About HBS

關於哈佛

哈佛大學(Harvard University)1636年成立,迄今為全美歷史最悠久的高等學府,為一所坐落於麻薩諸塞州劍橋市的私立研究型大學。其因歷史、學術影響力、財富等因素而獲評為世上最享負盛名的學府之一。哈佛校友涵蓋8名美國總統及多國領袖與政治要員;其亦培養了62名富豪企業家及335位羅德學者,人數均為全美最多;另也有152名諾貝爾獎得主現在或曾經在哈佛學習或工作。Harvard University is a private Ivy League research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, established in 1636, whose history, influence, and wealth have made it one of the world's most prestigious universities. Established originally by the Massachusetts legislature and soon thereafter named for John Harvard (its first benefactor), Harvard is the United States' oldest institution of higher learning,[8] and the Harvard Corporation (formally, the President and Fellows of Harvard College) is its first chartered corporation. Although never formally affiliated with any denomination, the early College primarily trained Congregational and Unitarian clergy. Its curriculum and student body were gradually secularized during the 18th century, and by the 19th century Harvard had emerged as the central cultural establishment among Boston elites.

Professor

授課教授

Michael L. Tushman
Paul R. Lawrence MBA Class of 1942 Professor of Business Administration
Michael Tushman holds degrees from Northeastern University (B.S.E.E.), Cornell University (M.S.), and the Sloan School of Management at M.I.T. (Ph.D.). Tushman was on the faculty of the Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, from 1976 to 1998 where he was the Phillip Hettleman Professor of Business from 1989 to 1998. He has also been a visiting professor at MIT (1982, 1996) and INSEAD (1995-1998, 2011).
Tushman was awarded the Academy of Management’s Career Achievement Award for Distinguished Scholarly Contributions to Management (2013) and received an honorary doctorate from the University of Geneva (2008). Tushman received distinguished scholar awards in the Technology and Innovation Management (1999), Organization Management and Theory (2003), and Organization Development and Change (2016) Divisions of the Academy of Management. He was elected Fellow of the Academy of Management (1996). Tushman received the distinguished scholar award at INFORMS’ Technology Management Section (2010) and was recognized as a Foundational Scholar in the Knowledge and Innovation Group of the Strategic Management Society (2014).
Rohit Deshpande
Sebastian S. Kresge Professor of Marketing
Rohit Deshpandé is Sebastian S. Kresge Professor of Marketing at Harvard Business School, where he has been teaching in the Program for Leadership Development, the Owner/President Management Program and in other executive education offerings. He has also taught global branding, international marketing, and first year marketing in the MBA program as well as a doctoral seminar in marketing management. He is the faculty chair of the Global Colloquium for Participant-Centered Learning and coordinator for Marketing faculty recruiting, and has previously been coordinator for Marketing doctoral program admissions, and faculty chair of the Strategic Marketing Management executive program at Harvard Business School. In addition to teaching marketing, he was a part of the design and delivery team that created the Leadership and Corporate Accountability (LCA) MBA required course at HBS focusing on ethics and corporate governance and was faculty chair of the LCA in India executive program. In 2008-2009 Deshpande was recognized as the Henry B. Arthur Fellow for Business Ethics and in 2015 received the Robert F. Greenhill award for outstanding contributions to the HBS community.
John T. Gourville
Albert J. Weatherhead, Jr. Professor of Business Administration
John Gourville is the Albert J. Weatherhead, Jr. Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. He joined the HBS Marketing Unit in 1995 after receiving his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago in marketing and behavioral research. He has recently returned to teaching in the Core Marketing course in the first year of the MBA program, a course for which he had previouosly been course head. He has also taught the electives The Marketing of Innovations, Consumer Marketing, and Entrepreneurial Marketing in the second year of the MBA program. In the HBS Executive Education program, he has chaired the Strategic Marketing Management program. He also teaches in the Aligning Sales and Strategy program and the Program for Leadership Development, as well as a number of custom company programs. John also has participated in specialized executive education programs throughout the world. Prior to receiving his Ph.D., John held management positions with Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Mobil Oil, and New York Telephone.
Tarun Khanna
Jorge Paulo Lemann Professor
Tarun Khanna is the Jorge Paulo Lemann Professor at the Harvard Business School, where he has sought for two decades to study the drivers of entrepreneurship in emerging markets as a means of economic and social development. At HBS since 1993, after obtaining degrees from Princeton and Harvard, he has taught courses on strategy, corporate governance and international business to MBA and Ph.D. students and senior executives. For many years, he has served as the Faculty Chair for HBS activities in India and South Asia.
A summary of his work on emerging markets appeared in his 2010 co-authored book, Winning in Emerging Markets, and an example of his comparative work on entrepreneurship appears in his 2008 first-person analysis of China and India, Billions of Entrepreneurs, both published by Harvard Business Press and translated into many languages. In 2014, his piece, Contextual Intelligence, was a runner-up for the McKinsey Prize for the year’s best article in the Harvard Business Review.
Kathleen L. McGinn
Cahners-Rabb Professor of Business Administration
Kathleen L. McGinn is the Cahners-Rabb Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. Professor McGinn studies the role of gender at work, at home, and in negotiations. Her current field research investigates these issues internationally—in families across 34 countries, in organizations and communities in Mexico and India, among women “firsts” and female professionals in North America, and in relation to health and welfare outcomes for young women in Zambia. She previously served as Harvard Business School’s Senior Associate Dean for Faculty Development, Director of Research, and Chair of Doctoral Programs.
Professor McGinn advises organizations in the areas of negotiation, gender and employment relations. She chairs the board for CFK Inc. (US & Kenya) and is a member of the board for WAVE (US & Nigeria). Before coming to Harvard, Professor McGinn taught at Cornell University’s Johnson School and Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where she received her Ph.D. Prior to her academic career, Professor McGinn was a director of labor relations in the public sector.
Tsedal Neeley
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Tsedal Neeley (@tsedal) is an associate professor in the Organizational Behavior unit at the Harvard Business School. She has taught in both the MBA (LEAD, Leading Teams in a Global Economy, Field Global Immersion) and in various executive education programs such as Global Strategic Management. She currently teaches in the Executive Education offering “Program for Leadership Development.” Professor Neeley is a recipient of the HBS Charles M. Williams award for outstanding teaching in Executive Education.
Gary P. Pisano
Harry E. Figgie, Jr. Professor of Business Administration
Gary Pisano is the Harry E. Figgie Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. He has been on the Harvard faculty since 1988. Pisano’s research, teaching, and consulting have focused on technology strategy, the management of innovation and intellectual property, competitive strategy, and manufacturing and outsourcing strategy. His work on these issues spans a range of science and technology based industries including aerospace, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, specialty chemicals, health care, nutrition, computers, software, telecommunications, and semiconductors.
Eugene F. Soltes
Jakurski Family Associate Professor of Business Administration
Eugene Soltes is the Jakurski Family Associate Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School where his research focuses on corporate misconduct and fraud, and how organizations design cultures and compliance systems to confront these challenges. He teaches in several of the school’s executive education programs and was the recipient of the Charles M. Williams Award for outstanding teaching.
J. Gunnar Trumbull
Philip Caldwell Professor of Business Administration
Gunnar Trumbull is a Professor at the Harvard Business School, where he teaches in the Business, Government, and the International Economy area. Trumbull graduated from Harvard College in 1991 and earned a Ph.D. in political science from M.I.T. in 2000. He joined the Harvard Business School faculty in 2001, where his research focuses on European political economy.
Bharat N. Anand
Henry R. Byers Professor of Business Administration
Bharat Anand is the Henry R. Byers Professor of Business Administration in the Strategy Unit at Harvard Business School, and the faculty chair of the HBX initiative. He also serves on the university's HarvardX Faculty Committee. His research is in applied and empirical industrial organization, and examines competition in information goods markets, with a primary focus on media and entertainment. He is also an expert in multi-business strategy. He chairs several executive education programs, including the school's executive education program on media strategies. He received an AB in Economics, magna cum laude, from Harvard University, and his PhD in Economics from Princeton University, where he was nominated to the Princeton Junior Society of Fellows.
Introduction

課程簡介

從台灣底層到世界頂端
自幼求學半工半讀,格外珍惜每次的學習機會,為了東學為體、西學為用,長久艱辛的重重考驗,在大學及碩士期間,同時修讀線上哈佛,完成十六門(六四O小時)的課程,奠定的根基使我以第一名考取台大商研所博士班,並錄取哈佛大學商學院的三年制學程,赴美國波士頓校本部,進行五大階段的研讀。
課程涵蓋國家競爭力、高階領導力、國際經貿、創新經營、策略管理、永續發展、行銷管理、財務金融、組織行為、變革管理、願景領導、數位行銷、電子商務、巨量資料分析、供應鏈管理、全球科技競爭、多目標分析、資料探勘研究、作業管理、資訊管理、決策管理、新創事業、綠色產品開發、智財權管理、國際企業、產業經濟學、風險管理、企業社會責任等多元實務領域。

知識引領 諾貝爾風範
哈佛大學擁有世界最多諾貝爾獎得主,所謂「先有哈佛,後有美國」,道出哈佛大學在美國歷史上的地位及影響力。哈佛課堂有極高的要求,教授每堂課程的點名發言、面對全世界菁英的犀利眼光,課前及課後大量時間準備報告、作業、考試,在自我要求、教授壓力、同儕競爭的三重壓力下,激發無限的潛能。
透過密集的講座、商業模擬、報告、小組討論與競賽,以及哈佛商學院著名的個案教學法,針對全球市場經濟、政治情勢、顧客需求、產業環境等面向進行360度檢視,以世界各大知名企業個案研究探討不同的情境,學習全面向的管理及領導力,培養面對全球變局應有的競合優勢。

智庫創新 志同43國夥伴
哈佛商學院有著如聯合國的環境,結識世界五大洲、四十三個國家的上百位菁英,來自半導體業、高科技產業、光電產業、石油化學工業、生化科技業、精密鑄造業、銀行證券業、國際貿易業等先進產業,其中有Google、微軟、Apple等全球百大企業的高階主管,是全球中生代的產業代表,進而結盟為「國際智庫」的合作夥伴。
在彼此身上學習到尖端的世界趨勢、經營處世的智慧:見識杜拜人突破天然資源侷限、創造經濟奇蹟;矽谷人才打造創新創業生態系統;中東石油鉅子在政治及商界的賽局談判;以色列猶太人的智慧超越僵局成為創新強國;北歐五國如何以軟實力贏得國家競爭力……。而我也分享華人千古智慧─「孫子兵法」等韜略在實務上的運籌帷幄,及十多年來從貧困路邊攤,到運用電子商務反敗為勝、所得全數致力公益的經歷,讓眾人印象深刻,甚至有許多人曾在網路上看過我的國際報導,齊聲表示認同與肯定,建立良善的全球人脈網絡。

全球議題 領導趨勢
「Ask what you can do?」漫步在哈佛校園中,隨處可見甘迺迪在1961年演說中激勵人心的字句 ( 原文:Ask not what your country can do for you --ask what you can do for your country ) 哈佛商學院特別強調回饋社會的重要,在世界最高學府上,探討全球正臨的金融衝擊、貧富懸殊、全球暖化、糧食短缺、人口爆炸、資源分配不均、恐怖主義、能源危機等重重嚴峻考驗。反觀台灣所面對的高失業率、薪資停滯、城鄉差距、稅制不公、產業失衡、族群分化、人口高齡化、少子女化、學歷貶值、工作貧窮化、社會秩序瓦解……令人不禁思考:台灣下一個十年、二十年,該何去何從?
從哈佛到台灣,身為台灣青年的一份子,出於淑世的熱切,對國家、人民與土地的關懷,不計個人得失,我持續投身於《國政民情白皮書》,透過民意調查、田野訪談及數據資料分析,以超然客觀 、公平正義的價值,研究台灣經貿發展、社會福利、農業政策、教育文化、多元族群等重大社會議題,觀察政策制度、民生民情與時局變遷、掌握社會脈動,尋找未來的關鍵字,盼影響當代思潮,成為下一輪世代的備忘錄。
Reports

成果報告

After arriving on the HBS campus, we begin to develop an integrated perspective on business and a network of like-minded peers. Through the multifaceted curriculum, we learn about the building blocks inherent to all businesses and gain an understanding of how the various functions interrelate and contribute to a company’s overall strategy. During the classroom and group discussions, we benefit from the expertise of our peers as we exchange insights on business issues and management strategies. In particular, case discussions yield a wide range of perspectives that highlight how a single business decision can affect many corporate functions. Looking at the core operations and best practices, we explore strategies for identifying and enhancing synergies across critical organizational functions. The functional areas examined include:
• Strategy:Functional and businessunit strategy formulation; strategy implementation; alignment of strategy and control systems; and growth strategies
• Marketing: Product management; marketing strategy; market segmentation; product positioning; pricing; market analysis and planning; branding; customer acquisition and retention; and employee, shareholder, and customer satisfaction for profit and growth
• Operations:Internal processes; technology and operations strategies; product and market capabilities; operations improvements; coordination/ supply chain management; new product/process creation and analysis; and human resources capabilities
• Finance and Accounting:Financial accounting; financial statements; accounting choices and financial reporting policies; financial analysis; budgeting; forecasting; control systems; and profitability analysis
• Leadership and Corporate Accountability:External and internal stakeholders; strategic governance tools; economics, law, psychology, and organizational behavior; and responsible and profitable corporate conduct
• Business, Government and the International Economy:Economic, political, and social forces that are shaping the global business environment; trade and international relations; macroeconomics; and the impact of globalization Change Management - Identifying performance gaps and strategic opportunities - Aligning our organization for change - Becoming an ambidextrous organization able to respond to new challenges and opportunities - Creating an organizational culture that facilitates and welcomes change - Overcoming roadblocks to change - Understanding the links between innovation and organizational evolution - Examining the impact of disruptive technologies
• Innovation Best Practices - Establishing a common language for company-wide collaboration - Developing processes that facilitate innovation - Enabling strategic experimentation and learning - Creating an entrepreneurial mindset within our organization - Managing the existing businesses while enabling innovation - Examining the potential of distributed innovation systems
• Leadership and Execution - Driving change by enhancing decision-making processes, negotiation strategies, and teamwork skills - Crafting a leadership style that helps us drive change more effectively - Understanding the difference between management and leadership - Uniting a team around a clearly articulated vision - Building effective teams that can manage conflict and execute change - Identifying and addressing risks
• Corporate Finance:Senior leaders must have a firm grasp of finance to maximize profitability. While building a foundation in finance, we  learn how to apply financial analysis techniques, work with capital markets and financial institutions, and set performance goals and compensation incentives. We also  gain insights into the flow and management of financial resources at the divisional and corporate levels.
• Authentic Leadership:The best leaders are authentic leaders—people whose inner compass guides their daily actions and enables them to earn the trust of their subordinates, peers, and stakeholders. By determining what qualities define an outstanding leader who empowers others, we develop greater self-confidence and emotional intelligence—the two keys to becoming a successful and authentic leader. we return to our company with a framework for leading with integrity.
• Leadership and Accountability:Senior leaders are confronted with complex and often contradictory demands from a range of stakeholders— customers, employees, investors, and governments. While assessing our responsibilities as a decision maker, we  establish guidelines for making decisions that support our organization’s financial needs, legal requirements, and ethical obligations. We also practice adapting our personal leadership style to different business scenarios.
• Personal Leadership in Business and Society:Facing heightened competition and transparency, executives are expected to consider the impact of every decision on their organization and their community. Examining innovative ways to build competitive advantage, we explore our personal role—and our company’s organizational role—in generating more value for the business and for society. We also develop our leadership vision and address a specific personal leadership challenge.
• Negotiation and Decision-Making:In a highly competitive business arena, attaining the best outcome in high-stakes negotiations is vital to our organization. By actively engaging in dealmaking scenarios, we learn how to prepare for and navigate complex negotiations, examine the psychology of decision-making, and even predict the outcome of strategic interactions. In collaboration with our peers, we plan, simulate, obtain feedback, and discuss diverse negotiation and competitive strategies.
• Other Topics Include:Building greater leadership confidence and presence; understanding leadership and corporate accountability; and improving communication skills and cultural awareness
Abstract:Why might firms be regarded as astutely managed at one point, yet subsequently lose their positions of industry leadership when faced with technological change? We present a model, grounded in a study of the world disk drive industry, that charts the process through which the demands of a firm's customers shape the allocation of resources in technological innovation-a model that links theories of resource dependence and resource allocation. We show that established firms led the industry in developing technologies of every sort-even radical ones-whenever the technologies addressed existing customers' needs. The same firms failed to develop simpler technologies that initially were only useful in emerging markets, because impetus coalesces behind, and resources are allocated to, programs targeting powerful customers. Projects targeted at technologies for which no customers yet exist languish for lack of impetus and resources. Because the rate of technical progress can exceed the performance demanded in a market, technologies which initially can only be used in emerging markets later can invade mainstream ones, carrying entrant firms to victory over established companies.
Many technological developments and strategies have been discussed in this semester, however, it is necessary to carry out through the organization. Therefore, it is necessary for companies to have a proper organizational learning. Most of the organizational learning from absorption capacity, as Cohen and Levinthal (1990) defined absorption capacity as a firm's ability to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends. The absorptive capacity is cumulative, while the companies invest more in R&D, it’s easier to accumulate it in the next one.  Rothaermel and Alexandre (2009) pointed out that due to rapidly changing environments, companies need to create an ambidextrous organization which is a dynamic capability combining internal and external sources of technology. Higher levels of absorptive capacity allow a firm to more fully capture the benefits resulting from ambidexterity in technology sourcing  These articles emphasize the importance of balancing internal and external technology sourcing. However, enterprise resources are limited and often facing difficulties in resource allocation, although many companies are composed of the elites, often ended in failure. The following are examples of Sony and Apple, both of them have excellent absorption and ambidextrous capacity in portable music player market, but why Apple succeeded, Sony failed? This article will explain how the organizational structure impact the technology sourcing strategy.
Abstract:We examined 79 Japanese MNCs’ R&D subsidiaries in the US from the knowledge-based view. We found: (1) subsidiaries’ R&D strategies generally encouraged knowledge flows; (2) subsidiaries’ R&D alliances promoted knowledge flows; (3) R&D subsidiaries with process-oriented incentives promoted vertical knowledge flows; (3) autonomous R&D subsidiaries promoted knowledge flows from the local environments to the subsidiary; (4) R&D subsidiaries with a high level of knowledge flows accumulated a high level of knowledge; and (5) R&D subsidiaries with a high level of accumulated knowledge achieved high overall performance. Our interviews with 30 R&D subsidiaries and 10 parent companies supplement these findings.
Prahalad and Hamel (2003) explained that core competencies lead to the development of core products which further can be used to build many products for end users. However, we found that even if the company has a core competence, engaged in the most good things, but also may lead to failure. For example, HP first invented the tablet, but lost to ipad. Sony is the first invented Walkman, but lost to ipod. Why innovators failed, but competitors catch up from behind? The key is not only technological innovation, design innovation, but also the business model to be innovative. The most important is that the firms must have different business models and strategies in different stages. Everett Rogers(1962) argued ‘the technology adoption life cycle’ which describes the adoption of a new product or innovation. Geoffrey Moore(1991) proposed amendments to the theory that there is a ‘ chasm’ between the first two adopter groups (innovators/early adopters), and the early majority (see figure 1). Further, Moore(2000) divides the technology adoption cycle life into four stages, and suggests strategies that are required at different stages. While the firms know the importance of different stages, the problem is how to reinvent the business model. Johnson and Christensen (2008) offered four elements to build a successful business model. In order to explain these theories, the following example is Netflix how to beat the Blockbuster.
Abstract:Industrial clusters have attracted considerable attention worldwide for their expected contribution to regional innovation. Recently, policymakers in various countries have developed specific cluster policies. However, there exist few empirical studies on cluster policies. Focusing on the Industrial Cluster Project (ICP) in Japan initiated by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in 2001, we address two research questions on the support programs of the cluster policies: if the project participants who exploit various support programs are more successful in network formation within the cluster than others, and which kind of support program contributes to firm performance. We pay special attention to the differences between direct R&D support and indirect networking/coordination support. The estimation results, which are based on recent original survey data, suggest that cluster participants who exploit support programs (especially indirect support measures) expand the industry-university-government network after participating in the ICP. Moreover, we find that not every support program contributes to firm performance; firms should therefore select the program that is most aligned with their aims. Indirect support programs have an extensive and strong impact on output whereas direct R&D support has only a weak effect. 
National Applied Research Laboratories (NAR Labs) in 2015 released “Analysis of Taiwan's Competitiveness in Science and Technology”. The results indicate that in recent years, Taiwan's top three areas in patents with most investment and influential, including the technical impact indicators are electrical machinery, apparatus energy (6,480 cases), semiconductors (6,300 cases) and machine tools (709 cases).  Figure 1 : Relative Impact of Taiwan's Patents in Various Technology Fields Source : NAR Labs The fields of electrical machinery and apparatus energy is the highest number of patents and the relative influence. The electrical machinery and apparatus energy include many industries, spot patent method, which was tools to predict the next generation of technology It was found that in the 2008 and2009’s hot patents worldwide, the third highest field is UPC324754 "Electricity Measurement and test / probe". The total number of patents and influence of the patent field: UPC324754 are both increasing while compare the period of2005-2009 with 2000-2004 by the RTA index in Taiwan. Measuring, testing and probing electricity is one of the important components of the smart grid. Therefore, the smart grid is an important trend in the world, and there are lots of patents in Taiwan. The definition of "smart grid" by IEEE refers to the use of digital technology to upgrade the transmission and distribution network, in order to achieve the most optimal operation, and increase the energy market flexibility then induce a number of the new markets which related to the smart grid.
Abstract: New types of knowledge, and new ways of organising the production of it, may emerge as knowledge producers respond to the challenges posed by a changing society. This paper focuses on the core knowledge of one such emerging field, namely, innovation studies. To explore the knowledge base of the field, a database of references in scholarly surveys of various aspects of innovation, published in “handbooks”, is assembled and a new methodology for analysing the knowledge base of a field with the help of such data is developed. The paper identifies the core contributions to the literature in this area, the most central scholars and important research environments, and analyses – with the help of citations in scholarly journals – how the core literature is used by researchers in different scientific disciplines and cross-disciplinary fields. Based on this information a cluster analysis is used to draw inferences about the structure of the knowledge base on innovation. Finally, the changing character of the field over time is analysed, and possible challenges for its continuing development are discussed.
Christensen mentioned, “it is difficult to claim that the company found a low-end opportunity. That would have meant taxi service providers had overshot the needs of a material number of customers by making cabs too plentiful, too easy to use, and too clean.” It means that disruptive innovation should be from low-end to high-end, and he thought the existing taxi industry is not good enough, so Uber should be a sustaining innovation case. I don’t totally agree with his point, because how can we define “good enough”? It's hard for customers to feel fully satisfied with any of the existing products or services, otherwise we could not explain why most of the disk companies kept listening to the existing customers and led to fail? Why can not a cheaper, better product or service possible to be a disruptive innovation? Additionally, the developing progress of Uber can be divided into two periods: While Uber founded in 2009, it is famous by its legacy black car service (Uber Select). It’s more-luxurious and expensive than taxi, but cheaper than hiring a traditional limousine. As a consequence, I think Uber is a standard low-end foothold relative to the traditional limousine business during this period. Actually, Christensen (2015) agree with this viewpoint as well, but he emphasized that Uber is NOT a disruptive case to the taxi business. Furthermore, in my opinion, I think Uber is also disruptive case to the taxi business because this company put more focus on ‘Uber X’ in 2012 which is more available, convenient and cheaper than most of the taxies. Moreover, Uber developed the ride sharing service, it’s much cheaper than traditional taxies. In summary, Uber is a low-end foothold case to traditional limousine business at first, and then a disruptive case to taxi industry later.
Abstract: This paper investigates how the composition and diversity of a firm's patent portfolio can create synergy and, thus, contribute to firm performance. To resolve two conflicting views on whether technology diversity or strategic focus can improve firm performance, we develop a scheme to measure the diversity of a patent portfolio at the two levels of broad technology diversity and core field diversity. In our framework, both views can be valid. The former argument is effective when the focal firm has very high technology stocks and profitability is used as a performance measure. The latter is true for a focal firm with above average technology stocks and where shareholder value is considered as a performance indicator. This paper highlights technology stocks as a moderator between the relationship of technology diversity and firm performance. Generally, a firm without very high-technology stocks should concentrate its R&D resources on a specific technology field, and even within the core technology field the firm should stay focus on a small number of core technologies. Results support the competence-based view of the firm. Technology-based firms should develop a portfolio with a clear technology focus. This study lays the groundwork for future study on the interrelationships of technology strategy, patent portfolio, and long-term performance. 
