1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 隨緣創新: 產品創新旅程中的意外回應方式
Serendipitous Innovation:Responding to Accidents within the Journey of Product Innovation
作者 邱琳恩
Chiu, Lin-En
貢獻者 蕭瑞麟
邱琳恩
Chiu, Lin-En
關鍵詞 創新旅程
即興式創新
隨緣
意外創新
運氣
Innovation journey
Improvisation
Serendipity
Accidental innovation
Luck
日期 2019
上傳時間 1-Jul-2019 10:52:00 (UTC+8)
摘要 創新旅程交集著計畫好的行動與意外而來的事件。雖然我們希望研發過程可以被分段控制、有機制可循、可定位與選擇。實際上創新之過程不太可能那樣順利，而是會受到各種社會性、組織性、文化性、心理性的因素而影響，使創新旅程上充滿阻礙。此時，企業需要學習即興性回應如爵士樂般全力與不完美配合，旅程雖變調，但主旋律卻因此更佳有魅力。然而，至今我們卻對另一種隨緣創新旅程所知有限。在隨緣創新旅程中，創新會遭遇許多意外，隨之而來的更多是驚嚇而非驚喜，讓創新脫離原來軌道，多數夭折而終，少數卻找到了桃花源。究竟，創新過程中，隨機而來的意外是如何成就隨緣而生的創新？本研究試圖探索此一妙趣盎然的議題，針對三個新面向去分析隨緣創新，分別為計劃性行動、意外性事件的交集以及行動者的認知轉移，而去了解分析的結果。本文調查一家設計公司的新產品開發過程，分析在創新行動中交織著那些即興的回應，又在創新旅程中遭遇那些意外而致使創新出軌。雖文獻上已談到意外導致的脫軌演出，可以靠運氣化險為夷，卻尚未能說明這樣的運氣與創新者識別機會的能力有何關係。也因此，我們雖看到意外也帶來創新的驚喜，卻不知「無心插柳何以柳成蔭」的過程。這樣的隨緣創新可提供旅程研究的新觀念，它解讀回應意外的過程，分析好運來臨時行動者點出機會識別時的認知轉變以及隨之所產生的隨緣歷程。實務上，本研究點出，企業面對意外時如何可「善拙成巧」的方法，建議企業研發團隊如何解讀隨緣來臨時的微弱訊號，而藉由意外將危機轉成契機。理解這樣的隨緣旅程，可讓企業更有信心地面對制約，使意料之外在轉瞬間可以變出喜出望外。讓行動者可用達觀的精神去把握機緣，更泰然的面對脫軌的意外，並由不相關的意外事件中，看到驚喜的可能。
The journey of innovation is intersected with planned actions and unexpected events. Although we hope that the discovery process may be controlled in stages, mechanisms are offered to follow, and frameworks are used for positioning and selecting. In reality, innovation process is unlikely to be as rosy as it is expected, which is bound to be affected by various social, organizational, cultural and psychological factors. These factors would spread obstacles in the innovation journey. Therefore, firms need to respond to challenges through improvisation, resembling those of jazz music performance, and orchestrate with imperfect disruptions. Although the journey’s tune might be altered, the core melody otherwise becomes more attractive. However, until now, we have limited understanding of serendipitous journey, which is a relatively unknown alternative. In such a journey, innovators would encounter surprises that result in unintended outcome. What followed are unpleasant shocks rather than nice surprises, which deviates innovation from its initial orbit. Most innovations become suffered and terminated; only a few discover their nirvana. Exactly, how do those random events facilitate the formation of serendipitous innovation? This study attempts to explore this interesting topic and analyzes serendipitous innovations in three new directions: the planned action, the unintended events (and their interactions), and innovators’ cognitive shift, in order to understand the outcome of innovation. This thesis investigates the new product development process of a design studio. The analysis of the planned actions is intertwined with improvisational responses, while encountering unanticipated events, thus derailing the innovation journey. Although current literature mentions such unintended outcomes and believes that it depends majorly on luck to save the day, it has not yet explained how such lucky occasions have anything to do with the innovators’ ability to identify the window of opportunity. Although we witness accidents and surprises within the innovation journey, we know relatively little about why ‘chance accomplished what art had failed in’. Such serendipitous innovation opens new avenues for the ‘journey studies’. It interprets the process of accidental actions, analyzes innovators’ spiritual journey and their ‘prepared minds’, highlights innovators’ cognitive shift during the process of opportunity recognition, and depicts the course of serendipity enabled by various actions. Practically, this study points out how companies may exercise ‘clumsy creativity’, suggests how innovators could pick up weak signals radiated by serendipity, and turn crisis into Eureka moment. Understanding serendipitous journey could provide firms with more confidence to prepare for the upcoming accidents, transforming ‘out-of-blue’ situations into delightful occasions. Such understanding would encourage innovators to get hold of opportunity optimistically, while handling accidents with cool, calm, and collective attitudes. By so doing, innovators may sensitize the connections among accidental events with confidence, and visualize the possibility to surprise their customers.
參考文獻 中文文獻
吳啟華、陸定邦 ，2018，「工業 4.0 下的創新設計迷思」，《管理評論》，第37卷，第3期，第35-51頁。
吳豐祥、蘇友珊，2015，「台灣生技公司如何運用開放式創新開發新藥？」，《中山管理評論》，第20卷，第1期，第335-376頁。
杜拉克・彼得（蕭富峰譯），《創新與創業精神：管理大師彼得杜拉克談創新實務與策略》，台北：臉譜文化。
溫肇東、陳泰明，1997，「台灣的綠色創新組織初探」，《台大管理論叢》，第8卷，第2期，第99-124頁。
蔡敦浩、施進忠、利尚仁，2010，「敘說創業故事：覺察、學習與再詮釋」，《組織與管理》，第3卷，第2期，第67-91頁。
鄭志凱，2012，《錫蘭式的邂逅：我在創意之都矽谷的近距離觀察》，台北：遠流出版社。
蕭瑞麟，2016，《思考的脈絡：創新可能不擴散》，台北：天下文化出版社。
蕭瑞麟，2017，《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。
蕭瑞麟，2018，《服務隨創：劣勢創新的邏輯思維》，台北：五南書局學術專書。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華，2017，「資源流：聯合報系複合商業模式的形成」，《組織與管理》，第1期，第10卷，第1-55頁。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，「劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為」，《中山管理評論》，第2期，第22卷，第323-367頁。
英文文獻
Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. 2012. Managing unsolicited ideas for R&D. 54: 116-139.
Ali, A., Kalwani, M. U., & Kovenock, D. 1993. Selecting product development projects: Pioneering versus incremental innovation strategies. Management Science, 39(3): 255-274.
Ansoff, H. I. 1975. Managing strategic surprise by response to weak signals. California Management Review, 18(2): 21-33.
Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. 2017. The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3): 310-321.
Austin, R. D., Devin, L., & Sullivan, E. E. 2012. Accidental innovation: Supporting valuable unpredictability in the creative process. Organization Science, 23(5): 1505-1522.
Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. 2003. Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32(2): 255-276.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329-366.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. 2005. From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11): 1573-1601.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 2001. Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1): 76–95.
Barney, J. B. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10): 1231-1241.
Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. 2011. Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handles surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 239-261.
Brown, T. 2009. Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
Cheng, Y.-T., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1996. Learning the Innovation Journey: Order Out of Chaos? Organization Science, 7(6): 593-615.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M., & McDonald, R. 2015. What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12): 44-53.
de Rond, M. 2014. The structure of serendipity. Culture & Organization, 20(5): 342-358.
Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. 2003. The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 977-990.
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11): 1422-1433.
Eisenhardt, K., & Tabrizi, B. 1995. Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 84-110.
Engel, J. S., & Del-Palacio, I. 2009. Global networks of clusters of innovation: Accelerating the innovation process. Business Horizons, 52(5): 493-503.
Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O`Keefe, R. D. 1984. Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6): 682-695.
Gabriel, Y., Muhr, S. L., & Linstead, S. 2014. Luck of the draw? Serendipity, accident, chance and misfortune in organization and design. Culture & Organization, 20(5): 334-341.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. 2018. Serendipity arrangements for expating science-based innovations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1): 125-140.
