跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.95.161) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/10/16 03:40
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:吳尚衡
研究生(外文):Shang-Heng Wu
論文名稱:從能耐落差分析台灣高科技企業建立品牌之外部合作模式
論文名稱(外文):An Analysis of the Cooperation Model for High-Tech Branding in Taiwan:A View of Capability Gap
指導教授:陳筱琪陳筱琪引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsiao-Chi Chen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:中原大學
系所名稱:企業管理研究所
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:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:中文
論文頁數:161
中文關鍵詞:合作能耐落差核心能耐品牌高科技企業
外文關鍵詞:capability gapcooperationcore competencebrandhigh-tech corporations
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:268
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:3
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
台灣的高科技企業憑藉著優異的成本控制能力,在全球高科技產業供應鏈中,扮演著關鍵角色,然而伴隨著其他國家的科技產業相繼崛起,台灣也逐漸面臨製造代工地位鬆動的挑戰。借鏡全球科技領先業者的成功方程式,台灣企業開始意識若其專注於產品創新或發展品牌,則可望開創企業更為穩固之競爭優勢,其中,許多企業藉由併購或聯盟等外部力量,快速達到建立品牌的效果。因此,本研究欲探討於台灣的產業環境下,企業建立品牌偏好採取之外部合作模式,並同時分析其經營品牌所需之核心能耐與能耐落差情形。
本研究透過文獻回顧,取得科技企業經營品牌可能存在之能力訴求,協同專家意見將其設計成問卷,透過層級分析法(Analytic Hierarchy Process; AHP)的運用,在成對比較下突顯出不同能力對於經營品牌的重要程度,以及整理企業面對之能耐落差與偏好的合作模式。本研究之研究對象包含具備已經營品牌或欲經營品牌之條件的業者,共回收有效問卷23份。
研究結果顯示,掌握通路、產品策略定位、服務與售後產品支援、整合行銷與技術、技術開發之人才、推銷人才共六項,被視為是經營品牌應具備之核心能耐;而企業亦普遍認為,當經營品牌面對核心能耐之能耐落差時,偏好選擇之合作模式以併購策略為主,其中包含品牌整合策略、通路整合策略與技術資源整合策略,此外,行銷聯盟亦是部分企業會採取的合作模式。本研究進一步分析發現,企業在品牌建立中,產生的能耐落差多來自於整合行銷與技術、關鍵智慧財產權、顧客關係管理,其中,當面對關鍵智慧財產權產生的能耐落差時,則偏重運用技術整合策略提升關鍵智慧財產權之掌握;而採取品牌、通路或技術整合導向併購策略,則可強化行銷與技術的整合或其他行銷資源與能力的取得,並提升顧客關係管理之效益。透過本研究分析之結果,發現企業在品牌建立過程中,會採取不同的外部合作模式補足面對的能耐落差,此外,企業發展品牌最不可或缺的核心能耐乃偏重於組織資源面之能力。


This research investigated the cooperation models of high-tech branding based on capability gap, according to the core competence is nature to establish the brand. Thus, AHP are used to analyze the core competence and cooperation strategy preference in the view of high-tech brand enterprises. Additionally, there are further analysis on clusters in brand value, product characteristics, firm size and competitive position. The result shows that “control channels”, “Product strategy orientation”, “Customer service and after support service of product”, “Integration capability of marketing and technology”, “Technology developing engineers” and “Salesman” are the core competence to establish brand in high-tech industry. Merger and Acquisition strategy is preference cooperation models for high-tech branding, including brand orientation strategy, channel orientation strategy, and technology orientation strategy. In addition, marketing strategic alliance is also the bridge to cross capability gap.


