跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.226.244.254) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/03 01:27
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:洪新民
研究生(外文):Hung, Hsin-Min
論文名稱:知識網路定位、知識基礎與知識策略對創新能力的影響─台灣資訊電子業的實證研究
論文名稱(外文):The Influence of Knowledge Networking, Knowledge Base and Knowledge Strategy on Innovation Capability: An Empirical Research of Taiwan ICT Firms
指導教授:吳思華吳思華引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wu, Se-HwaCameron M. Ford
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立政治大學
系所名稱:科技管理研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:其他商業及管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2009
畢業學年度:98
語文別:中文
論文頁數:122
中文關鍵詞:創新能力知識網路定位知識基礎知識策略知識管理社會網路
外文關鍵詞:Innovation CapabilityKnowledge NetworkingKnowledge BaseKnowledge StrategyKnowledge ManagementSocial Network
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:327
  • 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:3
企業透過創新以積極回應環境變遷的要求。企業新產品或服務的創新程度應依環境的需求決定。面對環境變遷,顧客需求可能改寫,企業如何取得正確的顧客需求成為重要問題;相反的,身處顧客需求已知的環境,競爭的重點轉為產品的品質與成本,企業內部如何充分分享知識以提升產品品質與降低成本成為重要議題。成功創新的企業是「如何」採行知識網路定位獲取所需要的新顧客需求及產品品質與成本等創新驅動因素,提升知識基礎與知識策略並進而影響創新能力?知識網路定位、知識基礎與知識策略對於創新能力的影響「有多大」?台灣資訊電子業又是如何透過知識網路定位同時達成上述的知識處理過程,提升創新能力?本研究試圖回答這些問題。

企業回應環境變遷所採行的企業策略可分為積極回應環境的前瞻者〈Prospector〉、固守環境穩定的防衛者〈Defender〉以及兼具前二者部份特色、試圖極大化獲利機會並同時極小化風險的分析者〈Analyzer〉(Miles et al., 1978)。企業回應環境的創新能力從本身具備的技術基礎與滿足市場需求所需具備技術間的差異程度可區分為激進式創新以及漸進式創新。文獻中對於企業創新能力的探討,主要有知識策略以及知識基礎二大觀點,知識策略強調企業回應環境需求變遷程度,設定新產品或服務創新程度、所需的激進式或漸進式創新能力,進而決定投資資源於探索新知識以及運用既有知識專案的比例,經由探索策略以及運用策略,提升企業回應環境需求的創新能力;知識基礎則強調企業的人力資本、組織資本以及社會資本等知識存量是提升企業創新能力的關鍵因素。如何調和知識基礎與知識策略產生正向的交互作用是提升企業創新能力的重要議題 (Cook & Brown, 1999)。

本研究檢視上述相關文獻,指出社會資本與人力資本、組織資本特性上的差異。鑲嵌不同社會資本〈新市場機會及信任〉的不同知識網路定位〈相對創業型定位及相對緊密型網路〉在環境變遷中提供企業不同程度的取得新市場機會〈如相對創業型定位有助於企業了解新市場顧客需求〉,促進知識基礎與知識策略對於企業創新能力的提升。本研究並且進一步在分析者企業策略的框架下,提出創新能力為因變數、知識策略與知識基礎為自變數、知識網路定位為調節變數的研究假設模型。

接著,本研究進行質性及量化實證研究,質性研究是從個案研究資料庫找出研究個案數量相對多且品質佳的創新個案:1980年代製造業的昇陽二號以及1990年代服務業的亞馬遜網路書店,逐篇檢視找出對應相關變數及其間關係,以初步檢驗本研究的研究模型。接著,為一般化本研究模型的解釋力,從重要的量化實證文獻中找出衡量各變數的問項整理成問卷,以台灣資訊電子業上市企業共341家為母體樣本,寄發問卷給各家企業之經理人,共取得69份有效問卷〈有效回收率為20.23%〉,將這些問卷資料以淨最小平方法演算後分析發現,採行分析〈者〉企業策略的台灣資訊電子業上市企業的實證資料支持絕大部分研究假設。在著重漸進式創新、漸進式創新專案對於激進式創新專案人力資本有顯著排擠效果的設計製造代工思維下,企業的知識網路定位透過知識策略與知識基礎提升創新能力。

