政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/54009

政大典藏 > College of Commerce > Graduate Institute of Technology and Innovation Management > Theses > Item 140.119/54009

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54009

Title:	創意中介回應制約限制：以聯合報太陽劇團巡演為例 Creative brokering：how golden media respond to local constraints
Authors:	蔣能旺 Chiang, Neng Wang
Contributors:	蕭瑞麟蔣能旺 Chiang, Neng Wang
Keywords:	活動產業中介制約創意回應
Date:	2011
Issue Date:	2012-10-24 16:08:08 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	創新不僅止於發明的程序。形塑的過程中，創新者必須嘗試與不同的社會成員互動，以取得必要的發展資源，支應創新的成型（Rogers, 2006）。但各類社會制約的限制，往往影響創新的成型（Scott, 2001）。因此，了解如何在制約劣勢之下發展創新，尤甚重要。過往研究發現，創新者面對制約，傳統問題解決（problem-solving）的思維不易奏效。這是因為，制約根深蒂固於情境（context），難以預防，創新者往往難以個體之力排除（Dougherty, 2008）。反之，創新者必須在限制情境下發展作為，以創意回應制約阻力（oliver, 1991; Suchman, 1995；陳蕙芬, 2010）。然而，過往創新理論在分析回應作為時，中介者的角色是較少著墨之處。但本研究主張，中介者（broker）在社會中扮演網絡資源嫁接者角色（Burt, 1992）。因此，面對制約限制時，中介者可透過與外部網絡互動，建立妥適的合作關係，而得以「借力使力」，調適回應情境中制約。例如文創系統中的活動商、經紀商、策展人等，常扮演專案過程中資源整合角色，與不同網路群體互動，以取得必要的資源支持專案發展。因此，本研究嘗試以中介者為研究主體，了解中介者如何在制約之下中介資源，並且創意地回應制約，進而發展出「創意中介」的概念，本研究以個案公司金傳媒，所舉辦的太陽劇團歡躍之旅在台巡演為研究個案，深入其策略行動。以訪談法蒐集資料，採用詮釋型的質性研究方法，分析活動人如何定義專案制約，與了解借力使力地回應制約限制之思考。依其中介歷程，本研究歸納出三種創意中介的手法原則。於學理上的貢獻有二：首先，本研究呈現制約在的中介歷程的影響，補強過去研究較少著墨之處，進而豐富中介理論的內涵；其次，本研究整理中介回應制約的手法，作為創意回應的角度，進而豐富了制約回應的理論意涵。壹、緒論 7 貳、文獻回顧 9 第一節觀點優勢益於創新產出 10 第二節整合網絡創意的「關係專家」 17 第三節「借力使力」調適回應制約限制 21 參、研究方法 27 第一節研究方法 27 第二節個案選擇 29 第三節資料蒐集 31 第四節資料分析 35 肆、個案背景與脈絡 37 第一節太陽劇團的創新密碼 38 第二節聯合報活動事業發展歷程 48 伍、研究發現 54 第一節太陽劇團巡演專案決策背景 57 第二節太陽劇團巡演後勤運籌 57 第三節太陽劇團巡演行銷售票 68 第四節太陽劇團巡演周邊商品開發 81 陸、討論 92 第一節理論貢獻 92 第二節實務貢獻 96 第三節未來研究方向 99 柒、結論 100 捌、參考文獻 102 玖、附錄 107 表目錄表1 IDEO科技中介機制 14 表2 回應觀點分類 24 表3 田野調查工作摘要 (2010～2011年) 33 表4 重要訪談紀錄 34 表5 次級資料收集紀錄 35 表6 太陽劇團歷年常駐秀與巡演秀劇目 41 表7 太陽劇團歷年巡演秀（touring show）劇目 44 表8 2008年後太陽劇團亞洲市場計畫 44 表9 聯合報系活動事業部主要組織流變 51 表10 聯合報系歷年大型特展整理 52 表11 台北市政府與金傳媒網絡互動說明 66 表12 策展與巡演模式比較 70 表12 商務社群與金傳媒網絡互動說明 79 表13 設計師品牌聯名金傳媒網絡互動說明 88
Reference:	捌、參考文獻一、中文部分林宜標（2008），媒體與博物館合作特展之整合行銷傳播策略─以羅浮宮埃及文物珍藏展為例，國立政治大學經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)，碩士論文。張富瑞（2011），知識中介：以穿針引線回應跨界阻力，國立政治大學企業管理研究所，碩士論文。陳意文（2009），創新產品的資源拼湊與價值實現之研究：採新資源基礎觀點之定性與定量分析，國立政治大學科技管理研究所，博士論文。陳蕙芬（2010），柔韌設計：以創新調適的策略回應機構力，國立政治大學科技管理研究所，博士論文。蕭瑞麟（2007），不用數字的研究，培生出版。二、英文部分 Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005) “Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 329 –366. Brass, D. J. （1985）“Men’s and women’s networks:A study of interaction patterns and infl uence in an organization.” Academy of Management Journal, 28:327–343. Burt, Ronald S. (1980) ‘Models of network structure,’ Annual Review of Sociology, 6:79-141. Burt, Ronald S. (1992) “Structural holes: The social structure of competition.” Boston,MA: Harvard Business School Press. Burt, Ronald S. (2000) “The network structure of social capital.” In R. I. Sutton and B.M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 22: 345–423. New York:Elsevier/JAI Press. Burt, Ronald S. (2004) “Structural Holes and Good Ideas.” American Journal of Sociology, 110:349–399 George, J. M.（2008）“Creativity in organizations.”Academy of Management Annals, 1: 439–477. Granvovetter, M. S., . (2004) “The strength of weak ties: A network theory Revisited.”, Social structure and network analysis, 105-130. Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003) “Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship.” Research Policy, 32(2), 277-300. Geertz, C. (1973) “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture”. in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, Pp.3-30. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997) “Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716-750. Hargadon, A. (1998) “Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation.” California Management Review, 40(3), 209-227. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (2000) “Building an innovation factory.” Harvard Business Review May-June, 157-166. Hargadon, A. (2003) “How Breakthroughs Happen-The Surprising Truth About How Companies Innovate.” Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Ibarra, H., M. Kilduff, and W. Tsai（2005）“Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research.” Organization Science, 16:359–371. Kilduff, M., and W. Tsai（2003）Social Networks and Organizations. London: Sage Lanzara, G. F. (1999) “Between transient constructs and persistent structures: Designing systems in action.” Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8, 331–349. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1967) The savage mind (La pensée suavage). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lingo, E. L. & O’Mahony, S. (2010) “Nexus work: Brokerage in creative projects.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 55S(1): 47-81 Maira, S. (1999) “Identity dub: The paradoxes of an Indian American youth subculture (New York mix).” Cultural Anthropology, 14, 29–60. Obstfeld, D. (2005) “Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 100–130. Oliver, Christine. （1991）. "Strategic responses to institutional processes." Academy of Management Review 16:145. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990) “Longitudinal Field Research on Change.” Organization Science, 1(3), pp. 267-292. Perry-Smith, J.（2006）“Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity.” Academy of Management Journal, 49: 85–101. Perry-Smith, J. E., and C. E. Shalley （2003）“The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective.” Academy of Management Review, 28: 89–106 Schumpeter JA. (1947) “The creative response in economic history.” Journal of Economic History, 7:149–159. Scott, R. (2001) Institutions and Organizations, Sage: London. Starr, J. A., and I. C. MacMillan (1990) “Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures.” Strategic Management Journal, 11: 79–92. Suchman, Mark C.（1995） "Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches." The Academy of Management Review 20:571-610. Van Maanen, J. (1979) “Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organizational Research:A Preface.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 520-526. Walsham, G. (1995) “Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method.” European Journal of Information Systems, 4, pp. 74-81 Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2005). “Border crossing: Bricolage and the erosion of categorical boundaries in French gastronomy”. American Sociological Review, 70, 968–991. Ibarra, H., M. Kilduff, and W. Tsai. (2005). “Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research.” Organization Science, 16:359–371. Obstfeld, D. (2005) “Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 100–130. Fleming, L., S. Mingo, and D. Chen (2007) “Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 443–475. Fleming, L., and D. M. Waguespack (2007) “Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities.” Organization Science, 18:165–180.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學科技管理研究所 98359024 100
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0983590242
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Technology and Innovation Management] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
index.html	0Kb	HTML2	665	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...