Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/18909
標題: 合作網絡對企業創新績效之影響
The Impact of Collaborative Networks on Firm Innovation Performance
作者: 林振弘
Lin, Jhen-Hong
關鍵字: 合作網絡;Collaborative networks;創新績效;鄰近凝聚;整體凝聚;網絡中心勢;負二項模型;Innovation performance;Local cohesion;Global cohesion;Centralization;Negative binominal regression model
出版社: 會計學研究所
引用: 中文部分 方世榮、黃恆獎與江季芸,2005,中小企業跨層次社會網絡與績效之關係,中山 管理評論,第16 卷第1 期(3 月):83-118。 司徒達賢,2001,策略管理新論-觀念架構與分析方法,台北: 智勝文化事業有 限公司出版。 任慶宗與林志航,2007,社會網絡結構與研發團隊知識分享之影響-團隊多元化 干擾效果,萬能商學學報,第12 期:137-149。 吳美娟,2002,台灣 IC 製造業製程技術能力, 專利權與績效關係之研究,雲林 科技大學企業管理系碩士班碩士論文。 金成隆,林修葳與紀信義,2004, 專利權的價值攸關性: 從企業生命週期論析, 管理學報,第21 卷第2 期:175-197。 金成隆與陳俞如,2006,公司治理與專利權: 台灣新興市場,管理學報,第23 卷第1 期:99-124。 洪正明,2007,以社會網絡觀點探討網絡集中度對技術創新之影響-兼論專屬資 產之調節效果,人力資源管理學報,第7 卷第1 期:87-108。 洪清德,2004,使命感,客戶網路和供應商網路: 影響我國電子資訊產業代工和 自創品牌策略抉擇因素的探討,管理學報,第21 卷第4 期:451-476。 洪肇志、楊舒蜜與方世榮,2009,集團企業成員組織學習能力與新產品開發-套 繫組合之觀點,台灣科技大學管理新思維學術研討會。 崔曉倩與吳重禮,2011,年齡與選舉參與:2008 年總統選舉的實證分析,調查 研究—方法與應用,第26 期(5 月):7-44。 張火燦與劉淑寧,2002,從社會網絡理論探討員工知識分享,人力資源管理學 報,,第2 卷第3 期:101-113。 陳介玄,1998,台灣產業的社會學硏究: 轉型中的中小企業,台北:聯經出版事 業公司出版。 陳家聲與戴士嫻,2007,創業家社會網絡行為之質性研究,創業管理研究, 第2 卷第4 期(12 月):1-24。 曾俊堯,2004, 創新資本對經營績效與公司價值影響之研究 ,國立台北大學企 業管理學系博士論文。 經濟部智慧財產局,2012,專利統計年報,取自經濟部智慧財產局網頁: http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ 劉正田,2001,研發支出資本化之會計基礎股票評價,會計評論,第33 期:1-26。劉正田、林修葳與金成隆,2005,創新價值鏈之路徑分析: 金業研發投資成效之 實證研究,管理評論,第24 卷第4 期:29-56。 蔡馥陞、方世杰、楊舒閔、許文齡與邱志芳,2011,新產品開發團隊網絡結構, 關係系絡與績效: 共享知識之中介效果,組織與管理,第4 卷第1 期:33-80。 賴士葆、謝龍發與陳松柏,2005,科技管理,台北:華泰文化公司出版。 羅家德,2003,企業關係管理: NQ 關係管理智慧,台北:聯經出版社出版。 英文部分 Adler, P., and S-W. Kwon. 2002. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review 27(1): 17–40. Adorno, T. W., E. L. Frenkel-Brunswik, and Stanford.1950. The Authoritative Personality. Harper and Row Press ,NY. Agrawal, A., I. Cockburn, and J. McHale. 2006. Gone but not forgotten: labor flows, knowledge spillovers and enduring social capital. Journal of Economic Geography 6(5): 571–591. Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(3):425-455. Allen, T. J., and S. I. Cohen. 1969. Information flow in research and development laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly 14(1): 12–19. Arora, A., and A. Gambardella. 1990. Internal knowledge and external linkages: theoretical issues and an application to biotechnology. Journal of Industrial economics 38(4):361-379. Arundel, A., and I. Kabla. 1998. What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research policy 27(2):127-141. Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. Free Co. Press ,NY. Borgatti, S. P., and M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Bosworth, D., and M. Rogers. 2001. Market value, R&D and intellectual property: an empirical analysis of large Australian firms. Economic Record 77(239):323-337. Boschma, R. A., and A. L. Ter Wal. 2007. Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: the case of a footwear district in the South of Italy. Industry and Innovation 14(2): 177-199. Breiger, R. L., and J. G. Ennis. 1979. Personae and social roles: The network structure of personality types in small groups. Social Psychology Quarterly:262-270.Burns, T., and G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock Publications: London, UK. Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press: Cambridge,MA. Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110(2): 349–399. Camarinha-Matos, L. M., H. Afsarmanesh, and M. Ollus. 2005. Virtual Organizations –Systems and Practices, Springer press. Camarinha-Matos, L. M., and H. Afsarmanesh. 2008. Value creation in a knowledge society. In Proceedings of PROLAMAT 6 :1-14. Ciborra, C. U. 1992. Innovation, networks and organizational learning. The economics of information networks :91-102. Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: 95–120. Collins, J. 1988. The Bicentennial Immigration Debate and The Politics of Prejudice. Migration Action 6(3). Cowan, R., N. Jonard, and J.B. Zimmermann. 2007. Bilateral collaboration and the emergence of innovation networks. Management Science 53(7):1051-1067. Cox, D. R. 1983. Some remarks on overdispersion. Biometrika 70(1): 269-274. Degenne, A., and M. Forse. 1999. Introducing social networks. SAGE Publications Limited Press. Emirbayer, M., and J. Goodwin. 1994. Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency. American Journal of Sociology 99(6):1411-1454. Erickson, B. H. 1988. The Relational Basis of Attitudes. Social Sttuctures 27:99-122. Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science 47(1): 117–132. Fleming, L., C. King, and A. Juda. 2007a. Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science 18(6):938–954. Fleming, L., S. Mingo, and D. Chen. 2007b. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly 52(3): 443–475. Freeman, L. C. 1979. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks 1(3):215-239. Friedkin, N. E. 1984. Structural Cohesion and Equivalence Explanations of Social Homogeneity. Sociological Methods and Research 12:235-261. Garcia-Pont, C., and N. Nohria. 2002. Local versus global mimetism: the dynamics of alliance formation in the automobile industry. Strategic Management Journal23(4): 307–321. Gloor, P. A. 2005. Swarm creativity: Competitive advantage through collaborative innovation networks. Oxford University Press, USA. Gnyawali, D., and M. Ravindranath. 2001. Cooperative Networks and Competitive Dynamics: A Structural Embeddedness Perspective, The Academy of Management Review 26(3):431-445. Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380. Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3):451-510. Granovetter, M. 1992. Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action Problems of explanation in economic sociology: 25-56. Griliches, Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28:1661-1707. Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic management journal 20:397-420. Gulati, R., and M. Gargiulo. 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American journal of sociology 104(5):1439-1493. Guler, I., and A. Nerkar. 2012. The impact of global and local cohesion on innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal 33:535-549. Hagedoorn, J., and M. Cloodt. 2003. Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?. Research policy 32(8): 1365-1379. Hanneman, R. A., and M. Riddle. 2005. Introduction to social network methods. University of California at Riverside: Riverside, CA. Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizationsubunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(1): 82–111. Hansen, M.T., J. Podolny, and J. Pfeffer. 2002. So many ties, so little time: a task c ontingency perspective on the value of corporate social capital in organizations. In Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Volume 18) Hargadon, A. B., and RI. Sutton. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(4): 716–749. Hargadon, A. B. 2003. How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth about How Companies Innovate. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA. Hagedoorn, J., and J. Schakenraad. 1994. The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance. Strategic management journal 15(4): 291-309.Holland, P. W., and S. Leinhardt. 1970. A method for detecting structure in sociometric data. American Journal of Sociology:492-513. Hischey, M., V. J. Richardson, and S. Scholz. 2001. Value relevance of nonfinancial Information: the case of patent data. Review of quantitative finance and accounting 12(3):223-235. Iansiti, M., and R. Levien. 2004. Strategy as Ecology. Harvard Business Review, April:72-83. Katz, D, and R. L. Kahn. 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley Press,USA. Kleinbaum, A, and M. Tushman. 2007. Building bridges: the social structure of interdependent innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1(1–2): 103–122. Koka, B. R., and J. E. Prescott. 2008. Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 29(6):639-661. Krackhardt, D. 1998. Simmelian ties: Super strong and sticky. Power and influence in organizations: 21-38. Krackhardt, D, and R. Stern. 1988. Informal networks and organizational crises: an experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly 51: 123–140. Nadel, S. F. 1957. The theory of social structure. London : Cohen & West:159-178. Nahapiet, J, and S. Ghoshal. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242–266. Nerkar, A, and S. Paruchuri. 2005. Evolution of R&D capabilities: the role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science 51(5): 771–785. Latham, W. R., and C. Le Bas. 2006. The economics of persistent innovation: An evolutionary view. The Economics of Persistent innovation, Springer. Laumann, E. O., O. Edward, and D. Knoke. 1986. Social network theory. Approaches to social theory: 83-109. Laumann, E. O., J. Galaskiewicz, and P. Marsden. 1978. Community Structure as Interorganizational Linkages. Annual Review of Sociology 4:455-484. Laumann, E. O., and P. Marsden , and D. Prenskey. 1983. The boundary specification problem in network analysis. Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction Sage ,Beverly Hills: 18-34. Lazarova, M. and I. Tarique. 2005. Knowledge transfer upon repatriation. Journal of World Business 40:361-373. Lev, B. 2001. Intangibles: Management , Measurement , and Reporting, Brookings Institution Press.USA. Llobet, G., and M. Manove. 2006. Network size and network capture. Documentos de Trabajo (CEMFI).Low, B. 1997. Managing Business Relationships and Positions in Industrial Networks, Industrial Marketing Management 26(2):189-202. MacDonald, J. M., and P. K. Lattimore. 2010. Count models in criminology. In Handbook of quantitative criminology .Springer press: 683-698, N Y. McGrath, J. E., J. R. Kelly, and D. E. Machatka. 1984. The social psychology of time: Entrainment of behavior in social and organizational settings. Applied social psychology annual 5:21-44. Mitchell, W., and K. Singh. 1996. Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods. Strategic management journal 17(3):169-195. Mohr, J., S. Sengupta, and S. Slater. 2006. Marketing of high-technology products and innovations, 2nd ed. Pearson press.USA. Newman, M. E. J. 2000. Models of the small world. Journal of Statistical Physics 101: 819–841. Obstfeld, D. 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens and orientation involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 50(1): 100–130. Ohlson, J. A. 1980. Financial Ratios and The Prediction of Bankruptcy. Journal of Accounting Research 18(1):170-201. Osgood, D. W., and J. M. Chambers. 2000. social disorganization outside the metropolis: An analysis of rural youth violence. Criminology 38(1):81-116. Podolny, J. M., and T. E. Stuart. 1995. A role-based ecology of technological change. American Journal of Sociology:1224-1260. Podolny, J. M., and J. N. Baron. 1997. Resources and relationships: social networks, mobility, and satisfaction in the workplace. American Sociological Review 62: 673–693. Podolny, J. M. 2001. Networks as the Pipes and Prisms of the Market1. American Journal of Sociology 107(1):33-60. Powell, W. W., and W. Kenneth, Koput, Laurel Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology , Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1):116-45. Reagans, R, and B. McEvily. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(2): 240–267. Richardson, G. B., 1972. The organisation of industry. The economic journal 82(327):883-896. Ritter, T., and H. Gemunden. 2003. Network competence: Its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research 56(9):745-755. Rodan, S., and C. Galunic. 2004. More than network structure: how knowledgeheterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal 25(6): 541–562. Rowley, T., D. Behrens, and D. Krackhardt. 2000. Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, March Special Issue 21: 369–386. Rowley, K. M., and D. D. Kurpius. 2005. There''s a New Gatekeeper in Town: How Statewide Public Affairs Television Creates the Potential for an Altered Media Model. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82(1):167-180. Salancik, G. R., and J. Pfeffer. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative science quarterly: 224-253. Satu, P., H. Vesa, and F. Tapani. 2010. Collective Creativity and Brokerage Functions in Heavily Cross-Disciplined Innovation Processes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 5:1-21. Schilling, M. A., and C. C. Phelps. 2007. Interfirm collaboration networks: the impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science 53(7):1113–1126. Schumpeter, J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. Shipilov, A. V. 2005. Should you bank on your network? Relational and positional embeddedness in the making of financial capital. Strategic Organization 3(3): 279-309. Singh, J. 2005. Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science 51(5): 756–770. Singh, J, and L. Fleming. 2010. Lone Inventors as sources of breakthroughs: myth or reality? Management Science 56(1): 41–56. Simmel, G., and K. H. Wolf. 1950. The sociology of georg simmel. Glencoe Press.USA. Simsek, Z., M. H. Lubatkin, and S. W. Floyd. 2003. Inter-firm networks and entrepreneurial behavior: A structural embeddedness perspective. Journal of Management 29(3): 427-442. Sorenson, O., J. W. Rivkin , and L. Fleming. 2006. Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy 35(7):994-1017. Sparrowe, R. T., R. C. Liden, S. J. Wayne, and M. L. Kraimer. 2001. Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups. Academy of management journal 44(2):316-325. Thorelli, B.,1986. Networks: between markets and hierarchies. Strategic management journal 7(1): 37-51.Tichy, N, M. Tushman, and C. Fombrun. 1979. Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review 4: 507–520. Travers, J., and S. Milgram. 1969. An experimental study of the small world problem. Journal of Sociometry:425-443. Tsai, W. P. 2000. Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal 21(9): 925–939. Tsai, W. P. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy Of Management Journal 44(5): 996–1004. Tushman, M. L. 1978. Technical communication In R&D laboratories: impact of project work characteristics. Academy Of Management Journal 21(4): 624–645. Tushman, M. L. 1979. Work characteristics and subunit communication structure: contingency analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(1): 82–98. Tushman, M. L., and R. Katz. 1980. External communication and project performance: an investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science 26(11): 1071–1085. Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. American Sociological Review 61(4): 674–698. Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 35–67. Uzzi, B., and J. Spiro. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. American Journal of Sociology 111(2): 447–504. Walker, G., B. Kogut, and W. Shan. 1997. Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization science 8(2):109-125. Warner, W., and P. Lunt. 1941. The Social Life of a Modern Community, Yale University press, new haven , CT:81-91. Wasserman, S, and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Weaver, S. C., and J.F. Weston. 2002. Implementing value based management. Texas: University of California. Meeting of the Financial Management Association. Wellman, B. 1992. Which Types of Ties and Networks Give What Kinds of Social Support?. Advances in Group Processes 9:207-235. Wellman, B. 1988. Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance. Structural analysis in the social sciences 2:19-61. Zukin, S., and P. J. DiMaggio. 1990. Structure of capital., Cambridge niversity Press. UK.
摘要: 
本研究目的在於探討企業內發明家的合作網絡對其創新績效之影響,並以
2002 年至2006 年台灣上市櫃中半導體產業之廠商作為研究樣本。由於過去文獻
指出合作網絡的結構配置會對企業創新績效產生影響,故本研究分別透過
1.鄰近凝聚(Local Cohesion)之密度、2.整體凝聚(Global Cohesion)之密
度、3.網絡中心勢(Centralization)及4.網絡中心勢與整體凝聚交互作用,
進行結構配置對創新績效影響之探討。實證結果發現,鄰近凝聚的密度與創新績
效具有正向影響,而整體凝聚的密度與創新績效呈現負相關。其說明網絡成員與
其鄰近者應該保持密切互動,以增加彼此之信任感、約束力及共同語言與認知,
以便溝通與分享更具深度的內隱知識等資源。而整體網絡的成員基於成本效益及
結構洞優勢之考量,則應該保持較為稀疏的互動狀況,使得網絡存有較豐富多樣
化資源與構思以利於網絡成員的創新績效, 此項結果支持Guler and
Nerkar(2012)的論點。但值得注意的是,本研究亦發現鄰近凝聚與創新績效之間
並非如過去學者所述呈現線性關係,而是呈現先增後減的倒U 型非線性關係,此
說明鄰近凝聚的密度並非無限制地愈高愈好,而是有一臨界點,一旦超過該臨界
點,則將會對創新結果產生不利的影響。另一方面,本研究發現當網絡中心勢的
程度愈高,的確會造成網絡成員之間資訊與資源流通之困難而不利於創新。並且
網絡中心勢與整體凝聚存有交互作用,當網絡中心勢的程度愈高時,則整體凝聚
的密度提高,不再有害於創新,反而有利於企業創新績效的提升。該項發現說明
當企業所面臨的網絡配置呈現高度中心勢時,企業於策略上可透過鼓勵網絡成員
多加互動,來降低資訊與資源流通之困難,提升企業創新績效。

This study examine how the configuration of intra-organizational networks
influences organizations’ innovation performance through — 1. local cohesion,
2. global cohesion, 3. centralization and 4. The interaction between centralization and
global cohesion. We test our hypotheses by examining the structure of the Co-inventor
collaboration networks within Taiwan listed firms that operated in the semiconductor
industry between 2002 and 2006, and their innovative outcomes—patents. The result
of this study indicated that local cohesion has a positive impact on the innovation
performance of a firm, and global cohesion has a negative impact. We also find an
interesting result that there is a nonlinear relationship (with inverted-U shape)
between the local cohesion and innovative performance — this finding is different
from the Guler and Nerkar (2012) that observed a linear relationship between these
two variables. It implies that once local cohesion is higher than the critical-point, it
will have a negative impact on the innovation performance of the firm. Our results
also show that the centralization of network has a negative impact on the innovation
performance of a firm and the interaction between centralization and global cohesion
is positively associated with patent outputs, whereby the negative effect of global
cohesion on innovative performance is converted into a positive effect. It suggests
that global cohesion is useful for innovative performance at high levels of
centralization.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/18909
其他識別: U0005-3007201317035800
Appears in Collections:會計學系所

Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.