在過去的數十年間， Exploration與Exploitation一直是學者們關注的焦點。隨著各項研究與學說的發展，創新已經不只是侷限於產品上的研發或是改進，組織學習學派認為創新亦是一種行為上的改變，組織容納新的成員、知識、架構等，接可以稱為創新。因此，創新的概念延伸為知識的累積與更新，凡是使用外部知識為基礎者，皆可歸類為Exploration，倘若使用現有的知識與技術，持續進行改良者，則屬於Exploitation。
本研究以學者Nooteboom (2000, 2006) 所提出的”Cycle of Discovery”為基礎，提供實證上的結果，證明公司會依照競爭環境的改變，因而選擇最有利於自身發展的研發或競爭策略。
本研究針對93家台灣高科技公司，從資料庫中篩選2003至2007年共計465筆資料，以公司在美國申請之專利權為研究對象，研究高科技公司引用過去專利權的行為，試圖找尋研發策略的變化。研究結果指出，台灣的高科技公司確實在研發策略上出現策略轉移的情形，從早期以產品改良(Exploitation)為主，逐漸增加產品創新(Exploration)的比重。此一發現亦符合近年來台灣高科技廠商的發展趨勢，台灣廠商從過去以代工(OEM)為主的模式，漸漸地轉變成以設計研發(ODM)為主，甚至成立自有品牌(OBM)以增加公司的毛利與成長性。
我們的研究亦指出，有別於國外研究發現，廠商大多因自身財務表現而影響研發的策略。台灣高科技公司的策略轉移主要乃是歸因為產業競爭的因素，產業競爭越激烈，越逼使公司尋求策略上的突破與冒險。然而，我們也發現，同樣是高科技產業，不同的次產業群體著實有顯著的差異，例如:半導體業的研發趨勢改變較為明顯，這乃是因為產業群體間的競爭程度以及本質上的不同。

Exploration and exploitation has been a crucial issue in organizational learning for the past decades. Researchers investigate in motivations of exploration and exploitation; the influence of different ratio of exploration and exploitation toward product innovation; or the possible impact of balancing strategy to performance.
This study provides an empirical test based on Nooteboom’s (2006) framework of “cycle of discovery”, which illustrates how exploitation and exploration build on each other and firms will choose the best research strategy that fits the market. In other words, this study demonstrates the strategy transition between exploration and exploitation in a dynamic condition.
We tested 93 high-tech companies from 2003~2007 in Taiwan, using patent citations to measure the level of exploration and exploitation. This study provides an empirical evidence for the strategy transition in Taiwan. Our result shows that in recent years, high-tech firms in Taiwan have increased their investments on exploration which consist with the strategy trend from OEM to ODM and OBM. Our research also discovers the motivations of this strategy change. Contradict with the problemic search view, Taiwanese high-tech firms don’t seek for risky exploration due to substandard performance. The study shows that firm performance only has slightly and positive effect on exploration. The primary consideration is the industrial competition. When competition is keen, firms are more likely to pursue risky discoveries. Our study indicates that the exploration level differs in different industry categories due to industry natures and competition.

Abramovitz, M. (1986). "Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind." J. Econom. Hist. (46): 386–406.
Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). "Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. " Organization Science, (10): 43–68.
Argoto (1999). "Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. " Boston: Kkivvcr Academy.
Audia, P. G., E. A. Locke and K. G. Smith (2000). "The paradox of success: an archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following a radical environmental change." Academy of Management Journal, (43): 837–853.
Barnett, William P. & Hansen, Morten T. (1996). "The red queen in organizational evolution. " Strategic Management Journal 17(7): 139-157.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). "Managing across borders: The transnational solution. " Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bolton, Michele Kremen (1993). "Organizational innovation and substandard performance: When is necessity the mother of innovation?." Organization Science 4(1): 57-75.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). "The management of innovation." London: Tavistock.
Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. (1977), "The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. " Cambridge MAMIT Press.
