enhanced Technology Acceptance Model to Knowledge Management in Agricultural Extension Services,” Data Science Journal, Vol. 7（22）, pp.31-45.
40. Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A.（1985）, “Organizational Learning,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10（40）, pp.803-813.
41. Fisherbein, M. and Ajzen, I. （1975）, “Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research,” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
42. Garvin, D.（1993）, “Building a Learning Organization,” Harvard Business Review, No. 71, pp. 78-91.
43. Gefen, D. and Straub, D. W. （1997）, “Gender differences in the perception and use of E-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21（4）, pp. 389-400.
44. Gelderman, M.（1998）,”The Relation Between User Satisfaction, Usage of Information Systems and Performance,” Information and Management, 34, pp.11-18.
45. Grant, K. and Cravens, D.W.（1996）, “Examining Sales Force Performance in Organizations That Use Behavior-Based Sales Management Processes,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 25（5）, pp. 361-371.
46. Grant,R.M. （1996）, ”Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.17（3）, pp. 109-122
47. Gumussoy, C.A., Calisir, F. and Bayram, A.（2007）, “Understanding the behavioral intention to use ERP systems An extended technology acceptance model,” Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2007 IEEE International Conference on.
48. Hammer, M. （1990）, “Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 104-112.
49. Hanley, S. and Dawson, C. （2000）, “A framework for delivering value with knowledge management: The AMS knowledge centers,” Information Strategy, Vol. 16, Summer, pp.27-36.
50. Hedlund, G. （1994）, “A model of knowledge management and the n-form corporation,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15（7）, pp. 73-90.
51. Holsapple,C. and Joshi, K. （1997）, “Knowledge Management: A Three-Fold Framework.”Kentucky Initiative for Knowledge Management Paper, No. 140, July.
52. Hooijberg, R. and Petrock, F. （1993）. “On Cultural Change: Using the Competing Values Framework to Help Leaders Execute a Transformational Strategy,” Human Resourse Management, Vol. 32（1）, pp.29-50.
53. Huber, G. P.（1991）, “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Process and the Literatures,” Organization Science, Vol. 2（1）, pp. 88-115.
54. Hult, G. T. M. （2003）, “An Integration of Thoughts on Knowledge Management,”Decision Science, Vol. 34 （2）, pp.189-195.
55. Hu, P.J., Tam, K.Y., Sheng, O. R. L. and Chau, P.Y. K.（1999）, “Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 16（2）, 91-112.
56. Iansiti, M. and Clark, K.B.（1994）,”Integration and dynamics capability: evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.3, pp. 557-605
57. Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, G. B. （1995）, “Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 11（4）, 87-114.
58. Igbaria, M., Iivari, J., and Maragahh, H. （1995）, “Why do individuals use computer technology? A Finnish case study,” Information and Management, Vol. 29, pp. 227-238.
59. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., and Cavaye, A.L.M.（1997）, “Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms：a structural equation model,”MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 279-305.
60. Jerez-Go′mez, P., Ce′spedes-Lorente, J. and Valle-Cabrera, R. （2005）,“Organizational Learning Capability: A Proposal of Measurement,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58（6）, pp.715-725.
61. Kim, L.（1998）, “Crisis Construction and Organizational Learning: Capability Building in Catching-up at Hyundai Motor,” Organization Science, Vol. 9, pp. 506-521.
62. Konradt, U., Christophersen, T. and Schaeffer-Kuelz, U.（2006）, “Predicting user satisfaction, strain and system usage of employee self-services,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 64, pp. 1141-1153.
63. Langlois, R.（1994）, “Cognition and Capabilities: Opportunities seized and missed in the history of the computer industry,” working paper, University of Connecticut. Presented at the conference on Technological Oversights and Foresights, Stern School of Business, New York University, 11-12, March.
64. Laurie J. Bassi and Daniel P. Mcmurrer （1997）, “Benchmarking the Best,” Training and Development, PP.60-64.
65. Lee, H. and Choi, B. （2003）, “Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination,” Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 20（1）, 179–228.
66. Legris, P., Ingham, J., and Collerette, P. （2003）, “Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model,” Information and Management, Vol. 40（3）, pp. 191-204.
67. Leonard-Barton, D.（1992）, “Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities：A Paradox in Managing New Product Development,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp.111-125.
68. Leonard-Barton, D. （1995）, “Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Source of Innovation,” Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
69. Levitt, B. and March, J. G.（1988）, “Organizational Learning,” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14, pp. 319-340.
70. Lewin, K.（1951）, “Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers,” New York: Harpers
71. Liebowitz, J. and Beckman, T. （1998）, “Knowledge Organizations: What Every Manager Should Know,” St. Lucie Press,
72. Lin, C.C. and Lu, H. （2000）, “Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site,” International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 20（3）, 197-208.
73. Lorsch, J. W. （1985）, “Strategic Myopia: Culture as an invisible Barrier to change,” In Ralph H. Kilmann et al. （eds）, Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture. San Francisco, C.A.: Jossey-Bass.
74. Marshall, L. （1997）, “Facilitating Knowledge Management and Knowledge Sharing: New Opportunities for information professionals,” Online.
75. Menon, A. and Varadarajan, R. （1992）, ”A model of marketing knowledge use within firms,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56（4）, pp. 53-71.
76. Meyers, P. W.（1990）, “Non-Linear Learning in Technological Firms,” Research Policy, Vol. 19, pp. 97-115.
77. Morgan, A.J., and Inks, S.A.（2001）, “Technology and the Sales Force Increasing Acceptance of Sales Force Automation,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30（5）, pp. 463-472.