本研究基於實證結果,除在理論上以知識網路定位銜接知識基礎與知識策略顯著提升對於創新能力的解釋力以及從產業創新階段觀點解答目前文獻對於組織知識網路定位的矛盾:同時採行相對創業型定位及相對緊密型網路成效差 (e.g., Koka & Prescott, 2008) vs. 同時採行二種知識網路定位成效好 (e.g., Capaldo, 2007) 外,同時也對實務提出建言:經理人應觀察產業所處的創新階段決定所需要提升的創新能力〈激進式或漸進式〉,盤點知識基礎〈人力資源及組織資本〉,透過知識網路定位〈相對創業型定位或相對緊密型網路〉與知識策略〈相對知識探索或相對知識運用〉的搭配,提升所需的創新能力。
Firms aggressively respond to environmental change through innovations. Radicalness of innovations should be guided by environmental demand, or customers’ requirement. When customers’ requirement changes or is unknown, how do firms explore customers’ requirement becomes a crucial question. Contrarily, when customers’ requirement is known or unchanged and competition emphasizes on product/service quality and cost, how do firms exploit knowledge to increase quality or/and to decrease cost becomes a crucial question (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978). How does an innovative firm successfully adopt a proper knowledge networking which acquires above drivers (i.e., new customer requirement, product quality/cost) and facilitates the firm’s knowledge base and knowledge strategy to increase innovation capability? To what extent of knowledge networking, knowledge bases and knowledge strategies combine to affect firm innovation capability? This study tries to answer these questions.

According to firms’ responsive degree to environmental change, firms can be categorized into Prospectors, Analyzers, and Defenders from a corporate strategy perspective (Miles et al., 1978). ‘Prospectors’ aggressively respond environmental changes, ‘Defenders’ pursue a stable environment, ‘Analyzers’ attempt to minimize risk while they maximize profit. Corporate strategy directs how does a firm respond environmental change and pursue innovation capabilities (Koka & Prescott, 2008). According to discrepancy degree between market demand and firms’ existing technologies base, innovation capabilities which firms pursue can be categorized into radial innovation capability and incremental innovation capability. Two major schools argue different sources of innovation capability. Knowledge-based scholars (e.g., Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005) argue that innovation capability is from firms’ knowledge (e.g., human capital, organization capital and social capital) utilization and accumulation. Contrarily, knowledge strategy scholars (e.g., Atuahene-Gima, 2005) emphasize importance of adaption. Firms are required to adapting to environmental change, setup radicalness of new product or innovation capability, and deicide resources allocating on exploration projects or/and exploitation projects. Firms increase innovation capability through knowledge exploration strategy and knowledge exploitation strategy.

Knowledge-base perspective indicates source of firms’ innovation capability. However, it assumes environment changes slowly or companies are able to dominate environmental change. Contrarily, knowledge strategy perspective indicates direction of firms’ innovation capability for adapting to environment. However, it assumes firms’ knowledge base is fruitful and can be utilized for strategy execution. How does a firm positively interplay knowledge base and knowledge strategy to increase innovation capability is a crucial question (Cook & Brown, 1999).

I review literature and firstly indicate that social capital’s characteristic is different from human capital and organization capital. Different degrees of knowledge networking (relatively entrepreneurial positioning and relatively prominent networking) embedding different social capital (new opportunities and trust) facilitates firms’ new opportunities accessibility to increase innovation capability via knowledge base and knowledge strategy. This research deducts eight hypotheses and builds a model which includes innovation capability (dependent variable), knowledge base and knowledge strategy (independent variable), and knowledge networking (moderating variable).

Further, I conduct a qualitative research and a quantitative research to test the model. I find Sun-2 workstation in 1980s and Amazon.com website innovation cases from databases and elucidate corresponding variables relationships. Then, I collect items which measure variables from premier journals’ articles to generate a survey questionnaire. I send questionnaires to 341 Taiwan ICT firms’ managers. The firms are listed on Taiwan Stock Exchange. Final 69 effective samples are received (return rate = 20.23%). I use PLS to analyze the data and find that most hypotheses are supported. This quantitative research finds that Taiwan ICT firms emphasize on incremental innovation capability, and incremental innovation projects cannibalize radical innovation projects in human capital, knowledge networking influences innovation capability via knowledge base and knowledge strategy.

