Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131909
|
| Title: | 典範移轉之新產業聚現歷程理論建構-以美國電動車產業為例
Theorizing the Emergence of New Industry Under Paradigm Shift : The Case of U.S. EV Industry |
| Authors: | 林殿琪
Lin, Tien-Chi |
| Contributors: | 吳豐祥
Wu, Feng-Shang
林殿琪
Lin, Tien-Chi |
| Keywords: | 典範移轉
新興產業
電動車產業
產業過渡循環
新產業聚現
龍捲風模式
Paradigm Shift
Emerging Industry
Electric Vehicle Industry
Industrial Transition Cycle
Emergence of New Industry
Tornado Model |
| Date: | 2020 |
| Issue Date: | 2020-09-02 13:09:53 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 新產業的興起對各國的經濟表現至關重要，其原因在於隨著創新科技的系統化發展，創造了新的產業、開創了新的市場、產生了新的工作機會、提高了經濟成長率、甚而引起了產業的典範轉移。在此情況下，若舊產業典範無法順利轉型或過渡到新典範，則舊產業將面臨消退、產品失去市場、供應鏈萎縮、人才流失，甚至企業倒閉與失業率攀升等情形，嚴重衝擊社會國家的發展。因此，有關新產業如何興起的議題，不論是實務上或是研究上，都有其非常重要的意義。然而，這議題的理論理解與實務推動上，到目前為止，仍然是問題多於解答，也缺乏一個整體性的理論架構，做為相關構思的參考。
在學術理論上，新產業發展理論屬於中觀層級 (meso level) 之研究，過往主要有二種學派，各自基於不同觀點來探討產業動態或體系生成：第一，是科技社會學，強調產業變遷是一種社會過渡理論，其中，社會技術途徑取向理論（如：Geels, 2002, 2004; Geels and Schot, 2007; Hekkert et al., 2007等）主要探討激進式創新進入社會體制之多層級架構，以及演進過程中的重要因素（如：知識學習與市場形成等）。不過，此學派並非聚焦產業層級，亦非探討新產業形成機制，並且對推進歷程與動態影響因子的循環與篩選等，都缺乏深入的探討。第二，是基於經濟學的產業生命週期理論（如：Klepper, 1997, 2013; Dinlersoz 與 MacDonald, 2009等），此學派主要是關心產業整體發展的模式，藉由廠商進入與退出的動態以區隔出產業發展的階段性，但未能針對新產業早期萌芽階段的情形深入研究；另一經濟演化理論（如：Dosi, 1982; Perez, 1983, 2009等），此學派的理論著重於探討技術改變的軌跡，並進一步探討創新群集產業接續發生以促進新產業形成的現象，然而，此學派並未探討科技改變到形成新產業的動態過程；此外，前述學派都忽略了「網絡結構」與「集體行動」在新產業聚現中所可能扮演的角色。緣此，本論文研究的目的，即希望對於新產業聚現的演變歷程、動態內涵、與網絡結構等，進行有系統的、整體性的探討。
在研究方法上，由於新產業聚現的過程往往歷時久遠，難以藉由單一研究方法概括之，因此，本研究採用混合研究法（Forbes and Kirsch, 2011）。此外，電動車產業相較於傳統的汽車業而言，明顯具有「典範轉移」的情形，而且，美國又是電動車產業早期發展上最重要的國家，因此，本研究選擇美國的電動車產業為主要的研究對象。本研究蒐集與分析資料的方法，包括：文本內容之論述分析、專利資料量化分析與專家訪談。在文本論述內容分析方面，本研究蒐集1960年至2019年間美國國會與美國聯邦貿易委員會舉行之「聽證會紀錄」、美國聯邦政府「科技計畫與評估報告」等「歷史檔案資料」與重要的文獻資料。從中萃取出重要事件，並進行內容之論述分析。事實上，這部份的資料包含了很多電動車業者關鍵人士與美國政府官員及國會議員的對話，這些對話對於電動車產業早期發展的理解，提供了非常重要的參考價值；在專利資料量化分析方面，本研究以電動車發展的關鍵零組件-鋰電池為對象，蒐集1976年至2015年期間相關的美國專利進行資料分析，以與文本分析資料交互參照。此外，在本論文研究期間，作者亦多次與汽車及電動車產業專家進行訪談，請他們針對本研究之設計、資料解讀的正確性與結果的詮釋給予一些建議。
透過相關學理的結合與研究結果的分析，本研究得到了以下的主要結論：
第一， 新產業聚現的歷程具有其明顯的階段性與關鍵篩選機制。
本研究發現，新產業聚現的過程會包含初始階段、主導技術類別形成階段、主導產業體系形成階段及主導發展模式形成階段等主要階段。各階段皆有其初始狀態與誘發事件(包括如外部因素與內部因素)，並且各有其「產業過渡循環」機制。透過此機制的運作得以發展出新產業往前推動的動能，過渡循環完成得越具體，則新產業往前推動的力道也越大。
第二， 新產業聚現的過程中，各階段會透過「產業過渡循環」內關鍵活動的篩選與能量累積，而得以向下一個階段推進。
本研究發現，新產業聚現過程中各階段的「產業過渡階段」內關鍵活動主要包括：「知識創造」、「組織商業化」、「賦權與授權」、與「資源分配」等四項。各階段在受到誘發事件啟動後，相關參與者會透過此四項活動的運作、更新、篩選與循環，而影響新產業的發展方向與推進動能。通過此過渡循環與篩選機制者，得以進入下一個階段，未通過者，則在這波產業振盪 (shake-out)下退出。
第三， 新產業聚現的過程中，各階段的相關參與者會透過關鍵活動的循環篩選與資訊的不斷釐清，而得以找到更明確的市場機會。
新產業聚現的過程中，有關新技術、新產品、新原物料、新產業輪廓等相關的資訊，會有機會逐步釐清，而使得相關參與者更能明確找到新市場的切入機會。本研究發現，新產業在「主導技術類別」確定後，會開啟製造業廠商進入市場的機會。而在「主導產業體系」確定後，則會開啟周邊產業（如：設備製造業、軟體業等）進入市場的機會。至於「主導商業發展模式」確定後，則會開啟服務業廠商進入市場的機會，此時，相關參與者會更加留意與消費者的溝通，並加快對市場的滲透速度。
第四， 新產業聚現的過程中，各階段有其不同的主要網絡成員與實踐場域。
本研究發現，新產業聚現過程中的起始階段，往往是先由公部門為主負責有關示範場域的起頭與運作；而在主導技術類別形成階段時，則可以發現是由公私合作夥伴型態在主導專業市場；到了主導產業體系形成階段，則可以看到擴大型公私合作夥伴主導產業發展的型態，也會看到他們開始進入地方與社區並參與基礎環境的建設；最後到了主導發展模式形成階段，則會發現私部門採取快速集體行動(如結盟、合作、合資、購併)進而開啟新一輪的創新群集與產業競爭階段。
本論文最後也進一步闡述本研究的學術貢獻、實務意涵與後續研究建議。
The rise of new industries is crucial to the country’s economic performance. The reason is that with the systematic development of innovative technologies, new products, new markets and new employment opportunities will be created, leading to high economic growth rates and new industrial paradigm shifts. In this case, if the old industrial paradigm cannot be transferred to the new paradigm, it may face decline, lose the market, shrink the supply chain, lose talent or even close business. Therefore, the rise of emerging industries is crucial in practice and theory. However, so far, the understanding of this problem is limited, and there are still many problems to be solved. Therefore, it is necessary to provide an overall theoretical framework for reference.
In theory, the research related to the rise of emerging industries is conducted from a meso-level perspective. There are two theoretical viewpoints related to the emergence of industrial power or new systems, but they are basically viewed from a macro perspective.
The first is the industrial life cycle theory based on economics (such as: Klepper, 1997, 2013; Dinlersoz & MacDonald, 2009, etc.). They mainly concern about the development model of the industry, however, failed to conduct in-depth research on the early embryonic stage of new industries. Another theory of economic evolution (such as: Dosi, 1982; Perez, 1983, 2009, etc.) focuses on exploring the trajectory of technological change and the phenomenon of innovation cluster industries which leading to the formation of new industries. However, this school did not discuss the dynamic process of technological change to the formation of new industries. The second is Science, Technology, and Society (STSc), which emphasizes that industrial change is a theory of social transformation, which includes the development of a multi-level framework for socio-technical approach to describe the transition process of radical innovation from a niche to a regime (e.g. Geels, 2002, 2004; Geels and Schot, 2007, etc.). Follow-up researchers discuss the factors that affect the transitional process (such as knowledge, learning, market formation, etc.). (e.g. Hekkert et al., 2007, etc.). However, this theoretical viewpoint of STSc lacks a response to the theory originated, nor can it conduct a more in-depth discussion of transition and selection mechanisms.
In addition, the aforementioned schools ignored the roles of "social network" and "collective action" in the emergence of new industries. For this reason, the purpose of this study is to develop a holistic framework of theory on the dynamism, connotation, and network structure of the emergence of new industries.
In terms of research methods, the development of an emerging industry is long, complex, extensive, and vague, not easily to be summarized by a single research method, so this study adopts a mix-method approach (Forbes and Kirsch, 2011) by using the case, electric vehicle (EV) industry in the United States. The EV industry obviously is encountered "paradigm-shift" situation while comparing with the ICE automobile industry, moreover, the United States is the eariliest country trying to develop the EV industry. The data collection and analysis methods in this study include discourse analysis, quantitative analysis of patent data, and expert interviews and all of the results are integrated to deliver the conclusion. In terms of discourse analysis, this research collected EV related documents such as committee hearings of the U.S. Congress, federal R&D project and evaluation reports and historical archives from 1960 to 2019, then extracted major critical incidents to analyze the context and content. In fact, these historical archives contain critical dialogues between EV interests’ group, US government officials and members of Congress, and provide valuable reference for the understanding of the early stage of the electric vehicle industry. In terms of quantitative analysis of patent data, this study focuses on lithium batteries, a key component of EV industry, and collected relevant U.S. patents from 1976 to 2015 for cross-reference with the results of discourse analysis. In addition, the author has also conducted many expert interviews in this field, searching for advices on the research design, the accuracy of data and the interpretation of results.
This research has achieved the following main results via the combination with related theories and case study:
First of all, in the process of emerging industries, there are obvious stages and key selection mechanisms.
According to the findings, there are four stages in the emerging process, namely the Initial Stage (I-Stage), the Dominant Technology Category stage (C-stage), the Dominant Industry Regime stage (R-stage) and the Dominant Industrial Logics stage (L-stage). According to the initial state and the inducing events at each stage, several successive industrial transformation cycles (Cycle) will be stimulated. Through the operation of this mechanism, the development momentum of new industries can be developed. The more concrete the transition cycle is completed, the greater the power to push the new industry forward.
Second, in the process of emerging industries, each stage will advance to the next stage through the accumulation of energy and the screening of key activities in the "Industrial Transition Cycle".
According to the findings, there are four major activities in the "industrial transition cycle" mainly consists of "knowledge creation", "organization commercialization", "empowerment and authorization", and "resource allocation". These major activities are stimulated by the inducing events; the participants will influence the development direction and momentum of the new industry through the operation, renewal, screening and circulation of these four activities. Those who pass this transitional cycle and screening mechanism will be able to enter the next stage, and those who fail will withdraw under this wave of industrial shaking.
Third, in the process of emerging industries, relevant participants at all stages will be able to find clearer market opportunities through continuous clarification of information by the cyclic screening of key activities.
In the process of the emergence of new industries, relevant information about new technologies, new products, new equipment, new industrial outlines will be gradually clarified, so that relevant participants can more clearly find the opportunities to enter the new markets. According to the findings of this research, a new industry will open up opportunities for manufacturers to enter the market after the C-stage is determined. After the R-stage is determined, it will open up opportunities for peripheral industries (such as equipment manufacturing, software industry, etc.) to enter the market. As for the L-stage is determined, it will open up opportunities for service industry manufacturers to enter the market. At this time, relevant participants will pay more attention to communication with consumers and accelerate their penetration of the market.
Fourth, in the process of emerging industries, each stage has specific network members and practice areas.
According to the findings, during the I-stage, the public sector is often take the lead to operate the demonstration field. During the C-stage, the public-private partnership alliance leads the professional market. During the R-stage, the expanded public-private partnerships alliance took the leading position, as well as these alliances enter to the communities and participate co-construction of the infrastructure. Finally, during the L-stage, the private sector takes corresponding collective actions (such as alliances, cooperation, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, etc.) and start a new round of innovation competition.
At the end of this thesis, the academic contribution, practical implications and follow-up research suggestions of this research are further elaborated. |
| Reference: | 一、 中文參考文獻
(一)、 專書
萬毓澤(譯) (民96)，創造歷史：社會理論中的行動，結構與變遷 (原作者：Callinicos, A.,)。台北：群學出版有限公司。
陳瑞麟 (民99)，科學哲學：理論與歷史，台北：群學出版有限公司。
(二)、 期刊論文
李宗榮 (民96)。在國家權力與家族主義之間：企業控制與台灣大型企業間網絡再探。台灣社會學，13。173-242。
林文源 (民96)。論行動者網絡理論的行動本體論。科技醫療與社會，4，65-108。
張國暉 (民100)。對技術的社會建構論之挑戰：建構東亞技術研究主體性的一個契機。科技醫療與社會，13，171-222。
湯偉君，邱美虹 (民96)。複雜系統，浮現及其對科學教育的啟示。科學教育月刊。
游美惠（民99）。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究，(8)，5-42。doi:10.7014/TCYC.200008.0005
二、 英文參考文獻
(一)、 專書
Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock to Innovation in the Automobile Industry, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Aldrich, H., & Ruef M. (2006). Organizations evolving. (Ed 2). Sage.
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. McGraw-Hill Companies.
Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. University of michigan Press.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.
Barrett, P., & Baldry, D. (2009). Facilities management: Towards best practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Berkhout, F. (2003). Negotiating environmental change: new perspectives from social science. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Betz, F. (1993). Strategic technology management. McGraw-Hill.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT press.
Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. MIT press.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT press.
Brown, S. L. & Eisenhart, K. M. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Burr, V. (2006). An introduction to social constructionism. Routledge.
Callon, M. (1980). Struggles and negotiations to define what is problematic and what is not. In The social process of scientific investigation (pp. 197-219). Springer, Dordrecht.
Carriere, W. M., Hamilton, W. F., & Morecraft, L. M. (1982). Synthetic fuels for transportation.
Chappin, É. J. L. (2011). Simulating energy transitions. Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation.
Czarniawska, B. (Ed.). (1997). A narrative approach to organization studies (Vol. 43). Sage Publications.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology, policy, and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Pinter Pub Ltd.
Freeman, C., & Perez, C. (1988). Structural crises of adjustment: business cycles. Technical change and economic theory. Londres: Pinter.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation (Vol. 5, pp. 29-30). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Geels, F. W. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of technological transitions: a co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis (p. 426). Enschede: Twente University Press.
Geels, F. W., and Kemp, R. (2000). Transities vanuit sociotechnisch perspectief. Report for the Dutch Ministry of Environment, Enschede: Universiteit Twente, and Maastricht: MERIT.
Goulding, C., & Saren, M. (2007). Gothic’entrepreneurs: a study of the subcultural commodification process. Consumer Tribes, 227-242.
Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge.
Guttmann, A. (1994). Games and empires: modern sports and cultural imperialism. Columbia University Press.
Hanusch, H., and Pyka, A. (2005). Principles of neo-Schumpeterian economics (No. 78). Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsreihe/Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Augsburg.
Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hughes, T. P. (1993). Networks of power: electrification in Western society, 1880-1930. JHU Press.
Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution, New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Kondratieff, N. D. (1979). The long waves in economic life. Ravenio Books, 1978.
Link, A. N., O`Connor, A. C., & Scott, T. J. (2015). Battery Technology for electric vehicles: Public science and private innovation. Routledge.
Markides, C., & Geroski, P. (2005). Fast second. Audio-Tech Business Book Summaries, Incorporated.
Matthews, E., Rotmans, J., Ruffing, K., Waller-Hunter, J., & Zhu, J. (1997). Global Change and Sustainable Development: Critical Trends. New York, United Nations, Department for Policy Cordination and Sustainable Development.
Meyer, M. H., & Lehnerd, A. P. (1997). The power of product platforms. Simon and Schuster.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic behavior and capabilities. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Nicolis, G., Prigogine, I., & Nocolis, G. (1989). Exploring Complexity: An Introduction. W.H. Freeman, 1989
Perez, C. (2003). Technological revolutions and financial capital. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press, 1980
Rip, A., & Schot, J. W. (2002). Identifying loci for influencing the dynamics of technological development. Shaping technology, guiding policy: concepts, spaces, and tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Scherer, F.M. (1980). Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 2nd Ed. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Schoonhoven, C. B., & Romanelli, E. (2001). The entrepreneurship dynamic: Origins of entrepreneurship and the evolution of industries. Stanford University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1912/2017). The theory of economic development. Routledge.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles (Vol. 1, pp. 161-174). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942/1976). Creative destruction. Capitalism, socialism and democracy, (825, pp. 82-85). Routledge.
Summerton, J. (1994). Changing large technical systems. Westview Press.
Morgan, C. L. (2013). Emergent evolution. Read Books Ltd.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
Rao, H. (2008). Market rebels: How activists make or break radical innovations. Princeton University Press.
Tashakkori, A., and Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods.
Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation: How companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological change. Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., and Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Waldrop, W. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos, New York: Touchstone.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York.
(二)、 專書論文
Andrews, K. R. (1997). The concept of corporate strategy., Resources, firms, and strategies: a reader in the resource-based perspective,(pp.52). NewYork: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Kemp, R. P. M., Rip, A., & Schot, J. (2001). Constructing transition paths through the management of niches. In Path dependence and creation (pp. 269-299). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2006). Managing transitions for sustainable development. In Understanding industrial transformation (pp. 187-206). Springer, Dordrecht.
Malerba, F. (2005). Sectoral systems: how and why innovation differs across sectors. In The Oxford handbook of innovation.
McGahan, A. M., Argyres, N., & Baum, J. A. (2004). Context, technology and strategy: forging new perspectives on the industry life cycle. In Business strategy over the industry lifecycle (pp. 1-21). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on Oganisations: the Application of Complexity Theory to Organisations. Elsevier Science Ltd.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research.
(三)、 叢書
Lundvall, B. Å. (Ed.). (2010). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning (Vol. 2). Anthem press.
MacMillan, I. C., & Katz, J. (1992). Idiosyncratic milieus of entrepreneurial research: The need for comprehensive theories (Vol.3). Entrepreneurship: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management
(四)、 博碩士學位論文
Grodal, S. (2007). The emergence of a new organizational field: Labels, meaning and emotions in nanotechnology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, U.S.A.
Hoogma, R. (2002). Exploiting Technological Niches: Strategies for Experimental Introduction of Electric Vehicles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Twente University of Technology, NL.
(五)、 期刊論文
Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mpping the winds of creative destruction. Research policy, 14(1), 3-22.
Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology review, 80(7), 40-47.
Ackerman, L. S. (1982). Transition management: an in-depth look at managing complex change. Organizational Dynamics, 11(1), 46-66.
Afuah, A. N., & Utterback, J. M. (1997). Responding to structural industry changes: a technological evolution perspective. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1), 183-202.
Agarwal, R., & Bayus, B. L. (2004). Creating and surviving in new industries. Advances in Strategic Management, 21, 107-132.
Agarwal, R., & Tripsas, M. (2008). Technology and industry evolution. The Handbook of Technology and Innovation Management, 1, 1-55.
Agarwal, R., & Gort, M. (1996). The evolution of markets and entry, exit and survival of firms. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 489-498.
Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 197-220.
Akiike, A. (2013). Where is Abernathy and Utterback Model?. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 12(5), 225-236.
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Rview, 19(4), 645-670.
Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216-232.
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 604-633.
Andersson, M., & Klepper, S. (2013). Characteristics and performance of new firms and spinoffs in Sweden. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 245-280.
Andriani, P. (2003). Evolutionary dynamics of industrial clusters. Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives on Organisations: The Application of Complexity Theory to Organisations, 2003, 127-145.
Ansoff, H. I. (1987). The emerging paradigm of strategic behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 8(6), 501-515.
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131.
