政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/141819
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51051293      線上人數 : 911
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141819


    題名: 從動態能力的觀點探討企業的數位轉型
    Exploring The Digital Transformation From The Perspective Of Dynamic Capabilities
    作者: 沈柏延
    SHEN, B0-Yen
    貢獻者: 吳豐祥
    詹文男
    Wu, Feng-Shang
    Tsan, Wen-Nang
    沈柏延
    SHEN, B0-Yen
    關鍵詞: 數位轉型
    動態能力
    數位轉型策略
    資源基礎論
    轉型創新
    領導力
    整合型架構
    商業模式
    吸收能力
    能力
    Digital transformation
    Dynamic capability
    Strategy for digital transformation
    Resource-based view
    Innovative transformation
    Leadership
    Integrated framework
    Business model
    Absorptive capacity
    Capability
    日期: 2022
    上傳時間: 2022-09-02 15:43:31 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 數位轉型是近年在產業與學術界都受到熱烈討論的議題，它不僅是解決單一問題的資訊系統導入，而是企業的領導者對於環境認知後，制定其將如何透過一連串的技術選擇及資源投入以進行轉型成長的新境界，來創造價值以達成轉型的目標(Singh & Hess, 2017)。2018年戴爾(Dell)與英特爾(Intel)共同進行「數位轉型指數大調查」，總計在台灣調查了100家中大型企業的主管，請他們評估自家公司在戴爾科技集團數位轉型指數中所處的定位。其結果顯示，僅10%的台灣企業認為自己是數位化領導者。這意味著有很大一部份的台灣企業在這一波數位轉型的步調上過於緩慢，或根本沒有擬定相關的計畫。
    事實上，企業的數位轉型並非一蹴可幾，而是需要透過不同的階段，逐步調整其體質，才能讓數位轉型逐步落實成功。更重要的是數位轉型大多源自於眾多創新資通訊技術對組織所造成的重大影響，而這些影響具有高度的多元性、複雜性與關聯性。在此情況下，企業需要以創新的資訊技術與其所提供的數據資訊為核心，調整或創造新的商業模式。也就是說，這些資訊技術在應用上的創新，不僅影響企業新產品/新服務的提供與商業模式的改變，也影響到企業組織內部的營運及企業與外部環境的關係(Bughin & Zeebroeck, 2017; Bock, Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017)。儘管有關數位轉型的議題在近年已有許多討論與研究發表，但針對此議題的實證性研究仍然不足(Vukšić et al., 2018)。因此，深入探討企業進行數位轉型的過程與脈絡之實證研究，就更顯得重要了。
    企業因為察覺到外部技術環境的改變因而進行數位轉型，但企業是否具備數位轉型所需的能力，將是轉型能否成功很重要的因素 (Verhoef et al., 2021)，也就是說，企業要如何透過調整既有能力與構建新能力以適應新的科技環境，應該是數位轉型是否會成功的關鍵。而企業要將既有能力轉變為數位轉型下所需要的新能力，本研究認為它是一個動態逐步調整的過程。然過去數位轉型的研究中，僅有少數文獻探討到數位轉型下企業所需要的新管理方法與能力，有關企業在數位轉型下如何進行能力的調整以順利推動數位轉型的過程之研究則幾乎付之闕如(Bughin & Catlin, 2017; Bock, Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017; Verhoef et al., 2021)。因此，本研究以動態能力（Dynanic Capabilities）做為研究的理論基礎，探討企業進行數位轉型時，如何調整與改變其能力以因應新的環境與競爭之過程。
    本研究在主題上多少具有探索性的本質，且著重於「如何」方面的探討，因此，質性與個案研究是較為合適的方法 (Yin, 2009)。此外， 由於本研究的目的在於探討企業在科技環境劇烈變動下，如何透過導入創新資訊技術及調整組織與回應環境，以順利推動數位轉型。因此，根據此研究情境，本研究在研究個案對象的選擇上採用立意抽樣法 (Purposive Sampling)，並以Tekic & Koroteev (2019)的框架為基礎，按照數位轉型策略 (「顛覆性」、「商業模式主導」、「技術主導」轉型策略)，對應選擇訊連科技、秀傳醫院與益張實業等三家企業做為深入的研究對象。
