請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/20569
標題: The Research of the Business Models and International Activitiesof Taiwanese R&D Service Industry -- The Case Study of Biotechnology Industry
台灣研發服務產業經營模式與國際化活動之研究-以生物科技產業為例
作者: 吳家泰
Wu, Chia-Tai
關鍵字: 競爭優勢
Competitive Advantage
經營策略
經營活動
經營模式
國際化活動
績效指標
生物科技產業
strategy
business Activities
Business Model
International Activity
Perdormance Index
Biotechnology Industry
出版社: 企業管理學系所
引用: ㄧ、中文文獻 1. 尹啟銘(民國78年),產品創新自由度、企業策略與技術政策之關係—台灣資訊電子業實證研究,國立政治大學企業管理研究所博士論文。 2. 李明軒、邱如美合譯(民國88年),「競爭優勢」譯自Micheal E. Porter,臺北:天下文化。 3. 周旭華譯(民國87年),「競爭策略 : 產業環境及競爭者分析」譯自Micheal E. Porter,臺北:天下文化。 4. 林炳中、林佳慧(民國92年),研發服務產業發展概況,台灣經濟研究院。 5. 行政院農業委員會、行政院經濟建設委員會(民國93年),「研發服務業發展綱領及行動方案」。 6. 高志道、江晃榮(民國80年),「美日生物技術的競賽-兼談我國發展生技的困境」,科學月刊,80(4),264-271。 7. 王彝玫(民國89年),產業競爭程度、企業策略與國際化程度之關聯性研究 ,私立元智大學管理研究所碩士論文。 8. 吳政宜(民國91年),臺灣軟體公司國際化成功因素探討,國立交通大學高階主管管理學程碩士班碩士論文。 9. 李建民(民國90年),台灣廠商國際化之策略、營運組織與協調機制之研究-以台達電子和宏碁電腦為例,國立台灣大學國際企業管理研究所碩士論文。 10. 李志華(民國71年)台灣企業績效評估方式之研究,國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。 11. 鍾招龍(民國85年)我國輸出入銀行績效考核制度之研究,國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。 12. 牟敦剛(民國85年),「推動我國生物技術及相關產業升級之課題探討」,經濟情勢暨評論季刊2(1),76-93。 13. 田蔚城(民國86年),「生物技術導論:生物產業」,8(1),1-12。 14. .謝雯玲(民國90年),台灣生物科技產業的發展,私立淡江大學國際貿易學系碩士論文。 15. 經濟部工業局(民國91年),「生技產業白皮書」,台北市:經濟部工業局。 16. 湯明哲(民國92年),「策略精略:基礎篇」,台北:天下遠見出版股份有限公司。 17. 吳思華(民國85年),「策略九說:策略思考的本質」,麥田出版社。 18. 吳思華(民國87年),「策略九說」,台北:臉譜文化出版社。 19. 吳思華(民國89年),「策略九說:策略思考的本質」,第三版,台北:臉譜文化出版社。 20. 司徒達賢(民國84年),「策略管理」,台北:遠流出版社。 21. 許正昇(民國88年),我國製藥產業經營策略之研究,國立成功大學企業管理學系碩士論文。 22. 楊世瑩(民國94年),「SPSS統計分析實務」,台北:旗標出版股份有限公司 23. 林師模,陳苑欽(民國92年),「多變量分析-管理上的應用」,台北:双葉書廊。 24. 陳振森(民國78年),台灣地區集團企業經營績效之探測性研究,私立東吳大學管理研究所 25. 吳萬益 (民國85年),「集團企業組織文化、決策模式與經營策略之研究-中每日德韓墨主要集團企業運作模式之實證分析」, 行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃。 26. 潘建志(1996),集團企業領導人領導風格與經營績效之關係,國立成功大學企業管理學系。 27. 林清河、施坤壽(民國92年),「組織結構、全面品質管理、ISO 9000 與競爭優勢、組織績效之結構化模式分析」,20(5),965-992。 二、英文文獻 1. Aaker, D.A. (1984). Strategic Markeingt Management. New York:John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2. Afuah A. ( 2004 ). Business Model:A Strategic Management Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. 3. Afuah A., & Tucci C.L. (2001). Internet Business Model and Strategies: Text and Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. 4. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value Creation in e-Business. Strategic Management Journa, 22, 493-520. 5. Aulakh, P.S., Masaaki K., & Hildy T. (2000). Export Strategies and Performance of Firms From Emerging Economies: Evidence From Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 342-61. 6. Boulton, L., & Samek. (2000). Cracking the Value Code. Harper Business, p7, p17. 7. Brewer, H. L. (1981). Investors Benefits from Corporate International Diversification. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 16 (1), 113-26. 8. Buhner, & Rolf. (1987). Assessing International Diversification of West German Corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 8 (1), 25-37. 9. Carpenter, M.A., Sanders, Wm.G., & Gregersen, H.B. (2001). Bundling Human Capital with Organizational Context: The Impact of International Assignment Experience onMultinational Firm Performance and CEO Pay. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 493-511. 10. Cavusgil, S.T. (1984). Differences among exporting firms based on their degree of internationalization. Journal of Business Research, 12, 195-208. 11. Chandler, A.D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. MIT PRESS, Cambridge, MA. 12. Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R.S. (2000). The Role of Business Model of Capturing Value from Innovation. Harvard Business School Press. 13. Collis, J.D., & Montgomery, C.A. (1995). Competing on Resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review, Jul. Vol. 73, Iss. 4, 118-129. 14. Collis, D.J., & Montgomery, C.A. (1997). Corporate Strategy: Resources and the Scope of the Firm. Chicago: IRWIN. 15. Contractor, F.J., Sumit KK., & Chin-Chun H. (2003). A Three-Stage Theory of International Expansion: The Link Between Multinatinality and Performance in the Service Sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 5-18. 16. Cullotta, C. (2000). Understanding New Market Realities. Supply House Times, Vol 43, P57. 