台灣製造業廠商人才培訓的制度分析：以高科技業為主

Institutional Analysis of Training at Hi-Tech Manufacturing Firms in Taiwan

許多研究已指出台灣屬於後進學習型的國家，透過代工，不同產業在1980年代都進入全球商品鏈生產分工的半邊陲位置。然而，過去有關台灣或者後進發展國家如何技術學習的文獻中，很少深入討論技術接收國的廠商透過怎樣的人才培訓制度將技術深化到組織，而一旦缺乏關照廠商人才培訓經驗的特性，將無法完整掌握台灣企業組織技術學習的獨特性。據此，本研究認為，要掌握台灣廠商人才培訓經驗的特性，必須發展出台灣本土經驗的分析架構，而非不加反省地按照技術先進國家的觀點或者既有經濟學式的理性效率觀點進行解釋。本文奠基在深度訪問41家廠商，與其他相關人資協會、政府官員、教育訓練機構人員，總共72人的田野訪問資料，試圖開展出屬於台灣科技業廠商人才培訓經驗的解釋框架。本研究主要將理論焦點放在全球生產網絡的趨力下，台灣不同生產鏈技術位置的廠商，因應全球客戶的需求與組織場域的特性，發展出各種組織培訓員工的行動實踐邏輯。高科技製造業廠商在全球生產分工所奠基的生產技術立基「OEM製造代工」vs. 「ODM設計代工」，會對應出「後進追隨學習」vs.「後進追趕創新」這兩類的人才培訓模式。此雙軌制度可以適切地解釋台灣高科技製造業廠商人才培訓的經驗。

Numerous studies have categorized Taiwan as a “learning latecomer.” Through Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM), Taiwan started to join the global commodity and supply chains in the 1980s and attained semiperipheral positions in the global division of production. Previous studies, however, have determined little regarding how technologyreceiving countries, such as Taiwan, transfer technology and skills to the workers of local firms through the firms’ training systems fostered by global customers. Because few studies have examined this topic, this study explored an indigenous analytical framework regarding the institutional characteristics of job training for OEM and Original-Design-Manufacturer (ODM) firms rather than testing the theoretical hypotheses of general theories on job training in foreign countries or the predominant theory from the efficiency viewpoint of economics-based rational interpretations. To further explore how manufacturing companies train their staff members and employees, this study collected data from in-depth interviews. On the basis of interviews with human resource managers at 41 companies (officers as well as leaders of human resource associations and training institutes), the study selected a survey sample of 72 interviewees. This research put the main theoretical emphasis on the forces of global production networks, and Taiwanese firms located in different positions of production technological chains develop different logics of action practices to deal with the demands of global customers and the characteristics of organizational fields. OEM and ODM firms have developed two training institutions: a latecomer’s learning of following and a latecomer’s learning of innovative catch-up. This dual institutional logic regarding training might help explain Taiwan manufacturers’ experiences.