進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-2004201311465700
論文名稱(中文) 雙元兼備跨領域知識整合創新過程之研究-以國科會跨領域創意加值推動計畫為例
論文名稱(英文) Exploring the Process of Knowledge Integration with Ambidexterity-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 101
學期 2
出版年 102
研究生(中文) 陳彥儒
研究生(英文) Yen-Ju Chen
學號 R47991263
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 86頁
口試委員 指導教授-陳淑惠
口試委員-張淑昭
口試委員-鄭文英
口試委員-李榮顯
中文關鍵字 開放式創新  知識多樣性  知識整合  雙元兼備創新  交易組織學習 
英文關鍵字 Open Innovation  Knowledge diversity  Knowledge integration  Ambidexterity  Transactive Organizational Learning 
學科別分類
中文摘要 科技創新在企業不僅由內部研發轉為可由組織外部獲取,提升產品性能與加速新產品開發的速度,利用所謂的開放式創新(Open Innovation),創新方式可分利用既有技術叫做開發性創新(exploitation)和探索性創新(exploration)以及包含兩者的雙元兼備創新(ambidexterity)是本研究探討的主題。

本研究利用國科會跨領域創意加值推動計畫過程中,進行個案研究(case study)專家訪談(interview),針對9個團隊負責人做為訪談對象,以國內外企業使用開放式創新做文獻探討,彙整出創意團隊的知識整合關鍵因素,計畫發起過程必須吸收各領域人才及設計理念,並利用跨領域知識多樣性之特性來加強產品創新功能,為了讓技術與功能有所發揮,利用交叉學習或交易組織學習(Transactive Organizational Learning, TOL) 等知識整合(knowledge integration),將領域知識(domain knowledge)化成系統知識(system knowledge)並完成各個階段性任務。

階段性任務從發起計畫書創意方案(scenario)、可行性評估(feasibility)、商業計畫書(business plan)、原型製作(prototyping)到商轉,本研究以跨領域團隊知識多樣性經由原型(prototype)製作階段的零組件與子系統創新、知識整合、如何達到系統創新的雙元兼備創新,進行個案分析且結論如下:
(一) 跨領域知識多樣性對於雙元兼備創新具有影響關係;
(二) 以原型製作為基礎的整合機制在跨領域知識多樣性有助於知識的雙元兼備創新;
英文摘要 Enterprises acquire innovation technological knowledge, not only from inside but also from outside of the organization as well, in order to advance the performances of products and accelerate the exploitation of new products through Open Innovation. Normally, Innovation is defined in two ways: Exploitation and Exploration. Exploitation indicates exploiting and joining creativity by original techniques. Exploration infers to create brand-new techniques.
Ambidexterity includes both the aforesaid. The paper investigated how Ambidexterity was operated by an Innovation team. To gather the needed date, a case study and interviews were applied. In this research we interviewed nine project leaders of the Cross-Field Creativity Value-adding Program by semi-construction questionnaires, and found that project leaders had to organize the identities of Knowledge Diversity and manage cross-disciplinary with students and professors. By using Knowledge Integration such as cross-learning or Transactive Organizational Learning, it turned domain knowledge into system knowledge.
The research aimed to identify the project implementation from Issue Scenario, Feasibility Inspection, Tactic Business Plan and Stimulate and Testing Prototyping, to Commercialize and Bridge. The paper was conducted to approach Ambidexterity. The results showed that:
(1) Knowledge Diversity is crucial for Ambidexterity.
(2) Innovation project which based on Prototyping helps Ambidexterity in Knowledge Diversity.
論文目次 目錄
摘要 ..........................................I
ABSTRACT .............................II
誌謝 ..........................................III
表目錄 .......................................V
圖目錄 .......................................VI
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 論文架構..............................6

第二章 文獻探討..............................7
第一節 雙元兼備創新 (Ambidexterity).8
第二節 開放式創新 (Open Innovation).11
第三節 知識多樣性 (Knowledge Diversity).13
第四節 知識整合與機制........................20

第三章 研究方法.............................26
第一節 研究設計.............................26
第二節 專家訪談.............................28
第三節 個案介紹.............................29

第四章 研究分析..............................32
第一節 個案的彙整...........................32
第二節 整合的結果...........................68

第五章 結論與建議...........................71
第一節 研究結論.............................71
第二節 管理意涵.............................77
第三節 後續研究建議........................79

附錄 國科會跨領域創意加值計畫-構想書.79
參考文獻.........................................80
參考文獻 參考文獻
【中文參考文獻】
1.方世杰, & 許文齡. (2008). 從網絡觀點看知識鑲嵌性, 知識分享與新產品開發績效.
2.碩網資訊. (2003). 知識管理實務: SmartKMS 軟體在知識管理的實作與應用: 科技圖書股份有限公司.

