臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：台灣高科技產業創新發展研究
作者：張又心 引用關係
作者(外文)：Chang, Yu-Shing
校院名稱：國立交通大學
系所名稱：科技管理研究所
指導教授：虞孝成
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2009
主題關鍵詞：創新政策；台灣；多準則決策法；面對面訪談；Innovation Policy；Taiwan；MCDM Method；Face-to-Face Interviews
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:64
持續地創新與研發是企業自身發展與獲利的基礎，亦是驅動經濟成長的關鍵。各國經濟之統計研究顯示國家的創新活動與人民的生活水準及生產力有相關性。因此，對發展中的小國而言，國家創新政策對國際、經濟、技術變化的調整以及改善自身經濟與技術情勢有重大的影響力。由於台灣在科技經濟上的突飛猛進，許多專家學者紛紛以台灣之國家創新發展為研究標的，其中更有研究指出台灣的經濟奇蹟主要來自於政府的創新政策。
不同國家在創新強度上的差異與其政策有關，大多數學者在探討創新政策時僅設定於分析一國的政策環境，然而創新政策的分析應該評估不同國家的差異性，才能比較其異同。本研究以台灣與愛爾蘭為國家創新政策之對象，立基於台灣與愛爾蘭皆是以農立國的島國，近二、三十年來致力於發展科技產業因而經濟表現亮麗，台灣與香港、新加坡、韓國合稱為「亞洲四小龍」，而愛爾蘭則被稱為「凱爾特之虎」，各自代表東方與西方的經濟奇蹟。台灣的經濟奇蹟起源於1980年代，而愛爾蘭則是1990年代。為瞭解創新與經濟發展的關係，本研究以Rothwell and Zegveld的分類系統作為比較創新政策的主要架構，評估與分析台灣與愛爾蘭的創新政策，揭露創新相關因素如何驅動此兩國的競爭力，並探討其經濟面與制度面之優劣勢與效能。
相對於韓國政府集中國家資源扶植大型企業集團，台灣經濟成長的主要支柱來自於靈活的中小企業。各種電子相關企業林立，形成台灣半導體、資訊科技、顯示器…等高科技產業的群聚。尤其各種嶄露頭角的新創事業更是高科技產業蓬勃發展的源頭活水。因此，對新創公司而言，育成中心在研發與創新管理上的重要性與時俱增，並受到專家學者的重視。根據世界經濟論壇(World Economic Forum, WEF)所發表的「2006-2007年全球競爭力報告(Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, GCR)」，台灣的「高等教育與訓練」指標在全球一百三十一個國家中排名第七。在高等教育的優良質量上表現出政府對培育菁英人才的用心，尤其是針對科技產業。由此可知，政府對「育成中心」以及「高等教育與訓練」此兩項供給面政策投入之重視與優勢。此外，透過研究台灣與愛爾蘭兩國創新政策之異同，亦得到相同的結論。
因此，本研究除了比較不同國家之創新政策外，更深入地探討科技新創公司育成之創新政策以及科技產業高階主管教育與訓練之創新政策。透過面對面訪談新創公司的創辦人或高階主管，分析工研院開放實驗室對新創公司提供協助的重要性評等(多目標決策法)；藉由電話訪談新竹科學園區與矽谷CEO的教育背景與工作經驗，瞭解科技產業的成功是否來自於人才受到良好的教育與訓練。
希冀透過經濟情勢相近的兩小國創新政策比較，以提供政府可行的政策建議；藉著育成中心服務之重要性分析，提供育成中心加強核心功能以及政府制訂輔助科技新創政策之參考；經由竹科CEO學經歷背景之分析，提供產業雇用人力、學界增進自我能力、以及政府制定科技高等教育制度之參考。
Continuing innovations and R&D (Research and Development) in technology, manufacturing, and production provide the bases for continuing development and increasing profits. Innovation is usually agreed as the key driver of economic performance. Statistical comparisons of economic performance among countries show that the intensity of national innovative activity is correlated with higher rates of standards of living and productivity growth. Therefore, national innovation policies are considered especially relevant for small developing economies as part of their adjustment to the changing international, economic, and technological order as well as improvements to their own economic and technological situations. In addition, international variation in innovation policy presents an opportunity to examine various influences on the pace of technological change. In particular, studies have documented the remarkable progress of Taiwan and cited government innovation policies as a major factor in this success.
