策略研究從1960年開始在管理學界蔚為風潮，各類型的學術產出如雨後春筍般，80年代以Porter為主興起了從產業經濟學衍生而成的策略觀點，這些分析概念與工具逐漸成為策略領域的「主流論述」；然而這些主流卻使近年來的研究與實務上的商業行為脫節，進而產生策略只是一些對組織的人力與知能進行分配的荒謬認知，實在可惜。
本研究嘗試以「學習學派」的觀點來探討策略本質以及策略是如何在組織中所形成，透過高雄數位內容創意中心的個案，解析過去以發展傳統產業崛起的高雄，當過往的優勢與條件不在，城市的發展面臨到轉型的問題時，高雄是如何在諸多不利的條件下拋開過往的 包袱，轉向「數位內容產業」與「創意城市」產業發展策略的軌跡，並歸納出以下重點：
1.策略不是預先規畫後的產物，而是規劃與學習並行。
2. 組織需要保持開放性，讓組織能處在一個接觸不同領域的環境中。
3.組織應尋找關鍵的Champion
本研究使用敘說探究法，並透過高雄數位內容創意中心做為立基，嘗試在這個點上一探高雄的策略轉變；以轉型的個案與主流的策略概念進行對話，指出盲點並將策略放回到實務中，並輔以學習學派的觀點，期望透過這個研究來了解策略的本質，並且對於如何轉型提出一些有趣的觀點。

Since 1960, strategy research unmistakable trends in management academic studies. Many strategic school spring up like mushrooms in different journal. Strategy research have new perspective from industrial economic study by Michael Porter since 1980, those analysis concepts and tools becoming mainstream discourse in strategy field. But those discourse let the research can’t keep up with commercial behavior in recently year and result in absorb cognitive that strategy is just some distribute means in organizational human resource and knowledge. What a pity.

This research adopt the “learning schools” perspective to discuss the strategic essentialism and how strategy be crated from the organization and through the case of DAKUO to analysis how it deals the problems of Kaohsiung. Kaohsiung played an important role in the emergence of traditional industries, but its advantages no longer exist when it comes to the problem of transition. What are the strategies that Kaohsiung governments adopt to develop “Digital content industry” and “Innovative city”? The following are our three main points:

1. Strategy process consists of not only planning but planning and learning in parallel.
2. Organization should keep openness so that it can stay in the variety realm.
3. Managers should identify the key champion in an organization.

This research use the approaches of narrative inquiry to analyze the strategy transition of Kaohsiung industries through DAKUO’s case, and try to draw strategies back to the managerial practice and keep dialogue with mainstream discourse. We intent to realize the essential of strategy and point out some interesting perspectives about industry transition through this research.

論文審定書 i
致謝 ii
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目錄 v
表次 vi
圖次 vii
第一章、緒論 1
第一節、因緣際會踏入作為轉變起點的創業空間 1
第二節、從研究的學習中深化研究問題 3
第二章、文獻探討與理論觀點 5
第一節、策略文獻 5
第三章、研究方法 8
第一節、敘說探究法 8
第二節、為什麼選擇敘說探究法 10
第三節、研究對象 12
第四節、研究設計 13
第四章、個案故事 15
第一節、創業空間在高雄 15
第二節、創意城市從零到壹 19
第五章、研究討論；分析與結論 29
第一節、回歸探究策略的本質 29
第二節、對主流策略論述的反思 36
第三節、策略的新形貌 43
第四節、結論；研究限制與反思 60
參考文獻 63
中文文獻 63
英文文獻 64

中文文獻
1. Drucker, P., 1985, 蕭富峰、李田樹譯，創新與創業精神。台北市；城邦文化事業股份有限公司。
2. Mintzberg & Lampel &Ahlstrand, 1998, 林金榜譯，明茲伯格策略管理。台北市；商業週刊。
3. Rumelt, 2011, 陳盈如譯，好策略‧壞策略。台北市；遠見天下文化出版股份有限公司。
4. Riessman, C.K., 1993, 王勇智、鄧明宇譯，2003，敘說分析。台北；五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
5. 方至民，2012，策略管理 – 建立企業永續競爭力。新北市；前程文化事業有限公司。
6. 司徒達賢，2005，策略管理新論：觀念架構與分析方法。台北市；智勝文化事業有限公司。
7. 李慶芳，2013，質化研究之經驗敘說 – 質化研究的六個修練。新北市；高立圖書有限公司。
8. 蔡敦浩、利尚仁、林韶怡，2008，「創業研究的新趨向¬¬ – 敘說探究的應用」。中山管理評論，16(2)，321-350。
9. 蔡敦浩、王慧蘭、劉育忠，2001，敘說探究的第一堂課，台北市：鼎茂出版社。





英文文獻
1. Abbott, A., 1992, “From Causes to Evants: Notes on Narrative Positivism”, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol.20, 428-455.
2. Ansoff, H. I.., 1991, “The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.12, 136-148.
3. Ansoff, H. I., 1977, “The State of Practice in Planning Systems” Sloan Management Review. Winter: 1-24)
4. Barnard, C. Foreword, 1976, in H. Simon ed. Administrative Behavior, New York: Free Press.
5. Burgelman, R., 1983, “A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2
6. Burgelman, R., 1980, “Managing innovating systems: A study of the process of internal corporate venturing.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
7. Burgelman, R., 1996, “A Process Model of Stategic Business Exit: Implications for an Evolutionary Perspective on Strategy”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.17, pp.193-214.
8. Burner, J., 1986, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Brunet, J. P. H. Mintzberg and J. Waters. “Does planning impede strategic thinking?, The strategy of Air Canada 1937-1976, in Lamb, R(ed.) Advances in Strategic Management, Volume4, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1986.
10. Czarniawska, B., 2004, Narratives in Social Science Research London: Sage.
11. Drucker, P., 1993, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principals, New York: Harper Business.
12. Mintzberg, H., and Waters, J., “Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 257-272.
13. Mintzberg, H.,1978, “Patterns in strategy formation”, Management Science, pp,934-938.
14. Mintzberg, H., 2007, Mintzberg on Management, Free Press.
15. Mintzberg, H. and A. McHugh., 1985, “Strategy Formation in Adhocracy”, Administrative Science Quarterly.
16. Peterson, Richard A., and David G. Berger, 1971, “Entrepreneurship and organizations: Evidence from the popular music industry.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 97-106.
17. Porter, M.E., 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New York.
18. Prahalad and Hamel, 1990, “The core competence of the corporation”. Harvard Business Review, May-June.
19. Roberts, Edward B., 1980, “New ventures for corporate growth.” Harvard Business Review, 57: 134-142.
20. Polkinghorne, D.E., 1995, “Narrative Configuration in Qualitative Analysis”, in Life History and Narrative, Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
21. Rumelt, Richard P., 1974, Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance. Boston: Graduate School of Business, Harvard University.
22. Shackley S., B. Wynee and C. Waterton, 1996, “Imagine Complexity: The Past, Resent and Future Potential of Complex Thinking”, Futures, Vol. 28, 201-225.
23. Toulmin, S., 1990, Cosmopolis: the hidden agenda of modernity, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.