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 創業者的知識與創業機會對差異性產品競爭優勢之影響─在原產業成長期創業之情境
作者 朱沛
Chu ,Pei
貢獻者 司徒達賢<br>于 卓 民
<br>
朱沛
Chu ,Pei
關鍵詞 創業者
新事業
產品差異化優勢
創業者的知識
創業機會
entrepreneur
new venture
differentiation
entrepreneurs` knowledge
entrepreneurial opportunity
日期 2004
上傳時間 18-Sep-2009 13:18:36 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究是針對原產業成長期創業差異化階段的探索性研究。原產業成長期創業可定義為：創業者或團隊離開原來的事業後，在原產業的成長期，獨立創立了一個新事業。例如，華碩、雅姿舞蹈社（亞力山大的前身）都屬於原產業成長期創業。
由於創業開始後，新事業要做出產品，然後才能產生後續績效，因此依照時間軸可以將創業理論分解為：初始因素→新產品→創業績效。現有創業理論對原產業成長期創業現象並沒有提供完整的解答，但已得出的部份結果可以引導我們對此現象進一步聚焦。第一，新事業策略層次的研究已發現，新事業產品的差異性和稀少性顯著影響新事業績效。由於上述因果關係的後段已解決，因此指導我們探索前段的問題：什麼初始因素產生差異性產品？即應該聚焦到產品差異化階段研究。第二，過去創業者層次的研究已發現，以相同產業「工作年數」代替的「產業特殊經驗」顯著影響創業績效的高低。因為經驗是實務的知識，因此這類研究結果顯示知識是一項初始因素，值得進一步研究創業者的初始知識。第三，奧地利經濟學者和一些創業學者指出，創業機會是影響創業成敗的一項初始因素，但迄今沒有學者清楚地描述出創業機會的樣子和它對績效的影響。這些文獻顯示應進一步探索初始創業機會和它對產品差異化的影響。文獻已顯示創業者知識和創業機會是解釋產品差異化的初始因素，但二者下層的因素仍未充分揭露出來。由於過去的創業研究沒有聚焦在差異化階段，仍存在許多未解開的問題，因此本研究聚焦在原產業成長期創業的主要產品差異化階段進行研究。
對於本研究聚焦的現象，本研究問題為：在原產業成長期創業的差異化階段，哪些知識和機會構念下層的因素透過差異化過程產生產品屬性與競爭優勢？本研究的目的為：經由對此現象進行深入的探索，揭露出影響產品差異化的知識與機會的深層原因，建立整合知識與機會解釋產品差異化及利潤的理論。
本研究採用Eisenhardt(1989)描述的探索性個案研究方法，從個案研究建立理論。本研究針對原產業成長期創業現象，聚焦在主要產品差異化過程。總分析單位是在主要產品線層次。本研究接觸到3家原產業成長期創業廠商，取得了3個成功個案和1個失敗個案資料。資料收集包含訪問二位以上創業團隊成員、競爭廠商中的管理者和收集產業次級資料。

本研究經由分析四個個案的主要產品線資料，得出以下命題與發現。
命題一：產品有價值的差異程度愈大、產品稀少程度愈大、產品需求強度愈大，則產品競爭優勢程度愈大。
命題Ⅱ：若創業者的產業內通用知識強度小，則有產品競爭劣勢。
本研究發現，原產業成長期的創業機會為產業環境中存在的一種情境結構，本研究定義並命名為「創業機會結構」，它由以下項目構成：(1) 存在上游差異性新要素；(2) 存在下游市場需求；(3) 存在有利的競爭情勢，包含(a)既有競爭廠商數量小，(b)既有競爭廠商利用程度小，(c)潛在競爭廠商延遲行動；(4)存在功能互補廠商。
創業者知識與創業機會對於產品差異化的影響關係如下：
命題二：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質的知識，或產業環境中存在創業機會，或二者都存在，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性的產品。
命題二A：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者僅有產業內通用知識，且產業環境中存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性的產品。
命題二B：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者僅有產業內通用知識，且產業環境中不存在創業機會，則新事業不能推出差異性與稀少性的產品。
命題二C：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質知識，且產業環境中存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性產品。
命題二D：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質知識，且產業環境中不存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性產品。
創業者異質知識屬性對產品屬性的影響關係如下：
命題三A：異質知識有價值的差異程度愈大，則產品有價值的差異程度愈大。
命題三B：異質知識稀少程度愈大，則產品稀少程度愈大。
命題三C：異質知識難以模仿程度，正向調節產品競爭優勢程度與產品利潤間的正向關係。
命題三：創業者知識的有利程度愈大，則產品利潤愈大。
創業機會結構中各項目的屬性程度對產品屬性的影響關係如下：
命題四A：要素有價值的差異程度愈大，則產品有價值的差異程度愈大。
命題四B：整體市場需求強度愈大，則產品需求強度愈大。
命題四Ca：既有競爭者的數量愈小，則產品稀少程度愈大。
命題四Cb：既有競爭者資源利用程度負向調節，整體市場需求強度與產品需求強度的正向關係。
命題四Cc：潛在競爭者行動延遲程度，正向調節產品競爭優勢程度與產品利潤的正向關係。
命題四：創業機會結構的有利程度愈大，則產品利潤愈大。

本研究對創業理論的貢獻包含以下幾方面。主要貢獻包含：第一，建立了整合理論。本研究在原產業成長期創業情境對交集現象，建立了以創業者知識、創業機會解釋產品差異化與利潤的整合理論。本研究針對創業最核心的差異化階段，建立了整合理論，使創業理論有了核心。第二，發現了創業機會結構。本研究經由探索發現了創業機會結構，描述出了創業機會的樣子，並分析清楚了構成它的項目對差異化相關的產品屬性和競爭優勢的影響。第三，橋接了創業與策略，引導二個領域的學者對話。本研究運用策略理論觀引導分析資料與建立理論的過程，因此本研究橋接了創業與策略，引導二個領域的學者對話。次要貢獻包含：第一，釐清了產品層次的構念和構面。第二，本研究以資源基礎觀引導，釐清了創業者知識下層的概念，並分析清楚了它們對產品屬性和競爭優勢的影響。
本研究建立的理論有實務含義，可以使產業成長期的潛在創業者（既有企業管理者）的策略思考更有效，因此對企業實務界人士有價值。概括而言，本研究對實務人士的啟示如下：(1)創業者擁有夠強的產業內經營知識是能夠創業成功的基本條件；(2)在產業內通用知識強的條件下，若創業者有異質知識或外部存在創業機會能使差異化成功，因此值得投入創業；若創業沒有異質知識及外部不存在創業機會，則創業者不應投入創業(3)本研究提出的創業機會結構，可以協助潛在創業者在創業決策階段辯認是否存在創業機會，避免創業時沒有機會或利用的不是創業機會。
Starting new businesses in the growth stage of an industry is a special type of entrepreneurship as identified in this study. The same industry-growth stage entrepreneurship is defined as the following: after an entrepreneur (or entrepreneurial team) leaves a prior business, he/she then founds a new venture in the same industry which his prior work is in and is in the growth stage. The cases of ASUS(?) and Alexander are examples.