    本研究所得到的主要「結論」如下:
    一、創新技術引發市場環境、產業競爭者與消費者需求等的改變，進而促發企業數位轉型的需求。當企業進行數位轉型的規劃時，會基於組織內部的條件來評估資訊系統的合適性並將轉型過程依序分成不同的階段，以利後續逐步轉型過程的推動。
    二、企業在進行數位轉型時，其組織結構的調整上，會以建立跨功能團隊或成立新事業體的方式為主，以強化跨專業領域的合作、資源的整合與營運效能的提升。
    三、企業在進行數位轉型的過程中，為解決其員工的知識不足與抗拒，以及跨功能溝通的問題，會將知識吸收與分享的機制分成不同階段循序進行。也會基於其不同的數位轉型目標與策略，而採取不同的知識吸收方式，以減少數位轉型的阻力。
    四、企業在進行數位轉型的過程中，會調整既有的生態系統，以即時提供客戶有效的解決方案並快速掌握數位轉型商機。也會進行生態系統內的資訊整合，以提升內外部資訊整合所帶來的效益。
    五、企業在數位轉型過程中，其高階主管會因考量內部組織僵固性及外部挑戰的問題而親身積極投入數位轉型，包括全程參與轉型策略與目標的制定、跨部門的溝通與資源整合等，以提升數位轉型推動的力道。
    六、企業在數位轉型過程中，會充分展現其動態能力，包含察覺辨識外部環境改變的機會與威脅，掌握機會訂定轉型目標以及調整資源與結構等方面的能力。此外，高階主管也會展現其領導力與創新力。
    本研究主要的「學術貢獻」包括:
    一、本研究採用動態能力的觀點，來探討企業進行數位轉型的動態過程，研究結果提供了數位轉型領域研究的新視角。
    二、本研究在採用動態能力觀點探討數位轉型的議題上，亦探討了數位科技對於企業轉型之動態能力發展上的影響。研究結果彌補了「動態能力理論欠缺著墨科技之微觀影響」上的研究缺口。
    三、本研究基於企業在數位轉型上進行能力的調整與程序，提出了一個數位轉型的整合性架構，研究結果彌補了過往數位轉型文獻大都僅著重於特定議題之探討的不足。
    本研究根據所得到的結論，進一步提出以下的主要「實務建議」:
    一、企業宜留意外部環境的動態變化，以確保數位轉型之相關作法的合宜性。
    二、企業在進行數位轉型的過程中，宜考量到內部阻力與員工知識不足的問題，將轉型分成不同的階段來推動，並基於不同階段的目標與策略將所需要的知識學習分成多個階段來進行。
    三、企業進行數位轉型時，宜根據數位轉型的目標與策略來調整組織的結構與生態系統，並進行生態系統內的資訊整合。
    四、企業在進行數位轉型的過程中，宜指派能夠全程參與轉型過程的高階主管來負責，以利數位轉型的推動。
    五、企業進行數位轉型時，宜避免唯技術與資訊長獨尊的迷思。
    本論文最後依據本研究的結果提出了一個「整體性架構」，並選擇一家國內企業，就其數位轉型的實際發展進行較為完整的陳述，以提供給那些有意推動數位轉型的企業經理人當作參考。
    Digital transformation has been a topic that has been enthusiastically discussed in both the industry and academia in recent years. It does not only resolve the singular issue of information system integration, but also a new frontier of transformative growth that is implemented through a series of technological choices and resource dedication by company leaders after they have recognized the current environment. These acts help company leaders create value and achieve the transformation goal (Singh & Hess, 2017). In 2018, Dell and Intel collaborated on the 「Digital Transformation Index Survey」which surveyed 100 leaders of medium and large enterprises in Taiwan. They were asked to assess the position of their own companies in the DT Index released by Dell Technologies. The result was that only 10% of Taiwan’s enterprises felt that they were leaders in digitization. This means that a large number of Taiwan’s enterprises are either fall behind schedule or have no plans to implement in the current wave of digital transformation.
