傳統上，新產品開發過程研究，大多是以大型企業內部的新產品開發活動為觀察基礎，有時並未特別注意到最終產品是由眾多零件組合而成的問題。而且，新產品開發活動的執行往往涉及許多不確定性，容易產生高額的契約協商成本，因此由交易成本理論觀之，公司內部科層往往就被視為比較有利於新產品開發活動的協調機制。
但是，如果我們以台灣自行車產業為實際觀察對象，卻可發現這個產業的零件研發與製造竟是由眾多專業中小企業提供，而且整車的研發與製造也是由眾多專業中小企業負責。
本文嘗試從產業組織結構的觀點，探索台灣自行車產業新產品開發過程中的組織互動模式。運用深度的個案訪談，以及紮根理論的資料分析方式，本研究發現，自行車產業零件開發整合的組織互動模式不是傳統新產品開發過程研究「以焦點公司內部行為作為核心的分析方式」所隱含的「系統製造廠商應該或可以主導零件廠服務其顧客」的「串聯型」互動關係。而是由成車廠、零件廠直接跟OEM買家同步接觸，共同協助OEM買家開發新自行車的一種「並聯型新產品開發模式」。
跟傳統新產品開發過程研究隱含的「系統製造商應該主導零件廠來服務其顧客」的「串聯型」互動關係相較，台灣成車廠、零件廠、OEM買家三者同步接觸所形成的「並聯型」互動結構，在面對自行車產業快速多樣的研發挑戰時，不論在創意演化、零件實體開發、成車組裝、以及產品上市後修正等階段都有獨特的地方。
除了討論「並聯型新產品開發模式」的運作過程與競爭優勢之外，本研究也發現台灣自行車產業的經營環境特性有三：一、以OEM為主要國際貿易型態；二、零件具有國際介面標準；三、產品具有流行性商品化的趨勢。同時，本研究也以台灣自行車業者在國際介面標準的基礎上，透過OEM國際貿易型態經營新產品開發活動的策略行為作為切入點，指出自行車產業會形成此種新產品開發模式的因素可區分為三類：一、需求面的因素：OEM買家的「分化式」指定採購；二、供給面的因素：台灣業者的模組式協力發展行動；三、在地有利條件：1.促進交易效率的產業資訊透明度、2.滿足OEM買家一次購足的完備產業結構、3.縮短台灣業者反應距離的產業聚群、4.提供台灣業者彈性應變的協力網路關係、5.政府對台灣業者的研發協助。
經由「並聯型新產品開發模式」的組織互動過程描述、組織互動模式的競爭優勢與形成原因的探索，本研究則是在1. 傳統新產品開發過程研究的應用限制；2.不同產品創新型態對台灣中小企業發展的影響；3.國際介面標準對台灣中小企業組織結構的影響；4.模組化設計趨勢下台灣中小企業的研發管理重點等四個議題上，討論台灣中小企業的研發管理問題。
本研究強調，「並聯型新產品開發模式」有別於傳統新產品開發過程研究隱含的「系統製造商應該主導零件廠來服務其顧客」的「串聯型」互動關係。而且，台灣出口成車的新產品開發活動會產生競爭優勢的原因，也非模組化設計主流學者所強調的：企業應該應該強化產品基礎結構層次的學習，運用產品基礎結構的模組化設計，取得策略彈性的競爭優勢。而是因為自行車產業的中小成車廠與零件廠，在產業的國際介面標準基礎上產生模組式專業發展，而且也持續維持彼此的協力合作關係，共同滿足OEM買家快速多樣的研發需求，才有今天的成就。

This is a case study of Taiwan’s bicycle industry. With the view of international standards we tried to explore the integration of the new product development process in Taiwan’s bicycle industry.
We have found that Taiwan’s assemblers and components suppliers are parallel connected to interact with foreign buyers simultaneously. And all the R&D services to which every member offered are finally integrated under the instructions of the foreign buyers. We describe such a cooperation mode as ‘Parallel Connecting New Product Development Process’.
We argue that this new kind of cooperation mode is better than the traditional sequential staging model that is represented as ‘vertical connecting’ cooperation mode in innovation flexibility and speed because of the communication efficiency and convenience to the OEM buyers.
In this thesis we will describe the new product development interactions among the foreign buyers, components suppliers and the assemblers. And we will also discuss the competitive advantages and the causes of such a new cooperation mode. With this kind of cooperation mode we also discuss the R&D management implications for the small and medium sized enterprises in Taiwan. We argue that this new kind of cooperation mode can bring a new management implication to the small and medium sized enterprises in Taiwan, which is different from the main argument in the literature of strategic flexibility.

