臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來，由於外部環境的快速變動，如科技迅速的創新、金融資本市場的全球化、世界地區聯盟的產生等等，都使得企業的經營難度增加。在這樣的環境下，企業不以單打獨鬥的方式，改採以合作為主的經營策略，使得策略聯盟成為企業為了獲取資源，以及增強本身能力，最普遍採行的方法。
台灣中小企業在全部企業中的所佔的比率達到97.64%，內外經營環境變化對於先天資源缺乏、競爭條件較不足、企業規模小且自有資金有限的國內中小企業而言，經營面對的問題與迎接之挑戰，較之以往將會更加嚴苛且激烈。而台灣的工具機產業結構，主要是以中小企業為主，其精度、效率、品質及穩定性與日本、德國等領導品牌有所差距，又面臨大陸、南韓在後急起直追，產業必須有所轉型。但由於工具機十分重視精準度與穩定性，在缺乏資源與資金有限的情況下提昇技術能力與創新能力，必須透過策略聯盟共同研發技術或互相交流。
以往的策略聯盟研究沒有考慮到策略聯盟中其他廠商的行為以及和他人的關係，也忽略了與其他廠商的互動，在研究策略聯盟中各成員是否能夠獲得技術資源利益時，必須透過網絡的角度觀察，始能得以全貌。而在過去的研究裡，學者多半只透過網絡型態來探討技術是否能有效擴散，對於技術擴散之後廠商之間的網絡型態以及其異質性對技術能力提昇的多寡著墨甚少。因此，本研究將對策略聯盟之後廠商網絡型態對技術能力是否真的提升加以探討。
此外，除了網絡型態對於技術能力有所影響外，廠商之特性亦扮演著重要的角色。從資源基礎理論的觀點來看，廠商是否擁有能形成競爭優勢的資源，以及是否擁有運用資源的能力，對廠商是相當重要的。當市場上出現一項新技術，其對於廠商之策略重要性與廠商對於新技術的吸收能力會影響廠商和此新技術之融合程度，因此在探討技術能力時，應將廠商特性納入考量。
本研究採用了工研院所執行之科專計畫，名為「車銑複合化工具機研發聯盟」，作為本研究之對象，此計畫主要包含工研究機械所與其他七家工具機廠商，目的在於探討策略聯盟結束迄今，各家廠商之間的網絡型態與廠商特性對廠商之間技術能力的影響。
本研究結果發現，凝聚模型與結構同位模型對廠商的技術能力有正面影響，表示廠商彼此之間，透過互動合作，相互交換訊息、技術交流，努力開發出自己負責的機型，進而提升了彼此的技術能力；同時也透過工研院建立之平台，彼此良性競爭，亦提升了彼此的技術能力。其次，廠商特性的部份，策略重要性與吸收能力亦對廠商的技術能力有著顯著的正面影響。表示市場上若出現一項能為廠商帶來競爭優勢的新技術，而廠商發覺自己內部無法與新技術配合時，會修正內部的技術並改善缺點，有助於廠商產品能力方面的提升。吸收能力的部份，表示廠商的吸收能力高，能夠快速的學習與應用外界的技術與知識，在市場上出現新技術時，能夠快速的學習、加以吸收，並且將此知識應用於新產品或商業目的上，更能夠藉此找出自己內部與此技術的搭配是否有不足之處，以便提升自己本身的技術能力。

In recent years, due to the rapid changes in the external environment, such as rapid technological innovation, globalization of financial capital markets, world production of regional alliances, etc., all make enterprise management more difficult. In this environment, companies not to go it alone the way, changed to a cooperative- based business strategies, making strategic alliances in order to obtain the enterprise resources, and enhance their ability to adopt the most common method.
Taiwan's small and medium enterprises in the total percentage to 97.64%,internal and external business environment changes for the congenital lack of resources, competitive conditions than enough small scale and limited domestic small and medium enterprises own funds, the operating problems and meet the challenges, than in the past will be more harsh and intense. Machine tools in Taiwan's industrial structure, mainly medium and small enterprises, its accuracy, efficiency, quality and stability with Japan, Germany and other leading brands lapse, facing the mainland, South Korea Hou catch up, industry must be in transition . However, machine tool attaches great importance to accuracy and stability, lack of resources and capital in the context of limited ability to upgrade their technology and innovation, through a strategic alliance to jointly develop technology or exchange.
