Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/72540
|
| Title: | 垂直整合對競爭優勢影響之個案研究
A Case Study on the Impacts of Vertical Integration on Competitive Advantage |
| Authors: | 游絢博
Yu, Shun Po |
| Contributors: | 邱奕嘉
Chiu, Yi Chia
游絢博
Yu, Shun Po |
| Keywords: | 組織邊界
垂直整合
線性滑軌產業
boundary
vertical integration
profile rail guide industry |
| Date: | 2013 |
| Issue Date: | 2015-01-05 11:19:48 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 線性滑軌產業紛紛採取大量生產以達到規模經濟，以提升價格的競爭力，加上快速的景氣循環、供應鏈冗長和資本密集等產業特性；因此，形成各線性滑軌廠商積極進行策略整合與垂直整合的動作，故提升價格競爭力成為各廠商增加競爭力的最佳方式。另一方面，經營重點放置與下游經銷商和直接客戶的關係建立，這種上下游擴張的經營模式，成為線性滑軌廠商競爭的新顯學。不過經過金融海嘯及歐債危機的考驗後，許多線性滑軌廠商整合的管理成本大於實際效益，例如：整合後的管理成本與營運槓桿因而提高，為公司帶來無效率的內部供給成本與損失；因此，諸多廠商開始重新檢視其垂直整合之策略，包含評估其附加的效益和仔細考量隨之而至的成本，以提升公司在產業中的競爭力。根據上述，本研究在考量當前線性滑軌產業之總體環境與產業結構變化等情形後，歸納出三項要點為欲探討釐清之問題，分別是：
一、垂直整合策略的效益與成本為何？
二、影響採用垂直整合之考量因素為何？
三、垂直整合對競爭優勢創造的影響？
透過「組織邊界（boundary）」和「垂直整合」兩理論，思考整合效益及成本之營運策略。獲致結果如下：
一、垂直整合策略的決策應著重於維持最大效益及避免無謂的成本增加，企業需進一步思考可能產生的成本是否大過於效益的產生，並依造企業的規模選擇最佳的整合程度及範圍，以確保垂直整合的效益大於成本之優勢。
二、企業採取垂直整合除了考慮「成本與自主力之最佳化」之外，甚至應思考如何在動態環境變化下極大化廠商的內部資源配置「能耐」，發展新的產品或進入新的領域，以期獲得嶄新的競爭優勢，以及在組織成員發展出共同的認知框架「認同」下降低無效率的成本；並透過內外在環境的互動關係，逐漸形成企業應有的組織範疇。
三、在同質性及標準化較高的產業中，企業為了掌握關鍵製程、穩定原料供應及建立進入障礙，採取垂直整合策略，以權益式統治結構控制縱向垂直鏈上各個價值流程，並降低上下游之交易成本，提供產業中最低價格或創造差異化，以期取得較高市場佔有率，達到規模及範疇經濟；以組織邊界的觀點分析之，既是「自主權」概念的延伸。
關鍵詞：組織邊界、垂直整合、線性滑軌產業
Profile rail guide industry progressively adopts mass production to reach economies of scale in order to increase its price competition. In addition to the feature of its rapid business cycle, long supplying chain and intensive capital, profile rail guide manufacturers actively work on strategic and vertical integration to enhance their price competitiveness as the best way to increase company competitiveness. On the other hand, business plan focuses on building relationship with downstream distributors and end users. This kind of vertical business expansion has become a new famous doctrine for profile rail guide manufacturers. However after passing through global financial and European debt crises, the integration management cost has been higher than the actual benefits it brings. For example, the management costs will increase after integration and operational leverage, which brings non-efficient internal supplying cost and loss. Therefore, many manufacturers started to review vertical integration strategies, including the benefits and costs it could cause in order to increase their competitiveness in the industry. After considering current macro economy and industrial structure of profile rail guide industry according to the statements above, here are three key points concluded in the study to find out the problems:
1. What is cost-benefit of vertical integration strategies?
2. What are the concerns of adopting vertical integration?
3. What are impacts of vertical integration to competitive advantages?
By thinking over business strategy of integration cost-benefit through two theories of “boundary” and “vertical integration”, the conclusions are summarized as below:
Vertical integration strategies should focus on maintaining maximum benefits and avoid unnecessary costs. Enterprises need to further evaluate if potential costs will be higher than benefits it will create and select the best fit integration level and scale to ensure the advantage positions of bringing positive benefits.
Beside of thinking about “cost and autonomy optimization”, enterprises should also evaluate how to maximize suppliers’ “competence” of allocating their internal resources in dynamic environment and how to develop new products or to enter new market in order to obtain brand-new competitive strengths. In addition, to decrease non-efficient cost with “identity” that developed and recognized by members inside the organization and to gradually form organization category that an enterprise should have through the interaction between internal and external environment.