目錄

謝詞-------------------------------------------------- 一
中文摘要---------------------------------------------- 二
英文摘要---------------------------------------------- 四
目 錄------------------------------------------------ 五
表目錄------------------------------------------------ 七
圖目錄------------------------------------------------ 九

第一章 緒論------------------------------------------ 1
第一節 研究背景------------------------------------ 1
第二節 研究問題------------------------------------ 4

第二章 文獻探討-------------------------------------- 5
第一節 新產品開發過程研究的回顧-------------------- 6
第二節 三種新產品開發方式，一種組織分工意涵-------- 17
第三節 組織型態與新產品開發方式的配合：交易成本觀點 27

第三章、研究方法-------------------------------------- 37
第一節 研究策略------------------------------------ 37
第二節 個案的抽樣原則------------------------------ 37
第三節 資料收集過程-------------------------------- 39
第四節 資料分析過程-------------------------------- 41
第五節 「並聯型新產品開發模式」的架構體系簡述------ 46
第六節 研究範圍與限制------------------------------ 50

第四章 台灣自行車產業的過去與現在-------------------- 54
第一節 全球自行車產業的國際介面標準發展歷程-------- 55
第二節 台灣自行車產業的發展歷程-------------------- 63
第三節 台灣自行車產業的發展現況-------------------- 69
第四節 台灣自行車產業的發展特性-------------------- 73

第五章 「並聯型新產品開發模式」與競爭優勢------------ 80
第一節 新產品開發的挑戰：全球自行車產業的流行商品化 81
第二節 「並聯型新產品開發模式」的運作過程---------- 85
第三節 「並聯型新產品開發模式」的競爭優勢---------- 107
第四節 小結---------------------------------------- 114

第六章 「並聯型新產品開發模式」的形成機制------------ 116
第一節 OEM買家的「分化式」採購--------------------- 117
第二節 台灣業者的模組式協力共生行動---------------- 134
第三節 台灣在地的有利條件-------------------------- 166

第七章 「並聯型新產品開發模式」的相關議題------------ 184
第一節 「並聯型新產品開發模式」的未來-------------- 184
第二節 「並聯型新產品開發模式」對台灣中小企業的管理意涵-------------------------------------------------------- 194
第三節 「並聯型新產品開發模式」會發生在別的產業嗎？ 222

第八章 結論與建議------------------------------------ 232
第一節 研究結果簡述-------------------------------- 233
第二節 研究意涵------------------------------------ 242

參考文獻---------------------------------------------- 249
附錄---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 263
附錄一、台灣及日本自行車成車出口量、出口值、出口單價統計表----- 263
附錄二、訪問稿謄寫實錄-------------------------------------------------------------- 264
附錄三、台灣自行車零件自給率換算表------------------------------------------- 265
附錄四、台灣自行車工業中衛體系------------------------------------------------ 266

參考文獻
中文部份
Christensen, C.M. and M.E. Raynor著，李田樹、李芳齡譯(2003)，創新者的解答，台北：天下雜誌，天下財經系列；51。

Kotler, P. G. 著，方世榮譯(2002)，行銷學原理，台北：東華書局。

Robbons, S.P. 著，林財丁、林瑞發編譯(1998)，組織行為，第五版，台中：滄海書局。
工研院(1997)，1998汽、機、自行車工業現況及趨勢分析，新竹：工
研院。

工研院(1999)，1999汽、機、自行車產業現況與趨勢分析，新竹：工研院。

工研院(2003)，2003汽、機、自行車產業年鑑，新竹：工研院。

江仲琦(2003)，戴爾要抓住廣達、鴻海的獲利？強勢主導筆記型電腦零組件供應鏈，商業週刊，838期。

江迥聰(1980)，台灣區自行車工業之技術輔導，工業技術，第77期，頁38-41。

谷蒲孝雄(1992)，台灣的工業化：國際加工基地的形成，人間台灣政治經濟叢刊第四卷，台北：人間出版社。

杜文謙、廖淑玲(1993)，自行車及零組件業發展策略研究報告，台灣經濟研究院，工業局委託，台灣產業經濟長期研究第二期第一年度研究計畫。

李仁芳(1997)，聚智分金：台灣企業技術網路建構之探討，第六屆產業管理研討會，台中：東海大學。

李仁芳、蘇錦夥(1998)，從合作生產到合作創新：台灣產業網路管理
之回顧與前瞻，第七屆產業管理研討會，台北：政治大學科管所。

吳宗麟(1995)，從夕陽到絢爛—自行車工業技術移轉經驗，工業材料，102期，頁55-96。

吳思華(1996)，策略九說：策略思考的本質，初版一刷，台北：麥田出版社

吳惠林、周添城(1987)，台灣中小企業的回顧與前瞻，中小企業文選，台北：經濟部中小企業處。

政治大學科技管理研究所(1998)，工研院對產業之貢獻—以自行車產業為例，工業技術研究院案例研究計劃，新竹：工研院

紀錦玲(2004)，貿協招商 不意引來鴻海勁敵 郭台銘動怒，中央社，2004年2月6日報導。

高承恕(1994)，台灣中小企業的社會生活基礎，第一屆中小企業學術研討會論文集，台北：中華經濟研究院。

施振榮(1996)，再造宏?痋A台北：天下文化。

高希均、林祖嘉、林文玲、許彩雪(1995)，台商經驗：投資大陸的現場報導，台北：天下文化。

康涵真(1994)，關係運作與法律的邊緣化：台灣中小型企業非正式融資活動的研究，台灣社會研究季刊，第十七期，頁1-40。

徐宏昇(1995)，ODM契約的問題，Run PC，第十九期，頁50-51。

徐聯恩、曾成樺(1998)，全球企業成長與策略：以巨大捷安特為例，中山管理評論，6(2)，頁461-480。

陳介玄(1994)，協力網路與生活結構：台灣中小企業的社會經濟分析，台北：聯經出版公司。

張維娟(1998)，台灣自行車工業之現況與展望（上），中國商銀月刊，1998年6月，頁24-38。

張維娟(1998)，台灣自行車工業之現況與展望（下），中國商銀月刊，1998年7月，頁44-61。

趙蕙玲（1995），協力網路資源交換結構之特質：經濟資源交換的社會網路化，中國社會學刊，卷18，頁75-115.

黃延平（1998），自行車工業技術現況與發展，調查與技術，124期，頁47-59。

黃惠娟(199)，筆記型電腦代工利潤趨薄：以自有品牌平衡風險，遠見，62期，頁142-146。

劉水深1981)，產品規劃與策略運用，作者自印，民國70年。

劉玉珍(1996)，台灣捷安特「衝」進國際品牌的故事，中國時報 第十八版，1996年12月5~12日。

謝國雄(1991)，網路式生產組織：台灣外銷工業中的外包制度，中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，卷71，頁161-182。

游常山(1991)，皇冠下的日本陰影—自行車世界第一？，天下雜誌，124期，1991年9月。

楊文螢(1999)，兩岸自行車產業現況與互動專題研究，新竹：工研院機械研究所。

瞿宛文(1993)，成長的因素：台灣自行車產業的研究，台灣社會研究季刊，第十五期，頁95-92。

瞿宛文、李佳靜（1999），成長與產業組織：台灣與南韓自行車業之比較研究。台灣社會研究季刊，第35期，頁48-73。

瞿宛文、安士敦著，朱道凱譯(2003)，超越後進發展：台灣的產業升級策略，台北：聯經出版社。

戴肇洋、李小娟(1989)，自行車及零組件業發展策略研究報告，台灣經濟研究所，工業局委託，台灣產業經濟長期研究第二年度研究計畫。

台灣區自行車輸出業同業公會2000年名錄。台北：台灣自行車輸出業同業公會。

台灣區自行車輸出業同業網站，http://www.tbea.org.tw，

輪彥自行車資訊網，http://www.wheelgiant.com.tw。

輪彥中文自行車電子報，http://www.wheelgiant.com.tw。

National Bicycle Dealer Association(NBDA)網站，http:// www.nbda.com。


英文部份
Adler, P. 1989. Technology Strategy : A Guide to the Literatures, In R. Rosenbloom and R. Burgelman( Eds.), Research on Technological Innovation, Management, Policy, Vol.4: 25-151. JAI Press, Greenwich.

