let's be the hope

─ 芯之觀點  ─

「天地遐呢大,草根未來底叨位?」

歷史的轉捩點,時而取決於

一個人、一句話、一個思維

世界上有兩種事物富有力量
一是劍,二是思想

而思想比劍更有力

在每雙眼眸、每道皺紋裡看見詩篇

敬!每個「再辛苦也笑給老天看」的靈魂 

"There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the mind" (La plume est plus forte que l'epee) -Edward Bulwer-Lytton

感謝蒞站,上百篇文章陸續更新中

沈芯菱於演講授課、文章著作、媒體專訪等發表之語錄摘要,歡迎引用標示出處。

政治領導 Leadership

  • 政客為的是下一場選舉,政治家是為了下一個世代,政客圖的是呼風喚雨,政治家是為人民遮風擋雨。

  • 自私的人最怕無私的人,貪婪的人最怕無欲的人。

  • 我所做的,是要提醒執政者在廉潔和貪婪中,記得那佈滿風霜的臉龐;在富者和貧者中,記得那徬徨無助的眼神。

  • 領導一個國家,重要的不只是立下多少法規、定下多少制度,更重要的是如何形塑態度、文化、認知及行為,跟人民有所連結,讓人民可以看見與感受得到。

  • 面對強權的國家機器、大家笑我是小蝦米對抗大鯨魚,你問我怕嗎?當然怕,但得記得,有比害怕還更重要的事得去做。

  • 每到選舉時節,社會總是紛擾不安,大家忙著歸類是藍色的台灣?綠色的台灣?富人的台灣?窮人的台灣?卻都忘了,我們只有一個台灣,就是人民的台灣。

  • 要愛這個國家,絕非只是歌頌他的美好、而是挺身而出的爭取公義,那才是世世代代的台灣人所相信的。

  • 台灣經歷多次的巨大動盪,該如何癒合分裂的社會、如何帶領國家繼續向前,這個艱鉅的任務,無法單靠任何一位總統,而是要靠每一位向上的公民。

  • 我們要對抗的不是特定的人,而是特定的意識形態,那些歧視性別、種族、階級的意識形態。

  • 許多人都會說愛台灣,卻少有人問自己願意為她做些什麼?

