企業存活取決於創新，然而創新需要資源，相較於大企業之中小企業，創新更常因資源的制約而受限。以充滿韌性、運作靈活、組織精簡及反應快速著稱的台灣中小企業，卻未受限，反而因資源的匱乏，成為了世界經濟論壇（WEF）全球競爭力報告中的「超級創新者」，顯然，資源的匱乏阻擋不了企業不斷創新的意念及步伐。
中小企業在創新上會受到有限資源的桎梏而無能為力，但可透過動態能力去活用內部有限及外部無限的資源去解套。隨創理論於是提供了解除資源桎梏的一個途徑，提供了中小企業資源運作的手法去活用拼湊及結合手邊既有的資源。對於變化迅速的資訊服務產業而言，卻顯得相對保守及積極性不足，特別是面對層出不窮的新技術運用而言，企業越來越難單靠自身能耐就能夠應對這些趨勢潮流所造成的衝擊。基此，策略的運用提供了企業靈活的操作手法，藉由不同情境下的競合關係，運用競合策略，透過價值網形成企業之間的合縱連橫，獲取外部資源，並於過程中建構企業的動態能力，藉助動態能力得以轉化及重組資源，建立自身的競爭價值及優勢。
本研究採取質性研究法，以中小企業創新研究獎獲獎廠商作為研究對象，選擇五家資訊服務業者去進行深入的訪談及研究，以探討其資源制約對服務創新活動的影響及企業如何拼湊內部資源與引進外部資源去進行資源轉化及重組，再透過Hertog (2010)提出的服務創新框架作為研究資料分析的基礎，此服務創新框架綜合了服務創新觀點之見解與企業動態能力觀點(DCV）之相互結合。本研究透過實證資料的歸納及分析，藉由不同構面進行審視，以及導向與歸類，最後再進行命題之建構，作為研究成果之展現。最後，根據研究發現本研究提出下列幾項重要命題：
1.企業內部資源之建構應藉由互補者與競爭者資源投入價值之審視，作為佈建企業資源建構之準則，搭配策略面向為首的經營考量作為需求依歸，其次才是需求面向的考量。
2.競爭者加劇外部資源的爭奪，使得企業之間的競合關係越趨複雜，企業須藉助服務創新模式的多樣性，提升自身附加價值，藉此取得競爭價值，深化競合策略，以及加速需求資源的重組及轉化。
3.新創企業改變「認知」之關鍵，須借重服務創新模式(構面多樣性)為訴求、以及動態服務能力(概念化)之展現。
4.因應趨勢，政策及產業制定帶來市場之「規則」，企業掌控市場機會之際，同時也迎來自身動態能力及服務創新模式能耐檢視的機會，引動企業優勢之考驗與能耐之挑戰。
5.以新技術選項(SaaS/BIG DATA/IOT/AI..)，引動資源轉化與重組，藉由服務創新模式的具體與適應，導引出顧客顯著需求，帶領動態能力及服務創新模式多樣性的增升，提升企業自身附加價值，擺脫及改變企業過往窠臼及認知印象。
6.在資訊服務產業中，企業具備拆卸/捆綁服務之動態能力，將影響企業服務創新模式(收入模式及價值體系模式)建構之能耐，引領資源轉化及資源重組運行成為企業動態能耐，滿足動態需求。

The survival of an enterprise depends on innovation；however, innovation requires resources. Contrary to large enterprises, the innovation of small and medium enterprises is more often restricted due to resource constraints. Taiwan's SMEs, known for their toughness, flexible operation, streamlined organization and rapid response, are not constrained. Instead, due to lack of resources, they have become the "super innovators" in the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Competitiveness Report. The lack of resources cannot stop the idea and the pace of continuous innovation of enterprises.
SMEs will be bound by limited resources and powerless in innovation, but dynamic capabilities can be used to make internal limited resources and external unlimited resources to solve the problems. Bricolage theory thus provides a way to remove the constraints of resources and provides a way for SMEs to operate resources to make the best use of bricolage and combining the existing resources at hand. However, the rapidly changing information service industry appears to be relatively conservative and lack enthusiasm. Especially in the face of the endless application of new technologies, it is increasingly difficult for companies to respond to the impact of these trends solely on their capabilities. Based on this, the use of strategies provides companies with flexible operating methods. Through the competition and cooperation in different situations, using the co-opetition strategy, through the value network to form a joint connection between enterprises, obtain external resources, and construct the enterprise with the help of dynamic capabilities to transform and reorganize resources to establish its competitive value and advantages.