【英文參考文獻】
1. Adenfelt, M. (2010). Exploring the performance of transnational projects: Shared knowledge, coordination and communication. International Journal of Project Management, 28(6), 529-538.
2. Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1029-1037. doi: 10.1002/asi.10107
3. Allred, B. B. (2001). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 161-162.
4. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to" the social psychology of creativity.": Westview press.
5. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238-256.
6. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy, 32(1), 69-87.
7. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of management review, 343-378.
8. Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 875-893. doi: 10.2307/3069319
9. Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 239-262.
10. Calantone, R., & Rubera, G. (2012). When Should RD&E and Marketing Collaborate? The Moderating Role of Exploration–Exploitation and Environmental Uncertainty. Journal of Product Innovation Management.
11. Chesbrough. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology: Harvard Business Press.
12. Chesbrough. (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating And Profiting from Technology: Harvard Business School Press.
13. Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West. (2008). Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm: OUP Oxford.
14. Clark, K. B. (1985). The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy, 14(5), 235-251.
15. Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry: Harvard Business Press.
16. Cooper, R. G. (2011). Perspective: The Innovation Dilemma: How to Innovate When the Market Is Mature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 2-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00858.x
17. D'Adderio, L. (2001). Crafting the virtual prototype: how firms integrate knowledge and capabilities across organisational boundaries. Research Policy, 30(9), 1409-1424.
18. Davila, T., Epstein, M. J., Shelton, R., & Shelton, R. D. (2006). Making innovation work: how to manage it, measure it, and profit from it: Wharton School Pub.
19. Dell'Era, C., & Verganti, R. (2010). Collaborative Strategies in Design-intensive Industries: Knowledge Diversity and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 123-141. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.10.006
20. Desouza, K. C. (2003). Barriers to effective use of knowledge management systems in software engineering. Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 99-101.
21. Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R & D Management, 36(3), 333-346. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00429.x
22. du Chatenier, E., Verstegen, J. A. A. M., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Omta, O. S. W. F. (2010). Identification of competencies for professionals in open innovation teams. R & D Management, 40(3), 271-280.
23. Enberg, C. (2012). Enabling knowledge integration in coopetitive R&D projects—The management of conflicting logics. International Journal of Project Management.
24. Enberg, C., Lindkvist, L., & Tell, F. (2006). Exploring the dynamics of knowledge integration. Management Learning, 37(2), 143-165.
25. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki-Gitai, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on Activity Theory: Cambridge University Press.
26. Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R & D Management, 39(4), 311-316.
27. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits: Cambridge University Press.
28. Fetterhoff, T. J., & Voelkel, D. (2006). Managing open innovation in biotechnology. Research-Technology Management, 49(3), 14-18.
29. Garcia-Vega, M. (2006). Does technological diversification promote innovation?: An empirical analysis for European firms. Research Policy, 35(2), 230-246.
30. Gassmann, O., Widenmayer, B., & Zeschky, M. (2012). Implementing radical innovation in the business: the role of transition modes in large firms. R & D Management, 42(2), 120-132. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00670.x
31. Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387.
32. Grant, R. M. (1996b). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic management journal, 17, 109-122.
33. Greve, H. R. (2007). ‘Exploration and exploitation in product innovation’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(5), 945-975. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtm013
34. Grunwald, R., & Kieser, A. (2007). Learning to Reduce Interorganizational Learning: An Analysis of Architectural Product Innovation in Strategic Alliances*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4), 369-391.
35. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30.
36. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Sirmon, D. G., & Trahms, C. A. (2011). Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating Value for Individuals, Organizations, and Society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(2), 57-75.
37. Howells, J., James, A., & Malik, K. (2003). The sourcing of technological knowledge: distributed innovation processes and dynamic change. R&D Management, 33(4), 395-409.
38. Howey, K. R., & Grossman, P. L. (1989). A study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English. Journal of teacher education, 40(5), 24-31.
39. Hughes, B., & Wareham, J. (2010). Knowledge arbitrage in global pharma: a synthetic view of absorptive capacity and open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 324-343. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00594.x
40. Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2-9.
41. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741-763. doi: 10.2307/2667054
42. Jolly, V. K. (1997). Commercializing New Technologies: Getting from Mind to Market: Harvard Business School Press.
43. Karniouchina, E. V., Victorino, L., & Verma, R. (2006). Product and Service Innovation: Ideas for Future Cross-Disciplinary Research*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(3), 274-280.