Understanding international differences in the intensity of innovation also informs public policy. While most studies of innovation are set in a given public policy environment, policy analysis requires an evaluation of variations in innovation with country-level policy differences. As small island countries, both Taiwan and Ireland have been regarded as locations that have performed economic miracles: the former was part of high growth “Asian Tiger” economies that included Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea while the latter gained the nickname the “Celtic Tiger” as its sudden economic rise during the 1990s mirrored the growth of the Asian Tigers during the 1980s. Growing from agricultural economies to major regional players in western and oriental worlds, both have been studied as examples of national development and innovation. Recognizing the relationship between innovation and economic performance, we then wish to explore how actual innovation-related factors drive the competitiveness of these two small but relatively fast-growing economies separately. The research effort is devoted to the main task of assessing and analyzing the innovation policies of Taiwan and Ireland, highlighting their specific strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness in the specific economic and institutional contexts in which they operate. The taxonomy of innovation policy proposed by Rothwell and Zegveld was adopted as the analysis framework for this study. We conduct a comparative study of two different national innovation systems to obtain a critical understanding of the limits and the benefits of specific national policy strategies.
Contrary to Korean-government backed conglomerate enterprises, Taiwanese SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) play an important role in Taiwan's continuing economic development. Many technological companies which are clustered on the western coast corridor between Taipei and Hsinchu provided the bases of Taiwan's semi-conductor, personal computer, and display industries. Many hi-tech startup companies found business opportunities by providing products or services to support the giants in these industries. Therefore, technological incubators have assumed a growing role in R&D research and innovation management, and their importance has not escaped researchers’ attention. In addition, according to the Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007 published by the (World Economic Forum (WEF) that cites Taiwan’s seventh-place world ranking in “higher education and training pillar,” both quantity and quality of higher education reflect the government’s efforts to promote education and the development of elite personnel, especially for nurturing hi-tech talents. In addition, from the results of comparative innovation policy analysis between Taiwan and Ireland, we discovered Taiwan’s unique strength in policy tools of promoting higher education and vigorous entrepreneurship.
Therefore, among these hi-tech innovation issues, we not only explored overall national innovation policies, but also identified the importance of incubators for hi-tech startups, and explored the education and work experience of hi-tech talents to be aimed at supply-side related innovation policies for further study.
This research analyzes whether the success of hi-tech companies in the Hsinchu Science Park and in Silicon Valley may be attributed to the CEOs’ having received higher education and training pillar by telephone interviews. In this dissertation, we also employ a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method to demonstrate the influence and impact that ITRI Open Labs has had on new startup technology companies by face-to-face interviews with founders or CEOs of hi-tech startups. From examining the importance ranking of incubators’ functions for hi-tech startups, we could better understand the contribution of “entrepreneurship” policy tool in the technology field.
1. Advisory Science Council 2006. Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (Dublin: Advisory Science Council).
2. Allan, A. 1998. Innovation management: strategies, implementation, and profits (New York: Oxford University).
3. Allen, D. N. and McCluskey, R. 1990. Structure, policy, services, and performance in the business incubator industry, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Winter: 61-68.
4. Analoui, F. 2000. Identification of clusters of managerial skills for increased effectiveness: the case of steel industry in Iran, International Journal of Training and Development, 4(3): 217-234.
5. Analoui, F., and Karami, A. 2003. Strategic Management in SMEs (London: Thomson Learning Press).
6. Andreosso-O’Callaghan, B. 2001. Territory, research and technology linkages—is the Shannon region a propitious local system of innovation? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12: 69-87.
7. Arthur Cox and Davis Langdon PKS 2003. Public Procurement Law Regime in Ireland, Davis Langdon PKS (see http://www.dlpks.ie/downloads/euprocurement.pdf).
8. aScience Park Administration 2007. 2007 Science Park Business Directory (Hsinchu: Science Park Administration Employee's Cooperative Press).
9. bScience Park Administration 2007. Hsinchu Science Park Introduction for general visitors, Science Park Administration (see http://eweb.sipa.gov.tw/en/index.jsp/).
10. Balzat, M. and Hanusch, H. 2004. Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14: 197-210.
11. Balzat, M. and Pyka, A. 2006. Mapping national innovation systems in the OECD area, International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 2: 158-176.
12. Bantel, K. A. and Jackson, S. E. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107-124.
13. BBC 2006 Country Profile: Taiwan, BBC News (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1285915.stm).
14. Blanning, R. W.; Bui, T. X., and Tan, M. 1997. National information infrastructure in Pacific Asia, Decision Support Systems, 21: 215-227.