Chaney, H.. & Devinney, 't' (1992). "New product innovations and stock price performance." Journal of Business Finance 6-Accounting, 19: 677-695.
Chang, Sea-Jin; Chung, Chi-Nien & Ishtiaq P. Mahmood (2006), “When and How Does Business Group Affiliation Promote Firm Innovation? A Tale of Two Emerging Economies” Organization Science, 17(5): 63-656.
Cyert. R. M. and J. G, March (1963), "A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. " Englewood Cliffs. NJ; Prentice Hall.
Dieter Ernst (2000). "Inter-organizational knowledge outscourcing: What permits small Taiwanese firms to compete in the computer industry? " Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 17. 223-255.
Dinesh. Iyer & Kentd. Miller (2008). "Performance, feedback, slack, and the timing of acuisition." Academy of Management Journal, 51(4): 808–822.
Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004). "The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexiterity" Academy of Management Journal 47(2): 209–226.
Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart (2006). "Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology." Research Policy 35(1): 1-23.
He Zi-Lin & Wong Poh-Kam (2004). “Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis” Organization Science 15(4): 481-494
Henrich R. Greve(2003). "A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding." Academy of Management Journal 46(6): 685–702.
Henrich R. Greve (2007). "Exploration and exploitation in product innovation." Industrial & Corporate Change 16(5): 945–975.
Henrich R. Greve (1998), "Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change." Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 58–86.
Huber, G. (1991). "Organizational learning: The contributing processes and a review of the literatures." Organization Science, 2: 88-115.
Hung Shih-Chang, Liu Nien-Chi, and Chang Jieng-Bin (2003). "The Taxonomy and Evolution of Technology Strategies: A Study of Taiwan’s High- Technology-Based Firms" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT 50(2): 219-227.
J. Steffens, (1994). "New Games: Strategic Competition in the PC Revolution. " New York: Pergamon.
Katila, R. and G. Ahuja (2002). "Something old something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction." Academy of Management Journal 45(6): 1183-1194.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). "Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. " Boston: Harvard University.
Liu Shang-Jyh (1998). "Industrial Development and Structural Adaptation in Taiwan: Some Issues of Learned Entrepreneurship" IEEE Transactions on Engeneering Management, 45(4): 338-348.
Mansfield, E. (1968). "The economics of technological change. " New York: Norton.
March, J. G. (1991). "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning." Organization Science, 17: 71-87.
Miles, Robert H. and Kim S. Cameron (1982), "Coffin Nails and Corporate Strategies. " Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Miller, K. D. and W.-R. Chen (2004), "Variable organizational risk preferences: tests of the March-Shapira model." Academy of Management Journal, 47, 105–115.
Nooteboom, B., (2000). "Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies." Oxford University Press, Oxford (Paperback edition published in 2001)
Perretti Fabrizio & Negro Giacomo (2006). "Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design" Academy of Management Journal 49(4): 759-777.
Porter, M. E. (1980). "Competitive strategy. " New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1996). "What is strategy? " Harvard Business Review, 74(6): 61–81.
P. S. Segerstrom and J. M. Zolnierek, "The R&D incentives of industry leaders, " Int. Econ. Rev. 40(3): 745–766, 1999.
R. N. Langlois and W. E. Steinmueller, (2000). “Strategy and circumstance: The response of American firms to Japanese competition in semiconductors, 1980–1995,” Strat. Manage. J., 21(10–11): 1163–1173,
Tarun Khanna (1995). " Racing Behavior Technological Evolution in the High-End Computer Industry." Research Policy 24(6):933-958.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). "Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. " California Management Review, 38(4): 8–30.
Quintana-Garcia & Benavides-Velasco (2008). " Innovation competence ,exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification.” Research Policy 37(3): 492–507.
Yasemin Y. Kor, Joseph T. Mahoney, Sharon Watson (2008). “The effects of demand, competitive, and technological uncertainty on board monitoring and institutional ownership of IPO firms” J Manage Gov. 12:239–259