臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

論文摘要

本研究旨在以巨觀之國家層次，建立IPO-OECD分析流程構面模式，引用2000~2005六年期間之OECD科技創新衡量指標統計資料，進行澳洲科技創新競爭力之分析，以檢視觀察澳洲自2001年啟動「能力後盾」計畫，致力科技創新發展之成效。
經由檢視分析IPO-OECD流程構面整合模式之IPO三個流程與OECD三個構面競爭力發展態勢，在IPO三個流程競爭力方面顯示，投入資源流程競爭力排名第9名，呈現上升趨勢，居於稍強位階；過程轉換流程競爭力排名第15名，呈現上升趨勢，居於尚可位階；成果產出流程競爭力排名第13名，呈現下降趨勢，居於尚可位階。總和平均資源投入、過程轉換與成果產出三個流程競爭力之排名，澳洲科技創新競爭力之綜效表現，位居OECD國家的第12名，呈現出之持平趨勢，同時居於稍強位階。
然而在OECD三個構面競爭力方面顯示，研究發展構面競爭力排名第10名，呈現持平趨勢，居於稍強位階；資通科技構面競爭力排名第11名，呈現下降趨勢，居於稍強位階；通訊構面競爭力排名第21名，呈現上升趨勢，居於稍弱位階。總和平均研究發展、資通科技與通訊三個構面競爭力之排名，澳洲科技創新競爭力之綜效表現，位居OECD國家的第14名，呈現出之持平趨勢，但居於尚可位階。
總結歸納科技創新流程與構面競爭力之檢視分析與趨勢觀察結果，澳洲科技創新競爭力之綜效表現，排名在OECD國家的第13名，呈現持平之發展趨勢，同時居於尚可之位階。
歸納解讀澳洲科技創新競爭力，同時發現：
一、顯現持平發展態勢而未見明顯成效。
二、顯現發展進程遞延效果現象。
三、顯現競爭者追趕超越警訊。
四、未來競爭力優於現在競爭力與轉換效率。
五、研究發展優於資通科技與通訊競爭力。
六、OECD科技創新衡量指標顯現聚焦於資通科技領域。
七、澳洲須強化科技創新統合效率，以提昇國家競爭力。

Abstract
The purposes of this study focus on an analysis on competitiveness in technological innovation of Australia in a marco-level on country through establishing a named IPO-OECD analysis processes model along with adopting statistical data of those measurements of technology and innovation generated and published by OECD within 2000~2005 to achieve, while where targeting on inspecting the accomplishments of the extents of the plan empowered with “Backing Australia” starting since 2001.
Throughout inspecting and analyzing to the competitiveness of developing coverages, outcomes and trends generated from those three processes and three dimensions set in IPO-OECD analysis processes model, in these three processes of IPO, the process of input resources shows its trend toward increasing up while ranking at the ninth and rating in high-low level. And the process of process transition demonstrates its trend toward increasing up while ranking at the fifteenth and rating in middle level. Yet the process of output performance indicates its trend toward decreasing down while ranking at thirteen and rating in middle-level.
With consolidating results in trend, rank and rate from inspection and observation into those three processes of IPO, the Australian competitiveness on technology and innovation explores its ranking at the twelveth, reflecting its trend toward remaining stably even, as well as rating in high-low level, within thirty countries in OECD.
In those three measuring dimensions of OECD on competitiveness in technology and innovation, the dimension of R&D shows its trend toward remaining even while ranking at the tenth and rating in high-low level. And the dimension of ICT demonstrates its trend toward decreasing down while ranking at the eleventh and rating in high-low level. Still the dimension of communication indicates its trend toward increasing up while ranking at the twenty-one and rating in low-high level.
With consolidating results in trend, rank and rate from inspection and observation into those three dimensions of OECD, the Australian competitiveness on technology and innovation explores its ranking at the fourteenth, reflecting its trend toward remaining stably even, as well as rating in middle level, within thirty countries in OECD.
Eventually, to summarize the results of analysis and the trends of observation mentioned above, the competitiveness in technology and innovation for Australia demonstrates its ranking at the thirteenth, reflecting its trend toward remaining stably even, as well as rating in middle level, within thirty countries in OECD.
The conclusions, however, with looking into the analysis on competitiveness in technology and innovation for Australia, there are a series of major findings observed, stated as follows.
1. Developing in a stable even trend and showing up developing performance in progress but not obvious.
2. Indicating a delay effect coming up in processes.
3. Exploring an alerting signal to surpass by competitor.
4. Demonstrating the competitiveness for future transcending for the current competitiveness as well as for the transformation efficiency.
5. Displaying the competitiveness in research and development transcending in information and communication technology as well as in communication.
6. Displaying existing discrepancies contrasting with measurements to technology and innovation of OECD.
6. Showing up OECD’s technology and innovation measurements focusing on information and communication technologies.
7. Australia must strengthen the integrating efficiency in technology and innovation as to promote Australian overall competitiveness.

