參與科技專案廠商之組織學習、社會資本與技術移轉之實證研究

Organizational Learning, Social Capital and Technology Transfer: An Empirical Study on Firms Participating R&D Consortia

10.6504/JOM.2005.22.03.02

方世杰(Shih-Chieh Fang)；林麗娟(Julia L. Lin)

科技專案 ； 組織學習 ； 社會資本 ； 技術移轉 ； Organizational learning ； Social capital ； Technology transfer ； R&D consortia

管理學報

22卷3期（2005 / 06 / 01）

295 - 315

繁體中文

面臨技術快速變動以及日趨複雜化的動態競爭環境，廠商透由組織間合作研發的方式，可以有效地、快速地取得與移轉所需技術。本研究從組織間關係網路之觀點，強調廠商在此一特定系絡的合作研發網路鑲嵌中，建構一定程度的社會資本以有效利用網路資源與網路學習之機會，並結合廠商內部之組織學習，將有助於其技術移轉績效之提昇。在實證研究方面，本文以110家參與工研院所主導之科技專案之組織間合作研發聯盟爲研究對象，以問卷調查統計分析方法探討組織學習、社會資本與技術移轉績效之因果關係。本文的主要結論包括：(1)廠商之組織學習是提昇技術移轉績效的充分與必要條件；(2)社會資本的建構對技術移轉績效之影響較不顯著。唯某些社會資本要素（如居網路之核心位置、網路關係聯結數、與關係品質等）結合某些特定組織學習能力（如學習意圖與吸收能力），將有強化技術移轉績效之互補效果。本文最後亦就本研究之理論與實務意涵做一討論，並提出管理實務與學術研究方向上之建議。

It is now widely recognized that, to survive and thrive in competitive environments, firms must keep upgrading their core technologies. In contrast to develop the core technology internally, acquiring the technology externally is a fast, low-risk and effective way. To sustain their competitive advantage, firms must seek cooperative relationships with other firms to acquire the critical technologies rather than only purchase the standardized technologies or patents from market. Transferring technology externally from joint ventures, strategic alliances, or R&D consortia, is particularly significant for the Taiwanese small-medium enterprises as they have been upgrading from OEM to ODM or even to OBM. There has been a growing body of research focusing on technology transfer for decades. However, some fundamental questions of technology transfer require more attention. First, social capital is an important perspective in explaining the technology transfer and knowledge acquiring from R&D collaboration because of the tacitness and distinctness characteristics of technology and knowledge. Secondly, most prior studies have focused on the dyadic relationship between firm and research institution, but ignored the effects of position of an individual firm in the network. Although firms can facilitate the technology transfer by developing relationships with other partners in strategic R&D networks, firms must also have effective organizational learning to secure and exploit the technology they have acquired. In other words, firms first can leverage interorganizational relationships to obtain the critical resource through network learning and then improve performance of technology transfer. In addition, firms have to construct effective organizational learning internally to internalize the acquired knowledge from external networks. In attempting to explore the process and performance of technology transfer in R&D consortia, we integrate the social capital and organizational learning issues to examine their effects on technology transfer while social capital refers to firms' external capability and organizational learning refers to firms' internal capability. Our research questions include: 1) How does firms' social capital with external partners in R&D consortium affect performance of technology transfer? 2) How does firms' internal capability of organizational learning affect performance of technology transfer? And 3) Are the effects of social capital and the organizational learning on the performance of technology transfer complementary? Based on an empirical investigation on 110 firms participating ITRI-sponsored R&D consortia, we find: 1) Firms capabilities of organizational learning, including learning intent, absorptivity and knowledge integration capability, have positive effects on performance of technology transfer. 2) Among the concepts of social capital, only centrality has positive effects on market advantage of technology transfer, and number of linkage, relationship quality and shared norm within network have positive effects on technology advantage. 3) Some concepts of organizational learning and social capital have complementary effects on technology transfer performance. For examples, firms with central position in network and better relationship quality can facilitate the technology transfer performance if they also have stronger intent and aborptivity. In additions, firms with more linkage and stronger relationship have better technology advantage if their learning intent and aborptivity are stronger. 4) Firms with long-term interaction ITRI have better technology advantage of technology transfer and on the other hand, firms with social capital developed mainly from the interaction with other partners participating the same consortium, have better market performance. Theoretically, we first conclude that firms, to sustain competitive advantage, must not only leverage the external interorganizational relationships, but also improve their organizational learning internally. Secondly, we argue social relationships can be capital and liability as well. Firms have to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of constructing social capital as it is costly and oversociallized is inefficient. Lastly, the effects of external social capital and internal organizational learning on technology transfer are complementary rather than substitute. We present some suggestions for practice. First, organizational learning capability is the fundamental issue of technology transfer While evaluating whether and how to develop social capital, firms have to improve their organizational learning by optimizing the resource allocations due to the availability of resources and some constraints. It takes long time for firms to construct social capital and the benefits are not immediate. Furthermore, it is beneficial for firms to keep long-term relationship with ITRI. The first contribution of this study is combining the network perspective and organizational learning to understand the cooperation between firms and research institutions. It is an important issue for firms to leverage external relationships and strengthen internal organizational learning as well in this co-opetitive environment. Most prior studies have focused on the dyad relationship between firm and firm, or firm and research institution. We, adopting the network embeddeness perspective, explicate firms' strategic role in network and distinguish the relationships between ”firm and firm” and ”firm and research institution.”

