成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	郭佳怡 Kuo, Chia-i
論文名稱：	夥伴間資源組合、聯盟型式與組織間差異性對知識移轉績效影響之研究 The Influence of Inter-partner Resource Alignment, Alliance Form, and Organizational Diversity on Knowledge Transfer Performance
指導教授：	陳忠仁 Chen, Chung-jen
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	管理學院 - 企業管理學系 Department of Business Administration
論文出版年：	2007
畢業學年度：	95
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	67
中文關鍵詞：	策略聯盟、夥伴間資源配置、聯盟形式、組織間差異性、知識移轉
外文關鍵詞：	Knowledge transfer, Organizational diversity, Alliance form, Inter-partner resource alignment, Strategic alliance
相關次數：	點閱：95 下載：4
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

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

全球商業環境變得越來越競爭，企業經營的不確定性逐漸升高，企業為了在此環境中生存開始形成策略聯盟。過去的相關研究指極大部分企業形成策略聯盟的主要目的在於分享知識，企業界可以藉由聯盟學習其他企業的經驗以增強自己在變動環境中生存的能力。然而實證研究也發現很多企業不能達成有效分享知識這個目標。為了要更深入瞭解在策略聯盟中知識移轉的影響因素，本研究探討夥伴間資源組合、聯盟型式與組織間差異性對知識移轉績效影響。
本研究的母體是以 2006年中華徵信所所公佈的 5000大企業的製造業和高科技產業為主要調查對象。採取亂數表隨機抽樣，共計發放 500份問卷，詢問對象為瞭解公司經營策略之高階管理者，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 107份，問卷之回收率為 21.4%。
研究結果發現夥伴間資源配置、聯盟形式、與組織間差異性的確會對廠商知識移轉績效產生影響。較佳的資源使用程度和夥伴間資源對聯貢獻度越相似與會產生較佳之知識移轉績效，但是如果夥伴間組織的多樣性越高則越不利於知識移轉。此外，聯盟形式會對夥伴間資源配置和組織間差異性產生干擾效果。在權益型的聯盟中，資源的使用程度越高於知識移轉的正向效果比契約型聯盟中高。如果要讓組織間差異性對知識移轉的傷害最小，則管理者需要用契約型的聯盟形式。

Due to the heightened competitive and uncertain global business, many firms have formed alliances to survive. Several studies of strategic alliances have identified the sharing of knowledge as their dominant objective. Firms can use alliance to learn experiences from others and increase their capabilities. However, some empirical studies also found some firms fail to attain this object. In order to further understand the factors that may influence knowledge in strategic alliance, this study extends the research on knowledge transfer by investigating the effects of inter-partner resource alignment, alliance form, and organizational diversity on knowledge transfer performance.
A sample of 500 Taiwanese companies was randomly drawn from the 2006 China Credit Information Service Incorporation yearbook. The questionnaires were requested to be completed by top executives who probably have better understanding about field of action pertain to the overall organization. From the 500 mailed questionnaire mailed in the study, 107 completed, usable questionnaires were collected, yielding a response rate of 21.4%.
The major findings of this study include: First, the results of the regression analysis show strongly support for the direct effect of inter-partner resource alignment on knowledge transfer performance. Second, the results of the regression analysis indicate that contracted-based alliances will transfer knowledge more effectively than equity-based alliances. Third, the results of the regression analysis indicate that alliance form will moderate the linkage of inter-partner resource alignment and knowledge transfer performance. Forth, the results of regression analysis indicated that organizational diversity is negative related to knowledge transfer performance. Finally, the results of the regression analysis indicate that alliance form will moderate the linkage of organizational diversity and knowledge transfer
performance.

摘 要.....Ⅰ
ABSTRACT.....II
致謝.....Ⅲ
TABLE OF CONTTENTS.....Ⅳ
LIST OF TABLES.....Ⅶ
LIST OF FIGURES.....Ⅷ

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.....1
1.1 Research Background and Motivations.....1
1.2 Research Objectives.....4
1.3 Research Procedure.....4
1.4 The Arrangement of This Thesis.....6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIRE AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT....7
2.1 Previous research on knowledge transfer.....7
2.1.1 The process of knowledge transfer.....8
2.1.2 The barriers of knowledge transfer.....11
2.1.3 The performance of knowledge transfer.....13
2.2 Hypotheses.....17
2.2.1 Inter-partner resource alignment and Knowledge transfer performance.....17
2.2.2 Alliance form and Knowledge transfer performance...19
2.2.3 Inter-partner resource alignment, Alliance form, and Knowledge transfer performance.....20
2.2.4 Organizational diversity and Knowledge transfer performance.....21
2.2.5 Organizational diversity, Alliance form, and Knowledge transfer performance.....23
CHAPTER 3 REDESRCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.....25
3.1 Research Framework.....26
3.2 Research Hypotheses.....27
3.3 Construct Measurement.....28
3.3.1 Inter-partner resource alignment......28
3.3.2 Organizational diversity.....30
3.3.3 Alliance form.....30
3.3.4 Knowledge transfer performance.....31
3.3.5 Control Variables.....31
3.4 Data Collection and Sampling.....33
3.5 Returned Questionnaire and Characteristics of Respondents.....34
3.5.1 Characteristics of Respondents.....34
3.5.2 Non-response Bias......36
3.6 Data Analysis Procedure	.....37
3.6.1 Factor Analysis.....37
3.6.2 Item-to-total Correlation.....37
3.6.3 Internal Consistency Analysis (Cronbach’s alpha)..38
3.6.4 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis....38
3.6.5 Multiple Regression Analysis and Moderated Hierarchical Regression.....38
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND RESULT.....40
4.1 Factor Analysis and Reliability Test.....41
4.2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis......44
4.3 Regression Results.....46
4.3.1 Regression analysis for the relationship between control variables and knowledge transfer performance.....46
4.3.2 Regression analysis for the relationship between inter-partner alignment and knowledge transfer performance.....46
4.3.3 Regression analysis for the relationship between alliance form and knowledge transfer performance.....47
4.3.4 The moderating effect of alliance form on inter-partner alignment and knowledge transfer performance.....47
4.3.5 Regression analysis for the relationship between organizational diversity and knowledge transfer performance.....47
4.3.6 The moderating effect of alliance form on organizational diversity and knowledge transfer performance.....48
4.4 Draw the Diagram of Interaction Effect.....50
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION.....52
5.1 Research Result.....52
5.2 Discussion and Implications.....53
5.3 Research contribution.....55
5.4 Limitations.....56
REFERENCES.....57
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE.....63
 
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.3.1 The Measurement of Inter-partner resource alignment	.....29
Table 3.3.2 The Measurement of Organizational diversity.....30
Table 3.3.3 The Measurement of Knowledge transfer performance.....31
Table 3.5.1 Characteristics of the Respondents (n = 107).....35
Table 4.1.1 Reliability Analysis of Inter-partner resource alignment	.....42
Table 4.1.2 Reliability Analysis of Organizational diversity	.....42
Table 4.1.3 Reliability Analysis of Knowledge transfer performance.....43
Table 4.2.1 Mean, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.....45
Table 4.3.1 Results of Regression Analysis.....49
Table 5.1  Hypotheses Summary and Results.....53
 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1  The flow chart of this study.....5
Figure 2.1.1 The process of knowledge transfer.....11
Figure 3.1  Research model of this study.....26
Figure 4.4.1 Interaction effect of alliance form to influence resource utilization on knowledge transfer performance.....51
Figure 4.4.2 Interaction effect of alliance form to influence organizational diversity on knowledge transfer performance.....51
                                    