15. Bradley, J. 2006. An Island Economy or Island Economies? Ireland after the Belfast Agreement (Dublin: Institute for British Irish Studies).
16. Central Intelligence Agency 2006. The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency (see http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2006).
17. Central Intelligence Agency 2007. The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency (see http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html).
18. Chandrasekaran, G.. and Ramesh, R. 1987. Microcomputer based multiple criteria decision support system for strategic planning, Information & Management, 12(4):163-172.
19. Chang, J.-H. 2007. National Taiwan, Tsing Hua, and Chiao Tung Universities’ engineering area are included in 100 World Universities (Taipei: Union Newspaper).
20. Chang, P. L. and Shih, H. Y. 2004. The innovation systems of Taiwan and China: a comparative analysis, Technovation, 24: 529–539.
21. Chen, C. F. and Sewell, G. 1993. Strategies for technological development in South Korea and Taiwan: the case of semicondoctors, Research Policy, 25: 759-783.
22. Chen, L.-W. 2005. 500 World Universities scored by the professors of Taiwan University. (Taipei: China Newspaper).
23. Chen, S. H. 2004. Taiwanese IT firms’ offshore R&D in China and the connection with the global innovation network, Research Policy, 33: 337-349.
24. Chen, S. H., Shih, H. T. and Kao, C. 2002. The trend of Taiwan-based firms’ R&D activities in China and its impacts on Taiwan’s industrial innovation, Final Report to the Department of Industrial Technology (Taipei: Ministry of Economic Affairs Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research).
25. Cheng, A. L.- P. and Lin, J. Y.-C. 2006. An evaluation on STI policies and policy innovations in Taiwan based on experiences of major EU member states, Paper accepted and to be presented at the IAMOT 2006 Annual Meeting and Conference in Beijing on May 22-26, 2006.
26. Chjuan, C. H. and Dhaliwal (Eds.) J. S. 1995. Proceedings of the 1995 Pan Pacific Conference on Information Systems, on Policy and Strategy in Information Systems: Asia Pacific Perspectives, Singapore, June-July 1995.
27. Cho, H. W. 2004. China—Taiwan interactive strategies in the WTO, Issues & Studies, 43: 159-181.
28. Chou, T. C. 1999. Regionalism/Globalism (Taipei: China Credit Information Service).
29. Danson, M. W. 2000. Debates and surveys: the sustainability of industrial development in Ireland, Regional Studies, 34: 277-290.
30. Davenport, S. and Bibby, D. 1999. Rethinking a national innovation system: the small country as “SME”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 11: 431-462.
31. Davidson, C. H. 1989. The business and industrial incubator ─ a tool for local development and entrepreneurship, High-technology workplace ─ integrating technology, management, and design for productive work environments, Edited by Pierre Goumain, 97-100.
32. Dent, S. J. and Chuang, T. C. 2005. A study of the influence on freight trucking industry in the science parks after joining WTO, Chung Hua Journal of Management, 6: 73-82.
33. Department of Investment Services 2006. Ministry of Economic Affairs promoting Taiwan FDI results, Department of Investment Services, Ministry of Economic Affairs (see http://investintaiwan.nat.gov.tw/en/news/200609/2006090606.html).
34. Dorgan, S. 2006. How Ireland Became the Celtic Tiger (Washington D.C.: The Heritage Foundation).
35. Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship (New York: Harper & Row).
36. Economic Department Talent Network 2006. The global competitiveness of Taiwan (see http://hirecruit.nat.gov.tw/chinese/html/taiwan_03.htm/).
37. Edquist, C. 1999. Innovation Policy- A Systemic Approach, Department of Technology and Social Change (Linköping: Linkoping University).
38. Edquist, C. and Hommen, L. 1999. Systems of innovation: theory and policy for the demand side, Technology in Society, 21:63–79.
39. Edquist, C. and Lundvall, B. Å. 1993. Comparing the Danish and Swedish systems of innovation, in Nelson, R. R. (eds), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press) pp. 265-298.
40. Engel, E. M. R. A., Fischer, R. D. and Galetovic, A. 1998. Least-present-value-of-revenue auctions and highway franchising, NBER Working Paper No. 6689 (Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research).
41. Enterprise Panel 1996. Growing Success (London: Enterprise Panel Securities Institute).
42. Ernst, D. 2008. Can Chinese IT firms develop innovative capabilities within global knowledge networks? Economics Series Working Paper No. 94 (Honolulu: East-West Center).
43. European Commission 2003. Annual Innovation Policy Trends and Appraisal Report-Ireland (Brussels: European Commission).
44. Fabless Semiconductor Association 2007. Annual Report of Fabless Semiconductor Association (Taipei: FSA Press).
45. Fair Trade Commission 2000. The Fair Trade Law (Taipei: Fair Trade Commission).
46. Forfás 2005. Research and Development in Ireland, 2005—at a Glance (Dublin: Forfás).
47. Forfás 2008. Forfás Annual Report 2007 (Dublin: Forfás).
48. Frenken, K. 2000. A complexity approach to innovation networks: the case of the aircraft industry 1909–1997, Research Policy, 29: 257–272.
49. Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E. and Stern, S. 2002. The determinants of national innovative capacity, Research Policy, 31: 899-933.
50. G. S. Shieh, "Boss" Island: The Subcontracting Network and Micro- Entrepreneurship in Taiwan's Development, (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 1992).
51. Green, R. 2000. Irish ICT cluster, Paper presented at the OECD Cluster Focus Group Workshop, Utrecht, 8-9 May.
52. Griliches, Z. 1995. R&D and Productivity: Econometric Results and Measurement Issues, in: Stoneman, P. (eds), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change (Oxford: Blackwell) pp. 52-89.
53. Grimes, S. 2003. Ireland's emerging information economy: recent trends and future prospects, Regional Studies, 37: 3-14.
54. Grimes, S. 2006. Ireland's emergence as a centre for internationally traded services, Regional Studies, 40: 1041-1054.
55. Grimes, S. and Collins, P. 2002. The role of telematics in integrating Ireland into Europe's information society, European Planning Studies, 10: 971- 986.
56. Grimes, S. and Collins, P. 2003. Building a knowledge economy in Ireland through European research networks, European Planning Studies, 4: 395-413.
57. Grimes, S. and White, M. 2005. The transition to internationally traded services in Ireland’s emergence as a ’successful’ European region, Environment and Planning A, 37: 2169-2188.
58. Groningen Growth and Development Centre 2005. 60-Industry Database, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen (see http://www.ggdc.net/dseries/10-sector.html).
59. Groningen Growth and Development Centre 2006. Total Economy Database. Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen (see http://www.conference-board.org/economics/database.cfm).
60. Groschl, S. and Barrows, C. W. 2003. Relationships between top management team characteristics and international diversification: An empirical investigation, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(3): 228-246.
61. Gulotta, C. and McDaniel, G. 1995. A regional incubator program: the case of the northeast Mississippi business incubator system, Economic Development Review, 13(4): 71-73.
62. Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers, Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193-206.
63. Herrmann, P. 2002. The influence of CEO characteristics on the international diversification of manufacturing firms: an empirical study in the United States, International Journal of Management, 19(2): 279-289.
64. Herrmann, P. and Datta, D. K. 2005. Relationships between top management team characteristics and international diversification: An empirical investigation, British Journal of Management, 16: 69-78.
65. Hewitt-Dundas, N. and Lenihan, H. 2002. Innovation policy in Ireland and Northern Ireland, 1991 to 2001—the changing face of firm-level financial incentives for R&D, Working Paper No. ersa05p606 (Northern Ireland: Queen’s University Belfast).
66. Hitt, M. A. and Tyler, B. B. 1991. Strategic decision models: integrating different perspectives, Strategic Management Journal, 12: 327-351.
67. Hobday, M. 1995. Innovation in East Asia: The Challenge to Japan (Aldershot: Edward Elgar).
68. Hou, C. M. 1988. Strategy for economic development in Taiwan and implications for developing economies, Paper presented at the Conference on Economic Development Experiences of Taiwan, Taipei, 8-10 June.
69. Hsu, C. W. 2005. Formation of industrial innovation mechanisms through the research institute, Technovation, 25: 1317-1329.
70. Hsu, C. W. and Chen, H. H. 2003. The Taiwan Innovation System, The International Handbook on Innovation, 976-999.
71. Hsu, Y. and Chang, W. C. 2004. A study of the product design related strategy of Taiwanese home appliance industries dealing with entering WTO, Journal of Design, 9: 1-12.