78. Morgan, G. and Ramirez, R.（1983）, “Action Learning: A Holographic Metaphor for Guiding Social Change,” Human Relations, Vol. 37（1）, pp. 1-28.
79. Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J. and Gould, J. M.（1995）, “Understanding organizations as learning systems,” Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp.73-85.
80. Nonaka,I., Toyama,R. and Konno, N. （2000）, ”SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation.”, Long Range Planning, Vol.33, pp. 5-34
81. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. （1995）, “The Knowledge Creating Company,” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
82. O’Dell,C. and Grayson,C. （1998）,”If only we knew what we know： identification and transfer of interal best practices,” California Management Review, Vol. 40（3）, pp.154-174
83. O’Leary, D.E. （1998）, “Enterprise Knowledge Management”, IEEE on Computer, March, pp. 54-61
84. Ouchi, W. G. and Wilkins, A. L.（1983）, “Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship Between Culture and Organizational Performance,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28（3）, pp. 468-481.
85. Panayides, P. M. （2007）, “The impact of organizational learning on relationship orientation, logistics service effectiveness and performance,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36, pp. 68-80.
86. Pentland, B.T. and Rueter, H. H.（1994）, “Organizational Routines as Grammars of Action,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 484-510.
87. Pickering, J. M. and King, J. L.（1995）,”Hardwiring weak ties: interorganizational computer-mediated communication,occupational communities, and organizational change,” Organization Science,Vol.6（4）, pp.479–486.
88. Quinn, J. B., Philip, A. and Finkelstein, S.（1996）, “Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best,” HarverdBusiness Review, Mar-Apr.
89. Qunitas, P., Lefere, P. and Jones, G.（1997） “Knowledge Management ： A Strategic Agenda,” Vol.30（3）, pp. 385-391.
90. Real, J. C., Antonio, L. and Jose′ L, R. （2006）, “InformationTechnology as a determinant of Organizational Learning and TechnologicalDistinctive Competencies,” Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35（4）pp. 505- 521.
91. Robert, B. （2000）, “Pick Employees’ Brains,” HR Magazine, Vol. 45 （2）, pp. 115-120.
92. Sarvary, M. （1999）, “Knowledge Management and Competition in the Consulting Industry,” California Management Review, Vol41（2）, winter, pp.95-107.
93. Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M. J., Frambach, R. T. and Rudy, K. M. （2005）,“The Adoption of Information Technology in the Sales Force,” Industrial Marketing　Management, Vol. 34（4）, pp. 323-336.
94. Senge, P. M.（1990）, “The Fifth Discipline：The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization”.
95. Stata, R.（1989）, “Organizational learning–the key to management innovation,” Sloan Management Review.
96. Straub, D., Limayem, M. and Karahanna, E. E. （1995）, “Measuring system usage: Implications for IS theory testing,” Management Science, Vol. 41（8）, pp. 1328-1342.
97. Szajna, B. （1996）, “Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model,” Management Science, Vol. 42（1）, pp. 85-92.
98. Tae, G. K., Jae, H. L. and Rob, L.（2008）, “An empirical examination of the acceptance behaviour of hotel front office systems: An extended technology acceptance model,” Tourism Management, Vol. 29（3）, pp. 500-513.
99. Taylor, S. and Todd, P. A. （1995）, “Decomposition and Crossover Effects in the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Study of Consumer Adoption Intention,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12（2）, pp. 137-155.
100. Taylor, S. and Todd, P. A. （1995）, “Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models,” Information System Research, Vol. 6（2）, 144-176.
101. Teece, D. J（1994）, “The Dynamic capabilities of Firms: an Introduction,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 5（3）, pp. 537-556.
102. Teece, D. J （1998）, ”Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets,”California Management Review, Vol. 40（3）, pp. 55-79
103. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. （1997）, “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18（7）, pp. 509-534.
104. Templeton, A.R.（2002）, “Out of Africa again and again,” Nature 416, pp. 45-51.
105. Teo, T., Lim, V. and Lai, R.（1999）, “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in internet usage,” Omega, Vol. 27（1）, pp. 25-37.
106. Thompson, R., Higgins, C. and J. Howell. （1991）, “Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15（1）, pp. 125-143.
107. Triandis, H. C. （1980）, “Values, Attitudes, and Interpersonal Behavior,” in H. E. Howe （Ed.）, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1979: Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values, Vol.27 （pp. 185-259）. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press
108. Tsang, E.W.K. （1997）, “Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy Between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research,” Human Relations, Vol. 50（1）, pp. 73-89.
109. Venkatesh, V. and F. D. Davis. （1996）, “A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 27（3）, pp. 451-481.
110. Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G.（2000）, “Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24（1）,pp. 115-139.
111. Volberda, H. W.（1996）, “Toward the Flexible Form: How to Remain Vital in Hyper-competitive Environments,” Organization Science, Vol.7（4）, pp.359-374.
112. Volberda, H. W.（1998）, “Building the Flexible Firm, Oxford University Press.”
113. Von Krogh, G. （1998） “Care in knowledge creation.” California Management Review, Vol. 40（3）. 133-153.
114. Wayland, R.E. and Cole, P.M. （1997）, “Customer Connections: New strategies for growth,” Harvard Business School Press, Mass.
115. Wiig, K. （1997）, “Knowledge Management: An Introduction and Perspective,” Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1（1）, pp.6-14
116. Zack, H. （1999）, “Developing a knowledge strategy,” California Management Review, Vol. 41（3）, pp. 125-145.
117. Zain, M., Rose, R.C., Abdullah, I. and Masrom, M.（2005）, “The relationship between information technology acceptance and organizational agility in Malaysia,” Information and Management, 42（6）, pp. 829-839.