Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49542
|
| Title: | 組織例規與彈性關聯性之研究
The Linkage of organizational routines and flexibility |
| Authors: | 陳雯虹
Chen, Wein Hong |
| Contributors: | 于卓民
司徒達賢
Yu, Chwo Ming
Seetoo, Dah Hsian
陳雯虹
Chen, Wein Hong |
| Keywords: | 組織例規
彈性
organizational routines
flexibility |
| Date: | 2009 |
| Issue Date: | 2010-12-08 13:26:12 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 組織例規是組織行為的重要基石(Nelson and Winter, 1982; Becker, Lazaric, Nelson, and Winter, 2005)。組織例規一方面反映組織內重複做事的方式，是組織穩定性的來源(Simon, 1945; Cyert and March, 1963; Nelson and Winter, 1982)。另一方面，近期學者主張組織例規必須具有內部動態性，組織方能有彈性地回應環境的變化(Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Pentland, 2003; Pentland and Feldman, 2005; Becker, Lazaric, Nelson, and Winter, 2005)。
雖然學術界與實務界對於組織例規帶來的穩定性已有共識，對於組織例規如何幫助組織快速、有效地回應環境變異性 (彈性) (Sethi , Khamba, and Kiran, 2007)，學者的看法紛紜 (e.g., Adler, Goldoftas, and Levine, 1999; Pentland, 1995; Pentland and Rueter, 1994; Feldman and Pentland, 2000; Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Rafaeli, 2002; Feldman and Pentland, 2003; Pentland and Feldman, 2005; Becker, Lazaric, Nelson, and Winter; 2005)。Feldman and Pentland (2003) 主張在探討組織例規與彈性關聯性時，應將組織例規重概念化，認為主張組織例規除了包含組織例規的結構層面 (ostensive/structure aspects)，也包含組織成員實際執行例規之代理層面 (performative/agency aspects)。Feldman and Pentland (2003) 並主張組織成員實際執行例規的代理層面是促成彈性的來源。
本論文主張，除了可藉由組織成員選擇例規執行的方式成為彈性的來源 (e.g., Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Pentland, 2003) 外，組織也可能透過結構面組織例規的設計來影響組織成員的決策行為 (代理面組織例規)，進而達到彈性的目的。
本論文探討之研究問題包括：(一) 因應環境變異性，組織傾向發展哪些結構面的組織例規? (二) 結構面的組織例規如何影響組織個人決策行為，以幫助組織快速、有效地回應環境變異性，進而達到彈性的目的？
本論文的研究設計採Eisenhardt (1989) 之歸納性個案研究法。選取的個案公司包含5家在台灣市場成立20年以上之行銷研究公司，個案公司的篩選是依循理論抽樣的原則 (Glass and Strauss, 1967; Eisenhardt, 1989)，挑選的個案公司包含在台灣之本國行銷研究公司及多國行銷研究公司。資料蒐集方法上，本論文蒐集多重來源之資料，並進行三角驗證 (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003)。資料來源包括：初級資料和次級資料。初級資料包含研究者與行銷研究公司參與客製化量化研究專案之不同活動、不同階層的不同人員所進行之面對面深入訪談，以及研究者實地觀察經驗，此外，研究者同時也非正式的訪談兩位客戶端與行銷研究公司合作的窗口，瞭解客戶對各個專案活動之需求；次級資料則包含行銷研究公司的網站資訊、報章雜誌報導、公司簡介、宣傳文件，以及部份公司內部之文件資料與電子郵件資料。本論文的分析單位是行銷研究公司執行量化研究專案時的活動 (activities)。
針對研究問題一，本論文發現對知識密集之新式專業服務公司 (neo professional service firms) 而言，為了回應異質之任務環境變異性，標準作業程序對於彈性的影響並不明顯，取而代之的是具可塑性的組織例規。面對異質/穩定的任務環境變異性，組織傾向發展內容樣板、檢查樣板、書面原則、及文法行動例規。而面對異質/變動的任務環境變異性，組織傾向發展資訊搜尋例規、互動式經驗學習例規、書面原則、及劇本。
針對研究問題二，本論文發現不同特性之具可塑性組織例規可能影響組織成員決策判斷面，以及/或決策行動面，進而影響組織成員回應環境變異性的品質/速度 (彈性)。
Organizational routines are fundamental constituents of organizational behavior (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Becker, Lazaric, Nelson, and Winter, 2005). On one hand, organizational routines reflect repetitious “ways of doing things” in an organization, which signify stability (Simon, 1945; Cyert and March, 1963; Nelson and Winter, 1982). On the other, organizational routines embrace “endogenous changes”, which help organizations respond flexibly to environmental changes (Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Pentland, 2003; Pentland and Feldman, 2005; Becker, Lazaric, Nelson, and Winter, 2005).
