共演化的觀點強調物種之間存在著互動關係且會互相影響各自的演化過程，演化主體為因應內部需求與外部環境因素的改變，而進行自我學習與強化、交互學習與反饋等調適行為。太陽能的技術已發展五十餘年，至今仍屬於新興產業，從新技術開發到商業化的過程，容易受到產業、政府及學研單位三者互動關係的影響，且各自擁有對其他二者的影響力並且受到其他二者的影響，而產業－政府－學術單位的網絡關係即構成所謂的三螺旋，三螺旋認為兩個主體的共演化會形成一條軌跡，每當新的機制出現時，就會導致環境產生變化，使得三螺旋產生複雜且具有彈性的動態，因此，當太陽能產業中出現新技術時，三螺旋的互動關係隨之產生改變。本研究根據太陽能技術之不同世代的的演進，將技術分為第一代太陽能電池—矽晶技術、第二代太陽能電池—薄膜技術、及第三代太陽能電池—聚光型技術及染料敏化電池技術，之後，比較政府¬—產業—學研單位之間在這三個不同技術領域下的互動關係。
研究結果發現，由於不同成熟度的技術領域下，產業、政府與學研單位三者所扮演的重要性不同：
一、 第一代的矽晶技術屬於成熟領域，技術由產業主導，政府需要考慮產業的需求調整政策方向與政策工具，而學研單位在此成熟技術投入的資源較少，但產業隨著規模變大，產業內廠商與學研單位的互動也增加。
二、 第二代薄膜技術正處於成長階段，政府看到CIGS技術的發展潛力，主動針對此代技術投入資源，且成立聯盟促進產學合作，而學研單位扮演的政府執行政策的一隻手，因此對於此代技術也投入相當多。
三、 第三代的聚光型技術與染料敏化技術仍在導入階段，由於技術成熟度與量產有限制，主要還是由學研單位從事研發，但仍需依賴政府所提供的資源，而產業則是等待大量投入技術的時機點。

The coevolutionary view emphasizes that the existence of interaction between species and will affect each other during their evolution. Since facing the internal and external environment, the entities conduct interactive learning and feedback adaptation. The technology of solar cell has been under developed over fifty years, and belongs to emerging industry that makes it characterized by ease of being affected by the interaction between industry, government and research agencies in the process of commercialization. And each one of them has impacts on one another and receives impacts from the other two entities. The network relationships between industry, government and research agencies are the so-called triple helix. The triple helix provided the perspective that the coevolution of the two of the three entities shape a trajectory, then the emerging of new mechanism will change the environment and provides the dynamics. Therefore, the emergence of new technology of solar cell will change the interaction between triple helix. Under this structure, we discuss the interaction between these three entities more dynamic with the respective of co-evolution. Besides, we further divide solar power industry into sub-categories according to different generation, first generation- silicon-based, second generation- thin-film-based, and third generation- concentrator photovoltaic and dye sensitized solar cells. Then, compare the differences of the government-industry-university interaction in these three different generations.
The results show that because of different technology maturity, the role of industry, government and university are different.
1.Under the mature silicon-based technology, industry lead the technology, the government adjusts the policy direction and policy tools with the acquirement of the industry, and the resource that universities involve is less. However, the interaction between the firms and the universities is increasing with the scale of the industry.
2.Under the growing thin-film based technology, the government discovered the potential of CIGS, so invested a lot and established alliance to facilitate the cooperation between industry and university. Besides, the role of the university is one of the policy vehicle, therefore also invest a lot.
3.Under the third generation, because of the restriction of technology maturity and mass production, the main research and develop universities are lead by universities. However, universities are still rely on the resource from the government, and the industry are still waiting the time to make great invest in the technology.

英文部分：
1.Ang, S. H. (2008). "Competitive Intensity and Collaboration: Impact on Firm Growth across Technological Environments." Strategic Management Journal 29(10): 1057-1075.
2.Bain, J. S. (1956). Barriers to New Competition: Their Character and Consequences in Manufacturing Industries. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
3.Barnett, W. P. (1997). "The dynamics of competitive intensity." Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 128-160.
4.Breznitz, D. (2005). "Development, flexibility and R & D performance in the Taiwanese IT industry: capability creation and the effects of state-industry coevolution." Industrial and Corporate Change 14(1): 153-187.
5.Chang, Y.-C., P. Y. Yang, et al. (2009). "The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective." Research Policy 38(6): 936-946.
6.Cooke, P. (2010). "Regional innovation systems: develpment opportunities from the 'green turn'." Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22(7): 831-844.
7.Demsetz, H. (1995). The Economics of the Business Firm: Seven Critical Commentaries. New York, Cambridge University Press.
8.Dijksterhuis, M. S., F. A. J. V. d. Bosch, et al. (1999). "Where Do New Organizational Forms Come From? Management Logics as a Source of Coevolution." Organization Science 10(5): 569-582.
9.Etzkowitz, H. (2003). "Research groups as 'quasi-firms'? The invention of the entrepreneurial university." Research Policy 32(1): 109-121.
10.Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (2000). "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2"to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations." Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.
11.Faber, A. and K. Frenken (2009). "Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics." Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76(4): 462-470.
12.Frykfors, C.-O. and H. Jönsson (2010). "Reframing the multilevel triple helix in a regional innovation system: a case of systemic foresight and regimes in renewal of Skåne's food industry." Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22(7): 819-829.
13.Green, M. A. (2003). Third Generation Photovoltaics. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Springer.
14.Gregorio, D. D. and S. Shane (2003). "Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?" Research Policy 32(2): 209-227.
15.Hollingsworth, J. R. and R. Boyer (1997). Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutes. New York, Cambridge University Press.
16.Huang, C.-Y., J. Z. Shyu, et al. (2007). "Reconfiguring the innovation policy portfolios for Taiwan's SIP Mall industry." Technovation 27(12): 744-765.
17.Huanga, C.-Y., J. Z. Shyub, et al. (2007). "Reconfiguring the innovation policy portfolios for Taiwan's SIP Mall industry Mall industry." Technovation 27 (12): 744-765.
18.IEA (2008). World Energy Outlook 2008. Paris, International Energy Agency.
19.Inkpen, A. C. and S. C. Currall (2004). "The Coevolution of Trust, Control, and Learning in Joint Ventures." Organization Science 15(5): 586-599.
20.Jacobides, M. G. and S. G. Winter (2005). "The co-evolution of capabilities and transaction costs: explaining the institutional structure of production." Strategic Management Journal 26(5): 395-413.
21.Koza, M. P. and A. Y. Lewin (1998). "The Co-evolution of Strategic Alliances." Organization Science 9(3): 255-264.
22.Levinthal, D. and J. Myatt (1994). "Co-evolution of capabilities and industry: The evolution of mutual fund processing." Strategic Management Journal 15(Special Issue): 45-62.
23.Lewin, A. Y., C. P. Long, et al. (1999). "The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms." Organization Science 10(5): 535-550.
24.Leydesdorff, L. and G. Zawdie (2010). "The triple helix perspective of innovation systems." Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22(7): 789-804.
25.McKelvey, B. (1997). "Quasi-Natural Organization Science." Organization Science 8(4): 352-380.
26.Murray, F. (2004). "The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life." Research Policy 33(4): 643-659.
27.Nonald, M. and H. Pack (2003). Industrial Policy in the era of Globalization: Lessons from Asia. Washington, DC, Institue for International Economics.
28.O'Cass, A. and L. V. Ngo (2007). "Balancing external adaptation and internal effectiveness: Achieving better brand performance." Journal of Business Research 60(1): 11-20.
29.O'Cassa, A. and J. Weerawardena (2010). "The effects of perceived industry competitive intensity and marketing-related capabilities: Drivers of superior brand performance." Industrial Marketing Management 39(4): 571-581.
30.Pecotich, A., J. Hattie, et al. (1999). "Development of industruct: A scale for the measurement of perceptions of industry structure." Marketing Letters 10(4): 409-422.
31.Peteraf, M. and M. Shanley (1997). Social learning and the 'fundamental paradox' of transaction cost economics. Advance in Strategic Management. J. P. Walsh and A. S. Huff. Greenwich Connecticut, JAI Press. 14: 193-222.
32.Plunket, A. (2002). Learning, adaption, corporate strategy and intra organizational evolutionary process. Conference in Memory of Eud Zuscovitch. Strasbourg.
33.Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. NY, The Free Press.
34.REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010 Global Status Report. Paris, Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century.
35.Rothwell, R. and W. Zegveld (1982). Reindustrialization and technology. London, Longman Group Limited.
36.Shane, S. A. (2004b). Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. MA, Edward Elgar Publishing., Inc.
37.Smitha, H. L. and S. Bagchi-Sen (2010). "Triple helix and regional development: a perspective from Oxfordshire in the UK." Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22(7): 805-818.
38.Suhomlinova, O. (2006). "Toward a Model of Organizational Co-Evolution in Transition Economies." Journal of Management Studies 43(7): 1537-1558.
39.Tung, A.-C. (2010). The Case of Semiconductors. 中央經濟研究院.
40.Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York, The Free Press.
41.Williamson, O. E. (1996). "Economic organization: the case for candor." Acadamy of Management Review 21(1): 48-57.
42.Wilson, J. and N. Hynes (2009). "Co-evolution of firms and strategic alliances: Theory and empirical evidence " Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76(5): 620-628.
43.Yang, P. Y. and Y.-C. Chang (2010). "Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion: the moderating effects of entrepreneurial commitment " Scientometrics 83(2): 403-421.
中文部分：
1.吳思華 (1996). 策略九說. 台北, 臉譜出版.
2.張紹勳 (2004). 研究方法. 台中, 滄海書局.
3.莊立民&王鼎銘 (2004). 企業研究方法：質化與量化方法之應用. 台北, 雙葉書廊有限公司.
4.許尚哲 (2005). 政府補助中小企業從事技術創新研發之政策探討—以經濟部鼓勵中小企業開發新技術計畫為例. 國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所.
5.楊素華&蔡泰成 (2005). 太陽能電池. 科學發展. 350: 50-55.
6.方亮淵 (2007). 資源基礎、跨組織間知識共同演化行為與創新機效之研究. 國立政治大學科技管理研究所.
7.曾俊洲 (2007). 2007年我國太陽能光電產業分析. 台經院產經資料庫.
8.曾俊洲 (2007). 太陽能光電製造業基本資料. 台經院產經資料庫.
9.莊嘉琛 (2007). 太陽能工程-太陽電池篇. 台北, 全華科技圖書股份有限公司.
10.拓墣產業研究所 (2008). 探究全球太陽能產業發展.
11.拓墣產業研究所 (2008). 探究多空因素交互影響下2008年太陽能產業發展趨勢.
12.陳建智 (2008). 我國太陽能產業經營策略與績效關係之研究. 銘傳大學管理研究所, 未出版碩士論文.
13.曾俊洲 (2008). 2008年我國太陽能光電產業分析. 台經院產經資料庫.
14.曾俊洲 (2008). 太陽能光電製造業基本資料. 台經院產經資料庫.
15.黃俊傑 (2009). 台灣太陽能光電產業創新系統運作之研究－以利害關係人的觀點. 國立彰化師範大學工業教育與技術學系.
16.陳志榮 (2009). 產官學三螺旋互動對產業群聚影響之探討－以丹麥風力能源產業為例. 國立中央大學產業經濟研究所.
17.經濟部 (2009). 綠色能源產業旭升方案. 台北, 經濟部.
18.邱昰芳 (2009). 2010年太陽能光電製造業產業分析. 台經院產經資料庫.
19.邱昰芳 (2009). 太陽能光電製造業基本資料. 台經院產經資料庫.
20.邱昰芳 (2010). 2011年我國太陽能光電業產業分析. 台經院產經資料庫.
21.邱昰芳 (2010). 太陽能光電製造業基本資料. 台經院產經資料庫.
22.林淑馨 (2010). 質性研究-理論與實務. 高雄, 巨流圖書股份有限公司.
23.經濟部能源局 (2010). 2009年能源統計手冊. 台北, 經濟部能源局.
24.經濟部能源局 (2010). 2010年能源產業技術白皮書. 台北, 經濟部能源局.
25.經濟部能源局 (2010). "太陽光電資訊網." from http://solarpv.itri.org.tw/aboutus/sense.asp.
26.行政院國家科學委員會 (2011). "政府研究資訊系統." from http://www.grb.gov.tw/index.htm.