請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
|標題:||The Coherence between Technological Capabilities and Business Scopes|
|引用:||Aldrich, H. E., & Mueller, S. 1982. The evolution of organizational forms: Technology, coordination, and control. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Greenwich: 33-87. CT: JAI Press. Aldrich, H. E., & Zimmer, C. 1986. Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17: 1-26. Almeida, P. 1996. Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the U.S. semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 155-165. Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120. Bierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. 1996. Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 123-135. Chen, S. H. 2002. Global production networks and information technology: the case of Taiwan. Industry and Innovation, 9: 249-265. Bijker, W. E., & Law J. 1992. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. MA: MIT Press. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. 2003. Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy, 32: 69-87. Callon, M. 1987. Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology: 83-106. MA: MIT Press. Castrogiovanni, G. J. 2002. Organization task environments: Have they changed fundamentally over time? Journal of Management, 28: 129-150. Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and structure. MA: MIT Press. Chandler, A. D. 1990. Scale and Scope. The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. MA: MIT Press. Christmann, P. 2000. Effects of ‘best practices' of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 663-680. Christensen, J. F., & Foss, N. J. 1997. Dynamic corporate coherence and competence-based competition: Theoretical foundations and strategic implications. In A. Heene, & R. Scanchez (Eds.), Competitive-Based Strategy Management. New York :NY. Coase, R. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4: 386-405. Collis, D., & Montgomery, C. 1997. Corporate, Strategy: Resources and the Scope of the Firm. Chicago: Irwin. Colombo, M., Grilli, L., & Piva, E. 2006. In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-up. Research Policy, 35: 1166-1199. Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER working paper no. 7552. Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. 1984. Dimension of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 52-73. Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D. & Hitt, M. A. 1990. Industry effects and strategic management research. Journal of Management, 16: 7-27. Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35: 554-571. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160. Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigm and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11: 147-162. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105-1121. Foss, N. J. 1996. Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm: Some critical comments. Organization Science, 7: 470-476. Gambardella, A., & Torrisi, S. 1998. Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry. Research Policy, 27: 445-463. Garcia-Vega, M. 2006. Does technological diversification promote innovation? An empirical analysis for European firms. Research Policy, 35: 230-246. Goll, I, & Rasheed, A. 1997. Rational decision-making and firm performance: The moderating role of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 583-591. Granstrand, O. 1998. Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Research Policy, 27: 465-489. Granstrand, O., & Sjolander, S. 1990. Managing innovation in multi-technology corporations. Research Policy, 19: 35-60. Grant, R. M. 1996. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7: 375-387. Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. 1994. Measuring Competence? Exploring firm effects in Pharmaceutical Research. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 63-84. Hitt, M. A., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., Arregle, J. L., & Borze, A. 2000. Partner selection in emerging and developed contexts: Resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Academy of management Journal, 43: 449-467. Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L., & Walker, G. 2003. Guest editors' introduction to the special issue: Why is there a resource-based view? Towards a theory of competitive heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 889-902. Hung, S.-C., Liu, N.-C., & Chang, J.-B. 2003. The taxonomy and evolution of technology strategies: A study of Taiwan''s high-technology-based firms. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50: 219-227. Jaffe, A. B. 1986. Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms'' Patents, Profits, and Market Value. American Economic Review, 76: 984-1001. Kodama, F. 1992. Technological fusion and the new R&D. Harvard Business Review, July-August: 70-78. Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. 2001. Capabilities as real options. Organization Science, 12(6): 744-758. Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A., 1998. A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 570-598. Koza, M. 1988. Regulation and organization: Environmental niche structure and administrative organization. Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 183-201, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. MA: Harvard University Press. Lecraw, D. J. 1984. Diversification strategy and performance. Journal of Industrial Economics, 33: 179-198. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112. Mahoney, J. T. 1995. The management of resources and the resource of management. Journal of Business Research, 33: 91-101. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87. McKelvey, W. 1997. Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8: 352-380. McArthur, A., & Nystrom, P. 1990. Environmental Dynamism, Complexity, and Munificence as Moderators of Strategy-Performance Relationships. Journal of Business Research, 23: 349-361. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organization. New York: Wiley. Miller, D. J. 2006. Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 601-619. Mitchell, W. 1989. Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents' entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 208-230. Nelson, R. R. 1991. Why do firms differ and why does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 16: 61-74. Nelson R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. MA: Belknap Press. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1977. In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6: 36-76. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Parayil, G. 2003. Mapping technological trajectories of the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution from modernization to globalization. Research Policy, 32: 971-990. Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. 1994. The continuing, widespread (and neglected) importance of improvements in mechanical technologies. Research Policy, 23: 533-546. Pavitt, K., Robson, M., & Townsend, J. 1989. Technological accumulation, diversification and organisation in UK companies. Management Science, 35: 81-99. Penrose, E. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116-145. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68: 79-91. Rajagopalan, N., Rasheed, A., & Datta, D. 1993. Strategic decision processes: Critical review and future directions. Journal of Management, 19: 349-384. Robinson, W. T., & Chiang, J. 1996. Are Sutton''s predictions robust? Empirical insights into advertising, R and D, and concentration. Journal of Industrial Economics, 44: 389-408. Romanelli, E. 1991. The evolution of new organization forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 17: 79-103. Rosenberg, N. 1994. Exploring the Blackbox: Technology, Economics and History. MA: Cambridge University Press. Rothaermel, F. T. 2001. Complementary Assets, strategic alliances and the incumbent's advantage: an empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 30: 1235-1251. Sanchez, R. 1995. Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 135-159. Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper. Teece, D. 1996. Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 31: 193-224. Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15: 285-305. Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. 1994. The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3: 537-556. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-533. Teece, D. J., Rumelt, R., Dosi, G., & Winter, S. 1994. Understanding Corporate Coherence: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 23: 1-30. Tosi, H. L., & Slocum, J. W. 1984. Contingency theory: Some suggested directions. Journal of Management, 10: 9-26. Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organization in action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Taylor, P., & Lowe J. 1997. Are functional assets or knowledge assets the basis of new product performance? Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 9: 473-488. Telser, L. G. 1986. Advertising and Competition. Journal of Political. Economics, 72: 537-562. Tripas, M. 1997. Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry, Strategic Management Journal, 18: 119-142. Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource based-view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171-180. Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press. Williamson, O. E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press|
|摘要:||The fundamental nature of firms' product or market expansion is original from the extension of their core competencies and resources, which create the synergies of a firm's capability development and business scope expansion. Thus in a firm's scope expansion process, technology plays an important role. As a result, when considering a firm's technology trajectory or operating business scopes, we should retrace to firms' initial technology and resource endowments in order to describe their technological capabilities development and business configuration comprehensively.
This study illustrates the proposed hypotheses through 192 Taiwanese high-tech firms between 1998 and 2008. I propose that technological capabilities and business scopes fundamentally interplay in the determination of technological capabilities development which moderates by internal and external conditions, and identifies the interconnect effects on technological trajectory. A firm's technological capability development is influenced by its initial technology endowments in the beginning, then because by external environmental contexts - environmental munificence, environmental dynamics, industry attractiveness and industry competitiveness and internal complementary assets, this firm will therefore diversify their business scopes into different products or markets in different areas. However, firm in different business scopes will therefore further different new technological capabilities by their diversification, which in turn will affect the old technology, resulting in synergies or new technology capabilities. Therefore, I interpret the evolution of firms' technological capability development and business scopes as a coherence phenomenon and thus explain the feedback loop form of technology trajectory.
The findings show there is a coherence effect between firms' technological capabilities and their business activities. A firm's technology endowments extend not only their own technological capabilities but also its business scopes simultaneously and so as business scopes do. The evidences also indicate that internal specialized complementary assets have positive moderating effects on the relationship of technological capabilities and business scopes. And the external context, environment munificence and industry attractiveness also have positive moderating effects on technological capabilities development. But the industry competition has a negative moderating effect on the relationship of technological capabilities and business scopes.|
產品或市場的擴張其背後的本質乃是源自於企業內部的核心能力與資源的延伸、擴張，進而創造出能耐發展與經營範疇擴充的綜效。而在這樣的擴張過程中，技術的發展扮演重要的角色。因此，當我們在討論技術發展的軌跡或企業的經營範疇時，應回歸到最原始企業所擁有的技術本質，探討技術發展所帶動的企業資源佈局策略。 本研究藉由探討1998年至2008年的129家台灣高科技廠商的技術能耐與組織範疇，以及其所投入之非技術類資源的比重和所面臨的外在環境因素，來探討技術能耐的演進過程。藉此解釋技術資源與組織佈局決策的互動關係，了解技術能耐發展過程中的組織因素之影響。企業技術能耐的發展在一開始會受到企業本身所擁有的技術資源影響，發展出一個核心技術，繼而，又因受到外在環境因素－環境豐厚性、環境動態性、產業吸引力與產業競爭性的影響，以及企業內部互補性資產的調節，企業會因此進行產品或市場多角化等不同的事業範疇的選擇。然而，企業在透過在不同事業範疇的經營環境下，又會因此發展出新的技術能耐，該項新的技術能耐又進而影響企業舊有的技術資源，因而產生綜效或新的技術能耐。故本研究將企業技術資源與資源佈局策略的演進過程，解釋為一種協同凝聚的現象，進而解釋技術軌跡演進過程。 透過實證結果顯示，企業的技術能耐與其經營範疇存在著相互影響的協同凝聚現象。技術能耐除了會影響自身的延續發展外，也會影響企業經營範疇的決策，反之組織範疇亦同。此外，技術能耐透過組織內部的互補性資產之調節效果，對組織範疇決策產生顯著的影響；而組織範疇則透過環境豐厚性與產業吸引力對技術能耐發展有正向調節效果，而產業競爭性則有負向的調節影響效果。
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。