:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:以自我技術網絡觀點辨識RFID新產品開發適合之合作廠商
作者:陳樹榮
作者(外文):Shu-Jung Chen
校院名稱:雲林科技大學
系所名稱:企業管理博士班
指導教授:賴奎魁
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2011
主題關鍵詞:自我技術網絡知識地位知識信賴新產品開發合作廠商Ego-centered technological networkKnowledge statusNPDKnowledge reliabilityCooperation firm
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(3) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:71
企業慎選新產品開發(New Products Development, NPD) 適合之合作廠商,以促進技術發展與生產效能,向來是科技廠商追求經營績效之一大課題。Stuart (1998)以半導體產業專利與專利引用資料,從技術市場結構的網絡觀點,由外向內(outside-in)提出一個組織技術利基位置與聯盟形成傾向因素的探討。本研究則以組織本身的核心技術能力觀點,由內向外(inside-out)建構一個自我基礎的技術網絡,提出一個篩選新產品開發適合之合作廠商的評估方法,以增補Stuart由外向內技術網絡分析的不足。首先,本文從焦點公司的自我技術網絡中,建構公司技術知識地位(Technological Knowledge Status, TKS)的評估指標,以篩選潛在的技術合作廠商候選者。其次,再提出一個技術知識信賴(Technological Knowledge Reliability, TKR)指標,辨識適合的合作廠商。最後,以個案公司特定核心技術形成的技術網絡進行實證,發現同時具有較高TKS和TKR的技術跟隨公司是焦點公司新產品開發適合之合作廠商。同時,他們在參與焦點公司核心技術的發展過程中,也具有兩個特徵:(1)新興階段就已經開始進入;以及(2) 他們的技術發展趨勢與焦點公司產生共演化。
One of the major issues for technology companies pursuing operating performance is their collaborator for the new products development (NPD) of core technologies, an integral component to promoting technology development and production effectiveness. Concerning networks in technology market structures, Stuart (1998) used data on semiconductor industry patents and their citations to introduce an outside-in examination of organizational technology niches and alliance formation tendencies. This study focuses on core organizational technology capabilities to construct an egocentric technology network from the inside-out, introducing an assessment process for selecting the suitable cooperation firm of NPD, and thereby resolving a flaw in Stuart’s outside-in analysis.
First, based on the egocentric technology network of a focal company, this paper constructs assessment indicators for company technological knowledge status (TKS) in order to differentiate hidden candidates for technological cooperation. Secondly, to identify the appropriate cooperative firm, this paper introduces a technological knowledge reliability (TKR) indicator. Finally, a technology network formed using specific technologies from a core company is used to perform empirical testing. This study found that the suitable firms of NPD for a focal company to cooperate are those technology follower companies with relatively high TKS and TKR. Also, during the participation with focal core technology development, they possess two characteristics: (1) joining the technology development during the emerging stage; (2) the technology development trend was co-evolved with the focal company.
1.Afuah, A., 2003, Innovation management: Strategies, implementation, and profits. Oxford University Press, New York.
2.Ahuja, G., 2000, “Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp.425-455.
3.Alcacer, J. and Gittelman, M., 2004, How do I know what you know? Patent examiners and the generation of patent citations. Mimeo, New York University, New York.
4.Alcacer, J. and Gittelman, M., 2006, “Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: the influence of examiner citations.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 88, No. 4, pp.774-779.
5.Archibugi, D., 1992, “Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: a review,” Science and Public Policy, Vol. 19, pp.357-368.
6.Arundel, A. and Steinmueller, E., 1998, “The use of patent databases by European small and medium-sized enterprises,” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.157-173.
7.Barney, J. B. and Hansen, M. H., 1994, "Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage." Strategy Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp.175-190.
8.Basalla, G., 1988, The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
9.Berkowitz, L., 1993, “Getting the most from your patents,” Research Technology Management, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.26-31.
10.Bilgen, Bilge and Ozkarahan, Irem, 2004, “Strategic and Operational Production Distribution Models: a Review,” The International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.151-171.