Astley, W. G., & Fombrun, C. J. (1983). Collective strategy: Social ecology of organizational environments. Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 576-587.
Auster, E. R. (1992). The relationship of industry evolution to patterns of technological linkages, joint ventures, and direct investment between US and Japan. Management Science, 38(6), 778-792.
Berger, J. A., & Heath, C. (2005). Idea habitats: How the prevalence of environmental cues influences the success of ideas. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 195-221.
Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5-14.
Bingham, C. B., & Kahl, S. J. (2013). The process of schema emergence: Assimilation, deconstruction, unitization and the plurality of analogies. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 14-34.
Boschma, R., Minondo, A., & Navarro, M. (2013). The Emergence of New Industries at the Regional Level in Spain: A Proximity Approach Based on Product Relatedness. Economic Geography, 89(1), 29-51.
Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (1997). Sectoral innovation systems: technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. Systems of innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Oganizations, 130-156.
Breschi, S., Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (2000). Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. The Economic Journal, 110(463), 388-410.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
Callon, M. (1998). Introduction: the embeddedness of economic markets in economics. The Sociological Review, 46(S1), 1-57.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81.
Capron, L., & Mitchell, W. (1998). Bilateral resource redeployment and capabilities improvement following horizontal acquisitions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(3), 453-484.
Carlsson, B. (2016). Industrial dynamics: A review of the literature 1990–2009. Industry and Innovation, 23(1), 1-61.
Casper, S., & Whitley, R. (2004). Managing competences in entrepreneurial technology firms: a comparative institutional analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK. Research Policy, 33(1), 89-106.
Casti, J. L. (1997). Would-be worlds: toward a theory of complex systems. Artificial Life and Robotics, 1(1), 11-13.
Caves, R. E., & Porter, M. E. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility barriers: Conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to new competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 241-261.
Christensen, C. M. (1993). The rigid disk drive industry: A history of commercial and technological turbulence. Business History Review, 67(4), 531-588.
Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197-218.
Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker`s advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24(2), 233-257.
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1-39.
Clark, K. B. (1985). The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy, 14(5), 235-251.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173-208.
Corning, P. A. (2002). The re‐emergence of “emergence”: A venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity, 7(6), 18-30.
Dagnino, G. B. (2004). Complex systems as key drivers for the emergence of a resource-and capability-based interorganizational network. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 6.
Dahmén, E. (1984). Schumpeterian dynamics: Some methodological notes. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 5(1), 25-34.
David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332-337.
David, P. A., & Greenstein, S. (1990). The economics of compatibility standards: an introduction to recent research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1(1-2), 3-41.
DeBresson, C., & Amesse, F. (1991). Networks of innovators: A review and introduction to the issue. Research Policy, 20(5), 363-379.
Dinlersoz, E. M., & MacDonald, G. (2009). The industry life-cycle of the size distribution of firms. Review of Economic Dynamics, 12(4), 648-667.
Dobrev, S. D., & Gotsopoulos, A. (2010). Legitimacy vacuum, structural imprinting, and the first mover disadvantage. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1153-1174.
Dopfer, K., Foster, J., & Potts, J. (2004). Micro-meso-macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3), 263-279.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147-162.
Drechsler, W. (2005). The rise and demise of the new public management. Post-Autistic Economics Review, 33(14), 17-28.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517-554.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246-1264.
Edwards, P. N. (2003). Infrastructure and modernity: Force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. Modernity and Technology, 1, 185-226.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543-576.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7(2), 136-150.
Eliasson, G. (2000). Industrial policy, competence blocs and the role of science in economic development. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1-2), 217-241.
Elzen, B., & Wieczorek, A. (2005). Transitions towards sustainability through system innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 651-661.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency?. American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023.
Faber, A., & Frenken, K. (2009). Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 462-470.
Fixson, S. K., & Hee Lee, W. (2012). Shifting grounds: how industry emergence changes the effectiveness of knowledge creation strategies–the case of the US automotive airbag industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(1), 1-19.
Forbes, D. P., & Kirsch, D. A. (2011). The study of emerging industries: Recognizing and responding to some central problems. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5), 589-602.
Frenken, K., Van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional studies, 41(5), 685-697.
Gartner, W. B. (2007). Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5), 613-627.
Garud, R., & Rappa, M. A. (1994). A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3), 344-362.
Garud, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Technological innovation and industry emergence: The case of cochlear implants. Research on the Management of Innovation, 489-532.
Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 196-214.
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257-1274.
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6-7), 897-920.
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399-417.
Giesler, M. (2008). Conflict and compromise: drama in marketplace evolution. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 739-753.
Gioia, D. A., Price, K. N., Hamilton, A. L., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 1-46.
Glynn, M. A., & Abzug, R. (2002). Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 267-280.
Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49-72.
Gort, M., & Klepper, S. (1982). Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations. The Economic Journal, 92(367), 630-653.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Granovetter, M., & McGuire, P. (1998). The making of an industry: Electricity in the United States. The Sociological Review, 46(S1), 147-173.
Grodal, S., Gotsopoulos, A., & Suarez, F. F. (2015). The coevolution of technologies and categories during industry emergence. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 423-445.
Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293-317.