Modern technology continues to evolve rapidly, when the first computer invented, the size was as large as a room. Now, that is ten thousand times more useful, but the volume can be accommodated in the palm. Understanding technology innovation is essential for enterprises. In this article, we will discuss the evolution of technology from three aspects. The first is to introduce the process of technology innovation, and then discuss the innovation model, as well as explain the organizational elements of innovation, and finally put forward the view of innovation in the Internet era.  How technology evolves? The technology life-cycle is composed of four phases: The research and development phase, the ascent phase, the maturity phase, and the decline phase. It is generally believed that when the Curve is considered only when the industry develops to the highest point, then it will be threatened by the next technologies. However, Christensen (1992a) argued that a shape of S-curve, where the path of technological evolution does not resemble an S-curve, but follows a series of irregular step functions. The multiple S-curves is better approximated with than a single curve. Moreover, the Y axis of the traditional S-Curve is ‘product performance’, but Christensen 1992b) pointed out that there is another Y axis of ‘performance as defined in application’. So this is not merely to understand the progress of product performance, but also to the needs of users of the application. For example, in 2007, when most of the mobile phone manufacturers focus on improving screen size, camera pixel, shape designing, Apple Inc. has innovated the iPhone, one of the first smartphones to use a multi-touch interface.
Abstract:Network-based research in entrepreneurship is reviewed and critically examined in three areas: content of network relationships, governance, and structure. Research on the impact of network structure on venture performance has yielded a number of important findings. In contrast, fewer process-oriented studies have been conducted and only partial empirical confirmation exists for a theory of network development. In order to address unanswered questions on how network content, governance, and structure emerge over time, more longitudinal and qualitative work is needed. Theory building in this field would benefit also from a greater integration between process- and outcome-oriented research.
In the global market, enterprises are facing fierce competition, rapid changes in technology, as well as shorten the life cycle of the product, as the result, the new product development (NPD) has become an important issue for enterprises. In the development of new products, enterprises should consider various factors, including technology, competitors, customers, costs, resources and other factors. (Thomas,1993) Each company is committed to the development of successful products, but there are still many examples of failures. No one deliberately designed a bad product, most of the designers believe that they do their best to design the ideal product which should be welcomed by the market, but ultimately failed. Many designers think that one of the reasons for the failure is that the final product has a huge gap with the original ideal design. From the ideal design to the products, there are many procedures, there are numerous reasons will lead to the gap. There are some processes that help to reduce the gap between design and finished products, but others are the opposite. In this paper, we will try to construct a design to the product model, find out the factors between the process, and study the influence of the factors on the design to the product is positive, negative or neutral. This paper has the following objectives: l Construct the new product development model and find out the influencing factors. l Analysis of the influencing factors in phase stage are positive factors, negative factors (gaps) or neutral factors. l After analyzing the attributes of influencing factors, we can consider how to increase the positive factors and reduce the negative factors, in order to increase the success probability of the products.
Advances in information technology have made it easier for companies to exchange data and coordinate activities. That has given rise to a radical new vision of corporate organization—one in which individual companies outsource many of their activities to an array of partners. Such virtual enterprises may be more efficient, but what are the broader strategic implications of rampant subcontracting?
Henry Chesbrough and David Teece sound a note of caution. When it comes to innovation, they argue, virtuality often does more harm than good. Loose partnerships of companies inevitably produce more conflicts of interest than do centrally managed corporations, and those conflicts can hamper the kind of complex, systematic innovation that creates valuable business breakthroughs. Innovation is a destabilizing force and will therefore be resisted by companies wary of upsetting a comfortable status quo.
Chesbrough and Teece acknowledge that some degree of outsourcing can further corporate creativity and that virtuality makes sense under certain conditions. But every company, they contend, needs to tailor its organization to its own operations and its unique sources of innovation. Blindly following fads is a recipe for disaster.
Abstract:Adopting a science and technology studies (S&TS) perspective and organized around eight major themes, this paper analyzes the development of the National Innovation Systems (NIS) concept, examining how the formal body of codified NIS knowledge was produced, developed and spread, and how it is used. In order to trace its history, I interviewed major advocates of the NIS concept to understand how and why it has become so widespread in academic and policymaking circles. The eight themes serve as ‘missing pieces’ to explain the early history of the NIS concept.
Please click here for more reports