The strategic alliance of the past, failed to consider strategic alliances in the behavior of other manufacturers as well as the relations with others, have ignored the interaction with other firms, strategic alliances in research among members of availability of technical resources interests, must be through a network point of view observation, before they can be whole picture. In previous studies, the scholars she has only been through the network type to investigate whether the technology can be effective diffusion, for technology diffusion between firms of the network type Zhi Hou, and Xing Qi heterogeneity of technological capabilities to enhance the amount of dwell little. Therefore, this strategic alliance will be after the maker of network type on it really enhance the technical capacity to be explored.
In addition to the network type has implications for technological capabilities, firms characteristics also play an important role. From the theoretical point of view of the resource base, whether firms possess the resources of competitive advantage, and whether it has the capacity utilization of resources, the manufacturer is very significant. When a new technology emerged on the market, its strategic importance for Firms with vendors for the new technology will affect the absorptive capacity of firms and the extent of this new technology integration, and therefore of technical capacity, firm characteristics should be taken into account.
In this study, performed by the Industrial Technology Research Institute of technology projects, known as "milling complex machine tool industry alliance", as the research object, this project consists mainly of machinery and other works of seven machine tool manufacturers The purpose is to explore the far end of a strategic alliance, a network between various types of firms and firm characteristics on the impact of technological capabilities between firms.
The results showed that aggregation model and structure model with digital technology on the ability of firms have positive effects, that manufacturers each other, through interactive cooperation and mutual exchange of information, technology, and strive to be responsible for developing their own models, thus enhancing mutual technical capacity; but also through the Industrial Technology Research Institute to establish the platform for healthy competition with each other, and enhance each other's technical capabilities. Second, the firm characteristics of the part of the strategic importance of absorptive capacity and technological capabilities are also on the vendors have a significant positive impact. That the market If there is a competitive advantage for manufacturers of new technology, manufacturers can not find their own internal and new technology co-ordination should be revised and improved Quedian internal technology, will help manufacturers improve product capabilities. Part of absorptive capacity, high absorption capacity that vendors can quickly learn and apply the skills and knowledge from outside, the emergence of new technologies in the market, can quickly learn to absorb and apply this knowledge of new products or commercial purposes, the better able to identify themselves with the internal and whether this technique is inadequate to improve their own technological capabilities.

第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究問題 3
1.3 研究對象 4
1.4研究流程 5
第二章 文獻探討 6
2.1 策略聯盟 6
2.2 社會網絡理論 8
2.3 策略聯盟與網絡 10
2.4. 技術能力 11
2.4.1 網絡與技術能力 14
2.5 策略重要性對技術能力的影響 16
2.6 吸收能力對技術能力的影響 17
第三章 假說推演 19
3.1 網絡型態與技術能力 19
3.1.1 凝聚模型與技術能力 19
3.1.2 結構同位模型與技術能力 20
3.2 資源基礎理論與技術能力 21
3.2.1 策略重要性與技術能力 21
3.2.2 吸收能力與技術能力 22
第四章 研究方法 24
4.1 樣本與資料蒐集 24
4.2 測量與尺度(變數操作性定義) 26
4.2.1 網絡型態 26
4.2.2 廠商特性 32
4.3 分析方法 36
第五章 研究對象 38
5.1 策略聯盟介紹 38
5.2 策略聯盟之特徵 39
5.3 廠商之間的關係 39
5.3.1 在策略聯盟之前 40
5.3.2 在策略聯盟期間 41
