English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 50122/85141 (59%)
Visitors : 7890464      Online Users : 51
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU 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://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/102993


    Title: 半導體聯盟的對偶與三角策略兩難:兼採量化與質化研究
    Other Titles: Dyad and Triad Strategic Dilemma of Semiconductor Alliances: a Joint-Research by Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches
    Authors: 文馨瑩
    Contributors: 淡江大學企業管理學系
    Keywords: 折衷學派;策略聯盟;半導體產業;跨組織例規;個案比較研究;Eclectic paradigm;Strategic alliance;Semiconductor industry;Inter-organizational Routines;Multiple-case study
    Date: 2014/01/31
    Issue Date: 2015-05-13 10:54:29 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 究竟聯盟伙伴之間對偶與三角的比較優勢,如何影響聯盟的策略?本計畫試圖應用國際 企業管理的折衷學派 (Dunning, 1995), 在半導體聯盟夥伴的實證研究上。此研究方向係延伸 計畫主持人發表的國際聯盟研究論文 (Wen & Chuang, 2010), 而由兩個量化的次計畫與一個 質性的次計畫所共同組成。 第一個量化次計畫的主旨,係提出聯盟治理的理論模型,以解釋並測試為何半導體的領 導廠商選擇合資(JV)的決策因素。相對於過去折衷學派(OLI架構)的研究,多強調國際 企業本身擁有的優勢或地主國的地理優勢;本研究則特別以伙伴之間的比較優勢,來解釋為 何半導體公司合議以聯盟的治理模式,來共同內部化(I)其擁有(O)與地理(L)優勢。 除了本人過去研究已探討的知識與地理的距離因素之外,本計畫也納入權力、經驗與文化距 離,以豐富聯盟決策的策略意涵。因此,本研究的實證樣本包括由25家半導體領導廠商所組 成的4,831個聯盟,其中只有474個聯盟(10%)由兩家(含)以上領導廠商所組成;因變數為該 聯盟是否選擇合資模式。 第二個量化次計畫的主旨,係提出聯盟組成的機率模型,以解釋並測試為何25家半導體 的領導廠商之間選擇彼此成立聯盟。除了延用第一個量化次計畫已探討的知識與地理等三角 因素(指綜合考量兩個聯盟伙伴與其組成的聯盟特質)之外,本次計畫也納入兩家領導廠商 的對偶因素(即不考慮其組成的個別聯盟特質),包括比較雙方的聯盟累積經驗、聯盟功能偏 好、國家文化與財務績效。因此,本研究的實證樣本包括由25家半導體領導廠商所組成的300 個對偶; 因變數為該對偶的聯盟個數。 本質性的次計畫將延伸過去的單一個案研究到個案比較研究,然實證研究仍聚焦在 除 比較由台灣的半導體設計公司(達盛電子), 自2006年組成的ZigBee研發聯盟。和前述量化 次計劃的研究類似,將比較達盛與不同聯盟伙伴之間,跨組織、組織內兩層次例規與策略的 演化歷程。為彰顯國家與組織文化對此演化的影響,將比較日本半導體領導廠商(NEC) 、 美國與台灣的小型整合裝置製造者。既有組織例規的相關研究,通常聚焦在組織內的流程, 本研究則試圖延伸到組織之間的例規,比較國際聯盟的跨組織例規如何改變組織內的例規, 並支援科技創新的策略演變,以完成共同開發新產品的聯盟任務。簡言之,本研究以三個半 導體研發聯盟的比較個案,來呈現組織間的例規如何促成策略更新 (Barr, Stimpert, & Huff, 1992; Crossan & Berdrow, 2003; Feldman, 2000; Huff, Huff, & Thomas, 1992), 特別當該組織企 圖發展科技創新的動態能耐 (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat et al., 2007; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), 和同時面臨強大的同產業競爭壓力之時 (Chen, 1996; Chen & Hambrick, 1995; Chen, Smith, & Grimm, 1992)。
    How do dyad and triad comparative advantages between partners jointly determine alliance strategies? To approach such an inquiry, I apply the eclectic paradigm in the context of Semiconductor alliances in the evolving era of alliance capitalism (Dunning, 1995). This project consists of two quantitative sub-projects and one qualitative sub-project. Extending from my prior study on international alliances (Wen & Chuang, 2010), the first quantitative sub-project proposes and tests a governance model explaining why Semiconductor leaders prefer equity-based to contractual mode for their strategic alliances. In a contrast to the OLI framework highlighting firm-specific ownership advantages of MNEs and country-specific location advantages, our governance model specifies firm-dyad level of partner comparative advantages as determinants for further explaining why partnering firms agree to internalize (I) their ownership (O) and location (L) advantages via hybrid mode. In addition to the knowledge and location attributes based on my prior study, this project incorporates additional three dimensions as governance determinants, including the distances of power, experience and culture, Accordingly, this empirical sample includes 4,831 alliances formed by 25 Semiconductor leading-firms in the world, while only 387 or 8% alliances formed by multiple industry-leaders, when specifying the binary equity-based mode (JV) as the dependent variable. The second quantitative sub-project proposes and tests a propensity model explaining alliance formation between Semiconductor leaders. In addition to alliance-partner-triad level attributes to capture the relative distances between partners and their formed alliances in the first quantitative sub-projects, this model also incorporates firm-dyad attributes to capture the differences between one pair of industry-leaders from four dimensions of alliance-experience, culture, functional portfolio, and financial performance. Accordingly, this empirical sample includes 300 firm-dyads, when specifying the alliance count of a dyad as the dependent variable. Extending from my prior case-study on the R&D international alliance between UBEC and NEC, this qualitative sub-project attempts to compare the inter-organizational routines of multiple alliances formed by an IC design firm in Taiwan with three partners located locally and in different international countries, including Japan and the US. Accordingly, how and why the experience and culture distances between organizations may shape the alliance strategies and routines may be compared and explained. Unlike most studies on routines focusing on intra-organizational processes, this research attempts to untangle how the inter-organizational routines facilitate evolving strategies when co-developing new product with multiple partners. Such case comparison will illustrate how inter-organizational routines as a mean toward strategic renewals (Barr et al., 1992; Crossan & Berdrow, 2003; Feldman, 2000; Huff et al., 1992), when developing partners’ dynamic capabilities of technological innovation (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat et al., 2007; Teece et al., 1997), under the pressure of competitive dynamics (Chen, 1996; Chen & Hambrick, 1995; Chen et al., 1992).
    Appears in Collections:[企業管理學系暨研究所] 研究報告

    Files in This Item:

    There are no files associated with this item.

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback