淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-1008200703565200
中文論文名稱 策略聯盟透明度對知識移轉績效之影響︰以學習意圖為干擾變數
英文論文名稱 The Impact of Strategic Alliance’s Transparency on Knowledge Transfer Performance-- Learning Intent as the Moderating Variable.
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration
學年度 95
學期 2
出版年 96
研究生中文姓名 劉彥伯
研究生英文姓名 Yan-Bo Liu
學號 694450122
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2007-06-05
論文頁數 68頁
口試委員 指導教授-王居卿
共同指導教授-楊立人
委員-徐木蘭
委員-黃曼琴
委員-王居卿
中文關鍵字 策略聯盟  透明度  知識移轉  學習意圖 
英文關鍵字 Strategic Alliance  Transparency  Knowledge Transfer  Learning Intent 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學管理學
中文摘要 處於現今益形複雜且競爭激烈的經營環境中,企業已無法獨自開發所需之全部知識,透過策略聯盟的方式,自外部夥伴處學習其知識能力而移轉深植於本身組織內,乃是強化該企業本身競爭優勢的有效途徑。當策略聯盟是以學習並移轉夥伴間彼此的知識為目的時,策略聯盟透明度就會對知識移轉的績效產生影響。鑑此,本研究主要目的在探討策略聯盟透明度對知識移轉績效的影響;此外,在移轉聯盟夥伴知識時,不同的學習意圖亦會對知識移轉的績效產生影響,因此本研究將學習意圖作為干擾變數,藉此探討策略聯盟透明度與知識移轉績效間的關係是否會受到學習意圖的干擾影響。
經由實證調查後之資料統計分析結果發現,策略聯盟透明度越高,的確會使知識移轉的績效提升,特別是當技術的取得是以外顯知識為來源時,會使知識移轉績效更佳;而且企業相對於策略聯盟夥伴的技術提昇速度越快,越能提高知識移轉績效。由此可見,企業應選擇有高透明度的策略聯盟進入、或致力於提高策略聯盟的透明度。雖無法證實學習意圖的干擾作用,但卻發現學習意圖本身對策略聯盟間知識學習之績效有著明顯的正向影響,值得後續研究探討。
英文摘要 A company can’t create and keep all resources itself while facing so turbulent and complex environments nowadays. Learning useful knowledge from outside partner through strategic alliances is an effective way to strengthen the firm’s capabilities to obtain competitive advantage. The strategic alliance’s transparency will influence the knowledge transfer performance when the objective of strategic alliance was inter-partner learning for the participative members. The main purpose of this research is to explore the impact of strategic alliance’s transparency on the knowledge transfer performance. Additionally, the different learning intents also have impacted on knowledge transfer performance. Thus, this research takes the learning intent as the moderating variable, then explores whether the relationships between the strategic alliance’s transparency and knowledge transfer performance will be influenced by the moderating variable.
Through the statistical analysis from the data collected via the survey by questionnaires, we find that the more of higher degree of strategic alliance’s transparency can raise the knowledge transfer performance. Especially the higher explicit of learning knowledge resulted in the better knowledge transfer performance. The faster of R&D relatively time resulted in the better knowledge transfer performance. Thus the businesses should either choose the strategic alliance that had higher degree of transparency to enter or increase the transparency of strategic alliance arduously. Even if learning intent doesn’t has moderate result. However, it has impacted on knowledge transfer performance directly to have the value for research.
