Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0805117-231239 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0805117-231239
論文名稱
Title
科技爆發時代下的組織瞬時競爭力與動態能力之比較研究
A Comparative Study of Transient Capabilities with Dynamic Capabilities in the Age of Technology Disruption
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
119
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2017-06-26
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2017-09-06
關鍵字
Keywords
人力資本、瞬時能力、動態能力、生態轉型、開放創新、體制理論、科技爆發
technology disruption, dynamic capabilities, open innovation, transient capabilities, institution theory, ecosystem transformation, human capital
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5836 次,被下載 0
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5836 times, has been downloaded 0 times.
中文摘要
本研究旨在探討組織動態能力與瞬時能力之關係。首先,本研究從動態能力理論出發,說明動態能力與瞬時能力之最佳發揮領域。第二,本研究輔以人力資本理論,探討觸發動態能力與瞬時能力的人才關鍵因素。第三,本研究採以體制觀點,探討體制情境對動態能力與瞬時能力之影響。最後,本研究納入開放創新(知識觀點),探討創新知識流對動態能力與瞬時能力之影響。本研究採質化訪談法,採樣共十七家美國矽谷之新創企業及多國籍企業。研究發現指出,在生態劇變的環境下,第一,動態能力能幫助組織快速連結可運用之能力及資源,保持組織在原有生態系統下之競爭優勢;而瞬時能力能幫助組織開發未探勘之資源,建立組織在新生態系統下之瞬間優勢。第二,專屬組織的研發人才與市場開發人才能帶來動態能力;另一方面,人才的大數據能力與思維挑戰能力則能帶來瞬時能力。第三,資源運用導向之體制情境能強化組織動態能力;而資源探勘導向之體制情境能強化組織瞬時能力。最後,鏈結知識的內流與外流能加強組織的動態能力;而非鏈結知識的內流,能加強組織的瞬時能力。本研究認為,生態劇變的環境下,動態能力與瞬時能力是共存的,依面臨之情境,有時需要多點動態能力,有時需要多點瞬時能力,有時則兩者同等重要。仰賴哪種能力之關鍵因素,取決於組織本身的規模(新創或非新創)及客群類型(終端顧客或企業顧客)。
Abstract
This research attempts to close the debate between dynamic capabilities (DCs) and transient capabilities (TCs). We investigate this issue in four steps. First, we identify each capabilities’ power zones by drawing an integrative view of ecosystem and dynamic capability theory. Second, we draw on human capital perspective to explore the characteristics of talents’ knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that enable organizations go dynamic and go transient. Third, we highlight two contextual factors (institution (institution theory) and open innovation (knowledge-based view)) that strengthen or weaken these two capabilities in a variety of situations. By conducting 17 semi-structured interviews in Silicon Valley, our findings are fourfold: (1) dynamic capabilities are identified as ecosystem-exploitation capabilities — sensing opportunities, seizing opportunities, and reconfiguring capabilities in an established ecosystem. In contrary, transient capabilities are identified as ecosystem-exploration capabilities — data-based abilities and new-rules-rooted abilities in a new ecosystem; (2) firm-specific talents are instrumental to dynamic capabilities, while transient talents, with big-data KSAs and stereotype breaking KSAs are conducive to firms’ transient capabilities; (3) exploration-driven institutions (market and technology) facilitate firms’ transient capabilities to disrupt ecosystem. On the other hand, exploitation-driven institutions (market and technology) facilitate firms’ dynamic capabilities to strengthen existing ecosystem; (4) open innovation, with non-routine and disconnected knowledge inflows from the end-users, facilitate firms’ transient capabilities to disrupt ecosystem. In contrary, open innovation, with routine and existing know-hows inflows-outflows between firms and customers, facilitate firms’ dynamic capabilities to reinforce existing ecosystem. In addition, we also find customer type (end-users / business clients) and firms’ developmental stage (startups / non-startups) affect firms’ choice of going transient, going dynamic, or going both, which further, leads to different adoptions of talent KSAs, institution response strategy, and open innovation practice. In summary, our research extends organizational capability literature by highlighting the timing of use of dynamic capabilities and transient capabilities. We propose a conceptual dynamic model and an integrative framework to address that ecosystem transition never tears dynamic capabilities and transient capabilities apart. That being said, these two capabilities are co-existent, but sometimes in different weigh, depending on the context that a firm is facing, and will be facing.
目次 Table of Contents
Table of Contents
中文摘要 iv
Abstract v
CH1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Research Background 1
1.2. Research Objective 5
CH2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Organizations’ Capabilities in the Age of Technological Disruption: An Integrative View of Ecosystem Theory and Dynamic Capability Theory 6
2.2 Talents’ KSAs in the Age of Technological Disruption: Human Capital Perspective 9
2.3 Institution Effects in the Age of Technological Disruption 12
2.4. Open Innovation Effects in the Age of Technological Disruption: Knowledge-based View 14
CH3 METHODOLOGY 18
3.1. Qualitative Research 18
3.2. Semi-structured Interview and Ethnographic Observation 18
3.3. Interview and Analysis Procedure 19
3.4. Sampling in Silicon Valley 21
CH4 ANALYSES AND FINDINGS 26
4.1. Exploring New Ecosystem: Exploring New Experiences and New Rules 26
4.2. Exploiting Existing Ecosystem: Reinforcing Existing Capabilities 29
4.3. The Co-existence between Dynamic Capabilities and Transient Capabilities 30
4.4 The Key Antecedents of Dynamic Capabilities and Transient Capabilities: Human Capital Perspective 39
4.5 Institution Effect on Firms’ Transient Capabilities and Dynamic Capabilities 49
4.6. Open Innovation Effect on Firms’ Transient Capabilities and Dynamic Capabilities: Knowledge-Based View 65
CH5 RESEARCH IMPLICATION 80
5.1. The Coexistence of Dynamic Capabilities and Transient Capabilities 80
5.2. New Paradigm of Talents Management: Dynamic KSAs and Transient KSAs 82
5.3. The Effect of Industrial Institution in the Ecosystem Transformation 84
5.4 The Effect of Open Innovation in the Ecosystem Transformation 86
5.5. A New Paradigm of Organizations’ Ecosystem Capabilities in the Age of Technology Disruption 88
CH6 CONCLUSION 96
6.1 Research Conclusion 96
6.2 Research Limitation 97
REFERENCES 98
APPENDIX 109










