技術創新為產業提升附加價值及強化競爭力的關鍵，長期以來台灣持續投入創新活動，但卻未能充份反應在創新成果上。本文以行政院國家科學委員會「台灣地區第二次產業創新活動調查研究」之資料，探討台灣製造業廠商創新活動的營收成果表現，利用複迴歸分析法實證廠商的代工及品牌生產策略，以及創新活動與其創新成果之關係。
實證結果顯示，台灣製造業廠商以OBM生產策略進行技術創新時，其創新成果優於OEM、ODM、OTHERS等活動之成果，OBM對創新成果呈現正向顯著影響，OEM對創新成果為負向顯著影響，而ODM或OTHERS對創新成果影響不顯著，故品牌策略可為台灣製造業提升績效並達成成長目標。
根據本文的研究結果，有以下的建議：
(一)OEM-ODM-OBM 可為台灣製造業的升級途徑：代工生產策略，已無法取得創新成果，台灣製造業廠商應投入品牌的創新活動，才能使廠商的創新有所回饋，OEM-ODM-OBM 可為台灣製造業的升級途徑。
(二)台灣製造業廠商付諸品牌創新實現的可能性：，台灣製造業廠商在面對創新的不確定性，需了解創新阻礙的原因，才可將品牌策略付諸實現，使創新成果得以發揮。
(三)大陸市場是否為台灣製造商開創品牌之新契機：台灣內需市場小，大陸市場對台商具有同文同種的相對優勢，但台灣廠商應以全球觀點做策略規劃，避免高度集中投資某單一經濟體系。

Technological innovation has not only enhanced industrial values but also strengthened competitiveness. However, innovation performances do not been fully implemented while manufacturing firms in Taiwan haven been continuously inputting innovation activities. This empirical study researches various production strategies through the Multiple Regression Analysis by taking the data of “Innovation Survey of Taiwan, TTIS-2” from the National Science Council of Taiwan to explore the relationship of innovation activities and its performances.
This empirical results show that the innovation performances of OBM production strategy is superior to OEM & ODM & OTHERS types. There are significantly positive effects on innovation performances when firms engage in OBM production strategy. Moreover, the innovation performances are significantly negative for firms engaging in OEM, and no effects for firms of ODM & OTHERS. Branding business will enhance the effect and achieve the growth goal for manufacturing firms in Taiwan.
Addressing the following suggestions based on this study:
1.OEM-ODM-OBM can be the upgrading route of manufacturing firms in Taiwan: OEM/ODM production strategies are no longer feasible, only branding development results in innovation performances.
2.The practicability of branding strategy: The firms have ability and courage to achieve the branding strategy and gain the innovation performances after understanding the reasons of obstruction in front of the uncertainty of innovation.
3.If China market is the new chance of developing branding business: Taiwan market scale is limited. We can take advantage of China market but should pay attention to plan global portfolio to avoid the possible risks from devoting all resources to one single economy.

謝辭 ii
中文摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目錄 vi
表目錄 vii
圖目錄 viii
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究架構 3
第二章 文獻回顧 5
2.1 技術創新 5
2.2 技術創新理論 7
2.3 台灣製造業的現況及發展 10
2.4 台灣製造業的生產策略：代工及品牌 17
2.5 文獻探討 21
第三章 生產策略，技術創新的類型與成果 27
3.1 資料來源 27
3.2 廠商的創新類型 34
3.3 廠商的創新類型與技術創新 36
3.4 變數說明 37
第四章 研究方法與模型設定 45
4.1 研究方法 45
4.2 模型設定 46
第五章 實證結果分析 49
5.1 實證結果 52
5.2 實證結果分析 56
5.3 問題探討與建議 59
第六章 結論 63
參考文獻 65
附錄 70

[1]“2009產業技術白皮書”，經濟部技術處
[2]“2015年台灣產業發展願景與策略 2009版”，經濟部技術處
[3]“95年工商及服務業普查報告”，行政院主計處
[4]“Oslo Manual”，OECD
[5]“台灣地區第二次產業創新活動調查研究”(2009)，行政國家科學委員會　專題研究計劃
[6]林灼榮、張國雄、徐啟升、吳秀真、康家維 (2007)，“台灣資訊電子業廠商西進、品牌開拓潛能與營運績效之攸關性研究”， 經濟與管理論叢(Journal of Economics and Management)，Vol. 3， No. 1，17-48
[7]林明震 (2010)，“對外投資與海外生產對產業升級之影響─台灣傳統產業與高科技產業的比較”，國立臺灣大學社會科學院經濟學研究所碩士論文
[8]林惠玲 (2010)，“台灣製造業對外投資、全球化與產業升級”，行政院主計處研究報告
[9]林婷鈴、陳靜怡、任立中 (2007)，“解析自有品牌策略與績效關係的迷思：層級貝氏迴歸模式之運用”，臺大管理論叢第18卷第1期
[10]胡名雯、劉孟俊、吳相助 (2003)，“廠商規模與經濟發展－個體經濟面的實證分析”，第四屆全國實證經濟學論文研討會
[11]徐秀琴、張凱祥(2008)，“「代工困境」與「升級」迷思：解構從OEM到OBM的虛假關係”，「台灣產業與金融發展」文章
[12]陳正倉、林惠玲、陳忠榮、莊春發(2007)，“產業經濟學”
[13]陳信宏、劉孟俊 (2005)，“產業發展模式與經濟產出：檢視「高科技，高附加價值」”，科技發展政策報導，SR9409期，1-20
[14]陳嵩、陳光偉 (2001)，“製造能力與業務型態之配適分析－台灣資訊硬體製造業之實證”，崑山科技大學商管科技季刊
[15]楊志海及陳忠榮（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，第三十卷第一期，27-48
[16]鄭蕙玲 (2008)，“代工及品牌策略與經營績效之研究－以臺灣網路設備產業為例”，國立臺灣大學社會科學院經濟學研究所碩士論文
[17]謝寬裕 (1999)，“臺灣產業外移與空洞化之檢驗”，臺灣經濟金融月刊，35(8)，40-65
[18]蘇元良(2008)，“台灣製造業的美麗與哀愁”，蔚華科技價值經略論壇演講內容
[19]瞿宛文(2006)，“台灣後起者能藉自創品牌升級嗎？”，台灣社會研究季刊六十三期
[20]Afuah (1998), “Innovation Management: Strategic, Implementation, and Profits”, Oxford University Press, NY.
[21]Aw, B. Y., M. J. Roberts and T. Winston（2007）, “Export Market　Participation, Investments in R&D and Worker Training, and the Evolution of　Firm Productivity”, The World Economy, 83-104.
[22]Chernatony, L. D. and McWilliam, G. (1989), “The Strategic Implications of Clarifying How Marketers Interpret: Brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 51, No. 2, 153-171.
[23]Cooper, R. G. (1984), “The Strategy-Performance Link in Product Innovation”, R&D Management, 14(4), 247-259.
[24]Cooper, R. G. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987), “Success Factors in Product Innovation”, Industrial Marketing Management, 16, 215-223.
[25]Crawford, C. M. (1991), “New Products Management”, 3rd ed, Homewood, IL: Irwin.
[26]Davis, L. and North, D. (1971), “ Institutional Change and American Economic Growth”, Cambridge at the University Press.
[27]Doyle, P. (1990), “Building Successful Brands: The Strategic Options,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7, Issue 2, pp.5-21.
[28]Eng, T.-Y. and Spickett-Jones, G. (2010), “An Investigation Of Marketing Capabilities and Upgrading Performance Of Manufacturers In Mainland China and Hong Kong”, Journal of World Business, 45 (1).
[29]Freeman, C. (1987), “Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan”, London: Pinter Publishers.
[30]Griffin, A. (1997), “PDMA Research on New Product Development　Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices”, Journal of　Product Innovation Management, 14(6), 429-458.
[31]Hobday, M. (2001) “The Electronics Industries of the Asia-Pacific: Exploiting International Production Networks for Economic Development”, Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, vol.15, 13-29.
[32]Hopkins, D. S. and Bailey, E. L. (1981), “New Product Pressure”, Conference Board Record, 16-24.
[33]Kamien, M. I., Muller, E. and Zang, I. ( 1992 ) “Research Joint Ventures and R&D Cartels”, American Economic Review, 82, 1293 – 1306.
[34]Kojima, K. (1973) , “A Macroeconomic Approach to Foreign Direct　Investment,” Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Vol. 14, No.1, 1-21.
[35]Kotler, P., Jatusripitak, S., Maesincee, S.　(1997),“The Marketing of Nations”, New York: Free Press, 1997.
[36]Leventhal, R. C. (1996), “Branding Strategy”, Business Horizons, September-October: 17-23.
[37]Mahajan, V., Rao, V. R. and Srivastava, R. K. (1994), “An Approach to Assess the Importance of Brand Equity in Acquisition Decisions”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(3), 221-235.26.
[38]Mansfield, E. (1991),“Academic Research and Industrial Innovation”, Research Policy, V. 21, 1- 12.
[39]Mansfield, E. (1995), “Innovation, Technology and the Economy”, The Selected Essays of dwin Mansfield, Volume II, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
[40]Nelson, R. (1993), “National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis”, Oxford University Press.
[41]Ozawa, T. (1979), “International Investment and Industrial Structure: New Theoretical Implications from the Japanese Experience”, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol.31, No.1, 72-92.
[42]Schumpeter, J. A. ( 1934 ), “The Theory of Economic Development”, Cambridge, MA：Harvard University Press.
[43]Schumpeter, J. A. (1942), “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy”, New York: Harper Business.
[44]Solow R. (1956), “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65 – 94.
[45]Thornhill, S. (2006), “Knowledge, Innovation and Firm Performance in High- and Low-Technology Regimes”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21, 687-703.
[46]Vernon, R. (1996), “International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 190-207.
[47]Wagner, Joachim, (1996), “Export Performance, Human Capital, and Product Innovation in Germany: A Micro View”. Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Review of Economics, 47 (1), 40–45.
[48]Wakelin, K. (1998), “Innovation and Export Behaviour at the Firm Level”, Research Policy, 26 (7/8), 829-841.