  • 一代人有一代人的使命,永遠記得,金門八二三炮戰的遺孀捧著夫婿的遺照,含淚述說「他那麼年輕就戰死了,我都八十幾歲,變得這麼老,以後去找他,他…會認得我嗎?」


企業管理 Management

  • 哈佛商學院給我最深刻的一堂課,何謂領導力?真正的領導力,並非頭銜、排行或薪資,而是能扛起多少的責任。

  • 領導的本質,並非要創造更多的追隨者,而是為了創造更多的領導者。

  • 我重新定義EMBA是:Empathy同理、Mission使命、Benefit共益、Action行動。

  • 我研究美國標普五百大企業後,發覺能長期成功的企業,他們經常思考的不是只有賺多少錢,而是能解決多少社會問題、讓多少人的生活更好。

  • 有一種成功,不是打敗多少人,而是能幫助多少人。

  • 結識各行各業,從市井小民到歷任總統、從販夫走卒到企業家,最使我敬佩的不是職位高低,而是他們能賦予職務多少的價值。

  • 從小企業到大企業,接著到<巨大>的企業,還是<偉大>的企業?兩者差別是,前者是用社會資源讓自身變得更好,後者是將自身資源把社會變得更好。


教育發展 Education

  • 政府每年在每位台大學生身上投入36萬元的教育經費,全校花了一百多億元的納稅錢,台大人該有台大人的責任。─首屆台大學生社會奉獻特別獎獲獎致詞

  • 人們怕徒勞無功,像用竹籃裝水,但卻忽略了,竹籃透過水一次次洗滌後,越來越乾淨,儘管沒有即刻的改變,但孩子耳濡目染中,潛意識裡能明白,什麼是對的,什麼是錯的。

  • 大家都喜歡問哪本書對我幫助最大?太難回答,畢竟每個人際遇不同,但我能肯定的告訴你,哪本書對你最沒有幫助?就是從沒打開過的那本。

  • 面對前所未有的挑戰,我們有全新的時代跟工具,但是我們的價值,關於努力、誠信、勇氣、包容的價值,是舊有不變,也不能變的。

  • 老師傅鑿了一輩子的石頭,經常敲一千下沒動靜,但就在第一千零一下,石頭瞬間裂為兩半,難道是最後一下讓石頭裂開?當然不是,而是一而再、再而三的那一千下,缺一不可。

  • 人之所以迷茫,往往就是因為想得太多、書卻讀得太少。同樣一場大雨,有人能去感受他,有人只是被淋濕。當每個人都祝你一帆風順時,我更想祝你們乘風破浪。


品格信念 Belief

  • 經常激勵我的,並不是大家耳熟能詳的偉人,而是許許多多在困境中依然向前、再辛苦也笑給老天看的草根人民。

  • 挫折之際,總會想起在王功漁港遇到的老阿嬤,烈日下他笑著說收到紅包,脫下手套,竟然是被蚵仔殼刮傷流血,她為了下一代的註冊錢,把流血當紅包,支撐她走下去,原來重要的不是運氣,而是勇氣。

  • 我鼓勵孩子只要努力就能改變,但一位泰雅族女孩低頭泛淚的說,她黝黑膚色常被同學嘲笑,皮膚該怎麼改?我告訴她,妳真正要改變的不是原住民的身分,而是要改變別人對原住民的看法,如同我無法改變窮孩子的出身,但能改變別人對窮孩子的看法。

  • 要看一個人的真本事,不是看他們如何攀上輝煌頂峰,而是看他們如何度過人生的低谷。

  • 「等等,你問我何時回美國?不是的,是去美國、回台灣,台灣永遠是我的家」

  • 「人不能忘本、樹不能忘根」阿嬤這句生前的囑咐,讓我婉拒海外千萬年薪,選擇回到台灣偏鄉服務。

  • 十多年的路擺攤生活,教會我知足惜福,以及最重要的「苦中作樂」(bitter-sweet),例如:把鞦韆想像成雲霄飛車、撿石頭當玩具、拍蚊子當遊戲,還記得「做人不能低頭,不然…會看到雙下巴哦!」先改變心態,才有機會改變生活。

  • 魯凱族的老奶奶問我,台灣哪一族的人最多?是阿美族?泰雅族?還是存款不足?她說其實最多族的人就是『不滿足』,要快樂並不難,要比別人快樂就很難。


公益公義 Charity

  • 為什麼我二十年來都在推動「人人公益」?簡單說,如果一盞火炬能點亮一百公尺的道路,那一百盞、一萬盞呢?串聯起來,可以點亮這個星球,當眾人要將火熄滅,我們更需要把火把高舉。

  • 因為窮過,更懂得貧窮的滋味,因為苦過,更懂得正在經歷苦難的人。

  • 一碗飯一個人吃,只有一個人快樂,但給十個人吃,能有十個人快樂,你說吃不飽怎辦?讓人會去思考怎麼創造更多碗飯。

  • 二十多年來的公益之路,走得跌跌撞撞,我始終抱持著一個信念,如果今天失敗了,是我一個人的事;但如果成功了呢?就是全台灣的事了,因為證明了年輕人也能開創舞台!

