台灣的證券市場在兩岸三地間，近幾年來屬發展最慢的市場。相對的，台灣的企業在兩岸三地間，成功地造就中國成為世界工廠，台商的資金在香港運籌也間接造就香港亞洲金融中心的地位。這種相對比關係，其實無法充分顯現台灣證券市場的經濟櫥窗角色。本論文從經濟櫥窗的角度，探討我國證券市場的國際競爭力問題，進而提出相關建議。 若從台商企業全球布局與獲利狀況而言，以資金提供者角色的台灣證券市場不應只有目前的發展結果。中國由於證券市場的緣故發展成為世界工廠，印度也因此成為電腦軟體代工的世界主角。我國產業雖具製造的優勢，但是這個優勢與特色並沒有充分展現在證券市場中，其中包括西進的台商企業一直無法有效利用台灣證券市場籌資。此外，我國證券市場本身至少在兩岸三地間，並非交易成本最低，法規環境最自由。例如，除台灣50指數等ETF成份股外，其餘股票平盤以下仍不能放空。所以，從證券交易所的角度來看，我國的證券市場要提升競爭力，至少必須豐富化上市的產品，應充分與台灣產業與經濟發展直接關聯。其次，我國證券市場應多思考自由化與活絡性問題。第三，我國證券市場應當搭配產業政策的發展，共同發展具有區域經濟特色的直接籌資平台。 據此，本文研究結果顯示，台灣若能落實台灣產業發展融資平台的基本意義、降低政府干擾證券交易平台的效率性，讓證券交易所能夠回歸與國際其他證券交易平台類似的具效率性的上市與交易機制，根據台灣過往輝煌的證券市場發展經驗、台灣產業的國際競爭力，將可以與台灣特色產業相互為用，創造區域經濟中的特色證券交易所。

本研究利用2007年經濟部統計處「製造業對外投資實況調查」之廠商問卷資料，以978 家對外投資採水平分工模式廠商作為實證對象，分別由廠商特性、產業特性及投資特性等3方面，探討影響其產品差異化之決定因素。本研究運用Stata軟體進行計量分析，建立Probit模型進行實證分析，由實證結果發現，當對外投資採水平分工模式廠商決定以其自身所擁有之「技術來源」優勢，及利用國外勞動市場具備「價廉充沛勞工」之利基進行生產時，會傾向採取「產品不同」之生產方式；另一方面，若廠商重視「對外投資地區」之地域特性，及利用國外消費市場「發展潛力大」之利基進行生產時，會傾向採取「產品相同」之生產方式。

在面對今日多元化之社會, 企業間之競爭愈來愈激烈, 消費者之需求也愈來愈多樣化 , 因此「大量行銷」和「產品差異化行銷」已無法因應銳變迅速之今日, 於是「目標 行銷」成為今日產銷哲學之主幹, 而市場區隔尤為其首要步驟。 有鑑於此, 本研究著重探討市場區隔之理論與實證。在統計方法上, 采用自動互動檢 視法, 其為一逐次搜索之分析工具, 過程中還可用樹形圖來配合說明, 甚為方便; 但 因其未考慮解釋變數間之互相關性, 同時分析結果也未作統計顯著性檢定, 遂佐以復 分類分析法。其本質上為一虛擬變數回歸模式, 屬於一般線性模型之一種, 假設解釋 變數間存在有加法性。綜合上述兩種統計方法, 解釋變數與反應變數各為名目與區間 尺度所衡量之資料。 實證上, 就罐裝咖啡每個月之飲用量( 以罐為單位 )當作反應變數, 以性別、年齡、 教育程度、職業、所得、婚姻狀況等為解釋變數, 采用SAS/IML 與MACRO 為本研究主 要之程式語言, 進行市場區隔, 俾使企業界發掘和比較行銷機會, 據此作有效之產品 與行銷組合。

探討一家以利基產品為導向的網通公司，在利基產品的策略架構下以產品差異化爲起點，進而踏入行銷差異化、服務差異化並同時思考培養有別於技術與產品等硬體之外的軟實力推演出全球在地化的行銷策略以解決公司經營上面臨的困境讓公司有機會邁向永續經營的境界。

本研究是針對原產業成長期創業差異化階段的探索性研究。原產業成長期創業可定義為：創業者或團隊離開原來的事業後，在原產業的成長期，獨立創立了一個新事業。例如，華碩、雅姿舞蹈社（亞力山大的前身）都屬於原產業成長期創業。 由於創業開始後，新事業要做出產品，然後才能產生後續績效，因此依照時間軸可以將創業理論分解為：初始因素→新產品→創業績效。現有創業理論對原產業成長期創業現象並沒有提供完整的解答，但已得出的部份結果可以引導我們對此現象進一步聚焦。第一，新事業策略層次的研究已發現，新事業產品的差異性和稀少性顯著影響新事業績效。由於上述因果關係的後段已解決，因此指導我們探索前段的問題：什麼初始因素產生差異性產品？即應該聚焦到產品差異化階段研究。第二，過去創業者層次的研究已發現，以相同產業「工作年數」代替的「產業特殊經驗」顯著影響創業績效的高低。因為經驗是實務的知識，因此這類研究結果顯示知識是一項初始因素，值得進一步研究創業者的初始知識。第三，奧地利經濟學者和一些創業學者指出，創業機會是影響創業成敗的一項初始因素，但迄今沒有學者清楚地描述出創業機會的樣子和它對績效的影響。這些文獻顯示應進一步探索初始創業機會和它對產品差異化的影響。文獻已顯示創業者知識和創業機會是解釋產品差異化的初始因素，但二者下層的因素仍未充分揭露出來。由於過去的創業研究沒有聚焦在差異化階段，仍存在許多未解開的問題，因此本研究聚焦在原產業成長期創業的主要產品差異化階段進行研究。 對於本研究聚焦的現象，本研究問題為：在原產業成長期創業的差異化階段，哪些知識和機會構念下層的因素透過差異化過程產生產品屬性與競爭優勢？本研究的目的為：經由對此現象進行深入的探索，揭露出影響產品差異化的知識與機會的深層原因，建立整合知識與機會解釋產品差異化及利潤的理論。 本研究採用Eisenhardt(1989)描述的探索性個案研究方法，從個案研究建立理論。本研究針對原產業成長期創業現象，聚焦在主要產品差異化過程。總分析單位是在主要產品線層次。本研究接觸到3家原產業成長期創業廠商，取得了3個成功個案和1個失敗個案資料。資料收集包含訪問二位以上創業團隊成員、競爭廠商中的管理者和收集產業次級資料。 本研究經由分析四個個案的主要產品線資料，得出以下命題與發現。 命題一：產品有價值的差異程度愈大、產品稀少程度愈大、產品需求強度愈大，則產品競爭優勢程度愈大。 命題Ⅱ：若創業者的產業內通用知識強度小，則有產品競爭劣勢。 本研究發現，原產業成長期的創業機會為產業環境中存在的一種情境結構，本研究定義並命名為「創業機會結構」，它由以下項目構成：(1) 存在上游差異性新要素；(2) 存在下游市場需求；(3) 存在有利的競爭情勢，包含(a)既有競爭廠商數量小，(b)既有競爭廠商利用程度小，(c)潛在競爭廠商延遲行動；(4)存在功能互補廠商。 創業者知識與創業機會對於產品差異化的影響關係如下： 命題二：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質的知識，或產業環境中存在創業機會，或二者都存在，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性的產品。 命題二A：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者僅有產業內通用知識，且產業環境中存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性的產品。 命題二B：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者僅有產業內通用知識，且產業環境中不存在創業機會，則新事業不能推出差異性與稀少性的產品。 