Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0511113-170947 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0511113-170947
論文名稱
Title
雙元技術結構與企業價值創造:全球積體電路設計產業之研究
How Firms Create Value in a Dual Technological Regime: The Case of Global Integrated Circuit Design Industry
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
106
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
2013-06-11
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2013-06-11
關鍵字
Keywords
Schumpeter模式I與II、創新生態系統、正當化理論、技術收購、專利組合分析、模組化、強勢網絡治理
Schumpeter mark I and II, innovation ecosystem, legitimacy problem, technology outsourcing, patent portfolio analysis, modularit
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5807 次,被下載 762
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5807 times, has been downloaded 762 times.
中文摘要
本論文探討的主題為: 在一個具有典型雙元技術結構的產業中,各種類型廠商的技術特色以及這些廠商所採取的內部研發與外部技術交易策略。過去文獻在衡量廠商技術創新能力時,多以廠商擁有的專利總數為基礎。本論文對此做了一些突破,包括將廠商擁有的專利再細分為自行研發與外購兩部份,將這兩部份專利進一步按照技術領域(專利類別)劃分,以及使用主成份分析技術克服多技術領域帶來的資料複雜性的問題。藉由對於大型IC設計公司自行研發與外購專利組合的主成份以及其他統計分析,本文得到若干迥異於既有文獻的結論,包括: (1)整體而言小型廠商的技術創新成果與大型先進廠商頗為類似,尤其是從技術類別的角度來看。(2)大型後進廠商藉由收購小型廠商的技術而取得類似於大型先進廠商的技術,換言之,小型廠商是大型後進廠商取得業界最新技術的媒介。(3)一般而言大型先進廠商收購的技術與自己原有的技術比較接近,比較強調技術的新穎性;大型後進廠商則相反,比較強調與自己原有技術的互補性。(4)大型先進廠商的外部技術來源比較分散,相對而言對外部技術的倚賴程度比較低;大型後進廠商則相反。(5)對外部技術的倚賴程度與研發活動的價值創造能力呈反U字形關係;大型廠商普遍有對外部技術過度倚賴的現象,較小的廠商則相反。 在大型後進廠商之中,從獲利和成長能力來看,聯發科技是最為突出者。聯發科技長期的、大量的、詳細的企業間合作研發紀錄提供作者難得的機會,可以深入追蹤一個快速市場跟進者的技術與產品策略、產品結構以及網絡治理模式。藉由針對聯發科技之貫時的、事件層級的、量化的分析,本研究提出如下命題: (1)為避開領導者的報復,跟進者傾向於採用通用技術以及基於這些通用技術的產品線延伸策略; (2)為有效、快速地利用企業外部的研發資源,跟進者極可能以模組化做為主要的產品創新取向; (3)為解決早期合作研發夥伴的不穩定性問題,跟進者傾向選擇高股權(超過50%)投資模式為主要的網絡治理策略; (4)跟進者可能快速縮短與領導者的技術差距,但並非是無限制的。
Abstract
This thesis explores the technological characteristics, R&D and technology outsourcing strategies of different types of firms in an industry with a typical dual technological regime. In contrast to the previous literature that usually uses total number of owned patents to assess a high-tech firm’s innovative capabilities, this thesis distinguishes a large firm’s patents between those developed internally and externally, and further between those belonging to different technology categories (patent classes). Based on the principal component analysis and other statistical techniques with regard to the patent portfolios of large IC design firms, this thesis makes several contributions to understanding the subtleties of a complex industrial innovation ecosystem, as follow: (i) Aggregately speaking, the outcomes of small firms’ R&D activities are quite similar to those of large leader firms’, especially in terms of technology classes. (ii) It is common that large follower firms duplicate the leader firms’ technologies by outsourcing from small firms. In other words, small firms are main vehicles for large follower firms to acquire technologies similar to those owned by large leader firms. (iii) Large leader firms emphasize the novelty of technologies when transacting with small firms, while large follower firms emphasize the complementarity of technologies. (iv) Generally, large leader firms acquire less external technologies and from more dispersed sources than large follower ones. (v) Given a level of source dispersion, the relationship between the intensity of technology outsourcing and the value creating performance of R&D activities is inversely U-shaped. It seems that most of large IC design firms engage in too much external technology acquisition, and vice versa for smaller ones. Among the large follower firms, MediaTek is the most outstanding one, with the highest R&D profitability and the second highest sales growth. Based on the longitudinal, event-level, and quantitative analysis of MediaTek’s case, I postulate: (i) To avoid market leader’s retaliation, a market follower is prone to adopt a generic technology strategy, which will facilitate the application of a product line extension strategy. (ii) To effectively and efficiently leverage R&D resources across the firm boundary, a market follower is very likely to choose modularity as its main product innovation approach. (iii) To address the challenges of higher partner uncertainty associated with the network supporting the modular product innovation approach, a market follower will tend to select equity with higher ownership stake (over 50%) as its main network governance mode. (iv) A market follower might achieve fast but not unlimited technological catch-up.