While there is a consensus in literature that organizational routines serve as major sources of stability, discussions on how organizational routines embrace “endogenous changes” have just started in recent years (e.g., Pentland and Reuter, 1994; Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Pentland, 2003; Becker, Lazaric, Nelson, and Winter, 2005; Becker and Zirpoli, 2008). Among the discussions, Feldman and Pentland (2003) propose a distinction between ostensive/structural routines and performative routines in order to understand endogenous dynamics of organizational routines.
This research seeks to extend the discussions on endogenous dynamics of organizational routines. In particular, two research questions are investigated. First, in order to respond to task environment dynamisms, what types of ostensive routines are designed in practice? Second, how do different ostensive routines affect individual’s decision-making behavior (performative routines) and thus influence flexibility.
Three links are explored in this research, including a link of task environment dynamisms to the design of ostensive routines, a link of ostensive routines to performative routines, and a link of performative routines to flexibility. The first link reveals that different task environment dynamisms may require different design of ostensive routines. The second and third links show how assorted ostensive routines influence different components of individual’s decision-making behavior (performative routines) and thus influence flexibility. In this research, flexibility is defined as the ability to respond effectively to the ever-changing needs of customers and is composed of two dimensions, the quality of response and the speed of response (Sethi, Khamba, and Kiran, 2007).
In order to explore the linkages, this research employs a multiple-case design (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Five marketing research firms, including three local marketing research firms and two subsidiaries of multinational marketing research firms, are selected for field studies. I conducted field observations in one case firm and initiated field in-depth interviews with a diversity of people from different functions and different levels at each case firm. Within each firm, nine research activities/processes, which require flexible performance, are selected as units of analysis.
The result first shows that across the nine research processes studied, all processes face heterogeneous task environment, including heterogeneous-stable environment and heterogeneous-shifting environment. In order to respond to task environment that is heterogeneous in nature, marketing research firms develop a collection of ostensive routines or routine artifacts, such as standard operating procedures, content templates, checklist templates, written rules, grammars of action, information-search routines, interactive experiential learning routines, and scripts. Among the ostensive routines, standard operating procedures are steady in nature and mainly assist in achieving efficiency. Other ostensive routines, such as content templates, checklist templates, written rules, grammars of action, information-search routines, interactive experiential learning routines, and scripts, are ‘flexible’ in nature and play an important role in influencing flexibility. In other words, these ‘flexible’ ostensive routines or routine artifacts are designed to be “live routines” (Cohen, 2007; Pentland and Feldman, 2008).
In this thesis, the focus is on the presence of these ‘flexible’ ostensive routines and the influence of these ‘flexible’ ostensive routines on individual’s decision-making, which in turn influence the quality of response or the speed of response, the two important dimensions of flexibility (Sethi, Khamba, and Kiran, 2007).
This research discovers that facing heterogeneous-stable task environment, content templates, checklist templates, grammars of action, and written rules are important ostensive routines. Content templates specify alternatives or rationales for selection of alternatives in decision-making; checklist templates specify considering factors for decision-making; written rules specify heuristics for complex decision-making; grammars of action specify logics of action.
Responding to heterogeneous-stable task environment, content templates that specify alternatives guide individual’s action to specific direction and influence the speed of response consequently. Content templates that specify rationales for selection of alternatives provide individuals with logics of selection, which in turn affect the quality of response. Besides, checklist templates remind individuals with factors to be considered; written rules provide individuals with heuristics for making complex decision; grammars of action indicate logics of action to individuals. The quality of response may be influenced in consequence.
Additionally, this research also discovers that facing heterogeneous-shifting task environment, information-search routines, interactive experiential learning routines, written rules, and scripts are viable designs of ostensive routines. Information-search routines exist to facilitate knowing-who, knowing-what, and knowing-how search behavior. Interactive experiential learning routines represent drilling activities “for maintaining infrequently exercised capabilities” (Nelson and Winter, 1982: 107). Written rules provide “tips” for making complex decisions. Scripts provide stories about working examples or best practices (Szulanski and Jensen, 2004).
