外文翻譯---對(duì)于一個(gè)企業(yè)的知識(shí)基礎(chǔ)型理論 (2)

1、<p><b>　　中文3125字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p>　　外文題目： TOWARD A KNOWLEDGE-BASED THEORY OF THE FIRM </p><p>　　出 處：School of business, Georgetown University, Wa

2、shington, DC, U.S.A</p><p>　　作 者 ROBERT M. GRANT </p><p>　　TOWARD A KNOWLEDGE-BASED THEORY OF THE FIRM</p><p>　　ROBERT M. GRANT</p><

3、;p>　　School of business, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, U.S.A</p><p>　　Given assumptions about the characteristics of knowledge and the knowledge requirements of production, the firm is conceptual

4、ized as an institution for integrating knowledge. The primary contribution of the paper is in exploring the coordination mechanisms through which firms integrate the specialist knowledge of their members. In contrast to

5、earlier literature, knowledge is viewed as residing within the individual, and the primary role of the organization is knowledge application rather than k</p><p><b>　　Foudation</b></p>&l

6、t;p>　　The foundation for any theory of the firm is a set of initial premises which form the basis for the logical development of propositions concerning the structure, behavior, performance and</p><p>　　i

7、ndeed, the very existence of firms. Developing a knowledge-based theory of the firm raises the issue: What is knowledge? Since this question has intrigued some of the world's greatest thinkers from Plato to Popper wi

8、thout the emergence of a clear consensus, this is not an arena in which I choose to compete. In terms of defining knowledge, all I offer beyond the simple tautology of `that which is known' is the recognition that

9、there are many types of knowledge relevant to the firm.' For the pu</p><p>　　Transferability</p><p>　　The resource-based view of the firm recognizes the transferability of a firm's resou

10、rces and capabilities as a critical determinant of their capacity to confer sustainable competitive advantage(Barney, 1986). With regard to knowledge, the issue of transferability is important, not only between firms,

11、but even more critically, within the firm. The management literature has clearly recognized the epistemological distinction between knowing how and knowing about which is captured by distinction</p><p>　　C

12、apacity for aggregation</p><p>　　The efficiency with which knowledge can be transferred depends, in part, upon knowledge's potential for aggregation. Knowledge transfer involves both transmission and re

13、ceipt. Knowledge receipt has been analyzed in terms of the absorptive capacity of the recipient (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). At both individual and organizational levels, knowledge absorption depends upon the recipient&

14、#39;s ability to add new knowledge to existing knowledge. This requires additivity between different elements of k</p><p>　　Appropriability</p><p>　　Appropriability refers to the ability of the

15、owner of a resource to receive a return equal to the value created by that resource (Teece, 1987; Levin et n1., 1987). Knowledge, is a resource which is subject to uniquely complex problems of appropriability. Tacit know

16、ledge is not directly appropriable because it cannot be directly transferred: it can be appropriated only through its application to productive activity. Explicit knowledge suffers from two key problems of appropriabilit

17、y: first,as a p</p><p>　　Specialization in knowledge acquisition</p><p>　　Fundamental to Simon's principle of bounded rationality is recognition that the human brain has limited capacity to

18、acquire, store and process knowledge. The result is that efficiency in know-</p><p>　　ledge production (by which I mean the creation of new knowledge, the acquisition of existing knowledge, and storage of kn

19、owledge) requires that individuals specialize in particular areas of knowledge. This implies that experts are (almost) invariably specialists, while jacks-of-all-trades are masters-of-none.The knowledge requirements of p

20、roduction Production involves the transformation of inputs into outputs. Fundamental to a knowledge-based theory of the fine is the assumption that the crit</p><p>　　The exitence of the firms</p>&

21、lt;p>　　The above precepts establish a rationale for the existence of firms. Following Demsetz (1991:171一175), the existence of the firm represents a response to a fundamental asymmetry in the economics of knowledge:

22、knowledge acquisition requires greater specialization than is needed for its utilization. Hence, production requires the coordinated efforts of individual specialists who possess many different types of knowledge. Y

23、et markets are unable to undertake this coordinating role because of t</p><p>　　A possible solution to the inability of markets to contract over transfers of tacit knowledge is to contract over units of work

