Project-based organizations (PBOs) have drawn attention in business management and represent an increasingly important part of organizations. If managing by projects represents an adapted way to cope with the current environment, it also comes with new challenges. This research brings light on the organizational tensions between immediate performance and sustained performance in PBOs by focusing on competence development as the crucial means to achieve sustained performance. Because PBOs are temporary by nature, competence development represents one of their challenges. Therefore, this research was conducted to gain a better understanding of how this tradeoff can be managed by PBOs. With that purpose, we both researched how this organizational tradeoff and competence development processes were managed in a hockey organization. In sport organizations, player succession is crucial to the organization’s overall performance and survival, therefore making competence development a key activity. The research led us to grasp a better understanding of the nature of the tradeoff between immediate performance and sustained performance as well as brought additional findings on competence development processes. More specifically, it was found that this tradeoff requires adaptation to project stages. We summarized and visualized the findings by providing a framework that can act as a tool for practitioners in PBOs to understand and therefore manage the tradeoff between immediate performance and sustained performance by implementing competence development.

Confrontés au succès du concept de « cluster », les gouvernements du monde entier mettent aujourd'hui en œuvre des politiques de cluster. Cependant, l'écart entre la recherche et la pratique ne cesse de grandir. Tandis que les chercheurs élaborent des théories présentant les clusters comme des entités permettant de susciter efficacement innovation et compétitivité, les praticiens des clusters – gouvernements, animateurs de pôles de compétitivité et entreprises membres – semblent se débattre dans la gestion de ces objets particulièrement entremêlés. Notre thèse porte sur ce « relevance gap ». Une étude systématique de la littérature (SLR) est menée sur les politiques de cluster : elle démontre que les animateurs de clusters font constamment face à une multitude de dilemmes organisationnels, c'est-à-dire un ensemble de décisions et de choix pour lesquels il n'existe pas une réponse rationnelle unique. Ces dilemmes portent sur la mise en œuvre de la politique, sur la gestion des membres des pôles de compétitivité, et sur l'adaptation structurelle du pôle aux réalités locales. Apporter des réponses à ces dilemmes est évidemment du ressort des pôles de compétitivité, mais cela génère des effets secondaires et pathologies, qui doivent être pris en compte et évalués. Dans cette thèse, nous développons une étude de cas qualitative d'un pôle de compétitivité situé en région parisienne : nous analysons en détail dilemmes et pathologies. Quatre pathologies sont identifiées : l'inefficacité (suscitée par des dilemmes de leadership), la méfiance (suscitée par les dilemmes autour des subventions), la non-conformité (suscitée par des dilemmes structurels) et le pragmatisme (suscité par des dilemmes managériaux et de collaboration). Cette pathogénèse peut contribuer à améliorer la mise en œuvre et l'évaluation des politiques de cluster. Enfin, la thèse invite les chercheurs à passer de l'étude de l' « anatomie des clusters » à celle des « pathologies des clusters». / As “cluster” became a new buzzword, governments around the world increasingly implement cluster policies. However, a relevance gap is growing between cluster research and practice. Scholars build theories about the roles of clusters as powerful entities fostering innovation and competitiveness. Meanwhile, governments and policy-driven cluster organizations struggle to manage these highly entangled objects. This thesis addresses such a relevance gap. A systematic literature review (SLR) is conducted on cluster policy research, which demonstrates that governments and policy-driven cluster managers constantly face a multitude of organizational dilemmas, i.e. a set of decisions and choices for which there is no “one best choice”, in matters such as how to implement cluster policy (political dilemmas), how to manage policy-driven cluster members (managerial dilemmas) and how to adapt the policy-driven cluster to the local reality (structural dilemmas). Answering these dilemmas is constitutive of the management of policy-driven clusters, but it generates side-effect pathologies that need to be monitored and evaluated. In this thesis, we conduct a qualitative empirical investigation of a French policy-driven cluster located in the Paris Region: we analyse in detail the organisational dilemmas and their related side-effect pathologies. Four different pathologies are identified: inefficiency (driven by leadership dilemmas), distrust (driven by subsidies dilemmas), non-conformity (driven by structural dilemmas), and pragmatism (driven by managing innovation and collaboration dilemmas). The deeper knowledge of these pathologies contributes to improve cluster policy implementation and cluster evaluations. Finally, this thesis argues that academics need to shift from studying the “anatomy of clusters” to studying the “pathology of clusters”.

「成功、成熟且領導中的既有企業為何失敗？」從Christensen 1997年發表書中定義創新者的兩難(The Innovator’s Dilemma) :「管理階層為企業成功所做出的理性而智慧的決策，正是促使企業失去領導地位的主因」，說明既有企業高階經理人將資源分配給主流高階市場，忽略新進企業從非主流市場進入的破壞性創新(disruptive innovation)的取代性，導致既有企業的產品逐漸被取代而失去領導地位。後續補充破壞式創新的文獻，認為除了資源依賴與分配外，動態能耐、組織文化是重要的補充研究構面，但仍缺乏相關企業產權議題構面的探討。 本研究以Milgrom(1992)及李仁芳(1993, 1999a,b)的企業產權理論，補充創新者兩難理論中對企業產權解釋的不足，在企業的管理權與所有權的過度分離下，會讓經理人自利的理性決策偏向企業短期收益，而損害長期股東權益，這樣讓破壞式創新對企業產生無法妥協的組織兩難衝突，才是導致企業無法存活在破壞式創新的浪潮中的原因之一。 為驗證本研究的理論推理，藉由軟片產業及電腦顯示器產業作跨產業多個案的實證研究。比較柯達軟片、富士軟片在軟片產業中受到數位顯影技術的取代衝擊，以及我國CRT電腦顯示器廠商誠洲、中強、碧悠、源興、美格、華映、瑞軒及皇旗受到LCD技術的取代衝擊，在相同破壞式創新下區分成功轉型及失敗消失的兩組對照，比較策略因應與對應產權結構的差異。 研究發現企業所有權與管理權集中者容易為破壞式創新的適應者；相對的所有權與管理權分離者，容易成為破壞式創新的淘汰者。企業的產權結構差異影響了決策過程，造成不同策略選擇，是影響企業面對破壞式創新轉型成功的關鍵因素之一。在實務上，意涵企業平時的產權結構就應未來的技術發展做因應規劃，而在面對破壞式創新威脅時刻，更應積極透過股權結構再造的方式讓所有權與管裡權有某種程度的重疊，這是因應破壞式創新浪潮轉型的重要力量來源。 / Why successful, mature and leading incumbent companies fail? From the definition of “The Innovator’s Dilemma” in Christensen’s book (1997), what management makes rational and intelligent decision is the cause firms lose their leading position, which may explain that management level of established firms allocate resource on high margin market by following main customers and ignore low margin from “disruptive innovation” market by new entrant firms. In addition to resource dependence and allocation, the extant literature pertaining to disruptive innovation has been categorized into organizational structure, organizational culture and dynamic capability. However, the impact of enterprise ownership structure on disruptive innovation rarely has been studied. This study tried to complement innovation dilemma theory with ownership theory. The over separation of ownership and management of corporation would contribute to self-interest management decision tending to short-term revenue rather than long term development of firms, which cause unbalanced organizational dilemma under disruptive innovation condition. It would be one of main reason that leading firms fail to transform in the wave of disruptive innovation. In order to test the organizational dilemma theory, this study comprised multiple cases research method of 2 multinational film companies and 8 computer monitor manufacturers in Taiwan. Comparing two film makers, Kodak with Fujifilm, under digital camera technology replacement and 8 Taiwan CRT computer monitor manufacturers under LCD technology replacement their coping strategy and corresponding ownership structure. One of major findings of this study is that integration of ownership and management would easily adapt to disruptive innovation wave. On the contrary, the separation of ownership and management would be eliminated from disruptive innovation wave. The ownership structure of enterprise influences decision making process and choice of coping strategy, which play major role in transforming firms successfully into disruptive innovation. In practice, the implication of this research is that ownership structure of firms is corresponding to future technology development. While facing the disruptive innovation emerging, the necessary of integration between ownership and management is critical by financial restructure, which would be main power to transform firms into new disruptive innovation.