The life of a start-up, as depicted by entrepreneurial studies, can be decomposed as: initial factors→product→performance. Current entrepreneurship studies have offered some answers to this phenomenon. First, studies have shown that a product’s extent of differentiation and rarity can predict performance. These findings prompt us to explore the question of which initial factors producing differentiated products (i.e., focusing on the product differentiation stage). Second, previous studies have found that an entrepreneur’s industry experience or industry-specific experience (using the years of work as a proxy) significantly affects performance. Because experience is a kind of knowledge, these results point out that knowledge can be regarded as an initial factor and thus it highlights the importance of exploring an entrepreneur’s knowledge. Third, Austrian economists point out that entrepreneurial opportunity is an initial factor and it influences entrepreneurial success. Up to now no studies illustrates the shape of entrepreneurial opportunities and explain how it influences entrepreneurial performance. Thus further exploration of entrepreneurial opportunities and how they affect product differentiation is needed. Although we already known an entrepreneur’s knowledge and entrepreneurial opportunity are major initial factors, we have no knowledge of lower level factors. Because the researches have not focused on the product differentiation stage, this research will concentrate on the product differentiation stage.
The research question of the study is: in the differentiation stage of the same industry-growth stage start-ups, what lower level factors of knowledge and opportunity produce product competitive advantages? The objective of the research is: by identifying the lower factors, entrepreneurs’ knowledge and opportunities can be integrated into theories of entrepreneurship to explain product differentiation and profits.

This research adopted the exploring theory building case study proposed by Eisenhardt (1989). The level of analysis was the main product line of a start-up. The data of three firms, in the form of 3 successful cases and 1 failed case, were collected. In addition to secondary data, at least two executives, either were founding team members or high-level managers, were interviewed for gathering the primary data.

Through data analysis enable us to offer the following propositions:
Proposition 1: The higher the levels of the value of product differentiation, product rarity and product demand intensity, the higher the product competitive advantage.
Proposition Ⅱ: The lower the level of an entrepreneur’s industry-specific knowledge, the lower the product competitive advantage.
We discovered that entrepreneurial opportunity is a specific situational structure in an industry. We termed it ‘entrepreneurial opportunity structure’. It is composed of four items: (1) the existence of upstream differentiated and new factors; (2) the existence of downstream market demands; (3) the existence of favorable competitive situation, including few competitors, less extent of action by competitors, late actions by competitors and more availability of complementary firms.
Relationships among entrepreneurs’ knowledge, entrepreneurial opportunity, and product differentiation are indicated below.
Proposition 2: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge or the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity (or both) makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2A: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, industry-specific knowledge, coupled with the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity, makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2B: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, industry-specific knowledge, coupled with the non-existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity, makes it impossible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2C: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge and the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2D: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge and the non-existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
The relationship between heterogeneous knowledge and product attributes are listed below:
Proposition 3A: The higher the value of heterogeneous knowledge, the higher the valuable difference of a product.
Proposition 3B: The higher the rarity of heterogeneous knowledge, the higher the rarity of a product.
Proposition 3C: The level of difficulty of imitation of heterogeneous knowledge moderates the positive relationship between product competitive advantage and product profit.
Proposition 3: The higher the usefulness of an entrepreneur’s knowledge, the higher the product profit.
The relationships between attributes of entrepreneurial opportunity structure and product attributes are listed below:
Proposition 4A: The higher the valuable difference of a factor, the higher the valuable difference of a product.
Proposition 4B: The higher the market demand intensity, the higher the product demand intensity.
Proposition 4Ca: The less the number of competitors, the higher the rarity of a product.
Proposition 4Cb: The degree of exploitation of resource by competitors negatively moderates the positive relationship between the market demand intensity and product demand intensity.
Proposition 4Cc: The extent of delayed actions by competitors positively moderates the positive relationship between product competitive advantage and product profit.
Proposition 4: The higher the potential of profitability of entrepreneurial opportunity structure, the higher the product profit.

The major contributions of the research to entrepreneurship theories include the following: First, we built a integrated theory including entrepreneurs’ knowledge and entrepreneurial opportunities to explain product differentiation and profit. Because differentiation is the core to entrepreneurship, our integrated theory emphasizes the core of the theory. Second, this research identified entrepreneurial opportunity structure, and illustrated that entrepreneurial opportunity structure influences product attributes and competitive advantage. Entrepreneurial opportunity structure reflects the shape of entrepreneurial opportunity. Third, this research bridged entrepreneurship and strategy strategies, making the conversion between the two streams of research possible. Fourth, we clarified the construct and dimensions of product in start-ups. Lastly, we clarified the sub-constructs under entrepreneurs’ knowledge and their impact on product attributes and competitive advantage.

The findings of the research have practical implications. It can make strategic thinking of potential entrepreneurs in the same industry-growth stage more effective. The implications are: (1) It is a necessary condition that an entrepreneur has enough industry-specific knowledge to be successful; (2) When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, if entrepreneur have heterogeneous knowledge or there is an entrepreneurial opportunity in industry environment, then differentiation can success, thus he worth to take entrepreneurial action. If entrepreneur have not heterogeneous knowledge and there is not an entrepreneurial opportunity, then he should not take entrepreneurial action; (3) Discovered entrepreneurial opportunity structure can help potential entrepreneur identify entrepreneurial opportunity in entrepreneurial decision stage, and avoid exploiting a non-entrepreneurial opportunity.
參考文獻 一、中文部份：
1. Strauss A. & J. Corbin, 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd. 吳芝儀、廖梅花譯，質性研究入門：紮根理論研究方法，嘉義市：濤石文化公司，2001。
2. 汪清河(1991)，「創業家創業行為與環境、個人特徵關係之研究」，台灣大學商研所碩士論文。
3. 周芳苑，1999，華碩傳奇，台北市：商訊文化公司。
4. 唐雅君，2002，舞動新天地，台北市：寶瓶文化公司。
5. 陳向民，2002，社會科學質的研究，台北市：五南圖書公司。
6. 曾耀輝(1986)，「我國高科技企業創業領導者特徵、創業決策之研究─以新竹科學園區資訊電子工業為實證」，台灣大學商研所碩士論文。
二、英文部份
1. Aldrich, H. E. & M. A. Martinez, 2001,” Many are Called, but Few are Chosen: An Evolutionary Perspective for the Study of Entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25, 4, 41-55.
2. Alvarez, S. A.. & L. W. Busenitz, 2001,”The Entrepreneurship of Resource-based Theory”, Journal of Management, 27, 6, 755-775.
3. Ambrosini, V. & C. Bowman, 2001,” Tacit Knowledge: Some Suggestions for Operationalization,” Journal of Management Studies, 38, 6, 811-829.
4. Bamford, C. E. & T. J. Deans & P. P. McDougall , 2000,” An Examination of the Impact of Initial Founding Conditions and Decisions upon the Performance of New Bank Start-ups”, Journal Of Business Venturing, 15, 3, 253-277.
5. Bantel, K. A., 1998,” Technology-Based, Adolescent Firms Configurations: Strategy Identification, Context, and Performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 3, 205-230.
6. Bantel, K. A., 1997,” Performance in Adolescent, Technology-based Firms: Product Strategy, Implementation, and Synergy”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 8, 2, 243-262.
7. Barney, J., 1991,” Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
8. Barney, J., 2001,” Is the Resource-Based View a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? Yes”, Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, 41-56.
9. Baum, J. R., E. A. Locke, & K. G. Smith, 2001,” A Multidimensional Model of Venture Growth”, Academy Of Management Journal, 44, 2, 292-303.
10. Bhave, M. P., 1994,” A Process Model of Entrepreneurship Venture Creation”, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 3, 223-242.
11. Bruderl, J. & P. Preisendorfer , 1998, “Network Support and the Success of Newly Founded Business,” Small Business Economics, 10, 3, 213-225.
12. Brush, C. G. & R. Chaganti, 1998,” Businesses Without Glamour? An Analysis of Resources on Performance By Size and Age in Small Service and Retail Firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, 14, 3, 233-257.
13. Brush, C. G. & R. D. Hisrich, 1988,” Woman Entrepreneurs: Strategic Origins Impact on Growth”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. E. Mcmullan, K. Vesper, & W. Wetzel, Jr., 612-625. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
14. Bruton, G. D. & Y. Rubanik, 2002,” Resources of the Firm, Russian High-technology Startups, and Firm Growth,” Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 6, 553-576.
15. Busenitz, L. W., G. P. West Ⅲ, D. Shepherd, T. Nelson, G. N. Chandler & A. Zacharakis, 2003,” Entrepreneurship Research in Emergence: Past Trends and Future Directions”, Journal of Management, 29, 3, 285-308.
16. Chandler, G. N. & E. J. Jansen, 1992,” The Founder’s Self-assessed Competence and Venture Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 3, 223-236.
17. Chandler, G. N. & S. H. Hanks, 1994a,“ Founder Competence, the Environment, and Venture Performance”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 18, 3, 77-89.
18. Chandler, G. N. & S. H. Hanks, 1994b,” Market Attractiveness Resource-Based Capabilities, Venture Strategies, and Venture Performance” Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 4, 331-349.
19. Chandler, G. N., 1996,” Business Similarity as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Pre-Ownership Experience and Venture Performance,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20, 3, 51-65.
20. Chen, M., 1996,” Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical Integration”, Academy of Management Review, 21, 1, 100-134.
21. Christensen, C M., 1997, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technology Cause Great Firm to Fail”, Harvard Business School Press.
22. Cooper, A. C. & F. J. Gimeno-Gascon &, C. Y. Woo, 1994,” Initial Human and Financial Capital as Predictors of New Venture Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 371-395.
23. Cooper, A. C. & F. J. Gimeno-Gascon, 1992,” Entrepreneurs, Processes of Founding, and New Firm Performance,” In D. Sexton, ed., The State of the Art in Entrepreneurship, Boston, MA: PWS Kent Publishing Co.
24. Cooper, A. C.,1993,” Challenges in Predicting New Firm Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 3, 241-253.
25. Cooper, A. C., W. C. Dunkelberg, & C. W. Woo, 1988,” Survival and Failure: A Longitudinal Study”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. E. Mcmullan, K. Vesper, and W. Wetzel, Jr., 225-237. Wellesley, Mass.: Babson College.
26. Davidsson, P., M. B. Low & M. Wright, 2001,” Editor’s Introduction: Low and MacMillan Ten Years on: Achievement and Future Directions for Entrepreneurship Research,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 4, 5-15.
27. Dean, T. J. & G. D. Meyer, 1996,” Industry Environments and New Venture Formations in U.S. Manufacturing: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Demand Determinants”, Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 2, 107-132.
28. Dean, Thomas J., G. Dale Meyer, & Julio DeCastro, 1993,” Determinants of New-Firm Formations in Manufacturing Industries: Industry Dynamics, Entry Barriers, and Organizational Inertia”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17, 2, 49-60.
29. Dierickx, I. & K. Cool, 1989,” Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage,” Management Science, 35, 12, 1504-1511.
30. Dubini, P. & I. C. MacMillan, 1988,” Entrepreneurial Prerequisites in Venture Capital Backed Projects”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. E. McMullan, K. Vesper, & W. Wetzel, Jr., 46-58. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
31. Dunkelberg, W. C. & A. C. Cooper, 1982,” Patterns of Small Business Growth”, In Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 409-413. (Edited by K. H. Chung)
32. Dunkelberg, W. C., A. C. Cooper, C. Y. Woo, & W. Dennis, 1987,” New Firm Growth and Performance”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. N. Churchill, J. Hornaday, B. Kirchhoff, O. Krasner, & K. Vesper, 307-321. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
33. Eckhardt, J. T. & S. A. Shane, 2003,” Opportunities and Entrepreneurship” Journal of Management, 29, 3, 333-349.
34. Eisenhardt, K. M. & C. B. Schoonhoven, 1990,” Organizational Growth: Linking Founding Team, Strategy, Environment, and Growth among U.S. Semiconductor Ventures, 1978-1988,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 3, 504-529.
35. Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989,” Building Theories from Case Study Research”, Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 531-550.
36. Francis, D. H. & W. R. Sandberg, 2000,” Friendship Within Entrepreneurial Teams and its Association with Team and Venture Performance”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25, 2, 5-25.
37. Gartner, W. B. & J. A. Starr & S. Bhat, 1999,” Predicting New Venture Survival: An Analysis of “Anatomy of a Start-up: Case of Inc. Magazine,” Journal of Business Venturing, 14, 2, 215-232.
38. Gartner, W. B., 1985,” A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation,” Academy of Management Review, 10, 4, 696-706.
39. Gartner, W. B., 2001,” Is there an Elephant in Entrepreneurship? Blind Assumptions in Theory Development”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25, 4, 27-39.
40. Hall, J. & C. W. Hofer (1993),” Venture Capitalists’ Decision Critaria in New Venture Evaluation,” Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 1, 25-42.
41. Hannan, M. T. & J. H. Freeman, 1984,” Structural Inertia and Organizational Change”, American Journal of Sociology, 89, 149-164.
42. Hayek, F., 1945,” The Use of Knowledge in Society”, The American Economic Review, 35, 4, 519-530.
43. Hill, C. W. L. & G. R. Johns, 1998, Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach, 4th. ed., Houghton Mifflin Company.
44. Hoad, W. & P. Rosko, 1964,” Management Factors Contributing to the Success or Failure of New Small Manufacturers”. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
45. Holcombe, R. G., 2003,” The Origins of Entrepreneurial Opportunities”, Review of Austrian Economics, 16, 1, 25-43.
46. Honig, B., 1998,” What Determines Success? Examining the Human, Financial, and Social Capital of Jamaican Microentrepreners”, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 5, 371-394.
47. Kirzner, I. M., 1973, Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago, IL: U. of Chicago Press.
48. Kirzner, I. M., 1997,” Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach”, Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 1, 60-85.
49. Lerner, M., C. Brush & R. Hisrich, 1997,” Israeli Women Entrepreneurs: An Examination of Factors Affecting Performance” Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 4, 315-339.
50. Li, H. Y. & K. Atuahene-Gima, 2002,” The Adoption of Agency Business Activity, Product Innovation, and Performance in Chinese Technology Ventures”, Strategic Management Journal, 23, 6, 469-490.
51. Low, M. B, 2001,” The Adolescence of Entrepreneurship Research: Specification of Purpose,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 4, 17-25.
52. Low, M. B. & I. C. MacMillan, 1988,” Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenge,” Journal of Management, 14, 2, 139-161.
53. MacMillan, I. C., L. Zemann, & P. N. Subba Narasimha, 1987,” Criteria Distinguishing Successful from Unsuccessful Ventures in the Venture Screening Process” Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 2, 123-137.
54. MacMillan, I. C., R. Siegel, & P. N. Subba Narasimha, 1985,” Criteria Used by Venture Capitalists to Evaluate New Venture Proposals” , Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 1, 119-128.
55. March, J. G. & H. A. Simon, 1958, Organization, Wiley.
56. Mayer, K. & S. Goldstein, 1961,” The First Two Years: Problems of Small Firm Growth and Survival” Washington D.C.: GPO.
57. McDougall, P. P., J. G. Covin, R. B. Robinson, JR. & L. Herron, 1994,” The Effects of Industry Growth and Strategic Breadth on New Venture Performance and Strategy Content”, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 7, 537-554.