Garud, R., & Rappa, M. A. 1994. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3): 344-362.
Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 10-36.
Graebner, M. E. 2004. Momentum and serendipity: How acquired leaders create value in the integration of technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9): 751-777.
Grönlund, J., Sjödin, D. R., & Frishammar, J. 2010. Open innovation and the stage-gate process: A revised model for new product development. California Management Review, 52(3): 106-131.
Hargadon, A. 1998. Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review, 40(3): 209-227.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4): 716-750.
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(1): 9-30.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Välikangas, L. 2014. Opportunity creation in innovation networks: Interactive revealing practices. California Management Review, 57(1): 67-87.
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Mein, L., & Whittington, R. 2007. Strategy-as-Practice: Research, Directions, and Resources. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. 2008. Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12): 50-59.
Kamoche, K., & Cunha, M. P. e. 2001. Minimal structures: From jazz improvisation to product innovation. Organization Studies, 22(5): 733.
Koenig, M. 2000. Why serendipity is the key to innovation. Knowledge Management Review, 3(2): 10.
Larsen, H., & Bogers, M. 2014. Innovation as improvisation `in the shadow`. Creativity & Innovation Management, 23(4): 386-399.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7): 545.
Maguire, S. 2004. The co-evolution of technology and discourse: A study of substitution processes for the insecticide DDT. Organization Studies, 25(1): 113-134.
Makri, S., Blandford, A., Woods, M., Sharples, S., & Maxwell, D. 2014. `Making my own luck`: Serendipity strategies and how to support them in digital information environments. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 65(11): 2179-2194.
Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. 1985. Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 160-197.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. 1985. Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 257-272.
Orlikowski, W. J. 1996. Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1): 63–93.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. 2017. From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1): 53-79.
Pettigrew, A. 1992. The character and significance of strategy process research. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 5-16.
Regnér, P. 2008. Strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities: Steps towards a dynamic view of strategy. Human Relations, 61(4): 565-588.
Robertson, P. L., Casali, G. L., & Jacobson, D. 2012. Managing open incremental process innovation: Absorptive Capacity and distributed learning. Research Policy, 41(5): 822-832.
Sastry, M. A. 1997. Problems and paradoxes in a model of ounctuated organisational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(??): 237-275.
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. 2007. The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2): 123-140.
Shane, S., & Nicolaou, N. 2015. Creative personality, opportunity recognition and the tendency to start businesses: A study of their genetic predispositions. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(3): 407-419.
Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Busenitz, L. 2012. Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1): 77-94.
Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. 1980. External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11): 1071-1085.
Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. 2012. Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 285-336.
Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. 1999. The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E. 2007. Horizontal innovation networks: by and for users. Industrial & Corporate Change, 16(2): 293-315.
Watkins, M. D., & Bazerman, M. H. 2003. Predictable surprises: The disasters you should have seen coming. Harvard Business Review, 81(3): 72.
