本研究旨在為國際企業提供相關的模型，以便更好管理其國際分公司的迅速擴張，並支持它們的目標設定過程。藉由過去學術界和商界的文献探討，研究十八個不同國際子公司的投资组合模型，本研究制定與發展出一個多模型架構。利用GE/McKinsey矩陣和James March及 Silvio Popadiuk提出的矩陣研究，此模型架構探索了市場吸引力、子公司優勢、内部研究和外部開發四個维度;同時提供跨國公司根據上述维度繪製其子公司當前和長期定位，以便其目標設定流程。為了進一步說明此多模型架構的使用方法，本研究提出虛擬子公司以及其區域集群，並對其進行分析和建議。最後討論部分，則是重申了更多過去文献提起，被視為用来評估其海外子公司重要的因素关键词

This master thesis aims to provide international operating organizations with a relevant model to better manage the rapid expansion of their international subsidiaries and support management in their goal setting process. A literature review of 18 different international subsidiary portfolio models, deriving from academic and business sources, was initially conducted, from which a multi-model framework was developed and specifically customized. This tool explores the dimensions of market attractiveness, subsidiary strength, level of exploration and level of exploitation through the use of the GE/McKinsey matrix and a second matrix inspired from studies conducted by James March and Silvio Popadiuk. It also allows organizations to map out the current and long-term positioning of its subsidiaries according to the above-mentioned dimensions as to facilitate its goal setting process. To illustrate the use of this multi-model tool, fictitious subsidiary and regional subsidiary cluster analyzes were drawn up and recommendations were inherently brought forth. The discussion section of this project highlights additional considerations drawn from the initial literature review that have been identified as important factors to consider in evaluating foreign subsidiaries.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Verification Letter i
Acknowledgements ii
摘 要 iii
Abstract iv
List of Figures and Tables vii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review 2
2.1 Model 1: GE/McKinsey Matrix 2
2.1.1 Limitations of the Model 5
2.1.2 Application of the Model 6
2.2 Model 2: Exploration/Exploitation Matrix 8
2.2.1 Including the Ambidextrous Organization as the Fourth Role 10
2.2.2 Limitations of the Model 12
2.3 Description of Dimensions Measured 14
2.4 Results of Multi-Model Analysis 17
Chapter 3: Research Procedure 19
Chapter 4: Research analysis 21
4.1 Practical Applications 21
4.2 Scenario 1: Increase Subsidiary Strength 22
4.2.1 Comparing Subsidiaries 22
4.2.2 Preliminary Recommendations 23
4.3 Scenario 2: Increase Exploration 26
4.3.1 Comparing Subsidiaries 27
4.3.2 Preliminary Recommendations 28
4.4 Scenario 3: Region Analysis 30
4.4.1 Comparing Regions 31
4.4.2 Preliminary Recommendations 31
Chapter 5: Conclusion 34
5.1 Discussion 35
5.1.1 Knowledge Sharing 35
5.1.2 Cultural Dimensions 36
5.1.3 Autonomy and Procedural Justice 37
5.1.4 Temporal Distance Bias 38
5.1.5 Optimism and Uncertainty 39
5.1.6 Competence Creating Versus Competence Exploiting Subsidiaries 39
5.1.7 Sources of Knowledge to Increase Innovation 41
5.1.8 Investments in Subsidiary Exploiting or Augmenting Activities 41
References 43
Appendix 47

Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1986). Tap Your Subsidiaries for Global Reach. Harvard Business Review.
Bird, A., Taylor, S., & Beechler, S. (1998). A typology of international human resource management in Japanese multinational corporations: Organizational implications. Human Resource Management, 37(2), 159-172.
Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. (1991). Multinational Subsidiary Evolution: Capability and Charter Change in Foreign-Owned Subsidiary Companies. Academy of Management Review, 23(4). 773-795.
Birkinshaw, J., & Morrison, A. (1995). Configurations of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), 729-753.
Boston Consulting Group. (1970). The Product Portfolio. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/ge-mckinsey-matrix.html
Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE Competence-creating Subsidiary Mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1109-1128.
Enright, M., & Subramanian, V. (2007). An organizing framework for MNC subsidiary typologies. Management International Review, 47(6). 895-924.
Forsgren, M., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N. (1999). Accounting for the strength of MNC subsidiaries: the case of foreign-owned firms in Denmark. International Business Review, 8. 181-196.
47
Garcia-Pont, C., Canales, J., & Noboa, F. (2009). Subsidiary Strategy: The Embeddedness Component. Journal of Management Studies, 46(2). 182-214.
Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16(4). 768-792.
Hax, A., & Majluf, N. (1983). The Use of the Industry Attractiveness- Business Strength Matrix in Strategic Planning. Interfaces, 13(2), 54-71.
Isoherranen, V., & Kess, P. (2011). Analysis of Strategy by Strategy Typology and Orientation Framework. Modern Economy, 2(4). 575-583.
Jurevicius, Ovidijus. (2014, August 19). GE McKinsey Matrix. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/ge-mckinsey-matrix.html
King, W., & Sethi, V., (1999). An empirical assessment of the organization of transnational information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4). 7-28.
Kummerle, W. (1999). The drivers of foreign direct investment into research and development: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1), 1-24.
Lee, C., Wu, H., & Pao, H. (2014). How does R&D intensity influence firm explorativeness? Evidence of R&D active firms in four advanced countries. Technovation, 34(10), 582–593.
48
Lin, S., & Hsieh, A. (2010). International strategy implementation: Roles of subsidiaries, operational capabilities, and procedural justice. Journal of Business Research, 63, 52-59.
March, J. (1991). Exploration And Exploitation In Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Martinez, J., & Jarillo, J. (1991). Coordination Demands of International Strategies. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), 429-444.
Neill, S., & York, J. (2011). The entrepreneurial perceptions of strategy makers: Constructing an exploratory path in the pursuit of radical growth. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1003-1009.
Noorderhaven, N., & Harzing, A-W. (2009). Knowledge-sharing and social interaction Within MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 719-741.
Phene, A., & Almeida, P. (2008). Innovation in multinational subsidiaries: The role of knowledge assimilation and subsidiary capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 901-919.
Popadiuk, S. (2012). Scale for classifying organizations as explorers, exploiters or ambidextrous. International Journal of Information Management, 32, 75-87.
Porter, M. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78-93.
Poynter, T., & White, R. (1984). The strategies of foreign subsidiaries: Responses to organizational slack. International Studies of Management & Organization, 14(4), 91-106.
49
Rodriguez, R., & Hechanova, R. (2014). A Study of Culture Dimensions, Organizational Ambidexterity, and Perceived Innovation in Teams. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 9(3), 21-33.
Roth, K., & Morrison, A. (1992). Implementing global strategy: Characteristics of global subsidiary mandates. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), 715-735.
Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3). 237-250.
Taggart, J. (1997). Autonomy and Procedural Justice: A Framework For Evaluating Subsidiary Strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(1), 51-76.
Taggart, J. (1998). Strategy Shifts in MNC Subsidiaries. Journal of Strategic Management, vol. 19, 663-681.
Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I., & Spörrle, M. (2013). Easy Now, Desirable Later: The Moderating Role of Temporal Distance in Opportunity Evaluation and Exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 859-888.
Zhang, F., Jiang, G., & Cantwell, J. (2014). Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations. International Business Review 24, 224-234.