進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-1411201116445600
論文名稱(中文) 新事業構型及其績效之探索研究:策略、營運模式、資源及環境變數之整合
論文名稱(英文) An Exploratory Study toward the Configuration and its Performance of New Ventures: An Integration of Strategy, Business Model, Resources, and Environment
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系碩博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration
學年度 100
學期 1
出版年 100
研究生(中文) 王鴻鈞
研究生(英文) Hong-Chun Wang
學號 R4892103
學位類別 博士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 130頁
口試委員 指導教授-吳萬益
共同指導教授-陳淑惠
召集委員-林清河
口試委員-方世杰
口試委員-林豪傑
口試委員-李元墩
口試委員-陳正男
口試委員-徐村和
中文關鍵字 構型  新事業  營運模式  集群分析  等結果性 
英文關鍵字 configuration  business model  new venture  equifinality  cluster analysis 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本研究以構型理論為基礎,企圖以競爭策略、營運模式、資源能耐等三個新事業攸關變數,以形成新事業之實證構型(taxonomic configuration),加上創業者的環境認知為背景,用以解釋新事業之績效。
本研究以新事業為研究對象,以新事業之創辦人或其高階管理團隊成員為問卷調查對象,透過電子郵件或當面紙本方式,共回收包含台灣及中國兩地業者有效問卷共137份。透過集群分析及多變量變異數分析,共有5種新事業構型突現:除了首尾兩端的「全方位明星型」及「無意義創業型」外,另有「專業技術者型」、「廣域平庸者型」及「窄域平庸者型」三種構型出現在中間地帶。
結果顯示,「全方位明星型」及「無意義創業型」其績效毫無疑問地分別居高低兩端,「廣域平庸者型」及「窄域平庸者型」兩者雖在產品市場的範疇有所不同,在經營模式及具備的能耐上也略有差異,然而兩者的績效同時都為平均水準。值得注意的是,「專業技術者型」藉由其高超的技術能耐及專精的事業範疇,儘管在其他營運模式上略落後於「全方位明星型」,卻也能在獲利成長績效方面與之分庭抗禮,而且在總績效上也不惶多讓,居於頗高的位置。由此,可驗證新事業的發展具有等結果性(equifinality)。
英文摘要 Based on configuration theory, this study tries to integrate three relevant elements: new venture strategy, business model, and resources and capabilities into some taxonomic configurations. Moreover, it discriminates the differences between these configurations to understand the implications to the new venture performance.
For conducting the questionnaire survey, this study collected 137 valid questionnaires totally from the respondents as the founder or a member of top management team of new ventures in Taiwan and China. By using cluster analysis and MANOVA, five identified configurations are emerged in this study. In addition to ‘All-star new ventures’ and ‘Non-sense new starters’ at the both extreme ends of high and low performance, three configurations of ‘Specialization technologists’, ‘Wide-range moderates’, and ‘Narrow-range moderates’ are identified between the transition zone.
The results reveal that ‘All-star new ventures’ and ‘Non-sense new starters’ are no doubt ranked in the high and low level of performance. ‘Wide-range moderates’ and ‘Narrow-range moderates’ achieve the same medium level of performance, though they are positioned in different scope of products and markets and different level of strategic factors. Furthermore, the ‘Specialization technologists’ achieve the same high level of profitability growth as ‘All-stars’ by their high level of technological capability and high focus of business scope. Even though the levels of their business models are just a little behind the best ones, the total performance of ‘Specialization technologists’ can approach almost the same as moderately high level. Thus, the equifinality of new venture configurations to the performance is validated in this study.
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT (IN CHINESE).................................... I
ABSTRACT ............................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................ IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................... V
LIST OF TABLES ....................................... VIII
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................... X
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ................................ 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation .................. 1
1.2 Research Objectives ................................. 7
1.3 Research Procedure .................................. 8
1.4 The Structure of this Research ..................... 10
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW .......................... 11
2.1 Theoretical Background ............................. 12
2.1.1 Configurational View ............................. 12
2.1.2 New Venture Strategy ............................. 23
2.1.3 Business Model as the Activity System ............ 28
2.1.4 Resources and Capabilities ....................... 33
2.1.5 Environments ..................................... 38
2.1.6 New Venture Performance .......................... 40
2.2 Hypotheses Development and Propositions Derived .... 41
2.2.1 The New Venture Configurations of Strategy, Business Model, and Resources and Capabilities ................. 41
2.2.2 The New Venture Configurations and Performance ... 43
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY .............................. 46
3.1 Sampling Plan ...................................... 46
3.2 The Operationalization of Theoretical Constructs ... 46
3.2.1 Environment ...................................... 47
3.2.2 Resources and Capabilities ....................... 49
3.2.3 New Venture Strategy ............................. 50
3.2.4 Business Model ................................... 52
3.2.5 New Venture Performance .......................... 54
3.3 Analytical Methods ................................. 55
3.3.1 Descriptive Statistical Analysis ................. 55
3.3.2 Factor Analysis .................................. 56
3.3.3 Cluster Analysis ................................. 56
3.3.4 MANOVA ........................................... 57
CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS ............................. 58
4.1 Sample Description ................................. 58
4.1.1 Data Collection .................................. 58
4.1.2 The Characteristics of the Sample Firms .......... 59
4.1.3 The Attributes of the Respondents ................ 61
4.1.4 Descriptive Statistical Results of the Research Items .................................................. 62
4.1.5 Test of Nonresponse Bias ......................... 62
4.1.6 Test of Common Method Bias ....................... 63
4.2 Factor Analysis .................................... 65
4.2.1 New Venture Performance .......................... 65
4.2.2 New Venture Strategy ............................. 67
4.2.3 Business Model ................................... 69
4.2.4 Perceived Environmental Attractiveness ........... 71
4.2.5 Perceived Environmental Uncertainty .............. 73
4.2.6 Resources and Capabilities ....................... 75
4.2.7 Discriminant Test between Independent and Spin-off (Subsidiary) New Ventures .............................. 78
4.3 Cluster Analysis ................................... 79
4.3.1 Hierarchical Clustering Procedures ............... 80
4.3.2 Nonhierarchical Clustering Procedures ............ 81
4.3.3 Cross-Validation ................................. 82
4.3.4 Profiling the Clusters ........................... 84
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ............... 91
5.1 Findings ........................................... 91
5.2 Discussions and Conclusions ........................ 94
5.2.1 Implications for Academic Research ............... 94
5.2.2 Implications for Managerial Practice ............. 99
5.3 Limitations and Future Research Suggestions ....... 100
REFERENCES ............................................ 103
APPENDICES ............................................ 117
Appendix 1: Questionnaire ............................. 117
Appendix 2: Descriptive Statistical Results of the Research Items ................................................. 125
Appendix 3: Test of Nonresponse Bias .................. 128

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The Comparison of Miles and Snow’s Generic Configurations ......................................... 16
Table 2.2 The Summary of Studies for Configuration ..... 18
Table 2.3 The Short Description for Porter’s Generic Strategies ............................................. 24
Table 2.4 The Summary of Studies for Strategic Type .... 25
Table 2.5 The Definitions of Business Model ............ 29
Table 2.6 The Comparison between Business Model and Strategy ............................................... 30
Table 4.1 Characteristics of the Sample Firms .......... 60
Table 4.2 Characteristics of the Respondents ........... 61
Table 4.3 The Results of Common Method Bias Test ....... 64
Table 4.4 Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Tests on New Venture Performance ............................. 66
Table 4.5 Correlation Matrix for New Venture Performance
........................................................ 66
Table 4.6 Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Tests on New Venture Strategy ................................ 68
Table 4.7 Correlation Matrix for New Venture Strategy .. 68
Table 4.8 Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Tests on Business Model ...................................... 70
Table 4.9 Correlation Matrix for Business Model ........ 71
Table 4.10 Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Tests on Environmental Attractiveness ........................ 72
Table 4.11 Correlation Matrix for Environmental Attractiveness ......................................... 73
Table 4.12 Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Tests on Environmental Uncertainty ........................... 74
Table 4.13 Correlation Matrix for Environmental Uncertainty ............................................ 75
Table 4.14 Results of Factor Analysis and Reliability Tests on Resources and Capabilities .......................... 77
Table 4.15 Correlation Matrix for Resources and Capabilities ........................................... 78
Table 4.16 Stopping Rule for Ward’s Cluster Analysis ... 81
Table 4.17 Results of Discriminant Analysis for Cross-Validation ............................................. 83
Table 4.18 Statistical Cluster Description ............. 85
Table 4.19 Verbal Cluster Description .................. 86

