台灣手工具產業產品行銷全世界，稱手工具王國，但近年受到削價競爭問題，國內手工具製造業經營日益艱難。台灣動力手工具雖累積技術優勢，但須面對中國產品崛起及先進國家精密級、工業級的高附加價值產品的競爭壓力，故往製造業服務化的高附加價值方向發展實為必要，且面臨企業規模普遍不足，難以應付其跨領域技術需求與各項服務的門檻，而需以整合廠商的方式突破品牌經營或產品製造問題，這些皆有極大成長空間。
本研究以個案研究中常被引用的模式—商業模式作為分析架構，來探討中部六間手工具業者，透過拜訪手工具業六位經營者或二代，分析手工具業者的核心價值、核心資源、目標客戶、成本與通路等問題是否會影響績效者，除了可以建構出屬於台灣手工具業業者的專屬商業模式，也可供其他手工具業業者檢視自身的公司體質與經營概況，本文分別針對台灣手工具具產業之顧客關係管理與行銷、台灣手工具產業之成本與收益分析及台灣手工具產業之聚落效應，個別探討以得到台灣手工具產業之競爭優劣勢。
訪談結果發現，手工具業業者專注在本業的經營，以品質、效率與彈性來回應市場的需求，受限於原物料的品質與價格有既定的供應商，因此，只能以更符合市場需求的少量多樣方式來生產，以回應不同需求的顧客。面對市場競爭日益強大，台灣的手工具業者除了不斷更新自己的技術與迎合顧客的需求外，也積極的透過參展、網路與業務來開發與市場，並不斷的強化內部經營，包含財務健全度、人才深度與供貨穩定性，以提供全世界賣家持續且穩定的MIT手工具產品。
此次受訪的手工具業業者皆是專注於本業且充滿市場彈性的廠商，可以快速的回應市場的需求，但根據本研究觀察發現，台灣廠商間鮮少共同研發或者其他協同合作的行為產生，雖然具有產業群聚現象，但公司間仍少有技術共享與交流的情事，也較難發展出與國際大廠相抗衡的聯盟或組織，因此，本研究也提出相關建議。關鍵詞： 台灣手工具產業、商業模式、聚落效應

Hand tool products made in Taiwan are sold all over the world has earned Taiwan the title The Kingdom of the Hand Tools. Yet in recent years, the manufacturers has faced competition from lower-priced competitors. The domestic manufacturers have been facing more and more difficulties with each passing day. Although Taiwan Power Hand Tools has technical superiorities, it must face the rise of China-made products and the competitive pressure of industrial-grade and high-value products in other advanced countries. Therefore, it is essential to develop additional service value for the industry, yet the local enterprise is not big enough to deal with interdisciplinary technical requirements and the threshold of diverse services. It is necessary to make a breakthrough in brand operations or product manufacturing by integrating potential individual manufacturers.
This research uses the business model which is often applied in case researches – business model, to serve as an analysis framework, to investigate six hand tools factories from the central region of Taiwan, and by visiting six executive managers. It analyzes whether the core value, core resources, target customers, costs, and channels of hand tool manufacturers will help gain the affective achievement. Apart from developing an exclusive business model that belongs solely to Taiwan hand tool manufacturers, it can also help other hand tool manufacturers examine their own company constitution and business profile. This article focuses on customer relationship management, marketing, cost and revenue analysis, and settlement effects in Taiwan’s hand tool industry, as well as to discuss individually in order to gain the competitive advantages and disadvantages of Taiwan's hand tool industry.
The interviews show that the company operators focused on business management and responded to the market demand by quality, efficiency, and flexibility. They were limited by the established quality and price of the raw materials from suppliers. Therefore, they can only keep the market by producing High Variety Low Volume to respond with different customer needs. Facing the increasingly strong market competition, Taiwan's hand tool industry is not only constantly updating their technology and catering to the needs of customers, but also actively opening up the market through exhibiting, internet and outside sales, and by continuously strengthening internal operations, which includes financial integrity, qualified personnel, and supply stability to provide sustainable and stable hand tool products from sellers all over the world.
The interviewees are all professional manufacturers who are aware of market flexibility and can respond to the market demand instantly. However, according to the observation from this study, it is found that not many manufactures have joint research and development or other collaborative activities. Although there is an industrial clustering phenomenon, there are few technical sharing and partnership between companies. It is somewhat difficult to develop alliances or larger organizations that can contend against international companies. As a result, this study also aims to propose relevant suggestions.
Keywords: Taiwan hand tool industry, business model, settlement effect

論文審定書 i
誌 謝 ii
摘 要 iii
Abstract iv
目 錄 vi
圖 次 viii
表 次 ix
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 2
第三節 研究流程 4
第四節 研究範圍與限制 5
第二章 產業現況 7
第一節 手工具簡介 7
第二節 台灣手工具業的概況 8
第三節 台灣手工具產業相關研究 10
第三章 文獻探討 13
第一節 商業九宮格 13
第二節 產業聚落 15
第四章 研究設計 21
第一節 研究結構 21
第二節 研究模式 22
第三節 研究方法 23
第五章 實證分析 27
第一節 台灣手工具產業之顧客關係管理與行銷 27
第二節 台灣手工具產業之成本與收益 30
第三節 台灣手工具產業之聚落效應 33
第四節 訪談結果彙整 34
第六章 結論與建議 43
第一節 結論 43
第二節 建議 45
第三節 管理意涵 47

參考文獻 48
附錄 訪談(調查)問卷 54

一、 中文
司徒達賢，2001，策略管理新論: 觀念架構與分析方法，台北：智勝文化。
曲祉寧，2007，競爭市場的產業群聚，看雜誌，2期，52-53。
吳桂坤，2011，台灣手工具業通管器企業國際動態競爭力探討—以A公司個案研究，國立中山大學高階經營碩士班碩士論文。
李潤中，2014，台灣手工具產業策略形成之研究-SWOT計分卡之應用，東海大學會計學系碩士論文。
杜炳林，2014，台灣手工具產業競爭力分析－以HH個案公司為例，國立交通大學管理學院高階主管管理碩士學程碩士論文。
林佳澤，2016，台灣中小企業面對工業4.0因應對策以手工具產業為例，世新大學資訊管理學研究所碩士論文。
洪怡雯，2018，台灣手工具產業的下一步-以A公司為例，逢甲大學經營管理碩士在職學位學程碩士論文。
洪義恭，2012，手工具廠之營運策略－以L公司為例，逢甲大學經營管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。
胡太山、賈秉靜、解鴻年、賴玫樺，2008，從社會資本觀點探討社群網絡於創新環境中之角色扮演-以新竹地區為例，建築與規劃學報，9卷2期，77~100。
徐嘉鴻，2011，台灣手工具業者新興市場進入模式與品牌策略之研究，東海大學企業管理學系碩士班碩士論文。
張雅惠，2009，跨國企業採行在地採購策略優勢之分析–以S手工具公司為例，國際貿易學系國際企業學碩士在職專班碩士論文。
許婷婷，2002，全英語教師之教學信念調查研究─以台中市兒童英語補習班為例，語文教育學系碩博士班。
陳正崑，2004，台灣手工具產業之現況及政府相關輔導措施之效益研究，國立臺灣科技大學機械工程系碩士論文。
陳君和，2016，台灣手工具產業經營策略與競爭優勢之研究:以Ｅ公司為例，國立中興大學高階經理人碩士在職專班碩士學位論文。
陳協勝、張儀民，2010，地理林進興對創新活動影響模型之研究：以台灣螺絲廠商為例，地理學報，58卷，89~114。
陳忠仁、張陽隆，2006，產業群眾對廠商行為及組織績效影響之研究－以台灣高科技產業為例，中山管理評論，14卷2期，315~338。
陳怡富，2012，手工具之套筒板手業經營之關鍵成功因素-以中部地區為例，國立彰化師範大學會計學系企業高階管理碩士論文。
陳碧華，2012，市場結構、廠商行為與營運績效之研究-以台灣手工具產業為例，東海大學管理碩士在職專班碩士論有。
陸素娟，2008，台灣手工具產業國際競爭力形成因素之研究，東海大學工業工程與經營資訊學系碩士論文。
黃婉亭，2011，產業聚落對台灣手工具產業之創新績效影響，暨南大學經營管理碩士在職專班學位論文。
楊麗卿，2017，台灣手工具產業之競爭策略分析：剪鉗產品之個案研究，國立彰化師範大學會計學系企業高階管理(EMBA)碩士論文。
劉常勇，2004，創業管理的十二堂課，台北市：天下遠見公司。
劉錫德，2009，以TRIZ來探討行銷策略-手工具產業A公司為例，國立中興大學行銷學系所碩士論文。
薛惠齡，2009，社會網絡結構、策略聯盟成員互動和共同品牌行銷之關係探討--以某手工具公司為例，東海大學管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。