58. McDougall, P. P., R. B. Robinson, JR. & A. S. DeNisi, 1992,” Modeling New Venture Performance: An Analysis of New Venture Strategy, Industry Structure, and Venture Origin”, Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 4, 269-289.
59. Miles, M. B. & A. M. Huberman, 1994,” Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
60. Moore, G. A., 1991, Crossing the Chasm, NY, HarperCollins.
61. Neiswander, D. K. & J. M. Drollinger, 1986,” Origins of Successful Start-up Ventures”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper, 328-343. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
62. Pennings, J. M. & K. Lee & A. V. Witteloostuijn, 1998,” Human Capital, Social Capital, and Firm Dissolution”, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 4, 425-440.
63. Penrose, E. T., 1963, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
64. Porter, M. E., 1980, Competitive Strategy, NY: The Free Press.
65. Porter, M. E., 1985, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustain Superior Performance, NY: The Free Press.
66. Priem, R. L. & J. E. Butler, 2001,” Tautology in the Resource-based View and the Implications of Externally Determined Resource Value: Further Comments”, Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, 57-66.
67. Reed, R. & Deffillipi, R. J., 1990,” Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” Academy of Management Review, 15, 1, 80-102.
68. Romanelli, E., 1989,” Envirionments and Strategies of Organization Start-up: Effects on Early Survival”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 3, 369-387.
69. Rosen, S., 1983,” Economics and Entrepreneurs”, In J. Rosen(Ed.) Entrepreneurship, 301-311. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.
70. Roure, J. B. & M. A. Maidique, 1986,” Linking Prefounding Factors and High-technology Venture Success: An Exploratory Study”, Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 3, 295-306.
71. Sandberg, W. R. & C. V. Hofer, 1987,” Improving New Venture Performance: The Role of Strategy, Industry Structure, and the Entrepreneur,” Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 1, 5-28.
72. Sandberg, W. R., 1992,” Strategic Management’s Potential Contributions to a Theory of Entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 16, 3, 73-90.
73. Sapienza, H. J. & C. M. Grimm, 1997,” Founder Characteristics, Start-up Process, and Strategy/Structure Variables as Predictors of Shortline Railroad Performance,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 22, 1, 5-24.
74. Schumpeter, J. A., 1934, The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75. Shamsie, J., C. Phelps & J. Kuperman, 2004,” Better Late Than Never: A Study of Late Entrants in Household Electrical Equipment” Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1, 69-84.
76. Shane, S. A.. & S. Venkataraman , 2000,” The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research,” Academy of Management Review, 25, 1, 217-226.
77. Shane, S. A., 2005, Finding Fertile Ground: Identifying Extraordinary Opportunities for New Ventures, New Jersey, Pearson Education, Inc.
78. Shane, S. A., 2000,” Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities,” Organization Science, 11, 4, 448-469.
79. Shapero, A. & L. Sokol, 1982” The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”, In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, eds. C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper, 72-90. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.
80. Siegel, R. & Siegel, E. & Macmillan, I. C., 1993,” Characteristic Distinguishing High-Growth Ventures,” Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 1, 169-180.
81. Singh, R. P., 2001,” A Comment on Developing the Field of Entrepreneurship Through the Study of Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation,” Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, 1-7.
82. Stinchcombe, A., 1965,” Social Structure and Organization,” In March, J.(Ed.), Handbook of Organizations, 142-193.
83. Stuart, R. & P. A. Abetti, 1990,” Field Study of Start-up Ventures. Part 2: Predicting Initial Success”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper, 328-343. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
84. Teach, R. D., F. A. Tarplay, & R. G. Schwartz, 1986,” Software Venture Teams”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper, 546-562. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.
85. Teece, D . J., 1998a,” Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangible Assets,” California Management Review, 40, 3, 55-79.
86. Teece, D. J., 1998b,” Research Directions for Knowledge Management,” California Management Review, 40, 3, 289-292.
87. Tyebjee, T. T. & A. V. Bruno, 1984,” A Model of Venture Capitalist Activity”, Management Science, 30, 9, 1051-1066.
88. Ucbasaran, D., P. Westhead & M. Wright, 2001,” The Focus of Entrepreneurial Research: Contextual and Process Issues,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 4, 57-80.
89. Van de Ven, A. H., R. Hudson, & D. M. Schroeder, 1984,”Designing New Business Startups: Entrepreneurship, Organizational and Ecological Consideration”, Journal of Management, 10, 1, 87-107.
90. Venkatraman, S., 1997,” The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: an Editor’s Perspective,” In Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, J. Katz, R. Brockhaus, eds, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
91. Yin, R.,1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
92. Zahra, S. A., 1996,” Technology Strategy and Financial Performance: Examining the Moderating Role of the Firm’s Competitive Environment,” Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 3, 189-219.
93. Zahra, S. A., 1993,” A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior: A Critique and Extension”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17, 4, 5-21.
描述 博士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所
87355501
93
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0087355501
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 司徒達賢<br>于 卓 民zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor <br>en_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 朱沛zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chu ,Peien_US
dc.creator (作者) 朱沛zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chu ,Peien_US
dc.date (日期) 2004en_US
dc.date.accessioned 18-Sep-2009 13:18:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 18-Sep-2009 13:18:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 18-Sep-2009 13:18:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0087355501en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34919-
dc.description (描述) 博士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zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 87355501zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 93zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究是針對原產業成長期創業差異化階段的探索性研究。原產業成長期創業可定義為：創業者或團隊離開原來的事業後，在原產業的成長期，獨立創立了一個新事業。例如，華碩、雅姿舞蹈社（亞力山大的前身）都屬於原產業成長期創業。
由於創業開始後，新事業要做出產品，然後才能產生後續績效，因此依照時間軸可以將創業理論分解為：初始因素→新產品→創業績效。現有創業理論對原產業成長期創業現象並沒有提供完整的解答，但已得出的部份結果可以引導我們對此現象進一步聚焦。第一，新事業策略層次的研究已發現，新事業產品的差異性和稀少性顯著影響新事業績效。由於上述因果關係的後段已解決，因此指導我們探索前段的問題：什麼初始因素產生差異性產品？即應該聚焦到產品差異化階段研究。第二，過去創業者層次的研究已發現，以相同產業「工作年數」代替的「產業特殊經驗」顯著影響創業績效的高低。因為經驗是實務的知識，因此這類研究結果顯示知識是一項初始因素，值得進一步研究創業者的初始知識。第三，奧地利經濟學者和一些創業學者指出，創業機會是影響創業成敗的一項初始因素，但迄今沒有學者清楚地描述出創業機會的樣子和它對績效的影響。這些文獻顯示應進一步探索初始創業機會和它對產品差異化的影響。文獻已顯示創業者知識和創業機會是解釋產品差異化的初始因素，但二者下層的因素仍未充分揭露出來。由於過去的創業研究沒有聚焦在差異化階段，仍存在許多未解開的問題，因此本研究聚焦在原產業成長期創業的主要產品差異化階段進行研究。