List of Tables

Table 3.1. Interview questions 21
Table 3.2. Company background and interview information 23
Table 4.1. Companies’ practices in dynamic capabilities and transient capabilities 35
Table 4.2. Talents’ KSAs in striving for organizations’ transient abilities 45
Table 4.3. Companies’ practices under different institutional effects 58
Table 4.4. Companies’ practices under different open innovation effects 75
Table 5.1. The summary of organizations’ ecosystem capabilities (dynamic capabilities and transient capabilities) 89
Table 5.2. The summary of talents’ key KSAs (dynamic KSAs and transient KSAs) 90
Table 5.3. The summary of industrial institution effects on dynamic capabilities and transient capabilities 91
Table 5.4. The summary of open innovation effects on dynamic capabilities and transient capabilities 92


































List of Figures

Figure 4.1. Dynamic model of transient capabilities and dynamic capabilities: an integrative view of ecosystem and dynamic capabilities theory 38
Figure 4.2. Conceptual framework of talents’ KSAs in striving for firms’ transient capabilities and dynamic capabilities: human capital perspective 48
Figure 4.3. Industrial institution effects on firms’ transient capabilities and dynamic capabilities 63
Figure 4.4. Conceptual framework: industrial institution effects on firms’ transient capabilities and dynamic capabilities 64
Figure 4.5. Open innovation effects on firms’ transient capabilities and dynamic capabilities 78
Figure 4.6. Conceptual framework: open innovation effects on firms’ transient capabilities and dynamic capabilities 79
Figure 5.1. A dynamic model of organizations’ dynamic capabilities and transient capabilities in the age of technology disruption 93
Figure 5.2. An integrative framework of organizations’ dynamic capabilities and transient capabilities in the age of technology disruption 94
Figure 5.3. A 3D model of organizations’ dynamic capabilities and transient capabilities in the age of technology disruption 95
參考文獻 References
REFERENCES

Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Right Tech, Wrong Time. Harvard business review, 94(11), 60-67.
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as Structure An Actionable Construct for Strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39-58.
Al Ariss, A., Cascio, W. F., & Paauwe, J. (2014). Talent management: Current theories and future research directions. Journal of World Business, 49(2), 173-179.
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of management review, 19(4), 645-670.
Almeida, P., Dokko, G., & Rosenkopf, L. (2003). Startup size and the mechanisms of external learning: increasing opportunity and decreasing ability?. Research Policy, 32(2), 301-315.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management science, 49(4), 571-582.
Banalieva, E. R., Eddleston, K. A., & Zellweger, T. M. (2015). When do family firms have an advantage in transitioning economies? Toward a dynamic institution‐based view. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1358-1377.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625-641.
Bass, A. E., & Chakrabarty, S. (2014). Resource security: Competition for global resources, strategic intent, and governments as owners. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8), 961-979.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of management Journal, 53(6), 1419-1440.
Bechky, B. A. (2011). Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negotiated orders. Organization Science, 22(5), 1157-1167.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238-256.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 Decade Award—“Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited” Ten Years Later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 497-514.
Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1866-1891.
Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1), 93-117.
Brophy, D. (1992). Financing the new venture: a report on recent research. The state of the art of entrepreneurship, 387, 401.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-34.
Castanias, R. P., & Helfat, C. E. (1991). Managerial resources and rents. Journal of management, 17(1), 155-171.
Cheng, C. C., & Huizingh, E. K. (2014). When is open innovation beneficial? The role of strategic orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1235-1253.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33-58.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Winter, C. (2014a). Managing inside-out open innovation: the case of complex ventures. New Frontiers in Open Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2014b). New frontiers in open innovation. OUP Oxford.
Coff, R. W. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn't lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10(2), 119-133.
Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2011). Invited editorial: Drilling for micro-foundations of human capital–based competitive advantages. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1429-1443.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45-56.
Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic management journal, 23(12), 1095-1121.
Danneels, E. (2008). Organizational antecedents of second‐order competences. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5), 519-543.
D'Aveni, R. A. (1995). Coping with hypercompetition: Utilizing the new 7S's framework. The Academy of Management Executive, 9(3), 45-57.
D'Aveni, R. A., Dagnino, G. B., & Smith, K. G. (2010). The age of temporary advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13), 1371-1385.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage publications, inc.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D., Wladawsky-Berger, I., Sultan, N., & George, G. (2015). Managing digital money. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 325-333.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679.
Edelman, B. (2015). How to Launch Your Digital Platform. Harvard Business Review, 93(4), 90-97
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1999). Strategy as strategic decision making. MIT Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 65.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they?. Strategic management journal, 1105-1121.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2016). Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1113-1123.
Engel, J. S. (2015). Global clusters of innovation: Lessons from Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 57(2), 36-65
Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., & Swayne, L. (2016). Big Data consumer analytics and the transformation of marketing. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 897-904.
Fisher, G., Kotha, S., & Lahiri, A. (2016). Changing with the times: An integrated view of identity, legitimacy, and new venture life cycles. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 383-409.
Freytag, P. V., Munksgaard, K. B., Clarke, A. H., & Damgaard, T. M. (2016). Organizing and strategizing in changing networks: Contributions to theory, methodology and management. Industrial Marketing Management, 58, 4-10.
Galende, J. (2006). Analysis of technological innovation from business economics and management. Technovation, 26(3), 300-311.
Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: three core process archetypes.
Gassmann, O., & Keupp, M. M. (2007). The competitive advantage of early and rapidly internationalising SMEs in the biotechnology industry: A knowledge-based view. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 350-366.
Gianiodis, P. T., Ettlie, J. E., & Urbina, J. J. (2014). Open service innovation in the global banking industry: Inside-out versus outside-in strategies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1), 76-91.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109-122.
Hall, J. K., & Martin, M. J. (2005). Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value‐added chain: a framework for evaluating radical technology development. R&D Management, 35(3), 273-284.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1986, December). Where do organizational forms come from?. In Sociological forum (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 50-72). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58-74.
Hatch, N. W., & Dyer, J. H. (2004). Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic management journal, 25(12), 1155-1178.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. The academy of management executive, 12(4), 22-42.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of management, 29(6), 963-989.
Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter?. Academy of management journal, 48(6), 999-1015.
Kambourov, G., & Manovskii, I. (2009). Occupational specificity of human capital. International Economic Review, 50(1), 63-115.
Kim, H., & Gong, Y. (2009). The roles of tacit knowledge and OCB in the relationship between group‐based pay and firm performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(2), 120-139.
Kim, N., Lee, H., Kim, W., Lee, H., & Suh, J. H. (2015). Dynamic patterns of industry convergence: Evidence from a large amount of unstructured data. Research Policy, 44(9), 1734-1748.
Kor, Y. Y., Mahoney, J. T., & Michael, S. C. (2007). Resources, capabilities and entrepreneurial perceptions. Journal of management studies, 44(7), 1187-1212.
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of management review, 31(4), 833-863.
La Porte, T. R., & Consolini, P. M. (1991). Working in practice but not in theory: theoretical challenges of" high-reliability organizations". Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Sage.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31-48.
Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502-513.
Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A capability‐based framework for open innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of management studies, 46(8), 1315-1338.
Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2000). High potentials as high learners. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 321-329.
Mahoney, J. T., & Kor, Y. Y. (2015). Advancing the human capital perspective on value creation by joining capabilities and governance approaches. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(3), 296-308.
Makadok, R. (1998). Can first-mover and early-mover advantages be sustained in an industry with low barriers to entry/imitation?. Strategic Management Journal, 683-696.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
Markard, J., Wirth, S., & Truffer, B. (2016). Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy–A framework and a case study on biogas technology. Research Policy, 45(1), 330-344.
Marr, B. (2015). Big Data: Using SMART big data, analytics and metrics to make better decisions and improve performance. John Wiley & Sons.
Mayer, K. J., Somaya, D., & Williamson, I. O. (2012). Firm-specific, industry-specific, and occupational human capital and the sourcing of knowledge work. Organization Science, 23(5), 1311-1329.
McGrath, R. G. (2013a). Transient advantage. Harvard Business Review, 91(6), 62-70.
McGrath, R. G. (2013b). The end of competitive advantage: How to keep your strategy moving as fast as your business. Harvard Business Review Press.
McGrath, R. G. (2017). Old habits die hard, but they do die. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 54-57.
McIver, D., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Ramachandran, I. (2013). Understanding work and knowledge management from a knowledge-in-practice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 597-620.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1983). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality, 199, 215.
Milosevic, I., Bass, A. E., & Combs, G. M. (2015). The Paradox of Knowledge Creation in a High-Reliability Organization A Case Study. Journal of Management, 0149206315599215.
Morris, M. W., & Moore, P. C. (2000). The lessons we (don't) learn: Counterfactual thinking and organizational accountability after a close call. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 737-765.
Morris, S. S., & Calamai, R. (2009). Dynamic HR: Global applications from IBM. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 641-648.
Murmann, J. P. (2013). The coevolution of industries and important features of their environments. Organization Science, 24(1), 58-78.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review, 72(1), 114-132.
