(3.237.20.246) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/17 16:03
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:潘俊諺
研究生(外文):Pan, Chun-Yen
論文名稱:快思與慢想的創業驅力型態對績效影響之研究-以文創產業為例
論文名稱(外文):The Effect of Entrepreneurial Driver Types on Performance: Taking the Culture and Creative Industry As An Example.
指導教授:蔡翼擎 博士
指導教授(外文):Dr. Tsai, Yi-Ching
口試委員:方鳯山 博士張惠真 博士
口試委員(外文):Dr. Fang, Fon-ShanDr. Chang, Hui-Chen
口試日期:2014-06-29
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:實踐大學
系所名稱:企業管理學系碩士在職專班
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:2014
畢業學年度:102
語文別:中文
論文頁數:100
中文關鍵詞:創業驅力創業機會創業資源創業團隊創業績效
外文關鍵詞:Entrepreneurial DriveEntrepreneurial OpportunityEntrepreneurial ResourceEntrepreneurial TeamEntrepreneurial Performance
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:524
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:138
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
台灣正面臨產業轉型的重要階段,而文化創意產業正是近年來政府及民間大力扶植的重點產業,然而創業維艱,在創業蔚為風潮的台灣,創業者如何衡量本身的創業驅力,以及不同的創業驅力型態是否會影響新創事業的績效發展,均是值得研究的問題。

本研究透過質性的個案研究法,以半結構式問卷深度訪談四家文創產業創業者,先以Timmons Model (1999)創業機會、創業資源、創業團隊以及創業績效四大構面進行創業驅力的探討,進而利用Christian Model (2000)提出的四種創業類型將創業時與績效成長期不同的創業型態予以歸納分析,並借用經濟學家康納曼(Daniel Kahneman)所提出的「快思」與「慢想」二個名詞作為本研究創業驅力之型態,經產官學專家意見實際的將創業驅力區分為「快思」及「慢想」,並分析此兩種創業驅力型態對日後企業績效發展的影響。

研究發現,Timmons(1999)認為新創事業的創業過程,始於機會;然而文創產業掌握關鍵資源、專業知識技能、創意甚至是客戶,成為他們決定創業的重要驅力,異於Timmons(1999)所認知,顯然「資源」是文創產業創業者首重之考量。另外,快思型創業驅力其績效成長的幅度高於慢思型,因此本研究提出快思型創業型態的創業績效優於慢想型的創業型態之命題;而慢想型的創業型態對績效穩定具有正向之影響,但趨於平穏緩慢的成長。總而言之,快思型的創業驅力能夠因應文創產業的市場需求,因而創造優於慢想型的績效表現。

研究也發現,慢想型的創業型態對創業團隊的依賴程度高於快思型的創業型態;慢想型的創業型態對創業團隊的調整程度則低於快思型的創業型態,顯示慢想型的創業型態謀定而後動,因此其創業團隊往往比快思型的創業型態來得完備。

Taiwan is facing an important stage of industrial transformation, and the cultural and creative industry is a key industry that Taiwan’s government and private sectors greatly support in recent years. However, it is difficult to start a business. Therefore, how entrepreneurs measure their entrepreneurial drives and whether different types of entrepreneurial drives influence the performance and development of their newly-established businesses are issues worthy of research in Taiwan where it is a trend to start up one’s own business.

Through qualitative case study, the study had in-depth interviews with four entrepreneurs of the cultural and creative industry with semi-structured questionnaire. The study first discussed entrepreneurial drives from four major aspects including entrepreneurial opportunities, entrepreneurial resources, entrepreneurial teams and entrepreneurial performance proposed by Timmons Model (1999). Secondly, the study induced and analyzed different entrepreneurial types in the beginning of entrepreneurship and during the period of performance growth proposed by Christian Model (2000). In addition, “fast thinking” and “slow thinking” proposed by economist Danial Kahneman were borrowed to serve as the types of entrepreneurial drives of the study, and entrepreneurial drives were divided into “fast thinking” and “slow thinking” based on the opinions of experts of industry-government-academia. Moreover, it analyzed how the two entrepreneurial drives influenced the performance and development of enterprises in the future.