    In reality, the digital transformation of enterprises cannot happen overnight, but must be achieved through different stages and gradual adjustments to its constitution. More importantly is the great impact brought forth by the many innovative information communication technologies on organizations which results in digital transformation and these impacts are highly diverse, complex, and relative. Under this circumstance, enterprises need to utilize innovative information technology and the data information it provides as the core to adjust or create a new business model. In other words, the innovative application of these information technologies affects not only an enterprise’s new products, services, and business model but also the company’s internal operations and its relationship with the external environment (Bughin & Zeebroeck, 2017; Bock, Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). Although much discussion and research regarding digital transformation has been published in recent years, there has been a lack of empirical research regarding the topic (Vukšić et al., 2018). Therefore, empirical research with an in-depth exploration of the process and context of enterprises’ digital transformation is essential.
    An enterprise undergoes digital transformation because it is aware of the changes in the external technology environment. However, what plays a vital role in this process is whether the enterprise has the necessary ability for digital transformation (Verhoef et al., 2021). In other words, the key to whether digital transformation can succeed lies in how an enterprise adjusts its existing capabilities and establishes new capabilities to adapt to the new technology environment. Our research believes that the process of enterprises modifying their existing capabilities to grow new capabilities needed for digital transformation is a dynamic process involving gradual adjustments. In past research on digital transformation, there have been only a few documents discussing the new management methods and capabilities needed by enterprises for digital transformation. That is, there is a lack of research on the process of how enterprises adjust their capability to drive digital transformation (Bughin & Catlin, 2017; Bock, Iansiti, & Lakhani, 2017; Verhoef et al., 2021). Therefore, this research uses dynamic capabilities as its theoretical basis and explores the process of how enterprises adjust and transform their existing capabilities in response to the new environment and competition.
    This research somewhat has an exploratory nature due to its topic and emphasizes exploring how enterprises achieve a successful digital transformation. Therefore, it is more appropriate to adopt qualitative methods and case study research to conduct this study (Yin, 2009). Also, the purpose of this research is to explore how enterprises respond to the severe changes of the technology environment through integrating innovative information technology and adjusting its organization and successfully driving digital transformation. Thus, based on this scenario, this research utilizes the Purposive Sampling method for its target in the individual case study and the framework of Tekic & Koroteev (2019) as its basis. Following the digital transformation strategies (being disruptive, leading by a business model, and leading by technology), CyberLink, Show Chwan Hospital, and I Jang Group were chosen as the three target enterprises that this research will conduct in-depth research on.
    The main conclusions this research has gained are as follows:
    1. Innovative technology leads to changes in the market environment, industry competitors, and consumer needs. This in turn triggers the need for enterprises to digitally transform. When enterprises plan to digitally transform, they will base it on the internal structure and conditions to evaluate the suitability of information systems and divide the process into stages. This helps to drive the gradual transformation.
    2. When enterprises undergo digital transformation, it will mainly establish cross-functional teams or establish new business entities. This will strengthen collaborations between different fields of expertise, integration of resources, and elevation of operation efficacy.
    3. Enterprises progressively accomplish the knowledge absorption and sharing mechanism in the digital transformation process. They go through different stages to resolve their employees’ deficiency and resistance to knowledge and cross-functional communication issues. Enterprises also adopt different knowledge absorption methods to minimize the resistance to digital transformation according to their goals and strategies for digital transformation.
    4. When enterprises undergo digital transformation, they adjust the existing business ecosystem to promptly provide their clients with practical solutions and grasp the business opportunity. Enterprises also integrate the information within the ecosystem to increase the benefit of integrating internal and external information.
    5. Concerning the rigid organizational structure of the company, senior executives immerse themselves in the digital transformation process to enhance the performance in digital transformation, including fully participating in formulating strategies and objectives of digital transformation, ensuring cross-departmental communication, and integrating resources.
    6. In the process of digital transformation, enterprises will fully demonstrate their dynamic capabilities, including detecting and identifying the opportunities and threats of external environment change, grasping opportunities, defining problems and setting goals to plan digital transformation strategies, and facilitating digital transformation. In addition, senior executives will demonstrate leadership and innovative capabilities in the whole process.
    The main academic contributions of this research include:
    1. This research uses the dynamic capability perspective to explore the dynamic process of enterprises undergoing digital transformation. The result provides a new perspective for research in the field of digital transformation.
    2. While exploring topics on digital transformation based on the dynamic capability perspective, our research also discusses the effects of digital technology on the development of enterprises’ dynamic capabilities in transformation. The research findings resolve the limitation of dynamic capability theory by addressing the microscopic effects on information technologies.
    3. This study proposes an integrated framework for digital transformation based on enterprises’ adjustment of capabilities in digital transformation and its process. The results of this study fill the gap in previous research on digital transformation, which primarily focuses on specific issues.
    Based on the conclusions obtained, this study proposes the following critical and practical suggestions:
    1. Enterprises should pay attention to the dynamic changes in the external environment to ensure that digital transformation is carried out appropriately.
    2. When enterprises undergo digital transformation, they should take into consideration the internal resistance and the lack of their employees’ knowledge. In other words, the transformation should be executed in stages. In addition, the required knowledge should be acquired step-by-step based on the objectives and strategies in different stages.
    3. Undergoing digital transformation, enterprises should modulate their organizational structure and ecosystem and integrate the information within the ecosystem according to their goals and strategies for the transformation.
    4. It is better to assign senior executives to participate fully in the process and take responsibility for it to boost digital transformation in the enterprise.
    5. When enterprises carry out digital transformation, it is advisable to avoid the myth that CTO and CIO’s opinion is always the best.
    In response to the integnated framework proposed by this study, the end of the thesis includes a full narration of a domestic enterprise and its digital transformation process. This serves as a reference to the managers of enterprises which might be interested in driving digital transformation.
    Keywords: digital transformation, dynamic capability, strategy for digital transformation, resource-based view, innovative transformation, leadership, integrated framework, business model, absorptive capacity, capability.
    參考文獻: Accenture (2017). Accenture Technology Vision 2017. Available on : https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-disruptive-technology-trends-2017, Accessed July 7 2019.
    Accenture (2018). Accenture Technology Vision 2018, Available on: https://www. accenture.com/t20180227T215953Z__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/next-gen-7/tech-vision-2018/pdf/Accenture-TechVision-2018-Tech-Trends-Report, Accessed July 7 2019.
    Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Fernández-Rodríguez, V. & Ariza-Montes, A. (2018). Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of the literature on dynamic capabilities: A bibliometric analysis. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 24(1), 42-52.
    Alsos, G. A., Borch, O. J., Ljunggren, E., Madsen, E. L. & Liar, E. (2007). The dynamic capability concept and its operationalization. In Proceedings of The Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference at IE Business School, Madrid.
    Ambrosini, V. & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management?. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 29-49.
    Amit, R. & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.
    Amit, R. & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e‐business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6‐7), 493-520.
    Anderson, C. (2009). The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More, Hyperion, New York, NY.
    Anderson, John R., Robert Farrell & Ron Sauers (1984). Learning to program in LISP, Cognitive Science, 8, 87-129.
    Andriole, S. J. (2017). Five myths about digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(3), 20-22.
    Baculard, L. P. (2017). To lead a digital transformation, CEOs must prioritize. Harvard Business Review, 1-6. Retrieved fromh ttps://hbr.org/2017/01/to-lead-a-digital-transformation-ceos-must-prioritize.
    Bain, J. S. (1959). Industrial Organization. New York, Wiley.
    Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1231-1241.
    Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
    Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
    Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41-56.
    Barney, J.B. & Clark, D.N. (2007). Resource-Based Theory. Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    Barney, J.B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy, Management Science, 32(10), 1231-1241.
    Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
    Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256-280.
    Beatty, J. (2017). How small businesses can increase their digital capabilities. Harvard Business Review, 1-5.
    Beckhard, R. & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change. Reading, Mass, Wesley.
    Bellman, R., Clark, C. E., Malcolm, D. G., Craft, C. J. & Ricciardi, F. M. (1957). On the construction of a multi-stage, multi-person business game. Operations Research, 5(4), 469-503.
    Bersin, J. (2016). Digital leadership is not an optional part of being a CEO. Harvard Business Review, 12, 2-4.
    Bock, R., Iansiti, M. & Lakhani, K. R. (2017). What the companies on the right side of the digital business divide have in common. Harvard Business Review, 1-6, Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/01/what-the-companies-on-the-right-side-of-the-digital-business-dividehave-in-common.
    Bouée, C. E. (2015). Digital transformation doesn’t have to leave employees behind. Harvard Business Review, 1-5.
    Bower, G. H. & Hilgard, E. R. (1981). Theories of Learning. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
    Brăduţanu, D. (2012). Identifying the reducing resistance to change phase in an organizational change model. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Œconomica, 8(2), 18-26.
    Bridges, W. & Mitchell, S. (2000). Leading transition: A new model for change. Leader to Leader, 16(3), 30-36.
    Broekhuizen, T. L. J., Emrich, O., Gijsenberg, M. J., Broekhuis, M., Donkers, B. & Sloot, L.M. (2019). Digital platform openness: Drivers, dimensions and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 122, 902-914.
    Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos, Harvard Business School Press, Boston
    Burs, Tom & George Stalker (1961), The Management of Innovation. London, Tavistock Publications.
    Bughin, J. & Van Zeebroeck, N. (2017). 6 digital dtrategies, and why some work better than others. Harvard Business Review, 1-6.
    Bughin, J. & Catlin, T. (2017). What successful digital transformations have in common. Harvard Business Review, 1-5.
    Buzzao, G. & Rizzi, F. (2021). On the conceptualization and measurement of dynamic capabilities for sustainability: Building theory through a systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 135-175.
    Casadesus-Masanell, R. & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 195-215.
    Cavusgil, E., Seggie, S. H. & Talay, M. B. (2007). Dynamic capabilities view: Foundations and research agenda. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(2), 159-166.
    Chakravarthy, B. S. (1982). Adaptation: A promising metaphor for strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 35-44.
    Chakravarty, A., Grewal, R. & Sambamurthy, V. (2013). Information technology competencies, organizational agility, and firm performance: Enabling and facilitating roles. Information Systems Research, 24(4), 976–997.
    Chen, C. J. (2004). The effects of knowledge attribute, alliance characteristics, and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance. R&D Management, 34(3), 311-321.
    Chesbrough, H. W. (2007). Business model innovation: It’ s not just about technology anymore. Strategy and Leadership, 35: 12-17.
    Chesbrough, H. & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation`s technology spin‐off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529-555.
    Christensen, C. M., Bartman, T. & Van Bever, D. (2016). The hard truth about business model innovation. Sloan Management Review, 58(1), 30–40.
    Clark, K. B. & Fujimoto, T. (1987). Overlapping problem-solving in product development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1),128-152.
    Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17, 121-154.
    Cyfert, S., Chwiłkowska-Kubala, A., Szumowski, W. & Miśkiewicz, R. (2021). The process of developing dynamic capabilities: the conceptualization attempt and the results of empirical studies. PLoS One, 16(4), 1-16.
    D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering, Simon and Schuster, New York.
    Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504-1511.
    Dougherty, D. & Dunne, D. D. (2012). Digital science and knowledge boundaries in complex innovation. Organization Science, 23(5), 1467-1484.
    Dremel, C., Wulf, J., Herterich, M. M., Waizmann, J. C. & Brenner, W. (2017). How AUDI AG Established Big Data Analytics in Its Digital Transformation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2), 81-100.
    Drnevich, P. L. & Kriauciunas, A. P. (2011). Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3), 254-279.
    Easterby‐Smith, M., Lyles, M. A. & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Current debates and future directions. British Journal of Management, 20, S1-S8.
    Eggers, J. P. & Park, K. F. (2018). Incumbent adaptation to technological change: The past, present, and future of research on heterogeneous incumbent response. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 357-389.
