Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34933
|
| Title: | 組織能力之移轉與新創—以台商赴大陸投資為例
Transferring and Creating Organization Capabilities - take Taiwan enterprises` investing in Mainland China for an example |
| Authors: | 蔡忠佑
Tsai, Chung-Yu |
| Contributors: | 于卓民
Yu, Chwo-Ming
蔡忠佑
Tsai, Chung-Yu |
| Keywords: | 動態能力
核心能力
移轉模式
能力修正
能力新創
dynamic capabilities
core capabilities
transferring model
modificating capabilities
creating capabilities |
| Date: | 2003 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 13:21:37 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 摘要
核心能力往往是企業在競爭激烈的商場中賴以生存之憑藉，然而環境變動程度劇烈使得各企業固有之核心能力面臨挑戰，學界紛以提出核心能力僵化、核心能力無效論來解釋此一現象。近來台商赴大陸投資之熱潮，從媒體工作者不斷提出不同標題如「該西進，亦或是上進」可見一斑。然而台商在台灣賴以競爭之核心能力，移轉至大陸後仍能保持其競爭優勢嗎？或是僅需因地制宜而稍加改變後，仍能發揮其效果？
動態能力說由核心能力說演化而來，而因應環境之改變而迅速調整自身之核心能力乃動態能力說最為強調且關切者。而探討能力移轉模式的學說甚多，但多是考慮因應政治法律、社會文化、經濟，以及教育等因素而選擇不同的模式移轉。而對於經營知識因應環境的修正，本研究將調整方式分為「本質」的調整與「程序」的調整來作為區分其調整經營知識之依據。
本研究依據文獻整理之結論，以核心能力觀點與環境、時間變數提出動態能力之新定義。本研究認為，在母國企業的核心能力，因為母國企業至地主國設廠或合資，使得核心能力至地主國需要調整與修正，而造成核心能力的組成與發展都可能有所不同。此種因應環境而不斷改變組織之核心能力的過程，即為「動態能力」的概念。此種定義與過往學者所強調之不同在於時間變數之加入，能夠清楚看出過去之核心能力與修正後之核心能力其動態變化的過程，以補過往學者僅探討單一時點核心能力之不足。本研究以前往大陸投資之台商為個案探討對象，共計五個個案。個案進行之程序從該公司前往大陸投資之目的為起始，進而找出其在台灣之核心能力。而後，由能力移轉至大陸時，所需因應當地環境等因素之不同而修改的能力有若干、程度為何著手。最末者，將各公司因應當地環境所需新創之能力作一描述與探討。
本研究所探討之個案公司所前往大陸之目的幾乎都以成本為首要考量，其次以市場因素而前往投資者亦不在少數。分析各個案研究公司後，有以下命題：所欲移轉核心能力之技術知識複雜度、內隱程度愈高，能力移轉模式愈傾向直接投資。母公司對於投資之地主國公司所有權擁有程度愈高，能力移轉程度愈高。台商所前往地主國環境愈複雜、條件因素愈弱，以及地主國公司目標差異與母公司愈大者，該企業能力移轉修正與新創能力之程度愈高。地主國之生產條件因素愈差、支援與相關產業表現愈差、地主國對產品需求本質與母國差異愈大、地主國企業策略、結構，以及競爭狀態與母國差異愈大，能力移轉修正程度愈大。企業愈傾向內銷市場導向，需要在地主國創造新能力的傾向愈強。此外，本研究亦發現，企業因其處於產業價值鏈上位置之不同，將因而影響其前往地主國投資之動機。
本研究所提出之動態能力觀點，不僅適用於學術上之研究，亦能給予產業界些許建議。第一，由母國移往地主國之移轉模式是否與該企業核心能力之技術特質相對應。第二，對於地主國企業之所有權擁有程度是否與移轉模式之選擇相對應。第三，欲前往之區域其鑽石體系是否能提供該企業未來策略擬定之支持。第四，內銷導向之企業，對於法令之知曉程度需較外銷導向之企業靈通。第五，瞭解自身處於產業價值鏈之位置，並且對於企業本身所能提供之價值單元做一界定，使得赴大陸投資之動機與核心能力相互呼應與搭配。此外，本研究亦對後續研究之學者提出部分建議。第一，往後可針對企業單一核心能力（如生產能力）作動態能力之分析，可收專精且深入之效。第二，未來研究學者可接續探討能力移轉後，對地主國產業或企業之擴散效應。第三，研究可始自核心能力在母國之形成與背後之原因，如此可與移轉後能力需修正之原因相互對應，或許所研究出之成果，更值得產業界作為赴大陸投資前之參考。
Abstract
Core capabilities are the basic elements by which an enterprise could survive in the competitive business field. However, the violent variation of the environment makes the innate core capabilities of the enterprise face the challenge. Therefore, the academic community proposes “rigidity core capabilities” and “invalidity of core capabilities” to explain why the enterprises’ inability to face the variation of environment would occur. Nowadays, it has been a fever that more and more Taiwan’s entrepreneurs invest in Mainland China. The trend is also definitely revealed by the headline of the magazine such as “should we move westward to Mainland China or go forward by ourselves rooting in Taiwan?” Could core capabilities, which the enterprises implement in Taiwan, still sustain competitive advantages when transferring in Mainland China while transferred into local branches in Mainland China? Or is it possible that core capabilities may be transferred slightly to suit the measure to local conditions and could become more effective in the new region.
The theorem of dynamic capabilities, evolving from core capabilities, highly emphasizes and deeply concerns that the ability of adjusting capabilities to fit in the variation of the environment. There are lots of debates over the capabilities transferring models, which is based on differences of the political, social, cultural, and educational factors. In an attempt to clarifying the modification path of business knowledge, this research adopts two business knowledge adjusting methods: nature modification and process modification.
Basing on scholars’ concerning research documents, this research generates the new definition of dynamic capabilities: core capabilities, environment variations, and time variables. In this research, originally-existed core capabilities, with corporations investing in or joint ventures in the host countries, will be modified to adjusting into current circumstances. This process, which modified core capabilities of the organization to adopt different environments, is so-called “dynamic capabilities”. This definition could find out the process of the dynamic variation, which is from core capabilities in the past to modified ones. This research discusses those who invest in Mainland China and there are 5 cases totally. The analytic process of these cases is in a logical way. Starting from finding out the objective of investing in Mainland China and then look for theirs’ core capabilities in Taiwan. When transferring capabilities to Mainland China, Taiwan enterprises’ modified capabilities for fitting into the different environments would be found out. The last part, capabilities created for local conditions would be described and discussed.
The objective of the 5 cases in this research all concerns about the cost and market issues. After analyzing these companies, we could obtain the proposition: if the complexity of technical knowledge of transferring core capabilities is higher, the tendency of transferring model would be direct investment; if the ownership of the investing company is higher, the level of transferring capabilities would be higher; if the environment of host country is more complex, the level of capabilities modified and created would be higher; if the performance of supporting and related industry is worse, the level of capabilities modified would be higher. Besides, the different places on the industry value chain would affect the objective of investing in host country.
The dynamic capabilities perspective proposed by this research not only suits for academic community, but also could give some suggestion for industrial circles. First of all, is the transferring model highly related to the technical characteristic of core capabilities? Secondly, is the level of ownership of host enterprise highly related to transferring model? Thirdly, does the supporting and related industry of that area support enterprise’s future strategy? Fourthly, enterprises selling in the host country should learn more about the legal issues than exporting enterprises. Fifthly, to understand which place enterprises themselves are in the industry value chain and which value unit they could offer to fit in the objective of investing in Mainland China. Besides, this research also proposes some suggestion for future scholars. Firstly, they could analyze dynamic capabilities for the single core capability, such as production capabilities which are usually competitive advantages of Taiwan enterprises. Secondly, diffusing effect for host industry after capabilities transferring could be discussed. Thirdly, future researches could start from finding out the forming reason of core capabilities and then compare to the objective of investing in Mainland China. Therefore, the result would be more practical for Taiwan enterprises’ reference before investing in Mainland China. |
