本研究透過三個台灣大型MNCs(集團企業)的深度訪談，期望了解集團成員入如何產生與移轉特定地主國知識的議題。台灣MNCs(集團企業)在國際化時，地主國環境不同於母國，使得台灣MNCs(集團企業)海外成員不足以利用其擁有的經驗與知識去因應環境差異所產生的挑戰與問題，而需要產生新的解決辦法。台灣MNCs(集團企業)海外成員所在地之經營環境與母國環境有差異時，其處理方式有二：規劃性(定期會議處理各階段所面臨之問題)及隨機性(臨時會議對於臨時狀況進行處理)；另外，在地主國發生的突發事件亦會產生地主國知識。當集團海外成員所面臨之經營環境與母國環境差異越大者，所產生特定地主國知識的量會越多。 透過每次在該地主國設廠及執行每一次新產品發展流程的經驗過程中各階段中因為與地主國環境介面互動而產生特定地主國知識，所以台灣MNCs(集團企業)是以漸進方式累積集團成員在特定地主國面對問題解決問題的方法。當遇到問題越多時，台灣MNCs(集團企業)海外子公司特定地主國知識累積速度越快；但每種特定地主國問題的解決方法是需要各階段多方人員不斷地溝通才能產生的，所以當內外部溝通成本越高時，會減緩海外成員累積特定地主國知識累積速度；為了加快累積特定地主國知識，台灣MNCs(集團企業)大量借助資訊科技及人員面對面溝通，期望加速溝通效率以因應快速變動的環境。 在同一地主國，透過三個台灣大型MNCs(集團企業)的深度訪談發現，台灣MNCs(集團企業)在特定地主國知識移轉機制路徑有三，且在探究過程中發現海外總部(OHQs)的存在，所以進一步探討，在特定地主國中，集團成員間移轉地主國知識時，海外總部(OHQs)所扮演的角色及其存在的價值；在取得這個知識的過程中，有哪些因素會影響移轉機制中正式化機制與非正式化機制使用比例？知識移轉時，正式化機制與非正式化機制之間是一個連續帶的概念，而影響集團成員間知識移轉機制選用時，正式化與非正式化機制搭配比例的影響因素包含：知識特性、子公司自主性、知識情境鑲嵌性、經營模式(產品相似性、技術差距性)以及地理距離。 台灣MNCs(集團企業)在知識移轉制度建立初期，較仰賴非正式化機制，隨著制度建立完備程度增加，正式化機制使用的比重提高，但是非正式化機制對於知識移轉機制的效力仍然存在於中高階主管層級，對於基層主管及員工而言，則會完全仰賴正式化機制，以確保自身工作上的權責釐清。台灣MNCs(集團企業)進行國際擴張時，海外成員初期國際化知識是從MNCs總部遺傳而來。台灣MNCs(集團企業)海外成員間特定地主國知識移轉路徑有三：1)透過集團總部(HQs)移轉、2)子公司間移轉及3)透過集團海外總部(OHQs)。本研究認為當台灣MNCs(集團企業)總部在特定地主國設立集團海外總部(OHQs)後，集團海外總部(OHQs)在特定地主國知識移轉上會取代集團企業總部的角色(意即地主國知識移轉時，路徑三會取代路徑一)。 台灣MNCs(集團企業)國際策略在大陸拓展的廣度(各個集團成員(產品不同)赴大陸投資)及深度(負責新產品發展流程階段越多)增加，使總部須處理的專業知識涵蓋範圍廣且處理資料量大，對於位於台灣的MNCs(集團企業)總部而言，處理資訊成本是很高的；再者，集團在大陸據點越多，對於總部監督成本上亦是很大的負擔，所以在大陸設立海外總部(OHQs)，以與集團總部進行某種程度的分工；同時，當世界各地子公司均需將地主國知識回傳至台灣MNCs(集團企業)總部時，台灣MNCs(集團企業)總部即將面臨很複雜的處理及整合成本，所以海外總部(OHQs)有存在的必要。台灣MNCs(集團企業)設置的海外總部(OHQs)所進行的交流、整理及儲存的資訊較複雜和多元化，其設立目的包含：降低監督成本、降低整合成本、降低協調成本、降低知識移轉過程中由於資訊不對稱所產生的無效率情形。集團海外總部(OHQs)亦促進地主國集團成員間知識快速流通，且將知識從母國或其它地主國之集團成員處引入，也就是大量的知識流入與流出的主要樞紐。當集團型態是屬於聯邦分權式時，集團海外總部(OHQs)的設立是有困難的。集團海外總部(OHQs)可能設立在主要市場地理居中位置、交通便捷之處或離知識最接近的地方，以降低「集團」海外成員開會時的交通成本。 集團海外總部(OHQs)是在集團總部(HQs)監控下創造出其在特定地主國知識移轉扮演的角色獨特性及存在必要性，為避免集團海外總部(OHQs)憑藉結構洞角色壟斷所有特定地主國知識，進而取代集團總部(HQs)，集團總部(HQs)透過其與集團海外成員間稽核性連結及其對集團海外總部(OHQs)的正式控制(包含所有權控制及組織層級控制)來防堵集團海外總部(OHQs)坐大，以有效管理集團海外總部(OHQs)。 正式機制與非正式機制間是一個連續帶的概念。然而，在移轉過程中，哪些因素會影響到正式與非正式機制搭配的比例呢？ 當海外成員自主性高時，採用正式化機制強迫集團海外成員間進行知識分享，亦搭配非正式化機制的社會互動，來緩和彼此間因競爭所產生不願意分享的情形；當知識的情境鑲嵌性程度越高，越需要使用非正式機制來縮小正式機制中知識再利用的可能性；當產品相似性很高，知識來源者與接收者若能搭配少部分(短時間、次數少)的人員互動，便能加快知識再利用的速度；當技術越接近時，知識需求方較可準確地預估需求單上的要項，雙方技術差距越大，越需要仰賴非正式關係使知識來源者願意「多」花時間來教導知識接收者；當集團成員地理距離愈遠時，透過正式化機制，如海外總部(OHQs)進行地主國資料蒐集以避免資訊不對稱造成的知識移轉障礙，以克服因為地理距離所產生的知識移轉障礙。 / Knowledge about host countries and international environment is needed when firms enter international markets. A firm encounters more challenges when it enters a new market with no knowledge. After entry, it then can gain valuable experiential knowledge about the host country (i.e., host-country-specific knowledge) and this knowledge is helpful for further operation in the country and internationalization (Yu, 1990). A firm can gain hands-on knowledge by operating in a host market and then it can filter the information gained into forms it needs for internationalization later on. The purpose of the study addresses host-country-specific-knowledge generating and accumulating by overseas member firms in business groups by identifying factors that affect how business groups from an emerging economy transfer host-country-specific knowledge among their group members. We have found that formal and informal mechanisms were helpful in facilitating the transferring of host-country-specific knowledge. In the literature, it is often assumed that knowledge can be easily and automatically transferred within business groups. Our study confirms that business groups do transfer knowledge among subsidiaries purposely and has also demonstrated that some mechanisms are needed to realize this intent. While the business group’s network provides a platform for facilitating flows of host-country-specific knowledge, the mere existence of such a network does not automatically result in knowledge transfer. From managerial viewpoint, both formal and informal mechanisms should be in place to promote and encourage host-country-specific knowledge transfer. Gaining a good understanding of the mechanisms contributing to knowledge transfer is strategically important for knowledge management. Regarding the use of mechanisms, our results indicate that the buildup of internationalization knowledge can go along with a firm’s development in foreign markets and also can allow for accumulation of various types of knowledge. The more significant the difference between the contexts encountered by foreign subsidiaries and headquarters is, the more the quantity of knowledge the former will create regarding the host country. When foreign subsidiaries encounter similar problems within a tight time frame in a host country, the accumulation of knowledge about the host country will be faster. In the early stages, setting up knowledge transferring system relies more on informal mechanisms. The more mature the system is, the higher the proportion of formal mechanisms is used. However, although informal mechanisms are effective for chief executive officers and senior vice presidents, primary executives and operators rely solely on formal mechanisms in order to clarify responsibilities. With more important strategic position of the host country, the headquarters will establish overseas headquarters in order to quickly respond to the market requirements. In a specific host country, overseas headquarters, established by the HQs, may substitute for the headquarters in transferring host country-specific knowledge among member firms via formal mechanisms. When a business group belongs to federal decentralization, external market mechanisms will be adopted to transfer knowledge among its member firms. The overseas headquarters hardly governs transferring knowledge among overseas member firms and the headquarters. When the overseas headquarters is established, the headquarters adopts auditing connection to prevent the host country from monopolizing host-country-specific knowledge. A headquarters can successfully implement multiple formal and informal mechanisms for knowledge transfer. With respect to knowledge transfer, the higher the level of subsidiary autonomy, the greater the necessity the headquarters rely on formal mechanisms to transfer host-country-specific knowledge among member firms. Encouraging sharing within a business group through some managerial mechanisms can wear down the negative influence caused by opportunism and information asymmetry on the part of the subsidiary and the inter-member competition for the transfer of host-country-specific knowledge. Overseas headquarters accumulates a vast experience and are capable of absorbing, transferring and applying knowledge adequately. They can transcend the geographical limitations and establish good cooperation relations between knowledge originator (the subsidiaries in the host country) and knowledge receiver (other sister firms and the headquarters), warranting the success of the knowledge transfer. Provided that knowledge is tacit, information technology is necessity in transferring knowledge initially documented while social interaction is needed in transferring the rest knowledge embedded in persons. Finally, product and technology similarity are factors affecting how headquarters rely on formal mechanisms in transferring knowledge among member firms.