This study adopts a qualitative research method, taking the SME Innovation Research Award winners as the research object, selecting five information service providers to conduct in-depth interviews and research, exploring the impact of resource constraints on service innovation activities, and how an enterprise can put together the internal resources and introduce external resources to transform and reorganize resources, and then use the service innovation framework proposed by Hertog (2010) as the basis of research data analysis. The service innovation framework integrates the insights of the service innovation viewpoint and the dynamic capability viewpoint (DCV) of the enterprise. In this research, through the induction and analysis of research data, by examining, guiding and categorizing from different dimensions, finally constructing the proposition used as the display of the research results. Based on the findings, this research proposes the following important propositions:
1.The construction of internal resources of an enterprise should be based on the review of the value of resources invested by complements and competitors as the criterion for the construction of enterprise resources. The business considerations of assortment strategy should be the first basis for demand, and the second should be demand-oriented considerations.
2.Competitors intensify the competition for external resources, making the competition and cooperation between enterprises more complicated. Companies must use the diversity of service innovation models to enhance their added value, obtain competitive value, deepen the co-opetition strategy, and accelerate the reorganization and transformation of demand resources.
3.The key for new ventures to change "cognition" is to rely on service innovation models (diverse dimensions) as their appeals and to demonstrate dynamic service capabilities (conceptualization).
4.In response to trends, policy and industry formulations bring about market "rules". While companies are in control of market opportunities, they also welcome the opportunity to examine their dynamic capabilities and service innovation models, stimulating corporate advantages and challenges.
5.The new technology options (SaaS/BIG DATA/IOT/AI..) induce resource transformation and reorganization. Through the specificity and adaptation of the service innovation model, leads to the obvious customers demand, and leads to dynamic capabilities and diverse service innovation models. Enhance the added value of the company itself, cast off and change the company's past stereotypes and cognitive impressions.
6.In the information service industry, the enterprise's dynamic capability to (Un-) bundling services which will affect the ability of the enterprise's service innovation model (income model and value system model) to construct, and lead the transformation and reorganization of resources to become the dynamic capability of the enterprise to meet the dynamic needs.

目錄 I
表次 III
圖次 V
第一章	緒論 1
  第一節	研究背景與動機 1
  第二節	研究目的 8
第二章 文獻探討 10
  第一節	隨創理論觀點下的資源意涵及應用 10
  第二節	動態能力理論觀點與運用 18
  第三節	賽局理論下競合策略的觀點與運用 20
  第四節	競合策略應用與隨創觀點手法之相依性 26
  第五節	中小企業創新研究獎之探討 28
第三章 研究方法 30
  第一節	研究架構 30
  第二節	重要構念之描述性定義 31
  第三節	研究方法與資料之蒐集 32
  第四節	資料分析方法 37
第四章 資料分析與命題之建構 44
  第一節	資料分析 44
  第二節	命題之建構 69
第五章 結論與建議 81
  第一節	結論 81
  第二節	管理上之意涵 84
  第三節	研究限制 86
  第四節	建議 87
參考文獻 89
一、中文部分 89
二、英文部分 90
三、網路部分 97

表次
表2-1 不同理論視角下的資源拼湊概念界定 12
表2-2 競合策略與隨創理論的相生相依關係 27
表3-1 本研究主要構念之描述性定義 31
表3-2 研究對象受訪者名單 36
表4-1 受訪個案公司基本資料 44
表4-2 資源制約構面之檢視 47
表4-3 內部資源拼湊之檢視 49
表4-4 運用及結合外部資源(價值網)合作之檢視 51
表4-5 賽局五大元素經營策略分析審視之說明 52
表4-6 賽局五大元素經營策略分析之檢視 55
表4-7 利用競合策略運作，得以轉化資源制約之檢視 58
表4-8 服務創新模式分析審視之說明 59
表4-9 服務創新模式分析之檢視 61
表4-10 動態服務創新能力分析審視之說明 65
表4-11 動態服務創新能力分析之檢視 67
表4-12 命題之建構一 71
表4-13 命題之建構二 73
表4-14 命題之建構三 74
表4-15 命題之建構四 76
表4-16 命題之建構五 78
表4-17 命題之建構六 80

圖次
圖2-1 企業獲取動態能力與市場機會 20
圖2-2 價值網模型 21
圖3-1 本研究之觀念性架構 30
圖3-2 服務創新架構 38

一、中文部分
朱文儀、陳建男譯 (2019)。策略管理（Strategic Management Theory）。台北：華泰。原作者：Charles W.L.Hill, Melissa A.Schelling & Gareth R.Jones (2017).