Gustafsson, R., Jääskeläinen, M., Maula, M., & Uotila, J. (2016). Emergence of industries: A review and future directions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(1), 28-50.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476-501.
Haveman, H. A., & Rao, H. (1997). Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: Institutional and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology, 102(6), 1606-1651.
Hekkert, M. P., & Negro, S. O. (2009). Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand sustainable technological change: Empirical evidence for earlier claims. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 584-594.
Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 413-432
Helfat, C. E. (2007). Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management.
Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (1985). Corporate distinctive competence, strategy, industry and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 273-293.
Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. International Studies of Management & Organization, 7(2).
Hughes, T. P. (1979). The electrification of America: the system builders. Technology and Culture, 20(1), 124-161.
Hunt, H. K. (1972). Source effects, message effects, and general effects in counteradvertising. ACR Special Volumes.
Iannacci, F., & Mitleton–Kelly, E. (2005). Beyond markets and firms: The emergence of Open Source networks. First Monday, 10(5).
Ikenberry, G. J. (1986). The irony of state strength: comparative responses to the oil shocks in the 1970s. International Organization, 105-137.
Jacobsson, S., & Bergek, A. (2004). Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(5), 815-849.
Jarillo, J. C. (1988). On strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 31-41.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2013). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses complexity. Blog Entry, January, 21.
Kaplan, S., & Tripsas, M. (2008). Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Research Policy, 37(5), 790-805.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1986). Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 822-841.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424-440.
Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10(2), 175-198.
Kennedy, M. T. (2008). Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 270-295.
Kim, T. Y., Oh, H., & Swaminathan, A. (2006). Framing interorganizational network change: A network inertia perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 704-720.
Klein, J. T. (1984). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. Structure, 71, 72.
Klepper, S. (1997). Industry life cycles. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1), 145-182.
Klepper, S. (2002). The capabilities of new firms and the evolution of the US automobile industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 645-666.
Klepper, S., & Graddy, E. (1990). The evolution of new industries and the determinants of market structure. The RAND Journal of Economics, 27-44.
Klepper, S., & Simons, K. L. (1997). Technological extinctions of industrial firms: an inquiry into their nature and causes. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(2), 379-460.
Kostakis, V. (2013). At the turning point of the current techno-economic paradigm: commons-based peer production, desktop manufacturing and the role of civil society in the Perezian framework. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 11(1), 173-190.
Krafft, J., Lechevalier, S., Quatraro, F., & Storz, C. (2014). Emergence and evolution of new industries: The path-dependent dynamics of knowledge creation. An introduction to the special section. Research Policy, 43(10), 1663-1665.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure ofscientific revolutions. University ot ‘Chicago Press, Chicago, 84-85.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.
Lant, T. K., & Phelps, C. (1999). Strategic groups: A situated learning perspective. Advances in Strategic Management, 16, 221-248.
Levinthal, D. A. (1998). The slow pace of rapid technological change: gradualism and punctuation in technological change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(2), 217-247.
Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43, 81-94.
Lewin, A. and Volberda, H. W. (1999). “Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms,” Organization Science, 10(5): 519-534.
Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: a cultural–political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1(1), 71-104.
Low, M. B., & Abrahamson, E. (1997). Movements, bandwagons, and clones: Industry evolution and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 435-457.
Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2), 247-264.
Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1995). Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 47-65.
Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1996). Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific. Research Policy, 25(3), 451-478.
Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1997). Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1), 83-118.
Martin, D. M., & Schouten, J. W. (2013). Consumption-driven market emergence. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 855-870.
Mazzucato, M. (2002). The PC industry: New economy or early life-cycle?. Review of Economic Dynamics, 5(2), 318-345.
McGahan, A. M. (2004). How industries change. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 86-94.
McGee, J., & Thomas, H. (1986). Strategic groups: Theory, research and taxonomy. Strategic Management Journal, 7(2), 141-160.
McGuire, P. (1990). Money and Power: Financiers and the Electric Manufacturing Industry, 1878-1896. Social Science Quarterly, 71(3), 510.
McKelvey, B. (1997). “Quasi-natural organization science,” Organization Science, 8(4): 352-380
Mehra, A., & Floyd, S. W. (1998). Product market heterogeneity, resource imitability and sfrategic group formation. Journal of Management, 24(4), 511-531.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 710.
Mezias, S. J., & Kuperman, J. C. (2001). The community dynamics of entrepreneurship: the birth of the American film industry, 1895–1929. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(3), 209-233.
Miller, G. E., & Chen, E. (2010). Harsh family climate in early life presages the emergence of a proinflammatory phenotype in adolescence. Psychological Science, 21(6), 848-856.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 2(3), 192-222.
Morgan, C. L. (1929). The case for emergent evolution. Philosophy, 4(13), 23-38.
Munir, K. A., & Phillips, N. (2005). The birth of the`Kodak Moment`: Institutional entrepreneurship and the adoption of new technologies. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1665-1687.
Nelson, R. R., & Sampat, B. N. (2001). Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Revista de Economía Institucional, 3(5), 17-51.
Oltra, V., & Saint Jean, M. (2009). Variety of technological trajectories in low emission vehicles (LEVs): a patent data analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2), 201-213.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343-373.
Perez, C. (1983). Structural change and assimilation of new technologies in the economic and social systems. Futures, 15(5), 357-375.