目 錄
摘要 I
Abstract II
致謝詞 III
目 錄 IV
表目錄 VI
圖目錄 IX
第一章 緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究目的 3
1.3研究範圍與對象 4
1.4研究流程 5
1.5研究限制 5
第二章 文獻探討 6
2.1品牌之經營 6
2.2高科技品牌之經營 8
2.2.1 高科技品牌經營之企業能耐 8
2.2.2 產品創新基礎之企業能耐 11
2.3企業能耐 16
2.3.1品牌建立下的企業能耐 17
2.3.2產品創新策略下的企業能耐 18
2.3.3 高科技品牌建立之企業能耐 20
2.4相對競爭定位 21
2.5外部合作模式 23
2.5.1策略聯盟 23
2.5.2併購 28
2.5.3非正式合作 30
2.5.4 科技品牌建立之外部合作模式 30
第三章 研究方法 32
3.1研究架構 32
3.2研究方法 33
3.3AHP分析 36
3.3.1AHP的假設 36
3.3.2層級與要素 36
3.3.3層級結構化的要點 37
3.3.4建立層級的優點 37
3.3.5影響要素分析 37
3.3.6將問題建立層級式的架構 37
3.3.7 評估尺度 38
3.3.8AHP的評估尺度 39
3.4層級結構的建立 39
3.5成對比較 39
3.5.1完整的成對比較 40
3.6特徵值與特徵向量 40
3.7一致性檢定 42
3.8應用AHP的決策程序 43
3.9應用AHP的方式 45
第四章 資料分析與實證 46
4.1基本資料分析 46
4.1.1問卷研究與分析工具 46
4.2高科技品牌經營之能耐分析 47
4.2.1組織能力 49
4.2.2資源 50
4.2.3組織配合 50
4.2.4企業側重之能耐 51
4.2.5企業面對之能耐落差 52
4.2.6面對能耐落差的外部合作方案選擇 54
4.3不同企業特性與科技品牌經營之能耐探討 55
4.3.1不同「品牌價值」廠商之觀點 55
4.3.2不同「產品特性」廠商之觀點 64
4.3.3不同「企業規模」廠商之觀點 74
4.3.4不同「競爭定位」廠商之觀點 84
4.4不同企業情境之科技品牌經營 93
4.4.1「工業用產品」不同競爭定位之策略 94
4.4.2「消費性產品」不同競爭定位之策略 104
4.5小結 112
4.6信度與效度 124
4.6.1信度(Reliability) 124
4.6.2效度(Validity) 124
第五章 研究結論與建議 125
5.1研究結果 125
5.1.1經營科技品牌的核心能耐、能耐落差與合作模式選擇 125
5.1.2不同情境科技品牌經營核心能耐、能耐落差與合作模式選擇 127
5.2後續相關研究之建議 130
參考文獻 132
附件一 變異數數據整理 139
附件二 研究對象敘述 142
附件三 研究問卷 144


表目錄
表1.1歷年獲選台灣國際科技品牌 4
表2.2策略性資源的內涵 17
表2.1品牌建立之企業能耐 18
表2.3產品創新之企業能耐 19
表2.4高科技品牌建立之企業能耐 20
表2.5相對競爭定位 22
表2.6策略聯盟形成十大因素 24
表2.7策略聯盟形式 26
表2.8科技品牌建立之外部合作模式 30
表3.1 AHP 評估尺度意義及說明 39
表3.2成對比較矩陣 40
表3.3隨機指標(R.I.) 42
表4.1能耐一致性檢定 46
表4.2方案選擇一致性檢定 46
表4.3「理想」上高科技企業經營品牌所應擁有的能耐 48
表4.4構面之權重 49
表4.5組織應具備各項能耐之權重 49
表4.6組織應擁有各項資源之權重 50
表4.7組織應配合之準則與權重 50
表4.8能耐之權重 51
表4.9企業理想與實務執行的能耐比較 52
表4.10能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 54
表4.11「具備品牌」之廠商觀點 55
表4.12「品牌推動中」之廠商觀點 56
表4.13比較不同品牌價值之企業的構面與權重 57
表4.14「具備品牌」之企業能耐權重 58
表4.15「具備品牌」之企業理想與實務執行的能耐比較 58
表4.16「品牌推動中」之企業能耐權重 60
表4.17「品牌推動中」企業側重之能耐 61
表4.18比較兩群對於品牌建立之能耐落差情形 62
表4.19「具備品牌」之企業的外部合作方案選擇 63
表4.20「品牌推動中」之企業的外部合作方案選擇 63
表4.21高科技企業經營「消費性產品」品牌所應擁有的能耐 64
表4.22高科技企業經營「工業用產品」品牌所應擁有的能耐 65
表4.23比較消費品與工業品企業之構面權重 67
表4.24「消費性產品」之企業能耐權重 67
表4.25「消費性產品」之企業理想與實務執行的能耐比較 68
表4.26「工業用產品」企業之能耐權重 69
表4.27「工業用產品」之企業理想與實務執行的能耐比較 70
表4.28不同產品特性對於能耐之優先順序比較 71
表4.29「消費性產品」之企業在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 72
表4.30「工業用產品」之企業在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 73
表4.31研究對象企業規模資訊彙整 74
表4.32企業規模分群 76
表4.33不同規模之企業認為經營品牌所應擁有的能耐 76
表4.34比較不同規模之企業的構面權重 77
表4.35「規模C之企業」能耐權重 78
表4.36「規模B之企業」能耐權重 79
表4.37「規模A之企業」能耐權重 79
表4.38「不同規模之企業」理想與實務執行的能耐落差比較 80
表4.39「規模C之企業」在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 82
表4.40「規模B之企業」在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 82
表4.41「規模A之企業」在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 83
