政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/34960

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/34960

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文筆數/總筆數 : 113392/144379 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51196084 線上人數 : 920

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

主頁 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上傳 ‧ 說明 ‧ 關於政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手機版

政大機構典藏 > 商學院 > 企業管理學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/34960

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34960

題名:	非營利組織策略合作之研究－以台灣農會為例 A Study of Strategic Cooperatoin Among Non-profit Organizations: Farmers` Associations in Taiwan
作者:	張榮農 Chang, Jung-nung
貢獻者:	司徒達賢于卓民 Seetoo, Dah-hsian Yu, Chwo-ming 張榮農 Chang, Jung-nung
關鍵詞:	非營利組織組織間合作策略聯盟農民團體農會資源統治組織轉型關係管理價值創造世界貿易組織權力結構領導 Non-profit organization Inter-organizational cooperation Strategic alliance Farmers` group Farmers` association Resource governance Organizational transformation Relational management Value creation WTO Power structure Leadership
日期:	2004
上傳時間:	2009-09-18 13:25:50 (UTC+8)
摘要:	本研究以非營利組織策略合作為主題，以策略性思維，嘗試探索較能解釋非營利組織策略合作型式選擇決策之合作內涵特性，且以此發現為基礎，從較具解釋效果之合作內涵特性分析，進一步針對非營利組織策略合作之價值共創與關係管理機制，探索較具策略管理意涵之機制變數，以建構本研究所欲探討之非營利組織策略合作型式選擇模式，以及價值共創與關係管理機制之概念模式，並提出規範性之命題。　　為此，本研究選擇了具有近百年歷史且經營模式獨特之台灣農會（會員導向之擬公法人商業－互益型非營利組織）作為研究對象，結合非營利組織與營利組織之相關理論及文獻，針對實務現象進行分析。由於所欲探討主題屬特定現象之初期探討，本文採質性多重個案研究設計，針對由三家（含）以上農會所參與組成之聯盟機構蒐集資料，並以聯盟機構或策略合作網絡之主導機構為主體之組織間合作關係為分析單位，進行資料蒐集及探索性研究。　　首先，歸納文獻與實務現象觀察結果，本研究依非營利組織策略合作「是否共組獨立機構」及「是否採非營利性」兩項選擇決策，將聯盟機構歸納分類成四種策略合作型式：非營利性合營機構、營利性合資機構、非營利性聯盟及營利性聯盟，此項分類方式也作為本研究後續進行個案分析之基礎。　　由於不同策略合作型式傾向採取不同之組織原理與思考邏輯，本研究認為非營利組織(農會)進行策略合作，若要持續共同創造所欲追求之價值並妥善管理組織間關係，應策略性地選擇較能發揮效能之合作型式，再據以設計其價值共創與關係管理機制。因此，本研究之個案分析分成兩個階段進行，第一階段個案研究主要嘗試從實務個案資料分析歸納較能解釋不同策略合作型式之合作內涵特性變數；第二階段個案研究主要聚焦探討「非營利性聯盟」及「非營利性合營機構」兩種非營利性質之合作型式，並以第一階段有關合作內涵特性變數之發現為基礎，進一步探索兩種合作型式之價值共創與關係管理機制變數。　　本研究第一階段個案分析歸納發現，如果合作內涵涉及高度業務可切割性及高度關係專用資產投入必要性時，較宜採取共組獨立機構之合作型式；反之，如果合作內涵涉及低度業務可切割性或低度關係專用資產投入必要性時，較宜採取不共組獨立機構之合作型式。另外，如果合作內涵涉及高度投入共同性、低度投入可衡量性、高度產出共同性或低度產出可衡量性時，較宜採取非營利性之合作型式；然而，如果合作內涵涉及低度投入共同性、高度投入可衡量性、低度產出共同性或高度產出可衡量性時，較宜採取營利性之合作型式。　　至於第二階段有關價值共創機制之個案分析發現，如果合作內涵涉及低度業務可切割性時，非營利性聯盟可以採取幾項價值共創機制：合作夥伴專業分工、合作夥伴選擇、任務小組負責人選派制度、合作夥伴創新能力、外部資源有效分配方式，以及外部專家專業諮詢；相對地，合作內涵涉及高度業務可切割性時，非營利性合營機構可以透過專業團隊經營、董(理)監事選聘制度、領導人甄選制度、創新經營模式、組織設計決策管理與控制分離政策，以及設立外部獨立董(理)監事等機制來營造彼此價值共創之氛圍。　　如果合作內涵涉及低度關係專用資產投入必要性時，要有效利用合作夥伴既有資源及外部取得資源以共同營造合作網絡之綜效價值，非營利性聯盟可以採取幾項價值共創機制：任務小組負責人選派制度、資源有效利用方式、合作夥伴之資源與技術有效整合，以及合作夥伴網絡關係運用；相對地，合作內涵涉及高度關係專用資產投入必要性時，非營利性合營機構可以採取董(理)監事選聘制度、具體資源運用計畫、合營機構領導人組專業團隊之權力，以及有效專業服務平台等價值共創機制。　　針對關係管理機制之探討，經個案分析發現，如果合作內涵涉及高度投入共同性時，兩種非營利性質之策略合作型式可以透過可接受之合作規範、建立共同標準、資訊對等溝通，以及能力不足補救措施來提升合作夥伴配合共同投入意願。合作內涵涉及低度投入可衡量性時，可以賦予投入較多之合作機構主導資源利用方向之決策權以維持其投入意願；涉及高度產出共同性時，可以透過共同品質控管、不符標準產出配套處理措施及外部誘因來提升合作夥伴配合共同產出要求之意願；至於涉及低度產出可衡量性時，可以透過目標達成度評核措施、外部專家專業認定及可接受之利益分配方式來協調合作夥伴關係。　　過去文獻對非營利組織之合作關係，較少以策略性思維進行探討，本研究之發現可延伸應用並補強現有合作相關理論與文獻對非營利組織間合作有關實務現象之解釋，對未來有關非營利組織合作關係之研究，也提供另一個思考方向；加上組織間策略合作也是當前政府輔導農民團體因應台灣加入WTO後之政策加強重點，本研究配合組織思索轉型所需，實務上期能提供農會研擬組織間合作策略及政府推動農民團體輔導政策之參考。 Strategic cooperation is taken as an alternative resort for solving problems facing non-profit organizations (NPO) which suffer a bottleneck in operations resulting from mounting resource scarcity and external threats. It is especially deemed so for farmers’ associations in Taiwan, which were closely associated with the development of agriculture on the island in the past century and have been seriously affected after Taiwan entered the World Trade Organizations（WTO）in 2002. Given this understanding, we conduct a two-phase study to observe the phenomena by studying farmers’ associations in Taiwan. Research 1 attempts to explore the cooperation characteristics which can most explain the decision on strategic cooperation types chosen by at least 3 farmers’ associations in each network. Research 2, based on the findings of Research 1, attempts to explore the value-co-creating and relation-maintaining mechanisms for such relations. As part of the methodology, we apply an exploratory multiple-case-study design and refer to NPO and PO (for-profit organization) literature for analytical induction. Prior to the case study, we first categorize the NPO strategic cooperation relations into four types: Non-profit joint operations, for-profit joint ventures, non-profit