透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.192.75.131
  • 學位論文

策略聯盟類型、關鍵成功因素與競合關係之研究-資源基礎觀點

Strategic Alliance Typology, Key Success Factor and Co-opetition Relationship-Resource-based View

指導教授 : 呂鴻德
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


基礎的觀念已被廣泛地應用於策略管理的領域中,本研究從資源基礎的角度出發,探討企業如何透過策略聯盟的方式,同時檢示企業內外的關鍵成功因素及聯盟成員的競合關係強度,來建立彼此的競爭優勢。 以資源基礎觀點來探討廠商間的行為與競爭策略已行之有年,但以此觀點來分析廠商間的合作關係,大部份在於理論的建構而規避實證研究。本研究乃探究廠商的資源基礎如何潛在影響聯盟類型與聯盟成員彼此的競爭力。再者,過去對於組織間關係的研究,亦多著墨於競爭者間之合作或競爭關係,而少有研究關切企業間可同時藉由競爭與合作而獲利。由於競爭與合作是互斥的邏輯,因此,辨別競合關係強度以使成員從中獲益也就變得很重要。如何將關鍵成功因素應用於策略聯盟的內涵中,也是企業經營者考量因素之一。 本研究將以台灣地區已實際進行策略聯盟的廠商為樣本,經由過去學者之研究及實務現象中,將聯盟類型分為合資、權益及功能聯盟;並將成員競合關係分為合作導向型與競爭導向型、及關鍵成功因素分為資源基礎型與知識基礎型。爾後討不同聯盟型態與聯盟績效之關係,並探討競合類型與關鍵成功因素如何與聯盟類型配合,方能獲致較佳的聯盟績效,以供管理者擬定策略之參考。 本研究以國內有進行策略聯盟的公司為研究對象,共寄出250分問卷,回收有效問卷48份,回卷資料經因素分析、集群分析、單因子對雙因素變異數分析等統計方法整理後,歸納出數點重要的結論如后: 1.核心資源類型與聯盟型態無關及不同的聯盟型態其聯盟績效沒有顯著差異;2.不同的競合關係類型,對聯盟績效有顯著差異,合作導向型有較高的主觀滿意度,而競爭導向型有較高的客觀滿意度;3.關鍵成功因素與聯盟績效有顯著差異,知識基礎型的KSF具有較高的聯盟績效;4.關鍵成功因素對聯盟型態與聯盟績效之關係有顯著差異,其中知識基礎型的KSF,採用合資與功能聯盟有較高的客觀聯盟績效;反之,資源基礎型的KSF,採用權益聯盟,有較高的客觀聯盟績效;5.不同的競合關係類型,對聯盟型態與聯盟績效之關係沒有交互作用。 具體而言,本研究對於理論的貢獻如下:(1)本研究試圖藉由實證的探討,建構出競合關係的類型:競爭導向與合作導向;(2)關鍵成功因素對聯盟績效之影響及企業資源基礎與關鍵成功因素之關聯性;(3)策略聯盟類型、競合關係、資源基礎與聯盟績效之實證發現。而實務上之貢獻:(1)提供企業參與策略聯盟時的參考依據;(2)提供企業判別資源基礎之內涵,配合適當之策略聯盟型態,並了解企業間之競爭與合作之二維思維,來提高企業的競爭力與經營績效。

並列摘要


ABSTRACT In the last decade , literature on the strategic management has paid considerable attention to the resource-based theory. The resource-based view of the firm is applied to this article. The resource-based theory applied to discuss the behavior and competitive strategy of firms has been several years, but the collaborative relationships of this view are devoted to constructing the theory. This research discusses how firm resource alignment affects alliance types and competitiveness, which in turn contribute firms’ performances. Furthermore, existing research on relationships between organizations focuses either on competitive or on cooperative relationships between them. Little research has considered that two firms can be involved in and benefit from both cooperation and competition simultaneously. Due to the contradictory logic of competition and cooperation, it is importance to separate the two different parts of relationship and make it possible to benefit from such a relationship. Besides, there are many factors influencing firms’ success or failure, and thus, managers should take KSF that is applied to strategic alliances into consideration. We discuss how alliance performances are affected by alliance typology, key success factors of inter-firm and outer-firm and the co-opetiton degree of alliance members. This research would take firms in Taiwan that have been experienced strategic alliances as samples from January 1998 to March 2001. Based on the literature of previous studies and real examples, three alliance types are created : joint venture, equity and functional alliance. Co-opetition relationship is divided into cooperative-oriented and competitive-oriented and there are two kinds of KSF: one is resource-based and the other is knowledge-based. Further, I will investigate about the relationship of alliance type and alliance performance and discuss the fit of co-opetition, KSF and alliance typology. In this study, the survey with Taiwan companies that have alliance experience as subjects was conducted, 250 companies were requested to answer the questionnaire and the effective respondents were 48 sets. After analyzing those data, the conclusions are summarized as following: The type of core resources and alliance typology are not significant in alliance performance. Co-opetition has significant in alliance performance. Besides, cooperative-oriented relationship has higher subjective satisfaction and competitive-oriented has higher objective satisfaction. As for KSF, knowledge-based success factor has in general higher alliance performance. KSF is significant in the relationship of alliance typology and alliance performance. If firms have knowledge-based success factor , we suggest using joint venture and functional alliance in order to have higher objective alliance performance. Still, firms have resource-based success factor, equity alliance has high objective alliance performance. There is no inaction effect among co-opetition to alliance typology and alliance performance.

參考文獻


24.Kale, P., Singh, & H. Perlmutter(2000),” Learning and protection of proprietary”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.21, pp.217-231.
23.Hutt, D.M., E.R. Stafford, B.A. Walker & P.H. Reingen(2000),” Defining the social network of a strategic alliance”, Sloan Management Review, 2000(winter), pp.51-62.
1.Ahuja, G.(2000),”The duality of collaboration:inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.21, pp.317-343.
2.Allan (2000), “How Much Do Your Co-opetitors’ Capabilities Matter In The Face of Technological Change?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.21, pp.387-404.
3.Amit and Schoemaker(1993), “Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent” ,Strategic Management Journal,Vol.14,pp.33-46.

被引用紀錄


黃姵瑜(2007)。公共組織在協力關係中的依賴與自主─ 以國立臺灣博物館為例〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2007.00168
簡書元(2006)。日本製販同盟之研究〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2006.00023
曾韻慈(2010)。航空客運業策略聯盟績效分析-以亞洲地區為例〔碩士論文,國立交通大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6842%2fNCTU.2010.00368
林展儀(2013)。土地開發競合關鍵成功因素探討-以台北都會區建商為例〔碩士論文,國立臺北科技大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6841%2fNTUT.2013.00037
張冠群(2012)。醫療產業導入雲端服務關鍵成功因素之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺北科技大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6841%2fNTUT.2012.00603

延伸閱讀