1990年代知識經濟的來臨，產業群聚議題受到各界的熱切探討。然而只透過專業資訊、技術和輔助性機構之聚集，並無法表示產業群聚必定會帶來產業的成功發展。為此，Porter(1990)的鑽石理論模型以及Saxenian(1994)的產業網絡觀點指出一個產業群聚的環境因素之重要性，解釋了傳統群聚無法說明的現象。由於過去學者認為這些環境因素必定有其形成背景與原因，並非無中生有，其可能透過政府的力量促成、抑或是企業合作聯盟的策略選擇等，故本研究將深入探討區域中個體是如何創造出良好的環境因素，進一步提升當地的群聚價值。
根據Etzkowitz與Leydesdorff(2002)之研究，他們指出政府、學術界與產業界為三大創新主體，其對創新能力與績效具有決定性的影響力。因此，本文採用產官學三螺旋分析方法，藉此觀察在歐洲表現優異的Eindhoven區域之創新系統。在回顧分析該區一百多年來的發展歷史之後，本研究發現當地的產、官、學彼此之間的互動模式並非如出一轍：早期原先是由領導企業所驅動，到了1990年代轉為政府主導。然而在發展過程中，無論主驅動力之角色變更與否並非如此的重要，因為該區之所以能真正獲得成功，則是在於產、官、學三者之間持續地相輔相成的整合過程中所產生出的互補性功能，因此能不斷地促進該區的成長與發展。

During 1990s, the knowledge-based economy times, the issue of clusters has been more popular. However, only through the gathering of professional information, technical and auxiliary organizations can not mean it is sure to create success.To explain this phenomenon which traditional theories can not solve, the Diamond Theory of Porter (1990) and the Industrial Network of Saxenian (1994) point out the importance of environmental factors. In the past, scholars believe that these environmental factors have itself background and reasons, which may be due to the government''s efforts, corporate alliances, and so on. So, this study will explore how the individuals in a region create good environmental factors, and enhance local value of the cluster.
Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2002) pointed out that the government, academia and industry are three major individuals for innovation. Therefore, this paper takes Triple Helix to analyze the innovation system of Eindhoven regional which has outstanding performance in Europe. After reviewing its 100 years history, this study found that the trajectory of the relationship within the government, academia and industry is not unchanged. At first, the innovation leader is the industry, until 1990s it became the government. However, it is not important that who the main driving role is. The region is able to be successful due to the complementary function during their integrated process. That is why Eindhoven region can continue to promote itself development and value.

英文文獻
1. Arnold van der Valk, “The Dutch Planning Experience”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, pp. 201-210, 2002.
2. Ashok K. Dutt, “A comparative Study of Regional Planning in Britain and The Netherlands”, The Ohio Journal of Science, Vol. 70, No. 6, pp. 321-355, November 1970.
3. Bart Verspagen, “Large Firms and Knowledge Flows in the Dutch R&D System: A Case Study of Philips Electronics”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 211-233, 1999.
4. Bertola, P. and Teixeira, J.C., “Desigh as a Knowledge Agent: How Design as a Knowledge Process is Embedded into Organizations to Foster Innovation”, Design Studies 24, pp. 181-194, 2003.
5. Brainport Eindhoven, Crossing Borders. Moving Frontiers, Brainport Eindhoven, 2007
6. Cook, P., “The New Wave of Regional Innovation Networks: Analysis, Characteristics and Strategy “, Small Business Economics, Vol. 8, 1996.
7. Cook, P., et al., “Regional Innovation Systems: Institutional and Organizational Dimensions”, Research Policy, pp. 475-491, 1997.
8. Cook, P., “Regional Innovation System, Cluster, and the Knowledge Economy”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 10, pp. 945-973, 2001.
9. Cook, P., “New Economy Innovation Systems: Biotechnology in Europe and the USA”, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 267-289, 2001.
10. Cook, P., “Regional Innovation Systems: General Findings and Some New Evidence from Biotechnology Clusters”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, pp. 133-145, 2002.
11. Dahl, M. S., “Knowledge Diffusion and Regional Clusters”, Aalborg University, PhD Thesis, November 2003.
12. Davids, M. and Verbong, G., “Intraorganizational Alignment and Innovation Processes: Philips and Transistor Technology”, Business History Review 80, pp. 657-688, Winter 2006.
13. Davids, M. and Verbong, G., “Absorptive Capacity in Solid-State Technology and International Knowledge Transfer”, Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-31, April 2007.
14. Ecomnomic Development Corporation Eindhoven Region, Eindhoven Region 2008 Facts & Figures, Ecomnomic Development Corporation Eindhoven Region, 2008
15. Ecomnomic Development Corporation Eindhoven Region, Eindhoven Region 2007 Facts & Figures, Ecomnomic Development Corporation Eindhoven Region, 2007
16. Ecomnomic Development Corporation Eindhoven Region, Eindhoven Region 2004 Facts & Figures, Ecomnomic Development Corporation Eindhoven Region, 2004
17. Ecomnomic Development Corporation Eindhoven Region, Eindhoven Region 2001 Facts & Figures, Ecomnomic Development Corporation Eindhoven Region, 2001
18. Edquist, C., “System of Innovation: Perspective and Challenge”, Lund University TEARI working paper no. 7, October 2003.
19. Eindhoven Region Brussels Office, The Brainport Case Study, Eindhoven Region Brussels Office.
20. ETIN Consultants, Infographics 2006, N.V. Brabantse Ontwikkelings Maatschappij (BOM), August 2006.
21. ETIN Consultants, Infographics 2006, N.V. Brabantse Ontwikkelings Maatschappij (BOM).
22. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L., “The Triple Helix as a Model for Innovation Studies”, Science & Public Policy, Vol. 25(3), pp. 195-203, 1998.
23. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L., “The Dynamics of Innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix”, Research Policy, 29, pp. 109-123, 2000
24. European Commission, Towards a European Research Area. Science, Technology and Innovation: Key Figures 2007, European Commission, 2007
25. European Commission, Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2003, European Commission, August 2004.
26. European Commission, Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators, European Commission, 2003.
27. European Commission, European Innovation Scoreboard 2003, European Commission, 2003.
28. Gordon, I. R. and MaCann, P., “Industrial Cluster: Complexes, Agglomeration and/or Social Network?”, Urban Studies, 37(3):513-532, 2000.
29. Harry B., et al., “A Dynamic of Cyber-entrepreneurship and Cluster Formation: Applications in the United States and in the Low Countries”, Telematics and Informatics 19, pp. 291-313, 2002.
30. Kaukonen, et al., “Modeling the Triple Helix Country Perspective: The Case of Finland”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, pp. 173-183, 1999.
31. Klofsten, et al., “Growing the Linkoping Technopole – A Longitudinal Study of Triple Helix Development in Sweden”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, pp. 125-138, 1999.
32. Leon A.G. Oerlemans,et al., ”Learing, Innovation and Proximity – An empirical Exploration of Patterns of Learning: A Case Study”, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, The Netherlands Working Paper 98.3, 1998.
33. Leydesdorff, L., “The Triple Helix: an Evolutionary Model of Innovations”, Research Policy, 29, pp. 243-255, 2000.
34. Leydesdorff, L. and Meyer, M., “Triple Helix Indicators of Knowledge-Based Innovation Systems”, Research Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 1-21, 2006.
35. Lundvall, “National Innovation Systems – Analytical Concept and Development Tool”, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 95-119, February 2007.
36. Maaike Galle and Ettjen Modderman, “Vinex: National Spatial Planning Policy in The Netherlands During The Nineties”, Neth. J. of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol.12, No. 1, pp. 9-35, 1997.
37. Martin, R. and Sunley, P., “Deconstructing Clusters: Chaotic Concept or Policy Panacea?”, Journal of Economic Geography, 3, pp. 5-35, 2003.
38. N.V. Brabantse Ontwikkelings Maatschappij (BOM), Southern Netherlands – The Smart European Business Solution, BOM, 2006.
39. Orsenigo, L., “The (Failed) Development of a Biotechnology Cluster: The Case of Lombardy”, Small Business Economics, 17, pp. 77-92, 2001.
40. Prof.dr. Leo van den Berg, et al., “European Cities in The Knowledge Economy”, Euricu, June 2004.
41. Programme Agency Horizon, Top Technology. Crossing Borders, Moving Frontiers, Programme Agency Horizon, December 2004.
42. Programme Agency Horizon, Top Technology. Crossing Borders, Moving Frontiers, Programme Agency Horizon, December 2003.
43. Pro Inno Europe, 2006 European Innovation Scoreboard, Pro Inno Europe, 2006.
44. Sistermans Committee, Brainport Navigator 2013. Beyond Lisbon!, Brainport Eindhoven, Septerber 2005.
45. TNO-Holst Centre, Herman Schoo, Organic Electronics Stakeholders meeting, Open Innovation, Brussels 2007
46. W. Hulsink and H. Dons, “Pathways to High-tech Valleys and Research Triangles: Innovative Entrepreneurship”, Knowledge Transfer and Cluster Formation in Europe and the United States, 2007.
47. Yuan-Chieh Chang and Ming-Huei Chen, ”The Systems of Innovation Approach: The Knowledge Perspective “, Technology in Society, 26, pp. 17-37, 2004.
中文文獻
48. 江昇飛，「區域產業創新系統關鍵發展因素之研究」，國立中山大學，碩士論文，民國94年。
49. 洪世章和林于婷，「國家創新系統：概念、成因與效果」，研考雙月刊，27卷4期，24~33頁，2003年8月。
50. 波特(Porter)著，國家競爭優勢(上、下)，李明軒、邱如美譯，天下遠見，台北，1990。
51. 溫肇東等人，「矽谷產業群聚的演化與特色」，科技產業之聚落之發展：矽谷、新竹與上海，台經發展研究中心和工研院，民國92年。
52. 閻永祺，「產業群聚育區域產業發展關係之研究─以南部區域為例」，國立成功大學，碩士論文，民國93年。
53. 薩克瑟尼安(Saxenian)著，區域優勢：矽谷與一二八公路的文化與競爭，彭蕙仙、常雲鳳譯，天下文化，1999。
54. 羅益強等人，借鏡荷蘭，天下雜誌，台北，2002。
網路文獻
55. http://www.eindhoven.eu/en
56. http://www.brainport.nl.
57. http://www.sre.nl/, SRE
58. http://www.bom.nl/top/english/Index.html, BOM
59. http://www.cross-works.eu/
60. http://w3.tue.nl/en/, TU/e
61. http://www.designacademy.nl/intro.htm, Design Adademy Eindhoven
62. http://www.tno.nl/, TNO
63. http://www.philips.com/, Philips
64. http://www.hightechcampus.nl/, HTCE
65. http://www.elat.org/, ELAt
66. Rob T. A. Jassen, Niaba(2005), “Highlight: The Netherlands”, http://www.research.philips.com/password/archive/23/pw23_cmm.html
67. 荷蘭科技發展及研發政策探討, http://www.nsc.gov.tw/dept/belgium/nlpolicy1.htm
68. 科技政策介紹, http://www.nsc.gov.tw/dept/belgium/Policy.htm