目次 Table of Contents
Acknowledgement I
English abstract III
Chinese abstract V
List of tables VIII
List of figures VIII
1. Introduction 1
2. Theoretical background (I) 7
2-1 Ecosystem in a regime of rapid technological progress 7
2-2 Another look at small firm innovation 10
2-3 Challenges with large firm’s boundary spanning 12
2-4 Appropriation of innovation value 15
3. Theoretical background (II) 17
3-1 Generic technology and line extension strategies 17
3-2 Modular innovation 20
3-3 Strong governance when building an alliance network 20
4. Research Methodology (I) 22
4-1 Research target 22
4-2 Research process 23
4-3 Data and sample 24
4-4 Variable definitions 26
4-5 Statistical methods 30
5. Research Methodology(II) 31
5-1 Plan of case analysis 31
5-2 Curve fitting and variable measurement 32
6. An exploratory of the ten largest firms 34
6-1 Basic statistics 34
6-2 Technological positioning 35
6-3 Technological distance and novelty 39
6-4 Intensity and diversification of technology outsourcing 41
6-5 Statistical test with a more general sample 43
7. The case of MediaTek 49
7-1 Qualitative analysis 49
7-2 Quantitative analysis 52
8. Discussion and implication 55
9. Methodological conclusions 64
Reference 67
Appendix A. Relevant integrated circuit keywords 93
Appendix B. Relevant integrated circuit patent classes 94
Appendix C. Top thirty fables integrated circuit innovators 95
Appendix D. Patent statistics for top ten fabless integrated circuit innovators (2000-2009) 96
參考文獻 References
Abrahamson, E. (1991). ‘Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations’, Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586–612.
Adams, S. (2001), ‘Comparing the IPC and the US classification systems for the patent searcher’, World Patent Information, 23(1), 15–23.
Adner, R. and R. Kapoor (2010), ‘Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations’, Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333.
Aldrich, H. E. and C.M. Fiol (1994), ‘Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation’, Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.
Alvarez, S. A. and L.W. Busenitz (2001), ‘The Entrepreneurship of resource-based theory’, Journal of Management, 27 (6), 755–775.
Anderson, P. and M.L. Tushman (1990). ‘Technological discontinuities and dominant Designs: A cyclical model of technological change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604–633.
Argyres, N. and L. Bigelow (2010). ‘Innovation, modularity, and vertical deintegration: evidence from the early U.S. auto industry’, Organization Science, 21(4), 842–853.
Audretsch, D.B. (1995), Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Baldwin, C. Y. and K. B. Clark (1997a). Sun wars: Competition within a modular cluster, 1985–1990, In D. B. Yoffie (ed.), Competing in the age of digital convergence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Baldwin, C. Y. and K. B. Clark (1997b). ‘Managing in the age of modularity’, Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 86–96.
Baldwin, C.Y. and K.B. Clark (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barney, J. (1991). ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management ,17(1), 99–120.
