Innovative Organizations: Structure, Learning and Adaptation 創新組織：結構，學習和 適應

Innovative Organizations: Structure, Learning and Adaptation 創新組織：結構，學習和 適應


Innovation is an important source of growth and a key determinant of competitive advantage for many organizations. Achieving innovation requires the coordinated efforts of many different actors and the integration of activities across specialist functions, knowledge domains and contexts of application. Thus, organizational creation is fundamental to the process of innovation (Van de Ven et al 1999). The ability of an
organization to innovate is a pre-condition for the successful utilization of inventive resources and new technologies. Conversely, the introduction of new technology often presents complex opportunities and
challenges for organizations, leading to changes in managerial practices and the emergence of new organizational forms. Organizational and technological innovations are intertwined. Schumpeter (1950) saw
organizational changes, alongside new products and processes, as well as new markets as factors of ‘creative destruction’

創新是增長和競爭優勢的關鍵因素對於許多組織的一個重要來源。

實現創新需要許多不同的行為者和跨專業職能，知識領域和應用背景下下的整合活動的協調努力。

因此，組織創立是根本，以創新的過程中 (Van de Ven et al 1999)。

組織創新的能力是一個創造性的資源和新技術的成功運用的前提條件。

相反，新技術的引進往往呈現複雜的機遇和挑戰的組織，導致在管理實踐中的變化和出現的新的組織形式。組織創新和技術創新相互交織。熊彼特（1950）看到了組織的變化，以及新產品和新流程，以及新的市場因素的“創造性毀滅”

Extant literature on organizational innovation is very diverse and can be broadly classified into three streams. Organizational design theories focus predominantly on the link between structural forms and the propensity of an organization to innovate (e.g. Burns and Stalker, 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Mintzberg, 1979). The unit of analysis is the organization and the main research aim is to identify the structural characteristics of an innovative organization, or to determine the effects of organizational structural variables on
product and process innovation. Theories of organizational cognition and learning (Glynn, 1996; Bartel and Garud, 2009), by contrast, emphasise the cognitive foundations of organizational innovation which is seen to
relate to the learning and organizational knowledge creation process (Agyris and Schon, 1978; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009). This strand of work provides a micro-lens for understanding the capacity of organizations to create and exploit new knowledge necessary
for innovative activities. A third strand of research concerns organizational change and adaptation, and the processes underlying the creation of new organizational forms (Lewin and Volberda, 1999). Its main focus
is to understand whether organizations can adapt in the face of radical environmental shifts and technological change. In this context, innovation is considered as a capacity to respond to changes in the external
environment, and to influence and shape it (Burgleman, 1991; 2002; Child, 1997; Teece, 2007).

現存文獻對組織創新是非常多樣的，大致可分為三個數據流。

組織設計理論主要專注於結構形式之間的聯繫和組織創新的傾向(e.g. Burns and Stalker, 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Mintzberg, 1979)。

分析單位的組織和研究的主要目的是要找出一個創新的組織結構特點，或確定產品和工藝創新的組織結構變量的影響。

與此相反，強調理論的認知和學習組織 (Glynn, 1996; Bartel and Garud, 2009)，涉及到學習和組織的知識創造過程（1978年Agyris和舍恩，這被看作組織創新的認知基礎; Nonaka和竹，1995; Nonaka和馮·克羅，2009）。

這股工作提供了一個微透鏡理解組織的能力，以創造和開拓新的知識創新活動所必需的。

第三鏈的研究涉及組織變革和適應，以及創造新的組織形式（Lewin和Volberda1999）背後的過程。

它的主要焦點是了解組織是否能適應在面對激進的環境變化和技術變化。在此背景下，創新被視為在外部環境的變化作出反應的能力，以及影響和塑造 (Burgleman, 1991; 2002; Child, 1997; Teece, 2007)。


This chapter examines the nature of innovative organizations and the relationship between organizing and innovating from these three perspectives. Section two will draw on organizational design theories and
work in the field of strategy to examine the relationship between organizational structure and innovativeness. The third section looks at the micro-level process of organizational learning and knowledge creation. It argues that organizations with different structural forms vary in their patterns of learning and knowledge creation, engendering different types of innovative capabilities. This will be followed by an analysis of organizational adaptation and the contemporary challenges facing firms in pursuing ‘organizational
ambidexterity’ for sustaining innovation. The final section draws some general conclusions from the analysis and highlights the gaps in the existing literature and areas for future research.

本章探討創新的組織和組織之間的關係，這三種觀點和創新的性質。

第二節將借鑒組織設計理論，並在該領域的策略研究組織結構和創新之間的關係。

第三部分著眼於微觀層面的組織學習和知識創造的過程。

它認為，組織不同的結構形式不同，他們的學習和知識創造的模式，產生不同類型的創新能力。

這之後，將通過分析組織的適應和當代面臨的挑戰，企業追求持續創新“組織雙手同利”。

最後一節吸引了一些一般性結論的分析，並強調在現有的文獻和未來研究領域的空白。



2. Organizational Structure and Innovation
2.1. Structural archetypes and innovativeness

2。組織結構和創新
2.1。結構原型和創新

The classical theory of organizational design was marked by a preoccupation with universal forms and the idea of ‘one best way to organise’. The work of Weber (1947) on the bureaucracy and of Chandler (1962) on the multidivisional form, was most influential. The assumption of ‘one best way’ was, however, challenged by research carried out during the 1960s and 1970s under the rubric of contingency theory which explains the diversity of organizational forms and their variations with reference to the demands of context. Contingency theory argues that the most ‘appropriate structure’ for an organization is the one that best fits a given operating contingency, such as scale of operation (Blau, 1970), technology (Woodward, 1965; Perrow, 1970) or environment (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). This strand
of research and theory underpins our understanding of the relationships between the nature of the task and technological environments, structure and performance. Some of the studies deal specifically with
the question of how structure is related to innovation.

組織設計的古典理論的特點是由全神貫注普遍形式和“一個最好的方式來組織”的理念。韋伯（1947年）的工作的官僚主義和錢德勒（1962）事業部的形式，是最有影響力的。 “一個最好的辦法”的假設，然而，挑戰的緊急應變組織形式的多樣性及其變化的理論解釋，參照背景下的需求的名義下，在20世紀60年代和70年代進行的研究。權變理論認為，最適當的結構組織是一個最適合給定的工作緊急應變，如經營規模（布勞，1970），技術（伍德沃德，1965年，佩羅，1970）或環境（伯恩斯潛行者，1961年，1967年勞倫斯和勞什）。這股研究和理論支撐我們的任務和技術環境的性質，結構和性能之間的關係的理解。一些研究專門處理與結構是如何創新的問題。

Burns and Stalker’s (1961) polar typologies of ‘mechanistic’ and ‘organic’ organizations (see Box 1) demonstrate how the differences in technological and market environment, in terms of their rate of
change and complexity, affect organizational structures and innovation management. Their study found that firms could be grouped into one of the two main types: the former more rigid and hierarchical, suited to stable conditions; and the latter, a more fluid set of arrangements, adapting to conditions of rapid change and innovation. Neither type is inherently right or wrong, but the firm’s environment is the contingency that
prompts a structural response. Related is the work of Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) on principles of organizational differentiation and integration and how they adapt to different environmental conditions, including the market -- technical-economic and the scientific sub-environments, of different industries. Whereas Burns and Stalker treat an organization as an undifferentiated whole that is either mechanistic or organic, Lawrence and Lorsch recognize that mechanistic and organic structures can co-exist in different parts of the same organization owing to the different demands of the functional sub-environments. The
work of these earlier authors had a profound impact on organizational theory and provided useful design guidelines for innovation management. Burns and Stalker’s model remains highly relevant for our understanding of the contemporary challenges facing many organizations in their attempts to move
away from the mechanistic towards the organic form of organizing, as innovation becomes more important and the pace of environmental change accelerates. Lawrence and Lorsch’s suggestion that mechanistic
and organic structures can coexist is reflected in the contemporary debate about the importance of developing hybrid modes of organizations—‘ambidextrous organizations’—that are capable of coping
with both evolutionary and revolutionary technological changes (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004; 2008; Tushman et al., 2010; see section 4).

伯恩斯和追獵者的（1961）極性類型學'機械'和'有機'組織（見專欄1）演示了如何在技術和市場環境的差異，在其速率的變化和複雜性，影響組織結構和創新管理。

他們的研究發現，企業可分為兩種主要類型：前者更嚴格的層次，適合於穩定的條件;而後者更流暢的一套安排，適應迅速變化和創新的條件之一。

兩種類型本質上是對還是錯，但公司的環境應急提示結構性響應。

 相關組織的分化和整合的原則，以及他們是如何適應不同的環境條件，包括市場 - 經濟技術和科學的環境，不同的行業，是勞倫斯和洛爾施（1967）的工作。而伯恩斯和潛行者把一個組織作為一種無差別的整體，要么是機械的或有機的，勞倫斯和勞什認識到，機械和有機結構可以共存於同一組織由於功能的子環境的不同需求的不同部位。

而伯恩斯和潛行者把一個組織作為一種未分化的的整體，要么是機械的或有機的，勞倫斯和勞什認識到，機械和有機結構可以共存於同一組織由於功能的子環境的不同需求的不同部位。

這些早期的作者的工作對組織理論產生了深遠影響，創新管理提供有用的設計準則。

伯恩斯和追獵者的模式仍然為我們理解當代面臨的挑戰，許多組織在他們的企圖擺脫機械對有機組織形式，創新變得更加重要和環境變化的步伐加快，具有很強的針對性。

勞倫斯和勞什機械和有機結構的建議，即可以共存的當代辯論關於發展組織靈巧的混合模式能夠應對與進化的和革命性的技術變化 (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2004; 2008; Tushman et al., 2010; see section 4)。

Organizational Learning — The Key to Management Innovation

Organizational Learning — The Key to Management Innovation

FOR MORE THAN fifteen years, Analog Devices grew consistently at a rate of about 25 percent per year. Then for the first time, between 1982 and 1987, we missed our five-year goals — and by a country mile. True enough, like other semiconductor companies we were affected by the malaise in the U.S. electronics industry and by the strong dollar. But the external environment was only part of the problem: something was also wrong internally, and it had to be fixed.

超過十五年，ADI公司在每年25％左右的速度持續增長。

第一次，1982年和1987年之間，我們錯過了我們的五年目標 - 一個國家英里。

 的確，與其他半導體公司一樣，我們在美國電子行業的萎靡，受強勢美元。

但是，外部環境只是問題的一部分：東西也是錯誤的內部，它有固定的。

But what was the problem? We had the largest share of our niche market in high-performance linear integrated circuits. We had the best designers and technologists in our business. We had excellent relations with a highly motivated workforce. We were not guilty of underinvestment, nor of managing for short-term profits. The only conclusion was that there was something about the way we were managing the company that was not good enough. So I set about to understand what was wrong and how to make it better.

但究竟是什麼問題呢？

我們有我們的利基市場的最大份額，高性能線性積體電路。

在我們的業務，我們有最優秀的設計師和技術。

良好的關係，我們有一個非常積極的勞動力。

我們不認罪的投資不足，也不是短期利潤的管理。

唯一的結論是，有一些關於管理的方式，我們的公司，是不夠好。

所以，我明白什麼是錯的，如何使其更好地設置。

學甲林信吉教子成器 家庭幸福美滿

學甲林信吉教子成器　家庭幸福美滿

〔記者李榮茂學甲報導〕台南市學甲區民林信吉，自幼在困苦環境中長大，但經其努力打拼而有成，且不斷回饋梓里，擔任鄰長數十年，為民眾排紛解難，深受好評；尤其教子有成，個個成器，家庭幸福美滿，經推荐獲選模範父親，接受學甲區長邱志榮頒獎表揚。




〔記者李榮茂學甲報導〕台南市學甲區民林信吉，自幼在困苦環境中長大，但經其努力打拼而有成，且不斷回饋梓里，擔任鄰長數十年，為民眾排紛解難，深受好評；尤其教子有成，個個成器，家庭幸福美滿，經推荐獲選模範父親，接受學甲區長邱志榮頒獎表揚。

　中洲里長林清發說，現年七十一歲的林信吉，世居學甲區中洲里，自幼生長在農村，就讀國小四年級綴學在家幫忙農務，十四歲隨著兄長學習糕餅製作，學成後擔任糕餅師父，進而與兄長合開「新進發餅店」，之後經營「進來冰果室」，由於待客親切，生意興隆，也為他帶來一筆財富。

林信吉在二十四歲那年與後社李秀娥締結連理，婚後育有三子，其夫人克勤克儉持家，除從事農耕外，並在糕餅店以及冰果室幫忙，共同將三名孩子拉拔長大，個個皆受高等教育；長子林東征，擁有台南大學博士學位，現職台南市教育局專門委員，長媳張慧芬，台南大學碩士，擔任台南市雙春國小校長；次子林東封，英國貝斯里大學碩士，擔任雄獅旅行社副總經理，次媳張瑞瑜，中央大學經濟系畢業，曾服務於外商銀行；三子林東昱，台灣師範大學數學系，現職學甲國中教務主任，三媳許育緯，同樣台灣師範大數學系畢業，學甲國中教師。

林信吉不但待人誠懇親切，與鄰居相處至為和睦，且熱心公益，樂善好施，擔任鄰長數十多年，皆盡心盡力全力以赴，為民紛解難，協助政府推行政令，更是不遺餘力，也曾膺選模範農民以及模範家庭。目前三子林東昱與其同住，其他雖因工作關係各處一地，平日勤於聯繫，逢年過節一家團圓，孩子個個克盡孝道，家庭福美滿，為地方各界所稱頌，因此膺選模範父親，咸認確屬實至名歸。

Developing a Personal Grading Plan

Developing a Personal Grading Plan