學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 廠商創新研發競合與知識互動之研究–以台灣中部地區工具機暨零組件產業為例
R&D and innovation co-opetition and knowledge interaction among industrial firms : the case of machine tool industry in Mid-Taiwan作者 吳健鑫
Wu, Chien-Hsin貢獻者 吳豐祥
Wu, Feng-Shang
吳健鑫
Wu, Chien-Hsin關鍵詞 競合
創新研發
知識互動
知識分享
知識保護
Co-opetition
R&D and innovation
Knowledge interaction
Knowledge sharing
Knowledge protection日期 2018 上傳時間 2-Mar-2018 12:03:30 (UTC+8) 摘要 當管理策略的發展開始從既有的「純競爭策略」，逐漸轉變為一種陰陽相依、競合相倚的觀念時，這種「陰」與「陽」同時存在或交替出現的「競合策略」便成為管理學者爭相研究的焦點。然而，即使有關於競合的理論與研究不勝枚舉，但是能以知識為探討的立足點，來瞭解廠商間創新研發競合關係的研究並不多見。再者，過去有關區域創新或是產業聚落的研究，多半強調合作創新，顯少討論區域內的競爭。進一步而言，對於區域內廠商在創新研發方面同時「競合並存」的研究，特別是針對「競爭導向的合作」與「合作導向的競爭」兩種創新競合的情境下，廠商間的知識分享與知識保護的情形，更是付之闕如。因此，本研究的目的，即在回應這些文獻缺口，對於廠商在不同的創新研發「競合關係」情境下，其知識互動的實際作為，做一深入的探究。本研究在研究方法上採用多重個案研究方法，以全球最著名的區域創新系統之一台灣中部地區的工具機群聚為主要的研究場域。在研究的過程中，以兩階段的深度訪談，針對中部地區的工具機暨零組件產業之競合關係進行瞭解，並找出兩個特殊的創新研發競合案例。進一步地，針對此兩案例中廠商的創新研發「競合關係」與知識互動的實際作為，做深入的比較與分析。本研究經歸納彙整研究命題後，進一步得到以下結論：一、第三方單位在區域內廠商之創新研發競合關係與知識互動中扮演重要的角色，包括中介協調、主動催生與管理計畫、技術移轉與檢測驗證等。二、廠商在不同的「競合關係」情境下，會因營運範疇相似度的不同，而有不同的知識分享類型與交流管道。在營運範疇相似度高的情況下，會以基礎理論知識來進行分享，且以正式的討論會議為主要的知識交流管道；在營運範疇相似度度低的情況下，會以應用層面的技術知識進行分享，在知識交流的管道上不僅會有正式的討論會議，還會透過非正式的方式進行交流。三、廠商在不同的創新研發「競合關係」情境下，會因未來競爭的可能性與營業秘密的考量，而採取不同的知識分享方式，包括選擇性分享、不願意分享以及主動進行分享等。四、廠商在不同的創新研發「競合關係」情境下，儘管知識保護的緣由不同，都會以契約內的保密協議做為最主要的知識保護方式。在學術研究方面，本研究不同於以往的文獻從「市場」或是「資源」的角度來探究「競合關係」，而是以創新研發中最根本的要素–「知識」，來探究創新研發的「競合關係」。其次，不僅瞭解到第三方單位是促成競爭廠商形成合作研發聯盟的重要推手，亦從廠商不同的競合情境下，其知識互動的作為，整理出「知識互動的影響因素」。因此，本研究在學術研究上做出以下的貢獻：一、過往競合方面的研究，主要是以一般性的策略領域為主，本研究則特別針對廠商在「創新研發」上的「競合」行為來加以探討。二、過往的競合理論對於市場與資源的定義不夠完整與明確，且認為市場與資源是分別影響競爭與合作的不同要素。本研究更細緻地以「知識」的層次來加以探討，發現「知識」對廠商間的競合行為有很大的影響；此外，知識層次的觀點亦會使市場與資源間的界限變得模糊。三、過往的競合理論概括性地提出既競爭又合作的概念，本研究進一步地提供「競爭導向的合作」（競中帶合）與「合作導向的競爭」（合中帶競）兩種情境的實證研究結果。四、過往的研究較少提出第三方單位在競合關係中扮演的角色，本研究藉由實證並提出區域內廠商在進行創新研發競合關係時，第三方單位的主要角色與重要性。五、過往區域創新系統或產業群聚的研究以探討廠商間的合作為主，本研究再加入「競爭」的要素做為研究廠商創新研發「競合關係」的基礎。整體而言，本研究將「競中帶合」與「合中帶競」做清楚的定義，進一步地以知識作為廠商進行創新研發競合的根本要素，並提出第三方單位的重要性。在實務上，提供知識互動的影響因素作為廠商進行競合與知識互動時的參考依據。
Management strategy has gradually transformed from “pure competition” to the coexistence of competition and cooperation, also known as co-opetition, where “co-opetition strategy” has become a popular research focus for scholars who study management. Scholars, upon observing such trend where “peace” and “warfare”- or “yin” and “yang”- exists either at the same time or occurs alternatively, begin to add the “cooperative” element (yang) into the traditional concept of “competition” (yin). Although immense theories and researches on the concept of co-opetition exist, researches that attempt to reveal the co-opetition relationship in the realm of R&D and Innovation among firms from the standpoint of knowledge have been scarce. Regional Innovation Systems is a field full of cooperation and competition, yet past research mostly focused on cooperation and innovation instead of discussing the competition among firms in the region. That is, few researches focused on discussing the cooperation and competition coexisting at the same time in the realm of R&D and Innovation among firms. Moreover, researches that particularly discuss the situation of knowledge sharing and knowledge protection among firms from two R&D and Innovation co-opetition types of “Competition-dominated cooperation” and “Cooperation-dominated competition” relegate said situations to the category of things unknown. Therefore, this research aims to fill the gap in such literature by conducting deep explorations into knowledge interaction among firms in one region, particularly from two R&D and Innovation co-opetition types. This research adopts a multi-case study method while the main field of research focuses on one of the most renowned global Regional Innovation Systems: the machinery cluster in central Taiwan. During the process of the research, a two-stage, in-depth interview was conducted to understand the co-opetition relationship among the machine tool and component firms in the central Taiwan, and has identified two special case studies of R&D and Innovation co-operation. Furthermore, this research focus on the R&D and Innovation co-opetition relationship among firms and their practices of knowledge interaction in these two cases, and conducts in-depth comparisons and analysis.By conducting two-stage in-depth interviews, this study summarizes the research propositions and further obtains the following conclusions:1.Third party plays an important role in R&D and innovation co-opetition knowledge interaction among firms in the same region, including the roles of intermediary coordination, taking the initiative to spawn and manage projects, and transferring, testing and verification of technology.2.In different “co-opetition” types, the types of knowledge sharing and exchange channels among firms are different according to how similar they are in operational scope. In the case of high similarity in operational scope, basic and theoretical knowledge is shared, and formal meetings are the main channel of knowledge exchange. In the case of low similarity in operational scope, technical and applied knowledge is shared, and the channels of knowledge exchange do not only have formal meetings, but also communicate informally.3.In different “R&D and innovation co-opetition” types, firms will take different approaches in sharing knowledge (either being selective, not willing, or actively sharing) due to future competition possibilities and trade secrets.4.Firms differ in their reasons for knowledge protection in different “R&D and innovation co-opetition” types, but will mostly rely on confidential agreements within their contracts as the main measure for knowledge protection.While past academic research mostly explores "co-opetition relationship" from the perspective of "market" or "resource", this research explores R&D and innovation co-opetition with the most essential element, “knowledge”. Not only is it understood that third-party units are important promoters of competitive firms in forming R&D alliances, "the influencing factors of knowledge interaction" from the perspective of their knowledge interaction under different co-opetition types is concluded. Therefore, this research aims to produce the following contributions in the academic field:1.Past co-opetition researches mostly focus on generic and strategical fields, this research focuses particularly on bahviors of “co-opetition in R&D and innovation” among firms.2.Past co-opetition theories’ definitions on markets and resources are insufficient and imprecise, for they describe markets and resources as different factors that affect competition and cooperation. This research offers a finer exploration from the aspect of “knowledge”. This research finds that “knowledge” has an immense impact on co-opetition behaviors. In addition, the knowledge-level viewpoint further blurs the boundary between markets and resources.3.Past co-opetition theories offered the generic concept of simultaneous competition and cooperation This research further provides empirical research results of two scenarios: "competition-dominated cooperation" and "cooperation-dominated competition".4.Past researches seldom discuss the role that third parties play in co-opetition. This research states the importance of third parties in the firms’ “co-opetition relationships” through empirical evidence when it comes to R&D and innovation in the region.5.Past researches of regional innovation systems or clusters primarily focus on cooperation between firms, this research adds the factor of “competition” as a research basis for understanding firms’ co-opetition relationships in and R&D and innovation.Overall, this research clearly defines "competition-dominated cooperation" and "cooperation-dominated competition", and views “knowledge” as a fundamental element of R&D and innovation co-opetition, putting forward the importance of third-party units. In practice, provide the influential factors of knowledge interaction as a reference for firms to conduct co-opetition and knowledge interaction.