新創科技公司源源不斷的產生，是經濟發展的主要動力。美國1995年後崛起的公司，其中大部份為科技公司，所創造的股東價值是《財星》500大企業的二倍。台灣新竹科學園區，20年以來成立了300多家公司，創造出台灣GDP約10%的產值，新創科技公司之重要性可見一斑。

新創科技公司具有新創公司及科技公司兩者的特性，其營運不確定性高，創業者的創業精神及意志力是公司成敗關鍵，建立團隊、資金募集、及產品研發是創業者最主要的工作。

由於資本市場與產業市場快速的變化，新創科技公司在資金募集及研發管理上，面臨從所未有的變局。過去一年，在矽谷有上千家新創科技公司因資金募集不順或研發管理失利，而關門大吉。這是矽谷從所未有的現象。

究竟新創科技公司的資金募集及研發管理，有何關鍵要素以及資金募集及研發管理二者績效之關聯性如何，本研究以矽谷及台灣19家新創科技公司為研究對象，所包含產業有IC設計業，光電業，光通訊業，IC設備業，醫療設備業，及電子材料業等，獲得『影響新創科技公司資金募集及研發管理績效之關鍵要素』，以及二者之關聯性之結論如下：

一、資金募集

根據文獻研讀，影響新創科技公司資金募集績效的關鍵要素有：創業團隊能力因素，環境因素，及報酬與風險因素；而根據個案研究結果，創業者必須在不同發展階段，掌握不同的關鍵要素，分述如下：

１　種子期

(1) 完善的營運計劃

(2) 募資時機的掌握

(3) 創業者所具備達成超高報酬率之條件

(4) 具號召力股東的參與

(5) 明確了解募資對象的決策特質，投資偏好、及投資策略

２　創建期

除了種子期之關鍵要素之外，另產品要獲得關鍵客戶之認可，研發進度要等合原設定目標，關鍵股東或董事對募資的持續支持，亦均為關鍵要素。

３　擴張期

公司商品化及量產能力，行銷、財務管理能力之優劣為此時期資金募集成敗之關鍵要素。

二、研發管理

根據文獻探討，影響新創科技公司研發管理績效的關鍵要素有：產品定位，外部資源運用及整合能力，內部資源管理及整合能力。另經個案研究發現，新創科技公司因研發資源有限，所以要研發什麼產品，不但要有方向感（即產品定位），同時尚要能因應技術及市場的變化，降低研發風險，所以要有產品組合之規劃。且創業者不但要具備良好技術背景，同時要藉創業精神及領導力，來吸引優秀人才加入『前途未卜』的新創科技公司。另外，新創公司之研發進度往往落後於設定目標，所以利害關係人（董事、股東、顧客、供應商、及員工）的耐心支持，亦是非常重要的。歸納個案研究發現下列五項影響研發管理績效關鍵要素：

1　明確的產品定位及產品組合

2　良好的研發專案管理能力

3　CEO或CTO應具良好的技術背景及領導力，以吸引優良技術人才加入

4　公司內外部研發資源良好之整合能力

5　利害關係人的支持

三、資金募集及研發管理二者績效之關聯性

依個案研究分析結果，對於二者之關聯性可獲得下述之結論：

1. 研發管理績效不佳者，資金募集通常難以成功，而研發管理具良好績效者，其資金募集較易成功。

2. 資金募集績效良好者，必須具備良好之研發管理，而資金募集績效不佳者，未必研發管理績效不佳。

---

High-tech start-ups are the powerhouses of economic development. The total market value of high-tech start-ups that launched after 1995 is twice of that of Fortune 500 companies combined. The Hsinchu Science Park of Taiwan has incubated some 300 companies since her inception 20 years ago. To date these 300 companies generate in total a revenue of about 10% value of Taiwan’s GDP.

High-tech start-ups have the attributes of start-ups and high-techs. As start-ups, they face so many uncertainties along the way. And as high-techs, they face dynamic market environments and short life cycle of products. Only through the founders’ entrepreneurship and strong motivation, can the high-tech start-ups survive and prosper. Team building, fund raising and R&D are the main jobs of every founder.

Recently, because of the unpredictable change of capital markets and industry markets, the high-tech start-ups have experienced a great challenge in fund raising and R&D management. For the past year alone in Silicon Valley, there have been more than 1000 high-tech start-ups filed Chapter 11 or Chapter 7, out of the failure of funding or R&D. A cruel scene has never been seen for the past two decades.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this thesis intend to explore the key success factors (KSFs) of fund raising and R&D management for high-tech start-ups, and the relationship between the success of fund raising and R&D management.

This study was conducted by using case study methodology covering 19 samples of high-tech start-ups. The accidental sampling was collected from 9 samples located in the Silicon Valley and 10 in Taiwan, with industries ranging from IC design, opto-electronics, opto-communications, IC equipment, health care equipment to electronics components. The data was obtained by interviewing the top management of these companies and venture capitalist to validate the information.

CONCLUSION

The result of this study found that the KSFs of fund raising are as follows,

1. According to the research papers and readings, three key factors determine the success of fund raising--- the core competence of the management team, the economic, industrial and social environment, and the investment return vs. risk.

2. This study shows that the KSFs are related to the maturity of high-tech start-ups’ development levels. They are not all the same. In embryo stage, the KSFs are the solid business plan, the right timing of fund raising, the team’s track record, and the knowledge to know the prospective investor’s decision criteria, investment preferences and investment strategy. In early stage, the KSFs should add two more points; one is that the products shall have design-wins from strategic customers with the achievement of milestone complying with schedule, the other is the continuing support from strategic investors. In expansionary stage, the KSFs are the products’ marketability and manufacturability. Also the marketing ability and financial ability are no less important.

Moreover, the key factors affect the success of R&D management as follows,

1. In the research papers and readings, three determinants to the success of R&D management are the products’ positioning, the application and integration ability of external resources, as well as the management and integration ability of internal resources.

2. In the analysis of this study, the KSFs, emphasize more on the sides of strategic thinking and founders’ entrepreneurship as follows:

a. The right product positioning and products portfolio;

b. The good R&D project management skills;

　c. The founders’ good technical background and leadership to attract top-notched technical staff to join;

d. The good integration ability of internal and external resources;

e. The full support of shareholders.

Above all, regarding the relationship between the success of fund raising and R&D management, the poor performance of R&D will, in general, leads to the failure of fund raising, whilst the good performance of R&D will help the success of fund raising. However, one with the success of fund raising, must couple with the good performance of R&D, and one with the failure of fund raising, not necessarily goes with poor performance of R&D.

中文部份
1. 2000年1000大特刊，天下雜誌社，pp81-157。
2. 丁明勇，高科技廠商特性、研究發展管理與成效之研究－以科學園廠商實證，交通大學管理科學研究所未出版博士論文，民86。
3. 李仁芳、余揚傑，「高科技產業動態網路組織型態之研究」，技術產業網路小型專題研討會論文，國立政治大學科技管理研究所，民85。
4. 邱皇智，研發管理活動、研發彈性能力與事業績效之關係研究－以台灣高科技產業為例，銘傳管理學院科學研究所未出版碩士論文，民89。
5. 莊任暘，高科技創業成功的因素研究，國立台灣大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文，民89。
6. 張金山，創業行為與成熟動機、家族背景之相關性研究，台灣大學商學研究所未出版碩士論文，民80。
7. 陳听如，國內技術產業對於同步工程的應用與其績效之研究，東海大學管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民84。
8. 陳智賢，研發成果績效指標之研究：以經濟部科技專案為例，國立交通大學管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民84。
9. 許福財，「台灣創業投資與高科技產業狀」，財訊雜誌社，民85。
10. 曾耀輝，我國高科技企業創業領導者的特徵、創業決策之研究，台灣大學商學研究所未出版碩士論文，民76年7月。
11. 黃鈺玲，我國創業投資公司對投資案的評估準則之研究，中原大學企業研究所未出版碩士論文，民78年6月。
12. 創投公會，民89年公報。
13. 廖志德，「研究發展績效現形」，科學管理新知交流通訊，中國生產力中心編印，第四期，82年1月，頁12-15。
14. 劉常勇，「創業投資評估決策程序」，會計研究月刊，134期，民86。
英文部份
1. Abetti, P., “The Technology Input/Output Process in Linking Technology and Business Strategy,” Prentice Hall International, 1989.
2. Bockhaus, R.H., “Risk-Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs,” Academy of Management Journal, 1980, pp.509-520.
3. Brown, M.G. & Svenson, R.A., “Measuring R&D Productivity,” Research Technology Management, Vol.31, No.4, 1988, pp11-15.
4. Buderi, R., “How the world’s best companies are using their research labs to win the future,” Engines of Tomorrow, McGraw-Hill Book,1998, pp12-38, 112-120, 142-143, 184-186, 277-279.
5. Buzacott, J. and Mandelbaum, M., “Flexibility and Productivity in Manufacturing Systems,” Proceedings of the IIE Conference, (Chicago, IL), Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Atlanta, CA, 1985, pp404-413.
6. Caldwell, F., “Managing Teamwork: Boundary Management in Product Development Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37,4,1992.
7. Chakrabarti, A.K., “Industry Characteristic Influencing the Technical Output: A Case of Small and Medium Size Firms in The US,” R&D Management, Vol.21, No.2, 1991, pp139-152.
8. Chatterji, D., “Assessing External Sources of Technology,” Research Technology Management, March-April 1996, pp48-56.
9. Chesbrough, H.W., “When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizing for Innovation,” Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1996.
10. Clausing, D.P., “Total Quality Development,” Mechanical Engineering, Vol.116, No.3, 1994, pp94-98.
11. Cooper, R.G., and Wheelwrighy, S.C., “Winning Businesses in Product Development: The Critical Success Factors,” Research Technology Management, July-August, 1996, pp18-29.
12. Cusumano, M.A. and Nobeaka, K., “Strategy, Structure and Performance in Product Development: Observation from the Auto Industry,” Research Policy, Vol.21, No.23, 1992, pp265-293.
13. DeMott, J.S., “Company Alliances for Market Muscle,” Nation’s Business, Vol.82, No.2, 1994, pp52-56.
14. Doutriaus, J., “Emerging High-Tech Firms: How Durable are their Comparative Start-Up Advantages?” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.7, 1992, pp.303-322.
15. Ducker, P.F., Innovation and Entrepreneurship, New York: Harper Row, 1985, pp.23-72.
16. Fried, V. H. and R.D. Hisrich, “Toward a Model of Venture Capital Investment Decision Making,” Financial Management, Tampa, Autumn, 1994, pp.28-34.
17. Gartner, W.B., “A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation,” Academy of Management Review, Vol.10, No.4, 1985, pp.696-706.
18. Gary, P.P. & Steven, C.W., “High-Tech R&D,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1995, pp93-105.
19. Gerwin, D., “Manufacturing Flexibility: A Strategic Perspective,” Management Science, Vol.39, No.4, 1993, pp.395-410.
20. Greenberger, D.B. & Sexton, D.L., “An Interactive Model of New Venture Initiation,” Journal of Small Business Management, Vol.26, No.3,1988, pp.1-7.
21. Holt, D.H., Entrepreneurship: New Venture Creation, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1992, pp.55-351.
22. Iansiti, M. & West, J., “Technology Integration: Making Critical Choices in a Dynamic World,” Harvard Business Review, Autumn 1997.
23. Kamath, R.R. & J.L., “A Second Look at Japanese Product Development,” Harvard Business Review, Vol.72, No.6, 1994, pp154-164.
24. Karagozoglu, N. & Brown, W.B., “Time-base Management of the New Product Development Process,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.10, No.3, 1993, pp204-215.
25. Karagozoglu N., “Environmental Uncertainty, Strategic Planning, and Technological Competitive Advantage,” Technovation, Vol.13, No.6, 1993, pp335-347.
26. Laplante, A., “Formulas for success: Equal Part Pain, Vision, Money, Luck and Timing,” Computerworld, 1997, pp.2-3.
27. McGrath, K.G. & MacMillan, I.C., “Discovery-Driver Planning, Managing Uncertainty,” Harvard Business Review, Aug-Sep 1995.
28. Miller, L.M., Barbarians to Bureaus, Fawcett Books, 1992.