    Eisenhardt, K. M. & Galunic, D. C. (2000). Coevolving At last, a way to make synergies work. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 91-91.
    Eisenhardt, K. M. & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105-1121.
    Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. & Shona L. Brown (1998). Time Pacing: Competing in Markets That Won`t Stand Still. Harvard Business Review, 76 (2), 59-69.
    Ellis, Henry Carlton (1965). The Transfer of Learning, MacMillan, New York.
    Foss, K., Foss, N. & Klein, P. (2007). Original and derived judgment: an entrepreneurial theory of economic organization, Organization Studies, 28, 1893-1912.
    Foss, N. & Ishikawa, I. (2007). Toward a dynamic resource-based view: insights from Austrian Capital and entrepreneurship theory, Organization Studies, 28, 749-772.
    Gahl Berkooz (2017). CEOs Need to ask the right questions about their digital businesses. Harvard Business Review, 1-3.
    Gibson, C. B. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
    Godfrey, P. C. & Hill, C. W. L. (1995). The problem of unobservables in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 519-533.
    Gölzer, P. & Fritzsche, A. (2017). Data-driven operations management: organisational implications of the digital transformation in industrial practice. Production Planning & Control, 28(16), 1332-1343.
    Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
    Hansen, M., Perry, L. & Reese, C. (2004). A Bayesian operationalization of the resource-based view, Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1279-1295.
    Harlow, H. F. (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review, 56(1), 51.
    Harreld, J. B., O`Reilly III, C. A. & Tushman, M. L. (2007). Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action. California Management Review, 49(4), 21-43.
    Haslehurst, R., Randall, C., Weber, J. & Sullivan, C. (2016). How to know which digital trends are worth chasing. Harvard Business Review.
    Helfat, C. E. (2000). Guest editor’s introduction to the special issue: The evolution of firm capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 955-960.
    Helfat, C. E. & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.
    Helfat, C. E. & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (N) ever‐changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11), 1243-1250.
    Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K. & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 13-28.
    Hodgkinson, G. P. & Healey, M. P. (2011). Psychological foundations of dynamic capabilities: Reflexion and reflection in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1500-1516.
    Hooley, G. J., Lynch, J. E. & Jobber, D. (1992). Generic marketing strategies. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9(1), 75-89.
    Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L. & Walker, G. (2003). Why is there a resource-based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 889-902.
    Hsu, L. C. & Wang, C. H. (2012). Clarifying the effect of intellectual capital on performance: the mediating role of dynamic capability. British Journal of Management, 23(2), 179-205.
    Hurley, R. F. & Hult, T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42-54.
    Iansiti, M. & Lakhani, K. R. (2014). Digital ubiquity: How connections, sensors, and data are revolutionizing business. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 90–99.
    Johnson, M. W. (2018). Digital Growth Depends More on Business Models than Technology. Harvard Business Review, 1-3. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/12/digital-growth-depends-more-on-business-models-than-technology.
    Katz, R. & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R and D Project Groups. Randd Management, 12(1), 7-20.
    Knoben, J. & Oerlemans, L. A. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89.
    Koch, T. & Windsperger, J. (2017). Seeing through the network: Competitive advantage in the digital economy. Journal of Organization Design, 6(1), 1-30.
    Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.C. & Groen, A. (2010). The resource-based view: a review and assessment of its critiques, Journal of Management, 36, 349-372.
    Laaksonen, O. & Peltoniemi, M. (2018). The essence of dynamic capabilities and their measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 184-205.
    Lazonick, W. & Prencipe, A. (2005). Dynamic capabilities and sustained innovation: strategic control and financial commitment at Rolls-Royce Plc. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 501-542.
    Lee, O. K. D., Sambamurthy, V., Kim, K. H. & Wei, K. K. (2015). How does IT ambidexterity impact organizational agility? Information Systems Research, 26(2), 398-417.
    Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(1), 111-125.
    Leonhardt, D., Haffke, I., Kranz, J. & Benlian, A. (2017). Reinventing the IT function: the role of IT agility and IT ambidexterity in supporting digital business transformation, IT Agility and IT Ambidexterity, Twenty-Fifth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 1-17.