李雅靖（2016）。競合策略。中華傳播學刊，29，223-233。
林均燁，洪伯毅，楊文廣，劉素娟譯 (2009)。持久創新(Permanent Innovation) 。台北：財信出版。原作者：Morris L.,(2006).
陳萬淇 (1995)。個案研究法，台北：華泰書局。
陳意文（2009）。創新產品的資源拼湊與價值實現之研究：採新資源基礎觀點之定性與定量分析。國立政治大學博士論文。
陳意文、吳思華、樊學良（2015）。無用之用：新創設計公司的資源拼湊。商略 學報，7 (3)，151-170。
陳品融（2014）。探討網路新創企業的轉變歷程-商業生態系統觀點。國立台灣大學國際企業研究所碩士論文。
黃婉華、馮勃翰譯 (2017)。競合策略（Co- opetition）。台北：雲夢千里文化。原作者：Brandenburger, A. M. & Nalebuff, B. J. ( 1996 ).
葉至誠、葉立程 (1999)。研究方法與論文寫作，台北：商鼎。
楊子嫻、陳威廷（2017）。如何培養隨創力。臺灣教育評論月刊，6，181-186。
歐用生（1989）。質的研究，台北：師大書苑。
謝如梅、莊為傑、方世杰（2011），資源拼湊、創業經驗與新事業機會之初探性研究：社會網絡觀點，2011 第 14 屆科技整合管理研討會論文集，441-453。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬（2014）。劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為。中山管理評論，22，323-367。
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、吳彥寬（2017）。逆勢拼湊:化資源制約為創新來源。中山管理評論，25 (1)，219-268。

二、英文部分
Afuah, A. (1998). Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation and Profits, New York: Oxford University Press.
Ambos, T. C., Andersson, U., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). What are the consequences of initiative-taking in multinational subsidiaries?. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7), 1099-1118.
Ander, R. & Helfat, C.E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities, Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011-1025.
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2007). Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: A business network view. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 802-818.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123.
Balogun, J., Jarzabkowski, P., & Vaara, E. (2011). Selling, resistance and reconciliation: A critical discursive approach to subsidiary role evolution in MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(6), 765-786.
Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32(2), 255-276.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R.E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329-366.
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Bechky, B. A. & Okhuysen, G. A., (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handles surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 239-261.
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T., (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, 1st, New York: Anchor Books.
Bonger, W. C. & H. Thomas, (1994). Core competence and competitive advantage: a model and illustrative evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. in Competence-Based Competitive, G. Hamel and A. Heene, Eds. New York: Wiley, 111-144.
Bougrain, F., & B. Haudeville (2002). Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal research capacities. Research Policy, 31(5), 735-747.
Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Managing power in the multinational corporation: How low-power actors gain influence. Journal of Management, 34(3), 477-508.
Brandenburger, A. M. & Nalebuff, B. J., Co-opetition, New York: Currency Doubleday, 1996.
Burt, R. S., (2001). The social capital of structural holes. in Guillen, M. F., Collins, R., England, P., & Meyer, M. (eds.), New Directions in Economic Sociology, First Edition, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 202-246.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167-199.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M.M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50(1), 57-76.
Collis. D. J., (1994). Research note: Hoe valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 143-152.
Cunha, M. P., (2005). Bricolage in organizations. FUENL Working Paper Series, 474, Universidad Nova de Lisboa, Faculdada de Economia. (Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=882784)
Danneels E., (2002). The dynamics of prosuct innovation and firm competence. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095-1121.