對於本研究聚焦的現象，本研究問題為：在原產業成長期創業的差異化階段，哪些知識和機會構念下層的因素透過差異化過程產生產品屬性與競爭優勢？本研究的目的為：經由對此現象進行深入的探索，揭露出影響產品差異化的知識與機會的深層原因，建立整合知識與機會解釋產品差異化及利潤的理論。
本研究採用Eisenhardt(1989)描述的探索性個案研究方法，從個案研究建立理論。本研究針對原產業成長期創業現象，聚焦在主要產品差異化過程。總分析單位是在主要產品線層次。本研究接觸到3家原產業成長期創業廠商，取得了3個成功個案和1個失敗個案資料。資料收集包含訪問二位以上創業團隊成員、競爭廠商中的管理者和收集產業次級資料。

本研究經由分析四個個案的主要產品線資料，得出以下命題與發現。
命題一：產品有價值的差異程度愈大、產品稀少程度愈大、產品需求強度愈大，則產品競爭優勢程度愈大。
命題Ⅱ：若創業者的產業內通用知識強度小，則有產品競爭劣勢。
本研究發現，原產業成長期的創業機會為產業環境中存在的一種情境結構，本研究定義並命名為「創業機會結構」，它由以下項目構成：(1) 存在上游差異性新要素；(2) 存在下游市場需求；(3) 存在有利的競爭情勢，包含(a)既有競爭廠商數量小，(b)既有競爭廠商利用程度小，(c)潛在競爭廠商延遲行動；(4)存在功能互補廠商。
創業者知識與創業機會對於產品差異化的影響關係如下：
命題二：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質的知識，或產業環境中存在創業機會，或二者都存在，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性的產品。
命題二A：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者僅有產業內通用知識，且產業環境中存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性的產品。
命題二B：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者僅有產業內通用知識，且產業環境中不存在創業機會，則新事業不能推出差異性與稀少性的產品。
命題二C：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質知識，且產業環境中存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性產品。
命題二D：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質知識，且產業環境中不存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性產品。
創業者異質知識屬性對產品屬性的影響關係如下：
命題三A：異質知識有價值的差異程度愈大，則產品有價值的差異程度愈大。
命題三B：異質知識稀少程度愈大，則產品稀少程度愈大。
命題三C：異質知識難以模仿程度，正向調節產品競爭優勢程度與產品利潤間的正向關係。
命題三：創業者知識的有利程度愈大，則產品利潤愈大。
創業機會結構中各項目的屬性程度對產品屬性的影響關係如下：
命題四A：要素有價值的差異程度愈大，則產品有價值的差異程度愈大。
命題四B：整體市場需求強度愈大，則產品需求強度愈大。
命題四Ca：既有競爭者的數量愈小，則產品稀少程度愈大。
命題四Cb：既有競爭者資源利用程度負向調節，整體市場需求強度與產品需求強度的正向關係。
命題四Cc：潛在競爭者行動延遲程度，正向調節產品競爭優勢程度與產品利潤的正向關係。
命題四：創業機會結構的有利程度愈大，則產品利潤愈大。

本研究對創業理論的貢獻包含以下幾方面。主要貢獻包含：第一，建立了整合理論。本研究在原產業成長期創業情境對交集現象，建立了以創業者知識、創業機會解釋產品差異化與利潤的整合理論。本研究針對創業最核心的差異化階段，建立了整合理論，使創業理論有了核心。第二，發現了創業機會結構。本研究經由探索發現了創業機會結構，描述出了創業機會的樣子，並分析清楚了構成它的項目對差異化相關的產品屬性和競爭優勢的影響。第三，橋接了創業與策略，引導二個領域的學者對話。本研究運用策略理論觀引導分析資料與建立理論的過程，因此本研究橋接了創業與策略，引導二個領域的學者對話。次要貢獻包含：第一，釐清了產品層次的構念和構面。第二，本研究以資源基礎觀引導，釐清了創業者知識下層的概念，並分析清楚了它們對產品屬性和競爭優勢的影響。
本研究建立的理論有實務含義，可以使產業成長期的潛在創業者（既有企業管理者）的策略思考更有效，因此對企業實務界人士有價值。概括而言，本研究對實務人士的啟示如下：(1)創業者擁有夠強的產業內經營知識是能夠創業成功的基本條件；(2)在產業內通用知識強的條件下，若創業者有異質知識或外部存在創業機會能使差異化成功，因此值得投入創業；若創業沒有異質知識及外部不存在創業機會，則創業者不應投入創業(3)本研究提出的創業機會結構，可以協助潛在創業者在創業決策階段辯認是否存在創業機會，避免創業時沒有機會或利用的不是創業機會。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Starting new businesses in the growth stage of an industry is a special type of entrepreneurship as identified in this study. The same industry-growth stage entrepreneurship is defined as the following: after an entrepreneur (or entrepreneurial team) leaves a prior business, he/she then founds a new venture in the same industry which his prior work is in and is in the growth stage. The cases of ASUS(?) and Alexander are examples.
The life of a start-up, as depicted by entrepreneurial studies, can be decomposed as: initial factors→product→performance. Current entrepreneurship studies have offered some answers to this phenomenon. First, studies have shown that a product’s extent of differentiation and rarity can predict performance. These findings prompt us to explore the question of which initial factors producing differentiated products (i.e., focusing on the product differentiation stage). Second, previous studies have found that an entrepreneur’s industry experience or industry-specific experience (using the years of work as a proxy) significantly affects performance. Because experience is a kind of knowledge, these results point out that knowledge can be regarded as an initial factor and thus it highlights the importance of exploring an entrepreneur’s knowledge. Third, Austrian economists point out that entrepreneurial opportunity is an initial factor and it influences entrepreneurial success. Up to now no studies illustrates the shape of entrepreneurial opportunities and explain how it influences entrepreneurial performance. Thus further exploration of entrepreneurial opportunities and how they affect product differentiation is needed. Although we already known an entrepreneur’s knowledge and entrepreneurial opportunity are major initial factors, we have no knowledge of lower level factors. Because the researches have not focused on the product differentiation stage, this research will concentrate on the product differentiation stage.
The research question of the study is: in the differentiation stage of the same industry-growth stage start-ups, what lower level factors of knowledge and opportunity produce product competitive advantages? The objective of the research is: by identifying the lower factors, entrepreneurs’ knowledge and opportunities can be integrated into theories of entrepreneurship to explain product differentiation and profits.

This research adopted the exploring theory building case study proposed by Eisenhardt (1989). The level of analysis was the main product line of a start-up. The data of three firms, in the form of 3 successful cases and 1 failed case, were collected. In addition to secondary data, at least two executives, either were founding team members or high-level managers, were interviewed for gathering the primary data.

Through data analysis enable us to offer the following propositions:
Proposition 1: The higher the levels of the value of product differentiation, product rarity and product demand intensity, the higher the product competitive advantage.
Proposition Ⅱ: The lower the level of an entrepreneur’s industry-specific knowledge, the lower the product competitive advantage.
We discovered that entrepreneurial opportunity is a specific situational structure in an industry. We termed it ‘entrepreneurial opportunity structure’. It is composed of four items: (1) the existence of upstream differentiated and new factors; (2) the existence of downstream market demands; (3) the existence of favorable competitive situation, including few competitors, less extent of action by competitors, late actions by competitors and more availability of complementary firms.
Relationships among entrepreneurs’ knowledge, entrepreneurial opportunity, and product differentiation are indicated below.
Proposition 2: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge or the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity (or both) makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2A: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, industry-specific knowledge, coupled with the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity, makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2B: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, industry-specific knowledge, coupled with the non-existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity, makes it impossible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2C: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge and the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
Proposition 2D: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge and the non-existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product.
The relationship between heterogeneous knowledge and product attributes are listed below:
Proposition 3A: The higher the value of heterogeneous knowledge, the higher the valuable difference of a product.
Proposition 3B: The higher the rarity of heterogeneous knowledge, the higher the rarity of a product.
Proposition 3C: The level of difficulty of imitation of heterogeneous knowledge moderates the positive relationship between product competitive advantage and product profit.