| Reference: | 參考文獻
中文部分：
1.王志剛，「我國工業科技移轉之現況」，自由化下的科技發展與科技政策學術研討會，經濟部商業司，民76年。
2.王振州，「知識整合與新產品開發績效之研究－動態能力觀點」，中原大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民89年6月。
3.王燕華，「高處不怕寒-技術移轉與高科技發展」，中美技術季刊，第32 卷第4 期，民76年。
4.司徒達賢，策略管理新論：觀念架構與分析方法，台北：智勝文化，民90年。
5.史慈惠，「台灣與大陸技術移轉之比較」，經濟前瞻，第10號，民77年，頁34-40。
6.何雍慶，「我國電子資訊科技發展績效指標之研究」，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫，民83年。
7.吳宗益，「台灣螺絲螺帽產業資源累積與產業分化之研究」，國立中山大學企業管理所未出版碩士論文，民89年6月。
8.吳思華，策略九說：策略思考的本質，台北：臉譜，民89年。
9.沈啟，「影響企業技術移轉績效內部因素之研究」，國立政治大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民81年6月，頁21-22 。
10.林子敬，「技術移轉模式、技術能力與移轉績效關係之研究」，長榮管理學院經營管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民89年6月。
11.胡定華，「科技自主發展的關鍵任務：中興以人才為本」，中美技術季刊，31 卷3 期，民75年，頁25-26。
12.國家科學委員會，「中華民國科學技術統計要覽之研究」，國家科學委員會，民86年。
13.崔至剛，「連鎖體系經營知識移轉之研究—以便利商店為例」，國立政治大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民84年6月。
14.張昭仁，研究發展管理：理論與案例，台北：翰蘆圖書出版公司，民83年。
15.許文賢，「技術來源、技術能力與績效之研究」，國立中正大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民84年6月。
16.許興豪，「技術知識特質、組織平台情境與組織動態能耐之研究—以工研院光電所為例」，輔仁大學管理學研究所未出版碩士論文，民89年6月。
17.陳怡之，「我國廠商技術移轉需求與特性分析」，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告，民84年。
18.曾信超、王文賢，「研究機構技術移轉之探討-以工研院為例」，促進產業升級學術研討會論文集，中山大學，民82年，頁21-38。
19.曾建勳，「技術移轉對產業開發之影響—我國機械工業之研究」，國立政治大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民73年6月。
20.趙瑀，「政府科技專案技術移轉之關鍵成功因素之研究」，國立中正大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民84年6月。
21.劉泰英、吳榮義，「我國民營企業科技技術引進與技術普及管道之探討」，台灣經濟研究院，民79年，頁11-12 。
22.劉常勇、俞慧芸，「工業科技最適移轉模式之研究」，國科會專題計畫研究成果報告，NSC82-0301-H-110-008，民82年。
23.劉瑞圖，「科技管理（八）-科技企業的技術移轉」，工業簡訊，第24 卷，民83年，頁34-45。
24.蔡正揚，「技術引進策略及相關租稅法規之研究」，行政院經濟建設委員會部門計畫處，民79年。
25.蕭峰雄，「成功，有什麼條件？：財團法人研究機構技術移轉的兩個案例」，中美技術季刊，第31 卷第3 期，民75年，頁81-88 。
26.賴榮仁，「美、日在台灣企業管理技術移轉之研究」，國立政治大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民75年6月。
27.薛琦，「我國化學業技術合作實施成果調查研究報告」，經濟部投資審議委員會，民72年。
英文部分：
1.Amit, R. & Schoemaker, P.J.H., "Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1993, pp.33-46.
2.Aydin, N. & Terpstra, V., “Marketing Know-how Transfers by Multinationals: A Case Study in Turkey,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.12, No. 3, 1981, pp.35-48.
3.Barney, J.B., "Firm Resource and Sustained Competitive Advantage," Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1991, pp.99-120.
4.Beechler, S. & Yang, J.Z., “The Transfer of Japanse-Style Management to American Subsidiaries: Contingencies, Constraints, and Competencies,” Journal of International Business Studies, Third Quarter, 1994, pp.467-491.
5.Bierly, P. E., & Chakrabarti, A. K., “Technological Learning, Strategic Flexibility, and New Product Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 43, No. 4, 1996, pp. 368-380.
6.Brooks, H., Multimethod Research- A Synthesis of Stiles, London：Sage Publications, 1966.
7.Cavusgil, Tamer S., Zou, Shaoming & Naidu, G.M., “Product and Promotion Adaptation in Export Ventures: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1993, pp.479-506.
8.Clark, K.B. & Fujimoto T., Product Development Performance in the world Auto Industries, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1991.
9.Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D. A., “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1990, pp.128-152.