Baum, J.A.C. and C. Oliver (1991), ‘Institutional linkages and organizational Mortality’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 187–218.
Baum, J.A.C. and S.J. Mezias (1992), ‘Localized competition and organizational failure in the Manhattan hotel Industry, 1898-1990’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 580–604.
Baum, J.A.C. and J.V. Singh (1994), ‘Organizational niches and the dynamics of organizational mortality’, American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 346–380.
Baum, J.A.C. and H.A. Haveman (1997), ‘Love thy neighbor? Differentiation and agglomeration in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1990’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 304–338.
Baum, J.A.C., T. Calabrese and B.S. Silverman (2000), ‘Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology’, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 267–294.
Benner, M. and J. Waldfogel (2008), ‘Close to you? Bias and precision in patent–based measures of technological proximity’, Research Policy, 37(9), 1556–1567.
Bonaccorsi, A. and G. Thoma (2007), ‘Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology’, Research Policy, 36(6), 813–831.
Bouncken, R. B., T. Teichert and M. Koch (2007). ‘Management of alliances in dynamic industries: Modularization and inter-firm teams’, International Journal of Business Research, 7(3), 1–9.
Breschi, S., F. Malerba and L. Orsenigo (2000), ‘Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation’, Economic Journal, 110(463), 388–410.
Bresnahan, T. and M. Trajtenberg (1995). ‘General purpose technologies – ‘Engines of growth?’, Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 83–108.
Brush, C.G., P.G. Greene, M.M. Hart and H.S. Haller (2001), ‘From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource’, Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 64–80.
Brusoni, S. and A. Prencipe (2001). Unpacking the black box of modularity: technologies, products and organizations, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10 (1), 179–205.
Cantwell, J. A. (1991), Historical trends international patterns of technological innovation. In J. Forman-Peck (ed), New Perspectives on the Late Victorian Economy: Essays in Quantitative Economic History, 1860-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cantwell, J. and B. Anderson (1996), ‘A statistical analysis of corporate technological leadership historically’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4(3), 211–234.
Carroll, G.R. (1985), ‘Concentration and specialization: dynamics of niche width in populations of organizations’, American Journal of Sociology, 90(6), 1262–1283.
Cassiman, B., R. Veugelers and P. Zuniga (2008), ‘In search of performance effects of (in)direct industry science links’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(4), 611–646.
Chen, M. J. and I. C. MacMillan (1992). ‘Nonresponse and delayed response to competitive moves: The roles of competitor dependence and action irreversibility’, Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 539–570.
Chen, M. J., K. G. Smith and C. M. Grimm (1992). ‘Action characteristics as predictors of competitive responses’, Management Science, 38(3), 439–455.
Chen, M. J. and D. Mille (1994). ‘Competitive attack, retaliation and performance: An expectancy-valence’, Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 85–102.
Chen, M.J. and D.C. Hambrick (1995), ‘Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior’, Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 453–482.
Cho, D.S., D. J. Kim and D. K. Rhee (1998). ‘Latecomer strategies: evidence from the semiconductor industry in Japan and Korea’, Organization Science, 9(4), 489–505.
Christensen, J. F., M.H. Olesen and J.S. Kjær (2005), ‘The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation–Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics’, Research Policy, 34(10), 1533–1549.
Clark, K.B. (1985), ‘The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution’, Research Policy, 14(5), 235–251.
Cockburn, I. and Z. Griliches (1988). ‘Industry effects and appropriability measures in the stock markets valuation of R&D and patents’, American Economic Review, 78(2), 419–423.
Cohen, W. M. and R.C. Levin (1989), ‘Empirical studies of innovation and market structure’, Handbook of Industrial Organization, 2, 1059–1107.
Cohen, W. M. and D. A. Levinthal (1990). ‘Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1) Special Issue, 128–152.
Cohen, W.M. and F. Malerba (2001), ‘Is the tendency to variation a chief cause of progress?’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(3), 587–608.
