Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 組織例規與企業營運：以TU公司為例
Organizational Routine and Business Operation： A Case Study of TU Company作者 秦禮洋
Chin, Li-Yang貢獻者 傅浚映<br>劉世慶
Fu, Jun-Ying<br>Liu, Shih-Ching
秦禮洋
Chin, Li-Yang關鍵詞 組織例規
企業營運
組織慣性
組織適應性
核心能力陷阱
誘因機制
員工意識
行為模式
Organizational routines
Business operations
Organizational inertia
Organizational adaptation
Core competence traps
Incentives
Employee awareness
Pattern of actions日期 2021 上傳時間 2-Mar-2021 14:58:41 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究目的就是為了瞭解組織例規對於企業營運的影響。首先從組織例規的演進觀點來看，此次研究發現組織例規會對企業營運帶來兩種影響力，分別為穩定性及適應性。藉由個案研究法，選擇一家台灣電子材料產業內的個案公司進行實地觀察及質化訪談，以探索穩定性及適應性如何在企業內產生並發揮作用。最後則是分析這兩種因素在企業中的相互作用及探索誘因機制在組織例規中的角色，並提出研究結論以提高企業日常營運的效率。透過此次研究，可發現在大而穩定的企業中，組織例規帶來的穩定性通常優先於適應性，而且，穩定性對於組織例規的影響比適應性更加明顯。因此，也導致了組織例規內的慣性問題及營運效率不佳。除此之外，當一家企業在特定領域中已經佔有極高的市場份額時，即使在策略目標更新的期間，高階管理者也很容易陷入核心能力陷阱，因為這些管理者會認為有必要維持現有的組織例規，所以核心能力陷阱反而會增強組織慣性；另一方面，組織例規的相互作用也可能增加組織慣性的強度。最後，在組織慣性及核心能力陷阱的約束下，企業高層可能會簡單地認為，只要建立誘因機制就能夠維持組織例規的效率。但是，建立員工意識和發展員工「當責制」更為重要。其他研究發現則反應了非正式關係對組織例規執行的負面影響。除此之外，組織內資訊化程度則顯示出非人類因素在組織例規研究中的重要性漸增，最後，此次研究也確實有著研究上的限制；同時也替未來的研究方向提供了一些新的研究途徑。
The purpose of this study is to realize how organizational routines impact business operations. From the evolutionary perspective of organizational routines, the research finds that organizational routines have two impacts on business operations, namely stability and adaptability. Utilizing the case study method, I select one firm in Taiwan’s electronic materials industry. I conduct on-site observations and qualitative interviews to explore how stability and adaptability emerge and function in an enterprise. Finally, I analyze the interaction of the two factors in an enterprise and explore the role of incentives in the organizational routines. I also provide research conclusions and several ways to improve the efficiency of daily business operations.Through the research, I find that the stability brought by organizational routines usually takes precedence over adaptability in large and stable enterprises. Moreover, the impact of stability on organizational routines is more pronounced than adaptability. Hence, this leads to inertia problems in organizational routines and operation inefficiency. In addition, when a company already has a very high market share in a particular field, it is easy for top managers to fall into the core competency trap even during a period of strategic renewing since these managers find it necessary to maintain existing organizational routines. So the core competence trap will increase the organizational inertia. On the other hand, the interaction of organizational routines may also increase the strength of organizational inertia. In the end, under the constraints of organizational inertia and core competence traps, corporate executives might simply believe that the establishment of an incentive mechanism alone could maintain the efficiency of the organizational routines. However, it is much more important to establish employee awareness and develop employee “Accountability.”Other research findings show the negative impact of informal relationships on the implementation of organizational routines. Moreover, the degree of informatization within the organization indicates the growing importance of non-human factors in research on organizational routines. Finally, the research does has the limitations but able to provide several future research avenues.參考文獻 中文文獻工商時報 （2019）。2019台灣50產業地圖-印刷電路板。檢自：https://ctee.com.tw/topic/2019tw0050/pcb材料世界網 （2020）。工業材料雜誌二月號推出「全球貿易戰下台灣材料產業的機會與發展策略」與「動力電池與模組管理」技術專題。檢自：https://www.materialsnet.com.tw/DocView.aspx?id=43629周恬弘 （2007）。組織理論—組織的成員如何做決定及理解事物?檢自：http://thchou.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-post_5961.html洪友芳 （2019）。自由時報 自由財經，工研院：5G時代將帶動電子材料需求持續增加。檢自：https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/2961068莊立民、王鼎銘合譯，Robert Y. C., Brain L. D., Uma S. 著，2004。企業研究方法：質化與量化方法之應用。台北市：雙葉書廊有限公司。陳雯虹 （2010）。組織例規與彈性關聯性之研究。國立政治大學企業管理學系未出版博士論文。楊迺仁 （2020）。貿易雜誌電子精華版第345期，疫情影響布局腳步 趨勢看好 5G下半年全面啟動。檢自：https://www.ieatpe.org.tw/magazine/ebook345/storypage01.html蕭瑞麟 （2017）。不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡 (增訂第四版)。台北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。劉韻僖、卓秀足、俞慧芸、楊仁壽譯，Gareth R. J. 著，2012。組織理論與管理 (六版)。台北市：雙葉書廊有限公司。謝金河 （2019）。今周刊，1187期，台灣的印刷電路板產業變大了。檢自：https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/80392/post/201909180053/%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E7%9A%84%E5%8D%B0%E5%88%B7%E9%9B%BB%E8%B7%AF%E6%9D%BF%E7%94%A2%E6%A5%AD%E8%AE%8A%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%86Jamie （2013）。創業CEO：好策略克服「組織慣性」，整合所有力量來源。檢自：http://mrjamie.cc/2013/07/08/good-strategy-entropy-putting-it-together/英文文獻Arrow, K. J. (1971). Readings in the Theory of Growth. London, England: PalgraveMacmillan.Ashforth, B. E., & Fried, Y. (1988). The mindlessness of organizationalbehaviors. Human Relations, 41(4), 305-329.Becker, M. C. (2005). The concept of routines: some clarifications. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(2), 249-262.Collinson, S., & Wilson, D. C. (2006). Inertia in Japanese organizations: Knowledge management routines and failure to innovate. Organization Studies, 27(9), 1359-1387.Coombs, R., & Hull, R. (1998). `Knowledge management practices` and path-dependency in innovation. Research Policy, 27(3), 239-256.Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1986). An investigation into the new product process: steps, deficiencies, and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3(2), 71-85.Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2000). The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities. Oxford, England: Oxford university press.Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611-629.Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118.Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, U.S.A.: Basic books.Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. California, U.S.A.: University of California Press.Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149-164.Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716-749.Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2010). Generative replication and the evolution of complexity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 75(1), 12-24.Kaplan, S., & Henderson, R. (2005). Inertia and incentives: Bridging organizational economics and organizational theory. Organization Science, 16(5), 509-521.Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London, England: Macmillan.Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 21(3), 487-513.Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95-112.Miller, D. (1992). The Icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own downfall. Business Horizons, 35(1), 24-35.Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793-815.Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235-250.Pentland, B. T., & Hærem, T. (2015). Organizational routines as patterns of action: Implications for organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 465-487.Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484-510.Rice, R. E., & Cooper, S. D. (2010). Organizations and Unusual routines: A Systems Analysis of Dysfunctional Feedback Processes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Rousseau, D. M. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 515-546.Rumelt, R. P. (1995). Resource-based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis. Boston, MA.: Springer.Rulke, D. L., & Rau, D. (1997). Academy of Management Proceedings. New York, U.S.A.: Academy of Management.Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Science, 46(5), 612-625.Stańczyk-Hugiet, E. (2014). Routines in the process of organizational evolution. Management, 18(2), 73-87.Teece, D. J. (1998). Research directions for knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 289-292.Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973-993.Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429-439.Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, Second Edition. New York, U.S.A.: McGraw HillYi, S., Knudsen, T., & Becker, M.C. (2016). Inertia in routines: A hidden source of organizational variation. Organization Science, 27(3), 782-800.Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76-92.Zollo, M., Winter, S. G. (1999). From Organizational Routines to Dynamic Capabilities. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所(MBA學位學程)
107363061資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107363061 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 傅浚映<br>劉世慶 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Fu, Jun-Ying<br>Liu, Shih-Ching en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 秦禮洋 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chin, Li-Yang en_US dc.creator (作者) 秦禮洋 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chin, Li-Yang en_US dc.date (日期) 2021 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Mar-2021 14:58:41 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Mar-2021 14:58:41 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Mar-2021 14:58:41 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0107363061 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/134210 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 企業管理研究所(MBA學位學程) zh_TW dc.description (描述) 107363061 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究目的就是為了瞭解組織例規對於企業營運的影響。首先從組織例規的演進觀點來看，此次研究發現組織例規會對企業營運帶來兩種影響力，分別為穩定性及適應性。藉由個案研究法，選擇一家台灣電子材料產業內的個案公司進行實地觀察及質化訪談，以探索穩定性及適應性如何在企業內產生並發揮作用。最後則是分析這兩種因素在企業中的相互作用及探索誘因機制在組織例規中的角色，並提出研究結論以提高企業日常營運的效率。