Kim, and Mauborgne (2005)在他們的藍海策略一書中，提出了企業不應該侷限於在現有的市場上與對手競爭而是應該發展其組織及能力創造無人競爭的新市場。  書中所提到之藍海市場雖可視為一個新的名詞，但是其理論其實並未跳脫出市場領導策略的範疇，應視為市場領導理論的延伸。市場領導理論有兩種不同的理論依據，首先Jaworski et al. (2000) 認為市場領導策略應透過影響市場的結構以及市場參與者的行為來達成領導市場的效果。 另一方面Kumar et al. (2000)提出由企業內部願景、組織以及文化等內部創新的方法來達成領導市場的目的。 然而雖然市場領導策略或是藍海策略的已經廣為學術以及企業界所接受，但是並沒有直接的證據可以指出市場領導策略確實對於企業的競爭優勢以及績效有正面的影響。  本研究立意即為找出企業資源、市場領導策略與企業競爭優勢之間的關係，本研究將以問卷研究作為方法配合路徑分析以及典型相關分析試圖驗證市場領導策略之理論。       本研究提出市場領導應分為兩種不同購面來討論，即為市場改變活動以及價值創新活動兩個購面，研究結果顯現價值創新活動對於競爭策略有正面的影響，但市場改變活動之影響則為負面，但總體而言市場領導策略對於企業之競爭優勢以及績效有正面的影響。  表示市場領導策略可作為企業策略上選項之一，應與市場驅動策略作為互補的策略手段以確保企業的長期發展。       本研究結果可視為對於Kumar et al. (2000)理論提出統計數據上的支持，並且可以廣泛對於不同產業作為市場領導策略的參考。  同時本研究也試圖探討市場領導策略與可持續競爭優勢之間的關係，透過本研究的結果我們發現市場領導策略具有Barney (1991)所提出稀少、有價值、難以模仿以及難以替代的特性。 根據資源基礎理論，市場領導策略具備成為可持續競爭優勢的潛在可能。 市場領導與可持續競爭優勢之關係的深入探討可以作為後續研究的方向。

The recent book Blue Ocean Strategy by Kim and Mauborgne (2005) suggests that firms try to develop their capabilities to create uncontested market spaces instead of competing with each other in existing market spaces.  While their use of the phrase 'blue ocean' is probably new, their ideas are actually derived from the concept of market driving strategies.

Two major proposals have been made concerning market driving strategies.  First, Jaworski et al. (2000) discussed how market driving may be achieved by influencing the structure of a market and/or the behaviors of stakeholders in that market, which can be considered as an external market driving process.  Second, Kumar et al. (2000) gave an analysis of intra-firm/internal behaviors that facilitate market driving.  However, there is little evidence suggesting that market driving can lead to a competitive advantage and better corporate performance.  This study attempts to uncover possible relationships between market driving strategies, competitive advantage, and firm resources through path analysis and canonical correlation coefficient analysis. 

This study proposed that market driving strategy should be separated into two different dimensions: market change activities, and radical value innovation activities.  The findings of this study show that there are statistically positive relationships between radical value innovation activities, and firm's performances, and competitive advantages.  However, the findings surprisingly show that there is a significant negative relationship between market change activities and firm's strategy outcomes.  The results generally support the assumption that market driving strategies have a positive effect on firm competitive advantage and performance.   It is concluded that market driving strategy can be a viable option while making strategic choices, and can be a complementary strategy to a market driven strategy.  Firms should take both strategies in order to ensure their long-term survival.

Finally, this study further provides a statically support to the proposal of Kumar et al. (2000), and likely to be generalizeable to different industries.  This study also attempted to uncover the relationships between market driving strategy and sustainable competitive advantage.  The findings suggest that market driving strategy fits the characteristics suggested by Barney (1991): value, rareness, inability to be imitated, and imperfect substitution.  This study thus proposed that market driving strategy could be a potential source of sustainable competitive advantage from resource-based view.  This reveals that a firm should still necessarily consider its ability to react current market needs to be very important as a market driving firm will eventually become a market driven firm.  Only the ability to head off competition from imitation and substitution can prolong the positive effect of a market driving strategy.  Further investigation of the relationships between market driving strategy and resource-based theory is suggested as a direction of future research.

謝辭………………………………………………………………………………………………I
中文摘要…………………………………………………………………………………………II
English Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………IV
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………VI
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………IX
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………X
CHAPTER ONE:INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………1
	1.1	Research Background…………………………………………………………………1
	1.2	Market Driving versus Market Driven…………………………………………………2
	1.3	Research Issues…………………………………………………………………………4
CHAPTER TWO:LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………7
	2.1	Theoretical Background………………………………………………………………7
		2.1.1		Market-Driven………………………………………………………………7
		2.1.2		Definition of Market-Driving………………………………………………11
		2.1.3		External Market Driving Approach………………………………………17
		2.1.4		Internal Market Driving Approach…………………………………………18
		2.1.5		Comparison of Market Driving Approach between Authors………………21
		2.1.6		Two Dimension of Market Driving………………………………………24
		2.1.7		Marketing Driving and Competitive Advantage……………………………26
	2.2	Research Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………27
		2.2.1		Tangible Resource (Resource Sufficiency to Market Driving)……………29
		2.2.2		Intangible Resource (General Firm Image to Market Driving)……………31
		2.2.3		Market Driving to Strategy Outcomes……………………………………33
CHAPTER THREE:RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………36
	3.1	Operational Definitions………………………………………………………………36
		3.1.1		Strategy Variables…………………………………………………………36
		3.1.2		Antecedent Variables………………………………………………………37
		3.1.3		Strategy Outcome Variables………………………………………………38
3.2	Pretest & Reliability…………………………………………………………………39
		3.2.1		Pretest………………………………………………………………………39
3.2.1.1	Financial Performance and Market Performance………………39
		3.2.2		Reliability…………………………………………………………………40
	3.3	Sample Selection and Data Collection………………………………………………42
		3.3.1		Sample Selection…………………………………………………………42
		3.3.2		Data Collection……………………………………………………………42
CHAPTER FOUR:DATA ANALYSIS………………………………………………………44
	4.1	Correlations Analysis…………………………………………………………………45
	4.2	Path Analysis…………………………………………………………………………46
		4.2.1		Analysis Models……………………………………………………………46
		4.2.2		Summary of Path Analysis Result…………………………………………49
		4.2.3		Effects of Firm Resource Sufficiency on Market Driving Strategy………51
		4.2.4		Effects of General Firm Images on Market Driving Strategy……………52
		4.2.5		Effects of Market Driving Strategy on Competitive Advantages…………54
4.2.6	Effects of Market Driving Strategy on Sustainable Competitive Advantages…………………………………………………………………55
4.2.7	Effects of Market Driving Strategy on Financial Performance……………55
4.2.8	Effects of Market Driving Strategy on Market Performance………………56
	4.3	Canonical Correlation Coefficient……………………………………………………58
		4.3.1		Firm Resource to Market Driving…………………………………………60
		4.3.2		Market driving to Strategy Outcome………………………………………61
		4.3.3		Firm Resource to Strategy Outcome………………………………………65
		4.3.4		Summary of Canonical Correlation Coefficient……………………………67
CHAPTER FIVE:DICUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS……………………………………68
5.1	Discussion of Firm Resource to Market Driving Strategy and Strategy Outcomes…68
5.2	Discussion of Market Driving to Strategy Outcomes…………………………………70
5.3	Research Limitations…………………………………………………………………72
5.4	Conclusions and Future Research Direction…………………………………………73
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………78
APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………………83
	Appendix A-1	Result of Reliability Analysis……………………………………………84
	Appendix A-2 Original English Questionnaire……………………………………………90
	Appendix A-3	Pretest Chinese Questionnaire……………………………………………93
	Appendix A-4	Cover Letter………………………………………………………………96
	Appendix A-5	Final Chinese Questionnaire………………………………………………97
	Appendix A-6	Result of Correlation Analysis……………………………………………100
	Appendix A-7	Path Analysis for Theoretical Model……………………………………102
	Appendix A-8	Path Analysis for Adjusted Model………………………………………106
	Appendix A-9	Details of Canonical Correlation Coefficient Analysis……………………111

LIST OF TABLES

	Table 1	Definitions of Market Driving Strategy…………………………………………17
	Table 2	Comparison of Market Driving Approach between Authors……………………24
	Table 3	Result of Reliability Analysis from Pretest……………………………………42
	Table 4	Summary of Hypotheses…………………………………………………………44
Table 5	Result of Correlation Analysis…………………………………………………45
	Table 6	Summary of Path Analysis………………………………………………………49
	Table 7	Summary of Effects Analysis……………………………………………………50
	Table 8	Result of all Hypotheses…………………………………………………………58
Table 9	Summary of Canonical Correlation Coefficient Analysis………………………67
 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1	General Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………6
Figure 2	Two forms of 'Market Orientation': Driven and Driving.  Adapted from Jaworski, Kohli, and Sahay (2000), 'Market-driven versus market driving', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 28, no.1, pp. 45-54………………………14
Figure 3	Types of Strategic Innovation.  Adapted from: Kumar, Scheer, and Kotler (2000), 'From Market Driven to Market Driving,' European Management Journal 18(2):129-141……………………………………………………………………15
Figure 4	Externally Market Driving Approaches.  Base on Jaworski, Kohli, and Sahay (2000) , 'Market-driven versus market driving,' Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 28, no.1, pp. 45-54……………………………………18
Figure 5	Six Principles of Breakthrough Strategy.  Based on Markides(1999b) , 'Six Principles of Breakthrough Strategy,' Business Strategy Review, 1999, Vol. 10, Issue 2, pp 1-10…………………………………………………………………21
Figure 6	Proposed Framework: Two Dimensions for Market Driving……………………25
Figure 7	Research Framework……………………………………………………………40
Figure 8	Theoretical Model………………………………………………………………47
Figure 9	Adjusted Model…………………………………………………………………48
Figure 10	Canonical Correlation Coefficient Analysis:  Firm Resource to Market Driving Strategy…………………………………………………………………………61
Figure 11	Canonical Correlation Coefficient Analysis:  Market Driving to Strategy Outcome…………………………………………………………………………64
Figure 12	Canonical Correlation Coefficient Analysis:  Firm Resource to Strategy Outcome…………………………………………………………………………66

Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing Behavior and Executive Action: A Functionalist Approach to Marketing Theory. Homewood. Illinois: Richard D. Irwin
Aley, J. (1996). The Theory That Made Microsoft. Fortune, 133 (8), 65-66.
Anderson, J. C. & Narus, J. A. (1998). Business Marketing: Understanding What Customers Value. Harvard Business Review, 76 (6), 53-65.
Arthur, B. W. (1996). Increasing Returns and the New World of Business. Harvard Business Review, 74 (4), 100-109
Barker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999), The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (4), 411-427.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120. 
Barney, J. B., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D.J., Jr. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27 (6), 625-641.
Borsch, F.J. (1978). The Marketing Philosophy as a Way of Business Life. Santa Monica, California: Goodyear Publishing Company.
Buzzell, R., & Gale, B.T. (1997). The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance. New York: The Free Press.
Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (3), 285-98. 

Carrillat, F. A., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. B. (2004). Market-Driving Organizations: A Framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 05 (2004), 1-14.  Available: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/carrillat05-2004.pdf 
Day G. S. (1994). The Capabilities of Market-driven Organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 37-52.
Day G. S. (1999). The Market-Driven Organization: Understanding, Attracting and Keeping Valuable Customer. New York: Free Press.
Deshpande, R., Farley, J., & Webster, F. (1993). Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 23-27.
Despande , R. (2000). Creating Value, Harvard Business School Teaching Note, 3(October).
Dixon, P. R. (1996). The Static and Dynamic Mechanisms of Competition: A Comment on Hunt and Morgan's Comparative Advantage Theory. Journal of Marketing, 60 , 102-106.
Drucker F. P. (1986). The Practice of Management. TAIWAN: Big Apple Tuttle-Mori Agency, Inc.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C.K. (1991). Corporate Imagination and Expeditionary Marketing. Harvard Business Review, 69 (4), 81-92.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the Future. Harvard Business Review, 72 (4), 122-128.
Hamel, G. (1996). Nine Route to Industry Revolution. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 72-73. 

Hills, B. S., & Shikhar, S. (2003). From Market Driven to Market Driving: An Alternate Paradigm for Marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice; 11(3); pp 13-24; ABI/INFORM Global
Hills, B. S. (2004). Market driven vs. market driving activity: Antecedents and consequences. Evidence from high technology industries.  Ph.D., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2004, 123 pages.
Hunt, S. (2002). Foundation of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), 53-71.
Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., & Sahay, A. (2000). Market-Driven Versus Driving Markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 28 (1), 45-54.
Johnston, L. L., Lee R. P. W., Sani, A., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Market-focused Strategic Flexibility: Conceptual Advances and an Intergrative Model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (1), 74-89
Kim W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1999). Creating New Market Space. Harvard Business Review, 77 (1), 83-93.
Kim W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy. Boston. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Kohli, A., & Jaworski, B. (1990). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 1-18. 

Kumar, N., & Scheer, L. (1998). Radical and Incremental Product Innovation Among Market Driven and Market Driving Forms. Paper presented at the Marketing Science Institute/Jornal of Marketing Conference on Fundamental Issues and Directions for Marketing, June 5-6, Cambridge, MA.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L., & Kotler, P. (2000). From Market-driven to Market-driving. European Management Jornal, 18(2):129-141.
Lloyd C. H., Cai, K. Y. (2002). Exploring Market Driving: A Case Study of De Beers in China. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5 (3), 171-196
Markides, C. (1999a). A Dynamic View of Strategy. Sloan Management Review, 40 (3), 55-63.
Markides, C. (1999b). Six Principles of Breakthrough Strategy. Business Strategy Review, 10 (2), 1-10.
Markides, C. (2004). Rethinking Innovation. Leader to Leader, 2004 (34), 35-42.
Mata, F. J., Fuerst W. L., & Barney J. B. (1995). Information Technology and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based Analysis. MIS Quarterly, 19 (4), 487-505.
Naver, J., & Slater, S. (1990). The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Performance. Journal of Marketing, October, 54, 20-35
Naver, J., Slater S., & MacLachlan D. (2000). Total Market Orientation, Business Performance, and Innovation. MSI Working Paper 00-116, Marketing Science Institute
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press. 

Porter, M. E. (1996). What Is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74 (6), 61-78.
Peters, T. J., and Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence. New Yong: Harper and Row.
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml., V.A. (2004). Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing Strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 109-127
Salter, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), 63-74.
Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen H. K. (2001). The resource-base view and marketing: The role of market based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 27, 777-802.
Strieter, J. C., Celich, K. G., & Kasouf C. J. (1999). Market-Oriented Behaviors within Organizations: An Individual-Level Perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7 (2), 16-27.
Tuominen, M., Rajala, A., & Moller, K. (2004). Market-Driving versus Market-Driven: Divergent Role of Market Orientation in Business Relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 33 (3), 207-217.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly C. A., III. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38 (4), 8-30.