在現今知識經濟競爭時代中，新興科技企業不斷地衍生成立，每家企業的技術能量更加地深化與專業化，但企業的技術光譜卻相對變窄許多。因此，企業在面對日益劇烈的產業競爭以及急遽被壓縮的產品生命週期時，能否迅速且確實的取得新技術或是互補技術，以便順利進行「新產品開發」，進而及早推出產品與服務於市場上（time to market），將是決定企業生存的重要課題。 然而，技術供給來源散佈在世界各地的研究機構、大學、與企業之中，如何降低企業搜尋其所需技術的成本，提昇整個經濟體的技術媒合效率，也將是知識經濟時代決定經濟體競爭力的關鍵因素。 再者，知識經濟時代的產業結構大幅轉變：企業從原本重視土地、廠房、生產設備等固定資產價值，轉而追求以知識為基礎的「無形資產」（包含法律所保護的智慧財產權，以及其他如：品牌、商譽、供應鏈或客戶關係管理能力、行銷能力等）。但是，此種發展亦帶來新的挑戰，就是傳統的有形資產評價標準並無法適用於此種無形的智慧資產，如何對知識型產業所重視的「無形資產」進行客觀的評價，乃成為發展知識經濟的另一個關鍵因素。 本研究係以策略性思考（範疇、網路、資源）的角度切入，參照國外知名智慧財產技術服務業者的營運成功特性，並藉由廣泛的次級資料、文獻收集，與多重個案、深度訪談的方式，來審視我國智慧財產技術服務業（以鑑價與技術仲介業者為例）的營運現況，進而對業者提出在經營管理上可行之建議，同時也作為我國政府推動智慧財產技術服務業之政策發展上的參考依據。 本研究所得之研究發現如下：（節錄） 一， 我國無形資產鑑價產業的市場需求持續增加，連帶使得鑑價服務業者的投入意願與服務經驗、能力不斷的向上提升；反觀技術仲介產業因為市場需求還不明顯，因此降低了仲介服務業者的投入意願，技術仲介產業發展因而較為緩慢。 二， 我國智慧財產技術服務業者之策略聯盟情形十分普遍，對於技術事業化的相關活動，如：營運計畫撰寫、協助尋找技術、商品開發、市場分析、投資評估、尋找投資資金、行銷管道……等，皆能透過與策略伙伴的合作搭配，提供全面性的智慧財產技術服務。 三， 我國智慧財產技術服務業之從業人員，具有多重背景（科技、法律、管理）的人才仍然不足；此外，目前政府對於無形資產鑑價與仲介機構仍然無法令可管，對於從業人員的資格也不加限制，使得無形資產「鑑價」與「仲介」服務業者呈現參差不齊的現象，嚴重影響公信力。 四， 無形資產融資貸款的關鍵瓶頸在於：1.「無形資產擔保品後續處置問題（如何再出售？）」。 2.「鑑價機構之公信力（不知如何評鑑鑑價報告？）」 3.無形資產融資貸款者的還款計畫（貸款人需提出完整且可行的營運計畫書，清楚說明現金流量與發生時機）。 五， 我國智慧財產技術服務業之政府主管機關過於分散，加上各部會的溝通、協調缺乏效率，導致政策、法令決策緩慢，使業者無所適從。 由以上各點研究發現，本研究提出幾項建議，如下所示：（節錄） 一， 政府應多加鼓勵產業界運用智慧財產技術服務（尤其是技術仲介服務），進而創造與增進市場需求。 二， 智慧財產技術服務業者應加強與策略伙伴的連結。（尤其是創投，投資顧問公司）。 三， 智慧財產技術服務產業中，老字號的服務業者應考量：如何增加與客戶之間的「專屬陷入成本」，以確保客戶與之建立長期且緊密的合作關係。而新進入的服務業者，則應考量如何降低顧客的「外顯單位效益成本」、「資訊搜尋成本」與「道德危機成本」。 四， 政府應多方釋出委託專案計畫，以協助智慧財產技術服務業者成長。同時政府也應儘速訂定智慧財產技術服務相關的法令、補助措施，促進智慧財產技術服務業的發展。 五， 智慧財產技術服務業之相關政府負責單位過於龐雜，應由較高位階的部會，統籌設立單一窗口，以解決政府跨部門之間的溝通不良與無效率。 / As new technological companies sprang up in this knowledge economies era, technological capacity of a company is getting deeper and more professional. Technological scope, however, becomes narrower. Therefore, it is an important issue for companies to survive that if it can quickly and accurately acquire new or complementary technology to develop new products when face to rigorous competition and shortened product life cycle so that they can smoothly launch products and service time to market. Nevertheless, sources of technology supply spread in research institutions, universities, and companies. How to reduce costs in sourcing required technology and improve the efficiency of technology transaction is one of the key factors to decide the competitiveness of an economy. Moreover, industrial structure has been changed a lot in this knowledge management era: companies turn to seek intangible assets instead of fixed assets. The former includes law protected intellectual properties, brand, good will, supply chain, abilities of customer relationships, and marketing, which are based on knowledge. The later includes lands, plants, and equipments. However, this kind of development brings new challenges. Traditional valuation method of tangible assets can not be applied to intangible intellectual properties. How to objectively valuate intangible assets focused by knowledge based industries is another key factor to develop knowledge management. This study is based on strategic points of view (scope, network, and sources), refer to characters of operational success of famous international intellectual property and technology service industry. Rather, this study examine the intellectual property and technology service industry in Taiwan (the case study on the valuation and technology transfer sectors) by secondary information gathering, literature collection, and several case studies and deeply interviews. Further, I propose feasible recommendations on operation and management. Meanwhile, this study could be one of references when our government forms policies to improve intellectual property and technology service industry. The findings of this study are shown as follow: (extracted) 1. The demand of valuation of intangible assets in Taiwan is continuously increasing, resulting in the increase of input willingness, service experience, and abilities of valuation service industry. On the other hand, the demand of technology transfer is not obvious, which lower the input willingness. Therefore, the development of technology transfer industry is slower. 2. It is quite popular for Taiwanese intellectual property and technology service companies to have alliance with other companies. By the corporation with alliance companies, one company can provide total intellectual property and technology service, such as business plan writing, new technology searching assistance, product developing, market analysis, investment evaluation, fund raising, marketing channel, and so on. 3. There are insufficient professionals with muti-background, such as with technology, low, and management, in Taiwanese intellectual property and technology service industry. Rather, no regulation could be applied to Taiwanese intellectual property and technology service industry. There is no criterion to judge professionals’ qualification, which makes valuation and technology transfer sectors uneven, seriously affect power of fairness. 4. The bottlenecks of intangible asset financing are: (1) how to deal with intangible asset collaterals (how to resell them?) (2) fairness of the valuation institution (how to valuate a valuation report?) (3) repayment plan of intangible asset loans (borrowers have to propose a complete and feasible business plan, clearly describing the time and the amount of cash flows) 5. The regulators of Taiwanese intellectual property and technology service industry are too diversified. Moreover, because of the lack of communication and efficiency among regulators, policies are made in a delay mode. Companies do not exactly know what to follow. Based on the findings above, I propose some recommendations as follow: (extracted) 1. The government should encourage industry to use intellectual property and technology service, especially technology transfer service. It could then create and increase market demand. 2. Companies in the intellectual property and technology service industry should improve connection with alliances, especially with venture capital and investment consulting firms. 3. The old companies in the intellectual property and technology service industry should consider: how to increase cost of Hold-up of customers, in order to ensure that they can establish a long-term and closely cooperative relationship with customers. New entry service providers should consider how to increase the benefit, and reduce information searching costs and moral hazard costs of their customers. 4. The government should release government’s funding projects to assist intellectual property and technology service industry developing. At the mean time, the government should set laws and subsidization policies related to intellectual property and technology service industry, improving the development of intellectual property and technology service industry. 5. Regulators in charge of intellectual property and technology service industry are too many to follow. Single window should be set by higher governmental department to resolve the poor communication and inefficiency among governmental departments.