Di Domenico, M. L., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681-703.
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W., (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociology Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Dörrenbächer, C., & Geppert, M. (2006). Micro-politics and conflicts in multinational corporations: Current debates, re-framing, and contributions of this special issue. Journal of International Management, 12(3), 251-265.
Duymedjian, R., & Rüling, C. C. (2010). Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory. Organization Studies, 31(2), 133-151.
Eisenhardt., (1989). Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, M. K. & Martin A. J., (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105-1121.
Garud, R. & Karnøe, P., (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277-300.
Ghobadian, A. & Gallear, D., (1996). Total quality management in SMEs, Omega, 24(1), 83-106. 
Halme, M., Lindeman, S., & Linna, P. (2012). Innovation for inclusive Business: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 743-784.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C.K. (1993). Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 75-84.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings, Albany, New
York: SUNY Hertog, P., & Aa, W., & Long, M. (2010). Capabilities for managing service innovation: towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Service Management, 21(4), 490-514
Higgins, J. M. (1995). Innovation: the core competence. Planning Review, 23(6), 32-36.
Hirsch, P. M., (1986). From ambushes to golden parachutes: Corporate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and institutional integration. American Journal of Sociology, 91(4), 800-837.
Kamoche, K., & Cunha, M. P. (2001). Minimal structures: From jazz improvisation to product innovation. Organization Studies, 22(4), 733–764.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1999). Strategy, value innovation, and the knowledge economy, Sloan Management Review, Spring, 41-54.
Lawson, B., & D. Samson (2001), Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 377-400.
Leavy, B., (1998). The concept of learning in the strategy field: Review and outlook. Management Learning, 29(4), 447-466.
Leonard-Barton. D., (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125.
Lévi-Strauss, C., (1966). The Savage Mind (La pensée suavage), London: Weidenfeld & Niolson.
Lincoln, Y. S., (1993). Notes toward a Fifth generation of evaluation. Paper present at Annual meeting of South Evaluation Association.
Lounsbury, M. & Glynn, M. A., (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 6-7, 545-564. 
Isabel M. Prieto, Elena Revilla and Beatriz Rodríguez Prado. (2009).Building dynamic capabilities in product development: How do contextual antecedents matter?. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 313-326.
Luo. Y., (2000). Dynamic capabilities in international expansion. Journal of World Business, 35(4), 355-378.
Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., & Jennings, P. D., (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1107-1132.
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth Interviewing (2nd ed.). South Melbourne: Longman.
Minniti, M. (2004). Entrepreneurial alertness and asymmetric information in a spin-glass model. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 637-658. 
Morgan,A., & Barden, M. (2015). A Beautiful Constraint: How to Transform your Iimitations into Advantanges, and Why it’s Everyone’s Business. London;Wiley.
Ocasio, W., Laamanen, T., & Vaara, E. (2018). Communication and attention dynamics: an attention-based view of strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 155-167.
Oliver, C., (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179.
Papinniemi, J., (1999). Creating a model of process innovation for reengineering of business and manufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics, 60-61, 95-101.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, New York: John Wiely and Sons Inc.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Boston,MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pisano, G. P. (2015). You Need an Innovation Strategy. Harvard Business Review, June.
Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, March/April, 86-93.
Prahalad C. K. & Hamel G., (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 79-91.
Prajogo, D. I. & Sohal, A. S., (2001). TQM and innovation: a literature review and research framework. Technovation, 21(8), 539-558.
Priem, R.L. & J.E. Butler, (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22-40.
Reed R. & R. J. DeFillippi (1990). Cause ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88-102.
Regnér, P. (2008). Strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities: Steps towards a dynamic view of strategy. Human Relations, 61(4), 565-588.
Sandvik, I.L., & K. Sandvik (2003). The impact of market orientation on product innovativeness and business performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(4), 355-376.
Schoenmakers, W. & G. Duysters, (2010). The technological origins of radical inventions. Research Policy, 39(8), 1051-1059.
Schön, D. A. & Rein, M., (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies, 1st, New York: Basic Books.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1991). The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism. Princeton: NJ, Princeton University Press.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., & Davidsson, P. (2009). Entrepreneurial bricolage: Towards systematic empirical testing. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 29(5), 5.
