Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34919
|
| Title: | 創業者的知識與創業機會對差異性產品競爭優勢之影響─在原產業成長期創業之情境 |
| Authors: | 朱沛
Chu ,Pei |
| Contributors: | 司徒達賢
于 卓 民
朱沛
Chu ,Pei |
| Keywords: | 創業者
新事業
產品差異化優勢
創業者的知識
創業機會
entrepreneur
new venture
differentiation
entrepreneurs` knowledge
entrepreneurial opportunity |
| Date: | 2004 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 13:18:36 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究是針對原產業成長期創業差異化階段的探索性研究。原產業成長期創業可定義為：創業者或團隊離開原來的事業後，在原產業的成長期，獨立創立了一個新事業。例如，華碩、雅姿舞蹈社（亞力山大的前身）都屬於原產業成長期創業。
由於創業開始後，新事業要做出產品，然後才能產生後續績效，因此依照時間軸可以將創業理論分解為：初始因素→新產品→創業績效。現有創業理論對原產業成長期創業現象並沒有提供完整的解答，但已得出的部份結果可以引導我們對此現象進一步聚焦。第一，新事業策略層次的研究已發現，新事業產品的差異性和稀少性顯著影響新事業績效。由於上述因果關係的後段已解決，因此指導我們探索前段的問題：什麼初始因素產生差異性產品？即應該聚焦到產品差異化階段研究。第二，過去創業者層次的研究已發現，以相同產業「工作年數」代替的「產業特殊經驗」顯著影響創業績效的高低。因為經驗是實務的知識，因此這類研究結果顯示知識是一項初始因素，值得進一步研究創業者的初始知識。第三，奧地利經濟學者和一些創業學者指出，創業機會是影響創業成敗的一項初始因素，但迄今沒有學者清楚地描述出創業機會的樣子和它對績效的影響。這些文獻顯示應進一步探索初始創業機會和它對產品差異化的影響。文獻已顯示創業者知識和創業機會是解釋產品差異化的初始因素，但二者下層的因素仍未充分揭露出來。由於過去的創業研究沒有聚焦在差異化階段，仍存在許多未解開的問題，因此本研究聚焦在原產業成長期創業的主要產品差異化階段進行研究。
對於本研究聚焦的現象，本研究問題為：在原產業成長期創業的差異化階段，哪些知識和機會構念下層的因素透過差異化過程產生產品屬性與競爭優勢？本研究的目的為：經由對此現象進行深入的探索，揭露出影響產品差異化的知識與機會的深層原因，建立整合知識與機會解釋產品差異化及利潤的理論。
本研究採用Eisenhardt(1989)描述的探索性個案研究方法，從個案研究建立理論。本研究針對原產業成長期創業現象，聚焦在主要產品差異化過程。總分析單位是在主要產品線層次。本研究接觸到3家原產業成長期創業廠商，取得了3個成功個案和1個失敗個案資料。資料收集包含訪問二位以上創業團隊成員、競爭廠商中的管理者和收集產業次級資料。
本研究經由分析四個個案的主要產品線資料，得出以下命題與發現。
命題一：產品有價值的差異程度愈大、產品稀少程度愈大、產品需求強度愈大，則產品競爭優勢程度愈大。
命題Ⅱ：若創業者的產業內通用知識強度小，則有產品競爭劣勢。
本研究發現，原產業成長期的創業機會為產業環境中存在的一種情境結構，本研究定義並命名為「創業機會結構」，它由以下項目構成：(1) 存在上游差異性新要素；(2) 存在下游市場需求；(3) 存在有利的競爭情勢，包含(a)既有競爭廠商數量小，(b)既有競爭廠商利用程度小，(c)潛在競爭廠商延遲行動；(4)存在功能互補廠商。
創業者知識與創業機會對於產品差異化的影響關係如下：
命題二：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質的知識，或產業環境中存在創業機會，或二者都存在，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性的產品。
命題二A：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者僅有產業內通用知識，且產業環境中存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性的產品。
命題二B：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者僅有產業內通用知識，且產業環境中不存在創業機會，則新事業不能推出差異性與稀少性的產品。
命題二C：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質知識，且產業環境中存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性產品。
命題二D：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質知識，且產業環境中不存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性產品。
創業者異質知識屬性對產品屬性的影響關係如下：
命題三A：異質知識有價值的差異程度愈大，則產品有價值的差異程度愈大。
命題三B：異質知識稀少程度愈大，則產品稀少程度愈大。
命題三C：異質知識難以模仿程度，正向調節產品競爭優勢程度與產品利潤間的正向關係。
命題三：創業者知識的有利程度愈大，則產品利潤愈大。
創業機會結構中各項目的屬性程度對產品屬性的影響關係如下：
命題四A：要素有價值的差異程度愈大，則產品有價值的差異程度愈大。
命題四B：整體市場需求強度愈大，則產品需求強度愈大。
命題四Ca：既有競爭者的數量愈小，則產品稀少程度愈大。
命題四Cb：既有競爭者資源利用程度負向調節，整體市場需求強度與產品需求強度的正向關係。