alliances and for-profit alliances. This categorization made in accordance with literature review and observed phenomena serves as a basis for our further research. In Research 1, we examine 5 theoretically sampled cases and find out 2 characteristics variables which can most explain the decision on whether to organize an independent institution, and 4 variables which can most explain the decision on whether to keep the cooperation for non-profit purpose or change it into for-profit relations. According to our findings, if cooperation involves high business separability and high necessity for relation-specific asset input, we suggest a choice for organizing another new independent institution (i.e. non-profit joint operations or for-profit joint ventures). If cooperation involves low business separability and low necessity for relation-specific asset input, we suggest a choice for not organizing an independent institution (i.e. non-profit alliances or for-profit alliances). In terms of the “non-profit or for-profit” decision, if cooperation involves high input commonality, low input measurability, high output commonality and low output measurability, we suggest a non-profit choice (i.e. non-profit joint operations or non-profit alliances). If cooperation involves low input commonality, high input measurability, low output commonality and high output measurability, we suggest a for-profit choice (i.e. for-profit joint ventures or for-profit alliances). For the second research, we focus our study on the two non-profit cooperation types and examine 8 theoretically sampled cases including 5 non-profit alliances and 3 non-profit joint operations. We explore the value-co-creating mechanisms by analyzing case data from the two characteristics variables which can most explain the “organizing an independent institution or not” decision in consideration that the two studied types take different cooperation forms and may apply different mechanisms for co-creating synergetic value in the network. Meanwhile, we explore the relation-maintaining mechanisms from the four characteristics variables which can most explain the “non-profit or for-profit” decision because the two studied types is of non-profit nature and involve high input commonality, low input measurability, high output commonality and low output measurability. It is of strategic significance to heighten partners’ will for continued cooperation in such non-profit relations. Our findings of the value co-creating mechanisms suggest 6 mechanism variables for the non-profit alliances and non-profit joint operations, respectively, depending on their levels of business separability. Analysis from the characteristics of necessity for relation-specific asset input, in similar manner, suggests 4 variables for the two studied types, respectively. In the exploration of relation-maintaining mechanisms, results suggest 4 mechanism variables for the non-profit types if cooperation involves high input commonality, 1 variable for relations involving low input measurability, 3 variables for relations involving high output commonality, and 3 variables for relations involving low output measurability. Although there may be many mechanisms which can help partners to co-create value and maintain relations in their cooperation, this research attempts to explore only the variables which can be of more strategic significance for the two focus types. Following our findings in Research 1 and 2, we provide normative propositions and build a decision-making model for the choice of strategic cooperation types and another integrative conceptual model of the value-co-creating and relation-maintaining mechanisms for non-profit alliances and joint operations. Farmers’ associations, which boast of a history of nearly 100 years in Taiwan, are unique in their business models as compared to other non-profit organizations. On top of that, NPO inter-organizational cooperation relations are seldom examined from strategic perspective. Theoretically speaking, findings of this dissertation can further extend and supplement the explanation and the application of present theories and literature to the phenomena in this regard. Implications and recommendations for managerial practices of inter-organizational cooperation among farmers’ associations are also discussed.
參考文獻:	一、中文部分丁文郁(1997)，「農會組織及功能政策理念之探討」，農業推廣文彙，第四一輯，頁167-176。丁文郁(1998a)，台灣農民非營利組織策略規劃之研究－以台灣農會為例，國立台灣大學農業推廣學系未出版博士論文，台北。丁文郁(1998b)，「從策略管理之資源基礎理論談農會經營管理」，農會經營策略與管理變革學術研討會，國立中正大學，嘉義。丁文郁(2004a)，「農會問題之分析」，農業推廣文彙，第四八輯，頁233-244。丁文郁(2004b)，「農會轉投資公司與農會員工之關係」，農會轉投資公司之經營發展研討會，台北市農會，台北。于嘉雲編譯(1991)，南海舡人(I)－美拉尼西亞新幾內亞土著之事業及冒險活動報告（Malinoski B.原著），遠流文化，台北。方世杰、鄭仲興（2001），「組織間學習機制與合作研發之組織學習績效的實證研究－組織間互動之觀點」，管理學報，第十八卷第四期，頁503-526。王俊如(2003)，多元交易關係之研究：以兩個交易關係的相互影響為例，國立政治大學企業管理學系未出版博士論文，台北。古允文(1998)，「福利社區化與資源開發整合的問題與出路」，社會福利雙月刊，第一三五期，頁4-11。司徒達賢(1995)，「資源基礎理論與企業競爭優勢關係之探討」，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。司徒達賢(1999)，非營利組織的經營管理，天下遠見，台北。司徒達賢(2001)，策略管理新論－觀念架構與分析方法，智勝文化，台北。司徒達賢(2003)，「用新思維行銷善心」，天下雜誌，第二七二期，頁86。司徒達賢(2003)，策略管理案例解析－觀念與實例，智勝文化，台北。司徒達賢、商倩鳳、張榮農(2004)，「從交易型到夥伴型合作關係之轉換機制研究－VIP模型之應用」，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告。司徒達賢、熊欣華(2004)，「投機行為分析─價值差距、資訊差距與潛在懲罰力之影響」，中山管理評論，第十二卷第四期，頁675。田君美、段昱良(2003)，「台灣因應中國農業政策變革的策略」，財團法人台灣智庫農業論壇報告，台灣智庫，頁337-358。江明修(1994)，「非營利組織領導行為之研究」，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告。江明修、蔡勝男(2001)，「非營利組織獲取社會資源的管道與困境」，新視野：公共電視的發展與未來國際研討會，公共電視文化事業基金會，台北。江義平(1999)，台灣中小企業策略聯盟決策模式建構與分析之研究，國立中興大學企業管理研究所未出版博士論文，台北。余佩珊編譯(1994)，非營利機構的經營之道（Peter F. Drucker, 1990），遠流，台北。吳明敏（2003），「全球化時代下的台灣農業」，財團法人台灣智庫農業論壇報告，台灣智庫，頁3-7。吳思華(2001)，策略九說：策略管理之本質，麥田文化，台北。吳恪元(1994)，合作經濟原理，茂昌，台北。吳麗真（2003），走出傳統，創造希望：十五個標竿農業的故事，行政院農業委員會，台北，頁55-69。李禮仲、邱　玉，(2001)，「去無存菁－金融重建基金機制」，國家政策論壇，第一卷第八期，頁65-68。汪明生(1996)，「非營利民間部門與企業化的地方發展」，國家政策（動態分析）雙週刊，第一三０期，頁7-9。周芬姿(2001)，「台灣NGO之現況與理論探討－組織與民主的觀點」，連結vs對話－非政府組織的國際交流與經驗，樹德科技大學，高雄。官有垣(2002a)，「地方民間組織與政府在社區營造的夥伴關係：以嘉義新港文教基金會推動淨港計畫為例」，研考雙月刊，第二二九期，頁87-98。官有垣(2002b)，「非營利組織與政府－政經環境變遷對NPO之影響」，非營利組織管理與發展系列研討會，教育部、青輔會，台北。邱柏松(1996)，「國際策略聯盟－在國內的現況與績」，經濟情勢暨評論季刊，第二卷第三期，頁57-61。邱湧忠(2003)，「從組織分析論農會經營轉型」，財團法人台灣智庫農業論壇報告，台灣智庫，頁237-256。邱瑜瑾(1999)，「台中市非營利組織資源網絡連結分析：社會網絡取向」，國立政治大學社會學報，第二九期，頁117-165。胡忠一(1997)，「日治時期台灣產業組合與農業會之研究」，農民組織學刊，第二期，頁1-59。胡忠一(1997)，「合作運動的國際性變遷與現況」，合作發展，八月號，頁7-15。胡忠一(1998)，「農會組織自我革新之道」，農業推廣學報，第一四號，頁89-135。胡忠一(2002），「農業合作原理與實務」，九十一年外交替代役役男農技組專業課程，財團法人國際合作發展基金會，台北。胡忠一(2003），「台灣的農會－何去何從」，財團法人台灣智庫農業論壇報告，台灣智庫，頁263-270。孫本初(1994)，「非營利組織管理之研究－以台北市政府登記有案之社會福利慈善事業基金會為例」，台北市政府研究發展考核委員會委託計畫。孫本初(1998)，公共管理，智勝文化，台北。徐遵慈(2000)，「從對峙到合作？－WTO與NGOs之關係與發展」，台灣經濟研究月刊，第二三卷第二期，頁79-82。張正英（2003），「台灣的農會－何去何從」，財團法人台灣智庫農業論壇報告，台灣智庫，頁257-262。張英陣(1999)，「企業與非營利組織的夥伴關係」，社區發展季刊，第八五期，頁62-70。許世兩（2001），非營利部門對公共行政之影響，國立政治大學公共行政研究所未出版碩士論文，台北。陳川正(2000)，非營利組織的認同管理：以基督教的細胞小組模式等教會為例，國立政治大學企業管理研究所未出版博士論文，台北。陳向明(2002)，社會科學質的研究，五南，台北。陳宗文(2000)，台灣和韓國半導體產業比較研究－以社會資本觀點論，國立政治大學社會學系未出版碩士論文，台北。陳明吉（2002），「農民組織轉型的契機」，國家政策研究報告，財團法人國家政策研究基金會，台北。陳金貴(2002)，「非營利組織社會企業化經營探討」，第十九屆非政府組織夏季論壇研討會暨智庫論壇，台灣新世紀文教基金會，台北。陸宛蘋（2001），「認識非營利組織」，亞太教育訓練網，台北。黃秉德(1998)，「非營利組織經營管理理念－台灣經驗分析」，非營利組織經營管理與社會角色論文集，國立中山大學，高雄。黃秉德、陳淑蘭、陳仁惠(2001)，「非營利組織營利模式的探討－以陽光洗車中心為例」，非營利組織建構與資源整合圓桌學術研討會，國立台灣大學，台北。黃銘章(2002)，影響供應商與顧客間夥伴關係因素之研究－以台灣電子資訊產業為例，國立政治大學企業管理研究所未出版博士論文，台北。熊欣華(2001)，組織間合作的信心管理，國立政治大學企業管理學系未出版博士論文，台北。劉弘煌(2000)，「社區資源的開拓、整合與分配」，社區發展季刊，第八九期，頁35-52。劉祥祺(2001)，國際性公益社團經營與議題策略之研究，大葉大學事業經營研究所未出版碩士論文，彰化。蔡惠娟編譯(2000)，非政府組織的立法原則【世界銀行（World Bank）委託國際非營利法規中心(International Center for Not-for-profit Law)所研撰之Handbook on Good Practices for Laws Relating to Non-governmental Organizations原著】，喜瑪拉雅研究發展基金會，台北。鄭政宗(1998)，非營利組織之社會行銷策略分析－以農業基金會為例，國立台灣大學農業推廣學系未出版博士論文，台北。鄭讚源(2001)，「非營利組織與政府－NPO與政府之合作」，非營利組織管理與發展系列研討會，教育部、青輔會，台北。謝宗穎、姜樹仁(2001)，「我國高等教育策略聯盟之探討」，技術及職業雙月刊，第七八期，頁45-50。譚　天編譯(2000)，「人力管理」（Chris Argyris, 1999），天下遠見，台北。蘇洺賢(2000)，我國非營利機構之跨組織合作關係類型及管理機制探討，靜宜大學未出版碩士論文，台中。顧忠華(1999)，「非營利組織發展新趨勢－NPO與社會責任」，非營利組織管理與發展系列研討會，教育部、青輔會，台北。二、英文部分 Adler, P. S. and Kwon, S. W. (2002), “Social capital: Prospects for a new concept,” Academy of Management Review, 27(1), pp. 17-40. Ahuja, G. (2000a), “Collaboration network, structural holes and innovation: A longitudinal study,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, pp. 425-455. Ahuja, G. (2000b), “The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of inter-firm linkages,” Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 317-343. Alkhafaji, A. F. (1990), “Effective board of directors: An overview,” Industrial Management and Data system, 90, pp. 18-26. Allison, G. T. (1971), Essences of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. J. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent,” Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), pp. 33-46. Andrew, K. P. (1971), The concept of corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion, Homewood, IL: Irwin. Astley, W. G. and Zajac, E. J. (1990), “Beyond dyadic exchange: Functional interdependency and sub-unit power,” Organization Studies, 11(4), pp. 481-501. Barney, J. B. (1986), “Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy,” Management Science, 42, pp. 1231-1241. Barney, J. B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage,” Journal of Management, 17, pp. 99-120. Bathala, C. T., Moon, K. P., Rao, R. P. (1994), “Management ownership, debt policy and the impact of institutional holdings: An agency perspective,” Financial Management, 23, pp. 38-50. Baum, J. and Oliver, C. (1991), “Institutional