臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

經濟部「鼓勵國外企業在台設立研發中心」計畫，為推動台灣成為「產業創新研發中心」，對於能與我國產生互補互利之跨國企業，鼓勵其在台設立區域研發中心，使對國內產業產生關鍵影響與互補效果，並引進其科技管理制度以提升我國產業科技水準。自九十一年度推動以來，已獲廣泛迴響與支持，各重要媒體等紛紛報導，國際知名大廠如HP、SONY、DELL、IBM、INTEL等亦陸續來台設立創新研發中心。而為了檢視國外研發中心所帶來之效益，經濟部也執行了一項評估計畫。該評估計畫之架構分成個案、產業及政策三個層次進行，執行的方式乃由個案及產業之評估結果匯總至總體政策，以達到評估的整體性。而本研究主要針對政策評估，採用德爾菲法來匯集專家對於政策之意見。從問卷結果當中，我們可以發現國外研發中心計畫可以促進國內產學研與國外研發中心合作，對於提昇未來研發佔GDP有正面之幫助，因此該計畫的持續推動，仍是未來政策的主要方向。最後本論文也對未來研究方向提出幾項建議，提供給對於想進一步研究評估之研究者。

With an aim to establish Taiwan as a global center for industrial innovation and R&D, Multinational Innovative R&D Centers in Taiwan Program was initiated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) to encourage multinationals to set up their regional R&D centers in Taiwan. Since 2002, the program has received highly positive responses from international enterprises including HP、Sony、Dell、IBM and so on. In order to understand the program’s direct and indirect effects, MOEA set up a program evaluation which divided into three levels: projects, industy and policy evaluation. The paper focuses on the policy evaluation and presents a detailed study of the development of MNCs (Multinational Corporations) R&D center by using Delphi method. We conducted two rounds of Delphi and gathered the expert’s suggestions. The derived results of Delphi survey conclude that the policy to encourage MNCs set up R&D centers in Taiwan can help to build a research network for local companies、universities and research organizations to corporate with foreign R&D centers. Finally, we recommend guidelines for future improvement in the evaluation.

摘要 I
Abstract II
致謝 III
目錄 IV
表目錄 VI
圖目錄 VII
壹、緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究流程 3
貳、文獻回顧 5
2.1、評估的目的 5
2.2、評估者及被評估者 6
2.2.1評估者的選擇 6
2.2.2評估團的成立 7
2.2.3 委任評估者 8
2.2.4 評估的利害關係人 8
2.3 評估方式 10
2.3.1評估架構 10
2.3.2評估的工具和方法 12
2.3.3系統性評估工具 18
2.3.4 英國國家型計畫及美國前瞻技術計畫 19
2.4 評估準則 21
2.4.1 評估準則 22
2.4.2 評估R＆D的邏輯模型 25
2.5 評估結果的使用和擴散 26
2.6 『鼓勵國外企業在台設立研發中心計畫』之評估架構 28
2.6.1 評估委員及利害關係人 28
2.6.2 評估架構 29
2.6.3 評估流程 31
2.6.4 計畫組織分工 32
2.7 跨國企業之研發國際化 36
2.7.1 跨國企業設立海外研發中心之動機 36
2.7.2跨國企業之研發活動對地主國的影響 38
參、研究方法 41
3.1 研究架構 41
3.2 德爾菲法 41
3.3問卷設計 42
3.3.1 國外研發中心計畫之相關性問題 42
3.3.2國外研發中心計畫的執行效能 42
3.3.3 國外研發中心未來各項補助科目重要性及比例之看法 42
3.3.4計畫未來之政策建議 43
3.4專家的選擇 43
3.5 專家意見收斂分析 44
3.6 問卷之信度與效度 45
肆、問卷分析結果 46
4.1 回卷者背景分析 46
4.2 德爾菲法問卷調查過程 48
4.2.1 第一回合問卷調查 48
4.2.2 第二回和問卷調查 48
4.3 問卷結果 49
4.3.1 國外研發中心計畫之相關性問題 49
4.3.2 國外研發中心計畫的執行效能 51
4.3.3 國外研發中心未來各項補助科目重要性及比例之看法 56
4.3.4 未來政策建議方向 60
伍、討論 65
5.1 國外研發中心計畫之相關性問題 65
5.2計畫執行效能 66
5.2.1半導體產業 66
5.2.2 資訊通訊產業 67
5.2.3生物科技產業 68
5.2.4各產業研發中心效益總評估 69
5.3國外研發中心未來各項補助科目重要性及比例之看法 72
5.4 未來政策建議方向 73
陸、結論與建議 75
6.1本研究之重要性與貢獻 75
6.2研究結論與建議 75
6.3後續研究建議 78
參考文獻 80
附錄一 第一回合問卷 84
附錄二 第二回合問卷 92

中文部分：
吳學良、林育司(2005)，經濟部科技專案執行效率之評估：資料包絡分析之實證，台北市，科技管理學刊，第10卷1期，頁101-134。
林欣吾（2002），主要國家科技研發計畫的評估機制，台灣經濟研究月刊第25卷第11期，頁42-51。
承立平(1997)，我國科技產業發展政策之做法與檢討，經濟情勢暨評論季刊第3卷第3期，頁23-45。
徐作聖、賴賢哲(2005)，科技政策理論與實務，台北市：全華科技圖書股份有限公司，頁57-59。
姜貞吟(2002)，創新前瞻技術規劃之策略與績效考評機制，台灣經濟研究月刊第25卷第11期，頁78-86。
陳信宏、史惠慈與劉孟俊(2003)，外商在大陸設立研發中心的策略分析及其對台灣產業創新的影響，經濟部技術處委託計畫，頁1-20。
張元杰（2005），突破台灣產業創新三大失衡：邁向知識與服務型的創新系統，科技發展政策報導4月，頁379-397。
張峰源(2004)，國際創新研發基地計畫-國內外企業在台設立研發中心推動現況，台灣經濟研究院月刊，頁65-89。
劉世南、張超群、董麗蓉（2004）創新前瞻技術發展初期效益評估: 一項科技專案研發計畫之實證研究，新竹，第三屆工研院創新與科技管理研討會，頁1-8。
英文部分：
Arnold, E. and Guy, K. (1997), “Technology Diffusion Programmes and the Challenge for Evaluation”, Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology, Paris, OECD, pp. 65-87.
Arnold, E. (2004), “Evaluating Research and Innovation Policy: A Systems World Needs Systems Evaluations”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 13(1), pp. 19-32.
Bach, L. and Matt, M. (2002), “Rationale for Science and Technology Policy” in Georghiou L and Rigby J (eds.) Assessing the Socio-Economic Impacts of the Framework Programme, Report to DG Research (in press), pp. 132-148.
Bozeman, B. (1993), “Peer Review and Evaluation of R&D Impacts”, in B. Bozeman and J Melkers(eds.), Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice, New York, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 87-94.
Callon, M., Laredo, P. and Mustar, P. (1998), The Strategic Management of Research and Technology: Evaluation of Programmes, Paris, Economica, pp.11-30.
Capron, H. (1992), “A State of the Art of Quantitative Methods for the Assessment of R&D Programmes”, in M.T. Khalil and B. Bayraktar (eds.), Management of Technology III, Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Georgia, pp. 1195-1204.
Capron, H. and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (1997), “Public Support to R&D Programmes: An Integrated Assessment Scheme”, OECD Conference on Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology, Paris, OECD, pp. 35-47.
Chang, P.C., Wang, C.P., Yuan, B.J.C. and Chuang, K.T. (2000), “Forecast of development trends in Taiwan’s machinery industry”, Technological Forecast and Social Change, Vol. 69(8), pp. 781-802.
Clarke, A. (1999), “Evaluation Research: An Introduction to Principles, Methods and Practice”, Southampton, SAGE, pp. 173-185.
Dalton, D. H. and Serapio, Jr. M. G. (1999), “Globalizing Industrial Research and Development”, U.S. Department of Commerce Technology Administration Office of Technology Policy, Springfield, National Technical Information Service, pp. 28-31.
De Meyer, A. (1993), “Internationalizing R&D Improves a Firm’s Technical Learning”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 36(4), pp. 42-49.
Dunning, J. H. (1992), “Multinational Enterprises and the Globalisation of Innovatory Capacity” in O. Granstrand, L. Hakanson and S. Sjolander(eds.), Technology Management and International Business: Internationalisation of R&D and Technology. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 19-51.
Faherty, V.(1979), “Continuing social work education: Results of a Delphi survey”, Journal of Education for Social Work, Vol. 15(1), pp. 12-19.
Feller, I. (2003), “The Academic Policy Analyst as Reporter: the Who, What and How of Evaluating Science and Technology Programs”, in P. Shapira and S. Kuhlmann(eds.), Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 18-32.
Georghiou, L. (1997), “Issues in the Evaluation of Innovation and Technology Policy”, OECD Conference on Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology, Paris, OECD, pp. 19-33.
Georghiou, L. and D. Roessner. (2000), “Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods”, Research Policy, Vol. 29(5), pp. 657-678.
Grandstrand, O., Hakanson, L. and Sjolander, S. (1992), Technology Management and International Business – Internationalization of R&D and Technology, Chichester, UK, Wiley, pp. 97-115.
Grandstrand, O., Hakanson, L. and Sjolander, S. (1993) “Internationalisation of R&D- A Survey of Some Recent Research”, Research Policy, Vol. 22(4), pp. 413-430.
Henry, E. and Kilpatrick, Jr. (1998), “Some Useful Methods for Measuring the Benefits of Social Science Research”, Impact Assessment Discussion Paper No. 5, pp. 1-12.
Holden, M. C. and Wedman, J. F. (1993), “Future Issues of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Results of a Delphi Study”, Educational Technology, Research and Development, Vol. 41(4), pp. 5-24.
Hong, H.D., Boden, M. (2003), R&D Programme Evaluation-Theory and Practice, UK, Ashgate, pp. 20-62.
Hyun-Dae, C., Jae-Keun, L. and Kony-Kyum, R.(1996), “Environment and Technology Strategy of Firms in Government R&D Programmes in Korea”, Technovation, Vol. 16(10), pp. 553-560.
Kuhlmann, S. (1995), “German Government Department’s Experience of RT&D Programme Evaluation and Methodology”, Scientometrics, Vol. 34(3), pp. 462-469
Langfeldt, L. (2004), “Expert Panels Evaluating Research: Decision-making and Sources of Bias”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 13(1), pp. 51-62.
Luukkonen, T. (1999), “Additionality of EU Framework Programmes”, Research Policy, Vol. 29(6), pp. 711-724.
Luukkonen, T. and Stahle B. (1990), “Quality Evaluations in the Management of Basic and Applied Research”, Research Policy, Vol. 19(2), pp. 357-368
Mansfield, E., Teece, D. and Romeo, A. (1979), “Overseas Research and Development by U.S. Based Firms”, Economica 46, pp. 187-196.
Menzler-Hokkanen, I. (1995), “Multinational Enterprises and Technology Transfer”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 10(2/3), pp. 293-310.
Mushin, L., Byoungho, S. and Kiyong, O. (1996), “Evaluation of National R&D Projects in Korea”, Research Policy, Vol. 25(5), pp. 805-818.
Pearce, R. D. (1989), The Internationalisation of Research and Development by Multinational Enterprises, London, Macmillan.
Piric, A. and Reeve, N. (1997), “Evaluation of Public Investment in R&D-Towards a Contingency Analysis”, OECD Conference on Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology, Paris, OECD, pp. 49-64.
Porter, A.L. (1991), Forecasting and Management of Technology, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 214-217.
Roessner, D. (1989), “Evaluation Government Innovation Programmes: Lessons from the U.S. Experience”, Research Policy, Vol. 18(6), pp. 343-359.
Rossi, P. H. and Freeman H. E. (1993), Evaluation-A Systematic Approach, London, Sage, pp. 143-156.
Quintas, P. and Guy, K. (1993), “Collaborative, pre-competitive R&D and the firm”, Research Policy, Vol. 24(3), pp. 325-348.
Reddy, P. (2002), The Globalization of Corporate R&D:Implications for Innovation Systems in Host Countries, London, Routledge, pp. 165-168.
Scriven, M. (1996), “Types of evaluation and types of evaluator”, Evaluation Practice, Vol. 17(2), pp. 151-161.
Smith, K. (2000), “Innovation as a Systemic Phenomenon: Rethinking the Role of Policy”, Enterprise & Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 1(1), pp. 73-102.
Weinberg, A. M. (1989), “Criteria for evaluation, a generation later” in Evaluation of Scientific Research, Chichester, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 3-15.
Weiss, C. H. (1988), “Evaluation for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care?”, Evaluation Practice, Vol. 9(2), pp. 87-92.