命題四Cc：潛在競爭者行動延遲程度，正向調節產品競爭優勢程度與產品利潤的正向關係。
命題四：創業機會結構的有利程度愈大，則產品利潤愈大。
本研究對創業理論的貢獻包含以下幾方面。主要貢獻包含：第一，建立了整合理論。本研究在原產業成長期創業情境對交集現象，建立了以創業者知識、創業機會解釋產品差異化與利潤的整合理論。本研究針對創業最核心的差異化階段，建立了整合理論，使創業理論有了核心。第二，發現了創業機會結構。本研究經由探索發現了創業機會結構，描述出了創業機會的樣子，並分析清楚了構成它的項目對差異化相關的產品屬性和競爭優勢的影響。第三，橋接了創業與策略，引導二個領域的學者對話。本研究運用策略理論觀引導分析資料與建立理論的過程，因此本研究橋接了創業與策略，引導二個領域的學者對話。次要貢獻包含：第一，釐清了產品層次的構念和構面。第二，本研究以資源基礎觀引導，釐清了創業者知識下層的概念，並分析清楚了它們對產品屬性和競爭優勢的影響。
本研究建立的理論有實務含義，可以使產業成長期的潛在創業者（既有企業管理者）的策略思考更有效，因此對企業實務界人士有價值。概括而言，本研究對實務人士的啟示如下：(1)創業者擁有夠強的產業內經營知識是能夠創業成功的基本條件；(2)在產業內通用知識強的條件下，若創業者有異質知識或外部存在創業機會能使差異化成功，因此值得投入創業；若創業沒有異質知識及外部不存在創業機會，則創業者不應投入創業(3)本研究提出的創業機會結構，可以協助潛在創業者在創業決策階段辯認是否存在創業機會，避免創業時沒有機會或利用的不是創業機會。
Starting new businesses in the growth stage of an industry is a special type of entrepreneurship as identified in this study. The same industry-growth stage entrepreneurship is defined as the following: after an entrepreneur (or entrepreneurial team) leaves a prior business, he/she then founds a new venture in the same industry which his prior work is in and is in the growth stage. The cases of ASUS(?) and Alexander are examples.
The life of a start-up, as depicted by entrepreneurial studies, can be decomposed as: initial factors→product→performance. Current entrepreneurship studies have offered some answers to this phenomenon. First, studies have shown that a product’s extent of differentiation and rarity can predict performance. These findings prompt us to explore the question of which initial factors producing differentiated products (i.e., focusing on the product differentiation stage). Second, previous studies have found that an entrepreneur’s industry experience or industry-specific experience (using the years of work as a proxy) significantly affects performance. Because experience is a kind of knowledge, these results point out that knowledge can be regarded as an initial factor and thus it highlights the importance of exploring an entrepreneur’s knowledge. Third, Austrian economists point out that entrepreneurial opportunity is an initial factor and it influences entrepreneurial success. Up to now no studies illustrates the shape of entrepreneurial opportunities and explain how it influences entrepreneurial performance. Thus further exploration of entrepreneurial opportunities and how they affect product differentiation is needed. Although we already known an entrepreneur’s knowledge and entrepreneurial opportunity are major initial factors, we have no knowledge of lower level factors. Because the researches have not focused on the product differentiation stage, this research will concentrate on the product differentiation stage.
