联系我们

论文查询结果	返回搜索

论文编号：	1420
作者编号：	1120060714
上传时间：	2009/12/14 14:55:48
中文题目：	知识因素对供应链治理模式选择及其绩效的影响研究
英文题目：	The Effects of Knowledge Factors on Supply Chain Governance Choice and Performance
指导老师：	严建援
中文关键字：	知识因素；供应链治理模式选择；绩效；企业知识理论（KBV）；交易成本理论（TCE）
英文关键字：	Knowledge Factors; Supply Chain Governance Choice; Performance;Knowledge-based View (KBV); Transaction Cost Economics (TCE)
中文摘要：	任何一种产品或服务，从创意产生到成品问世，都会经历一个从设计、采购、生产直至销售甚至更多环节的连续性经济活动，并由此形成了供应链上的纵向关系。这种纵向关系受制于不同的治理模式，交易成本理论（简称TCE）将其描述为“层级、混合或市场”机制的选择问题。它也被称为“自制、联盟或外购”模式的选择问题，或是企业边界的选择问题。 供应链纵向关系上的治理模式既不是静态的，也不是严格地同某些特定产业相关联，恰恰相反，它呈现出动态性和重叠性。因此，商业交易者之间为什么采取他们现行的治理模式的原因，始终是学术界与企业界关注的热点问题。 TCE是解释治理模式选择的主流理论。然而，基于交易成本的分析忽视了生产成本节约和创新等因素对企业边界变动的影响，所以其主流地位不断受到其他理论的挑战，企业知识理论（简称KBV）就是这些理论中的一种。KBV基于企业的异质性分析知识如何影响治理模式选择及其绩效的观点，逐渐受到重视并催生了一系列相关研究。与TCE和新古典经济学分离后产生的结果是它集中于分析交换中的摩擦所不同的是，资源基础观（KBV发源于它）和新古典经济学分离后产生的结果是它集中于分析生产中的摩擦。因为两者关心的是经济活动的两个不同侧面：生产和交换，所以近期的一些研究开始将KBV与TCE调和在一起对企业边界的变动进行诠释。这种基于生产和交换的关系形成的“KBV与TCE折衷观”，使人们能够从一个更完整的视角解释治理模式选择及其绩效的相关问题。 据此，本研究以“KBV与TCE折衷观”为理论基础，构建了一个研究知识因素如何影响供应链治理模式选择及其绩效的“K-P&T-G模型”。通过问卷调查方法从企业中获取抽样数据，采用结构方程模型和有序Probit模型等统计方法对研究假设进行检验。总体来看，“K-P&T-G模型”得到了验证。本研究的主要内容和创新点包括三个方面。 第一方面，“K-P&T-G模型”从理论和实证两个方面支持了“KBV与TCE折衷观”。该模型将有限理性和利己动机（利己动机由内在成长动力和机会主义组成）的行为假设整合在一起，认为它们对于解释治理模式选择都是必要的。其中，以生产为主线的环节主要受内在成长动力的影响，需要KBV的分析逻辑；以交换为主线的环节主要受机会主义的影响，需要TCE的分析逻辑；有限理性的影响则存在于各环节中。这样，通过细划环节考察生产和交换的关系，揭示了影响治理模式选择的要素不仅在于交易成本，而且在于与能力和知识紧密相连的生产力要素。进一步地，“K-P&T-G模型”不仅考虑了各要素对治理模式选择的影响作用，而且考虑了它们对绩效的作用，这一点在TCE的因果关系简单化分析逻辑中一直都被忽视了。在统计检验方面，“K-P&T-G模型”中的大部分关系获得了本研究样本数据的支持。该模型的被验证，不仅解释了知识因素发挥作用的联动过程，而且有力支持了“KBV与TCE折衷观”，强调了这两种理论是互补而非替代关系的观点。另外，在检验“K-P&T-G模型”过程中，本研究还发现了一个有趣的现象：知识外泄风险这种根源于机会主义的行为不确定性，在联盟模式的交易中达到了很高水平，而在外购或自制模式的交易中却没有呈现出显著性。这一结果“挑战了那种认为关系型契约不会受到机会主义影响的传统观点”，启发人们对联盟中的机会主义展开更深入的研究。 第二方面，本研究结合KBV与供应链管理理论，对供应链情景下的知识内容进行了明确定义。首先，将知识的嵌入性纳入到测量知识的隐性属性的范围内，明确了“嵌入在多个要素中的知识组合比仅嵌入在一个要素中的知识具有更大隐性”的结论。其次，借鉴供应链管理领域中相对成熟的SCOR模型，对嵌入在供应链中的知识进行了界定。最后，设计出考察供应链知识嵌入深度的问项，其效度和信度都通过了样本数据的检验。这些结果一方面表明嵌入在供应链中的知识与供应链情景密切相关，从而解释了本研究采用“供应链治理模式选择”术语的主要原因；另一方面增强了实证设计的牢固度，使本研究在个别问项由于与抽样方法不匹配而失效的情况下，仍然得以完成对知识的隐性属性的检验，从而保证了整个“K-P&T-G模型”的成功验证。 第三方面，本研究结合KBV、TCE和现代不确定性理论，对知识因素涵盖的复杂性和不确定性等概念进行了辨析和归类。首先，将知识的复杂性属性界定为解决问题的复杂性，并发现目前的相关研究忽视了解决问题过程中所涉及的不确定性。其次，依据现代不确定性理论分析清楚这种不确定性属于生产中的不确定性。最后，根据TCE的三种不确定性对生产和交换的不同影响，将体现在生产环节中的技术不确定纳入到知识的复杂性属性的构成中，而属于外生性因素的数量不确定性和体现在交换环节中的行为不确定性则不包括在内。对不确定性的识别和归类，不仅更完整地定义了知识的复杂性属性，而且将TCE意义上的不确定性纳入了基于“KBV与TCE折衷观”构建的“K-P&T-G模型”中，使其分析逻辑更加合理。 综上所述，本研究的结果可以为企业知识理论和交易成本理论的拓展提供有益的启迪。当然，本研究也存在着一些局限性，需要将来进行更深入的研究来加以完善。
英文摘要：	A series of economic activities that business units undertake to design, procure, produce, market, deliver, and support the products or services that they sell construct the vertical relationships in a supply chain. People always organize these vertical relationships through different governance mechanisms. Transaction cost economics (TCE) defines these arrangements as the choices of market, hybrid, and hierarchy, which equate with the labels of buy, ally, and make. Also, many scholars describe it as the firm’s boundary choice. The vertical governance patterns in supply chain are of the dynamic and overlapping nature rather than are static or strictly associated with particular industries. Hence, academic researchers and business executives are all interested in the reasons why people conduct their different commerce activities in different governance structures. TCE is the predominant theoretical framework for explaining the choices of governance mechanisms. However, its transaction cost logic neglects the effects of production cost reduction and innovation on firm’s boundaries.This makes TCE have been challenged by some other perspectives of which knowledge-based view of the firm (KBV) is a growing one. KBV analyzes how knowledge factors impact on governance choice and relevant performance in terms of firm’s heterogeneity. It has received increasing emphasis and a number of studies have conducted to test it. In contrast to TCE’s departure from neoclassical orthodoxy, as a result of its analytical focus on friction in exchange, resource-based theory (which is the root of KBV) departs from neoclassical theory as a result of its analytical focus on friction in production. Since they are interested in two different aspects of economics activity, production and exchange, respectively, some recent studies combine KBV and TCE to understand firm boundaries. Based on the examinations of the interrelationships between production and exchange, scholars have argued a fresh lens that is named “the reconciliation view of KBV and TCE”, which enables us to explain governance choice and relevant performance from a more complete perspective. I choose “the reconciliation view of KBV and TCE” as the theoretical foundation of my research, and construct a “K-P&T-G model” to analyze the impact of critical knowledge factors on supply chain governance choice and relevant performance. Drawing on sampling data from machine manufactories by survey, I evaluate the hypotheses by using structural equation models and ordered probit regression models. On the whole, the proposed “K-P&T-G model” is supported by the data. There are three major contributions. The first is that the “K-P&T-G model” provides robust supports for “the reconciliation view of KBV and TCE”. This model combines two behavioral assumptions: bounded rationality and self-love (self-love is comprised of achivement motivation and opportunism), and matains that both them are needed to explain governance choice. The production aspects of economic activities rely on achivement motivation and KBV logic works here. The exchange aspects of economic activities rely on opportunism and TCE logic works here. Bounded rationality affects every aspect. Such an examination emphasizes that governance choice need rely on both transaction cost factors and productivity factors involving capabilities and knowledge. Further, the “K-P&T-G model” concerns not only the effects of these factors on governance choice, but also their impacts on the relevant performance which is always neglected by TCE traditional logic. Most hypotheses of the “K-P&T-G model” are supported statistically by sampling data. Such empirical results not only demonstrate how knowledge factors work, but also support “the reconciliation view of KBV and TCE” and reinforce the complementary relationships of KBV and TCE. By the way, an interesting phenomenon is found during the empirical testing process. Knowledge-leaked hazard, which is a kind of behavioral uncertainty from opportunism, reaches a statistical significant high level in the transactions arranged in ally mode. Contrarily it is not significant in the transactions arranged in buy or make mode. This finding “challenges the view that relational contracts are not so susceptible to opportunism”, and implies a requirement of deeper studies on opportunistic behavior within inter-organizational alliances. The second contribution is that it explicitly defines supply chain knowledge on the basis of KBV and supply chain management literature. This research takes knowledge embeddedness as the metrics of knowledge tacitness because more deeply embedded knowledge generally carries a higher degree of tacitness than knowledge embedded in only one element. Then, based on the SCOR model which is a relative popular one in supply chain management field, this research articulates the content of knowledge embedded in a supply chain. And finally, it designs specific measure item to evaluate the embeddedness of supply chain knowledge. The item is statistical significant in both validity and reliability. On one hand, the empirical result addresses that knowledge embedded in a supply chain is tied to its background, which is the mainly reason why I use the term of “supply chain governance choice”. On the other hand, such a fresh item enhances the robustness of my empirical design. It helps me continue the measurement progress of knowledge tacitness and fulfill the testing work of whole “K-P&T-G model” when a few measure items become invalid because of an unmatching problem. The third contribution is that it distinguishes between complexity and uncertainty, both of which are involved in knowledge factors, by referring to KBV, TCE, and contemporary uncertainty literatures. This research defines the complexity feature of knowledge as problem-solving complexity, and notes that some related literatures have omitted some types of uncertainty that should be included in this kind of complexity. Then, based on a review of mainstream contemporary uncertainty literatures this research identifies that such uncertainty is correlated with the production aspect of economic activities. Finally, it analyzes the different influences of three TCE uncertainties on production and exchange, and only includes technological uncertainty into problem-solving complexity while excludes volume uncertainty and behavioral uncertainty. Such identification and classification enriches the content of knowledge complexity feature as well as combines TCE field’s uncertainty into “K-P&T-G model” so that it highlights this model’s reconciliation logic. The results of the research have some important implications for the future development of knowledge-based view of the firm and transaction cost economics. However, this research also has its limitations that may be improved by deep studies in the future.
查看全文：	预览  下载(下载需要进行登录)