linkages and organizational mortality,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, pp. 187-218. Baum, J., Calabrese, T. and Silverman, B. S. (2000), “Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups performance in Canadian biotechnology,” Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 367-394. Beccerra, M. and Gupta, A. K. (1999), “Trust within the organization: Integrating the trust literature with agency theory and transaction cost economics,” Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), pp. 177-203. Benston, G. J. (1985), “The validity of profits-structure studies with particular reference to the FTC’s line-of-business data,” American Economic Review, 75, pp. 37-67. Bergen, M., Dutta, S. and Walker, O. (1992), “Agency relationships in marketing: A review of the implications and applications of agency and related theories,” Journal of Marketing, 56(3), pp. 1-24. Berger, P. G. and Ofek, E. (1995), “Diversification’s effect on firm value,” Journal of Financial Economics, 37, pp. 39-65. Bizjak, J. M., Brickley, J. A. and Coles, J. L. (1993), “Stock-based incentive compensation and investment behavior,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 16, pp. 349-372. Blumberg, B. F. (2001), “Cooperation contracts between embedded firms,” Organization Studies, 22(5), pp. 825-852. Borys, B. and Jemison, D. B. (1989), “Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliance: Theorectical issues in organizational combinations,” Academy of Management Review, 14(2), pp. 234-249. Bradach, J. L. and Eccles, R. G. (1989), “Price, authority and trust: From ideal types to plural forms,” Annual Review of Sociology, 15, pp. 97-118. Bromiley, P. and Cummings, L. L. (1993), Organizations with trust: Theory and measurement, Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997), “The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), pp. 1-34. Buckley, P. J. and Casson, M. C. (1988), “A theory of cooperation in international business,” In Contractor, F. and Lorange, P. (Eds.), Cooperative Strategy in International Business, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 31-54. Bucklin, L. P. and Sengupta, S. (1993), “Organizing successful co-marketing alliances,” Journal of Marketing, 57(April), pp. 32-46. Burt, R. S. (1982), Toward a structural theory of action, New York: Academic Press. Burt, R. S. (1992), “The social structure of competition,” In Noria, N. and Eccles, R. G. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, pp. 57-91. Burt, R. S. (1997), “The contingency value of social capital,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp. 339-365. Cadbury, A. (1999), “What are the trends in corporate governance,” How will they impact your company?” Long Range Planning, 32, pp. 12-19. Celly, K. S., Spekman, R. E. and Kamauff, J. W. (1999), “Technological uncertainty, buyer preferences and supplier assurances: An examination of Pacific Rim purchasing arrangements,” Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2), pp. 297-316. Chandler, A. D. (1962), Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise, Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press. Chung, S. W., Singh, H. and Lee, K. M. (2000), “Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation,” Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 1-22. Coase, R. H. (1937), “The nature of the firm,” Economica, 4(4), pp. 386-405. Collis, D. J. and Barney, J. B. (1991), “A resource-based analysis of global competition: The case of the bearings industry,” Strategic Management Journal, 12(Summer), pp. 49-68. Combs, G. J. and Ketchen, D. J. (1999), “Explaining inter-firm cooperation and performance: Toward a reconciliation of predications from the resources-based view and organizational economics,” Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 867-888. Contractor, F. and Lorange, P. (1988), “The strategy and economic basis for cooperative ventures,” In Contractor, F. and Lorange, P. (Eds.), Cooperative Strategy in International Business, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 1-28. Cressey, D. R. (1953), Other people’s money, Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Das, T. K. and Teng, B. S. (1998), “Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances,” Academy of Management Review, 23(3), pp. 491-512. Danneels, E. (2002), “The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences,” Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp. 1095-1121. Das, T. K. and Teng, B. S. (2000), “A resource-based theory of strategic alliances,” Journal of Management, 26, pp. 31-61. Das, T. K. and Teng, B. S. (2002), “Alliance constellations: A social exchange perspective,” Academy of Management Review, 27(3), pp. 31-61. Day, G. S. (1994), “The capabilities of market driven organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58(4), pp. 37-52. Dees, J. G. (1998), “Enterprising nonprofit,” Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 55-67. Dees, J. G., Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2001), Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs, New