5.3.3 在策略聯盟結束之後 42
5.4 小結 43
第六章 實證結果 44
6.1 網絡型態與技術能力 44
6.2 廠商特性與技術能力 46
第七章 研究結論與建議 47
7.1 網絡型態與技術能力 47
7.2 廠商特性與技術能力 49
7.3 考慮工研院的角色 50
7.4 與先進線型工具機技術整合型計畫之比較 52
7.5 研究貢獻 53
7.6 研究限制與後續建議 54
文獻 55

中文
1. 丁錫鏞(1992)，「現代科技管理學」，嵐德出版社，頁 47。
2. 吳思華(2000)，「策略九說－策略思考的本質」。三版，台北市：臉譜出版
3. 林明杰(1992)，「技術能力與技術引進績效相關之研究」，政治大學企業管理研 所博士論文，台北。
4. 邱議德(2000)，「以社會網路分析法評估工作團隊知識創造與分享」，中正大學 資訊管理學系碩士論文。
5. 周佩萱(2006)，「2006法人科技專案執行成效報告—伍、促成產業價值創造案例」，經濟部技術處，p.52-53。
6. 俞慧芸(1995)，「政府科技專案技術移轉模式與移轉績效之研究：以台灣電子資信產業為例」，中山大學企業管理研究所博士論文，高雄。
7. 翁明祥(1996)，技術密集產業、技術創新過程及關鍵影響因素關係之研究，輔仁管理評論，3(2)，21-48
8. 熊瑞梅(1995)，「社會網絡的資料收集、測量及分析」，社會調查與分析（章英 華等主編）：頁 315-357。中央研究院民族所出版。
9. 蔡敦浩、周德光(1994)，「技術能力的形成與發展」，(1994)產業科技研究發展管理論文集，經濟部技術處，頁 237-264。
10. 蔡一如(2008)，策略聯盟研究—機械產業之技術擴散與公司技術能力的提升，暨南大學國際企業學系碩士論文。
11. 鄭伶如(2004)，「技術情境與策略規劃整合性模式之研究」，管理與系統
ISSN 1023-9863，第十一卷第四期，541-558頁。
12. 賴致廷(2006)，「廠商技術擴散與技術能力之動態研究—以網絡觀點討論」，暨南大學國際企業學系碩士論文。
13. 謝長宏(1992)，「科技管理經驗交流與推廣計劃」，行政院科技顧問組，頁 12-14，78-81，101-102，111，115，154-162
14. 蕭仁祥(2001)，策略聯盟績效評估分析系統設計之研究，大葉大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
15. 戴肇洋(2008)，中小企業基本知識，台灣綜合研究院網站資料。
16. 蘇科丞(2005)，「個人間與組織間網絡對資訊利益的影響」，暨南大學國際企業學系碩士論文。





英文
1.Aaker, D. A., 1989, Managing Assets and Skills: The Key to a Sustainable Competitive Advantage, California Management Review, Winter.
2. Andrews, K. (1971). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
3. Barbiroli, G. (1990), “A New Method to Evaluate the Specific and Global Advantage of a Technology,” Technovation, 10(2), pp. 77-81.
4.Barney, J. B., (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17(1)： 99-120.
5. Barney, J. B. (1997), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Addision- Wesley Publishing Company.
6. Barney, J.B. (1999) , “How a firms capabilities affect boundary decisions”, Sloan Management Review, Spring, 137-145.
7. Baum, J. A. C., and Oliver, C. (1991), “Institutional linkages and organizational mortality,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 187-218.
8. Baum, J. A. C., and Oliver, C. (1992), “Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational populations,” Administrative Sociological Review, 57, 540-559.
9. Berg, S. V., Duncan, J., and Friedman, P. (1982), Joint Venture Strategies and Corporate Innovation. Cambrige, MA: Oelgeschlager.
10. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
11. Brass, D. & M, Burkhardt. (1992), “Centrality and power inorganizations.” In Networks and organizations: structure, form, and action, edited by Nitin Nohria and Robert G. Eccles. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
12. Bronder, C. and Pritzl (1992), ” Developing Strategic Alliances: A Conceptual Framework for Successful Cooperation,” European Management Journal, vol.10, no.4, pp.412-421.
13. Burt, R. (1982), Toward a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social
Structure, Perception, and Action, New York: Academic Press
14. Burt, R. (1987), “Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 92, pp. 1287-1335.
15. Chanaron, J. J. and Perrin, J. (1987), “The Transfer of Research, Development and Design to Developing Countries,” Futures, pp. 503-512.
16. Chen, M. (1995), “Technological Transfer to China: Major Rules and Issues,” International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7/8), pp. 747-756.
17. Cohen, Wesley M. and Levinthal, Daniel A. (1990), “Absorptive Capacity: A New
Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” Administrutive Science Quarteriy, 35 128-152.
18. Coleman, J. S. (1990) "Foundations of social theory." Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
19. Contractor, F.J., Lorange, P. (1988), "Why should firms cooperate? The strategy and economics basis for cooperative ventures", in Contractor, F.J., Lorange, P. (Eds),Cooperative Strategies in International Business, D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA., .
