過往學界對於大型企業如何面對新興科技的研究，主要從三條理論脈絡出發：以吸收能力理論探討企業辨識與運用外部知識的能力，以開放式創新理論分析企業與外部合作夥伴的知識流動模式，以及以動態能力觀點強調企業整合與重新配置資源的管理流程。這些研究已建立企業參與外部技術合作的重要分析基礎，但多數文獻仍偏重合作機制類型與開放程度的討論，對於外部技術進入企業後，如何在多事業部組織結構中完成跨部門整合與能力轉化的動態過程，著墨相對有限。
本研究跳脫過往以合作模式分類為主的研究取向，觀察到大型企業取得外部技術資源後，技術並不會自動完成內部轉化，而是需要經歷需求辨識、跨部門協調、能力整合到商業化落地等一連串管理過程。在擁有多個獨立事業部的大型企業中，各部門之間對資源的競爭、對主導權的維護，以及偏好非正式合作管道等現象，都可能形成外部技術整合過程中的組織政治問題，進而影響技術轉化的效率與推進。因此，本研究選擇以資源編排理論之三階段架構——資源建構、資源綑綁與資源利用——作為分析框架，聚焦探討大型企業如何透過管理行動，將外部新興科技資源逐步轉化為內部組織能力。
研究問題包含三項：（1）大型企業在資源建構階段，如何透過多元管道識別外部技術需求、搜尋並篩選合作對象，而影響篩選決策的關鍵因素為何？（2）在資源綑綁階段，組織內部的資源配置機制與決策權分布，如何影響多事業部結構中外部技術資源整合路徑的選擇與推進效率？（3）在資源利用階段，人才資源內部化與IP戰略部署如何共同促成整合後技術能力轉化為可持續的商業價值？
本研究屬於探索性研究，適合採用深入的質性研究取向，因此以台灣一家具代表性的全球品牌大型資通訊系統廠為研究個案，透過半結構式深度訪談法，分別訪談創新發展室資深主管、產學合作對接主管與事業部業務對接人員共三位，並將其回答的逐字稿以紮根理論法的編碼方式，對新興科技轉化過程中的組織互動現象作歸納式的整理。
研究所得到的結論如下：
於資源建構階段，大型企業的新興科技轉化並非單純的外部技術搜尋行為，而是由事業部需求與高層策略方向共同驅動的資源建構過程。企業透過多元管道形成兼具廣度搜尋與深度連結的外部技術網絡，並依技術成熟度、成本可行性與產業法規門檻進行動態篩選，不同產業情境下的篩選權重亦有所不同。
於資源綑綁階段，多事業部分權結構下的事業部，可能基於主導權保護動機主動繞過正式整合窗口，形成有別於傳統非我所創症候群被動排斥特徵的「主動性NIH效應」。此行為雖可於短期內維持資訊優勢，但長期將提高跨部門整合協調的成本。概念驗證雖可作為技術橋接機制，但若接收事業部缺乏早期參與，則容易產生移交時序斷層。
於資源利用階段，商業化路徑受技術成熟度、市場時機與產業法規交互影響，呈現快速跟進與長期布局兩種差異化邏輯。長期產學合作所形成的實習轉正機制同時發揮人才內部化與知識延續功能；IP戰略則透過訴訟轉授權與跨域部署，使技術資產超越原始應用範疇持續創造價值。
本論文最後並提出研究結果的理論貢獻、實務貢獻與後續研究建議。

Prior research on how large enterprises engage with emerging technologies has predominantly drawn upon three theoretical perspectives: absorptive capacity theory, which examines firms' ability to identify and utilize external knowledge; open innovation theory, which analyzes knowledge flow patterns between firms and external partners; and dynamic capabilities, which emphasizes managerial processes for integrating and reconfiguring resources. While these studies have established important analytical foundations for understanding external technology collaboration, the literature has primarily focused on the typology and openness of collaborative mechanisms, with relatively limited attention to the dynamic process through which external technologies are integrated and transformed into organizational capabilities within multi-divisional structures.
Departing from the prevailing focus on collaboration mode classification, this study observes that the acquisition of external technological resources by large enterprises does not automatically lead to internal transformation. Instead, the process requires a series of managerial actions spanning need identification, cross-departmental coordination, capability integration, and commercialization. Within large enterprises comprising multiple independent business units, inter-divisional competition for resources, protection of decision-making authority, and preferences for informal collaboration channels may create organizational political dynamics that impede the efficiency of external technology integration. Accordingly, this study adopts the three-stage framework of Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT)—structuring, bundling, and leveraging—as its analytical framework, focusing on how large enterprises progressively transform external emerging technology resources into internal organizational capabilities through deliberate managerial actions.
This study addresses three research questions: (1) During the structuring stage, how do large enterprises identify external technology needs, search for and screen collaboration partners through multiple channels, and what are the key factors influencing screening decisions? (2) During the bundling stage, how do internal resource allocation mechanisms and the distribution of decision-making authority affect the selection and efficiency of integration pathways for external technology resources within multi-divisional structures? (3) During the leveraging stage, how do talent internalization and IP strategic deployment jointly facilitate the conversion of integrated technological capabilities into sustainable commercial value?
This research is exploratory in nature and thus adopts a qualitative case study approach. A representative global-brand ICT systems manufacturer in Taiwan serves as the research case. Three semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with a senior manager of the innovation development office, an industry-academia liaison manager, and a business unit coordinator. Interview transcripts were analyzed using grounded theory coding procedures to systematically categorize the organizational interaction phenomena observed during the emerging technology transformation process.
The preliminary conclusions include: (1) Emerging technology transformation is not merely external technology search but a resource structuring process jointly driven by bottom-up business unit demands and top-down strategic directives. Firms dynamically screen targets based on technological maturity, cost feasibility, and regulatory thresholds, with screening weights varying significantly across industry contexts. (2) Business units within multi-divisional structures may proactively bypass formal integration channels to preserve control advantages—a phenomenon termed "proactive NIH syndrome," distinct from the traditional passive rejection of the Not-Invented-Here syndrome. While proof of concept serves as a bridging mechanism, the absence of early participation by receiving units creates handover timing gaps. (3) Commercialization pathways manifest as rapid follow-up versus long-term positioning logics, shaped by the interaction of technology maturity, market timing, and regulatory factors. The internship-to-employment mechanism serves dual functions of talent internalization and knowledge continuity, while IP strategy transforms patent disputes into licensing revenue through cross-domain deployment.
Finally, this thesis provides theoretical contributions, managerial implications, and suggestions for future research.

Andrade, A. D. (2009). Interpretive research aiming at theory building: Adopting and adapting the case study design. The qualitative report, 14(1), 42.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Bollingtoft, A. (2017). Grounded theory analysis in entrepreneurship research. In H. Neergaard & C. M. Leitch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research techniques and analysis in entrepreneurship (pp. 74–94). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2017). The business of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 7(July), 3–11.
Bughin, J., et al. (2018). Notes from the AI frontier: Applications and value of deep learning. McKinsey Global Institute Discussion Paper.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative science quarterly, 223-244.
Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization science, 2(3), 239-262.
Carnes, C. M., Chirico, F., Hitt, M. A., Huh, D. W., & Pisano, V. (2016). Resource orchestration for innovation: Structuring and bundling resources in growth- and maturity-stage firms. Long Range Planning, 50(4), 472–486.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press.
Chandler, A. D. (1977). The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Harvard University Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm (pp. 1–12). Oxford University Press.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Cui, T., Ye, J. H., & Tan, C. H. (2022). Information technology in open innovation: a resource orchestration perspective. Information & Management, 59(8), 103699.
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709.
D’Oria, L., Crook, T. R., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Sirmon, D. G., & Wright, M. (2021). The evolution of resource-based inquiry: A review and meta-analytic integration of the strategic resources–actions–performance pathway. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1383–1429.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.
Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: Three core process archetypes. Paper presented at the R&D Management Conference, Lisbon, Portugal.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social problems, 12(4), 436-445.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 109-122.
Grindley, P. C., & Teece, D. J. (1997). Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California management review, 39(2), 8-41.