透過此次研究，可發現在大而穩定的企業中，組織例規帶來的穩定性通常優先於適應性，而且，穩定性對於組織例規的影響比適應性更加明顯。因此，也導致了組織例規內的慣性問題及營運效率不佳。除此之外，當一家企業在特定領域中已經佔有極高的市場份額時，即使在策略目標更新的期間，高階管理者也很容易陷入核心能力陷阱，因為這些管理者會認為有必要維持現有的組織例規，所以核心能力陷阱反而會增強組織慣性；另一方面，組織例規的相互作用也可能增加組織慣性的強度。最後，在組織慣性及核心能力陷阱的約束下，企業高層可能會簡單地認為，只要建立誘因機制就能夠維持組織例規的效率。但是，建立員工意識和發展員工「當責制」更為重要。其他研究發現則反應了非正式關係對組織例規執行的負面影響。除此之外，組織內資訊化程度則顯示出非人類因素在組織例規研究中的重要性漸增，最後，此次研究也確實有著研究上的限制；同時也替未來的研究方向提供了一些新的研究途徑。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of this study is to realize how organizational routines impact business operations. From the evolutionary perspective of organizational routines, the research finds that organizational routines have two impacts on business operations, namely stability and adaptability. Utilizing the case study method, I select one firm in Taiwan’s electronic materials industry. I conduct on-site observations and qualitative interviews to explore how stability and adaptability emerge and function in an enterprise. Finally, I analyze the interaction of the two factors in an enterprise and explore the role of incentives in the organizational routines. I also provide research conclusions and several ways to improve the efficiency of daily business operations.Through the research, I find that the stability brought by organizational routines usually takes precedence over adaptability in large and stable enterprises. Moreover, the impact of stability on organizational routines is more pronounced than adaptability. Hence, this leads to inertia problems in organizational routines and operation inefficiency. In addition, when a company already has a very high market share in a particular field, it is easy for top managers to fall into the core competency trap even during a period of strategic renewing since these managers find it necessary to maintain existing organizational routines. So the core competence trap will increase the organizational inertia. On the other hand, the interaction of organizational routines may also increase the strength of organizational inertia. In the end, under the constraints of organizational inertia and core competence traps, corporate executives might simply believe that the establishment of an incentive mechanism alone could maintain the efficiency of the organizational routines. However, it is much more important to establish employee awareness and develop employee “Accountability.”Other research findings show the negative impact of informal relationships on the implementation of organizational routines. Moreover, the degree of informatization within the organization indicates the growing importance of non-human factors in research on organizational routines. Finally, the research does has the limitations but able to provide several future research avenues. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 摘要 IIAbstract III目錄 V表次 VI圖次 VII第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究問題與研究目的 4第三節 研究範圍與分析單位 6第四節 研究方法 7第二章 文獻探討 8第一節 組織例規的定義與演化 8第二節 組織例規在組織理論內的意涵 17第三節 組織慣性與誘因機制 24第四節 組織例規與知識管理 30第三章 研究方法 35第一節 個案研究法 35第二節 資料蒐集方法 38第三節 個案產業及公司介紹 40第四章 研究分析 45第一節 產業外部環境分析 45第二節 TU公司組織策略與組織架構分析 48第三節 組織例規的實務應用 52第五章 結論與建議 68第一節 研究結論 68第二節 其他研究發現 73第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議 75參考文獻 77附錄一：質化訪談大綱 82 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2529329 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107363061 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 組織例規 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業營運 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 組織慣性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 組織適應性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 核心能力陷阱 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 誘因機制 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 員工意識 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 行為模式 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Organizational routines en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Business operations en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Organizational inertia en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Organizational adaptation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Core competence traps en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Incentives en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Employee awareness en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Pattern of actions en_US dc.title (題名) 組織例規與企業營運：以TU公司為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Organizational Routine and Business Operation： A Case Study of TU Company en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻工商時報 （2019）。2019台灣50產業地圖-印刷電路板。檢自：https://ctee.com.tw/topic/2019tw0050/pcb材料世界網 （2020）。工業材料雜誌二月號推出「全球貿易戰下台灣材料產業的機會與發展策略」與「動力電池與模組管理」技術專題。檢自：https://www.materialsnet.com.tw/DocView.aspx?id=43629周恬弘 （2007）。組織理論—組織的成員如何做決定及理解事物?