The study of Timmons (1999) states that the entrepreneurial process of a newly-established business is chiefly started from opportunities. However, the cultural and creative industry commands key resources, professional knowledge and skills, creativity and even clients, which has become important entrepreneurial drives for them and is different from the view Timmons (1999) holds. “Resources” were obviously the priority of entrepreneurs of the cultural and creative industry. In addition, the performance growth of the fast thinking entrepreneurial type was higher than that of the slow thinking one. Therefore, the study proposed a thesis of that the entrepreneurial performance of fast thinking entrepreneurial type was superior to that of the slow thinking one, and that the slow thinking entrepreneurial type had positive influence on the stability of its performance, which tended to have stable yet slow growth. To sum up, the fast thinking entrepreneurial drive could meet the demand of the cultural and creative industry, and thus, it performed better than the slow thinking one.

Moreover, the study also discovered that the slow thinking entrepreneurial type depends more on entrepreneurial teams fast thinking one, and that the slow thinking entrepreneurial type is less flexible that of the fast thinking one, which showed that the slow thinking entrepreneurial type looks before it leaped, and thus, its entrepreneurial teams were often more well-prepared than those of the fast thinking entrepreneurial type.

誌謝
摘要
Abstract
表目錄
圖目錄
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機
第二節 研究目的
第三節 研究流程
第四節 論文結構
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 創業驅力
第二節 創業機會
第三節 創業資源
第四節 創業團隊
第五節 創業績效
第三章 研究方法
第一節 個案研究法
第二節 個案研究流程
第三節 觀念性架構
第四節 研究範圍與研究對象
第五節 資料蒐集與編碼方式
第四章 資料分析與結果
第一節 信度與效度分析
第二節 個案分析與第一階段產官學者建議
第三節 第二階段產官學意見
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結論與觀念性架構確認
第二節 實務意涵
第三節 研究限制
第四節 後續研究建議
參考文獻
壹、中文部份
貳、英文部份
參、網站參考資料
附錄:質性訪談問題