目 錄

第壹章 緒論----------------------------------------------------------1
第一節 問題背景------------------------------------------------------2
第二節 研究動機------------------------------------------------------9
第三節 研究目的-----------------------------------------------------11
第四節 研究範圍與方法及限制-------------------------------------------13
第五節 研究流程-----------------------------------------------------14

第貳章 文獻探討-----------------------------------------------------17
第一節 科技創新理論演進----------------------------------------------17
第二節 知識經濟與科技創新競爭力---------------------------------------20
第三節 科技創新衡量指標發展歷程---------------------------------------29
第四節 IMD世界競爭力分析模式------------------------------------------32
第五節 WEF全球競爭力分析模式------------------------------------------35
第六節 OECD科技創新競爭力分析模式------------------------------------41
第七節 澳洲科技創新政策主要內涵與作為---------------------------------45

第參章 IPO-OECD科技創新競爭力分析模式---------------------------------47
第一節 科技創新競爭力分析模式發展架構----------------------------------47
第二節 科技創新競爭力分析模式概念架構----------------------------------48
第三節 分析方法與資料選用--------------------------------------------53

第肆章 澳洲科技創新競爭力分析----------------------------------------57
第一節 投入資源流程分析----------------------------------------------57
第二節 過程轉換流程分析----------------------------------------------61
第三節 產出成果流程分析----------------------------------------------65
第四節 IPO-OECD流程模式科技創新競爭力分析------------------------------71
第五節 OECD構面模式科技創新競爭力分析----------------------------------74
第六節 IPO流程與OECD構面模式分析比較與匯總-----------------------------77

第伍章 結論與主要發現------------------------------------------------80
第一節 結論---------------------------------------------------------80
第二節 主要發現-----------------------------------------------------81
第三節 後續研究方向建議----------------------------------------------82

參考文獻------------------------------------------------------------83

表 目 錄

表2-2-1 科技創新的定義表---------------------------------------------27
表2-4-1 IMD世界競爭力評比之科學基礎建設指標----------------------------33
表2-4-2 IMD世界競爭力評比之技術基礎建設指標----------------------------34
表2-5-1 WEF全球競爭力指標(1999~2005)--------------------------------37
表2-5-2 WEF科技指標內容與計算方法------------------------------------40
表2-5-3 WEF的權數設定值參考表----------------------------------------41
表2-6-1 OECD科技創新競爭力衡量構面與指標表----------------------------44
表3-2-1 分析流程模式、衡量構面與指標結構表-----------------------------50
表4-1-1 研究發展費用佔國民總生產毛額百分比一覽表------------------------58
表4-1-2 知識投資佔國民總生產毛額百分比一覽表---------------------------59
表4-1-3 資通科技投資佔非住宅總固定資本門百分比一覽表--------------------60
表4-2-1 研究人員佔每仟位全時雇用人員之個數一覽表------------------------62
表4-2-2 資通科技在加值領域所佔百分比一覽表-----------------------------63
表4-2-3 每一百個居民所擁有通信線路數一覽表-----------------------------65
表4-3-1 三人一組專利數一覽表----------------------------------------66
表4-3-2 電腦用戶百分比一覽表----------------------------------------67
表4-3-3 網際網路用戶百分比一覽表--------------------------------------69
表4-3-4 澳洲與OECD國家資通科技設備出口值一覽表-------------------------71
表4-4-1 澳洲科技創新競爭力-IPO流程模式分析表---------------------------73
表4-5-1 澳洲科技創新競爭力-OECD構面模式分析表--------------------------76









圖 目 錄

圖1-5-1 本研究之研究流程--------------------------------------------16
圖3-1-1 科技創新競爭力分析模式發展架構--------------------------------48
圖3-2-1 科技創新競爭力分析流程模式與衡量構面之發展模型------------------49

參考文獻

中文部份
1.台灣經濟研究院。2003。〈科技創新競爭力評比與分析研究專題〉。《九十二年度知識經濟之科技創新競爭力評比與分析計畫》。台北市：台灣經濟研究院。
2.林秀英。2004。〈科技創新競爭力評比與分析研究專題〉。《知識經濟之創新競爭力評比與分析綜合版報告》。台北市：台灣經濟研究院。
3.林秀英。2005。〈台灣創新系統之競爭力評比與分析研究專題〉。《我國產業科技創新競爭力與產學互動研究計畫綜合版報告(上)》。台北市：台灣經濟研究院。
4.經濟部技術處。2002。〈知識經濟之創新競爭力評比與分析〉。《經濟部九十一年度科技研究發展專案計畫執行報告》。台北市：經濟部技術處。
5.齊若蘭。1995。《第五項修煉》。台北市：天下文化。


英文部分
1.APEC. 2000. Towards Knowledge-Based Economies in APEC. APEC.
2.Arnold, E. and kuhlman S. 2001. “RCN in the Norwegian Research and Innovation System”, Background Report No. l2 in the Evaluation of the Research Council of Norway. Oslo: Royal Norwegian Ministry for Education, Research and Church Affairs.
3.Arnold E. 2004. “Evaluating Rsearch and Innovation Policy: A Systems World Needs Systems Evaluations”, Research Evaluation, V. 13, No.1.
4.Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au
5.Commonwealth of Australia. 2003. Mapping Austrlian Science and Innovation- Main Report. Canberra.
6.Drucker Peter F. 1964. Managing for Results: Economic Tasks and Risk-Taking Decisions, (1st ed.). Commonwealth Publishing Co., Ltd.
7. . 1993. “From Capitalism to Knowledge Society”, Post-Capitalist Society. Harper Coilins Publishers, Inc.
8. . 2003. Managing in the Next Society. N.Y.: St. Martin's Griffin.
9.Economic Policy Reform and Australia’s Recent Economic Performance. http://www.budget.gov.au/1999-00/bp1/bs3/bs3.html.
10.European Commission. 2000. Innovation policy in a knowiedge-based economy. . Brussels: European Commission.
11. . 2001. European Innovation Scorecard 2001. Brussels: European Commission.
12.Eurostat. 2004. The Fourth Community Survey-The Harmonized Survey Question. Brussels.
13.European Commission/DG Research. 2005. Key Figures 2005 on Science, Technology and Innovation toward a European Knowledge Area. Brussels.

14.Howell & Higgins. 1990. Champions of Change: Identifying, Understanding, and Supporting Champions of Technological Innovations, Organizational Dynamics, 19.
15.IMD. 2001. The World Competitiveness Yearbook 2001, Geneva, Switzerland.
16. . 2002. The World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002, Geneva, Switzerland.
17. . 2003. The World Competitiveness Yearbook 2003, Geneva, Switzerland.
18. . 2004. The World Competitiveness Yearbook 2004, Geneva, Switzerland.
19. . 2005. The World Competitiveness Yearbook 2005, Geneva, Switzerland.
20.Kleinkecht, A. 1993. “Why Do we Need New Innovation Output Indicators? An Introduction, in Alfred Kleinknecht and Donald Bain”, New Concepts in Innovation Output Measurement. St. Martin's Press.
21.Metcalfe, S. 1995. “The Economic Foundations of Technology Policy in Stoneman, (P ed.)”, Handbook of the Economic of Innovation and Technical Change. Oxford: Blackwell.
22.Nelson, Richard R.and Sidney G. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
23.Nelson, Richard R. l993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.OECD. 1963. Frascati Manual. Paris: OECD.
25. . l990. Technology Balance of payment. Paris: OECD.
26. . 1992. Oslo Manual. Paris: OECD.
27. . 1993. Frascati Manual. Paris: OECD.
28. . 1994. “Canberra Manual”. Manual on the Measurement of Human Resources Devoted to S&T. Paris: OECD.
29. . l994. Patent Manual. Paris: OECD.
30. . 1996. Knowledge Based Economy. Paris: OECD.
31. . 1996a. Report on the Knowledge-based Economy. Paris: OECD.
32. . 1996b. Knowledge Based Economy. Paris: OECD.
33. . 1996c. Technology and Industrial Performance. Paris: OECD.
34. . 1997. Oslo Manual. Paris: OECD.
35. . 1999a. Managing Nation Innovation Systems. Paris: OECD.
36. . 1999b. Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard: Benchmarking Knowledge-based Economies. Paris: OECD.
37. . 1999c. Managing National Innovation System. Paris: OECD.
38. . 2001a. The New Economy: Beyond the Hype. Paris: OECD.
39. . 200lb. STI Scoreboard 2001. Paris: OECD.
40. . 2002a. Frascati Manual. Paris: OECD.
41. . 2002b. Science, Technology and Industry Outlook. Paris: OECD.
42. . 2003a. The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.
43. . 2003b. Workshop on the Revision of the Oslo Manual. Paris: OECD.
44. . 2004a. Economic Survey of Australia-2004. Paris: OECD.
45. . 2004b. Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2004. Paris: OECD.
46. . 2004c. Understanding Economic Growth: Marco-level, Industry-level, Firm-level. Paris: OECD.
47.OECD/DSTI/EAS/STP/NESTI. 2004. Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators, Oslo Manual Revision: Synthesis Paper. Paris: OECD.
48.OECD. 2005a. Economic Policy Reforms 2005-Australia Country Note. Paris: OECD.
49. . 2005b. Economic Outlook No.77- Australia 2005. Paris: OECD.
50. . 2005c. Innovation Policy and Performance: A Cross Country Comparison. Paris: OECD.
51. . 2005d. The Economic Policy Reform: Going for Growth. Paris: OECD.

52. . 2005e. International Comparisons of Labor Productivity Levels- Estimates for 2004, February. Paris: OECD.
53. . 2005f. International Comparisons of Labor Productivity Levels: an Estimates for 2004, September 2005. Paris: OECD.
54. . 2006. Science, Technology and Industry, Scoreboard of Indicators. Paris: OECD.
55. . 2008. Factbook. Paris: OECD.
56.Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press.
57. .2003. “National Innovation Capacity Index”, WEF, The Global Competitiveness Report 2002/2003. Geneva, Switzerland.
58.Rothwell, J. 1994. Control of Voluntary Movement. New York: Chapman & Hall.
59.Schumpter, Joseph. 1912. The Theory of Developing Economy. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.
60. . 1943. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (2nd ed.). London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.
61.Smits & kuhlman. 2004. “The Rise of Systemic Instruments in Innovation Policy”, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy.
62.UNDP. 2001. Human Development Report 2001: “Making New Technologies Work for Human Development”, United Nations Development Programme. New York.
63.WEF. 1999. The Global Competitiveness Report 1999/2000. Geneva, Switzerland.
64. . 2000. The Global Competitiveness Report 2000/2001. Geneva, Switzerland.
65. . 2001. The Global Competitiveness Report 2001/2002. Geneva, Switzerland.
66. . 2002. The Global Competitiveness Report 2002/2003. Geneva, Switzerland.
67. . 2003. The Global Competitiveness Report 2003/2004. Geneva, Switzerland.
68. . 2004. The Global Competitiveness Report 2004/2005. Geneva, Switzerland.
69. . 2005. The Global Competitiveness Report 2005/2006. Geneva, Switzerland.