檢自：http://thchou.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-post_5961.html洪友芳 （2019）。自由時報 自由財經，工研院：5G時代將帶動電子材料需求持續增加。檢自：https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/2961068莊立民、王鼎銘合譯，Robert Y. C., Brain L. D., Uma S. 著，2004。企業研究方法：質化與量化方法之應用。台北市：雙葉書廊有限公司。陳雯虹 （2010）。組織例規與彈性關聯性之研究。國立政治大學企業管理學系未出版博士論文。楊迺仁 （2020）。貿易雜誌電子精華版第345期，疫情影響布局腳步 趨勢看好 5G下半年全面啟動。檢自：https://www.ieatpe.org.tw/magazine/ebook345/storypage01.html蕭瑞麟 （2017）。不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡 (增訂第四版)。台北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。劉韻僖、卓秀足、俞慧芸、楊仁壽譯，Gareth R. J. 著，2012。組織理論與管理 (六版)。台北市：雙葉書廊有限公司。謝金河 （2019）。今周刊，1187期，台灣的印刷電路板產業變大了。檢自：https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/80392/post/201909180053/%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E7%9A%84%E5%8D%B0%E5%88%B7%E9%9B%BB%E8%B7%AF%E6%9D%BF%E7%94%A2%E6%A5%AD%E8%AE%8A%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%86Jamie （2013）。創業CEO：好策略克服「組織慣性」，整合所有力量來源。檢自：http://mrjamie.cc/2013/07/08/good-strategy-entropy-putting-it-together/英文文獻Arrow, K. J. (1971). Readings in the Theory of Growth. London, England: PalgraveMacmillan.Ashforth, B. E., & Fried, Y. (1988). The mindlessness of organizationalbehaviors. Human Relations, 41(4), 305-329.Becker, M. C. (2005). The concept of routines: some clarifications. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(2), 249-262.Collinson, S., & Wilson, D. C. (2006). Inertia in Japanese organizations: Knowledge management routines and failure to innovate. Organization Studies, 27(9), 1359-1387.Coombs, R., & Hull, R. (1998). `Knowledge management practices` and path-dependency in innovation. Research Policy, 27(3), 239-256.Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1986). An investigation into the new product process: steps, deficiencies, and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3(2), 71-85.Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2000). The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities. Oxford, England: Oxford university press.Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611-629.Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118.Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, U.S.A.: Basic books.Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. California, U.S.A.: University of California Press.Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149-164.Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716-749.Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2010). Generative replication and the evolution of complexity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 75(1), 12-24.Kaplan, S., & Henderson, R. (2005). Inertia and incentives: Bridging organizational economics and organizational theory. Organization Science, 16(5), 509-521.Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London, England: Macmillan.Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 21(3), 487-513.Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95-112.Miller, D. (1992). The Icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own downfall. Business Horizons, 35(1), 24-35.Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793-815.Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235-250.Pentland, B. T., & Hærem, T. (2015). Organizational routines as patterns of action: Implications for organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 465-487.Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484-510.Rice, R. E., & Cooper, S. D. (2010). Organizations and Unusual routines: A Systems Analysis of Dysfunctional Feedback Processes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Rousseau, D. M. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 515-546.Rumelt, R. P. (1995). Resource-based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis. Boston, MA.: Springer.Rulke, D. L., & Rau, D. (1997). Academy of Management Proceedings. New York, U.S.A.: Academy of Management.Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Science, 46(5), 612-625.Stańczyk-Hugiet, E. (2014). Routines in the process of organizational evolution. Management, 18(2), 73-87.Teece, D. J. (1998). Research directions for knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 289-292.Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973-993.Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429-439.Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, Second Edition. New York, U.S.A.: McGraw HillYi, S., Knudsen, T., & Becker, M.C. (2016). Inertia in routines: A hidden source of organizational variation. Organization Science, 27(3), 782-800.Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76-92.Zollo, M., Winter, S. G. (1999). From Organizational Routines to Dynamic Capabilities. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202100279 en_US
