本研究分析在電動車（Electric Vehicle）領域的福特汽車（Ford），欲透過開放式創新來提高產業發展和增加自身利益，然而過程中遇到了知識外溢之問題，企業應該如何運用自身優勢和觀察外界情況進行因應策略。本研究以組織雙元性學習觀點來提出可能的因應策略，然而在資源有限的情況下，企業必須在兩種學習模式中選擇能極大化組織學習效率之策略。本研究分析發現，當企業觀察到自身開放之知識本身具有高度價值性，或是當該知識開放後的外溢程度較高時，企業會優先選擇進行探索性學習（Explorative Learning)策略 ; 但當企業在揭露知識後，在揭露的知識價值與知識外溢的交互作用下，當知識外溢的程度越高時，企業越會藉由探索性學習的整體過程來評估自身的知識價值，進而對自身有價值的知識進行深化性學習（Exploitative Learning)。本研究分析結果顯示了，企業應根據上述不同的情況來規劃學習模式，而組織雙元性學習並不能直接解決知識外溢的問題，但可以通過更好地利用知識外溢來進行組織雙元性學習，讓企業降低外溢風險。

This study analyzes Ford in the field of electric vehicles. Ford wants to improve industrial development and increase its own interests through open innovation. However, it encounters the problem of knowledge spillover in the process. How should enterprises use their own advantages and observe the external situation for strategic planning. This study puts forward possible strategies from the perspective of ambidextrous learning. However, with limited resources in the enterprise, the enterprise must choose the strategy that can maximize the efficiency of organizational learning among the two learning modes. The analysis of this study found that when the enterprise observes that its own open knowledge is of high value, or when the degree of spillover of the knowledge is high, the enterprise will give priority to the explorative learning strategy. However, under the interaction of revealed knowledge value and knowledge spillover degree, when the degree of knowledge spillover is higher, the enterprise can more accurately evaluate its own valuable knowledge through the overall process of explorative learning, then conduct exploitative learning. The analysis results of this study show that enterprises should plan learning modes according to different situations to maximize organizational benefits, and ambidextrous learning cannot directly solve the problem of knowledge spillovers, but it can be organized by making better use of knowledge spillovers, to reduce spillover risks.

Ahuja, G., & Morris Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic management journal, 22(6‐7), 521-543.
Alexy, O., George, G., & Salter, A. J. (2013). Cui bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity. Academy of management review, 38(2), 270-291.
Alnuaimi, T., & George, G. (2016). Appropriability and the retrieval of knowledge after spillovers. Strategic management journal, 37(7), 1263-1279.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.
Argote, L., & Argote, L. (2013). Organization learning: A theoretical framework. Organizational learning: creating, Retaining and Transferring knowledge, 31-56.
Argyres, N. (1996). Evidence on the role of firm capabilities in vertical integration decisions. Strategic management journal, 17(2), 129-150.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238-256.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-709.
Dubiansky, J. (2006). The role of patents in fostering open innovation. Va. JL & Tech., 11, 1.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 109-122.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of economics, 16-38.
Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and statistics, 81(3), 511-515.
Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343-1363.
He, Z.-L., Lim, K., & Wong, P.-K. (2006). Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile telecommunications market. Research Policy, 35(8), 1147-1165.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic management journal, 36(6), 831-850.
Hoppmann, J. (2018). The role of interfirm knowledge spillovers for innovation in mass-produced environmental technologies: evidence from the solar photovoltaic industry. Organization & Environment, 31(1), 3-24.
Hu, A. G., & Jaffe, A. B. (2003). Patent citations and international knowledge flow: the cases of Korea and Taiwan. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(6), 849-880.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. S. (2000). Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: Evidence from a survey of inventors. American Economic Review, 90(2), 215-218.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. the Quarterly journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
James, S. D., Leiblein, M. J., & Lu, S. (2013). How firms capture value from their innovations. Journal of management, 39(5), 1123-1155.
Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of marketing, 57(3), 53-70.
Kang, J., & Kim, S. J. (2020). Performance implications of incremental transition and discontinuous jump between exploration and exploitation. Strategic management journal, 41(6), 1083-1111.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of management journal, 45(6), 1183-1194.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American economic review, 75(3), 424-440.
Kim, C., Song, J., & Nerkar, A. (2012). Learning and innovation: Exploitation and exploration trade-offs. Journal of Business Research, 65(8), 1189-1194.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2014). Blue ocean strategy, expanded edition: How to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant. Harvard business review Press.
Lakhani, K. R., & Von Hippel, E. (2004). How open source software works:“free” user-to-user assistance. Produktentwicklung mit virtuellen Communities: Kundenwünsche erfahren und Innovationen realisieren, 303-339.
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of management review, 31(4), 833-863.
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The economic journal, 114(495), 441-465.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic management journal, 27(2), 131-150.
Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2010). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic management journal, 31(2), 224-236.
Li, D., Lin, J., Cui, W., & Qian, Y. (2018). The trade-off between knowledge exploration and exploitation in technological innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 781-801.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of management perspectives, 25(1), 75-93.
Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource‐based and dynamic‐capability views of rent creation. Strategic management journal, 22(5), 387-401.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Nonaka, I., o Nonaka, I., Ikujiro, N., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation (Vol. 105). OUP USA.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.
Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of management journal, 54(3), 577-610.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of business Venturing, 26(4), 441-457.
Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic management journal, 22(4), 287-306.
Samaniego, R. M. (2013). Knowledge spillovers and intellectual property rights. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 31(1), 50-63.
Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of management journal, 50(2), 364-386.
Song, M., Droge, C., Hanvanich, S., & Calantone, R. (2005). Marketing and technology resource complementarity: An analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strategic management journal, 26(3), 259-276.
Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81-112.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.
Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 172-187.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-29.
Wang, H., & Li, J. (2008). Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploitation on organizational performance: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of management, 34(5), 925-951.
Yang, H., Phelps, C., & Steensma, H. K. (2010). Learning from what others have learned from you: The effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Academy of management journal, 53(2), 371-389.
Yang, H., & Steensma, H. K. (2014). When do firms rely on their knowledge spillover recipients for guidance in exploring unfamiliar knowledge? Research Policy, 43(9), 1496-1507.
Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2010). How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 224-231.