透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.173.214.79
  • 學位論文

品牌權益建構程序與創新價值關係之研究

The Brand Equity Developing Process and The Innovation Value Relations Research

指導教授 : 林婷鈴博士
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


本研究討論品牌與創新等議題,探討臺灣科技產業,個案廠商包括Acer、ASUS、trend-micro與D-LINK朝自有品牌發展成全球知名品牌。分析動態能力、創新價值與品牌權益建構過程。 本論文採用定性研究之個案研究方法,並且引用Helfat 和Peteraf (2003)能力生命週期(Capability Lifecycles, CLC)與動態能力(Dynamic Capabilities) 概念,進行文獻與企業個案研究。研究目的與步驟包括:一、文獻探討動態能力、能力生命週期及創新價值。二、進行動態能力與創新價值相互關係探究。三、分析創新價值與品牌權益發展六階段,就個案企業品牌權益建構過程如何受環境影響,以及創新價值與品牌權益建構程序之關係。最後,對品牌個案企業進行比較分析。 研究結果包括:一、品牌企業掌握技術創新機會,能夠促使廠商朝正確方向進行研發創新。技術變化快時,增加研究開發時程或產品開發困難度,技術創新能力就相對重要。二、品牌企業重視行銷與研發,反觀既有代工以生產製造為主,品牌與代工彼此資源與技術能力衝突,最終造成品牌與代工分家。 三、品牌權益與創新價值不易量化,為能深植企業形象於消費者心中,品牌企業可藉由品牌代言及獨特形象之塑造,並藉由技術創新能力、產品創新、服務品質提升、良好顧客關係維繫、營運流程創新及人力資源國際化等方式,從而創造、傳遞及累積品牌企業價值,以開啟品牌發展新頁。

並列摘要


The research used local own-brand in science and technology industry of Taiwan, such as Acer, ASUS, trend-micro, and D-LINK who try to develop into global name brands to discuss the issue of brands and innovation. Analyze the progress of building Dynamic Capabilities, Innovation Value, and the interest of brands to set an example for the followings. The essay quoted the case study of qualitative research and the concept of Helfat and Peteraf’s (2003) Capability Life Cycles (CLC) and Dynamic Capabilities for case study. Object and progress including: First of all, discuss Dynamic Capabilities, Capability Lifecycles and the Innovation Value from data. Subsequently, analysis and compare the relationship between Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Value. And then divide Innovation Value and the development of brand interest into 6 parts to analyze the progress of building brand interest and how is it influenced by surroundings, as well as their relationship with each other. Finally, compare and analyze the case study. The result of the essay including:1. command technology and the opportunity to innovate so that manufacturers can invent and innovate toward the right direction. As technology changes fast, extending period of research and development, and the ability to innovate technology is getting relevantly important. 2. Enterprises with brands put emphasis on marketing and development, on the contrary, the existing Original Equipment Manufacturers (O.E.M) count on producing. Therefore the resource and technology conflict with each other and result in the separation of brands and O.E.M. 3. It is not easy to quantify the interest of brands and innovation value. In order to implant the enterprises’ image deeply into consumers’ minds, enterprises can mold their unique image by the activities of branding. Through innovating products, enhancing quality of service, maintaining good relationship with customers, reforming operation process, and internationalizing human resource to create, transfer and reach the milestone of developing brands.

參考文獻


陳澤義(2005),科技管理理論與應用,台北:華泰文化事業股份有限公司,初版,頁35-36。
黃元鶴(2005),資訊科技與組織能力對公司績效影響之研究:資訊綜效與創新性的中介效果,元智大學管理研究所博士論文,頁27-32。
林富松(1990),研究發展策略與生產力之關係─臺灣資訊電子業之實證研究,政大企業管理研究所未出版博士論文,頁26-31。
Adam, E. and P.M. Swamidass, (1989),“Assessing Operations Management from a Strategic Perspective.” Journal of Management, Vol.15, No.2, pp181-203.
Chan, W. K. (2001). Harvard Business Review on Innovation. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, pp181.

延伸閱讀