Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34312
|
| Title: | 資源基礎、跨組織間知識共同演化行為與創新績效之研究
The study of Resource Base, Inter-organizational Kowledge Co-evolutionary Behavior and Innovation Performance |
| Authors: | 方亮淵
Fang,Liang-Yuan |
| Contributors: | 吳思華
Wu,Se-Wha
方亮淵
Fang,Liang-Yuan |
| Keywords: | 知識共同演化
知識管理
創新績效
資源基礎
knowledge co-evolution
knowledge management
innovation performance
resource base |
| Date: | 2006 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 09:21:29 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 從理論而言，本論文企圖從生態演化的觀點，針對組織與組織間，或事業體與事業體間，觀察組織是否具有同生物物種間共同演化的現象，並從組織知識與學習的觀點，探討組織與組織間知識共同演化的行為機制與其對創新績效的關係。過去的文獻中，針對組織或事業體間之策略與績效間的關係，多數均從多角化的觀點出發，探討組織、市場或產品間的相關度，來預測績效的成果，但從資源基礎的角度觀察實務的現象，組織間的資源基礎，並非均可在組織間自由的流動或轉移，組織亦非只單純依賴於相關度高的其他事業組織才足以創造績效。因此，組織如何與其他的事業體組織進行資源的移轉以創造策略績效，特別是對於創新績效相關的知識資源，在現今的理論及文獻中，並沒有特別的加以探討。本研究針對此一研究的缺口，乃試圖利用生態學說之共同演化的觀點，奠基於Eisenhardt and Galunic(2000)之共同演化策略的文獻作出發點，來探討組織與組織間知識共同演化的行為機制，以及其對組織創新績效的影響。
經由文獻的探討與先導個案的觀察，本研究提出了主要的研究架構，在資源基礎構面上，本研究觀察了自我組織與其他對偶組織間三種資源：實體設備資源、技術知識資源、網絡關係資源；而在知識屬性構面上，本研究提出了領域相似性及功能互補性二個子構面，而在應變數創新績效上，本研究則觀察組織的創新件數、創新件數變動率及創新產業競爭力；創新績效類別上則觀察組織四種創新類型：產品創新、製程創新、技術創新以及市場創新等四個組織績效。而針對調節變數上，本研究則著由文獻歸納及個案觀察發展出組織間知識共同演化的四個行為構面：交互學習吸收、自我學習強化、相關變異適應與共有例規保留。藉由此四個構面所發展出的行為子構面題項問卷，本研究可以觀察組織與組織間知識共同演化行為的強度，以作為影響組織間資源基礎與組織創新績效關係的調節變數。
本研究藉由質性之個案研究法之先導個案─長興化工的觀察，發展出量化之問卷調查法之研究問卷，並針對潤泰企業集團之營建事業體與紡織事業體共十四個事業組織，二十八位受訪者進行實證研究，調查此十四個事業組織間所構成之364個對偶關係之組織關係，一一進行問卷調查及記錄。並依據此十四個事業組織受訪者問卷，進行數值分析及多變量分析工作。本研究係採用SPSS統計分析工具。
經由問卷統計分析的結果，本研究得到研究成果及結論如下：
1. 從資源基礎論的觀點，對於組織的創新績效，除自我組織的實體設備、技術知識及網絡關係資源有正向助益效果外，組織的資源亦可跨越組織疆界的概念，延伸至組織生態系統中其他對偶組織之資源基礎的層次。
2. 組織與其生態系統中其他對偶組織間的知識共同演化行為活動愈強，對偶組織之實體設備資源、技術知識資源及網絡關係資源，愈有助於組織之創新績效表現
2-1.自我組織與其他對偶組織間的交互學習吸收行為愈強，對偶組織之資源基礎愈有助於組織創新績效表現。
2-2.自我組織與其他對偶組織間的自我學習強化行為愈強，對偶組織之資源基礎愈有助於組織創新績效表現。
2-3.自我組織與其他對偶組織間的相關變異適應行為愈強，對偶組織之資源基礎愈有助於組織創新績效表現。
3. 組織與對偶組織間之知識屬性不同，其彼此間之知識共同演化行為的強度亦有所不同。知識領域相似性愈高，功能互補性愈高的組織，其知識共同演化的四個構面(交互學習吸收、自我學習強化、相關變異適應及共有例規保留)行為強度均較強。
4. 具有深度知識共同演化行為的事業部組織，其在創新的件數及創新的產業競爭力上，表現均會較其他中度知識共同演化或低度知識共同演化的事業部組織來得佳，且在新產品創新、新製程創新及新技術創新等方向上，與其他事業部具有深度知識共同演化的事業部組織，其創新績效較佳。
The research, based on the evolutionary theory, tries to find is there any kind of the co-evolution relationship between organizations or business-units. Starting from the organization knowledge management and organizational learning, the research studies the co-evolution behavior mechanism between dyad organizations and also studies the impact of the knowledge co-evolution behavior on innovation performance.
Reviewing the research which study the strategy and performance mechanism between organizations or business units, lot of them use the diversification point of view to propose the market relatedness or the product relatedness are important on estimating the performance of organization, especially the new market that organization will enter. The researcher finds there is a theatrical gap between the resource transferability of dyad organizations and innovation performance creating. However, based on the research of Eisenhardt and Galunic (2000), the research will use the evolutionary theory to study how organization adopting the knowledge resource from another organization to create organization innovation performance.
The research concept structure proposed by the research will have four constructs. The first one, in resource based construct, this research propose three kinds of resource in self-organization and dyad organization: (1) tangible resource and asset in practice facility; (2) intangible resource and asset in technical knowledge; (3) network resource and asset between organizations. The second construct is the knowledge attribute. This research proposes two kind of attribute between organizations, (1)similarity of field knowledge and (2) complementarity of functional knowledge. In the dependent construct, the research proposes innovation performance in innovation success cases, innovation growth and competence of product innovation, technical innovation, process innovation and market innovation. In the final construct of moderator variable, the research propose four dimensions of the knowledge co-evolutionary mechanism: (1) knowledge learning and absorbing; (2) knowledge combining and creating; (3) knowledge adapting on relative variance; (4) practicing on mutual organization routine.
The methodologies of the research are case study and questionnaire interview and analyze. We review 14 organizations of textile division and civil engineering divisions of Ruentex Group. After analyzing the questionnaire of 28 interviewers, the research generates four conclusions as below:
(1) From the resource-based view, not only the resource of self-organization could have positive benefit on the performance of organization innovation, but also the resource from dyad organization could contribute on innovation performance. The concept of organization resource could break through the organization boundary and extend to the dyad organization in the same organizational environment.
(2) The more knowledge co-evolutionary behavior, the more benefit of inter-organizational resource will have on innovation performance.
A. The more knowledge learning and absorbing on co-evolutionary behavior, the more benefit of inter-organizational resource will have on innovation performance.
B. The more knowledge combining and creating on co-evolutionary behavior, the more benefit of inter-organizational resource will have on innovation performance.
C. The more knowledge adapting on relative variance on co-evolutionary behavior, the more benefit of inter-organizational resource will have on innovation performance.
(3) The knowledge attribute of the two dyad organizations will effect on the degree of the knowledge co-evolutionary behavior. The higher the similarity of field knowledge and complementarity of functional knowledge, the heavier the inter-organizational knowledge co-evolutionary behavior.