Perez, C. (1985). Microelectronics, long waves and world structural change: New perspectives for developing countries. World Development, 13(3), 441-463.
Perez, C. (2009). The double bubble at the turn of the century: technological roots and structural implications. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(4), 779-805.
Perez, C. (2010). Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 185-202.
Perez, C. (2011). Finance and technical change: a long-term view. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 3(1), 10-35.
Phaal, R., O`Sullivan, E., Routley, M., Ford, S., & Probert, D. (2011). A framework for mapping industrial emergence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 217-230.
Pilkington, A., Dyerson, R., & Tissier, O. (2002). The electric vehicle:: Patent data as indicators of technological development. World Patent Information, 24(1), 5-12.
Pistorius, C. W., & Utterback, J. M. (1997). Multi-mode interaction among technologies. Research Policy, 26(1), 67-84.
Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485-501.
Prokopenko, M., Boschetti, F., & Ryan, A. J. (2009). An information‐theoretic primer on complexity, self‐organization, and emergence. Complexity, 15(1), 11-28.
Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 29-44.
Reddy, N. M., Aram, J. D., & Lynn, L. H. (1991). The institutional domain of technology diffusion. Journal of Product Innovation Management: an International Publication of the Product Development and Management Associaton, 8(4), 295-304.
Reinganum, J. F. (1981). Market structure and the diffusion of new technology. The Bell Journal of Economics, 618-624.
Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “morphing”: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1263-1280.
Rosa, J. A., & Porac, J. F. (2002). Categorization bases and their influence on product category knowledge structures. Psychology and Marketing, 19(6), 503-531.
Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., and Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. The Journal of Marketing, 64-77.
Rosenkopf, L., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Technology and organization. Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations, 403.
Rosenkopf, L., & Tushman, M. L. (1998). The coevolution of community networks and technology: Lessons from the flight simulation industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(2), 311-346.
Rotmans, J. (1994). Transitions on the move. Global Dynamics and Sustainable Development., RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 16(18), 144.
Rotmans, J., & Kemp, R. (2008). Detour ahead: a response to Shove and Walker about the perilous road of transition management. Environment and Planning A, 40(4), 1006-1012.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15-31.
Russo, M. V. (2003). The emergence of sustainable industries: building on natural capital. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4), 317-331.
Sabatier, V., Craig-Kennard, A., & Mangematin, V. (2012). When technological discontinuities and disruptive business models challenge dominant industry logics: Insights from the drugs industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(5), 949-962.
Sahal, D. (1982). Structure and self‐organization. Behavioral Science, 27(3), 249-258.
Sampler, J. L. (1998). Redefining industry structure for the information age. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 343-355.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643-671.
Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and planning A, 39(4), 763-770.
Spencer, J. W., Murtha, T. P., & Lenway, S. A. (2005). How governments matter to new industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 321-337.
Storz, C. (2008). Dynamics in innovation systems: Evidence from Japan`s game software industry. Research Policy, 37(9), 1480-1491.
Suarez, F. F. (2004). Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework. Research Policy, 33(2), 271-286.
Suarez, F. F., & Cusumano, M. A. (2010). The role of services in platform markets. Platforms, Markets and Innovation, 77-98.
Suarez, F. F., & Oliva, R. (2005). Environmental change and organizational transformation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), 1017-1041.
Suárez, F. F., & Utterback, J. M. (1995). Dominant designs and the survival of firms. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 415-430.
Suarez, F. F., Cusumano, M. A., & Kahl, S. J. (2013). Services and the business models of product firms: An empirical analysis of the software industry. Management Science, 59(2), 420-435.
Suarez, F. F., Grodal, S., & Gotsopoulos, A. (2015). Perfect timing? Dominant category, dominant design, and the window of opportunity for firm entry. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 437-448.
Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–306.
Thorelli, H. B. (1986). Networks: between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 37-51.
Tripsas, M. (2009). Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of “The Digital Photography Company”. Organization Science, 20(2), 441-460.
Tukker, A., & Butter, M. (2007). Governance of sustainable transitions: about the 4 (0) ways to change the world. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(1), 94-103.
Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639-656.
Suarez, F., & Utterback, J. (1993). Patterns of industrial evolution, dominant designs, and firms` survival. Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, 5, 47-87.
Utterback, J., & Suarez, F. (1990). Innovation, competition, and industry structure. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. WP# 3240-91-BPS
Utterback, J. M., & Suárez, F. F. (1993). Innovation, competition, and industry structure. Research Policy, 22(1), 1-21.
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 674-698.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 169-188.
Van der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2005). The transition in Dutch water management. Regional Environmental Change, 5(4), 164-176.
Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429-439.
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385-390.
Wiek, A., Binder, C., & Scholz, R. W. (2006). Functions of scenarios in transition processes. Futures, 38(7), 740-766.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Design and methods. Case Study Research, 3.
Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1997). Present at the biotechnological revolution: transformation of technological identity for a large incumbent pharmaceutical firm. Research Policy, 26(4-5), 429-446.