1. Adler, P. S.,Kwon Seok-Woo(2002).Social capital: prospects for a new concept.Academy of Management Review,27,17-40.
2. Ahuja, G.(2000).Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study.Administrative Science Quarterly,45,425-455.
3. Blyler, M.,Coff, R. W.(2003).Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent appropriation: Ties that spit pies.Strategic Management Journal,24(7),677-686.
4. Brown, J. S.,Duguid, P.(2001).Knowledge and Organization : A Social-Practice Perspective.Organization Science,12,198-213.
5. Burt, R. S.(1997).The contingent value of social capital.Administrative Science Quarterly,42,339-365.
6. Caloghirou, Y.,Kastelli, J.,Tsakanikas, A.(2004).Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: Complements or substitutions for innovation performance?.Technovation,24(1),29-39.
7. Cohen, W. M.,Levinthal, D. A.(1990).Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation.Administrative Science Quarterly,35(1),128-152.
8. Das, T. K.,Teng, B. S.(2000).A resource-based theory of strategic alliance.Journal of Management,26(1),31-61.
9. Dekker, H. C.(2004).Control of inter-organizational relationships: Evidence on appropriations and coordination requirements.Accounting, Organizations and Society,29,27-49.
10. Dyer, J. H.,Nobeoka, K.(2000).Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case.Strategic Management Journal,21,345-367.
11. Dyer, J. H.,Singh, H.(1998).The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage.Academy of Management Review,23,660-679.
12. Fang, S. C.(1999).The consortia formed between industry and research institution: The fertures, interaction mechanisms and performance.Journal of Management,16(4),633-659.
13. Fang, S. C.,Cheng, C. S.(2001).Interorganizational learning mechanisms and organizational learning performance within cooperative R & D: The interorganizational interaction perspective.Journal of Management,18(4),503-526.
14. Granovetter, M.(1985).Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.American Journal Sociology,91,481-510.
15. Grant, R. M.(1995).Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.Strategic Management Journal,17,109-122.
16. Gulati, R.(1995).Dose familiarity breed Trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliance.Academy of Management Journal,38,85-112.
17. Gulati, R.(1998).Alliances and networks.Strategic Management Journal,19,293-317.
18. Gulati, R.(1999).Network location and leaning: The influence of network rsources and firm capabilities on alliance formation.Strategic Management Journal,20,397-420.
19. Hagedoorn, J.(1993).Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences.Strategic Management Journal,14,371-385.
20. Hamel, G.(1991).Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances.Strategic Management Journal,12,83-103.
21. Hansen, M. T.(1999).The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits.Administrative Science Quarterly,44,82-111.
22. Helfat, C. E.(1997).Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D.Strategic Management Journal,18,339-360.
23. Huber, G. P.(1991).Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures.Organization Science,2(1),88-115.
24. Inkpen, A.,Dinur, A.(1998).Knowledge management process and international joint ventures.Organization Science,9(4),454-468.
25. Kale, P.,Singh, H.,Perlmutter, H.(2000).Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital.Strategic Management Journal,21,217-237.
26. Kogut, B.,Zander, A.(1992).Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology.Organization Science,3(3),383-397.
27. Koka, B. R.,Prescott, J. E.(2002).Strategic alliances as social capital: A multidimensional view.Strategic Management Journal,23(9),794-816.
28. Kostova, T.,Roth, K.(2003).Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro model of its formation.Academy of Management Review,8,297-317.
29. Lane, P. J.,Lubatkin, M.(1998).Relative absorptive capacity and Interorganizational Learning.Strategic Management Journal,19,461-477.
30. Larson, A.(1992).Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships.Administrative Science Quarterly,37,76-104.
31. Lee, C.,Lee, K.,Pennings J. M.(2001).Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on technology-based ventures.Strategic Management Journal,22(6),615-640.
32. Lui, S. S.,Ngo, H.(2004).The role of trust and contractual safeguards on cooperation in non-equity alliance.Journal of Management,30(4),471-485.
33. Mathews, J. A.(2002).The origins and dynamic of Taiwan`s R & D consortia.Research Policy,34(4),633-651.
34. McEvily, B.,Zaheer, A.(1999).Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities.Strategic Management Journal,20,1133-1156.
35. Nahapiet, J.,Ghoshal, S.(1998).Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organization advantage.Academy of Management Review,23,242-266.
36. Nonaka, I.,Toyama, R.,Konno, N.(2000).SECT, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation.Long Range Planning,33,5-34.
37. Okhuysen, G.. A.,Eisenhardt, K. M.(2002).Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility.Organization Science,13(4),370-386.
38. Olk, P.(1997).A knowledge-based perspective on the transformation of individual-level relationships into interorganizational structures: The case of R& D consortia.European Management Journal,16(1),39-49.
39. Popper, M.,Lipshitz, R.(1998).Organization learning mechanisms: A structural and cultural approach to organizational learning.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,34,167-179.
40. Poppo, L.,Zenger, T.(2002).Do formal contracts and relational governanace function as substitutes or complements?.Strategic Management Journal,23,707-725.
41. Powell, W. W.,Kogut, K. W,Smoth-Doerr, L.(1996).Interorganizational collaboration and locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology.Administrative Science Quarterly,41,285-307.
42. Reagans, R.,McEvily, B.(2003).Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range.Administrative Science Quarterly,48,240-267.
43. Ritter, T.(1999).The network company: Antecedents for coping with relationships and networks effective.Industrial Marketing Management,28,467-479.
44. Rowley, T.,Behrens, D.,Krackhardt, D.(2000).Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries.Strategic Management Journal,21,369-386.
45. Sakakibara, M.(1997).Evaluation government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: Who benefits and how?.Research Policy,26(4, 5),447-473.
46. Sakakibara, M.(2002).Formation of R & D consortia: Industry and company effects.Strategic Management Journal,23(11),1033-1050.
47. Szulanski, G.(1996).Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm.Strategic Management Journal,17,27-43.
48. Takeishi, A.(2001).Bridging inter- and intra- firm boundaries: Management of supplier involvement in automobile product development.Strategic Management Journal,22,403-433.
49. Teece, D. J.,Pisano, G.,Shuen, A.(1997).Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.Strategic Management Journal,18,509-533.
50. Tsai, W.(2002).Social structure of “co-opetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intra- Organization Knowledge Sharing.Organization Science,13(2),179-190.
51. Tsai, W.(2000).Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of interaorganal linkages.Strategic Management Journal,21,925-939.
52. Tsai, W.(2001).Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance.Academy of Management Journal,44(5),996-1004.
53. Uzzi, B.(1996).The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect.American Sociological Review,61,674-698.
54. Uzzi, B.,Lancaster, R.(2003).Relational embedded and learning: The case of banks loan managers and their clients.Management Science,49(4),383-399.
55. Yli-Renko, H.,Autio, E.,Sapienza, H. J.(2001).Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms.Strategic Management Journal,22,587-613.
56. Yli-Renko, H.,Autio, E.,Tontti, V.(2002).Social capital, knowledge, and the international growth of technology-based new firms.International Business Review,11,279-304.
57. Zaheer, A.,Venkatraman, N.(1995).Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange.Strategy Management Journal,16,373-392.
58. Zahra, A. S.,George, G.(2002).Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization. and extension.Academy of Management Review,27(2),185-203.

1. 陳建華、洪啟嘉、王俊雄(2010)。私人監測架構下的組織間知識移轉模型。亞太經濟管理評論，14(1)，47-68。
2. 方世榮、方世杰(2008)。組織間統治—回歸組織間關係研究之本質，兼論台灣期刊相關之研究。管理評論，27(1)，25-56。
3. 黃淑媛(2015)。台灣智慧資本研究：以TSSCI管理學門期刊為例。修平學報，30，147-176。
4. 邱柏松、佘溪水(2006)。以社會資本為觀點探討對人力資源交換的影響。興國學報，5，11-22。
5. 謝如梅、蔡馥陞、劉常勇、方世杰(2009)。團隊社會資本與新產品開發績效：知識分享機會、意願與能力之中介效果。中山管理評論，17(4)，1001-1044。
6. 楊舜慧、項維欣、陳東賢、吳思華(2012)。專案團隊內創意構想守門與創新績效之關係探討。管理評論，31(3)，21-48。
7. 楊婉菁、沈慶龍(2009)。探討互動機制、模糊性與雙鏈系絡因素對知識移轉績效影響之研究：一整合性架構與實證研究。Electronic Commerce Studies，7(2)，171-207。