Allen, E.G. 1966. Study of the Problem-Solving Process in Engineering Design, “ IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manufacturing, June.

Allen, T. J. 1971. Communications, Technology Transfer, and the Role of Technical Gatekeeoper. R&D Management, 1:14-21.

Allen, T. J. 1977. Managing the flow of technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Amsden, A.H. 1989. Asian’s Next Giant L: South Korea and Late Industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1990. Beyond boundary spanning: Managing external dependence in product development teams. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1: 119-135.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992a. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3: 321-341.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992b. Bridging the boundary: External process and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665.

Arora, A., & Grambardella, A. 1994. A Dynamic Model of Process and Product Innovation. Omega, 3:639-656.

Arora, A., A. Grambardella & Rullani. E. 1998. Division of Labor and the Locus of Inventive Activity. Journal Management and Governance, l(1): 1-19.

Baldwin, C. & Clark, K.B. 1997. Managing in the Age of Modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75 (5): 84-93

Beeley, S. 1992. A History of Bicycles: From Hobby Horse to Mountain Bike. London: Studio Editions.

Becker, S. W. & Whisler, T.L. 1967. The Innovation Organization: A Selective View of Current Theory and Research. The Jouranl of Business, 40 (4):462-469.

Best, M.H. 1990. The N`ew Competition: Institutions of Industrial Restructuring. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brain. (2002, May 17), The IBD Faces A Crisis, Says Yoshi Shimano. Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, Retrieved May 18, 2004, from http://www.bicycleretailer.com

Brown, S. L. & Eisendardt, K. M. 1995. Product Development : Past Research, Present Findings and Future Directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 343-378.

Calantone, R.J. & Benedetto, di C.A. 1988. An Integrative Model of the New Product Development Process: An Empirical Validation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Sep: 201-215.

Chandler, A. 1977. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business, Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press. -

Chandler, A.D., Jr. 1990. Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cheng, L.L. 1998. Wheeling the Bicycle Up: Firms, OEM, and Chained Networks in the Development of Taiwan’s Bicycle Industry. In Cheng, L.L. and Sato, Y (eds), The Bicycle Industries in Taiwan and Japan: A Preliminary Study Toward Comparison Between Taiwanese and Japanese Industrial Development, Joint Research Program Series No.124: 5-34. Tokyo: Institute of Development Economies.

Chesbrough, H.W. & Teece, D.J. 1996. When is Virtual Virtuous？Organizing for Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 74(1): 65-73.

Chesbrough, H.W. & Teece, D.J. 2002. Organizing for Innovation: When is Virtual Virtuous？. Harvard Business Review, 80(8):127-135.

Christensen, C.M., & Raynor, M.E. 2003. The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Suctaining Successful Growth. Harvard Business School Press.

Clark, K.B. 1985. The Interaction of Design Hierarchies, and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution. Research Policy, Vol.14, pp.235-251.

Morris, C. R., & Ferguson, C. H. 1993. How Architecture Wins Technology Wars. Harvard Business Review, Mar-Apr: 86-96.

Clark, K. B., Chew, W. B., & Fujimoto, T. 1987. Ploduct development in the world auto industry. Broongs Papels on Economic Actity, 3: 729-781.

Clark, K. & Fujimoto, T. 1991. Product Development Performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Clark, K. & Wheelwright, S.C. 1993. Managing New Product and Process Development. New York: Free Press.

Cooper, R.G. 1979. The Dimensions of Industrial of Industrial New Product Success and Failure. Journal of Marketing, 43 (3): 93-103.

Cooper, R.G. 1983. The New Product Process: An Empirical Based Classification Scheme. R&D Management, 30 (1):1-13.

Cooper, R.G. 1994. Perspective: Third-Generation New Product Process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(1): 3 –15.

Cooper, R.G. 1996. Overhauling The New Product Process. Industrial Marketing Management, 25 (Dec): 465-482.

Cooper, R. G. & Kleinschmidt, E. J. 1987. New Products: What Separates Winners from Loosers？ Journal of Product Innovation Management, .4:169-184.

Cooper, R.G. & Kleinschmidt, E. J. 1993. Major New Products: What Distinguishes the Winners in the Chemical Industry？ Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(2): 90-111.

Cooper, R.G. & Kleinschmidt, E. J. 1995. Benchmarking Firm’s New Product Performance and Practice. Engineering Management Review, .23 (Fall): 112-120.

Craig, A. & Hart, S. 1992. Where to Now in New Product Development Research？ European Journal of Marketing, 26 (11): 1-49.

Crown, J. & Coleman, G. 1996. No Hands: The Rise and Fall of the Schwinn Bicycle Company, An American Institution, New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Delong, G. 1974. Delong’s Guide to Bicycles and Bicycling. The Art and Science. Radnor, PA: Chilton Book Company.

Dougherty, D. 1990. Understanding new markets for new products. Strategic Mangement Journal, 11: 59-78.

Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3: 179-202.

Egan, M.L. & Mody, A. 1992. Buyer-Seller Links in Export Development. World Development, 20 (3): 321-334.

Eisenhardt, K. M. & Tabrizi, B. N. 1995. Accelerating Adaptive Process: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1): 84-110.

Ernst, D. 2000. Inter-Organizational Knowledge Outsourcing: What Permits Small Taiwan Firms to Compete in the Computer Industry？ Asian Pacific Journal of Management, 17: 223-255.

Fine, C. 1998. Clarkspeed--Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage. New York: Perseus Bools.

Florida, R. & Kenny, 1990. Silicon Valley and Route 128 won’t Save Us. California Management Review, Fall, 68-88.

Galunic, D.C., & Eisenhardt, K.M. 2001. Architectural Innovation and Modular Corporate Forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6):1229-1249.

Galvin, P. 1999. Product Modularity: Information Structures and the diffusion if Innovation. International Journal of Tchnology Management, 17(5): 467-479.

Galvin, P. & Morkel, A. 2001. The Effect of Product Modularity on Industry Structure: The Case of the World Bicycle Industry. Industry and Innovation, 8 (1): 31-47.

Garud, R. & Kumaraswamy, A. 1993. Changing Competitive Dynamics in Network Industries. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (5):351-369.

Gereffi, G. 1994. The Organization of Buyer-Driven Global Commodity Chain: How U.S. Retailers Shape Overseas Production Networks. In Gary Gereffi and Miguel Korzeniewicz(Eds), Commodity Chain and Global Capitalism : 95-122, London: Praeger.

Gereffi, G. 1995. Contending Paradigms for Cross Regional Comparison: Development Strategies and Commodity Chains in East Asia and Latin American. In Peter H. Bouder(Ed.), Latin America in Comparative Perspective: New Approaches to Metnod and Analysis : 33-58. CO: Westview Press.

Gereffi,G. 1999. International Trade and Industrial Upgrading in the Apparel Commodity Chain. Journal of Inernational Economics, 48: 37-70.

Gupta, A. K. & Wileman, D. L. 1990. Accelerating the Development of Technology-Based New Products. California Management Review, 32(2): 22-44.

Hart, S.J. & Baker, M.J. 1994. The Multiple Convergent Process Model of New Product Development. International Marketing Review, 11 (1): 77-92.

Hayes, R. H., Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. 1988. Dynamic manufacturing. New York: Free Press.

Henderson, R. & Clark, K.B. 1990. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and The Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9-30.

Hise, R. T., O'Neal, L., Parasuraman, A., & McNeal, J. U. 1990. Marketing/R&D interaction in new product development: Implications for new product success rates. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7: 142-155.

Hobday, M. .1995. Innovation in East Asia: The Challenge to Japan. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.

Hounshell, D.A. 1984. From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932. Baltimore, MD: Johm Hopkins University Press.

Huang, X., Soutar, G.N., & Brown, N. 2002. New Product Development Process in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Som Australian Evidence. Journal of Small Business Management, 40 (1): 27-42.

Hymer, S. 1976. The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Foreign Direct Investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Iansiti, M. 1992. Science-based product development: An empirical study of the mainframe computer industry. Working paper, Harvard Business School. Cambridge. MA.

Iansiti, M. 1993. Real-world R&D: Jumping the product generation gap. Harvard Business Review, 71(3): 138-147.

Imai, K., Ikujiro, N., & Takeuchi, H. 1985. Managing the New Product Development Process: How Japanese Companies Learn and Unlearn. In R. H Hayes, K. Clark and Lorenz (Eds.), The Uneasy Alliance: Managing the Productivity -Technology Dilemma : 337-375. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Katz, R. 1982. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. 27: 81-104.

Katz, R., & Allen. T. J. 1985. Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Management Journal 28: 67-87.

Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. 1981. An investigation into ths managerial roles and career paths of gatekeepers and project supervisors in a major R&D facility. R&D Management. 11: 103-110.

Keller, R. T. 1986. Predictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal. 29: 715-726.

Kogut, B. & Bowman, E.H. 1995. Modularity and Permeability as Principles of Design. In E.H. Bowman and B.Kogut(eds.), Redesign The Firm : 243-260. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kogut, B. & Kulatilaka, N. 1994. Operating Flexibility, Global Manufacturing, and The Option Value of a Multinational Network. Management Science, 40(1): 123-139.

Kuczmarski, T.D. 1992. Management New Product: The Power of Innovation, 2nd Eds. N.J. : Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs.

Langlois R.N. & Robertson, P.L. 1992. Networks and Innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and component industries. Research Policy, 21:297-313.

Langlois R.N. & Robertson, P.L. 1995. Innovation, Networks, and Integration. Research Policy, 24: 543-562.

Langlois, R. N. 2002. Modularity in Technology and Organization. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, .49: 19-37.

Lazonick, W. 1990. Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Lazonic, W. 1991. Business Organization and the Myth of Market Economy. Cambridge Universty Press.

Lester, R. K., Piore, M.J., & Malek, K. M. 1998. Interpretive Management. Harvard Business Review, 76(2): 86-97.

Magnusson T., Lindstrom, G., & Berggren, C. 2003. Architectural or Modular Innovation？ Managing Discontinuous Product Development in Response to Challenging Environmental Performance Targets. International Journal of Innovational Journal, 7(1): 1-26.

Maidique, M. A., & Zirger, B. J. 1984. A study of success and failure in product innovation: The case of the U.S. electronics industry. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management. 4: 192-203.

Maidique, M. A., & Zirger, B. J. 1985. The new product learning cycle. Researrh Policy, 14: 299-313.

McNichols, T.J. 1972. The Raleigh Industries. In Policy Making and Executive Action: Cases on Business Policy. NEW YORK.: MacGraw-Hill.

Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. 1992. Causes of Failure in Network Organizations. California Management Review, 34(4): 53-73.

Montoya-Weiss, M.M., & Calantone, R. 1994. Determinants of New Product Performance: A Review of and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Product and Innovation Management, 11(Nov): 397-417.

Myers, S., & Marquis, D. G. 1969. Successful industrial innovations. (NSF 69-17). Washington. DC: National Science Foundation.

Nelson, R., & Winter, S. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, England: Belknap Press.

Nishiguchi, T. 1994. Strategic Industrial Outsourcing: The Japanese Advantage. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I. 1990. Redundant, Overlapping Organization: A Japanese Approach to Managing the Innovation Process. California Management Review, 32(3): 27-38.

Nooteboom, B. 1994. Innovation and Difusion in Small Firms. Small Buiness Economics, 6: 327-347.

Orton, J.D., & Weick, K.E. 1990. Loosely Coupled Systems. Academy of Management Review, 15 (2): 203-223.

Petty, R.D. 1995. Peddling The Bicycle in 1990s: Mass Marketing Shifts into High Gear. Journal of Macromarketing, 15(1): 32-46.

Piore, M.J., & Sabel, C.F. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibility for Prosperity, NewYork: Basic Books.

Poon Shuk-Ching T. 2002. ompetition and Cooperation in Taiwan’s Information Technology Industry: Inter-Firm Networks and Industrial Upgrading. London: Quorum Books.

Porter, M. 1985. Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.

Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive Advantages of Nations. New York: Free Press.

Quinn, J. B. 1985. Managing innovation: Controlled chaos. Harvard Business Review. 63(3): 73-84.

Radner, R. 1992. Hierarchy: The Economics of Management. Journal of Economic Literature, 30: 1382-1485

Ritchie, A. 1975. King of the Road: An Illustrated History of Cycling. London: Wildwood House.

Rothwell, R. 1985. Innovation and The Small Firm. First International Technical Innovation Entripreneurship Symposium. , Utah Innovation Foundation, Salt Lake City.

Rothwell, R. 1989. Small Firms Innovation and Industrial Change. Small Business Economics. 1: 51-64.
100. Rothwell, R. 1972. Fcrctors for success in industrial innovations from project SAPPHO--A comparative study of success and failure in industrial innovation. Brighton. Sussex. England: S.P.R.U.