44. Kim, C., Song, J., & Nerkar, A. (2011). Learning and innovation: Exploitation and exploration trade-offs. Journal of Business Research.
45. Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities: University Press of Virginia.
46. Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 219-240.
47. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic management journal, 19(5), 461-477.
48. Laukkanen, S. (2012). Making Sense of Ambidexterity: A Process View of the Renewing Effects of Innovation Activities in a Multinational Enterprise.
49. Leonard-Barton, D. (1998). Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation: Harvard Business School Press.
50. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 319-340.
51. Li, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Schoenmakers, W. (2008). Exploration and Exploitation in Innovation: Reframing the Interpretation (Vol. 17).
52. Liang, T. P., Liu, C. C., Lin, T. M., & Lin, B. (2007). Effect of team diversity on software project performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(5), 636-653.
53. Lin, B. W., & Chen, C. J. (2006). Fostering product innovation in industry networks: the mediating role of knowledge integration. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 155-173. doi: 10.1080/09585190500367472
54. Luca, L. M. D., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the different routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 95-112.
55. Luzon, M. D. M., & Pasola, J. V. (2011). Ambidexterity and total quality management: towards a research agenda. Management Decision, 49(6), 927-947.
56. Maggioni, L., & Alexander, P. A. (2010). Knowledge domains and domain learning. International encyclopedia of education, 3.
57. March, J. G. (1991). EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
58. McCarthy, I. P., & Gordon, B. R. (2011). Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control system approach (Vol. 41).
59. McDermott, J. (1982). Domain knowledge and the design process. Design Studies, 3(1), 31-36.
60. Millar, J., Demaid, A., & Quintas, P. (1997). Trans-organizational innovation: a framework for research. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9(4), 399-418.
61. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 89-106.
62. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 14-37.
63. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation: Oxford University Press, USA.
64. Parida, V., Westerberg, M., & Frishammar, J. (2012). Inbound Open Innovation Activities in High-Tech SMEs: The Impact on Innovation Performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 283-309.
65. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension: Doubleday.
66. Popadiuk, S. (2011). Scale for classifying organizations as explorers, exploiters or ambidextrous. International Journal of Information Management.
67. Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1996). Managing professional intellect: making the most of the best. Harvard business review, 74(2), 71-80.
68. Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. (2008). Team implicit coordination processes: a team knowledge-based approach. The Academy of Management Review ARCHIVE, 33(1), 163-184.
69. Schilling, M. A. (2006). Strategic management of technological innovation: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
70. Schmickl, C., & Kieser, A. (2008). How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations? Research Policy, 37(3), 473-491.
71. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 46): Transaction Publishers.
72. Senge, P. M. (2010). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization: First Edition: Random House.
73. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
74. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
75. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial: Mit Press.
76. Sirén, C. A., Kohtamäki, M., & Kuckertz, A. (2012). Exploration and exploitation strategies, profit performance, and the mediating role of strategic learning: Escaping the exploitation trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 18-41.
77. Song, M., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). The effect of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 61-80.
78. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48(6), 1467.
79. Thomke, S., Von Hippel, E., & Franke, R. (1998). Modes of experimentation: an innovation process--and competitive--variable. Research Policy, 27(3), 315-332.
80. Toiviainen, H. (2007). Inter-organizational learning across levels: an object-oriented approach. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 343-358.
81. Tsai, W. P., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.
82. Von Krogh, G., Roos, J., & Kleine, D. (1998). Knowing in Firms: Understanding, Managing, and Measuring Knowledge: Sage.
83. Wagner, D., & Sepehri, P. (2000). Managing Diversity-Wahrnehmung und Verständnis im Internationalen Management. Personal, 9(2000), 456-462.
84. Wallin, M. W., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for Open Innovation:: Focus on the Integration of Knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145-154.
85. Ward, A. C., & Liker, J. K. (1998). Another look at how Toyota integrates product development. Harvard business review, 76(July-August), 36-49.
86. Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing product development: quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality: Free Press.
87. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of management review, 293-321.
88. Xu, J., Houssin, R., Caillaud, E., & Gardoni, M. (2011). Fostering continuous innovation in design with an integrated knowledge management approach. Computers in industry.
89. Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 925-950.
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2018-04-26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