A Study of China HI-TECH PARK-The Cases of Shenzhen and Shanghai Areas

大陸「高科技園區」建設是高科技產業發展重要政策的一環，大陸發展高科技產業早期以廣東等沿海地區為主（珠江三角洲），但近來IT產業台商及外商均有轉往長江三角洲地區如上海投資移動之趨勢，且投資規模愈趨擴大。 本研究目的在於透過解析大陸「高新區」的發展政策與環境、分析深圳與上海兩地區發展政策與環境，再針對深圳與上海地區分析優劣勢結果所作的結論如下： 1、在地方政府角色上，深圳市政府規劃了良好的政策環境，而實質上的發展交由企業自主。而上海市政府則扮演了積極的引導角色，頒佈一系列獎勵辦法，並透過園區結合的方式以打響「張江」(Zhangjiang)品牌。 2、深圳與上海兩地都以高新技術產業為龍頭產業，惟因本身條件的差異，深圳高新產業以外銷為主，而上海高新產業除部份外銷外，仍兼顧內需市場。 3、深圳與上海兩區高新園區發展至今，雖在規模上小有成就，但仍有創新處於技術階段；園區之間的產業連結並不明顯；產業趨同，園區間競爭激烈等缺失。The HI-TECH PARK is a representative of high technology industry development in the Mainland, the China high technology industry focus on coastal areas of Guangdong in the initial stages, such as the Delta of Pearl River; Taiwanese businessman and foreign businessman of IT industry now move to the Delta of Yangtse River slowly recently, the investment area changes to Shanghai is trend now, moreover, the investment scope in Shanghai is more augmentative than before. This research purpose is according to analyze the develop policy and environment of HI-TECH PARK of China to compare and analyze the difference between Shenzhen and Shanghai, and use SWOT to compare Shenzhen and Shanghai to get conclusions as following: 1. Local government Shenzhen offers good policy and environment to enterprises, but the real development is decided by the enterprises themselves. Regarding to the local government Shanghai, its attitude is positive; it publishes series incentive policy to enterprises, and combine with HI-TECH PARK's to form Zhangjiang HI-TECH PARK to be famous in the world. 2.Shenzhen and Shanghai both use HI-TECH industry as head of any industry, but due to the conditions for each is difference that is Shenzhen focus on export; Shanghai needs focus on export and domestic demand market. 3.The HI-TECH PARK development recently between Shenzhen and Shanghai both get its scope, but all them are only focus on skill create, not knowledge innovate. Moreover, the link between each HI-TECH PARK is not obvious, industries are similar, and competition during each HI-TECH PARKs and so on are its lack.目錄 第一章 緒論 …………………………………………………………………1 第一節 研究動機 ……………………………………………………… 1 第二節 研究目的 ……………………………………………………… 2 第三節 研究問題 ……………………………………………………… 3 第四節 研究架構 ……………………………………………………… 3 第五節 研究方法 ……………………………………………………… 4 第六節 研究範圍 ……………………………………………………… 5 第七節 章節安排 ……………………………………………………… 6 第二章 文獻回顧 …………………………………………………………… 7 第一節 高新園區歷史與現狀………………………………………… 7 第二節 科學園區相關理論與類型…………………………………… 12 第三節 國內文獻探討………………………………………………… 23 第三章 中國高新技術產業發展政策分析………………………………… 27 第一節 中國高新技術園區發展概況………………………………… 27 第二節 中國高新產業發展政策及政策體系…………………………30 第三節 中國中央頒布高新區適用的優惠政策………………………45 第四節 中國地方優惠政策比較-以深圳與上海為例…………………53 第四章深圳與上海地區發展分析……………………………………………59 第一節 深圳與上海高新技術園區發展概況…………………………59 第二節 深圳與上海地方政府的角色比較…………………………… 63 第三節 深圳與上海地區產業發展概況………………………………66 第四節 深圳與上海地區主要產業群聚………………………………76 第五節 深圳與上海地區優劣勢比較分析……………………………79 第六節 台商在深圳與上海地區投資概況……………………………84 第五章結論……………………………………………………………………91 第一節 研究發現………………………………………………………91 第二節 未來相關研究的建議…………………………………………93 參考書目……………………………………………………………………95 表目次 表2-1歷年全球及主要國家及地區科學園區數目…………………………10 表2-2世界科學園區的類型極淵源………………………………………… 21 表3-1 1991年中國國家級高新技術產業開發區分佈表……………………28 表3-2 中國大陸國家級高新技術產業開發區分佈表………………………29 表3-3 中國高新區企業主要生產經營產品的銷售收入/產品品種 ……… 40 表3-4 1999-2002年中國海外投資累計增長統計……………………………41 表3-5全國科技經費指標…………………………………………………… 48 表3-6高新區優惠政策……………………………………………………… 53 表3-7上海與深圳高新區內高新企業之企業所得稅比較………………… 56 表3-8大陸國家級高新區內高新企業之租稅優惠政策比較（續）……… 57 表4-1 深圳產業發展…………………………………………………………61 表4-2 上海高新技術園區內主要產業………………………………………63 表4-3中國高新技術產業開發區管理模式………………………………… 66 表4-4深圳市1980—2006年主要指標年平均增長速度……………………68 表4-5深圳市主要經濟指標在全國大中城市中的排位…………………… 69 表4-6深圳重要年份三種產業結構表……………………………………… 70 表4-7上海各時期經濟主要指標/億元………………………………………73 表4-8農業總產值（1978～2006）…………………………………… …… 74 表4-9上海歷年第三產業增加值…………………………………………… 75 表4-10上海六個重點發展工業行業主要指標………………………………79 表4-11深圳與上海優劣勢比較 …………………………………………… 84 圖目次 圖1-1 本研究架構 ……………………………………………………………

