請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/50960完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 謝明慧 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lo-Chih Wang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 王樂知 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T13:09:09Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2017-07-04 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2016-07-04 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2016-06-29 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文部分：
1. 孔方正（2008）質性研究，節錄自孔方正老師個人研究團隊網站，取自網址：http://www.pws.stu.edu.tw/fckung/file/QR.pdf 2. 王吉斌、彭盾（2015），互聯網＋：企業該如何顛覆性創新，天下文化 3. 交通部（2013），102年計程車營運狀況調查報，交通部統計處 4. 吳奇軒（2014），計程車市場經濟管制及創新服務，臺灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文 5. 呂國禎（2016），全球最瘋狂的商業模式：互聯網＋顛覆世界，598期，天下雜誌，頁86-113 6. 李心怡（2009），顧客需求導向式計程車創新派遣服務之設計，臺灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。 7. 周文生（1996），計程車管理策略之研究，交通大學交通運輸研究所博士論文。 8. 周文生（2002），九十一年度台北地區計程車營運情形調查期末報告， 台北市政府交通局與台北縣政府交通局共同委託中華民國運輸學會辦理 9. 林欣婕（2016），台灣大1.6萬小黃三策略力抗Uber，595期，天下雜誌，頁144-149 10. 侯勝宗、樊學良（2011），負面科技意會的前因與科技採用：台灣大車隊實證研究，管理評論, 第30卷第3期，頁73-91 11. 胡幼慧（1989），質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例，巨流圖書公司 12. 莊雅蘭（2012），探討企業由實體走向虛擬之即創歷程—以台灣中小企業為例，國立台灣大學國際企業研究所 13. 陳則文、侯勝宗（2007），非預期工作創新：台灣大車隊司機個案研究，科技管理學刊（14:2）。 14. 曾平毅（1989），台北市計程車營運及其管理狀況，都市交通，第四十二期，頁 30-37 15. 曾平毅（1993），台北市計程車營運管理課題與對策，運輸，第 20 期，頁1-16 16. 廖哲賢（2011），智慧型衛星派遣計程車服務鏈缺口之研究，臺灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文 17. 劉仲冬（1996），〈量與質的社會研究爭議及社會研究的走向及出路〉，胡幼慧主編，《質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》 18. 潘淑滿（2003），質性研究：理論與應用，心理出版社 19. 蕭瑞麟（2006），不用數字的研究，培生出版社 20. 羅世輝、王瓊慧（2014），以系統思考觀點探討台灣大車隊經營模式之研究，International Journal, 6(4), 225-240. 英文部分： 1. Abd Aziz, S., Fitzsimmons, J. R., & Douglas, E. J. (2008). Clarifying the business model construct. 2. Achtenhagen, L., Melin, L. & Naldi, L. (2013). Dynamics of Business Models - Strategizing, Critical Capabilities and Activities for Sustained Value Creation. Long range planning, 46(6), 427-442. 3. Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2000). Internet business models and strategies: Text and cases. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. 4. Ahokangas, P. (2014). The practice of creating and transforming a business model, Journal of Business Models, 2:1 5. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e‐business. Strategic management journal, 22(6‐7), 493-520. 6. Arshad, D., & Hughes, P. (2009). Examining organizational improvisation: The role of strategic reasoning and managerial factors. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 54, 548-554. 7. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative science quarterly,50(3), 329-366. 8. Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process.Research policy, 32(2), 255-276. 9. Barrett, F. J. (2002). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations.Organizational improvisation, 138. 10. Bastien, D. T., & Hostager, T. J. (1992). Cooperation as communicative accomplishment: A symbolic interaction analysis of an improvised jazz concert.Communication studies, 43(2), 92-104. 11. Berger, P. D. & Weinberg B. D. (2006). Optimal cooperative advertising integration strategy for organizations adding a direct online channel. Journal of Operational Research Society, 57, 920-927. 12. Bergh, D.D. & Lim, E.N. (2008). Learning how to restructure: absorptive capacity and improvisational views of restructuring actions and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 593–616. 13. Berliner, P. F. (1994). Thinking in Jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 14. Betz, F. (2002). Strategic business models. Engineering Management Journal, 14(1):174-195. 15. Bogdan, RC,Biklen, SK(1982).Qualitative research for education.Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon. 16. Bouncken, R.B., Muench, M., Kraus, S. (2015). Born Globals: Investigating The Influence Of Their Business Models On Rapid Internationalization, International Business & Economics Research Journal, 14(2): 247-256 17. Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. 18. Brown, S.L. & Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34. 19. Casadesus-Masanell, R. & Ricart, J. E. (2011). How to design a winning business model. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2): 100-107. 20. Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and to tactics. Long Range Planning, 43: 195-215. 21. Charles W.L. Hill, Gareth R. Jones. (2006). Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Limited. 22. Chesbrough, H. (2002). Open innovation. Harvard Business School Press. 23. Ciborra, C.U. (1996). The platform organization: recombining strategies, structures and surprises. Organization Science. 7(2), 103–118. 24. Crossan, M. & Sorrenti, M. (1997). Making sense of improvisation. In J. Walsch & A. Huff (Eds.). Advances in strategic management, 155-180. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 25. Crossan, M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organization Science, 9(5), 593-599. 26. Crossan, M., Cunha, M. P., Vera, D. & Cunha, J. (2005). Time and organizational improvisation. Academy of Management Review, 30 (1), 129–145. 27. Crossan, M., White, R.E., Lane, H.W. & Klus, L. (1996). The improvising organization: where planning meets opportunity, Organizational Dynamics, 24 (4), 20–35. 28. DaSilva, C.M., Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: what it is and what it is not. Long Range Plan. 47, 379e389. 29. Dean, R. T. (1989). Creative improvisation: Jazz, contemporary music, and beyond : how to develop techniques of improvisation for any musical context. Open University Press. 30. Demil, B. & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: in search of dynamic consistency, Long Range Planning, 43(2): 227-246. 31. Denzin, N. K. & Linclon, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In K. D. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) , Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp.1-32). London: Sage. 32. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550 33. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25. 34. Fiet, JP., Patel, PC. (2008). Forgiving business models for new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4) :749-761. 35. Gassmann, O.G., Frankenberger, K., Csik, M., (2014). The St. Gallen Business Model Navigator. University of St.Gallen, St. Gallen. 36. George, G., Bock, AJ. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1):83-111 37. Hamel, G. (2000). Leading revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 38. Hatch, M. J. (1999). Exploring the empty spaces of organizing: how improvisational jazz helps redescribe organizational structure. Organization Studies, 20 (1), 75-100. 39. Herriott, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational researcher, 12(2), 14-19. 40. Hill, C. W., & Jones, G. R. (2004). Strategic management theory: an integrated approach (6ed). MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 41. Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. C., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12): 50-59. 42. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1991). Jazz improvisation: a theory at the computational level. Representing Musical Structure, Academic Press. 43. Kagermann, H., Osterle, H., Jordan, JM. (2011). IT-driven business models. Global case studies in transformation.John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New Jersey. 44. Kamoche, K., Cunha, M.P., and Cunha, J.V. (2005). Towards a theory of organizational improvisation: Looking beyond the jazz metaphor, Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2023-2051 45. Leone, L. (2010). A critical review of improvisation in organizations:open issues and future research directions. Summer Conference: Opening Up Innovation: Strategy, Organization and Technology, Imperial College London Business School . 46. Leybourne, S. & Sadler-Smith, E. (2006). The role of intuition and improvisation in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 483–492. 47. Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5):86-92 48. Mangham, I. L. & Pye, A. (1991). The doing managing. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. 49. Manski, C. F., & Wright, J. D. (1967). Nature of equilibrium in the market for taxi services (No. Intrm Rpt.). 50. Marc G. Villinger, & Reinhard Jung. (2015). Establishing a continuous corporate business model innovation process: Process antecedents. Conference Paper:The XXVI ISPIM Conference 2015 Budapest, Hungary. 51. Markides, C., Sosa, L., (2013). Pioneering and first mover advantages: the importance of business models. Long Range Plan. 46, 325e334. 52. Mason, K., Spring, M., (2011). The sites and practices of business models. Ind. Mark. Manag. 40, 1032e1041. 53. Mendonça, D. J. & Wallace, W. A. (2007). A cognitive model of improvisation in emergency management. Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 37(4), 547-561 54. Michelina, F., Cammarano, A., Lamberti, E. & Caputo, M. (2015). Business models for open innovation: From collaboration to incorporation. Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practice, 2015: 1-13. 55. Mitchell,D., & Coles, C. (2003). The ultimate competitive advantage: secrets of continually developing a more profitable business model. Berrett- Koehler Publishers, Inc. 56. Moorman, C. & Miner, A. S. (1995). Walking the Tightrope: Improvisation and information in new product development. Report No. 95–101. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. 57. Moorman, C. & Miner, A.S. (1998a). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23 (4), 698–724. 58. Moorman, C. & Miner, A.S. (1998b). The convergence of planning and execution: improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 1-20. 59. Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(6):726-735. 60. Orlikowski, W.J. & Hoffman, J.D. (1997). An improvisational model for change management: the case of groupware technologies. Sloan Management Review, 38(2), 11–21. 61. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. (2013). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Wiley; 1 edition. 62. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., &Tucci, C. (2005). Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems (Vol. 16) :1-25. 63. Pan, S. L. & Tan, B. (2011). Demystifying case research: A structured–pragmatic–situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Information and Organization, 21, 161–176 64. Pavlou, P. A. & Sawy, O. A. (2010). The “third hand”: IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Information Systems Research, 21(3), 443–471 71. 65. Pedersen, K. B., Svarre, K. R., Slepniov, D., & Lindgren, P. (2013). Global Business Model–a step into a liquid business model, Journal of Multi Business Model Innovation and Technology, 1: 100-112. 66. Perry, L.T. (1991). Strategic improvising: how to formulate and implement competitive strategies in concert. Organizational Dynamics, 19(4), 51–64. 67. Powers, C. (1981). Role-imposition or role-improvisation: some theoretical principles. The Economic and Social Review, 12(4), 287–299. 68. Prasarnphanich, P. & Gillenson, M. L. (2003). The hybrid clicks and bricks business model. Communication of the ACM, 46(12), 178-185. 69. Rask M. (2014). Internationalization through business model innovation: In search of relevant design dimensions and elements, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 12(2): 146-161 70. Reinholdsson, Peter. (1998). Making Music Together: An interactionist perspective on small group performance in Jazz. Stockholm: Uppsala University Library. 71. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York, Basic Books. 72. Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business model innovation through trial-and-error learning: The Naturhouse case, Long Range Planning, 43(2): 383-407. 73. Tan, B. et al. (2010). Enabling Agility through Routinized Improvisation in IT Deployment: The Case of Chang Chun Petrochemicals. Thirty First International Conference on Information Systems, St. Louis 2010 74. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43: 172-194. 75. Timmers, P. (1998). Business models for electronic markets, Electronic Markets, 8(2):3-8. 76. Toro-Jarrín, M. A., Ponce-Jaramillo, I. E., & Güemes-Castorena, D. (2016). Methodology for the of building process integration of Business Model Canvas and Technological Roadmap. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 77. Vera, D. & Crossan, M. (2004). Theatrical improvisation, lessons for organizations. Organization Studies, 25, 727-749. 78. Volkman, T. A. (1984). Our Garden in the Sea: Contingency and Improvisation in Mandar women’s work. American Ethnologist, 21, 564-585. 79. Weick, K. E. (1987). Substitutes for strategy. In D.J. Teece (Ed.) The competitive challenge: strategies for industrial innovation and renewal, New York, Harper & Row, 221-233 80. Weick, K. E. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science. 9(5), 543–555. 81. Weick, K.E. (1993a). Organizational redesign as improvisation. In Huber, G.P. & Glick, W.H. (Eds.),Organizational Change and Redesign. New York: Oxford University Press, 346–379. 82. Weick, K.E. (1993b). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly. 38 (4): 628–652. 83. Weick, K.E. (1996). Drop your tools: an allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 301-313. 84. Weick, K.E. (1999). The aesthetic of imperfection in orchestras and organizations. In M.P. Cunha, and C.A. Marques, (Eds.), Readings in Organization Science. Lisbon: ISPA. 85. Yin, R. K., (1994) Case study research: design and methods, Sage, 2nd Edition. 86. Zott, C., Amit, R. (2010). Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3): 216-226. 87. Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4):019-1042. 網站部分： 1. 大都會官方網站 http://www.mtaxi.com.tw/ 2. 大豐衛星官方網站 http://www.dftaxi.com.tw/ 3. 王新宇（2015），傳統企業殺入，互聯網公司該怎麼玩轉物聯網？，鈦媒體 http://www.tmtpost.com/1660528.html 4. 北極燕鷗（2015），擺脫市場限制？台灣大車隊的多角化經營，股感知識庫 http://goo.gl/B3I6wD 5. 台灣大車隊官方網站 http://www.taiwantaxi.com.tw/taiwantaxi/Index.asp 6. 曲飛宇（2015），B2B生態解讀：拿下三大戰役者為王，艾瑞網 http://news.iresearch.cn/content/2015/12/256669.shtml 7. 邱莉燕（2015），深度融合生活 提高生產、創新力》3分鐘搞懂互聯網，遠見雜誌特刊：影響未來20年關鍵產業 http://www.gvm.com.tw/Boardcontent_29962.html 8. 陳瑞霖（2014），Uber 在臺週年，盼增加城市及減少等車時間，科技新報，goo.gl/rfNQKu 9. 群益證券投資個股報告：台灣大車隊（2012） https://www.htisec.com/data/taiwan/pdf/2012110701012_12_new.pdf 10. 鄒昀倢（2015），同樣是搭計程車，你何以斷言台灣大車隊比 Uber 安全？，科技橘報 http://buzzorange.com/techorange/2015/01/09/uber-safety/ 11. 維基百科 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E9%A6%96%E9%A1%B5 12. 蔡穎（2015），薄云借智出品 http://www.weixinyidu.com/n_12883 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/50960 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 面對環境、產業、消費者、企業內部等不斷變動的各個面向，企業的經營模式必須要有所調整才能創造優勢，然而企業不同階段所面對的情境、擁有的資源與能力各不相同，因此其轉型過程便也有所差異，再加上轉型過程並非能一步到位，而是需要邊做邊學、不斷修正方能達到目標，此特性正適合用即創觀點進行探討，因此本研究之主題便是以即創之觀點研究企業進行經營模式轉型之歷程。
本研究採用質性個案研究法作為研究方法，選取台灣大車隊作為此次個案分析之企業，透過文獻搜集與訪談資料整理將其經營模式轉型過程帶入即創流程與類型進行剖析，同時針對其不同時期之經營模式轉型的內容細部詳述，最後其結果會聚焦於企業原核心事業與經營模式轉型部分之關係能否達到整合。 研究結果顯示企業在進行經營模式的轉型過程時，確實會碰到挑戰、無法一次達標，但在這個過程中發展即創能成為企業彌平、降低挑戰的一項能力，而企業不同階段所發展的即創轉型歷程也會有所不同，然最終企業的原核心事業與轉型之部分都會朝向整合的方式發展，以達到最大的效益。本研究希望透過此探討，能給後續企業在進行經營模式轉型時作為一參考與借鏡。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Faced with constant changes in various aspects, coming from environmental, industrial, consumer, and internal fronts, an enterprise must adjust its business model accordingly in order to create advantages. However, each firm at different stages encounters different situations, owns different resources, and possesses different capabilities. Therefore, its transformation process will not always remain the same. Moreover, transformation cannot be achieved in one step, but has to be accomplished through continuous learning and correction during the process. Thus, the notion of improvisation provides a suitable concept to investigate such a transformation process. The theme of this research is to study the transformation process of an enterprise’s business model from the perspective of improvisation.
The method of our research was by means of case study. We chose Taiwan Taxi as the object of analysis. Data concerning the transformation of its business model were compiled from the literature and through interviews. An improvisation scenario was constructed, described and examined in detail. The conclusion of the discussion focused on whether integration was obtained between the original core business and the transformed parts. The results show that when an enterprise undergoes business model transformation, it indeed will meet obstacles and challenges, unable to reach goals at one stroke. Nevertheless, the enterprise can develop improvisation in the process to reduce threats and overcome difficulties. The enterprise may take different improvisations at distinct stages, but it can proceed towards an ultimate synergy of the core business and the transformed parts for greatest benefits. It is our hope that this research can be of help as a reference and example to future enterprises with their business model transformation. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T13:09:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-105-R03724005-1.pdf: 2401189 bytes, checksum: b836e75a340973d9d8b0aa74eafae839 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 i
摘要 ii Abstract iii 目錄 v 表目錄 vii 第一章 緒論 - 1 - 第一節 研究背景與動機 - 1 - 第二節 研究目的與主題 - 5 - 第三節 研究流程與架構 - 6 - 第二章 文獻回顧 - 8 - 第一節 企業經營模式 - 8 - 第二節 即創 - 24 - 第三章 研究方法 - 32 - 第一節 質性研究 - 32 - 第二節 資料蒐集 - 35 - 第四章 個案簡介 - 42 - 第一節 計程車產業市場簡介 - 42 - 第二節 個案企業介紹：台灣大車隊 - 52 - 第五章 個案分析 - 67 - 第一節 各階段經營模式之佈局 - 67 - 第二節 企業經營模式之轉變與即創歷程 - 74 - 第六章 研究結論與建議 - 87 - 第一節 研究發現 - 87 - 第二節 管理意涵 - 92 - 第三節 研究限制 - 98 - 第四節 未來研究建議 - 99 - 參考文獻 - 100 - | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 即創 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 經營模式 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 即創 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 歷程 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 整合 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 歷程 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 轉型 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 經營模式 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 整合 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 轉型 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | improvisation | en |
| dc.subject | business model | en |
| dc.subject | transformation | en |
| dc.subject | process | en |
| dc.subject | integration | en |
| dc.subject | improvisation | en |
| dc.subject | business model | en |
| dc.subject | transformation | en |
| dc.subject | process | en |
| dc.subject | integration | en |
| dc.title | 探討企業經營模式轉型之即創歷程—以台灣大車隊為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Exploring a Firm’s Improvisation Process of business model transformation— A Case of Taiwan Taxi | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 104-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳俊忠,余峻瑜 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 經營模式,轉型,歷程,整合,即創, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | business model,transformation,process,integration,improvisation, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 111 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201600545 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2016-06-29 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 國際企業學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 國際企業學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-105-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 2.34 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。