系統識別號 U0026-0609201218053400
論文名稱(中文) 跨領域開放式創新社群的建構與演化過程-以國科會跨領域創意加值推動計畫為例
論文名稱(英文) The Development and Evolution of Cross-Field Open Innovation Community-A Case Study of Promoting Program for Cross-Field Creative Scenario Value-Adding of National Science Council
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系專班
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration (on the job class)
學年度 100
學期 2
出版年 101
研究生(中文) 范銘娟
研究生(英文) Ming-Chuan Fan
學號 R47991302
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 68頁
口試委員 口試委員-鄭文英
中文關鍵字 社群  網路  社群建構  開放式創新 
英文關鍵字 community  network  community development  open innovation 
中文摘要 現有專業知識分享社群發展研究,大多是針對單一企業,強調在企業內部中促進知識的交換與溝通,較少提及跨領域、跨組織類型且透過意見交流形成之實務社群,遑論探索這樣的社群演化過程的討論。本研究透過實務面的推動與學術研究上的探討,對跨領域開放式創新社群的網絡建構及實務運作情況,及如何發展成良好之創新研發社群作一探究,希望透過社群的形成機制及運作過程做為此種新的研發模式推動的參考。
1. 社群的建立與發展對推展開放式創新具關鍵重要性;
2. 跨領域網絡連結有益開放式創新的社群形成;
3. 實務或虛擬活動的設計可促進社群連結;
4. 社群活動經營可強化與深化社群連結,提升相互信任程度;
5. 成員共同願景的發展有益於凝聚開放式創新社群。
英文摘要 Most of the researches about professional knowledge sharing community focus on the individual enterprise, and emphasize the exchange of knowledge or communications within one enterprise. But there are few researches about cross-field or cross-organization practical community development which formed by exchanging opinions, let alone explore the evolution of such kind of communities. This study explores network development of cross-field open innovation community and operation in practice, and how to operate a good innovative R&D community via practical promotion and academic research, wishing to provide the promoting mechanism and the recommendation of standard operation procedures for this new R&D model.
The study adopts in-depth interviews and takes “Promoting Program for Cross-Field Creative Scenario Value-Adding of National Science Council” as an object with case study. Researcher interviews the program manager, analyze interview information and secondary data, and then try to find out the correlation between network and community connections, finally to suggest the topics for follow-up studies.
The findings of the study shows that: (1) establishing and evolution of community stress critical importance to open innovation; (2) cross-field network links are helpful for open innovation community; (3) practical or virtual activities help communities link; (4) community activities strengthen and consolidate the linkage, and enhance mutual trust; (5) a shared vision helps integrate open innovation communities.
論文目次 摘要 Ⅰ
Abstract Ⅱ
謝誌 Ⅲ
目錄 Ⅳ
表目錄 Ⅵ
圖目錄 Ⅶ
第一章 緒論 - 1 -
第一節 研究背景與動機 - 1 -
第二節 研究目的 - 3 -
第三節 研究流程 - 4 -
第四節 章節架構 - 5 -
第二章 文獻探討 - 7 -
第一節 社群(community) - 7 -
第二節 社群建構模式 - 16 -
第三節 開放式創新 - 21 -
第三章 研究方法 - 27 -
第一節 研究設計 - 27 -
第二節 專家訪談 - 28 -
第三節 個案介紹 - 29 -
第四章 研究結果 - 30 -
第一節 個案社群建構與推動概念 - 30 -
第二節 創新社群的形成與演化 - 37 -
第五章 結論與建議 - 55 -
第一節 研究結論 - 55 -
第二節 實務意涵 - 57 -
第三節 研究限制與建議 - 59 -
參考文獻 - 60 -
參考文獻 一、中文部分
1. 王思峰(2003),以行動研究社群作為支持與發展教育創造力的介入理論。http://comm.creativity.edu.tw/Ithink2/
2. 羅家德(2000),EC大潮;電子商務趨勢,台北,聯經出版事業股份有限公司。
1. Ahuja,G., (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45, pp. 355–425.
2. Amin, A.& Thrift, N., (1994). Living in the global. In: Amin, A., Thrift, N. (Eds.), Globalization, Institutions and regional development in europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
3. Asheim, B.T., (2000). Industrial districts: the contributions of Marshall and beyond. In: Clark, G., Feldman, M., Gertler, M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economic geography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 413–431.
4. Becattini, G., (1986). Small firms and industrial districts: the experience of Italy. Economia Internazionale 39, pp.98–103.