醫院品管圈的團隊結構與衝突處理行為

目標：探討大台北地區區域級以上醫院之品管圈團隊結構（團隊合作規範、團隊任務凝聚力）與團隊衝突處理行為之相關性。方法：採橫斷式問卷調查法，有效樣本為大台北地區16家醫院263個品管圈團隊 1914成員，回收率達86.80%。研究工具包括Chatman及Flynn之團隊合作規範量表、Van de Van及Ferry之團隊任務凝聚力量表和Rahim之衝突處理行為量表，量表Cronbach's alpha值範圍為0.70~0.92，顯示各量表具良好內在一致性。以團體為分析單位，每個團隊內個人層級之資料聚合來代表該團隊分數，以單因子變異數分析(one-way analysis of variance)、內部相關係數(Intraclass correlation coefficients)及eta square檢定個人資料聚合為團體資料之適切性，再以迴歸模式分析團隊合作規範、任務凝聚力與團隊衝突處理行為之關係。結果：控制團隊規模與品管圈組圈次數後，團隊合作規範(b =0.49, p<0.01)、團隊任務凝聚力(b=0.10, p<0.05)兩者共解釋整合型衝突處理行為58%變異量；團隊合作規範(b=-0.17, p<0.05)能解釋支配型衝突處理行為15%變異量；逃避型與順應型團隊衝突處理行為模式皆未達顯著意義。結論：團隊合作規範與團隊任務凝聚力較能預測品管圈整合型與支配型衝突處理行為，研究結果將有助於未來醫療相關機構在教育訓練及實務上應用之參考並作為未來相關研究的依據。 Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between group structures (i.e., cooperation norms and task cohesion) and styles of handling conflict within the quality control circles (QCCs) of Taipei-area hospitals. Method: Utilizing a cross-sectional design with the distribution of questionnaires, a valid sample was collected which included 263 groups comprised of 1914 individuals from 16 hospitals. The instruments with acceptable Cronbach's alpha values, ranging from 0.70~0.92, were included in this study. Because of unit for group level analysis, the aggregated individual level data in a single group were used as representative values of the group. The results of intra-class correlation coefficients, eta-square, and one-way analysis of variance indicated that the aggregated individual level data satisfactorily represented group level data. Four hypotheses were tested by regression analysis. Results: The response rate was 86.8%. After controlling for the variables of group size and times of QCC formation, cooperation norms (b=0.49, p<0.01) and task cohesion (b=0.10, p<0.05) together accounted for 58% of the variance in the "integrating" style of handling conflict, while cooperation norms (b=-0.17, p<0 .05) alone accounted for 15% of the variance in the " dominating" style of handling conflict. "Avoiding" and " obliging" styles of handling conflict were not predicted by cooperation norms and task cohesion. Conclusions: The findings of the current study suggest that cooperation norms and task cohesion are good predictors of the "integrating" and "dominating" styles of handling conflict for the QCCs of hospitals. The results may thus be helpful for health care institutions seeking to improve the quality of in-service education, practice, and research

[[alternative]]The Relationship between Group Cooperation Norm and Group Task cohesion and Conflict Handling Styles in Hospitals’ Quality Control Circles

