科技競爭力是經濟持續成長的動力，而政府、企業與國家之整體科技能量為發展科技經濟的重要支柱。於全球科技經濟的持續發展之下，研發（R&D）的投入、創新（Innovation）的擴散，並逐漸在以知識（Knowledge）作為競爭基礎的全球化社會與網際網路時代中日益重要，而在此趨勢之下，企業除了應積極規劃產業轉型，政府創新政策（Innovation Policy）的支持更是不可或缺的條件，各國家莫不體認到「創新能力」是現代國家競爭力的重要關鍵。 美國在甘乃迪總統時代，便將「創新政策（Innovation Policy）」視為政府產業科技政策中非常重要的一環，其目的在獎勵新興產業中之科技創新，因其能符合國家的需求及達到改善經濟情勢的目標，但由於私人企業的資源有限，無法在有限的時間及預算內開發出符合社會大眾需求的產品。所以，甘乃迪主張政府應負責主導產業科技創新發展的方向，同時政府應提供企業界財力及其它資源上的補助。 創新相關的概念逐步發展，到晚近十多年，西歐幾個國家包括丹麥、瑞典和英國的產業經濟與政策研究學者，開始提倡「國家創新系統（National Innovation System）」的概念。過去，人們直接將科學系統（Science system）視為唯一的創新指標（Innovation indicator），科學投入（Science input，如R&D預算）的增加直接助長創新及科技的發展。這個以科技推力為主的簡單線性關係模型的觀念已被「系統式模式（Systemic approaches）」所取代。 亦即創新為研究、發展、行銷、擴散（Research, development, marketing, diffusion）每一階段交互作用的成果，而非單單是R&D的投入面而已，也就是說創新活動來自創新系統（Innovation system）中每一成員（如政府、大學、私人企業）及每一步驟（研究、發展、行銷、擴散）的交互作用等，而不只是學術界與R&D的事而已。 歐州近年來針對創新政策相關議題多所著墨，而自2000年開始，荷蘭、比利時是歐洲中於國家競爭力上有卓越表現的國家，而基於版圖規模和經濟特質，在科技產業之推動與創新政策之發展上，以上各國顯然有許多值得臺灣借鏡與學習的地方，本研究期望對荷蘭、比利時二國創新政策做深入淺出的剖析，並以國家創新系統為依歸，歸納出對正努力邁向知識密集、附加價值的臺灣一個值得參考之啟示與學習典範。 / Technological competitive strength is the power for the continuous growth of the economy. And the technological power of the government, enterprises and the country is the critical mainstay of the development of technological economy. Under the continuous development of the world economy, the investment on R&D and the spread of innovation become more important in the competition with the knowledge base in the global world and internet era. Under this trend, besides planning the transform of the products, the enterprise needs the government's Innovation Policy as a necessary factor. All the countries realize that Innovation is the key to the modern nations' competitive strength. During the Kennedy period, the U.S. regards Innovation Policy as a most important part of the government's high-technology industry. The aim is to encourage the technological innovation in the new industry, because it conforms to the country's needs and may improve the economic condition. However, as the private enterprises have limited power and cannot produce the products conforming with people's needs during a time limit. Therefore, Kennedy advocates that government should be responsible to lead the industrial technology, and provides some monetary and other aids. Concepts relating to innovation are gradually developing. In the recent ten years, theory studying scholars from western European countries, including Denmark, Sweden and U.K., begin to advocate National Innovation System. In the past, people regard Science system as the only Innovation indicator, thinking that the growth of Science input will directly foster innovation and the development of technology. This simple linar model has already been replaced by Systemic approaches; that is, innovation is not the result by R&D but the result of the co-operation of research, development, marketing, diffusion. It can also be interpreted that innovation comes from every single member (such as the government, university, private enterprise) and every step, not just the academic circles and R&D. In the recent years, Europe has a lot of works on innovation policy. Since 2000, Netherlands and Belgium are marvelous countries. As for the domain size and the economy quality, Taiwan needs to learn from the above countries on the development of technology industry and innovation policy. The research expects deep analysis on the innovation policies of this three countries; in the meantime, arranges a valuable example for Taiwan on the way to knowledge-intensive and value added.