參考文獻 一、英文部份Andrew, H. G., Arvind, M., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information System, 18(1), 185-214. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250140105Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58. doi: 10.2307/1252172Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455. doi: 10.5465/APBPP.1998.27664401Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution–Expanding organizational intelligence. Boston：MA：Mutterworth–Heinemann.Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining & transferring knowledge, Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Baldridge, J. V., & Burnham, R. A. (1975). Organizational innovation: Individual, organizational, and environmental impacts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(2), 165-176. doi: 10.2307/2391692Baker, N. R., Green, S. G., & Bean, A. S. (1986). Why R&D projects succeed or fail. Research Management, 29(6), 29-34. Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 64-76. doi: 10.1177/107179190200900105Baughn, C. C., Stevens, J. H., Denekamp, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1997). Protecting intellectual capital in international alliances. Journal of World Business, 32(2), 103-117. doi: 10.1016/S1090-9516(97)90002-X Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (1999). Cooperation and competition in relationships between competitors in business networks. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 14(3), 178-194. doi: 10.1108/08858629910272184Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411-426. doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00067-XBengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180-188. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.02.015Bengtsson, M., Kock, S., Lundgren-Henriksson, E., & Näsholm, M. H. (2016). Coopetition research in theory and practice: Growing new theoretical, empirical, and methodological domains. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 4-11. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.002Brandenburger A. M. & Nalebuff B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday Press.Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2060-2070. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.032Cetindamar, D., Çatay, B., & Basmaci, O. S. (2005). Competition through collaboration: Insights from an initiative in the Turkish textile supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(4), 238-240. doi: 10.1108/13598540510612686Chen, C. J., Wu, H. L., & Lin, B.W. (2006). Evaluating the development of high-tech industries: Taiwan’s science park. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(4), 452 – 465. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.04.003Chen, L. C. (2009). Learning through informal and global linkages: The case of Taiwan’s machine tool industry. Research Policy, 38, 527-535. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.008Chen, L. C. (2011). The governance and evolution of local production networks in a cluster: The case of Taiwan’s machine tool industry. GeoJournal, 76(6), 605-622. doi: 10.1007/s10708-009-9317-2Chen, L. C. & Lin, Z. X. (2014). Examining the role of geographical proximity in a cluster’s transformation process: The case of Taiwan’s machine tool industry. European Planning Studies, 22(1): 1-19. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722973Chen, L. C. (2014). Entrepreneurship, technological changes, and the formation of a subcontracting production system: The case of Taiwan’s machine tool industry. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 7(2): 198-219. doi: 10.1504/IJEBR.2014.060032Chen, M. J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 100-134. doi: 10.2307/258631Chen, M. J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese ‘Middle Way’ perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19:179-799. doi: 10.1023/A:1022024730957Chen, M. J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4): 288-304. doi: 10.1177/105649260731257Chen, M. J. (2009). Competitive dynamics research: An insider’s odyssey. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26: 5-26. doi: 10.1007/s10490-008-9110-7Chen, M. J. (2010). Reflecting on the process: Building competitive dynamics research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27, 9-24. doi: 10.1007/s10490-009-9133-8Chen, K. M., & Liu, R. J. (2002). The evolution of basic member in Taiwan’s machine tool supply network. Industrial Management Review, 16, 47-51.Chen, K. M., & Liu, R. J. (2003, July). Interface decision in NPD ,anagement. Proceedings of Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology.Chen, Y. C., & Hsieh, P. F. (2008). Service-based view of Porter’s diamond model for cluster analysis. Management International Review, 25(1), 38.Cheng, J. H., Yeh, C. H., & Tu, C. W. (2008). Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 283-295. doi: 10.1109/ICMSS.2009.5301352Cheng, J. H. (2011). Inter-organizational relationships and knowledge sharing in green supply chains - moderating by relational benefits and guanxi. Transportation Research, 47, 837-849. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2010.12.008Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage Publications.Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31-61. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00037-9Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: an internal tensions perspective. Organization Science, 11(1), 77-101. doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.1.77.12570Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London, UK: John Murray.Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How organization manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review, 32(0), 480-499. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.24351453De Rond, M., & Bouchikhi, H. (2004). On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 15(1), 56-69. doi: 10.1057/iaor.2006.1565Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659-669. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.21318923Dixon, N. M. (2000), Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Drucker, P. F. (1985), Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. London, UK: William Heinemann.Drucker, P. F. (1993). Postcapitalist society. NY: Harper Business.Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Tokyo case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345-367. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. doi: 10.2307/258557Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(0), 620-627. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1991.4279496Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(0), 25-32. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888Estrada, I., Faems, D., & de Faria, P. (2016). Coopetition and product innovation performance: The role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 56-65. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.013Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 1-19. doi: 10.2307/1252265Gates, B. (1999). Business the speed of thought: Using a digital nervous system. New York：Warner Books, Inc.Garraffo, F., & Rocco, E. (2009). Competitor analysis and interfirm coopetition, coopetition strategy: Theory, experiments and cases. London; New York: Routledge, 44-63.Gobeli, D. H., & Brown, D. J. (1987). Analyzing product innovations. Research Management, 30(4), 25-31. doi: 10.1080/00345334.1987.11757048Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information System, 18(1), 185-214. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669Gomory, R. E., & Schmitt, R. W. (1988). Step-by-step innovation. Across the Board, 25(11), 52-56.Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. R. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650-663. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.009Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 431-445. doi: 10.2307/259186Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. doi: 10.2307/41166664Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16(4)，768-792. doi: 10.2307/258980Harrigan, K. R. (1988). Joint ventures and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 9(2), 141-158.Hausken, K. (2000). Cooperation and between-group competition. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2000, 42(3),417-425. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00093-7Henderson, J. C. (1990). Plugging into strategic partnerships: The critical IS connection. Sloan Management Review, 31(3), 7-18.Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(9), 9-30. doi: 10.2307/2393549Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6, 91-100. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1441(199906)6:2<91::AID-KPM54>3.0.CO;2-MHelleloid, D., & Simonin, B. (1994). Organizational learning and a firm’s core competence. In Hamel, G. & Heene, A. (eds): Competence-Based Competition. New York: John Wiley, 213-239.Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2000). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization, concepts and cases. Cincinnati OH: South-Western Publications, 4th ed.Ho, H., & Ganesan, S. (2013). Does knowledge base compatibility help or hurt knowledge sharing between suppliers in coopetition? The role of customer participation. Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 91-107. doi: 10.1509/jm.11.0570Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation and organisation learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54. doi: 10.2307/1251742Hutt, M. D., Stafford, E. R., Walker, B. A., & Reingen, P. H. (2000). Case study: Defining the social network of a strategic alliance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 41(2), 51-62.Inkinen, T., & Suorsa, K. (2010). Intermediaries in regioanl innovation systems: High- technology enterprise survey from Northern Finland. European Planning Studies, 18(2), 169-187. doi: 10.1080/09654310903491556Inkpen, A. C. (1996). Creating knowledge through collaboration. California Management Review, 39(1), 123-140. doi: 10.2307/41165879Inkpen, A. C. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. The Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 177-202. doi: 10.2307/259228Inkpen, A. C. (1998). Learning, knowledge acquisition, and strategic alliances. European Management Journal, 16(2), 223-229. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(97)00090-XInkpen, A. C. (1998). Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 69-80. doi: 10.5465/AME.1998.1333953Inkpen, A. C. (2000). A note on the dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal. 21(7), 775-779. doi: 10.1002/1097-0266(200007)21:7<775::AID-SMJ111>3.0.CO;2-FInkpen, A. C., & Ross, J. (2001). Why do some strategic alliances persist beyond their useful life? California Management Review, 44(1), 132-148. doi: 10.2307/41166114Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 217-237. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<217::AID-SMJ95>3.0.CO;2-YKale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2001). Value creation and success in strategic alliances: Alliancing skills and the role of alliance structure and systems. European Management Journal, 19(5), 463-471. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(01)00062-7Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 747-767. doi: 10.1002/smj.248Khanna, T. (1998). The scope of alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 340-356. doi: 10.1287/orsc.9.3.340Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 193-210. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199803)19:3Lee, S. C., Chang, S. N., Liu, C. Y., & Yang, J. (2007). The effect of knowledge protection, knowledge ambiguity, and relational capital on alliance performance. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(1), 58-69. doi: 10.1002/kpm.270Lee, C. C., & Yang, J. (2000). Knowledge value chain. Journal of Management Development, 19 (9), 783-794. doi: 10.1108/02621710010378228Lee, J. N. (2001). The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information and Management, 38(5), 323-335. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00074-4Lee, S. C., Chang, S. N., Liu, C.Y., & Yang, J. (2007). The effect of knowledge protection, knowledge ambiguity, and relational capital on alliance performance. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(1), 58-69. doi: 10.1002/kpm.270Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge. MA: Harvard Business School Press.Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Leiden: DSWO Press, Leiden University.Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.Leydesdorff, L. (2011). "Meaning" as a sociological concept: A review of the modeling, mapping, and simulation of the communication of knowledge and meaning. Social Science Information, 50(3-4), 1-23. doi: 10.1177/0539018411411021Li, D. (2005). Knowledge protection and partner selection in R&D alliances. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University, Texas, United States.Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal (1986-1998), 17(Winter Special Issue), 93-93. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250171109Liu, R. J., & Jonathan B. (2000). Stars, rings, and tiers: Organizational networks and their dynamics in Taiwan’s machine tool industry. Long Range Planning, 33, 322-348. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(00)00039-XLoebecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C., & Powell, P. (1999). Co-opetition and knowledge transfer. Powell, Philip ACM SIGMIS Database, Spring 1999, 30(2), pp.14-25. doi: 10.1145/383371.383373Logan, R. K., & Stokes, L. W. (2004), Collaborate to compete: Driving profitability in the knowledge economy. Canada: Wiley.Lundvall, B. (1985) Product innovation and users-producer interaction. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.Luo, Y., Shenkar, O., & Gurnani, H. (2008). Control-cooperation interfaces in global strategic alliances: A situational typology and strategic responses. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(3), 428-453. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400365Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics (1st ed.). London: Macmillan.Martín‐Pérez, V. M., Martin-Cruz, N., & Estrada, I. (2012). The influence of organizational design on knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16, 418-434. doi: 10.1108/13673271211238742Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood Film Studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 519-543. doi: 10.2307/256654Morgan, M. R., & Hunt, D. S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 20-38. doi: 10.2307/1252308Moller, K., & Svahn, S. (2004). Crossing east-west boundaries: Knowledge sharing in intercultural business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 219-228. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.10.011Moorman, C. (1995). Organizational market information processes: Cultural antecedents and new product outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, pp.318-315. doi: 10.2307/3151984Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4(1), 69-92. doi:10.1023/A:1009941416749Norman, P. M. (2001). Are your secrets safe? Knowledge protection in strategic alliances. Business Horizons. 44(6), 51-60. doi: 10.1016/S0007-6813(01)80073-2Norman, P. M. (2002). Protecting knowledge in strategic alliances - Resource and relational characteristics. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(2), 177-202. doi: 10.1016/S1047-8310(02)00050-0Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11, 538-550. doi: 10.5167/uzh-51841Oxley, J. E., & Sampson, R. C. (2004). The scope and governance of international R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9), 723-723. doi: 10.1002/smj.391Park, B. J. R., Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 210-221. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.003Piore, M. J. & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide. New York: Basic.Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: M. E. Sharp Inc.Preiss, K, Goldman S. L., & Nagel, R. N. (1996). Cooperate to compete: Building agile business relationships. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge management: A strategic agenda. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 385-391. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(97)90252-1Rackham, N., Friedman, L. G., & Ruff, R. (1996). Getting partnering right - How market leaders are creating long-term competitive advantage. McGraw-Hill; 1 edition.Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189-198. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.001Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications. New York: Prentice Hall.Sandvik, I. L., & Sandvik, K. (2003). The impact of market orientation on product innovativeness and business performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(4), 355-376. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.02.002Santomero, A. M., & Trester, J. J. (1998). Financial innovation and bank risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35(1), 25-37. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00103-0Saxenian, A. (1994). Régional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Berkeley, CA: Harvard University Press.Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.Selnes, F., & Sallis, J. (2003). Promoting relationship learning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 80-95. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.67.3.80.18656Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595-623. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199907)20:7%3C595::AID-SMJ47%3E3.0.CO;2-5Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2000). The positive effect of a market orientation on business profitability: A balanced replication. Journal of Business Research, 48, pp.69-73. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00077-0Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958Sroka, W. (2013), Coopetition in the steel industry - analysis of coopetition relations in the value net. Metalurgija, 52(1), 127-130.Steele, L. W. (1989). Managing technology: The strategic view. New York: McGraw-Hill.Storper. M. (1995). The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: The region as a nexus of untraded interdependence. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(3), 191-221. doi: 10.1177/096977649500200301Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: To the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 27-43. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250171105Teece, D. J. (1986). Transactions cost economics and the multinational enterprise: An assessment. Journal of Economic Behavior &; Organization, 7(1), 21-21. doi: 10.1142/9789812833181_0020Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 996-1004. doi: 10.2307/3069443Urabe, K., John Child, J., & Kagono, T. (1988). Innovation and management: international comparisons. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter.Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1994). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications. New York: The Free Press.Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.Wu, H. L. (2007). Road to industrial upgrading: Policy design and implementation for encouraging industrial innovation in Taiwan. International Journal of Public Policy, 2(1), 140 -162. doi: 10.1504/IJPP.2007.012280Yang, S. M., Fang, S. C., Fang, S. R., & Chou, C. H. (2014). Knowledge exchange and knowledge protection in interorganizational learning: The ambidexterity perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 346-358. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.007Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersema, M. (1999). Strategic flexibility in information on technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory. Organization Science, 10(4), 439-459. doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.4.439Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1090-1102. doi: 10.1002/smj.1959二、中文部份Flick, U. （2010）。質性研究的品質控管。（梁婉玲，譯）。臺北：韋伯文化。方世杰、鄭仲興 （2001）。組織間學習機制與合作研發之組織學習績效的實証研究。管理學報，18卷4期，頁503-526。方世杰(2008)。知識管理研究之本質：組織知識的統治。組織與管理，1卷2期，頁1-35。王振寰（2010）。追趕的極限：台灣的經濟轉型與創新。臺北：巨流。江素雲、葉錦清、葉立綸、戴熒美、熊治民、黃仲宏（2014）。2014機械產業年鑑。新竹：工研院IEK。司徒達賢（2005）。策略管理新論（2版）。台北：智勝文化。吳思華（1996）。服務業中知識資源建構與維持策略之研究。第二屆服務業管理研討會。吳思華（2001）。知識經濟、知識資本與知識管理。台灣產業研究，4，台北： 遠流。吳濟華、李亭林、陳協勝、何柏正（2012）。產業群聚與區域創新：聚集經濟理論與實證。新北市：前程文化。林博文，陳怡之，洪慈霙（2003）。策略聯盟傾向、技術研發與企業無形資產之蓄積。台灣管理學刊，03（1）。邱瑞淙、徐作聖（2010）。模組型產品創新策略矩陣之研究--以數值控制工具機創新演化為例。產業與管理論壇，12（3），8-23。胡幼慧（2008）。質性研究 : 理論、方法及本土女性研究實例（2版）。台北：巨流出版。胡欣怡（2014）。從知識管理觀點探討研究機構研發團隊之衍生創業。國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所未出版博士論文。夏侯欣鵬（2000）。信任與權力對組織內知識分享意願影響之研究―以銀行放款部門主管為例。國立政治大學企業管理研究所未出版博士論文。許恩得（2004）。競合策略。台北：台灣培生教育出版。許淑玲（2010，5月）。台灣第一部國產精微加工設備亮相–由精機中心邀集5家廠商共同打造。機械資訊，639。陳明哲（2011）。動態競爭：理論發展、前沿研究與對競合的意涵。台北：第二屆動態競爭國際論壇。陳明哲（2013，11月）。動態競爭觀點下的動態合作分析。哈佛商理評論全球中文版，87，38-39。陳良治（2012）。國家與公共研究機構在產業技術升級過程中的角色及演化：台灣工具機業。人文及社會科學集刊，24（1），19-50。陳怡之，李沿儒，謝碧鳳（2006）深層海水產業發展策略-群聚與價值網路觀點。經濟情勢暨評論，11（4），87-102。陳國民（2004）。模組型產品創新之介面策略–理論架構暨台灣工具機與個人電腦產業的個案研究。台灣東海大學工業工程與經營資訊研究所博士論文。楊舒蜜（2000）。價值創造與價值專屬之雙面兼具–知識統治之觀點。台灣中興大學企業管理學系博士論文。劉仁傑（1997）。重建台灣產業競爭力。台北市，遠流出版事業股份有限公司。劉仁傑（1999）。分工網路–剖析台灣工具機產業競爭力的奧秘。台北市，聯經出版事業公司。劉仁傑（2003）。Business Architecture與兩岸競合結構。機械工業雜誌9月號。劉仁傑、巫茂熾（2012）。工具機產業的精實變革。台北市：財團法人中衛發展中心。錢詩金（2010）。競合：企業合作伙伴抉擇寶典。中國北京，中國經濟出版社。檀明山編著（1998）。孫子兵法與商戰。臺北市：政展公司。薛文蔚、徐世昌（2009）。贏在競合：快速脈動下的產業協同策略。台北：商周。三、網站部份友嘉實業網站，http://www.ffg-tw.com/front/bin/home.phtml台中精機網站，http://www.or.com.tw/永進機械網站，http://www.ycmcnc.com/index_tw.php德川機械網站，http://www.detron.com.tw/tw/index財團法人精密機械研究發展中心網站，http://www.pmc.org.tw臺灣機械工業同業公會網站，http://www.tami.org.tw 描述 博士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