Senyard, J. M., Baker, T., & Davidsson, P. (2011). Bricolage as a path to innovation for resource constrained new firms. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P., (2014). Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource-constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 211-230.
Shane, S. (2000). Prior Knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448-469.
Sonenshein, S. (2014). How organization foster the creative use of resources. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 814-848.
Steffens, P. R., Baker, T., & Senyard, J. M. (2010). Betting on the underdog: bricolage as an engine of resource advantage. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management 2010.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J., (1990). M. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, 2nd, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Teece, D. & G. Pisano, (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537-556.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A., (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Vaghely, I. P., & Julien, P. A. (2010). Are opportunities recognized or constructed? An information perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity identification.     Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 73-86.
Verona, G., & Ravasi, D. (2003). Unbundling dynamic capabilities: An exploratory study of continuous product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3), 577-606.
Vrande, V. van de, Jong, J. P. J. de, Vanhaverbeke, W., & Rochemont, M. de, (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges.  Technovation, 29, 6-7, 423-437.
Wang, C.L. & P.K. Ahmed, (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31-51.
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628-652.
Welsh, J.A., & J.F. White (1981). A small business is not a little big business. Harvard    Business Review, 59(4), 46-58.
Wilson, C., (2012). The integrated propulsion strategy theory: A resources, capability and industrial organization. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 13(5), 159.
Williams M. (1997) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Zott C., (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intra-industry differential firm performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (2), 97-125.
Zucker, L. G., (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American    Sociological Review, 42(5), 726-743.

三、網路部分
WEF評比 台灣名列全球前4創新國。上網日期：2020 年 12 月 20 日，
取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201910090012.aspx
今周刊 :三年牢獄之災 友達反壟斷案讓台灣學到什麼教訓？。上網日期：2020 年 12 月 31 日，取自：https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/80392/post/201807130015/%E4%B8%89%E5%B9%B4%E7%89%A2%E7%8D%84%E4%B9%8B%E7%81%BD%20%20%E5%8F%8B%E9%81%94%E5%8F%8D%E5%A3%9F%E6%96%B7%E6%A1%88%E8%AE%93%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E5%AD%B8%E5%88%B0%E4%BB%80%E9%BA%BC%E6%95%99%E8%A8%93%EF%BC%9F
台美人歷史協會 : Zappos 鞋王 – 謝家華。上網日期：2020 年 12 月 31 日，
取自：https://www.tahistory.org/zappos-%e9%9e%8b%e7%8e%8b-
%e8%ac%9d%e5%ae%b6%e8%8f%af-%e2%97%8e-erik-chen/
自由財經 : 佈局碳循環經濟商機 台泥開發蝦紅素產品。上網日期：2020 年 
12月 20 日，取自：https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1250128
亞歷財經 : 一代拳王的興衰史-威盛電子。上網日期：2020 年 12 月 20 日，取自：https://alexfinanceandecnomics.blogspot.com/2015/08/blog-post.html
科技產業資訊室 : 反托拉斯訴訟：液晶面板廠聯合壟斷LCD面板價格。上網日期：2020 年 12 月 31 日，取自：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=4757
端傳媒 : 美國糖業被揭收買科研論文，令脂肪獨自承擔心臟疾病罵名近半世紀。上網日期：2020 年 12 月 31 日，取自：https://theinitium.com/article/20160913-dailynews-sugar-industry-shift-blame/
寫點科普 : 晶圓代工爭霸戰 -台積電vs聯電。上網日期：2020 年 12 月 31 日，取自：https://kopu.chat/2017/03/25/%e6%99%b6%e5%9c%93%e4%bb%a3%e5%b7%a5%e6%88%b0%e7%88%ad-
%e5%8f%b0%e7%a9%8d%e9%9b%bbv%e8%81%af%e9%9b%bb/
數位時代 : 國內首宗偏鄉漫遊！亞太電信向台灣大「借」4G訊號給用戶。上網日期：2020 年 12 月 31 日，取自：https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/54045/taiwan-4g-telecom-roaming 
數位時代 : 5G結標了！兩大原因讓台灣電信業停不了手。上網日期：2020 年 12 月 31 日，取自：https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/56169/5g-spectrum-auction-100-billion