跨領域創新是一種特別的創新類型，藉由跨領域類比法的協助，先抽象化自身產業問題，在不同產業裡搜尋解法，再將他產業的解法類比回本產業進行轉化來解決問題。跨領域類比法有助於跳脫現有產業框架進行創新，經由許多學術研究探討，被認為是有意義的創新方法，在產品創新、問題解決上也獲得不錯的成效，然而行銷創新上的運用卻缺乏研究，也沒有實證運用。因此本研究以貝伊拉手工鮮奶酪品牌為題目，運用跨領域類比法協助其進行行銷計劃創新之發想，目的在探究跨領域類比法運用於行銷創新上的幫助程度。

研究者邀請21位活動參與者以『如何幫貝伊拉跳脫健康美味手作，來吸引並滿足女孩子的需求，讓他們想購買?』為題目，進行一個具有對比效果的實驗活動。再介紹完背景資料後，研究者先給予大家10分鐘寫下腦海中想到的計劃發想，然後再分別發放指彩產業與速食餐廳產業的相關資料，根據跨領域類比法的步驟「1.抽象化問題，2.在它領域搜尋解答，3.類比回原領域重新架構可能的解答。」，在40分鐘內，引導其進行發想並收斂歸納為發想成果。最後總計共56個成果，後續請三位專家與貝伊拉老闆分別評估每個發想成果的行銷計畫創新程度，以進行後續Wilcoxon符號等級檢定，檢驗跨領域類比法在此活動中是否能顯著提高創新程度。

分析結果證實，跨領域類比法相較於一般常用的直接思考法，確實顯著的提升行銷計劃創新性，有助於後續的品牌行銷創新。此研究證明了跨領域行銷創新確實有其價值，也值得後續深入探討與研究。

The cross-industry innovation is the special case of innovation, where already existing solutions from one industry are retranslated to meet the requirements of company’s current market or products in another industry. However, discussions on the application of cross-industry innovation focused on technological problem solving and product innovations. There’s no instance in the marketing innovation. Therefore, in this study, we propose the transfer of a marketing program taken from the nail polish industry and fast-food industry to the pudding market in order to explore the helpfulness of cross-industry innovation in marketing domain.

Baelle is a 4-year-old milk pudding brand in Tainan, a southern city of Taiwan. This study chose “Besides the value of health, delicacy and hand-made pudding, how to attract girls to buy Baelle’s milk pudding? ” as the topic of the control experiment. After introduction of the marketing program topic and the topic brand, 21 participants were asked to write down the marketing program thinking directly in 10 minutes and then followed the cross-industry analogical thinking steps, the method is used in the cross-industry product innovation, to develop the marketing program from nail polish industry or fast food industry in 40 minutes. The creativity of marketing programs was scored by four marketing experts. The obtained scores were counted and analyzed by the Wilcoxon signed rank test, to discuss the difference between direct thinking results and cross-industry analogical thinking results in the marketing program creativity.

The final results indicate that the process of analogy thinking in cross-industry product innovation is helpful for enhancing the creativity of the marketing program significantly, both in novelty and meaningfulness dimensions of creativity. Moreover, from the feedback questionnaires, most participants think the process of analogy thinking is easy for them and helpful for the developing process of creating marketing differentiation. In conclusion, the cross-industry marketing innovation is worth researching deeper and using in practice to enhance marketing creativity.

References
Afuah, A. (1998). Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation, and Profits.
Oxford University Press, Inc.
Altshuller, G. (1996). And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared – TRIZ, the Theory of
Inventive Problem Solving, 2nd ed. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center.
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Andrews, J. & Smith, D. C. (1996). In Search of the Marketing Imagination: Factors
Affecting the Creativity of Marketing Programs for Mature Products, Journal of Marketing Research, 33(2), 174-187.
Argote, L. & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive
Advantage in Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 150–69.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Market Orientation and Innovation. Journal of Business
Research, 35(February), 93-103.
Barkema, H.G., Shenkar, O., Vermeulen, F. & Bell, J.H.J. (1997). Working abroad,
working with others: how firms learn to operate international joint ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 426–442.
Brown, R. (1992). Managing the 'S' Curves of Innovation. The Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 9(1), 61-72.
Brunswicker, S., Warschat, J., & Hutschek, U. (2010, July). Crossing horizons:
Applying analogies to source technologies in the front-end of the innovation processes. In Technology Management for Global Economic Growth (PICMET), 2010 Proceedings of PICMET'10: (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Boden, M.A. (1990). The Creative Mind. Myths and Mechanisms. Weidenfeld and
Nicholson, London.
Ceserani, J. & Greatwood, P. (1995). Innovation & Creativity. Kogan Page, London.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and
Invention. HarperCollins, New York.
Dahl, D.W. & Moreau, P. (2002). The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking
During New Product Ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 47–60.
De Bono, E. (1990). Lateral Thinking for Management. Penguin Books, London.
Enkel, E. & Lenz, A. (2009). Motivation and performance of external experts in
cross-industry workshops, European Academy of Management Conference (Euram), Liverpool, UK.
Enkel, E. & Gassmann, O. (2010). Creative imitation: exploring the case of cross
industry innovation. R&D Management, vol. 40, no. 3, 256–270.
Fernandez, E. & Montes, J.M. (1999). Competitive Strategy in Technological
Knowledge Imitation. International Journal of Technology Management, 18, 535–48.
Gassmann, O. & Zeschky, M. (2008). Opening up the solution space: the role of
analogical thinking for breakthrough product innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 17, no. 2, 97–106.
Gagne, C.L. & Shoben, E.J. (1997). Influence of Thematic Relations on the
Comprehension of Modifier-Noun Combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 71–87.
Gavetti, G. & Rivkin, J.W. (2005). How Strategists Really Think. Harvard Business
Review, 83, 54-63.
Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D.A. & Rivkin, J.W. (2005). Strategy Making in Novel and
Complex Worlds: The Power of Analogy. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 691–712.
Gentner, D. (1989). The Mechanisms of Analogical Transfer. In Vosniadou, S. and
Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gentner, D., Rattermann, M.J. & Forbus, K. (1993). The Roles of Similarity in
Transfer: Separating Retrievability from Inferential Soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 524–75.
Gick, M.L. & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema Induction and Analogical Transfer.
Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
Giovanni Gavetti & Jan W. Rivkin (2005). How Strategists Really Think. Harvard
business review, APRIL 2005, 1-11.
Gordon, W.J.J. (1969). Synectics – The Development of Creative Capacity. Harper
and Row, New York.
Gragg CI. (1940). Because wisdom can’t be told. Harvard Alumni Bulletin 43(2):
78–84.
Grant, R.M. (1996). Prospering in Dynamically competitive Environments:
Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration. Organization Science, 7, 375–87.
Hagedoorn, J. & Schakenraad, J. (1994). The effect of strategic technology alliances
on company performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 291–309.
Hamel, G. (1998). Opinion Strategy Innovation and the Quest for Value. Sloan
Management Review, 39(2), 7-14.
Hampton, J.A. (1998). Conceptual Combination: Conjunction and Negation of
Natural Concepts. Memory & Cognition, 25, 888–909.
Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market Orientation and
Organizational Performance: Is Innovation a Missing Link? Journal of Marketing, 62(October), 30-45.
Hargadon, A.B. & Sutton, R.I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a
product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.
Herstatt, C. & Engel, D. (2006). Mit Analogien neue Produkte entwickeln. Harvard
Business Manager, 8, 2–8.
Herstatt, C. & Kalogerakis, K. (2005). How to use analogies to generate concepts for
breakthrough innovations. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 2, 3, 331–347.
Higgins, J. M. (1995). Innovation: the Core Competence. Planning Review, 23(6),
pp.32-35.
Holt, K. (1983). Product Innovation Management. (2nd ed.). Butterworths.
Holyoak, K.J. & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holyoak, K.J. & Thagard, P. (1997). The Analogical Mind. American Psychologist, 52, 35–44.
Keane, M. (1987). On Retrieving Analogues when Solving Problems. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 39, 29–41.
Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R. (1999). Strategy, Value Innovation, and the Knowledge
Economy. Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 41-54.
Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities,
and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–97.
Li, T. & Calantone, R.J. (1998). The Impact of Market Knowledge Competence on
New Product Advantage: Conceptualization and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(October), 13-29.
Magrath, A. J. & Higgins, J. M. (1992). Six Path Ways to Marketing Innovation: The
Value-added Analysis. Strategy & Leadership, 20(6), 12-18.
Majchrzak, A., Cooper, L.P. & Neece, O.E. (2004). Knowledge reuse for innovation.
Management Science, 50, 174–188.
Mohanty, R. P. (1999). Value Innovation Perspective in Indian Organizations.
Participation & Empowerment, 7(4), 88-103.
Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. & Silverman, B.S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm
knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17, S2, 77–91.
Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. & Silverman, B.S. (1998). Technological overlap and
interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy, 27, 507–523.
Nerkar, A. & Roberts, P.W. (2004). Technological and Product-Market Experience
and the Success of New Product Introductions in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 779–99.
Nooteboom, B. (1992) Towards a dynamic theory of transactions. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics, 2, 281–299.
Nooteboom, B. (1994) Innovation and diffusion in small business: theory and
empirical evidence. Small Business Economics, 6, 327–347.
Nooteboom, B. (1999) Interfirm Alliances: Analysis and Design. London: Routledge.
Nooteboom, B. (2000) Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economices.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nooteboom, B., van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V. and van den Oord, A.
(2007) Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034.
Penrose, E.T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Penner-Hahn, J. & Myles Shaver (2005). Does international research and
development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 121–140.
Porter, M.E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: MacMillan.
Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard
Business Review, May-June, 79–91.
Prince, G.M. (1970). The Practice of Creativity. Macmillan, New York.
Rickards, T. (1990). Creativity and Problem Solving at Work. Gower Publishing,
Aldershot.
Reeves, L.M. & Weisberg, R.W. (1994). The Role of Content and Abstract
Information in Analogical Transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 381–400.
Ross, B.H. (1989). Distinguishing Types of Superficial Similarities: Different Effects
on the Access and Use of Earlier Problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 456–68.
J. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits,
Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Publishers, 1934.
J. Schumpeter, Business cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of
the Capitalist Process. New York Toronto London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1939.
Smith Ring, P. & van de Ven, A.H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19, 1, 90–118.
Stuart, T. (1998) Network positions and propensities to collaborate: an investigation
of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 637–668.
Tanriverdi, H. & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and the
performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–534.
Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and Analogical Reasoning: A
Synthesis. In Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. (eds.), Similarity and Analogical
Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1–17.
Ward, T.B. (1994). Structured Imagination: The Role of Category Structure in
Exemplar Generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1–40.