24、ers' time. But ever if units of labor time are suitable proxies for the supply of tacit knowledge, so long as production requires the complex integration of multiple types of knowledge within a system of team product

25、ion then Rosen(1991)shows that markets must establish an incredibly complex wage structure which sets a separate wage rate for every worker's interaction </p><p>　　Note that this view of the role of t

26、he firm as a knowledge-integrating institution is somewhat different from that emphasized in the literature Most research into organizational learning (Levitt and March, 1988; Huber, 1991)and the knowledge-based view

27、of the firm (Spender, 1989;Nonaka, 1991, 1994) focuses upon the acquisition and creation of organizional knowledge. Thus, spender(1989: 185) defines `the organization as, in essence, a body of knowledge about the or

28、ganization's circumstan</p><p>　　My emphasis is on the firm as an institution for knowledge application. This is not to deny the importance of organizational constext in knowledge creation. If productio

29、n creation requires the integration of each person's knowledge with that of others, even if knowledge acquisition is individualistic, the firm provides necessary incentives and direction. If knowledge is specific t

30、o a particular team production process,then knowledge creation cannot be separated from knowledge application-both </p><p>　　This rationale for the existence of the firm may be criticized as being a special

31、case of the Coase/Williamson transaction cost theory of the firm. Firms exist because they are able to avoid the costs associated with market transactions; the knowledge-based view simply focuses upon the costs associat

32、ed with a specific type of transaction-those involving knowledge. Certainly, the above analysis draws upon some familiar concepts of market failure. However, the key distinction is emphasis u</p><p>&

33、lt;b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　對(duì)于一個(gè)企業(yè)的知識(shí)基礎(chǔ)型理論</p><p>　　ROBERT M. GRANT</p><p>　　美國華盛頓 喬治鎮(zhèn)大學(xué)</p><p>　　根據(jù)知識(shí)的特點(diǎn)和產(chǎn)品生產(chǎn)的知識(shí)要求，企業(yè)被定義為一個(gè)整合知識(shí)的機(jī)構(gòu)。本論文的主要貢獻(xiàn)在于通過企業(yè)成員中專家的知識(shí)來探究協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)

34、制。和早期文獻(xiàn)資料相反，現(xiàn)在人們認(rèn)為知識(shí)存在于個(gè)人內(nèi)部。而組織最主要的角色是知識(shí)的應(yīng)用，不是知識(shí)的創(chuàng)造。隨之產(chǎn)生的理論對(duì)組織能力基礎(chǔ)、組織設(shè)計(jì)理論（尤其是對(duì)等級(jí)制度和決策等級(jí)分布的分析）以及企業(yè)橫向、縱向邊界的決定因素都有指示作用。總的來說，知識(shí)基礎(chǔ)型理論為現(xiàn)今的組織創(chuàng)新和走向指明了道路，而且對(duì)管理實(shí)踐有深遠(yuǎn)意義。</p><p><b>　　基礎(chǔ)</b></p><p&

35、gt;　　任何公司理論的基礎(chǔ)都是由一套初始假設(shè)構(gòu)成的。這些假設(shè)對(duì)公司的結(jié)構(gòu)、行為、表現(xiàn)以及存在等論點(diǎn)的邏輯發(fā)展奠定了基礎(chǔ)。若要闡述企業(yè)知識(shí)基礎(chǔ)型理論，我們勢(shì)必會(huì)碰到一個(gè)問題：什么是知識(shí)？這個(gè)問題激發(fā)了世界上最偉大的思想家（從柏拉圖到波普爾）的興趣，但始終沒有統(tǒng)一的意見。我不想再這個(gè)領(lǐng)域競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。說到知識(shí)的定義，除了“眾所周知”的簡(jiǎn)單真理外，人們承認(rèn)很多類型的知識(shí)都和企業(yè)有關(guān)。筆者也會(huì)在本論文中提及。為了企業(yè)理論的發(fā)展，筆者的主要任務(wù)是發(fā)現(xiàn)那