Responding to heterogeneous-shifting task environment, information-search routines, which facilitate knowing-who search behavior, provide individuals with specific direction of asking whom. The speed of response may be affected as a result. In addition, if there is a trust between the question sender and the receiver (Moorman, Deshpande, and Zaltman 1993), the receiver is willing to share his/her experience, and the sender’s judgment repertoire is likely to be influenced. Therefore, the quality of response may be affected. Information-search routines, which facilitate knowing-what search behavior, supply individuals with general market information and may impact individual’s judgment about factor considerations; information-search routines, which facilitate knowing-how search behavior, provide individuals with the logic of action to solve problems. The quality of response may be affected as a result. Besides, interactive experiential learning routines urge individuals to share and learn from each other; written rules provide heuristics for complex decision-making; scripts provide stories of working examples or best practices (Szulanski and Jensen, 2004). Through these routines, individual’s judgment repertoire may be influenced. The quality of response may be influenced consequently.
The discovery from this research is in line with the recent theoretical argument that there is endogenous dynamics of organizational routines (Becker, Lazaric, Nelson, and Winter, 2005) and organizational routines can be sources of flexibility (e.g., Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Pentland, 2003). While recent scholars mainly argue that individuals who decide the way to perform routines serve as the key sources of flexibility, this thesis propose that the design of ‘flexible’ ostensive routines or routine artifacts may also influence individual’s decision-making and therefore contribute to the achievement of flexibility. The discovery not only extend theoretical discussions on endogenous dynamics of organizational routines (e.g., Feldman and Pentland, 2003; Pentland and Feldman, 2005; Becker, Lazaric, Nelson and Winter, 2005; Pentland and Feldman, 2008), but also provide some implications to the theory of organizations in action (e.g., Thompson, 1967), the micro-foundations of organizational capabilities/dynamic capabilities (e.g., Felin and Foss, 2005; Teece, 2007; Abell, Felin, and Foss, 2008; Foss, Husted, and Michailova, 2010), and the design of processes (e.g., Hall and Johnson, 2009). |
| Reference: | 司徒達賢 (2000)，策略管理新論，台北市︰智勝文化。
司徒達賢 (2005)，管理學的新世界，台北市︰天下遠見。
李貴惠 (2008)，「多國公司區域策略、區域組織及子公司角色改變 –三者關係之研究」，政治大學企業管理研究所未出版博士論文。
黃家齊，許雅婷 (2006) ，「團隊成員人格特質對知識分享及創新績效之影響－個人與團隊層次的分析」，管理學報，23卷2期，第149-170頁。
黃麒羽 (2008) ，「組織間資源交換系絡與組織間常規之配適性研究」，義守大學管理研究所未出版博士論文。
Abell, P., Felin, T., & Foss, N. 2008. Building micro-foundations of the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(6): 489-502.
Adler P.S., Goldoftas B., & Levine, D.I. 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1): 43-68.
Amit, R., & Shoemaker, P.J. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1): 33-46.
Andrews, K.R. 1971. The Concepts of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones Irwin.
Ansoff, H.I. 1965. Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ashforth, B.E., & Fried, Y. 1988. The mindlessness of organizational behaviors. Human Relations, 41(4): 305-329.
Barnard, C.I. 1938. Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Barney, J.B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.
Barreto, I. 2010. Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1): 256-280.
Becker, M.C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R.R., & Winter, S.G. 2005. Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5): 775-791.
Bettman, J.R. 1979. An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choices. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Bharadwaj, A.S. 2000. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24(1): 169-196.
Brown, S.L, & Eisenhardt, K.M. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paces evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 1-34.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. 1961. The Management of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chen, C. 2004. The effect of knowledge attribute, alliance characteristics, and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance. R & D Management, 34(3): 311-321.
Chen,Y., Lin, M., & Chang, C. 2009. The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Indurstrial Marketing Management, 38(2): 152-158.
Chiao, Y., Lo, F., & Yu, C. 2010. Choosing between wholly-owned subsidiaries and joint ventures of MNCs from an emerging market. International Marketing Review, 27(3): 338-365.
Cockburn, I.M., Henderson, R.M., & Stern, S. 2000. Untangling the origins of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11): 1123-1145.