17. Daniels, J.D., & Bracker, J. (1989). Profit performance: Do Foreign Operations Make a Difference? Management International Review. Wiesbaden, First 95 Quarter, 29(1), 46-57. 18. Delaney, J.T., & Huselid, M.A. (1996). The impact of Human Resource Management Practice on Perception of Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969. 19. Delios, Andrew, & Paul W. B. (1999). Geographic Scope, Product Diversification, and the Corporate Performance of Japanese Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (8), 711-27. 20. Drucker, P. (1965). The Future of Industrial Man. New American Library, London. 21. Drucker, P. (1997). Sociedade Pós-Capitalista. São Paulo: Pioneira. 22. Dunning, J. H. (1993). Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. 23. Dyer, L., & Reeves, T. (1995). HR Strategies & Firm Performance: What Do We Know and Where Do We Need To go? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 656-670. 24. Eisenhardt, K.M., & Sull, D.N.(2001). Strategy as Simple Rules, in: Havard Business Review, 79. Jg. Nr. January, S, 106-116. 25. Eisenmann, T.R. (2002). Internet Business Models: Text and case. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. 26. Errunza, V.R., Senbet, L.W., & Logue, D.E. (1981). The Effects of International Operations on the Market Value of the Firm: Theory and Evidence/Discussion.The Journal of Finance, 36(2), 401-420. 27. Errunza, V.R., & Senbet L.W. (1984). International Corporate Diversification, Market Valuation, and Size-Adjusted Evidence. The Journal of Finance, Vol.39, No 3, 727-743. 28. Fatemi, A.M. (1984). Shareholder Benefits from Corporate International Diversification. The Journal of Finance, Cambridge, Dec. 39(5), 1325-1345. 29. Geringer, J.M., Paul W.B., & Richard C.D. (1989). Diversification Strategy and Internationalization: Implications for MNE Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10 (2), 109-19. 30. Gomes, L., & Kannan R. (1999). An Empirical Examination of the Form of the Relationship Between Multinationality and Performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (1), 173-88. 31. Gorsuch, R.K. (1983). Factor Analysis. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 32. Grant, R. M. (1987). Multinationality and Performance among British Manufacturing Companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 18 (3), 79-89. 33. Grant, R.M. (1995). Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts. 34. Grant, R. M., Azar P. J., & Howard T. (1988). Diversity, Diversification, and Profitability among British Manufacturing Companies, 1972-1984. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4), 771-801. 35. Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the Revolution, Harvard Business School, Boston. 36. Hansen, & Fay. (2001). The Future Salary Management. Compensation and Benefits Review, 33( 4), 7-13. 37. Henderson, & Clark. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30. 38. Hitt, M. A., Robert E. H., & Hicheon K. (1997), “International Diversification: Effects on Innovation and Firm Performance in Product-Diversified Firms,” Academy of Management Journal, 40 (4), 767-98. 39. Horst, T. E. (1972). Firm and Industry Determinants of the Decision to Invest Abroad. Review of Economics and Statistics, 54 (8t), 258-66. 40. Kazanjian, R. K. (1983). The Organizational Evolution of High- Tech New Venture :The Impact Stage of Growth on the Nature of Structure and Planning Processes. Wharton School Doctoral Dissertation. 41. Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini A. (1999). The Leveraging of Interfirm Relationships As A Distinctive Organizational Capability: A Longitudinal Study. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 317-338. 42. Mahadevan, B. (2000). Business Models for Internet-Based E-Commerce: AnAnatomy. California Management Review, Vol.42 (4), 55-69. 43. Magretta, J. (2002). Why Business Matter. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 3-8. 44. McGrath R.G., & MacMillan I.C. (2000). The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continuously Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge. 45. Michel, Allen, & Shaked I. (1986). Multinational Corporations vs. Domestic Corporations: Financial Performance and Characteristics. Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (3), 89-100. 