世代產品創新(generational product innovation, GPI)是一個普遍存在的現象，企業 為什麼要執行GPI?在現今在眾多的產業中，可以看到許多企業不斷地透過提供新世代產品來提高在產品市場中的競爭力。例如通訊基地台、汽車、手機等都可以看到企業世代產品創新的足跡。然而在過去的文獻中鮮少有對GPI的整個發展過程的相關管理進行探討，因此本研究藉由訪談A半導體公司探討其GPI開發過程與如何提升GPI的表現。作者訪談在IC晶片開發過程扮演著重要的三個角色:IC 晶片開發專案 負責人、IC晶片設計工程師、IC晶片製程工程師，來釐清 A 半導體公司進行開發次世代(next generation)技術前的學習過程。並且聚焦探討A半導體公司如何透過學習後發展出的新技術知識，再經由跨部門間的知識分享交流進行新知識整合。而這樣的新知識整合又會如何提升公司問題解決能力。本研究提出，第一:當次世代技術新穎性越高的時候，部門內的深化性學習需求越高;第二:當次世代技術新穎性越高的時候，跨部門的知識整合需求越高;第三:當部門內深化性學習越多的時候，越能夠提升公司解決問題之能力;第四:當跨部門知識整合程度越高的時候，越能夠提升公司解決問題之能力。

Generational Product Innovation (GPI) is a common phenomenon in the market, but why the companies need GPI? Now in a lot of companies, we can observe that many companies are improving their competitiveness in the market by providing new generational products such as communication infrastructure, automotive and mobile. There are some generational technological developments in them. However, in the past literature, there is less discussion about the management of the whole development process of GPI. Therefore, this study discusses the GPI development process and how to improve GPI performance through interviews with A Semiconductor Company. Three key roles in IC development are included IC development project manager, IC designer and IC process engineer who are invited, and clearly describe their IC development process, how A company starts the organizational learning process before developing the next generational technology and focuses on realizing how A company creates new technology knowledge after learning and then the sharing mechanism across the departments can help integrate all of the new knowledge from different departments and know how to improve A company’s capability of problem-solving after integrating diverse knowledge. Four points to be proposed out: First, when the novelty of the next-generation technology is higher, the demand for exploitation learning within the department is higher. Second, when the novelty of next-generation technology is higher, the need for knowledge integration across departments is higher. Third, the more exploitation learning within the department, the better the ability of the company to solve problems can be improved. Forth, the higher the degree of cross-departmental knowledge integration, the better the ability of the company to solve problems can be improved.

Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604-633.
Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Novelli, E. (2013). The Second Face of Appropriability: Generative Appropriability and Its Determinants. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 248-269. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0290
Argote, L. 2013. Organization learning: A theoretical framework. In Argote, L. (Ed.), Organizational Learning Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge: 31-56. Boston, MA: Springer.
Armour, H.O., Teece, D.J., 1980. Vertical integration and technological innovation. The Review of Economics and Statistics 62 (3), 470–474.
Atuahene-Gima, K., and Murray, J. 2007. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new. product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing, 15 (2): 1-29.
Banbury, C. M., & Mitchell, W. (1995). The effect of introducing important incremental. innovations on market share and business survival. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 161–182.
Barney G Glaser; Anselm L Strauss(2008)The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., and Zhang, H. 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20 (4): 781-796.
Argyres, N. S., & Silverman, B. S. 2004. R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 25(Special Issue): 929-958.38.
Cennamo, C. 2018. Building the value of next-generation platforms: the paradox of diminishing returns. Journal of Management, 44(8), 3038-3069.
Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (1): 128-152.
Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res. Policy 11. 147–162.
Dougherty, D. 1992. A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product. innovation. Strategic Management J. 13 77–92.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Glaser Barney, G., & Strauss Anselm, L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, Adline de Gruyter.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977), “The population ecology of organizations”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 929-964.
Han, J. (2017). Exploitation of architectural knowledge and innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 3(3), 15.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. 1999. What's your strategy for managing
knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2): 106-116.
Hargadon, A. B., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product. development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716-74.
Helfat, C. 1994. Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Science, 40 (12): 1720-1747.
Helfat, C. E. 1997. Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability.accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 339-360.
Helfat, C. E., and Raubitschek, R. S. 2000. Product sequencing: co‐evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (10‐11): 961-979.
He, Z. L., and Wong, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15 (4): 481-494.
Hilbolling, S., Berends, H., Deken, F., & Tuertscher, P. (2021). Sustaining Complement Quality for Digital Product Platforms: A Case Study of the Philips Hue Ecosystem. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 21–48.
Hollingshead, A. B. 2001. Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in. transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 1080
Huff, J. O., A. S. Huff, H. Thomas. 1992. Strategic renewal and the interaction of. cumulative stress and inertia. Strategic Management J. 13 55–75.
iOS 官方網站(台灣)
Katila, R., and 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.
Khan, S. N. (2014). Qualitative research method: Grounded theory. International Journal. of. Business and Management, 9(11), 224-233.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm: Combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kumar, S., and Terpstra, D. 2004. The post mortem of a complex product development-lessons learned. Technovation, 24 (10): 805-818.
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: 833- 863.
Lee, C. Y., and Huang, Y. C. 2012. Knowledge stock, ambidextrous learning, and firm performance. Management Decision, 50 (6): 1096-1116.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Levinthal, D. A., and March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (S2): 95-112.
Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. 2005. Transactive memory systems, learning, and. learning transfer. Organization Science, 16: 581-598.
Li, H.-L., & Tang, M.-J. (2010). Vertical integration and innovative performance: The effects of external knowledge sourcing modes. Technovation, 30(7-8), 401-410. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.03.004
Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: Conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 13–29.
Majchrzak, A., Cooper, L. P., & Neece, O. P. 2004. Knowledge reuse for innovation. Management Science. 50: 174-188.
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1): 71-87.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new. methods. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications.
Montgomery, D. B., & Lieberman, M. (1998). First-mover (dis) advantages: Retrospective. and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1111–1125.
Nickerson, J. A., and Zenger, T. R. 2002. Being efficiently fickle: A dynamic theory of organizational choice. Organization Science, 13 (5): 547-566.
Rothaermel, F. T., and Deeds, D. L. 2004. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (3): 201-221.
Sheng, M. L., & Chien, I. (2016). Rethinking organizational learning orientation on radical and incremental innovation in high-tech firms. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2302-2308.
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20-24.
Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. 1996. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Summer Special Issue): 21-38.
Thomke, S., and Fujimoto, T. 2000. The effect of “front‐loading” problem‐solving on product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17 (2): 128-142.
Turner, S. F., Mitchell, W., & Bettis, R. A. (2010). Responding to rivals and complements: How market concentration shapes generational product innovation strategy. Organization science, 21(4), 854-872.
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 439-465.
Nelson, Richard, and Sidney Winter. 1982 An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wegner, D. M. 1986. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In. B. Mullen & G. R. Goeth als (Eds.), Theories of group behavior: 185-208. New York: Springer-Verlag
Wi-Fi Alliance official website.
Yayavaram, S., & Ahuja, G. 2008. Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 53: 333-3.
Yin, R., K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods.