過去台灣生醫產業的發展主要以代工（OEM）模式為主，企業多半仰賴現有資源與技術，發展與製造相關生醫產品，而對自主研發（R&D）投入相對有限這種以代工為主的成長模式，雖然能在短期內帶來穩定的財務收入，但也導致台灣生醫產業在國際市場中缺乏技術主導權與品牌影響力。隨著全球生醫產業競爭加劇，台灣生醫企業逐漸意識到技術創新與研發投入對於提升核心競爭力的重要性，產業鏈的垂直整合程度日益提高，國際企業紛紛投入大量資源進行自主研發，以建立市場競爭優勢並提高產品附加價值。此一趨勢迫使台灣生醫企業逐漸意識到技術創新與研發投入對於提升核心競爭力的重要性。然而，企業若立即完全轉向以研發為核心的發展模式，可能面臨短期內財務收入劇烈下降的風險，進而危及企業永續經營。因此，企業多採取同時兼顧代工生產與研發創新的策略，以確保短期財務穩定與長期競爭力提升。因此，在既要鞏固代工市場、又要積極發展研發能力的情境下，代工與研發的平衡被視為當代生醫企業的發展關鍵，本研究將此一現象視為「組織雙元性」(Organizational Ambidexterity)(Duncan, 1976)。
在這樣高度不確定且體制結構保守的產業環境中，偉喬生醫卻選擇投入被視為「高風險、低回報」的腎毒素檢測試劑開發領域。當時曾有業界人士直言：「你們瘋了嗎？為什麼要做這種事？」這樣的質疑反映出台灣生醫產業長期偏向製劑與代工思維，對原料端自主創新投入仍存觀望態度。在資源有限的條件下，憑藉其創辦團隊對市場趨勢的敏銳判斷與科學研發的信念，毅然決定從尚未成熟但潛力巨大的技術領域切入，不僅承擔商業風險，更展現其企業創新意志與技術感知能力的起點。這也成為本研究聚焦偉喬生醫作為分析對象的核心理由，透過其成長歷程，得以觀察一個中小型生醫企業如何在困境中拼湊資源、培養能力，進而建立具有雙元靈巧性的商業模式。為探討此現象本研究採用質性個案研究法來探討中小型生醫企業，選擇具備自主研發及量產能力的偉喬生醫作為研究對象；透過深度訪談，並結合官方公開資料與次級文獻，結果顯示偉喬生醫在各階段透過資源拼湊層面，與學術、產學、政府合作，快速建立人脈、市場並不斷優化技術平臺；在動態能力層面，考量生醫產業內外部環境的動態性結合動態能力三大階段，運用敏銳的感知市場需求、結合內外部資源以建立標準化製、並將組織結構與流程調整為自動化量產模式，在併購與國際合作中同時擴張與穩固供應鏈韌性。此一「感知–整合–重構」的驅動循環中融入了靈巧性的雙軌（開發/利用）機制，形成階段性與整體化的商業模式。不僅助力偉喬生醫從生技新創躍升為台灣中上游生醫原料關鍵樞紐，也為其他資源受限之生醫中小企業，提供了一條兼顧短期效率與長期創新的可行路徑。因此本研究選用質性個案研究法依據資源拼湊理論、動態能力理論構面，剖析其發展歷程來實現生醫產業中靈巧的商業模式。

Taiwan's biomedical industry was long dominated by the OEM model, with limited investment in independent research and development. While this approach brought short-term financial stability, it weakened Taiwan's global competitiveness in technology and branding. As international competition intensified, local firms began to recognize the need for Research and Development (R&D)- Driven innovation. However, an abrupt shift to R&D-centered development could jeopardize financial stability. Therefore, many companies adopt a dual-track strategy, balancing OEM production with innovation—a phenomenon known as organizational ambidexterity.
In this conservative and uncertain context, Leadgene Biomedical took a bold step by investing in nephrotoxin detection reagents—a high-risk, low-return area that many viewed as irrational. This decision reflected both its founders’ sharp market insights and commitment to scientific innovation. It also signaled a break from Taiwan’s OEM-centric mindset.
This study focuses on Leadgene Biomedical to explore how a small to medium-sized enterprise (SME) can survive resource constraints and build ambidextrous capabilities. Using a qualitative case study approach, supported by interviews, public data, and secondary sources, the research reveals that Leadgene effectively leveraged resource bricolage at each stage to connect with academia, industry, and government. In terms of dynamic capabilities, the firm demonstrated a “perception–integration–reconfiguration” cycle: sensing market trends, integrating internal and external resources into standardized systems, and transitioning to automated mass production. Through strategic mergers and international partnerships, it enhanced supply chain resilience and gradually established a balanced and agile business model.
Leadgene’s evolution—from a startup to a critical supplier of mid-and upstream raw materials—offers valuable insights for other resource-constrained biomedical SMEs seeking to balance short-term viability with long-term innovation. This study, grounded in resource bricolage and dynamic capabilities theory, analyzes how agile business models can be realized in the biomedical sector.

Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International journal of management reviews, 11(1), 29-49.
Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and economic performance. Organization science, 20(2), 410-421.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 329-366.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.Sage publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization, 1(1), 167-188.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10‐11), 1105-1121.
Fisher, G. (2012). Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioral comparison of emerging theories in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 36(5), 1019-1051.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research policy, 32(2), 277-300.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
Kannan‐Narasimhan, R., & Lawrence, B. S. (2018). How innovators reframe resources in the strategy‐making process to gain innovation adoption. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 720-758.
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind, Chicago (The University of Chicago Press) 1966.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Pearson new international edition social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. England. Pearson Education Limited.
Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision sciences, 42(1), 239-273.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource‐constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 211-230.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. In: Sage.
Stenholm, P., & Renko, M. (2016). Passionate bricoleurs and new venture survival. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(5), 595-611.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of management perspectives, 28(4), 328-352.
Teece, D. J. (2016a). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. In The Eclectic Paradigm: A Framework for Synthesizing and Comparing Theories of International Business from Different Disciplines or Perspectives (pp. 224-273). Springer.
Teece, D. J. (2016b). Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations: Toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm. European economic review, 86, 202-216.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-29.
Welter, C., Mauer, R., & Wuebker, R. J. (2016). Bridging behavioral models and theoretical concepts: effectuation and bricolage in the opportunity creation framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(1), 5-20.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of management review, 27(2), 185-203.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization science, 13(3), 339-351.
林亭汝, & 虞孝成. (2008). 發展台灣生技產業區域創新系統之要因研究 [Exploring Critical Factors of Developing Taiwan's Biotechnology Industry from the Perspective of Regional Innovation System]. 創業管理研究, 3(2), 89-123. https://doi.org/10.30132/jer.200806.0004
范秉航. (2020). 台灣新創投資趨勢解析. 臺灣經濟研究月刊, 43(11), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.29656/term.202011_43(11).0003
張喆然. (2022). 生醫產業智慧財產評價及資本市場募資之研究 國立臺灣大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 台北市. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9mg97m
曾惠瑾. (2015). 台灣生技產業之商業模式與發展策略研究 (Publication Number 2015年) 國立臺灣大學]. AiritiLibrary.
楊秀琪. (2004). 生技製藥產業創新政策制訂與創新活動表現─以先進國家與台灣發展為例 (Publication Number 2004年) 亞洲大學]. AiritiLibrary.
詹宜婷. (2024). 台灣製藥產業廠商競爭分析: 專心致志的東洋, 如虎添翼的美時, 一瞬千里的保瑞. 國立臺灣大學生物科技管理碩士在職學位學程學位論文, 1-82.
戴宗輝. (2015). 臺灣生技產業之企業成長策略分析—以晟德藥廠為例 (Publication Number 2015年) 國立臺灣師範大學]. AiritiLibrary.