學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 平台商業模式對智慧資本投資及企業價值影響 — 以台灣資訊服務業為例
The Relationship Between Platform Business Model, Investment in Intellectual Capital and Corporate Value — Evidence in Taiwan Information Service Industry作者 陳子恩 貢獻者 吳啟銘
陳子恩關鍵詞 智慧資本
開放式創新
平台商業模式
資訊服務業
企業價值
Intellectual Capital
Open Innovation
Platform Business Model
Information Services
Corporate Value日期 2015 上傳時間 3-Aug-2015 13:15:02 (UTC+8) 摘要 資訊服務業為知識經濟下的代表性產業,其企業價值的創造可以說完全來自 於智慧資本的累積與影響,而對於台灣經濟而言,資訊服務業亦是新興的成長動 力來源。伴隨著網路科技的發達,近期資訊服務業中亦產生異於過去單方向進行 軟體開發及推廣的平台商業模式(Platform Business Model),舉凡電子商務、 線上遊戲、社群網站及通訊軟體皆在此範疇內,而根據 Chesbrough(2006)的開 放式創新理論,平台型企業是最能適應環境變化,亦能最快、最有效率達到創新 的公司,擁有更強的競爭優勢。因此,本研究主要探討在資訊服務業中,平台型商業模式如何影響企業在智 慧資本上的投資,以及如何影響企業價值。本研究以台灣上市(櫃)資訊服務業 近 2012-2014 年的資料為樣本,利用追蹤資料迴歸模型(Panel Regression), 控制公司成長面、獲利面、風險面及公司規模,並固定年份所帶來的時間效果, 探討在產業當中平台商業模式對智慧資本投資以及企業價值的影響。實證結果分為三個部分,(1)選擇平台作為商業模式,能帶來更高的企業價 值,並且顯著異於其他非平台資訊服務同業。(2)資訊服務業的關鍵智慧資本為 人力資本,然而資訊服務業中的平台模式更強調結構資本的重要性,相較之下非 平台的資訊服務同業在顧客資本的投資能帶來更高的企業價值。(3)對於平台模 式而言,人力資本與結構資本之交互作用,能為企業價值帶來顯著性的綜效,但 非平台模式在各個智慧資本間則沒有綜效產生。
As a representative industry of knowledge economy, all the value creation of Information Service value is from the Intellectual Capital(IC). Besides, for the economy of Taiwan, the sector is also the new engine of economic growth. With the development of the Internet, information service industry in recent years has produced a different business model, transformed from “single direction software development” to “multi-sided market platform”, which included e-commerce, online games, social media and instant messageservice. According to the theory of Open Innovation by Chesbrough(2006), this kind of platform business is the most able to adapt to environmental changes, also the fastest, most efficient achieve innovative company, and has a stronger competitive advantage.This study focuses on the platform business model and IC of Information Service Industry, and tries to decode how platform business model affects investment in IC, and how it affects corporate value. The study collected the listed Taiwan Information Service companies in 2012-2014 for data sample, uses Panel Regression Model with the control of the company`s growth, profitability, risk and size, and fixed the year Effect, to investigate the effects of the platform business model for IC investment and the impact on corporate value.The evidence can be divided into three sections: (1) In the industry, platform business model can lead to higher corporate value, which also significantly different from other internet information services peers; (2) Human Capital is key IC for InformationService Industry. However, platform business emphasizes more on the importance of Structural Capital, compared with other peers of the industry which investment of Customer Capital would lead to higher corporate value; (3)The interaction of Human Capital and Structural Capital can bring significant synergy on corporate value for platform business, compared with other peers of the industry which have no synergy between ICs on corporate value.參考文獻 王文英、張清福,2004,智慧資本影響績效模式之探討—我國半導體業之實證研究,會 計評論,第 39 期:89-117朱麗 (Julia Sadykova),2013,公司策略擬定對智慧資產投資及績效表現的影響—以我國資訊電子業為例,國立政治大學企業管理學系碩士論文。李坤致,2001,智慧資本與價值動因對企業價值影響之研究,國立中正大學企業管理學 系碩士論文。吳思華,2000,網際網路智慧資本衡量與發展措施研究,經濟部工業局軟體五年發展計 畫。吳秀娟,2000,企業市場價值與淨值差異影響因素之研究—以我國資訊電子業為例,國 立政治大學會計學系碩士論文。馬秀如、劉正田、俞洪昭與諶家蘭,1999,資訊軟體業無形資產鑑價制度之研究,證券 交易所研究計畫。陳靜香,2005,公司經營成效、所有權結構與總經理酬勞間之內生性關係,國立中山大 學財務管理學系碩士在職專班研究所碩士論文。陳宏民與胥莉,2007,雙邊市場:企業競爭環境的新視角,上海:上海人民出版社。 陳威如,2013,平台策略:席捲全球社交、購物、遊戲、媒體的商業模式創新,台北:商周出版。郭淑儀,2007,台灣資訊服務業之行銷策略探討-以 A 公司為例,國立政治大學經營管理碩士學程論文。黃家齊,2002,人力資源管理系統與組織績效—智慧資本觀點,管理學報,第十九卷, 第 3 期,415-450。黃家齊,2003,人力資本投資系統、創新策略與組織績效—多種契合觀點的驗證,管理 評論,第二十二卷,第 1 期:99-126。黃宛華,1999,資訊服務業智慧資本之研究,國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 黃翔祺,2000,網際網路企業智慧資本研究,國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 傅坤泰,2001,智慧資本於企業績效評估之應用—以 IC 設計產業為例,私立輔仁大學金融學系碩士論文。 資策會,2001,我國資訊產業智慧資本現況與未來發展趨勢,財團法人資訊工業策進會專題研究報告。 資策會,2014,教育部資訊軟體產業人力需求座談會簡報,財團法人資訊工業策進會。 