5. Bellandi, M., (1989). The industrial district in Marshall. In: Goodman, E., Bamford, J. (Eds.), Small firms and industrial districts in Italy. Routledge, London, pp. 136–152.
6. Brass, D.J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H.R.& Tsai, W., (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal 47, pp. 795–817.
7. Burt, Ronald S., (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Burt, Ronald S., (2000). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. University of Chicago and INSEAD.
9. Chacke, G. K., (1988). Technology management application to corporate markets and military missions. NY: Praeger.
10. Calderwood, P.E., (2000). Learning community: finding common ground in difference. New York: Teachers College Press.
11. Chiesa, V.& Piccaluga, A., (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. R&D Management 30(4), pp329-339.
12. Coase, R.H., (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica 4, pp. 386–405.
13. Chesbrough, H. W., (2003). Open innovations: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. New York: Harvard Business School Press.
14. Chesbrough, H. W., West, J. & Vanhaverbeke, W. (Eds)(2006). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Chacke, G.K., (1988). Technology management application to corporate markets and military missions. New York: Praeger.
16. Cooke, P., (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change 10, pp. 945–974.
17. Cooke, P., (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: exploring ‘globalisation 2’- A new model of industry organization. Research Policy, 34 (8), pp1128-1149.
18. Dahl, M.S.& Pedersen, C.R., (2004). Knowledge flows through informal contacts in industrial clusters: myth or reality? Research Policy 33, pp. 1673–1686.
19. Daniel, B., (1993). Communitarianism and its critics. New York: Oxford University Press.
20. David, J. S., (2002). Knowledge management: approaches and policies.
21. David, W. McMillan & David M. Chavis George (1986). Sense of community: a definition and theory. Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.
22. Don, T. & Anthony, D. W.,(2006). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Portfolio Hardcover.
23. Dube´ L., Bourhis A. & Jacob R.,(2005). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Canada, 18(2), pp. 145-166.
24. Faems, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A. & Van Looy, B., (2008). Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application. The Academy of Management Journal 51, pp. 1053–1078.
25. Federica Ceci a, Daniela Iubatti (2012). Personal relationships and innovation diffusion in SME networks: A content analysis approach. Research Policy, 41, pp.565–579.
26. Fichter, K., (2009). Innovation communities: the role of networks of promotors in open innovation. R&D Management, 39(4), pp. 357-371.
27. Gassmann, O., (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36(3), pp.223-226.
28. Garofoli, G., (1991). Modelli locali di Sviluppo. Franco Angeli, Milano.
29. Giuliani, E. & Bell, M., (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy 34, pp.47–68.
30. Giuliani, E. &Bell, M., (2007). Catching up in the global wine industry: innovation systems, cluster knowledge networks and firm-level capabilities in Italy and Chile. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 3, pp.197–223.
31. Granovetter, M. S., (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), pp.1360-1380.
32. Granovetter, M. S., (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91, pp. 481–510.
33. Granovetter, M. S., (1982). The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Ms.
34. Haythornthwaite, C., (1996). Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18, pp. 323-342.
35. Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C. & Wellman, B., (1997). Studying online social networks. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 3 (1).
36. Haythornthwaite, C., (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 159-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Haythornthwaite, C., (2006). Learning and knowledge networks in interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), pp.1079-1092.
38. Hippel, E. V., (2006). Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press.
39. Holak S. L., & Lehmann D. R., (1990). Purchase intentions and the dimensions of innovation: an exploratory model, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(1), pp.59-73.
40. Iubatti, D., Masciarelli, F. & Simboli, A. (2010). Inter-organizational design: exploring the relationship between formal architecture and ICT investments. In: Passiante, G. (Eds.), Evolving Towards the Internetworked Enterprise. Springer, US pp. 163–174.
41. John H. III & Arthur G. A., (1997). Net gain: expanding markets through virtual communities. Client Distribution Services
42. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4)
43. Kaufman F. (1966). Data systems that cross company boundaries. Harvard Business.
44. Fichter K. (2009). Innovation communities:the role of networks of promotors in open innovation. R&D Management, 39(4), pp.357-371.
45. Kilduff M., & Tsai M., (2003). Social network and organizations. London: SAGE.
46. Kirschbaum R., (2005). Open innovation in practice. Research-Technology Management, 48(4), pp24-28.
47. Krackhardt, D., (1992). The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), networks and organizations: structure, form,and action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp.216-239.
48. Lynn, Leonard H., N. Mohan Reddy, & John D. Aram., (1996). Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework. Research Policy 25, pp. 91-106.
