建築開發商對於都市發展確有其影響，但目前都市規劃者對於建築開發商的瞭解太少，導致都市實質發展與都市計畫有落差，因此本研究認為瞭解建築開發商的運作邏輯有其必要。而建築開發的開發時間長、投資金額高，且產品具有不可移動性，因此，建商必須面對高度風險與不確定性，為了能夠降低風險，本研究認為建商會有創新的產生。本研究以高雄市建商為實證研究對象，企圖透過次級資料的收集與深度訪談瞭解建商的過程創新、組織創新與產品創新行為。
首先，建築開發不同於一般量產、規格化的製造業，每個推案都是特殊的專案，且推案流程具有彈性，因此建商會根據過程中所接收的訊息調整其推案流程，此調整可視為過程創新。本研究發現建商因市場訊息而將原本先建後售的流程調整為先售後建、邊建邊售，以降低其開發風險。其次，為了降低其交易成本，建商會衡量不同公司治理結構的交易成本之高低，然後決定開發流程中所需的各項業務是要內化為層級組織或者向市場購買，此公司治理結構的調整可視為組織創新，而高雄市建商組織創新的類型包含內化、委外、企業分割。最後，建商將推案產品依照購買對象區分為首購、換屋、頂級三種，對建商而言從首購到換屋，或換屋到頂級的產品創新代表更高的成本、更長的時間以及更進步的技術，也就是更高的不確定性與風險。

The housebuilding developers really have influence on the urban development, but urban planners don’t realize what developers think at present. It is necessary to study developers’ operational closure.The period of housebuilding development is long, the investmemt is huge, and buildind is immovable, so, developers have to face high risk and uncertainty. In order to reduce the risk, developers have to creative innovation. Our research has focus on housebuilding developers of Kaohsiung as the research object of the real example, in order to understand the course of the developer; we work through the secondary materials and interview, to understand their process innovation, organizational innovation, products innovation behavior.
The housebuilding development is different from general manufacturing industry. Each case is the special project, and each process is elastic, so they can adjust process according to the information what they received. This kind of adjustment is process innovation. Because of various market information, developers adjust a normal process to a innovative process that developers sale buildings before build, or another innovative process that developers sale buildings and build at the same time.The result of considering transaction cost is organizational innovation, and this research finded three types of organizational innovation: hierarchy type, outsourcing, and spin-off. Developers sort their products by comsumer, first-time homebuyers, second home buyers, and high-level consumer. Product innovation meams that developers need to pay more cost, spend more time, and improve technology. It also means more risk and uncertainty.

中文專書與期刊
1.司徒達賢，策略管理，遠流出版社，台北，1997。
2.波特，競爭優勢，天下文化出版股份有限公司，台北，1996。
3.胡幼慧主編，質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例，巨流，台北，1996。
4.孫珣恆，披荊斬棘：新產品普及的五大關鍵，突破雜誌，第104 期，頁24-25，1996。
5.高宣揚，魯曼社會系統理論與現代性，五南圖書出版股份有限公司，台北，2002。
6.張五常，經濟組織與交易成本，約翰伊特瑋爾等編，新帕爾格雷夫經濟學大辭典，經濟科學出版社，2001。
7.張志強，流程管理技術手冊，中國生產力中心，台北，1998。
8.張金鄂、彭建文，為何房地產市場長期不景氣？-景氣變動下，建商供給行為之探討，1999年中華民國住宅學會第八屆年會論文集，頁427-448，1999。
9.許士軍，現代行銷管理，商務印書館，台北，1983。
10.陳國嘉，管理概論，華泰書局，台北，1997。
11.蔡啟通、黃國隆、高泉豐，組織因素、組織成員整體創造性、與組織創新之關係，管理學報，18卷，4 期，頁527-566，2001。
12.賴士葆，影響企業產品創新績效之內部關鍵因素，管理新思潮，中華民國管理科學學會，1990。
13.謝宏昌，都市再發展政策中的主要參與者的差別目標與專業觀點之探討─以高雄市為例，國科會編號A92-0137，2004，未出版。
14.顧雲昌，住宅產業要成為國民經濟增長的支柱產業，經濟研究參考，47期，頁34-42，1998年。

中文論文：
1.吳依妮，上市建築開發業公司治理與開發決策過程之研究，國立台北大學地政學系碩士論文，未出版，2003。
2.吳思華，知識流通對產業創新的影響，第七屆產業管理研討會論文集，1998。
3.吳家德，建築業經營策略分析，國立中山大學高階經營所碩士班論文，未出版，2003。
4.張如瑩，建築開發商差別投資習性與慣例之研究─以高雄市為例，國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，2005。
5.張紹勳，電子商店之關係品質模式－融合交易成本理論及科技接受模式的觀點，政治大學資訊管理研究所博士論文，未出版，2002。
6.許戎聰，不動產投資評估指標建構之研究─以建設公司觀點，台大管理學院之事管理組碩士論文，未出版，2003。
7.陳冠華，不確定市場下建商投資行為之研究，國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文，未出版，1998。
8.曾松昱，開發商差異投資行為─以高雄市為例，國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，2004。
9.黃炯瑜，營建業經營策略聯盟之運籌─以大型營造廠與建設公司為例，國立台灣科技大學營建工程系碩士論文，未出版，2001。
10.黃清玄，建築開發經營策略─以京城建設為例，高雄第一科技大學營建工程所碩士論文，未出版，2004。
11.詹任偉，台灣房地產景氣動向預測之準確度研究，國立政治大學地政學系碩士班論文，未出版，2004。
12.劉文城，建設公司行銷策略之探討─以高雄地區為例，國立中山大學高階經營所碩士論文，未出版，2003。

