核心能力是企業既有與潛在競爭優勢的根本(Prahalad and Hamel, 1990)，資源基礎學派特別強調核心能力的發展以維持競爭優勢與提昇企業績效。本研究旨在探討台灣資訊電子產業之核心能力與經營績效的實證關聯，所考量之企業核心能力包括技術與行銷兩大構面。有別於以往，本研究分別採用「專利件數」、「專利引證」和「專利自我引證率」作為技術能力的衡量指標；而企業經營績效則涵蓋了財務績效和企業市場價值觀點。另外，根據資源基礎理論探討核心能力不易模仿的特性對企業經營績效的影響。

根據專利件數、專利引證率、專利自我引證率之統計，台積電、聯電和鴻海是我國資訊電子產業中技術能力的佼佼者。實證結果發現，相較於專利件數與專利引證，以專利自我引證率作為技術能力的衡量變數，對企業經營績效提升的解釋能力最佳。研究結果隱含企業僅重視專利之取得與引證次數並不一定能改善企業經營績效，故持續深耕自有之特定核心技術，方有助於企業經營績效之提升。

另實證結果還發現在台灣資訊電子產業中，即使面對競爭者的技術模仿，對其經營績效之影響有限；以及行銷能力對企業之長期成長性有顯著的正向影響。

Core competencies are the roots of competitive advantage and wellspring of new business development (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Resource- based scholars extraordinarily emphasize on cultivating core competencies to sustain competitive advantage and enhance firm performance. The purpose of this article is to empirically examine the impact of competencies on firm performance, considering technological competence and marketing competence two dimensions. Different from previous method, this article states patent counts, patent citations and patent self citations as the indicators of technological competence. In the mean time, the firm performance here describe including financial measures and market value. According to resource-based theory, this article also investigates the relationship between the concept of imitability and firm performance.

According to patent counts, patent citations and patent self citations, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), Untied Microelectronics Co. (UMC), and Hon Hai Precision Co. (Hon Hai) are identified as leading manufacturers with technological competence in Taiwan information technology industry. The empirical results show, comparing with patent counts and patent citations, patent self citations as the indicator of technological competence explains better on the improvement of firm performance. This finding implies that if companies stress only on patent counts and patent citations, it is unnecessary relevant to the improvement of firm performance, while keeping on cultivating self-owned specific core technology bringing significant enhancement on performance.

Besides, another empirical result in this study shows that in Taiwan information technology industry there‘s limited affection on firm performance while facing competitors’ imitation on technological knowledge; and also shows marketing competence provides significant and positive effect on the long-term growth of a company.

一、中文文獻
1.司徒達賢(1995)，資源基礎理論與企業競爭優勢關係之探討(國科會，No. NSC82-0301-H-110-040)，台北：行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
2.黃雅苓(1997)，研究發展支出與經營績效關係及其費用化之探討-以台灣上市公司電子業與非電子業為例」國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。
3.林亮宏(1998)，企業之核心能力與績效關係之研究-以資訊電子業為例，國立成功大學工業管理學系碩士論文
4.莊尚平(2000)，資源基礎理論下持久競爭優勢之整合性架構初探，國立台灣科技大學工業管理系碩士論文。
5.王志封(2000)，我國半導體上市櫃公司財務績效之研究，私立實踐大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
6.李洋昇(2000)，臺灣資訊電子廠商核心專長與競爭策略之研究，國立東華大學國際企業管理研究所碩士論文。
7.徐君毅(2001)，研發與廣告支出對企業價值變動之因果關係研究，私立東海大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
8.黃麗華(2001)，國內資訊電子廠商核心能力、成長策略與經營績效之研究，私立中國文化大學商學院國際企業管理系碩士論文。
9.吳美娟(2002)，台灣IC製造業製程技術能力、專利權與績效關係之研究，國立雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
10.楊開祥(2002)，研究發展投資抵減與企業績效關聯性之探討-以我國上市資訊電子業為例，國立台灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
11.陳政任(2002)，以資料包絡法探討台灣資訊電子業之核心能力與經營績效，國立成功大學工業管理學系碩士論文。
12.吳芝香(2002)，移地生產與價值創造對企業經營績效影響之研究—台灣電子資訊硬體廠商之實證，國立台灣大學國際企業研究所碩士論文。
13.許受昌(2002)，資訊電子產業研究發展支出與股東報酬關聯性分析，私立東吳大學會計學系碩士論文。
14.葉玉慧(2003)，專利權、創新投資與公司價值創造關係之研究—以研發投資宣告為例，國立成功大學國際企業研究所碩士論文。
15.鍾育榮(2004)，以組織能力、鑲嵌連結觀點探討對台灣電子商務新創事業經營績效之影響，私立銘傳大學國際企業學系碩士班論文。
16.胡家菱(2004)，專利權及專利引用資訊對公司價值的影響--台灣上市公司實證(1990~1999年)，國立台灣大學財務金融學研究所碩士論文。
17.魏中偉(2004)，定期海運業核心能力與績效關係之研究，國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文。
18.莊博文(2005)，技術能力、行銷能力與組織績效關係之研究，國立政治大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
19.涂佩真(2005)，專利品質與公司獲利能力關聯性之研究-以美國半導體產業為例，私立中原大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
20.吳蕙芬(2005)，研發支出及專利質量與公司市場價值關聯性研究-產業間之比較觀點，私立中原大學企業管理學系碩士論文。

二、英文文獻
1.Aaker, D.A. (1989), “Managing assets and skills: the key to a sustainable Competitive Advantage,” California Management Review, Winter, 31, 2, pp.91-107.
2.Archibug, D., Pianta, M(1996), “measuring technology change through patents and innovation surveys”, Technovation, Vol. 16, pp.451-468.
3.Bettis, R. (1981), “Performance differences in related and unrelated firms,” Strategic Management Journal, 2(4), pp.379-393.
4.Chatterjee, S., and Wernerfelt, S. (1991), “The link between resources and type of diversification: Theory and evidence,” Strategic Management Journal, 12, p33-48.
5.Dalton, D. R., Todor W. D., Spendolini M. J., Fielding G. J. and Poter L. W.(1980), “Organization structure performance: a critical review,” Academy of Management Review, 5(1), pp.49-57.
6.De Carolis, D.M., (2003), “Competencies and imitability in the pharmaceutical industry: an analysis of their relationship with firm performance,” Journal of Management 29 (1), pp.27-50.
7.Deng, Z., Lev, B., and Narin, F. (1999),”Science and Technology as Predictors of Stock Performance,” Financial Analysts Journal, 55, 3, pp.20-32.
8.Dierckx, I. and K. Cool (1989), “Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage,” Management Science, 35(December), pp.1504-1511.
9.Dutta, S., O. Narasimhan, and S. Rajiv (2005), “Conceptualizing and measuring capabilities: methodology and empirical application,” Strategic Management Journal, 26, pp. 277-285.
10.Duysters, G., Hagedoorn, J., (2000), “Core competencies and company performance in the world-wide computer industry,” Journal of High Technology Management Research 11 (1), pp.75-91.
11.Ethiraj, S.K., P. Kale, M.S. Krishnan and J.V. Singh (2005), “Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry,” Strategic Management Journal, 26, pp. 25-45.
12.Jaff, A.B., Trajenberg, M., Henderson, R. (1993), “Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.108, pp.577-598
13.Gallon, Mark R., Stillman, Harold M. and Coats, David, (1995), ” Putting core competency thinking to practice,” Technology Management, May-June pp.20-28
14.Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A.B., Trajenberg, M.(2001), “The NBER patent citations dada file: lesson, insights and methodological tools,” University of California, Berkeley, Dept. of Economics Working Paper.
15.Hafeeze, K., Zhang, Y.B., Malak, M. (2002),”Core competence for sustainable competitive advantage: a structured methodology for identifying core competence”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Feb. 49, 1, pp.28-30.
16.Hagedoorn, J. and Cloodt, M. (2003), “Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?,” Research Policy, 32, pp.1365-1379.
17.Hitt, M., & Ireland, R. (1985), “Corporate distinctive competence, strategy, industry and performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 6, pp.273-293.
18.Hu, Albert G.Z., Adam, B. Jaffe. (2001), “Patent citation and international knowledge flow : the case of Korea and Taiwan”, NBER Working Paper Series, No.8528.
19.Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), “Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.13, pp. 111-126.
20.Javidan, M. (1998), “Core competence: what does it in practice?” Long Range Planning, Vol.31(1), pp.60-71
21.MacGarvie, M. (2005), “The determinants of international knowledge diffusion as measured by patent citations,” Economics Letters, 87, pp.121-126.
22.Mank , A. and Nystrom, H.(2001), ”Decreasing returns to shareholders from R&D spending in the computer industry,” Engineering Management Journal, Sep. 12, 2, pp.3-8
23.Markides, C. C., and Williamson, P. J. (1994), “Related diversification, core competences and corporate performance, ” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 15, pp.149-165.
24.McEvily, S. K., and Chakravarthy, B. (2002), “The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: an empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge”, Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), pp.285-305.
25.McMillan, G. S. and Abington P. S. (2001), “Using science and technology indicators to manage R&D as a business”, Engineering Management Journal, Sep. 13, 3, pp.9-14
26.OECD (1994), “Using patent data as science and technology indicators”, PATENT MANUAL
27.Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation,” Harvard Business Review, 68(3), pp. 79-91.
28.Schoenecker, T. and Swanson, L. (2002), “Indicators of firm technological capability: validity and performance implications,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 49(1), pp.36-44
29.Stolpe, M.(2002),Determinants of knowledge diffusion s evidenced in patent data: the case of liquid crystal display technology, Research Policy 31, pp.1181-1198
30.Tsai, K.-H. (2004), “The impact of technological capability on firm performance in Taiwan’s electronics industry,” Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15, pp.183-195
31.Trajtenberg, M. (1999), “Innovation in Israel 1968-97: A Comparative Analysis Using Patent Data”, Research Policy, Vol. 30, pp.363-389.
32.Venkatraman, N., and Ramanujam, V., (1986), ”Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches”, Academy of Management Review, 11(4), pp.801-814.
33.Wang, Y., Lo, H.P. and Yang, Y. (2004), “The constituents of core competencies and firm performance: evidence from high-technology firm in China,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, pp.249-280.
三、網站資料
1.http://newmops.tse.com.tw/，公開資訊觀測站。
2.http://fbfh.trade.gov.tw/rich/test/comindex.asp，經濟部國際貿易局出進口廠商管理系統。