| 摘要: | 數位匯流發展是這個世代重大的創新，它已經成為現在資訊化社會的趨勢，並創造出一個新的數位生活的世代。數位匯流延伸出的應用服務已經改變人們的生活方式與品質，例如工作、教育、娛樂、醫療以及通訊傳播等，更是改變整個社會結構與發展。數位匯流的重要性，它在許多先進國家（即美國、歐洲、英國、大陸、日本）的國家層級政策中，數位匯流已成為重要的發展項目之一。換言之，這些國家都已經非常重視數位匯流的發展，因為這些發展的水準已經代表著這個國家人民的生活品質程度。這些生活要素的品質都是建立在一個完整的數位匯流環境平台上，所包括的數位匯流的發展政策、硬體建設以及相關法令，不論是那一項要素都是需要藉由政府的力量進行建設與發展；然而，當一項創新逐漸走向社會化時，除了它代表著人們的生活品質將更為提升；另一方面則是會影響到原本目標市場的既得利益者們的生存空間，因此他們之間開始互相對抗，進而產生許多爭議的現象。通常，這些爭議都會阻礙提升人們生活獲得更好品質的時機點，以及與其它國家產生更大的生活落差，甚至產生巨大的經濟損失。目前臺灣對於數位匯流發展的問題仍然未有重大的突破。
由於數位匯流發展政策與計畫是一個龐大且複雜的發展系統，國家的發展決策單位如何有效地管理這些發展項目，以及提高資訊與電信產業鏈的結構，讓整個國家的數位匯流發展朝向更高水準，這是一個非常關鍵的問題。這種國家層級的發展規劃主要由具有專業知識與豐富實務背景的產官學專家們組成決策團隊一同討論與擬訂其發展計畫。然而，不同決策者在不同位置會有不同的思考與判斷，在會議討論的過程中容易產生不同意見的爭議。為了有效地瞭解數位匯流創新產生的兩難與背後價值鏈產生的問題，同時有效地整合每位不同專家背景的經驗。本研究透過創新的社會化、不連續創新現象以及價值網與創新兩難的文獻進行探討，並歸納出本研究的理論不連續創新的社會體制理論。
本研究以臺灣數位匯流發展政策作為實證對象，並以專家訪談以及半結構化方式蒐集數位匯流相關的產官學方面專家的觀點，並透過各自不同位置與角度進行分析與探討，以瞭解各自利基點的因素，最後整合產官學三方觀點進行討論，透過相對比較分析的方式更清楚顯示三種不同角度的相同與異處，這種方式可以避免數位匯流這個研究議題僅有固定某個單方面位置/觀點的看法，進而讓決策者可以透過更全面地瞭解臺灣數位匯流發展的爭議情況，以及產生這些爭議情況的背後問題。最後討論出「社會身分的影響」與「社會體制的差異」的分析，並且從實證數據中得出三個專家群（即官方單位、學術單位以及產業單位），整體而言，產業與學術比官方更重視體制型創業與合作性競爭，也更重視共同標準、潛在規範與崁入式體制矛盾，在體制型創業上官方比產業學術更保守。而在共同標準、潛在規範與潛在技術相互競爭方面，產官學歧見頗深，再共同標準、崁入式體制矛盾方面，平衡數位落差與普及服務，官方反而最重視。整體而言，研究與理論結合度尚稱令人滿意，所建置的創新體制是交互生態演化的過程。
最後，依據本研究提出的不連續創新的社會體制理論，包含體制型創業、共同標準、崁入式體制矛盾、潛在規範、潛在技術相互競爭、合作性競爭與外生顛簸。我們了解到新社會是形成於交互生態演化的過程，新科技與新社會是演化出來的，所有理論必須同時存在，業者通常跑在最前面。當新科技發生時社會化兩難與歧見來自四面八方，主事者執行面必需有其輕重，政策也必須要提供小園地逐步建構完成，才能茁壯、成功，並依據相關結論進一步對實務界與政府相關部門提出具體建議。
;As a major innovation of the 21st century, digital convergence prevails within informatized societies and has been instrumental in ushering the digital era. Digital convergence has reshaped various aspects of human life such as employment, education, entertainment, healthcare, and communication, as well as the structure and development of wider society. Economic powers including the United States, European nations, United Kingdom, China, and Japan have promoted digital convergence as a national development policy because its development is associated with quality of life in these countries. Therefore, a well-established environment for digital convergence comprising relevant development policies, infrastructures, and laws and regulations must be developed by the government. Moreover, although the socialization of an innovation represents improved quality of life, it also poses a threat to the stakeholders of the original target market, causing intergroup conflict. Such conflict normally engenders barriers to the enhancement of quality of life, wider gaps from the quality of life of other countries, and substantial economic losses. Taiwan is yet to experience a major breakthrough in digital convergence.
Policies and programs concerning the development of digital convergence are enormous enterprises. It is crucial for the government to manage such enterprises effectively and strengthen the information and telecommunications industry chain, thereby furthering digital convergence on a national scale. Such a national initiative is typically formulated by a decision-making team composed of experts from business, governmental, and educational organizations; however, the opinions of these decision-makers tend to diverge because of differences in professional backgrounds. Therefore, this study aims to explicate the dilemmas concerning the development of digital convergence and issues associated with the underlying value chain, and synergize the views of specialists from different professions. A literature review is conducted on the socialization of innovations, discontinuous innovation, and dilemmas between value networks and innovation to propose a socio-institutional theory of discontinuous innovation.
Semistructured interviews are administered to experts from business, governmental, and educational organizations to explore and compile their opinions on policies for the development of digital convergence in Taiwan. The rationale behind each opinion is elucidated and analyzed from various perspectives to clarify similarities and dissimilarities among the opinions. The findings of this study are expected to further decision-makers’ understanding of diverging views on digital convergence development in Taiwan and of what causes such disagreement. Following the interview analysis, the influence of social identity and differences among social institutions are investigated. Empirical data analysis shows that for the policy on “promoting the convergence of televisions and communications”, low cohesion exists between experts from industry and government regarding launching mobile value-added services and facilitating the investment and development of digital convergence industries). Furthermore, low cohesion existed between experts from industry and academia regarding expediting the digitization of cable and terrestrial televisions and facilitating the investment and development of digital convergence industries. For the policy on “harmonizing laws and environments for digital convergence”), considerable differences in opinions were found between experts from industry and government and between those from industry and academia regarding altering regulations on telecommunications, radio, and television and completing the legal framework of digital convergence and passing laws on digital convergence. These findings are highly consistent with the socio-institutional theory of discontinuous innovation proposed in this study and actual related circumstances.
Finally, based on the aforementioned theory comprising institutional entrepreneurship, common standards, embedded institutional contradictions, potential specifications, potential technical competition, collaborative competition, and exogenous bumps, this study argues that new societies form as a result of interactions between ecological processes. Innovations and new societies cannot exist without relevant theories, and evolving new societies by introducing innovation is not feasible because the private sector remains ahead of the public sector in terms of innovation. Moreover, because disagreements over the socialization of innovations originate from a variety of domains, policymakers tend to combine conflicting views. However, to achieve success, policies on innovation socialization should be implemented in order of priority and in a progressive manner. |