Adler e J. L. Graham. Cross-cultural Interaction; The Internatipnal Comparison Fallacy. Journal of International Business Studies, v.20, p.515-537. 1989.
Aiken, L. S. e S. G. West. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions: Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1991
Argote, L. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge: Norwell, MA: Kluwer. 1999
Argote, L., S. L. Beckman, et al. The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science, v.36, p.140-154. 1990.
Argote, L., P. Ingram, et al. Knowledge transfer in organizations: learning from the experience of others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, v.82, p.1-8. 2000.
Barney, J. B. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, v.32, n.10, p.1231-1241. 1986.
Barney, J. B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, v.17, p.99-120. 1991.
Boer, M., F. A. J. V. Bosch, et al. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, v.10, p.519-692. 1999.
Cartwright, S. e C. L. Cooper. The Role of Culture Compatibility in Successful Organizational Marriage. Academy of Management Executive, v.7, n.2, p.57-70. 1993.
Chen, C. J. The effects of knowledge attribute, alliance characteristics, and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance. R&D Management, v.34, n.3, p.311-321. 2004.
Chen, M. Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, v.21, p.100-134. 1996.
Child, J. e D. Faulkner. Strategies of Cooperation: Oxford University Press: Oxford. 1998
Colombo, M. Alliance form: a test of the contractual and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, v.24, p.1209-1229. 2003.
Daghfous, A. Organizational learning, knowledge and technology transfer: a case study. The Learning Organization, v.11, p.67-83. 2004.
Darrow, A. L. e D. R. Kahl. A comparison of moderated regression techniques considering strength of effect. Journal of Management, v.8, n.2, p.35-47. 1982.
Das, T. K. e B. S. Teng. A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances. Journal of Management, v.26, n.1, p.31-61. 2000a.
Das, T. K. e B. S. Teng. Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective. Organization Science, v.11, p.71-101. 2000b.
Das, T. K. e B. S. Teng. Parttner analysis and alliance performance. Scandinavian Journal of Management, v.19, p.279-308. 2003.
Davenport, T. H. e L. Prusak. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. 2000
De Rond, M. Strategic Alliances as Social Facts: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K. 2003
Dranove, D., M. Peteraf, et al. Do strategic groups exist? An economic framework for analysis. Strategic Management Journal, v.19, p.1029-1044. 1998.
Dyer, J. H. e K. Nobeoka. Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, v.21, p.345-367. 2000.
Eisenhardt, K. M. e C. B. Schoonhoven. Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, v.7, n.2, p.136-150. 1996.
Fiol, M. e M. Lyles. Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, v.10, p.803-813. 1985.
Grant, R. M. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implication for strategic formulation. California Management Review, v.33, n.3, p.114-135. 1991.
Greve, H. R. e A. Taylor. Innovations as catalysts for organizational change: Shifts in organizational cognition and search. Administrative Science Quarterly Journal of Economics, v.45, p.54-80. 2000.
Gulati, R. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy Management Journal, v.38, n.1, p.85-112. 1995.
Gulati, R. e H. Singh. The architecture of cooperation: managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, v.Quarterly 43, p.781-814. 1998.
Gupta, A. K. e V. Govingranjan. Knowledge management’s social dimension: lessons from Nucor Steel”. Sloan Management Review, v.Fall, p.71-80. 2000.
Hair, J., A. J. R., et al. Multivariate data analysis: New Jersey: Prentice–Hall. P.97-104. 1998
Harrigan, K. R. Strategies for Joint Venture Success: Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 1985
Harrigan, K. R. Strategic Alliances and Partner Asymmetries: Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 1988 (Cooperative Strategies in International Business (pp. 205-226))
Hennart, J. F. e S. Reddy. The Choice between Merger/Acquisitions and Joint Venture; The Case of Japanese Investors in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, v.18, n.1, p.1-12. 1997.
Hofer, C. W. e D. Schendel. Strategic formulation: Analytical concepts: St Paul. MN West. 1978
Hofstede, G. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values: Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 1980
Inkpen, A. C. e M. M. Crossan. Believing is seeing: joint ventures and organisational learning. Journal of Management Studies, v.32, p.595-618. 1995.
Inkpen, A. C. e A. Dinur. Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science, v.9, p.454-468. 1998.
Inkpen, A. C. e E. W. K. Tsang. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, v.30, p.146-165. 2005.
Jaccard, J., R. Turrisi, et al. Interaction effects in multiple regressions: Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1990
Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg, et al. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, v.108, p.577-598. 1993.
Jones, D. T. Technology and the UK Automobile Industry. Lloyds Bank Review, v.148, p.1-14. 1983.
Kale, P., H. Singh, et al. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, v.21, p.217-237. 2000.
Kim, L. Crisis construction and organizational learning: capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, v.July-August. 1998.
Kogut, B. Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, v.9, p.319-332. 1988.
Kogut, B. e U. Zander. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organisation Science, v.3, p.383-397. 1992.
Kotabe, M., X. Martin, et al. Gaining from vertical partnerships:knowledge transfer,relationship duration,and supplier performance improvement in the U.S. and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, v.24, p.293-316. 2003.
Larsson, R., L. Bengtsson, et al. The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organisation Science, v.9, p.285-296. 1998.
Leonard-Barton, D. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. 1995
Lyles, M. A. Learning among joint venture sophisticated firms Management International Review, v.28, n.Special Issue, p.85-97. 1988.
Lyles, M. A. e J. E. Salk. Knowledge acquisitions from forging parents in international joint ventures: an empirical examination in the Hungarian context. Journal of International Business Studies, v.27, n.5, p.877-903. 1996.
March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, v.2, n.1, p.71-87. 1991.
Martin, X. e R. Salomon. Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for the theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, v.34, n.4, 07, p.356-373. 2003.
Miller, D. e J. Shamsie. The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal, v.39, p.519-543. 1996.
Mowery, D. C., J. E. Oxley, et al. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, v.17 Winter special issue, p.77-93. 1996.

Mowery, D. C. Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications of the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy, v.26, p.421-438. 1997.

Murray, J. Y. e M. Kotabe. Performance implications of strategic fit between alliance attributes and alliance forms. Journal of Business Research, v.58, n.11, p.1525-1533. 2005.
Muthusamy, S. K. e M. A. White. Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliance: a social exchange view. Organization Studies, v.26, n.3, p.415-441. 2005.
Osborn, R. N. e C. C. Baughn. Forms of international governance for multinational alliances. Academy of Management Journal, v.33, n.3, p.503-519. 1990.
Parkhe, A. Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longevity. Journal of International Business Studies, v.22, n.4, p.579-601. 1991.
Pisano, G. P. Learning-before-doing in the development of new process technology. Research Policy, v.25, n.7, p.1097-1119. 1996.
Poppo, L. e T. Zenger. Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements? Strategic Management Journal, v.23, n.8, p.707-725. 2002.
Pothukuchi, V., F. Damanpour, et al. National and Organizational Culture Differences and International Joint Venture Performance. Journal of International Business Studies, v.33, n.2, 2nd Quarter, p.243-265. 2002.
Powell, W. W., K. W. Koput, et al. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, v.41, p.116-145. 1996.
Reagans, R. e B. Mcevily. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effect of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, v.48, p.240-267. 2003.
Reed, R. e R. J. Defillippi. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, v.15, p.88-102. 1990.
Robinson, J. P. e P. R. Shaver. Measures of psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor: MI: Survey Research Center Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. 1973
Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of innovations: New York: Free Press. 1995
Schoonhovan, C. B. Problems with contingency theory: Testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency“theory”. Administrative Science Quarterly, v.26, n.3, p.349-377. 1981.
Seabright, M. A., D. A. Levinthal, et al. Role of individual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal,, v.35, p.122-160. 1992.
Sharma, S., R. M. Durand, et al. Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal of Marketing Research, v.18, n.3, p.291-300. 1981.
Simonin, B. L. The importance of collaborative know-how: an empirical test of the learning organisation. Academy of Management Journal, n.40, p.1150-1174. 1997.
Simonin, B. L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, v.20, p.595-623. 1999.
Sirmon, D. G. e P. J. Lane. A model of culture differences and international alliance performance. Journal of International Business Studies, v.35, p.306-319. 2004.
Spekman, R., L. Isabella, et al. Alliance Competence: Maximizing the Value of Your Partnerships: Wiley: New York. 2000
Spender, J.-C. Limits to learning from the west. The International Executive, v.34, September/October, p.389-410. 1992.
Strang, D. e S. A. Soule. Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, v.24, p.265-290. 1998.
Stump, R. e J. Heide. Controlling supplier opportunism in industrial relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, v.23, p.431-441. 1996.
Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, v.17, p.27-43. 1996.
Szulanski, G. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, v.82, p.9-27. 2000.
Szulanski, G., R. Cappetta, et al. When and How Trustworthiness Matters: Knowledge Transfer and the Moderating Effect of Causal Ambiguity.pdf. Organization Science, v.15, p.600-613. 2004.
Teece, D. J. The Multinational Corporation and the Resource Cost of International Technology Transfer: Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger. 1976
Teece, D. J. Technology transfer by multinational firms: the resource cost of transferring technological know-how. Economic Journal, v.87, p.242-261. 1977.
Teece, D. J. Competition, co-operation, and innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, v.18, p.1-25. 1992.
Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, v.44, n.5, p.996-1004. 2001.
Von Hippel, E. e M. J. Tyre. How learning by doing is done: Problem identification in novel process equipment. Research Policy, v.24, p.1-12. 1995.
Wang, H., J. Barney, et al. Stimulating firm-specific investment through risk management. Long Range Plan, v.36, p.49-59. 2003.

校內：立即公開
校外：2007-06-29公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文