97359501資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0973595012 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 吳豐祥 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Wu, Feng-Shang en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 吳健鑫 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wu, Chien-Hsin en_US dc.creator (作者) 吳健鑫 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Wu, Chien-Hsin en_US dc.date (日期) 2018 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Mar-2018 12:03:30 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Mar-2018 12:03:30 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Mar-2018 12:03:30 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0973595012 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/116156 - dc.description (描述) 博士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 97359501 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 當管理策略的發展開始從既有的「純競爭策略」，逐漸轉變為一種陰陽相依、競合相倚的觀念時，這種「陰」與「陽」同時存在或交替出現的「競合策略」便成為管理學者爭相研究的焦點。然而，即使有關於競合的理論與研究不勝枚舉，但是能以知識為探討的立足點，來瞭解廠商間創新研發競合關係的研究並不多見。再者，過去有關區域創新或是產業聚落的研究，多半強調合作創新，顯少討論區域內的競爭。進一步而言，對於區域內廠商在創新研發方面同時「競合並存」的研究，特別是針對「競爭導向的合作」與「合作導向的競爭」兩種創新競合的情境下，廠商間的知識分享與知識保護的情形，更是付之闕如。因此，本研究的目的，即在回應這些文獻缺口，對於廠商在不同的創新研發「競合關係」情境下，其知識互動的實際作為，做一深入的探究。本研究在研究方法上採用多重個案研究方法，以全球最著名的區域創新系統之一台灣中部地區的工具機群聚為主要的研究場域。在研究的過程中，以兩階段的深度訪談，針對中部地區的工具機暨零組件產業之競合關係進行瞭解，並找出兩個特殊的創新研發競合案例。進一步地，針對此兩案例中廠商的創新研發「競合關係」與知識互動的實際作為，做深入的比較與分析。本研究經歸納彙整研究命題後，進一步得到以下結論：一、第三方單位在區域內廠商之創新研發競合關係與知識互動中扮演重要的角色，包括中介協調、主動催生與管理計畫、技術移轉與檢測驗證等。二、廠商在不同的「競合關係」情境下，會因營運範疇相似度的不同，而有不同的知識分享類型與交流管道。在營運範疇相似度高的情況下，會以基礎理論知識來進行分享，且以正式的討論會議為主要的知識交流管道；在營運範疇相似度度低的情況下，會以應用層面的技術知識進行分享，在知識交流的管道上不僅會有正式的討論會議，還會透過非正式的方式進行交流。三、廠商在不同的創新研發「競合關係」情境下，會因未來競爭的可能性與營業秘密的考量，而採取不同的知識分享方式，包括選擇性分享、不願意分享以及主動進行分享等。四、廠商在不同的創新研發「競合關係」情境下，儘管知識保護的緣由不同，都會以契約內的保密協議做為最主要的知識保護方式。在學術研究方面，本研究不同於以往的文獻從「市場」或是「資源」的角度來探究「競合關係」，而是以創新研發中最根本的要素–「知識」，來探究創新研發的「競合關係」。其次，不僅瞭解到第三方單位是促成競爭廠商形成合作研發聯盟的重要推手，亦從廠商不同的競合情境下，其知識互動的作為，整理出「知識互動的影響因素」。因此，本研究在學術研究上做出以下的貢獻：一、過往競合方面的研究，主要是以一般性的策略領域為主，本研究則特別針對廠商在「創新研發」上的「競合」行為來加以探討。二、過往的競合理論對於市場與資源的定義不夠完整與明確，且認為市場與資源是分別影響競爭與合作的不同要素。本研究更細緻地以「知識」的層次來加以探討，發現「知識」對廠商間的競合行為有很大的影響；此外，知識層次的觀點亦會使市場與資源間的界限變得模糊。三、過往的競合理論概括性地提出既競爭又合作的概念，本研究進一步地提供「競爭導向的合作」（競中帶合）與「合作導向的競爭」（合中帶競）兩種情境的實證研究結果。四、過往的研究較少提出第三方單位在競合關係中扮演的角色，本研究藉由實證並提出區域內廠商在進行創新研發競合關係時，第三方單位的主要角色與重要性。五、過往區域創新系統或產業群聚的研究以探討廠商間的合作為主，本研究再加入「競爭」的要素做為研究廠商創新研發「競合關係」的基礎。整體而言，本研究將「競中帶合」與「合中帶競」做清楚的定義，進一步地以知識作為廠商進行創新研發競合的根本要素，並提出第三方單位的重要性。在實務上，提供知識互動的影響因素作為廠商進行競合與知識互動時的參考依據。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Management strategy has gradually transformed from “pure competition” to the coexistence of competition and cooperation, also known as co-opetition, where “co-opetition strategy” has become a popular research focus for scholars who study management. Scholars, upon observing such trend where “peace” and “warfare”- or “yin” and “yang”- exists either at the same time or occurs alternatively, begin to add the “cooperative” element (yang) into the traditional concept of “competition” (yin). Although immense theories and researches on the concept of co-opetition exist, researches that attempt to reveal the co-opetition relationship in the realm of R&D and Innovation among firms from the standpoint of knowledge have been scarce. Regional Innovation Systems is a field full of cooperation and competition, yet past research mostly focused on cooperation and innovation instead of discussing the competition among firms in the region. That is, few researches focused on discussing the cooperation and competition coexisting at the same time in the realm of R&D and Innovation among firms. Moreover, researches that particularly discuss the situation of knowledge sharing and knowledge protection among firms from two R&D and Innovation co-opetition types of “Competition-dominated cooperation” and “Cooperation-dominated competition” relegate said situations to the category of things unknown. Therefore, this research aims to fill the gap in such literature by conducting deep explorations into knowledge interaction among firms in one region, particularly from two R&D and Innovation co-opetition types. This research adopts a multi-case study method while the main field of research focuses on one of the most renowned global Regional Innovation Systems: the machinery cluster in central Taiwan. During the process of the research, a two-stage, in-depth interview was conducted to understand the co-opetition relationship among the machine tool and component firms in the central Taiwan, and has identified two special case studies of R&D and Innovation co-operation. Furthermore, this research focus on the R&D and Innovation co-opetition relationship among firms and their practices of knowledge interaction in these two cases, and conducts in-depth comparisons and analysis.By conducting two-stage in-depth interviews, this study summarizes the research propositions and further obtains the following conclusions:1.Third party plays an important role in R&D and innovation co-opetition knowledge interaction among firms in the same region, including the roles of intermediary coordination, taking the initiative to spawn and manage projects, and transferring, testing and verification of technology.2.In different “co-opetition” types, the types of knowledge sharing and exchange channels among firms are different according to how similar they are in operational scope. In the case of high similarity in operational scope, basic and theoretical knowledge is shared, and formal meetings are the main channel of knowledge exchange. In the case of low similarity in operational scope, technical and applied knowledge is shared, and the channels of knowledge exchange do not only have formal meetings, but also communicate informally.3.In different “R&D and innovation co-opetition” types, firms will take different approaches in sharing knowledge (either being selective, not willing, or actively sharing) due to future competition possibilities and trade secrets.4.Firms differ in their reasons for knowledge protection in different “R&D and innovation co-opetition” types, but will mostly rely on confidential agreements within their contracts as the main measure for knowledge protection.While past academic research mostly explores "co-opetition relationship" from the perspective of "market" or "resource", this research explores R&D and innovation co-opetition with the most essential element, “knowledge”. Not only is it understood that third-party units are important promoters of competitive firms in forming R&D alliances, "the influencing factors of knowledge interaction" from the perspective of their knowledge interaction under different co-opetition types is concluded. Therefore, this research aims to produce the following contributions in the academic field:1.Past co-opetition researches mostly focus on generic and strategical fields, this research focuses particularly on bahviors of “co-opetition in R&D and innovation” among firms.2.Past co-opetition theories’ definitions on markets and resources are insufficient and imprecise, for they describe markets and resources as different factors that affect competition and cooperation. This research offers a finer exploration from the aspect of “knowledge”. This research finds that “knowledge” has an immense impact on co-opetition behaviors. In addition, the knowledge-level viewpoint further blurs the boundary between markets and resources.3.Past co-opetition theories offered the generic concept of simultaneous competition and cooperation This research further provides empirical research results of two scenarios: "competition-dominated cooperation" and "cooperation-dominated competition".4.Past researches seldom discuss the role that third parties play in co-opetition. This research states the importance of third parties in the firms’ “co-opetition relationships” through empirical evidence when it comes to R&D and innovation in the region.5.Past researches of regional innovation systems or clusters primarily focus on cooperation between firms, this research adds the factor of “competition” as a research basis for understanding firms’ co-opetition relationships in and R&D and innovation.Overall, this research clearly defines "competition-dominated cooperation" and "cooperation-dominated competition", and views “knowledge” as a fundamental element of R&D and innovation co-opetition, putting forward the importance of third-party units. In practice, provide the influential factors of knowledge interaction as a reference for firms to conduct co-opetition and knowledge interaction. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與研究動機 1第二節 研究目的與研究問題 4第三節 研究之重要性 5第四節 主要名詞定義 7第二章 文獻回顧與探討 8第一節 競合關係 8第二節 知識管理 19第三節 創新過程與類型 30第四節 文獻小結與研究缺口 34第三章 研究架構與研究方法 40第一節 觀念性研究架構 40第二節 研究方法 42第三節 分析單位與個案選取 45第四節 資料蒐集與資料驗證 48第五節 資料整理與分析 49第四章 研究個案介紹與研究發現 51第一節 個案背景 51第二節 第一階段訪談個案介紹 55第三節 第一階段訪談研究發現–中部地區工具機廠商的競合關係 60第四節 第二階段訪談個案介紹 68第五節 第二階段訪談研究發現–競合關係與知識互動 85第五章 研究命題與研究討論 119第一節 研究命題 119第二節 研究討論 137第六章 研究結論與建議 155第一節 研究結論 155第二節 學術研究上的貢獻 159第三節 研究建議 161第四節 研究限制 164參考文獻 166附錄一：第一階段訪談大綱–廠商 186附錄二：第一階段訪談大綱–第三方單位 188附錄三：第二階段訪談大綱 190附錄四：第三方單位的重要性 192 zh_TW dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0973595012 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 競合 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創新研發 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識互動 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識分享 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識保護 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Co-opetition en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) R&D and innovation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Knowledge interaction en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Knowledge sharing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Knowledge protection en_US dc.title (題名) 廠商創新研發競合與知識互動之研究–以台灣中部地區工具機暨零組件產業為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) R&D and innovation co-opetition and knowledge interaction among industrial firms : the case of machine tool industry in Mid-Taiwan en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、英文部份Andrew, H. G., Arvind, M., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information System, 18(1), 185-214. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250140105Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58. doi: 10.2307/1252172Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455. doi: 10.5465/APBPP.1998.27664401Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution–Expanding organizational intelligence. Boston：MA：Mutterworth–Heinemann.Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining & transferring knowledge, Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Baldridge, J. V., & Burnham, R. A. (1975). Organizational innovation: Individual, organizational, and environmental impacts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(2), 165-176. doi: 10.2307/2391692Baker, N. R., Green, S. G., & Bean, A. S. (1986). Why R&D projects succeed or fail. Research Management, 29(6), 29-34. Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 64-76. doi: 10.1177/107179190200900105Baughn, C. C., Stevens, J. H., Denekamp, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1997). Protecting intellectual capital in international alliances. Journal of World Business, 32(2), 103-117. doi: 10.1016/S1090-9516(97)90002-X Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (1999). Cooperation and competition in relationships between competitors in business networks. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 14(3), 178-194. doi: 10.1108/08858629910272184Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411-426. doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00067-XBengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180-188. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.02.015Bengtsson, M., Kock, S., Lundgren-Henriksson, E., & Näsholm, M. H. (2016). Coopetition research in theory and practice: Growing new theoretical, empirical, and methodological domains. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 4-11. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.002Brandenburger A. M. & Nalebuff B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday Press.Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2060-2070. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.032Cetindamar, D., Çatay, B., & Basmaci, O. S. (2005). Competition through collaboration: Insights from an initiative in the Turkish textile supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(4), 238-240. doi: 10.1108/13598540510612686Chen, C. J., Wu, H. L., & Lin, B.W. (2006). Evaluating the development of high-tech industries: Taiwan’s science park. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(4), 452 – 465. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.04.003Chen, L. C. (2009). Learning through informal and global linkages: The case of Taiwan’s machine tool industry. Research Policy, 38, 527-535. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.008Chen, L. C. (2011). The governance and evolution of local production networks in a cluster: The case of Taiwan’s machine tool industry. GeoJournal, 76(6), 605-622. doi: 10.1007/s10708-009-9317-2Chen, L. C. & Lin, Z. X. (2014). Examining the role of geographical proximity in a cluster’s transformation process: The case of Taiwan’s machine tool industry. European Planning Studies, 22(1): 1-19. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722973Chen, L. C. (2014). Entrepreneurship, technological changes, and the formation of a subcontracting production system: The case of Taiwan’s machine tool industry. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 7(2): 198-219. doi: 10.1504/IJEBR.2014.060032Chen, M. J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 100-134. doi: 10.2307/258631Chen, M. J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese ‘Middle Way’ perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19:179-799. doi: 10.1023/A:1022024730957Chen, M. J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4): 288-304. doi: 10.1177/105649260731257Chen, M. J. (2009). Competitive dynamics research: An insider’s odyssey. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26: 5-26. doi: 10.1007/s10490-008-9110-7Chen, M. J. (2010). Reflecting on the process: Building competitive dynamics research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27, 9-24. doi: 10.1007/s10490-009-9133-8Chen, K. M., & Liu, R. J. (2002). The evolution of basic member in Taiwan’s machine tool supply network. Industrial Management Review, 16, 47-51.Chen, K. M., & Liu, R. J. (2003, July). Interface decision in NPD ,anagement. Proceedings of Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology.Chen, Y. C., & Hsieh, P. F. (2008). Service-based view of Porter’s diamond model for cluster analysis. Management International Review, 25(1), 38.Cheng, J. H., Yeh, C. H., & Tu, C. W. (2008). Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 283-295. doi: 10.1109/ICMSS.2009.5301352Cheng, J. H. (2011). Inter-organizational relationships and knowledge sharing in green supply chains - moderating by relational benefits and guanxi. Transportation Research, 47, 837-849. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2010.12.008Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage Publications.Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31-61. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00037-9Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: an internal tensions perspective. Organization Science, 11(1), 77-101. doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.1.77.12570Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London, UK: John Murray.Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How organization manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review, 32(0), 480-499. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.24351453De Rond, M., & Bouchikhi, H. (2004). On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 15(1), 56-69. doi: 10.1057/iaor.2006.1565Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659-669. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.21318923Dixon, N. M. (2000), Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Drucker, P. F. (1985), Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. London, UK: William Heinemann.Drucker, P. F. (1993). Postcapitalist society. NY: Harper Business.Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Tokyo case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345-367. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. doi: 10.2307/258557Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(0), 620-627. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1991.4279496Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(0), 25-32. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888Estrada, I., Faems, D., & de Faria, P. (2016). Coopetition and product innovation performance: The role of internal knowledge sharing mechanisms and formal knowledge protection mechanisms. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 56-65. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.013Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 1-19. doi: 10.2307/1252265Gates, B. (1999). Business the speed of thought: Using a digital nervous system. New York：Warner Books, Inc.Garraffo, F., & Rocco, E. (2009). Competitor analysis and interfirm coopetition, coopetition strategy: Theory, experiments and cases. London; New York: Routledge, 44-63.Gobeli, D. H., & Brown, D. J. (1987). Analyzing product innovations. Research Management, 30(4), 25-31. doi: 10.1080/00345334.1987.11757048Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information System, 18(1), 185-214. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669Gomory, R. E., & Schmitt, R. W. (1988). Step-by-step innovation. Across the Board, 25(11), 52-56.Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. R. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650-663. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.009Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 431-445. doi: 10.2307/259186Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. doi: 10.2307/41166664Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16(4)，768-792. doi: 10.2307/258980Harrigan, K. R. (1988). Joint ventures and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 9(2), 141-158.Hausken, K. (2000). Cooperation and between-group competition. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2000, 42(3),417-425. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00093-7Henderson, J. C. (1990). Plugging into strategic partnerships: The critical IS connection. Sloan Management Review, 31(3), 7-18.Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(9), 9-30. doi: 10.2307/2393549Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6, 91-100. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1441(199906)6:2<91::AID-KPM54>3.0.CO;2-MHelleloid, D., & Simonin, B. (1994). Organizational learning and a firm’s core competence. In Hamel, G. & Heene, A. (eds): Competence-Based Competition. New York: John Wiley, 213-239.Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2000). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization, concepts and cases. Cincinnati OH: South-Western Publications, 4th ed.Ho, H., & Ganesan, S. (2013). Does knowledge base compatibility help or hurt knowledge sharing between suppliers in coopetition? The role of customer participation. Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 91-107. doi: 10.1509/jm.11.0570Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation and organisation learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54. doi: 10.2307/1251742Hutt, M. D., Stafford, E. R., Walker, B. A., & Reingen, P. H. (2000). Case study: Defining the social network of a strategic alliance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 41(2), 51-62.Inkinen, T., & Suorsa, K. (2010). Intermediaries in regioanl innovation systems: High- technology enterprise survey from Northern Finland. European Planning Studies, 18(2), 169-187. doi: 10.1080/09654310903491556Inkpen, A. C. (1996). Creating knowledge through collaboration. California Management Review, 39(1), 123-140. doi: 10.2307/41165879Inkpen, A. C. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. The Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 177-202. doi: 10.2307/259228Inkpen, A. C. (1998). Learning, knowledge acquisition, and strategic alliances. European Management Journal, 16(2), 223-229. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(97)00090-XInkpen, A. C. (1998). Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 69-80. doi: 10.5465/AME.1998.1333953Inkpen, A. C. (2000). A note on the dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal. 21(7), 775-779. doi: 10.1002/1097-0266(200007)21:7<775::AID-SMJ111>3.0.CO;2-FInkpen, A. C., & Ross, J. (2001). Why do some strategic alliances persist beyond their useful life? California Management Review, 44(1), 132-148. doi: 10.2307/41166114Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 217-237. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<217::AID-SMJ95>3.0.CO;2-YKale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2001). Value creation and success in strategic alliances: Alliancing skills and the role of alliance structure and systems. European Management Journal, 19(5), 463-471. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(01)00062-7Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 747-767. doi: 10.1002/smj.248Khanna, T. (1998). The scope of alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 340-356. doi: 10.1287/orsc.9.3.340Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 193-210. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199803)19:3Lee, S. C., Chang, S. N., Liu, C. Y., & Yang, J. (2007). The effect of knowledge protection, knowledge ambiguity, and relational capital on alliance performance. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(1), 58-69. doi: 10.1002/kpm.270Lee, C. C., & Yang, J. (2000). Knowledge value chain. Journal of Management Development, 19 (9), 783-794. doi: 10.1108/02621710010378228Lee, J. N. (2001). The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information and Management, 38(5), 323-335. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00074-4Lee, S. C., Chang, S. N., Liu, C.Y., & Yang, J. (2007). The effect of knowledge protection, knowledge ambiguity, and relational capital on alliance performance. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(1), 58-69. doi: 10.1002/kpm.270Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge. MA: Harvard Business School Press.Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Leiden: DSWO Press, Leiden University.Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.Leydesdorff, L. (2011). "Meaning" as a sociological concept: A review of the modeling, mapping, and simulation of the communication of knowledge and meaning. Social Science Information, 50(3-4), 1-23. doi: 10.1177/0539018411411021Li, D. (2005). Knowledge protection and partner selection in R&D alliances. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University, Texas, United States.Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal (1986-1998), 17(Winter Special Issue), 93-93. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250171109Liu, R. J., & Jonathan B. (2000). Stars, rings, and tiers: Organizational networks and their dynamics in Taiwan’s machine tool industry. Long Range Planning, 33, 322-348. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(00)00039-XLoebecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C., & Powell, P. (1999). Co-opetition and knowledge transfer. Powell, Philip ACM SIGMIS Database, Spring 1999, 30(2), pp.14-25. doi: 10.1145/383371.383373Logan, R. K., & Stokes, L. W. (2004), Collaborate to compete: Driving profitability in the knowledge economy. Canada: Wiley.Lundvall, B. (1985) Product innovation and users-producer interaction. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.Luo, Y., Shenkar, O., & Gurnani, H. (2008). Control-cooperation interfaces in global strategic alliances: A situational typology and strategic responses. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(3), 428-453. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400365Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics (1st ed.). London: Macmillan.Martín‐Pérez, V. M., Martin-Cruz, N., & Estrada, I. (2012). The influence of organizational design on knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16, 418-434. doi: 10.1108/13673271211238742Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood Film Studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 519-543. doi: 10.2307/256654Morgan, M. R., & Hunt, D. S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 20-38. doi: 10.2307/1252308Moller, K., & Svahn, S. (2004). Crossing east-west boundaries: Knowledge sharing in intercultural business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 219-228. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.10.011Moorman, C. (1995). Organizational market information processes: Cultural antecedents and new product outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, pp.318-315. doi: 10.2307/3151984Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4(1), 69-92. doi:10.1023/A:1009941416749Norman, P. M. (2001). Are your secrets safe? Knowledge protection in strategic alliances. Business Horizons. 44(6), 51-60. doi: 10.1016/S0007-6813(01)80073-2Norman, P. M. (2002). Protecting knowledge in strategic alliances - Resource and relational characteristics. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(2), 177-202. doi: 10.1016/S1047-8310(02)00050-0Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11, 538-550. doi: 10.5167/uzh-51841Oxley, J. E., & Sampson, R. C. (2004). The scope and governance of international R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9), 723-723. doi: 10.1002/smj.391Park, B. J. R., Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 210-221. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.003Piore, M. J. & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide. New York: Basic.Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: M. E. Sharp Inc.Preiss, K, Goldman S. L., & Nagel, R. N. (1996). Cooperate to compete: Building agile business relationships. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge management: A strategic agenda. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 385-391. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(97)90252-1Rackham, N., Friedman, L. G., & Ruff, R. (1996). Getting partnering right - How market leaders are creating long-term competitive advantage. McGraw-Hill; 1 edition.Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189-198. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.001Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications. New York: Prentice Hall.Sandvik, I. L., & Sandvik, K. (2003). The impact of market orientation on product innovativeness and business performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(4), 355-376. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.02.002Santomero, A. M., & Trester, J. J. (1998). Financial innovation and bank risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35(1), 25-37. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00103-0Saxenian, A. (1994). Régional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Berkeley, CA: Harvard University Press.Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.Selnes, F., & Sallis, J. (2003). Promoting relationship learning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 80-95. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.67.3.80.18656Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595-623. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199907)20:7%3C595::AID-SMJ47%3E3.0.CO;2-5Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2000). The positive effect of a market orientation on business profitability: A balanced replication. Journal of Business Research, 48, pp.69-73. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00077-0Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958Sroka, W. (2013), Coopetition in the steel industry - analysis of coopetition relations in the value net. Metalurgija, 52(1), 127-130.Steele, L. W. (1989). Managing technology: The strategic view. New York: McGraw-Hill.Storper. M. (1995). The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: The region as a nexus of untraded interdependence. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(3), 191-221. doi: 10.1177/096977649500200301Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: To the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 27-43. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250171105Teece, D. J. (1986). Transactions cost economics and the multinational enterprise: An assessment. Journal of Economic Behavior &; Organization, 7(1), 21-21. doi: 10.1142/9789812833181_0020Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 996-1004. doi: 10.2307/3069443Urabe, K., John Child, J., & Kagono, T. (1988). Innovation and management: international comparisons. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter.Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1994). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications. New York: The Free Press.Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.Wu, H. L. (2007). Road to industrial upgrading: Policy design and implementation for encouraging industrial innovation in Taiwan. International Journal of Public Policy, 2(1), 140 -162. doi: 10.1504/IJPP.2007.012280Yang, S. M., Fang, S. C., Fang, S. R., & Chou, C. H. (2014). Knowledge exchange and knowledge protection in interorganizational learning: The ambidexterity perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 346-358. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.007Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersema, M. (1999). Strategic flexibility in information on technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory. Organization Science, 10(4), 439-459. doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.4.439Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1090-1102. doi: 10.1002/smj.1959二、中文部份Flick, U. （2010）。質性研究的品質控管。（梁婉玲，譯）。臺北：韋伯文化。方世杰、鄭仲興 （2001）。組織間學習機制與合作研發之組織學習績效的實証研究。管理學報，18卷4期，頁503-526。方世杰(2008)。知識管理研究之本質：組織知識的統治。組織與管理，1卷2期，頁1-35。王振寰（2010）。追趕的極限：台灣的經濟轉型與創新。臺北：巨流。江素雲、葉錦清、葉立綸、戴熒美、熊治民、黃仲宏（2014）。2014機械產業年鑑。新竹：工研院IEK。司徒達賢（2005）。策略管理新論（2版）。台北：智勝文化。吳思華（1996）。服務業中知識資源建構與維持策略之研究。第二屆服務業管理研討會。吳思華（2001）。知識經濟、知識資本與知識管理。台灣產業研究，4，台北： 遠流。吳濟華、李亭林、陳協勝、何柏正（2012）。產業群聚與區域創新：聚集經濟理論與實證。新北市：前程文化。林博文，陳怡之，洪慈霙（2003）。策略聯盟傾向、技術研發與企業無形資產之蓄積。台灣管理學刊，03（1）。邱瑞淙、徐作聖（2010）。模組型產品創新策略矩陣之研究--以數值控制工具機創新演化為例。產業與管理論壇，12（3），8-23。胡幼慧（2008）。質性研究 : 理論、方法及本土女性研究實例（2版）。台北：巨流出版。胡欣怡（2014）。從知識管理觀點探討研究機構研發團隊之衍生創業。國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所未出版博士論文。夏侯欣鵬（2000）。信任與權力對組織內知識分享意願影響之研究―以銀行放款部門主管為例。國立政治大學企業管理研究所未出版博士論文。許恩得（2004）。競合策略。台北：台灣培生教育出版。許淑玲（2010，5月）。台灣第一部國產精微加工設備亮相–由精機中心邀集5家廠商共同打造。機械資訊，639。陳明哲（2011）。動態競爭：理論發展、前沿研究與對競合的意涵。台北：第二屆動態競爭國際論壇。陳明哲（2013，11月）。動態競爭觀點下的動態合作分析。哈佛商理評論全球中文版，87，38-39。陳良治（2012）。國家與公共研究機構在產業技術升級過程中的角色及演化：台灣工具機業。人文及社會科學集刊，24（1），19-50。陳怡之，李沿儒，謝碧鳳（2006）深層海水產業發展策略-群聚與價值網路觀點。經濟情勢暨評論，11（4），87-102。陳國民（2004）。模組型產品創新之介面策略–理論架構暨台灣工具機與個人電腦產業的個案研究。台灣東海大學工業工程與經營資訊研究所博士論文。楊舒蜜（2000）。價值創造與價值專屬之雙面兼具–知識統治之觀點。台灣中興大學企業管理學系博士論文。劉仁傑（1997）。重建台灣產業競爭力。台北市，遠流出版事業股份有限公司。劉仁傑（1999）。分工網路–剖析台灣工具機產業競爭力的奧秘。台北市，聯經出版事業公司。劉仁傑（2003）。Business Architecture與兩岸競合結構。機械工業雜誌9月號。劉仁傑、巫茂熾（2012）。工具機產業的精實變革。台北市：財團法人中衛發展中心。錢詩金（2010）。競合：企業合作伙伴抉擇寶典。中國北京，中國經濟出版社。檀明山編著（1998）。孫子兵法與商戰。臺北市：政展公司。薛文蔚、徐世昌（2009）。贏在競合：快速脈動下的產業協同策略。台北：商周。三、網站部份友嘉實業網站，http://www.ffg-tw.com/front/bin/home.phtml台中精機網站，http://www.or.com.tw/永進機械網站，http://www.ycmcnc.com/index_tw.php德川機械網站，http://www.detron.com.tw/tw/index財團法人精密機械研究發展中心網站，http://www.pmc.org.tw臺灣機械工業同業公會網站，http://www.tami.org.tw zh_TW
