English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88613/118155 (75%)
Visitors : 23459606      Online Users : 207
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/59278


    Title: 從企業產權結構探討創新者的兩難
    The Discussion on the ";Innovator's Dilemma";from the Ownership Structure of Enterprise
    Authors: 李建宏
    Lee, Chien Hung
    Contributors: 李仁芳
    李建宏
    Lee, Chien Hung
    Keywords: 創新者的兩難
    破壞式創新
    產權結構
    產權理論
    組織兩難
    Innovator's Dilemma
    Disruptive Innovation
    Ownership Structure
    Ownership theory
    Organizational Dilemma
    Date: 2012
    Issue Date: 2013-09-02 15:34:56 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 「成功、成熟且領導中的既有企業為何失敗?」從Christensen 1997年發表書中定義創新者的兩難(The Innovator’s Dilemma) :「管理階層為企業成功所做出的理性而智慧的決策,正是促使企業失去領導地位的主因」,說明既有企業高階經理人將資源分配給主流高階市場,忽略新進企業從非主流市場進入的破壞性創新(disruptive innovation)的取代性,導致既有企業的產品逐漸被取代而失去領導地位。後續補充破壞式創新的文獻,認為除了資源依賴與分配外,動態能耐、組織文化是重要的補充研究構面,但仍缺乏相關企業產權議題構面的探討。
    本研究以Milgrom(1992)及李仁芳(1993, 1999a,b)的企業產權理論,補充創新者兩難理論中對企業產權解釋的不足,在企業的管理權與所有權的過度分離下,會讓經理人自利的理性決策偏向企業短期收益,而損害長期股東權益,這樣讓破壞式創新對企業產生無法妥協的組織兩難衝突,才是導致企業無法存活在破壞式創新的浪潮中的原因之一。
    為驗證本研究的理論推理,藉由軟片產業及電腦顯示器產業作跨產業多個案的實證研究。比較柯達軟片、富士軟片在軟片產業中受到數位顯影技術的取代衝擊,以及我國CRT電腦顯示器廠商誠洲、中強、碧悠、源興、美格、華映、瑞軒及皇旗受到LCD技術的取代衝擊,在相同破壞式創新下區分成功轉型及失敗消失的兩組對照,比較策略因應與對應產權結構的差異。
    研究發現企業所有權與管理權集中者容易為破壞式創新的適應者;相對的所有權與管理權分離者,容易成為破壞式創新的淘汰者。企業的產權結構差異影響了決策過程,造成不同策略選擇,是影響企業面對破壞式創新轉型成功的關鍵因素之一。在實務上,意涵企業平時的產權結構就應未來的技術發展做因應規劃,而在面對破壞式創新威脅時刻,更應積極透過股權結構再造的方式讓所有權與管裡權有某種程度的重疊,這是因應破壞式創新浪潮轉型的重要力量來源。
    Why successful, mature and leading incumbent companies fail? From the definition of “The Innovator’s Dilemma” in Christensen’s book (1997), what management makes rational and intelligent decision is the cause firms lose their leading position, which may explain that management level of established firms allocate resource on high margin market by following main customers and ignore low margin from “disruptive innovation” market by new entrant firms. In addition to resource dependence and allocation, the extant literature pertaining to disruptive innovation has been categorized into organizational structure, organizational culture and dynamic capability. However, the impact of enterprise ownership structure on disruptive innovation rarely has been studied.
    This study tried to complement innovation dilemma theory with ownership theory. The over separation of ownership and management of corporation would contribute to self-interest management decision tending to short-term revenue rather than long term development of firms, which cause unbalanced organizational dilemma under disruptive innovation condition. It would be one of main reason that leading firms fail to transform in the wave of disruptive innovation.
    In order to test the organizational dilemma theory, this study comprised multiple cases research method of 2 multinational film companies and 8 computer monitor manufacturers in Taiwan. Comparing two film makers, Kodak with Fujifilm, under digital camera technology replacement and 8 Taiwan CRT computer monitor manufacturers under LCD technology replacement their coping strategy and corresponding ownership structure.
    One of major findings of this study is that integration of ownership and management would easily adapt to disruptive innovation wave. On the contrary, the separation of ownership and management would be eliminated from disruptive innovation wave. The ownership structure of enterprise influences decision making process and choice of coping strategy, which play major role in transforming firms successfully into disruptive innovation. In practice, the implication of this research is that ownership structure of firms is corresponding to future technology development. While facing the disruptive innovation emerging, the necessary of integration between ownership and management is critical by financial restructure, which would be main power to transform firms into new disruptive innovation.
