上市櫃對企業而言係發展過程中一項重大之轉變，不僅經營管理模式因應資本市場之參與及主管機關之監督而有所不同，其任何重要決策影響層面均較上市櫃前來得廣泛，故上市櫃之決定勢必經管理階層反覆多次地思考，即便決定申請後，後續之流程(例如:掛牌之時機)更需持續不斷地關注與調整，而不同時期及不同產業對於是否上市櫃之規劃亦有不同的考量，為更深入了解實務上企業決策過程，本研究選取太陽能產業中於2012年5月甫上市之旺能光電、未上市之聯相光電及規劃上市櫃之台積太陽能為研究分析之對象。
旺能光電自2008年9月第一次申請上市後，共歷經三次申請及二次撤件後，至2012年5月始正式掛牌；聯相光電則成立於2005年11月，其間歷經昱晶、昇陽科及新日光等公司之上市櫃，至今均未有上市櫃申請之動作；台積太陽能則係於2011年8月自台積電分割獨立，而後即傳出不排除於2015或2016年IPO之計畫，同樣身處太陽能產業之三家企業，對上市櫃似有迥然不同之考量，經本研究訪問分析之結果，針對上市櫃之動機、上市櫃之時機及上市櫃之成本，提出下列結論：
一. 反映企業價值係三家太陽能產業公司最為重視之上市櫃動機，多元化籌資管道及降低籌資成本次之，提供股權流通管道以創造股東退場機制亦在考量之列。
二. 提高企業知名度及使併購行為更加彈性則有兩家公司以上認為非主要動機。
三. 產業狀況及公司獲利情形係三家太陽能產業公司於決定上市櫃時機時最重要之考量，整體股票市場行情次之，生命週期理論則因產業景氣變化快速而非上市櫃時機之主要決定因素。
四. 在上市櫃成本方面，因三家個案公司均為國內上市將近或超過20年之上市公司轉投資，在豐富的資本市場參與經驗下，故對於法令遵循、主管機關監督、資訊揭露、控制權之易主、經理人注重短期績效及股價壓力等上市櫃後之負面影響，鮮少認為會成為阻礙上市櫃之壓力。
五. 承上述，本研究所選擇個案均為國內知名集團轉投資，故於上市櫃決策過程無可避免受到集團管理模式及其過去經驗之影響。

Going public is a huge change to a company, not only since managerial model changes, but also every significant decision impacts much more people. Therefore the decision and process of going public must need the management to consider altogether and discuss repeatedly. For going deep into the decision process of going public in practice, we choose Delsolar, just going listed in May, 2012, Nex power, not applying IPO yet and TSMC Solar, drawing up IPO in 2015 or 2016. While belonging to the same industry, solar energy, the three companies have different consideration for IPO. With the above characteristic, this research tries to find out how the variation comes and the difference in theory and practice from three aspects, motivation, timing and concerns of IPO. The conclusion is summarized as follow：
a. Market price discovery is the most important motivation and the second is diversifying the channels of financing and lowering the cost of capital. Creating liquidity of shares is also emphasized.
b. Over two in the three companies don’t take increasing the publicity and reputation and facilitating acquisitions as their main motivation.
c. Industry conditions the most significant factor in timing of IPO, followed by overall stock market conditions. Life cycle theory becomes not so important due to the variable industry condition.
d. As to concerns of IPO, since the three companies are invested by famous listed companies, with their parent companies’experience in capital market, those theoretical negative impacts, ex: statutory requirement, maintaining control or low stock price, don’t keep them from IPO.

中文部分
1. 王啟秀、孔祥科、左玉婷，97年，全球能源產業趨勢研究—以台灣太陽能光電產業為例，中華管理評論國際學報，7頁。
2. 伏文采，98年，台灣太陽光電產業發展策略之分析-以太陽能電池為例，國立中山大學管理學院高階經營碩士學程碩士在職專班碩士論文，26~27頁。
3. 林盈志，97年，台灣股票上市原因之研究，國立台灣大學財務金融學系研究所。
4. 洪永昌，93年，企業生命周期與融資策略，國立台灣科技大學財務金融所碩士論文，14頁。
5. 葉一青，95年，台商掛牌之動機與回台上市模式探討，東吳大學國際貿易學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，29頁。
6. 黃仲緯，97年，企業上市的理論與實務分析:以奇美電子公司為例，國立成功大學國際企業研究所碩士論文
7. 廖學科，98年，台灣太陽能電池產業新進入者競爭策略之研究，國立中山大學高階經營碩士學程在職專班，39、65頁

英文部分
1. Brau, J., B. Francis, and N. Kohers, 2003, The choice of IPO versus takeover: Empirical evidence, Journal of Business 76, 583–612.
2. Brau, J. C., S. E. Fawcett, 2006. Initial Public Offerings: An Analysis of Theory and Practice. Journal of Finance 61(1), 399-436.
3. Brennan, M.J., and J. Franks, 1997. Underpricing, ownership and control in initial public offerings of equity securities in the UK. Journal of Financial Economics 45, 391-413
4. Bender & Ward,2002. Corporate financial strategy. Butterworth Heinemann.
5. Choe, H., R. W. Masulis, and V. Nanda, 1993, Common stock offerings across the business cycle:Theory and evidence, Journal of Empirical Finance 1, 3–31.
6. Jensen, M. C.,Meckling, W. H., 1976. Theory of firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics,3(7), 305-360.
7. Lowery, M., 2002, Why does IPO volume fluctuate so much? Journal of Financial Economics 67,3–40.
8. Lucas, D. J., and R. L. McDonald, 1990, Equity issues and stock price dynamics, Journal of Finance 45, 1020–1043.
9. Maksimovic, V., and P. Pichler, 2001, Technological innovation and initial public offerings, Review of Financial Studies 14, 459–494.
10. Mello, A. S., and J. E. Parsons, 2000, Hedging and liquidity, Review of Financial
Studies 13, 127–153.
11. Miller, D. and P. H. Friesen. 1984. A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management Science 30(10): 1161-1183.
12. Modigliani, F., and M. Miller, 1963, Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: A correction, American Economic Review 53, 433–443.
13. Pagano, M., F. Panetta, and L. Zingales, 1998, Why do companies go public? An empirical analysis, Journal of Finance 53, 27–64.
14. Ritter, J. R., and I.Welch, 2002, A review of IPO activity, pricing, and allocations, Journal of Finance 57, 1795–1828.
15. Smith Mitchell& Summer, 1985. Top level management priorities in different stages of the organizational life cycle. Academy of Management Journal 28(4): 799-820.
16. Scott, J. H., 1976, A theory of optimal capital structure, Bell Journal of Economics 7, 33–54.
17. Yosha, O., 1995. Information disclosure costs, and the choice of financing source. Journal of Financial Intermediation,4(1), 3-20.
18. Zingales, L., 1995, Insider ownership and the decision to go public, Review of
Economic Studies 60, 425–448.