簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 周怡祺
Chou, Yi-Cyi
論文名稱： 策略聯盟夥伴間關係如何影響知識移轉績效
How does the relationship of alliance partners affect knowledge transfer performance
指導教授： 陳忠仁
Chen, Chung-Jen
吳學良
Wu, Hsueh-Liang
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 管理學院 - 企業管理學系碩士在職專班
Department of Business Administration (on the job class)
論文出版年： 2005
畢業學年度： 93
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 100
中文關鍵詞： 策略相關性 、聯盟型式 、知識移轉績效 、吸收能力 、關係資本 、夥伴間資源配置 、策略聯盟
外文關鍵詞： Strategic Relatedness, Absorptive Capacity, Strategic Alliance, Relational Capital, Inter-Partner Resource Alignments, Knowledge Transfer Performance, Alliance Form
相關次數： 點閱：175  下載：5 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 　　為因應資本國際化、生產技術快速變遷、產品生命週期縮短及全球市場的競爭激烈，企業間的策略聯盟活動更趨白熱化，因為聯盟合作是發展全球策略最快速且廉價的方法之ㄧ。策略聯盟的目的不僅是要達到組織間學習，還有策略性考量及交易成本考量，本研究針對策略聯盟中組織之間的學習及知識移轉進行探討。廠商想要從聯盟中學到知識，進而強化更新本身的能力，必須與聯盟夥伴進行互動。知識移轉是發生組織間學習及廠商能力發展的必要條件。組織間學習可藉由聯盟夥伴間資源配置及關係資本來達成雙方互動，廠商能力發展則端賴廠商吸收能力及策略相關性高低來形成內部成長。其中更會因聯盟型式及知識屬性的不同而產生不同的知識移轉績效。本研究以此為研究動機，試圖由過去學者所提出的研究整理出一個影響策略聯盟夥伴間互動，及其對廠商知識移轉績效影響之模型，配合實證的方式來驗證這些假設，並提出以下兩項主要之研究目的：
    1. 探討聯盟夥伴間資源配置、關係資本、吸收能力及策略相關性對廠商知識移轉績效之影響。
    2. 探討聯盟型式、知識屬性和關係資本、吸收能力及策略相關性的交互作用下，是否對廠商知識移轉績效有所影響。
    　　本研究的母體是以中華徵信所所公布的5000大企業為主要調查對象，涵蓋了一般製造業、高科技產業及服務業，採取分層隨機抽樣，分為五層以亂數表選取之，共計發放500份問卷，問卷詢問對象為公司之高階管理者，並以公司為單位，一家廠商寄出一份樣本。回收之有效問卷為83份，問卷之有效回收率為16.66％。
    　　研究結果發現夥伴間資源配置、關係資本、吸收能力及策略相關性的確會對廠商知識移轉績效產生影響；且關係資本及吸收能力與聯盟型式及內隱、特定知識屬性交互作用結果會產生較佳之知識移轉績效。本研究認為策略聯盟是一種既競爭且合作的微妙關係，學習能力較強的一方，很快就能取得主導地位，進而進行購併等活動；策略聯盟的管理本身便是一種能耐，企業若能致力於此種能耐，則能增強其未來策略聯盟成功的機會。然而台灣企業規模多偏向中小型，在科技技術尚未純熟之前，可藉由策略聯盟方式達到廠商自我技術的升級，因此聯盟過程中知識移轉績效越高，則越能內化成知識蓄積及知識管理，進而建立廠商核心優勢與競爭能力。

    　Strategic alliances are an important source of resources, learning, and thereby competitive advantage. Alliances are a critical mechanism for a company to learn and acquire knowledge resources to complement its own internal capabilities and resources. Although the increasing importance of the strategic alliances little has been done in the literature in examining the relationships among the internal and external determinants, the strategic alliances, and the performance of knowledge transfer. Therefore, this study attempts to fill the gap in the literature by providing an integrative research framework through extensive literature review to identify the key determinants and to examine the relationships among these determinants, partnerships interaction and knowledge transfer performance.
    　The population in the study is the top 5000 firms of Taiwan listed in the China Credit Information Service Incorporation. A random stratified sampling method was used to select 100 firms in each of the five levels. 500 questionnaires were mailed. Of the 500 questionnaires mailed, 89 responses were received and six of them were incomplete. The remaining 83 valid and complete questionnaires were used for the quantitative analysis. It represents a useable response rate of 16.66%.