壹、中文部份
1. 司徒達賢(1979),台灣企業之環境分析,企銀季刊,第3卷,第1期。
2. 李章琪(2008),創業家人格特質、創業能力與創業績效關係之研究,實踐大學 企系碩士班碩士學位論文。
3. 余倩文(2013),創業環境與個人創業成功關鍵因素分析之研-以創業楷模得主為例,國立政治大學勞工研究所碩士論文。
4. 吳思華(2000),策略九說(三版),台北:臉譜文化出版社。
5. 林坤賢、涂敏芬、洪世章(2006),創業的網絡模式分析,科技管理學刊,第11卷,第3期。
6. 林韶加(2013),”歹路"不可行:創業警世錄,實踐大學企系碩士班碩士學位論文。
7. 胡幼慧、姚美華,1996,一些質性方法上的思考:信度與效度?如何抽樣?如何收集資料、登錄與分析?。頁141-158,收錄於胡幼慧主編,質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。台北:巨流。
8. 陳維新(1991),創業策略與創業績效-臺灣創業家之實證研究,國立臺灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。
9. 郭洮村(1998),工研院研發人員離職相關因素之研究,中原大學企業管理研究所。
10. 莊任暘(1999),高科技創業成功因素,國立臺灣大學會計研究所碩士論文。
11. 黃俊英(2003),行銷學的世界,天下文化。
12. 黃營杉、楊景傅譯(2004),策略管理,第四版,台北:華泰文化。
13. 許凱玲、温肇東、蔡淑梨(2006),台灣微型創業者的機會與資源及新價值創造動態過程研究,產業管理評論,第1 卷第1 期。
14. 陳恒嶔(2011),探討創業過程對創業團隊之影響-以台灣文化創意產業為例,國立中山大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
15. 張維仲(2001),新創科技公司進駐創新育成中心所遇問題案例談,國內公民營機構中小企業新育成中心座談會,台北市:經濟部,3月。
16. 張任坊、張博一、張紹勳(2013),創業績效關鍵成功因素的彙總研究,中華管理評論國際學報,5月第十六卷二期。
17. 劉常勇、謝如梅(2006),創業管理研究之回顧與展望:理論與模式探討,創業管理研究,第一卷,第一期。
18. 蔡明田、謝煒頻、李國瑋、許東讚(2008),創業精神與創業績效之關連性探討:創業動機、能力與人格特質的整合性觀點,創業管理研究,第三卷第三期。
19. 鄭偉宏(2012),”不同創業類型之關鍵成功因素",逢甲大學經營管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。
20. 謝如梅、劉常勇(2009),創新機會辨識:創業警覺能力、先前知識與資訊獲取之關聯性研究,組織與管理,第二卷第二期。
貳、英文部份
1. Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001), The Entrepreneurship of Resource-Based Theory, Journal of Management, Vol.27 (6), pp. 755–775.
2. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. & Ray, S. ( 2003), A Theory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identification and Development. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 (1), pp. 105-123.
3. Barney, J. B. (1986), Organizational Culture: Can It Be A Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage? Academy of Management Review, Vol.11, pp. 656-665.
4. Barney, J. B. (1986), Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations Luck and Business, Strategy Management Science, pp.1231-1241.
5. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, Vol.17 (1), pp. 99-120.
6. Baron, R. A. (2006), Opportunity Recognition as Pattern Recognition: How Entrepreneurs Connect the Dots to Identify New Business Opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 20 (1), pp. 104-119.
7. Bollinger, L., K. Hope. & J.M. Utterback (1983), A Review of Literature and Hypotheses on New Technology-Based Firms. Research Policy.
8. Bruno, A.V. & T.T. Tyebjee. (1985), The Entrepreneurs Search For Capital. Journal of Business Venturing,1.
9. Brush, C. G., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. ( 2001), From Initial Idea to Unique Advantage: The Entrepreneurial Challenge of Constructing A Resource Base, Academy of Management Executive, Vol.15 (1), pp. 64-78.
10. Busenitz, L. W., West III, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., & Zacharakis, A. (2003), Entrepreneurship Research in Emergence: Past Trends and Future Directions, Journal of Management, Vol.29 (3), pp. 285-308.
11. Chandler, G. N. & Hanks, S. H. (1994), Market Attractiveness, Resource-Based Capabilities, Venture Strategies, and Venture Performance, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.9 (4), pp. 331-349.
12. Chandler, G. N. & Hanks, S. H. (1998), An Investigation of New Venture Teams In Emerging Business, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.
13. Charles W.L. Hill. & Gareth R. Jones. (1998), Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach, Vol.4, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
14. Christensen, P.S., Madsen, O.O., & Peterson, R. (1989), Opportunity Identification: The Contribution of Entrepreneurship to Strategic Management. Denmark: Aarhus University Institute of Management.
15. Christian, B. & Julien, P.A. (2000), Defining the Field of Research in Entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Review, Vol.16.
16 .Cooper, A. C. & Arts, K. W. (1995), Determinants of Satisfaction For Entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10, pp.439-457.
17. Covin, J. G. & Slevin, D. P. (1991), A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship As Firm Behavior. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol.16 (1), pp. 7-24.
18. Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Randall L. Schultz. (1994), Implementing Strategic Missions: Effective Strategic, Structural and Tactical Choices, The Journal of Management Studies, Jul, Vol.31(4), pp. 481-505.