This research concludes that 1. knowledge networking bridges the gap between knowledge base and knowledge strategy and increases innovation capability, 2. Corresponding knowledge networking, knowledge base, knowledge strategy, and innovation capability on distinct stages of industrial innovation resolves knowledge networking dilemma: A firm which simultaneously adopts relatively entrepreneurial positioning and relatively prominent networking performs worse (e.g., Koka & Prescott, 2008) or better (e.g., Capaldo, 2007), 3. Managers should determine innovation capability portfolio (relatively more radical innovations or relatively more incremental innovations?) by product market’s stages of industrial innovation, check existing knowledge base (human capital and organization capital), adopt corresponding knowledge networking (relatively entrepreneurial positioning or relatively prominent networking), knowledge base and knowledge strategy (relatively exploring knowledge or exploiting knowledge) to increase determinative innovation capability.
第一章 緒論‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧ ‧1
第一節 研究背景與動機‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧1
第二節 研究問題與研究目的‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧7
第三節 研究範圍‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧9
第四節 論文章節安排‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧10
第二章 文獻探討‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧13
第一節 影響創新能力的重要因素‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧13
第二節 知識策略與創新能力‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧17
第三節 知識基礎與創新能力‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧20
第四節 知識網路定位與創新能力‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧25
第五節 知識網路定位對知識策略的影響‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧28
第六節 觀念性研究架構‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧30
第三章 個案研究‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧34
第一節 質化研究方法及資料收集‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧34
第二節 昇陽 (Sun Microsystems) 個案介紹‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧35
第三節 亞馬遜 (Amazon.com) 個案介紹‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧39
第四節 個案分析‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧43
第五節 個案研究總結‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧44
第四章 量化研究方法‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧46
第一節 變數操作型定義與假說‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧48
第二節 變數衡量方法‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧51
第三節 實證樣本介紹‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧62
第四節 統計方法與資料分析‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧67



第五章 研究結果與討論‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧70
第一節 信度與效度分析‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧70
第二節 假說驗證結果‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧74
第三節 研究發現與討論‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧80
第六章 結論與建議‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧87
第一節 綜合討論‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧89
第二節 理論意涵‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧90
第三節 實務意涵‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧94
第四節 研究限制與後續研究建議‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧98
參考文獻‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧103
附錄‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧114
附錄一 中文版問卷‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧114
附錄二 問卷邀請函‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧117
附錄三 問卷受試者名單‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧119
附錄四 作者已發表文章‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧122