https://www.iaci.nkfust.edu.tw/upload/RelFile/News/1797/1f3adb64-3ead-4823-bf6e-28bf56902306.pdf歐進士,1998,我國企業研究發展與經營績效關連之實證研究,中山管理評論,第六卷, 第 2 期:357-386。劉正田,2002,無形資產、成長機會與股票報酬關係之研究,會計評論,第 35 期:1-29。 謝月香,2000,無形資產,國立成功大學會計學系碩士論文。二、 英文部分Al-Ali, N., 2003. Comprehensive Intellectual Capital Management, Hoboken, New Jersey:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Armstrong, M., 2006. Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37, No. 3, pp.668-691.Bean, S. 1995. Why some R&D organizations are more productive than others. Research Technology Management 38: 25-29.Bontis, N., 1998. Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision 36(February): 63-76.Bontis, N., W.C.C. Keow, S. Richardson, 2000. Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 Iss: 1, pp.85 - 100Bosworth, D. and M. Rogers, 2001. Market value, R&D and intellectual property: An empirical analysis of large Australian firms. The Economic Record, 77(239), 323– 337.Bukh, P. N., H. T. Larsen, and J. Mouritsen. 2001. Constructing intellectual capital statements. Scandinavian Journal of Management 17: 87-108.Chesbrough, H., 2006. Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape, Harvard Business School Press.Deeds, D. L. 2001. The role of R&D intensity, technical development and absorptive capacity in creating entrepreneurial wealth in high technology start-ups. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 18 (1): 29-47.Demsetz, H. and K. Lehn, 1985. The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 93, No. 6 (Dec., 1985), pp. 1155-1177Dzinknowski, R. 2000. The measurement and management of intellectual capital. Management Accounting (February): 32-36.Edvinsson, L., 1998. Managing intellectual capital in Skandia. In Sullivan, P.H (editor), Profiting from Intellectual Capital: Extracting Value from Innovation, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Edvinsson, L., and M.S. Malone, 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Roots, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.Edvinsson, L., and P.H. Sullivan, 1996. Developing a model for managing intellectual capital. European Management Journal 14(4): 40-58.Efron, B. 1979. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the Jackknife. Annals of Statistics 7: 1-26.Eisenmann, T., and A. Hagiu, 2008. Staging two-sided platforms, Case No. 9-808-004. Harvard Business School, Boston, Mass.Eisenmann, T., G. Parker, and M.V. Alstyne, 2006. Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review, 84, No.10, pp.92-101Eisenmann, T., G. Parker, and M.V. Alstyne, 2011. Platform Envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 1270-1258.Evans, D. S., A. Hagiu, and R. Schmalensee, 2006. Invisible engines: How software platforms drive innovation and transform industries. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Evans, D. S. and R. Schmalensee, 2007. Catalyst code: The strategies behind the world`s most dynamic companies, Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.Financial Management Accounting Committee. 1998. The Measurement and Management of Intellectual Capital: An Introduction. New York: International Federation of Accountants.Gawer, A., and M.A. Cusumano, 2002. Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation, Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. Goyal, V.K., K. Lehn and S. Racic, 2002. Growth Opportunities and Corporate Debt Policy: The Case of the U.S. Defense Industry. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 64, No. 1, April 2002.Hall, B.H., 1993. The stock market’s valuation of R&D investment during the 1980’s. The American Economic Review, pp. 259-264.Johnson, W. H. A. 1999. An integrative taxonomy of intellectual capital: Measuring the stock and flow of intellectual capital components in the firm. International Journal of Technology Management 18: 562-575.Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press.Knight, D. J. 1999. Performance measures for increasing intellectual capital. Strategy & Leadership 27 (March-April ): 22-27.Lee, K., and A. V. Witteloostuijn. 1998. Human capital, social capital, and firm dissolution. Academy of Management Journal 41 (4): 425-440.Lev, B., and T. Sougiannis. 