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Research flowchart ........................... 9
Figure 2.1 Research framework .......................... 45
Figure 5.1 Empirical taxa versus theoretical types ..... 95
Figure 5.2 Conceptual framework for future research .... 99
參考文獻 REFERENCE

Adegbesan, Adetunji, 2009. On the origins of competitive advantages: strategic factor markets and heterogeneous resource complementarity. Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 463-475.

Amason, Allen, Shrader, Rodney, and Tompson, George, 2006. Newness and novelty: relating top management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1): 125-148.

Amit, Raphael and Zott, Christoph, 2001. Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7): 493-520.

Ansari, Shahzad, Fiss, Peer, and Zajac, Edward, 2010. Made to fit: how practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35(1): 67-92.

Armstrong, Scott J. and Overton, Terry S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 24: 396-402.

Bailey, Kenneth D., 1994. Typologies and taxonomies: an introduction to classification techniques. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks.

Baden-Fuller, Charles and Morgan, Mary, 2010. Business models as models. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3): 156-171.

Barney, Jay, 1986. Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10): 1231-1241.

Barney, Jay, 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.

Baron, Robert and Shane, Scott, 2008. Entrepreneurship: a process perspective. Thomson: Mason.

Bartelsman, Eric, Scarpetta, Stefano, and Schivardi, Fabiano, 2005. Comparative analysis of firm demographics and survival: evidence from micro-level sources in OECD countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3): 365-391.

Becerra, Manuel, 2008. A resource-based analysis of the conditions for the emergence of profits. Journal of Management, 34(6): 1110-1126.

Bradley, Steven, Aldrich, Howard, Shepherd, Dean, and Wiklund, Johan, 2011. Resources, environmental change, and survival: asymmetric paths of young independent and subsidiary organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 32(5): 486-509.

Brusoni, Stefano, Prencipe, Andrea, and Pavitt, Keith, 2001. Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4): 597-621.

Burn, Tom and Stalker, George M., 1961. The management of innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.

Campbell-Hunt, Colin, 2000. What have we learned about generic competitive strategy? A meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1): 127-154.

Carter, Nancy, Stearns, Timothy, Reynolds, Paul, and Miller, Brenda, 1994. New venture strategies: theory development with an empirical base. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1): 21-41.

Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon and Ricart, Joan Enric, 2010. From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3): 195-215.

Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation. Research Policy, 37(6/7): 978-994.

Chandler, Gaylen and Hanks, Steven, 1994. Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities, venture strategies, and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(4): 331-349.

Chen, Chung-Jen, 2009. Technology commercialization, incubator and venture capital, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Research, 62(1): 93-103.

Chen, Xiaoyun, Zou, Huan, and Wang, Danny T., 2009. How do new ventures grow? firm capabilities, growth strategies and performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4): 294-303.

Christensen, Clayton, 1997. The innovator’s dilemma. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

Churchill, Gilbert A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16: 64-73.

Collis, David and Montgomery, Cynthia, 1995. Competing on resources: strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review, 73(7/8): 118-128.

Conant, Jeffrey, Mokwa, Michael, and Varadarajan, Rajan, 1990. Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance: a multiple measures-based study. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5): 365-383.

