跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.235.227.117) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 21:00
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:江麗慧
研究生(外文):Chiang, Li-Hui
論文名稱:台灣高科技產業技術多角化對創新效率之影響-企業規模之調節效果
論文名稱(外文):The Impact of Technological Diversification on Innovation Efficiency from Taiwan’s High Technology Industries-The Moderating Effects of Firm Size
指導教授:林秀鳳林秀鳳引用關係
指導教授(外文):Lin, Hsiu-Feng
口試委員:劉俊儒陳俊合
口試委員(外文):Liu, Chun-JuChen, Chun-Ho
口試日期:2012-06-27
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:東海大學
系所名稱:會計學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:會計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:59
中文關鍵詞:技術多角化創新效率企業規模
外文關鍵詞:Technological DiversificationInnovation EfficiencyFirm Size
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:520
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:31
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
創新可為高科技公司獲取利基,而專利權的排他性更可成為企業攻擊與防禦的手段。有鑒於創新效率是企業保有優勢競爭力之關鍵,因此本研究以技術多角化為主軸,探討技術的多角化是否能提升創新效率,成為科技產業技術策略的選項。
本研究以2001年至2010年台灣高科技產業之上市上櫃公司,於美國專利暨商標局(USPTO)申請專利者為研究對象,財務資料則取得於TEJ資料庫。本研究利用資料包絡分析法(DEA)結合不同產出層面來評估相對創新效率;另外,本研究以企業規模為調節變項,進一步檢視不同之企業規模在發展技術多角化裨益創新效率之差異。
研究結果顯示,高科技產業技術多角化對創新效率產生正向顯著影響,可使研發資源運用於專利產出及專利引用上具有較佳之效率,進而獲致營業利益,其中並以光電及電子零組件兩次產業最為明顯。此外,研究結果亦指出,大型企業施行技術多角化之創新效率優於小型企業,並且規模之優勢效果繫於大型公司可穩定投入資源而累積較多的研發資本。最後,規模並非全面產生正向的調節效果,在產業技術發展風險較高的光電業,企業規模具負向調節效果,即當企業處於技術發展風險較高的產業而採行技術多角化策略時,小型公司因有較佳的彈性及凝聚力,能跨越組織僵化而有較好的創新效率,本研究結果可調和現有文獻對創新績效存在不同規模效應之論點。

Innovation carries a niche for a high-tech enterprise; the exclusiveness of patent rights serves an important tool for enterprises to fight and defend. Owing to the fact that innovative efficiency is the key to competiveness, the study focuses on technological diversification and discusses whether technological diversification is able to improve innovative efficiency and thus becomes an option of the technique strategies for technological industries.
The subjects of the study include those TWSE/GTSM listed companies who applied for patents from U.S. Patent & Trademark Office from 2001 to 2010. The financial data was retrieved from TEJ database. The study adopts DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) to evaluate the innovative efficiency. Firm size was used as the moderator to further find out the differences in firm size of the enhancement of technological diversification on innovative efficiency.
The findings show that technological diversification has positive effect on innovative efficiency. Technological diversification enhances the efficiency of applying R&D resources in two aspects: the production of enterprise patents and patent citations, both of which lead to revenue. Optoelectronic industries and electronic parts industries reveal more positive effect than others. In addition, the results of the study indicate larger enterprises, compared to smaller ones, have better innovative efficiency. The advantage of the firm size is that larger companies are able to stably invest resources and thus accumulate sufficient R&D capital. Finally, however, firm size does not lead to positive effect in all aspects; when an high-risk technological enterprise implements technological diversification, a small company may better overcome organizational rigidity and have better innovation efficiency due to its flexibility and cooperativeness. The study consolidates various views on the effects of how innovative efficiency exists in different firm size.