(六)、 美國聯邦政府計畫參考資料
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Analytic research foundations for the next-generation electric grid. National Academies Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). The Power of Change: Innovation for Development and Deployment of Increasingly Clean Electric Power Technologies. National Academies Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (1998). National Automated Highway System Research Program: A Review: A Review -- Special Report 253. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11388.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2009). Public Transportation`s Role in Addressing Global Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23056.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2013). Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18611.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). The Essential Federal Role in Highway Research and Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21727.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). A Look at the Legal Environment for Driverless Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23453.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Transportation Research Board 2016 Annual Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24663.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Advancing Automated and Connected Vehicles: Policy and Planning Strategies for State and Local Transportation Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24872.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Impacts of Laws and Regulations on CV and AV Technology Introduction in Transit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24922.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Strategies to Advance Automated and Connected Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24873.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Critical Issues in Transportation 2019. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25314.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25296.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems, Vol. 2: State Legal and Regulatory Audit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25294.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25293.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems, Vol. 4: Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25292.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Updating Regional Transportation Planning and Modeling Tools to Address Impacts of Connected and Automated Vehicles, Volume 2: Guidance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25332.
National Research Council. (1990). Fuels to drive our future. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1992). Automotive fuel economy: How far can we go?. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1996). Review of the research program of the partnership for a new generation of vehicles: Second report. National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1997). Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Third Report. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1998). Review of the Research and Development Plan for the Office of Advanced Automotive Technologies. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (1998). Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Fourth Report. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Review of the research program of the partnership for a new generation of vehicles: Sixth report. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2001). Energy research at DOE: Was it worth it? Energy efficiency and fossil energy research 1978 to 2000. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2002). Effectiveness and impact of corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2005). Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2008). Review of the research program of the FreedomCAR and fuel partnership: Second report. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2008). Transitions to alternative transportation technologies: A focus on hydrogen. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2010). America`s energy future: technology and transformation. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2010). Review of the research program of the FreedomCAR and fuel partnership: Third report. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2010). Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies—Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Assessment of fuel economy technologies for light-duty vehicles. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). Rising to the challenge: US innovation policy for the global economy. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Overcoming barriers to electric-vehicle deployment: Interim report. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Review of the Research Program of the US DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Transitions to alternative vehicles and fuels. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2015). Overcoming barriers to deployment of plug-in electric vehicles. National Academies Press.
Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (2010)
(七)、 其他報告
Bjerklie, J. W., Cairns, E. J., Tobias, C. W., & Wilson, D. G. (1975). An Evaluation of Alternative Power Sources for Low-Emission Automobiles (No. 750929). SAE Technical Paper.
Cost, E. (2015). Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. National Research Council, Washington, DC.
(八)、 國會聽證會證詞
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce., United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. (1967). Electric vehicles and other alternatives to the internal combustion engine: Joint hearings before the Committee on Commerce and the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, Ninetieth Congress, first session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off..
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Energy Research, D. (1975). Electric vehicle research, development, and demonstration act of 1975: hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development and Demonstration of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 5470 .... Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112104054249&view=1up&seq=3
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Special Subcommittee on Science, T. (1976). Electric vehicle research, development, and demonstration act of 1975: hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Commerce of the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, first session, on S. 1632 and H.R. 8800. October 7 and 10, 1975. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015078093450&view=1up&seq=4
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, D. (1978). Electric and hybrid vehicle act, Public Law 94-413 demonstration program objective and schedule: hearing before the Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, Development, and Demonstration of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-fifth Congress, first session, July 12, 1977. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off..
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081118526&view=1up&seq=1
Fusion Advisory Panel (U.S.). (1980). Storage batteries for electric vehicle applications: hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth Congress, first session, November 26, 1979. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off..
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081945944&view=1up&seq=11
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies. (1979). Role of electric vehicles in U.S. transportation: hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, first session : special hearing. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822021825591&view=1up&seq=1
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, S. (1990). Electric vehicle technology and commercialization: hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation, and Materials of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, second session, September 25, 1990. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. . https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017589994&view=1up&seq=3
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, S. (1991). H.R. 1538--National Electric Vehicle Act of 1991: hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, first session, May 16, 1991. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000018076745&view=1up&seq=3
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, S. (1993). Status of domestic electric vehicle development: hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, May 11, 1993. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000021576379&view=1up&seq=3
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, S. (1995). Electric vehicles and advanced battery R&D: hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, June 30, 1994. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000023492899&view=1up&seq=3
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science. Subcommittee on Energy. (2006). The Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006 (discussion draft): hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, second session, May 17, 2006. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000058928318&view=1up&seq=1
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (2008). Vehicles powered by the electric grid: hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, second session, to receive testimony regarding the current state of vehicles powered by the electric grid and the prospects for wider deployment in the near future, September 16, 2008. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000065521496&view=1up&seq=3
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (2010). Electric vehicles: hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, second session, to receive testimony on policies to reduce oil consumption through the promotion of accelerated deployment of electric-drive vehicles, as proposed in S. 3495, the Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2010, June 22, 2010. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. .
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822037818820&view=1up&seq=3
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (2011). Advanced vehicle technologies: hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, first session, to receive testimony on policies to reduce oil consumption through the promotion of advanced vehicle technologies and accelerated deployment of electric-drive vehicles, as proposed in S. 734 and S. 948, May 19, 2011. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822037830783&view=1up&seq=3 |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
96359501 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096359501 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202001615 |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 950101.pdf | | 22034Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 153 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