Zack, M. H. 2000. Jazz improvisation and organizing: Once more from the top. Organization Science, 11(2): 227-234.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)
105932079
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105932079
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 蕭瑞麟zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 邱琳恩zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chiu, Lin-Enen_US
dc.creator (作者) 邱琳恩zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chiu, Lin-Enen_US
dc.date (日期) 2019en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2019 10:52:00 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Jul-2019 10:52:00 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2019 10:52:00 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0105932079en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124162-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 105932079zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 創新旅程交集著計畫好的行動與意外而來的事件。雖然我們希望研發過程可以被分段控制、有機制可循、可定位與選擇。實際上創新之過程不太可能那樣順利，而是會受到各種社會性、組織性、文化性、心理性的因素而影響，使創新旅程上充滿阻礙。此時，企業需要學習即興性回應如爵士樂般全力與不完美配合，旅程雖變調，但主旋律卻因此更佳有魅力。然而，至今我們卻對另一種隨緣創新旅程所知有限。在隨緣創新旅程中，創新會遭遇許多意外，隨之而來的更多是驚嚇而非驚喜，讓創新脫離原來軌道，多數夭折而終，少數卻找到了桃花源。究竟，創新過程中，隨機而來的意外是如何成就隨緣而生的創新？本研究試圖探索此一妙趣盎然的議題，針對三個新面向去分析隨緣創新，分別為計劃性行動、意外性事件的交集以及行動者的認知轉移，而去了解分析的結果。本文調查一家設計公司的新產品開發過程，分析在創新行動中交織著那些即興的回應，又在創新旅程中遭遇那些意外而致使創新出軌。雖文獻上已談到意外導致的脫軌演出，可以靠運氣化險為夷，卻尚未能說明這樣的運氣與創新者識別機會的能力有何關係。也因此，我們雖看到意外也帶來創新的驚喜，卻不知「無心插柳何以柳成蔭」的過程。這樣的隨緣創新可提供旅程研究的新觀念，它解讀回應意外的過程，分析好運來臨時行動者點出機會識別時的認知轉變以及隨之所產生的隨緣歷程。實務上，本研究點出，企業面對意外時如何可「善拙成巧」的方法，建議企業研發團隊如何解讀隨緣來臨時的微弱訊號，而藉由意外將危機轉成契機。理解這樣的隨緣旅程，可讓企業更有信心地面對制約，使意料之外在轉瞬間可以變出喜出望外。讓行動者可用達觀的精神去把握機緣，更泰然的面對脫軌的意外，並由不相關的意外事件中，看到驚喜的可能。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The journey of innovation is intersected with planned actions and unexpected events. Although we hope that the discovery process may be controlled in stages, mechanisms are offered to follow, and frameworks are used for positioning and selecting. In reality, innovation process is unlikely to be as rosy as it is expected, which is bound to be affected by various social, organizational, cultural and psychological factors. These factors would spread obstacles in the innovation journey. Therefore, firms need to respond to challenges through improvisation, resembling those of jazz music performance, and orchestrate with imperfect disruptions. Although the journey’s tune might be altered, the core melody otherwise becomes more attractive. However, until now, we have limited understanding of serendipitous journey, which is a relatively unknown alternative. In such a journey, innovators would encounter surprises that result in unintended outcome. What followed are unpleasant shocks rather than nice surprises, which deviates innovation from its initial orbit. Most innovations become suffered and terminated; only a few discover their nirvana. Exactly, how do those random events facilitate the formation of serendipitous innovation? This study attempts to explore this interesting topic and analyzes serendipitous innovations in three new directions: the planned action, the unintended events (and their interactions), and innovators’ cognitive shift, in order to understand the outcome of innovation. This thesis investigates the new product development process of a design studio. The analysis of the planned actions is intertwined with improvisational responses, while encountering unanticipated events, thus derailing the innovation journey. Although current literature mentions such unintended outcomes and believes that it depends majorly on luck to save the day, it has not yet explained how such lucky occasions have anything to do with the innovators’ ability to identify the window of opportunity. Although we witness accidents and surprises within the innovation journey, we know relatively little about why ‘chance accomplished what art had failed in’. Such serendipitous innovation opens new avenues for the ‘journey studies’. It interprets the process of accidental actions, analyzes innovators’ spiritual journey and their ‘prepared minds’, highlights innovators’ cognitive shift during the process of opportunity recognition, and depicts the course of serendipity enabled by various