    Li, L., Su, F., Zhang, W. & Mao, J. Y. (2018). Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective. Information Systems Journal, 28(6), 1129-1157.
    Libert, B., Beck, M. & Wind, J. (2016). The network imperative: How to survive and grow in the age of digital business models. Harvard Business Review, 1-6.
    Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G. & Deimler, M. S. (2009). Business Model Innovation. When the Game Gets Tough, Change the Game, Boston, The Boston Consulting Group.
    Lindsay, P. H. & Norman, D. A. (1977). Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology. New York, Elsevier.
    Lippman, S. & Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 418-438.
    Loebbecke, C. & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(3), 149-157.
    March, James G. & Herbert A. Simon (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
    Matt, C., Hess, T. & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339-343.
    McGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 247-261.
    Menon, A. G. (2008). Revisiting dynamic capability. IIMB Management Review, 20(1), 22-33.
    Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D. & Coleman Jr, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546-562.
    Miller, D. & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: the third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221-235.
    Montealegre, R. (2002). A process model of capability development: Lessons from the electronic commerce strategy at Bolsa de Valores de Guayaquil. Organization Science, 13(5), 514-531.
    Nambisan, S., Wright, M. & Feldman, M. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48(8), 1-9.
    Nasir, H. M., Abbas, A. F. & Zafar, F. (2014). Four factors to influence organization & employee commitment to change within Pakistan. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 6(4), 183-200.
    Nelson, R. & Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
    Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 121-146.
    Oktemgil, M. & Gordon, G. (1997). Consequences of high and low adaptive capability in UK Companies. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 445-466.
    Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontology a proposition in a design science approach (Doctoral dissertation, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des hautes études commerciales).
    Pagani, M. & Pardo, C. (2017). The impact of digital technology on relationships in a business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 185-192.
    Parviainen, P., Tihinen, M., Kääriäinen, J. & Teppola, S. (2017). Tackling the digitalization challenge: how to benefit from digitalization in practice. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 5(1), 63-77.
    Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Wiley, New York.
    Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-191.
    Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G. & Verona, G. (2013). The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together. Strategic Management Journal, 34(12), 1389-1410.
    Peteraf, M. & Tsoukas, H. (2017). Rethinking dynamic capabilities, skillful performance: enacting capabilities, Knowledge, Competence, and Expertise in Organizations, 7, 160.
    Pirolli, P. L. & Anderson, J. R. (1985). The role of learning from examples in the acquisition of recursive programming skills. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie, 39(2), 240.
    Priem, R. L. & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26, 22-40.
    Provan, K. G. & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252.
    Ramaswamy, V. & Ozcan, K. (2016). Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: An integrative framework and research implications. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 93-106.
    Reis, J., Amorim, M., Melão, N. & Matos, P. (2018). Digital transformation: a literature review and guidelines for future research. In World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, Cham, Springer, 411-421.
    Rickards, T. & Grossman, R. (2017). The board directors you need for a digital Transformation. Harvard Business Review, 2-4. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=trueanddb=bthandAN=124431380andla.
    Robins, J. & Wiersema, M. F. (1995). A resource-based approach to the multibusiness firm: Empirical analysis of portfolio interrelationships and corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 277-299.
    Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 135-159.
    Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
    Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York, McGraw-Hill.
    Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper, New York.
    Sebastian, I. M., Ross, J. W., Beath, C., Mocker, M., Moloney, K. G. & Fonstad, N. O. (2017). How big old companies navigate digital transformation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16 (3), 197-213
    Senivongse, C., Bennet, A. & Mariano, S. (2019). Clarifying absorptive capacity and dynamic capabilities dilemma in high dynamic market IT SMEs. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 49(3), 372-396.
    Simon, H. A. (1985). What we know about the creative process. Frontiers in Creative and Innovative Anagement, 4, 3-22.
    Singh, A. & Hess, T., (2017). How chief digital officers promote the digital transformation of their companies. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(1), 31–44.
    Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. & Ireland, R.D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box, Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273-292.
    Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Arregle, J.L. & Campbell, J.T. (2010). The dynamic interplay of capability strengths and weaknesses: investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage, Strategic Management Journal, 30(13), 1386-1409.
    Sklyar, A., Kowalkowski, C., Tronvoll, B. & Sörhammar, D. (2019). Organizing for digital servitization: A service ecosystem perspective. Journal of Business Research, 104, 450-460.
    Staber, U. & Sydow, J. (2002). Organizational adaptive capacity: A structuration perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), 408-424.
    Svare, H. & Gausdal, A. H. (2017). Dynamic capabilities and network benefits. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 13(1), 117-146.
    Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319‐1350.
    Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.
    Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395-1401.
    Teece, D. J. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations: Toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm. European Economic Review, 86, 202-216.
    Teece, D. J. (2018a). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40-49.
    Teece, D. J. (2018b). Dynamic capabilities as management systems theory, Journal of Management and Organization, 24(3), 359‐368.
    Teece, D. J., (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation, Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.
    Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
    Tekic, Z. & Koroteev, D. (2019). From disruptively digital to proudly analog: A holistic typology of digital transformation strategies. Business Horizons, 62(6), 683-693.
    Timmers, P. (1998). Business models for electronic markets. Journal on Electronic Markets, 8(2), 3-8
    Tondolo, V. A. G. & Bitencourt, C. C. (2014). Understanding dynamic capabilities from its antecedents, processes and outcomes. Brazilian Business Review, 11(5), 122-144.
    Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 996-1004.
    Utterback, J. M. (1971). The process of technological innovation within the firm. Academy of Management Journal, 14(1), 75-88.
    Vartiainen, Katriina and Hansen, Lars Kristian (2019). Dynamic capabilities in information systems research – A literature review, Selected Papers of the IRIS, 9(2), 1-17.
    Venkatraman, V. (2017). The Digital Matrix: New Rules for Business Transformation Through Technology. Vancouver, Canada, Greystone Books.
    Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N. & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901.
    Verhoef, P., Kooge, E. & Walk, N. (2016). Creating value with big data analytics: Making smarter marketing decisions, London, Routledge.
    Vogel, R. & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426-446.
    Von Hippel, E. (1978). Successful industrial products from customer ideas: Presentation of a new customer-active paradigm with evidence and implications. Journal of marketing, 42(1), 39-49.
    Vukšić, V. B., Ivančić, L. & Vugec, D. S. (2018). A preliminary literature review of digital transformation case studies. International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, 12(9), 737-742.
    Wang, C. L. & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 303-313.
    Wang, C. L. & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31-51.
    Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 171-174.
    Westerman, G., Tannou, M., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P. & McAfee, A. (2012). The digital advantage: How digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry. MIT Sloan Management and Capgemini Consulting, (2), 2-23.
    Wiggins, R. R. & Ruefli, T. W. (2002). Sustained competitive advantage: Temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic performance. Organization Science, 13, 82-105.
    Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M. & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247-259.
    Williamson, O. E. (1999). Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1087-1108.
    Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
    Zahra, S. A. & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27 (2), 185-203.
    Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J. & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.
    Zollo, M. & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339-351.
    吳思華 (2000)。策略九說。台北市：臉譜出版。
    吳豐祥，吳健鑫與顏永森 (2017)。突破式服務創新的發展與管理-以 PChome24 小時購物為例，產業與管理論壇，19(3)，4-37。
    周樹林 (2020)。數位轉型之商業模式再造，CEO Vision，3月號，4-7。
    洪世章 (2016)。創新六策：寫給創新者的關鍵思維。台北市: 聯經出版公司。
    黃俊堯 (2019)。數位轉型全攻略。台北市: 商業週刊。
    詹文男與沈柏延 (2020)。七大構面檢驗數位轉型，Harvard Business Review中文版，8月號，38-45。
    盧沛樺 (2019)。台灣金融業最具野心的數位投資，為何變600萬保戶的夢魘？。檢自: https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5096886?template=transformers。
    描述: 博士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    106364502
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106364502
    資料類型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202201375
    顯示於類別:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    450201.pdf5118KbAdobe PDF291檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