表4.42企業規模不同下的外部合作方案選擇比較 83
表4.43研究對象之相對競爭定位 84
表4.44不同競爭定位之企業認為經營品牌所應擁有的能耐 85
表4.45不同競爭定位廠商之構面權重比較 86
表4.46「領導型企業」之能耐權重 87
表4.47「領先群企業」之能耐權重 87
表4.48「追隨型企業」之能耐權重 88
表4.49「利基型之企業」之能耐權重 89
表4.50「不同競爭定位之企業」理想與實務執行的能耐落差比較 90
表4.51領導型之企業在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 91
表4.52領先群之企業在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 91
表4.53追隨型之企業在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 92
表4.54利基型之企業在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 92
表4.55企業相對競爭定位不同下的外部合作方案選擇比較 93
表4.56企業追求能耐的策略地圖 94
表4.57「不同競爭定位之工業品廠商」認為經營科技品牌所應擁有的能耐 94
表4.58比較不同競爭定位之構面權重 95
表4.59「工業品領導型之企業」其能耐權重 96
表4.60「工業品領先群之企業」其能耐權重 97
表4.61「工業品追隨型之企業」其能耐權重 98
表4.62「工業品利基型之企業」其能耐權重 99
表4.63 「不同競爭定位之工業品廠商」理想與實務執行的能耐落差比較 100
表4.64「工業品領導型之企業」在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 101
表4.65「工業品領先群之企業」在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 102
表4.66「工業品追隨型之企業」在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 102
表4.67「工業品利基型之企業」在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 103
表7.68不同競爭定位之工業品廠商面對能耐落差的合作方案選擇 103
表4.69「不同競爭定位之消費品廠商」認為經營科技品牌所應擁有的能耐 104
表4.70比較不同競爭定位之構面權重 105
表4.71「消費品領導型之企業」其能耐權重 105
表4.72「消費品領先群之企業」其能耐權重 106
表4.73「消費品追隨型之企業」其能耐權重 107
表4.74「不同競爭定位之消費品廠商」理想與實務執行的能耐落差比較 108
表4.75「消費品領導型之企業」在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 110
表4.76「消費品領先群之企業」在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 110
表4.77「消費品追隨型之企業」在能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 111
表7.78不同競爭定位之工業品廠商面對能耐落差的合作方案選擇 111
表4.79構面之權重整理 119
表4.80產品特性不同下競爭定位之構面權重整理 120
表4.81準則之權重整理 121
表4.82方案之權重整理 122
表4.83產品特性不同下競爭定位之準則權重整理 123
表4.84產品特性不同下競爭定位之方案權重整理 123
表5.1實務上認為經營科技品牌之核心能耐 125
表5.2能耐落差下的外部合作方案選擇 126
表5.3實務中以企業情境分析經營品牌核心能耐 127
表5.4強化能耐落差之方案選擇 129
表A.1準則之變異數整理 139
表A.2方案之變異數整理 140
表A.3產品特性不同下競爭定位之準則變異數整理 140
表A.4產品特性不同下競爭定位之方案變異數整理 141
表B.1研究對象敘述 142


圖目錄
圖1.1 研究流程圖 5
圖2.1 局部技術創新系統關聯圖 11
圖3.1 研究架構圖 33
圖3.2 層級架構圖 35
圖3.3 完整(左)及不完整(右)層級結構 38
圖4.1 企業規模散布圖 75
英文文獻
Abele, J. M., Caesar, W. K., and John, R. H., 2003. Rechanneling sales. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1(3), 64−75.
Abernathy, W. J. and K. B. Clark. 1985. Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Journal of Research Policy, (14): pp.3-22.
Abiss, J., 2003. External linkages and technological innovation: (some) topical issues. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management , 3, pp. 151-175.
Ansoff, H. I. and J. M. Stewart. 1967. Strategies for a technology-based business. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 45(6): 71-83.
Appleyard, M., 1996. How does knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in the semi-conductor industry. Strategic Management Journal , 17, pp. 137-154.