論文目次 目 錄
目錄 Ⅰ
表次 Ⅲ
圖次 Ⅳ
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
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 透明度的相關研究 5
第二節 策略聯盟夥伴間之透明度與知識移轉績效間的關係 12
第三節 學習意圖的相關理論基礎 17
第四節 學習意圖與知識移轉績效的關係 21
第五節 知識移轉績效 23
第三章 研究設計 28
第一節 研究架構 28
第二節 變數之定義與衡量 29
第三節 研究假設 32
第四節 問卷設計 33
第五節 研究對象與抽樣方法 37
第六節 資料收集與分析之方法 37
第四章 資料分析與結果 39
第一節 敘述性統計分析 39
第二節 效度與信度分析 40
第三節 相關分析 41
第四節 假設檢定 43
第五章 結論與建議 51
第一節 結論 51
第二節 研究限制 53
第三節 建議 53
參考文獻 55
附錄:問卷 65


表次
表2-1 透明度相關研究與採用觀點 11
表2-2 研究敵意與善意學習意圖的相關學者與觀點 20
表2-3 知識移轉績效的操作性定義 27
表3-1 策略聯盟夥伴間透明度之問卷設計 33
表3-2 知識移轉績效之問卷設計 35
表3-3 學習意圖之問卷設計 36
表4-1 樣本基本資料 39
表4-2 信度分析 40
表4-3 PEARSON相關係數檢定 41
表4-4 策略聯盟夥伴間透明度對知識移轉績效的總體影響 43
表4-5 策略聯盟夥伴間透明度各構面對知識移轉績效的影響 44
表4-6 學習意圖對知識移轉績效之迴歸檢定 45
表4-7 學習意圖與知識來源外顯程度對知識移轉績效的迴歸檢定 45
表4-8 學習意圖、知識來源外顯程度及兩者交互作用對依變數的迴歸檢定 46
表4-9 外顯程度、學習意圖、與兩者交互作用區組迴歸模式的迴歸係數估
計值 46
表4-10 外顯程度與干擾變數之多元共線性診斷 47
表4-11 學習意圖與技術提昇相對速度對知識移轉績效的迴歸檢定 47
表4-12 學習意圖、技術提昇相對速度、及兩者交互作用對依變數的迴歸
檢定 48
表4-13 技術提昇、學習意圖、與兩者交互作用區組迴歸模式的迴歸係數估
計值 48
表4-14 技術提昇與干擾變數之多元共線性診斷 49
表4-15 假設檢定結果之彙整表 50




圖次
圖1-1 研究流程 4
圖3-1 研究架構 28
參考文獻 中文部份
1.丁德樹(2003)。多角化策略與知識移轉績效之研究-以中鋼集團為例。國立中山大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
2.方世杰(1998)。國內廠商參與科技專案研發動機之探討。經濟情勢暨評論季刊,4(3),159-184。
3.方世杰(1999)。產業研發聯盟之廠商特質、技術移轉特性、互動機制與績效之研究,管理學報,16(4),633-659。
4.毛倩文(1991)。我國廠商國際技術引進成關鍵因素之研究。國立政治大學國際貿易管理學系碩士論文。
5.何里仁(2003)。公司治理之資訊透明度與績效評核關聯性之研究。逢甲大學會計與財稅研究所碩士論文。
6.吳克(2004)。結構化、共同演化與策略聯盟穩定性之研究--台灣半導體業之實證。國立台北大學企業管理學系博士論文。
7.吳思華(1998)。知識流通對產業創新的影響。第七屆產業管理研討會,國立政治大學科技管理研究所主辦。
8.吳思華(2001)。策略九說,第三版。臺北市:臉譜文化。
9.李仁芳(1997)。臺灣資訊電子產業合作網路之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫未出版成果報告。
10.李仁芳、花櫻芬(1997)。高科技事業中技術知識類型與知識交流網路模型。中華民國科技管理研討會論文集。
11.汪昭芬、譚大純(2000)。知識環境、知識策略與知識事務之關聯性研究。中華民國科技管理論文集,329-342。
12.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學系博士論文。
13.康義賢(2002)。廠商間知識移轉型式選擇之影響因素。國立成功大學工學院工程管理學系碩士論文。
14.張新房(2002)。策略聯盟夥伴學習成效之研究-以台灣紡織產業為例。輔仁大學織品服裝學系碩士論文。
15.張慶原(2001)。知識屬性與策略聯盟型式對知識移轉績效。國立成功大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
16.莊尚平(2000)。資源基礎理論下持久競爭優勢之整合性架構初探。國立臺灣科技大學工業管理系碩士學位論文。
17.陳文賢(1998)。兩岸三地資訊管理的學術與應用。兩岸三地中小企業經營管理與發展學術研討會論文集。
18.陳昕哲(2000)。國際策略聯盟信賴關係之研究。淡江大學國際貿易學系碩士論文。
19.曾炳霖(2002)。淺論公司治理機制-以安隆案為中心。會計研究月刊,20(5),65-83。
20.游雅祺(2001)。技術知識特性、知識整合機制對知識移轉績效的影響-中小型與大型企業之比較研究。中央大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
21.黃家齊(1990)。技術引進成效影響因素之研究。中原大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
22.劉士豪(1984)。資訊系統與組織競爭優勢關係之研究-資源基礎理論之應用。國立政治大學企業管理學系博士論文。
23.鄭仲興、方世杰(1999)。組織間學習機制對產業間技術移轉績效之影響。第二屆亞太管理學術研討會論文集。
24.鄭睿祺(2000)。吸收能力、轉換能力與組織創新之關聯性研究--以台灣流行服飾產業為例。銘傳大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
25.賴冠宇(2004)。以脈絡觀點看跨國企業內部知識移轉影響因素。輔仁大學企業管理學系碩士論文。

英文部分
1.Amit, R., & Schoemaker, J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal. 14 (1), 33-46.