actions. Practically, this study points out how companies may exercise ‘clumsy creativity’, suggests how innovators could pick up weak signals radiated by serendipity, and turn crisis into Eureka moment. Understanding serendipitous journey could provide firms with more confidence to prepare for the upcoming accidents, transforming ‘out-of-blue’ situations into delightful occasions. Such understanding would encourage innovators to get hold of opportunity optimistically, while handling accidents with cool, calm, and collective attitudes. By so doing, innovators may sensitize the connections among accidental events with confidence, and visualize the possibility to surprise their customers.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 壹、緒論 11
第一節 研究動機 11
第二節 研究目的 14
第三節 預期效應 17
貳、文獻回顧 19
第一節 定義創新旅程 19
第二節 計劃性創新 25
第三節 即興式創新 29
第四節 理論缺口：隨緣旅程 31
參、研究方法 36
第一節 方法論與案例選擇 36
第二節 資料蒐集過程 40
第三節 分架構與步驟 42
肆、研究發現 48
第一節 合將的設計挑戰 48
第二節 旅程一─懶骨頭到兒童玩具 51
一、原本設計：折疊式懶骨頭 52
二、意外轉折：上不去的空氣、醉入水中 56
三、隨緣創新：幼兒沙發、兒童玩具、水上漂 59
第三節 旅程二─玩具到沙發傢俱 64
一、原本設計：沙發傢俱 65
二、意外轉折：黏不起來的點 66
三、隨緣創新：熱融沙發的誕生 68
第四節 旅程三─沙發到提袋、盆栽袋 71
一、原本設計：無縫線旅行袋 72
二、意外轉折：怕冷怕熱的迷迭香 74
三、隨緣創新：由盆栽袋到冷熱水袋 76
第五節 旅程四─由盆栽到保溫袋 80
一、原本設計：旅館需要大植栽袋 80
二、意外轉折：瑞士的風雪 81
三、隨緣創新：保溫保冷、內袋外袋 84
伍、討論 87
第一節 學術貢獻 87
一、意外闡釋新型態的創新過程 87
二、意外促成制約轉換的認知旅程 88
三、意外觸發機會識別的旅程 91
第二節 實務啟示 93
一、解讀意外所傳送的微弱訊號 94
二、藉意外將危機轉換成契機 96
三、以隨緣促成隨創 98
第三節 研究限制與未來方向 100
陸、結論 105
參考文獻 108
中文文獻 108
英文文獻 109
附件：碩士論文修改 口試委員問題回覆 114		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105932079en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創新旅程zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 即興式創新zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隨緣zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 意外創新zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 運氣zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Innovation journeyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Improvisationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Serendipityen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Accidental innovationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Lucken_US
dc.title (題名) 隨緣創新: 產品創新旅程中的意外回應方式zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Serendipitous Innovation:Responding to Accidents within the Journey of Product Innovationen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻
吳啟華、陸定邦 ，2018，「工業 4.0 下的創新設計迷思」，《管理評論》，第37卷，第3期，第35-51頁。
吳豐祥、蘇友珊，2015，「台灣生技公司如何運用開放式創新開發新藥？」，《中山管理評論》，第20卷，第1期，第335-376頁。
杜拉克・彼得（蕭富峰譯），《創新與創業精神：管理大師彼得杜拉克談創新實務與策略》，台北：臉譜文化。
溫肇東、陳泰明，1997，「台灣的綠色創新組織初探」，《台大管理論叢》，第8卷，第2期，第99-124頁。
蔡敦浩、施進忠、利尚仁，2010，「敘說創業故事：覺察、學習與再詮釋」，《組織與管理》，第3卷，第2期，第67-91頁。
鄭志凱，2012，《錫蘭式的邂逅：我在創意之都矽谷的近距離觀察》，台北：遠流出版社。
蕭瑞麟，2016，《思考的脈絡：創新可能不擴散》，台北：天下文化出版社。
蕭瑞麟，2017，《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。
蕭瑞麟，2018，《服務隨創：劣勢創新的邏輯思維》，台北：五南書局學術專書。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華，2017，「資源流：聯合報系複合商業模式的形成」，《組織與管理》，第1期，第10卷，第1-55頁。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，「劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為」，《中山管理評論》，第2期，第22卷，第323-367頁。
英文文獻
Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. 2012. Managing unsolicited ideas for R&D. 54: 116-139.
Ali, A., Kalwani, M. U., & Kovenock, D. 1993. Selecting product development projects: Pioneering versus incremental innovation strategies. Management Science, 39(3): 255-274.
Ansoff, H. I. 1975. Managing strategic surprise by response to weak signals. California Management Review, 18(2): 21-33.
Appleyard, M. M., & Chesbrough, H. W. 2017. The dynamics of open strategy: From adoption to reversion. Long Range Planning, 50(3): 310-321.
Austin, R. D., Devin, L., & Sullivan, E. E. 2012. Accidental innovation: Supporting valuable unpredictability in the creative process. Organization Science, 23(5): 1505-1522.
Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. 2003. Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32(2): 255-276.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329-366.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. 2005. From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11): 1573-1601.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 2001. Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1): 76–95.