    　The major finding of this study include: First, the results of the regression analyses show support for the direct effects of absorptive capacity, relational capital on the knowledge transfer performance. Secondly, the results of the ANOVA show that supplementary inter-partner resource alignment has a strongest difference then other type alignments on knowledge application and financial. Thirdly, Independent-Sample T test suggest that low strategic relatedness on innovation performed better than high strategic relatedness. Finally, the results of ANOVA and T-test analyses indicate that the alliance form, knowledge attribute have positively interaction effects with relational capital, absorptive capacity on the performances of the firms.

    Chapter One Introduction 1-1 1.1 Research Motivations 1-1 1.2 Research Objectives 1-3 1.3 Research Procedure 1-3 1.4 Research structure 1-5 Chapter Two Literature Review 2-1 2.1 Previous Research on Strategic Alliances 2-1 2-1.1 Strategic Alliances Formation 2-1 2-1.2 Alliances Experiences and Performance 2-4 2-1.3 Alliances and Innovation 2-8 2-1.4 knowledge acquisition among alliances 2-9 2-1.5 Summary 2-10 2.2 Hypotheses 2-12 2-2.1 Inter-Partner Resource Alignments 2-12 2-2.2 Relational Capital 2-15 2-2.3 Absorptive Capacity 2-17 2-2.4 Strategic Relatedness 2-18 2-2.5 Alliance Form 2-19 2-2.6 Knowledge Attribute 2-21 Chapter Three Research Design and Methodology 3-1 3.1 Research Framework 3-2 3.2 Research Hypotheses 3-3 3.3 Measures 3-4 3-3.1 Inter-Partner Resource Alignments 3-4 3-3.2 Relational capital 3-5 3-3.3 Absorptive capacity 3-7 3-3.4 Strategic relatedness 3-7 3-3.5 Alliances form 3-8 3-3.6 Knowledge attribute 3-9 3-3.7 Knowledge transfer performance 3-10 3.4 Data Collection 3-11 3.5 Sample Frame 3-12 3.6 Data Analysis 3-13 3-6.1 Descriptive Statistic Analysis 3-14 3-6.2 Purification and Reliability of the Measurement Variables 3-14 3-6.3 Interrelationships between Research Variables 3-14 Chapter Four Research Analysis and Results 4-1 4.1 Factor Analysis and Reliability Tests 4-1 4-1.1 Factor Analysis 4-1 4-1-1.1 Factor Analysis of Inter-partner Resource Alignment 4-1 4-1-1.2 Factor Analysis of Absorptive Capacity 4-3 4-1-1.3 Factor Analysis of Knowledge Attribute 4-4 4-1-1.4 Factor Analysis of Knowledge Transfer performance 4-5 4-1.2 Reliability Tests 4-6 4-1-2.1 Reliability Test of Inter-partner Resource Alignments 4-6 4-1-2.2 Reliability Test of Relational Capital 4-7 4-1-2.3 Reliability Test of Absorptive Capacity 4-9 4-1-2.4 Reliability Test of Knowledge Attribute 4-9 4-1-2.5 Reliability Test of Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-10 4.2 Control Variables 4-11 4.3 Interrelationships between Research Variables 4-12 4-3.1 Effects of Inter-partner Resource Alignment on Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-13 4-3.2 Effects of Relational Capital on Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-14 4-3.3 Effects of Absorptive Capacity on Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-15 4-3.4 Effects of Strategic Relatedness on Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-16 4-3.5 Moderating Effects of Alliance form to the Effect of Relational Capital on Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-17 4-3.6 Moderating Effects of Alliance Form to the Effect of Absorptive Capacity on Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-19 4-3.7 Moderating Effects of Alliance Form to the Effect of Strategic Relatedness on Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-20 4-3.8Moderating Effects of Knowledge Attribute to Effect of Relational Capital on Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-21 4-3.9 Moderating Effects of knowledge attribute to the Effect of Absorptive Capacity on Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-24 4-3.10 Moderating Effects of Alliance Form, knowledge attribute to Effect of Strategic Relatedness on Knowledge Transfer Performance 4-25 Chapter Five Conclusions and Suggestions 5-1 5.1 Research Conclusions 5-1 5.2 Research Limitations 5-5 5.3 Research Suggestions 5-5 References APPENDIX I : QUESTIONNAIRE

    1. Afuah, A. 2001. Dynamic boundaries of the firm: are firms better off being vertically integrated in the face of a technological change? Academy of Management Journal, 44(6):1211-1228.
    2. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3): 396-402.