(4) The innovation performance of the organization which have heavier knowledge co-evolutionary behavior will better then the ones have medium or lighter knowledge co-evolutionary behavior, especially on the product innovation, process innovation and technical innovation performance. |
| Reference: | 中文部份
丁進峰、徐桂玲譯(2004)，達爾文─進化論、生物學、植物學(Charles Darwin and the evolution revolution)，台北：世潮出版有限公司
吳克(2005)，結構、共同演化與策略聯盟穩定性之研究─台灣半導體業之實證，國立台北大學企業管理學系未出版之博士論文
吳明隆、涂金堂(2005)，SPSS與統計應用分析，台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司
吳思華(1996)，策略九說─策略思考的本質，台北：臉譜出版
李璞良譯(2005)，華頓商學院─動態競爭策略(Wharton on Dynamic Competitive Strategy)，台北：商周出版
林佩璇(2000)，個案研究及其在教育研究上的應，收錄於─質的研究方法，中正大學教育研究所主編，高雄：麗文文化出版
邱皓政(2006)，量化研究法(二)統計原理與分析技術，台北：雙葉書廊有限公司
金恆鏕譯(1997)，繽紛的生命─造訪基因庫的燦爛國度(The diversity of life)，台北：天下文化出版股份有限公司
柯雅琪譯(2003)，組織學習(Organizational Learning)，天下遠見
徐定國譯(1996)，紮根理論研究法；淵源、原則、技術與涵義，收錄於─質性研究：理論、方法與本土女性研究實例，胡幼慧主編，台北：巨流圖書公司
徐定國譯(1997)，質性研究概論(Basics of Qualitative Research Grounded theory Procedures and techniques)，台北：巨流圖書公司
許靖華(1992)，大滅絕─尋找一個消失的年代(The Great Dying)，台北：天下文化出版股份有限公司
程樹德譯(1995)，達爾文大震撼─聽聽古爾德怎麼說(Ever since Darwin- Reflections in Natural History)，台北：天下文化出版股份有限公司
葉篤莊、周建人、方宗熙譯(2000)，物種起源(The origin of species)，台北：台灣商務印書館
劉里遠(2004)，從進化論到字宙航天，台北廣達文化事業有限公司
簡素貞譯(1999)，合作與衝突─動物社會的生存策略，台北：寰字出版股份有限公司
英文部份
Alchain, A. (1950) “ Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory”, in Barney, J.B. and Ouchi, W.G. (1986)(Eds), Organizational Economics, Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco, CA, and London, pp. 305-319
Argyres, N. (1996) “Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization”, Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp.395-410.
Arthur, W.B. (1994) Increase returns and path dependence in the economy, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Barnett, W.P. and Burgelman, R.A. (1996) “ Evolutionary perspectives on strategy”, Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp.5-19.
Barnett, W.P. and Hansen, M.T. (1996) “The red queen in organizational evolution”, Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp.139-157.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F. and Malerba, F. (2003) “Knowledge-relatedness in firm technology diversification”, Research Policy,32, 1 pp.69.
Campbell D.T..(1969) “ Variation, selection and retention in sociocultureal systems”, General System, 16, pp.69-85.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990) “ Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 1, pp.128-152.
Cowan, R. and Jonard, N. “The dynamics of collective invention”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52, pp.513-522.
Crossan, M.M. and Berdrow, I. (2003) “Organizational learning and strategic renewal”, Strategic Management Journal, 24, pp.1087-1105.
Daghfocus, A. (2004) “Absorptive capacity and the implementation of knowledge-intensive best practices”, S.A.M. Advanced management journal, 69, 2, pp.21-28.
Daghfous, A. (2004) “Organizational learning, knowledge and technology transfer: a case study”, The learning Organization, 11, 1, pp.67-83.
Dijksterhuis, M.S., Van den Bosch, F.a.j. and Volberda, H.W. (1999) “Where do new organizational forms come from? Management logics as a source of coevolution”, Organization Science, 10, 5, pp.569~582.
Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (1988) Technical change and economic theory, London and New York: Pinter.
Durand, R. (2001) “Firm selection: an integrative perspective”, Organization Studies, 22, 3, pp.393-417.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H (1998) “The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage”, The Academy of Management Review, 23, 4, pp.660-679.
Eisendhardt, K.M. (1989) “Building theories from case study research” Academy of Management Journal, 14, 4, pp.532-550.
Eisendhardt, K.M. and Galunic, D.C. (2000) “Coevolving: At last a way to make synergies work” Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp.91~101
Fang, L.Y & Wu, S.H. (2006) “Accelerating Innovation through Knowledge Co-evolution: a case study in the Taiwan semiconductor industry”, International Journal of Technology Management, 33, 2/3, pp. 183-195
Figueiredo, P.N. (2002) “Learning processes features and technological capability accumulation: explaining inter-firm differences”, Technovation, 22, pp.685-698.
Gillham, B. (2000) Case study research methods, New York: Continuum.
Grant, R. (1996) “Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration”, Organization Science, 7, pp.375-387.
Hansen, M.T. (2002) “Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies”, Organization Science, 13, 3, pp.232-248.
Helfat, C.E. and Raubitschek, R.S. (2000) “Product sequencing: co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products” Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 961~979.
Hill, C.W.L; Hitt, M.A. and Hoskisson, R.E. (1992) “Cooperative versus competitive structures in related and unrelated diversified firms”, Organization Science, 3, pp.501-521.
Holmqvist, M. (2003) “A dynamic model of intra- and inter-organizational learning”, Organization Science, 24, 1, pp.95-123.
Hoskisson, R.E. and Johnson, R.A. (1992) “Corporate restructuring and strategic change: the effect on diversification strategy and R&D intensity”, Strategic Management Journal, 13, 8, pp.625-634.
Jensen, R. and Szulanski, G. (2004) “Stickiness and the adaptation of organizational practices in cross-border knowledge transfers”, Journal of international Business Studies, 35, pp.508-523.
Kim, D. and Kogut. B. (1996) “Technological platforms and diversification”, Organization Science, 3(4), pp.501-521.
Kogut, B. and Zander U. (1992) “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology”, Organization Science, 3, pp.383-397.
Lane, P. and Lubatkin, M. (1998) “Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning”, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 5, pp.461-478
Lawson, C. and Lorenz, E. (1999) “Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity”, Regional Studies, 33, 4, pp.305-317.
Lenox, M. and King, A. (2004) “Prospects for developing absorptive capacity through internal information provision”, Strategic management Journal, 25, 4, pp.331
Levitt, B. and march, G. (1988), “Organizational learning”, Annual Review of Sociology, 14, pp.319-340.
Lewin, A.Y., Long, C.P. and Caroll, T.N. (1999) “The coevolution of new organizational forms”, Organization Science, 10, 5, pp. 535~550.
Li, S.X. and Greenwood, R. (2004) “The effect of within-industry diversification on firm performance: synergy creation, multi-market contact and market structuration”, Strategic Management Journal, 25, pp.1131-1153.
Lin, C.; Chang. S. and Chang, C.S. (2004) “The impact of technology absorptive capacity on technology transfer performance”, International Journal of Technology Transfer & Commercialisation, 3, 4, pp.384
Lorenzoni, G. and Lipparini, A. (1999) “The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capacity: a longitudinal study”, Strategic Management Journal, 20, 4, pp.317-338.
Lubatkin, M. Florin, J. and Lane, P. (2001) “Learning together and apart: A model of reciprocal interfirm learning”, Human Relations, 54, 10, pp.1353~1382.
Markids, C.C and Williamson, P.J. (1994) “Related diversification, core competencies and corporate performance”, Strategic Management Journal, summer special issue, 15, pp.149-165.
Matusik, S.F. and Heeley, M.B. (2005) “Absorptive capacity in the software industry: identifying dimensions that affect knowledge and knowledge creation activities”, Journal of Management, 31, 4, pp.549
Miller, D. (2004) “Firm’s technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: a longitudinal study”, Strategic Management Journal, 25, pp.1097-1119.
Murmann, J.P. (2002) Knowledge and competitive advantage: the coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Book manuscript Version 13.01.
Murmann, J.P. (2003) Knowledge and competitive advantage: the coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Murmann, J.P.; Aldrich, H.E.;Levinthal, D. and Winter, S.G. (2003) “Evolutionary though in management and organization theory at the beginning of the new millennium: a symposium on the state of the art and opportunities for future research”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 1, pp.22-40.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Newey, L.R. and Shulman, A.D. (2004) “Systemic absorptive capacity: creating early-to-market returns through R&D alliance”, R&D Management, 34, 5, pp.495-504.
Nitecki, M.H., Ed. (1983) Coevolution, The University of Chicago.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Nagata, A. (2000) “A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: an new perspective on the theory of the firm”, Industrial and Coporate Change, 9, 1, pp.1
Pavitt, K., Robson, M. and Townsend, J. (1989) “Technological accumulation, diversification, and organization in U.K. companies: 1945-1983”, Management Science, 35, pp.81-99.
Penrose, E.T. (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press: New York.
Plunket, A. (2002) “Learning, adaption, corporate strategy and intra-organizational evolutionary process”, Conference paper in Memory of Ehud Zuscovitch, Strasbourg.
Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) “Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, pp. 116-145.
Santos, M.V. (2002) “The phenomenon of organizational evolution: a model for analysis”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 3/4, pp.215-227
Senge, P. (1990) The fifth Discipline: The art and practive of learning organization, Doubleday, New york, NY.
Spencer, J. W. (2003) “Firm’s knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry”, Strategic Management Journal, 24, pp.217-233.
Stern, I. and Henderson, A.D. (2004) “Within-business diversification in technology-intensive industries”, Strategic Management Journal, 25, pp.487-505.
Stock, G.N.; Greis, N.P. and Fischer, W.A. (2001)“Absorptive capacity and new product development”, Journal of high technology management research, 12, 1, pp.77
Tan, J. and Tan, D. (2005) “Environment-Strategy co-evolution and co-alignment: a staged model of Chinese SOEs under transition”, Strategic Management Journal, 26, 141-157.
Tasi, 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, pp.996-1004
Thompson, J.N. (1994) The coevolutionary process, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Todtling, F. (1999) “Innovation Networks, collective learning, and industrial policy in regions of Europe”, European Planning Studies, 7, 6, pp.693-697.
Tranfield, D.;Duberley, J.; Smith, S.; Musson, G. and Stokes, P. (2000) “Organizational learning- it’s just routine”, Management Decision, 38, 4, pp.253-260.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Stagl, S. (2003) “Coevolution of economic behaviour and institutions: towards a theory of institutional change”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13, pp.289-317.
van den Bosch, F.A.J.; Volberda, H.W. and de Boer, M. (1999) “Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: organizational forms and combinative capabilities”, Organization Science, 10, 5, pp.551-568
Von Hipple, E. (1988) The Sources of innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2003) “ Organizational learning: a critical review”, The Learning Organization, 10,1, pp.8-17.
Yates, J (1993) (1993) “Co-evolution of information processing technology and use: interaction between the life insurance and tabulating industries”, Business History Review, 67, 1, pp.1-51.
Yin, R.K. (1994) Case study research: design and methods, Thoudand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zollow, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002) “ Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”, Organization Science, 13, 3, pp.339-351.
Bergman, J.; Jantunan, A. and Saksa, J. (2004) “Managing knowledge creation and sharing – scenarios and dynamic capabilities in inter-industrial knowledge networks”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 6, pp.63-76.
Helfet, C.E. (1997) “Know-how and asset complementarity and dynanmic capability accumulation: the case of R&D”, Strategic Management Journal, 18, 5, pp. 339-360.
Tripsas, M. (1997) “Unraveling the process of creative destruction: complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry”, Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp. 119-142.
Nonaka, I. and Teece, D.J. (2001) Managing Industrial Knowledge: creation, transfer and utilization, Sage Publications Ltd.
Utterback J.M. and Abernathy, M.J. (1975) “A Dynamic Model of Product and Process Innovation,” Omega, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 639-656.
Ahuja, G. & Katila, R. (2001) “Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study” Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 197-220. |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
科技管理研究所
90359505
95 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0090359505 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理研究所] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
