近年來，受物聯網、人工智慧、邊緣運算與數位轉型等趨勢驅動，工業電腦（Industrial PC, IPC）產業之競爭邏輯，已逐漸由單一硬體產品導向，轉向軟硬整合、平台服務與產業解決方案。研華科技作為台灣工業電腦產業之代表性企業，過去長期以Product-driven模式累積產品能力、全球通路、品牌資源與客製化服務能力；然而，面對產業應用深化與客戶需求整合化，研華自2023年開始推動由 Product-driven 模式走向Sector-driven模式之策略轉型。
本研究以研華科技為單一個案，採用質性個案研究法，並透過次級資料蒐集與半結構式訪談進行分析。研究以 Teece 之動態能力觀點作為分析架構，從感知能力、把握能力與資源重配置能力三個構面，探討研華在轉型過程中如何辨識外部產業變化、形成策略回應，並調整既有組織與資源配置。
研究發現，研華的第三次轉型並非企業競爭基礎失效後的被動修補，而是在既有產品能力與市場地位仍具優勢的情況下，面對下一階段產業競爭邏輯改變所進行的前瞻性調整。在動態能力表現上，研華已能辨識工業物聯網、邊緣人工智慧（Edge AI）與垂直產業應用等外部趨勢，並將此一感知進一步轉化為 Sector-driven模式、軟硬整合與產業聚焦等具體策略回應，顯示其感知能力與把握能力皆已由市場觀察落實為策略行動。然而，相較於感知與把握兩項能力，研華在資源重配置上所展現之組織調整，包括建立 Sector 組織、BDM（Business Development Manager，業務發展經理／產業專家）角色與跨事業群整合銷售機制，仍處於漸進推動階段，在跨部門權責分工、跨產品整合與產業知識制度化方面，仍面臨既有組織慣性之挑戰，此一落差亦呼應第五章分析中，資源重配置能力為研華轉型能否深化之關鍵瓶頸的論點。
本研究結論指出，研華轉型的核心挑戰，並不在於缺乏策略方向，而在於如何將 Product-driven 模式時期所累積的產品能力、全球通路、客戶基礎與組織文化，重新轉譯為 Sector-driven 模式所需之產業應用能力。Product-driven 模式對研華而言具有雙重意義：一方面是推動轉型的重要基礎，另一方面也可能成為限制跨部門整合與產業導向思維深化的組織慣性。未來研華能否深化 Sector-driven模式，將取決於其資源重配置能力能否進一步落實為穩定且制度化的組織運作模式。

In recent years, driven by trends such as the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, edge computing, and digital transformation, the competitive logic of the Industrial PC (IPC) industry has gradually shifted from a hardware product-oriented model toward software-hardware integration, platform services, and industry-specific solutions. As a representative firm in Taiwan’s IPC industry, Advantech has long accumulated product capabilities, global distribution channels, brand resources, and customization service capabilities through a Product-driven model. However, in response to the deepening of industry applications and the increasing integration of customer needs, Advantech has since 2023 promoted a strategic transformation from a Product-driven model toward a Sector-driven model.
This study adopts Advantech as a single case and employs a qualitative case study approach. Data are collected through secondary sources and semi-structured interviews. Drawing on Teece’s dynamic capabilities perspective, this study analyzes Advantech’s transformation process through three dimensions: sensing capability, seizing capability, and resource reconfiguration capability. It examines how Advantech identifies external industry changes, formulates strategic responses, and adjusts its existing organization and resource allocation.
The findings indicate that Advantech's third transformation is not a passive response to the failure of its existing competitive foundation, but rather a forward-looking adjustment made while its product capabilities and market position remain strong. In terms of dynamic capabilities, Advantech has been able to recognize external trends such as industrial IoT, Edge AI, and vertical industry applications, and has translated this sensing into concrete strategic responses, including the Sector-driven model, software-hardware integration, and industry-focused development, indicating that both its sensing and seizing capabilities have moved from market observation to strategic action. However, compared with its sensing and seizing capabilities, the organizational adjustments Advantech has undertaken in resource reconfiguration, including the establishment of sector organizations, the role of Business Development Managers (BDMs), and cross-BO integrated selling mechanisms, remain at a gradual and incremental stage. The company still faces challenges related to existing organizational inertia in cross-departmental responsibility allocation, cross-product integration, and the institutionalization of industry knowledge, echoing the conclusion in Chapter 5 that resource reconfiguration capability constitutes the key bottleneck in deepening Advantech's transformation.
This study concludes that the core challenge of Advantech’s transformation does not lie in the absence of strategic direction, but in how the company can reinterpret the product capabilities, global channels, customer base, and organizational culture accumulated during the Product-driven period into the industry application capabilities required under the Sector-driven model. For Advantech, the Product-driven model carries dual implications: on the one hand, it serves as an important foundation for transformation; on the other hand, it may also become a source of organizational inertia that limits cross-departmental integration and the deepening of industry-oriented thinking. Whether Advantech can further deepen its Sector-driven model will depend on whether its resource reconfiguration capability can be further implemented as a stable and institutionalized mode of organizational operation.