36、些對(duì)管理有決定性作用的知識(shí)特征。許多對(duì)知識(shí)的分析和管理指出，以下特征非常恰當(dāng)?shù)淖C明在企業(yè)內(nèi)部對(duì)知識(shí)的利用能夠創(chuàng)造價(jià)值。</p><p><b>　　可轉(zhuǎn)移性</b></p><p>　　持資源基礎(chǔ)型觀點(diǎn)的人認(rèn)為，企業(yè)資源和能力的可轉(zhuǎn)移性就是企業(yè)實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)的決定因素(Barney, 1986)。關(guān)于知識(shí)，不僅僅在企業(yè)之間，更關(guān)鍵在于企業(yè)內(nèi)部，可轉(zhuǎn)移性這點(diǎn)是非常

37、重要的。知道“怎樣”和知道“關(guān)于”的區(qū)別在于“主觀和客觀的知識(shí)，含蓄和明了的知識(shí)，個(gè)人的和前置的知識(shí)，以及程序上和陳述上的知識(shí)”，管理學(xué)者已經(jīng)清楚的認(rèn)識(shí)到了以上幾點(diǎn)在認(rèn)識(shí)論中的差別。筆者在此的目的不是想完美地區(qū)分知識(shí)的各種形式。通過利用含蓄知識(shí)，筆者能夠鑒別“怎樣”，利用明了知識(shí)了解事實(shí)和理論。兩者最關(guān)鍵的區(qū)別在于可轉(zhuǎn)移性以及通過個(gè)人，空間，時(shí)間的轉(zhuǎn)移機(jī)制。明了的知識(shí)是通過通信而顯露的。這些交流的過程是最基礎(chǔ)的屬性。事實(shí)上經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家一直都

38、認(rèn)為信息是一種公共利好的資源，更多的使用者可以接近0邊際成本的水平來消費(fèi)信息。隱性知識(shí)是在應(yīng)用中體現(xiàn)出來。如果人們不能把隱性知識(shí)精確歸類，只能在應(yīng)用中發(fā)現(xiàn)，在實(shí)踐中獲得，那么它在人們的轉(zhuǎn)移中是緩慢的，高成本的，不確定的(Kogut andZander, 1992)。</p><p><b>　　集成能力</b></p><p>　　知識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)移的效率部分是靠知識(shí)集成的內(nèi)在

39、潛力。知識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)移包括轉(zhuǎn)送和接受。人們通過“接受者的吸收能力”來分析知識(shí)接受(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990)。從個(gè)人和組織的層面上來說，知識(shí)的吸收能力取決于接受者在有知識(shí)基礎(chǔ)上增加新知識(shí)的能力。這要求不同知識(shí)之間元素的可疊加性。當(dāng)知識(shí)能以普通語言表達(dá)出來后，知識(shí)擴(kuò)張的效率就會(huì)大大提高。對(duì)于擴(kuò)張（和傳播）特定類型的明了知識(shí)時(shí)，數(shù)據(jù)就成了一門特別有用的語言。隨著信息技術(shù)的進(jìn)步，其角色的有效性大大提高。因此，福特汽車公司的員

40、工已隨時(shí)準(zhǔn)備將公司的現(xiàn)金平衡信息，外幣曝露信息以及火花塞和曲軸的存貨從公司的多個(gè)位置轉(zhuǎn)移并集聚到一個(gè)地方。但是，福特管理者的能力或單個(gè)機(jī)器部件的高效率是一種特殊的知識(shí)，無法集中到一個(gè)位置。Hayek(1945: 521)認(rèn)為這是“特定時(shí)間和地點(diǎn)的下知識(shí)”，Jensen 和 Meckling (1992)認(rèn)為其是“特殊知識(shí)”。正如以上學(xué)者所述，轉(zhuǎn)移和集成知識(shí)的能力對(duì)形成企業(yè)內(nèi)部最佳決策制度來說至關(guān)重要。</p><p&

41、gt;<b>　　適應(yīng)性</b></p><p>　　適應(yīng)性是指資源所有者接受與資源價(jià)值同等水平知識(shí)的能力(Teece, 1987; Levin et n1., 1987)。知識(shí)是一種資源，其取決于各種獨(dú)特、復(fù)雜問題的適應(yīng)性。因?yàn)槿藗儾荒苤苯愚D(zhuǎn)移隱性知識(shí)，所以它并不是放之四海而皆準(zhǔn)的。只有當(dāng)人們把它應(yīng)用到生產(chǎn)活動(dòng)中，它才能實(shí)現(xiàn)其合理性。清晰知識(shí)面臨兩大關(guān)于適用性的問題：第一，作為一種公共或者

42、說不排他的資源，任何一個(gè)人得到它的人都可以重復(fù)出售它，但是不會(huì)失去它的使用權(quán)(Arcow,1984)。第二，僅靠市場(chǎng)營銷知識(shí)便可將它傳播給潛在的顧客(Arcow, 1971: 152)。一些專利和版權(quán)的所有者受產(chǎn)權(quán)的合法保護(hù)。這種情況下知識(shí)不適合用市場(chǎng)手段來傳播。若缺乏清晰的產(chǎn)權(quán)知識(shí)，則會(huì)對(duì)知識(shí)所有權(quán)模凌兩可。而大部分清晰知識(shí)和所有隱性知識(shí)都是儲(chǔ)存于個(gè)體內(nèi)部，大部分的知識(shí)是在企業(yè)內(nèi)創(chuàng)造的，是企業(yè)特有的。這給回饋知識(shí)帶來了困難，也對(duì)新知識(shí)

43、取得最佳投資帶來了不便(Rosen, 1991)。</p><p><b>　　知識(shí)獲得的專業(yè)化</b></p><p>　　有人認(rèn)為人類大腦對(duì)獲取、儲(chǔ)存、加工知識(shí)的能力是有限的。這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)對(duì)西蒙的有限理論性至關(guān)重要。結(jié)果是知識(shí)生產(chǎn)的效率（筆者指新知識(shí)的創(chuàng)造，已有知識(shí)的獲得和知識(shí)的儲(chǔ)備）要求個(gè)體專注于某個(gè)領(lǐng)域的知識(shí)。這也暗示專家（幾乎）永遠(yuǎn)是專家，而洋洋精通的人，往往樣

44、樣稀松。知識(shí)生產(chǎn)涉及到將輸入的知識(shí)輸出。知識(shí)是輸入生產(chǎn)的重要一關(guān)，也是價(jià)值的主要來源。這一假設(shè)對(duì)知識(shí)基礎(chǔ)性理論來說是十分重要的。從傳統(tǒng)意義上來說，經(jīng)典的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)理論有兩個(gè)，即勞動(dòng)價(jià)值論或者法國重農(nóng)主義土地價(jià)值論。若我們要重提單一因素價(jià)值論，那么知識(shí)基礎(chǔ)型理論是唯一可行的方法。該理論認(rèn)為，一切人類生產(chǎn)都是依靠知識(shí)進(jìn)行的，機(jī)器僅僅是知識(shí)的具體化。</p><p><b>　　企業(yè)的存在</b>&l

45、t;/p><p>　　以上規(guī)律為公司的存在提供了合理的解釋。根據(jù)Demsetz (1991:171一175)，企業(yè)的存在代表了經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)中一種極不平衡的現(xiàn)象：知識(shí)獲得比知識(shí)利用更需專業(yè)化。因此，生產(chǎn)要求眾多博才多學(xué)的專家齊心協(xié)力。然而市場(chǎng)不能擔(dān)任協(xié)調(diào)的角色，因?yàn)樗鼰o法做到一下兩點(diǎn)：（a）保持隱性知識(shí)的固定性（b）潛在客戶在運(yùn)用清晰知識(shí)時(shí)會(huì)遇到風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。企業(yè)作為生產(chǎn)商品和提供服務(wù)的機(jī)構(gòu)而存在，因?yàn)樗鼈兡転槎嗳思芍R(shí)創(chuàng)造條件。

46、這些條件包括在專家之間創(chuàng)造鄰近性和低功率動(dòng)機(jī)以便達(dá)到目的。高功率動(dòng)機(jī)直接和知識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)移有關(guān)，專家們會(huì)避免這種機(jī)會(huì)主義問題。</p><p>　　一個(gè)有效的解決市場(chǎng)無能的政策是隱性知識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)讓和單個(gè)工人時(shí)間的合同化。但是即使單個(gè)勞動(dòng)時(shí)間是隱性知識(shí)供給的適當(dāng)授權(quán)，只要在一個(gè)生產(chǎn)團(tuán)隊(duì)系統(tǒng)里產(chǎn)品要求多種形式知識(shí)的復(fù)雜整合，市場(chǎng)必須建立一個(gè)可信的復(fù)雜的工資結(jié)構(gòu)即一套分離的工資水平線。</p><p>　　企

47、業(yè)作為一個(gè)知識(shí)整合的機(jī)構(gòu)強(qiáng)調(diào)的是不同與大部分組織研究，而且企業(yè)關(guān)注的是知識(shí)型觀點(diǎn)與組織知識(shí)的獲得和創(chuàng)造。因此，spender(1989: 185)定義組織，從本質(zhì)上說，是關(guān)于組織環(huán)境，資源，因果機(jī)制，客觀，態(tài)度，政策的個(gè)體。我的目的是區(qū)分兩個(gè)假設(shè)：一、知識(shí)創(chuàng)造是一個(gè)獨(dú)立的行為；二、企業(yè)的主要角色是對(duì)生產(chǎn)服務(wù)過程中現(xiàn)存知識(shí)的應(yīng)用。這個(gè)組織理論有利于強(qiáng)調(diào)獨(dú)立創(chuàng)造和儲(chǔ)存的知識(shí)是和西蒙的發(fā)現(xiàn)是一致的。西蒙曾說：所有學(xué)習(xí)是發(fā)生在獨(dú)立的人類大腦中

48、；一個(gè)組織的學(xué)習(xí)只有兩個(gè)方式：通過組織成員的學(xué)習(xí)，或者吸收擁有組織不曾擁有知識(shí)的新成員。更重要的是，通過企業(yè)成員的存取和利用知識(shí)，渴望了解組織進(jìn)程。固有的邊緣知識(shí)理論是把組織看作是統(tǒng)籌創(chuàng)造，儲(chǔ)存和配置知識(shí)的機(jī)構(gòu)。因此，March認(rèn)為組織是把知識(shí)存于產(chǎn)品，日常規(guī)章，和形式。知識(shí)積累是通過不斷的從他們的成員中學(xué)習(xí)。</p><p>　　我強(qiáng)調(diào)的是在企業(yè)是一個(gè)知識(shí)應(yīng)用的機(jī)構(gòu)。這不是否定組織知識(shí)創(chuàng)造理論的重要性。如果產(chǎn)品

49、創(chuàng)造要求整合每個(gè)人的知識(shí)和另外的人，甚至知識(shí)獲得是獨(dú)立的，企業(yè)提供必要激勵(lì)和方向。如果知識(shí)對(duì)于一個(gè)生產(chǎn)團(tuán)隊(duì)是特殊的，那么知識(shí)創(chuàng)造對(duì)于這個(gè)缺一不可的情況兩者中，不能從知識(shí)應(yīng)用中分離出來。因此，如果Manchester United soccer team的成員已經(jīng)有了相互補(bǔ)充的技術(shù)，那么他們需要通過長(zhǎng)期的合作取得投資獲利，并且是團(tuán)隊(duì)表現(xiàn)最大化。市場(chǎng)合同不太能取得長(zhǎng)期合作的穩(wěn)定性，反而會(huì)出現(xiàn)許多機(jī)會(huì)主義的問題。</p><

50、;p>　　這個(gè)企業(yè)存在的合理性可能會(huì)被批評(píng)為一個(gè)特別的案例。企業(yè)因?yàn)樗麄兡鼙苊馐袌?chǎng)交易的成本而存在；知識(shí)基礎(chǔ)觀點(diǎn)僅僅關(guān)注包括特別形式的知識(shí)問題。當(dāng)然，以上分析看出一些市場(chǎng)失敗的相似理論。然而，關(guān)鍵的不同在于，我強(qiáng)調(diào)的是企業(yè)是一個(gè)管理生產(chǎn)的團(tuán)隊(duì)而不是一個(gè)管理交易的機(jī)構(gòu)。企業(yè)的核心優(yōu)勢(shì)是生產(chǎn)的過程而不是如何避免關(guān)系到市場(chǎng)交易成本，但是他們的獨(dú)特優(yōu)勢(shì)是控制某種形式的經(jīng)濟(jì)行為。很多不同獨(dú)立的生產(chǎn)服務(wù)進(jìn)程的整合就是這么一個(gè)邏輯。為了更加深化