本研究旨在探討台灣出版業在逐漸進入成熟的市場飽和階段後所面臨的困境及其因應方式，並以鳴嵐國際智識股份有限公司為例。希望透過研究，探索出版產業之轉型策略。其研究目的如下: (一)針對出版業轉型及創新策略進行文獻探討，以奠立研究架構與實施步驟基礎。 (二)分析出版產業現況及產業結構，以利研究標的的掌握。 (三)探討個案公司訂定轉型策略之關鍵重要因素，以利整體績效呈現。 在研究方法上，本研究以個案方法研究為主，研究結果發現如下: 1.出版應結合文教，發展課程與講座 通路內除了販售書籍出版品以外，更以其為基礎，延伸發展出相關之活動、課程及講座等，以不同的呈現方式文化教育並將知識價值傳遞給消費者，重新培養民眾對閱讀及學習知識的興趣，使通路成為散播文化教育的平台。 2.透過異業結合，提高活動品牌價值 此文化教育通路透過與不同領域的知名產業結合，能藉以降低消費者對創新文化教育通路的道德危機成本及資訊搜尋成本，並藉由加乘雙方知名度，快速提升通路品牌形象與價值，為雙方帶來利益。 3.持續開拓國際市場，增加經濟規模 因各國對教育文化的需求會隨著時代進步而逐漸增加，故在大陸市場逐漸成熟且建立知名度後，便能將此文化教育通路拓點至國際市場，增加經濟規模的同時也能接觸不同出版市場，豐富通路的多樣化。 4.重新定位為內容產業，並連結文創發展 挑選符合市場需求之優質書籍，強調內容的重要性，以建立良好且高規格的品牌形象，並在此同時，與文創產業連結，致力於促進文化教育的創新與發展。 最後根據研究結果提出建議，以供出版產業以及後續研究參考之用。

本研究探討以知識為基礎的產業如何形成與發展而達成產業創新。更特定言，本研究探討基於知識技術以及組織制度結構所產生之權力關係，如何透過行動者與情境條件之互動，以社群型態之集體行動使其發生轉變，進而影響產業創新之結果。 為了凸顯不同的知識特性與情境條件，本研究選擇以台灣的晶圓代工與法國的卡介苗及B型肝炎疫苗為個案，以透過其歷程的描述來瞭解知識社群與創新社群之於產業創新的關係。個案的主要觀察內容包括創新活動權力關係的源由與類型、不同階段集體行動的特性、以及與產業創新效果的關連。 本研究發現創新活動中之存在兩類權力關係，第一類是基於行動者對知識或技術本身之控制或掌握能力，是屬於知識性的權力關係；第二類是基於行動者對該項知識技術得以運用情境之影響能力，為結構性的權力關係。而行動者產生的集體行動，即分別以「知識社群」之共同語言機制轉變基於知識技術的權力關係，以「創新社群」的價值共識過程轉變基於制度結構的權力關係，而促成產業創新。 本研究亦發現社群的形成與既有的權力關係結構有關。而隨著所欲動員於產業創新的資源條件愈龐大，即待轉變的表面權力關係愈為複雜，以社群實現產業創新愈為重要。而知識與創新社群間的互動，特別是反餽的現象，特別有助於產業創新的實現。另知識和創新社群的行動者有重疊之可能，尤其特定的關鍵行動者將同時扮演知識社群與創新社群中的重要角色。 / The dissertation studies the formation and development of communities in industrial innovations of emerging technology. A community is defined as a group of actors that, strongly influenced by their contexts, voluntarily contribute to enforcement of the capability that aims at realizing their common interests. As a specific form of collective actions, the communities are critical in coordinating various actors by gradually shaping the power relations between them, thus smoothing the potential conflicts during the relatively radical innovation. In the study, two cases are chosen for observing the communitarian processes. The first case is the semiconductor foundry in Taiwan. The second one is the vaccine industry in France. The later further comprises two subcases. One is BCG innovations. The other is the vaccine anti-hepatitis B. Based on a prior case study and literature reviews, two types of communities are proposed to examine the two case studies. The first type of communities is a “knowledge community” in which innovative actors contribute voluntarily in creation and diffusion of knowledge centered at the specific technological innovation. The second type is an “innovation community” in which innovative actors from different sectors contribute together to the application of the specific technology. The study found that a technological power relation that is from the incapability of controlling an emerging technology or of controlling those who own the technology is a barrier to industrial innovation. the knowledge community is capable of transforming a technological power relation, via the formation and diffusion of a common language, for realizing the industrial innovation. It reveals that a structural power relation that is from the actors’ ignorance or resistance to the application of an emerging technology is a barrier to industrial innovation. The innovation community is capable of transforming a structural power relation, via the formation and diffusion of a common value, for realizing the industrial innovation. Moreover, the larger the distance that a surface power relation is from its realistic power relation, that is, the more the disequilibrium of a power relation has, the more efforts are required for a community to contribute in industrial innovation. On the other hand, the more the positive feedbacks between a knowledge community and an innovation community, that is, the more the outcomes of the knowledge community that enhance a common value of the innovation community, and the more the outcomes of the innovation community that enhance the diffusion and deepening of a common language of the knowledge community, the easier the realization of an industrial innovation. Finally, a key actor as a community member has a strategic meaning that the key actor reacts to deepen a common language or to increase a common value so as to facilitate the formation and development of a knowledge community or an innovation community, thus realizing the industrial innovation.

全民健康保險實施，促使醫院走向非價格競爭的經營模式，「創新」將會是醫院維持競爭力的利器。 本研究透過兩兩成對比較之問卷調查方式了解影響醫療產業創新之組成要素權重，並進一步經由訪談之方式針對醫療產業創新性智慧資本之價值加以衡量，為個案醫院建立一套創新性智慧資本的聯合價值層級衡量系統。 考量院方之與創新相關之核心價值及願景的情況下，個案醫院最看重的是人力資本，其次依序是財務資本、結構資本及關係資本，代表在創新策略為導向的情況中，人力資本更是醫院最重要的無形資產。推導出個案醫院創新性智慧資本之價值為0.380，處於醫療產業的個案醫院的創新性智慧資本之價值較低。 聯合價值層級衡量系統除了解關鍵成功因素外，針對該因素實際成果進行探討，其價值結果可以提供管理者於資源投入時重要的參考依據與策略執行力及權重認知的檢視。 / The hospitals tend to non-price competition because of the National Health Insurance. “Innovation” will be hospitals’ sharp weapons to maintain their competitive advantage. This thesis conducted the case study under the hospital industry to confer two themes. The first is the weights of determinants of innovation within hospital industry via pair-comparison in a questionnaire. The last is the value of innovative intellectual capital within hospital industry through interviews. This thesis developed a new measurement system of innovative intellectual capital within hospital industry-- conjoint value hierarchy. Considering the core value and vision, the most capital is human capital for object of the case study. the next are financial capital and structural capital. The last one is relational capital this order implicated that human capital is the most important intangible asset in the case the innovation strategy as a consideration. The value of innovative intellectual capital in object of the case study is low, only 0.380. The measurement system, conjoint value hierarchy, cannot only understand key success factors, but also consider the value of actual result of the key success factors. The value result can provide management a important reference basis for resource input and review of execution of strategy and of weight perception.

本研究在探討我國在2010年4月16日通過之「產業創新條例」及其相關事件日之市場反應。本文先從產業創新條例的立法過程開始介紹，選出6個關鍵事件日，而以此6個事件日實證檢視相關的三個假說：資本市場對產業創新條例租稅優惠（研發費用率、營運總部及電子科技產業）的反應。結果顯示，研發費用率高的公司，對產業創新條例立法呈現出異常報酬率為負，表示基於前後相對獎勵之影響，市場對研發費用率高之公司應為不利；而可在台灣設置營運總部之公司，對產業創新條例之異常報酬率亦為負，也反應出其對此次立法並無太大期待；而電子科技產業則是呈現出希望產業創新條例盡快立法確定的情形，故對立法後異常報酬率為正。總括來說，產業創新條例的立法對我國整體產業發展而言應屬有利，盡早確定方向，不會讓各產業無所適從，但若從個別公司來看，產業創新條例就不一定比促進產業升級條例更有利益，仍要視該公司的特性，才可判斷有何種結果。

研發扣抵政策之有效性在過去文獻有著不一致的結果，許多研究者認為可能原因之一即為與兩稅合一的衝突，實施兩稅合一之後，在有限的資金之下將增加公司發放股利的誘因；同樣的，在實施研發扣抵後亦將增加公司研發投資的金額，都會影響彼此的政策效果。 　　近年來台灣經歷獎勵投資條例、促進產業升級條例及現在的產業創新條例，其對投資之效果飽受爭論。而我國除採取研發扣抵政策外，亦實施兩稅合一政策以解決重複課稅之問題，因此在台灣兩稅合一與研發扣抵是否會互相衝突會是一項值得探討的議題。 　　本文以 1996 年至 2014 年台灣與 OECD上市公司的非均衡追蹤資料 (Unbalanced panel data) 來進行分析。實證結果指出，同時實施兩稅合一及研發扣抵的國家相較於其他樣本，其股利支付與研發投資之間的關係呈現更為顯著的負相關，代表當同時實施雙重扣抵制度，兩項支出之間的衝突性更為明顯。 　　本文另外也做了台灣與其他國家的比較，實證結果指出，台灣雖實施雙重扣抵制度，但其支出之間的關係，反而呈現較為顯著的正相關。可能的原因即為台灣之研發扣抵相較於兩稅合一，其誘因明顯為大，因此文末亦作了 difference in difference 的敏感度分析，但結果顯示不論是 1998 年兩稅合一或 2010 年產創條例實施後，研發投資與股利支付之間的關係並沒有顯著的改變。 / The effectiveness of R&D tax credit is inconsistent in past literature, and many researchers believe one possible reason is the impact of dividend imputation credit. After imputation credit, it will increase the company’s incentive to pay dividend. Also, after R&D tax credit, it will increase the payment of R&D investment. So both of the policy will affect the effect of each other. In recent years in Taiwan, we experienced Statute for the Encouragement of Investment, Statute for Upgrading Industry and current Statute for Industrial Innovation, and their effect on investment suffered controversy. In Taiwan, we have not only R&D tax credit, but also the implementation of dividend imputation to relieve the problem of double taxation, so it becomes an important issue. This paper examines the unbalanced panel data of Taiwan and OECD from 1996 to 2014. Empirical results indicate that in the context of both R&D tax credit and dividend imputation credit compared to the other sample, the negative correlation is more significant between the dividend payments and R&D investment. It means when we implement both credits, the payments of dividend and R&D conflict more. This paper also examines Taiwan with respect to OECD countries, and the empirical results indicate that although the implementation of both credits, the positive correlation is more significant between the two payments in Taiwan. One possible reason is that the R&D tax credit in Taiwan is obviously more attractive than the dividend imputation credit. Therefore, I also use the sensitive analysis of difference in difference to examine this problem. However, it shows that after the implementation of dividend imputation in 1998 or R&D tax credit of Statute for Upgrading Industry in 2010, the relationship of payments doesn’t differ obviously.

創新是進入二十一世紀以後，全球共同關注的焦點議題，不論對企業或對國家而言，均可謂扮演著成長引擎的角色；而本研究進一步認為，產業創新是企業在思考更上一層樓時應該著眼的大方向，更是政府在創造國家競爭力上不可忽視的重要課題，有必要了解其本質與內涵。由於過去文獻大部份僅探討以企業為主體的創新議題，即使論及產業創新，亦多屬定義上的著墨，缺乏具體且完整的架構論述，因此本研究透過實際案例來探討產業創新的實際內涵與具體模式，研究本身即屬一創新產物的聯盟組織──A-Team，以產業創新的觀點探究其如何造成台灣自行車產業今日的創新升級，藉由架構出其已證明可行的模式與實務操作重點，提供產業界應用之參考。 此外，不同於一般對A-Team強調其內部互動結果的相關研究，本研究同時亦重視A-Team發展過程所遭遇的實務問題與解決過程，並發掘其尚有待突破的問題與原因，最後也提出相應的建議。本研究同時亦回顧台灣自行車產業一路發展至今的歷史，發現其階段性成果之體現恰可說明台灣中小企業的一種「軟實力」，故本研究亦建議政府有關單位應重新思考固有對「傳統產業」的區分是否適當，本研究認為政府未來在制定產業政策時，尚可納入產業的競爭力、獲利力等思考面向進行規劃。 本研究針對產業創新與實務案例進行關聯性與理論化之探索研究，嘗試由實務案例歸納出一完整可供實務界參考之產業創新模型，而研究結果摘要如下： 1.A-Team的出現乃欲解決台灣產業外移與自行車產業走入價格競爭困境之問題，是故其產業創新背景來自產業遭遇困境，產業創新動機乃出自於欲解決產業所面臨之問題。 2.A-Team重新定位台灣自行車產業在全球扮演的角色為──「台灣為全球自行車市場創新樞紐及創新產品與服務的來源」，以此作為努力的大方向。由此可見就全球化競爭的產業而言，產業創新第一步在於建立其差異化的市場定位，產業創新過程的任何戰術均為達此戰略目標而來。 3.A-Team由巨大與美利達兩大世界級成車廠聯手發起，首先由其供應商與協力廠中篩選、募集初始會員，會員組成涵蓋產業上、中、下游廠商。由此可知，產業創新涉及整個產業鏈，非產業任一端所能獨立達成，而台灣自行車業以其獨特的產業聯盟方式成立A-Team，作為產業創新的樞紐。 4.A-Team定調其發展主軸在「協同管理」、「協同開發」、「協同行銷」，實際執行方式乃由協助會員導入豐田生產管理(TPS)與E化做起，改善會員廠商的生產製造管理效能，此亦目前實踐得最為成功的一個軸心。由此可知，台灣自行車產業原來有著生產製造、研發設計、經營行銷能力上的「不夠好」問題，為了開創「夠好」產品的新市場，乃在A-Team架構下結合產業鏈各端，以「集體學習、個別改善」的方式進行整體產業能力的提升，因此提升產業成員能力是傳統製造業創新升級的首要課題。 5.承上，在A-Team的發展主軸中「協同管理」在生產製造能力的提升上，因導入TPS、引進資訊科技，及施行會員彼此定期觀摩與檢驗成果的作法，而有顯著的精進，然在「協同開發」、「協同行銷」方面則尚未達到令A-Team滿意的成績。本研究認為A-Team在「協同開發」、「協同行銷」目標上至今仍難以突破的原因，除了研發設計與行銷實力本來就不易由內部短期培養而成之外，另一大關鍵因素在於A-Team會員中其實存在競爭關係，巨大與美利達即是一例，因此產業創新就A-Team模式來看，不可忽視「利益衝突」的問題，本研究建議從「智慧財產規劃管理」的面向去解決；而行銷議題則建議應思考以發展「產地品牌」為共同行銷所努力的目標，讓「台灣自行車」在全球建立像「紐西蘭奇異果」一樣的國家品牌印象，此亦產業創新可作為其後維持競爭力的參考策略。 6.A-Team創造自行車產業在台灣與大陸的兩岸分工生產模式──A-Team許多會員原來其實已將公司、廠房移至大陸，在A-Team的要求下才又將部份基地遷回台灣，而形成台灣研發生產高級自行車、大陸生產中低階自行車的分工模式，其中巨大與美利達乃以創造副品牌或第二品牌的方式行銷不同等級的自行車，並堅守高級自行車由台灣生產組裝的原則，以落實兩岸自行車產業的差異化。由此可見，處於全球競爭環境之中，產業與企業在世界工廠的磁吸效應下，外移成本低廉國家並非維持競爭力的唯一途徑，A-Team即是為了解決此種產業兩難問題的創新產物，因此產業創新可參考台灣自行車A-Team模式而發展產業在本地的新價值，此亦可視為一種破壞式創新，而欲解決的是傳統產業「既有市場」(因價格競爭造成產品不夠好)與「新市場」(研發生產夠好的產品以創造新的市場需求)之間的兩難困境，上述亦為本研究一獨特之發現，即傳統產業所面臨的「兩難」與哈佛大學教授克里斯汀生研究科技產業所提出的「創新的兩難」中之「兩難」恰相反，然事實上卻有異曲同工之妙，最後仍可經由實踐「破壞性的創新」而改變市場現況，因此本研究結果不僅印證、更充實了克里斯汀生教授的創新理論內涵。 / Innovation is crucial for any corporation or country to stimulate their economic growth. Innovation should be indispensible in industrial strategy and government competiveness. However, most studies on innovation have focused their subjects on an enterprise rather than an industry; this study would instead try to explore the essence and nature about the innovation of a mature / traditional industry through a successful case, aiming to serve as a reference for industrial innovation practice. This research will study how Taiwan’s bicycle industry upgraded itself through the organization / alliance innovation, as is known for A-Team. A-Team comprises major companies in the bicycle industry. Its members are not only partners but also competitors. The study will gather some key successful factors of the innovation as well as the transformation on Taiwan’s bicycle industry and propose some suggestions for both A-Team and the industry from a perspective of industrial innovation. The findings of this study basically include: 1. The background and the motivation of Taiwan’s bicycle industrial innovation. 2. How the hub of the innovation in Taiwan’s bicycle industry, A-Team, practices its plans/strategies to achieve its objective of upgrading and renewing Taiwan’s bicycle industry. 3. The potential solutions for certain problems in A-Team’s present practice. 4. The steps for a possible model of an industrial innovation based on the case-study of Taiwan’s bicycle industry. 5. This study further found that it also works for Professor Christensen’s theory—“Disruptive Innovation” to apply in the innovation of a traditional industry, but the innovation dilemma in the traditional industry is a reverse of that in the high-tech industry. 6. This study also demonstrates the “soft power” of Taiwan's small and medium enterprises by the active evolution in Taiwan’s bicycle industry.

本研究主要透過新產品開發專案﹐探討技術知識特質､產品開發團隊與組織動態能耐之關係。研究範圍以台灣光資訊產業產品創新表現優秀的企業為主﹐深入訪談其產品開發專案負責人與核心成員﹐瞭解其產品開發的歷程﹐與組織動態能耐累積的過程。研究結果顯示技術知識生命週期會影響組織知識吸收，當技術知識生命週期位於初生期時，廠商傾向於從大學或研究機構吸收新的知識; 而當技術知識生命週期位於成熟期時，廠商傾向於從零件供應商吸收新的知識。技術知識路徑相依度會影響組織進行知識創造的團隊類型, 當組織進行新技術的研究發展時﹐組織傾向於使用「自主型團隊」進行組織知識創造; 當組織進行激進式創新﹐組織傾向於使用「重型團隊」進行組織知識創造; 當組織進行平台式創新﹐組織傾向於使用「輕型團隊」進行組織知識創造; 當組織進行改良式創新﹐組織傾向於使用「功能型團隊」進行組織知識創造。技術知識複雜程度會影響組織知識蓄積，當技術知識複雜程度高時﹐組織傾向於透過「文件」來蓄積組織知識，反之，當技術知識複雜程度低時﹐組織傾向於透過「人員」來蓄積組織知識。在團隊特質部份﹐當團隊開放性越高越有利於組織知識吸收﹔當團隊自主性越高越有利於組織知識創造﹔當團隊共事經驗越多越有利於組織知識蓄積。至於台灣光資訊產業組織動態能耐累積的模式依照創新類型與能耐來源﹐可以分為1.自主虛擬模式﹔2.自主內部研發模式﹔3.系統合作模式。另外對組織知識吸收能耐的長期投資將有助於組織動態能耐的累積。而台灣光資訊產業的創新類型﹐依零件與架構層次的學習來看﹐主要展現在「漸增式學習」與「架構式學習」的創新類型。至於台灣光資訊產業的創新特色表現則在對於零件應用能力的優異表現﹐而創新表現較佳的產品開發專案多採用「模組式」產品開發程序來縮短產品開發時間。 / This study inquired how technological knowledge and product development influences organizational dynamic capability. We interviewed some project leader or members who are responsible for new product development in the Taiwanese optoelectronics industry to understand the process of product innovation and accumulation of organizational dynamic capability.Our findings show that the life cycle of technological knowledge will influence knowledge absorption of the firm. When the stage of the life cycle is in embryo, knowledge absorption of the firm. When the firm is inclined to absorb new knowledge from universities or research institutes. Otherwise, when the stage of the life cycle becomes mature, the firm is inclined to absorb new knowledge from component suppliers. Faced with different path dependence of technological knowledge, the firm will organize different project teams to facilitate organizational knowledge creation. The "Autonomous team" usually focus on researching and developing new technology; the "Heavyweight team" on radical innovation; the "Lightweight team" on platform innovation; and the "Functional team" on incremental innovation. The complexity of technological knowledge will decide how the firm stores its knowledge. High complexity of technological knowledge will make the firm store its knowledge through documents; otherwise it will be stored through people. The openness of the project team promotes knowledge absorption and high autonomy of project team is beneficial to knowledge creation within the organization. More redundancy among team members facilitates the storage of organizational knowledge. From the point of innovation pattern and sources of capability, we find three types of grouping the accumulation of organizational dynamic capability： Type I is called "autonomy-virtual"; Type II is called "autonomy-in-house" and Type III is called "system-corporate". Our results also demonstrate that most product innovation in Taiwanese optoelectronics ndustry focus on "incremental learning" and "architectural earning". They use the "modular" product development model to shorten product development time and strengthen performance in the application of key components.

由於國內市場競爭激烈與本業成熟化，我國集團企業的多角化程度高，且跨業的意願也高，但是這些跨業多角化的績效卻不如預期的理想。本研究認為集團跨業多角化時應該發揮 「知識」的範疇經濟，也就是善用集團現有的核心知識，將這些知識帶入新產業內，並使用適當的知識管理模式管理集團內與集團外的知識，進而創造出新的核心知識與競爭優勢，以提升集團跨業多角化的成功績效。 本研究以 「知識理論」為基礎，探討集團跨業多角化中，知識流通、知識蓄積、知識整合與知識創造及產業創新間的關連，並以個案研究的方式推導出相關的命題與結論。主要的研究發現與結論如下： (一)知識的特性會影響集團企業跨業多角化的知識流通方式。 本研究將知識分為兩個特性，即專屬性與內隱性，跨業多角化所流通的核心知識中，專屬性高的知識流通來源主要來自集團內，而內隱性高的知識流通媒介主要以人員移轉或引進的方式。 (二)多角化的知識管理模式會影響新核心知識的創造。 本研究認為知識管理模式包括知識流通、知識蓄積與知識整合，得出以下的結論： 1.跨業多角化的知識創造都需要有集團外的知識流通。 2.跨業多角化的知識創造會將專屬性低、內隱性高的知識轉化為專屬性高、內隱性低的知識，也就是將蓄積在個人的知識，外顯化成為蓄積在實體系統的知識。 3.跨業多角化過程中，知識的整合會建構新的核心知識。 4．集團外與集團內知識的整合成功是集團跨業多角化知識創造的主因。 (三)集團多角化企業的知識創造將會影響產業創新。 本研究發現，集團跨業多角化的創新來自於新核心知識的創造，而該企業應用新核心知識的創新將促成該產業的創新。

近年來，學者對於有關產業創新的研究積極投入，提出許多足以促進企業創新的影響因素。過去台灣企業競爭力靠的是降低成本以爭取客戶，現在必須思考的是如何利用本身資源的建構，產生創新，並且在創新的過程中，累積更多的資源，逐步達到新的策略定位。 在社會需求改變與產業技術發展等因素下，數位出版產業興起。數位出版產業是許多廠商欲進入的新興產業，本身即包含了許多的創新。本研究以數位出版產業為例，訪談印刷支援廠商、傳統出版業者、資訊系統廠商三種類型的廠商。廠商在進入數位出版產業時，依其本身資源不同，產生不同的創新，創新過程中選擇建構不同的新資源，使其達到產業中新的策略定位。本研究以數位出版產業為例，探討在不同策略定位下，資源建構與產業創新之關係。 研究發現廠商初期擁有之核心資源有助於創新的產生。並利用創新過程中，建構出更多相關之資源。藉由資源稟賦為引發創新之產生點，過程中產生創新。研究中之五個廠商個案中，數種資源稟賦引發14種創新案例，歸類為五種創新形式，包括產品、流程、策略、組織、行銷五種創新。 此外，研究發現廠商以不同之策略定位進入新產業，核心資源建構過程中，利用各種創新形式，達成其所預定之新產業中「數位出版內容加值者」、「數位出版技術提供者」、「數位出版整合營運者」三種策略定位。 數位出版產業尚屬新興產業，市場需求與技術發展變化快速。產業之競爭態勢亦尚未明朗，尚須密切注意潛在競爭者動態。除了本研究觀察之傳統出版業者、印刷支援廠商、資訊系統廠商之外，擁有眾多會員數或網路流量的入口網站是潛在競爭者。然而，各廠商核心資源不同，因此能在產業中佔有適當的位置。廠商應著重本身核心資源建構與創新，並且積極與其他廠商合作，共同推動市場發展，跨越市場鴻溝才是當務之急。 / Recently, there has been a number of studies pertaining to the industrial innovation, and many factors that contribute to the industrial innovation have been proposed. Cost down used to account for the competitiveness of the industries in Taiwan while now it must be considered that how to utilize the existing resources to create innovation, proliferate new resources, and achieve the new strategic positions. Digital publishing is springing up as a result of the change of social demand and the development of industrial technology. This attractive and innovative industry is taken as an example in this study, and one printing company, three publishers, and one computer firm were interviewed. Entering the digital publishing, the enterprises with different natural resource quality create various innovations, generate their own resources, and accomplish the new strategic position. The relation between the resources construction and the industrial innovation in digital publishing are studied in this research. The research discovers that the initial core resources are helpful for the creation of the innovation and the generation of related resources. Numerous natural resource endowments contribute 14 innovative cases which can be categorized into 5 types – product, process, strategy, organization, and marketing. In addition, it is also noted that enterprises construct different strategic positions while entering into new industries. In course of construction of the core resources, they attain the three strategic positions – the digital publishing content adder, the digital publishing technology provider, or the digital publishing integrated operator. Digital publishing is still an emerging industry.Therefore, the market demand and the technical development change drastically. Considering the unclear competitive situation, it may as well pay more attention to the competitors. Apart from the interviewed firms in this study, portal websites that have numbers of members or a large deal of flow are potential competitors. Owing to different core resources, however, those enterprises can stand in their own strategic positions. A company is supposed to focus on the accumulation of its core resources and innovation and to cooperate with other firms to develop the market.

隨我國經濟發展與產業結構變遷，從經濟管制到市場自由，自勞力密集之製造出口至技術密集之產業升級，期間有不同階段之稅捐優惠作為引導。 研究發展活動具有外部正面性，同時有市場失靈之可能，私部門可能因此而不願投入、或投入不足之資源，進行研究發展活動。為獲得整體社會之最大利益，稅捐除作為財政工具，作為經濟目的之政策誘因之正當性也獲得承認。政府為促進民間投入研究發展，可能以直接補貼或提供租稅優惠方式給與鼓勵，以協助企業進行研究發展，降低跨足新興產業之進入障礙及營運風險。 但稅捐優惠之提供，乃對具相同負擔稅捐能力者，課以不同之稅捐負擔，以引導特定之作為或不作為，無可避免的違反量能課稅原則下的平等原則。何以相同負擔稅捐能力者，有不同之稅捐負擔，應有實質之說明理由。其成效與影響如何，是否達成制度上犧牲量能課稅原則所欲追求之目的，應與直接補貼接受相同程度之公開之監督與績效衡量。 就研究發展投資支出可抵減之稅額，未分配盈餘加徵百分之十部份乃為縮減營利事業所得稅與個人綜合所得稅之之實現時間差距，而研究發展投資抵減，則為分擔企業研發風險，鼓勵知識之累積，提升附加價值，兩者制定之精神互不相同，以研究發展投資抵減未分配盈餘加徵百分之十之「營利事業所得稅」，似有扞格，但兩稅合一後，營利事業所得稅在公司此一法律主體之稅捐負擔意涵已大幅下降。是以，就研究發展投資抵減未分配盈餘加徵百分之十之稅額部分，衝突程度亦獲得一定程度之解決。另外，所得基本稅額條例規定營利事業及個人皆需有一定之基本稅額負擔，此即所謂最低稅負制。所得基本稅額條例明確將研究發展投資抵減之金額計入營利事業基本稅額之計算，對之課以基本稅額，符合所得基本稅額條例施行之精神，乃合理之設計。 本文以表格方式整理方式，對照獎勵投資條例、促進產業升級條例與產業創新條例對稅基、稅率、稅額與時間歸屬之影響；針對投資抵減實務施行爭議，本研究則整理相關判決以供參考。 以上述三條例之演進趨勢而言，稅捐優惠之給予範圍已逐漸縮小，而改以直接補助或金融協助；技術開發補助與輔導；提供資訊管道、建構交易平台、整合業界、規劃工業區等行政協助，應用多元方式協助產業發展。 研究發展投資抵減之適用範圍、申請期限、申請程序、核定機關、施行期限、抵減率及其他相關實體事項，若立法之技術與資源已有相當累積，以法律位階就投資抵減作較具體之規範，應為立法機關所考慮。 / Abstract With the economic development and the changing in industry structure, from economic regulation to an open market, and from labor-intensive to technology -intensive, the government is guiding the market by tax incentive and other kinds of tool. Because R&D has positive externalities, barriers to entry and the possibilities of market failure, private sector may not willing to input resource for R&D. For social welfare maximization, the government may use tax incentive to encourage private sector to do R&D. By provide R&D Tax Credit or subsidy , the government can encourage the private sector to do more R&D. But providing tax credit will unavoidably conflict with Principle of Ability to Pay. There should be a reason for why people have the same ability to pay the tax pay different tax. The same supervise and performance evaluation must be done for tax credit and subsidy. For 10% surtax on Retained Earnings is to narrow down the time difference between the realized of corporation tax and individual income tax, and the R&D credit is for sharing risk of failure, encouraging research and development, and rising EVA, the tax which can be credited should not include surtax on Retained Earnings. But with the applying of Integrated income tax system, the conflict has been partly solved. For Alternative Minimum Tax, R&D expense can’t be credited is a reasonable design. This paper mainly focus on comparing the differences of tax base, tax rate, and income tax payable etc. in the Enactment of Encouragement Investment, the Statute for Upgrading Industry, and the Statute for Industrial Innovation. Also sued cases were collected to report any violations of existing R&D policies for future amendment concerns. The range of tax credit is shrinking, and is replaced by subsidies, industrial technology development programs, and the setting of science parks etc. And for principle of taxation under the law, The Statute for Industrial Innovation should be ruled in law by the legislative.