| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立成功大學 === 企業管理學系碩博士班 === 93 === It takes decades for Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry to develop into a complete industrial cluster, and at the same time it has also taken on an important role not only in the Semiconductor Industry of the world but also in the economic growth of Taiwan. Recently, China rises as a factory of the world making a hot chase after Taiwan. In order to sustain the competitive advantages, promoting IC design industry would be the key to upgrade the competitiveness of Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry.
Seeing that, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has launched a plan named “Two-Trillion and Twin-Star” on promoting Taiwan to be a design and service center of system chips in the world since 2002. The goal of this policy is to raise the added value of Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry and make Taiwan’s IC design houses become the first around the world.
IC design houses are defined as Knowledge-based industry. The key success factor of it is “Innovation,” provoked by Tsai Ming-Jie, the chairman of Mediatek.
According to this issue, this study explores technological innovation strategy of Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry. By the analysis of questionnaires and statistics, this study tries to examine the relationship between technological innovation strategy and innovation performance.Environmental moderators examined in the study were dynamism, hostility, and heterogeneity.
The results of this research are concluded as the followings,
1. The higher heterogeneity of the industrial environment gets, the more aggressive technological innovation strategy the firms take.
2. The more aggressive technological innovation strategy, the better performances the firms make.
3. When the industrial environment gets more hostile, the firms are supposed to take more passive strategy on radicality to make superior innovation performances. And when the industrial environment is more heterogeneous, the firms take more aggressive strategy on intensity of product upgrades and level of R&D spending to get superior innovation performances.
4. The firm which owns higher capital, takes more aggressive strategy on intensity of product upgrades and use of Intellectual Property Rights, get better innovation performances. The firm which makes higher annual revenues adopts more aggressive strategy on radicality, intensity of product upgrades, level of R&D spending and use of Intellectual Property Rights creates better performances.
|
|---|