20. Czepiel, J. (1974), “Word-of-Mouth Processes in the Diffusion of a Major Technological Innovation,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XI, May. pp . 172-180.
21. Devlin, G. and M Bleackley (1988), "Strategic All lances—Guidelines for Success," Long Range Planning, 21(5):18-23.
22. Dyer, J.H. & Singh, H. (1998), "The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage, " Academy of Management Review , 23, PP.660-679
23. Dyer, J. H., and Nobeoka, K. (2000), “Creating and managing a high performance
knowledge sharing network: The Toyota case,” Strategic Management Journal, 21,
345-367.
24. Faust, K.,(1988) “Comparison of methods for positional analysis : Structural and general equivalences”, Social Networks, Vol.10, pp.313-341.
25. Freeman, L.C.,(1979)「Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification」, Social Networks, vol.1, pp.215-239.
26. Gabbay, S. M. & Zuckerman, E. W. (1998) "Social Capital and Opportunity in Corporate R & D: The Contingent Effect of Contact Density on Mobility Expectations." Social Science Research, 27, p.189-217.
27. Galaskiewicz, J. & Burt, R. (1991), “Interorganization Contagion in Corporate Philanthropy,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, pp. 88-105.
28. Gemser, G., Leenders, M. A., and Wijnberg, N. M., (1996), “The dynamics of inter-firm networks in the course of the industrial life cycle: The role of appropriability,” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 8, 439-453.
29. Granovetter, M. (1985). ' Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness', American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), pp. 481-510.
30. Grant, R. M., ‘The Nature and Basis of Competitive Advantage : A Dynamic Approach ’, The Tenth Annual Strategic Management Society Conference, Stockholm , Sep. 1990 , pp.1-18.
31. Grant, R. M. (1991), “The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation.” California Management Review, 33:114-135.
32. Grant, R. M., 1995, Contemporary Strategy Analysis, Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts.
33. Gulati, R. (1998), “Alliance and Network,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19,
No.4, pp. 293-317.
34. Gulati, R. (1999), “Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and capabilities on alliance formation,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, No.5, pp. 397-420.
35. Gulati, R., M. Gargiulo (1999).“Where do interorganizational networks come from?” American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), pp. 1439-1493.
36. Harkola, J. & Greve, A. (1995), “Diffusion of technology: Cohesion or structural
equivalence?” Academy of Management Journal, Briarcliff Manor: 1995, p. 422
37. Harrigan, K., 1985, Strategies for Joint Ventures, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
38. Harrigan, K. (1988a). Joint ventures and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 9(7), 141-158.
39. Hayek, F. A. (1949). 'The meaning of competition', Individualism and Economic Order. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 92-106.
30. Ibarra,H.(1993),“NetworkCentrality, Power and Innovation Involvement: Determinants of Technical and Administrative Roles.” Academy of Management Journal 36, 3: 471-501.
31. Ingram, P., and Inman, C. (1996), “Institutions, inter-group competition, and the
evolution of hotel populations around Niagara Falls,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 629-658.
32. Ingram, P., and Baum, J. A. C. (1997), “Chain affiliation and the failure of Manhattan hotels, 1898-1980” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 68-102.
33. Jarillo, J.C. (1988), “On strategic networks.” Strategic Management Journal, 9(1),
31-41.
34. Katz, R., Rebentisch, E. S. and Allen, T. J. (1996), “A study of technology transfer in
a multinational cooperative joint venture,” IEEE Transaction On Engineering Management, 43(1), pp. 97-105.
35. Keister, L. A. (1998), “Engineering growth, Business group structure and firm performance in China’s transition economy,” American Journal of Sociology, 104, 404-440.
36. Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1982), “Network Analysis,” Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
37. Kogut, B. 1988. Joint venture: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic
Management Journal, 9: 319-332.
38. Kraatz, M. S. (1998) "Learning by Association? Inter-organizational Networks and Adaptation to Environmental Change." Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), p.621-623.
39. Krackhardt, D. (1988) Predicting with Networks: Nonparametric Multiple Regression Analysis of Dyadic Data. Social Networks, 10: 359-381.
40. Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the Political Landscape: Structure, Cognition, and Power in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342- 369.
