請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/66375
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 郭瑞祥,陳忠仁 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-Min Chang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 張愈敏 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T00:32:43Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-03-19 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2012-03-19 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2012-02-09 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文部分與個案次籍資料來源
1. 大河原克行(2007)。Sony VAIO事業本部長談VAIO之領先策略。MIC研究報告。 2. 今井拓司(2006)。電腦精品「Sony VAIO」系列開發秘辛。日經BP,MIC研究報告。 3. 台灣三星電子官方網站 http://www.samsung.com/tw/ 4. 台灣索尼官方網站 http://www.sony.com.tw/ 5. 汪 洋(2003)。聯想無限。台北市 : 匡邦文化。 6. 李奉煦(2003)。三星秘笈 : 超一流企業的崛起與展望。臺北市 : 大塊文化。 7. 吳思華(2003)。科技產業創新模式硏究。台北市 : 資訊工業策進會資訊市場情報中心。 8. 宏碁臺灣官方網站 http://www.acer.com.tw/ac/zh/TW/content/home 9. 拓墣產業硏究所(2003)。南韓IT產業的世界第一霸權佈局與策略 : 南韓IT產業變身崛起參考手册。臺北市 : 拓墣科技。 10. 林晉寬(1995)。從資源基礎理論探討資源特性與成長策略之關係。國立政治大學企業管理研究所博士論文,台北市。 11. 施振榮(1992)。再造宏碁:開創、成長與挑戰。臺北市 : 天下文化。 12. 施振榮(2004)。宏碁的世紀變革 : 淡出製造、成就品牌。臺北市 : 天下文化。 13. 洪世章(2007)。企業成長、策略選擇與策略改變。中山管理評論,2007 年三月號,第十五卷第一期 p.11-35。 14. 前瞻研究團隊(2007)。成功的市場定位與高品質的開發流程-以電腦精品「Sony VAIO」系列開發秘辛為例。MIC研究報告。 15. 約翰.納森著,高煥麗譯(2001)。SONY新力王國。台北市 : 智庫。 16. 索尼全球網站 http://www.sony.net/ 17. 陳景松(2009)。三星電子筆記型電腦之經營模式剖析。MIC研究報告。 18. 陳景松(2009)。南韓個人電腦市場發展現況分析。MIC研究報告。 19. 傑森.德崔克,肯尼斯.格雷曼著;張國鴻,吳明機譯。亞洲電腦爭霸戰 : 創造全球競賽新規則。台北市 : 時報文化。 20. 劉祥亞(2008)。三星 : 韓國經濟奇蹟的推手。台北縣新店市 : 好優文化。 21. 聯想臺灣官方網站 http://www.lenovo.com/tw/zh/ 22. 聯想中國官方網站 http://appserver.lenovo.com.cn/About/,http://visitor.lenovo.com.cn/ 23. 魏 娜(2005)。三星致勝傳奇 : 從亞洲第一到世界第一。臺北縣汐止市 : 采竹文化。 24. 羅艷紅(2005)。最強的消費娛樂品牌SONY電子王國 : 電子業界的領先者60年的老字號。臺北市 : 維德文化。 二、英文部分 1. Abernathy, W., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of Industry Innovation. Technology Review, J. M, 80(7):97-107 2. Afuah, A. N. & Utterback, J. M. (1995). Responding to Structural Industry Changes: A Technological Evolution Perspective. Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 6, Issue1, p 183-202. 3. Agarwal, R., Sarkar, M. B. & Echambadi, R. (2002). The Conditioning Effect of Time on Firm Survival: An Industry Life Cycle Approach. Academy of Management Journal. 4. Angel, D. P. & Engstrom, J. (1995). Economic Geography: 79-102. 5. Ansoff, H. Igor. (1957). Strategy for Diversification. Harvard Business Review, Sep/Oct 1957, Vol. 35, p113-124. 6. Argyres, N. & Bigelow, L. (2007) Does Transaction Misalignment Matter for Firm Survival at All Stages of the Industry Life Cycle? Management Science, 53(8): 1332-1344. 7. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1): 99-120. 8. Baum. J. A. C. & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional Linkages and Organization Mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 187-218. 9. Bowman, E. H. & Helfat, C. E. (2001). Strategy Management Journal, 22: 1-23. 10. Chang, S. J. & Singh, H. (2000). Corporate and Industry Effects on Business Unit Competitive Position. Strategy Management Journal, 21: 739-752. 11. Chu, W. W. (2009). Can Taiwan’s second movers upgrade via branding? Research Policy, 38: 1054–1065. 12. Collis, D. J. & Montgomery, C. A.(1998). Creating Corporate Advantage. Harvard Business Review, 76(3): 70-83. 13. Cox, W. E., Jr. (1967). Product Life Cycle as Marketing Models. Journal of Business, 40: 375-384. 14. Dean, J. (1950). Pricing Policies for New Products. Harvard Business Review, 28: 45-53. 15. Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does Isomorphism Legitimate? Academy of Management Journal 39(4): 1024-1039. 16. Devlin, G. (1991). Diversification : A Redundant Strategic Option. European Management Journal, Vol 24(2), p36-41. 17. DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization Fields. American Sociological Review, 50: 377-391. 18. Drew, P. G. (1987). Despite Shakeout, Imaging Industry not Doomed to Being Greek Tragedy. Diagnostic Imaging, November: 95-99. 19. Eisenhardt, M. K. & Martin, A. J. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What are they? Strategy Management Journal, 21(10/11): 1105-1121. 20. Fuentelsaz, L., Gomez, J. & Polo, Y. (2002). Followers’ Entry Timing: Evidence From the Spanish Banking Sector After Deregulation. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 245-264. 21. Gallon, M. R. & Stillman, H. M. (1995). Putting Core Competence Thinking into Practice. Research Technology Management, 38(3): 20. 22. Grant, R. M. (1991). The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implication for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, 33: 114-135. 23. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K. (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68: 79-91. 24. Haveman, H. A. (1993). Follow the leader: mimetic isomorphism and entry into new market. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2): 334-364. 25. Hax, A. C. & Majluf, N. S. (1991). The Strategy Concept and Process: A Pragmatic Approach. Englewood Cliffs, N. J, Prentice Hall. 26. Hitt, M. A. & Ireland, R. D. (1985). Corporate Distinctive Competence, Strategy, Industry and Performance. Strategy Management Journal, 6: 273-293. 27. Hill, W. L., Hwang, P. & Kim, W. C. (1990). An Eclectic Theory of the Choice of International Entry Mode. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 Iss. 2:117-128. 28. Hofer, C. W. & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. West Publishing. St.Paul. 29. Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation Over the Product Life Cycle. American Economics. Rev. 86 562-583 30. Klepper, S. (2002). Firm Survival and the Evolution of Oligopoly. RAND J. Economics. 33 37-61 31. Klepper, S. & Graddy, E. (1990). The Evolution of New Industries and the Determinants of Market Structure. RAND J. Economics. 21 27-44 32. Kogut, B. & Singh, H. (1988). The Effect of National Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode. Journal of International Business Studies. Vol. 19 Iss.3:411-432. 33. Kotler, P. (1984). Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation, and control. 34. Lamont, B. T. & Anderson, C. R. (1985). Mode of Corporate Diversification and Economic Performance. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 28 No.4: 926-934. 35. Lee, G. K. (2008). Relevance of Organization Capabilities and Its Dynamics: What to Learn From Entrants’ Product Portfolios About the Determinants of Entry Timing. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1257-1280. 36. Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the Product Life Cycle. Harvard Business Review, 18: 81-94. 37. Mahoney, J. & Pandian, J. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 363-380. 38. Moore, G. A. (2004). Darwin and the Demon: Innovating Within Established Enterprises. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 Issue 7/8: 86-92. 39. Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Combining Institutional and Resource-Based Views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9): 697-713. 40. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York, Wiley. 41. Porter, P. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press. 42. Rumelt, R. (1974). Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 43. Sanchez, R., Heene, A. & Thomas, H. (1996). Dynamics of Competence-Based Competition: Theory and Practice in the New Strategic Management: 1-35. 44. Schoenecker, T. S. & Cooper, A. C. (1998). The Role of Firm Resource and Organization Attributes in Determining Entry Timing: A Cross-Industry Study. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 1127-1143. 45. Slator, M. (1980). The managerial limitations to the growth of firms, Economic Journal, 8: 520-528. 46. Teece, D. J., G. Pisano, & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533. 47. Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A Dynamic Model of Process and Product Innovation. OMEGA, 3:639-656 48. Vernon, R. (1966). International Investment and International Trade in the Product Life Cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80: 190-207. 49. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 14(4): 516-531. 50. Wrigley, L. (1970). Divisional Autonomy and Diversification. Harvard Business School. 51. Yip, G. S. (1982). Diversification Entry: Internal Development Versus Acquisition. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3: 331-345. 52. Zook, C. & Allen, J. (2003). Growth Outside the Core. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 81 Issue 12, 66-73. 53. Zukin, S. & DiMaggio, P. J. (1990). Structures of Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, U.K. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/66375 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究根據文獻回顧與個案分析,奠基於產業生命週期理論、資源基礎理論與制度理論,提出成長策略模式的矩陣模型分類架構。以進入產業的產業生命週期階段與事業範疇作為兩軸,將企業的成長模型分成四類:(一)技術先佔、(二)資本前鋒、(三)通路跟隨、(四)品牌後援。顯示企業在不同產業生命週期階段進入產業時,所必須擁有的能力或資產,並且納入集團資源挹注的影響因素,比較是否形成企業經營模式與成長策略的不同。因此,本研究提出一成長策略變數架構,分別從資源基礎、事業策略、成長策略等三方面分析與比較企業的經營模式與成長策略。
本研究選擇產業生命週期演化較為完整的個人電腦產業,並且尋找各階段進入產業的代表廠商。個案分析結果顯示,進入產業的產業生命週期階段,由於演化至不同的競爭基礎,與企業切入產業時所擁有的資源基礎與核心能力,必須高度契合,集團挹注集團特有資源至事業部門亦影響資源基礎、經營模式與成長策略;當位於同樣的產業生命週期階段,企業會趨於同質化以因應現行的競爭基礎與消費者偏好,因此擁有與採取相似的資源基礎、經營模式與成長策略,唯一的差異僅在於集團因素的影響,有集團資源挹注的廠商,較容易運用集團內事業部門的科技與行銷綜效,成長策略也傾向集團式多角化,並且透過內部自行發展,而非併購或策略聯盟,來達成成長。 研究貢獻與管理意涵在於提出企業從兩個角度來思考經營模式與成長策略,從產業生命週期演化與制度理論的角度,以及資源基礎與集團資源的角度,從內外部環境來檢視對於企業經營策略與成長策略的影響。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | According to literature review, case analysis, based on industry life cycle theory, resource based view and institutional theory, this thesis proposed a matrix topology model to analyze and compare growth strategy of companies. The two dimensions composed the matrix, which were entry time and business scope, segmenting four growth strategy mode: (1) Technology Preemptor, (2) Capital Pioneer, (3) Channel Follower, (4) Brand Backer. The four modes represented that the entry decision and condition of a company should match the competition base during a specific period and core competence of the company, and that corporate effect and corporate resource would also affect the resource base, business model and growth strategy. Therefore, this thesis developed a strategic variable analytic framework, including three constructs: resource base, business strategy, and growth strategy.
This study chose PC industry as the case study industry, as it was the industry that underwent every stage along the industry life cycle. Therefore, we chose companies that entered PC industry during different industry life cycle. The research result was that different companies entered the industry during different industry life cycle would have different resource base, business strategy and growth strategy. Also, corporate effects would influence them. When companies were in the same industry life cycle, companies tended to be more alike, while the only difference was corporate effect. Corporate effects would lead to technology and marketing synergy, conglomerate diversification and inward development. We propose that company could contemplate business model and growth strategy from the perspective industry life cycle, institutional theory, and resource based view. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T00:32:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R98741014-1.pdf: 1945736 bytes, checksum: 269e4ddee393f497f645124a50bd70b0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 I
Abstract III 目錄 V 圖目錄 VII 第一章、緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的 2 第三節 研究流程 2 第二章、文獻探討 4 第一節 成長策略相關研究方向 4 第二節 資源基礎觀點及其後續理論與成長策略的關係 8 第三節 產業生命週期理論與成長策略 10 第四節 制度理論 13 第三章、研究架構與方法 15 第一節 研究架構 15 第二節 變數衡量 18 第三節 資料收集與分析 25 第四節 個案簡介 27 第四章、研究結果 31 第一節 技術先佔—宏碁 31 第二節 資本前鋒—三星電子 38 第三節 通路跟隨—聯想 45 第四節 品牌後援—索尼 53 第五節 綜合比較 60 第五章、結論與建議 66 第一節 研究結論 66 第三節 管理意涵 68 第四節 研究限制與未來研究方向 68 參考文獻 70 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 產業生命週期與集團因素對成長策略影響之研究-以個人電腦廠商為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Impact of Industry Life Cycle and Corporate Effect on Growth Strategy - A Case Study of Personal Computer Industry | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 100-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林博文,黃怡芬 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 成長策略,產業生命週期,集團,資源基礎,制度理論,經營模式, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Growth Strategy,Industry Life Cycle,Corporate,Resource Based,Institutional Theory, | en |
dc.relation.page | 75 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2012-02-10 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 商學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.9 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。