Cool, Karel and Schendel, Dan, 1987. Strategic group formation and performance: the case of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, 1963-1982. Management Science, 33(9): 1102-1124.

Cool, Karel and Schendel, Dan, 1988. Performance differences among strategic group members. Strategic Management Journal, 9(2): 207-223.

Covin, Jeffrey and Slevin, Dennis, 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1): 75-87.

Daft, Richard and Weick, Karl, 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 284-295.

de Jong, Jeroen and Marsili, Orietta, 2006. The fruit flies of innovations: a taxonomy of innovative small firms. Research Policy, 35(2): 213-229.

DeSarbo, Wayne, Di Benedetto, Anthony, Song, Michael, and Sinha, Indrajit, 2005. Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategic framework: uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1): 47-74.

DeSarbo, Wayne, Di Benedetto, Anthony, Jedidi, Kamel, and Song, Michael, 2006. Identifying sources of heterogeneity for empirically deriving strategic types: a constrained finite-mixture structural-equation methodology. Management Science, 52(6): 909-924.

DeSarbo, Wayne, Di Benedetto, Anthony, and Song, Michael, 2007. A heterogeneous resource based view for exploring relationships between firm performance and capabilities. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(2): 103-130.

Dess, Gregory and Davis, Peter, 1984. Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3): 467-488.

Dess, Gregory, Newport, Stephanie, and Rasheed, Abdul, 1993. Configuration research in strategic management: key issues and suggestions. Journal of Management, 19(4): 775-795.

Devaraj, Sarv, Hollingworth, David, and Schroeder, Roger, 2004. Generic manufacturing strategies and plant performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(3): 313-333.

Doty, Harold and Glick, William, 1994. Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2): 230-251.

Drucker, Peter, 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship – practice and principles. Harper Business: New York.

Fiss, Peer, 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1180-1198.

Fiss, Peer, 2011. Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 393-420.

Flynn, Barbara B., Huo, Baofeng, Zhao, Xiande, 2010. The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management, 28(1): 58-71.

Galbraith, Craig and Schendel, Dan, 1983. An empirical analysis of strategy types. Strategic Management Journal, 4(2): 153-173.

George, Gerard, Kotha, Reddi, and Zheng,Yanfeng, 2008. Entry into insular domains: a longitudinal study of knowledge structuration and innovation in biotechnology firms. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8): 1448-1474.

Ghoshal, Sumantra, 2003. Miles and Snow: enduring insights for managers. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4): 109-114.

Gonzalez-Benito, Javier and Suarez-Gonzalez, Isabel, 2010. A study of the role played by manufacturing strategic objectives and capabilities in understanding the relationship between Porter’s generic strategies and business performance. British Journal of Management, 21(4): 1027-1043.

Gresov, Christopher, 1989. Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contingencies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3): 431-453.

Gruber, Marc, 2010. Exploring the origins of organizational paths: empirical evidence from newly founded firms. Journal of Management, 36(5): 1143-1167.

Gruber, Marc, Heinemann, Florian, Brettel, Malte, and Hungeling, Stephan, 2010. Configurations of resources and capabilities and their performance implications: An exploratory study on technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12): 1337-1356.

Hair, Joseph F., Black, Bill, Babin, Barry, Anderson, Rolph E., and Tatham, Ronald L., 2006. Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River.

Hambrick, Donald C., 1983. An empirical typology of mature industrial-product environments. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2):213-230.

Hambrick, Donald C. and Lei, David, 1985. Toward an empirical prioritization of contingency variables for business strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 28(4): 763-788.

Hannan, Michael and Freeman, John, 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 929-964.

Hayton, James, 2005. Competing in the new economy: the effect of intellectual capital on corporate entrepreneurship in high-technology new ventures. R&D Management, 35(2): 137-155.

Helsen, Kristiaan and Green, Paul, 1991. A computational study of replicated clustering with an application to market segmentation. Decision Sciences, 22(5): 1124-1141.

Hill, Susan and Birkinshaw, Julian, 2008. Strategy-organization configurations in corporate venture units: impact on performance and survival. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4): 423-444.