Coriat, B., F. Orsi and O. Weinstein (2003), ‘Does biotech reflect a new science-based innovation regime?’, Industry & Innovation, 10(3), 231–253.
Cornell, B. and A.C. Shapiro (1987), ‘Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance’, Financial Management, 16(1), 5–14.
Cyert, R.A. and J.G. March (1963), A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition, New York: The Free Press.
Deephouse, D.L. (1996), ‘Does isomorphism legitimate?’, Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1024–1039.
Deephouse, D.L. (1999), ‘To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance’, Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147–166.
De Jong, Jeroen P.J. and O. Marsili (2006), ‘The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms’, Research Policy, 35(2), 213–229.
Dibiaggio, L. (2007), ‘Design complexity, vertical disintegration and knowledge organization in the semiconductor industry’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(2), 239–267.
DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell (1983), ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
El-Haik, B. and K. Yan (1999). ‘The components of complexity in engineering design’, IIE Transactions, 31(10), 925–934.
Engelsman, E.C. and A.F.J. van Raan (1994), ‘A patent-based cartography of technology’, Research Policy, 23(1), 1–26.
Ethiraj, S. K. and D. Levinthal (2004). ‘Modularity and innovation in complex systems’, Management Science, 50(2), 159–173.
Fema, E.F. and K.R. French (1993), ‘Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds’, Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.
Fernández, Z. and B. Usero (2009). ‘Competitive behavior in the European mobile telecommunications industry: Pioneers vs. followers’, Telecommunications Policy, 33(7), 339–347.
Fine, C. (1998). Clockspeed: Winning industry control in the age of temporary advantage, Readings, MA: Perseus Books.
Fleming, L. and O. Sorenson (2001), ‘Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data’, Research Policy, 30(7), 1019–1039.
Frenken, K. and L. Leydesdorff (2000). ‘Scaling trajectories in civil aircraft (1913–1997)’, Research Policy, 29(3), 331–348.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1985), ‘Interorganizational relations’, Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 281–304.
Galunic, D. C. and K.M. Eisenhardt (2001). ‘Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms’, Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1229–1249.
Galvin, P. and A. Morke (2001). ‘Modularity on industry structure: The case of the world the effect of product bicycle industry’, Industry & Innovation, 8(1), 31–47.
Gambardella, A. and S. Torrisi (1998), ‘Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry’, Research Policy, 27(5), 445–463.
Garud, R. and A. Kumaraswamy (1995). ‘Technological and organizational design for realizing economies of substitution’, Strategic Management Journal 16(Special Issue), 93–109.
Gavetti, G. and D. Levinthal (2000), ‘Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 113–137.
Gemba, K. and F. Kodama (1990), ‘Diversification dynamics of the Japanese industry’, Research Policy, 30(8), 1165–1184.
Gerwin, D. (2006), ‘Buyer–vendor relations for components: The extreme example of custom integrated circuits’, Research Policy, 35(5), 673–690.
Ghemawat, P. (1991), Commitment. New York: Free Press.
Gilsing, V., B. Nooteboom, W. Vanhaverbeke, G. Duysters and A. van den Oord (2008), ‘Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density’, Research Policy, 37(10), 1717–1731.
Gimeno, J. and C.Y. Woo (1996), ‘Hypercompetition in a multimarket environment: The role of strategic similarity and multimarket contact in competitive de-escalation’, Organization Science, 7(3), Special Issue, 322–341.
Gimeno, J. (2004), ‘Competition within and between Networks: The Contingent effect of competitive embeddedness on alliance formation’, Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 820–842.
Gort, M. and S. Klepper (1982), ‘Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations’, Economic Journal, 92(367), 630–653.
Greve, H. R. (2007), ‘Exploration and exploitation in product innovation’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(5), 945–975.
Griliches, Z. (1990). ‘Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey’, Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707.
Grupp, H. (1996a), ‘The concept of entropy in scientometrics and innovation research’, Scientometrics, 18(3–4), 219–239.
Grupp, H. (1996b), ‘Spillover effects and the science base of innovations reconsidered: An empirical approach’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 6(2), 175–197.
Hagedoorn, J. and J. Schakenraad (1991). ‘Inter-firm partnerships for generic technologies: The case of new materials’, Technovation, 11(7), 429–444.
Hambrick, D.C. and R.A. D'Aveni (1992), ‘Top team deterioration as part of the downward spiral of large corporate bankruptcies’, Management Science, 38(10), 1445–1466.
Hannan, M.T., J. Ranger-Moore and J. Banaszak-Holl (1990), Competition and the evolution of organizational size distributions. In J. V. Singh(ed.), Organizational evolution: New Directions, Newburg Park, CA: Sage.
Hannan, M.T., M.D. Burton and J.N. Baron (1996), ‘Inertia and change in the early years: Employment relations in Young, high technology firms’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(2), 503–536.
Harabi, N. (1995). ‘Appropriability of technical innovations: An empirical analysis’, Research Policy, 24(6), 981–992.
Haunschild, P.R. and A.S. Miner (1997), ‘Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 472–500.
Haveman, H.A. (1993), ‘Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (4), 593–627.
Helfat, C.E. and K.M. Eisenhardt (2004), ‘Inter-temporal economics of scope, organizational modularity and the dynamics of diversification’, Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1217–1232.
Henderson, R.M. and K.B. Clark (1990), ‘Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), Special Issue, 9–30.
Hill, C.W. L. and F.T. Rothaermel (2003),’The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation’, Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257–274.
Iansiti, M. (1997), Technology Integration: Making Critical choices in a Dynamic World. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Iansiti, M. (2000), ‘How the incumbent can win: Managing technological transitions in the semiconductor industry’, Management Science, 46(2), 169–185.
Iansiti, M. and R. Levien (2004), The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kamien, M. I. (1982), Market Structure and Innovation. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kash, D.E. and R. Rycroft (2002), ‘Emerging patterns of complex technological innovation’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(6), 581–606.
Keenan, M. (2003). ‘Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: The UK experience’, Journal of Forecasting, 22(2–3), 129–160.
Kim, D.J. and B. Kogut (1996), ‘Technological platforms and diversification’, Organization Science, 7(3), Special Issue, 283–301.
Koka, B.R., R. Madhavan and J.E. Prescott (2006), ‘The evolution of interfirm networks: Environmental effects on patterns of network change’, Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 721–737.
Kopel, M. and C. Löffler (2008). ‘Commitment, first-mover, and second-mover advantage’, Journal of Economics, 94(2), 143–166.
Kostova, T. and S. Zaheer (1999), ‘Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise’, Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64–81.
Kotabe, M. and K.S. Swan (1995), ‘The role of strategic alliances in high-technology new product development’, Strategic Management Journal, 16(8), 621–636.
Lamberg, J.A., H.Tikkanen, T. Nokelainen and H. Suur-Inkeroinen (2009), ‘Competitive dynamics, strategic consistency, and organizational survival’, Strategic Management Journal, 30(1), 45–60.
Lane, P. J. And M. Lubatkin (1998). ‘Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning’, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461–477.
Langlois, R.N. and P.L. Robertson (1992), ‘Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries’, Research Policy, 21(4), 297–313.
Langlois, R.N. (2002). ‘Modularity in technology and organization’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 49(1), 19–37.
Lehrer, M. (2000), ‘The organizational choice between evolutionary and revolutionary capability regimes: theory and evidence from European air transport’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(3), 489–520.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), ‘Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development’, Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.
Leoncini, R. and S. Montresor (2001), ‘The automobile technological systems: An empirical analysis of four European countries’, Research Policy, 30(8), 1321–1340.
Lerner, J. (1994), ‘The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis’, The RAND Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.
Levin, R.C., W.M. Cohen and D.C. Mowery (1985), ‘R & D appropriability, opportunity, and market structure: New evidence on some Schumpeterian hypotheses’, American Economic Review, 75(2), 20–24.
Levinthal, D.A. and J.G. March (1993), ‘The myopia of learning’, Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.