英文專書與期刊：
1.Afuah, A., Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation, and Profits, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
2.Afuah, A., Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
3.Ball, M., Husing policy and economic power: the political economy of owneroccupation, London: Methuen, 1983.
4.Ball, M., Institution in British property research: a review, Urban Studies, vol.35, pp.1501-1517, 1998.
5.Ball, M., Markets and the Structure of the Housebuilding Industry: An International Perspective, Urban Studies, vol.40, no.5-6, 897-916, 2003.
6.Betz, F., Technology competing through new ventures, innovation, and corporate research, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
7.Burt, R., Structural Holes, The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harverd University Press, 1992.
8.Buzzelli, M., and Harris, R., Cities as the Industrial Districts of Housebuilding, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol.30.4, pp.894-917, 2006.
9.Carey, M. A., Thegroup effect in focus group: Planning, implementing, and interpreting focus group research. In Morse, J. M.(ED.), Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage Publications, 1994.
10.Chacke, G. K., Technology Management-Applications to Corporate Markets and Military Mission, Praeger, 1998
11.Coase, R. H., The firm, the market, and the law, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1998.
12.Coase, R. H., The Nature of the Firm, Economic, vol.4, pp.386-405, 1937.
13.Daft, R. L., A Dual-core Model of Organizational Innovation, Academy of Management Journal, vol.21, pp.193-210, 1978.
14.Damanpour, F., Organization innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators, Academy of Management Journal, vol.34, no.3, pp.555-590, 1991.
15.Fainstein, S., The City Builder, 2nd ed., University Press of Kansas, 2001.
16.Granovetter, M., Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology 91(3), pp.481-510, 1985.
17.Higgins, J. M., The Core Competence: Innovation, Planning eview, vol.23, no.6, pp.32-35, 1995.
18.Hammer, M. and Champy, J., Reengineering the Corporation-A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harper Collins Publishers Inc, 1993.
19.Kinzy, S. A., An analysis of the supply of housing characteristics by builders within the Rosen Framework, Journal of urban economics 32, pp.1-16, 1991.
20.Knight, K. E., A Descriptive Model of the Intra-Firm Innovat ion Process, Journal of Business, vol.40, no.4, pp.478-496, 1967.
21.Riessman, C. K., 1993, Narrative Analysis, Newbury Park: Stage, 1993.
22.Roger, E. M. and Shoemaker,F. F., Communication of Innovation: A cross-culture approach, New York: Free Press, 1971.
23.Roger, E. M., Diffusion of Innovation, New York: Free Press, 1983.
24.Rochford and Linda., Generating and Screening New Product Ideas, Industrial Marketing Management, vol.20, pp.67-84, 1991.
25.Roel Rutten, Inter-firm Knowledge Creation: A re-appreciation of Embeddedness From a Relational Perspective, European Planning Studies, 12(5), pp.660-673, 2004.
26.Schumpeter, J. A., The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934.
27.Scott, A., The Logic of industrial Production and Organization, in Metropolitan: From the Division of Labor to Urban Form, 1998.
28.Somerville, C. T., The industrial organization of housing supply: market activity, land supply and the size of homebuilder firms, Real Estate Economics 27(4), pp.669-694, 1999.
29.Tushman, M. L., and Nadler, D., Organizing for Innovation, California Management Review, vol.28, no.3, pp.74-92, 1986.
30.Wang, k., Zhou, Y., Chan, S. H. and Chau, K. W., Over confidence amd cycles in real estate market: cases in Hong Kong and in Asia, International Real Estate Review, 3(1), pp.93-106, 2000.
31.White, H. C., Where do market come from?, American Journal of Sociology, vol.87, pp.517-547, 1981.
32.Williamson, O. E., Market and Hierarchies: Some Elementary Considerations, The American Economic Review, vol.63, no.2, pp.316-325, 1973.
33.Williamson, O. E., Market and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York: Free Press, 1975.
34.Williamson, O. E., The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York: Free Press, 1985.
35.Williamson, O. E., The logic of economic organization, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, vol.4, no.1, pp.65-93, 1988.
36.Williamson, O. E., Comparative economics organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.36, no.2, pp.269-96, 1991.
37.Williamson, O. E., Visible and Invisible Governance, American Economic Review, vol.84, pp.323-6, 1994.