臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：軟體商業生態系統中利基者經營模式之變遷：以資訊安全軟體公司為例
作者：郭國泰
作者(外文)：Kuo,Anthony
校院名稱：國立政治大學
系所名稱：企業管理研究所
指導教授：司徒達賢
于卓民
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2008
主題關鍵詞：軟體；商業生態系統；軟體商業；資訊安全；經營模式；企業網絡；網絡定位策略；利基者；software；business ecosystem；software business；information security；business model；business networks；network positioning strategy；niche player
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:66
本研究採用「商業生態系統」觀點，以「利基者」的角度出發，來探討利基型軟體公司經營模式的變遷。研究對象為屬於「利基者」的資訊安全軟體公司，以及其所處的環境。研究分為「歷史分析」與「探索性個案研究」兩大部分。首先，本研究以「歷史分析」作為前導研究，探討資訊安全軟體由1986年至2007年的發展沿革，並釐清防毒軟體廠商、防火牆軟體廠商，以及入侵偵測/防禦軟體廠商所處的商業生態系統，以及廠商在其中的角色。此外，在歷史分析中，本研究也探討了主要商業生態系統之間的關係。而「探索性個案研究」，則選擇了五個成功的資訊安全軟體公司，以及五個失敗的資訊安全軟體公司，探討這些廠商在1986年至2000年之間經營模式的變遷，以了解成功及失敗的因素為何。此外，也描述繼續存活的成功廠商，如何在2001年之後，因應環境「擾動」而動態調整其經營模式。
在「歷史分析」的部份，本研究首先發現，資訊安全軟體自1986年開始出現，此時的資訊安全軟體廠商，主要為防毒軟體廠商，而廠商在「個人電腦商業生態系統」以及「區域網路商業生態系統」中扮演「利基者」的角色。在1994年後，「Internet商業生態系統」蓬勃發展，除了防毒軟體廠商之外，防火牆軟體廠商以及入侵偵測軟體廠商開始出現。而資安軟體廠商在「Internet商業生態系統」中扮演「利基者」的角色。之後，資訊安全軟體廠商逐漸形成了一個「邊界安全商業生態次系統」。在這個「次系統」中，不同的廠商分別扮演了次系統中的「關鍵者」、「支配者」，以及「利基者」。另一方面，三個「主系統」之間，存在「演替」的現象，後者的重要性，逐漸超越前者。而到了2001年之後，由於環境中的劇烈「擾動」，產生了新的生存空間，也改變了既有「物種」的「種間關係」。而另一方面，主要商業生態系統中「關鍵者」的跨入，也嚴重壓縮了既有「利基者」的生存空間。
「探索性個案研究」中，本研究又分為「規範性個案研究」與「描述性個案研究」兩部分。「規範性個案研究」探討五個成功的資訊安全軟體公司，包括Symantec、Trend Micro、McAfee、Check Point，以及Internet Security Systems(ISS)，在1986年至2000年之間，調整經營模式的動態過程，並與五個失敗的公司，包括ACSI、ESaSS、EliaShim/eSafe、Raptor，以及Axent進行比較。研究首先發現，成功的「利基者」，充分「借助」了「關鍵者」的資源，包括「技術」、「夥伴」、「聲譽」，並透過學習，運用關鍵者的「知識」，提升組織的能力。其次，成功的「利基者」，都能建立以自己為中心的「商業生態次系統」，包括「通路次系統」或是「技術平台次系統」。此外，成功的「利基者」，也都能及時參與新興的商業生態系統，並察覺商業生態系統「演替」(亦即「消長」)的狀況，進而調整參與的重心。而失敗的五個「利基者」，均於2000年之前被其他公司購併，主要因為較欠缺這些作為，或在這些方面未能成功。「描述性個案研究」則描述在2001年之後繼續存活的成功「利基者」，如何因應環境「擾動」與其他廠商行為的改變，動態調整經營模式。這些廠商調整經營模式，以鞏固既有的生存空間，並掌握新的生存空間。同時，也多方參與由不同的「關鍵者」所主導，未來可能成為「主流設計」的技術架構。
綜合來說，成功的利基型軟體公司，由創立開始，隨著成長的過程，「參與」以其他關鍵者為中心的商業生態系統，同時也致力於「建立」以自己為中心的商業生態系統。「參與」及「建立」二者與時並進，並適時調整，利基者才得以維持長久生存。
This study takes the view of niche players to explore their business model changes in the software business ecosystem. Software firms in the information security software industry and their environments are selected as research context. The research is comprised of two main parts: a historical analysis and an exploratory case study. The historical analysis serves as a pilot study, in which information security software industry’s historical development is scrutinized to clarify which business ecosystems these security software firms, including antivirus software firms, firewall software firms, and intrusion detection/prevention software firms, participate in as they grow, as well as these firms’ roles within the business ecosystems. Relationships between different busines ecosystems are also studied in the historical analysis. In the exploratory case study, five successful security software firms and five failed security software firms are selected as case companies. The case study explores how successful firms and failed firms, from 1986 to 2000, differ in the way they changed their business models, in order to understand why successful firms remain in existence after 2000. The case study also describes how these surviving firms have, responding to “disturbance” in the environments, been adjusting their business models dynamically since 2001.