Homburg, Christian, Jensen, Ove, and Krohmer, Harley, 2008. Configurations of marketing and sales: A taxonomy. Journal of Marketing, 72(2): 133-154.

Hughes, Paul and Morgan, Robert, 2008. Fitting strategic resources with product-market strategy: performance implications. Journal of Business Research, 61(4): 323-331.

Jaworski, Bernard and Kohli, Ajay, 1993. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(4): 53-70.

Kabanoff, Boris and Brown, Shane, 2008. Knowledge structures of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders: content, structure, stability, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(2): 149-171.

Katila, Riitta and Shane, Scott, 2005. When does lack of resources make new firms innovative? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 814-829.

Ketchen, David, 2003. An interview with Raymond E. Miles and Charles C. Snow. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4): 97-104.

Ketchen, David, Combs, James, Russell, Craig et al., 1997. Organizational configurations and performance: a meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 223-240.

Ketchen, David and Shook, Christopher, 1996. The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: an analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 441-458.

Ketchen, David, Thomas, James, and Snow, Charles, 1993. Organizational configurations and performance: a comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1278-1313.

Kim, Eonsoo, Nam, Dae-il, and Stimpert, J.L., 2004. The applicability of Porter’s generic strategies in the digital age: assumptions, conjectures, and suggestions. Journal of Management, 30(5): 569-589.

Kostova, Tatiana and Roth, Kendall, 2003. Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model of its formation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 297-317.

Kotha, Suresh and Orne, Daniel, 1989. Generic manaufacturing strategies: a conceptual synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 10(2): 211-231.

Leiponen, Aija and Helfat, Constance, 2010. Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (2): 224-236.

Leask, Graham and Parker, David, 2007. Strategic groups, competitive groups and performance within the U.K. pharmaceutical industry: improving our understanding of the competitive process. Strategic Management Journal, 28(7): 723-745.

Levin, Daniel and Cross, Rob, 2004. The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11): 1477-1490.

Li, Haiyang, 2001. How does new venture strategy matter in the environment-performance relationship? Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12(2): 183-204.

Li, Haiyang and Zhang, Yan, 2007. The role of managers’ political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: evidence from China’s transition economy. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8): 791-804.

Libaers, Dirk, Hicks, Diana, and Porter, Alan, 2010. A taxonomy of small firm technology commercialization. Industrial and Corporate Change. (in advance): 1-35.

Lin, Bou-Wen, LI, Po-Chien, and Chen, Ja-Shen, 2006. Social capital, capabilities, and entrepreneurial strategies: a study of Taiwanese high-tech new ventures. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(2): 168-181.

Magretta, Joan, 2002. Why business models matters. Harvard Business Review, 80(5): 86-92.

Makadok, Richard, 2001. Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5): 387-401.

Malone, Thomas, Weil, Peter, Lai, Richard, et al., 2006. Do some business models perform better than others? MIT Working Paper 4615-06.

March, James, 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.

McKelvie, Alexander and Davidsson, Per, 2009. From resource base to dynamic capabilities: an investigation of new firms. British Journal of management, 20: S63-S80.

McDougall, Patricia and Robinson, Richard B., 1990. New venture strategies: an empirical identification of eight ‘archetypes’ of competitive strategies for entry. Strategic Management Journal, 11(6): 447-467.

McDougall, Patricia, Covin, Jeffrey, Robinson, Richard, and Herron, Lanny, 1994. The effects of industry growth and strategic breadth on new venture performance and strategy content. Strategic Management Journal, 15(7): 537-554.

Mens, Gaël Le, Hannan, Michael, and Pólos, László, 2011. Founding conditions, learning, and organizational life chances: age dependence revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(1): 95-126.

Meyer, Alan, Tsui, Anne, and Hinings, C.R., 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1175-1195.

Miles, Raymond and Snow, Charles, 1978. Organizational strategy, structure, and process. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Miller, Alex and Camp, Bill, 1985. Exploring determinants of success in corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1): 87-105.

