過去之大多文獻資料指出，技術的發展會對經濟成長造成影響，一項新的技術被採用，可能成為某種新興的商品或服務，進而影響總體經濟的發展。過去的研究大多將重點放在技術發展與其對經濟影響的線性關係中，然而技術和經濟之間，不應該是單純的線性關係，而是存在策略、政策、知識、法規等適應與選擇性的中介效果作用其中，使技術複雜性能夠透過這些中介效果，更有效的對經濟複雜性產生影響。因此本文首先探討在技術發展的不同年代中，技術複雜性、經濟複雜性、適應與選擇性之間的關聯性，並探討影響技術複雜性作用在經濟複雜性的中介效果是否存在，以及其關係是否會因為年代不同而有所差異，並希望可以透過回顧過去技術發展歷史，去驗證本研究的假說是否成立。本研究跳脫以往認為技術發展和經濟之間為線性關係的認知，關注兩者之間的中介效果，並量化研究方法為基礎，由經濟複雜性及中介效果，推演出技術發展及擴散的框架，後續透過質性的個案研究法，透過分析中介效果顯著的30年間的技術發展歷史，找出技術發展的過程中，影響不同技術發展的中介效果具體的存在事實，驗證量化研究下推演出的框架存在，並發現技術發展過程背後，一些相同及相異的軌跡。

Literature has widely recognized the significant impact of technological development on economic growth. However, previous studies are mainly focused on the linear relationship between technological development and its impact on economies. This paper argued the relationship between the technology and economy should not treated as a simple linear relationship. Instead, it involves mediating effects such as strategies, policies, knowledge, regulations, and other mediating factors. These mediating factors enable the technological complexity and indirectly exerted moderate effect (strengthen or weaken) on the economy complexity. Therefore, this study aims to explore the relationship between and amongst technological complexity and economic complexity, and examine how the adaption and selection of mediating factors influenced their relationships across five decades from 1970s to 2010s. This study provides significant managerial and policy implications and advance our understanding for the interaction between technological and economic development. This study deviates from the traditional linear relationship between technological advancements and economic growth, and instead emphasizes the mediating effects that exist between the two. Utilizing a quantified research method that considers economic complexity and these mediating factors, a framework for technology development and diffusion is established. Through qualitative case studies that analyze the history of technology development over a 30-year period, the specific mediating effects that influence various technology developments are identified. The derived framework is then validated, revealing both common and unique trajectories behind the process of technology development.

摘要 4
Absrtact 5
致謝詞 7
第一章 緒論 9
第一節、研究背景與動機 9
第二節、研究問題及目的 9
第三節、研究流程 11
第二章 文獻回顧 12
第一節、技術複雜性之架構 12
第二節、經濟複雜性之架構 14
第三節、適應與選擇性 16
第三章 研究方法 23
第一節、回歸分析(Regression Analysis) 23
第二節、個案研究法 32
第三節、研究對象 35
第四章 個案研究 45
第一節、個人電腦運算技術的發展個案 45
第二節、網際網路的發展個案 63
第三節、雲端運算的發展個案 76
第四節、研究發現 88
第五章 結論 94
第一節 研究結論 94
第二節 研究建議 95
第三節 研究限制 96
參考文獻 96

1. 王文科（1995），《教育研究法》。台北：五南。
2. 陳李綢（2000）。個案研究 （再版）。 台北：心理出版有限公司。
3. 徐佳靖。「技術複雜性與經濟複雜性之關係」。碩士論文，國立清華大學科技管理研究所，2022。
4. Ayres, R. U. (2006). Did the fifth K-wave begin in 1990-92? Has it been aborted by globalization?

5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
6. Boehm, B. W. (1981). Software Engineering Economics. Prentice-Hall.
7. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.
8. Chen, M. J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100-134.
9. Conway, M. E. (1968). How do committees invent. Datamation, 14(4), 28-31
10. Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research policy, 26(4-5), 475-491.
11. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.
12. Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. Wiley.
13. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design studies, 32(6), 521-532.
14. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they?. Strategic management journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.
15. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.
16. Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of management studies, 41(1), 61-84.
17. Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
18. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative science quarterly, 9-30.
19. Hidalgo, C. A., & Hausmann, R. (2009). The building blocks of economic complexity. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 106(26), 10570-10575.
20. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
21. Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations. International studies of management & organization, 21(1-2), 4-5.
22. Hughes, T. P. (1993). Networks of power: electrification in Western society, 1880-1930.JHU press
23. Information Technology: Perspectives and Models (pp. 558-581). IGI Global.
24. Klein, H. K., & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, technology, & human values, 27(1), 28-52.
25. Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of marketing. Pearson Education.
26. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.
27. Krueger, C. W. (1992). Software reuse. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 24(2), 131-183.
28. Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review.
29. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
30. Malecki, E. J. (1989). Technology, Employment, and Regional Competitiveness. Economic Development Quarterly, 3(4), 331–338.
31. Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research policy, 31(2), 247-264.
32. Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: a critical survey.
Regional studies, 37(3), 289-302.
33. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
34. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university press.
35. Park, H. J., Griffin, R. J., Hui, S., Levitt, S. H., & Song, C. W. (2012). Radiation-induced vascular damage in tumors: implications of vascular damage in ablative hypofractionated radiotherapy (SBRT and SRS). Radiation research, 177(3), 311-327.
36. Pettigrew, A. M., & Whipp, R. (1993). Managing change for competitive success. British Journal of Management, 4(1), 1-10.
37. Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Annual review of psychology, 43
38. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press.
39. Porter, M.E. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review.
40. Rao, Arun (Businessman), author. A History of Silicon Valley : the Greatest Creation of Wealth in the History of the Planet, 1900-2013. Palo Alto, California :Omniware Group, 2013.
41. Research Policy, Volume 6, Issue 1,1977,Pages 36-76,ISSN 0048-7333,
42. Richard R. Nelson, Sidney G. Winter, In search of useful theory of innovation,,
43. Rose, G., McCartney, P., & Reid, D. D. (1977). Self-administration of a questionnaire on chest pain and intermittent claudication. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 31(1), 42-48.
44. Rothwell, William. (2011). Replacement planning: A starting point for succession planning and talent management. International Journal of Training and Development. 15. 87 - 99.
45. Sahal, D. (1981). Alternative conceptions of technology. Research policy, 10(1), 2-24.
46. Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture (Vol. 45, No. 2, p. 109). American Psychological Association.
47. Suh, N. P. (2005). Axiomatic design and fabrication of composite structures: applications in robots, machine tools, and automobiles. Oxford University Press.
48. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533.
49. Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Research commentary—Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information systems research, 21(4), 675-687.
50. Wildavsky, A. (2017). Speaking truth to power: Art and craft of policy analysis. Routledge.
51. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization science, 6(1), 76-92.