Barney, J. B. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10): 1231-1241.
Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. 2011. Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handles surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 239-261.
Brown, T. 2009. Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
Cheng, Y.-T., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1996. Learning the Innovation Journey: Order Out of Chaos? Organization Science, 7(6): 593-615.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M., & McDonald, R. 2015. What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12): 44-53.
de Rond, M. 2014. The structure of serendipity. Culture & Organization, 20(5): 342-358.
Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. 2003. The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 977-990.
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11): 1422-1433.
Eisenhardt, K., & Tabrizi, B. 1995. Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 84-110.
Engel, J. S., & Del-Palacio, I. 2009. Global networks of clusters of innovation: Accelerating the innovation process. Business Horizons, 52(5): 493-503.
Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O`Keefe, R. D. 1984. Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6): 682-695.
Gabriel, Y., Muhr, S. L., & Linstead, S. 2014. Luck of the draw? Serendipity, accident, chance and misfortune in organization and design. Culture & Organization, 20(5): 334-341.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. 2018. Serendipity arrangements for expating science-based innovations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1): 125-140.
Garud, R., & Rappa, M. A. 1994. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3): 344-362.
Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 10-36.
Graebner, M. E. 2004. Momentum and serendipity: How acquired leaders create value in the integration of technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9): 751-777.
Grönlund, J., Sjödin, D. R., & Frishammar, J. 2010. Open innovation and the stage-gate process: A revised model for new product development. California Management Review, 52(3): 106-131.
Hargadon, A. 1998. Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review, 40(3): 209-227.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4): 716-750.
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(1): 9-30.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Välikangas, L. 2014. Opportunity creation in innovation networks: Interactive revealing practices. California Management Review, 57(1): 67-87.
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Mein, L., & Whittington, R. 2007. Strategy-as-Practice: Research, Directions, and Resources. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. 2008. Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12): 50-59.
Kamoche, K., & Cunha, M. P. e. 2001. Minimal structures: From jazz improvisation to product innovation. Organization Studies, 22(5): 733.
Koenig, M. 2000. Why serendipity is the key to innovation. Knowledge Management Review, 3(2): 10.
Larsen, H., & Bogers, M. 2014. Innovation as improvisation `in the shadow`. Creativity & Innovation Management, 23(4): 386-399.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7): 545.
Maguire, S. 2004. The co-evolution of technology and discourse: A study of substitution processes for the insecticide DDT. Organization Studies, 25(1): 113-134.
Makri, S., Blandford, A., Woods, M., Sharples, S., & Maxwell, D. 2014. `Making my own luck`: Serendipity strategies and how to support them in digital information environments. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 65(11): 2179-2194.
Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. 1985. Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 160-197.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. 1985. Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 257-272.
Orlikowski, W. J. 1996. Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1): 63–93.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. 2017. From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1): 53-79.
Pettigrew, A. 1992. The character and significance of strategy process research. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 5-16.
Regnér, P. 2008. Strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities: Steps towards a dynamic view of strategy. Human Relations, 61(4): 565-588.
Robertson, P. L., Casali, G. L., & Jacobson, D. 2012. Managing open incremental process innovation: Absorptive Capacity and distributed learning. Research Policy, 41(5): 822-832.
Sastry, M. A. 1997. Problems and paradoxes in a model of ounctuated organisational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(??): 237-275.
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. 2007. The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2): 123-140.
Shane, S., & Nicolaou, N. 2015. Creative personality, opportunity recognition and the tendency to start businesses: A study of their genetic predispositions. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(3): 407-419.
Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Busenitz, L. 2012. Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1): 77-94.
Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. 1980. External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11): 1071-1085.
Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. 2012. Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 285-336.
Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. 1999. The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E. 2007. Horizontal innovation networks: by and for users. Industrial & Corporate Change, 16(2): 293-315.
Watkins, M. D., & Bazerman, M. H. 2003. Predictable surprises: The disasters you should have seen coming. Harvard Business Review, 81(3): 72.
Zack, M. H. 2000. Jazz improvisation and organizing: Once more from the top. Organization Science, 11(2): 227-234.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU201900002en_US