二、 英文
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. & Lehmann, D.R. 1994. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. The Journal of Marketing, 58: 53-66.
Anderson, G. 1994. Industry clustering for economic development. Economic Envelopment Review, 12(2): 26-33.
Baptista, B., & Swann, P. 1998. Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 27: 525-540.
Cabral, R., & Dahab, S.S. 1998. Science parks in developing countries: the case of BIORIO in Brazil, International Journal of Technology Management, 16(8): 726-739.
Czamanski, S. & Ablas, L. A. 1979. Identification of industrial clusters and complexes: A comparison of methods and findings, Urban Studies, 16: 61-80.
Dedrick, J., & Kraemer, K.L. 1998. Asia’s computer challenge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elenkov, D.S. 1997. Strategic uncertainty and environmental scanning: The case for institutional influences in scanning behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4): 287-302.
Feldman, M.P. & Florida, R. 1994. The geographic sources of innovation: Technological infrastructure and product innovation in the United States. Annals of the Assocation of American Geographers, 84: 210-229.
Feser, E.J., & Bergman, E.M. 2000. National industry cluster templates: A framework for applied regional cluster analysis. Regional Studies, 34(1): 1-19.
Freeman, C. 1987. Technology, policy, and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
Hamel, G., 1991. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(4): 83-103.
Kassicieh, S.K., Kirchhoff, B.A., Walsh, S.T., & McWhorter, P.J. 2002. The role of small firms in the transfer of disruptive technologies. Technovation, 22: 667-674.
Kim, L. 1998. Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building catching-up at Hyundai Motoe. Organization Science, 9(4): 506-521.
Larson, P.D., & Kulchitsk, J.D. 1998. Single sourcing and supplier certification. Industrial Marketing Management, 27(1): 73-81.
Luger, M. 2001. The use of cluster analysis in high tech industrial park planning. 2001 Symposium on Industrial Park Planning and Development.
Mansfield, G.M., & Fourie, L.C.H. 2004. Strategy and business models - strange bedfellows? A case for convergence and its evolution into strategic architecture. South African Journal of Business Management, 35: 35-44.
Margretta, J. 2003. Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5): 86-92.
Marshall, A. 1920. Principles of economics: An introductory volume. New York: free press.
Mohr, J. & Spekman, R. 1994. Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2): 135-152.
Mothe, C., & Quelin, B.V. 2001. Resource creation and partnership in R&D consortia. The Journal of High Technology Management, 12(1): 113-138.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242-266.
Parker, D.D., & Zilberman, D. 1993, University technology transfers: Impacts on local and US economies. Contemporary Policy Issues, 11(2): 87-96.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism and linguicism, linguistic imperialism. Oxford: OUP, 50-57.
Porter, M.E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nation. London: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, Novermber-December, 77-90.
Porter, M.E. 2001. Strategy and the internet. Harvard Business Review, (March), 63-78.
Porter, M.E.1990, The Competitive Advantage of Nation. London: Free Press.
Pouder R., & John, C.H. 1996. Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1192-1225.
Redman, J. M. 1994. Understanding state economic through industry studies, Wahsington, DC Council of Governors Policy Advisor,.
Sakakibara, M. & Dodgson, M. 2003, Strategic research partnership: Empirical evidence from Asia, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15(2): 227-245.
Senker, J. 1998. Rationale for partnerships: Build national innovation systems. STI Review, 23: 23-37.
Shane, S. 2002. Executive Forum: University technology transfer to entrepreneurial companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17: 537-552.
Steffensen, M., Rogers, E.M., & Speakman, K. 2000. Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(1): 93-111.
Steinle, C. & Schiele, H. 2002. When do industries Cluster? A proposal on how to access an industry’s propensity to concerate at a single region or nation. Research Policy, 31(6): 849-858.
Stuart, T.E. 1998. Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 668-698.
Takeishi, A. 2001. Bridging inter-and intra-firm boundaries: Management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 403-433.
Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. 2004. Knowledge, clusters and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29(2): 258-271.

三、 網路
經濟部工業局，「106年度專案計畫期末執行成果報告」，https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:A3UIAnXzV2gJ:https://www.moeaidb.gov.tw/external/ctlr%3FPRO%3Dfilepath.DownloadFile%26f%3Dexecutive%26t%3Df%26id%3D12188+&cd=1&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&gl=tw&client=firefox-b-d。
ITIS智網，「2018金屬製品產業年鑑─手工具篇」，https://www2.itis.org.tw/pubreport/pubreport_detail.aspx?rpno=64713949。
台灣精品網，「五金手工具產業-台灣精品產業綜觀」，https://www.taiwanexcellence.org/tw/industry/hardware。
許育瑞，「台灣手工具產業市況與展望」，金屬工業研究發展中心ITIS計畫，http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20170330000388-260210。
許育瑞、陳仲宜、黃得晉與楊瑞雯，「2014產業附加價值專刊-金屬製品產業」，https://www.mirdc.org.tw/IndustryNewsView.aspx?Cond=4116。
產業拓展處，2019，「德國五金手工具市場概況及趨勢」， http://www.ieatpe.org.tw/espo/detail.aspx?id=151&tp=4。
中華民國海關，「稅則稅率綜合查詢作業」，https://portal.sw.nat.gov.tw/APGQO/GC411