49. Lawson, B., Petersen, K.J., Cousins, P.D. & Handfield, R.B., (2009). Knowledge sharing in interorganizational product development teams: the effect of formal and informal socialization mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26, pp. 156–172.
50. Laursen, K. & Ammon, J. S., (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131-150.
51. Lichtenthaler, U., (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining environmental influences. R&D Management, 39(4), 317-330.
52. Lundvall, B.-Å., (1992). National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers, London.
53. Marshall, A., (1890). Principles of economics. Macmillan, London.
54. McDermott, R., (2000). Knowing in community: 10 critical success factors in building communities of practice, IHRIM Journal, The International Association for Human Resource Information, pp.1-12.
55. Milgram, S.(1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 1(1). pp 61 – 67.
56. Mitchell, J. C., (1969). Social networks in urban situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
57. Mohr, M., Wittges, H., Nicolescu, V., Krcmar, H. & Schrader, H. (2006). Einbindung und motivation informeller Multiplikatoren im IT-Training am beispiel education service providing. In Krcmar, H., Rautenstrauch, C., Wittges, H. and Schrader, H. (Eds.), Wirtschaftsinformatik-Ausbildung mit SAPs-Software: Reader zum Track der Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2006 in Passau. Eul: Lohmar, pp. 1–22.
58. Nonaka I., & Takeuchi, H., (1995).The knowledge creating company. NY: Oxford University Press.
59. Peter F. Drucker, (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York:Harper & Row.
60. Padgett, J. & Powell, W., (2011). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton University P Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B. Dutton, J. & Kleiner, A.
61. Peter M. Senge, Nelda H. Cambron McCabe, Timothy Lucas, Art Kleiner, Janis Dutton & Bryan Smith, (2000). Schools that learn: a fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education.
62. Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D. Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M., (2006). Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation, 15(3), pp.187-195.
63. Powell, W., (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behaviour 12, pp. 295–336.
64. Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. & Smith-Doerr, L., (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41, pp. 116–145.
65. Powell, W.W. & Smith-Doerr, L., (1994). Networks and economic life. In: Smelser, N.J., Swedberg, R. (Eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton University Press, pp. 368–402.
66. Putnam, R.D., (1993). The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect 13, pp. 35–42.
67. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier. London: MIT Press.
68. Rhoten, D., (2003). Final report, A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Hybrid Vigor Institute.
69. Rogers, E. M., (2003). Diffusion of innovations. (5th Ed), New York: Free Press.
70. Schumpeter, J. A., (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
71. Storper, M., (1997). The regional world: territorial development in a global economy. The Guilford Press.
72. Speier, C. & J. Palmer (1998). A definition of virtualness, proceedings of the fourth americas conference on information systems, Vol. 8,pp. 571-773.
73. Surowiecki, J.(2005). The wisdom of crowds – why the many are smarter than the few. New York: First Anchor Books Edition.
74. Tam, H., (1998). Communitarinaism . London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
75. Taylor, C., (1995). The politics of recognition. In C. Taylor (Eds.), Philosophical arguments . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76. Tortoriello, M. & Krackhardt, D., (2010). Activating cross-boundary knowledge: the role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Academy of Management Journal 53, pp. 167–181.
77. Sykes, T. A., Venkatesh, V., & Gosain, S., (2009). Model of acceptance with peer support: a social network perspective to understand employees' system use. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), pp.371-393.
78. Wasserman, S. & Katherine F., (1994). Social network analysis : methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
79. Wenger, E. C. & J. Lave., (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press.
80. Wenger, E. C., (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity . New York: Cambridge University Press.
81. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M., (2002). Cultivating commubities of practice. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
82. Wachter, R.M., Gupta, J. N. D. & Quaddus, M. A., (2000). It takes a village: virtual communities in support of Education, International Journal of Information Management, 20, 1, pp. 473-489.
83. Williamson, O., (1975). Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. Free Press, New York.
84. Williamson, O., (1979). Transaction cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics 22, pp. 233–261.
85. Ebner W., Leimeister J. M. & Krcmar H., (2009). Community engineering for innovations: the ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtual community for innovations. R&D Management 39, 4, pp.342-356.
86. Yin, R.K., (1994/2001). Case Study Research: Design and Methods.( 2nd ed), CA: Sage.
87. Ziman, J., (1999). Postacademic science: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies, 9(1), pp67-80.
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2017-09-11起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2017-09-11起公開。

  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館