Proposition 3: The higher the usefulness of an entrepreneur’s knowledge, the higher the product profit.
The relationships between attributes of entrepreneurial opportunity structure and product attributes are listed below:
Proposition 4A: The higher the valuable difference of a factor, the higher the valuable difference of a product.
Proposition 4B: The higher the market demand intensity, the higher the product demand intensity.
Proposition 4Ca: The less the number of competitors, the higher the rarity of a product.
Proposition 4Cb: The degree of exploitation of resource by competitors negatively moderates the positive relationship between the market demand intensity and product demand intensity.
Proposition 4Cc: The extent of delayed actions by competitors positively moderates the positive relationship between product competitive advantage and product profit.
Proposition 4: The higher the potential of profitability of entrepreneurial opportunity structure, the higher the product profit.

The major contributions of the research to entrepreneurship theories include the following: First, we built a integrated theory including entrepreneurs’ knowledge and entrepreneurial opportunities to explain product differentiation and profit. Because differentiation is the core to entrepreneurship, our integrated theory emphasizes the core of the theory. Second, this research identified entrepreneurial opportunity structure, and illustrated that entrepreneurial opportunity structure influences product attributes and competitive advantage. Entrepreneurial opportunity structure reflects the shape of entrepreneurial opportunity. Third, this research bridged entrepreneurship and strategy strategies, making the conversion between the two streams of research possible. Fourth, we clarified the construct and dimensions of product in start-ups. Lastly, we clarified the sub-constructs under entrepreneurs’ knowledge and their impact on product attributes and competitive advantage.

The findings of the research have practical implications. It can make strategic thinking of potential entrepreneurs in the same industry-growth stage more effective. The implications are: (1) It is a necessary condition that an entrepreneur has enough industry-specific knowledge to be successful; (2) When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, if entrepreneur have heterogeneous knowledge or there is an entrepreneurial opportunity in industry environment, then differentiation can success, thus he worth to take entrepreneurial action. If entrepreneur have not heterogeneous knowledge and there is not an entrepreneurial opportunity, then he should not take entrepreneurial action; (3) Discovered entrepreneurial opportunity structure can help potential entrepreneur identify entrepreneurial opportunity in entrepreneurial decision stage, and avoid exploiting a non-entrepreneurial opportunity.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 章 節 頁
第一章 導論 1
第一節 成長期原產業創業的研究現象界定 1
第二節 現有創業理論對實務現象解釋之侷限 3
第三節 研究問題、研究目的與研究方法 10
第二章 文獻探討 11
第一節 創業現象分解及對應的理論形式 11
第二節 創業文獻回顧 15
一、 創業者層次的研究 15
二、 創業團隊層次的研究 20
三、 創業廠商層次的研究 21
四、 從機會角度進行的創業研究 24
第三節 創業文獻評述 27
第三章 研究方法 33
第一節 個案研究方法 33
第二節 研究設計與執行 34
一、 研究範圍、研究問題、分析層次和先驗構念 34
二、 母體界定、個案選擇 35
三、 資料收集方法、收集對象、資料型態 36
四、 探索方向與應用的理論觀 38
五、 資料分析與形成假說 40
六、 研究資料庫 46
第四章 個案分析與理論建立 47
第一節 繼通公司成功的工業電腦事業個案 49
第二節 繼通公司失敗的Modem事業個案 100
第三節 承恆公司個案 124
第四節 源力公司個案 165
第五節 跨個案比較和命題推導 191
第五章 結論與建議 222
第一節 研究結論 222
第二節 對理論的貢獻 229
第三節 實務含義 236
第四節 研究限制和未來研究建議 238
參考文獻 242

圖目錄
圖次 頁
圖1-1-1 本研究界定的特殊創業現象和範圍 2
圖1-2-1 創業績效的解釋因素與因素間關係 4
圖1-2-2 目前對成長期原產業創業的瞭解和本研究聚焦範圍 8
圖2-1-1 創業研究的變數層次和關係(Cooper,1993) 11
圖2-1-2 創業研究的階段、變數層次和關係 13
圖2-1-3 創業理論模型 14
圖2-2-1 創業者層次研究的結果 19
圖2-2-2 廠商策略層次研究的結果 22
圖2-3-1 已有的創業研究成果 28
圖4-0-1 初步發現和命題編號規劃圖 48
圖4-1-1 繼通工業電腦個案產品競爭優勢程度與產品利潤關係 68
圖4-1-2 繼通工業電腦個案產品屬性與產品競爭優勢程度的關係 74
圖4-1-3 繼通工業電腦個案歸屬的創業類型和差異化結果 82
圖4-1-4 繼通工業電腦個案知識與創業機會對產品屬性及利潤的
影響 89
圖4-1-5 繼通工業電腦個案前因對競爭情勢有利程度影響 99
圖4-2-1 繼通modem個案產品競爭劣勢與產品虧損的關係 104
圖4-2-2 繼通modem個案產品屬性與產品競爭優勢程度關係 106
圖4-2-3 繼通modem個案歸屬的創業類型和差異化結果 112
圖4-2-4 繼通modem個案知識與創業機會對產品屬性及利潤
的影響 118
圖4-2-5 繼通modem個案前因對競爭廠商行為積極程度影響 123
圖4-3-1 承恆個案歸屬的創業類型和差異化結果 145
圖4-3-2 承恆個案知識與創業機會對產品屬性及利潤的影響 157
圖4-4-1 源力個案歸屬的創業類型和差異化結果 179
圖4-4-2 源力個案知識與創業機會對產品屬性及利潤的影響 185
圖4-5-1 四個個案歸屬於的創業類型和差異化結果 195
圖4-5-2 原產業創業的類型和差異化結果 196
圖4-5-3 本研究理論架構圖 201
圖4-5-4 前因對競爭者行為積極程度的影響關係 205
圖5-1-1 創業機會是狹義機會 227
圖5-1-2 三種層次機會的示意圖 228

表目錄
表次 頁
表3-2-1 四個成長期原產業創業個案的基本資料 37
表3-2-2 四個個案的主要產品線佔營收比重 40
表4-1-1 繼通工業電腦個案創業機會結構的項目、操作化及證據 80
表4-2-1 繼通modem個案環境條件及個案證據與創業機會結構對照 110
表4-3-1 承恆個案的機會結構項目和個案證據 142
表4-4-1 源力個案的機會結構項目和個案證據 177
表4-5-1：四個個案中創業時的機會生命週期和要求的知識屬性 193
表4-5-2：四個個案的創業機會結構、知識成份和創業成敗邏輯 193
表4-5-3 本研究構念的定義與操作化 206
表5-1-1 原產業成長期創業與其他二個創業情境的可能理論差異 226		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 45025 bytes-
dc.format.extent 178110 bytes-
dc.format.extent 125518 bytes-
dc.format.extent 140472 bytes-
dc.format.extent 263564 bytes-
dc.format.extent 393846 bytes-
dc.format.extent 321826 bytes-
dc.format.extent 2292465 bytes-
dc.format.extent 372407 bytes-
dc.format.extent 237409 bytes-
dc.format.extent 176550 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0087355501en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創業者zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 新事業zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 產品差異化優勢zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創業者的知識zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創業機會zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) entrepreneuren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) new ventureen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) differentiationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) entrepreneurs` knowledgeen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) entrepreneurial opportunityen_US
dc.title (題名) 創業者的知識與創業機會對差異性產品競爭優勢之影響─在原產業成長期創業之情境zh_TW
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部份：zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Strauss A. & J. Corbin, 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd. 吳芝儀、廖梅花譯，質性研究入門：紮根理論研究方法，嘉義市：濤石文化公司，2001。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. 汪清河(1991)，「創業家創業行為與環境、個人特徵關係之研究」，台灣大學商研所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. 周芳苑，1999，華碩傳奇，台北市：商訊文化公司。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. 唐雅君，2002，舞動新天地，台北市：寶瓶文化公司。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. 陳向民，2002，社會科學質的研究，台北市：五南圖書公司。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. 曾耀輝(1986)，「我國高科技企業創業領導者特徵、創業決策之研究─以新竹科學園區資訊電子工業為實證」，台灣大學商研所碩士論文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 二、英文部份zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Aldrich, H. E. & M. A. Martinez, 2001,” Many are Called, but Few are Chosen: An Evolutionary Perspective for the Study of Entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25, 4, 41-55.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2. Alvarez, S. A.. & L. W. Busenitz, 2001,”The Entrepreneurship of Resource-based Theory”, Journal of Management, 27, 6, 755-775.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 3. Ambrosini, V. & C. Bowman, 2001,” Tacit Knowledge: Some Suggestions for Operationalization,” Journal of Management Studies, 38, 6, 811-829.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 4. Bamford, C. E. & T. J. Deans & P. P. McDougall , 2000,” An Examination of the Impact of Initial Founding Conditions and Decisions upon the Performance of New Bank Start-ups”, Journal Of Business Venturing, 15, 3, 253-277.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 5. Bantel, K. A., 1998,” Technology-Based, Adolescent Firms Configurations: Strategy Identification, Context, and Performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 3, 205-230.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 6. Bantel, K. A., 1997,” Performance in Adolescent, Technology-based Firms: Product Strategy, Implementation, and Synergy”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 8, 2, 243-262.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 7. Barney, J., 1991,” Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 8. Barney, J., 2001,” Is the Resource-Based View a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? Yes”, Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, 41-56.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 9. Baum, J. R., E. A. Locke, & K. G. Smith, 2001,” A Multidimensional Model of Venture Growth”, Academy Of Management Journal, 44, 2, 292-303.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 10. Bhave, M. P., 1994,” A Process Model of Entrepreneurship Venture Creation”, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 3, 223-242.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 11. Bruderl, J. & P. Preisendorfer , 1998, “Network Support and the Success of Newly Founded Business,” Small Business Economics, 10, 3, 213-225.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 12. Brush, C. G. & R. Chaganti, 1998,” Businesses Without Glamour? An Analysis of Resources on Performance By Size and Age in Small Service and Retail Firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, 14, 3, 233-257.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 13. Brush, C. G. & R. D. Hisrich, 1988,” Woman Entrepreneurs: Strategic Origins Impact on Growth”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. E. Mcmullan, K. Vesper, & W. Wetzel, Jr., 612-625. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 14. Bruton, G. D. & Y. Rubanik, 2002,” Resources of the Firm, Russian High-technology Startups, and Firm Growth,” Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 6, 553-576.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 15. Busenitz, L. W., G. P. West Ⅲ, D. Shepherd, T. Nelson, G. N. Chandler & A. Zacharakis, 2003,” Entrepreneurship Research in Emergence: Past Trends and Future Directions”, Journal of Management, 29, 3, 285-308.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 16. Chandler, G. N. & E. J. Jansen, 1992,” The Founder’s Self-assessed Competence and Venture Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 3, 223-236.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 17. Chandler, G. N. & S. H. Hanks, 1994a,“ Founder Competence, the Environment, and Venture Performance”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 18, 3, 77-89.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 18. Chandler, G. N. & S. H. Hanks, 1994b,” Market Attractiveness Resource-Based Capabilities, Venture Strategies, and Venture Performance” Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 4, 331-349.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 19. Chandler, G. N., 1996,” Business Similarity as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Pre-Ownership Experience and Venture Performance,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20, 3, 51-65.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 20. Chen, M., 1996,” Competitor Analysis and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward a Theoretical Integration”, Academy of Management Review, 21, 1, 100-134.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 21. Christensen, C M., 1997, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technology Cause Great Firm to Fail”, Harvard Business School Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 22. Cooper, A. C. & F. J. Gimeno-Gascon &, C. Y. Woo, 1994,” Initial Human and Financial Capital as Predictors of New Venture Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 371-395.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 23. Cooper, A. C. & F. J. Gimeno-Gascon, 1992,” Entrepreneurs, Processes of Founding, and New Firm Performance,” In D. Sexton, ed., The State of the Art in Entrepreneurship, Boston, MA: PWS Kent Publishing Co.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 24. Cooper, A. C.,1993,” Challenges in Predicting New Firm Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 3, 241-253.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 25. Cooper, A. C., W. C. Dunkelberg, & C. W. Woo, 1988,” Survival and Failure: A Longitudinal Study”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. E. Mcmullan, K. Vesper, and W. Wetzel, Jr., 225-237. Wellesley, Mass.: Babson College.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 26. Davidsson, P., M. B. Low & M. Wright, 2001,” Editor’s Introduction: Low and MacMillan Ten Years on: Achievement and Future Directions for Entrepreneurship Research,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 4, 5-15.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 27. Dean, T. J. & G. D. Meyer, 1996,” Industry Environments and New Venture Formations in U.S. Manufacturing: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Demand Determinants”, Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 2, 107-132.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 28. Dean, Thomas J., G. Dale Meyer, & Julio DeCastro, 1993,” Determinants of New-Firm Formations in Manufacturing Industries: Industry Dynamics, Entry Barriers, and Organizational Inertia”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17, 2, 49-60.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 29. Dierickx, I. & K. Cool, 1989,” Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage,” Management Science, 35, 12, 1504-1511.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 30. Dubini, P. & I. C. MacMillan, 1988,” Entrepreneurial Prerequisites in Venture Capital Backed Projects”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. B. Kirchhoff, W. Long, W. E. McMullan, K. Vesper, & W. Wetzel, Jr., 46-58. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 31. Dunkelberg, W. C. & A. C. Cooper, 1982,” Patterns of Small Business Growth”, In Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 409-413. (Edited by K. H. Chung)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 32. Dunkelberg, W. C., A. C. Cooper, C. Y. Woo, & W. Dennis, 1987,” New Firm Growth and Performance”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. N. Churchill, J. Hornaday, B. Kirchhoff, O. Krasner, & K. Vesper, 307-321. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 33. Eckhardt, J. T. & S. A. Shane, 2003,” Opportunities and Entrepreneurship” Journal of Management, 29, 3, 333-349.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 34. Eisenhardt, K. M. & C. B. Schoonhoven, 1990,” Organizational Growth: Linking Founding Team, Strategy, Environment, and Growth among U.S. Semiconductor Ventures, 1978-1988,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 3, 504-529.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 35. Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989,” Building Theories from Case Study Research”, Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 531-550.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 36. Francis, D. H. & W. R. Sandberg, 2000,” Friendship Within Entrepreneurial Teams and its Association with Team and Venture Performance”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25, 2, 5-25.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 37. Gartner, W. B. & J. A. Starr & S. Bhat, 1999,” Predicting New Venture Survival: An Analysis of “Anatomy of a Start-up: Case of Inc. Magazine,” Journal of Business Venturing, 14, 2, 215-232.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 38. Gartner, W. B., 1985,” A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation,” Academy of Management Review, 10, 4, 696-706.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 39. Gartner, W. B., 2001,” Is there an Elephant in Entrepreneurship? Blind Assumptions in Theory Development”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25, 4, 27-39.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 40. Hall, J. & C. W. Hofer (1993),” Venture Capitalists’ Decision Critaria in New Venture Evaluation,” Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 1, 25-42.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 41. Hannan, M. T. & J. H. Freeman, 1984,” Structural Inertia and Organizational Change”, American Journal of Sociology, 89, 149-164.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 42. Hayek, F., 1945,” The Use of Knowledge in Society”, The American Economic Review, 35, 4, 519-530.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 43. Hill, C. W. L. & G. R. Johns, 1998, Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach, 4th. ed., Houghton Mifflin Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 44. Hoad, W. & P. Rosko, 1964,” Management Factors Contributing to the Success or Failure of New Small Manufacturers”. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 45. Holcombe, R. G., 2003,” The Origins of Entrepreneurial Opportunities”, Review of Austrian Economics, 16, 1, 25-43.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 46. Honig, B., 1998,” What Determines Success? Examining the Human, Financial, and Social Capital of Jamaican Microentrepreners”, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 5, 371-394.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 47. Kirzner, I. M., 1973, Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago, IL: U. of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 48. Kirzner, I. M., 1997,” Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach”, Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 1, 60-85.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 49. Lerner, M., C. Brush & R. Hisrich, 1997,” Israeli Women Entrepreneurs: An Examination of Factors Affecting Performance” Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 4, 315-339.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 50. Li, H. Y. & K. Atuahene-Gima, 2002,” The Adoption of Agency Business Activity, Product Innovation, and Performance in Chinese Technology Ventures”, Strategic Management Journal, 23, 6, 469-490.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 51. Low, M. B, 2001,” The Adolescence of Entrepreneurship Research: Specification of Purpose,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 4, 17-25.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 52. Low, M. B. & I. C. MacMillan, 1988,” Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenge,” Journal of Management, 14, 2, 139-161.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 53. MacMillan, I. C., L. Zemann, & P. N. Subba Narasimha, 1987,” Criteria Distinguishing Successful from Unsuccessful Ventures in the Venture Screening Process” Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 2, 123-137.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 54. MacMillan, I. C., R. Siegel, & P. N. Subba Narasimha, 1985,” Criteria Used by Venture Capitalists to Evaluate New Venture Proposals” , Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 1, 119-128.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 55. March, J. G. & H. A. Simon, 1958, Organization, Wiley.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 56. Mayer, K. & S. Goldstein, 1961,” The First Two Years: Problems of Small Firm Growth and Survival” Washington D.C.: GPO.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 57. McDougall, P. P., J. G. Covin, R. B. Robinson, JR. & L. Herron, 1994,” The Effects of Industry Growth and Strategic Breadth on New Venture Performance and Strategy Content”, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 7, 537-554.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 58. McDougall, P. P., R. B. Robinson, JR. & A. S. DeNisi, 1992,” Modeling New Venture Performance: An Analysis of New Venture Strategy, Industry Structure, and Venture Origin”, Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 4, 269-289.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 59. Miles, M. B. & A. M. Huberman, 1994,” Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 60. Moore, G. A., 1991, Crossing the Chasm, NY, HarperCollins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 61. Neiswander, D. K. & J. M. Drollinger, 1986,” Origins of Successful Start-up Ventures”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper, 328-343. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 62. Pennings, J. M. & K. Lee & A. V. Witteloostuijn, 1998,” Human Capital, Social Capital, and Firm Dissolution”, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 4, 425-440.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 63. Penrose, E. T., 1963, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 64. Porter, M. E., 1980, Competitive Strategy, NY: The Free Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 65. Porter, M. E., 1985, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustain Superior Performance, NY: The Free Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 66. Priem, R. L. & J. E. Butler, 2001,” Tautology in the Resource-based View and the Implications of Externally Determined Resource Value: Further Comments”, Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, 57-66.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 67. Reed, R. & Deffillipi, R. J., 1990,” Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” Academy of Management Review, 15, 1, 80-102.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 68. Romanelli, E., 1989,” Envirionments and Strategies of Organization Start-up: Effects on Early Survival”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 3, 369-387.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 69. Rosen, S., 1983,” Economics and Entrepreneurs”, In J. Rosen(Ed.) Entrepreneurship, 301-311. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 70. Roure, J. B. & M. A. Maidique, 1986,” Linking Prefounding Factors and High-technology Venture Success: An Exploratory Study”, Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 3, 295-306.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 71. Sandberg, W. R. & C. V. Hofer, 1987,” Improving New Venture Performance: The Role of Strategy, Industry Structure, and the Entrepreneur,” Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 1, 5-28.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 72. Sandberg, W. R., 1992,” Strategic Management’s Potential Contributions to a Theory of Entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 16, 3, 73-90.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 73. Sapienza, H. J. & C. M. Grimm, 1997,” Founder Characteristics, Start-up Process, and Strategy/Structure Variables as Predictors of Shortline Railroad Performance,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 22, 1, 5-24.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 74. Schumpeter, J. A., 1934, The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 75. Shamsie, J., C. Phelps & J. Kuperman, 2004,” Better Late Than Never: A Study of Late Entrants in Household Electrical Equipment” Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1, 69-84.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 76. Shane, S. A.. & S. Venkataraman , 2000,” The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research,” Academy of Management Review, 25, 1, 217-226.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 77. Shane, S. A., 2005, Finding Fertile Ground: Identifying Extraordinary Opportunities for New Ventures, New Jersey, Pearson Education, Inc.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 78. Shane, S. A., 2000,” Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities,” Organization Science, 11, 4, 448-469.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 79. Shapero, A. & L. Sokol, 1982” The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”, In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, eds. C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper, 72-90. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 80. Siegel, R. & Siegel, E. & Macmillan, I. C., 1993,” Characteristic Distinguishing High-Growth Ventures,” Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 1, 169-180.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 81. Singh, R. P., 2001,” A Comment on Developing the Field of Entrepreneurship Through the Study of Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation,” Academy of Management Review, 26, 1, 1-7.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 82. Stinchcombe, A., 1965,” Social Structure and Organization,” In March, J.(Ed.), Handbook of Organizations, 142-193.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 83. Stuart, R. & P. A. Abetti, 1990,” Field Study of Start-up Ventures. Part 2: Predicting Initial Success”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper, 328-343. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 84. Teach, R. D., F. A. Tarplay, & R. G. Schwartz, 1986,” Software Venture Teams”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper, 546-562. Wellesley, Mass.: Bobson College.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 85. Teece, D . J., 1998a,” Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangible Assets,” California Management Review, 40, 3, 55-79.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 86. Teece, D. J., 1998b,” Research Directions for Knowledge Management,” California Management Review, 40, 3, 289-292.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 87. Tyebjee, T. T. & A. V. Bruno, 1984,” A Model of Venture Capitalist Activity”, Management Science, 30, 9, 1051-1066.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 88. Ucbasaran, D., P. Westhead & M. Wright, 2001,” The Focus of Entrepreneurial Research: Contextual and Process Issues,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 4, 57-80.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 89. Van de Ven, A. H., R. Hudson, & D. M. Schroeder, 1984,”Designing New Business Startups: Entrepreneurship, Organizational and Ecological Consideration”, Journal of Management, 10, 1, 87-107.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 90. Venkatraman, S., 1997,” The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: an Editor’s Perspective,” In Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, J. Katz, R. Brockhaus, eds, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 91. Yin, R.,1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 92. Zahra, S. A., 1996,” Technology Strategy and Financial Performance: Examining the Moderating Role of the Firm’s Competitive Environment,” Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 3, 189-219.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 93. Zahra, S. A., 1993,” A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior: A Critique and Extension”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17, 4, 5-21.zh_TW