台灣高科技產業創新發展研究

Abstract

持續地創新與研發是企業自身發展與獲利的基礎，亦是驅動經濟成長的關鍵。各國經濟之統計研究顯示國家的創新活動與人民的生活水準及生產力有相關性。因此，對發展中的小國而言，國家創新政策對國際、經濟、技術變化的調整以及改善自身經濟與技術情勢有重大的影響力。由於台灣在科技經濟上的突飛猛進，許多專家學者紛紛以台灣之國家創新發展為研究標的，其中更有研究指出台灣的經濟奇蹟主要來自於政府的創新政策。 不同國家在創新強度上的差異與其政策有關，大多數學者在探討創新政策時僅設定於分析一國的政策環境，然而創新政策的分析應該評估不同國家的差異性，才能比較其異同。本研究以台灣與愛爾蘭為國家創新政策之對象，立基於台灣與愛爾蘭皆是以農立國的島國，近二、三十年來致力於發展科技產業因而經濟表現亮麗，台灣與香港、新加坡、韓國合稱為「亞洲四小龍」，而愛爾蘭則被稱為「凱爾特之虎」，各自代表東方與西方的經濟奇蹟。台灣的經濟奇蹟起源於1980年代，而愛爾蘭則是1990年代。為瞭解創新與經濟發展的關係，本研究以Rothwell and Zegveld的分類系統作為比較創新政策的主要架構，評估與分析台灣與愛爾蘭的創新政策，揭露創新相關因素如何驅動此兩國的競爭力，並探討其經濟面與制度面之優劣勢與效能。

相對於韓國政府集中國家資源扶植大型企業集團，台灣經濟成長的主要支柱來自於靈活的中小企業。各種電子相關企業林立，形成台灣半導體、資訊科技、顯示器…等高科技產業的群聚。尤其各種嶄露頭角的新創事業更是高科技產業蓬勃發展的源頭活水。因此，對新創公司而言，育成中心在研發與創新管理上的重要性與時俱增，並受到專家學者的重視。根據世界經濟論壇(World Economic Forum, WEF)所發表的「2006-2007年全球競爭力報告(Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, GCR)」，台灣的「高等教育與訓練」指標在全球一百三十一個國家中排名第七。在高等教育的優良質量上表現出政府對培育菁英人才的用心，尤其是針對科技產業。由此可知，政府對「育成中心」以及「高等教育與訓練」此兩項供給面政策投入之重視與優勢。此外，透過研究台灣與愛爾蘭兩國創新政策之異同，亦得到相同的結論。 因此，本研究除了比較不同國家之創新政策外，更深入地探討科技新創公司育成之創新政策以及科技產業高階主管教育與訓練之創新政策。透過面對面訪談新創公司的創辦人或高階主管，分析工研院開放實驗室對新創公司提供協助的重要性評等(多目標決策法)；藉由電話訪談新竹科學園區與矽谷CEO的教育背景與工作經驗，瞭解科技產業的成功是否來自於人才受到良好的教育與訓練。 希冀透過經濟情勢相近的兩小國創新政策比較，以提供政府可行的政策建議；藉著育成中心服務之重要性分析，提供育成中心加強核心功能以及政府制訂輔助科技新創政策之參考；經由竹科CEO學經歷背景之分析，提供產業雇用人力、學界增進自我能力、以及政府制定科技高等教育制度之參考。

Continuing innovations and R&D (Research and Development) in technology, manufacturing, and production provide the bases for continuing development and increasing profits. Innovation is usually agreed as the key driver of economic performance. Statistical comparisons of economic performance among countries show that the intensity of national innovative activity is correlated with higher rates of standards of living and productivity growth. Therefore, national innovation policies are considered especially relevant for small developing economies as part of their adjustment to the changing international, economic, and technological order as well as improvements to their own economic and technological situations. In addition, international variation in innovation policy presents an opportunity to examine various influences on the pace of technological change. In particular, studies have documented the remarkable progress of Taiwan and cited government innovation policies as a major factor in this success. Understanding international differences in the intensity of innovation also informs public policy. While most studies of innovation are set in a given public policy environment, policy analysis requires an evaluation of variations in innovation with country-level policy differences. As small island countries, both Taiwan and Ireland have been regarded as locations that have performed economic miracles: the former was part of high growth “Asian Tiger” economies that included Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea while the latter gained the nickname the “Celtic Tiger” as its sudden economic rise during the 1990s mirrored the growth of the Asian Tigers during the 1980s. Growing from agricultural economies to major regional players in western and oriental worlds, both have been studied as examples of national development and innovation. Recognizing the relationship between innovation and economic performance, we then wish to explore how actual innovation-related factors drive the competitiveness of these two small but relatively fast-growing economies separately. The research effort is devoted to the main task of assessing and analyzing the innovation policies of Taiwan and Ireland, highlighting their specific strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness in the specific economic and institutional contexts in which they operate. The taxonomy of innovation policy proposed by Rothwell and Zegveld was adopted as the analysis framework for this study. We conduct a comparative study of two different national innovation systems to obtain a critical understanding of the limits and the benefits of specific national policy strategies. Contrary to Korean-government backed conglomerate enterprises, Taiwanese SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) play an important role in Taiwan's continuing economic development. Many technological companies which are clustered on the western coast corridor between Taipei and Hsinchu provided the bases of Taiwan's semi-conductor, personal computer, and display industries. Many hi-tech startup companies found business opportunities by providing products or services to support the giants in these industries. Therefore, technological incubators have assumed a growing role in R&D research and innovation management, and their importance has not escaped researchers’ attention. In addition, according to the Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007 published by the (World Economic Forum (WEF) that cites Taiwan’s seventh-place world ranking in “higher education and training pillar,” both quantity and quality of higher education reflect the government’s efforts to promote education and the development of elite personnel, especially for nurturing hi-tech talents. In addition, from the results of comparative innovation policy analysis between Taiwan and Ireland, we discovered Taiwan’s unique strength in policy tools of promoting higher education and vigorous entrepreneurship. Therefore, among these hi-tech innovation issues, we not only explored overall national innovation policies, but also identified the importance of incubators for hi-tech startups, and explored the education and work experience of hi-tech talents to be aimed at supply-side related innovation policies for further study. This research analyzes whether the success of hi-tech companies in the Hsinchu Science Park and in Silicon Valley may be attributed to the CEOs’ having received higher education and training pillar by telephone interviews. In this dissertation, we also employ a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method to demonstrate the influence and impact that ITRI Open Labs has had on new startup technology companies by face-to-face interviews with founders or CEOs of hi-tech startups. From examining the importance ranking of incubators’ functions for hi-tech startups, we could better understand the contribution of “entrepreneurship” policy tool in the technology field.