命題二C：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質知識，且產業環境中存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性產品。 命題二D：在創業者的產業內通用知識強度大的條件下，若創業者有異質知識，且產業環境中不存在創業機會，則新事業可推出差異性與稀少性產品。 創業者異質知識屬性對產品屬性的影響關係如下： 命題三A：異質知識有價值的差異程度愈大，則產品有價值的差異程度愈大。 命題三B：異質知識稀少程度愈大，則產品稀少程度愈大。 命題三C：異質知識難以模仿程度，正向調節產品競爭優勢程度與產品利潤間的正向關係。 命題三：創業者知識的有利程度愈大，則產品利潤愈大。 創業機會結構中各項目的屬性程度對產品屬性的影響關係如下： 命題四A：要素有價值的差異程度愈大，則產品有價值的差異程度愈大。 命題四B：整體市場需求強度愈大，則產品需求強度愈大。 命題四Ca：既有競爭者的數量愈小，則產品稀少程度愈大。 命題四Cb：既有競爭者資源利用程度負向調節，整體市場需求強度與產品需求強度的正向關係。 命題四Cc：潛在競爭者行動延遲程度，正向調節產品競爭優勢程度與產品利潤的正向關係。 命題四：創業機會結構的有利程度愈大，則產品利潤愈大。 本研究對創業理論的貢獻包含以下幾方面。主要貢獻包含：第一，建立了整合理論。本研究在原產業成長期創業情境對交集現象，建立了以創業者知識、創業機會解釋產品差異化與利潤的整合理論。本研究針對創業最核心的差異化階段，建立了整合理論，使創業理論有了核心。第二，發現了創業機會結構。本研究經由探索發現了創業機會結構，描述出了創業機會的樣子，並分析清楚了構成它的項目對差異化相關的產品屬性和競爭優勢的影響。第三，橋接了創業與策略，引導二個領域的學者對話。本研究運用策略理論觀引導分析資料與建立理論的過程，因此本研究橋接了創業與策略，引導二個領域的學者對話。次要貢獻包含：第一，釐清了產品層次的構念和構面。第二，本研究以資源基礎觀引導，釐清了創業者知識下層的概念，並分析清楚了它們對產品屬性和競爭優勢的影響。 本研究建立的理論有實務含義，可以使產業成長期的潛在創業者（既有企業管理者）的策略思考更有效，因此對企業實務界人士有價值。概括而言，本研究對實務人士的啟示如下：(1)創業者擁有夠強的產業內經營知識是能夠創業成功的基本條件；(2)在產業內通用知識強的條件下，若創業者有異質知識或外部存在創業機會能使差異化成功，因此值得投入創業；若創業沒有異質知識及外部不存在創業機會，則創業者不應投入創業(3)本研究提出的創業機會結構，可以協助潛在創業者在創業決策階段辯認是否存在創業機會，避免創業時沒有機會或利用的不是創業機會。 / Starting new businesses in the growth stage of an industry is a special type of entrepreneurship as identified in this study. The same industry-growth stage entrepreneurship is defined as the following: after an entrepreneur (or entrepreneurial team) leaves a prior business, he/she then founds a new venture in the same industry which his prior work is in and is in the growth stage. The cases of ASUS(?) and Alexander are examples. The life of a start-up, as depicted by entrepreneurial studies, can be decomposed as: initial factors→product→performance. Current entrepreneurship studies have offered some answers to this phenomenon. First, studies have shown that a product’s extent of differentiation and rarity can predict performance. These findings prompt us to explore the question of which initial factors producing differentiated products (i.e., focusing on the product differentiation stage). Second, previous studies have found that an entrepreneur’s industry experience or industry-specific experience (using the years of work as a proxy) significantly affects performance. Because experience is a kind of knowledge, these results point out that knowledge can be regarded as an initial factor and thus it highlights the importance of exploring an entrepreneur’s knowledge. Third, Austrian economists point out that entrepreneurial opportunity is an initial factor and it influences entrepreneurial success. Up to now no studies illustrates the shape of entrepreneurial opportunities and explain how it influences entrepreneurial performance. Thus further exploration of entrepreneurial opportunities and how they affect product differentiation is needed. Although we already known an entrepreneur’s knowledge and entrepreneurial opportunity are major initial factors, we have no knowledge of lower level factors. Because the researches have not focused on the product differentiation stage, this research will concentrate on the product differentiation stage. The