11.Bleeke, J. and Ernst, D., 1993, Collaborating to Compete: Using Strategic Alliances and Acquisitions in the Global Marketplace. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
12.Bordogna J. A., 1997, “Next-generation engineering: Innovation through integration.” Paper presented at the Engineering Education Innovation Conference, Arlington, VA. In Best Practices Summary Report. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, Retrieved May 10, 2010 from: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf9892/start.htm
13.Breiger, R. L., 1974, “The duality of persons and groups.” Social Forces, Vol. 53, pp.181-190.
14.------, 1990, Social mobility and social structure. Cambridge University Press, UK.
15.------, 1991, Explorations in Structural Analysis: Dual and Multiple Networks of Social Structure. Garland Press, New York.
16.Breitzman, A. F. and Mogee, M. E., 2002, “The Many Applications of Patent Analysis,” Journal of Information Science, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.187-205.
17.Bright, J. R., 1980, Practical Technology Forecasting: Concepts and Exercises, The Industrial Management Center, Austin, Texas.
18.Burt, R. S., 1982, Toward a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social Structure, Perception and Action. Academic Press, New York.
19.------, 1992, Structure Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, Harvard Business School Press, MA.
20.------, 2004, “Structural holes and good ideas.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp.349-399.
21.------, 2009, Neighbor Networks: Competitive Advantage Local and Personal. Oxford University Press, New York.
22.Cantwell J. A. and Vertova G., 2004, “Historical evolution of technological diversification,” Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.511-529.
23.Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R., 2006, "In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D, cooperation in R&D and external technology acquisition." Management Science, Vol.52, No. 1, pp.68-82.
24.Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., and Walsh, J. P., 2000, “Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not).” W7552, National Bureau of Economic Research.
25.Coleman, J., 1988, “Social capital in the creation of human capital,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp.95-121.
26.Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., 2000, Handbook of qualitative research. Newbury Park, Sage, CA.
27.Dernis H. and Guellec D., 2001, “Using patent counts for cross-country comparisons of technology output,” STI Review, No. 27, pp.130-146.
28.Dosi, G., 1982, “Technological paradigms and technological trajectories,” Research Policy, Vol. 11, pp.147-162.
29.Doz, Y. L. and Hamel, G., 1998, Alliance Advantage: The Art of Creating Value through Partnering, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
30.Duguet, E. and MacGarvie, M., 2005, “How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 14, pp.375-393.
31.Duysters, G., et al., 1999, “Crafting successful strategic technology partnerships.” R&D Management, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.343-351.
32.Dyer, J. H. and Singh, H., 1998, "The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage." Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 660-679.
33.Ernst, H. and Teichert, T., 1998, “The R&D/Marketing Interface and Single Informant Bias in NPD Research: An Illustration of a Benchmarking Case Study,” Technovation, Vol. 18, No. 12, pp.721-739.
34.Faust, K and Wasserman, S., 1992, “Centrality and prestige: A review and synthesis.” Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, Vol. 4, pp. 23-78.
35.Faust, Katherine, 1997, “Centrality in affiliation networks.” Social Networks, Vol. 19, pp.157-191.
36.Fleming L. and Sorenson, O., 2001, “Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data.” Research Policy, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp.1019-1039.
37.Foster, B. L. and Seidman, S. B., 1982, “Urban structure derived from collections of overlapping subsets,” Urban Anthropology, Vol. 11, pp.177-192.
38.------, 1984, “Overlap structure of ceremonial events in two Thai villages.” Thai journal of development Administration, Vol. 24, pp.143-157.
39.Freeman, L.C. and White, D. R., 1993, “Using Galois Lattices to Represent Network Data.” In Marsden, P.V. (ed.), Sociological Methodology, Cambridge, Blackwell, MA.
40.Friedkin, N., 1980, “A Test of Structural Features of Granovetter’s Strength of Weak Ties.” Social Network, Vol. 2, pp.411-422.
41.Gilsing, V. A., et al., 2007, ”Strategic Alliance Networks and Innovation: A Deterministic and Voluntaristic View Combined’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.227-249.