    3. Anand, B. N. & Khanna, T. 2000. Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21:295-315.
    4. Anand, J. & Delios, A. 2002. Absolute and relative resources as determinants of international acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 23:119-134.
    5. Arino, A. 2003. Measures of strategic alliance performance: an analysis of construct validity. Journal of International Business Studies, 34:66-79.
    6. Arnold, H. J. 1982. Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual, analytic, andpsychometric issues. Organizational Behavior and human Performance, 29:143-174.
    7. Aulakh, P. S., Masaaki, K. & Arvind, S. 1996. Trust and performance in cross broder marketing partnerships: a behavioral approach. Journal of International Business Studies. 27(5): 1005-1032.
    8. Beamish, P. W. 1985. The characteristics of joint ventures in develpoed and developing countries. Columbia Journal of World Business, 20(3): 13-19.
    9. Bleeket, J. & Ernst, D. 1991. The way to win in cross-broder alliances. Harvard Business Review, 69(6):127-135.
    10. Bradach, J & David, B. J. 1989. Price, authority, and trust: from ideal types to plural forms. American Review of Sociology, 15: 97-118.
    11. Chen, C. & Wu, W. 2004. A Comparative Study of the Alliance Experiences between American and Taiwanese Firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 29(1/2), 136-151.
    12. Chen, C. 2003. The effects of enviornment and partner characteristics on the choice of alliance forms. International Journal of Project Management, 21: 115-124.
    13. Chen, C. J. 2004. The effects of knowledge attribute, alliance characteristics, and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance. R&D Management, 34(3): 311-321.
    14. Chen, H. & Chen, T. J. 2002. Governance structures in strategic alliances : transaction cost versus resource-baesd perspective. Journal of World Business, 38: 1-14.
    15. Chung, S., Singh, H. & Lee, K. 2000. Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21:1-22.
    16. Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-152.
    17. Crossan, M. M. & Berdrow, I. Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24:1087-1105.
    18. Das, T. K. & Teng, B. S. 2000a. A Resource-Based Theoryof Strategic Alliances. Journal of Managementrganization, 26(1):31-61.
    19. Das, T. K. & Teng, B. S. 2000b. Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective. Organization Science, 11: 77-101.
    20. Das, T. K. & Teng, B. S. 2001. Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: an integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22(2):251-283.
    21. Das, T. K. & Teng, B. S. 2003. Parttner analysis and alliance performance. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19: 279-308.
    22. Demsetz, H. 1996. The Theory of the Firm Revisited. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 4(1): 141-161.
    23. Elg, U. 2000. Firms’ home-market relationships: their role when selecting international alliance partners. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(1):169-177.
    24. Gambardella, A. 1992. Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: the U.S. pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Research Policy, 21: 391-407.
    25. Garcia-Pont, C., & Nohria, N. 2002. Local versus global mimetism: the dynamics of alliance formation in the automobile industry. Strategic Management Journal , 23: 307-321.
    26. Gordon Walker, Tammy L Madson, Gary Carini. 2002. How does institutional change affect heterogeneity among firms？. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 2：89-104
    27. Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a Knowledge-Based theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 109-122.
    28. Gulati, R. 1995. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 85-112.
    29. Gulati, R. Tarun, K. & Nitin, N. 1994. Unilateral commitments and the importance of process in alliances. Sloan Management Review, 35(3): 61-69.
    30. Hagedoorn, J. & Schakenraad, J. 1994. The effects of strategic technology alliances on company performance. Startegic Management Journal, 12: 83-104.
    31. Hamel, G. 1991. Comprtition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 291-309.
    32. Harmon, H.H. 1967. Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    33. Harrigan, K. R. 1988. Strategic alliances and partner asymmetries. In: Contractor, F. J. and Lorange, P. (Eds.), Cooperative Strategies in International Business. Lexington MA: Lexington Books.
    34. Harzing, A. W. 2002. Acqusutions versus Greenfield investments: international strategy and management of entry modes. Strategic Management Journal, 23:211-227.
    35. Hitt, M. A., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., Arregle, J. L. & Borza, A. 2000. Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts:resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 449-467.
    36. Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literature. Organization Science, 2: 88-115.
    37. Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A. & Vaidyanath, D. 2002. Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 28(3): 413-446.
    38. Kale, P., Dyer, J. H. & Singh, H. 2002. Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: the role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 747-767.
    39. Kale, P. & Singh, H. 1999. Building alliance capabilities: A knowledge based approach. Academy of management Best Paper Proceedings, Chicago, IL.