Cohen, M.D. 2007. Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organization Studies, 28(5): 773-786.
Cohen, M.D., & Bacdayan, P. 1994. Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence form a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4): 554-568.
Cohen, W.M, & Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-153.
Collis, D.J. 1994. How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Winter Special Issue): 143-152.
Crossan, M.M., & Berdrow, I. 2003. Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11): 1087-1105.
Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Printice-Hall.
Daneels, E. 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1095-1121.
Davenport, T.H. 1993. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Day, G.S. 1994. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4): 37-52.
Deeds, D.L., Decarolis, D., & Coombs, J. 2000. Dynamic capabilities and new product development in high technology ventures: An empirical analysis of new biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3): 211-229.
DeFillippi, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. 1998. Paradox in project-based enterprise: The case of film making. California Management Review, 40(2): 125-139.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12): 1504-1511.
Dodge, H.R., Fullerton, S., & Robbins, J.E. 1994. Stages of the organizational life cycle and competition as mediators of problem perception for small businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2): 121-134.
Driel, H.V., & Dolfsma, W. 2009. Path dependence, initial conditions, and routines in organizations-The Toyota production system re-examined. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(1): 49-72.
Dyer, J.H., & Hatch, N.W. 2006. Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8): 701-719.
Edmondson, A.C., Bohmer, R.M., & Pisano, G.P. 2001. Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4): 685-716.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11): 1105-1121.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Shull, D.N. 2001. Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review, 79(1): 106- 117.
Empson, L. 2001. Introduction: Knowledge management in professional service firms. Human Relations, 54(7): 839-862.
Feldman, M.S., & Rafaili, A. 2002. Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3): 309-331.
Feldman, M.S. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6): 611-629.
Feldman, M.S., & Pentland, B.T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility, & change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1): 94-118.
Fiol, C.M. 2002. Intraorganizational cognition, & interpretation. In Companion to Organizations, Baum, J.A.C. (ed). MA: Blackwell.
Foss, N.J., Husted, K., & Michilova, S. 2010. Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3): 455-483.
Gersick, C.J., & Hackman, J.R. 1990. Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1): 65-97.
Ghemawat, P., & Ricart i Costa, J.E. 1993. The organizational tension between static, & dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (Winter Special Issue): 59-73.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research. London: Wiedenfeld, & Nicholson.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A.H. 2001. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1): 185-214.
Grant, R.M. 1991. Contemporary Strategic Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Grant, R.M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Summer Special Issue): 109-122.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C.R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 58-80.
Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. 2001. Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation, & strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(2): 67-80.
Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 10(5): 397-420.
Habel, C., & Goodman, S. 2008. Complexity modeling in marketing: A look ‘under the hood of the NBD. Marketing Bulletin, 19(2): 1-13.
Hall, J.M., & Johnson, M.E. 2009. When should a process be art? Harvard Business Review, 29(3): 58-65.
Hannan, M.T., & Freeman, J.R. 1983. Structual inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2): 149-164.
Hass, M.R., & Hansen, M.T. 2005. When using knowledge can hurt performance: The value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1): 1-24.
Hayes, R.H., & Wheelright, S.C. 1979. Link manufacturing process and product life cycles. Harvard Business Review, 57(1): 133-140.
Helfat, C., & Peteraf, M. 2003. The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 997-1010.
Henderson, R.M., & Cockburn, I.M. 1994. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Winter Special Issue): 62-84.
Huang, Y., & Chu, W. 2010. Enhancement of product development capabilities of OEM suppliers: Inter- and intra-organisational learning. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(2): 147-158.
Hult, G.T., & Ketchen Jr. D.J. 2001. Does market orientation matter? A test of the relationship between positional advantage, & performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9): 899-906.
Kale, P., Dyer, J.H., & Singh, H. 2002. Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 747-767.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383-397.
Kusunoki, K., Nonaka, I., & Nagata, A. 1998. Organizational capabilities in product development of Japanese firms: A conceptual framework and empirical findings. Organization Science, 9(6): 699-718.
Lawrence P.R., & Lorsch, J.W. 1967. Organization and Environment. Boston, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration.
Lazaric, N., & Denis, B. 2005. Routinization and memorization of tasks in a workshop: The case of the introduction of ISO norms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5): 873-896.