42.Granovetter, M., 1973, “The strength of weak ties.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6, pp.1360-1380.
43.------, 1983, "The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited," Sociological Theory, Vol. 1, pp. 201-233.
44.------, 1992, Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology,”In Nohria, N. and Eccles, R. G. (Eds.), Networks and Organization: Structure, Form and Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
45.Grant, R. M., 1996, ”Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm.” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, 1996, pp. 109-122.
46.Gulati, R. and Gargiulo, M., 1999, "Where do interorganizational networks come from?” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104, pp.1439-1493.
47.Gulati, R., 1995a, “Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual choice in Alliances,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.85-112.
48.------, 1995b, “Social Structure and Alliance Formation Pattern: A Longitudinal Analysis,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp.619-652.
49.------, 1998, “Alliances and networks,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp.293-317.
50.------, 1999, “Network Location and Learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation.” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp.397-420.
51.Hagedoorn, J. and Schakenraad, J., 1994, “The Effect of Strategic Technology Alliances on Company Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.291-309.
52.Hagedoorn, J., 1993, "Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp.371-385.
53.Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, M., 2005. „Market Value and Patent Citations,” Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.16-38.
54.Hanneman, Robert A. and Riddle, M., 2005, Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California.( published in digital form at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/ )
55.Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., and Vopel, K. 2003, “Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights,” Research Policy, Vol. 32, pp.1343-1363.
56.Hegde, D. and Sampat, B., 2009, ''”Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents.” Economic Letters, Vol. 105, pp.287-289.
57.House, J. S, Umberson, D. and Landis, K. R., 1988, “Structures and processes of social support.” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14, pp.293-318.
58.Inkpen, A. C. and Tsang, E. W. K., 2005. “Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.146-165.
59.Janesick, V. J., 1998, “Stretching" exercises for qualitative researchers. Sage, London.
60.Jolly, V. K., 1997, Commercializing New Technologies: Getting from Mind to Market. Harvard Business School Press, NY.
61.Kadushin, C., 1966, “The friends and supporters of psychotherapy: on social circles in urban life.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 31, pp.786-802.
62.Khalil, T., 2000, Management of Technology: The Key to Competitiveness and Wealth Creation, The McGraw-Hill companies, Inc.
63.Kim, J. and Higgins, M.C., 2007, “Where do alliances come from? The role of upper echelons in alliance formation,” Research Policy, Vol. 3, pp.499-514.
64.Knoke, D. and Kuklinski, J. H., 1982, Network analysis. Newbury Park, Sage, Calif.
65.Krackhardt, David, 1992, “The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations,” In Nitin Nohria and Robert G. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organization: Structure, Form and Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
66.Lakatos, I., 1970, “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes,” In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge, London: Cambridge University Press, London.
67.Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Merton, R. K., 1954, “Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis.” In Berger, M.(eds.), Freedom and Control in Modern Society, Van Nostrand, New York.
68.Lemley, M. A., 2001, “Rational ignorance at the patent office.” Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 95, pp.1495-1496.
69.Leonard-Barton, D., 1995, Wellsprings of Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
70.Levin, R. C., et al., 1987, “Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, pp.783-820.
71.Lin, N., et al., 1978, “Analyzing the instrumental uses of social relations in the context of social structure.” Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 7, pp.149-166.
72.Lingua, D. G., 2005, "INPADOC: 30 years of endeavours yet unmapped territories remain!" World Patent Information, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.105-111.
73.Long, C., 2002, “Patent Signals,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 69, pp.625-679.
74.Lorrain, F. and White, H., 1971, "Structural Equivalence in Social Networks." Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol. 1, pp.49-80.
75.McPherson, J. M., 1982, "Hypernetwork Sampling: Duality and differentiation among voluntary organizations." Social Networks, Vol. 3, pp.225-249.
76.------, 1983, “An ecology of affiliation,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp.519-532.
77.McPherson, J. M., and Lynn Smith-Lovin, 1982, “Women and Weak Ties: Differences by Sex in the Size of Voluntary Organizations,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87, pp.883-904.
