臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

現今環境變化快速，為趕上這樣的變動，企業紛紛發展組織學習，並期望能讓企業持續不斷的發展並帶來創新的成效。過去相關研究在探討創新平衡時主要都專注於特定的角度並思考相關的成因，但缺乏從整體性的方式思考創新平衡。
因此本篇研究意旨提出一個完整的創新模型並應用在企業的IS部門。我們套用Anthony的組織模型架構，並以Chandrasekaran的研究為基礎，結合情境平衡的理論作為應變數，期望能從多層次的觀點來探討創新平衡的成因，並確認IS部門內的創新平衡是否會對情境平衡有正向的影響。
本研究使用問卷調查法蒐集了184個樣本，其中有效問卷為179份，我們將資料放入SmartPLS中並驗證假說模型，結果顯示部門內的探索性學習與利用性學習活動都會正向的影響部門的適應能力，但在部門的目標調整能力上只有利用性學習會有正向的影響。另外在前因的部分，則是開放的領導風格、部門的結構分化程度能對探索性學習有顯著的影響，而部門的支持風氣和KMS則是對利用性學習有顯著的正向影響。
本研究期望貢獻給企業做為創新學習的參考，並藉由研究成果讓部門知道正向影響創新學習的前因，最後能應用到IS部門中並增加部門的績效。

As businesses struggle to keep pace with dynamic changes in the environment, the ability to learn is fast becoming one of the most important activities which can bring innovation and foster continuous development. To study the antecedents of innovation ambidexterity, previous studies have focused on specific aspects of learning, have lacked a comprehensive perspective.
Therefore, this paper proposes an innovative model which focuses on the perspective of the IS department. Anthony’s Triangle is also employed in study. This paper is based on Chandrasekaran et al. (2012a) and includes contextual ambidexterity as a dependent variable. We confirm the relationship between innovation ambidexterity and IS department performance.
We used the questionnaire survey procedure, collecting 184 responses, of which 179 were valid. We also used SmartPLS to evaluate the hypotheses and constructs, and the results show that both exploration and exploitation are positively associated with adaptability, but only exploitation is positively associated with alignment. Regarding the antecedents, opening leadership and structural differentiation have significantly positive associations with exploration, while support and KMS are positively associated with exploitation.
This research suggests that business can set the standard for the development of innovative learning. The results indicate certain antecedents which can have positive effects on an organization’s learning ability, which, in turn enhances the performance of the IS department.

1. Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Motivation 2
1.3 Research Purpose 3
2. Literature Review 5
2.1 Organization Learning 5
2.2 Innovation Ambidexterity 6
2.3 Contextual Organizational Ambidexterity 9
2.4 Anthony’s Triangle 10
2.5 Antecedents of Ambidexterity 12
3. Research Model and Methodology 15
3.1 Research Model 15
3.2 Hypotheses 16
3.2.1 Exploration and Department Results 17
3.2.2 Exploitation and Department Results 18
3.2.3 Strategic Level and Innovation Ambidexterity 19
3.2.4 Managerial Level and Innovation Ambidexterity 21
3.2.5 Operational Level and Innovation Ambidexterity 22
3.2.6 Technology and Innovation Ambidexterity 24
3.3 Sampling and Data Collection 24
3.4 Demographic Analysis 25
3.5 Constructs and Measurements 27
4. Analysis and Discussion 30
4.1 Cross Factor Loading 30
4.2 Common Method Variance 34
4.3 Reliability and Validity 38
4.4 Hypothesis Testing 44
4.5 Discussion 48
5. Conclusion and Implications 53
5.1 Conclusion 53
5.2 Academic Implications 54
5.3 Practical Implications 54
5.4 Limitations, and Suggestions for Future Study 55
References 56
Appendix 59