Lee, J. 2001. The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information & Management, 38(5): 323-335.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A., & Beck, T.E. 2005. Adaptive fit versus robust transformation: How organizations respond to environmental change. Journal of Management, 31(5): 738-757.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (Summer Special Issue): 111-125.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.
Lillrank, P. 2002. The broom and nonroutine processes: A metaphor for understanding variability in organizations. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(3): 143-148.
Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. 1999. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4): 317-338.
Lowendahl, B., & Revang, O. 1998. Challenges to existing strategy theory in a postindustrial society. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8): 755-774.
Lyles, M.A., & Salk, J.E. 1996. Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint ventures: An empirical examination in the Hungarian context. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(5): 877-904.
Macher, J.T., & Mowery, D.C. 2009. Measuring dynamic capabilities: Practices and performance in semiconductor manufacturing. British Journal of Management, 20(1): 41-62.
March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.
March, J.G. 1991. Exploration and expoitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. 1993. Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1): 81-101.
Nelson, P.R., & Winter, S.G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambrige, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1): 14-37.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. 2003. The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research, & Practice, 1(1): 2-10.
Nordenflycht, A.V. 2010. What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. Academy of Management Review, 35(1): 155-174.
Pentland, B.T., & Feldman, M.S. 2005. Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5): 793-815.
Pentland, B.T., & Feldman, M.S. 2008. Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts. Information and Organization, 18(4): 235-250.
Pentland, B.T., & Rueter, H.H. 1994. Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 484-510.
Perrow, C. 1994. Pfeffer slips! Academy of Management Review, 19(2): 191-194.
Peteraf, M.A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3): 179-191.
Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3): 79-91.
Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R.J. 1990. Casual ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitiveness. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 15(1): 88-102.
Rugman, A.M., & Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiry-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 237-250
Sethi, A.P.S., Khamba, J.S., Kiran, R. 2007. Linkages of technology adoption and adaptation with technological capability, flexibility and success of AMT implementation in Indian manufacturing industry: An empirical study. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 8(3): 25-38.
Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. 1998. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8): 729-753.
Sheth, J.N., Gardner, D.M., & Garrett, D.E. 1988. Marketing Theory: Evolution, & Evaluation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Simon, H.A. 1945. Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Simonin, B.L. 1997. The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5): 1150-1174.
Simonin, B.L. 1999. Transfer of marketing know-how in international strategic alliances: An empirical investigation of the role and antecedents of knowledge ambiguity. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3): 463-490.
Snow, C.C., & Hrebiniak, L.G. 1980. Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2): 317-336.
Song, J. 2002. Firm capabilities and technology ladders: Sequential foreign direct investments of Japanese electronics firms in East Asia. Strategic Management Journal, 23(3): 192-210.
Spender, J-C. 1996. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 45-62.
Stabell, C.B., & Fjeldstad, O.D. 1998. Configuring value for competitive advantage: On chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5): 413-437.
Stalk, G., Evans, P., & Shulman, L.E. 1992. Competing on capabilities: The new rules of corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 70(2): 57-69.
Stene, E. 1940. An approach to the science of administration. American Political Science Review, 34(6): 1124-1137.
Swift, P.E., & Hwang, A. 2008. Learning, dynamic capabilities and operating routines: A consumer package goods company. The Learning Organization, 15(1): 75-95.
Szulanski, G., & Jensen, R.J. 2004. Overcoming stickiness: An empirical investigation of the role of the template in the replication of organizational routines. Managerial, & Decision Economics, 25(6-7): 347-363.
Teece, D.J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13): 1319-1350.
Teece, D.J., & Pisano, G. 1994. The dynamic capabilities of enterprises: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3): 537-556.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533.
Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tranfield, D., Duberley, J., Smith,S., Musson,G., & Stokes, P. 2000. Organizational learning: It’s just routine. Management Decision, 38(4): 253-260.
Weiss, H.M., & Ilgen, D.R. 1985. Routinized behavior in organizations. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 14(1): 57-67.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180.
Winter, S.G. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 991-995.
Yeoh, P., & Roth, K. 1999. An empirical analysis of sustained advantage in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry: Impact of firm resources and capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7): 637-653.
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Zahra, S.A., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 185-203.
Zander, U., & Kogut, B. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1): 76-91.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S.G. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3): 339-351. |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所
91355503
98 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0913555031 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [企業管理學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 55503103.pdf | 3033Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1014 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