The research question of the study is: in the differentiation stage of the same industry-growth stage start-ups, what lower level factors of knowledge and opportunity produce product competitive advantages? The objective of the research is: by identifying the lower factors, entrepreneurs’ knowledge and opportunities can be integrated into theories of entrepreneurship to explain product differentiation and profits.
This research adopted the exploring theory building case study proposed by Eisenhardt (1989). The level of analysis was the main product line of a start-up. The data of three firms, in the form of 3 successful cases and 1 failed case, were collected. In addition to secondary data, at least two executives, either were founding team members or high-level managers, were interviewed for gathering the primary data.
Through data analysis enable us to offer the following propositions:
Proposition 1: The higher the levels of the value of product differentiation, product rarity and product demand intensity, the higher the product competitive advantage.
Proposition Ⅱ: The lower the level of an entrepreneur’s industry-specific knowledge, the lower the product competitive advantage.
We discovered that entrepreneurial opportunity is a specific situational structure in an industry. We termed it ‘entrepreneurial opportunity structure’. It is composed of four items: (1) the existence of upstream differentiated and new factors; (2) the existence of downstream market demands; (3) the existence of favorable competitive situation, including few competitors, less extent of action by competitors, late actions by competitors and more availability of complementary firms.
Relationships among entrepreneurs’ knowledge, entrepreneurial opportunity, and product differentiation are indicated below.
Proposition 2: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge or the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity (or both) makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2A: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, industry-specific knowledge, coupled with the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity, makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2B: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, industry-specific knowledge, coupled with the non-existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity, makes it impossible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2C: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge and the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2D: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge and the non-existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
The relationship between heterogeneous knowledge and product attributes are listed below:
Proposition 3A: The higher the value of heterogeneous knowledge, the higher the valuable difference of a product.
Proposition 3B: The higher the rarity of heterogeneous knowledge, the higher the rarity of a product.
Proposition 3C: The level of difficulty of imitation of heterogeneous knowledge moderates the positive relationship between product competitive advantage and product profit.
Proposition 3: The higher the usefulness of an entrepreneur’s knowledge, the higher the product profit.
The relationships between attributes of entrepreneurial opportunity structure and product attributes are listed below:
Proposition 4A: The higher the valuable difference of a factor, the higher the valuable difference of a product.
Proposition 4B: The higher the market demand intensity, the higher the product demand intensity.
Proposition 4Ca: The less the number of competitors, the higher the rarity of a product.
Proposition 4Cb: The degree of exploitation of resource by competitors negatively moderates the positive relationship between the market demand intensity and product demand intensity.
Proposition 4Cc: The extent of delayed actions by competitors positively moderates the positive relationship between product competitive advantage and product profit.
Proposition 4: The higher the potential of profitability of entrepreneurial opportunity structure, the higher the product profit.
The major contributions of the research to entrepreneurship theories include the following: First, we built a integrated theory including entrepreneurs’ knowledge and entrepreneurial opportunities to explain product differentiation and profit. Because differentiation is the core to entrepreneurship, our integrated theory emphasizes the core of the theory. Second, this research identified entrepreneurial opportunity structure, and illustrated that entrepreneurial opportunity structure influences product attributes and competitive advantage. Entrepreneurial opportunity structure reflects the shape of entrepreneurial opportunity. Third, this research bridged entrepreneurship and strategy strategies, making the conversion between the two streams of research possible. Fourth, we clarified the construct and dimensions of product in start-ups. Lastly, we clarified the sub-constructs under entrepreneurs’ knowledge and their impact on product attributes and competitive advantage.
The findings of the research have practical implications. It can make strategic thinking of potential entrepreneurs in the same industry-growth stage more effective. The implications are: (1) It is a necessary condition that an entrepreneur has enough industry-specific knowledge to be successful; (2) When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, if entrepreneur have heterogeneous knowledge or there is an entrepreneurial opportunity in industry environment, then differentiation can success, thus he worth to take entrepreneurial action. If entrepreneur have not heterogeneous knowledge and there is not an entrepreneurial opportunity, then he should not take entrepreneurial action; (3) Discovered entrepreneurial opportunity structure can help potential entrepreneur identify entrepreneurial opportunity in entrepreneurial decision stage, and avoid exploiting a non-entrepreneurial opportunity. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部份：
1. Strauss A. & J. Corbin, 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd. 吳芝儀、廖梅花譯，質性研究入門：紮根理論研究方法，嘉義市：濤石文化公司，2001。
2. 汪清河(1991)，「創業家創業行為與環境、個人特徵關係之研究」，台灣大學商研所碩士論文。
3. 周芳苑，1999，華碩傳奇，台北市：商訊文化公司。
4. 唐雅君，2002，舞動新天地，台北市：寶瓶文化公司。
5. 陳向民，2002，社會科學質的研究，台北市：五南圖書公司。
6. 曾耀輝(1986)，「我國高科技企業創業領導者特徵、創業決策之研究─以新竹科學園區資訊電子工業為實證」，台灣大學商研所碩士論文。
二、英文部份
1. Aldrich, H. E. & M. A. Martinez, 2001,” Many are Called, but Few are Chosen: An Evolutionary Perspective for the Study of Entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25, 4, 41-55.
2. Alvarez, S. A.. & L. W. Busenitz, 2001,”The Entrepreneurship of Resource-based Theory”, Journal of Management, 27, 6, 755-775.
3. Ambrosini, V. & C. Bowman, 2001,” Tacit Knowledge: Some Suggestions for Operationalization,” Journal of Management Studies, 38, 6, 811-829.
4. Bamford, C. E. & T. J. Deans & P. P. McDougall , 2000,” An Examination of the Impact of Initial Founding Conditions and Decisions upon the Performance of New Bank Start-ups”, Journal Of Business Venturing, 15, 3, 253-277.
5. Bantel, K. A., 1998,” Technology-Based, Adolescent Firms Configurations: Strategy Identification, Context, and Performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 3, 205-230.
6. Bantel, K. A., 1997,” Performance in Adolescent, Technology-based Firms: Product Strategy, Implementation, and Synergy”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 8, 2, 243-262.
7. Barney, J., 1991,” Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
8. Barney, J., 2001,” Is the Resource-Based View a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? Yes”, Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, 41-56.
9. Baum, J. R., E. A. Locke, & K. G. Smith, 2001,” A Multidimensional Model of Venture Growth”, Academy Of Management Journal, 44, 2, 292-303.
10. Bhave, M. P., 1994,” A Process Model of Entrepreneurship Venture Creation”, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 3, 223-242.
11. Bruderl, J. & P. Preisendorfer , 1998, “Network Support and the Success of Newly Founded Business,” Small Business Economics, 10, 3, 213-225.
12. Brush, C. G. & R. Chaganti, 1998,” Businesses Without Glamour? An Analysis of Resources on Performance By Size and Age in Small Service and Retail Firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, 14, 3, 233-257.
13. Brush, C. G. & R. D. Hisrich, 1988,” Woman Entrepreneurs: Strategic Origins Impact on Growth”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. E. Mcmullan, K. Vesper, & W. Wetzel, Jr., 612-625. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
14. Bruton, G. D. & Y. Rubanik, 2002,” Resources of the Firm, Russian High-technology Startups, and Firm Growth,” Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 6, 553-576.
15. Busenitz, L. W., G. P. West Ⅲ, D. Shepherd, T. Nelson, G. N. Chandler & A. Zacharakis, 2003,” Entrepreneurship Research in Emergence: Past Trends and Future Directions”, Journal of Management, 29, 3, 285-308.
16. Chandler, G. N. & E. J. Jansen, 1992,” The Founder’s Self-assessed Competence and Venture Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 3, 223-236.
17. Chandler, G. N. & S. H. Hanks, 1994a,“ Founder Competence, the Environment, and Venture Performance”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 18, 3, 77-89.
18. Chandler, G. N. & S. H. Hanks, 1994b,” Market Attractiveness Resource-Based Capabilities, Venture Strategies, and Venture Performance” Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 4, 331-349.
19. Chandler, G. N., 1996,” Business Similarity as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Pre-Ownership Experience and Venture Performance,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20, 3, 51-65.
20. Chen, M., 1996,” Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical Integration”, Academy of Management Review, 21, 1, 100-134.
21. Christensen, C M., 1997, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technology Cause Great Firm to Fail”, Harvard Business School Press.
22. Cooper, A. C. & F. J. Gimeno-Gascon &, C. Y. Woo, 1994,” Initial Human and Financial Capital as Predictors of New Venture Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 371-395.
23. Cooper, A. C. & F. J. Gimeno-Gascon, 1992,” Entrepreneurs, Processes of Founding, and New Firm Performance,” In D. Sexton, ed., The State of the Art in Entrepreneurship, Boston, MA: PWS Kent Publishing Co.
24. Cooper, A. C.,1993,” Challenges in Predicting New Firm Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 3, 241-253.
25. Cooper, A. C., W. C. Dunkelberg, & C. W. Woo, 1988,” Survival and Failure: A Longitudinal Study”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. E. Mcmullan, K. Vesper, and W. Wetzel, Jr., 225-237. Wellesley, Mass.: Babson College.
26. Davidsson, P., M. B. Low & M. Wright, 2001,” Editor’s Introduction: Low and MacMillan Ten Years on: Achievement and Future Directions for Entrepreneurship Research,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 4, 5-15.
27. Dean, T. J. & G. D. Meyer, 1996,” Industry Environments and New Venture Formations in U.S. Manufacturing: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Demand Determinants”, Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 2, 107-132.
28. Dean, Thomas J., G. Dale Meyer, & Julio DeCastro, 1993,” Determinants of New-Firm Formations in Manufacturing Industries: Industry Dynamics, Entry Barriers, and Organizational Inertia”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17, 2, 49-60.
29. Dierickx, I. & K. Cool, 1989,” Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage,” Management Science, 35, 12, 1504-1511.
30. Dubini, P. & I. C. MacMillan, 1988,” Entrepreneurial Prerequisites in Venture Capital Backed Projects”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. E. McMullan, K. Vesper, & W. Wetzel, Jr., 46-58. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
31. Dunkelberg, W. C. & A. C. Cooper, 1982,” Patterns of Small Business Growth”, In Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 409-413. (Edited by K. H. Chung)
32. Dunkelberg, W. C., A. C. Cooper, C. Y. Woo, & W. Dennis, 1987,” New Firm Growth and Performance”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. N. Churchill, J. Hornaday, B. Kirchhoff, O. Krasner, & K. Vesper, 307-321. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
33. Eckhardt, J. T. & S. A. Shane, 2003,” Opportunities and Entrepreneurship” Journal of Management, 29, 3, 333-349.
34. Eisenhardt, K. M. & C. B. Schoonhoven, 1990,” Organizational Growth: Linking Founding Team, Strategy, Environment, and Growth among U.S. Semiconductor Ventures, 1978-1988,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 3, 504-529.
35. Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989,” Building Theories from Case Study Research”, Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 531-550.
36. Francis, D. H. & W. R. Sandberg, 2000,” Friendship Within Entrepreneurial Teams and its Association with Team and Venture Performance”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25, 2, 5-25.
37. Gartner, W. B. & J. A. Starr & S. Bhat, 1999,” Predicting New Venture Survival: An Analysis of “Anatomy of a Start-up: Case of Inc. Magazine,” Journal of Business Venturing, 14, 2, 215-232.
