- 學位論文
以創新系統管理觀點探討瑞典與芬蘭創新治理機制： 兼論國家科學及技術委員會作為創新領航機構的可能
Examining Swedish and Finnish Innovation Governance Mechanisms with System Innovation Management (SIM): What Could Taiwan’s National Science and Technology Council Learn?
摘要
本研究以常年在國際創新指標表現強勁的國家－瑞典與芬蘭，透過官方報告及相關學術研究之「次級資料分析」，以「創新系統管理」（System Innovation Management, SIM）中的五大面向（制度、知識、技術、財務、需求）找出其創新政策、創新治理機制之相關作為。以期從此些引導性／領航機構（pilot agency）案例當中，更好地揭示SIM的實務運用情形，提供臺灣參考。研究發現，制度面向上，不同於瑞典、芬蘭高度自主性的治理機制而缺乏協調，國科會已從縱向執行部會轉型為橫向協調整合之委員會。然臺灣雖有層級嚴謹的科技專案評議制度，但應著重於長期績效追蹤評估。而知識及技術面向上，雖然臺灣研發總支出占GDP為三者之最，常年在硬體製造上表現亮眼。然以出口導向、中小企業為主的經濟體系，受限於規模，將面臨強大的升級轉型壓力。這也表現在臺灣資訊服務業尚不發達、同時也必須解決國內人才斷層、市場規模及需求較小的問題上。未來政府在擬訂創新政策，首先應根本地定義創新為何。除了激勵新知識與技術的產生之外，更要強化產－官－學間的創新網絡，一同商討共同面臨的社會挑戰。此外，提出有系統、能供評估及監測的治理機制亦相當重要。這不能僅靠國家的介入、或提供經濟上的措施，而需考慮更廣泛的政策組合、涵融更多元的行動者，提出解決社會問題的政策工具與想法，並有制度地排入政治議程當中。
並列摘要
This study analyzes secondary data to understand the five aspects of system innovation management (SIM)—system, knowledge, techniques, finance, and demand—in the innovation policies and management mechanisms of Sweden and Finland, both of which perform strongly in international innovation indices. By examining cases from lead/pilot agencies, we aim to provide the Taiwanese government with practical references for SIM implementation. Research has shown that in terms of system, Sweden and Finland have highly self-governing mechanisms that lack coordination, whereas Taiwan’s National Science and Technology Council (NTSC) has transformed from a vertical executive ministry to a horizontal and integration committee. Despite NTSC has the rigorous hierarchical system for reviewing technology projects, greater emphasis should focus be placed on long-term performance tracking and evaluation. Moreover, in terms of knowledge and techniques, Taiwan’s total expenditure on research and development as a percentage of GDP is higher than that of Sweden and Finland, and it performs exceptionally in hardware manufacturing. However, the small- and medium-sized business economic system, which is export-oriented, may face issues with upgrading and transformation due to its capability. This is also evidenced by issues such as an underdeveloped information service industry, a talent gap, small market size, and low demand. We suggest that the government clearly define what constitutes innovation before formulating policies. In addition to stimulating the production of new knowledge and techniques, it is necessary to strengthen the innovation networks between industry, government, and academia to collaboratively address common societal challenges. The formation of such a network requires not only governmental intervention or economic measures but also an extensive policy mix, diverse agents, innovative ideas, policy instruments addressing social problems, and systematic integration into the political agenda.