Nijssen, M., & Paauwe, J. (2012). HRM in turbulent times: how to achieve organizational agility?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(16), 3315-3335.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic management journal, 697-713.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185-206.
Peng, M. W. (2003). Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 275-296.
Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C., & Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484-1508.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191.
Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G., & Verona, G. (2013). The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together. Strategic Management Journal, 34(12), 1389-1410.
Pierce, L., Boerner, C. S., & Teece, D. J. (2002). The Economics of Choice. Change and Organization: Essays in Memory of Richard Cyert (eds. Augier, M., Marcg, JG), 81-95.
Pigni, F., Piccoli, G., & Watson, R. (2016). Digital Data Streams. California Management Review, 58(3), 5-25.
Porter, M. E., Goold, M., & Luchs, K. (1996). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Managing the multibusiness company: Strategic issues for diversified groups, 285, 285-314.
Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2015). How smart, connected products are transforming companies. Harvard Business Review, 93(10), 96-114.
Ranger-Moore, J., Banaszak-Holl, J., & Hannan, M. T. (1991). Density-dependent dynamics in regulated industries: Founding rates of banks and life insurance companies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36-65.
Ritala, P. (2013). Linking the unlinked: knowledge-based perspective on non-routine change. Management Decision, 51(6), 1176-1189.
Ritala, P., Heiman, B., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2016). The need for speed—unfamiliar problems, capability rigidity, and ad hoc processes in organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change, dtw028.
Rynes, S., & Gephart Jr, R. P. (2004). From the Editors: Qualitative Research and the" Academy of Management Journal". The Academy of Management Journal, 454-462.
Salter, A., Criscuolo, P., & Ter Wal, A. L. (2014). Coping with Open Innovation. California Management Review, 56(2), 77-94.
Sanders, N. R. (2016). How to use big data to drive your supply chain. California Management Review, 58(3), 26-48.
Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 179-203.
Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). CROSSROADS—Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251-1262.
Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 493-511.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory and society, 37(5), 427.
Seidel, V. P., & O’Mahony, S. (2014). Managing the repertoire: Stories, metaphors, prototypes, and concept coherence in product innovation. Organization Science, 25(3), 691-712.
Sparrow, P. R., & Makram, H. (2015). What is the value of talent management? Building value-driven processes within a talent management architecture. Human resource management review, 25(3), 249-263.
Steiber, A., & Alänge, S. (2016). The Silicon Valley Model. In The Silicon Valley Model (pp. 143-155). Springer International Publishing.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), 571-610.
Swart, J., & Kinnie, N. (2015). Strategic Human Resource Management and performance management in professional service firms. In The Oxford Handbook of Professional Service Firms.
Sydow, J. (2015). Networks, persistence and change—a path dependence perspective. In Management of Permanent Change (pp. 89-101). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 258-271.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350
Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Agility. California Management Review, 58(4), 13-35.
Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37(6), 1079-1095.
Tranekjer, T. L., & Knudsen, M. P. (2012). The (Unknown) Providers to Other Firms' New Product Development: What's in It for Them?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 986-999.
Ulrich, D., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2015). Are we there yet? What's next for HR?. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 188-204.
Van Maanen, J. (1998). Qualitative studies of organizations (Vol. 1). Sage.
Weber, Y., & Tarba, S. Y. (2014). Strategic agility: a state of the art. California Management Review, 56(3), 5-12.
Wessel, M., Levie, A., & Siegel, R. (2016). The Problem with Legacy Ecosystems. Harvard Business Review, 94(11), 68-74.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701-721.
Zhao, E. Y., Fisher, G., Lounsbury, M., & Miller, D. (2017). Optimal distinctiveness: Broadening the interface between institutional theory and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 93-113.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:自定論文開放時間 user define
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus:永不公開 not available
校外 Off-campus:永不公開 not available

您的 IP(校外) 位址是 44.222.189.51
論文開放下載的時間是 校外不公開

Your IP address is 44.222.189.51
This thesis will be available to you on Indicate off-campus access is not available.

紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 永不公開 not available

QR Code