York: John Wiley and Sons. (江明修審訂，2004，企業型非營利組織，智勝文化，台北。) Demsetz, H. (1983), “The structure of ownership and the theory of the firm,” Journal of Law and Economics, 26, pp. 375-390. Dierickx, I. And Cool, K. (1989), “Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage,” Management Science, 35, pp. 1504-1511. Drucker, P. F. (1990), Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles, New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Dyer, J. (1997), “Effective inter-firm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value,” Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 535-556. Dyer, J. H. and Singh, H. (1998), “The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage,” Academy of Management Review, 23(4), pp. 660-679. Ebers, M. (1997), The formation of inter-organizational networks, New York: Oxford University Press. Ebers, M. (1999), “The dynamics of inter-organizational relationships,” The Sociology of Organization, 16, pp. 31-56. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research,” Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532-550. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review,” Academy of Management Review, 14(January): 57-74. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991), “Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative,” Academy of Management Review, 16(3), pp. 620-627. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Gulunic, D. C. (2000), “Coevolving: At least, a way to make synergies work,” Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 91-101. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996), “Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms,” Organization Science, 7, pp. 136-150. Fama, E. F. and Jensen, M. C. (1983a), “Agency problems and residual claims,” Journal of Law and Economics, 26, pp. 327-349. Fama, E. F. and Jensen, M. C. (1983b), “Separation of ownership and control,” Journal of Law and Economics, 26, pp. 301-325. Fama. E. F. (1980), “Agency problems and the theory of the firm,” Journal of Political Economy, 88, pp. 288-307. Fisher, F. M. and McGowan, J. J. (1983), “On the misuse of accounting rates of return to infer monopoly profits,” American Economic Review, 73, pp. 82-97. Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (1999), Research methods in the social sciences (5th ed.), New York: Worth Publishers and St. Martin’s Press. Galaskiewicz, J. and Zaheer, A. (1999), “Networks of competitive advantage,” Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16, pp. 237-261. Ghosha, S. and Bartlett, C. A. (1990), “The multinational corporation as an inter-organizational network,” Academy of Management Review, 15(4), pp. 603-625. Ghoshal, S. and Moran, P. (1996), “Bad for practice: A critique of he transaction cost theory,” Academy of Management Review, 21(1), pp.13-41. Ghoshal, S. and Nohria, N. (1989), “Internal differentiation within multinational corporations,” Strategic Management Journal, 10(4), pp. 323-337. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Chicago, IL: Aldine. Graebner, M. E. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004), “The seller’s side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, pp. 366-403. Granovetter, M. S. (1973), “The strength of weak ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 78, pp. 1360-1380. Granovetter, M. S. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology, 91, pp. 481-510. Granovetter, M. S. (1992), “Problems of explanation in economic sociology,” In Nohria, N. and Eccles, R. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structural, forms and action, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 25-56. Grant, R. M. (1991), “The resource based theory of competitive advantage: Implication for strategy formulation,” California Management Review, 33(3), pp. 114-135. Gulati, R. (1995a), “Does familiarity breed trust? The implication of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliance,” Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp. 85-112. Gulati, R. (1995b), “Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 619-652. Gulati, R. (1998), “Alliances and networks,” Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), pp. 293-317. Gulati, R. (1999), “Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation,” Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 397-420. Gulati, R. and Gargiulo, M. (1999), “Where do international networks come from?” American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), pp. 1439-1493. Gulati, R. and Signh, H. (1998), “The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliance,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), pp. 781-814. Gulati, R., Nohria, N., and Zaheer, A. (2000), “Strategic networks,” Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 203-215. Hagedoorn, J. (1993), “Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Inter-organizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences,” Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 