進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-3005201821055700
論文名稱(中文) 企業技術系統的結構控制能力:802系列標準化個案探討
論文名稱(英文) The Capabilities of Firms’ Architectural Control Over A Technology System: The Case Study of 802 Series Standardization
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration
學年度 106
學期 2
出版年 107
研究生(中文) 陳重謂
研究生(英文) Chong-Wei Chen
學號 R46054092
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 46頁
口試委員 指導教授-許經明
口試委員-張元杰
口試委員-林清河
中文關鍵字 結構控制  標準必要專利  核心子系統  非核心子系統 
英文關鍵字 architectural control  SEP (Standard Essential Patent)  core sub-systems  non-core sub-systems 
學科別分類
中文摘要 標準化有助於公司迅速將技術推廣到市場。但是另一方面,標準化會產生知識外溢的問題,企業的技術外溢到市場上,可能會被其他企業加以利用。為了確保標準化下的競爭優勢,控制技術系統的發展對企業來說,是非常重要的。過去的研究表明,企業實施或限制系統元件(或一組元件)設計的能力可以被視為是「結構控制」的能力,它對技術系統的發展產生影響。本研究延伸了結構控制的概念,強調結構控制對於企業在標準化中確保其技術發展亦是十分重要的。此外,我們認為當企業有系統地控制技術系統的每個元素時,可以提升結構控制的能力。我們使用社會學分析工具UCINET的核心/邊緣功能,來研究在802系列標準化中企業的標準必要專利(SEP)組合,本研究揭示了企業控制「核心子系統(核心)」和「非核心子系統(邊緣)」的能力,可以增強對技術系統的結構控制。換句話說,我們的發現意味著企業為了要控制「核心子系統(核心)」和「非核心子系統(邊緣)」,需要擁有「深化」和「探索」相關的能力,這樣企業可以在標準化的環境下,擁有更高度的結構控制的能力。
英文摘要 Standardization assist firms in diffusing their technologies to the market rapidly. On the other side, standardization induces knowledge spillovers in which firms’ technologies may be expropriated by other firms. In order to secure their competitive advantages under standardization, it is necessary for firms to control the developments of a technology system. Past studies indicate that firms’ capability to enable or constrain the design of a system component (or a set of components) can be regarded as “architectural control,”which exerts influence on the development of a technology system. This study extends the concept of architectural control and emphasizes the point that architectural control is also indispensable in order for firms to secure their technology developments in standardization. Besides, we believe that architectural control can be enhanced when firms “systematically” control every element of a technology system. By investigating firms’ portfolio of SEPs (Standard Essential Patents) in the 802 series standardization through core/peripheral function of sociology analysis tool UCINET, this study reveals that firms’ capabilities in controlling “core sub-systems (core)” and “non-core sub-systems (peripheral)” of a technology system can also enhance their architectural control over a technology system. In other words, our findings imply that firms need to possess the abilities that are relevant to “exploitation” and ”exploration” in order to control “core sub-systems (core)” and “non-core sub-systems (peripheral),” so that firms can have a higher architectural control in standardization.
論文目次 CONTENTS
中文摘要 I
Abstract II
誌謝 III
CONTENTS IV
TABLES V
FIGURES VI
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Gap 2
Chapter 2 Literature Review 4
Chapter 3 Perspectives 10
3.1 Technological elements and Interdependence 10
3.2 Core sub-systems and Non-core sub-systems 11
3.3 Core and Periphery of a Social Network 13
3.4 Proposition 14
Chapter 4 Methodology 16
4.1. Analysis Objective 16
4.2 Variables, Measurements and Data 19
Chapter 5 Analysis Results 23
Chapter 6 Discussion 31
Chapter 7 Conclusion and Future Topics 34
7.1 Conclusions 34
7.2 Future research 34
References 35
參考文獻 References
Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma roadblock to innovation in the automobile industry. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 197-220.
Ambrosio, L. (1987). New lower semicontinuity results for integral functionals. Rend. Accad. Naz. Sci. XL, 11, 1-42.
Ambrosio, Johanna, ”POSIX is propelled by AT & T’s Unix restrictions,”Government Com- puter News, March 13, 1987, 65.
Anderson, P. & Tushman, M. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604-633.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.
Arıkan, A. T., & Schilling, M. A. (2011). Structure and governance in industrial districts: implications for competitive advantage. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 772-803.
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (pp. 609-626). Princeton University Press.
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Simon and Schuster.
Baldwin, C. Y. (2010). When open architecture beats closed: The entrepreneurial use of architectural knowledge. Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper, 10-063.
Baldwin, C. Y. (2015). Bottlenecks, modules and dynamic architectural capabilities, Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper, 15-028.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. MIT press.
Baum, J. A., & Ingram, P. (2002). Interorganizational learning and network organization: Toward a behavioral theory of the interfirm. The economics of choice, change, and organization: Essays in memory of Richard M. Cyert, 191-218.
Besen, S. M., & Farrell, J. (1994). Choosing how to compete- Strategies and tactics in standardization. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 117-131.
Blind, K. (2004). The economics of standards. Books.
Blind, K., & Thumm, N. (2004). Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy, 33(10), 1583-1598.
Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (2000). Models of core/periphery structures. Social networks, 21(4), 375-395.
Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, 56(10), 1849-1872.
Boudreau, K. & Hagiu, A. (2009). Platform rules: Multi-sided platforms as regulators. In Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation. (pp. 163-191) Edward Elgar, London
Bradner, Scott, ”The Internet Engineering Task Force,” in Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman and Mark Stone, eds., Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly, 1999, pp. 47- 52.
Brusoni, S. & Prencipe, A. (2001). Managing knowledge in loosely coupled networks: Exploring the links between product and knowledge dynamics. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 1019-1035.
Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. (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.
Chesbrough, H. (2005). Towards a dynamics of modularity: A cyclical model of technical advance, In Prencipe, A., Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (Eds.), The Business of Systems Integration (174-198). Oxford University Press.
Choi, C., Kim, S., & Park, Y. (2007). A patent-based cross impact analysis for quantitative estimation of technological impact: The case of information and communication technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(8), 1296-1314.
Clark, K. & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy, organization and management in the world auto industry. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Constant, E. W. (1980). The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Crawley, E., De Weck, O., Magee, C., Moses, J., Seering, W., Schindall, J., ... & Whitney, D. (2004). The influence of architecture in engineering systems (monograph.
Cusumano, M., Mylonadis, Y. and Rosenbloom, R. (1992). Strategic maneuvering and mass‐ market dynamics: the triumph of VHS over Beta, Business History Review, 66, 51‐94.
David, P. A., & Steinmueller, W. E. (1994). Economics of compatibility standards and competition in telecommunication networks. Information Economics and Policy, 6(3), 217-241.
David, P. A., and Greenstein, S. (1990). The economics of compatibility standards- An introduction to recent research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1(1-2), 3-41.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research policy, 11(3), 147-162.
Dosi, G., Hobday, M., Marengo, L. & Prencipe, A. (2005). The economics of systems integration: Towards an evolutionary interpretation, In Prencipe, A., Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (Eds.), The Business of Systems Integration (95-113). Oxford University Press.
Economides, N. (1989). Desirability of compatibility in the absence of network externalities. The American Economic Review, 1165-1181.
Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Herzhoff, J., Sørensen, C., & Eaton, B. D. (2011, June). Mobile digital infrastructure innovation towards a tussle and control framework. In ECIS (p. 147).
European Commission (2014), Patents and Standards: A Modern Framework for IPR-based Standardization, European Union.
Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1985). Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 70-83.
Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1992). Converters, compatibility, and the control of interfaces. The journal of industrial economics, 9-35.
Farrell, J., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Dynamic competition with switching costs. The RAND Journal of Economics, 123-137.
Ferguson, C. H., and Morris, C. R. (1993). Computer wars: The fall of IBM and the future of global technology. Crown Publishing Group.
Ferro, E., & Potorti, F. (2005). Bluetooth and Wi-Fi wireless protocols: a survey and a comparison. IEEE Wireless Communications, 12(1), 12-26.
Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117-132.
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Research policy, 30(7), 1019-1039.
Funk, J. L. (2002). Committee-and Market-Based Competition in the Mobile Infrastructure Market. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Funk, J. L. (2009). The co-evolution of technology and methods of standard setting: the case of the mobile phone industry. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19(1), 73.
Gabel, H. L. (1987). Open standards in computers: The case of X/Open. In H. L. Gabel (Ed.), Product standardization and competitive strategy (pp. 91–123). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
Garud, R. & Kumaraswamy, A. (1993). Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of Sun Microsystems’ open systems strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 351-369.
Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 196-214.
Gawer, A. & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Grindley, Peter, Standards, strategy, and policy: cases and stories, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside (published in digital form at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/).
He, Z. L., Lim, K., & Wong, P. K. (2006). Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile telecommunications market. Research Policy, 35(8), 1147-1165.
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9-30.