72. Hsu, Y. G., Shyu, J. Z., and Tzeng, G. H. 2005, Policy tools on the formation of new biotechnology firms in Taiwan, Technovation, 25: 281-292.
73. Hu, M. C. and Mathews, J. A. 2005. National innovative capacity in East Asia, Research Policy, 34: 1322-1349.
74. Huang, C. H., Chang, C. C., Hsu, S. H. and Huang, P. Y. 2003. Impact of Taiwan's accession to WTO on agriculture and strategies to respond, National Policy Quarterly, 2: 95-120.
75. Industrial Development & Investment Center 2004. Investment Guide to Ireland (Taipei: Industrial Development & Investment Center).
76. Industrial Economics & Knowledge Center 2007. Industrial Economics & Knowledge Center (IEK) Report (Hsinchu:The Industrial Technology Research Institute).
77. Industrial Technology Research Institute 2005. Establishing New High-tech Industries (Taipei: Industrial Technology Research Institute).
78. Irish Patents Office 2007. Intellectual property in Ireland, Irish Patents Office (see http://www.patentsoffice.ie/).
79. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS), 2001.Anon., 2001. Annual Report. Government Publishing House, Jerusalem (In Hebrew).
80. Jacobs, D. 1998. Innovation policies within the framework of internationalization, Research Policy, 27:711–724.
81. Johnson, P. S. and Cathcart, D. G. 1979. The founders of new manufacturing firms: a note on the size of their “incubator” plants, Journal of Industrial Economics, 28(2): 219-224.
82. Kang, C. C., Feng, C. M. and Lo, W. S. 2007. Analysis of self-liquidation ratio and financial resource allocation for BOT projects with uncertain finance environment, Journal of Management & Systems, 14: 359-386.
83. Karami, A., Analoui, F., and Kakabadse, N. K. 2006. The CEOs' characteristics and their strategy development in the UK SME sector: an empirical study, The Journal of Management Development, 25(3/4): 316-324.
84. Kendall, R. 1995. Managing international interdependence: CEO characteristics, Academy of Management Journal, 38(1): 200-231.
85. Kerzner, H. 1989. A system approach to planning scheduling and controlling, project management (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold) pp. 759-764.
86. Kessler, M. 2005. Intel's CEO hammers U.S. education system, USA TODAY (see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmusa/is_200503/ai_n13279904/).
87. Kim, S. and Tunzelmann N. 1998. Aligning Internal and External Networks: Taiwan’s Specialization in IT (Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex).
88. Kimberly, J. and Evanisko, M. 1981. Organizational innovation: the influence of the individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations, Academy of Management Journal, 24: 689-713.
89. Koufopoulos, D. K. 2002. Executives’ predisposition for planning in an emerging country environment, Management Decision, 40(5/6): 584-595.
90. KPMG 2008. KPMG’s Corporate and Indirect Tax Rate Survey 2008 (Luxembourg: KPMG).
91. Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., Hwang, C. Y., Tu, T. C. and Yap, C. S. 1996. Entrepreneurship, flexibility and policy coordination: Taiwan’s computer industry, The Information Society, 12: 215–249.
92. Kraemer, K. L., Gurbaxani, V. and King, J. 1992. Economic development, government policy, and the diffusion of computing in Asia-Pacific countries, Public Administration Review, 52: 146–155.
93. Lee, J. J. 1989. Ireland 1912-85: Politics and Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
94. Levitt, T. 1960. Marketing Myopia, Harvard Business Research, 38:45–56.
95. Lin, C. Y. 1973. Industrialization in Taiwan. 1946-1972: Trade and Import-Substitution Policies for Developing Countries (New York: Praeger).
96. Lodge, M. 2005. The important of being modern: international benchmarking and national regulatory innovation, Journal of European Public Policy, 12: 649-667.
97. Lumpkin, J. R. and Ireland, D. R. 1988. Screening practices of new business incubators: the evaluation of critical success factors, American Journal of Small Business, 12 (4): 59–81.
98. Lundvall, B., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S. and Dalum, B. 2002. National systems of production, innovation and competence building, Research Policy, 31: 213-231.
99. Luo, I. Y.-L. 2001. National Innovation Systems of Taiwan. STIC- National Science Council, 2001.
100. Mahmood, I. P. and Singh, J. 2003. Technological dynamism in Asia, Research Policy, 32: 1031-1054.
101. Massey, D., Quintas, P. and Weild, D. 1992. High Tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science and Space (London: Routledge).
102. McCall, B. 2005. A Framework for Success Decision: Ireland's Business Review (Dublin: Dillon Publications Ltd.).
103. MercuryNews.com 2007. Where the CEOs earned their degrees (see http://:www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/biz/overview.htm/).
104. Mian, S. A. 1996. Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms, Research Policy, 25: 325–335.
105. Mitchell, S. 1997. CEO characteristics and technological innovativeness: a Canadian perspective, Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 14(2): 111-125.
106. Mody, A. 1991. Intuitions and dynamic comparative advantage: the electronics industry in South Korea and Taiwan, Industry of Free China, 74: 33–62.
107. Moore, L. 1991. Small Business Management: An Entrepreneurial Emphasis, 8th Edition, pp. 228-229, pp. 437-438.
108. National Board for Science and Technology 1983. National Programme for Science and Technology (Dublin: National Board for Science and Technology).
109. National Business Incubation Association 1993. The Evaluation of Business Incubation Projects,” P. Bearse, ed. Report Prepared for Economic Development Administration (Ohio: U.S. Department of Commerce Athens).
110. National Science Council 2001. The Sixth National Science and Technology Conference Report (Taipei: National Science Council).
111. National Science Council 2005. Science and Technology Yearbook (Taipei: National Science Council).
112. Nelson, R. and Rosenberg, N. 1993. Technical innovation and national systems, in Nelson, R. R. (eds), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press) pp. 3-21.
113. Nelson, R. and Winter, S. 1977. In search of a useful theory of innovation, Research Policy 6: 36–76.
114. Nelson, R. R. (eds) 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press).
115. O’Malley, M. J. and de Paor, A. M. 1994. Rules for designing digital controllers from their analog counterparts, International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 31: 309-323.
116. O’Riain, S. 1999. Remaking the Developmental State: The Irish Software Industry in the Global Economy, unpublished PhD dissertation (Berkeley: University of California).
117. O’Riain, S. 2006. Dominance and change in the global computer industry: military, bureaucratic, and network state developmentalisms, Studies in Comparative International Development, 41: 76-98.
118. O’Sullivan, M. 2000. The sustainability of industrial development in Ireland, Regional Studies, 34: 277-290.
119. OECD 1997. Technology Incubators: Nurturing small firms, Report of the OECD Workshop on Technology Incubators (Paris: OECD).
120. aOECD 2004. Science and Innovation Policy: Key Challenges and Opportunities (Paris: OECD).
121. bOECD 2004. Science, Technology and Industry (STI) Outlook.
122. OECD 2005. Innovation Policy and Performance: A Cross-Country Comparison (Paris: OECD).
123. OECD 2005. Main Science and Technology Indicators.
124. OECD 2006. OECD Economic Surveys: Ireland (Paris: OECD).
125. OECD 2007. OECD Factbook 2007: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics (Paris: OECD).
126. Ohmae, K. 2005. The Next Global Stage (New Jersey: Pearson Education).
127. Pack, H. 1992. Technology gaps between industrial and developing countries: are there dividends for latecomers? Paper presented at The World Bank: Annual Conference on Development Economics, World Bank, Washington D.C., 30 April–1 May..
128. Park, Y. C. 1990. Development lessons from Asia: the role of government in South Korea and Taiwan, American Economic Review, 80: 118-121.
129. Pekkarinen, S. and Harmaajorpi, V. 2006. Building regional networks: the definition of an age business core process in a regional innovation System, Regional Studies, 40: 401-413.
130. Perez, T. 1995, Some Comments on Saaty’s AHP, Management Science, 41(8), pp. 1091-1095.
131. Perlmuter, D., 2003. How to maintain competitiveness in high-tech. Haaretz Newspaper Jan. 29, 2000 (in Hebrew).
132. Pontikakis, D., Mcdonnell, T. and Geoghegan, W. 2006. Ireland's national innovation system: an exploratory study of supporting institutions and dynamic actors, Prometheus, 24: 40-54.
133. Porter, M. E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations (New York: Free Press).
134. Porter, M. E. 2001. The Competitive Advantage of Taiwan, Commonwealth Speech, Taipei, Taiwan, 31 July, (see http://www.isc.hbs.edu/caon%20taiwan%202001%20presentation%2007-31-01%20ck.pdf)
135. Porter, M. E. and Stern, S. 2001. National innovative capacity, in The Global Competitiveness Report 2001-2002 (New York: Oxford University Press) pp. 102-118.
136. Porter, M. E., Schwab, K. and Sala-I-Martin, X. 2007. The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008 (New York: World Economic Forum).
137. Preston, C. 1997. Enlargement and Integration in the European Union (London: Routledge).
138. Proceedings of the International Conference for National Information Infrastructure for Social and Economic Development in Asia Global Infrastructure Commission's Asia Regional Meeting, Bangkok, November 1995.
139. Public Construction Commission 1999. Compilation of Government Procurement Law and Related Material (Taipei: Public Construction Commission, Executive Yuan).
140. Rajagopalan, N. and Datta, D. K. 1996. CEO characteristics: does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 197-215.
141. Rodrik, D. 1994. Getting interventions right: how South Korea and Taiwan grew rich, NBER Working Paper No. 4964 (Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research).
142. Roper, S. 2000. Innovation Policy in Israel, Ireland, and the UK—An Evolutionary Perspective, Working Paper No. 47 (Northern Ireland: Economic Research Centre of Northern Ireland).
143. Roper, S. and Frenkel, A. 2000. Different paths to success—the growth of the electronics sector in Ireland and Israel, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18: 651-665.
144. Roper, S. and Grimes, S. 2005. Wireless valley, silicon wadi and digital island—Helsinki, Tel Aviv and Dublin and the ICT global production network, Geoforum, 36: 297-313.
145. Rothwell, R. and Zegveld, W. 1981. Industrial innovation and public policy preparing for the 1980s and the 1990 (London: Frances Printer).
146. Rothwell, R. and Zegveld, W. 1981. Industrial Innovation and Public Policy (London: Frances Printer Ltd.).
147. Ruane, F. and Görg, H. 1997. Reflections on Irish Industrial Policy towards Foreign Direct Investment, Trinity Economic Papers Series, Policy Paper No. 97/3 (Dublin: Department of Economics, Trinity College Dublin).
148. Saaty, T. L. 1977, A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(2): 234-281.
149. Saaty, T. L. 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process (New York: McGraw-Hill).
150. Saaty, T. L., and Vargas, L. G. 1980. The Logic of Priorities, (Massachusetts: Kluwer-Nijhoff).
151. Sambharya, R. B. 1996. Foreign experience of top management teams and international diversification strategies of U.S. multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal, 17: 739-746.
152. Saxenian, A. 2006. The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy (MA: Harvard University Press).
153. Scally, J. 2004. Public Private Partnerships in Ireland: An Overview (Dublin: Central Bank & Financial Services Authority of Ireland).
154. Schumpeter, J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development (Cambridge: Harvard University).
155. Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper Press).
156. Schwanhausser, M. 2007. Forget the Ivy League: Most Valley CEOs Went Public (California: San Jose Mercury News, 28 November, 1A, & 17A).
157. Sharif, N. 2006. Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept, Research Policy, 35: 745-766.
158. Sherman, H. D., Assessing the intervention effectiveness of business incubation programs on new business star-ups, Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, 4(2): 117-133.
159. Shih, C. T. 2001. Industrial Collaboration Innovation New Trend, Technology Development Policy Report, SR9001.
160. Shyu, J. Z. 2006. National Innovation Systems in the Borderless World (Hsinchu: National Chiao Tung University Press).
161. Shyu, J. Z. and Chiu, Y. C. 2002. Innovation policy for developing Taiwan’s competitive advantages, R&D Management, 32: 369-375.
162. Shyu, J. Z., Chiu, Y. C. and You, C. C. 2001. A cross-national comparative analysis of innovation policy in the integrated circuit industry, Technology in Society, 23: 227-240.
163. Stern, S.; Porter, M. E.; and Furman, J. L. 2000. The Determinants of National Innovation Capacity. Nber Working Paper Series, 2000.
164. Sun, C. L. 2007. The Development and Trend of Global Biotechnology Industry, Global Industry and Commerce Magazine, 596: 11-13.
165. Sundbo, J. 1995. Three paradigms in innovation theory, Science and Public Policy, 22(6): 399-410.
166. Taiwan Venture Capital Association (TVCA) 2003. TVCA Yearbook. (In Chinese)
167. The Competition Authority 2002. Competition Act 2002 (Dublin: Competition Authority).
168. Thomas, A., Litschert, R. J., and Ramaswamy, K. 1991. The performance impact of strategy-manager coalignment: An empirical examination, Strategic Management Journal, 12: 509-522.