Ard-Pieter de Man*, Geert Duysters, 2005, Collaboration and innovation: a review of the effects of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation, Faculty of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Badaracco, J. L., 2000, The Knowledge Link: How Firms Compete Through Strategic Alliance, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1991. Benjamin, T., The Alliance Revolution.
Barczak and Gloria. 1995. New Product Strategy, Structure, Process, and Performance in the Telecommunication Industry. Journal of product innovation Management, Vol.12: pp.224-234.
Betz, F. 1993. Managing Technology Competing Through New Ventures. Journal of Innovation and Corporate Research, Prentice Hall.
Bevilacqua, M and Braglia M., 2000, The analytic hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selections, Academy of Management Review, 19(1), pp. 119-143.
Booz, Allen and Hamilton. 1982. New Product Management for 1980’s. New York.
Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R., 1999. Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies 30, 439–462.
Bucklin, L.P., Sengupta, S., 1993. Organizing successful co-marketing alliances. Journal of Marketing 57 (2), 32–46.
Capron, L., and Hulland, J., 1999, Redeployment of brands, sales forces, and general marketing management expertise following horizontal acquisitions A resource-based view. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 41−54.
Chacke, G. K., 1988. Technology Management-Application to Corporate Markets and Military Mission, NY: Praeger.
Cohen, W. M. and D.A. Levinthal. 1990. Fortune Favors the Prepared Firm. Management Science, Vol.40, No.2: pp.227-251.
Combs, G.J., and D.J. Ketchen, Jr., 1999, Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance:Toward a reconciliation of predications from the resource-based view and organizational economics, Strategic Management Journal, 20, 867-888.
Cooper, R. G. 2000. Product Innovation and Technology Strategy. Research Technology Management. Vol. 43(1): 38-41.
Deng, Z.,B. Lev, and F. Narin, 1999, Science and Technology as Predictors of Stock Performance, Financial Analysis Journal, (May/June), pp20-32.
Dororthy Leonard-Barton, 1992, Special Issue: Strategy Process: Managing Corporate Self-Renewal, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, (Summer), 111-125.
Ettenson, R., & Knowles, J.,2006, Merging the brands and branding the merger. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(4), 39-49.
Francis, D. and Bessant, J. 2005. Targeting innovation and implications for capability development. Technovation .Vol: 25, Issue: 3, pp. 171-183.
Frank Tian Xie, Wesley J Johnston, 2004, Strategic alliances: incorporating the impact of e-business technological innovations. Santa Barbara, 2004. Vol. 19, Iss. 3; p. 208.
Garud, R and J.R. Nayyar. 1994. Transformative Capacity Continual Structuring By Intertemporal Technology Transfer. Strategic Management Journal. Vol.15: pp.265-385.
Geroski, P., 1992. Vertical relations between firms and industrial policy. The Economic Journal, 102, pp. 138-147.
Gerpott, T.J., 1995, Successful integration of R and D functions after acquisition: an exploratory empirical study. R and D Management 25, 161–178.
Gulati, R., 1998, Alliance and Network, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, No, 4, pp. 293-317.
Hafeez, K., Zhang, Y. and Malak, N., 2002, Determining key capabilities of a firm using analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of Production Economics, 76(1), pp. 39-51.
Hagedoorn, J., Link, A., Vonortas, F.N., 2000. Research partnerships. Research Policy , 29, pp. 567-586.
Hambrick, D. C. 1983. Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of Miles and Snow’s strategic types. Academy of Management Journal. 26(1): 5-26.
Hamel, G., 1990, Competitive Collaboration: Learning, Power and Dependence in International Strategic Alliances The PHD dissertation of University of Michigan.
Hamel, G.. and Prahalad, C. K., 1989. Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review. Vol: May–Jun. pp. 56-69.
Henderson, Rebecca M. and Kim B. Clark. 1990. Architectural Innovation: the Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol: 35. pp.9-30.
Holt, K. 1988. The Role of the User in Product Innovation. Technovation, 12(5), pp.53-56.
Hutt, M. D., Stafford, E. R., Walker, B. A. and Reingen, P. H., 2000. Case study: Defining thesocial network of a strategic alliance. Sloan Management Review, 41(2), pp. 51-62.
Iansiti M., 1995. Technology integration: managing technological evolution in a complex environment, Research Policy, Vol: 24, pp. 521-542.
Jarillo, C., 1989. Entrepreneurship and growth: the strategic use of external sources. Journal of Business, Venturing 4, pp. 133-147.
John, F. A. and P. A. Snelson. 1989. Product Development Approaches in Established Firms. Industrial Marketing Management. Vol: 18, pp.114-124.
Jones, G. R., 2001, Organizational Theory, N. Jersey: P. Hall.
Kangas, J., 1992, Multiple-use planning of forest resources by using the analytic hierarchy process, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 7, pp. 259-268.
Keller, K.L., 2003, Strategic Brand Management-—Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Killing, J.P., 1988, Understanding alliances: The role of task and organization complexity, in Contractor, F.J. and P. Lorange(1988), Cooperative strategy in international business, Lexington, MA:Lexington Books, pp.55-67.
Kogut B. and Zander U., 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, Vol: 3, Issue: 3, pp. 383-397.
Kogut, B.,1988, Joint Ventures: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.9, 1988, pp. 319-332.
Kurttila, M., Pesonen, Kangas, J. and Kajanus, M., 2000, Utlizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis – a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case, Forest Policy and Economics, 1(1), pp.41-52.
Larson, A., 1991. Partner networks: leveraging external ties to improve entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Business Venturing ,6, pp. 173-188.
Larson, A., 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, pp. 76-104.
Lee, J., and Kim, H., 1986. Determinants of new product outcome in adeveloping country: A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 3, pp. 143-156.
Lee, M., and Na, D., 1994. Determinants of technical success in product development when innovative radicalness is considered. Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 11(1), pp. 62-68.
Leiponen, Aija. 2005. Skills and innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization. Vol: 23, Issue: 5-6, June, pp. 303-323.
Lorenzoni, G., Lipparini, A., 1999. The leveraging of inter firm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (4), pp. 317-337.
Lorenzoni, G., Ornati, O., 1988. Constellations of firms and new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 3, pp. 41-57.
Louis Rhe’aume a,*, Harjeet S. Bhabra b,1, 2008, Value creation in information-based industries through convergence:A study of U.S. mergers and acquisitions between 1993 and 2005, Information and Management, 45 (2008) 304–311.
Lyons, T., Krachenberg, A., Henke Jr., J., 1990. Mixed motive marriages: what’s next for buyer–supplierrelations? Sloan Management Review, 31, pp. 29-36.
M.C. Jensen, in: S. Ross, R. Westerfield, B. Jordan (Eds.) 1995, Fundamentals of Corporate Finance, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, p. 653 (Chapter 20).
Maidique, M. A. and P. Patch. 1988. Corporate strategy and technology policy. In M. L. Tushman and W. L. Moore(eds.). Readings in the Management of innovation, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Mallette, P., Fowler, K. L., and Hayes, C., 2003, The acquisition process map: Blueprint for a successful deal. Southern Business Review, 28(2), 1−13.
Marquish, D.G. 1982. The Anatomy of Successful Innovation. Winthrop Publishers Cambridge.
Michael Dowling a,*, Roland Helm b,1 , 2006, Product development success through cooperation: A study of entrepreneurial firms, Technovation 26 (2006) 483–488.
Midgley, D., Morrison, P., Roberts, J., 1992. The effect of network structure in industrial diffusion processes. Research Policy, 21, pp. 533- 552.
Porter, M. E. 1985. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
Powell, W., 1987. Hybrid organizational arrangements: New form ortransitional development? California Management Review Fall, pp. 67-87.
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, pp. 116-145.
Price, R. M., 1996. Technology and strategic advantage. California Management Review. Vol: 38, Issue: 3, pp. 38-56.
Rangan, V. K., Zoltners, A. A., and Becker, R. J., 1986, The channel intermediary selection decision: A model and an application. Management Science, 32(9), 1114−1122.
Richard Ettenson, Jonathan Knowles, 2006, Merging the Brands and Branding the Merger, Cambridge: Summer 2006. Vol. 47, Iss. 4; p. 39.
Richardson, G., 1972. The organisation of industry. Economy Journal, pp. 883-896.
Ritter, T., 1999, The Networking Company: Antecedents for Coping with Relationships and Network Effectively, Industrial Marketing Management, 28, pp.467-479.
Robert, E. B., and Meyer, M.H., 1991. Product Strategy and Corporate Success. Engineering Management Review. Vol. Sring, pp.4-18.
Rothwell R. and W. Zegveld. 1985. Reindustrialization and Technology. Harlow. UK. Longman .
Sattler, H., Schrader, S., Luethje, C., 2003. Informal cooperation in the US and Germany: cooperative managerialcapitalism in interfirm information trading. International Business Review , 12, pp. 273-295.
Schrader, S., 1991. Informal Technology transfer between firms: cooperation through information sharing. Research Policy 20, 153– 170.
Stafford, R.E., 1994, Using co-operative strategies to make alliances work, Long Range Planning, Vol.27, No.3, pp.64-74.
Teece D.J., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation, Research Policy, Vol: 15, Issue: 6, pp. 285-306.
Thieme, R. J., Song, M., and Shin, G. C., 2003. Project management characteristics and new product survival. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), pp. 104-119.
Thomas, R. J. 1993. New Product Development, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Thorelli, H., 1986. Networks: between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, 7 (1), pp. 37-51.
Tushman, M. and D. Nadler. 1986, Organizing og Innovation, California Management Review. Vol. 28(3).
Weber, J. A., and Dholakia, U. M., 2000. Including marketing synergy in acquisition analysis: A step-wise approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(3), 157−177.
Werner Bo¨ nte a, T, Max Keilbach b,1, 2005, Concubinage or marriage? Informal and formal cooperations for innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization . 23 (2005) 279– 302.
Combs, G.J., and D.J. Ketchen, Jr.,1999, Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance:Toward a reconciliation of predications from the resource-based view and organizational economics, Strategic Management Journal, 20, 867-888.

中文文獻
于卓民等著,商學總論,麥田出版社,1996,頁557-559。
王美音,楊子江合譯,1997,創新求勝-智價企業論,遠流出版社。Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., 1995, The Knowledge-Creating Company
司徒達賢,中小企業互助合作與企業以電子業與機械業為例,經濟部中小企業處委託,1992。
吳思華,2000,三版,策略九說,台北:城邦文化。
吳鴻譯,2006,為什麼有些品牌比較強?從低科技到高科技的品牌經營策略,台北:遠流出版。Al Ries and Laura Ries, 2004, The Origin of Brands, USA : HarperCollins Publishers.
呂鴻德,企業策略聯盟QandA,商週文化,民國85年。
李芳齡譯,2006,尖子品牌:發掘五十個成功品牌的背後秘訣,台北:美商麥格羅希爾國際股份有限公司 台灣分公司,Kelly III, F. J. and Silverstein, B., The Breakaway Brand, 2005, The McGraw-Hill Companies.
侯秀琴譯,2009,創新者的致勝法則,台北:天下遠見。A. G. Lafley and Ram Charan, 2008, The Game-Changer: How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth and Innovation.
品牌台灣, 2009,「台灣國際品牌歷年獲選廠商」,http://www.brandingtaiwan.org/index.aspx#,搜尋日期:2009年12月10日。
洪順慶,2006,台灣品牌競爭力,台北:天下雜誌。
袁建中、王飛龍、陳坤成譯,2006,科技創新管理:由變動中贏得競爭優勢,二版,台北:華泰。Frederick Betz, 2003, Managing Technological innovation. New York.
張逸民譯,2005,行銷學,台北:華泰文化。Armstrong, G. and Kotler, P.,2005,Marketing : an introduction, 7th ed. Pearson Education.
陳旭華譯,2004,高科技行銷,台北:財團法人中衛發展中心。Davidow, W. H., 1986, Marketing high technology : an insider’s view, NY : The Free Press.
楊日融,2003,咖啡店經營關鍵成功因素之研究,中正大學管理研究所,博碩士論文網。
溫榮弘譯, 2006,科技創新策略管理,台北:美商麥格羅.希爾。Melissa A. S., 2004, Strategic Management of Technological Innovation.
經濟部中小事業處,2009,「中小企業認定標準」,http://www.moeasmea.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=672&ctNode=214&mp=1,搜尋日期:2010年2月.
劉常勇(民86),技術資源管理能力對新產品開發影響之研究,國科會專題計畫報告。
賴士葆,謝龍發,陳松柏,2005,「科技管理」,台北;華泰文化。
戴國平、莊友欣譯,2002,殺手級品牌戰略:高科技公司如何克敵制勝,台北:經濟新潮社。Temporal, P. and Lee, K. C., 2001, HI-TECH HI-TOUCH BRANDING, New York, NY : Wiley and Sons.
羅佩文,2008,運用網絡關係效益創造企業品牌:IT品牌領導廠商高階主管觀點,中原大學企業管理研究所,博碩士論文網。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top