Miller, Danny, 1986. Configurations of strategy and structure: towards a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 7(3): 233-249.

Miller, Danny, 1987. The genesis of configuration. Academy of Management Review, 12(4): 686-701.

Miller, Danny, 1996. Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7): 505-512.

Miller, Jeffrey G. and Roth, Aleda V., 1994. A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies. Management Science, 40(3): 285-304.

Milligan, Glenn W. and Hirtle, Stephen C., 2003. Clustering and classification methods. In Handbook of Psychology: Research Methods in Psychology, Schinka, JA, Velicer, Wf, Weiner, IB (eds). Wiley: New York; 165-186.

Mintzberg, Henry and Lampel, Joseph, 1999. Reflecting on strategy process. Sloan Management Review, 40(3): 21-30.

Morris, Michael, Schindehutte, Minet, and Allen, Jeffrey, 2005. The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6): 726-735.

Morrison, Allen and Roth, Kendall, 1993. Relating Porter’s configuration/coordination framework to competitive strategy and structural mechanisms: analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 19(4): 797-818.

Mosakowski, Elaine, 1993. A resource-based perspective on the dynamic strategy-performance relationship: an empirical examination of the focus and differentiation strategies in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Management, 19(4): 819-839.

OECD, 2003. The sources of economic growth in OECD countries. OECD: Paris.

Park, Sangmoon and Bae, Zong-Tae, 2004. New venture strategies in a developing country: identifying a typology and examining growth patterns through case studies. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1): 81-105.

Pertusa-Ortega, Eva, Molina-Azorin, Jose, and Claver-Cortes, Enrique, 2009. Competitive strategies and firm performance: a comparative analysis of pure, hybrid and ‘stuck-in-the-middle’ strategies in Spanish firms. British Journal of Management, 20(4): 508-523.

Peteraf, Margaret, 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3): 179-191.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Salancik, Richard, 1978. The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row: New York.

Podsakoff, Philip M. and Organ, Dennis W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531-543.

Porter, Michael, 1980. Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press: New York.

Porter, Michael, 1985. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press: New York.

Porter, Michael, 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6): 61-78.

Punj, Girish and Stewart, David, 1983. Cluster analysis in marketing research: review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(May): 134-148.

Raymond, Louis and Croteau, Anne-Marie, 2009. Manufacturing strategy and business strategy in medium-sized enterprises: performance effects of strategic alignment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(2): 192-202.

Rich, Philip, 1992. The organizational taxonomy: definition and design, Academy of Management Review, 17(4): 758-781.

Rogers, Gil and Linden, James D., 1973. Use of multiple discriminant function analysis in the evaluation of three multivariate grouping techniques. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33(4): 787-802.

Romanelli, Elaine, 1987. New venture strategies in the minicomputer industry. California Management Review, 30(1): 160-175.

Rothaermel, Frank and Hill, Charles, 2005. Technological discontinuities and complementary assets: a longitudinal study of industry and firm performance. Organization Science, 16(1): 52-70.

Saemundsson, Rognvaldur and Dahlstrand, Asa Lindholm, 2005. How business opportunities constrain young technology-based firms from growing into medium-sized firms. Small Business Economics, 24(2): 113-129.

Salavou, Helen, 2010. Strategy types of service firms: evidence from Greece. Management Decision, 48(7): 1033-1047.

Santos, Filipe and Eisenhardt, Kathleen, 2005. Organizational boundaries and Theories of Organization. Organization Science, 16(5): 491-508.

Shane, Scott and Stuart, T., 2002. Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1): 154-170.

Short, Jeremy, Ketchen, David, Palmer, Timothy, and Hult, Thomas, 2007. Firm, strategic group, and industry influences on performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2): 147-167.

Short, Jeremy, McKelvie, Alexander, Ketchen, David, and Chandler, Gaylen, 2009. Firm and industry effects on firm performance: a generalization and extension for new ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3 (1): 47-65.