    40. Kale, P., Singh, H. & Perlmutter, H. 2000. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: buliding relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 217-237.
    41. Kent, D. H. 1991. Joints ventures vs. non-joint ventures: An empirical investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 387-393.
    42. Kogut, B. & Zander, U. 1993a. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capacities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383-397.
    43. Kogut, B. & Zander, U. 1993b. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4): 625-645.
    44. Koka, B. R. & Prescott, J. E. 2002. Strategic alliances as social capital: a multidimensional view. Strategic Management Joural, 23: 795-816.
    45. Li , H. ＆ Atuahene-Gima., K. 2001.Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44,(6): 1123-1134.
    46. Lin, B.W., & Chen, C. J. 2002. The effect of formation motives and interfirm diversity on the performance of strategic alliance. Asia Pacific Management Review, 7(2): 139-166.
    47. Luo, Y. 2002. Contract, cooperation, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 23(10):903-919.
    48. Mowery, D. E., Oxley, J. E. & Silverman, B. S. 1996. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic management Journal, 17: 77-91.
    49. Mjoen, H. & Tallman, S. 1997. Control and performance in international joint ventures. Organization Science, 8: 257-274.
    50. Nonaka, I. & takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
    51. olh, P. 1997. the effect of partner differences on the performance of R&D consortia. In P. W. Beamish & J. p. Killing (Eds.), Cooperative strategies: Vol. 1. North American perspectives: 133-139. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.
    52. Osbon, R. N. & Baughn, C. C. 1993. Societal considerations in the global technological development of economic institutions: the role of strategic alliances. In: Bacharacg, S. B. Associates (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of organizations, 11: 113-150. Grennwich CT: JAI Press.
    53. Park S. H., Chen R., & Gallagher S. 2002. Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3): 527-545.
    54. Park, S. H. & Russo, M. V. 1996. When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science, 42: 875-890.
    55. Parkhe, A. 1993. Strategic alliance structuring: A game theory and transaction cost examination of inter-firm cooperation. Academy of management Journal, 36: 794-829.
    56. Pisano, G. P., Russo, M.V. & Teece, D. 1988. Joint ventures and collaborative agreements in the telecommunications equipment industry. In D. Mowery (Ed.), International collaborative ventures in U.S. manufacturing: 23-70. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
    57. Reuer, J. J., Zollo, M. & Singh, H. 2002. Post-formation dynamics in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 23:135-151.
    58. Rothaermel, F. T. 2002. Technological discontinuities and interfirm cooperation：What determines a startup’s attractiveness as alliance partner？. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4):388-397.
    59. Prahalad, C. K. & Bettis, R. A. 1986. The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6): 485-501.
    60. Sarkar, M. B., Echabadi, R., Cavusgil, S. T. & Aulakh, P.S. 2001. The influence of complementarity, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance. Jounal of Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4): 358-373.
    61. Sarkar, M., Echambadi, R. & Harrison, J. S. 2001. Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 701-711.
    62. Sarkar, M. S., Raj, E. & Jeffrey, H. 2001. Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 701-711.
    63. Silverman, B. S. & Baum, J. A. 2002. Alliance-based competitive dynamics. Academy of Management Journal, 45:791-806.
    64. Simonin, B. L. 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20:595-623.
    65. Steensma, H. K., Marino, L. Weaver, K. M. & Dickson , P. H. 2000. The influence of national culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43,(5): 951-973.
    66. Stinchcombe, A. L. 1990. Information and Organizations. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
    67. Stuart, T. E. 2000. Interorganizational alliance and the performance of firms：a study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21,(8): 791-811.
    68. Stuart, X. 2000. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic management Journal, 21: 791-811.
    69. Tasi, W. 2000. Socialcapital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraprganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21:925-939.
    70. Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks : effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 996-1004.
    71. Teece D. J. Rumelt, R. P. Dosu, G. & Winter, S. 1994. Understanding corporate coherence: theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 23: 1-30.
    72. Tsang, E. W. K. 2002. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy: learning-by-doing and learning myopia. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 835-854.
    73. Verhees, F. J. H. & Meulenberg, M. T. G. 2004. Market orientation, innovativeness, product innovation, and performance in small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2):134-154.
    74. Weaver, K. M. & Dickson, P. H. 2002. The structure of ownership and corporate acquisition strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 23:41-53.
    75. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. & Perrone, V. 1998. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9:1-20.

    下載圖示 校內：立即公開
    校外：2005-07-19公開
    QR CODE