169. Tien, M. C. and Yang, C. C. 2005. Taiwan’s ICP mechanism—a review and a stage approach, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 72: 29-48.
170. TrendChart, European Innovation Scoreboard 2004, European Commision, 2005.
171. Trooboff, S., Berg, M. V., and Rayman, J. 2007. Employers weigh in on value of education abroad, International Educator, 16(3): 8.
172. Tsai, K. H. and Wang, J. C. 2005. An examination of Taiwan's innovation policy measures and their effects, International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1: 239-257.
173. Tzeng, W. L., Li, J. C. C. and Chang, T. Y. 2006. A study on the effectiveness of the most advantageous tendering method in the public works of Taiwan, International Journal of Project Management, 24: 431-437.
174. Udell, G. G. 1990. Are business incubators really creating new jobs by creating new businesses and new products, Jounral of Product Innovation Management, 7: 108–122.
175. Wade, R. 1990. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press).
176. Walker, W. 1993. National Innovation Systems: Britain, in: Nelson, R.R. (eds), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (London: Oxford University Press) pp. 158-191.
177. Walsh, K. 2003. Foreign High-Tech R&D in China: Risks, Rewards, and Implications for US–China Relations (Washington, D.C.: Henry L. Stimson Center).
178. Weng, Y. H., Chen, K. M. and Kuo, B. S. 2005. Optimal tariff escalation in the Doha round of WTO: the case of Taiwan's agriculture industries, Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy, 17: 823-852.
179. Wiersema, M. F. and Bantel, K. A. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change, Academy of Management Journal, 35: 91-121.
180. Wu, J. Y. 2005. A year of plenty and a decade of morective engagement more international awards for OpenLab—the applause never dies extending our services—from Taiwan to the world, Focus OpenLab, 11: 6-15.
181. Wu, R. I. and Huang, C. C. 2003. Entrepreneurship in Taiwan: turning point to restart, Paper presented at The Global Forum—Entrepreneurship in Asia: 4th U.S.—Japan Dialogue, 16 April.
182. Xu, C. Q. 2005. ITRI incubation center takes top AABI Prizes-Raise Taiwan's visibility in the international scope, Focus OpenLab, 9: 6-15.
183. Xue, L. and Wang, S. 2001. Globalization of R&D by multinational corporations in China: an empirical analysis, Paper presented at the Sino–US Conference on Technological Innovation, Beijing, 24–26 April.
184. Yearly, S. 1995. From one dependency to another: the political economy of science policy in the Irish Republic in the second half of the twentieth century, Science, Technology and Human Values, 20: 171-196.
185. Yu, M. C. 2003. An empirical study of the relationship between bargaining power, political risk assessment and strategies of multinational corporations in Taiwan, Asia-Pacific Economic and Management Review, 6: 83-101.
186. Yuill, D., Allen, K., Bachtler, J., Clement, K. and Wishlade, F. 1997. European Regional Incentives, 1995-96 (London: Bowker-Saur).
187. Zahedi, F., 1986, Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Survey of the Method and its Applications, Interfaces, 16(4), pp. 96-108.
188. Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center, 2007, National Applied Research Laboratories國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心，2007/11/21世界經濟論壇(WEF)發佈2007-2008最新的競爭力評比(see http://192.83.171.72/news/2007_001.htm)。
189. 王乃弘，1990，民眾偏好醫院類型之研究方法之應用，管理學報，第十六卷，第四期，頁661-681。new window
190. 王連常福，李宏仁，1988, 法國、荷蘭兩國科技政策形成之研究，中興大學經濟學研究所，台北：行政院科技顧問組，頁6。
191. 台灣中小企業處，2005，中小企業白皮書，台北：經濟部中小企業處委託。
192. 台灣中小企業處，2007，中小企業白皮書，台北：經濟部中小企業處委託。
193. 汪美香，許溪南，1990，AHP應用於外幣選擇權投資策略之研究—以國際金融業務分行(OBU)為例，企業管理學報，第四十六卷，第二期，頁115-134。new window
194. 黃興進，張仁雄，李幸秋，2001，群體支援系統環境中層級分析法與任務型態對群體決策之影響，中山管理學刊，第九卷，第二期，頁201-219。new window
195. 經濟部技術處，2000，「開放實驗室之運作與成效」，1999-2000年產業技術白皮書，頁473-481。
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1214（臺灣：1207，外國：7） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1855660 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67658589
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上