78.McPherson, J. M., et al., 2001, “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.415-444.
79.Miotti, L. and Sachwald, F., 2003, “Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom?-An integrated framework of analysis,” Research Policy, Vol. 32, pp.1481-1499.
80.Mowery, C. D., et al., 1998, “Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: Implications for the resource-based view of the firm,” Research Policy, Vol. 27, pp.507-523.
81.Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S., 1998, “Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage.” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.242-266.
82.Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G., 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, MA.
83.Neven, T. M., et al., 1990, “Commercializing Technology: What the Best Companies Do?” Harvard Business Review, May/Jun, pp.154-163.
84.Parker, B. and Zeira, Y., 1996, “Parent Company Characteristics and International Joint Ventures Success in England and the U.S.A.” In Woodside, A. G. and Pitts, R. E. (eds.), Creating and Managing International Joint Ventures, Quorum Books, London.
85.Podolny, J. M., et al., 1996, “Networks, Knowledge, and Niches: Competition in the Worldwide Semiconductor Industry, 1984-1991.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp.659-689.
86.Podolny, Joel, and Toby E. Stuart, 1995, "A Role-based Ecology of Technological Change." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 100, No. 5, pp.1224-1260.
87.Porter, M. E., 1985, Competitive Advantage, Free Press, NY.
88.Rindfleisch, A. and Moorman, C., 2001, “The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A Strength-of-Ties Perspective.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp.1-18.
89.Rosenkopf, L. and Tushman, M. L., 1994, “The co-evolution of Technology and Organization,” in Baum, J.A.C. and Singh, J.V. (ed.), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations, Oxford University Press, NY.
90.Simmel, G., 1950, The Sociology of George Simmel, ed. K. H. Wolff. Glencoe: Free Press.
91.------, 1955, Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations, Glencoe, Free Press, IL.
92.Simmons, E. S., 1995, ''Patent Family Databases 10 Years Later.'' Database, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.28–37.
93.Singh, K., 1997, “The Impact of Technological Complexity and Interfirm Cooperation on Business Survival,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.339-367.
94.Sivadas, E., and Dwyer, F. R., 2000, “An examination of organizational factors Influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp.31-49.
95.Sivakumar, K. and Roy, S., 2004, “Knowledge redundancy in supply chains: A framework,” Supply Chain Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.241-249.
96.Smilor, R. W. and Gibson D. V., 1991, ”Accelerating Technology Transfer in R&D Consortia.” Research Technology Transfer Management, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.44-49.
97.Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., and Fleming, L., 2006, “Complexity, networks and knowledge flow.” Research Policy, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp.994-1017.
98.Stuart, T. E. and Podolny, J. M., 1996, “Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.17, pp.21-38.
99.Stuart, T. E., 1998, ”Network position and Propensities to Collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp.668-698.
100.Tsai, Chien-Tzu, 2006, “Exploring the Practice of SMEs’ Patent Management in Taiwan: A Case Study of IC Design Companies,” Taiwan Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.267-280.
101.Umberson, D., et al., 1996, “The Effect of Social Relationships on Psychological Well-Being: Are Men and Women Really so Different?” American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, pp.837-857.
102.USPTO, 2010, Manual of patent examining procedure.
103.Uzzi, B., 1997, “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 37-69.
104.von Wartburg, I., et al., 2005, “Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis.” Research Policy, Vol. 34, No.10, pp.1591-1607.
105.Wasserman, S. and Faust, K., 1994, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, UK.
106.Wenger, E. C. and Snyder, W. M., 2000, ”Communities of practice: The organizational frontier.” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, pp.139-145.
107.Wenger, E. C., 1998, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, UK.
108.White, D. R. and Harary. F., 2001, "The Cohesiveness of Blocks in Social Networks: Node Connectivity and Conditional Density." Sociological Methodology, Vol. 31, pp.305-359.
109.Wolf, M. F., 1994, "Building trust in alliances," Research Technology Management, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.12-15.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top