Henkel, J., & Baldwin, C. Y. (2009). Modularity for value appropriation- Drawing the boundaries of intellectual property, Harvard Business School Working Paper, 90-097.
Henkel, J., Baldwin, C. Y., & Shih, W. (2013). IP Modularity. California Management Review, 55(4), 65-82.
Henningsson, S., Hedman, J., & Andersson, B. (2013, June). Shaping Information Infrastructure Evolution: Governmental Claims of Architectural Control Points. In ECEG2013-13th European Conference on eGovernment: ECEG 2013 (p. 240). Academic Conferences Limited.
Hobday, M., Davies, A., & Prencipe, A. (2005). Systems integration: A core capability of the modern corporation. Industrial and corporate change, 14(6), 1109-1143.
Hughes, T. P. (1983). Networks of power: Electrification in western society, 1880-1930. USA: The John Hopkins University Press.
Iansiti, M. (1997). Technology integration: Making critical choices in a western electric show and convention, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Iansiti, M. (1998). Technology integration: Making critical choice in a dynamic world. Harvard Business School Press.
Iansiti, M. (1999). How the incumbent can win: Managing technological transitions in the semiconductor industry. Management Science, 46(2), 169-185.
Iansiti, M. & Clark, K. (1994). Integration and dynamic capability: Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 557-605.
Iansiti, M., & Khanna, T. (1995). Technological evolution, system architecture and the obsolescence of firm capabilities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4, 331–336.
Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Characterizing the “technological position” of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers. Research Policy, 18(2), 87-97.
Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. MIT press.
Joglekar, N. (2005, July). A Behavioral View of Core-Periphery Dynamics in Social Networks. In Conference Proceedings, The 23 rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society.
Kang, B., & Motohashi, K. (2015). Essential intellectual property rights and inventors’ involvement in standardization. Research Policy, 44(2), 483-492.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183-1194.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American economic review, 75(3), 424-440.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1986). Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. Journal of political economy, 94(4), 822-841.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems competition and network effects. The journal of economic perspectives, 8(2), 93-115.
Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic management journal, 461-477.
Langlois, R. N. (1992). Transaction-Cost economics in real time. Industrial and Corporate Change, 99-127.
Langlois, R. N. (2006). The secret life of mundane transaction costs. Organization Studies, 27(9), 1389-1410.
Lee, J. S., Su, Y. W., & Shen, C. C. (2007, November). A comparative study of wireless protocols: Bluetooth, UWB, ZigBee, and Wi-Fi. In Industrial Electronics Society, 2007. IECON 2007. 33rd Annual Conference of the IEEE (pp. 46-51). Ieee.
Leiponen, A. (2008). Competing through cooperation: The organization of standard setting in wireless telecommunications. Management Science, 54(11), 1904-1919.
Lemstra, W., Hayes, V., & Groenewegen, J. (2010). The innovation journey of Wi-Fi: The road to global success. Cambridge University Press.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672.
Malkin, Gary, ”The Tao of IETF: A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet Engineering Task Force,” RFC 1539, Information Sciences Institute, Los Angeles, August 1993.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Matutes, C., & Regibeau, P. (1988). " Mix and match": product compatibility without network externalities. The RAND Journal of Economics, 221-234.
Mei, H. C., Che, J. L., Lo, S., & Sher, P. J. (2010, July). Does technological standardization enhance or inhibit firm's capabilities? Research on dynamic capabilities in the mobile communication market. In Technology Management for Global Economic Growth (PICMET), 2010 Proceedings of PICMET'10:(pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 77-91.
Muñiz, A. S. G., & Carvajal, C. R. (2006). Core/periphery structure models: An alternative methodological proposal. Social networks, 28(4), 442-448.
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of information Science, 28(6), 441-453.
Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research policy, 26(2), 141-156.
Podolny, J. M., & Stuart, T. E. (1995). A role-based ecology of technological change. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1224-1260.
Podolny, J. M., Stuart, T. E., & Hannan, M. T. (1996). Networks, knowledge, and niches: Competition in the worldwide semiconductor industry, 1984-1991. American journal of sociology, 102(3), 659-689.
Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 501-518.
Prencipe, A. (1997). Technological competencies and product's evolutionary dynamics a case study from the aero-engine industry. Research policy, 25(8), 1261-1276.
Prencipe, A. (2000). Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in the CoPS: The case of the aircraft engine control system. Research Policy, 29, 895-911.
Prencipe, A. (2005). Corporate strategy and systems integration capabilities: Managing networks in complex systems industries, In Prencipe, A., Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (Eds.), The Business of Systems Integration (114-132). Oxford University Press.