The historical analysis reveals that the “PC business ecosystem”, the “LAN (local area network) business ecosystem”, and the “Internet business ecosystem” are involved as security software firms grow. Information security software firms have participated in the “PC business ecosystem”, when antivirus software was brought to the world in 1986. Antivirus software firms played the role of “niche players” in the “PC business ecosystem” at that time. Later when local area network was getting prevalent, a few antivirus firms participated in the “LAN business ecosystem”, playing the role of “niche players” as well. When the Internet commercialized around 1994, firewall software firms and intrusion detection software firms emerged. All participating information software firms played the role of “niche players” in the “Internet business ecosystem”. In 1996, a “sub-system”—“perimeter security sub-system” —was formed within the “Internet business ecosystem” by various security software firms and hardware companies. This “sub-system” had its own “keystones”, “dominators”, “hub landlords”, and “niche players”. In addition, “ecosystem succession” phenomenon is observed between the three “main system” —the “PC business ecosystem”, the “LAN business ecosystem”, and the “Internet business ecosystem”. Importance of the latter gradually surpassed the former. Furthermore, “disturbance” has emerged since 2001, creating new living space, but at the same time altered the “inter-species relationship” between existing species. Some “keystones” in the main ecosystems turned into “dominators”, highly decreased existing niche players’ living space.
The exploratory case study is divided into a “normative case study” and a “descriptive case study”. In the “normative case study”, five successful security software firms, including Symantec, Trend Micro, McAfee, Check Point, and Internet Security Systems (ISS) are compared with five failed firms—ACSI, ESaSS, EliaShim/eSafe, Raptor, and Axent in the way they adjusted their business models from 1986 to 2000. Evidences revealed that successful niche players sufficiently leveraged resources provided by keystones. Resources include technologies, partners, and reputation. Successful niche players also learn from keystones to acquire knowledge, which further improves niche players’ organization capabilities. In addition, successful niche players are capable of building up their own “sub-systems,” which can be “channel sub-systems” or “technological platform sub-systems.” Furthermore, successful niche players, in time, participate in every promising business ecosystems, and sense the “ecosystem succession” phenomenon when it takes place to adjust their efforts on different business ecosystems. Five unsuccessful case companies fail to achieve similar accomplishments. Consequently, all of them have been acquired or merged by other firms by 2000. Meanwhile, in the “descriptive case study,” I describe how five successful firms keep surviving after 2001, adjusting their business models to secure existing living space and seize emerging opportunities. These successful niche players also participated in all information security architectures proposed by different keystones, expecting that one of these architectures will turn out to be the “dominant design” in the future.
Overall, successful niche players, as they grow, participate in business ecosystems led by other keystones, and build up their own business ecosystem as well. They advance and adjust both their “participating” and “builing up” activities to secure long-term survival.
一、中文部份

司徒達賢 (2001)，策略管理新論，智勝文化，台北。
司徒達賢 (2005)，管理學的新世界，天下遠見，台北。new window
金恆鑣譯 (2002)，生態學：概念與應用，麥格羅希爾，台北。
尚榮安譯 (2005)，個案研究，弘智文化, 臺北市。
洪正中、杜政榮、吳天基 (1993)，環境生態學，國立空中大學，台北。
孫儒泳、李博、諸葛陽、尚玉昌 (2000)，普通生態學，藝軒圖書出版社，台北。
張明正、陳怡蓁 (2003)，擋不住的趨勢：超國界的管理經驗，天下文化，台北。
張美惠譯 (1999)，資訊經營法則，時報出版，台北。
張國鴻譯，狄勒夫‧霍哈等合着(2000)，數位式競爭，天下遠見，台北。
許士軍 (2004)，許士軍為你讀管理好書II，天下文化，台北。
周光裕、明延凱 (1995)，生態學，地景，台北。
周婉窈譯 (1989)，史家的技藝，遠流，台北。
新新聞周報 (2001)，「17家軟體公司聯手打群架，百億軟體集團呼之欲出」，新新聞周報，第732期。
經濟部投資業務處 (2006)，「台灣的優勢與機會」，經濟部人才網(http://hirecruit.nat.gov.tw/chinese/html/taiwan_04.asp)，經濟部投資業務處，台北。
資策會MIC (1999)，科技產業現況與市場趨勢研討會，資策會，台北。
資策會MIC (2006)，美國資訊安全市場趨勢與商機，資策會，台北。
梁應權、胡頂立譯 (1999)，我的名字是電腦，天下遠見，台北。
趙干城、鮑世奮譯 (1990)，史學方法論，五南，台北。
劉龍龍 (2006)，「產品服務兩路包抄，臺灣軟體站上國際」，資訊與電腦雜誌，第306期，頁52–54。
蘇仲怡譯（2001），競爭加倍速：創新致勝，智庫文化，台北。

二、英文部分

Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001), “Value creation in E-business”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.22 No. 6–7, pp. 493-520.
