Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146879
|
| Title: | 共生到創生：區域生態系的調適歷程
From Coexistence to Co-creation: The Adaptive Process of Regional Ecosystems |
| Authors: | 陳懿軒
Chen, Yi-Syuan |
| Contributors: | 蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Ruey-Lin
陳懿軒
Chen, Yi-Syuan |
| Keywords: | 生態系
永續發展
組織識別
組織印象
利害關係人
Ecosystem
Sustainability development
Organization identification
Organization image
Stakeholder |
| Date: | 2023 |
| Issue Date: | 2023-09-01 14:51:25 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 生態系的願景是讓成員共榮，但考量各成員利益，要達成此目標需化解諸多挑戰。本研究探討生態系建構的過程，分析不同階段的挑戰及統籌者的回應方式。雖然目前文獻強調生態系的構成與成員的互動，但是比較少考量統籌者的角色。透過瞭解組織調適過程，本研究分析統籌者與利害關係人之間的互動，並且藉由這樣的互動，理解組織識別與組織印象之間的衝擊如何促成統籌者的調適行動。本文以臺灣水泥為案例，分析該企業在花蓮和平工業區發展過程中所遭遇到的在地抗爭，並追溯發展的五個階段。由調適的視角，本文分析臺灣水泥在每個階段如何回應利害關係人的挑戰，以逐步取得當地的信任。在理論貢獻上，本研究解釋組織識別如何引導維護行動，造成對利害關係人的衝擊。該衝擊又如何形成利害關係人對統籌者的組織印象，而正面或負面的印象如何促成統籌者的反思，進一步調整其修補的行動。在實務啟發上，本研究提出生態系的經營必須要擁抱因地制宜的思維。治標不治本的補償做法效果有限，師心自用的永續方案難以獲得認可。企業必須時常關注自己在利害關係人眼中的形象，反思自身的做法，才能資源投入在最恰當之處，讓企業與地方共榮，也讓生態系得以永續發展。
This research explores the development process of ecosystem construction and analyzes the challenges facing at different stages. Although the current literature emphasizes the composition of ecosystem and the interaction of players, it pays insufficient attention to the role of ecosystem’s orchestrator. By tracing the organization adaptive process, this study examines the interaction between orchestrator and stakeholders. Through such interaction, it explains how the adaptive action leads to the formation of organization image on its impact on identity. This article examines Taiwan Cement Corporation as a case study to analyze the local struggle encountered by the company in the process of operating in Hualien Hoping industrial park, trace the five stages of development. From the adaption perspective this paper analyzes how the firm respond to the challenges of stakeholder at each stage and gradually gain local trust. Theoretically, this study contributes to how organization identity may guide maintenance action and how it would impact on stakeholders. Moreover, it explains how such impact shapes the stakeholder’s perception of the orchestrator. We also need to explore when the image is formed, whether it is good or bad, would lead to the orchestrator’s reflection and eventually adjust its repair actions. So practical implication this study proposes that the management of ecosystem must embrace the logics of localization. One-off compensation is not desirable, and opinionated solutions for sustainability are not sensible. Enterprises should be vigilant against their impression in the eyes of stakeholders by reflecting on their own sustainability practices, so that resources can be invested in the most appropriate areas, enterprises may thrive with the local, and sustainable ecology can be invested in the most appropriate place. Therefore, enterprises and places can prosper together, and ecosystem can be sustained. |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
翁晶晶、易莉翔，2022，「制度邏輯之演化：從企業社會責任的發展探討商業永續」，《中山管理評論》，第5期，第30卷，809-856頁。
許永明，2021，「從學術文獻探討CSR作為企業策略性運用工具：過去，現在與未來」，《管理學報》，第4期，第38卷，477-495頁。
趙雨潔、廖翊翔，2021，「集體隨創與展演共創：185農夫市集生態系統」，《中山管理評論》，第3期，第29卷，515-550頁。
鄭至甫、康瓈云，2022，「創生不息：新創企業與創業生態系統之互動」，《組織與管理》，第2期，第15卷，55-112頁。
謝美珍、林婷鈴、陳逸媛，2021，「物資循環、共創共享價值及生態系統建立：以小型社會企業『贈物網』為例」，《中山管理評論》，第3期，第29卷，467-514頁。
蕭瑞麟，2020，《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。
蕭瑞麟，2020，《服務隨創：少力設計的邏輯思維》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。
英文文獻
Adner, R. 2006. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4): 98-107.
Adner, R. 2017. Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1): 39-58.
Adner, R. 2022. Sharing value for ecosystem success. Sloan Management Review, 63(2): 85-90.
Altman, E., & Nagle, F. 2020. Accelerating innovation through a network of ecosystems: What companies can learn from one of the world’s largest networks of accelerator labs. Sloan Management Review, 61(4): 24-30.
Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2015. The disruptor`s dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 1829-1853.
Brannen, M. Y. 2004. When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 593-616.
Chesbrough, H., Kim, S., & Agogino, A. 2014. Chez Panisse: Building an open innovation ecosystem. California Management Review, 56(4): 144-171.
Dattée, B., Alexy, O., & Autio, E. 2017. Maneuvering in poor visibility: How firms play the ecosystem game when uncertainty is high. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2): 466–498.
Decreton, B., Monteiro, F., Frangos, J.-M., & Friedman, L. 2021. Innovation outposts in entrepreneurial ecosystems: How to make them more successful. California Management Review, 63(3): 94-117.
DeJordy, R., Scully, M., Ventresca, M., & Creed, W. E. 2020. Inhabited ecosystems: Propelling transformative social change between and through organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(4): 931-971.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. 2002. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3): 507.
Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 517-554.
Fuller, J., Jacobides, M. G., & Reeves, M. 2019. The myths and realities of business ecosystems. Sloan Management Review, 60(3): 1-9.
Furr, N., & Shipilov, A. 2018. Building the right ecosystem for innovation. Sloan Management Review, 59(4): 59-64.
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. 2000. Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 63-81,.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. 1996. Identity, image and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 370-403.
Hampel, C., Tracey, P., & Weber, K. 2020. The art of the pivot: how new ventures manage identification relationships with stakeholders as they change direction. The Academy of Management Journal, 63(2): 440-471.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. 2001. When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3): 476-514.
Holgersson, M., Baldwin, C., Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. 2022. The forces of ecosystem evolution. California Management Review, 64(3): 5-23.
Ihrig, M., & MacMillan, I. 2017. How to get ecosystem buy-in. Harvard Business Review, March–April 2017: 102-107.
Iyer, B., Lee, C.-H., & Venkatraman, N. 2006. Managing in a "small world ecosystem": Lessons from the software sector. California Management Review, 48(3): 28-47.
Jacobides, M. G. 2019. In the ecosystem economy, what is your strategy? Harvard Business Review, 97(5): 128-137.
Jacobides, M. G. 2022. How to compete when industries digitize and collide: An ecosystem development framework. California Management Review, 64(3): 99-123.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. 2018. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8): 2255-2276.
Kanter, R. 2012. Enriching the ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 90(3): 140-147.
Kramer, M. R., & Pfitzer, M. W. 2016. The ecosystem of shared value. Harvard Business Review, 94(10): 80-89.
Lingens, B., Böger, M., & Gassmann, O. 2021. Even a small conductor can lead a large orchestra: how startups orchestrate ecosystems. California Management Review, 63(3): 118-143.
Moore, J. 1993. Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3): 75-86.
Peloza, J., Loock, M., Cerruti, J., & Muyot, M. 2012. Sustainability: How stakeholder perceptions differ from corporate reality. California Management Review, 55(1): 74-97.
Randhawa, K., West, J., Skellern, K., & Josserand, E. 2021. Evolving a value chain to an open innovation ecosystem: cognitive engagement of stakeholders in customizing medical implants. California Management Review, 63(2): 101-134.
Schmeiss, J., Hölzle, K., & Tech, R. 2019. Designing governance mechanisms in platform ecosystems: Addressing the paradox of openness through blockchain technology. California Management Review, 62(1): 121-143.
Sebastian, I. M., Weill, P., & Woerner, S. L. 2020. Driving growth in digital ecosystems. Sloan Management Review, 62(1): 58-62.
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6): 650-669.
Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. 2013. When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10): 1831-1838.
Stonig, J., Schmid, T., & Müller-Stewens, G. 2022. From product system to ecosystem: How firms adapt to provide an integrated value proposition. Strategic Management Journal, 43(9): 1927-1957.
Visnjic, I., Neely, A., Cennamo, C., & Visnjic, N. 2016. Governing the city: Unleashing value from the business ecosystem. California Management Review, 59(1): 109-140.
Wessel, M., Levie, A., & Siegel, R. 2016. The problem with legacy ecosystems. Harvard Business Review, November 2016: 68-74.
Williamson, P., & De Meyer, A. 2012. Ecosystem advantage: How to successfully harness the power of partners. California Management Review, 55(1): 24-46.
Zaoual, A.-R., & Lecocq, X. 2018. Orchestrating circularity within industrial ecosystems: Lessons from iconic cases in three different countries. California Management Review, 60(3): 133-156.
Zeng, M. 2018. Alibaba and the future of business. Harvard Business Review, 96(5): 88-96. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
110364126 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110364126 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 412601.pdf | | 3175Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 93 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