謝辭 I
中文摘要 II
AbstractIII
目錄 IV
圖目錄 V
表目錄 VI
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究流程 4
第貳章 文獻探討 6
第一節 技術多角化 6
第二節 技術多角化之創新價值 8
第三節 企業規模與創新效率 12
第三章 研究設計 14
第一節 觀念性架構 14
第二節 研究假說 15
第三節 變數定義 18
第四節 研究模型 24
第五節 研究樣本、期間與資料來源 26
第四章 實證結果分析 28
第一節 基本資料分析 28
第二節 迴歸結果分析 31
第三節 額外測試 35
第四節 敏感性測試 43
第五章 結論與建議 49
第一節 研究結論 49
第二節 管理意涵 51
第三節 研究限制與建議 53
參考文獻 54

圖目錄
圖1-1 2001-2010年中、美、日、韓、歐發明專利授權狀況圖 2
圖1-2 研究架構圖 5
圖2-1 技術分類配置圖 9
圖3-1 觀念性架構圖 14

表目錄
表2-1 技術多角化定義文獻整理 7
表3-1 次產業分類表 22
表3-2 變數定義彙總表 23
表3-3依主計處產業分類歸屬之高科技產業 26
表3-4 樣本產業年度分佈狀況表 27
表4-1 變數敘述統計量 29
表4-2 相關係數矩陣 30
表4-3 技術多角化與創新效率之關係-全樣本 33
表4-4 企業規模對技術多角化與創新效率關係之調節效果-全樣本 34
表4-5 技術多角化與創新效率之關係-累積研發資本高低 36
表4-6 企業規模對技術多角化與創新效率關係之調節效果-累積研發資本高低 37
表4-7 技術多角化與創新效率之關係-產業技術風險差異 40
表4-8 企業規模對技術多角化與創新效率關係之調節效果- 產業技術風險差異 41
表4-9 企業規模對技術多角化與創新效率關係之調節效果-光電業生產類型差異 42
表4-10 技術多角化與創新效率之關係-增加營業利益為產出面 44
表4-11企業規模對技術多角化與創新效率關係之調節效果-增加營業利益為產出面 45
表4-12技術多角化與創新效率之關係-企業規模差異 47
表4-13企業規模對技術多角化與創新效率關係之調節效果-企業規模差異 48


參考文獻
王曉雯、王泰昌與吳明政,2008,企業經營型態與研發活動績效,管理學報,第25卷第2期:173-193。
吳彥濬與林景輝,2005,物流經營績效:考慮專利表現為投入變數,科技管理學刊,第10卷第2期:57-86。
李文福與蔡秋田,2004,新產品研發技術效率及其影響因素之研究,中山管理評論,第12卷第3期︰573-593。
彼得.杜拉克(Peter F. Drucker),1985,創新與創業精神,蕭富峯與李田樹譯,台北:長行出版社。
財團法人國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2011/pclass_11_A203.htm
曹壽民、紀信義與劉正良,2007,股市對創新活動的評價是否具有效率性?從研發效率與內部人交易論析,會計評論,第45期:27-55。
張尹真,2009,技術多角化和知識學習對績效的提升,國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理所碩士論文。
曾信超,2006,企業環境、技術創新能力與技術資源管理能力對創新績效之影響,科技管理學刋,第11卷第3期:1-30。
黃政仁與詹佳樺,2010,創新能力、創新效率及公司價值︰以台灣電子資訊業為例,2010會計理論與實務研討會,台北。
楊朝旭、蔡柳卿與吳幸蓁,2008,最終控制股東與公司創新之績效與市場評價:台灣電子業之證據,管理評論,第27卷第4期:29-56。
楊志海與陳忠榮,2001,研究發展、技術引進與專利-一般動差法於可數追蹤資料的應用,經濟論文叢刊,第29卷第1期:69-87。
楊志海與陳忠榮,2002,研究發展,專利與生產力-台灣製造業的實證研究,經濟論文叢刊,第30卷第1期:27-48。
劉正田,2002,無形資產、成長機會與股票報酬關係之研究,會計評論,第35期:1-29。
劉正田、林修葳與金成隆,2005,創新價值鏈之路徑分析:企業研發投資成效之實證研究,管理評論,第24卷第2期:29-56。
賴勇成與洪明洲,2006,廠商之創新活動路徑,同形與績效間研究:以台灣半導體製造業為例,東吳經濟商學學報,第55期:95-123。
Alonso-Borrego, C. A., and F. J. Forcadell. 2010. Related diversification and R&D intensity dynamics. Research Policy 39(4): 537-548.
Archibugi, D., R. Evangelista, and R. Simonetti. 1995. Concentration, firm size and
innovation: evidence from innovation costs. Technovation 15(3):153-163.
Arundel, A. and I. Kabla. 1998. What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy 27(2):127-141.
Banker, R. D., A. Charnes, and W. W. Cooper. 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30(9): 1078-1092.
Breschi, S., F. Lissoni, and F. Malerba. 2003. Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy 32(1): 69-87.
Chen,Y.S., and K. C. Chang. 2010a. Analyzing the nonlinear effects of firm size, profitability,and employee productivity on patent citations of the US pharmaceutical companies by using artificial neural network. Scientometrics 82:75-82.
Chen,Y.S., and K. C. Chang. 2010b. The nonlinear nature of the relationships between the patent traits and corporate performance. Scientometrics 82:201-210.
Chiu, Y.C., H.C. Lai, T.Y. Lee, and Y.C. Liaw. 2008. Technological diversification, complementary assets, and performance. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 75(6):875-892.
Chiu, Y.C., H.C. Lai, Y.C. Liaw, and T.Y. Lee. 2010. Technological scope: diversified or specialized. Scientometrics 82(1):37-58.
Cincera, M. 1997. Patents, R&D, and Technological Spillovers at the Firm Level: Some Evidence from Econometric Count Models for Panel Data. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 12(3): 265-280.
Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1):128-152.
Cohen, W.M., and S. Klepper. 1996a. Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: the case of process and product R&D. Review of Economics and Statistics 78(2): 232-243.
Cohen, W.M., and S. Klepper. 1996b. A reprise of size and R&D. Economic Journal 106(437): 925-951.
David, P., J. P. O’Brien, and T. Yoshikawa. 2008. The implications of debt heterogeneity for R&D investment and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal 51(1) :165-181.
Diaz-Balteiro, L., A. C. Herruzo, M. Martinez, and J. Gonzalez-Pachon. 2006. An analysis of productive efficiency and innovation activity using DEA: An application to Spain's wood-based industry. Forest Policy and Economics 8(7) 762-773.
Ernst, H. 2003. Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information 25(3):233-242.
Garcia-Vega, M. 2006. Does technological diversification promote innovation?: An empirical analysis for European firms. Research Policy 35(2): 230-246.
Granstrand, O., and C. Oskarsson. 1994. Technology diversification in MUL-TECH corporations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 41(4): 355-364.
Granstrand, O., P. Patel, and K. Pavitt. 1997. Multi-technology corporations: Why they have distributed rather than distinctive core competencies. California Management Review 39 (4): 8-25.
Granstrand, O. 1998. Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Research Policy 27(5): 465-489.
Guan, J. C., R. C. M. Yam, C. K. Mok, and N. Ma. 2006. A study of the relationship between competitiveness and technological innovation capability based on DEA models. European Journal of Operational Research 170(3): 971-986.
Hashimoto, A. and S. Haneda. 2008. Measuring the change in R&D efficiency of the Japanese pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy 37(10): 1829-1836.
Hagedoorn, J. and M. Cloodt. 2003. Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy 32(8):1365-1379.
Jensen, P. H. and E. Webster. 2006. Firm size and the use of intellectual property rights. The Economic Record 82(256):44-55.
Kafouros, M. I. 2006. The impact of the internet on R&D efficiency: theory and evidence. Technovation 26(7): 827-835.
Kodama, F. 1986. Technological Diversification of Japanese Industry. Science 233(4761): 291-296.
Kuczmarski, T. D. 1996. What is innovation? The art of welcoming risk. Journal of Consumer Marketing 13(5):7-11.
Lang, L.H.P. and R.M. Stulz. 1994. Tobin’s q, Corporate Diversification, and Firm Performance. Journal of Political Economy 102(6):1248-1280.
Leten, B., R. Belderbos, and B.V. Looy. 2007. Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(6):567-579.
Lev, B., and T. Sougiannis. 1996. The capitalization, amortization and value- relevance of R&D. Journal of Accounting and Economics 21(1): 107-138.
Lev, B. 2001. Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting, Washington, DC: Bookings Institution Press.
Lee, C. Y. and T. Sung. 2005. Schumpeter’s legacy: A new perspective on the relationship between firm size and R&D. Research Policy, 34(6) : 914-931.
Lichtenthaler, U. 2009. The role of corporate technology strategy and patent portfolios in low-, medium- and high-technology firms. Research Policy 38(3) : 559-569.
McKendrick, D.G. and J. B. Wade. 2010. Frequent incremental change, organizational size, and mortality in high-technology competition. Industrial and Corporate Change 19(3): 613-639.
Miller, D. J. 2006. Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 27(7): 601-619.
Minniti, A. 2011. Knowledge appropriability, firm size, and growth. Journal of Macroeconomics 33(3) : 438-454.
Nishimura, J., and H. Okamuro. 2010. R&D productivity and the organization of cluster policy: an empirical evaluation of the Industrial Cluster Project in Japan. Journal of Technology Transfer 36(2):117-144.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1981. OECD Meeting at ministerial Level on Paris. http://aei.pitt.edu/12469/
Oriani, R., and M. Sobrero. 2008. Uncertainty and the market valuation of R&D within a real option logic. Strategic Management Journal 29(4): 343-361.
Patel, P., and K. Pavitt. 1997. The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: complex path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy 26(2): 141-156.
Pillai, D. and T. Clark. 2008. Firm Size as a Determinant of Innovation: Results from Patent Citation Analysis. Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings : 246-247.
Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review 68(3): 79-91.
Quintana-Garcia, C., and C. A. Benavides-Velasco. 2008. Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: the influence of technological diversification. Research Policy 37(3): 492-507.
Rogers, M. 2004. Networks, Firm Size and Innovation. Small Business Economics 22(2):141-153.
Stock, G. N., N. P. Greis, and W. A. Fischer. 2002. Firm size and dynamic technological innovation. Technovation 22(9):537-549.
Suzuki, J. and F. Kodama. 2004. Technological diversity of persistent innovators in Japan: two case studies of large Japanese firms. Research Policy 33(3): 531-549.
Tsai, K. H. 2005. R&D productivity and firm size: a nonlinear examination. Technovation 25(7):795-803.
Tsai, K. H. and J.C. Wang. 2005. Does R&D performance decline with firm size?—A re-examination in terms of elasticity. Research Policy 34(6): 966-976.
Vaona, A. and M. Pianta. 2007. Firm Size and Innovation in European Manufacturing. Small Business Economics 30(3):283-299.
Watanabe, C., K. Matsumoto, and J. Y. Hur. 2004. Technological diversification and assimilation of spillover technology: Canon’s scenario for sustainable growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 71(9): 941-959.
Wang, E. C., and W. Huang. 2007. Relative efficiency of R&D activities: A cross-country study accounting for environmental factors in the DEA approach. Research Policy 36(2): 260-273.
Wakasugi, R. and F. Koyata. 1997. R&D, firm size and innovation outputs: are Japanese firms efficient in product development? Journal of Product Innovation Management 14(5):383-392.
Yamada, A., and C. Watanabe. 2006. Co-evolutionary dynamism between adaptability and diversification of R&D: The case of Japan’s high technology firms. Paper presented at the IAMOT 2006, 15th International Conference on Management of Technology, Beijing, China.
Zander, I. 1997. Technological diversification in the multinational corporation- historical evolution and future prospects. Research Policy 26(2): 209-227.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top