Liebeskind, J.P. (1996). ‘Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 17(Special Issue), 93–108.
Lounsbury, M. and M.A.Glynn (2001), ‘Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources’, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 545–564.
Maine, E. and E. Garnsey (2006). ‘Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures’, Research Policy, 35(3), 375–393.
Malerba, F. and L. Orsenigo (1990), Technological regimes and patterns of innovation: A theoretical and empirical investigation of the Italian case. In (A. Heertije and M. Perlman, eds.) Evolving Technology and Market Structure, 283-306. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Malerba, F. and L. Orsenigo (1993), ‘Technological regimes and firm behavior’, Industrial Corporate Change, 2(1), 45–71.
Malerba, F. and L. Orsenigo (1994), ‘Schumpeterian patterns of innovation’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 47–65.
Malerba, F. and L. Orsenigo (1996), ‘Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology–spacific’, Research Policy, 25(3), 451–478.
March, J.G. (1991). ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Marsili, O. (2002), ‘Technological regimes and sources of entrepreneurship’, Small Business Economics, 19(3), 217–231.
Martin, B. (1993). ‘Research foresight and the exploitation of the science base’, Office of Science and Technology, Cabinet Office, HMSO, London, UK.
McEvily, S.K. and B. Chakravarthy (2002). ‘The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: an empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge’, Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), 285–305.
M’Chirgui, Z. (2009), ‘Dynamics of R&D networked relationships and mergers and acquisitions in the smart card field’, Research Policy, 38(9), 1453–1467.
Miller, K.D. and P. Bromiley (1990), ‘Strategic risk and corporate performance: An analysis of alternative risk measures’, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 756–779.
Nagarajan, A. and W. Mitchell (1998), ‘Evolutionary diffusion: internal and external methods used to acquire encompassing, complementary, and incremental technological changes in the lithotripsy industry’, Strategic Management Journal, 19(11), 1063–1077.
Nambisan, S. and M. Sawhney (2008), The global brain: Your roadmap for innovating faster and smarter in a networked world. New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing.
Nelson, R.R. and S.G. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Nicholls-Nixon, C. L. and C.Y. Woo (2003), ‘Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change’, Strategic Management Journal, 24(7), 651–666.
Nightingale, P. (2000), ‘Economies of scale in experimentation: Knowledge and technology in pharmaceutical R&D’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 315–359.
Orton, J. D. and K. E. Weick (1990). ‘Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization’, Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.
Park, S.H., R. Chen and S. Gallagher (2002), ‘Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups’, Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 527–545.
Patel, P. and K. Pavitt (1997), ‘The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety’, Research Policy, 26(2), 141–156.
Pavitt, K. (1984), ‘Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory’, Research policy, 13(6), 343–373.
Pavitt, K., M. Robson and J. Townsend (1987), ‘The size distribution of innovating firms in the UK: 1945–1983’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(3), 297–316.
Pfeffer, J. and G.R. Salancik (1978), The external control of organizations. New York: Hyper & Row.
Pil, F. K. and M. Holweg (2004). ‘Linking product variety to order-fulfillment strategies’, Interfaces, 34(5), 394–403.
Pil, F.K. and S.K. Cohen (2006), ‘Modularity: Implications for implications for imitations, innovation, and sustained advantage’, Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 995–1011.
Piscitello, L. (2004), ‘Corporate diversification, coherence and economic performance’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(5), 757–787.
Podolny, J.M., T.E. Stuart and M.T. Hannan (1996), ‘Networks, knowledge, and niches: Competition in the worldwide semiconductor industry, 1984–1991’, American Journal of Sociology, 102 (3), 659–689.
Pollock, T. G., R. J. Gulati and A. Sadler (2002), ‘Relational and market-based legitimacy of internet IPOs’. In academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings 11–16.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M.E. (1991), ‘Towards a dynamic theory of strategy’, Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 95–117.
Press, K. and M. M. Geipel (2010). ‘Vanishing hands? On the link between product and organization architecture’, Industrial & Corporate Change, 19(5), 1493–1514.
Reger, R.K. and A.S. Huff (1993), ‘Strategic groups: A cognitive perspective’, Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 103–123.
Robinson, W. T. and J. Chiang (2002). ‘Product development strategies for established market pioneers, early followers, and late entrants’, Strategic Management Journal, 23(9), 855–866.
Roijakkers, N., J. Hagedoorn and H. van Kranenburg (2005), ‘Dual market structures and the likelihood of repeated ties–evidence from pharmaceutical biotechnology’, Research Policy, 34(2), 235–245.
Rosenberg, N. and M. Trajtenberg (2004). ‘A general purpose technology at work: The Corliss steam engine in the late 19th century US’, Journal of Economic History, 64(1), 61–99.
Rosenkopf, L. and M.L. Tushman (1998), ‘The coevolution of community networks and technology: Lessons from the flight simulation industry’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(2), 311–346.
Rosenkopf , L. and A. Nerkar (2001), ‘Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry’, Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.
Rothaermel, F.T. (2001), ‘Complementary assets, strategic alliance, and the incumbent’s advantage: An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry’, Research Policy, 30(8), 1235–1251.
Rothaermel, F.T. (2001), ‘Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation’, Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 687–699.
Rothaermel, F.T. and D.L. Deeds (2004), ‘Exploration and exploitation alliance in biotechnology: A system of new product development’, Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201–221.
Rothaermel, F.T. and C.W. L. Hill (2005), ‘Technological discontinuities and complementary assets: A longitudinal study of industry and firm performance’, Organization Science, 16(1), 52–70.
Sanchez, R. (1995). ‘Strategic flexibility in product competition’, Strategic Management Journal, 16(Summer Special Issue), 135–159.
Sanchez, R. and J.T. Mahoney (1997),’ Modularity, flexibility and knowledge management in product and organization design’, IEEE Eng Manage, 25(4), 50–61.
Sanderson, S. and M. Uzumeri (1995). ‘Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman’, Research Policy, 24(5), 761–782.
Sanderson, S.W. and M. Uzumeri (1997), Managing Product Families. USA: Irwin.
Santoro, M. D. and J. P. McGill (2005). ‘The effect of uncertainty and asset co-specialization on governance in biotechnology alliances’, Strategic Management Journal, 26(13), 1261–1269.
Sawhney, M. and E. Prandelli (2000), ‘Communities of creation: Managing distributed innovation in turbulent markets’, California Management Review 42(4), 24–54.
Schildt, H.A., M.V.J. Maula and T. Keil (2005),’ Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29(4), 493–515.
Schilling, M. A. (2000). ‘Toward a general modular systems: Theory and its application to interfirm product modularity’, Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312–334.
Schmickl, C. and A. Kieser (2008), ‘How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations?’, Research Policy 37( 3), 473–491.
Schnaars, S. P. (1994). ‘Managing Imitation Strategies’, Free Press: New York.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), The theory of economic development. Cambridge MA: Harvard Economic Studies.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942), Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Shamsie, J., C. Phelps and J. Kuperman (2004). ‘Better late than never: A study of late entrants in household electrical equipment’, Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 69–84.
Shane, S. (2004). ‘Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation’, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Shankar, V., G. S. Carpenter and L. Krishnamurthi (1998). ‘Late mover advantage: How innovative late entrants outsell pioneers’, Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 54–70.
Shao, B. (2011). ‘First-mover advantages: Flexible or not?’, Journal of Management & Marketing Research, 7(Mar.), 1–13.
Singh, J.V., D.J. Tucker and R.J. House (1986), ‘Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(2), 171–193.
Sirmon, D.G., M.A. Hitt and R.D. Ireland (2007). ‘Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box’, Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.
Sohn, M.W. (2001), ‘Distance and cosine measures of niche overlap’, Social Networks, 23(2), 141–165.
Sorensen, J.B. and T.E. Stuart (2000), ‘Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81–112.
Sorenson, O., J.W. Rivkin and L. Fleming (2006), ‘Complexity, networks and knowledge flow’, Research Policy, 35(7), 994–1017.
Staudenmayer, N., M. Tripsas and C. L. Tucci (2005). ‘Interfirm modularity and its implications for product development’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(4), 303–321.
Stuart, T.E., S.Z. Ozdemir and W.W. Ding (2007), ‘Vertical alliance networks: The case of university–biotechnology–pharmaceutical alliance chains’, Research Policy, 36(4), 477–498.
Takeishi, A. (2002). ‘Knowledge partitioning in the interfirm division of labor: The case of automotive product development’, Organization Science, 13(3), 321–338.
Takeishi, A. and T. Fujimoto (2001). ‘Modularisation in the auto industry: interlinked multiple hierarchies of product, production and supplier systems’, International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 1(4), 379–396.
Tanriverdi, H. and C.H. Lee (2008), ‘Within-industry diversification and firm performance in the presence of network externalities: Evidence from the software industry’, Academy of management Journal, 51(2), 381–397.
Teece, D.J. (1986), ‘Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy’, Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.
Teece, D.J. (1992), ‘Competition, cooperation, and innovation: Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 18(1), 1–25.
Teece, D.J. (1998), ‘Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how and intangible assets’, California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79.
Theil, H. (1969). ‘Economics and Information Theory’, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Theil, H. (1972). ‘Statistical Decomposition Analysis’, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Thomke, S. H. (1997). ‘The role of flexibility in the development of new products: An empirical study’, Research Policy, 26(1), 105–119.
Thomke, S. H. and D. Reinertsen (1998). ‘Agile product development: Managing development flexibility in uncertain environments’, California Management Review, 41(1), 8–30.
Thomke, S.H. and W. Kuemmerle (2002), ‘Asset accumulation, interdependence and technological change: Evidence from pharmaceutical drug discovery’, Strategic Management Journal, 23(7), 619–635.
Tiwana, A. (2008). ‘Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing’, Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 769–780.
Tiwana, A. (2008). ‘Does interfirm modularity complement ignorance? A field study of software outsourcing alliances’, Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 241–252.

Ulrich, K. and K. Tung (1991). ‘Fundamentals of product modularity’, proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting Symposium on Design and Manufacturing Integration, 39–73.
Van De Vrande, V., W. Vanhaverbeke and G. Duysters (2009), ‘External technology sourcing: The effect of uncertainty on governance mode choice’, Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1), 62–80.
Venkatesan, R. (1992). ‘Strategic sourcing: To make or not to make’, Harvard Business Review, 70(6), 98–107.
Wade, J. (1995), ‘Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons: An empirical investigation of community evolution in the microprocessor market’, Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 111–133.
Wade, J. (1996), ‘A community-level analysis of sources and rates of technological variation in the microprocessor market,’ Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1218–1244.
Wang, H. and W.R. Chen (2010),’ Is firm-specific innovation associated with greater value appropriation? The roles of environmental dynamism and technological diversity’, Research Policy, 39(1), 141–154.
West, J. and M. Iansiti (2003), ‘Experience, experimentation, and the accumulation of knowledge: The evolution of R&D in the semiconductor industry’, Research Policy, 32(5), 809–825.
White, S. and S. S.Y Lui (2005). ‘Distinguishing costs of cooperation and control in alliances’, Strategic Management Journal, 26(10), 913–932.
Winter, S.G. (1984), ‘Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 5(3–4), 287–320.
Winter, S. G. (2006). ‘The logic of appropriability: From Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece’, Research Policy, 35(8), 1100–1106.
Wood, D. (1991), ‘Corporate social performance revisited’, Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.
Zander, I. (1997), ‘Technological diversification in the multinational corporation–historical evolution and future prospects’, Research Policy, 26(2), 209–227.
Zhang, S. and A. B. Markman (1998). ‘Overcoming the early entrant advantage: the role of alignable and nonalignable differences’, Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 413–426.
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: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 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 已公開 available

QR Code