38. Gartner, W. B., 1985,” A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation,” Academy of Management Review, 10, 4, 696-706.
39. Gartner, W. B., 2001,” Is there an Elephant in Entrepreneurship? Blind Assumptions in Theory Development”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25, 4, 27-39.
40. Hall, J. & C. W. Hofer (1993),” Venture Capitalists’ Decision Critaria in New Venture Evaluation,” Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 1, 25-42.
41. Hannan, M. T. & J. H. Freeman, 1984,” Structural Inertia and Organizational Change”, American Journal of Sociology, 89, 149-164.
42. Hayek, F., 1945,” The Use of Knowledge in Society”, The American Economic Review, 35, 4, 519-530.
43. Hill, C. W. L. & G. R. Johns, 1998, Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach, 4th. ed., Houghton Mifflin Company.
44. Hoad, W. & P. Rosko, 1964,” Management Factors Contributing to the Success or Failure of New Small Manufacturers”. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
45. Holcombe, R. G., 2003,” The Origins of Entrepreneurial Opportunities”, Review of Austrian Economics, 16, 1, 25-43.
46. Honig, B., 1998,” What Determines Success? Examining the Human, Financial, and Social Capital of Jamaican Microentrepreners”, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 5, 371-394.
47. Kirzner, I. M., 1973, Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago, IL: U. of Chicago Press.
48. Kirzner, I. M., 1997,” Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach”, Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 1, 60-85.
49. Lerner, M., C. Brush & R. Hisrich, 1997,” Israeli Women Entrepreneurs: An Examination of Factors Affecting Performance” Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 4, 315-339.
50. Li, H. Y. & K. Atuahene-Gima, 2002,” The Adoption of Agency Business Activity, Product Innovation, and Performance in Chinese Technology Ventures”, Strategic Management Journal, 23, 6, 469-490.
51. Low, M. B, 2001,” The Adolescence of Entrepreneurship Research: Specification of Purpose,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 4, 17-25.
52. Low, M. B. & I. C. MacMillan, 1988,” Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenge,” Journal of Management, 14, 2, 139-161.
53. MacMillan, I. C., L. Zemann, & P. N. Subba Narasimha, 1987,” Criteria Distinguishing Successful from Unsuccessful Ventures in the Venture Screening Process” Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 2, 123-137.
54. MacMillan, I. C., R. Siegel, & P. N. Subba Narasimha, 1985,” Criteria Used by Venture Capitalists to Evaluate New Venture Proposals” , Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 1, 119-128.
55. March, J. G. & H. A. Simon, 1958, Organization, Wiley.
56. Mayer, K. & S. Goldstein, 1961,” The First Two Years: Problems of Small Firm Growth and Survival” Washington D.C.: GPO.
57. McDougall, P. P., J. G. Covin, R. B. Robinson, JR. & L. Herron, 1994,” The Effects of Industry Growth and Strategic Breadth on New Venture Performance and Strategy Content”, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 7, 537-554.
58. McDougall, P. P., R. B. Robinson, JR. & A. S. DeNisi, 1992,” Modeling New Venture Performance: An Analysis of New Venture Strategy, Industry Structure, and Venture Origin”, Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 4, 269-289.
59. Miles, M. B. & A. M. Huberman, 1994,” Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
60. Moore, G. A., 1991, Crossing the Chasm, NY, HarperCollins.
61. Neiswander, D. K. & J. M. Drollinger, 1986,” Origins of Successful Start-up Ventures”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper, 328-343. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
62. Pennings, J. M. & K. Lee & A. V. Witteloostuijn, 1998,” Human Capital, Social Capital, and Firm Dissolution”, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 4, 425-440.
63. Penrose, E. T., 1963, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
64. Porter, M. E., 1980, Competitive Strategy, NY: The Free Press.
65. Porter, M. E., 1985, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustain Superior Performance, NY: The Free Press.
