過去對於策略網絡鑲嵌性與創新績效的研究，存在著研究結論分歧不一的現象，而學者們主要聚焦於不同的鑲嵌強度所形塑的「資訊優勢」加以詮釋。本文與過去研究不同之處，在於以投資決策的角度，考量策略網絡鑲嵌所賦予的另一特性--「控制利益」，探討其對於廠商創新決策的影響。本研究以「專利申請」與「新產品上市」的速度做為創新績效的衡量指標，並將廠商的創新投資策略劃分為「先申請專利再推動新產品上市」、「申請專利與新產品上市同時進行」以及「先推動新產品上市後再申請專利」等三種創新投資策略。本文透過庫諾雙占賽局模型的建構以及實質選擇權觀點加以推演，就創新投資策略的選擇而言，分析結果發現若廠商建置的策略網絡鑲嵌強度愈強，其對專利費用的容忍度愈低，愈可能採取「申請專利與新產品上市同時進行」與「先推動新產品上市後再申請專利」的創新投資策略。其次，就創新績效表現而言，若廠商採取「先申請專利再推動新產品上市」的創新投資策略，則其所建構的策略網絡鑲嵌強度愈強，愈有助於新產品的上市速度，但未必能促使廠商提前申請專利; 而在其它兩種創新投資策略中，策略網絡鑲嵌強度與「專利申請」以及「新產品上市」的速度均未必具有顯著的正向關係。因為策略網絡鑲嵌所形塑的「控制利益」對新產品開發專案同時具有「利潤提昇效應」與「競爭優勢效應」，因此策略網絡鑲嵌強度與「專利申請」與「新產品上市」等創新績效的關聯性必須視兩效應相抵後的結果而定。

Prior research on the strength of embeddedness ties in strategic networks in influencing innovation performance has produced inconsistent conclusions. In this paper, drawing on an investment perspective on firms’ decision behavior, we argue that the “control benefits”—another characteristics of strategic networks—also affects firms’ innovation performance. According to previous research, we adopt the speed of “patent application” and “market introduction of a new product” to measure innovation performance. Furthermore, we divide firms’ innovation strategies into “apply for a patent and introduce the new product to market later”, “patent the innovation and market introduction immediately” as well as “introduce the new product to market and apply for a patent later”.

We examine the relationship between the strength of enbeddedness ties and firms’ innovation performance using the theoretical frames of game theory and real options. After the analysis of Cournot duopoly game model and real options approach, several findings are acquired as follows: (a) the higher the strength of embeddedness ties, the more likely the firm is to abandon the innovation strategy “apply for a patent and introduce the new product to market later” and adopt innovation strategies “patent the innovation and market introduction immediately” or “introduce the new product to market and apply for a patent later”; (b) if the firm adopts the innovation strategy “apply for a patent and introduce the new product to market later”, then the strength of embeddedness ties has a positive effect on the speed of market introduction of the new product, but the relationship between the strength of embeddedness ties and the speed of patent application is not sure; (c) if the firm adopts innovation strategies “patent the innovation and market introduction immediately” or “introduce the new product to market and apply for a patent later”, then the strength of embeddedness ties has both positive and negative impact on the speed of “patent application” and “market introduction of a new product”, and therefore the relationship between the strength of embeddedness ties and the innovator’s innovation performance is indeterminable. The research findings indicate that the innovator may delay the application for patent or postpone the launching of a new product because of the “control benefits” derived from different strength of embeddedness ties. These results have broad implications for future research on strategic networks and innovation.

論文提要………………………………………………………………….………….i
中文摘要………………………………………………………………….…………ii
Abstract………………………………………………………………….……….…iii
圖目錄 ……………………………………………………………….………….….vi
表目錄 ………………………………………………………………….………….vii
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的………………………………………………………………3
第三節 研究範疇………………………………………………………………3
第四節 論文架構………………………………………………………………4
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 策略網絡與網絡鑲嵌性………………………………………………6
第二節 策略網絡鑲嵌強度與資訊優勢………………………………………7
第三節 策略網絡鑲嵌強度與控制利益………………………………………9
第四節 策略網絡鑲嵌強度與創新績效……………………………………..10
第三章 研究設計
第一節 研究架構……………………………………………………………..18
第二節 研究方法……………………………………………………………..20
第三節 研究限制……………………………………………………………..22
第四章 庫諾產業競爭賽局
第一節 產業競爭結構基模…………………………………………………..23
第二節 策略網絡鑲嵌賽局…………………………………………………..26
第三節 策略網絡鑲嵌與競爭均衡…………………………………………..28
第五章 創新投資策略、策略網絡鑲嵌強度與創新績效
第一節 未建置策略網絡鑲嵌下廠商之創新投資策略投資門檻值………...37
第二節 策略網絡鑲嵌下廠商之創新投資策略投資門檻值………………...44
第三節 策略網絡鑲嵌性與廠商的創新投資策略傾向……………………...53
第四節 專利費用區間、策略網絡鑲嵌強度與廠商的創新投資策略…..….59
第五節 策略網絡鑲嵌強度與廠商的創新績效………………….…………..71
第六章 數值分析
第一節 未建置策略網絡鑲嵌之創新策略投資門檻值數值結構...………...82
第二節 策略網絡鑲嵌強度對創新投資策略之影響………………….…....83


第七章 結論與建議
第一節 結論………………………………………………………………....92
第二節 未來研究建議………………………………………………………94
參考文獻………………………………………….…………………………….....95
附錄
附錄A………………………………………………………………………….98

Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 425-455.
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. 1994. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 175-190.
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: 95-120.
Deed, D., & Hill, C. W. L. 1996. Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: An empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 11: 41-55.
Dixit, A. K., & Pindyck, R. S. 1994. Investment under uncertainty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dyer, J. H. 1996. Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage:
Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 271-292.
Dyer, J. H. 1997. Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 535-556.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 660-679.
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 345-367.
Gulati, R. 1995a. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 85-112.
Gulati, R. 1995b. Social structure and alliance formation pattern: A longitudinal analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 85-112.
Gulati, R. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293-317.
Gualti, R., & Singh, H. 1998. The Architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 781-814.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. 2000. Strategic networks. Stratgic Management Journal, 21: 203-215.
Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82-111.
Hosmer, L. T. 1995. Trust: The connection link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20: 379-403.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Vaidyanath, D. 2002. Alliance management as s source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 28: 413-446.
Ito, K. 1951.On stochastic differentiaql equation memories. American Mathematical Society, 35: 293-316.
Jarillo, J. C. 1988. On strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 31-41.
Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 217-237.
Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. 2002. Does social capital determine innovation? To what extent?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69: 681-701.
Lee, T., & Wilde, L. 1980. Market structure and innovation: A reformulation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94: 429-436.
Loury, G. C. 1979. Market structure and innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93: 395-410.
Nahaipet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 242-266.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses toe institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145-179.
Paul S. A & Kwon, S. W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 22: 17-40.
Powell, W. W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B. M. Staw ans L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior: 295-336. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Powell, W. W. & Smith-Doerr, L. 1994. Networks and economic life. In N. Smelser and R. Swedberg (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Sociology: 368-402. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Powell, W. W., Kogut, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116-145.
Reiss, A. 1998. Investment in innovations and competition: An option pricing approach, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 38: 635-650.
Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. 2001. The acquisition and utilization of information in new prudence alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65: 1-18.
Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. 2000. Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 369-386.
Shan, W. Walker, G., & Kogut, B. 1994. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 387-394.
Soh, P. H. 2003. The role of networking alliances in information acquisition and its implications for new product performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 727-744.
Takalo, T., & Kanniainen, V. 2000. Do patents slow down technological progress? Real options in research, patenting, and marketing introduction. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18: 1105-1127.
Tsai, W. 2000. Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 925-939.
Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfor in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 996-1004.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrarfirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 464-476.
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 35-67.
Uzzi, B., & Lancaster, R. 2003. Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science, 49: 383-399.
Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. 1997. Social capital, Structural holes and the formation of industry networks. Organization Science, 8: 109-125.
Yli-REnko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. 2001. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 587-613.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone , V. 1998. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9: 1-20.