隨著全球市場競爭加劇，台灣傳統製造業長期依賴代工（OEM, Original Equipment Manufacturing）模式所面臨之利潤壓縮與成長瓶頸日益明顯，促使企業逐漸尋求轉型至自有品牌（OBM, Own Brand Manufacturing）之發展模式。然而，品牌轉型涉及高度不確定性，其推動關鍵在於管理階層之決策認知與接受程度。因此，本研究旨在探討影響管理階層對製造業由OEM轉型OBM之接受度，並分析其主要影響因素與阻礙機制。
本研究以技術－組織－環境（Technology–Organization–Environment, TOE）框架為核心理論基礎，並輔以技術接受模型（Technology Acceptance Model, TAM），建構品牌轉型決策之整合分析架構。研究方法採用質性個案研究法，以台星玻璃為研究對象，並透過半結構式訪談與參與觀察，蒐集企業在品牌轉型過程中的決策經驗與實務資料，進行系統性分析。
研究結果顯示，組織構面對品牌轉型接受度影響最為顯著，其中以資源配置能力與管理階層支持程度為關鍵因素；技術構面則透過數位化能力與技術應用程度影響轉型可行性，當管理階層認知其具備高度價值且導入門檻可控時，將提升轉型意願；環境構面則透過市場競爭壓力、消費者接受度與外部資源與平台支持等因素，影響企業轉型策略之選擇與推動節奏。此外，本研究亦發現企業在轉型過程中普遍面臨資源不足、風險認知偏高及組織文化轉型困難等挑戰，進而造成認知與實際行動之落差。
本研究之貢獻在於以TOE架構整合理論，從個體認知、組織資源與外部環境三個層面，系統性解析製造業品牌轉型之決策邏輯，並透過實務個案深化理論之應用價值。實務上，建議企業在推動品牌轉型時，應優先強化內部資源整合能力、建立支持品牌導向之組織文化，並結合數位技術與市場策略，以降低轉型風險並提升成功機率。

With the intensifying global competition, traditional manufacturing firms in Taiwan that have long relied on the Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) model are increasingly facing margin compression and growth limitations. As a result, transitioning toward Own Brand Manufacturing (OBM) has become an important strategic direction. However, brand transformation involves high uncertainty, and its success largely depends on managerial cognition and acceptance. Therefore, this study aims to explore the factors influencing managerial acceptance of the transition from OEM to OBM, as well as the key drivers and barriers underlying such decisions.
This study adopts the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework as the core theoretical foundation, complemented by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), to develop an analytical framework for examining brand transformation decisions. A qualitative case study approach is employed, with Taishing Glass as the focal case. Data are collected through semi-structured interviews and participant observation, capturing managerial decision-making processes and practical experiences during the brand transformation journey.
The findings indicate that organizational factors have the most significant influence on brand transformation acceptance, particularly in terms of resource allocation and top management support. Technological factors affect the feasibility of transformation through digital capabilities and technology adoption; when managers perceive high value and manageable implementation complexity, their willingness to pursue transformation increases. Environmental factors, including market competition, consumer acceptance, and policy support, shape the strategic direction and pace of transformation. In addition, the study finds that firms commonly face challenges such as limited resources, high perceived risks, and difficulties in organizational change, which contribute to a gap between strategic recognition and actual implementation.
This study contributes by applying the TOE framework, complemented by TAM, to systematically explain brand transformation decisions from the dimensions of managerial cognition, organizational resources, and external environment.
The case-based approach further enhances the practical relevance of the findings. From a managerial perspective, firms are advised to strengthen internal resource integration, cultivate a brand-oriented organizational culture, and leverage digital technologies and market strategies to reduce transformation risks and improve the likelihood of success.

中文文獻
姚涵文（2017）。《傳統代工產業轉型自有品牌策略之研究：以冠向實業為例》。銘傳大學碩士論文。https://data.zhupiter.com/oddt/20200355/傳統代工產業轉型自有品牌策略之研究-以冠向實業為例/
賴美華（2022）。《台灣代工產業如何從代工走向品牌企業轉型的 SWOT 策略分析：以服飾業為例》。國立政治大學碩士論文。https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/item?item_id=162543&locale=zh_TW
鄭弘彥（2016）。《工業產品委託代工轉型自有品牌模式之案例研究》。國立臺北科技大學碩士論文。https://data.zhupiter.com/oddt/20077066/工業產品委託代工轉型自有品牌模式之案例研究/
網頁與圖表來源
MBA 智庫百科（n.d.）。《技術接受模型》。https://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/技术接受模型
Vocus（n.d.）。《電子業 OEM、ODM、OBM、EMS 是什麼？》。https://vocus.cc/article/66d49ac1fd8978000134fca7
英文文獻
Awa, H. O., Ojiabo, O. U., & Emecheta, B. C. (2015). Integrating TAM, TPB and TOE frameworks and expanding their characteristic constructs for e-commerce adoption by SMEs. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 6(1), 76-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-04-2014-0012
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471-482. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.3
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166664
Hsu, P.-F., Kraemer, K. L., & Dunkle, D. (2006). Determinants of e-business use in U.S. firms. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 10(4), 9-45. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415100401
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Marketing Management (15th ed.). Pearson Education.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2011). Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), 110-121.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Free Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Tornatzky, L. G., Fleischer, M., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1990). The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington Books.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Sage.
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xu, S. (2006). The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Management Science, 52(10), 1557-1576. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0487