Austin, R. D. and Nolan, R. L. (2000), “IBM Corporation Turnaround”, Harvard Business School Cases, No.9-600-098.
Bloch, M. L. B. (1953), The Historian's Craft, Alfred A. Knopf Inc., New York. NY.
CSI/FBI (2006), Computer Crime and Security Survey. Computer Security Institute, San Francisco, CA.
Campbell-Kelly, M. (1995), “Development and structure of the international software industry, 1950-1990”, Business and Economic History, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 73-110.
Campbell-Kelly, M. (2001), “Not only Microsoft: The maturing of the personal computer software industry, 1982-1995”, Business History Review, Vol.75 No.1, pp. 103-145.new window
Campbell-Kelly, M. (2004), From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog: A History of the Software Industry, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Campbell-Kelly, M. and Aspray, W. (2004), Computer: The History of the Information Machine, 2nd Ed., Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Caswell, H. (1978), “A general formula for the sensitivity of population growth rate to changes in life history parameters”, Theoretical Population Biology, Vol.14, pp.215-230.
Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1962), Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1977), The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1990), Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Carr, Nicholas G. (2004), Does IT Matter? Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business School Publishing Corp., Boston, MA.
Carroll, G.R. (1988), Ecological Models of Organizations, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Carrol, G.R. and Hannan, M.T. (1995), Organizations in Industry : Strategy,Sstructure, and Selection, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Cusumano, M.A. and Gawer, A. (2002), “The Elements of Platform Leadership”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol.43 No.3, pp.51-58.
Cusumano, M.A. (2004), The Business of Software: What Every Manager, Programmer, and Entrepreneur Must Know to Thrive and Survive in Good Times and Bad, Free Press, New York, NY.
Darwin, C. (1859), On the Origin of Species: 1859, (1988 Eds)William Pickering, , London, UK.
Denzin, N.K. (1978), The Research Act: A Theoretic/pervasiveal Introduction to Sociological Methods (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Molles, Jr., M.C. (2002), Ecology: Concepts and Applications (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A. and Roos, I. (2005), “Service portraits in service research: a critical review”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 107-121.new window
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No.4, pp.532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M and Tabrizi, B. N. (1995), “Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 84-110.new window
Elton, C. (1927), Animal Ecology, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, England.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977), Organization Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gause, G. F. (1934). The struggle for existence. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
Gerstner, L. V. (2003), Who says elephants can't dance? :Leading a great enterprise through dramatic change, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Glaser B.G. and Strauss A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY.
Gleason, H. A. (1922), “On the Relation between Species and Area”, Ecology, Vol. 3 No.2, pp. 158-162.
Gleason, H. A. (1925), “Species and Area”, Ecology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp.66-74.new window
Gossain, S. and Kandiah, G. (1998), “Reinventing value: The new business ecosystem”, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 26 No5, pp.28-33.
Gottschalk, L. R. (1969), Understanding history : a primer of historical method, 2nd ed., Knopf, New York, NY.
Grinnell, J. (1917), “The niche-relations of the California Thrasher”, Auk, Vol. 34, pp.427-433.
Gutierrez, L.T and Fey, W.R. (1980), Ecosystem Succession: A General Hypothesis and a Test Model of a Grassland, The MIT Press, Boston, MA.
Hannan, M.T and Freeman, J. (1977), “The population ecoloy of organizations”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol.82 No. 5, pp. 929-964.
Hannan, M.T and Freeman, J. (1989), Organizational Ecology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hoch, D.J., Roeding, C.R., Purkert, G., Lindner, S.K. and Muller, R. (2000), Secrets of Software Success: Management Insights from 100 Software Firms around the World, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Hutchinson﹐G.E. (1957), A Treatise on Limnology﹐John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Hunter, S. D. (2004), “Have business method patents gotten a bumrap? Some empirical evidence”, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-24.new window
Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004a), “Strategy as Ecology”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No.3, pp.68–78.
Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004b), The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Iyer, B. and Dreyfus, D. (2006), “Architecture in Design Science: The Case of Stacks”, Working paper, Information Systems, Boston University School of Management.
Iyer, B., Lee, C-H., Venkatraman, N. (2006), “Managing in a ‘Small World Ecosystem’: Lessons from the Software Sector”, California Management Review, Vol. 48 No.3, pp. 28–47.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E. (1985), Naturalistic Enquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Lovelock, C. and Gummesson, E. (2004), “Whither services marketing? In search of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 20-41.new window
Langley, A. (1999), “Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data”, Adademy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No.4, pp.691-710.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G. G. (2004), “E-business strategies and Internet business models: How the Internet adds value”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp.161–173.
Magretta, J. (2002), “Why business models matter”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No.5, pp. 86–92.
Mason, R.O, McKenney, J.L, Copeland, D. G. (1997), “An historical method for MIS research: Steps and assumptions”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No.3, pp. 307-320.
Mathieu, V. (2001), “Service strategies within the manufacturing sector: Benefits, costs and part”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol 12 No. 5, pp. 451-475.
Messerschmitt, D. G. and Szyperski, C. (2003), Software ecosystem : understanding an indispensable technology and industry, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994), Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.), Sage, London, UK.
Mitchell, D., Coles, C., Golisano, B.T., Knutson, R.B. (2003), The Ultimate Competitive Advantage: Secrets of Continuosly Developing a More Profitable Business Mode, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Mitnick, K. D. and William S. L. (2002), The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Mizik, N. and Jacobson, R. (2003). “Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 63-67.new window
Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior: The limits and possibilities of theory and research, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
MoneyTree Survey (2004), PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, New York, NY.
MoneyTree Survey (2006), PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, New York, US.
Moore, J.F. (1993), “Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No.3, pp.75–86.
Moore, G.A. (1995), Inside the Tornado: Marketing Strategies from Silicon Valley's Cutting Edge, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Moore, J.F. (1996), The Death of Competition: Leadership & Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems , Harper Business, New York, NY.
Nambisan, S. (2001), “Why service business are not product businesses”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp.72–80.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S. G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Noda T, Bower JL. (1996), “Strategy making as iterated processes of resource allocation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 17 Summer Special Issue, pp. 159–192.
Nolan R.L. (2000), “Information technology management from 1960–2000” In Chardler A.D. and Cortad, J.W. (ed.) (2000), A Nation Transformed by Information , Oxford Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 217-256.
Patton, M. Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, (2nd Ed.), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990), “Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice”, Organization Science, Vol. 1, pp. 267–292.new window
Prahalad C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2000), “Co-opting customer competence”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp.79–87.new window
Price, P.W., Slobodchikoff, C.N. and Gaud, W.S. (Eds) (1984), A New Ecology: Novel Aproaches to Interactive Systems, John Wiley, New York.
Rohde, K. (2005), Nonequilibrium Ecology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Saloner, G. and Spence, A.M. (2002), Creating and Capturing Value: Perspectives and Cases on Electronic Commerce. Wiley, New York, NY.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1951), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shafer, R. J. (1980), A Guide to Historical Method, 3rd ed., The Corsey Press, Homewood, IL.
Shapiro, C. and Varian, H.R. (1999), Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Smith, M. A. and Kumar, R. L. (2004), “A theory of application service provider (ASP) use from a client perspective”, Information & Management, Vol. 41, No.8, pp. 977–1002.
Stake, R. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tansley, A. G. (1935), “The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms”, Ecology, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 284-307
Timmers, P. (1998), “Business models for electronic markets”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 3–8.
Tuchman, G. (1998), “Historical social science: methodologies, methods, and meanings” In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (ed.) (1998), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. pp.225–260.
Vargo, S. L and Lusch, R. F (2004a), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 (January), pp.1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004b), “The four service marketing myths – remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 324-35.
Vandermerwe, S. and Rada, J. (1988), “Servitization of business: adding value by adding services”, European Management Journal, Vol. 6 No.4, pp. 314-324.
Van Maanen, J. (1979) Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: a preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 24, pp.520–527.
Yin, R. (1983) Case Study Research: Design and Method, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L. (1985), “Problems and strategies in services marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Spring, pp. 33-46.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：554（臺灣：547，外國：7） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2516201 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68330365
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上