| 研究生: |
蔡明義 Tsai, Ming-Yi |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱: |
企業技術能力發展與產學合作關係之研究 |
| 指導教授: |
王泰裕
Wang, Tai-Yue |
| 學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
| 系所名稱: |
管理學院 - 工業管理科學系 Department of Industrial Management Science |
| 論文出版年: | 2002 |
| 畢業學年度: | 90 |
| 語文別: | 中文 |
| 論文頁數: | 76 |
| 中文關鍵詞: | 動態模式 、技術移轉 、技術特性 、技術能力 、產學合作 |
| 相關次數: | 點閱:86 下載:4 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
近年來,隨著資訊和通訊技術的發展,使得以技術為本位的產業,受到相當嚴重的衝擊。在面對市場競爭的衝擊下,解決之道,莫過於將知識創造到知識應用這段流程變的更佳順利,而且在時間上必須加速,以提高研發效率。產學合作的目的在為技術移轉建立管道,以此來加強產業與學術界雙向交流,促進相互關係,進而拉近產學距離,達成企業快速取得技術能力之目標。據此,本研究經由分析產學合作中企業技術水準提升之影響因子,建立一企業技術能力發展與產學合作關係之分析模式。該模式指出,產學合作中產學相互依賴程度、技術複雜度、整體轉變及企業之組織學習能力對企業技術能力發展之影響關係。在實證研究上,以台灣之製造業為主要研究範圍,從企業的角度分析產學合作中企業技術能力之發展。由層級迴歸分析結果顯示,在本研究之分析模式中,產學相互依賴程度、技術複雜度、整體轉變及組織學習能力對於企業技術能力發展均有顯著的影響。其中,技術複雜度與整體轉變對企業技術能力發展之影響最顯著,但兩者對於產學相互依賴程度與企業技術能力發展關係之節制作用皆不顯著。另外,組織學習能力不但對於企業技術能力發展有正向顯著的影響,而且組織學習能力對產學相互依賴程度與企業技術能力發展關係亦有節制作用。根據實證研究所得之結果,本研究進一步提出以動態系統的角度來表現整個產學合作中技術移轉的過程。分別以產學合作方式、技術特性及組織學習為可調整項,提出三個動態模式來說明產學合作中企業技術能力取得的過程。依據此三個動態模式,企業可以有系統地持續改善產學合作中技術移轉的過程,使企業能取得預期之技術水準。
None
中文部分
方賢齊,技術轉移從何下手,天下雜誌,民國七十三年九月,頁154-161。
李仁芳,產學研合作創新與國家競爭力,行政院國科會,民國八十七年二月。
英文部分
Autio, E. and T. Laamanen, “Measurement and Evaluation of Technology Transfer: Review of Technology Transfer Mechanisms and Indicators,” Internal Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 10, Nos. 7/8, 1995, pp. 643-664.
Badaracoo, J. L., “The Knowledge Link: How Firms Compete Through Strategic Alliances,” Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press , 1991.
Baker, W. E. and J. M. Sinkula, “The Synergistic Effect of Market Orientation and Learning Orientation on Organization Performance,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1999, pp. 411-427.
Baranson, J., “Technology Transfer Through The International Firms,” American Economic Association, Vol. 60, May 1970, pp. 435-440.
Derakhshani, S., “Factors Affecting Success in International Transfer of Technology: A Synthesis and Test of a New Contingency Model,” The Developing Economics, Vol. 21, 1983, pp. 27-45.
Drejer, A. and J. O. Riis, “Competence Development and Technology: How Learning and Technology Can be Meaningfully Integrated,” Technovation, Vol. 19, 1999, pp. 631-644.
Edvinsson, L. and P. Sullivan, “Developing a Model for Managing Intellectual Capital,” European Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1996, pp. 356-364.
Gapon, N. and R. Glazer, “Marketing and Technology: A Strategic Coalignment,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, 1987, pp. 1-14.
Geisler, E. and A. Rubenstein, “University-Industry Relations: A Review of Major Issues,” Cooperative Research & Development, Kluwa Academic Publishers, 1989.
Huber, G. P., “Organizational Learning: the Contributing Processes and the Literatures,” Organizational Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, Feb. 1991, pp. 88-115.
Hult, G. T. M. and O. C. Ferrell, “Global Organizational Learning Capacity in Purchasing: Construct and Measurement,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 40, 1997, pp. 97-111.
Jacob, M., T. Hellstrom, N. Adler and F. Norrgren, “From Sponsorship to Partnership in Academy-Industry Relations,” R&D Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2000, pp. 255-262.
Klofsten, M. and J. E. Dylan, “Stimulation of technology-based small firms-a case study of university-industry cooperation,” Technovation, Vol. 16, No. 4,1996 pp. 187-193.
Leonard-Barton, D., Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.
Madu, C. N., “Transferring Technology to Developing Countries: Critical Factors for Success,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1989, pp. 115-124.
Malerba, F. and L. Marengo, “Competence, innovation activities and economic performance in Italian high-technology firms,” Internal Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 10, Nos. 4/5/6, 1995, pp. 461-477.
Mansfield, E., “International Technology Transfer: Forms, Resources, Requirement and Policies,” American Economic Association, Vol. 65, No. 2, May 1975, pp. 372-376.
Meyers, P. W., “Non-linear Learning in Large Technological Firms: Period Four Implies Chaos,” Research Policy, Vol. 19, 1990, pp. 97-115.
Nonaka, I. and T. Hirotaka, The Knowledge-Creating Company, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Okubo, Y. and C. Sjoberg, “The Changing Pattern of Industrial Scientific Research Collaboration in Sweden,” Research Policy, Vol. 29, 2000, pp. 81-98.
Rogers E. M., “Key Concept and Models, Including Technology Change for Economic Growth and Development,” Michigan State University Press, 1972.
Santoro, M. D., “Success Breeds Success: The Linkage Between Relationship Intensity and Tangible Outcomes in Industry-University Collaborative Venture,” Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2000, pp. 255-273.
Senge, P. M, “The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization,” Doubleday, New York, 1990.
Sharif, N. and K. Ramanuthan, “A framework for technology-based national planning,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 32, 1987, pp. 135-140.
Sinkula, J. M., W. E. Baker and T. Noordewier, “A Framework for Market-Based Organizational Learning: Linking Values, Knowledge, and Behavior,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1997, pp. 305-318.
Steensma, H. K., “Acquiring Technological Competencies through Inter-organizational Collaboration: An Organizational Learning Perspective,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 12, 1996, pp. 267-286.
Tsang, E. W. K. “Organizational Learning and Learning Organization: A Dichotomy Between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research,” Human Relations, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1997, pp. 73-89.
Tushman, M. L. and P. Anderson, “Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, 1986, pp. 439-465.
Tyre M. J. and O. Hauptman, “Effectiveness of Organizational Responses to Technological Change in the Production Process,” Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 3, August 1992, pp. 301-320.
Utterback, “Differences in Innovations for Assembled and Nonassembled Products,” Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: Harvard Business School Press, 1994, pp. 123-145.
Vedovello, C., “Science Parks and University-Industry Interaction:Geographical Proximity Between the Agents As a Driving Force,” Technovation, Vol. 17, No. 9, 1997, pp. 491-502.