專屬權與環境特徵對整合能力與吸收能力之干擾效果

THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF REGIMES APPROPRIABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMBINATIVE CAPABILITIES AND ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY

方婷婷(Ting-Ting Fang)

指導教授 ： 蔡坤宏 ； 徐純慧

國立臺北大學/商學院/企業管理學系/博士(2009年)

摘要

吸收能力是維繫公司的競爭優勢，也是環境動盪影響下的動態能力。然而，過去實證研究經常將 R&D相關的代理變數用來測量企業的吸收能力，容易與研發創新產生混淆。儘管 Jansen, Van Den Bosch and Volberda (2005) 依據 Zahra and George (2002)模型檢測組織單位中綜合能力對潛在的吸收能力(PACAP)和實現的吸收能力(RACAP) 之關係，但缺乏明確檢驗專屬權與不確定性環境特徵對企業組織單位綜合能力與吸收能力之干擾關係。

這項研究依據Todorova和Durisin(2007)理論架構闡明和再概念化吸收能力中的每項構念，進一步探討專屬權與環境特徵對每項綜合能力與吸收能力之干擾效果。這項研究以台灣製造業142筆組織單位樣本檢測此理論模型和干擾效果。實證分析中發掘到每項綜合能力與吸收能力之間的確存在複雜的非單調性和單調性關係。這些研究結果為組織理論和企業實務提供寶貴的重要貢獻和意涵。

就學術觀點而言，這項研究依據Todorova和Durisin(2007)理論架構闡明和再概念化吸收能力中的每項構念，進而參考Van den Bosch et al. (1999)從廣度、深度和速度發展吸收能力之量表。就管理觀點而言，不同綜合能力機制扮演其獨特的角色，例如協調能力能促進整合的彈性，系統能力能提昇整合的效率，且社會化能力能擴大整合的範圍。研究結果證實，競爭強度引發的干擾效果高於技術動盪和專屬權所引發的干擾效果，其線性干擾存在於吸收能力中的辨識、習得、同化，而曲線干擾存在於吸收能力中的順化與應用。

從非單調性和單調性的干擾關係提供實證建議予高階管理者，選擇適當的綜合能力機制符合當前動盪環境，以提昇組織單位有效率的吸收能力和維繫組織競爭優勢。此研究實證與 Koruna (2004)的槓桿知識概念是相似的，建議管理者善用槓桿知識以規避不確定性，而且能降低和忍受專屬權和不確定環境特徵下所產生的實務風險和成本。

關鍵字

綜合能力, 吸收能力, 專屬權, 環境特徵, 非單調性, 槓桿知識

並列摘要

Absorptive capacity is sustainability of a firm’s competitive advantage, also has been as dynamic capability that is influenced by environmental turbulence (Deeds, DeCarolis and Coombs, 2000; Zahra and George, 2002). However, most previous empirical studies have used related R&D proxies to measure firms’ absorptive capacity, and these R&D proxies are easily confused with the proxies of innovation. Based on the model by Zahra and George (2002), Jansen, Van Den Bosch and Volberda (2005) examined the critical influences of the combinative capxabilities of each sub-construct on PACAP and RACAP at the organizational unit level; however, their research lacked an explicitly tested contingency effect of regimes appropriability and perceived uncertainty environmental characteristics at the organizational unit level of a firm.

This study clarifies and reconceptualizes each sub-construct of absorptive capacity, drawing on a strong theoretical framework proposed by Todorova and Durisin (2007); further, the study explores and compares the complex moderating effects of regime appropriability and environmental characteristics between each sub-construct of combinative capabilities and absorptive capacities. This study tests the theoretical model and moderating effects using 142 organizational unit-level data from the Taiwanese manufacturing sector. The analytic evidences explore the highly complex non-monotonic and monotonic moderating relationships among combinative capabilities and absorptive capacities. These findings contribute to the critical implications for organizational theories and provide valuable practice notes for firms.

In addition, this study redevelops the multi-item scales of absorptive capacity based on the models developed by Van den Bosch et al. (1999). From a managerial perspective, different mechanisms of combinative capabilities play unique roles. The findings prove that the linear moderating load affects recognition, acquisition, and assimilation, and the curvilinear moderating relationship load affects accommodation and exploitation, when the frequency of the significant hypotheses and the moderating effects of competitive intensity are more than the technological turbulence and appropriability regimes.

The analytic evidence provides suggestions for senior managers to select proper combinative capabilities in accordance with the current turbulent environment in order to improve the maximum efficiency of an organizational unit’s absorptive capacities and maintain organizational competitive advantages. Similarity with the concept of leveraging knowledge (Koruna, 2004) is not only for uncertainty avoidance but also for fitting the level of appropriability regimes and perceived uncertainty of environmental characteristics. This reduces the tolerance of ambiguity from practical risks and the costs occurring in a turbulent situation.

並列關鍵字

Combinative Capabilities, Absorptive Capacities, Regimes Appropriability, Environmental Characteristics, Non-monotonic, Leveraging Knowledge

參考文獻

Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. 1985. Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14: 3-22.

Achrol, R. S. 1991. Evolution of the marketing organization: New forms for turbulent environments. Journal of Marketing, 55: 77-93.

Adams, J. D., & Jaffe, A. B. 1996. Bounding the effects of R&D: An investigation using matched establishment-firm data. The Rand Journal of Economics, 27: 700-722.

Adams, J. D. 2006. Learning, internal research and spillovers. Economic Innovation New Technology, 15: 5-36.

Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. 1996. Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 61-89.