[[abstract]]研究目的：本研究目的在探討大台北地區區域以上醫院之品管圈團隊結構（團隊合作規範、團隊任務凝聚力）與團隊衝突處理行為之相關性。本研究為次級資料分析，資料來源為蘇慧芳國科會計畫編號NSC90-H-227-0015的資料進行分析。研究方法：以預測性相關之研究設計，有效樣本為大台北地區16家醫院計263個品管圈團隊共1914成員（有效回收率為86.8%）。研究工具包括團隊合作規範問卷、團隊任務凝聚力問卷及團隊衝突處理行為量表，各量表有相當不錯之信度，其內在一致性Cronbach’ s alpha值範圍為.70~.92。本研究為團體層級分析，因此將每個團隊內的個人層級之資料聚合來代表該團隊的分數，所有團隊層級變項皆採用聚合資料分析，以單因子變異數分析 (One-way analysis of variance, ANOVA)、內部相關係數 (Intraclass correlation coefficients, ICCs)及eta square (η2)來檢定個人層級資料認知一致性，以確保聚合資料用於團體層級分析之適切性。研究結果：研究結果顯示品管圈團隊衝突發生於不同時期，分別有70個品管圈團隊發生於問題分析期、123個品管圈團隊衝突發生於問題解決期、8個品管圈團隊衝突發生於評值期，亦有62個團隊自認團隊互動過程中沒有衝突發生。品管圈團隊衝突處理行為之傾向依序為整合型(M = 3.70)、逃避型(M = 3.39)、順應型(M = 3.18)與支配型(M = 2.77)衝突處理行為，而多元迴歸分析顯示指出團隊合作規範(b = .48, p < .01)、團隊任務凝聚力(b = .10, p < .05)與團隊整合型衝突處理行為呈正相關，此兩團隊結構變項共解釋整合型衝突處理行為57%變異量。團隊合作規範(b = -.21, p < .01)，與團隊支配型衝突處理行為呈負相關，團隊合作規範可解釋支配型衝突處理行為11%變異量。團隊任務凝聚力( b = .19, p<.01 )與團隊逃避型衝突處理行為呈正相關，團隊任務凝聚力可解釋團隊逃避型衝突處理行為2%之變異量。結論：綜合以上結果發現品管圈同時強調團隊合作規範與團隊任務凝聚力時，團隊成員愈會展現整合型衝突處理行為，而品管圈呈現較低的團隊合作規範時，較常運用支配型衝突處理行為來處理衝突，此外任務凝聚力高的團隊亦會出現逃避型衝突處理行為。因此建議未來可透過團隊合作規範、團隊任務凝聚力的建立，促進團隊正面整合型衝突處理行為，增進團隊良好互動，進而提升團隊滿意度與效能表現。[[abstract]]Objective：This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the group structures (group cooperation norms and group task cohesion) and conflict handling styles of the quality control circles (QCCs) of hospitals in Taipei area. Method：With a predictive corrlational research design, valid sample including 263 QCC groups with 1914 individuals from 16 hospitals in Taipei area was obtained. The responding rate was 86.8%. The instruments with acceptable Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .70~.92 of this study included (1)”group cooperation norms” developed by Chatman and Flynn, (2)”group task cohesion” developed by Van de Ven and Ferry, and (3) Rahim’s “organizational conflict inventory-II”. The unit for analysis was the group level. The aggregated individual-level data in a single group were used as the representative values of the group. All the group-level parameters were analyzed based on the aggregated data. Data were aggregated on each variable to the group level. Results of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) , Eta-square (η2), and one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) showed that aggregated individual-level data were satisfactory of representing the group level data. Hypothesis testing of the relationship between the group structures and conflict handling styles of QCCS was performed by regression analysis.Results：Results revealed that 70 QCCs occurred conflict in the stage of problem analysis, 123 QCCs in the stage of problem resolving, and 8 QCCs in the evaluation stage, while 62 QCCs reported no conflict events during whole stage. The tendency of conflict handling style of QCCs were in decreased order as follows：integrating (M=3.70), avoiding (M=3.39), accomondating (M=3.18), and dominating (M=2.77). Based on the regression analysis, we found that both group cooperation norms (b= .48, p< .01) and group task cohesion (b= .10, p< .05) accounted for 57% of variance in “integrating” conflict handling style, group cooperation norms (b= -.21, p< .01) accounted for 11% of variance in “dominating” conflict handling style, and group task cohesion (b= .19, p< .01)accounted for 2% of variance in “avoiding” conflict handling style.Conclusions：The findings suggested that group cooperation norms and group task cohesion are good predictors of integrating conflict handling styles for QCCs of hospitals. The implications are discussed in the tex

