SemesterFall Semester, 2020
DepartmentGraduate Institute of Technology, Innovation & Intellectual Property Management PhD Program, First Year Graduate Institute of Technology, Innovation & Intellectual Property Management PhD Program, Second Year
Course NameSpecial Issues on Strategy Theories: From Old to New Economy
InstructorCHIU YI-CHIA
Credit3.0
Course TypeElective
Prerequisite
Course Objective
Course Description
Course Schedule

Session 01              Strategy and Research




  1. Arben, P. (1997). The Integrating Course in the Business School Curriculum, Or, Whatever Happened to Business Policy? Business Horizons, March-April, pp. 65-70.

  2. Tang, M. and Thomas, H. (1994). Developing Theories of Strategy Using Dominance Criteria. JMS, 31/2: 209-224.

  3. Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., Chapter 1-5 & 9, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. (中譯本：科學革命的結構，程樹德等翻譯，pp. 43-100 & 145-164，遠流出版社)

  4. Whetten, D. (1989) What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 490-495.



 



Session 02              Classic and Fundamentals of Strategy Research




  1. Chandler, A. D. (1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Industrial Enterprise, Chapter 1 & 6, pp. 1-51 & 283-323, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  2. Andrew, K. (1971) The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Chapter 2 & 3, pp.13-51, Homewood, IL: Dow Johns-Irwin, Inc.

  3. Rumelt, R., Schendel, D. E., and Teece, D. T. (1994). Fundamental Issues in Strategy In R. Rumelt, D. Schendel, and D. Teece (eds.) Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda, pp. 9-47, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.



 



Session 03              Economics and Strategy : Industrial Organization




  1. Schmalensee, R. (1988). Industrial Economics: An Overview. Economic Journal, 98: 643-681.

  2. Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards A Dynamic Theory of Strategy. SMJ, 12 (Winter): 95-117.

  3. Foss, N. J. (1996). Research in Strategy, Economics, and Michael Porter.  Journal of Management Studies, 33/1: 1-24.



 



Session 04              The Behavioral Theory of the Firm




  1. Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive, Chapter 6-9 & 15-16, pp. 65-123 & 216-257.

  2. Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Chapter 1-4 & 7, pp. 1-98 & 161-176, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

  3. Bromiley, P. (2005). The Behavioral Foundations of Strategic Management, Chapter 2, pp. 14-39, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

  4. Kavusan, K. and Frankort, H. (2019). A Behavioral Theory of Alliance Portfolio Reconfiguration: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. SMJ, 40: 1668-1702

  5. Tyler, B. B., & Caner, T. (2016). New product introductions below aspirations, slack and R&D alliances: A behavioral perspective. SMJ, 37(5), 896–910.

  6. Smulowitz, S.J., Rousseau, H.E., Bromiley, P. (2020). The behavioral theory of the firm: the differing response of community-oriented firms to performance relative to aspirations. SMJ, 41:1023-1053.



 



Session 05                   Transaction Cost Economics (1/2): Theory




  1. Coase, R. H. (1937) “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica, 4: 386-405.

  2. Williamson, O. E. (1989) “Transaction Cost Economics” in Richard Schmalemsee and Robert Willig, eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 1, pp. 136-182, Elsevier Science: Netherland.

  3. Williamson, O. E. (1991) “Strategizing, Economizing, and Economic Organization” SMJ, 12, pp. 75-94.

  4. Ghoshal, S. and Moran, P. (1996) “Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory,” AMR, 21/1: 13-47.



 



Session 06              Transaction Cost Economics (2/2): Empirical Evidence




  1. David, R. J. and S. Han. (2004). A Systematic Assessment of the Empirical Support for Transaction Cost Economics. SMJ, 25: 39-58.

  2. Mayer KJ, Solomon RM. (2006). Capabilities, contractual hazards, and governance: integrating resource-based and transaction cost perspectives. AMJ, 49(5): 942–959.

  3. Chen, S.F. (2010). Transaction Cost Implications of Private Branding and Emprical Evidence. SMJ, 31:371-389

  4. Argyres, N. S., & Zenger, T. (2012). Capabilities, transaction costs, and firm boundaries. OS, 23(6), 1643–1657.

  5. Bigelow L, Nickerson JA, Park W-Y (2019). When and how to shift gears: Dynamic trade-offs among adjustment, opportunity, and transaction costs in response to an innovation shock. SMJ, 40:377–407.



 



Session 07              The Resource-based View of the Firm(1/2)




  1. Penrose, E. T. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Chapter 1-6.

  2. Wernerfelt, B. (1984) “A Resource -based View of the Firm,” SMJ, 5: 171-180.

  3. Rumelt, R. (1984) “Toward a Strategic Theory of the Firm,” in R. B. Lamb (ed.) Competitive Strategic Management, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  4. Barney, J. (1991) “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management, 17, pp. 99-120.



 



Session 08              The Resource-based View of the Firm(2/2)




  1. Newbert, S. L. (2006) “Empirical Research on the Resource-based of the Firm: An Assessment and Suggestions for Future Research,” SMJ, 28: 121-146.

  2. Armstrong, C. E., & Shimizu, K. (2007). A review of approaches to empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm. JM, 33(6), 959–986.

  3. Pitelis, C. N. (2007) “A Behavioral Resource-base View of the Firm: The Synergy of Cyert and March (1963) and Penrose (1959),” OS, 18(3): 478-490.

  4. Alexy, O., West, J., Klapper, H, Reitzig, M. (2018). Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource-based view of the firm. SMJ, 39:1704–1727.



 



Session 09              Evolutionary Theory




  1. Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Chapter 2-5, pp. 23-138, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

  2. Winter, S. (1995) “Four Rs for Profitability: Rents, Resources, Routines, and Replication,” in C. Montgomery (ed.) Resource-based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Toward a Synthesis, Chapter 7, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  3. Nelson, R. R. (1991) “Why Do Firms Differ, and How Does It Matter?” SMJ, 12 (Winter): 61-74.



 



Session 10              Dynamic Capabilities




  1. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. SMJ, 18: 509-533.

  2. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. SMJ, 28: 1319

  3. Girod, S.J.G. and Whittington, R. (2017). Reconfiguration, restructuring and Firm Performance: Dynamic Capabilities and Environment Dynamism. SMJ, 38:1121-1133.

  4. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the micro foundations of dynamic capabilities. SMJ, 36(6): 831–850

  5. Helfat, C.E., & Raubitschek, R.S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital-based ecosystems. RP, 47: 1391-1399.

  6. Suddaby, R. , Coraiola, D. , Harvey, C, Foster, W. (2020). History and the micro foundations of dynamic capabilities. SMJ, 41:530–556.



 



Session 11              Agency Theory




  1. Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 13, pp. 305-60.

  2. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review,” AMR, 14/1: 57-74.

  3. Holmstron, B. and Milgrom, P. (1994). The Firm as an Incentive System. American Economic Review, 84, pp. 972-91.

  4. Shi, W., Connelly, B.L., Hoskisson, R.E. (2017). External corporate Governance and financial fraud: cognitive evaluation theory insights on agency theory prescriptions. SMJ, 38:1268-1286.



 



 



Session 12              Exploration and Exploitation




  1. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. OS, 2: 71-87.

  2. He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of ambidexterity Hypothesis. OS, 15: 481-494.

  3. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. OS, 20(4), 781–796.

  4. Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. OS, 29(3), 449–470.

  5. Kang, J. and Kim, SJ. (2020). Performance implications of incremental transition and discontinuous jump between exploration and exploitation. SMJ. 41:1083–1111.



 



Session 13              Two/Multiple-sided Market and Platform




  1. Rochet, J. & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets” Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4): 990-1029.

  2. Parket, G & Van Alstyne, M. (2005). Two-Sided Network Effects: a Theory of Information Product Design. MS, 51: 1494-1504.

  3. Afuah A. (2013). Are network effects really about size? The role of structure and conduct. SMJ, 34: 257–273.

  4. Mcintyre, D.P. and Srinivasan, A. (2017). Network, platforms, and strategy: emerging views and next steps. SMJ, 38: 141-160.

  5. Teece, D.J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. RP, 47:1367-1387.



 



Session 14         Platform Strategy：Entry, Deter-entry, and Products




  1. Sheremata, W. A. (2004). Competing through innovation in network markets: Strategies for challengers. AMR, 29, 359–377.

  2. Seamans, R., & Zhu, F. (2014). Responses to entry in multi-sided markets: The impact of craigslist on local newspapers. MS, 60(2), 476–493.

  3. Halaburda, H., Piskorski, M. J., & Y?ld?r?m, P. (2018). Competing by restricting choice: The case of matching platforms. MS, 64(8), 3574–3594.

  4. Dushnitsky, G., Piva E., Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2020). Investigating the mix of strategic choices and performance of transaction platforms: Evidence from the crowdfunding setting. SMJ,1–36.

  5. Wang, R.D., Miller, C.D. (2020). Complementors' engagement ecosystem: A study of publishers' e-book offerings on Amazon Kindle. SMJ, 41:3–26.



 



Session 15         Platform Ecosystem




  1. Adner, R. and Kapoor,  R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological inter- dependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. SMJ, 31: 306 – 333.

  2. Kapoor, R, and Lee, J. M. (2013). Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: how organizational forms shape new technology investments. SMJ, 34: 274 – 296.

  3. Jacobides, M.G., Cennamo, C., and Gawer A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. SMJ, 39:2255–2276.

  4. Panico, C., and Cennamo, C. (2020). User preferences and strategic interactions in platform ecosystems. SMJ, 2020;1–23.



 



Session 16         Platform Competition：Envelopment and Collaboration




  1. Baldwin, C., and Von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. OS, 22(6), 1399–1417.

  2. Boudreau, K. J. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. MS,56(10), 1849–1872.

  3. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne M. (2011). Platform Envelopment. SMJ, 32: 1270-1285.

  4. Cennamo, C. and Santalo, S. (2013). Platform competition: strategic trade-offs in platform markets. SMJ, 34: 1331–1350.

  5. Wen, W., and Zhu, F. (2019). Threat of platform-owner entry and complementor responses: Evidence from the mobile app market. SMJ, 40: 1336-1367.



 



Session 17 and 18: Presentations of research proposals


Teaching Methods
Teaching Assistant
Requirement/Grading

? Course Assignments



1) Class Assignments



You need to hand in a report within three pages for each class. The report has to be in English and word-processed, with reasonable line space and fonts. No credit will be accounted for late assignment.



 



2) Research Proposal



Students are required to submit a research proposal by the end of this semester.  The content should cover major research questions/themes, theoretical background, and methodology.



 



? Grading Policy



Your course grade then is a composition of the above-mentioned elements with differential weights shown in below:




  1. Course Participation & Contribution    30%

  2. Write-up                                           30%

  3. Research Proposal                              40%
     



Textbook & Reference
Urls about Course
Attachment