46. Miler, S.M. (1990). The Strategic Management of Technological R&D: an Ideal Process for the 1990’s. International Journal of Technology Management, 5(2), 63-153. 47. Mitchell, D.W., & Coles, C.B. (2004). Establishing a Continuing Business Model Innovation Process. The Journal of Business Strategy, 25, P3. 48. Morck, R., & Yeung B. (1991).Why investors value multinationality. Journal of 114 Business, Vol.64, No 2, 165-187. 49. Oakey, R.P. (1993). Predatory Networking: The Role of Small Firms in the Development of the British Biotechnology Industry. International Small Business Journal, 11(4), 9-22. 50. Olusoga, S. A. (1993). Market Concentration Versus Marker Diversification and Internationalization:Implications for MNE Performance. International Marketing Review,vol.10 No.2, 40-59. 51. Ovans, A. (2000). Can you patent your business model? Harvard Business Review, Vol.78, p16. 52. Perlmutter, H. V. (1969). The Tortuous Evolution of the Multinational Corporation,” Columbia Journal of World Business, 4 (1), 9-18. 53. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press. 54. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press. 55. Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a Field of Study: Why Search for a new Paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5-16. 56. Qian, G. (1998). Determinants of Profit Performance for the Largest U.S.Firms 1981-92,” Multinational Business Review, 6 (2), 44-51. 57. Ramaswamy, K. (1995). Multinationality, Configuration, and Performance: A Study of MNEs in the U.S. Drug and Pharmaceutical Industry. Journal ofInternational Management, 1 (2), 231-53. 58. Roberts, E.B., & Mizouchi, R. (1989). Inter-firm Technological Collaboration:The Case of Japanese Biotechnology. International Journal of Technology Management, 4(1), 43-61. 59. Robertson, S.T., & Gatignon, H. (1998). Technology Development Mode: A Transaction Cost Conceptualization. Strategic Management Journal, 19(6), 515-531. 60. Rue, L.W., & Holland, P.G. (1986). Strategic Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. 61. Ruigrok, W., & Wagner H. (2003). Internationalization and Performance: An Organizational Learning Perspective,” Management International Review, 43 (1), 63-83. 62. Sambharya, R.B. (1995). The Combined Effect of International Diversification and Product Diversification Strategies on the Performance of US-Based Multinational Corporations.Management International Review, 35 (3), 197-218. 63. Sanders, W., & Carpenter M. (1998). Internationalization and firm governance: The Roles of CEO Compensation, top team composition, and board structure. Academy of Management Journal.41, 158-178. 64. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation, Harper & Row , New York. 65. Shaked, I. (1986). Are Multinational Corporations Safer? Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (1), 75-80. 66. Shafer S.M., Smith H.J., & Linder J.C. (2005). The Power of Business Modle. Indiana Univisity Kellry School of Business, 48, 199-207. 67. Siddharthan, N. & Lall S. (1982). Recent Growth of the Largest U.S. Multinationals. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 44 (1), 1-13. 68. Spalding, B.J. (1986). How Biotechnology is Farming as a Industry. Chemical Week, 139(23), 9-13. 69. Stopford, J.M. & Wells L.T. (1972). Managing the Multinational Enterprise. New York: Basic Books. 70. Stopford, M. (1992). Shipping Cycles and Ship Finance: A Special Overview. International Financial Law Review, London, 3-6. 71. Sullivan, D. (1994). Measuring The Degree of Internationalization of A Firm. Journal of International Business Studies, Second Quarter, 325-342. 72. Thompson Jr., Arthur A., Strickland III, 13th edition (2003) Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. 13th Edition Mcgraw Hill Higher education. 73. Tadjer, R.(2000). Music Biz Rocks The Internet: Copyright Fight Spurs Experiments, Major Labels Try to Protect Turf. Internetweek ,Iss. 815, P25 74. Timmers, P. (2000). Electronic Commerce: Strategies and Models for Business to Business Trading. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 75. Trewatha, R.L., & Newport, M.G. (1979). Management. Revised ed. 76. Tushman, M.L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439-465. 77. Venkatraman, & Ramanujam. (1986). Multi-Objective Assessment of Effectiveness of Strategic Planning: A Discriminant Analysis Approach. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 347-372. 78. Vernon, R. (1971). Sovereignty at bay: The Multinational Spread of U.S. Enterprises. New York: Basic Books. 79. Voelpel, S.C., Leibold M., & Tekie E.B. (2004). The Wheel of Business Model Reinvention: How to Reshape Your Business Model to LeaPfrog Competitor. Journal of Change Management, Vol. 4, NO. 3, 259-276. 80. Wan, C. (1998), “International Diversification, Industrial Diversification and Firm Performance of Hong Kong MNCs,” Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 15 (2), pp. 205-17. 81. Weill, P., & Vitale, M.R. (2001). Place to space: Migrating to e-Business Models. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. 82. Yin, R.K., (1989). Case study research:design and methods. 2nd ed. 83. Zachary, G. (1996). Major U.S. companies expand efforts to sell to consumersabroad. Wall Street Journal, June 13, A1. 三、網路資料: 1. 成大生物科技中心網頁,取自http://www.ncku.edu.tw/~cbst/ 2. 王為敏(民國90年),台灣生技/醫藥產業概況。網路資料,取自 http://www.polaris.com.tw/3good/rdroom/report/900406_biotech.htm 3. 麥朝成(民國91年),資政顧問言論專欄,取自 http://www.president.gov.tw/1_structure/famous/column/4_mcc.html 4. 徐明珠(民國93年), 經建引擎不停息工業技職教育要從知識的創新再出發,取自http://www.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/EC/093/EC-B-093-038.htm 5. 黃仁德、姜樹翰(民國90年),我國生物科技產業的展望與區位選擇。經濟情勢既評論,第七卷,第一期,取自 http://www.moea.gov.tw/~ecobook/season/9006/7-1-4.htm
摘要: Enterprises have undergone transformations due to the impact of globalization and information computerlized; high expenditure or inefficient processes of R&D activities are outsourced and that has led to the development of R&D Service Industry. As it has been developed more than ten years, one of the primary questions that R&D service companies ought to take into consideration is how to create outstanding performances and competitive adventages. Organizational adventages originates from strategies, according to Grant (1995), which is a crucial component of the business model. As a result, the R&D service companies can generate profits and maintain competitive advantages via business model (Afuah, 2004). This research applied business models related theories as a core to develop the questionary. From it, I dived into the performances of various business models in particular of R&D service companies, with an indepth discovery in strategic activities utilized by the outstanding business models. Since all sorts of Taiwanese enterprises pursue the trend of internationalization, under its competitive pressure, my research also aims to draw on international activities as moderator variables for better understaindings in the impact of the performance. The research samples are derived from 116 biotechnology industrial companies, registered R&D service companies in Industrail Technology Research Institute. The research indicates the following results: (1) of the three business models, “Human-resource Orientation” and “Low-cost Orientation” as well as “Marketing Orientation”, Marketing Orientation leads the performance followed by Human-resource Orientation and Low-cost Orientation; (2) as to the two types of international activities of R&D service companies, there is no distinctive influence and yet it remains potential developments; (3) R&D service companies should center their business models on resources and capabilities as the basis to construct business activities. Without the two supports, business activities are do no aid to the performance.
面臨全球化與資訊化的競爭環境,逐漸有企業將研發活動過程中較無效率或支出比例較高的部分進行外包,促使研發服務業的形成。研發服務業發展至今十年有餘,如何在這新興產業中創造亮眼的績效與競爭優勢,是目前研發服務業者所當思考的問題。競爭優勢來源是經由有效的策略所創造,而組織的策略是構成經營模式的重要元素,因此研發服務業者可以透過經營模式獲取利潤並且保有競爭優勢。 本研究以經營模式相關理論為核心來發展問卷,進而探討研發服務業者在不同的經營模式之下的績效表現,從中整理出具有優越績效的經營模式,發展何種策略活動。另外,由於國際化的競爭壓力之下,台灣各領域的企業都在追趕國際化的風潮,因此在對研發服務業者之經營模式的探討之餘,尚加入以有無國際化活動作為干擾變數,以求國際化活動對經營績效的影響。 本研究以生物科技產業為研究對象,主要鎖定向工研院登記為研發服務業者之116家廠商。研究結果顯示出:(1)在研究樣本中發現總共分為三種經營模式,分別為「人資導向型」、「低成本導向型」與「多功能導向型」。以多功能導向型的績效表現最佳、人資導向型次之、低成本導向型的績效表現最差。(2)研發服務業者的兩種國際化活動,對於績效表現沒有顯著的差異影響,但是仍有發展潛力。 (3)研發服務業者對於經營模式的建構必須要以資源或能力為核心,做為發展經營活動的基礎。倘若經營活動沒有資源或能力的支援,對績效表現並無太大的助益。
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/20569
其他識別: U0005-0507200601531200
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-0507200601531200
顯示於類別:企業管理學系所

文件中的檔案:
沒有與此文件相關的檔案。


在 DSpace 系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。