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 以資源調和觀點探討軟體產業的軟體即服務創新
Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) Innovation in the Context of Software Industry: A Resource Orchestration Perspective
作者 廖長健
Liao, Chang-Chien
貢獻者 張欣綠<br>彭志宏
Chang, Hsin-Lu<br>Peng, Chih-Hung
廖長健
Liao, Chang-Chien
關鍵詞 資源調和觀點
軟體即服務
服務創新
能力捆綁
組織異質性
原生雲
轉型雲
Resource orchestration view
Software-as-a-Service(SaaS
Service innovation
Capability bundling
Organizational heterogeneity
Native cloud
Transitioning cloud
日期 2025
上傳時間 1-Sep-2025 15:02:47 (UTC+8)
摘要 軟體即服務（SaaS）已成為軟體產業的主流典範，對不同出身背景的軟體供應商（原生雲與轉型雲）帶來了截然不同的挑戰與機會。既有研究多將供應商視為同質性群體進行轉型討論，或偏重於客戶採用視角，較少提出能夠系統性比較此兩類廠商如何透過資源調和驅動創新與提升績效的理論框架與實證檢驗。 本研究以資源調和觀點（ROV）為理論核心，採探索性序列混合方法。首先透過焦點團體訪談，深入探索兩類廠商的差異化策略路徑並生成情境化洞察，同時發展衡量工具；其次以145家台灣SaaS供應商為樣本，進行問卷調查，並以PLS-SEM檢驗模型與假說。 實證結果支持「資源調和 → 創新 → 績效」的核心傳導路徑，其中「能力捆綁」的影響最為關鍵。進一步的比較分析揭示兩條異質性路徑：轉型雲廠商的能力捆綁對其善用市場機會展現出更高的邊際效益，突顯其克服路徑依賴所帶來的挑戰與回報；原生雲廠商則憑藉組織敏捷性，在將市場機會轉化為創新能量的過程中展現更高的效率。 本研究的主要貢獻在於三方面：理論上，將ROV擴展至SaaS情境，並揭示廠商異質性的權變作用；方法上，發展並驗證了一套具本土情境特色的衡量工具；實務上，為不同類型廠商提供差異化策略指引，其中轉型雲廠商宜聚焦內部整合，而原生雲廠商則須維持敏捷與創新動能。
Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) has emerged as the dominant paradigm in the software industry, creating distinct challenges and opportunities for vendors with different origins—namely, native cloud and transitioning cloud firms. Existing research often treats vendors as a homogeneous group in discussions of transformation or emphasizes the customer adoption perspective. As a result, systematic theoretical and empirical comparisons of how these two types of vendors orchestrate resources to drive innovation remain limited. Grounded in the Resource Orchestration View (ROV), this study adopts an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. In the qualitative stage, focus group interviews were conducted to uncover the differentiated strategic pathways of the two vendor types, generating contextual insights that informed the development of measurement instruments. In the quantitative stage, survey data from 145 Taiwanese SaaS vendors were analyzed using PLS-SEM to test the proposed model. The findings confirm the core pathway of resource orchestration → innovation → performance, with capability bundling playing a pivotal role. Comparative analysis further reveals two heterogeneous pathways: for transitioning cloud firms, capability bundling yields higher marginal benefits in leveraging opportunities, underscoring both the challenges and rewards of overcoming path dependence; for native cloud firms, organizational agility enables greater efficiency in converting market opportunities into innovation capacity. This study contributes on three levels. Theoretically, it extends ROV to the SaaS context by demonstrating the contingent role of vendor heterogeneity. Methodologically, it develops and validates a context-specific instrument for measuring resource orchestration. Practically, it offers differentiated strategic guidance: transitioning cloud firms should prioritize internal integration to overcome inertia, while native cloud firms must sustain agility to preserve their innovation momentum.
參考文獻 Alkhater, N., Walters, R., & Wills, G. (2018). An empirical study of factors influencing cloud adoption among private sector organisations. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 38-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.017 Andersén, J., & Ljungkvist, T. (2021). Resource orchestration for team‐based innovation: a case study of the interplay between teams, customers, and top management. R&D Management, 51(1), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12442 Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The economic journal, 99(394), 116-131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208 Asante, R., Agyemang, M., Faibil, D., & Osei-Asibey, D. (2022). Roles and actions of managers in circular supply chain implementation: A resource orchestration perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30, 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.028 August, T., Niculescu, M. F., & Shin, H. (2014). Cloud implications on software network structure and security risks. Information Systems Research, 25(3), 489-510. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0527 Baert, C., Meuleman, M., Debruyne, M., & Wright, M. (2016). Portfolio entrepreneurship and resource orchestration. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(4), 346-370. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1227 Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2007). Assimilation of interorganizational business process standards. Information Systems Research, 18(3), 340–362. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0134 Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063910170010 Bass, L., Weber, I., & Zhu, L. (2015). DevOps: A software architect's perspective. Addison-Wesley Professional. Benlian, A. (2011). Is traditional, open-source, or on-demand first choice? Developing an AHP-based framework for the comparison of different software models in office suites selection. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(5), 542-559. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.14 Benlian, A., & Hess, T. (2011). Opportunities and risks of software-as-a-service: Findings from a survey of IT executives. Decision Support Systems, 52(1), 232-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.07.007 Benlian, A., Koufaris, M., & Hess, T. (2011). Service quality in software-as-a-service: Developing the SaaS-Qual measure and examining its role in usage continuance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3), 85-126. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222280303 Benlian, A., Kettinger, W. J., Sunyaev, A., Winkler, T. J., & Guest Editors. (2018). The transformative value of cloud computing: a decoupling, platformization, and recombination theoretical framework. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(3), 719-739. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1481634 Bhattacherjee, A., & Park, S. C. (2014). Why end-users move to the cloud: a migration-theoretic analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 23, 357-372. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.1 Carnes, C. M., Chirico, F., Hitt, M. A., Huh, D. W., & Pisano, V. (2017). Resource orchestration for innovation: Structuring and bundling resources in growth-and maturity-stage firms. Long range planning, 50(4), 472-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.003 Chadwick, C., Super, J. F., & Kwon, K. (2015). Resource orchestration in practice: CEO emphasis on SHRM, commitment‐based HR systems, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 360-376. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2217 Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Jin, J., Wang, L., & Chow, W. S. (2014). IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(3), 326-342. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.4 Chin, W. W. (1998a). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS quarterly, 22(1), vii-xvi. https://www.jstor.org/stable/249674 Chin, W. W. (1998b). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.) Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chirico, F., Sirmon, D. G., Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. (2011). Resource orchestration in family firms: Investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4), 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.121 Chong, F., & Carraro, G. (2006). Architecture strategies for catching the long tail (Microsoft Developer Network White Paper No. 910). Microsoft Corporation. Choudhary, V. (2007). Comparison of software quality under perpetual licensing and software as a service. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 141-165. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240206 Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553 Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage publications. Cui, T., Ye, J. H., & Tan, C. H. (2022). Information technology in open innovation: A resource orchestration perspective. Information & Management, 59(8), 103699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103699 Cusumano, M. A. (2010). Cloud computing and SaaS as new computing platforms. Communications of the ACM, 53(4), 27–29. Davenport, T. H., & Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the real world. Harvard business review, 96(1), 108-116. D’Oria, L., Crook, T. R., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Sirmon, D. G., & Wright, M. (2021). The evolution of resource-based inquiry: A review and meta-analytic integration of the strategic resources–actions–performance pathway. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1383-1429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321994182 Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic management journal, 21(10‐11), 1105-1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11%3C1105::AID-SMJ133%3E3.0.CO;2-E El Baz, J., Ruel, S., & Ardekani, Z. F. (2023). Predicting the effects of supply chain resilience and robustness on COVID-19 impacts and performance: Empirical investigation through resources orchestration perspective. Journal of Business Research, 164, 114025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114025 Findikoglu, N. M., Ranganathan, C., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2021). Partnering for prosperity: small IT vendor partnership formation and the establishment of partner pools. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(2), 193-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1750309 Forsman, H. (2011). Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors. Research Policy, 40(5), 739-750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.003 Gartner. (2024). Forecast: Public Cloud Services, Worldwide, 2022-2028, 3Q24 Update. Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/5794815 Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of product innovation management, 31(3), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105 Ghasemaghaei, M., & Calic, G. (2019). Does big data enhance firm innovation competency? The mediating role of data-driven insights. Journal of Business Research, 104, 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.006 Gong, Y., Jia, F., Brown, S., & Koh, L. (2018). Supply chain learning of sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: a resource orchestration perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(4), 1061-1090. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-05-2017-0306 Gothelf, J., & Seiden, J. (2021). Lean UX: Designing great products with agile teams (3rd ed.). O'Reilly Media. Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.014 Guo, Z., & Dan, M. A. (2018). A model of competition between perpetual software and software as a service. MIS Quarterly, 42(1), 101-A26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26635034 Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095567 Hedman, J., & Xiao, X. (2016). Transition to the cloud: A vendor perspective. In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3989-3998). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.494 Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. John Wiley & Sons. Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8), 1391-1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Sirmon, D. G., & Trahms, C. A. (2011). Strategic entrepreneurship: creating value for individuals, organizations, and society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(2), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.25.2.57 Hsu, P. F., Ray, S., & Li-Hsieh, Y. Y. (2014). Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing mechanism, and deployment model. International Journal of Information Management, 34(4), 474-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.006 Hsu, P. F. (2022). A deeper look at cloud adoption trajectory and dilemma. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(1), 177-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10049-w Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of marketing, 62(3), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200303 Im, S., & Workman Jr, J. P. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of marketing, 68(2), 114-132. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.2.114.27788 Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11), 1661-1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576 Kale, 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<217::AID-SMJ95>3.0.CO;2-Y Kaltenecker, N., Hess, T., & Huesig, S. (2015). Managing potentially disruptive innovations in software companies: Transforming from On-premises to the On-demand. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(4), 234-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.08.006 Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Publications. Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of marketing, 54(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400201 Kranz, J. J., Hanelt, A., & Kolbe, L. M. (2016). Understanding the influence of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity on the process of business model change–the case of on‐premise and cloud‐computing software. Information Systems Journal, 26(5), 477-517. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12102 Kristoffersen, E., Mikalef, P., Blomsma, F., & Li, J. (2021). The effects of business analytics capability on circular economy implementation, resource orchestration capability, and firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 239, 108205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108205 Krueger, R. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Sage Publications. Kung, L., Cegielski, C. G., & Kung, H. J. (2015). An integrated environmental perspective on software as a service adoption in manufacturing and retail firms. Journal of Information Technology, 30(4), 352-363. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.14 Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721416 Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 363-380. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009 Levy, A. (2019, April 25). Microsoft hits $1 trillion market cap for the first time as stock jumps on earnings beat. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/25/microsoft-hits-1-trillion-market-cap-for-the-first-time-on-earnings.html Liu, H., Wei, S., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., & Hua, Z. (2016). The configuration between supply chain integration and information technology competency: A resource orchestration perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 44, 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2016.03.009 Loukis, E., Janssen, M., & Mintchev, I. (2019). Determinants of software-as-a-service benefits and impact on firm performance. Decision Support Systems, 117, 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.12.005 Lu, Y., & K. Ramamurthy. (2011). Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS quarterly, 931-954. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409967 Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of management Review, 21(1), 135-172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568 Marston, S., Li, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., Zhang, J., & Ghalsasi, A. (2011). Cloud computing—The business perspective. Decision support systems, 51(1), 176-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.006 Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing (NIST Special Publication No. 800-145). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-145 Mikalef, P., Krogstie, J., Pappas, I. O., & Pavlou, P. (2020). Exploring the relationship between big data analytics capability and competitive performance: The mediating roles of dynamic and operational capabilities. Information & Management, 57(2), 103169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.004 Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management science, 30(10), 1161-1183. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.10.1161 Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How information management capability influences firm performance. MIS quarterly, 237-256. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043496 Mithas, S., Tafti, A., & Mitchell, W. (2013). How a firm's competitive environment and digital strategic posture influence digital business strategy. MIS quarterly, 511-536. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43825921 Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W., & Mason, C. H. (2009). Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance. Strategic management journal, 30(8), 909-920. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.764 Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251757 Novet, J. (2018, March 15). Adobe rises on strong first-quarter earnings. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/15/adobe-earnings-q1-2018.html Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Oke, A., Burke, G., & Myers, A. (2007). Innovation types and performance in growing UK SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(7), 735-753. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710756974 Pal, R., & Hui, P. (2013). Economic models for cloud service markets: Pricing and capacity planning. Theoretical Computer Science, 496, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2012.11.001 Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision sciences, 42(1), 239-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00287.x Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148814 Prajogo, D. I., & Ahmed, P. K. (2006). Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation capacity, and innovation performance. R&d Management, 36(5), 499-515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00450.x Queiroz, M., Tallon, P. P., Sharma, R., & Coltman, T. (2018). The role of IT application orchestration capability in improving agility and performance. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.10.002 Queiroz, M. M., Wamba, S. F., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Machado, M. C. (2022). Supply chain resilience in the UK during the coronavirus pandemic: a resource orchestration perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 245, 108405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108405 Ravichandran, T. (2018). Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility. The journal of strategic information systems, 27(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.07.002 Riemenschneider, C. K., & Armstrong, D. J. (2021). The development of the perceived distinctiveness antecedent of information systems professional identity. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1623–1648. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/14626 Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 40–50. https://hbr.org/2016/05/embracing-agile Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2022). SmartPLS 4 [Computer software]. SmartPLS GmbH. https://www.smartpls.com Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS quarterly, 237-263. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036530 Schilke, O., & Goerzen, A. (2010). Alliance management capability: an investigation of the construct and its measurement. Journal of management, 36(5), 1192-1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310362102 Schneckenberg, D., Benitez, J., Klos, C., Velamuri, V. K., & Spieth, P. (2021). Value creation and appropriation of software vendors: A digital innovation model for cloud computing. Information & Management, 58(4), 103463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103463 Sherif, K., Zmud, R. W., & Browne, G. J. (2006). Managing peer-to-peer conflicts in disruptive information technology innovations: The case of software reuse. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148734 Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of management review, 32(1), 273-292. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23466005 Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource management and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(13), 1375–1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.791 Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of management, 37(5), 1390-1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385695 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage Publications Symeonidou, N., & Nicolaou, N. (2018). Resource orchestration in start‐ups: Synchronizing human capital investment, leveraging strategy, and founder start‐up experience. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2), 194-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1269 Tallon, P. P., & Pinsonneault, A. (2011). Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation model. MIS quarterly, 463-486. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044052 Tambe, P., Hitt, L. M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). The extroverted firm: How external information practices affect innovation and productivity. Management Science, 58(5), 843-859. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1446 Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640 Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of the firm. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0116 Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California management review, 58(4), 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13 Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Research commentary—Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information systems research, 21(4), 675-687. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0323 Tremblay, M. C., Hevner, A. R., & Berndt, D. J. (2010). Focus groups for artifact refinement and evaluation in design research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02627 Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3094431 Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.02 Vithayathil, J. (2018). Will cloud computing make the Information Technology (IT) department obsolete? Information Systems Journal, 28(4), 634-649. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12151 Wales, W. J., Patel, P. C., Parida, V., & Kreiser, P. M. (2013). Nonlinear effects of entrepreneurial orientation on small firm performance: The moderating role of resource orchestration capabilities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(2), 93-121. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1153 Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S. J. F., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of business research, 70, 356-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.009 Wang, J., Xue, Y., & Yang, J. (2020). Boundary‐spanning search and firms' green innovation: The moderating role of resource orchestration capability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 361-374. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2369 Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207 Winkler, T. J., & Brown, C. V. (2013). Horizontal allocation of decision rights for on-premise applications and software-as-a-service. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(3), 13-48. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222300302 Wright, R. T., Roberts, N., & Wilson, D. (2017). The role of context in IT assimilation: A multi-method study of a SaaS platform in the US nonprofit sector. European Journal of Information Systems, 26, 509-539. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0053-2 Xiao, X., & Hedman, J. (2019). How a software vendor weathered the stormy journey to the cloud. MIS Quarterly Executive, 18(1), 37-50. https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol18/iss1/6 Xiao, X., Sarker, S., Wright, R. T., Sarker, S., & Mariadoss, B. J. (2020). Commitment and replacement of existing SaaS-delivered applications: A mixed-methods investigation. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1811-1857. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/13216 Xin, X., Miao, X., & Cui, R. (2023). Enhancing sustainable development: Innovation ecosystem coopetition, environmental resource orchestration, and disruptive green innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 1388-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3194 Yu, W., Liu, Q., Zhao, G., & Song, Y. (2021). Exploring the effects of data-driven hospital operations on operational performance from the resource orchestration theory perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70(8), 2747-2759. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3098541 Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995 Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.003 Zhang, D., Pee, L. G., & Cui, L. (2021). Artificial intelligence in e-commerce fulfillment: A case study of resource orchestration at Alibaba’s smart warehouse. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 102304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102304 Zhang, X., & Venkatesh, V. (2017). A nomological network of knowledge management system use: Antecedents and consequences. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1275–1306. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.4.12 傅浚映 (2021). 中國上市公司的創新績效：政治鑲嵌的理論視角 [Innovation performance of listed companies in China: A political embeddedness perspective]. Journal of Management & Business Research, 38(1), 23-53. https://doi.org/10.6504/JMBR.202103_38(1).0002
描述 博士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
109356504
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109356504
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 張欣綠<br>彭志宏zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chang, Hsin-Lu<br>Peng, Chih-Hungen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 廖長健zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Liao, Chang-Chienen_US
dc.creator (作者) 廖長健zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Liao, Chang-Chienen_US
dc.date (日期) 2025en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Sep-2025 15:02:47 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Sep-2025 15:02:47 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Sep-2025 15:02:47 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109356504en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159085-
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 資訊管理學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 109356504zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 軟體即服務（SaaS）已成為軟體產業的主流典範，對不同出身背景的軟體供應商（原生雲與轉型雲）帶來了截然不同的挑戰與機會。既有研究多將供應商視為同質性群體進行轉型討論，或偏重於客戶採用視角，較少提出能夠系統性比較此兩類廠商如何透過資源調和驅動創新與提升績效的理論框架與實證檢驗。 本研究以資源調和觀點（ROV）為理論核心，採探索性序列混合方法。首先透過焦點團體訪談，深入探索兩類廠商的差異化策略路徑並生成情境化洞察，同時發展衡量工具；其次以145家台灣SaaS供應商為樣本，進行問卷調查，並以PLS-SEM檢驗模型與假說。 實證結果支持「資源調和 → 創新 → 績效」的核心傳導路徑，其中「能力捆綁」的影響最為關鍵。進一步的比較分析揭示兩條異質性路徑：轉型雲廠商的能力捆綁對其善用市場機會展現出更高的邊際效益，突顯其克服路徑依賴所帶來的挑戰與回報；原生雲廠商則憑藉組織敏捷性，在將市場機會轉化為創新能量的過程中展現更高的效率。 本研究的主要貢獻在於三方面：理論上，將ROV擴展至SaaS情境，並揭示廠商異質性的權變作用；方法上，發展並驗證了一套具本土情境特色的衡量工具；實務上，為不同類型廠商提供差異化策略指引，其中轉型雲廠商宜聚焦內部整合，而原生雲廠商則須維持敏捷與創新動能。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) has emerged as the dominant paradigm in the software industry, creating distinct challenges and opportunities for vendors with different origins—namely, native cloud and transitioning cloud firms. Existing research often treats vendors as a homogeneous group in discussions of transformation or emphasizes the customer adoption perspective. As a result, systematic theoretical and empirical comparisons of how these two types of vendors orchestrate resources to drive innovation remain limited. Grounded in the Resource Orchestration View (ROV), this study adopts an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. In the qualitative stage, focus group interviews were conducted to uncover the differentiated strategic pathways of the two vendor types, generating contextual insights that informed the development of measurement instruments. In the quantitative stage, survey data from 145 Taiwanese SaaS vendors were analyzed using PLS-SEM to test the proposed model. The findings confirm the core pathway of resource orchestration → innovation → performance, with capability bundling playing a pivotal role. Comparative analysis further reveals two heterogeneous pathways: for transitioning cloud firms, capability bundling yields higher marginal benefits in leveraging opportunities, underscoring both the challenges and rewards of overcoming path dependence; for native cloud firms, organizational agility enables greater efficiency in converting market opportunities into innovation capacity. This study contributes on three levels. Theoretically, it extends ROV to the SaaS context by demonstrating the contingent role of vendor heterogeneity. Methodologically, it develops and validates a context-specific instrument for measuring resource orchestration. Practically, it offers differentiated strategic guidance: transitioning cloud firms should prioritize internal integration to overcome inertia, while native cloud firms must sustain agility to preserve their innovation momentum.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 致謝 2 摘要 3 第一章 緒論 9 1.1 研究背景與動機 9 1.2 研究問題與目的 10 1.3 研究範圍與對象 11 1.4 研究流程與論文架構 12 第二章 文獻探討與理論基礎 13 2.1 從供應商視角看 SaaS 的機會與挑戰 13 2.1.1 SaaS 的核心特徵 13 2.1.2 SaaS 典範下軟體供應商的機會與挑戰 14 2.1.3 SaaS 文獻評述與研究缺口 16 2.2 資源調和觀點 (Resource Orchestration View, ROV) 22 2.2.1 資源調和的三大核心行動 23 2.2.2 資源調和、創新與績效的理論路徑探討 26 2.3 資源調和的情境動態：組織異質性的影響 36 2.3.1 SaaS 供應商類型的路徑依賴 36 2.3.2 組織敏捷性在 SaaS 情境下的角色 37 2.4 本章總結與研究缺口定位 38 第三章 研究模型與假設 39 3.1 研究模型 39 3.2 研究構面定義 40 3.3 研究假說推導 42 3.3.1 資源調和行動之基礎作用：由建構與捆綁到善用機會 (H1, H2) 42 3.3.2 從市場機會到創新能量與績效 (H3, H4) 43 3.3.3 SaaS 供應商類型的調節效果 (H5–H7) 44 第四章 研究設計與方法 45 4.1 研究設計與流程 45 4.2 研究倫理與資料品質控管 47 4.3 研究一：焦點團體訪談與質性分析 48 54.3.1 研究目的與設計 48 4.3.2 參與者選取與資料蒐集 49 4.3.3 質性資料分析、主要發現與對問卷發展之意涵 50 4.4 研究二：問卷調查與量化分析 52 4.4.1 問卷設計與衡量工具 52 4.4.2 資料蒐集與樣本 54 4.4.3 資料分析方法 54 第五章 資料分析與研究結果 56 5.1 研究一：質性發現—原生雲與轉型雲的資源調和路徑 56 5.1.1 建構雲端服務資源：從零累積 vs. 帶舊轉型 57 5.1.2 捆綁雲端服務能力：開創式整合 vs. 增強式轉化 61 5.1.3 善用雲端服務機會：外部機會探索 vs. 內部價值延伸 64 5.1.4 質性發現總結與對量化研究之連結 67 5.2 研究二結果：量化分析 71 5.2.1 樣本特徵與資料品質檢驗 71 5.2.2 測量模型分析 74 5.2.3 結構模型分析 79 5.3 本章研究發現總結 82 第六章 研究討論 85 6.1 資源調和的傳導路徑：能力捆綁的核心角色 85 6.2 異質性的軌跡：原生雲與轉型雲的差異化路徑 86 6.3 總結與理論呼應 86 第七章 結論與建議 88 7.1 研究結論 88 7.2 理論貢獻 88 7.3 實務意涵 89 7.4 研究限制與未來研究方向 90 7.5 本論文總結 90 參考文獻 91 附錄一 焦點團體專家訪談規劃 101 附錄二 電訪問卷稿 104zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2535504 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109356504en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資源調和觀點zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 軟體即服務zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 服務創新zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 能力捆綁zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 組織異質性zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 原生雲zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 轉型雲zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Resource orchestration viewen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Software-as-a-Service(SaaSen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Service innovationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Capability bundlingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Organizational heterogeneityen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Native clouden_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Transitioning clouden_US
dc.title (題名) 以資源調和觀點探討軟體產業的軟體即服務創新zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) Innovation in the Context of Software Industry: A Resource Orchestration Perspectiveen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Alkhater, N., Walters, R., & Wills, G. (2018). An empirical study of factors influencing cloud adoption among private sector organisations. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 38-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.017 Andersén, J., & Ljungkvist, T. (2021). Resource orchestration for team‐based innovation: a case study of the interplay between teams, customers, and top management. R&D Management, 51(1), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12442 Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The economic journal, 99(394), 116-131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208 Asante, R., Agyemang, M., Faibil, D., & Osei-Asibey, D. (2022). Roles and actions of managers in circular supply chain implementation: A resource orchestration perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30, 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.028 August, T., Niculescu, M. F., & Shin, H. (2014). Cloud implications on software network structure and security risks. Information Systems Research, 25(3), 489-510. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0527 Baert, C., Meuleman, M., Debruyne, M., & Wright, M. (2016). Portfolio entrepreneurship and resource orchestration. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(4), 346-370. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1227 Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2007). Assimilation of interorganizational business process standards. Information Systems Research, 18(3), 340–362. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0134 Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063910170010 Bass, L., Weber, I., & Zhu, L. (2015). DevOps: A software architect's perspective. Addison-Wesley Professional. Benlian, A. (2011). Is traditional, open-source, or on-demand first choice? Developing an AHP-based framework for the comparison of different software models in office suites selection. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(5), 542-559. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.14 Benlian, A., & Hess, T. (2011). Opportunities and risks of software-as-a-service: Findings from a survey of IT executives. Decision Support Systems, 52(1), 232-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.07.007 Benlian, A., Koufaris, M., & Hess, T. (2011). Service quality in software-as-a-service: Developing the SaaS-Qual measure and examining its role in usage continuance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3), 85-126. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222280303 Benlian, A., Kettinger, W. J., Sunyaev, A., Winkler, T. J., & Guest Editors. (2018). The transformative value of cloud computing: a decoupling, platformization, and recombination theoretical framework. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(3), 719-739. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1481634 Bhattacherjee, A., & Park, S. C. (2014). Why end-users move to the cloud: a migration-theoretic analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 23, 357-372. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.1 Carnes, C. M., Chirico, F., Hitt, M. A., Huh, D. W., & Pisano, V. (2017). Resource orchestration for innovation: Structuring and bundling resources in growth-and maturity-stage firms. Long range planning, 50(4), 472-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.003 Chadwick, C., Super, J. F., & Kwon, K. (2015). Resource orchestration in practice: CEO emphasis on SHRM, commitment‐based HR systems, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 360-376. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2217 Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Jin, J., Wang, L., & Chow, W. S. (2014). IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(3), 326-342. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.4 Chin, W. W. (1998a). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS quarterly, 22(1), vii-xvi. https://www.jstor.org/stable/249674 Chin, W. W. (1998b). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.) Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chirico, F., Sirmon, D. G., Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. (2011). Resource orchestration in family firms: Investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4), 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.121 Chong, F., & Carraro, G. (2006). Architecture strategies for catching the long tail (Microsoft Developer Network White Paper No. 910). Microsoft Corporation. Choudhary, V. (2007). Comparison of software quality under perpetual licensing and software as a service. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 141-165. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240206 Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553 Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage publications. Cui, T., Ye, J. H., & Tan, C. H. (2022). Information technology in open innovation: A resource orchestration perspective. Information & Management, 59(8), 103699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103699 Cusumano, M. A. (2010). Cloud computing and SaaS as new computing platforms. Communications of the ACM, 53(4), 27–29. Davenport, T. H., & Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the real world. Harvard business review, 96(1), 108-116. D’Oria, L., Crook, T. R., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Sirmon, D. G., & Wright, M. (2021). The evolution of resource-based inquiry: A review and meta-analytic integration of the strategic resources–actions–performance pathway. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1383-1429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321994182 Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic management journal, 21(10‐11), 1105-1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11%3C1105::AID-SMJ133%3E3.0.CO;2-E El Baz, J., Ruel, S., & Ardekani, Z. F. (2023). Predicting the effects of supply chain resilience and robustness on COVID-19 impacts and performance: Empirical investigation through resources orchestration perspective. Journal of Business Research, 164, 114025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114025 Findikoglu, N. M., Ranganathan, C., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2021). Partnering for prosperity: small IT vendor partnership formation and the establishment of partner pools. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(2), 193-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1750309 Forsman, H. (2011). Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors. Research Policy, 40(5), 739-750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.003 Gartner. (2024). Forecast: Public Cloud Services, Worldwide, 2022-2028, 3Q24 Update. Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/5794815 Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of product innovation management, 31(3), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105 Ghasemaghaei, M., & Calic, G. (2019). Does big data enhance firm innovation competency? The mediating role of data-driven insights. Journal of Business Research, 104, 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.006 Gong, Y., Jia, F., Brown, S., & Koh, L. (2018). Supply chain learning of sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: a resource orchestration perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(4), 1061-1090. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-05-2017-0306 Gothelf, J., & Seiden, J. (2021). Lean UX: Designing great products with agile teams (3rd ed.). O'Reilly Media. Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.014 Guo, Z., & Dan, M. A. (2018). A model of competition between perpetual software and software as a service. MIS Quarterly, 42(1), 101-A26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26635034 Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095567 Hedman, J., & Xiao, X. (2016). Transition to the cloud: A vendor perspective. In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3989-3998). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.494 Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. John Wiley & Sons. Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8), 1391-1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Sirmon, D. G., & Trahms, C. A. (2011). Strategic entrepreneurship: creating value for individuals, organizations, and society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(2), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.25.2.57 Hsu, P. F., Ray, S., & Li-Hsieh, Y. Y. (2014). Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing mechanism, and deployment model. International Journal of Information Management, 34(4), 474-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.006 Hsu, P. F. (2022). A deeper look at cloud adoption trajectory and dilemma. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(1), 177-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10049-w Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of marketing, 62(3), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200303 Im, S., & Workman Jr, J. P. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of marketing, 68(2), 114-132. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.2.114.27788 Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11), 1661-1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576 Kale, 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<217::AID-SMJ95>3.0.CO;2-Y Kaltenecker, N., Hess, T., & Huesig, S. (2015). Managing potentially disruptive innovations in software companies: Transforming from On-premises to the On-demand. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(4), 234-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.08.006 Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Publications. Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of marketing, 54(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400201 Kranz, J. J., Hanelt, A., & Kolbe, L. M. (2016). Understanding the influence of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity on the process of business model change–the case of on‐premise and cloud‐computing software. Information Systems Journal, 26(5), 477-517. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12102 Kristoffersen, E., Mikalef, P., Blomsma, F., & Li, J. (2021). The effects of business analytics capability on circular economy implementation, resource orchestration capability, and firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 239, 108205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108205 Krueger, R. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Sage Publications. Kung, L., Cegielski, C. G., & Kung, H. J. (2015). An integrated environmental perspective on software as a service adoption in manufacturing and retail firms. Journal of Information Technology, 30(4), 352-363. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.14 Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721416 Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 363-380. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009 Levy, A. (2019, April 25). Microsoft hits $1 trillion market cap for the first time as stock jumps on earnings beat. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/25/microsoft-hits-1-trillion-market-cap-for-the-first-time-on-earnings.html Liu, H., Wei, S., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., & Hua, Z. (2016). The configuration between supply chain integration and information technology competency: A resource orchestration perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 44, 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2016.03.009 Loukis, E., Janssen, M., & Mintchev, I. (2019). Determinants of software-as-a-service benefits and impact on firm performance. Decision Support Systems, 117, 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.12.005 Lu, Y., & K. Ramamurthy. (2011). Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS quarterly, 931-954. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409967 Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of management Review, 21(1), 135-172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568 Marston, S., Li, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., Zhang, J., & Ghalsasi, A. (2011). Cloud computing—The business perspective. Decision support systems, 51(1), 176-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.006 Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing (NIST Special Publication No. 800-145). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-145 Mikalef, P., Krogstie, J., Pappas, I. O., & Pavlou, P. (2020). Exploring the relationship between big data analytics capability and competitive performance: The mediating roles of dynamic and operational capabilities. Information & Management, 57(2), 103169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.004 Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management science, 30(10), 1161-1183. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.10.1161 Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How information management capability influences firm performance. MIS quarterly, 237-256. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043496 Mithas, S., Tafti, A., & Mitchell, W. (2013). How a firm's competitive environment and digital strategic posture influence digital business strategy. MIS quarterly, 511-536. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43825921 Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W., & Mason, C. H. (2009). Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance. Strategic management journal, 30(8), 909-920. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.764 Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251757 Novet, J. (2018, March 15). Adobe rises on strong first-quarter earnings. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/15/adobe-earnings-q1-2018.html Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Oke, A., Burke, G., & Myers, A. (2007). Innovation types and performance in growing UK SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(7), 735-753. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710756974 Pal, R., & Hui, P. (2013). Economic models for cloud service markets: Pricing and capacity planning. Theoretical Computer Science, 496, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2012.11.001 Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision sciences, 42(1), 239-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00287.x Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148814 Prajogo, D. I., & Ahmed, P. K. (2006). Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation capacity, and innovation performance. R&d Management, 36(5), 499-515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00450.x Queiroz, M., Tallon, P. P., Sharma, R., & Coltman, T. (2018). The role of IT application orchestration capability in improving agility and performance. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.10.002 Queiroz, M. M., Wamba, S. F., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Machado, M. C. (2022). Supply chain resilience in the UK during the coronavirus pandemic: a resource orchestration perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 245, 108405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108405 Ravichandran, T. (2018). Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility. The journal of strategic information systems, 27(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.07.002 Riemenschneider, C. K., & Armstrong, D. J. (2021). The development of the perceived distinctiveness antecedent of information systems professional identity. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1623–1648. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/14626 Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 40–50. https://hbr.org/2016/05/embracing-agile Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2022). SmartPLS 4 [Computer software]. SmartPLS GmbH. https://www.smartpls.com Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS quarterly, 237-263. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036530 Schilke, O., & Goerzen, A. (2010). Alliance management capability: an investigation of the construct and its measurement. Journal of management, 36(5), 1192-1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310362102 Schneckenberg, D., Benitez, J., Klos, C., Velamuri, V. K., & Spieth, P. (2021). Value creation and appropriation of software vendors: A digital innovation model for cloud computing. Information & Management, 58(4), 103463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103463 Sherif, K., Zmud, R. W., & Browne, G. J. (2006). Managing peer-to-peer conflicts in disruptive information technology innovations: The case of software reuse. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148734 Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of management review, 32(1), 273-292. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23466005 Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource management and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(13), 1375–1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.791 Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of management, 37(5), 1390-1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385695 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage Publications Symeonidou, N., & Nicolaou, N. (2018). Resource orchestration in start‐ups: Synchronizing human capital investment, leveraging strategy, and founder start‐up experience. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2), 194-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1269 Tallon, P. P., & Pinsonneault, A. (2011). Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation model. MIS quarterly, 463-486. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044052 Tambe, P., Hitt, L. M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). The extroverted firm: How external information practices affect innovation and productivity. Management Science, 58(5), 843-859. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1446 Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640 Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of the firm. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0116 Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California management review, 58(4), 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13 Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Research commentary—Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information systems research, 21(4), 675-687. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0323 Tremblay, M. C., Hevner, A. R., & Berndt, D. J. (2010). Focus groups for artifact refinement and evaluation in design research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02627 Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3094431 Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.02 Vithayathil, J. (2018). Will cloud computing make the Information Technology (IT) department obsolete? Information Systems Journal, 28(4), 634-649. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12151 Wales, W. J., Patel, P. C., Parida, V., & Kreiser, P. M. (2013). Nonlinear effects of entrepreneurial orientation on small firm performance: The moderating role of resource orchestration capabilities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(2), 93-121. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1153 Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S. J. F., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of business research, 70, 356-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.009 Wang, J., Xue, Y., & Yang, J. (2020). Boundary‐spanning search and firms' green innovation: The moderating role of resource orchestration capability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 361-374. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2369 Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207 Winkler, T. J., & Brown, C. V. (2013). Horizontal allocation of decision rights for on-premise applications and software-as-a-service. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(3), 13-48. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222300302 Wright, R. T., Roberts, N., & Wilson, D. (2017). The role of context in IT assimilation: A multi-method study of a SaaS platform in the US nonprofit sector. European Journal of Information Systems, 26, 509-539. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0053-2 Xiao, X., & Hedman, J. (2019). How a software vendor weathered the stormy journey to the cloud. MIS Quarterly Executive, 18(1), 37-50. https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol18/iss1/6 Xiao, X., Sarker, S., Wright, R. T., Sarker, S., & Mariadoss, B. J. (2020). Commitment and replacement of existing SaaS-delivered applications: A mixed-methods investigation. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1811-1857. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/13216 Xin, X., Miao, X., & Cui, R. (2023). Enhancing sustainable development: Innovation ecosystem coopetition, environmental resource orchestration, and disruptive green innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 1388-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3194 Yu, W., Liu, Q., Zhao, G., & Song, Y. (2021). Exploring the effects of data-driven hospital operations on operational performance from the resource orchestration theory perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70(8), 2747-2759. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3098541 Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995 Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.003 Zhang, D., Pee, L. G., & Cui, L. (2021). Artificial intelligence in e-commerce fulfillment: A case study of resource orchestration at Alibaba’s smart warehouse. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 102304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102304 Zhang, X., & Venkatesh, V. (2017). A nomological network of knowledge management system use: Antecedents and consequences. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1275–1306. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.4.12 傅浚映 (2021). 中國上市公司的創新績效：政治鑲嵌的理論視角 [Innovation performance of listed companies in China: A political embeddedness perspective]. Journal of Management & Business Research, 38(1), 23-53. https://doi.org/10.6504/JMBR.202103_38(1).0002zh_TW