Rank, C., Rank, O., & Wald, A. (2006). Integrated versus core-periphery structures in regional biotechnology networks. European Management Journal, 24(1), 73-85.
Rein, L. (1997). Microsoft pushes Java aside. Wired JVeivs (www. wired. com/news/news/technology/story/7324. html).
Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic management journal, 369-386.
Schilling, M. A. (1998). Technological lockout- An integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 267-284.
Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312-334.
Schilling, M. A. (2002). Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 387-398.
Sheremata, W. A. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 389-408.
Shiu & Yasumoto, M. (2017). Investigating Knowledge Spillovers under Standardization: The Examination of the Patent-Citation Networks in the Mobile Telecommunication Industry. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 18(2), 81.
Shiu & Yasumoto (2017a). Exploring the Architectural Control over Opened System-Goods: Analysis of Technology Specifications and Standard-Essential Patents in the Telecommunication Industry. Presented in AOM (Academy of Management) annual meeting, Atlanta.
Shiu & Yasumoto (2017b). Exploring the Source of Architectural Control of Complex System-Goods Under Standardization, Presented in SMS (Strategic Management Society) annual meeting, Huston.
Steinmueller, W. E., (2005). The role of technical standards in coordinating the division of labour in complex system Industries. In: Prencipe, A., Davies, A., Hobday, M., (Eds.), The Business of Systems Integration. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 133-151. Strahilevitz, L. J. (2006). Information asymmetries and the rights to exclude, Michigan Law Review, 104, 1835-1898.
Sun Microsystems. (1999). Java: The first 800 days (java.sun.com/events/jibe/timeline.html): Accessed April 16.
Taft, Darryl K., ”NBS workshop aims to ensure Posix portability,”Government Computer News, Nov. 20, 1987, 71.
Tan, T. K., & Bing, B. (2004). The world wide Wi-Fi: technological trends and business strategies. John Wiley & Sons.
Tee, R., & Woodard, C. J. (2013). Architectural control and value migration in layered ecosystems - The case of open-source cloud management platforms. DRUID Celebration Conference, Barcelona, Spain.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.
Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on “profiting from innovation”. Research Policy, 35(8), 1131-1146.
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Research commentary—Digital infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748-759.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Research commentary—Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675-687.
Tushman, M. & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.
Tushman, M. & Murmann, J. P. (1998). Dominant designs, technology cycles, and organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 231–266.
Tushman, M. & Rosenkopf, L. (1992). Organizational determinants of technological change: Toward a sociology of technological evolution, In Cummings, L and Staw B. (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 311-347, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-29.
Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research policy, 24(3), 419-440.
Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (1995). Product design and development. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Vanhaverbeke, W., Gilsing, V., Beerkens, B., & Duysters, G. (2009). The Role of Alliance Network Redundancy in the Creation of Core and Non‐core Technologies. Journal of management studies, 46(2), 215-244.
Vincenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Analytical Studies
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., and Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195-1215.
Weng, C., & Daim, T. U. (2012). Structural differentiation and its implications—Core/periphery structure of the technological network. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(4), 327-342.
West, J. (2003). How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32(7), 1259-1285.
West, J. (2006). The economic realities of open standards: Black, white and many shades of gray In Greenstein, S., and Stango, V. (Eds.), Standards and Public Policy. (pp. 87-122) Cambridge University Press.
West, J., & Dedrick, J. (2000). Innovation and control in standards architectures: the rise and fall of Japan's PC-98. Information Systems Research, 11(2), 197-216.
West, J., & Dedrick, J. (2001). Open source standardization: the rise of Linux in the network era. Philosophy & Technology, 14(2), 88.
West, J., & Wood, D. (2014). Evolving an open ecosystem: The rise and fall of the Symbian platform. In Collaboration and competition in business ecosystems (pp. 27-67). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
West, J., & Dedrick, J. (2000). Innovation and control in standards architectures: The rise and fall of Japan’s PC-98. Information Systems Research, 11(2), 197–216.
Whitney, D., E. Crawley, O. de Weck, S. Eppinger, C. Magee, J. Moses, W. Seering, J. Schindall, and D. Wallace. 2004. The influence of architecture in engineering systems. Engineering Systems Monograph, MIT Engineering Systems Division.
Woodard, C. J. (2008). Architectural control points. In 3rd International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2008), Atlanta, GA.
Yayavaram, S. & Ahuja, G. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 333-362.
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735.
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2018-06-27起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2018-06-27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