371-385. Hall P. D. (1987), “A historical overview of the private nonprofit sector,” In Powel , W.W. (Ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hamel, G. (1991), “Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances,” Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Summer), pp. 83-103. Hamel, G. (2000), Leading the Revolution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hamel, G., Doz, Y. L. and Prahalad, C. (1989), “Collaborate with your competitors and win,” Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 133-139. Hamel, G., Doz, Y. L. and Prahalad, C. K. (1996), Competing for the future, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hansen, M. T. (1999), “The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization submits,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, pp. 82-111. Hansen, M. T. (2002), “Knowledge network: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies,” Organizational Science, 13, pp. 232-248. Hansmann, H. (1987), “Economic theories of nonprofit organizations,” In Powell, W. W. (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Harrigan, K. (1988), “Strategic alliances and partner asymmetries,” In Contractor, F. J. and Lorange, P. (Eds.), Cooperative strategies in international business, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 205-226. Hennart, J. (1988), “A transaction cost theory of equity joint ventures,” Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), pp. 361-374. Hennart, J. (1991), “The transaction cost theory of joint ventures: An empirical study of Japanese subsidiaries in the United States,” Management Science, 37, pp. 483-397. Hennart, J. (1993), “Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of ‘market’ and ‘hierarch’?” Organization Science, 4(4), pp. 529-547. Herriott, R. E. and Firestone, W. A. (1983), “Multi-site qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability,” Educational Researcher, 12, pp.14-19. Holm, D. B., Eriksson, K. and Johanson, J. (1999), “Creating value through mutual commitment to business network relationships,” Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), pp. 467-606. Hymer, S. H. (1976), The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Iansiti, M. and Clark, K. B. (1994), “Integration and dynamic capability: Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), pp. 557-605. Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976), “Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure,” Journal of Financial Economics, 3, pp. 305-360. Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S. and Borgatti, S. P. (1997), “A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms,” Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 911-945. Kenis, P. and Knoke, D. (2002), “How organizational field networks shape inter-organizational tie-formation rates,” Academy of Management Review, 27, pp. 275-293. Kim, S. K. and Suh, Y. (1993), “Conditional monitoring policy under moral hazard,” Management Science, 38, pp. 1106-1120. Kogut, B. (1998a), “A study of the life cycle of joint ventures,” In Contractor, F. G. and Lorange, G. (Eds.), Cooperative strategies in international business, New York: Lexington Books, pp. 169-185. Kogut, B. (1998b), “Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives,” Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), pp. 319-332. Kraatz, M. S. (1998), “Learning by association? Inter-organizational networks and adaptation to environmental change,” Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), pp. 621-643. Kramer, R. M. (1981), Voluntary agencies in the welfare state, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Larson, A. (1992), “Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), pp. 76-104. Mahoney, J. T. and Pandian, J. R. (1992), “The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management,” Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), pp. 363-380. Miller, C. C., Cardinal, L. B. and Glick, W. H. (1997), “Retrospective reports in organizational research: A re-examination of recent evidence,” Academy of Management Journal, 40, pp. 189-204. Miner, A. S., Amburgey, T. L. and Stearns, T. M. (1990), “Inter-organizational linkages and population dynamics: Buffering and transformational shields,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 689-713. Mohr, J. and Speckman, R. (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior and conflict resolution techniques,” Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp. 135-152. Morgan, R. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58, pp. 20-38. Mowery, D. E., Oxley, J. E. and Silverman, B. S. (1996), “Strategic alliances and inter-firm knowledge transfer,” Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter), pp. 77-91. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage,” Academy of Management Review, 23, pp. 242-266. Neuman, L. W. (1997), Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 3rd ed., Boston, MA: Ally and Bacon. (朱柔若譯，社會研究方法－質化與量化取向，揚智文化，台北。) Nohria, N. and Garcia-Pont, C. (1991), “Global strategic linkages and industry structure,” Strategic Management Journal, 12(Summer Special Issue), pp. 105-124. O’Donnell, S. W. (2000), “Managing foreign subsidiaries: Agents of headquarters or an interdependent network?” Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), pp. 525-548. Oliver, C. (1990), “Determinants of inter-organizational relationships: Integration and future directions,” Academy of Management Review, 15(2), pp. 241-265. Osborn, R. and Baughn, C. (1990), “Forms of inter-organizational governance for multinational alliances,” Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp. 503-519. Ouchi, G. O. (1979), “A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms,” Management Science, 25(9), pp. 833-848. Ouchi, G. O. (1980), “Markets, bureaucracies and clans,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, pp. 129-143. Park, S. H., Chen, R. and Gallagher, S. (2002), “Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups,” Academy of Management Journal, 45, pp. 527-545. Patton, M. Q. (1990), Qualitative evaluation and research methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Penrose, E. T. (1959), The theory of the growth of the firm, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peteraf, M. A. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource based view,” Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), pp. 179-191. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978), The external control of organizations, New York: Harper & Row. Pisano, G. and Teece, D. J. (1989), “Collaborative arrangements and global technology strategy: Some evidence from the telecommunications equipments industry,” In Rosenblum, R. (Eds.), Research on technological innovation, management and policy, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 227-256. Podolny, J. (1994), “Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, pp. 458-483. Podolny, J. M. (1998), “Network forms of organization,” Annual Review of Sociology, 24, pp. 57-76. Porter, M. E. (1980), Competitive strategies, New York: Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1985), Competitive advantages: Creating and sustaining superior performance, New York: Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1986), “Competition in global industries: A conceptual framework,” In Porter, M. E. (Eds.), Competition in global industries, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pound, J. (1988), “Proxy contests and the efficiency of shareholder oversight,” Journal of Financial Economics, 20, pp. 237-265. Powell, W. (1990), “Neither market nor hierarchy,” In Cummings, L. and Staw, B. (Eds.), Research on organizational behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996), “Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, pp. 116-145. Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation,” Harvard Business Review, 68(3), pp. 79-81. Ramirez, R. (1999), “Value co-production: Intellectual origins and implications for practice and research,” Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 49-65. Rasmusen, E. (1989), Games and information: An introduction to game theory, New York: Blackwell. Reed, R. and DeFillippi, R. (1990), “Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation and sustainable competitive advantage,” Academy of Management Review, 15(1), pp. 88-102. Ring, P. and Van de Ven, A. (1994), “Development process of cooperative inter-organizational relationships,” Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 90-118. Rowley, T. J., Behrens, D. and Krackhardt, D. (2000), “Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries,” Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 369-386. Schroeder, D. A. (1995), “An introduction to social dilemmas,” In Schroeder, D. A. (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Perspectives on individuals and groups, Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 1-15. Scott, W. R. (1998), Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sheth, J. N. (1993), “User-oriented marketing for non-profit organizations,” in D. C. Hammack and D. R. Young (Ed.), Non-profit organizations in a market economy, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 379-397. Sohn, J. H. D. (1994), “Social knowledge as a control system: A proposition and evidence from the Japanese FDI behavior,” Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2), pp. 295-324. Stalk, G., Evans, P. and Shulman, L. E. (1992), “Competing on capabilities: The new rules of corporate strategy,” Harvard Business Review, 70(2), pp. 57-69. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. C. (1990), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. C. (1994), “Grounded theory methodology,” In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. C. (1997), Grounded theory in practices, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stuart, T. E. (1998), “Network position and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, pp. 668-698. Teece, D. J. (1980), “Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise,” In Foss, N. J. (1997)(Ed.), Resources, firms and strategies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Teece, D. J. (1981), “The multinational enterprise: Market failure and market power considerations,” Sloan Management Review, 22(3), pp. 3-15. Teece, D. J. (1992), “Competition, Cooperation, and Innovation: Organizational Arrangements for Regimes of Rapid Technological Progress,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 18(1), pp. 1-25. Thompson, J. D. (1967), Organizations in action, New York: McGraw-Hill. Tsai, W. (2000a), “Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of inter-organizational linkages,” Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 925-939. Tsai, W. (2000b), “Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational network: Effects of network position and absorptive capability on business unit innovation and performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), pp. 976-1001. Tsai, W. (2001), “Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational network: Effects of network position and absorptive capability on business unit innovation and performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), pp. 996-1004. Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: The role of intra-firm networks,” Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), pp. 464-476. Uzzi, B. D. (1996), “The sources and consequences of embeddedness for economic performance of organizations: The network effect,” Administrative Sociological Review, 61, pp. 674-698. Uzzi, B. D. (1997), “Social structure and competition in inter-firm network: The paradox of embeddedness,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp. 35-67. Verona, G. (1999), “A resource-based view of product development,” Academy of Management Review, 24(1), pp. 132-142. Walker, G., Kogut, B. and Shan, W. (1997), “Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network,” Organizational Science, 8, pp. 99-125. Weisbrod, B. (1988), The nonprofit economy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource based view of the firm,” Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), pp.171-180. White, M. Smith, M. and Barnett, T. (1994), “Strategic inertia: The enduring impact of CEO specialization and strategy on following strategies,” Journal of Business Research, 31(1), pp. 11-22. Williamson, E. O. (1983), “Credible commitment: Using hostages to support exchange,” American Economic Review, 73(4), pp. 519-540. Williamson, E. O. (1991), “Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, pp. 269-296. Williamson, O. E. (1975), Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications, New York: Free Press. Williamson, O. E. (1979), “Transaction cost economics: The government of contractual relations,” Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), pp. 233-261. Williamson, O. E. (1985), The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting, New York: Free Press. Williamson, O. E. (2000), Empirical microeconomics: Another perspective, Berkeley, CA: University of California. Wolcott, H. F. (1990), Writing up qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wolf, T. (1990), Managing a nonprofit organization, New York: Fireside. Yan, A. and Gray, B. (1994), “Bargaining power, management control and performance in United States – China Joint Ventures: A comparative case study,” Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), pp. 1478-1517. Yin, R. K. (1994), Case study research design and methods (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2003), Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yoshino, M.R. and Rangan, U. S. (1995), Strategic alliance: An entrepreneurial approach to globalization, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Zaheer, A. and Venkatraman, N. (1995), “Relational governance as an inter-organizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange,” Strategic Management Journal, 16(5), pp. 373-392. Zaheer, A. and Zaheer, S. (1997), “Catching the wave: Alertness, responsiveness and market influence in global electronic networks,” Management Science, 43, pp. 1493-1509.
描述:	博士國立政治大學企業管理研究所９０３５５５０３ 93
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0090355503
資料類型:	thesis
顯示於類別:	[企業管理學系] 學位論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
35550301.pdf		11Kb	Adobe PDF2	798	檢視/開啟
35550302.pdf		20Kb	Adobe PDF2	1012	檢視/開啟
35550303.pdf		16Kb	Adobe PDF2	855	檢視/開啟
35550304.pdf		19Kb	Adobe PDF2	755	檢視/開啟
35550305.pdf		16Kb	Adobe PDF2	717	檢視/開啟
35550306.pdf		17Kb	Adobe PDF2	815	檢視/開啟
35550307.pdf		84Kb	Adobe PDF2	1305	檢視/開啟
35550308.pdf		103Kb	Adobe PDF2	1291	檢視/開啟
35550309.pdf		63Kb	Adobe PDF2	1353	檢視/開啟
35550310.pdf		126Kb	Adobe PDF2	1068	檢視/開啟
35550311.pdf		310Kb	Adobe PDF2	1161	檢視/開啟
35550312.pdf		106Kb	Adobe PDF2	875	檢視/開啟
35550313.pdf		61Kb	Adobe PDF2	1274	檢視/開啟
35550314.pdf		49Kb	Adobe PDF2	1654	檢視/開啟
35550315.pdf		178Kb	Adobe PDF2	1481	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