Coevolution and coordination: a systemic analysis of the Taiwanese information technology industry

Lee, Chuan-Kai; Saxenian, AnnaLee

doi:10.1093/jeg/lbm049

Cited by 35 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More important, these mechanisms of inter-OL require collaborative coordination (Lee and Saxenian, 2007;Engerman and Rosenberg, 2014) and executes the direction of top-down "organization → departments→ employees" to develop market competence.…”

Section: Mechanisms and Direction Of Competence Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firm Competence from Taiwanese Flat Panel Display: Perspectives on RBT and OLT

Lin¹,

Chen²,

Hsu³

2017

Proceedings of the 2017 3rd International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering (

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Traditionally, scholars suggest firm shall sequential to develop technology-oriented competence to enter other markets (Technology Promote Market, TPM). However, in practice, we observe contradiction that the international enterprises adopt the market-oriented perspective so as to first reflect on market, and then transfer external firm's technologies and experiences to firms (Market Promote Technology, MPT). It is an interesting phenomenon that motive to resolve the gap between the theoretical argument and practice. Thus, we explore the sequence between prioritize to develop technology and market competence, and characteristics, mechanism, and routes of interaction of small-sized firm competence. This research using the extended case method (ECM) compared two Taiwan FPD (Flat Panel Display) enterprises that produce TFT-LCD (Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display) manufacturing equipment. We found that firms possessing the characteristics of improvement resources (CIR), develop technology competence first, and apply intra-organizational learning (intra-OL) mechanism and inside-out routes (IOR) to promote market competence. Conversely, firms having the characteristics of social resources (CSR), develop market competence first, and utilize inter-organizational learning (inter-OL) mechanism and outside-in routes (OIR) to promote technology competence.

show abstract

Section: Mechanisms and Direction Of Competence Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firm Competence from Taiwanese Flat Panel Display: Perspectives on RBT and OLT

Lin¹,

Chen²,

Hsu³

2017

Proceedings of the 2017 3rd International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering (

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Until recently the study of global innovation and production networks (GIPNs) (Gereffi andKorzeniewicz, 1994, 1996) or global production networks (GPNs) (Borrus et al, 2000;Ernst and Kim, 2002;Yusuf et al, 2004) was primarily structured around the idea of organisational space, and assumed a hierarchical governance structure dominated by either commodity-chain drivers or network flagships (Lee and Saxenian, 2007). From this theoretical framework, system drivers or flagship firms occupy the highest hierarchical layer and assert control over system participants at lower levels via their control over critical assets such as de facto standards, intellectual property rights, brand names, marketing channels and technology production.…”

Section: Structure Agency and Globalised Adaptive Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the one hand, although high-tiers continually shed capabilities, they still maintain their dominance by continuing to control critical assets. On the other hand, although there is an upgrading path providing for lower tiers, this path has a glass ceiling because the power asymmetry works to the disadvantage of lower tiers in the head-on competition with higher tiers (Lee and Saxenian, 2007).…”

Section: Structure Agency and Globalised Adaptive Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

China’s New Alliance Capitalism and the Case of the Wireless Communication Sector

Higgins

2015

Alliance Capitalism, Innovation and the Chinese State

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis seeks to explore how key 'ecological' or 'systems integration' technical pressures such as the co-production of technology, the emergence of new "collaborative intellectual property (IP) mechanisms", and the increasing use of collaborative alliances for market and product development are impacting on and shaping the socio-technical policy directives of Chinese state leaders and the strategic behaviour of key Chinese high-technology firms operating in the global wireless sector.The central theoretical focus of this thesis is the emergence of alliance capitalism as an important new form of economic organisation with specific theoretical focus on the role of governmental authorities in both facilitating and governing the parameters of global technological alliances and market construction. The value of this thesis is that it highlights how the government of China and its domestic firms have recently adjusted to socio-technological systems change and the changing nature of the global technological environment and revised their technological development strategies to incorporate the notion of alliance capitalism. It will highlight how alliance capitalism is built around reciprocal interdependence and signifies a fundamental shift in the organisational behaviour of the Chinese government and its domestic firms. Beyond China's earlier FDI and techno-nationalist strategies, this new development strategy can be seen as the third major attempt to mount an effective industrial strategy in China. Specifically, it responds to socio-technological systems change in a way that seeks to reconcile the New Left's techno-nationalistic ambition to build an indigenous technology base characterised by the creation and ownership of technological standards and proprietorial ideas with the liberal desire to utilise the contemporary globalisation process as a mechanism to facilitate economic growth and technological up-scaling. It is essentially a third way whereby the state's strategic control over the globalisation process is modified in a way that still allows it a certain degree of control over the developmental process itself, but in which the existence of critical globalised ecosystem dependencies and the interests of global firms are actually integrated into the Chinese developmental strategy.ii

show abstract

“…However, it is crucial to possess a broader understanding of the processes which lie behind the interdependent actions that develop at a micro level [60]. There are many challenges to be faced in order to clarify the relationship between companies and the territorial dynamics.…”

Section: The Relational Geography Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are many challenges to be faced in order to clarify the relationship between companies and the territorial dynamics. Namely, how to make theoretical connections between micro events at a company level and their spatial repercussions, normally only observable at a regional level [60]. The interactive relationship between companies and regions is not totally explained although the company is pinpointed as the key element in the relational space [30] since this approach does not entirely describe the company's organisation nor does it specify the basis for their interactions.…”

Section: The Relational Geography Contributionmentioning

confidence: 99%