表目錄

表1-1:台灣資訊電子產品在全球市場的市場占有率‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧5
表4-1:本研究自變數與依變數之操作型定義‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧49
表4-2:創新能力變數衡量題目‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧53
表4-3:人力資本變數衡量題目‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧55
表4-4:組織資本變數衡量題目‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧56
表4-5:知識網路定位變數衡量題目‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧57
表4-6:知識策略變數衡量題目‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧58
表4-7:控制變數衡量題目及指標‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧59
表4-8:各個變數的量表參考來源‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧61
表4-9:問卷受試者基本資料敘述統計‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧65
表4-10:主要變數敘述統計‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧66
表5-1:信度與聚合效度的測試結果 ─ 樣本分群‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧70
表5-2:區別效度的測試結果 ─ 樣本分群‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧71
表5-3:信度與效度的測試結果 ─ 全部樣本‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧73
表5-4:假設驗證結果‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧79
Abernathy, W. J. & Utterback, J. M. 1978. Patterns of industrial innovation, Technology Review, MIT Alumni Association, 80: 40-47.
Ali, A,, Kalwani, M. U. & Kovenock, D. 1993. Selecting product development projects: pioneering versus incremental strategies. Management Science, 39(3): 255-274.
Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. 2001. The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27: 755-775.
Amesse, F., & Cohendet, P. 2001. Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy, 30: 1459-1478.
Applegate, L. M. 2002. Amazon.com: 1994-2000, Case#: 9-801-194, Harvard Business School, Harvard University.
Atuahene-Gima, K. 2005. Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69:61-83.
Beckman, C. M., Haunschild, P. R., & Phillips, D. J. 2004. Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization Science, 15(3): 259-275.
Begley, T., & Boyd, D. 1987. Psychological characteristics associates with performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller business. Journal of Business Venturing, 2: 79-93.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 238-256.
Bontis, N. 1998. Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models, Management Decision, 36(2): 63.
Bose, R. 2004. Knowledge management metrics. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 104: 457-468.
Bourdieu, P. 1985. The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Eds.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education: 241-258. New York: Greenwood.
Bouty, I. 2000. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1): 50-65.
Brockhaus, R., & Horowitz, P. 1986. The psychology of the entrepreneur. In The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. D. Sexton and R. Smilor eds. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2: 40-57.
Burgelman, R. A. & Meza, P. 2001. Amazon.com: Evolution of the e-tailer. Case#: SM-83, Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M. & Wheelright, S. C. 2004. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation. McGraw Hill. New York.
Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2): 349-399.
Capaldo, A. 2007. Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6): 585-608.
Chandy, R. K. & Tellis, G. J. 1998. Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXV: 474-487.
Chen, C., Greene, P., & crick, A. 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy sintingguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4): 295-316.
Chin, W. W. 1998. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1): vii-xvi.
Coleman, J. C. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-S120.
Collura, M. & Applegate, L. M. 2000 Amazon.com: Exploiting the value of digital business infrastructure, Case#: 9-800-330, Harvard Business School, Harvard University.
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. 1999. Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4): 381-400.
Corbett, A. C. 2007. Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1): 97-118.
Danneels, E. 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competencies. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 1095-1121.
Davidsson, P & Honig, B. 2003. The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3): 301-331
Day, G. S. 1994. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58: 37-52.
Deward, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32: 1422-1433.
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 345-367.
Eckhardt, J. T. & Shane, S. A. 2003. Opportunities and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3): 333-349.
Fornell, C. R. (ed.) 1982. A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis, Vol. 1: Methods, Praeger Special Studies, New York, NY.
Fornell, C. R. & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics, Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 382-388.
Forst, T. S., & Zhou, C. H. 2005. R&D co-practice and ‘reverse’ knowledge integration in multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6): 676-687.
Gargiulo, M. & Benassi, M. 2000. Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science. 11(2): 183-196.
Ghemawat, P. 1998. Leadership online (A): Barnes & Noble vs. Amazon.com, Case#: 9-798-063, Harvard Business School, Harvard University.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. 2001. Knowledge Management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (1): 185-214.
Grant, R. A. 1989. Building and testing a causal model of an information technology’s impact, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Systems: 173-184.
Grants, R. M. 1996. Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: Organizational capability and knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7: 375-387.
Gu, F. F., Hung, K., & Tse, D. 2008. When does guanxi matter? Issues of capitalization and its dark sides. Journal of Marketing, 72: 12-28.
Henderson, R. & Cockburn, I. 1994. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in Pharmaceutical Research. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 63-84.
Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. 2001. Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 13-28.
Hoang, H & Antoncic, B. 2003. Network-based research in entrepreneurship - A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2): 165-187.
Hung, H-M., Wu, S-H., Wen, C-T., & Wu, F-S. 2008. Competitive advantages of managing an effective social network structure to stimulate innovation from a knowledge management perspective. International Journal of Technology Management, 43(4): 363-382.
Hung, H-M. 2007. Competitive strategies in industrial innovation. 2007 Chinese Society of Management of Technology Annual Meeting.
Hung, H-M. 2008. Organizational strategy change associated with organizational growth. #13151 in Proceedings of 2008 Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
Hung, Y-C., Huang, S-M., Lin, Q. P., & Tsai, M. L. 2005. Critical factors in adopting a knowledge management system for the pharmaceutical industry. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 105: 164-183.
Ichijo, K. 2000. Knowledge exploitation and knowledge exploration: Two strategies for knowledge creating companies. In von Krough, G. Ichijo, K. & I. Nonaka (Eds) Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation.
Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. & Badawy, M. K. 1994. Work experiences, job involvement, and quality of work life among information systems personnel, MIS Quarterly, June: 175-201.
Im, S., & Workman Jr., J. P. 2004. Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68: 114-132.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J. & Volberda, H. W. 2006. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11): 1661-1674.
Johansson, J. K. & Yip, G. S. 1994. Exploiting globalization potential: U. S. and Japanese strategies, Strategic Management Journal, 15(8): 579-601.
Kodama, M. 2007. Knowledge Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Kogut, B. 2000. The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 405-425.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7 (5): 502-518.
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.
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2003. Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-maco model of its formation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 297-317.
Lane, P. J., & Lubakin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 461-477.
Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. 2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 797-818.
Leana, C. R., & van Buren, H. J. 1999. Organizational social capital and employment practices, Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 538-555.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 111-125.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning, Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112.
Lohmoller, J. B. 1989. Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. 1998. From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: New Product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing, 62(4): 1-12.
Marvel, M. R., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2007. Technology entrepreneurs’ human capital and its effects on innovation radicalness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (6), 807-828.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.
Mathews, J. A. 2003. Competitive dynamics and economic learning: An extended resource-based view. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(1): 115-145.
McClelland, D. 1961. The Achieving Society. D. Van Nostrand, Priceton, NJ.
McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of rim heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 1133-1156.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D. & Coleman, H. J. Jr. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Academy of Management Review, 3: 546-562.
Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., & Cardinal, L. B. 2007. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 308-326.
Mizik, N. & Jacobson, R. 2003 Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67: 63-76.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 242-266.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, M. A.: Belknap Press.
Nijssen, E. J., Hillebrand, B., & Vermeulen, P. A. M. 2005. Unraveling willingness to cannibalize: A closer loo at the barrier to radical innovation. Technovation, 25: 1400-1409.
Nolan, R. L., & Porter, K. A. 1999. Sun Microsystems and the n-tier architecture. Case#: 9-399-037, Harvard Business School, Harvard University.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford Press.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Palepu, K. 2001. Amazon.com in the year 2000, Case#: 9-101-045, Harvard Business School, Harvard University.
Parry, M. E. 1999. Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com, Case#: UVA-M-0603, Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Virginia.
Porter, M. E. 1983. The technological dimension of competitive strategy. Research on Technological Innovation, Management, and Policy, 1:1-33.
Puranum, P., Singh, H., & Zollo, M. 2006. Organizing for innovation: managing the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 263-280.
Ramani, G., & Kumar, V. 2008. Interaction orientation and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 72: 27-45.
Reagans, R. & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effect of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 240-267.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S. & Will, A. 2005 SmartPLS 2.0 (beta) http://www.smartpls.de, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. 2004. More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 541-562.
Ronchi, S., Chapman, R., & Corso, M. 2003. Knowledge management in continuous product innovation: A contingent approach. International Journal of Technology Management, 26: 871-886.
Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49: 751-766.
Schumpeter, J. 1942. Creative Destruction. New York: Haper.
Schultz, T. W. 1961. Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51: 1-17.
Schwab, D. P. 2005. Research Methods for Organizational Studies (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217-226..
Shrader, R., & Siegel, D. S. 2007. Assessing the relationship between human capital and firm performance: Evidence from technology-based new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6): 893-908.
Smith, A. D. 2004. Empirical exploration for a product data management system at a major telecommunications firm. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 104: 513-525.
Soosay, C. & Hyland, P. 2008. Exploration and exploitation: the interplay between knowledge and continuous innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 42 (1-2): 20-35.
Southwick, K. 1999. High Noon: The Inside Story of Scott McNealy and the Rise of Sun Micro Systems. John Wiley.
Spector, R. 2000. Amazon.com: Get big fast. New York, NY: Haper Collins Publishers, Inc.
Stam, W., & Elfring, T. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: the moderating role of intra- and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 97-111.
Stewart, T. A. 1997. Intellectual capital. New York: Doubleday-Currency.
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.
Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C. & Chandy, R. K. 2009, Radical innovation across nations: The pre-eminence of corporate culture. Journal of Marketing, 51 pages, forthcoming.
Tsai, W. P., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4): 464-476.
Tseng, Y. M. 2009. Internal factors for radical artifacts innovation in Taiwanese Cases. The Business Review, Cambridge, 13(1): 210-215.
Tushman, M. L., & OReilly, C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4): 8-&.
Von Hippel, E. 1988. The Source of Information, Oxford university Press: New York.
Wang, C. L., 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4): 635-657.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. 1991. Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16: 57-91.
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(7): 698-710.
Wixom, B. H. & Watson, H. J. 2001. An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success, MIS Quarterly, 25(1): 17-41.
Wold, H. 1982. Soft-modeling─The basic design and more extensions, in Systems Under Indirect Observation─Part II, 1-54. K. G. Joreskog and H. Wold (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Inc.
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.
Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, M., & Snell, S. A. 2004. Intellectual capital profiles: An examination of investments and returns. Journal of Management Studies, 41: 335-362.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