醫院品管圈的團隊結構與衝突處理行為

[[abstract]]目標：探討大台北地區區域級以上醫院之品管圈團隊結構(團隊合作規範、團隊任務凝聚力)與團隊衝突處理行為之相關性。方法：採橫斷式問卷調查法，有效樣本為大台北地區16家醫院263個品管圈團隊1914成員，回收率達86.80%。研究工具包括Chatman及Flynn之團隊合作規範量表、Van de Van及Ferry之團隊任務凝聚力量表和Rahim之衝突處理行為量表，量表Cronbach’s alpha值範圍為0.70~0.92，顯示各量表具良好內在一致性。以團體為分析單位，每個團隊內個人層級之資料聚合來代表該團隊分數，以單因子變異數分析(one-way analysis of variance)、內部相關係數(Intraclass correlation coefficients)及eta square檢定個人資料聚合為團體資料之適切性，再以迴歸模式分析團隊合作規範、任務凝聚力與團隊衝突處理行為之關係。結果：控制團隊規模與品管圈組圈次數後，團隊合作規範(b＝0.49，p＜0.01)、團隊任務凝聚力(b＝0.10，p＜0.05)兩者共解釋整合型衝突處理行為58%變異量；團隊合作規範(b＝-0.17，p＜0.05)能解釋支配型衝突處理行為15%變異量；逃避型與順應型團隊衝突處理行為模式皆未達顯著意義。結論：團隊合作規範與團隊任務凝聚力較能預測品管圈整合型與支配型衝突處理行為，研究結果將有助於未來醫療相關機構在教育訓練及實務上應用之參考並作為未來相關研究的依據。 Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between group structures (i.e., cooperation norms and task cohesion) and styles of handling conflict within the quality control circles (QCCs) of Taipei-area hospitals. Method: Utilizing a cross-sectional design with the distribution of questionnaires, a valid sample was collected which included 263 groups comprised of 1914 individuals from 16 hospitals. The instruments with acceptable Cronbach's alpha values, ranging from 0.70~0.92, were included in this study. Because of unit for group level analysis, the aggregated individual level data in a single group were used as representative values of the group. The results of intra-class correlation coefficients, eta-square, and one-way analysis of variance indicated that the aggregated individual level data satisfactorily represented group level data. Four hypotheses were tested by regression analysis. Results: The response rate was 86.8%. After controlling for the variables of group size and times of QCC formation, cooperation norms (b=0.49, p＜0.01) and task cohesion (b=0.10, p＜0.05) together accounted for 58% of the variance in the ”integrating” style of handling conflict, while cooperation norms (b=-0.17, p＜0.05) alone accounted for 15% of the variance in the ”dominating” style of handling conflict. ”Avoiding” and ”obliging” styles of handling conflict were not predicted by cooperation norms and task cohesion. Conclusions: The findings of the current study suggest that cooperation norms and task cohesion are good predictors of the ”integrating” and ”dominating” styles of handling conflict for the QCCs of hospitals. The results may thus be helpful for health care institutions seeking to improve the quality of in-service education, practice, and research

競技運動個別項目與團體項目選手人格特質之差異研究

出版單位:真理大學運動管理學

戶政事務所服務品質與顧客滿意度之研究

[[abstract]]鑒於國內學者未有戶政事務所滿意度相關之研究，故本研究擬以大里市、太平市、豐原市等戶政事務所的洽公民眾為研究對象，探討民眾對戶政所服務品質與滿意度之關係。本研究於93年3~5月間共發出問卷1050份，有效問卷859份。問卷資料藉由SPSS10.0版統計軟體予以分析與檢定。 經本研究實證發現：無論性別、婚姻、年齡及職業類別上，其顧客滿意度屬「尚可」，至於在教育程度方面則以國小滿意度最低；另三戶政事務所以豐原市民眾滿意度最高。在硬體、軟體和整體服務品質方面，三者之間呈現顯著正相關。如果能提昇軟體、硬體服務，將使民眾的滿意度大幅提昇。藉由本研究之探討，期能做為各戶政事務所未來提昇服務品質的參考，俾使戶政事務所所提供之服務品質更能滿足民眾之需求