10.Czinkota, M.R., Ronkainen, I.A. & Moffett, M.H., International Business, New York, NY: Dryden Press, 1992.
11.Dosi, G., “Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories,” Research Policy, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1982, pp. 147-162.
12.Eisenhardt, KM., Martin J.A., “Dynamic Capabilities: What are they?” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 10/11, 2000, pp.1105-1121.
13.Friar, J. & Horwitch, M., The Emergence of Technology in the Modern Corporation-A Strategic Perspective, New York, NY: Pergamon, 1986.
14.Ghemawat, P., Commitment: The Dynamic of Strategy, New York, NY: Free Press, 1991.
15.Grant, R.B.,"A Resource Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation," California Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1991, pp.114-135.
16.Hameri, A., "Technology Transfer between Basic Research and Industry," Technovation, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1996, pp. 51-57.
17.Hayami, Y. & Ruttan, V., Agricultural Development and International Perspective, Baltimore, MD：Johns Hopkins, 1971.
18.Iansiti, M., & Clark, K. B., “Integration and Dynamic Capability: Evidence from Product Development in Automobiles and Mainframe Computers,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1994, pp. 557-605.
19.Jones, H. D., “The Commercialization of New Technologies ：Transfer From Laboratory To Firm,” Unpublished Master Thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management, 1983.
20.Kojima, K., “Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries ： Japanese Type Versus American Type,” Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Vol.25, No. 2, 1977, pp.103-116.
21.Lall, S., The New Multinationals: The Spread of Third World Enterprises, New York, NY: John Wiley & Son, 1983.
22.Leonard-Barton, Dorothy, Wellsprings of Knowledge, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.
23.Mansfield, E., “International Technology Transfer: Forms,” Journal of American Economic Association, Vol. 68, No. 2, 1975, pp.28-37.
24.Miyazaki, K., “Search﹐Learning and Accumulation of Technological Competence: The Case of Optoelectronics,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1994, pp.631-654.
25.Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995.
26.Ounjian, M. L. & Carne, E. B.（1987 ）,“A Study of the Factors Which Affect Technology Transfer in a Multilocation Multibusiness Unit Corporation,”IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, Vol. 34, No. 3, 1987, pp.194-201.
27.Peteraf, M.A.,"The Cornerstone of Competitive Advantage: A Resource Based View," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1993, pp.179-191.
28.Petroni, A.,” The Analysis of Dynamic Capability in a Competence-Oriented Organization,” Technovation, Vol. 18, No.3, 1998, pp.179-189.
29.Porter, M. E., Competitive Strategy, New York, NY: The Free Press, 1980.
30.Prahalad C. K. & Hamel, G.,”The Core Competence of the Corporation,” Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1990, pp.79-91.
31.Reed, R. & Defillippi, R.J.,"Casual Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1990, pp.88-102.
32.Robinson, Richard D., The International Transfer of Technology-Theory, Issues, and Practice, Cambridge, MA：Ballinger Publishing Company, 1988.
33.Rogers, Everett M., Key Concepts and Models, in Solo and Rogers (eds), Inducing Technological Change for Economic Growth and Development, Michigan, MI: Michigan State University Press, p. 95, 1972.
34.Rubenstein, Albert H., Managing Technology in the Decentralized Firm, New York, NY：John Wiley & Sons, 1989.
35.Santikarn, M., Technology Transfer ：A Case Study, Singapore：Singapore University Press, 1981.
36.Sounder, W. E., Managing New Product Innovation, Lexington, MA：D.C. Health and Company, 1987.
37.Teece, D. J. & Pisano, G.,“The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: an Introduction,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1994, pp.537-556.
38.Teece, D. J.,” Competition, Cooperation, and Innovation: Organizational Arrangements for Regimes of Rapid Technological Progress,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1992, pp. 1-25.
39.Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A., “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, 1997, pp.509-533.
40.Tripsas, M.,”Surviving Radical Technological Change Through Dynamic Capability: Evidence from the Typesetter Industry,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1997, pp. 341-377.
41.Tsang, E. W. K., “Choice of International Technology Transfer Model: A Resource-Based View,” Management International Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, 1997, pp.151-168.
42.Wernerfelt, B.,"A Resource Based View of the Firm," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1984, pp.171-180. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所
89355017
92 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0089355017 |
| 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.
|