參考文獻
中文文獻
1. 李永河（2013）。彈性組織變革於產業電腦的機構開發設計部門之應用：以研華科技運用阿米巴組織概念為例〔碩士論文，國立臺灣科技大學管理研究所〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/2cts6a
2. 李永河（2016）。開放式創新之實踐方法：以研華科技為例〔碩士論文，國立臺灣大學工業工程學研究所〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201601077
3. 吳宜臻（2022）。研華物聯網商機下的經營與轉型〔碩士論文，國立臺灣大學商學研究所〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202203209
4. 汪婕元（2019）。企業轉型策略分析：以研華科技為例〔碩士論文，國立中山大學企業管理學系研究所〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/gc5522
5. 邱伃玶（2018）。工業用電腦品牌經營策略之研究：以研華科技為例〔碩士論文，國立中山大學企業管理學系〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/yz5vs7
6. 范雅婷（2010）。工業電腦多角化策略之研究：以研華公司為例〔碩士論文，國立政治大學商管專業學院〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/54sg9w
7. 陳昱靜（2025）。再創新猷：研華公司之經營發展策略分析〔碩士論文，國立臺灣大學事業經營碩士在職學位學程〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/c2z9wb
8. 陳穎蓉（2013）。競爭脈絡：研華科技重建開放創新機制〔碩士論文，國立政治大學科技管理研究所〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/45uu96
9. 蔡牧恒（2019）。台灣物聯網商業模式探討：以研華為例〔碩士論文，國立交通大學管理學院管理科學學程〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/73n42j

英文文獻
1. Agarwal, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Strategic renewal of organizations. Organization Science, 20(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0423
2. Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, 35(5), 113–124.
3. Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.3.239
4. Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. MIT Press.
5. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
6. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.
7. Cortez, R. M., Clarke, A. H., & Freytag, P. V. (2025). B2B market segmentation–An analysis of current practices and their implications. Journal of Business Research, 189, 115144.
8. Cristofaro, M., Helfat, C. E., & Teece, D. J. (2025). Adapting, shaping, evolving: Refocusing on the dynamic capabilities–environment nexus. Academy of Management Collections, 4(1), 20–46. https://doi.org/10.5465/amc.2022.0008
9. Filosa, C., Jovanovic, M., Agostini, L., & Nosella, A. (2025). Pivoting B2B platform business models: From platform experimentation to multi-platform integration to ecosystem envelopment. International Journal of Production Economics, 280, Article 109466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109466
10. Fink, L., & Markovich, S. (2008). Generic verticalization strategies in enterprise system markets: An exploratory framework. Journal of Information Technology, 23(4), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2008.14
11. Foss, N. J., Schmidt, J., & Teece, D. J. (2023). Ecosystem leadership as a dynamic capability. Long Range Planning, 56(1), 102270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2022.102270
12. Freeman, C. (1974). The economics of industrial innovation. Penguin Books.
13. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095567
14. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Blackwell Publishing.
15. Kamakura, W. A. (2007). Cross-selling: Offering the right product to the right customer at the right time. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 6(3–4), 41–58.
16. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
17. Kowalkowski, C., Gebauer, H., Kamp, B., & Parry, G. (2017). Servitization and deservitization: Overview, concepts, and definitions. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.12.007
18. Kumar, V., George, M., & Pancras, J. (2008). Cross-buying in retailing: Drivers and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 84(1), 15–27.
19. Leemann, N., Kanbach, D., & Stubner, S. (2021). Breaking the paradigm of sensing, seizing, and transforming—Evidence from Axel Springer. Journal of Business Strategies, 38(2), 95–124. https://doi.org/10.54155/jbs.38.2.95-124
20. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009
21. Li, B., Teece, D. J., Baskaran, A., & Chandran, V. G. R. (2025). Dynamic knowledge management: A dynamic capabilities approach to knowledge management. Technovation, 147, Article 103316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103316
22. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
23. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.
24. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
25. Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64–88.
26. Simkin, L. (2008). Achieving market segmentation from B2B sectorisation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(7), 464–474.
27. Steiber, A., & Teece, D. J. (2026). The dynamic capabilities of Chinese companies: Leadership in an age of disruptive innovation, emerging AI, and global competition. California Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256251412827
28. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.
29. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
30. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.
31. Teece, D. J. (2023). The evolution of the dynamic capabilities framework. In R. Adams, D. Grichnik, A. Pundziene, & C. Volkmann (Eds.), Artificiality and sustainability in entrepreneurship (pp. 113–129). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11371-0_6
32. Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.
33. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
34. Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11%3C1147::AID-SMJ128%3E3.0.CO;2-R
35. Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A., III. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
36. Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 171–222). JAI Press.
37. Verhallen, T. M., Frambach, R. T., & Prabhu, J. (1998). Strategy-based segmentation of industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 27(4), 305–313.
38. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.
39. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. Free Press.