Short, Jeremy, Payne, Tyge, and Ketchen, David, 2008. Research on organizational configurations: past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 34(6): 1053-1079.

Shrader, Rodney and Simon, Mark, 1997. Corporate versus independent new ventures: resource, strategy, and performance differences. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1): 47-66.

Sine, Wesley, Mitsuhashi, Hitoshi, and Kirsch, David, 2006. Revisiting Burns and Stalker: formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 121-132.

Song, Michael, Droge, Cornelia, Hanvanich, Sangphet, and Calantone, Roger, 2005. Marketing and technology resource complementarity: an analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3): 259-276.

Song, Michael, Podoynitsyna, Ksenia, van der Bij, Hans, and Halman, Johannes, 2008. Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(1): 7-27.

Stinchcombe, Arthur, 1965. Social structures and organizations. In March, James G. (ed), Handbook of organizations: 142-193. Rand McMally: Chicago.

Teece, David, 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6): 285-305.

Teece, David, 2009. Dynamic Capabilities and strategic management. Oxford University Press: New York.

Timmons, Jeffry A. and Spinelli, Stephen, 2008. New venture creation: entrepreneurship for the 21st century. McGraw-Hill: Boston.

Thornhill, Stewart and Amit, Raphael, 2003. Learning about failure: bankruptcy, firm age, and the resource-based view. Organization Science, 14(5): 497-509.

Thornhill, Stewart and White, Roderick, 2007. Strategic purity: a multi-industry evaluation of pure vs. hybrid business strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5): 553-561.

Tolstoy, Daniel and Agndal, Henrik, 2010. Network resource combinations in the international venturing of small biotech firms. Technovation, 30(1): 24-36.

Tosi, Henry and Slocum, John, 1984. Contingency theory: some suggested directions. Journal of Management, 10(1): 9-26.

Tsai, William, MacMillan, Ian, and Low, Murray, 1991. Effects of strategy and environment on corporate venture success in industrial markets. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(1): 9-28.

Venkatraman, N. and Camilus, John C., 1984. Exploring the concept of “fit” in strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 9(3): 513-525.

Venkatraman, N., 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 423-444.

Vorhies, Douglas and Morgan, Neil, 2003. A configuration theory assessment of marketing organization fit with business strategy and its relationship with marketing performance. Journal of Marketing, 67(1): 100-115.

Vorhies, Douglas and Morgan, Neil, 2005. Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 69(1): 80-94.

Waller, Ray A. and Duncan, David B., A Bayes rule for the symmetric multiple comparisons problem. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 64: 1484-1503.

Wang, Qi, Chen, Yubo, and Xie, Jinhong, 2010. Survival in markets with network effects: product compatibility and order-of-entry effects. Journal of Marketing, 74(4): 1-14.

Ward, Joe H., 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58: 236-244.

Ward, Peter and Duray, Rebecca, 2000. Manufacturing strategy in context: environment, competitive strategy and manufacturing strategy. Journal of Operations Management, 18(1): 123-138.

Wernerfelt, Birger, 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180.

Woodward, J., 1965. Industrial organization: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press: London.

Yli-Renko, Helena, Autio, Erkko, and Sapienza, Harry J., 2001. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7): 587-613.

Zahra, Shaker and Covin, Jeffrey, 1993. Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 14(6): 451-478.

Zahra, Shaker and Nielsen, Anders, 2002. Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5): 377-398.

Zhang, Jing and Baden-Fuller, Charles, 2010. The influence of technological knowledge base and organizational structure and technology collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4): 679-704.

Zott, Christoph and Amit, Raphael, 2007. Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2): 181-199.

Zott, Christoph and Amit, Raphael, 2008. The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1): 1-26.

Zott, Christoph and Amit, Raphael, 2010. Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3): 216-226.

Zou, Huan, Chen, Xiaoyun, and Ghauri, Pervez, 2010. Antecedents and consequences of new venture growth strategy: an empirical study in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3): 393-421.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-11-19起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-11-16起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw