網路應用一直都在持續地演進，而Web2.0就是一個演進的結果，它所強調的是一種應用，帶來一場以「社群互動」為核心的網路應用熱潮。隨著Web2.0概念正在發燒，有許多想要趕搭這股熱潮的人，持續地設立具有Web 2.0概念的網站。有鑑於此，資策會創新應用研究所便根據政府「第二代網際網路（web2.0）創新服務推動計畫」，舉辦了「創意選秀，躍上國際舞台－Web 2.0創新服務點子大募集」提案徵選活動，希望提供有心透過Web 2.0創業的國人所需的相關資源加以輔導創業，如舉辦「創業家研習營」，教授與Web 2.0相關之課程，讓參與者瞭解Web 2.0技術與應用知識，同時增進Web 2.0創業之基本資訊。
本研究便以「創業家研習營」為出發點，以科技接受模型為理論基礎，首先希望了解Web2.0這項立基在網路科技上的創新服務是否適用科技接受模式，進一步希望了解科技接受模式中的態度除了影響採用行為之外，是否會對創業意圖造成影響；本研究根據研究需求修改理論架構，透過發放網路問卷調查使用者在使用Web2.0的過程中對其知覺有用、知覺易用及態度的程度，以及態度與創業意圖間的關聯，作為政府將來持續推廣相關計畫的參考。

The progress of internet application never stopped. As an evolutionary result, Web2.0, of which made asynchronous mutual communication on web page become capable was a significant milestone in internet application. Web2.0 emphasized on the function of interaction, such as experience share, idea exchange, as well as topic discussion, and set the trend of community interaction.
Numerous websites were set up with function of Web2.0 in order to following the trend. Therefore, a proposal competition of Web2.0 was held by Innovative DigiTech-Enabled Applications & Services Institute to encourage those who would like to make a business of Web2.0 application to propose their business plan. In the competition, participants were able to attend relevant courses, acquire much more technical knowledge, and amount of business information was provided.
This research mainly aimed at participants of the proposal competition, and took Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a theoretical framework, though some modification had been made for research needs. The questionnaires were sent out and gathered through internet to measure the connection between perceived usefulness, perceived ease used, the attitude of Web2.0 of participants and their will of starting a business.
The purposes of this paper attempted to discover：(1) was it appropriate to take TAM for explaining the adoption behaviors of Web2.0; furthermore, (2) to apprehend if the attitude, one of the variables in TAM, have been proved to have influences on adoption behaviors of adopters, did the attitude also cause influences on motivation of starting a business of competition participants. Finally, the results of this research could be reference for government to take into consideration while developing further related programs.

致謝詞 i
論文摘要 iii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機 4
第三節 研究問題 4
第四節 研究目的 4
第二章 文獻探討 6
第一節 資訊服務產業 6
第二節 第二代網路科技（Web2.0） 11
第三節 科技接受模式（Technology Acceptance Model, TAM） 18
理性行為理論（Theory of Reasoned Action, TRA） 19
計畫行為理論（Theory of Planned Behavior, TPB） 20
科技接受模式 21
TAM2 24
接受與使用科技模式（UTAUT） 27
第四節 創業行為 31
第五節 文獻整理小節 33
第三章 研究方法 34
第一節 研究架構 34
第二節 變數定義與操作化 35
知覺有用 35
知覺易用 36
態度 36
創業意圖 36
第三節 研究假說 37
第四節 問卷設計 38
第五節 問卷發放與整理 39
第六節 資料分析方法 40
第四章 資料分析與結果 41
第一節 樣本描述與敘述性統計 41
第二節 信度檢定 47
第三節 相關分析 48
第四節 假說驗證結果 50
第五章 結論與建議 52
第一節 研究結果 52
第二節 研究發現 52
對學術研究而言 52
對實務應用而言 53
第三節 後續研究建議 54
參考文獻 55
中文文獻 55
西文文獻 56
附錄 61

中文文獻
1.什麼是Web 2.0（2005）。2007年3月10日，取自網址
http://www.itmag.org.tw/magazine/article_single_138.htm#
2.王博仁（2005）。台灣資訊服務業者進入中國大陸市場之個案研討：以前進國際公司為例。國立交通大學科技管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹。
3.李鍵壕（2004）。高雄市公務人員對知識管理系統之科技接受度。國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
4.周立軒（2005）。網誌的使用者與使用行為之研究。元智大學資訊傳播學系碩士班網路傳播組碩士論文，未出版，桃園。
5.吳萬益、林清河（2001）。企業研究方法。台北：華泰圖書出版公司。
6.陳孟功（2003）。校園無線區域網路(WLAN)－科技接受模式(TAM)之研究。國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
7.陳郁芳（2005）。企業員工 e-Learning 系統之使用意願影響因素研究。國立中山大學資訊管理研究所，未出版，高雄。
8.陳焜元（1996）。行政管理資訊系統使用者參與效果之研究-技術接受性模式檢証。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
9.張家維（2001）。資訊服務業區位選擇之研究。國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所，未出版，高雄。
10.張鴻昌（2004）。員工對企業內部網路接受度之研究－以中鋼為例。國立中山大學企業管理學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
11.郭家林(1999)。我國軟體產業的公司特性、財務策略、及財務績效關係之研究。大葉大學事業經營研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
12.黃兆震（2000）。網路購物意願之研究─以電腦通訊產品為例。國立台灣科技大學資訊管理學系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
13.黃應欽（2006）。創新科技產品採用之研究－以網路電話為例。國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南。
14.黃齡逸（2004）。探討影響使用者採納中華電信MOD的關鍵因素。國立中山大學傳播管理研究所研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
15.游適維(2000)。資訊軟體業國際市場進入策略之研究。國立交通大學經營管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹。
16.楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園（1990）。社會及行為科學研究法。台北：東華書局。
17.劉得欣（2000）。臺灣資訊服務業---經營之成功關鍵要素探討。元智大學管理研究所，未出版，桃園。
18.蘇伯方（2004）。即時傳訊軟體採用模式之研究。國立中山大學傳播管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
19.戴久永（2006）。統計原理與運用。台中：滄海書局。
20.龔仁文（總編）（2006）。Web 2.0，網路上有錢，創意在裡面。台北：資策會。

西文文獻
1. Al-Gahtani, S., & King, M. (1999). Attitudes, Satisfaction and Usage: Factors Contributing to Each in the Acceptance of Information Technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(4), 277-297.
2. Basil, P., Yen, D. C., & Tang, H-L., (1997). Information consulting: Developments, trends and suggestions for growth. International Journal of Information Management, 17 (5), 303-323.
3. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1994). Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude, 18(1), 59-82
4. Bochkaus, R. H., (1980). Risk-Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs, Academy of Management Journal, 509-520.
5. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information system: theory and results. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Sloan School of management, Cambridge, MA.
6. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
7. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theorical models. Management Science, 35(8) , 982-1003.
8. Elwood, S. (2006). Investigating Students’ Perceptions on Laptop Initiative in Higher Education: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 23(5), 336-349.
9. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.(1975). Belief, attitude, intentions and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
10. Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Measure user participation, user involvement, and user attitude, MIS Quarterly ,18, 59-79.
11. Hsu, C., L., & Lu, H., P. (2007). Consumer Behavior in Online Game Communities: A Motivational Factor Perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1642-1659.
12. Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Sheng, O. R., Liu, T., & Yan, K. (1999). Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91-112.
13. Igbaria M., Iivari, J., & Maragahh, H. (1995). Why do individuals use computer technology? A Finnish case study, Information & Management, 29(5), 227-238.
14. Jackson, C. M., Chow, S., & Leitch, R. A. (1997). Toward an Understanding of the Behavioral Intention to Use an Information System. Decision Sciences, 28(2),357-389.
15. Kerlinger, F. N. (1978). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16. Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. (2000).The Technology Acceptance Model and the World Wide Web. Decision Support Systems, 29(3), 269-282.
17. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003).Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191-204.
18. Lu, J., Yu, C., Liu, C., & Yao, J. E. (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless internet. Internet Research, 13(3), 206-222.
19. Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (1999).Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Account for Social Influence: Theoretical Bases and Empirical Validation. Paper presented at the meeting of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
20. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology 50. acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191.
21. McKechnie, S., Winklhofer, H., & Ennew, C. (2006). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to the Online Retailing of Financial Services. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Managemen, 34(4/5), 388-410.
22. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Ego-centered networks and the ripple effect, or Why all your friends are weird. Unpublished Preprint. 23. Pikkarainen, T., Pikkarainen, K., Karjaluoto, H., & Pahnila, S. (2004). Consumer Acceptance of Online Banking: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Internet Research, 14(3), 224-235.
24. Reynolds, P. D. (1999). 1999 Executive Report, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 23-30.
25. Roca, J. C., Chiu C. M., & Martínez, F. J. (2006). Understanding E-learning Continuance Intention: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 683-696
26. Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavior Sciences, 2ndedition, Rinehart and Winston.
27. Schumpeter, J. A. (1971). The Fundamental Phenomenon of economic Development, Entrepreneurship and economic Development, 43-70.
28. Shame, W. (1974). Venture Management: The Business of the Inventor, Entrepreneur, Venture Capitalist, and established Company. New York: The Free Press.
29. Sharma, P. and J. J. Chrisman. (1999). Toward a Reconciliation of the Definitional Issues in the Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Spring, pp.11-27.
30. Siropolis, N. C. (1989). Small Business Management: A Guide to Entrepreneurshi., Houghton Miffin Company, 38-42
31. Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science, 42(1), 85-92.
32. Taylor, S., & Todd, P.A. (1995). Assessing IT Usage: The role of prior experience, MIS Quarterly, 19, 561-570.
33. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451.
34. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.
35. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
36. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2000). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
37. Viardot, E. ( 2000). Key features and importance of professional information technology-based services. European Management Journal 18 (4), 454-461.