research question of the study is: in the differentiation stage of the same industry-growth stage start-ups, what lower level factors of knowledge and opportunity produce product competitive advantages? The objective of the research is: by identifying the lower factors, entrepreneurs’ knowledge and opportunities can be integrated into theories of entrepreneurship to explain product differentiation and profits. This research adopted the exploring theory building case study proposed by Eisenhardt (1989). The level of analysis was the main product line of a start-up. The data of three firms, in the form of 3 successful cases and 1 failed case, were collected. In addition to secondary data, at least two executives, either were founding team members or high-level managers, were interviewed for gathering the primary data. Through data analysis enable us to offer the following propositions: Proposition 1: The higher the levels of the value of product differentiation, product rarity and product demand intensity, the higher the product competitive advantage. Proposition Ⅱ: The lower the level of an entrepreneur’s industry-specific knowledge, the lower the product competitive advantage. We discovered that entrepreneurial opportunity is a specific situational structure in an industry. We termed it ‘entrepreneurial opportunity structure’. It is composed of four items: (1) the existence of upstream differentiated and new factors; (2) the existence of downstream market demands; (3) the existence of favorable competitive situation, including few competitors, less extent of action by competitors, late actions by competitors and more availability of complementary firms. Relationships among entrepreneurs’ knowledge, entrepreneurial opportunity, and product differentiation are indicated below. Proposition 2: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge or the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity (or both) makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product. Proposition 2A: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, industry-specific knowledge, coupled with the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity, makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product. Proposition 2B: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, industry-specific knowledge, coupled with the non-existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity, makes it impossible to launch a differentiated and rare product. Proposition 2C: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge and the existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product. Proposition 2D: When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, higher level of heterogeneous knowledge and the non-existence of an entrepreneurial opportunity makes it possible to launch a differentiated and rare product. The relationship between heterogeneous knowledge and product attributes are listed below: Proposition 3A: The higher the value of heterogeneous knowledge, the higher the valuable difference of a product. Proposition 3B: The higher the rarity of heterogeneous knowledge, the higher the rarity of a product. Proposition 3C: The level of difficulty of imitation of heterogeneous knowledge moderates the positive relationship between product competitive advantage and product profit. Proposition 3: The higher the usefulness of an entrepreneur’s knowledge, the higher the product profit. The relationships between attributes of entrepreneurial opportunity structure and product attributes are listed below: Proposition 4A: The higher the valuable difference of a factor, the higher the valuable difference of a product. Proposition 4B: The higher the market demand intensity, the higher the product demand intensity. Proposition 4Ca: The less the number of competitors, the higher the rarity of a product. Proposition 4Cb: The degree of exploitation of resource by competitors negatively moderates the positive relationship between the market demand intensity and product demand intensity. Proposition 4Cc: The extent of delayed actions by competitors positively moderates the positive relationship between product competitive advantage and product profit. Proposition 4: The higher the potential of profitability of entrepreneurial opportunity structure, the higher the product profit. The major contributions of the research to entrepreneurship theories include the following: First, we built a integrated theory including entrepreneurs’ knowledge and entrepreneurial opportunities to explain product differentiation and profit. Because differentiation is the core to entrepreneurship, our integrated theory emphasizes the core of the theory. Second, this research identified entrepreneurial opportunity structure, and illustrated that entrepreneurial opportunity structure influences product attributes and competitive advantage. Entrepreneurial opportunity structure reflects the shape of entrepreneurial opportunity. Third, this research bridged entrepreneurship and strategy strategies, making the conversion between the two streams of research possible. Fourth, we clarified the construct and dimensions of product in start-ups. Lastly, we clarified the sub-constructs under entrepreneurs’ knowledge and their impact on product attributes and competitive advantage. The findings of the research have practical implications. It can make strategic thinking of potential entrepreneurs in the same industry-growth stage more effective. The implications are: (1) It is a necessary condition that an entrepreneur has enough industry-specific knowledge to be successful; (2) When an entrepreneur has a high level of industry-specific knowledge, if entrepreneur have heterogeneous knowledge or there is an entrepreneurial opportunity in industry environment, then differentiation can success, thus he worth to take entrepreneurial action. If entrepreneur have not heterogeneous knowledge and there is not an entrepreneurial opportunity, then he should not take entrepreneurial action; (3) Discovered entrepreneurial opportunity structure can help potential entrepreneur identify entrepreneurial opportunity in entrepreneurial decision stage, and avoid exploiting a non-entrepreneurial opportunity.

長久以來，國際化議題一直是實務界與學術界關心的重要焦點，對於小型開放經濟體的台灣而言，企業走向「國際化」更是必然的趨勢。國際化是否能為廠商帶來利潤？大部份的研究發現國際化確實有助於企業獲利的提昇，但亦有學者認為國際化為廠商所帶來的正面利益實屬有限，真正有助於提昇廠商績效的因素為廠商的「產品差異化能力」，甚至有學者更強烈地指出國際化與廠商績效的關係並不顯著，廠商本身所擁有的產品差異化能力才是最重要的獲利來源。 然而，相較於歐美大型多國企業，台灣企業規模相對較小，除國際化外，台灣企業擁有那些產品差異化能力可以提昇廠商的績效呢？雖然各方學者所持觀點不一，但其研究的範圍皆以西方已開發國家為關注焦點，顯少針對開發中國家加以研究。此不禁令人產生一些疑問：國際化是否也能為新興工業化國家的台灣企業帶來較佳的績效呢？若國際化不意謂著較佳的績效，那如此高度依賴海外市場的台灣企業該如何是好呢？ 此外，「管理能力」在廠商國際化的過程中所扮演的角色在過去研究中並未受到重視。然而，國際化程度的提高，並非對所有廠商在績效上皆能有正面的提昇，廠商必須在海外市場擴張的過程中，隨時調整其管理能力才得以能夠維持優良的廠商績效，此議題的瞭解，有助於對過去實證結果的分歧做更進一步的解釋。 針對上述研究問題，本研究回顧國際化程度、產品差異化能力，以及管理能力相關文獻，經由相關理論之推導，形成三個主要的研究命題，透過以台灣製造廠商為研究對象，同時以量化及質化的研究設計加以探討。 命題一與命題二分別以第三章564家大型製造廠商、第四章170公開上市資訊電子業、第五章3,194家中小型製造廠商、第六章601家中小型紡織業及818家中小型電子業，以及第七章1986年、1991年與1996年三期之大型 (275家，825個樣本) 及中小型 (322家，966個樣本) 製造廠商之長期追蹤資料加以驗證。經由不同廠商規模與產業，以及橫斷面與縱斷面的資料分析，得到國際化程度對廠商績效為一倒U型關係、產品差異化能力 (研發密集度) 對廠商績效為一正向的影響，亦即在研究一 (第三章) 至研究五 (第七章) 的結論發現，國際化程度與廠商績效的倒U型關係皆獲得支持，惟不同的樣本中，國際化程度與績效的最適點不同；產品差異化能力的部份僅於研發密集度與廠商績效的正向關係獲得支持，故支持本研究所提出之前兩項研究命題。 本研究根據量化研究倒U型之結果，分別在研究六 (第八章) 以一家非上市 (櫃) 小型手工具製造業、一家中型上櫃紡織業，以及一家大型上市電子業為研究對象，分析管理能力對國際化與廠商績效關係之影響，經由三家個案廠商的分析，亦傾向於支持管理能力對台灣製造廠商之國際化程度與績效的關係有一正向的調節效果。亦即廠商的管理能力可以調節 (moderate) 國際化與廠商績效的關係，在面對海外市場擴張所面臨的複雜度增加，廠商若能適時調整其管理能力，即使處於高度國際化的狀況，亦能保有優良的廠商績效；反之，若廠商之國際化程度仍未達國際化之最適點，但其管理能力始終沒有在海外市場擴張的過程中做適時的調整，亦有可能產生績效不佳的狀況。因此，支持本研究所提出的第三個研究命題。 整體而言，本論文於第三章至第七章量化研究獲得國際化程度與產品差異化能力對廠商績效一致的結果；透過第八章的質化研究，亦達成管理能力於國際化與廠商績效間關係的釐清。因此本論文的完成亦讓研究者對於台灣企業的國際化程度、產品差異化能力及管理能力，在影響廠商績效的議題上有更豐富的認識與瞭解。 / Internationalization has been the focus to the business and academic communities for years. Actively entering foreign markets for most firms in Taiwan, a small-opened economy, has become a must in the globalized economy. Does internationalization bring better performance for business? Most empirical studies found that internationalization increases firms’ benefits; however, some researchers argued that there are limited the benefits associated with firms’ internationalization. Furthermore, it has been suggested that there’s no significant relationship between internationalization and firm’s performance. That seemed a tendency for researchers to argue that “capability for product differentiation” is the key to profitability. Comparing with multinational corporations (MNCs) from western developed countries, the sizes of Taiwanese firms are much smaller. What kind of capabilities for product differentiation, in addition to the internationalization, could contribute to their performance? So far researchers have different views. On top of that, when excusing the issue, most studies still focused on firms, mostly MNCs, from the developed countries, few has looked into the behaviors of firms from developing countries. This study bridges this gap and proposes the following research questions: (1) Does internationalization affect performance firms from newly industrialized economies, such as Taiwan? (2) Besides internationalization, what characteristics of firms in Taiwan contribute to their performance? Managerial capability truly plays an important role in firms’ internationalization process; however, previous studies did not pay much attention on this construct. Also, higher levels of internationalization does not necessary bring positive impact on firms’ performance. To maintain better performance, firms need to adjust as well as adapt their