Abernathy, W. J., and Clark, K. B. 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research policy (14:1), pp 3-22.
Adamides, E. D., and Karacapilidis, N. 2006. "Information technology support for the knowledge and social processes of innovation management," Technovation (26:1), pp 50-59.
Anthony, R. N., and Anthony, R. N. 1988. The management control function, (Harvard Business School Press Boston.
Anthony, R. N., and University, M. G. S. o. B. A. H. 1965. "Planning and control systems: a framework for analysis,").
Baum, J. A., Li, S. X., and Usher, J. M. 2000. "Making the next move: How experiential and vicarious learning shape the locations of chains'' acquisitions," Administrative Science Quarterly (45:4), pp 766-801.
Burns, T. E., and Stalker, G. M. 1961. "The management of innovation," University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign''s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship).
Carlsson, B. 1989. "Flexibility and the theory of the firm," International Journal of Industrial Organization (7:2), pp 179-203.
Chandrasekaran, A., Linderman, K., and Schroeder, R. 2012a. "Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in high technology organizations," Journal of Operations Management (30:1), pp 134-151.
Chandrasekaran, A., Linderman, K., and Schroeder, R. 2012b. "Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in high technology organizations," Journal of Operations Management (30).
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., and White, R. E. 1999. "An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution," Academy of Management (24), pp 522-537.
Damanpour, F., and Evan, W. M. 1984. "Organizational innovation and performance: the problem of" organizational lag"," Administrative science quarterly), pp 392-409.
Dodgson, M. 1993. "Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures," Organization Studies (14:3), pp 375-394.
Duncan, R. B. 1976. "The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation," The management of organization (1), pp 167-188.
Fiol, C. M., and Lyles, M. A. 1985. "Organizational Learning," Academy of Management Review (10), pp 803-813.
Ghosal, S., and Bartlett, C. A. 1997. "The individualized corporation,").
Ghoshal, S., and Bartlett, C. A. 1994. "Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management," Strategic Management Journal (15:S2), pp 91-112.
Gibson, C. B., and Birkinshaw, J. 2004a. "The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organization ambidextrity," Academy of Management Journal (47).
Gibson, C. B., and Birkinshaw, J. 2004b. "The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity," Academy of management Journal (47:2), pp 209-226.
He, Z.-L., and Wong, P.-K. 2004. "Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis," Organization science (15:4), pp 481-494.
Huber, G. P. 1991. "Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures," Organization science (2:1), pp 88-115.
Huy, Q. N. 2002. "Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers," Administrative science quarterly (47:1), pp 31-69.
Jayanthi, S., and Sinha, K. K. 1998. "Innovation implementation in high technology manufacturing: A chaos-theoretic empirical analysis," Journal of Operations Management (16:4), pp 471-494.
Lichtenthaler, U. 2009. "Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes," Academy of Management Journal (52:4), pp 822-846.
Liu, W. 2006. "Knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and competency trap," Knowledge and Process Management (13:3), pp 144-161.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., and Patil, A. 2006. "Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research," Management Science (52:12), pp 1865-1883.
March, J. G. 1991. "Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning," Organization science (2:1), pp 71-87.
March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. 1975. "The uncertainty of the past: organizational learning under ambiguity*," European Journal of Political Research (3:2), pp 147-171.
Nonaka, I. 1991. "The knowledge-creating company," Harvard business review (69:6), pp 96-104.
Pavlou, P. A., and El Sawy, O. A. 2006. "From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development," Information Systems Research (17:3), pp 198-227.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. "Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies," Journal of applied psychology (88:5), p 879.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., and Bausch, A. 2011. "Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership," The Leadership Quarterly (22:5), pp 956-974.
Shrivastava, P. 1986. "Is strategic management ideological?," Journal of management (12:3), pp 363-377.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., and Gefen, D. 2004. "Validation guidelines for IS positivist research," The Communications of the Association for Information Systems (13:1), p 63.
Tushman, M. L., and O’Reilly III, C. A. 2006. "Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change," Managing innovation and change (170).
Victor, B., Boynton, A., and Stephens-Jahng, T. 2000. "The effective design of work under total quality management," Organization Science (11:1), pp 102-117.
Zacher, H., and Rosing, K. 2015. "Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation," Leadership &; Organization Development Journal (36:1), pp 54-68.