41. Krackhardt, D.& J. Hansen. (1993), “Informal networks: The company behind the chart.” Harvard Business Review. July-august: 104-111
42. Larson, A. (1992), “Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 76–104.
43. Lauman, E. O., Marsden, P. V., & Prensky, D. (1983). The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds), Applied Network Analysis (pp. 18-34). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44. Lee, J., Bae, Z. T. and Choi, D. K. (1988), “Technology Development Process: A
Model for a Developing Country with a Global Perspective,” Rand D Management,
18(3), pp. 235-250.
45. Lewis, J. (1990). Making strategic alliance work. Research Technology Management, 33(6), 12-15.
46. Mitchell, J. Clyde. (1969), “Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in Central African Towns,” Manchester, England: Manchester
University Press.
47. Murray, E. & Mahon, J. (1993). Strategic alliances: Gateway to the new Europe. Long Range Planning, 26(4), 102-111.
48. Ohmae, K. (1989). The global logic of strategic alliances. Harvard Business Review, 3(4), 143-154.
49. Oliver, C. (1997), “Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views”, Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), pp.697-713.
50. Ouchi, G.O. (1980), “Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 25(March), pp. 129-143.
51. Penrose , E.T. , The Theory of the Growth of the Firm , John Wiley , New York ,1959.
52. Porter , M. E. , Competitive Advantage ,The Free Press , New York ,NY , 1985.
53. Porter , M. E. ,‘ Towards A Dynamic Theory of Strategy ’, Strategic Management Journal ,Vol.12 , 1991 , pp.95-117.
54. Porter , M. E. , and Millar V. E. ,‘ How Information Gives you Competitive Advantage ’, Harvard Business Review , Vol.63 , No.4 , July-August ,1985 , pp.149-160.
85
55. Powell, Walter (1990), “The Transformation of Organizational Forms: How Useful is Organization Theory in Accounting for Social Change?” pp. 301-329 from Roger Friedland and A.F. Robertson (eds.), Beyond the Marketplace: Rethinking Economy and Society. N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter.
56. Prahalad , C. K. and G. Hamel , ‘ The Core Competence of the Corporation ’, Harvard Business Review , Vol.68 , Iss.3 , May/Jun , 1990 , pp.79-91.
57. Rosenberg, N., Frischtak, C., 1985. International technology transfer. Praeger, New York.
58. Rosenthal, E. A. (1996), “Social Networks and Team Performance.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
59. Rubenstein, Albert H. (1989), “Managing Technology in the Decentralized Firm.”
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
60. Sailer, L. (1978), “Structural Equivalence: Meaning and Definition, Computation and Application,” Social Networks, Vol. 1, pp. 73-90.
61. Sharif, M. N. & Haq, A. K. M. A., 1980, A Time-Level Model of Technology Transfer, IEEE Transaction On Engineering Management, Vol.27, No.2, pp.49~58.
62. Sharif, M. N. and Islan, M. N. (1988), “Basis for Techno-Economic Policy Analysis,”Science and Public Policy, 15(4), pp. 217-229.
63. Sikka, P. (1996), “Indigenous development and acquisition of technology: and Indian perspective,” Technovation, 16(2), pp. 85-90.
64. Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994), “The dynamic capabilities of firms: anintroduction.” Industrial and Corporate Change, 3: 537-556.
65. Teece, D., G. Pisano and A. Shuen, 1997. “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,”Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509.
66. Trott, P. and Cordey-Hayes, M. (1996), “Developing a ‘receptive’ R & D environment forward technology transfer: a case study of the chemical industry,” R & D Management, 26(1), pp. 83-92.
67. Tsai, W. & Ghoshal, S. (1998) "Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Inter-firm Networks." Academy of Management Journal, 41, p.464-476.
68. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K., 1994, “Social network analysis,” chapter 7
69. Wernerfelt , B. ,‘ A Resource-Based View of the Firm ’, Strategic Management Journal , Vol.5 , 1984 , pp.171-180.
70. Westphal, J.D., Gulati, R., and Shortell,S.M., 1997. Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42:366-394.
71. White, H. C. (1981). 'Where do markets come from?', American Journal of Sociology, 87, pp. 517-547.
72. Williamson, O.E. (1975),“Markets and Hierarchies.”New York：Free Press.
73. Wong, J.K. (1995),“Technology Transfer in Thailand：Descriptive Validation of a Technology Transfer Model,” International Journal of Technology anagement, 10(7/8), pp.788-796.