1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 以核心能耐觀點探討本土與在台外商藥廠之智慧資本
A Core Competencies Perspective on the Intellectual Capital of Local and Foreign Pharmaceutical Firms in Taiwan
作者 林凱晴
Lin, Kai-Ching
貢獻者 吳豐祥
Wu, Feng-Shang
林凱晴
Lin, Kai-Ching
關鍵詞 生技醫藥產業
本土藥廠
外商藥廠
智慧資本
核心能耐
Biotech and Pharmaceutical Industry
Local Pharmaceutical Companies
Foreign Pharmaceutical Companies
Intellectual Capital
Core Competencies
日期 2024
上傳時間 5-Aug-2024 13:05:46 (UTC+8)
摘要 COVID-19疫情爆發後，全球對生技醫藥產業的重視顯著提升，推進疫苗及新藥的研發與創新技術的進步。2023年財團法人生物技術開發中心年鑑顯示，2022年全球藥物市場規模達1.4兆美元，2018至2022年複合年增長率為4.6%。隨著全球人口老化及慢性病治療需求增加，新興醫療技術使市場持續成長，同時疫情後，很多國家將防範新傳染性疾病和促進醫藥科技發展列為國家安全政策，我國更以「2023年台灣全齡健康」為願景，積極發展相關政策。IQVIA預估2027年前三大治療用藥為癌症、免疫抑制劑和降血糖藥物，其它精準醫療和神經系統疾病新療法亦受高度重視，生技醫藥產業正朝向精準治療發展，需要高知識和技術投入，因此，全球各家藥廠都積極強化內外部的知識與智慧資本之盤點與管理，以提升跨領域合作與核心能耐，並維持競爭優勢。 智慧資本的概念自從1990年代被提出來之後，受到實務界與學術界廣泛地注意。就學術研究的角度來看，有些研究探討智慧資本與經營管理績效的關係，亦有些研究著重於探討智慧資本的各領域（如人力資本和創新資本）的細項指標，甚至有些研究將企業智慧資本的概念應用到區域及國家發展上的觀察。然而，我們可以發現，大多數的文獻似乎都以「量化」研究為主，對於「質」方面的探討則很少，這點也意味著，很少研究探討到智慧資本的品質以及智慧資本與核心能耐的關係，此外，過往的研究也很少探討各項智慧資本指標背後的緣由。再者，過往有關智慧資本的研究，甚少特別針對生技醫藥產業來進行探討。爰本研究的主要目的，就是以核心能耐的觀點來探討我國生技醫藥廠商的智慧資本，希望研究結果同時帶來學術上與實務上的貢獻。 基於補足上述研究缺口的目的，本研究參考研究的目的與文獻探討的結果，提出一個包含核心能耐特性（價值性、延展性、難以模仿性和學習性）與智慧資本（人力資本、流程資本、創新資本和關係資本）兩大構面的研究架構，以做為收集資料的參考框架。此外，也因為本研究多少具有探索性的本質，因此，研究上採用質性的個案研究法。本研究最後擇定兩家本土藥廠（智擎與科進）以及兩家在台外商藥廠（A與M公司），透過半結構式訪談，進行個案研究，深入探討個案公司的智慧資本內涵以及各項指標的背後緣由與運作機制，最後並剖析其核心能耐。 本研究所得到的主要結論如下： 1.在台外商藥廠與本土藥廠核心能耐上的差異，反映在其經營上的不同側重。在台外商藥廠的核心能耐主要集中於人力資本和關係資本，且相互之間的表現上顯得較為一致。相較之下，本土藥廠的核心能耐則分散於四大資本中，且相互之間的表現上顯得較不ㄧ致。另外，無論是在台外商藥廠還是本土藥廠，它們在流程資本方面的核心能耐展現上都較為不足。 2.在台外商藥廠與本土藥廠皆屬於高知識型產業，因此，員工的專業知識與技能都是其重要的核心能耐。在台外商藥廠憑藉的是母公司的資源優勢和較低結構化程度的知識，本土藥廠則依靠自身資源和較高結構化程度的知識，兩者各自會選擇其適合的教育訓練以及知識管理模式，來適應其發展上的需求。 3.在台外商藥廠會因為其母公司的研發集中化所帶來之效率與成本優勢，而不規劃在台進行新藥的研發。相反地，本土藥廠會依據其能力和創新文化，並透過開放式創新與外部合作，專注於利基市場與特殊疾病藥物的開發。 4.在台外商藥廠會透過與顧客和其它企業的合作，來完善服務鏈並共同創造價值，進而以此拓展其核心能耐。本土藥廠則會在外部合作關係的經營上，更側重於傳統的銷售、科學研究及臨床數據的收集與分析，並進而累積其核心能耐。 5.本土藥廠在法規遵循方面會需要從零開始，並獨立進行各國的文件申請與審核，因而展現出較高的核心能耐。反之，在台外商藥廠之相關藥物文件皆由總部完成編寫，其在台的部分僅需配合當地市場的准入與行銷法規即可。至於智慧財產權方面，本土藥廠在這方面的核心能耐表現上顯得較為不一致，而在台外商藥廠這方面的管理，則較為一致地由總部來處理。 本研究最後並提出學術上的貢獻，以及實務上與後續研究上的建議。
After the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, global attention to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries increased significantly, accelerating vaccine and new drug development and advancing innovative technologies. According to the 2023 annual report by the Development Center for Biotechnology, the global pharmaceutical market reached $1.4 trillion in 2022, with a compound annual growth rate of 4.6% from 2018 to 2022. With an aging global population and increasing demand for chronic disease treatments, emerging medical technologies continue to drive market growth. Many countries have now prioritized preventing new infectious diseases and promoting medical technology development as part of their national security policies. Taiwan, in particular, has focused on "Taiwan's All-Age Health 2023." IQVIA forecasts that by 2027, the top three therapeutic drug categories will be for cancer, immunosuppressants, and antidiabetic medications. Precision medicine and new treatments for neurological diseases are also highly valued. This industry shift towards precision therapy requires high levels of knowledge and technical input, prompting global pharmaceutical companies to enhance their internal and external knowledge and intellectual capital management to boost cross-disciplinary collaboration and core competencies, thus maintaining competitive advantages. Since the concept of intellectual capital was introduced in the 1990s, it has attracted significant attention from both practitioners and scholars. Academically, some studies have examined the relationship between intellectual capital and business performance, while others have focused on detailed indicators within various fields of intellectual capital, such as human and innovation capital. However, most literature emphasizes quantitative research, with few studies exploring the qualitative aspects, the quality of intellectual capital, or its relationship with core competencies. Additionally, there is a lack of research on the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the intellectual capital of Taiwan's biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies from the perspective of core competencies, hoping to contribute both academically and practically. To address these research gaps, this study proposes a research framework that includes core competency characteristics (value, scalability, difficulty to imitate, and learnability) and intellectual capital (human capital, process capital, innovation capital, and relational capital). The study adopts a qualitative case study method, selecting two local pharmaceutical companies (PharmaEngine and Excelsior) and two foreign pharmaceutical companies operating in Taiwan (Company A and Company M). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to deeply explore the intellectual capital content of the companies, the reasons and mechanisms behind various indicators, and to analyze their core competencies. The main conclusions of this study are: 1.Foreign pharmaceutical companies in Taiwan focus on human and relational capital, showing consistent performance in these areas. In contrast, local companies spread their core competencies across four types of capital with less consistent performance. Both types of companies show insufficient core competency in process capital. 2.Both foreign and local companies rely on high professional knowledge and skills. Foreign companies leverage parent company resources and less structured knowledge, while local companies depend on their own resources and highly structured knowledge. 3.Foreign companies in Taiwan do not conduct new drug R&D locally, focusing on efficiency and cost advantages from centralized R&D. Local companies focus on niche markets and special disease drugs through open innovation and external collaboration. 4.Foreign companies enhance core competencies through customer and corporate collaborations, improving service chains and co-creating value. Local companies focus on traditional sales, scientific research, and clinical data collection in their external collaborations. 5.Local companies show higher core competencies in regulatory compliance, independently handling document applications and reviews. Foreign companies rely on headquarters for document preparation, addressing only local market access and marketing regulations. Intellectual property management is consistent in foreign companies but varied in local companies. Finally, the study presents academic contributions and practical recommendations for future research.
參考文獻 一、中文文獻 江筱薇（2023），「醫藥產業數位行銷重要性探討-以跨國藥廠為例」，國立政治大學經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)碩士論文。 李元志、郭惠櫻、黃姿熹、許世穆（2009），「製藥公司智慧資本管理研究」，經濟部跨領域研發成果產業化國際高階人才培訓計畫，第四期。 吳安妮（2002），「善用智慧資本 創造無限價值 剖析智慧資本」，會計研究月刊，204，57-66。 吳安妮（2004），「平衡計分卡重點發展方向 與智慧資本相結合 強化策略核心組織」，會計研究月刊，224，98-108。 吳思華（2000），「網際網路智慧資本衡量與發展措施研究」，經濟部工業局軟體五年發展計畫。 吳麗珍、黃惠滿、李浩銑（2014），「方便取樣和立意取樣之比較」，護理雜誌，61(3)，105-111。 吳豐祥（2004），「什麼是企業的核心能耐」，經濟日報。 邱詩閔、張安祺、張瓊文、楊漢琳、劉靜航（2017），「階段性新藥開發NRDO商業模式之分析」，經濟部跨領域科技管理與智財運用國際人才培訓計畫，第四期。 胡欣怡、吳豐祥、張午寧、傅如彬（2014），「由企業之創新管理觀點探討研究機構之技術移轉與新產品開發管理」，產業與管理論壇，16(1)，22-43。 洪英愷（2021），「生物相似藥物藥廠專利行為及其對專利制度之啟示」，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文。 施郁榛、彭朱如（2012）。以智慧資本導航工具探討社福機構之婦女服務方案資源管理。組織與管理，5(2)，1-56。 黃秋霞（2016），「淺談量化與質性研究的反思」，臺灣教育評論月刊，5(9)，149-154。 楊時昕、黃文宗（2020），「影響商業設計組織知識管理關鍵因素之研究」，先進工程學刊，15(2)，67-76。 鄭惠之（2006），「政大會計系教授吳安妮：專注策略性核心智慧資本，創造更高價值！」，會計研究月刊，247，36-36。 薛稚蓁（2011），「我國外商藥廠的知識管理活動與知識管理影響因素之研究」，國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 二、英文文獻 Aaker, D. A. (1984). Developing Business Strategies. Wiley. Agha, S., Alrubaiee, L., & Jamhour, M. (2012). Effect of core competence on competitive advantage and organizational performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(1), 192. Arote, K. S., Salade, D. A., & Patil, N. V. (2023). A brief review on regulatory affairs: Ensuring compliance, safety, and market access. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1(09), 1-1. Bhima, B., Zahra, A. R. A., Nurtino, T., & Firli, M. Z. (2023). Enhancing organizational efficiency through the integration of artificial intelligence in management information systems. APTISI Transactions on Management, 7(3), 282-289. Cegliński, P. (2020). The relations between dynamic capabilities and core competencies on the case of polish companies. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), 48. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press. Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50(1), 57-76. Chung, J.-Y., & Moon, H. (2019). Expert clinical consulting for early drug development programs in Korea. Translational and Clinical Pharmacology, 27(1), 2-5. Denk, N., Kaufmann, L., & Roesch, J.-F. (2012). Liabilities of foreignness revisited: A review of contemporary studies and recommendations for future research. Journal of International Management, 18(4), 322-334. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company's True Value by Finding its Hidden Roots. Harper Business. Edvinsson, L., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Developing a model for managing intellectual capital. European Management Journal, 14(4), 356-364. Enginoğlu, D., & Arikan, C. L. (2016). A literature review on core competencies. International Journal of Management (IJM), 7(3), 120-127. Farzaneh, M., Wilden, R., Afshari, L., & Mehralian, G. (2022). Dynamic capabilities and innovation ambidexterity: The roles of intellectual capital and innovation orientation. Journal of Business Research, 148, 47-59. Haarhaus, T., & Liening, A. (2020). Building dynamic capabilities to cope with environmental uncertainty: The role of strategic foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 155, 120033. Hafeez, K., Foroudi, P., & Nguyen, B. (2019). An integrated core competence evaluation framework for portfolio management in the oil industry. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 18(3), 229-256. Harraf, A. (2013). Strategic agility: A required core competency in new normal. 2013 Eurasia Conference. Harraf, A., Wanasika, I., Tate, K., & Talbott, K. (2015). Organizational agility. Journal of Applied Business Research, 31(2), 675. Hartley, I., & Viskontas, I. (2023). How technology is changing creativity. Creativity, Innovation, and Change Across Cultures (pp. 391-412). Springer. Holsapple, C. W., & Li, X. (2008). Understanding organizational agility: A work-design perspective. Lexington: Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky. Hsu, Y.-H., & Fang, W. (2009). Intellectual capital and new product development performance: The mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(5), 664-677. Isaac, R. G., Herremans, I. M., & Kline, T. J. (2010). Intellectual capital management enablers: A structural equation modeling analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 373-391. Javidan, M. (1998). Core competence: What does it mean in practice? Long Range Planning, 31(1), 60-71. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press. Ljungquist, U. (2007). Core competency beyond identification: Presentation of a model. Management Decision, 45(3), 393-402. Mathew, S., & Seddighi, H. (2022). The formation of a firm's core competence and its development: An analysis with a special reference to North East England firms. European Journal of Management Studies, 27(3), 267-290. Mehralian, G., Nazari, J. A., & Ghasemzadeh, P. (2018). The effects of knowledge creation process on organizational performance using the BSC approach: The mediating role of intellectual capital. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 802-823. Mehralian, G., Rasekh, H. R., Akhavan, P., & Ghatari, A. R. (2013). Prioritization of intellectual capital indicators in knowledge-based industries: Evidence from pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 209-216. Ni, Y., Cheng, Y.-R., & Huang, P. (2021). Do intellectual capitals matter to firm value enhancement? Evidences from Taiwan. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(4), 725-743. Ozkeser, B. (2019). Impact of training on employee motivation in human resources management. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 802-810. Pool, S. W. (2000). The learning organization: motivating employees by integrating TQM philosophy in a supportive organizational culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(8), 373-378. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 79-91. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1994). Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co‐creating unique value with customers. Strategy & leadership, 32(3), 4-9. Saarijärvi, H., Kannan, P., & Kuusela, H. (2013). Value co‐creation: Theoretical approaches and practical implications. European Business Review, 25(1), 6-19. Santoro, G., Ferraris, A., & Winteler, D. J. (2019). Open innovation practices and related internal dynamics: Case studies of Italian ICT SMEs. EuroMed Journal of Business, 14(1), 47-61. Scafarto, V., Ricci, F., & Scafarto, F. (2016). Intellectual capital and firm performance in the global agribusiness industry: The moderating role of human capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(3), 530-552. Schuhmacher, A., Gassmann, O., & Hinder, M. (2016). Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Translational Medicine, 14, 1-11. Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. Doubleday / Currency. Tampoe, M. (1994). Exploiting the core competences of your organization. Long Range Planning, 27(4), 66-77. Tayles, M., Pike, R. H., & Sofian, S. (2007). Intellectual capital, management accounting practices and corporate performance: Perceptions of managers. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(4), 522-548. Teece, D. J. (2017). Dynamic capabilities and (digital) platform lifecycles. Entrepreneurship, innovation, and platforms (Vol. 37, pp. 211-225). Emerald Publishing Limited. Tseng, K.-A., Lin, C.-I., & Yen, S.-W. (2015). Contingencies of intellectual capitals and financial capital on value creation: Moderation of business cycles. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 156-173. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. Verbeeten, F. H., & Speklé, R. F. (2015). Management control, results-oriented culture and public sector performance: Empirical evidence on new public management. Organization Studies, 36(7), 953-978. Yang, C.-C. (2015). The integrated model of core competence and core capability. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(1-2), 173-189. Yaseen, S. G., Al-Janaydab, S., & Alc, N. A. (2018). Leadership styles, absorptive capacity and firm's innovation. International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 14(3), 82-100. Yaseen, S. G., Dajani, D., & Hasan, Y. (2016). The impact of intellectual capital on the competitive advantage: Applied study in Jordanian telecommunication companies. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 168-175. Yaseen, S. G., El Qirem, I., Nussair, M., & Sa'd, H. (2023). Intellectual capital components and entrepreneurial orientation: The mediating role of absorptive capacity. Business Process Management Journal, 29(7), 2129-2146. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Vol. 5). Sage. Yüksel, A., Gök, M. Ş., Özer, G., & Cigerim, E. (2022). A new theoretical approach to intellectual capital: Meta-synthesis definitions of innovative literacy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(6), 1435-1460. 三、網路資料 2021年食品藥物管理署年報，衛生福利部。 2021年國民醫療保健支出，衛生福利部。 2023年生技產業白皮書，經濟部工業局。 2023年醫藥產業年鑑，財團法人生物技術開發中心。 2024年科懋生物科技股份有限公司法人說明會。
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
111364113
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111364113
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 吳豐祥zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Wu, Feng-Shangen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林凱晴zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Kai-Chingen_US
dc.creator (作者) 林凱晴zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Lin, Kai-Chingen_US
dc.date (日期) 2024en_US
dc.date.accessioned 5-Aug-2024 13:05:46 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 5-Aug-2024 13:05:46 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-Aug-2024 13:05:46 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0111364113en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152651-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 111364113zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) COVID-19疫情爆發後，全球對生技醫藥產業的重視顯著提升，推進疫苗及新藥的研發與創新技術的進步。2023年財團法人生物技術開發中心年鑑顯示，2022年全球藥物市場規模達1.4兆美元，2018至2022年複合年增長率為4.6%。隨著全球人口老化及慢性病治療需求增加，新興醫療技術使市場持續成長，同時疫情後，很多國家將防範新傳染性疾病和促進醫藥科技發展列為國家安全政策，我國更以「2023年台灣全齡健康」為願景，積極發展相關政策。IQVIA預估2027年前三大治療用藥為癌症、免疫抑制劑和降血糖藥物，其它精準醫療和神經系統疾病新療法亦受高度重視，生技醫藥產業正朝向精準治療發展，需要高知識和技術投入，因此，全球各家藥廠都積極強化內外部的知識與智慧資本之盤點與管理，以提升跨領域合作與核心能耐，並維持競爭優勢。 智慧資本的概念自從1990年代被提出來之後，受到實務界與學術界廣泛地注意。就學術研究的角度來看，有些研究探討智慧資本與經營管理績效的關係，亦有些研究著重於探討智慧資本的各領域（如人力資本和創新資本）的細項指標，甚至有些研究將企業智慧資本的概念應用到區域及國家發展上的觀察。然而，我們可以發現，大多數的文獻似乎都以「量化」研究為主，對於「質」方面的探討則很少，這點也意味著，很少研究探討到智慧資本的品質以及智慧資本與核心能耐的關係，此外，過往的研究也很少探討各項智慧資本指標背後的緣由。再者，過往有關智慧資本的研究，甚少特別針對生技醫藥產業來進行探討。爰本研究的主要目的，就是以核心能耐的觀點來探討我國生技醫藥廠商的智慧資本，希望研究結果同時帶來學術上與實務上的貢獻。 基於補足上述研究缺口的目的，本研究參考研究的目的與文獻探討的結果，提出一個包含核心能耐特性（價值性、延展性、難以模仿性和學習性）與智慧資本（人力資本、流程資本、創新資本和關係資本）兩大構面的研究架構，以做為收集資料的參考框架。此外，也因為本研究多少具有探索性的本質，因此，研究上採用質性的個案研究法。本研究最後擇定兩家本土藥廠（智擎與科進）以及兩家在台外商藥廠（A與M公司），透過半結構式訪談，進行個案研究，深入探討個案公司的智慧資本內涵以及各項指標的背後緣由與運作機制，最後並剖析其核心能耐。 本研究所得到的主要結論如下： 1.在台外商藥廠與本土藥廠核心能耐上的差異，反映在其經營上的不同側重。在台外商藥廠的核心能耐主要集中於人力資本和關係資本，且相互之間的表現上顯得較為一致。相較之下，本土藥廠的核心能耐則分散於四大資本中，且相互之間的表現上顯得較不ㄧ致。另外，無論是在台外商藥廠還是本土藥廠，它們在流程資本方面的核心能耐展現上都較為不足。 2.在台外商藥廠與本土藥廠皆屬於高知識型產業，因此，員工的專業知識與技能都是其重要的核心能耐。在台外商藥廠憑藉的是母公司的資源優勢和較低結構化程度的知識，本土藥廠則依靠自身資源和較高結構化程度的知識，兩者各自會選擇其適合的教育訓練以及知識管理模式，來適應其發展上的需求。 3.在台外商藥廠會因為其母公司的研發集中化所帶來之效率與成本優勢，而不規劃在台進行新藥的研發。相反地，本土藥廠會依據其能力和創新文化，並透過開放式創新與外部合作，專注於利基市場與特殊疾病藥物的開發。 4.在台外商藥廠會透過與顧客和其它企業的合作，來完善服務鏈並共同創造價值，進而以此拓展其核心能耐。本土藥廠則會在外部合作關係的經營上，更側重於傳統的銷售、科學研究及臨床數據的收集與分析，並進而累積其核心能耐。 5.本土藥廠在法規遵循方面會需要從零開始，並獨立進行各國的文件申請與審核，因而展現出較高的核心能耐。反之，在台外商藥廠之相關藥物文件皆由總部完成編寫，其在台的部分僅需配合當地市場的准入與行銷法規即可。至於智慧財產權方面，本土藥廠在這方面的核心能耐表現上顯得較為不一致，而在台外商藥廠這方面的管理，則較為一致地由總部來處理。 本研究最後並提出學術上的貢獻，以及實務上與後續研究上的建議。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) After the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, global attention to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries increased significantly, accelerating vaccine and new drug development and advancing innovative technologies. According to the 2023 annual report by the Development Center for Biotechnology, the global pharmaceutical market reached $1.4 trillion in 2022, with a compound annual growth rate of 4.6% from 2018 to 2022. With an aging global population and increasing demand for chronic disease treatments, emerging medical technologies continue to drive market growth. Many countries have now prioritized preventing new infectious diseases and promoting medical technology development as part of their national security policies. Taiwan, in particular, has focused on "Taiwan's All-Age Health 2023." IQVIA forecasts that by 2027, the top three therapeutic drug categories will be for cancer, immunosuppressants, and antidiabetic medications. Precision medicine and new treatments for neurological diseases are also highly valued. This industry shift towards precision therapy requires high levels of knowledge and technical input, prompting global pharmaceutical companies to enhance their internal and external knowledge and intellectual capital management to boost cross-disciplinary collaboration and core competencies, thus maintaining competitive advantages. Since the concept of intellectual capital was introduced in the 1990s, it has attracted significant attention from both practitioners and scholars. Academically, some studies have examined the relationship between intellectual capital and business performance, while others have focused on detailed indicators within various fields of intellectual capital, such as human and innovation capital. However, most literature emphasizes quantitative research, with few studies exploring the qualitative aspects, the quality of intellectual capital, or its relationship with core competencies. Additionally, there is a lack of research on the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the intellectual capital of Taiwan's biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies from the perspective of core competencies, hoping to contribute both academically and practically. To address these research gaps, this study proposes a research framework that includes core competency characteristics (value, scalability, difficulty to imitate, and learnability) and intellectual capital (human capital, process capital, innovation capital, and relational capital). The study adopts a qualitative case study method, selecting two local pharmaceutical companies (PharmaEngine and Excelsior) and two foreign pharmaceutical companies operating in Taiwan (Company A and Company M). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to deeply explore the intellectual capital content of the companies, the reasons and mechanisms behind various indicators, and to analyze their core competencies. The main conclusions of this study are: 1.Foreign pharmaceutical companies in Taiwan focus on human and relational capital, showing consistent performance in these areas. In contrast, local companies spread their core competencies across four types of capital with less consistent performance. Both types of companies show insufficient core competency in process capital. 2.Both foreign and local companies rely on high professional knowledge and skills. Foreign companies leverage parent company resources and less structured knowledge, while local companies depend on their own resources and highly structured knowledge. 3.Foreign companies in Taiwan do not conduct new drug R&D locally, focusing on efficiency and cost advantages from centralized R&D. Local companies focus on niche markets and special disease drugs through open innovation and external collaboration. 4.Foreign companies enhance core competencies through customer and corporate collaborations, improving service chains and co-creating value. Local companies focus on traditional sales, scientific research, and clinical data collection in their external collaborations. 5.Local companies show higher core competencies in regulatory compliance, independently handling document applications and reviews. Foreign companies rely on headquarters for document preparation, addressing only local market access and marketing regulations. Intellectual property management is consistent in foreign companies but varied in local companies. Finally, the study presents academic contributions and practical recommendations for future research.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究動機 3 第三節 研究目的與問題 5 第四節 研究流程及架構 6 第二章 文獻探討 7 第一節 生技醫藥產業介紹 7 一、 生技醫藥業產業範圍及特性 7 二、 全球生技醫藥業產業現狀 12 三、 我國生技醫藥業產業現狀 18 第二節 智慧資本 25 一、 智慧資本的定義 25 二、 智慧資本的內涵 28 第三節 核心能耐 36 一、 核心能耐的定義 36 二、 核心能耐的特性 43 第四節 本章小結 46 第三章 研究設計與資料搜集 47 第一節 研究架構 47 第二節 研究變項說明 50 第三節 研究方法 54 第四節 研究個案選擇與資料蒐集 56 一、 研究個案之選擇 56 二、 資料搜集方法 59 第五節 研究限制 61 第四章 個案研究 62 第一節 A公司個案 62 一、 企業介紹 62 二、 企業智慧資本 63 三、 分析：以核心能耐為基礎之智慧資本 70 第二節 M公司個案 78 一、 企業介紹 78 二、 企業智慧資本 79 三、 分析：以核心能耐為基礎之智慧資本 87 第三節 智擎生技製藥股份有限公司個案 96 一、 企業介紹 96 二、 企業智慧資本 97 三、 分析：以核心能耐為基礎之智慧資本 104 第四節 科進製藥科技股份有限公司個案 112 一、 企業介紹 112 二、 企業智慧資本 113 三、 分析：以核心能耐為基礎之智慧資本 121 第五節 個案彙整小結 129 第五章 研究發現與討論 139 第一節 在台外商藥廠基於核心能耐之智慧資本 139 第二節 本土藥廠基於核心能耐之智慧資本 146 第三節 本土與在台外商藥廠基於核心能耐之智慧資本差異 154 第六章 研究結論與建議 163 第一節 研究結論 163 第二節 實務建議 166 第三節 學術貢獻 168 第四節 後續研究建議 169 參考文獻 170 一、 中文文獻 170 二、 英文文獻 171 三、 網路資料 176 附錄一、訪談大綱 177zh_TW
dc.format.extent 5706859 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111364113en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 生技醫藥產業zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 本土藥廠zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 外商藥廠zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 智慧資本zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 核心能耐zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Biotech and Pharmaceutical Industryen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Local Pharmaceutical Companiesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Foreign Pharmaceutical Companiesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Intellectual Capitalen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Core Competenciesen_US
dc.title (題名) 以核心能耐觀點探討本土與在台外商藥廠之智慧資本zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A Core Competencies Perspective on the Intellectual Capital of Local and Foreign Pharmaceutical Firms in Taiwanen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文文獻 江筱薇（2023），「醫藥產業數位行銷重要性探討-以跨國藥廠為例」，國立政治大學經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)碩士論文。 李元志、郭惠櫻、黃姿熹、許世穆（2009），「製藥公司智慧資本管理研究」，經濟部跨領域研發成果產業化國際高階人才培訓計畫，第四期。 吳安妮（2002），「善用智慧資本 創造無限價值 剖析智慧資本」，會計研究月刊，204，57-66。 吳安妮（2004），「平衡計分卡重點發展方向 與智慧資本相結合 強化策略核心組織」，會計研究月刊，224，98-108。 吳思華（2000），「網際網路智慧資本衡量與發展措施研究」，經濟部工業局軟體五年發展計畫。 吳麗珍、黃惠滿、李浩銑（2014），「方便取樣和立意取樣之比較」，護理雜誌，61(3)，105-111。 吳豐祥（2004），「什麼是企業的核心能耐」，經濟日報。 邱詩閔、張安祺、張瓊文、楊漢琳、劉靜航（2017），「階段性新藥開發NRDO商業模式之分析」，經濟部跨領域科技管理與智財運用國際人才培訓計畫，第四期。 胡欣怡、吳豐祥、張午寧、傅如彬（2014），「由企業之創新管理觀點探討研究機構之技術移轉與新產品開發管理」，產業與管理論壇，16(1)，22-43。 洪英愷（2021），「生物相似藥物藥廠專利行為及其對專利制度之啟示」，國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所碩士論文。 施郁榛、彭朱如（2012）。以智慧資本導航工具探討社福機構之婦女服務方案資源管理。組織與管理，5(2)，1-56。 黃秋霞（2016），「淺談量化與質性研究的反思」，臺灣教育評論月刊，5(9)，149-154。 楊時昕、黃文宗（2020），「影響商業設計組織知識管理關鍵因素之研究」，先進工程學刊，15(2)，67-76。 鄭惠之（2006），「政大會計系教授吳安妮：專注策略性核心智慧資本，創造更高價值！」，會計研究月刊，247，36-36。 薛稚蓁（2011），「我國外商藥廠的知識管理活動與知識管理影響因素之研究」，國立政治大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 二、英文文獻 Aaker, D. A. (1984). Developing Business Strategies. Wiley. Agha, S., Alrubaiee, L., & Jamhour, M. (2012). Effect of core competence on competitive advantage and organizational performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(1), 192. Arote, K. S., Salade, D. A., & Patil, N. V. (2023). A brief review on regulatory affairs: Ensuring compliance, safety, and market access. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1(09), 1-1. Bhima, B., Zahra, A. R. A., Nurtino, T., & Firli, M. Z. (2023). Enhancing organizational efficiency through the integration of artificial intelligence in management information systems. APTISI Transactions on Management, 7(3), 282-289. Cegliński, P. (2020). The relations between dynamic capabilities and core competencies on the case of polish companies. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), 48. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press. Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50(1), 57-76. Chung, J.-Y., & Moon, H. (2019). Expert clinical consulting for early drug development programs in Korea. Translational and Clinical Pharmacology, 27(1), 2-5. Denk, N., Kaufmann, L., & Roesch, J.-F. (2012). Liabilities of foreignness revisited: A review of contemporary studies and recommendations for future research. Journal of International Management, 18(4), 322-334. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company's True Value by Finding its Hidden Roots. Harper Business. Edvinsson, L., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Developing a model for managing intellectual capital. European Management Journal, 14(4), 356-364. Enginoğlu, D., & Arikan, C. L. (2016). A literature review on core competencies. International Journal of Management (IJM), 7(3), 120-127. Farzaneh, M., Wilden, R., Afshari, L., & Mehralian, G. (2022). Dynamic capabilities and innovation ambidexterity: The roles of intellectual capital and innovation orientation. Journal of Business Research, 148, 47-59. Haarhaus, T., & Liening, A. (2020). Building dynamic capabilities to cope with environmental uncertainty: The role of strategic foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 155, 120033. Hafeez, K., Foroudi, P., & Nguyen, B. (2019). An integrated core competence evaluation framework for portfolio management in the oil industry. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 18(3), 229-256. Harraf, A. (2013). Strategic agility: A required core competency in new normal. 2013 Eurasia Conference. Harraf, A., Wanasika, I., Tate, K., & Talbott, K. (2015). Organizational agility. Journal of Applied Business Research, 31(2), 675. Hartley, I., & Viskontas, I. (2023). How technology is changing creativity. Creativity, Innovation, and Change Across Cultures (pp. 391-412). Springer. Holsapple, C. W., & Li, X. (2008). Understanding organizational agility: A work-design perspective. Lexington: Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky. Hsu, Y.-H., & Fang, W. (2009). Intellectual capital and new product development performance: The mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(5), 664-677. Isaac, R. G., Herremans, I. M., & Kline, T. J. (2010). Intellectual capital management enablers: A structural equation modeling analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 373-391. Javidan, M. (1998). Core competence: What does it mean in practice? Long Range Planning, 31(1), 60-71. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press. Ljungquist, U. (2007). Core competency beyond identification: Presentation of a model. Management Decision, 45(3), 393-402. Mathew, S., & Seddighi, H. (2022). The formation of a firm's core competence and its development: An analysis with a special reference to North East England firms. European Journal of Management Studies, 27(3), 267-290. Mehralian, G., Nazari, J. A., & Ghasemzadeh, P. (2018). The effects of knowledge creation process on organizational performance using the BSC approach: The mediating role of intellectual capital. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 802-823. Mehralian, G., Rasekh, H. R., Akhavan, P., & Ghatari, A. R. (2013). Prioritization of intellectual capital indicators in knowledge-based industries: Evidence from pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 209-216. Ni, Y., Cheng, Y.-R., & Huang, P. (2021). Do intellectual capitals matter to firm value enhancement? Evidences from Taiwan. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(4), 725-743. Ozkeser, B. (2019). Impact of training on employee motivation in human resources management. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 802-810. Pool, S. W. (2000). The learning organization: motivating employees by integrating TQM philosophy in a supportive organizational culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(8), 373-378. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 79-91. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1994). Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co‐creating unique value with customers. Strategy & leadership, 32(3), 4-9. Saarijärvi, H., Kannan, P., & Kuusela, H. (2013). Value co‐creation: Theoretical approaches and practical implications. European Business Review, 25(1), 6-19. Santoro, G., Ferraris, A., & Winteler, D. J. (2019). Open innovation practices and related internal dynamics: Case studies of Italian ICT SMEs. EuroMed Journal of Business, 14(1), 47-61. Scafarto, V., Ricci, F., & Scafarto, F. (2016). Intellectual capital and firm performance in the global agribusiness industry: The moderating role of human capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(3), 530-552. Schuhmacher, A., Gassmann, O., & Hinder, M. (2016). Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Translational Medicine, 14, 1-11. Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. Doubleday / Currency. Tampoe, M. (1994). Exploiting the core competences of your organization. Long Range Planning, 27(4), 66-77. Tayles, M., Pike, R. H., & Sofian, S. (2007). Intellectual capital, management accounting practices and corporate performance: Perceptions of managers. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(4), 522-548. Teece, D. J. (2017). Dynamic capabilities and (digital) platform lifecycles. Entrepreneurship, innovation, and platforms (Vol. 37, pp. 211-225). Emerald Publishing Limited. Tseng, K.-A., Lin, C.-I., & Yen, S.-W. (2015). Contingencies of intellectual capitals and financial capital on value creation: Moderation of business cycles. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 156-173. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. Verbeeten, F. H., & Speklé, R. F. (2015). Management control, results-oriented culture and public sector performance: Empirical evidence on new public management. Organization Studies, 36(7), 953-978. Yang, C.-C. (2015). The integrated model of core competence and core capability. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(1-2), 173-189. Yaseen, S. G., Al-Janaydab, S., & Alc, N. A. (2018). Leadership styles, absorptive capacity and firm's innovation. International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 14(3), 82-100. Yaseen, S. G., Dajani, D., & Hasan, Y. (2016). The impact of intellectual capital on the competitive advantage: Applied study in Jordanian telecommunication companies. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 168-175. Yaseen, S. G., El Qirem, I., Nussair, M., & Sa'd, H. (2023). Intellectual capital components and entrepreneurial orientation: The mediating role of absorptive capacity. Business Process Management Journal, 29(7), 2129-2146. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Vol. 5). Sage. Yüksel, A., Gök, M. Ş., Özer, G., & Cigerim, E. (2022). A new theoretical approach to intellectual capital: Meta-synthesis definitions of innovative literacy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(6), 1435-1460. 三、網路資料 2021年食品藥物管理署年報，衛生福利部。 2021年國民醫療保健支出，衛生福利部。 2023年生技產業白皮書，經濟部工業局。 2023年醫藥產業年鑑，財團法人生物技術開發中心。 2024年科懋生物科技股份有限公司法人說明會。zh_TW