2.Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of entry: a transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (4), 1-26.
3.Badaracco, J. L. (1991). The Knowledge Link: Firms Compete Through Strategic Alliances. Norton Mass: Harvard Business School.
4.Baird, I. S., Lyles, M. A., & Wharton, R. (1990). Attitudinal differences between American and Chinese managers regarding joint venture management. Management International Review. 30, 53-68.
5.Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120.
6.Bidault, F., & W. A. Fischer (1994). Technology Transaction: Networks over Markets”, R&D Management. 24 (4), 373-386.
7.Black, B. S., Jang, H., Kim, W., & Mark, J. (2002). Does Corporate Governance Affect Firm Value? Evidence from Korea”. Working Paper, Stanford Law School.
8.Bleeke, J., & Ernst D. (1991). The way to win in cross-border alliances. Harvard Business Review, 69 (6), 42-48.
9.Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Chi, S.-C. (2002). Make justice sense of local-expatriate compensation disparity: mitigation by local referents, ideological explanations, and interpersonal sensitivity in China foreign joint ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (4), 807-817.
10.Clemons, E. K., & Row M. C. (1991). Sustaining IT advantage: the role of structural differences. MIS Quarterly, 15, 275-292.
11.Coase, R. H. (1937).The nature of the firm. Economic, 1 (4), 386-405.
12.Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learming and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128-152.
13.Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. , (2003). Business Research Methods. McGraw-Hill.
14.Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2 (4), 373-390.
15.Coyne, K. P. (1986). Sustainable competitive advantage - what it is, what it isn't. Business Horizons, 29 (2), 54-61.
16.Davenport, S., Davies J., & Grimes C. (1999). Collaborative research programmers: building trust form difference. Tech-innovation, 19 (1), 31-40.
17.Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: a review of some literature. Organization Studies, 14 (3), 375~394.
18.Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. N.Y.: Harper Business.
19.Erdlierk, A. (1986). Issue in international technology transfer. Economic Impact, 56 (4), 49-54.
20.Ford, D., & Ryan C. (1981). Taking technology to market. Harvard Business Review, 2, 117-126.
21.Geringer, J. M., & Hebert, L. (1989). Control and performance of international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 20, 235-254.
22.Gerstain, M. S. (1987). The Technology Connection. M.A.: Addison-Wesley Reading.
23.Gomes-Casseres B. (1990). Firm ownership preferences and host government restrictions: an integrated approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 21 (1), 1-23.
24.Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33 (3), 114-135.
25.Hamel, G., Doz, Y. L., & Prahalad C. K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review, 67 (1), 133-140.
26.Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83-103.
27.Hedlund G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 73-90.
28.Hennart, J. F. (1991). The transaction costs theory of joint ventures: an empirical study of Japanese subsidiaries in the United States. Management Science, 37 (4), 483-497.
29.Hennart, J. F., & Reddy, S. (1997). The choice between mergers/acquisitions and joint ventures: the case of Japanese investors in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 1-12.
30.Hennart, J. F., Kim, D., & Zeng, M. (1998). The impact of joint venture status on the longevity of Japanese stakes in U.S. manufacturing affiliates. Organization Science, 9 (3), 382-395.
31.Hill, C., & Jones G. (2004). Strategic Management Theory, 6th Editions. N. Y.: Houghton Mifflin Company.
32.Hippel, E. V. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: informal know- how trading. Research Policy, 16, 291-302.
33.Ho, S. S. M., & Wong K. S. (1999). A Study of the Relationship between Corporate Governance Structures and the Extent of Voluntary Disclosures. Unpublished Conference Paper, AAA/TAA Globalization Conference, Taiwan.
34.Howells, J. (1996). Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8 (2), 91-106.
35.Huber G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing process and the literatures. Organization Science, 2 (1), 88-115.
36.Iansiti, M., & Clark, K. B. (1994). Integration and dynamics capability: evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 557-605.
37.Inkpen, A. C. (1996). Creating knowledge through collaboration. California Management Review, 39 (1), 123-140.
38.Inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. W. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22 (1), 177-202.
39.Jacobsen, R. (1988). The persistence of abnormal returns. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41-58.
40.Killing, J.P. (1988). Understanding Alliances: the Role of Task and Organization Complexity. D.C.: Lexington Heath and Company.
41.Kogut, B. (1988a). Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 319-332
42.Kogut, B. (1988b).A study of the life cycle of joint ventures. Management International Review, 28, 39-52.
43.Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and evolutionary theory of the MNCS. Journal of International Business Studies, 4, 625-645.
44.Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. N.Y.: Prentice Hall.
45.Lam, A. (1997). Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: problems of collaboration and knowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies, 18 (6), 973-996.
46.Lang, M. H., & Lundholm. R.J. (1996). Corporate disclosure policy and analyst behavior. The Accounting Review, 71 (4), 467-492.
47.Lane P. J., & Lubatkin M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and inter-organizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461-477.
48.Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125.
49.Lin, X., & Germain, R. (1998). Sustaining satisfactory joint venture relationships: the role of conflict resolution strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 179-196.
50.Lippman, S. (1982). Uncertain limitability: an analysis of inter-firm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 418-438.
51.Lyles, M. A. (1992). Learning among joint venture sophisticated firms. Management International Review, 22 (3), 85-96.
52.Makhija, M. V. (1997). The relationship between control and partner learning in learning-related joint ventures. Organization Science, 8 (5), 508-527.
53.Mansfield, E. (1982). Technology Transfer, Productivity, and Economic Policy. N.J.: W.W. Norton and Company.
54.March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1), 71-87.
55.Murray, J. Y. (1995). Patterns in domestic vs. international strategic alliances: an investigation of U.S. multinational firms. Multinational Business Review, 3 (2), 7-16.
56.Nassar S., & Souder, W. E. (1990). Managing R&D consortium for success. Research Technology Management, 33 (5), 44-50.
57.Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational creation. Organization Science, 15 (1), 14-37.
58.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamic of Innovation? NY: Oxford University Press.
59.Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: a game theoretic and transaction cost examination of inter-firm. Co operational Business Studies, 22, 579-602.
60.Paul M. H. (1999). Stock performance and intermediation changes surrounding sustained increases in disclosure. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16, 485–520.
61.Penrose, E. T. (1960). The growth of the firm - a case study: the Hercules powder company. Business History Review, 34 (1), 1-29
62.Perkins D. N. T., & Shaw, R. B. (1992). Teaching Organizations to Learn: The Power of Productive Failures. O.R.: Author.
63.Perrow, C. (1987). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, 3rd Editions. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
64.Pisano, G. P. (1990). The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 153-176.
65.Polanyi. M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: toward a Post critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66.Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. N.Y.:M.E. Sharp Inc.
67.Poole, M. S., & Van de V. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 562-78
68.Popper M., & Lipshitz R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms a structural and cultural approach to organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34 (2), 161-179.
69.Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press.
70.Powell W. W. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116-145.
71.Reed, R., & Defillippi R. J. (1990). Casual ambiguit, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15, 88-102.
72.Robbins, S. P. (2002). Organization Behavior, 9th Editions. N.Y.: Prentice-Hall International, Inc.
73.Rumelt, R. (1984). Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm. N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
74.Sandeep A. P., Amra B., & Liliane B. (2002). Measuring Transparency and Disclosure at Firm-level in Emerging Markets. Standard & Poor's.
75.Scott, S. G., & Bruce R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), 580-607.
76.Sengupta, P. (1998). Corporate disclosure quality and the cost of debt. The Accounting Review, 73, 459-474.
77.Simonin, B. L. (1997). The importance of collaborative know-how: an empirical test of the learning organization. Management Journal, 40 (5), 1150-1174.
78.Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 595-623.
79.Staikarn (2001). The long-term performance of horizontal acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (11), 987-1018.
80.Steensma, H. H. (1996). Acquiring technological competencies through inter-organization collaboration: an organizational learning perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 12 (4), 24-45
81.Taco H. R., & William J. R. (2004). Inter-partner, parent, and environmental factors influencing the operation of international joint ventures: 15 years of research. Management International Review, 44 (4), 369-395
82.Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technology innovation; implication for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15 (6), 285-305.
83.Teece, D. J. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
84.Tsai, C. H. (2002). The Effectiveness of Social Capital in Organizational Learning: A Empirical Study of ITRI R&D Consortia. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, I-Zhou University.
85.Welker, M. (1995). Disclosure policy, information asymmetry and liquidity in equity markets. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11, 801-827.
86.Wernerfelt B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.
87.Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization. New York: The Free Press.
88.Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institution of capitalism. N.Y.: Free Press.
89.Yan, A. (1998). Structural stability and reconfiguration of international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (4), 773-796.
90.Yan, A., & Gray, B. (1994). Bargaining power, management control, and performance in Uni. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (6), 1478-1518.
91.Yan, A., & Zeng, M. (1999). International joint venture instability: a critique of previous research, a re-conceptualization, and directions for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (2), 397-414.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2007-08-21公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2017-07-16起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信