簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 張百佑
Pai-yu Chang
論文名稱： 設計資源、設計能力與設計能耐之相關性研究－大可意念個案研究
Exploring the Linkages of Design Resources, Design Capabilities, and Design Competence: A Case Study of Duckimage
指導教授： 宋同正
Tung-Jung Sung
口試委員: 游萬來
Manlai You
張文智
Wen-chih Chang
陳建雄
Chien-Hsiung Chen
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 設計學院 - 設計系
Department of Design
論文出版年： 2008
畢業學年度： 96
語文別： 中文
論文頁數： 158
中文關鍵詞： 設計資源 、設計能力 、設計能耐 、資源基礎觀點 、能耐基礎觀點
外文關鍵詞： Design Resource, Design Capability, Design Competence, Resource-based View, Competence-based View
相關次數： 點閱：228  下載：12 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 儘管先前文獻提及企業競爭優勢主要源自於獨特性能力所集合而成之能耐，唯今日企業設計資源、設計能力與設計能耐的真實內涵及關連性迄今仍模糊不清。基此，以能耐基礎觀點 (competence-based view，CBV) 為理論依據，本研究針對大可意念傳達有限公司進行設計資源、設計能力及設計能耐之內涵與相關性探討。本研究的主要發現有：1) 大可的有形設計資源有：「設計人力」、「設計資金」與「設計專業設備」；而無形設計資源則為：「設計技術」、「設計經驗」、「公司商譽」、「管理機制」、「供應商關係」與「客戶關係」，且「公司商譽」是其最關鍵之設計資源要項；2) 大可的設計能力涵蓋有：「功能性」、「美學性」、「技術性」與「品質性」等四大構面，且「技術性」構面之「材料的開發與新應用」是其最關鍵之設計能力要項；3) 大可的設計能耐包括有：「跨功能整合」、「跨產品應用」與「跨事業分享」三種類型，且「跨事業分享」是最具集合性之設計能耐；4) 「設計人力」、「設計經驗」與「公司商譽」等3項設計資源要項與大可之所有設計能力要項皆具相關性；5) 四大設計能力構面與大可三種不同類型設計能耐皆有相關。除提出若干設計管理實務與研究建議外，本研究更冀望研究成果可作為設計服務公司在策略性規劃設計資源與能力之組合時的重要參考依據。

    Although the past studies noted that competitive advantages in a firm root in its competence which includes a set of distinctive capabilities, there were few empirical studies which could demonstrate the linkages between design resources, design capabilities, and design competence. Thus, through a case study on Duckimage as a Taiwanese design consultancy company which had won over 40 international design awards within five years (from 2003 to 2007), the main purpose of this study is to explore the contents and linkages of design resources, design capabilities and design competence in the Duckimage based on competence-base view (CBV) theory. The findings of this study first confirm that the tangible design resources of the Duckimage are manpower, cash flow, and design facilities, while her intangible design resources include design technology, design experience, company reputation, management mechanism, and the supplier’s (or client’s) relationship. Among them, “company reputation” is the most key design resource in the Duckimage. Secondly, this study further identifies four design capabilities in the Duckimage. They are: 1) design function, 2) design aesthetics, 3) design technology, and 4) design quality. Under design technology, “development and application of new material” is her most key design capability. Thirdly, this study discovers “across-function”, “across-product”, and “across-business” design competence in the Duckimage. Among them, “across-business” is the most collective design competence in the Duckimage. Fourthly, “human resources”, “design experience” and “company reputation” have the effects on all design capabilities in the Duckimage. Finally, all design capabilities have the effects on all design competence in the Duckimage. Additionally, the study also discusses the implications of these findings and suggests several avenues for future research.

    一、緒論.............................................. 1 1.1 研究背景與動機.................................... 1 1.2 研究問題與目的.................................... 2 1.3 研究流程.......................................... 3 二、文獻探討.......................................... 5 2.1 資源基礎觀點與能耐基礎觀點........................ 5 2.1.1 資源基礎觀點........................... 5 2.1.2 能耐基礎觀點........................... 7 2.2 企業資源、能力與能耐.............................. 9 2.3 設計資源、設計能力與設計能耐...................... 11 2.3.1 設計資源............................... 11 2.3.2 設計能力............................... 12 2.3.3 設計能耐............................... 15 2.4 研究架構.......................................... 16 三、研究方法.......................................... 17 3.1 個案研究法...................................... 17 3.2 資料蒐集與分析方法.............................. 19 3.2.1 研究訪談問項........................... 19 3.2.2 資料分析方法........................... 21 3.3 個案對象篩選...................................... 23 3.3.1 個案設計公司篩選....................... 23 3.3.2 個案設計公司之客戶的篩選............... 24 3.4 研究之信度與效度.................................. 25 四、個案研究.......................................... 26 4.1 個案對象說明...................................... 26 4.1.1 大可意念傳達有限公司................... 26 4.1.2 大可之受訪客戶......................... 28 4.2 大可的設計資源、設計能力與設計能耐................ 30 4.2.1 大可的設計資源......................... 30 4.2.2 大可的設計能力......................... 32 4.2.3 大可的設計能耐......................... 36 4.3 大可設計資源、設計能力與設計能耐的相關性.......... 38 4.3.1 大可設計資源與設計能力的相關性......... 38 4.3.2 大可設計能力與設計能耐的相關性......... 43 五、研究討論...........................................46 5.1 大可最具價值性之設計資源.......................... 46 5.2 大可最具獨特性之設計能力.......................... 47 5.3 大可最具集合性之設計能耐.......................... 48 六、研究結論.......................................... 49 七、研究建議.......................................... 50 7.1 設計管理實務的建議................................ 50 7.2 後續研究建議...................................... 50 誌謝.................................................. 51 參考文獻.............................................. 52 附錄.................................................. 56

    1. Amit, R. & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.
    2. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
    3. Bettis, R. A. & Hitt, M. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16 (Special Issue), 7-19.
    4. Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.
    5. Bowman, C. & Ambrosini, V. (2003). How the resource-based and the dynamic capability views of the firm inform corporate-level strategy. British Journal of Management, 14(4), 289–303.
    6. Boyer, K.K. & Lewis, M.W. (2002) Competitive priorities: investigating the need for trade-offs in operations strategy. Journal of Operation Management, 11(1), 9-20.
    7. Collis, D. J. & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 118-128.
    8. Dosi, G., Teece D., & Winter, S. (1990). Toward a theory of corporate coherence: Preliminary remarked. CA: University of California at Berkeley.
    9. Eckman, M. & Wagner, J. (1994). Judging the attractiveness of product design: The effect of visual attributes and consumer characteristics. Advances in Consumer Research, 21(1), 560-564.
    10. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
    11. Garvin, D. A. (1984). What does “Product Quality” really mean? Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 25-43.
    12. Gemser, G. & Wijnberg, N. M. (2002). The economic significance of industrial design awards: a conceptual framework. Design Management Academic Review, 2(1), 61-71.
    13. Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
    14. Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), 135-144.
    15. Hamel, G. (1994). The concept of core competence. In G. Hamel, & A. Heene (Eds.), Competence-based competition (pp. 11–33). NY: Wiley.
    16. Helgesen, T. (1994). Advertising award and advertising agency performance criteria. Journal of Advertising Research, July/August, 43-53.
    17. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, CA: Sage Publications.
    18. Marino, K. E. (1996). Developing consensus on firm competencies and capabilities. Academy of Management Executive, 10(3), 40-51.
    19. Marsh, S. J. & Stock, G. N. (2003). Building dynamic capabilities in new product development through intertemporal integration. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 136-148.
    20. Miller W.L. & Crabtree B.F. (1992) Primary Care Research: A Multimethod Typology and Qualitative Road Map. In W.L.Crabtree & B.F. Miller (Eds.), Doing Qualitative Research. (pp.3-28). CA: Sage.
    21. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. CA: Sage Publications.
    22. Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191.
    23. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. NY: The Free Press.
    24. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. NY: The Free Press.
    25. Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
    26. Rumelt, R. P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In R. B. Lamb (Ed.), Competitive Strategic Management (pp. 556-570). NY: Prentice-Hall.
    27. Sanchez, R. & Heene, A. (1997). Reinventing strategic management: New theory and practice for competence-based competition. European Management Journal, 15(3), 303-317.
    28. Schmenner, R.W. & Swink, M.L. (1998). On theory in operation management. Journal of Operations Management, 17 (1), 97-113.
    29. Spivey, W. A., Munson, J. M., & Wolcott, J. H. (1997). Improving the new product development process: A fractal paradigm for high-technology products. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3), 203 - 218.
    30. Swan, K., Kotabe, S. M., & Allred, B. B. (2005). Exploring robust design capabilities, their role in creating global products, and their relationship to firm performance. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), 144-164.
    31. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
    32. Turner, R. (1990). “Design into management”, In P. Gorb (Ed.), Design management (pp. 107-124). London: London Business School.
    33. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
    34. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design & Method. (3rd ed.). CA: Sage Publications.
    35. 司徒達賢與林晉寬 (1998)。台灣優勢廠商之資源管理模式。管理學報，15(2)，255-270。
    36. 江佩蓉 (2006)。成貫設計力 搶走華碩、明基風采。商業周刊，965，58。
    37. 宋同正 (1998)。台灣資訊業設計資源與設計績效之實証研究。科技學刊，7(2)，165-172。
    38. 李珣英 (2008)。工研院與大可合作 勇奪iF三項設計獎。經濟日報，1月31日，D1版。
    39. 吳思華 (2003)。策略九說：策略的思考本質。台北：臉譜文化。
    40. 吳錦錩 (2005)。從資源基礎、能耐基礎與動態能力觀點探討企業持續性競爭優勢構面－以台灣代工製造公司為例。東海管理評論，7(1)，137-166。
    41. 林孟儀 & 劉慧雯 (2006)。設計創價時代。台北：臉譜。
    42. 林晉寬 (1995)。從資源基礎理論探討資源特性與成長策略之關係。國立政治大學企業管理研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
    43. 許立欣 (2007)。設計獎項與企業價值相關性研究。國立雲林科技大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，未出版，雲林。
    44. 翁振宇 (2006)。大型工業設計公司與中型公司經營要項差異之探討。國立台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
    45. 莊尚平 (2000)。資源基礎理論下持久競爭優勢之整合性架構初探。國立台灣科技大學工業管理系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
    46. 張光民 (2006)。設計的藍海。經濟日報，4月11日，A12版。
    47. 張紹勳 (2000)。研究方法。台中：滄海。
    48. 陳萬淇 (1995)。個案研究法。台北。華泰。
    49. 彭芸芳 (2008)。氣墊秤 奪iF設計獎。聯合報，1月30日，A6版。
    50. 黃茗富 (2004)。工業設計產業組織能耐、績效制度與競爭優勢之個案分析。國立雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士論文，未出版，雲林。
    51. 曾登崧 (2007)。台灣企業設計能力與設計獎項獲得之相關性研究-以國際知名設計獎項為例。國立雲林科技大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，未出版，雲林。
    52. 經濟部 (2008)。第12章設計產業發展概況 (宋同正 撰)。2007臺灣文化創意產業發展年報。台北：經濟部工業局，132-139。
    53. 滕淑芬 (2007)。台灣設計亮起來。台灣光華雜誌，5，8-11。
    54. 劉信宏 (2004)。製造業組織策略、設計策略與設計部門核心能力發展之個案探討。國立雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士論文，未出版，雲林。
    55. 數位時代 (2005)。詰佑用設計走出代工宿命。數位時代，155，94-95。

    QR CODE