Taedok Science Town(TST) has long history. Almost twenty years had been spent from its planning on 1973 to completion of its physical form on 1992. By 1998, TST tenants are government-supported institutes, private industry research laboratories, government-invested institutes, government agencies, and high educational institutes, total 63. However, contrary to its long history, only little information concerning TST has been introduced to outside of TST. It’s because TST was designed only for R&D without industrial production and also because in the initial stage, TST was purposed to support chaebols scientifically and technically, even the research results belonged to chaebols. Therefore, even within Korea TST was not studied by many entities, but mainly by policy makers. This unique situation of TST is very deeply related to Korean national innovation system. In other words, without understanding Korean national innovation system, it’s meaningless to view TST alone. When Korean created record-breaking fast economic development in 1960s, Korean government focused on technology but what Korea had was only human resources. Government as a center of its innovation system reared up strategic industries and intensively supported. Especially Korean government did it by fostering some chaebols, so Korean economy was built by them and also heavily depended on them. At that time, TST as designed for supporting those chaebols. Naturally, government-supported institutes in TST took pivotal role in R&D and in other peripheral activities . However, TST system was not static but dynamic. From 1980s, government started supporting small and medium enterprises and to catch up with the world economic changes, government promoted corporate researches to create synergy in TST. When KAIST moved to TST on 1990, it activated corporate researches with many institutes, and created collaborative research culture in TST. Especially, in early 1990s, when Business Incubators introduced into Korea, TBI/TIC/HTVC programs were launched in KAIST under government’s intensive support. Even this BI program is expanding to nationwide. Many young technopreneurs are heading to TST to start their own business with expecting TST’s scientific and technological support. Now TST in-town institutes are changed new way. Many students and researchers started their own technology-based businesses and creating new culture in TST. In many clubs they made they exchange business opportunities, technical know-how, etc. This new move creates new atmosphere in TST. However, close community of TST and in-town institutes’ networks is still pretty rare. That’s because the industries in community are not matured yet so that they are not ready to absorb technical pool in TST.

近年來我國在高等教育的學校與人數上均有大幅的成長。而這些豐富的研究人力，需要充沛的研究經費予以支援學術研究工作。實務上，我國於開放高等教育機構的設立後，各界所提供的研發經費並未相對應的增加，各校為因應整體環境趨勢的改變，乃積極研議如何強化學術研究成果的擴散，以提升學術聲望並獲得更多的實質效益。本研究在此情境下，試圖從國內大學之知識創新的實務發展，建構一套研究成果擴散效益的運作模式。 大學知識產業化是知識經濟發展的趨勢，尤其基礎研究是技術發展與應用研究的主要來源。大學知識創新過程是科學知識在創新系統內的生產、運用與擴散的過程。而建立有效的成果管理機制，減少外在環境的不確定性並改善知識流動的效率，是創新系統成功的關鍵。 鑑於大學係國家創新系統的重要成員之一，而創新的效率取決於系統內各成員之財務、知識、人力與法規的交流，即所謂的「三螺旋(Triple Helix)」的觀念。因此，為尋求最佳的創新系統，亟須建立有效的衡量項目，並促使創新成果在市場機制的導引下，獲得知識創新與擴散的經濟效益。如美國為因應創新系統失靈，於1980年以後，研訂一連串的相關法令，透過研發經費的補助、智財權下放與鼓勵設置專責技轉單位等措施，刺激大學將豐富的研究產出移轉到產業界，政府的研究資源分配亦更加重視目標導向與產業導向的發展計畫，結果所獲得的回收遠超過預期，其作法吸引世界各國競相仿效。我國亦於近年來透過相關法令的制定以及經費補助等措施，期望將大學的研究產出從知識的創造轉變為知識的加值與運用，以帶動產業知識化，並促進知識產業化之效益。 因此，欲探討大學的成果擴散效益時，不只是依循過去大多數學者從產學合作的觀點，更應考量政府在創新過程中所扮演的角色與功能，以及將衡量國家創新系統績效之方法運用到大學的成果擴散效益的呈現上，以建立適合我國大學創新成效的衡量模式。 本研究架構從教師的「研究人力」、「研究經費」以及「產學關係」等三構念探究對於「研究產出」以及成果推廣所產生的「擴散效益」之關聯，另外，再從學校的研究成果「管理機制」以及「政府措施」等二構念探究對於其他構念所帶來的影響，以瞭解彼此之關聯，並建立適合我國大學研究投入、產出以及擴散的運作模式。 因此，除了收集國內外的文獻以歸納整理美日等國在大學研究成果擴散效益的探討內容與衡量項目外，並透過問卷調查與實地訪問國內大學教師與研究成果推廣中心(或技轉中心)主管，以瞭解國內大學研究成果的實務運作，以獲得本研究的初步架構，繼而從美日以及我國大學的個案研究，探討國家創新系統的角色所帶來的影響，以強化研究架構之各構念的關聯性。 其次，採取初級資料的收集方法，以國內大學校院教師為問卷調查對象，進行敘述統計以計算樣本的各項指標分布狀況，以信效度指標確認問卷的可靠性與有效性，並運用探索性因素分析來萃取出本研究重要之變數，再以線性結構關係模型分析本研究變數之間的關係，以驗證各構念彼此之間的關聯性。 本研究獲得以下的結論： 一、「研究人力」與其他構念之關聯 「研究人力」對「產學關係」有直接的正向影響，對「研究經費」、「研究產出」與「擴散效益」則有間接的正向影響效果，而且整體的影響效果是顯著的。所以，研究人力是成果散效益的基本要素，配合其他構念的運作可以對研發成果之擴散效益產生正向的影響。 二、「研究經費」與其他構念之關聯 「研究經費」對於「研究產出」與「擴散效益」均沒有顯著的正向影響。顯示一味強調大學研究經費投入的作法無法帶來實質的成效，反而浪費有限的資源，因此，研究經費投入前，宜先制定一套評估機制，充分考量學校的研究人力、以往的研究產出與擴散效益之表現，以有效地配置研究經費。 三、「研究產出」與其他構念之關聯 「研究產出」對於「擴散效益」有直接的正向影響，表示大學教師所創造出來的成果越多，則相對地促使成果擴散的效益越大。此外，研究產出的增加亦可影響其他構念對「擴散效益」的關聯性。因此，為提高擴散效益，學校宜積極鼓勵教師增加研究成果的產出。 四、「產學關係」與其他構念之關聯 「產學關係」除了對「研究產出」與「研究經費」產生直接的正向影響外，亦間接影響「研究經費」與「研究產出」分別對「擴散效益」的關聯性。顯示產學關係可彌補大學與企業的技術落差，提高產業對學校研究成果之需求，促使教師研究產出的擴散效益更佳。 五、「管理機制」與其他構念之關聯 「管理機制」對「產學關係」與「擴散效益」均有直接的正向影響，顯示學校在成果管理與運用的積極作為(如技轉單位的設置、技轉人員的規模與培訓、獎勵措施的制定等)以及促進產學之間的關係可提高研究成果推廣所帶來的效益。 六、政府措施與其他構念之關聯 「政府措施」不但對「擴散效益」有直接的正向影響，亦對「產學關係」有直接的正向影響，此外，對「研究經費」與「研究產出」亦有間接的正向影響。因此，未來應加強我國政府的角色，充分發揮驅動與強化的功能，解決大學研究成果擴散的管制與障礙、營造產學研發資源共享環境以提高大學研究產出的擴散效益。 / After the government lifted the restriction on the number of higher education institutes, in the past two decades the number of university in Taiwan has increased dramatically (16 in 1986, and 102 in 2008). The government apparently could not match up this increase, with its slow pace of education budget increase. The shortage of development funds from governmental agency in charge is no doubt obvious for all universities. Therefore, to receive an ample share of governmental education budget has become competitive and even difficult. As the global economy weighs more on the generation and dissemination of knowledge nowadays, universities seems to see themselves clearer in the business picture for their role on the economic market. University officials and the government both also understand that a productive conversion of university intellectual assets, referring to knowledge-based creation or innovation, to innovation-derived benefit can be crucial for future university development. Thus, not only the university finance will be improved, its academic performance shall also be expected to enhance when this conversion is being well performed productively. An innovation management system here refers to a university system to manage its intellectual capital, such as support and process infrastructures, in facilitating the conversion process that enable the university to convert its intellectual assets into commercially viable properties. An important aspect of this study is to analyze national and international innovation management systems currently practiced in universities for greatest innovation-derived benefit. In the current of knowledge–based economic development, the knowledge-based innovations owned by universities is inevitably weighed more than ever in value. Many Universities may fall in a dilemma about how to weigh market–oriented research in comparison with fundamental scientific knowledge, since the latter never the less could lead to market–oriented innovation in the future. Furthermore, to maximize the value of innovation, it is commonly accepted that a proper management for conversion is almost as important as the producing of it. When it comes to determine the value or the benefit the innovations could bring, other than university’s innovation capability, which tends to have the potential to incubate more research outcomes, the performance of innovation management system is one of the most decisive factors. To achieve a good performance, three conditions are proposed to maintain an efficient innovation management system: an effective management mechanism, reduce adverse influences on incubating innovation assets, and increase knowledge sharing. The maintenance of such a system is then further categorized as seven conceptual indices (CIs) for later evaluation: research manpower, research grant, innovation outcomes, management mechanism, university-industry relations, government policy, and innovation-derived benefit. The first four are regarded as part of intellectual capital, while the other three are considered as strongly linked to the performance of the innovation management system currently being operated in Taiwan’s universities. They will be discussed in connection the first five CIs for their inter-relations. Since universities is under the scheme of National Innovation Systems (NIS), which covers primarily a finance and service system, a technological innovation system, and a knowledge-based innovation system, any management taking place in a university on each of any sub-system under the NIS will affect the NIS to some extent. By the same token, considering those mentioned above several conceptual indices are proposed to elucidate the results of the evaluation model applied in this study to examine similar management systems in different universities for comparison. This evaluation model is expected to help optimize the current managerial models to best meet the knowledge-based economic development needs and enlarge the innovation-derived benefit from university innovation assets. Prior to 1980s, the promotion on innovation in the U.S. was generally considered failed. To save the failing systems, the U.S. government announced a series of new regulations to promote the capitalization of academic innovations by universities. Those policy measures mainly included governmental subsidy to research grants, less constraints on intellectual property (IP) licensing, and start-ups for IP transfer. Furthermore, the government diverted more its research support into market-oriented development projects. Since such moves later resulted in a positive outcome beyond expectation, Taiwan as well as some other countries began to replicate those measures in their own countries. As the sources of future development increasingly depend on the derived benefit from innovation, the success of NSI originated by the U.S. government has indicated a new approach different from previously predominated models of solely university-industry cooperation. The involvement of government role in the NSI has been proved essential for its success. Similarly, the innovation management system being operated with the university intellectual capital to enhance the conversion to innovation-derived benefit is defined as the innovation assets management system (IAMS). It can be considered as a sub-system of the NSI, and the use of the evaluation model to examine the IAMSs can properly shows the difference among all the IAMSs by university. Furthermore, the evaluation model proposed takes account of surveys including interviews with IP transfer professionals and research professors. Cases of universities practicing the IAMS along with others published in literature are also studied to help access the relations among index items in the model. The model is constructed with several measures, including Structural Equation Model (SEM), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), to evaluate the performance of the IAMS on successful conversion from intellectual assets into benefit. The model results are depicted with CIs as the conclusions. A qualitative survey is carried out on the evaluation of inter-relations among the seven CIs described above with Taiwan’s university educators as respondents. Confidence interval is applied to assure data reliability and validity. Significant model variables are identified using the explorative factor analysis. Finally the linear regression is applied to examine the relations among those CIs. The results of this study can be concluded as the following: 1.Research manpower It has positive influence directly towards university-industry cooperation when affecting positively towards research grant, innovation outcomes and innovation-derived benefit. The result suggests that it be the fundamental CI responsible to innovation-derived benefit. And along with other CIs, this CI could result in a comprehensive enhancement on the innovation-derived benefit. 2.Research grant It shows less significant effect over innovation outcomes and innovation-derived benefit. This conclusion indicates that the scale of innovation outcomes will not necessarily in proportion to the financial investment on research. It is suggested that a comprehensive evaluation on research manpower, innovation capability, and research capacity, etc. should be conducted prior to market-oriented investment on research. 3.Innovation outcomes This term shows a positive relation with the innovation-derived benefit. It is easy to understand that university educators with more innovation outcomes tend to receive more innovation-derived benefit. Furthermore, increase in innovation outcomes will also help induce stronger links among the other CIs towards the innovation-derived benefit. Thus, encouraging educators for more innovation outcomes is no doubt a good measure for universities. 4.University-industry relations University-industry relations bear positive influence to innovation outcomes and research grant. It also shows its positive effect on the relations between research grant to innovation-derived benefit and between innovation outcomes to innovation-derived benefit. The role of university-industry relations can be depicted as to lessen the technological gap between university and industry, facilitate the industry need for university innovation outcomes, and multiply innovation-derived benefit. 5.Management mechanism The management mechanism shows positive influence on university-industry relations and innovation-derived benefit. An effective management mechanism on innovation outcomes would directly lead to excellent benefit derived from innovation outcomes. 6.Government policy Government policy shows straight links to university-industry relations and innovation-derived benefit. It also indicates an indirect effect on enhancing both research grant and innovation outcomes. In the future, the government should play a key role in promoting universities to practice such a system and help resolve difficulties arisen.

臺灣的太陽能光電產業發展於2000年起發展快速，產值於2008年突破千億新台幣，太陽能光電產業從零到有僅經歷了十幾年的時間，其原因在於臺灣本身擁有良好的半導體技術基礎以及優良的人力素質，也因對於石油煤炭這類能源過度依賴，臺灣缺乏此類資源的情況下，積極發展太陽能光電產業成為了一條尋求替代再生能源的可行之路，本論文將探討臺灣發展太陽光電產業的優勢與發展模式為何，臺灣廠商又如何保持競爭優勢以因應全球化的競爭。 太陽能光電產業在台灣的發展與競爭為本論文研究之核心，在環保意識高漲以及其技術落後於其他先進國家的同時，臺灣太陽能光電產業面對國際競爭，在矽晶片型、薄膜型電池或第三代電池發展中，如何以臺灣原有之產業優勢創造利基；另外，從國家創新系統之發展模式中探討政府、公部門與私部門研究機構在太陽能光電產業發展過程中的位置為何，此一研究不僅討論其在臺灣太陽能光電產業技術升級上是否為推動者，同時檢視在全球化競爭中，政府、研究機構與產業其未來的方向為何。 / The development of photovoltaic industry in Taiwan has grown rapidly since 2000, and the output value surmount 100 billion NT Dollars in 2008. Because of Taiwan has an exceptional semiconductor and TFT-LCD manufacturing technology foundation and an excellent quality of manpower. Photovoltaic industry in Taiwan only takes less than two decades to expand to 5th main manufacturer in the world. Promoting photovoltaic industry is not only a way to solve the excessive dependence on the traditional energy, but also to find an alternative renewable energy for Taiwan. The research explores the advantage and development mode of photovoltaic industry in Taiwan, and researchs how photovoltaic manufacturers maintain the competitive advantage to compete against other foreign manufacturers in the globalization age.

從熊彼得(1934)提出創新學說以來，創新理論業已有了相當大的進展。當代學者認為創新是藉由互動中所產生。創新不僅不再是閉門造車，組織與外在環境的關係也引起學者的興趣。國家創新系統取向即是此一當代創新學說的代表。然在審視國家創新系統取向的文獻後，可知雖然國家創新系統取向的研究將組織與組織間的互動及組織及制度間的互動視為研究的焦點，但眾家學者間對於何謂制度並無共識。制度有時是組織，有時是遊戲規則，有時兩者皆是。這也造成了學者間對話與研究上的困擾。事實上，制度與組織兩者在創新的過程中扮演著不同的角色。制度有時提供了組織在創新過程中的誘因，有時則阻滯了創新的發生。組織則扮演實際從事創新的執行者角色。在文獻上，這一方面的討論尚不多見，更僅止於推論之層次。因此，本研究乃意欲透過實際個案的觀察以形成更進一步的認識。本研究的目的為瞭解在創新的過程中，制度環境、組織、組織結構與文化間如何互動。本研究為一探索性的個案研究，並以工業技術研究院為本研究之個案組織。 研究發現在制度環境上，政治系統的各項制度相較於其他類型的制度對公共研發機構的運作提供了更多利於創新的功能。包含了「將資源導向創新活動」、「提供正(負)面誘因」及「管理衝突與合作」等功能之提供，其中以「將資源導向創新活動」之功能最顯著。而在創新的阻礙上，政治系統主要是經由經費的刪減及各項管制制度，文化系統則是透過認知制度阻礙了創新的腳步。而公共研發機構對制度環境的回應上有兩種方式，一是直接與制度環境對話，主要為「管理衝突與合作」、積極爭取「創新的資源」及尋求化解各種「創新的阻礙」。而「管理衝突與合作」及積極爭取「創新的資源」所形成各項制度可視為降低或消除各種「創新的阻礙」的作為；一是經由組織結構的設計及組織文化的形塑以滿足制度環境的要求。在制度的設計上，經由認知制度、管制制度、制定制度及聯合制度提供「提供資訊與降低不確定性」、「管理衝突與合作」、「提供正(負)面誘因」及「將資源導向創新活動」等功能，以促成組織創新的產出。雖然組織試圖經由組織結構的設計及組織文化的形塑以促成創新的產出或增加創新的產出，但執行創新活動的關鍵仍在於「人」。在本研究中，根據分析，工研院的員工較缺乏互動，且對於各項制度的認知往往會有不同的解讀。因此本研究認為個人層次中的文化系統的認知及行為制度是決定組織所形成的各項制度能否發揮作用的關鍵。