19. Drucker, P. F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship : Practice and Principles. 1st Ed, New York, Prentice Hall.
20 Eckhardt, J. T. & Shane, S. A. (2003), Opportunity and Entrepreneurship, Journal
of Management, Vol.29(3), pp.333-349.
21. Elfring, T. & Hulsink, W. (2003), Networks in Entrepreneurship: The Case of High-Technology Firms, Small Business Economics, Vol.21, pp. 409-422.
22. Eisenhardt, K.M. & M. E. Graebner. (2007), Theory Building from Case
Studies: Opportunities and Challenges, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.50 (1), pp.25-32.
23. Foote, N., Matson, E., Weiss, L., & Wenger, E. (2002), Leveraging Group Knowledge for High-Performance Decision Making, Organizational Dynamics, Vol.31(3), pp. 280-295.
24. Fredrickson, J. W. & Mitchell, T. R. (1984), Strategic Decision Process: Comprehensiveness and Performance in An Industry With An Unstable Environment, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.27(2), pp. 399−424.
25. Gartner, W. B. (1985), A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation, Academy of Management Review, Vol.10(4), pp. 696-707.
26. Gartner, W. B., Mitchell, & Vesper, K. H. (1989), A Taxonomy of New Business Ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.4(3), pp. 169-186.
27. Gaylen N. Chandler. & Steven H. Hanks (1998), An Investigation of New Venture Teams in Emerging Business.
28. Grant, R. M. (1991), The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation, California Management Review, Spring, pp. 114-135.
29. Hansen, M. T. (1999), The Search-Transfer Problem:The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge Across Organization Subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.44, pp. 82-111.
30 .Hart, S. L. & Banbury, C. (1994), How Strategy-Making Processes Can Make a Difference, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.15(4), pp. 251−269.
31. Hills, G. E. (1995), Opportunity Recognition By Successful Entrepreneurs: A Pilot Study. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 105-117.
32. Honig, B. & Davidsson, P. (2003), The Role of Social and Human Capital Among Nascent Entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.18 (3), pp. 301-331.
33. Huber, G. P. (1991), Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures, Organization Science, Vol.2 (1), pp. 88-115.
34. Kamm, Judith B. Jeffrey C. Shuman, John A. Seeger, & Aaron J. Nurick. (1990), Entrepreneurial Teams in New Venture Creation: A Research Agenda, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Summer.
35. Kamm, Judith B. & Nurick, Aaron J. (1993), The Stager of Team Venture Formation: A Decision Making Model, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practices, Winter.
36. Kihlstrom, R. & Laffont, J. (1979), A General Equilibrium Entrepreneurial Theory of Firm Formation Based on Risk Aversion, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.87, pp. 719-748.
37. Kirk, J. & M. Miller. (1988), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, London: Sage.
38. Knight, G. A. & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004), Innovation, Organizational Capabilities, And the Born-Global Firm, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.35(4), pp. 334-351.
39. Kogut,B. & Zander,U. (1992), Knowledge Of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, And the Replication of Technology, Organization Science,Vol.3(3), pp. 383-397.
40. Krueger, N. ( 2003), The Cognitive Psychology of Entrepreneurship. In Acs, Z. A., Audretsch, D. D. (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction, Kluwer, Londres, pp. 105-40.
41. Lichtenstein, B. M. B. & Brush C. G. ( 2001), How do Resource Bundles Develop and Change in New Ventures? A Dynamic Model and Longitudinal Exploration, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.26 (3), pp. 37-58.
42. Lumpkin, G. T. & Lichtenstein, B. ( 2005), The Role of Organizational Learning the Opportunity-Recognition Process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, pp. 451-472.
43. Luo, Y. (2000), Dynamic Capabilities in International Expansion, Journal of World Business, Vol.35 (4), pp. 355-378.
44. Meuser, M. & Nagel, U.(1991), Expertinneninterviews - Vielfach Erprobt, Wenigbedacht. Ein Beitrag Zur Qualitativen Methodendiskussion, In: Garz. D & Kraimer. K. Qualitativ-Empirische Sozialforschung, Opladen, pp. 441-447.
45. Mishler, E. G.(1986), Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46. Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith J.B. ( 2002), Toward A Theory of Entrepreneurial Cognition: Rethinking the People Side of Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 93-104.
47. Mitsuko Hirata. (2000), Start-Up Teams and Organizational Growth in Japanese Venture Firms.
48. Nkomo. S. M. (1987), Human Resource Planning and Organization Performance: An Exploratory Analysis, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.8 (4), pp. 387-392.
49. Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman,S. (2003), Three Views of Entrepreneurial Opportunity, In Acs,Z.J.and Audretsch,D.B (eds),Handbook of the Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 141-160.
50. Shane, S. & Venkataraman S. (2000), The Promise of Entrepreneurship As A Field of Research, Academy of Management Review, Vol.25(1), pp. 217-226.
51. Shane, S. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual Opportunity Nexus. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
52. Shane, S. ( 2005), Finding Fertile Ground: Identifying Extraordinary Opportunities for New Venture. Wharton School Publishing.
53. Shervani Tasadduq A. & Fachey Liam. (1998), Market-Based Assets and Shareholder Value: A Framework for Analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol.62 (January), pp. 2-18.
54. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998), Basic of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded theory. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
55. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.18, pp. 509-553.
56. Timmons, J. A., Muzyka, D. F., Stevenson, H. H., & Bygrave, W. D. (1987), Opportunity Recognition: The Core of Entrepreneurship. In N. C. Churchill, et al., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
57. Timmons, J.A. (1990), New Business Opportunities: Getting To The Right Place At The Right Time. Acton, MA: Brick House Publishing Co.
58. Timmons, J.A. (1994), Opportunity Recognition: The Search for Higher-Potential ventures. In W. D. Bygrave, The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship, pp. 26-54. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
59. Timmons, J.A. (1999), New Venture Creation, 5 ed., Singapore: McGraw-Hill, pp. 37-40.
60. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2001), The Focus of Entrepreneurial Research: Contextual and Process Issues, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.26(2), pp. 57-80.
61. Venkataraman, N. & Ramanujam, V. (1986), Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Research: A Comparison of Approaches, Academy of Management Review, Vol.11(4), pp.801-815.
62. Venkataraman, S. (1997), The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An Editor’s Perspective. In J. Katz and R. Brockhaus (eds.) Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth. Greenwich: JAI Press, pp.119-138
63. William, Peter J. (1997), Strategy as Options on the Future, Sloan Management Review, (Spring): pp. 117-126.
64. Yin, R. K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. Sage Publishing.
65. Yin, R. K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. Sage Publishing.
66. Yin, S. (2001), The Power of Image, American Demographics, pp. 32-30.
参、網站參考資料
1.經濟部中小企業處,資料來源:
https://www.moea.gov.tw/mns/populace/activephoto/ActivePhoto.aspx?menu_id=3874&ap_id=1050
2. 1111人力銀行/上班族創業意願調查/職場新聞,資料來源:
http://www.1111.com.tw/news/surveyns_con.asp?ano=53967
3.蘋果日報/財經新聞/職場部落客 療癒生財,2010年8月30日,資料來源:
http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/finance/20100830/32774437
4. 蘋果日報/財經新聞 台灣明信片,2008年4月2日,資料來源:
http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/finance/20080402/30411817/
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 1. 司徒達賢(1979),台灣企業之環境分析,企銀季刊,第3卷,第1期。
2. 1. 司徒達賢(1979),台灣企業之環境分析,企銀季刊,第3卷,第1期。
3. 5. 林坤賢、涂敏芬、洪世章(2006),創業的網絡模式分析,科技管理學刊,第11卷,第3期。
4. 5. 林坤賢、涂敏芬、洪世章(2006),創業的網絡模式分析,科技管理學刊,第11卷,第3期。
5. 16. 張任坊、張博一、張紹勳(2013),創業績效關鍵成功因素的彙總研究,中華管理評論國際學報,5月第十六卷二期。
6. 16. 張任坊、張博一、張紹勳(2013),創業績效關鍵成功因素的彙總研究,中華管理評論國際學報,5月第十六卷二期。
7. 17. 劉常勇、謝如梅(2006),創業管理研究之回顧與展望:理論與模式探討,創業管理研究,第一卷,第一期。
8. 17. 劉常勇、謝如梅(2006),創業管理研究之回顧與展望:理論與模式探討,創業管理研究,第一卷,第一期。
9. 18. 蔡明田、謝煒頻、李國瑋、許東讚(2008),創業精神與創業績效之關連性探討:創業動機、能力與人格特質的整合性觀點,創業管理研究,第三卷第三期。
10. 18. 蔡明田、謝煒頻、李國瑋、許東讚(2008),創業精神與創業績效之關連性探討:創業動機、能力與人格特質的整合性觀點,創業管理研究,第三卷第三期。
11. 20. 謝如梅、劉常勇(2009),創新機會辨識:創業警覺能力、先前知識與資訊獲取之關聯性研究,組織與管理,第二卷第二期。
12. 20. 謝如梅、劉常勇(2009),創新機會辨識:創業警覺能力、先前知識與資訊獲取之關聯性研究,組織與管理,第二卷第二期。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