    Reference: 中文部分
    王信陽(2005),「TFT LCD關鍵零組件左右廠商勝負」,光連:光電產業與技術情報,第58期,頁21 -25。
    王美雅(2005),「概念型創新的動態擴散過程—複雜理論觀點」,國立政治大學科技管理所未出版博士學位論文。
    王澤鑑(2002),民法物權:通則、所有權,臺北:三民出版。
    司徒達賢(1995),策略管理,台北:遠流出版公司。
    司徒達賢(2003),策略管理案例解析:觀念與實例,臺北:智勝文化出版。
    司徒達賢(2005),策略管理新論,修訂再版,臺北:智勝文化出版。
    吳思華(2000),策略九說,三版,臺北:臉譜出版。
    吳凱琳 譯(2007),創新的兩難(Christensen C.M., 1997),二版,臺北:商周出版。
    吳當傑(2004),「公司治理理論與實務」,財團法人孫運璿學術基金會。
    吳樂群、周行一、施敏雄、陳茵琦、簡淑芬(2001),「公司管控」,財團法人中華民國證券暨期貨市場發展基金會。
    吳學經、李仁芳 (1992),「企業統治類型﹑董事會類型與企業績效關係之研究」輔仁大學管理學研究所碩士論文。
    李仁芳(1993),「研究發展聯盟組織過程管理之研究」,國科會專題研究計劃成果報告。
    李仁芳(1999a),「技術與產業分工網絡運作:四個產業個案之對照」,張苙雲 編,網路臺灣:企業的人情關係與經濟理性,臺北:遠流出版。
    李仁芳(1999b),「財產權結構、專質性知識與管理統制效能之探討-厚基組織論觀點的個案研究」,蔡敦浩 編,臺灣產業研究-管理資本在臺灣,第一卷第一期,頁227-316。
    李仁芳(2010),「厚基企業長青不老的原因」,一千年的志氣,初版,書序,臺北:先覺。
    李仁芳、高鴻翔(2011),「快速試驗、精簡多餘、靈活整合的山寨創新學--以中國大陸山寨手機廠商為例」,中山管理評論,第19期,第3卷,頁557-595。
    李芳齡 譯(2005),創新者的修練(Christensen C.M., AnthonyS.D.& Erik A. Roth E.A., 2004),初版,臺北:天下雜誌。
    李芳齡、李田樹 譯(2004),創新者的解答(Christensen C.M. & Raynor M.E., 2003),初版,臺北:天下雜誌。
    林宜賢、蔡慧菁 譯(2001),公司治理-哈佛商業評論精選(Walter Salmon, 2000),初版,臺北:天下文化。
    林穎毅(1997),「數位相機市場戰雲密佈」,光連,第11期,頁11-14。
    徐翠梅(2002),「公司董監在企業監控問題中職務角色之研究」,國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
    財訊雜誌社編輯群(1996春~2003冬),財訊四季報,臺北市:財訊雜誌社財團法人資訊工業策進會資訊市場情報中心(2003),光電投資導覽,臺北:商周。
    許士軍(1989),「因應匯率變局企業轉換之經營策略」,中小企業發展雜誌,第18期,頁13-14。
    許士軍(1994),管理學,臺北:東華書局。
    黃朝義(2001),「電子顯示器展(EDEX-2001)觀察」,光連,第33期,頁3-10。
    黃靖萱(2011),「柯達由勝轉敗的三大關鍵」,天下雜誌,第484期,頁152-153。
    楊蕉霙(1989),「所有權結構與公司價值間關係之研究」,國立中山大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
    葉佳欣(2005),「臺灣CRT與TFT-LCD產業之比較分析-以產業生態與生命週期觀點」,大葉大學事業經營研究所碩士論文。
    葉佳欣、陳欽雨(2005),「臺灣CRT與TFT-LCD產業之比較分析-以產業生態與生命週期觀點」,2005年全球華商跨國經營學術研討會。
    葉德川(2000),「數位相機產品趨勢分析」,新電子科技雜誌,第172期,頁208-211。
    葉德川(2001),「2000年數位相機產業概況」,光連,第31期,頁31-39。
    葉銀華、李存修、柯承恩(2002),公司治理與評等系統,台北:商智文化。
    廖秀梅、李建然、吳祥華(2006),「董事會結構特性與公司績效關係之研究:兼論臺灣家族企業因素的影響」,東吳經濟商學學報,第54期,頁117-160。
    劉紹樑(2002),從莊子到安隆-A+公司治理,臺北:天下文化。
    鄭玉波(2000),公司法,增定六版,臺北:三民。
    戴淵明(1986),「司控制型態與其經營績效關係之研究-台灣地區上市公司之實證研究」,國立中興大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
    顏惠貞(2008),「臺灣TFT-LCD產業發展之政經分析」,成功大學政治經濟學研究所專班學位論文。

    英文部分
    Abernathy, W.J., Clark, K.B. & Kantrow, A.M. (1983), Industrial renaissance: Producing a competitive future for America, New York: Basic Books.
    Agrawal, Anup & Gershon No. Mandelker(1987), “Managerial Incentives and Corporate Investment and Fiancing Decisions”, Journal of Fiance, Vol. 4, pp.823-837.
    Alchian A.A. & Demsetz H. (1972), "Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization", The American Economic Review, Vol. 62(5), pp. 777-795.
    Berle, A.A. & G.C., Means(1932), The Modern Corporation and Private Property, New York : Macmillan.
    Brickley, James A. & Christopher M. James (1987), “The Takeover Market, Corporate Board Composition, and Ownership Structure: The Case of Banking”, Journal of Law and Economics,Vol. 30, pp.161-180.
    Broadbent, Gill J.J. & Laughlin R.(2003), "Evaluating the Private Finance Initiative in the National Health Service in the UK", Accounting, Auditing and accountability Journal, Vol. 16(3), pp.422-445.
    Brugmann, J. & Prahalad, C. K. (2007), "Cocreating Business's New Social Compact", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 (2), pp. 80-90.
    Christensen C.M., Allworth James & Dillon Karen (2012), How Will You Measure Your Life?, HarperCollins Publishers.
    Christensen C.M., Anthony D.S. & Roth A.E. (2004), Seeing what's next? : Using the theories of innovation to predict industry change, Boston MA : Harvard Business School Press.
    Christensen, C.M. & Raynor, M.E. (2003), The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    Christensen, C.M. (1997), The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    Collis D.J. & Montgomery G.A. (2008), "Competing on Resources", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 (4), pp. 118-128.
    Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    Drucker, Peter F. (1985), Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, New York: Harper and Row.
    Drucker, Peter F. (1986), The Practice of Management, New York: Harper Collins.
    Dubnick, M. (2005), "Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the Mechanisms", Performance & Management Review, Vol. 28 (3), pp. 376-417.
    Eisenhardt, K. and J. Martin (2000),“Dynamic Capability: What are they?” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp.1105-1121.
    Fama, Eugene F. & Michael C. Jensen (1983), “Separation of Ownership and Control”, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 26, pp.301-325.
    Ford, D. & Håkansson, H. (2006), "IMP-Some Things Achieved: Much More to Do", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 (3-4), pp.248-258.
    Frankel, E. G. (1990), Management of Technological Change, New York: Kluwer Academic.
    Gobeli, D.H. & Brown D.J. (1987), "Analyzing Product Innovations", Research Management, Vol.30 (4), pp. 25-31.
    Gomes, A. R., Novaes, W., (2005). "Sharing of control as a corporate governance mechanism", PIER Working Paper No 1-12.
    Gomes-Mejia, L., Nunez-Nickel, M., & Guttierrez, I. (2001), "The role of family ties in agency contracts", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.44, pp.81-95.
    Govindarajan, V. & Kopalle, P.K. (2006), "The usefulness of measuring disruptiveness of innovations ex-post in making ex-ante predictions", Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 23 (1), pp.12-18.
    Green S.G., Gavin M.B. & Aiman-Smith L. (1995), "Assessing a Multidimensional Measure of Radical Technological Innovation", IEEE Transaction on Engineering, Vol.42 (3), pp. 203-214.
    Haugen, Robert A. & Lemma W. Senbet (1981), “Resolving the Agency Problems of External Capital through Options.” Journal of Fiance, Vol. 36 (3), pp.629-747.
    Henderson, R.M. (2006), "The innovator's dilemma as a problem of organizational competence", Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.23 (1), pp.5-11.
    Herman, E.S (1981), Corporate Control, Corporate Power, Cambridge University Press.
    Jensen, M. C. & Meckling W.H. (1976), "Theory of the Firm, Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure", Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.3 (4), pp.305-360.
    Lee, Chien-Hung, Huang, Jia-Min & Lee, Jen-Fang (2010),”The effect of firm ownership structure in dynamism market”, Management Science (ICAMS), 2010 IEEE International Conference, Full-paper, pp.260-264
    Lloyd, William P., John S. Jahera, Jr. & Steven J. Goldstein(1986), “The Relation Between Returns, Ownership Structure and Market Value”, Journal of Fianacial Research, Vol. 9(2) : pp.171-177.
    Marguish D.G.(1982), The anatomy of successful innovation, Cambridge: Winthrop Publishes.
    Markides, Constantinos (2006), “Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 23, pp.19-25.
    Marnix A.(2006), "Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9(2), pp. 215-233.
    Milgrom P. (1992), Organization and Management, NJ: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
    Morck, R., Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishnny (1988), “Management Ownership and Market Valuation –An Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.20, pp.293-315.
    Ohmae, K. (1983), The Mind of the Strategist: Business Planning for Competitive Advantage, New York: Penguin.
    Oviatt, Benjamin M.(1988), Agency and Transaction Cost Perspectives on the Manager-shareholder Relationship: Incentive for Congruent Interests, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13(2), pp. 214-225.
    Paap, J. & Katz R. (2004), "Anticipating Disruptive Innovation", Research Technology Management, Vol. 47(5), pp.13-22.
    Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. N.Y.: The Free press.
    Porter, M. (1990), "The Competitive Advantage of Nations", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 (2), pp. 73-93.
    Porter, M. (2008), "The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86(1), pp. 78-93.
    Prakel, David (2009), Basics Photography: Exposure, London: AVA Publishing, pp.19-20.
    Schumann, P. A., Prestwood, D. C. L., Tong, A. H. & Vanston, J. H.(1994), Innovate : straight path to quality, customer delight & competitive advantage, New York : McGraw-Hill.
    Schumpeter, J. A. (1943), Capitalism, socialism, and democracy, NY: Harper.
    Shleifer A. & Vishny R. (1997), "A survey of corporate governance", Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, pp.737-783.
    Smirlock, Michael & William Marshall (1983), “Monopoly Power and Expence Preference Behavior: Theory and Evidence to the Contrary”, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 14, pp. 166-178.
    Tsai, K.H. and Wang, J.C. (2005), "Does R&D performance decline with firm size? - Are-examination in terms of elasticity", Research Policy, Vol. 34(6), pp.966-976
    Utterback, M.J. & Acee J.H. (2005), “Disruptive Technologies: An Expanded View”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 (1), pp.1-17.
    Williamson, O.E. (1991), "Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.36, pp.269-296.
    Williamson, O.E.(1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York: Free Press.
    Yin, R. K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.
    Yoffie D.B. & Kwak M. (2006), "With friends like these: the art of managing complementors", Harvard Business Review. Vol. 84(9), pp.88-98.
    Yu, Dan & Hang, Chang Chieh(2010), "A Reflective Review of Disruptive Innovation Theory", International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.12(4), pp. 435-452.

    網路部分
    Panos, Mourdoukoutas(2011), "The Entrepreneurial Failure of Eastman Kodak", Forbes Website, From: http://www.forbes.com/sites
    王盈勛(2009),「革命的次數」,iThome網站,取自:http://www.ithome.com.tw/itadm/article.php?c=56052
    我國電腦顯示器個案資料來源:台灣證券交易所(TSEC):http://www.twse.com.tw/ch/index.php
    柯達官方網站Kodak 2001~2010 Annual Report, Website: http://investor.kodak.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115911&p=irol-reportsann
    富士官方網站Fuji-film 2001~2010 Annual Report, Website: http://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/investors/ir_library/annual_reports
    謝富旭、燕珍宜、莊芳、陳兆芬(2010),「除了新點子更需要管理力─經營文創產業,不可不知的六大課題」,今周刊網頁,第731期,取自:http://www.businesstoday.com.tw/test/content.aspx?a=
    鄒永祥(2000),「液晶顯示器產業發展趨勢」,IEK產業情報網。網址:http://ieknet.iek.org.tw/BookView.do?domain=14&rptidno=
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理研究所
    92359502
    101
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0923595021
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    502101.pdf12091KbAdobe PDF2019View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback