台灣IC設計產業的技術並非是最尖端的，也不具有低人力成本與低價格的優勢，並且夾擠在先進的「創新領導型聚落」（例如：美國矽谷）與低成本優勢的「製造成本控制型聚落」（例如：中國大陸上海）之間發展。但台灣新竹的IC設計產業聚落卻仍能在知識快速流動的空間趨勢中，持續且擴大地理群聚效應，成為全球IC/半導體產業的重要節點。因此，本論文旨在回答以下的研究問題：在知識快速流動的空間趨勢中，為什麼台灣IC設計產業仍鑲嵌在台灣的經濟社會環境中持續群聚與成長？ 本論文有以下主要研究結論：（一）IC設計廠商在台灣形成新竹與台北兩個產業聚落，新竹產業聚落包含「快速跟隨型」與「專業化型」兩種台灣IC設計廠商，台北則是「專業化型」廠商群聚。「快速跟隨型」IC設計廠商採取「次進市場」時間策略，「專業化型」IC設計廠商則以「市場區隔」時間策略切入產品生命週期；（二）新竹地區廠商的快速跟隨策略，由速度、彈性與成本控制的制度環境所支撐，其群聚效應與成長速度高於台北產業聚落；（三）本論文驗證了知識的快速流動空間，有助於地方空間的快速技術學習與產業群聚效應。 / Taiwan’s IC design industry, located mainly in the Taipei-Hsinchu corridor, has important status in the global value chain of the world semiconductor industry. Nevertheless, it neither has cutting edge technology nor has the lowest cost advantage; it is besieged between leading innovative cluster (eg. Silicon Valley) and catch-up cluster that is based on production cost (eg. Shanghai). Most significantly, it still continues to grow in the age in which place is said to be meaningless due to the tendency of space of flows. This study thus aims to answer the following question: why does IC design industry still continue to embed in and to grow in the northern part of Taiwan? My research findings can be summarized as follows. First of all, it is found that there are two major IC design clusters in the northern part of Taiwan: Hsinchu and Taipei. Secondly, it is found that firms in Hsinchu cluster have both “fast follower” and “specialist” characteristics, whereas IC design firms in Taipei has only “specialist” features. Fast follower firms adopt “second-to-market” strategy and specialist firms adopt “market-segmentation” strategy to enter the product market in the product-life-cycle. Thirdly, due to the fact that fast follower firms in Hsinchu are supported by institutionalized features that can sustain speed, flexibility, and cost-control which Taipei lacks, Hsinchu thus has better agglomeration effect and growth rate. Finally, this study concludes that current tendency of space of flows in which knowledge can be transmitted through space is contributive to Taiwan’s fast technological learning and clustering effect.

本論文主要在探索作為產業組織核心之「公司」，將其知識以公開或特定之標準或程序加以模組化(modularization)後，進行公司內部與外部以產品開發為主之知識分工(division of knowledge)與再用(reuse)活動，因而衍生的組織與管理問題，以及公司間知識移轉與學習問題。並希望藉由產業實證，發展以「知識模組化與再用」為基礎之技術創新理論。 研究過程採取紮根理論，針對了軟體產業四家公司與半導體設計業四家公司，分別就其採取軟體元件與矽智財之模組化創新現象進行深入訪談研究，進行編碼過程，將觀念類別抽象化為「績效與競爭力」、「研發知識模組技術力」、「知識模組再用力」、「知識模組平台演進力」、「組織政策與文化」、「產業基礎模組主導者之引導力」、「市場異質性」、「知識模組交易/交換成熟度」及「產業中介組織推動力」等九項。 根據實證發現，知識模組創新公司企業常規為(1)採取知識模組再用平台為核心之產品/服務創新模式；(2)以平台為考量之組織構型設計；(3)建立四項公司內部重要能力—包括研發知識模組技術力、知識模組再用力、知識模組再用平台演進力、及組織政策與文化。至於影響產業知識模組交換/交易之因素，則為(1)開放之平台知識模組來源；(2)營造利於知識模組再用之供需脈絡；(3)妥善運用產業網絡。 有關理論之建構，本研究選擇「平台經濟性」作為核心類別，並以「知識模組動態組合價值性」作為演化準則，經由主軸編碼與選擇編碼等程序，發展出九項命題，藉以建構「平台經濟性創新(economies of platforms innovation)」理論。根據該理論，本研究指出知識模組創新公司，可依據能力審視、能力構築、能力持續等三階段，建構其動態核心能力。 本研究最後針對產業與政府等實務界，提出綜合性建議如下： 一、對產業界之建議 應注意與學習辨識所處產業是否正進入後產業化階段之分合(dis-integration)過程所產生之知識分工趨勢，並參考本研究所提出之「平台經濟性創新理論」，研擬以「平台經濟性」為基礎之知識模組化創新策略。同時，應積極運用知識模組供需脈絡與產業網絡之力量。 二、對政府產業政策之建議 針對協助個別企業提升內部能力方面，可加強輔導企業發展以知識模組再用平台為基礎之研發計畫，並且建立標竿案例與最佳實務，以提供企業導入「平台經濟性創新策略」之參考。同時，針對有主導潛力之知識模組創新企業，協助其深化發展產業主流平台。 此外，與國際相較，台灣知識型企業之規模仍屬偏小，政府輔導機制可加強推動國際級產業基礎模組主導者與國內業者結盟、輔導建立夥伴廠商體系(e.g.旗艦計畫)、輔導建立知識模組交易/交換機制、協助釐清知識模組之智慧財產權爭議、以及積極參與國際標準制訂，並快速擴散相關資訊與技術供產業參考等。 / Knowledge modularization is a popular phenomenon in knowledge-based industries. This study explores issues related to companies, which use open or specific stan-dards/procedures to encapsulate their knowledge into modules, and then use such mod-ules to pursue internal and/or external division of knowledge and knowledge reuse activi-ties, for the purpose of developing products. The said issues include the organization and management issues, as well as knowledge transfer and learning. Through the process of empirical field investigations this study aims to develop a new technological innovation theory, which is based on knowledge modularization and reuse. This study adopted the Grounded Theory, together with case studies, as the main methodology to guide the research process. Eight companies were selected as case stud-ies, which included four companies from the software industry and four design houses from the semiconductor industry. We interviewed these companies to discuss in-depth modularization innovation concerning software components in software industry and silicon intellectual properties (SIPs) in the semiconductor industry. The collected data is differentiated into nine conceptual categories, which are the (1) performance and com-petitiveness, (2) technology capabilities for developing knowledge modules, (3) capabili-ties for reusing knowledge modules, (4) evolution of knowledge module platforms, (5) organization policy and culture, (6) leadership in terms of basic industry modules, (7) market heterogeneity, (8) maturity of knowledge module transactions/exchanges, and (9) promotion of intermediary industry organizations. According to the study's findings, knowledge module innovation companies usually adopt the following procedures : (1) use knowledge module reuse platforms as the core of product/service innovation models; (2) organization structure design based on platforms; establish four internal capabilities, including (i) enhance the technology capabilities for developing knowledge module, (ii) reusing knowledge modules, (iii) speed up the evolution of knowledge module reuse platforms, (5) establish organization policy and culture. As for factors impacting industry knowledge module exchanges/transactions, these include 1) knowledge module sources for open platforms, 2) create supply and demand beneficial to knowledge module reuse, 3) making good use of industry networks. Regarding the formation of a theory, the “economies of platforms” are used as the core category, and develop the “dynamic combination value of knowledge modules” as a criterion of evolution. Through axial and selective coding, nine propositions are devel-oped to support and construct the theory of "economies of platform innovation". Accord-ing to this theory, the study finds that knowledge module innovation companies can build their dynamic core capabilities through three phases, including capabilities positioning, building up capabilities, and sustaining capabilities. The study also proposes several suggestions for the industry and government: 1. Suggestions for the industry: Companies should closely watch and learn to recognize whether the structure of the industry in which they operate is entering a dis-integration process leading to division of knowledge. If so, the companies can refer to the theory of "economies of platform in-novation", to take action on knowledge module innovation strategies based on the economies of platforms. Meanwhile, they should utilize the power of the sup-ply-demand of knowledge modules and industrial networks. 2. Suggestions for the government's industry policies: For the purpose of helping individual firms raise their capabilities, the government could improve R&D assistance programs focused on the establishment of knowledge module reuse platforms. The government can also establish benchmarks or best practice cases as references for companies who would like to adopt innovation strategies for economies of platforms. Furthermore, knowledge module innovation companies with the potential to become industry leaders can be further assisted in developing mainstream industry platforms. Besides, compared with international companies, the scale of knowledge-based companies in Taiwan is small. Therefore, the government can strengthen its efforts in promoting alliances between international industry leaders and Taiwanese companies, help Taiwanese companies to establish strategic partner networks, assist companies in establishing transaction/exchange mechanism for knowledge modules, clarify issues re-lated to intellectual properties of knowledge modules, participate in international stan-dards bodies, and provide up-to-date and relevant market and technology information.

一家成功的企業，背後都有一段鮮為人知的試煉歷程，其中「管理思維」也最常為企業主或企業CEO所津津樂道。 因應不同的時期、環境，高階經理人無不追求最新、最適當的管理方式、技巧以使企業體的潛能發揮到極致，為股東帶來最大利益，為公司創造永續經營。 台灣的中小企業在第二次世界大戰後，展現了勤奮、努力、誠實、可靠、彈性的特性，在物質缺乏，百廢待舉的環境下蓬勃發展。當時採取所謂的大策略亦即「粗放管理」，幸運的隨著經濟的浪潮賺到了第一桶金，緊接著，追求高效率生產管理的OEM模式為台灣奠定了代工王國的基礎，再隨著歐美大廠要求台灣企業進一步的貢獻研發智慧的能力，ODM的模式繼之成形。 近年來，大自然環境的變遷影響了供應鏈的功能，歐、美國家國債危機導致全球經濟振盪、失業率高居不下、消費緊縮以及競爭國際化、經濟成長趨緩、資訊隨網路透明化等因素，大部份企業都已淪落至反應型的管理，無法應付突如其來的變數，企業面臨挑戰時，頭痛醫頭，腳痛醫腳。如何在需要策略抉擇時做出適切的決定，甚或預測未來局勢的變動，提前作好準備，正考驗著企業管理者的智慧，而企業經營也必須邁入更高段的小策略亦即「精緻管理」以提高競爭優勢，提昇管理能力，才能立企業於基業長青的不敗之地。 本研究以全方位的「精緻管理」為主軸，以國際IC設計大廠 - C公司的案例驗證「精緻管理」的實施過程與結果並探討台灣IC設計產業的競爭優勢以及管理能力和公司價值兩者之間的關聯性，屬質性與量化混合型的研究。

「設計」應該是一種創造高附加價值的觀念，不過很可惜的是，在台灣的環境之下，很多的設計業者卻不得不和現實妥協、低頭，放棄當初投入設計的理想和初衷，來從事設計代工或接單(B TO B)等高度競爭的工作，儘管台灣的設計，在國際比賽中，贏得非常多的大獎，擁有很強的設計能力，和受到國際高度的肯定。不過，設計業者在環境的限制之下，仍然沒有辦法利用「設計」來創作高附加價值的作品，或賺取超額的收益及名聲。以拿下美國2009年Gen Art時裝大獎的設計師古又文曾經感慨得說：「我是被台灣這個產業，逼著我一定得出走，因為在這個環境中，如果我想要做我自己，想要做一個有創意，而不是拷貝人家創意的設計師，那幾乎是不可能的 。」 台灣的設計產業究竟出了什麼問題？智慧財產權的制度，又扮演著什麼樣的角色呢？本研究將從設計產業、智慧財產權以及集體管理組織的概念，來討論台灣設計產業所遭遇到的問題與困難，並試圖找尋出一個解決的方案。 在經過一連串的分析以及資料的統整之後，本研究認為台灣設計產業最大的問題有3項，第一，台灣的設計產業以中小型企業為主，競爭激烈，缺乏資金和資源，也無力拓展海外市場和經營品牌；第二，在台灣的設計產業之中，創新的價值，很難轉換到品牌或者商標之上，因此消費者不易分辨原創作品與仿冒商品之差異；第三，市場上缺乏穩健而且可靠的通路系統，設計業者很難將創作商品，在市場上換取收益，並獲得充足的資金來支持其後續的開發和創作。 本研究提出「設計品牌經紀商」的概念，希望能夠解決目前設計產業面臨的交易成本過高，以及中小型設計業者面臨「心有餘而力不足」的問題，如果依照智慧財產權整合的概念，這種類似集體管理團體的組織在達到一定的規模後，可以發揮類似保險公司分散風險的經濟模式，同時也具備了提高談判和議價能力，以及達到降低買賣雙方搜尋成本的好處。 / Design should be a concept of creating value added. However, in Taiwan, many designers are forced to compromise with the reality, doing high competitive jobs like B to B(business-to-business) instead of following their aspirations. Despite the fact that Taiwanese designers have won many international prizes and that their designing abilities have been highly recognized in the world, they are still unable to use “design” to create high value added works, make profits, and gain popularity out of it. Ku Yu-Wen, the designer who won the 2009 Gen Art Prize in the U.S., once said, “I was forced to leave because of this industry in Taiwan. In this environment, it’s almost impossible to be myself, be a creative designer who doesn’t copy.” What problems are we facing in Taiwan’s design industry? What role should the IP policy take? In this research, we will go through the concepts of design industry, intellectual property and collective management organizations, discuss the problems and difficulties faced in Taiwan, and work on a possible solution. After a series of data analysis, the research concludes that Taiwan’s design industry are facing three main problems: First, Taiwan’s design industry is composed of small companies, which are constantly competitive, lack capital and resources, and are unable to expand markets oversea or invest in brand management. Second, in Taiwan’s design industry, it’s difficult to transfer the value of innovation into the brand or the trade mark; therefore, customers are often unable to distinguish the genuine products from the couterfeits. Third, the market lacks stable and reliable marketing channels. It’s difficult for designers to make profits from their works and gain sufficient capital to support their following works. To solve these problems, the research proposes the concept of “designer brands broker” in hopes of lowering the transaction cost and helping those willing but unable designers. Like the integration of intellectual property, when reaching a certain scale, this kind of collective management organizations can help to diversification risk like an insurance company. Furthermore, it can help to increase designers’ negotiating ability and decrease the search cost for both the seller and the buyer.