managerial capabilities during their foreign market expansion process. Understanding the relationship between managerial capability and international expansion helps us to shed new light on the inconsistency findings of past empirical studies. Thus, the third research question tries to understand the moderating role of managerial capability on the relationship between internationalization and firms’ performance. The study reviews related literatures on internationalization, capability for product differentiation, and managerial capability in terms of above mentioned research questions. After deriving three main research propositions, this study employs both quantitative and qualitative research designs to answer the research questions by taking Taiwanese manufacture firms as research samples. For the purpose of triangulation, this study examines propositions 1 and 2 by different sample profiles including cross-sectional and longitudinal data. They are: (1) 564 large manufacture firms (chapter 3); (2) 170 Taiwan Stock Exchange Market listed electronics firms (chapter 4); (3) 3,194 small and medium-sized enterprises (chapter 5); (4) 601 small and medium-sized textile firms and 818 small and medium-sized electronics firms (chapter 6), and (5) 275 (825 observations) large and 322 (966 observations) small and medium-sized firms for three periods (i.e., 1986, 1991, and 1996) (chapter 7). The first two main findings are: (1) the relationship between internationalization and performance could be graphically depicted as an inverted U-shaped curve, and (2) a positive relationship between capability for product differentiation in terms of R&D intensity and performance regardless of firm size and industry. Thus, our findings support the first two propositions. According to the U-shaped result of quantitative analysis, this study explores the relationship among managerial capability, internationalization, and performance by conducting three in-depth company interviews. The firms, including an unlisted hand tool firm, a medium-sized OTC textile firm, and one large listed electronics firm, represent a mix of companies. The third main findings tend to support that managerial capability has a positive moderating effect between internationalization and performance. If firms could adapt or adjust their managerial capabilities to handle the complexity during their foreign market expansion process at the right timing, they could still enjoy better performance with higher levels of internationalization. On the contrary, the complexity associated with high-level of internationalization will burn out the managers and eventually lead to poor performance. Thus, the result supports the third proposition. In summary, on the one hand, the study confirms the relationship among internationalization, capability for product differentiation, and firm’s performance through quantitative analyses in chapters 3 to 7. This study also identifies the moderating effect of managerial capability on the relationship between internationalization and firm’s performance through a qualitative analysis in chapter 8. Theoretically speaking, this dissertation provides better understanding on the relationship among internationalization, capability for product differentiation, managerial capability, and performance of Taiwanese firms.