1996. The capitalization, amortization and value relevance of R&D. Journal of Accounting and Economics 21: 107-138.Lippman, S. A. and R.P. Rumelt, 1982. Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13, pp. 418-438.Lynn, B., 1998. Intellectual capital: Key to value-added success in the next millennium. CMA Magazine (February): 10-15.Modigliani, F. and M.H. Miller, 1963. Corporate Income Taxes and the Cost of Capital: A Correction. The American Economic Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jun., 1963), pp. 433-443Mouritsen, J., H. T. Larsen, and P. N. Bukh. 2001a. Intellectual capital and the ‘capable firm’: Narrating, visualizing and numbering for managing knowledge. Accounting, Organizations and Society 26 (7): 735-762.Mouritsen, J., H. T. Larsen, and P. N. Bukh. 2001b. Valuing the future: Intellectual capital accounts at Skandia. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14 (4): 399-422.Prahalad, C.K., and G. Hamel, 1990. The Core Competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review (May/June): 79-91.PriceWaterhouseCoopers. 1999. Value Reporting Forecast 2000.Pulic, A. 2000. VAICTM - an accounting tool for IC management. International Journal of Technology Management 20: 702-714. 69Rochet, J.-C. and J. Tirole, 2003. Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, No.4, pp.990-1029.Roos, J., G. Roos, L. Edvinsson, and N.C. Dragonetti, 1998. Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape, New York, NY: New York University Press.Sougiannis, T., 1994. The accounting based valuation of corporate R&D. The Accounting Review, 69: 44-68.Sveiby, K. E. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. Berrett-Koehler Publisher.Sveiby, K.E., 2001, A Knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(4), 344-358.Stewart, T. A. 1997. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.Thomas, A. and G.R. Williams, 1991. A strategy to provide retirement benefits for international transferees in a global company. Benefits and Compensation International, October, pp. 2-7.Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1984), pp. 171-180.Zhang, J., S. G. Pantula, and D. D. Boos. 1991. Robust methods for testing the pattern of a single covariance matrix. Biometrika 78: 787-795. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所
102363001資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1023630011 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 吳啟銘 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳子恩 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) 陳子恩 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2015 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-Aug-2015 13:15:02 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-Aug-2015 13:15:02 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Aug-2015 13:15:02 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1023630011 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/77138 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 企業管理研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102363001 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 資訊服務業為知識經濟下的代表性產業,其企業價值的創造可以說完全來自 於智慧資本的累積與影響,而對於台灣經濟而言,資訊服務業亦是新興的成長動 力來源。伴隨著網路科技的發達,近期資訊服務業中亦產生異於過去單方向進行 軟體開發及推廣的平台商業模式(Platform Business Model),舉凡電子商務、 線上遊戲、社群網站及通訊軟體皆在此範疇內,而根據 Chesbrough(2006)的開 放式創新理論,平台型企業是最能適應環境變化,亦能最快、最有效率達到創新 的公司,擁有更強的競爭優勢。因此,本研究主要探討在資訊服務業中,平台型商業模式如何影響企業在智 慧資本上的投資,以及如何影響企業價值。本研究以台灣上市(櫃)資訊服務業 近 2012-2014 年的資料為樣本,利用追蹤資料迴歸模型(Panel Regression), 控制公司成長面、獲利面、風險面及公司規模,並固定年份所帶來的時間效果, 探討在產業當中平台商業模式對智慧資本投資以及企業價值的影響。實證結果分為三個部分,(1)選擇平台作為商業模式,能帶來更高的企業價 值,並且顯著異於其他非平台資訊服務同業。(2)資訊服務業的關鍵智慧資本為 人力資本,然而資訊服務業中的平台模式更強調結構資本的重要性,相較之下非 平台的資訊服務同業在顧客資本的投資能帶來更高的企業價值。(3)對於平台模 式而言,人力資本與結構資本之交互作用,能為企業價值帶來顯著性的綜效,但 非平台模式在各個智慧資本間則沒有綜效產生。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) As a representative industry of knowledge economy, all the value creation of Information Service value is from the Intellectual Capital(IC). Besides, for the economy of Taiwan, the sector is also the new engine of economic growth. With the development of the Internet, information service industry in recent years has produced a different business model, transformed from “single direction software development” to “multi-sided market platform”, which included e-commerce, online games, social media and instant messageservice. According to the theory of Open Innovation by Chesbrough(2006), this kind of platform business is the most able to adapt to environmental changes, also the fastest, most efficient achieve innovative company, and has a stronger competitive advantage.This study focuses on the platform business model and IC of Information Service Industry, and tries to decode how platform business model affects investment in IC, and how it affects corporate value. The study collected the listed Taiwan Information Service companies in 2012-2014 for data sample, uses Panel Regression Model with the control of the company`s growth, profitability, risk and size, and fixed the year Effect, to investigate the effects of the platform business model for IC investment and the impact on corporate value.The evidence can be divided into three sections: (1) In the industry, platform business model can lead to higher corporate value, which also significantly different from other internet information services peers; (2) Human Capital is key IC for InformationService Industry. However, platform business emphasizes more on the importance of Structural Capital, compared with other peers of the industry which investment of Customer Capital would lead to higher corporate value; (3)The interaction of Human Capital and Structural Capital can bring significant synergy on corporate value for platform business, compared with other peers of the industry which have no synergy between ICs on corporate value. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 謝辭............................................................... I 摘要.............................................................. II Abstract......................................................... III 目錄.............................................................. IV 圖目錄............................................................. V 表目錄............................................................. V第一章 緒論 ..................................................... 1第一節 研究背景與動機 ................................................. 1 第二節 研究目的 ....................................................... 4 第三節 研究特點 ....................................................... 5 第四節 論文架構流程 ................................................... 7第二章 文獻回顧 ................................................. 9第一節 資訊服務業 ..................................................... 9 第二節 智慧資本與企業價值 ............................................ 11 第三節 平台商業模式與競爭優勢 ........................................ 14第三章 研究假說 ................................................ 19第四章 研究設計 ................................................ 23第一節 樣本選擇與資料來源 ............................................ 23 第二節 研究變數選取及衡量方式 ........................................ 25 第三節 研究模型 ...................................................... 42第五章 實證結果與分析 .......................................... 46第一節 敘述統計分析 .................................................. 46 第二節 相關性分析 .................................................... 49 第三節 迴歸分析 ...................................................... 52第六章 結論與建議 .............................................. 59第一節 研究結論與管理意涵 ............................................ 59 第二節 管理意涵 ...................................................... 61 第三節 研究限制與建議 ................................................ 62參考文獻.......................................................... 64 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2118871 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1023630011 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 智慧資本 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 開放式創新 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 平台商業模式 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊服務業 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 企業價值 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Intellectual Capital en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Open Innovation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Platform Business Model en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Information Services en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corporate Value en_US dc.title (題名) 平台商業模式對智慧資本投資及企業價值影響 — 以台灣資訊服務業為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Relationship Between Platform Business Model, Investment in Intellectual Capital and Corporate Value — Evidence in Taiwan Information Service Industry en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王文英、張清福,2004,智慧資本影響績效模式之探討—我國半導體業之實證研究,會 計評論,第 39 期:89-117朱麗 (Julia Sadykova),2013,公司策略擬定對智慧資產投資及績效表現的影響—以我國資訊電子業為例,國立政治大學企業管理學系碩士論文。李坤致,2001,智慧資本與價值動因對企業價值影響之研究,國立中正大學企業管理學 系碩士論文。吳思華,2000,網際網路智慧資本衡量與發展措施研究,經濟部工業局軟體五年發展計 畫。吳秀娟,2000,企業市場價值與淨值差異影響因素之研究—以我國資訊電子業為例,國 立政治大學會計學系碩士論文。馬秀如、劉正田、俞洪昭與諶家蘭,1999,資訊軟體業無形資產鑑價制度之研究,證券 交易所研究計畫。陳靜香,2005,公司經營成效、所有權結構與總經理酬勞間之內生性關係,國立中山大 學財務管理學系碩士在職專班研究所碩士論文。陳宏民與胥莉,2007,雙邊市場:企業競爭環境的新視角,上海:上海人民出版社。 陳威如,2013,平台策略:席捲全球社交、購物、遊戲、媒體的商業模式創新,台北:商周出版。郭淑儀,2007,台灣資訊服務業之行銷策略探討-以 A 公司為例,國立政治大學經營管理碩士學程論文。黃家齊,2002,人力資源管理系統與組織績效—智慧資本觀點,管理學報,第十九卷, 第 3 期,415-450。黃家齊,2003,人力資本投資系統、創新策略與組織績效—多種契合觀點的驗證,管理 評論,第二十二卷,第 1 期:99-126。黃宛華,1999,資訊服務業智慧資本之研究,國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 黃翔祺,2000,網際網路企業智慧資本研究,國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 傅坤泰,2001,智慧資本於企業績效評估之應用—以 IC 設計產業為例,私立輔仁大學金融學系碩士論文。 資策會,2001,我國資訊產業智慧資本現況與未來發展趨勢,財團法人資訊工業策進會專題研究報告。 資策會,2014,教育部資訊軟體產業人力需求座談會簡報,財團法人資訊工業策進會。 https://www.iaci.nkfust.edu.tw/upload/RelFile/News/1797/1f3adb64-3ead-4823-bf6e-28bf56902306.pdf歐進士,1998,我國企業研究發展與經營績效關連之實證研究,中山管理評論,第六卷, 第 2 期:357-386。劉正田,2002,無形資產、成長機會與股票報酬關係之研究,會計評論,第 35 期:1-29。 謝月香,2000,無形資產,國立成功大學會計學系碩士論文。二、 英文部分Al-Ali, N., 2003. Comprehensive Intellectual Capital Management, Hoboken, New Jersey:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Armstrong, M., 2006. Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37, No. 3, pp.668-691.Bean, S. 1995. Why some R&D organizations are more productive than others. Research Technology Management 38: 25-29.Bontis, N., 1998. Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision 36(February): 63-76.Bontis, N., W.C.C. Keow, S. Richardson, 2000. Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 Iss: 1, pp.85 - 100Bosworth, D. and M. Rogers, 2001. Market value, R&D and intellectual property: An empirical analysis of large Australian firms. The Economic Record, 77(239), 323– 337.Bukh, P. N., H. T. Larsen, and J. Mouritsen. 2001. Constructing intellectual capital statements. Scandinavian Journal of Management 17: 87-108.Chesbrough, H., 2006. Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape, Harvard Business School Press.Deeds, D. L. 2001. The role of R&D intensity, technical development and absorptive capacity in creating entrepreneurial wealth in high technology start-ups. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 18 (1): 29-47.Demsetz, H. and K. Lehn, 1985. The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 93, No. 6 (Dec., 1985), pp. 1155-1177Dzinknowski, R. 2000. The measurement and management of intellectual capital. Management Accounting (February): 32-36.Edvinsson, L., 1998. Managing intellectual capital in Skandia. In Sullivan, P.H (editor), Profiting from Intellectual Capital: Extracting Value from Innovation, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Edvinsson, L., and M.S. Malone, 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Roots, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.Edvinsson, L., and P.H. Sullivan, 1996. Developing a model for managing intellectual capital. European Management Journal 14(4): 40-58.Efron, B. 1979. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the Jackknife. Annals of Statistics 7: 1-26.Eisenmann, T., and A. Hagiu, 2008. Staging two-sided platforms, Case No. 9-808-004. Harvard Business School, Boston, Mass.Eisenmann, T., G. Parker, and M.V. Alstyne, 2006. Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review, 84, No.10, pp.92-101Eisenmann, T., G. Parker, and M.V. Alstyne, 2011. Platform Envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 1270-1258.Evans, D. S., A. Hagiu, and R. Schmalensee, 2006. Invisible engines: How software platforms drive innovation and transform industries. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Evans, D. S. and R. Schmalensee, 2007. Catalyst code: The strategies behind the world`s most dynamic companies, Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.Financial Management Accounting Committee. 1998. The Measurement and Management of Intellectual Capital: An Introduction. New York: International Federation of Accountants.Gawer, A., and M.A. Cusumano, 2002. Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation, Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. Goyal, V.K., K. Lehn and S. Racic, 2002. Growth Opportunities and Corporate Debt Policy: The Case of the U.S. Defense Industry. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 64, No. 1, April 2002.Hall, B.H., 1993. The stock market’s valuation of R&D investment during the 1980’s. The American Economic Review, pp. 259-264.Johnson, W. H. A. 1999. An integrative taxonomy of intellectual capital: Measuring the stock and flow of intellectual capital components in the firm. International Journal of Technology Management 18: 562-575.Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press.Knight, D. J. 1999. Performance measures for increasing intellectual capital. Strategy & Leadership 27 (March-April ): 22-27.Lee, K., and A. V. Witteloostuijn. 1998. Human capital, social capital, and firm dissolution. Academy of Management Journal 41 (4): 425-440.Lev, B., and T. Sougiannis. 1996. The capitalization, amortization and value relevance of R&D. Journal of Accounting and Economics 21: 107-138.Lippman, S. A. and R.P. Rumelt, 1982. Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. The Bell Journal of Economics, 13, pp. 418-438.Lynn, B., 1998. Intellectual capital: Key to value-added success in the next millennium. CMA Magazine (February): 10-15.Modigliani, F. and M.H. Miller, 1963. Corporate Income Taxes and the Cost of Capital: A Correction. The American Economic Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jun., 1963), pp. 433-443Mouritsen, J., H. T. Larsen, and P. N. Bukh. 2001a. Intellectual capital and the ‘capable firm’: Narrating, visualizing and numbering for managing knowledge. Accounting, Organizations and Society 26 (7): 735-762.Mouritsen, J., H. T. Larsen, and P. N. Bukh. 2001b. Valuing the future: Intellectual capital accounts at Skandia. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14 (4): 399-422.Prahalad, C.K., and G. Hamel, 1990. The Core Competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review (May/June): 79-91.PriceWaterhouseCoopers. 1999. Value Reporting Forecast 2000.Pulic, A. 2000. VAICTM - an accounting tool for IC management. International Journal of Technology Management 20: 702-714. 69Rochet, J.-C. and J. Tirole, 2003. Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, No.4, pp.990-1029.Roos, J., G. Roos, L. Edvinsson, and N.C. Dragonetti, 1998. Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape, New York, NY: New York University Press.Sougiannis, T., 1994. The accounting based valuation of corporate R&D. The Accounting Review, 69: 44-68.Sveiby, K. E. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. Berrett-Koehler Publisher.Sveiby, K.E., 2001, A Knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(4), 344-358.Stewart, T. A. 1997. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.Thomas, A. and G.R. Williams, 1991. A strategy to provide retirement benefits for international transferees in a global company. Benefits and Compensation International, October, pp. 2-7.Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1984), pp. 171-180.Zhang, J., S. G. Pantula, and D. D. Boos. 1991. Robust methods for testing the pattern of a single covariance matrix. Biometrika 78: 787-795. zh_TW