  • 公益不僅僅是給予,更重要的是參與,是一點一滴的行動,喚醒每個人心中的善良,讓人人都能參與。

  • 投入公益近千萬,卻讓我獲得了兩億,就是<意義>還有<回憶>,儘管兩袖清風、生活簡樸,這無價的兩億足已值得。

  • 儘管到最後,他們仍然被忽視、被冷落,我依舊會掌鏡草根人物走過的足跡,為土地正義發聲,將發言權還給那些在太陽下、彎腰流汗的人們。因為,歷史,終會記上一筆。

  • 一路上拍攝草根台灣臉譜,讓我學會如何用仰角看小人物、用俯角看大人物。每道皺紋、每個眼神都見證人民的尊嚴。

  • 感謝每個願意讓我們服務的生命,世界太大、人生太短,在服務的過程中,彷彿活了千萬種人。

  • 每個人問我Why為什麼十一歲就開始公益?為什麼不接受捐款?為什麼……我只想回答一句Why not?當問Why時腦裡只出現限制,問Why not時才能看見機會。



文 / 沈芯菱


1. Introduction


In the global market, enterprises are facing fierce competition, rapid changes in technology, as well as shorten the life cycle of the product, as the result, the new product development (NPD) has become an important issue for enterprises.


In the development of new products, enterprises should consider various factors, including technology, competitors, customers, costs, resources and other factors. (Thomas,1993) Each company is committed to the development of successful products, but there are still many examples of failures. No one deliberately designed a bad product, most of the designers believe that they do their best to design the ideal product which should be welcomed by the market, but ultimately failed. Many designers think that one of the reasons for the failure is that the final product has a huge gap with the original ideal design.


From the ideal design to the products, there are many procedures, there are numerous reasons will lead to the gap. There are some processes that help to reduce the gap between design and finished products, but others are the opposite. In this paper, we will try to construct a design to the product model, find out the factors between the process, and study the influence of the factors on the design to the product is positive, negative or neutral. This paper has the following objectives:

  • Construct the new product development model and find out the influencing factors.

  • Analysis of the influencing factors in phase stage are positive factors, negative factors (gaps) or neutral factors.

  • After analyzing the attributes of influencing factors, we can consider how to increase the positive factors and reduce the negative factors, in order to increase the success probability of the products.


2. Literature Review

Review and integration of the important research of NPD in order to construct the NPD four processes of this research: concept development, screening and business analysis, prototype development and testing, and product commercialization. Then discuss the factors that may be covered in the four stage (see Figure 2).

2.1 The new product development process

The new product development process is divided into many stages, there is an evaluation mechanism to determine whether the new product should continue or terminate at each phase. There are numerous NPD studies, Cooper (1986) divided NPD into thirteen phase s, and Song (1988) merged it into six phase s. Ulrich et al. (1995) considered the gate-stage into five phases. The following is the summary:

Based on the above summary, we found that the various theories have some point of views in common, this study further integration into four phases: concept development, screening and business analysis, prototype development and testing, product commercialization. (see table 2)

In a marketing context, the ideal point model (Joel Huber, 1976) provides an appealing geometric metaphor which can be used for defining new products, repositioning old products, and determining 'benefit" segments who desire similar attributes in a product. Based on the above discussion, this study suggests that design thinking, user ideal point, and technical assessment should be included in concept development phase.


2.1 Screening and business analysis

After concept development, the designers are then screened, in this phase, Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1986) thought it requested detailed market study/market research, Business/financial analysis. And Song (1988) argued that it includes business and market opportunity analysis. Kuczmarski (1992) pointed out that it combines business analysis and screening. Ulrich et al. (1995) thought it is the phase of system-level design and detail design


Hauser and Clausing (1988) argued that House of Quality(HOQ) which is one of the matrices of an iterative process called Quality Function Deployment (QFD), in order to construct the basis of meeting the customer's needs with the combination of the customer needs and technical requirements. Temponi et al. (1999) developed a heuristic inference scheme to reason about the implicit relationships between requirements. (see Figure3) Bottani and Rizzi (2006) pointed that there are eight steps comprise HOQ operations:


1.Defining customer requirements

2.Formulating relative importance of CRs

3.Comparing competitors

4.Establishing DPs

5.Creating the relationship matrix between CRs and DPs

6.Creating a correlation among DPs

7.Calculating the absolute importance of DPs

8.Prioritizing DPs by absolute importance.

Based on the above discussion, this study suggests that the house of quality, business and market analysis, and screening should be included in screening and business analysis phase.


2.1 Prototype development and testing

When the Designer completes screening and business analysis, then the idea is implemented as a product prototype. Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1986) thought it need to go through product development, in-house product testing, customer tests of product, test market/trial sell, trial production, and pre-commercialization business analysis. And Song (1988) argued that it includes technical development and product testing. Kuczmarski (1992) pointed out that it combines prototype development, plant scale-up and market testing. Ulrich et al. (1995) thought it is the phase of testing and refinement system-level design and detail design.

From the concept to the product, it is necessary to consider the reality, which may not be considered in the design stage, such as compatibility, technical ability, user preferences, etc. Matutes and Regibeau (1988) pointed out that firms must decide whether to make their components compatible with those of their competitors, and the symmetric perfect Nash equilibrium of this game is shown to involve full compatibility.

Based on the above discussion, this study suggests that compatibility, technical ability, and product testing should be included in prototype development and testing phase.


2.2 Product Commercialization

After the completion of prototype development and testing, the product enters the phase of production and commercialization. Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1986) thought it need to go through production start-up and market launch. And Song (1988) argued that it is the phase of product commercialization. Kuczmarski (1992) pointed out that it combines commercialization and post-launch checkup. Ulrich et al. (1995) thought it is the production ramp-up phase.

When the product enters a mass production phase, it must be considered “make or buy” decision (Walker & Weber, 1984) Chesbrough and Teece, D. J. (2002) argued that it depends on the core competition, if the capabilities is existing outside and the innovation type is autonomous, then it can go virtual, and the opposite situation is to bring in house or ally. Spekman et al., (1994) provided a perspective on partnerships into supply chain management, which means success is no longer measured by a single transaction; competition is evaluated as a network of co‐operating companies competing with other firms along the entire supply chain. Whether outsourcing, self-made or cooperation, enterprises are facing a problem, is when to protecting the core competence, the specification limit expression. Especially in the case of layers of outsourcing, may make the ‘knowledge gap’ between the manufacturer and designer. (Molcho et al., 2008)

Based on the above discussion, this study suggests that resources (Budget/Time/People), knowledge gap, and commercialization should be included in product Commercialization phase.


3. Research methodology

3.1 The Research model

According to the above discussion, I conclude the following research model (see figure 4). In phase one, the designers will consider design thinking, user ideal point, and technical assessment to complete the design concept. And then they do screen the design concept, business and market analysis and the house of quality analysis to have the screening strategy in phase two. In phase three, they will evaluate compatibility, technical ability, and product testing to get the prototype. In the final, they will consider the resource, knowledge gap, and commercialization in phase four.

Figure 4: The research model

3.2 The Research Methodology

For better identifying the factors, this study was used the content validity method and list all potential factors which may existed in the stages, and use R-test to find out those factors are independent to others. According to those independent factors, I design a PZB-like questionnaire survey and reference the approach of Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry (1985) to four groups of people involved in the product design procedures (Designers, Engineers in manufacturing department, Suppliers/Vendors, Users, and 100 for each). Gathering the data could have much more understanding on factors which impact to the product design quality, and do the reliability and validity to make sure the study is effective and reliable (see figure 5).

References:

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.

Cooper, R.G., Kleinschmidt, E.J., 1986. An investigation into the new product process: Steps,deficiencies, and impact. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 3, 71-85

Humphreys, P., McIvor, R., & Huang, G. (2002). An expert system for evaluating the make or buy decision. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 42(2), 567-585.

Joel Huber (1976) ,"Ideal Point Models of Preference", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 03, eds. Beverlee B. Anderson, Cincinnati, OH : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 138-142.

Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research, 35(6), 382-386.

Matutes, C., & Regibeau, P. (1988). " Mix and match": product compatibility without network externalities. The RAND Journal of Economics, 221-234.

Molcho, G., Zipori, Y., Schneor, R., Rosen, O., Goldstein, D., & Shpitalni, M. (2008). Computer aided manufacturability analysis: Closing the knowledge gap between the designer and the manufacturer. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 57(1), 153-158.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. the Journal of Marketing, 41-50.

Song, X. M., & Montoya‐Weiss, M. M. (1998). Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products. Journal of product innovation management, 15(2), 124-135.

Spekman, R. E., Kamauff Jr, J. W., & Myhr, N. (1998). An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a perspective on partnerships. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 3(2), 53-67.

Thomas, R. J. (1993). New product development: Managing and forecasting for strategic success. University of Texas Press.

Walker, G., & Weber, D. (1984). A transaction cost approach to make-or-buy decisions. Administrative science quarterly, 373-391.



本文僅供非商業用途,轉載請註明出處作者:沈芯菱│台灣6.0希望工程www.twhope.orgNote: Only non-commercial use, reproduce, please indicate the source.Photo source: Google photo

文 / 沈芯菱


1. Introduction

National Applied Research Laboratories (NAR Labs) in 2015 released “Analysis of Taiwan's Competitiveness in Science and Technology”. The results indicate that in recent years, Taiwan's top three areas in patents with most investment and influential, including the technical impact indicators are electrical machinery, apparatus energy (6,480 cases), semiconductors (6,300 cases) and machine tools (709 cases).

Figure 1 : Relative Impact of Taiwan's Patents in Various Technology Fields Source : NAR Labs


The fields of electrical machinery and apparatus energy is the highest number of patents and the relative influence. The electrical machinery and apparatus energy include many industries, but according to the Chi research, the hot spot patent method, which was tools to predict the next generation of technology.


It was found that in the 2008 and 2009’s hot patents worldwide, the third highest field is UPC324754 "Electricity: Measurement and test / probe". The total number of patents and influence of the patent field: UPC324754 are both increasing while compare the period of 2005-2009 with 2000-2004 by the RTA index in Taiwan.


Measuring, testing and probing electricity is one of the important components of the smart grid. Therefore, the smart grid is an important trend in the world, and there are lots of patents in Taiwan.


The definition of "smart grid" by IEEE refers to the use of digital technology to upgrade the transmission and distribution network, in order to achieve the most optimal operation, and increase the energy market flexibility, then induce a number of the new markets which related to the smart grid.


Smart Grid deployment is imperative, not only in the United States but also around the globe. However, the smart grid is a revolutionary cause of the new communications and control capabilities, energy, generation model and adhere to cross jurisdiction regulatory structure.


There are six categories be classified in Taiwan Smart Grid Industry: AMI Infrastructure System, Distribution Feeder Automation System, Smart Home and Building System, Micro Grid System, Smart Transmission System and Energy Storage System.


In globalization and increasing hyper competition, companies requiring disruptive innovation and jumping to a new S-curve even more critical in nearly every industry. Matthyssens et al. (2006) stresses the importance of value innovation to create and sustain competitive advantage and to rejuvenate the organization.


In this paper, we will discuss the relationship among the R&D investments in the enterprise, patent innovation, and enterprise value in the rapidly changing environment of the smart energy industry, the relationship, whereby research to help companies understand the value of the patent lies. This paper has the following objectives:


The influence of enterprise R & D investment on Patent Innovation.

The influence of patent innovation on enterprise value.

The impact of R&D investment on enterprise value through patent innovation.


In the past studies, they were more concerning in the relation between patent and company performance, more emphasis in the patent numbers and accounting of enterprise performance of the semiconductor industry. This study is focus on the smart grid industry and has joined with the discussion of patent quality, and is different from the enterprise value.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Relationship between R & D investment and enterprise value:


Cohen and Levinthal (1990) defined absorption capacity as a firm's ability to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends. The absorptive capacity is cumulative, while the companies invest more in R&D, it’s easier to accumulate it in the next one.


Griliches (1981) found a significant relationship is found between the market value of the firm and its intangible capital. Artz, K. W., et al. (2010) suggested that patenting and product innovation have different effects depending on the performance metric examined. Sohn, D. W(2010) showed R&D investment is the most significant factor affecting patenting.

Hagedoorm and Cloodt (2003) pointed that the performance of the organization patent can reflect the capability of R & D, and it can also affect the performance of the enterprise. R & D expenditures can be used to analysis enterprise value and non- comparison and subjective characteristics (David and Lev, 2002), as mentioned above, much of the literature reviews support investment in research and development to the enterprise operating performance have positive effects, and that the amount plays an important role.

Hypothesis 1 (H-1): R&D investment is positively associated with enterprise value.



2.2 The relationship between patent innovation and enterprise value:

The resource-based view (RBV) is the basis for a company to lie in the application of valuable tangible or intangible resources to improve the competitive advantage. ( Wernerfelt, 1984)


Peteraf (1993) analyzed that the essence of parsimonious model of resources and firm performance is superior resources, ex post limits to competition, imperfect resource mobility, and ex ante limits to competition.

R&D investment can improve productivity and create company value (Hirschey, 1982; Hirschey and Weygandt, 1985; Chauvin and Hirschey, 1993; Lev and Sougiannis, 1996; Hall, 1999).


Griliches and Mairesse (1984) analyzed that in high-technology industries, R&D investment have value relevance. Lev and Sougiannis (1996), and Hall (1999) show that R&D activities is positively associated with current equity value and future company value. Bloom, N., et al. (2002) showed that patents have an economically and statistically significant impact on firm-level productivity and market value.


Technological capabilities and Market-interface capabilities is the critical component of the core competence. Therefore, core competence is divided into technology core competence, marketing core competence (ET al.1995 Gallon). Patel and Pavitt (1977) argued that technology is one of the sources of the main advantage of the manufacturers, the patent citation can measure inimitable (Markman et al., 2004), and the quality of patent on behalf of, and with company profits have positive correlation (Hall et al., 2001).

Hypothesis 2 (H-2): Patents are positively associated with enterprise value.


2.3 The relationship between R & D investment and enterprise value through patent innovation:


Bound, J. et al.(1984) found that much larger output of patents per R&D dollar for the small firms, with a decreasing propensity to patent with size of R&D programs throughout the sample. Pakes(1985) showed that the total value of patent rights and the relationship between changes in it and changes in the quantity of patents. Scherer (1965) analyzed that the patent approval number and corporate performance in sales growth has a positive relationship


A successful business needs to respond to the changes in the environment, to take a different approach (Miller, 1988). Spital & Bickford (1992) study found that the rapid change of technology environment. Successful business investment in R & D funds ratio is usually higher than the average, and in a dynamic environment, the ability of technological innovation is the key to success.Hall et al. (2002) provided R&D intensity is related to patent measures, and the innovation of new product introduction is related to the operating performance. Schoenecker and Swanson(2002) found limited evidence that aspects of firm technological capability quality are related to firm performance.

Hypothesis 3 (H-3): The relationship between R&D and enterprise value is related to the influence of patent.

Method

3.1 Data Collection and Sampling

3.1.1 Data Sampling:The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) is a system for classifying industries by a four-digit code, it is used by government agencies to classify industry areas. However, there is not yet a category exclusively for smart grid and companies that engage in smart grid spread across many categories.

In order to adopt more accurate sample, the sampling of this study will use listed companies of Taiwan Smart Grid Industry Association (TSGIA), which was officially established in 2010 for the purpose of facilitating the development of the smart grid industry in Taiwan.


In addition, TSGIA is also the officially recognized organization of standardization. TSGIA has 40 publicly traded companies as group member, which are from smart grid industry sectors in Taiwan, including system, component, material, and chemical suppliers, as well as government or private research institutions, consultancies and etc.


3.1.2 Data Collection:

3.1.2.1 Patents data source:The data comes from United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) online patent database. Search Sample companies’ number of patents, patent citations from 2010 to 2015 year.


3.1.2.2 Enterprise value data source:The firms’ public financial reports from the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ) database, including R&D costs, technology introduction, the total assets, the number of employees, staff productivity.


3.2Variable index model:

3.2.1 R&D model: The R&D investment is usually measured by the current R&D expenses. Much of the literature is used to reduce the current operating income, and to eliminate the heteroscedasticity ,called R & D density, defined as follows (Sougiannis ,1994 ; Lev and Sougiannis,1996 ; Huang and Liu, 2005 ):

R&D intensity = R & D expenses / Net current revenue


3.2.2 Patent innovation index:

3.2.2.1 The index model of Patent quantity:Number of Patent (PN) is the granted numbers on the patent owner in a particular period of time, in the patent classification project. Arundel & Kabla (1998) and Cloodt & argued (2003) that the number of patents can be used as a measure of the number of R & D output in high-tech industry. CHI Research (ipIQ) first proposed the method of the quality and quantity of the patent, and the evaluation index is described as follows:


Number of patent approval = The United States Patent Office approved patent number from 2010 to 2015.

〖PN〗_(j,k)^i=∑_k▒〖PN〗_(j,k)^i

i: The patent owner.

j: The technical field.

k: A specific time.

〖PN〗_(j,k)^i: The approved patent number of the company in the technical field and specific time.


3.2.2.2 The index model of Patent Quality:Hall et al. (2001) argued that the patent quality can be found through the number of patent citations. Many studies have also found that patent citations have a positive impact on financial performance. (Ernst, 1995; Hagedoorn and Cloodt, 2003; Markman et al,2004)


Thus, the number of patent citations are as a measure of the quality of R&D output in this paper. Cites per patent (CPP) is the number of patents cited by other companies to assess the quality of the patent in the past five years. The higher the number of references, the more advanced technology, and more influence on the industrial technology and the future development.


CPPy ( Cites Per Patent ) = The number of times for a company which patents (during y-1 and y-6) was cited in year y / The number of patents (during y-1 and y-6) for a company in year y


3.3 The index model of Enterprise value:Many studies adopt the accounting evaluation model of corporate earnings, but may underestimate the value of the enterprise。Griliches(1981) suggested that the value of the enterprise is formed by the construction of tangible and intangible assets. Ohlson (1995) deduced the stock evaluation model based on the accounting information by dividend discount method(DDM), net surplus and linear Information Dynamics Model (LIM). Ohlson model has different results for different life cycle enterprises, so this study is a Ohlson model to consider the life cycle of the enterprise.


Pit=βi0+β1D1+β2D2+β3bvt+β4Xait+β5D1bvit+β6D2bvit+β7D1Xait+β8D2 Xait

i : Individual companies

P t : market price in phase t

X t : Abnormal earnings per share

Xat : Abnormal earnings per share phase t

Growth stage: D1=1 and D2=0

Maturity stage: D1=0 and D2=1

Decline stage: D1=0 and D2=0


The expected result

According to the literature review, the three assumptions should be established, then can strengthen the original literature, but also for the future researchers. There are a number of assumptions that may not be established. In the other situation, if not all the hypotheses are established, then it will need for further investigation in company strategy, research efficiency, government policies, competitors, trade barriers, time-lag effect between R&D investment, patent, and other factors.


Condition 1:

Hypothesis 1: R&D investment is positively associated with enterprise value. (True)

Hypothesis 2: Patents are positively associated with enterprise value. (True)

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between R&D and enterprise value is related to the influence of patent. (True)


Condition 2:

Hypothesis 1: R&D investment is positively associated with enterprise value. (False)

Hypothesis 2: Patents are positively associated with enterprise value. (True)

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between R&D and enterprise value is related to the influence of patent. (True)

Conclusion is not consistent with the literature review.Need for further investigation in company strategy, research efficiency, time-lag effect between R&D investment and patent, and etc.


Condition 3:

Hypothesis 1: R&D investment is positively associated with enterprise value. (True)

Hypothesis 2: Patents are positively associated with enterprise value. (False)

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between R&D and enterprise value is related to the influence of patent. (True)


Conclusion is not consistent with the literature review. Need for further investigation in government policies, competitors, trade barriers and etc.


Most patent and performance of previous studies in Taiwan, focusing on the semiconductor industry and enterprise performance, this study aimed at the emerging smart grid industry enterprise value. Furthermore, because governments are in effect of solar energy and smart grid industry. Therefore, there are many variables will affect the results, it is worth further observation and discussion.

Reference

Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.

Artz, K. W., Norman, P. M., Hatfield, D. E., & Cardinal, L. B. (2010). A longitudinal study of the impact of R&D, patents, and product innovation on firm performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(5), 725-740.

Barney, J. B., & Baysinger, B. (1990). The organization of schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management in High Technology Firms, 19(2), 3-14.

Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2002). Patents, real options and firm performance. The Economic Journal, 112(478), C97-C116.>

Bound, J., Cummins, C., Griliches, Z., Hall, B. H., & Jaffe, A. B. (1982). "Who Does R&D and Who Patents?" R&D, Patents and Productivity, edited by Zvi Griliches. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press.

Breaking the industry recipe. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(6), 751-761.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198-213.

Cohen, W.N., Levinthal, D.A. (1990) Absorptive Capability: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 1128-1152.

Gallon, Mark, R., Stillman, M., H., & David, C. 1995. Putting core competency thinking to pratice. Technology Management, May-June: p20-28.

Hall, H. B., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 2001. Market value and patent citations: a first look. Working Paper, University if California.

Hall, L. A., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2002). A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry. Technovation, 22(4), 231-244.

Henderson, R. & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploiting firm effects in pharmaceutical markets research. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 63-84.

James A. Ohlson, “Earnings, Book Values, and Dividends in Equity Valuation”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 661-687, 1995.

Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation.

management, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509533.

Mansfield, Edwin, (1984), R&D and Innovation: Some Empirical Findings, p. 127-154 in , R&D, Patents, and Productivity, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc,

March, J., Simon, H.A. (1958) Organizations. John Wiley, New York.

Markman, G. D., M. I. Espina, and P. H. Phan. 2004. Patent as surrogates for inimitable and non-substitutable resources. Journal of Management. 30(4): 529-544.

Matthyssens, P., Vandenbempt, K., Berghman, L., (2006) Value innovation in business markets:

Ohlson, J. A., “Earning, book value, and dividends in equity valuation”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.11 No.2, pp. 661-687, 1995.

Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. 1997. The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26(2): p141-156.

Peteraf, M.A. (1993) The Cornerstones of Competitive advantage: a Resource-based View. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-192.

Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view. Strategic management journal, 14(3), 179-191.

Schankerman, Mark and Ariel Pakes.(1986) "Estimates of the Value of Patent Rightsin European Countries During the Post-1950 Period," Economic Journal, Vol. 96, (December 1986)

Scherer, F. M. (1965). Corporate inventive output, profits, and growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 290-297.

Scherer, F. M. (1965). Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. The American Economic Review, 55(5), 1097-1125.

Schoenecker, T., & Swanson, L. (2002). Indicators of firm technological capability: validity and performance implications. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 49(1), 36-44.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy, NY: Harper.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy, New York, NY: Harper.

Sohn, D. W., Hur, W., & Kim, H. J. (2010). Effects of R&D and patents on the financial performance of Korean venture firms. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 18(2), 169-185.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180.

Wiig, K.M. (1997) Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 14(5), 67-78.

Zahra, S.A., George, G. (2003) The Net-Enabled Business Innovation Cycle and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. Information System Research, 13(2), 147-150.

Zvi Griliches, Market value, R&amp;D, and patents, Economics Letters, Volume 7, Issue 2, 1981, Pages 183-187, ISSN 0165-1765,



本文僅供非商業用途,轉載請註明出處作者:沈芯菱│台灣6.0希望工程www.twhope.orgNote: Only non-commercial use, reproduce, please indicate the source.Photo source: Google photo

click more Info.

─ 請點下圖更多內容 ─