Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37375
|
| Title: | 地區創新氛圍對廠商創新活動與成效之研究
The study of regional innovative milieu on firm innovation activities and success |
| Authors: | 郭慧蘭
Kuo,Hui Lan |
| Contributors: | 邊泰明
Bei,Tai Ming
郭慧蘭
Kuo,Hui Lan |
| Keywords: | 地區創新氛圍
創新活動
研發投入
研發合作
創新成效
regional innovative milieu
innovation activities
R&D input
R&D cooperation
innovation success |
| Date: | 2006 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-19 13:18:54 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 知識經濟時代與全球化潮流下，創新是廠商提升自我競爭力的重要途徑。創新乃原始概念到將知識商業化的一連串過程，而過去探討廠商創新的研究取向多元，研究觀點則以經濟地理學、企業管理學為主，綜合相關研究，大致可將影響廠商創新的因素歸類為三大面向：廠商內部屬性、對外網絡連結關係、廠商所處地區的環境條件。其中，創新氛圍乃是特定地區的行動者透過偕同作用及集體學習過程所產生的社會關係，提升了地區的創新能力，同時提供有利於廠商創新的環境條件，是近來區域發展的重要議題。本研究即綜合上述三大面向因素來探討廠商創新活動(研發投入與研發合作)與創新成效之影響因素。
創新氛圍理論從早期”某種東西之地方化”的探討，演變到後期關注於地方生產系統的運作是受到地區創新氛圍的影響所致；其中，創新氛圍量化指標的缺乏、探討領域的侷限，乃是本研究所要突破之處。本研究以工業區分佈情形、自然與人文界線、通勤圈範圍等原則，先將台灣地區分為46個地區分析單元，再參酌地方生產系統概念，以兩個指標：LQ大於1與製造業就業員工數大於50000人，篩選出26個地區作為研究範圍，最後以科技與傳統產業LQ大於1指標，區別出9個科技產業群聚地區、17個傳統產業群聚地區，藉以比較不同產業領域、地區發展程度不同之創新氛圍。準此，本研究以8個創新氛圍的相關指標，經過因素分析後萃取出2個創新氛圍因素：「創新綜效」、「創新成效」；藉此將台灣46個地區劃分為4種創新氛圍類型：創新氛圍、有創新無氛圍、有氛圍與創新、無創新無氛圍。
於廠商創新活動與成效實證分析方面，本研究採取兩個階段進行，分別皆以三個面向因素(廠商內部屬性、研發合作、地區創新氛圍)的影響因素來探討廠商創新活動與成效之差異。針對創新氛圍方面，於第一階段以不同產業群聚地區的虛擬變數作為隱含地區創新氛圍的概念，測試其對廠商創新活動與成效的影響，第二階段則以地區創新氛圍因素(創新綜效、創新成效)進行科技與傳統產業群聚地區的廠商創新成效之測試。整體研究結果顯示，科技產業群聚地區的廠商傾向自身的研發投入，而傳統產業群聚地區的廠商則多以研發合作居多，但科技產業群聚地區的廠商創新成效較佳；地區創新氛圍確實對於廠商的創新活動與成效有顯著的影響，尤其對於科技產業群聚地區的廠商創新成效更有顯著的貢獻；而研發合作對於廠商創新成效的影響則不如預期。因此，從基礎產業發展環境、知識設施的聚集、地區網絡的建構等方面，來促使各地區創新氛圍之形塑，將有利於地區廠商的創新，特別應加強傳統產業群聚地區的創新氛圍；此外，提倡廠商強化內部基本體質亦是促進廠商創新效率之關鍵所在。
Under the wind of the knowledge-based economics and globalization, innovation is an important way for firms to increase their own competitiveness. Innovation is the process from original concept to business. The past researches on firm innovation branch widely, most focus on economic geography and corporation management. From those related researches, we can simplify the elements which can influence the innovation of the firm into three: firms’ inner attributes, relation of the connection to outside network, and the environment of the area which firms located. Innovation milieu is the social relationship which actors in the area could make it happen through interactions and group learning, which can advance the area’s innovation ability, and give the good environment condition for firms to innovate. Innovative milieu is the important issue in the present regional development researches, this research will integrate the three elements to discuss the influence on firms innovation activities and innovation success.
The theory of the innovative milieu have transformed from discussion of “the localization of something” to focus on the relation of the work of the regional production system and the local innovative milieu. But, the lack of the quantification indicator, and the territory of the research field still need to break through, and is the focus of this research. This research divide Taiwan into 46 analysis area unit, then bring into the concept of the local production system, use two indicators to choose 26 elements as the scope of the research, and farther define 26 analysis area unit into 9 technology industry cluster area, and 17 traditional industry cluster area, to compare the differences of the industry field and the level of the development of the innovation milieu. This research take 8 innovative milieu related indexes, and compress into 2 indexes: “innovation synergy” and “innovation success” through the content analysis; this research use these two indexes to divide 46 areas of Taiwan into 4 types of innovation milieu: innovative milieu, no innovative milieu, innovation but without milieu, and milieu but without innovation.
On the analysis of the firms’ innovation activities and the success, this research take two steps to discuss. At the first step, this research use the dummy variables of the different industry cluster area as the concept of the regional innovative milieu, to check the influence it could make on the firms innovation activities and the success; At the second step, this research use regional innovative milieu indexes to check the firms’ innovation success of the traditional and technology industry cluster area. The whole research shows that the firms of technology industry aggregation area are tend to invest on their own R&D, which the firms of traditional industry aggregation area often do their R&D by cooperating with others, and the innovation outcome of firms of the technology industry aggregation area is better. The regional innovative milieu has the conspicuous influence on the firms innovation activities and the success, especially to the technology industry cluster area, but the influence which the R&D cooperation could make on the innovation outcome is not good as expect. Thus, the making of the basic environment of the industry development, the aggregation of the knowledge facilities, and the build of the local network is the good impact for local firms to innovate, especially for the traditional industry aggregation area ones. At the same time, to reinforce the firms’ inner constitution is also the key to promote the firms innovation. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部份
1. 王緝慈等，2001，『創新的空間－企業集群與區域發展』，北京：北京大學出版社。
2. 天下雜誌，2006，『2006一千大調查』，台北：天下雜誌出版社。
3. 伍家德、杜啟耀，2006，「創新氛圍、知識外溢與產業群聚對科學園區廠商競爭優勢影響性之研究」，『科技管理學刊』，11(3)：53-88。
4. 王憶靜，1996，「生產者服務業區位特性之研究-以台北都會區為例」，政治大學地政系碩士班碩士論文：台北。
5. Porter, M.E.著、李明軒、邱如美合譯，1997，『國家競爭優勢』，台北：天下文化出版社。
6. 朱南玉，2004，「從研發知識及產業群聚效應建立地方創新能力模型之研究」，台北大學都市計畫研究所博士論文：台北。
7. 行政院國家科學委員會，2004，『中華民國科技機構名錄』，台北：行政院國家科學委員會。
8. 行政院主計處，2001，『工商及服務業普查』，台北：行政院主計處。
9. 林育諄，2001，「台灣都市生產者服務業之區位決定因素」，台北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文：台北。
10. 林佳樺，2002，「育成中心影響廠商創新活動成效之研究」，台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文：台北。
11. 林師模、陳苑欽，2004，『多變量分析』，台北：雙葉書廊有限公司。
12. 林傑斌、林川雄、劉明德、飛捷工作室，2005，『SPSS12統計建模與應用實務』，台北：碩博文化股份有限公司。
13. 林楨家、馮正民、李洋寧，2004，「知識可及性對創新的影響：以臺灣北部區域電子產業為例」，『運輸計劃季刊』，33(3)：577-601。
14. 胡太山、張素莉，2001，「技術基礎設施、產業群聚與地方創新網絡建構之初探-以新竹科學園區暨周邊地區為例」，『建築與規劃學報』，1(2)：27-42。
15. 徐進鈺，1998，「邁向一個學習性的區域？台北─新竹高科技走廊的廠商聚集與技術學習」，『師大地理研究報告』第29 期，頁143─159
16. 孫明志，2004，『台灣高科技產業大未來－超越與創新』，台北：天下遠見出版股份有限公司。
17. 施鴻志、解鴻年，1993，『科技產業環境規劃與區域發展』，台北：胡氏圖書出版社。
18. 黃琳鈞，2003，「外溢效果對製造業之影響－以我國大專院校為例」，政治大學地政系碩士班碩士論文：台北。
19. 楊奕泠，2006，「創新環境、網絡與創新成效之研究」，政治大學地政系碩士班碩士論文：台北。
20. 楊政龍、金家禾，2002，「知識設施空間分佈對台灣製造業創新成效之影響」，『台灣土地研究』，(4)：101-124。
21. Saxenian, A.著，1999，彭蕙仙、常雲鳳譯，『區域優勢 : 矽谷與一二八公路的文化與競爭』，台北：天下遠見。
22. 經濟部工業局，2005，『工業區開發管理年報』，台北：經濟部工業局。
23. 蔡宏明，1999，「我國高科技產業發展面對的挑戰與因應對策」，『經濟情勢評論期刊』，5(1)。
24. 魏克儒，2002，「創新與空間－產研地理鄰近性之探討」，台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文：台北。
二、外文部份
1. Acs, Z. J., Anseli, L., Varga, A., 2002,“Patent and innovation count as measures of regional production of new knowledge”, Research Policy, 31(7):1069-1085.
2. Angel, D., 2002, “Inter-firm collaboration and technology development partnerships within US maunfacturing industries”, Regional Studies, 36(4):333-344.
3. Audretsch, D. B. & Feldman, M.P.(1996), “R&D Spillovers and Geography of Innovation andProduction”, American Economic Review, 83(3):630-645.
4. Baptista, R., Swann, P., 1998, “Do firms in clusters innovate more?”, Research Policy, 27:525-540.
5. Becheikh, N., Landry, R., Amara, N., 2006, “Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993-2003”, Technovation, 26:644-664.
6. Becker, W., Dietz, J., 2004, “R＆D cooperation and innovation activities of firms-Evidence for the German manufacturing industry”, Research Policy, 33:209-223.
7. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B., 2004, “Cooperative R＆D and firm performance”, Research Policy, 33:1477-1492.
8. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., 2001, “Localised knowledge spillovers vs. innovative milieu: Knowledge “tacitness” reconsidered”, Regional Science, 80:255-273.
9. Canie, M.C.J., 2000, “Knowledge spillovers and economic growth: Regional growth differentials across Europe”, Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham, UK:43
-56.
10. Camagni, R., 1995, “The concept of innovative milieu and its relevance for public policies in European langging regions”, The Journal of the RSAI, 74(4):317-340.
11. Cummings, J.A., Teng, B.S., 2003, “Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1-2):39-68.
12. Crevoisier, 2004, “The innovation milieus approach: Toward a territorialized understanding of the economy”, Economy Geography, 80 (4):367-379.
13. Cooke, P., Morgan., K, 1998, “The associational economy: Firms, regions and innovation”, Oxford University Press, 19:247-263.
14. Doloreux, D., 2002, “What we should know about regional system or innovation”, Technology In Society, 24:243-263.
15. Feldman, M.P., Florida, R., 1994, “The geographic sources of innovation: Technological infrastructure and product innovationin the United States”, Annals of the Association of American Geographer, 84(2):210-229.
16. Fischer, M., 2001, “Innovation, knowledge creation and systems of innovation”, Regional Studies, 35:199-216.
17. Frenkel, A., 2000, “Can regional policy affect firms’ innovation potential in lagging regions?”, Annals of Regional Science, 34(3):315-341.
18. Fritsch, M., 2000, “Interregional differences in R&D activities-An empirical investigation”, European Planning Studies, 8(4):409-427.
19. Fritsch, M., Franke, G., 2004, “Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&D cooperation”, Research Policy, 33(2004):245-255.
20. Griliches, Z., 1986, “Productivity, R&D and basic research at the firm level in the 1970’s”, The American Economic Review, 76(1):141-154.
21. Hagedoorn, J., Cloodt, M., 2003, “Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?”, Research Policy, 32:1365-1379.
22. Howells, J., 2002, “Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography”, Urban Studies, 39(5-6):871-884.
23. Jaffe, B., 1986, “Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence form firms’ patents, profits and market value”, The American Economic Review, 76 (5):984-1001.
24. Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Moore, B., Wilkinson, F. (1999), “Collective Learning Processes,Networking and ‘Institutional Thickness’ in the Cambridge Region”, Regional Studies, 33:319-331.
25. Love, J., Roper, S., 2001, “Location and network effects on innovation success: Evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants”, Research Policy, 30(4):643-661.
26. Lundvall, B.A., 1996, “the social dimension of the learning economy”, DRUID Working Paper：96-1.
27. Maskell, P., Malmberg, A., 2002, “The Elusive Concept of Localization Economics: Toward a Knowledge-based Theory of Spatial Clustering”, Environment and Planning A, 34:429-449.
28. Maillat,D., Crevoisier, O., Lecoq, B., 1991,“Towards a Quantitative Approach to Local Milieu”, Working Paper 9102, Universite´ de Neuchatel.
29. Miotti, L., Sachwald, F., 2003, “Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom?-An integrated framework of analysis”, Research Policy, 32:1481-1499.
30. Negassi, S., 2004, “R&D co-operation and innovation-A microeconometric study on French firms”, Research policy, 33:365-384.
31. Newlands, D., 2003, “Competition and cooperation in industrial clusters: the implications for public policy”, European Planning Studies, 11(5), 521-532.
32. Oerleman, L.A.G.., Meeus, M.T.H., 2005, “Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? ”, Regional Studies,39(1):89-104.
33. Oerleman, L.A.G., Meeus, M.T.H., Boekema, F.W.M., 2005, “Innovation and proximity: Theoretical perspectives”, Industrial Networks and Proximity.
34. Saxenian, A., 1994, “Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128”, Harvard University Press, Camgridge, MA.
35. Schumpeter, J.A., 1934,“Theory of economic development”, Harvard Bussiness Press, Camgridge, MA.
36. Shefer, D., Frenkel, A., 1998, “Local milieu and innovation: Some empirical results”, The Annals of Regional Science, 32:185-200.
37. Simmie, J., 2005, “Innovation and space: A critical review of the literature”, Regional Studies, 39(6):789-804.
38. Smith, V., Brobge, A., Overgaard, J., 2002, “Does location matter for firm’s R&D behaviour?-Empirical evidence for Danish firms”, Regional Studies, 36(8):825-832.
39. Propris, L., 2005, “Mapping local production systems in the UK: methodology and application”, Regional Studies, 39(2): 197-211.
40. Tether, B.S., 2002, “Who co-coperates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis”, Research Policy, 31:947-967.
41. Thornhill, S., 2006, “Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high-and-low-technology regimes”, Journal of Business Venturing, 21:687-703.
三、網站資料
1. 我國研發與創新能量資料庫http://dbric.stpi.org.tw/index.jsp
2. 經濟部工業局http://www.moeaidb.gov.tw
3. 經濟部智慧財產局http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
地政研究所
94257028
95 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0942570281 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [地政學系] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