Hallen, B. L., Cohen, S. L., & Bingham, C. B. (2020). Do accelerators work? If so, how?. Organization Science, 31(2), 378-414.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic management journal, 24(10), 997-1010.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic management journal, 36(6), 831-850.
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
Ismail, M., Bello-Pintado, A., García-Marco, T., & Lazzarotti, V. (2023). Enhancing open innovation: managing not invented here syndrome in collaborative projects. Technovation, 128, 102879.
Kanbach, D. K., & Stubner, S. (2016). Corporate accelerators as recent form of startup engagement: The what, the why, and the how. Journal of Applied Business Research, 32(6), 1761.
Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–19.
Kohler, T. (2016). Corporate accelerators: Building bridges between corporations and startups. Business Horizons, 59(3), 347–357.
Kupp, M., Marval, M., & Borchers, P. (2017). Corporate accelerators: Driving transformation through innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(6), 47–53.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to externally organising knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the NIH syndrome. R&d Management, 36(4), 367-386.
Locke, K., Feldman, M., & Golden-Biddle, K. (2022). Coding practices and iterativity: Beyond templates for analyzing qualitative data. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 262–284.
Marullo, C., & Ahn, J. M. (2024). Knowledge tensions and decision-making challenges in open innovation: Standardization as a de-biasing mechanism. Technovation, 136, 103082.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic management journal, 6(3), 257-272.
Nambisan, S., Wright, M., & Feldman, M. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research policy, 48(8), 103773.
Newman, A. B., & Barney, J. B. (2024). Entrepreneurial political action in the informal economy: The case of the Kumasi petty traders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 48(1), 3–34.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001a). Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001b). Tautology in the resource-based view and the implications of externally determined resource value: Further comments. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 57–66.
Rigtering, J. P. C., & Behrens, M. A. (2021). The effect of corporate-startup collaborations on corporate entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial Science, 15(8), 2427–2454.
Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(13), 1375–1394.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390–1412.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research policy, 15(6), 285-305.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-29.
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305.
Verhoef, P. C., et al. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.
Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349.
Weiblen, T., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2015). Engaging with startups to enhance corporate innovation. California Management Review, 57(2), 66–90.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of management review, 27(2), 185-203.
Ziedonis, R. H. (2004). Don't fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management science, 50(6), 804-820.
傅浚映（2021）。中國上市公司的創新績效：政治鑲嵌的理論視角。管理學報，38（1），23-53。
FINDIT. (2024). 2024台灣加速器生態系調查報告. 財團法人資訊工業策進會. Retrieved March 12, 2026, from https://findit.org.tw
台大創創中心. (2023). 2023台灣新創生態系報告. Retrieved February 18, 2026, from https://startupisland.tw/zh/our-ecosystem/innovation-reports
DIGITIMES. (2024). 2024年產業展望：2023年台灣ICT產業成果彙整. 電子時報. Retrieved March 27, 2026, from https://www.digitimes.com.tw/col/article/?id=13780
經濟部. (2026). 2025年新創企業白皮書. Retrieved April 3, 2026, from https://www.sme.gov.tw/article-tw-2934-14157
中華民國資訊軟體協會. (2024). 數位部成立週年中華軟協盼中央提高ICT預算比例. Retrieved February 25, 2026, from https://www.ctee.com.tw/news/20230912701239-431202
Anue鉅亨. (2024). 台伺服器ODM廠拿下全球逾9成市占 海外布局腳步不變. Retrieved March 8, 2026, from https://news.cnyes.com/news/id/4743492
IDC. (2025). 台灣軟體市場規模將於2025年達39億美元，AIP、ADS、ABIS成長力道強勁. Retrieved April 15, 2026, from https://my.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prAP53684725
IEK產業情報網. (2024). IEKView：台灣電子產業回顧與展望. Retrieved March 21, 2026, from https://ieknet.iek.org.tw/iekrpt/rpt_more.aspx?rpt_idno=786274821
TechNews科技新報. (2025). 華碩結合NVIDIA技術打造智慧轉型典範，推動AI工廠成企業關鍵戰略. Retrieved April 9, 2026, from https://technews.tw