Rothwell, R. & Dodgson, M. 1994. Inovation and Siz of Firm. In Dodgson, M. & Rothwell, R., The Handbook of Industrial Innovation. Aldershot Hants: Edward Elgar.

Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horsley, A., Jervis, V. T. P., Robertson, A., & Townsend. J. 1974. SAPPHO updated--Project Sappho phase II. Research Policy. 3: 258-291.

Rubenstein, A. H., Chakrabarti, A. K., O'Keefe, R. D., Souder, W. E., & Young, H. C. 1976. Factors influencing success at the project level. Reserch Management. 16: 15-20.

Sabel, C.F. 1989. Flexible Specialization and Re-emergence of Regional Economies. In Paul Hurst and Jonathon Zeitlin, (eds.), Revising Industrial Dcline? Industrial Structure and Policy in Britain and Her Competitors: 17-70. Berg: Oxford.

Sabel, C.F., & Zeitlin, J. 1985. Historical Alternatives to Mass Production: Politics, Markets, and Technology, Nine-Teenth-Century Inductrialization. Past and Present, 108: 133-176.

Sabel, C.F., Herrigel, R.K., & Deeg, R. 1987. How to Keep Mature Industries Innovative. Technology Review 90: 26-35.
107. Sanchez, R. 1995. Strategic Flexibility in Product Competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 135-159.

Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J.T. 1996. Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 63-76.

Sanchez, R. 2000. Product and Process Architecture in the Management of Knowledge Resources. In P.L. Robertson and N.J. Foss (eds), Resources, Technology, and Strategy: Exploration in the Resource-Based Perspective : 100-122. London Routledge.

Saren, M.A. 1984. A Classification and Review of Models of the Intra-Firm Innovation Process. R & D Management, 14(1): 113-126

Sato, Y. 1998. Large Domestic Market as Paradox: The Background of Japanese Bicycle Industry’s Decline. In Cheng, L.L. and Sato, Y (Eds), The Bicycle Industries in Taiwan and Japan: A Preliminary Study Toward Comparison Between Taiwanese and Japanese Industrial Development, Joint Research Program Series No.124: 35-65. Tokyo: Institute of Development Economies.

Schilling, M., & Steensma, H. K. 2001. The Use of Modular Organization Forms: An Industry-Level Analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 44(8): 1149- 1168.

Schon, D.A. 1967. Technology and Change. Pergamon Press.

Simon, H. 1962. The Architecture of Complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106: 467-482.
115. Stefno, B., & Prencipe, A. 2001. Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(1): 179-192.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1990. Basic of Qualitative Research -Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage Publication.

Sturgeon, T.J. 2002. Modular Production Networks: A New American Model of Industrial Organization. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3): 451-496.

Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. 1986. The New New Product Development Game. Harvard Busines Review, 64(1): 137-146.

Teec. D.J. 1984. Economic Analysis and Strategic Management. California Management Review, 26(3): 87-110.

Teece, D. J. 1996. Firm Organization, Industrial Structure, and Technological Innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 31: 93-224.

Trescott, M.M. 1976. The Bicycle: a Technical Precursor of THE Automobile. Business and Economic History, 5: 51-75.

Tushman, M.L. 1977. Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22.

Twiss,B. 1986. Managing Technological Innovation. 3rd ED, Landon: LongmanGroup.

Urich, K. 1995. The Role of Product Architecture in Manufacturing Firm. Research Policy, 24: 419-440.

Vossen, R. 1998. Relative Strengths and Weaknesses of Small Firms in Innovation. International Small Business Journal, 16(3): 88-94.
126. Wade, R. 1990. Governing The Market: Economic Theory and The Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Weick, K. E. 1976. Education Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quqarterly, 21: 1-19.

Wind, J., and Mahajan, V. 1997. Issues and Opportunities in New Product Development : An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1): 1-12.
129. Williamson, O. 1975. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. NEW YORK: The Free Press.

Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. 1990. The machine that changed the world. New York: HarperCollins.

Woosley, J. 1994. 777. Air Transport World, 4: 23-31.
132. Worren, N., Moore, K., & Cardona, P. 2002. Modularity, Strategic Flexibility, and Firn Performance: A Study of the Home Appliance Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 1123-1140.

Yin, R.K. 1984. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park CA: Sage.

Zirger, B. J., & Maidique, M. 1990. A Model of New Product Development: An Empirical Test. Management Science, 36: 867-883.