66. Priem, R. L. & J. E. Butler, 2001,” Tautology in the Resource-based View and the Implications of Externally Determined Resource Value: Further Comments”, Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, 57-66.
67. Reed, R. & Deffillipi, R. J., 1990,” Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” Academy of Management Review, 15, 1, 80-102.
68. Romanelli, E., 1989,” Envirionments and Strategies of Organization Start-up: Effects on Early Survival”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 3, 369-387.
69. Rosen, S., 1983,” Economics and Entrepreneurs”, In J. Rosen(Ed.) Entrepreneurship, 301-311. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.
70. Roure, J. B. & M. A. Maidique, 1986,” Linking Prefounding Factors and High-technology Venture Success: An Exploratory Study”, Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 3, 295-306.
71. Sandberg, W. R. & C. V. Hofer, 1987,” Improving New Venture Performance: The Role of Strategy, Industry Structure, and the Entrepreneur,” Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 1, 5-28.
72. Sandberg, W. R., 1992,” Strategic Management’s Potential Contributions to a Theory of Entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 16, 3, 73-90.
73. Sapienza, H. J. & C. M. Grimm, 1997,” Founder Characteristics, Start-up Process, and Strategy/Structure Variables as Predictors of Shortline Railroad Performance,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 22, 1, 5-24.
74. Schumpeter, J. A., 1934, The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75. Shamsie, J., C. Phelps & J. Kuperman, 2004,” Better Late Than Never: A Study of Late Entrants in Household Electrical Equipment” Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1, 69-84.
76. Shane, S. A.. & S. Venkataraman , 2000,” The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research,” Academy of Management Review, 25, 1, 217-226.
77. Shane, S. A., 2005, Finding Fertile Ground: Identifying Extraordinary Opportunities for New Ventures, New Jersey, Pearson Education, Inc.
78. Shane, S. A., 2000,” Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities,” Organization Science, 11, 4, 448-469.
79. Shapero, A. & L. Sokol, 1982” The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”, In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, eds. C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper, 72-90. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.
80. Siegel, R. & Siegel, E. & Macmillan, I. C., 1993,” Characteristic Distinguishing High-Growth Ventures,” Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 1, 169-180.
81. Singh, R. P., 2001,” A Comment on Developing the Field of Entrepreneurship Through the Study of Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation,” Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, 1-7.
82. Stinchcombe, A., 1965,” Social Structure and Organization,” In March, J.(Ed.), Handbook of Organizations, 142-193.
83. Stuart, R. & P. A. Abetti, 1990,” Field Study of Start-up Ventures. Part 2: Predicting Initial Success”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper, 328-343. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
84. Teach, R. D., F. A. Tarplay, & R. G. Schwartz, 1986,” Software Venture Teams”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper, 546-562. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
85. Teece, D . J., 1998a,” Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangible Assets,” California Management Review, 40, 3, 55-79.
86. Teece, D. J., 1998b,” Research Directions for Knowledge Management,” California Management Review, 40, 3, 289-292.
87. Tyebjee, T. T. & A. V. Bruno, 1984,” A Model of Venture Capitalist Activity”, Management Science, 30, 9, 1051-1066.
88. Ucbasaran, D., P. Westhead & M. Wright, 2001,” The Focus of Entrepreneurial Research: Contextual and Process Issues,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 4, 57-80.
89. Van de Ven, A. H., R. Hudson, & D. M. Schroeder, 1984,”Designing New Business Startups: Entrepreneurship, Organizational and Ecological Consideration”, Journal of Management, 10, 1, 87-107.
90. Venkatraman, S., 1997,” The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: an Editor’s Perspective,” In Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, J. Katz, R. Brockhaus, eds, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
91. Yin, R.,1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
92. Zahra, S. A., 1996,” Technology Strategy and Financial Performance: Examining the Moderating Role of the Firm’s Competitive Environment,” Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 3, 189-219.
93. Zahra, S. A., 1993,” A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior: A Critique and Extension”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17, 4, 5-21. |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所
87355501
93 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0087355501 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [企業管理學系] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