29. Mabert, V.A., Muth, J.F., and Schmenner, R.W., “Collapsing New Product Development Time: Six Case Studies,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, September, 1992, pp200-212.
30. MacMillan, I.C., Siegal, R., & Narasimha, P.S., “Criteria Usaed by Venture Capitalists to Evaluate New Venture Proposals,” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.1, 1985, pp.119-128.
31. McDonough, E.F., “Faster New Product Development: Investigation the Effects of Technology and Characteristics of the Project Leader and Team,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.10, No.3, 1993, pp241-250.
32. Millett, S.M., “The Strategic Management of Technolohical R&D: An Ideal Process for the 1990s,” International Journal of Technology Management, Vol.5, No.2, 1990, pp153-163.
33. Nelson, C., “Starting Your Own Business-Four Success Stories,” Communication World, Vol.3, No.8, 1986, pp.18-29.
34. Nesheim, J.L., High-Tech Start Up, McGraw-Hill Book.
35. 2000 .Nilsson, C.H. and Nordahl, H., “Making Manufacturing Flexibility Operational-Part 1: A Framework,” Integrated Manufacturing System, Vol.6, No.1, 1995, pp5-11.
36. Nilsson, C.H. and Nordahl, H., “Making Manufacturing Flexibility Operational-Part 2: Distinctions and an Example,” Integrated Manufacturing System, Vol.6, No.2, 1995, pp4-10.
37. Nonaka, I. & Takeeuchi, H., The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University, 1995, pp.279-284.
38. Poindexter, J. B., The Efficiency of Financial Markets: The Venture Capital Case, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York, 1976.
39. Roure, J.B. & Maidique, M.A., “Linking Prefunding Factors and High Technology,” The Venture Capital Start-Up, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.3 Aug 1986, pp415-423.
40. Rosenau, M.J., “And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive Problem/Solving (Second Edition)/ The Science of innovation: A Managerial Overview of the TRIZ Methodology,” The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.15, No.1, 1998, pp100-103.
41. Rubel, S.M., “Guide to Venture Capital Model of The Development Process,” Journal of Business Venturing, 1972, pp.2.
42. Schumpeter, I. A., “The Fundamental Phenomenon of Economic Development,” Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, New York: Free Press, 1971, pp.43-70.
43. Shame, W., Venture Management: The Business of the Inventor, Entrepreneur, Venture Capitalist, and Established Company, New York: The Free Press, 1974.
44. Sharma, P. and J.J. Chirsman, “Toward a Reconciliation of the Definitional Issues in the Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Spring 1999, pp.11-27.
45. Silver, A.D., Venture Capital: The Complete Guide for Investors, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1985.
46. Siropolis, N.C., Small Business Management: A Guide to Entrepreneurship, 7ed, Boston: Houghton Miffin Company, 1989.
47. Siskon, J. and C. Zopounides, “The Evaluation Criteria of the Venture Capital Investment Activity: A Interaction Assessment, “European Journal of Operational Research, 1987, pp.31.
48. “Start-Up Statistics,” Venture Economics, Red-Herring INC., 2001.
49. Schoonhoven, C.B. & Jelinek, M., The Innovation Marathon: Lessons from High Technology Firms, Prentice Hall International, 1990.
50. Steiner, M.P. and O. Solem, “Factors for Success in Small Manufacturing Firms,” Journal of Small Business Management, Vol.26, No.1, 1988, pp.58-62.
51. Steudel, H.J. and Sesruelle, P., Manufacture in the Nineties: How to Become a Mean Lean World Class Competitor,Van Nostrand Reingold, 1992, p6.
52. Tabrizi, B. & Walleigh, R., “Defining Next Generation Products: An Inside Look”, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1997, pp116-124.
53. Tyebjee, T.T. and A.V. Bruno, “A Model of Venture Capitalist Investment Activity,” Management Science, 1984, pp.1051-1066.
54. “Venture Funding”, Venture Economics, Red-Herring INC., 1998.
55. Welty, B. “Criteria in Selecting High-Tech Stocks,” Business Week, 20 April 1987.
56. Youssef, M.A., “Design for Manufacturability and Time-to-Market,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.14, No.12, 1994, pp6-21.
57. Yusuf, A., “Critical Success Factors for Small Business: Perceptions of south Pacific,” Journal of Small Business Management, April 1995, pp68-72.
58. Zahra, S.A. “A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship an Firm Behavior: A Critique and Extension,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.17, No.4, 1993, pp.5-21.
59. Zahra, S.A., “Governance, Ownership, and Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Impact of Industry Technological Opportunities,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol.39, No.6, 1996, pp1713-1735.