Among industries with high similarity and standardization, enterprises adopt vertical integration strategy to control key process, stable material supply, set up barriers to entry and to control each value stream on the vertical supply chain through beneficial management structure. The target is to obtain higher market share percentage and reach economies of scale and scope by offering the cheapest prices or creating differences. If we analyze it base on the points of “boundary”, it is the extension of “autonomy” concept.
Key words: boundary, vertical integration, profile rail guide industry
目次 v
圖次 vi
表次 viii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究問題與目的 3
第三節 研究流程 4
第二章 文獻探討 6
第一節 組織邊界 6
第二節 垂直整合 12
第三章 研究方法 20
第一節 個案研究 20
第二節 資料來源 25
第三節 概念性架構圖 26
第四章 線性滑軌產業現況分析 28
第一節 線性滑軌介紹 28
第二節 產業特性 30
第三節 產業沿革 32
第四節 線性滑軌產業供應鏈結構 39
第五節 產業概況及未來發展 46
第五章 個案研究 50
第一節 個案公司介紹 50
第二節 個案公司之垂直整合分析 51
第三節 影響採用垂直整合之考量因素為何 57
第四節 垂直整合對競爭優勢創造的影響 61
第六章 結論與建議 66
第一節 研究結論 66
第二節 研究建議與限制 69
參考文獻
中文部份 70
英文部份 71 |
| Reference: | 中文部份
許明哲（2012）。直得科技股份有限公司上櫃前業績發表會簡報。2014年5月6日，取自於http://www.chieftek.com/download/cpc%20IPO%20ppt.pdf
黃建中 （2012）。2012年台灣工具機進出口分析。2014年5月6日，取自於http://www.tmba.org.tw/Up_files/type3/24/1153/File/2012-%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E5%B7%A5%E5%85%B7%E6%A9%9F%E8%88%87%E9%9B%B6%E7%B5%84%E4%BB%B6%E9%80%B2%E5%87%BA%E5%8F%A3%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A(1).pdf
黃騰儀（2010）。垂直整合無效率與因應對策之探討。國立中興大學高階經理人班碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
葉重新（2004）。教育研究法第二版。心理出版社。
劉一郎（2013）。¬¬ 線性傳動領導廠商營運剖析。金屬中心。2014年4月20日取自於http://www2.itis.org.tw/netreport/NetReport_Detail.aspx?rpno=672442839
劉家瑜（2011）。台灣打造完整供應鏈 機器人產業潛力雄厚。貿易雜誌，245，48-50。
劉齡之（2009）。營運範疇與競爭優勢分析-以群創光電為例。國立中興大學企業管理系碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
蔡秉訓（2009）。線性滑軌之發展分析與輕量化應用。機械工業雜誌，321，39-50。
盧素涵（2013）。2013我國線性滑軌分析。金屬中心。 2014年4月20日，取自於http://www2.itis.org.tw/netreport/NetReport_Detail.aspx?rpno=987301396
蕭瑞麟 （2007）。不用數字的研究: 鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究初版。台灣培生出版社。
外文部份
Albert, S., Whetten, D.A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 263-95.
Avenel, E., & Barlet, (2000). Vertical foreclosure, technological choice, and entry on the intermediate market. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 9(3), 211-230.
Barney, J. B., (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1). 99-120.
Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5-14.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American Business. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.
Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386-405.
Coase, R. H. (1993). The nature of the firm: Influence. O. E. Williamson, S. G. Winter, eds. The Nature of the Firm. Oxford University Press, New York, 61-74.
Davis, J. P., Eisehard, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2005). Complexity theory, market dynamism and the strategy of simple rules. Working paper, Stanford Technology Ventures Program.
Davis, G. F., & Powell, W. W. (1992). Chapter 6: Organization-environment relations. M. D. Dunnette, L. M. Hough, eds. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
Dyer, J. H. (1996). Does governance matter: Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive advantage. Organization Science, 7(6), 649-666.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin. J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2005). Disentangling resources from the resource based view: A typology of strategic logics and competitive advantage. Managerial Decision Econom. Forthcoming.
Ellison, L. A. (1991). Vertical integration driving urge to merge. Computer Industry, 71-74.
Hart, O., & Moore, J. (1990). Proprety rights and the nature of the firm. Journal Political Economic, 98(6), 1119-1158.
Hill, C. L., & Jones, G. (2004). Strategic management theory. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Holmstrom, B. (1999). The firm as a subeconomy. Journal Law, Economic Organization, 15(1), 74-106.
NSK America, Chapter 1 What is linear guide,
http://www.nskamericas.com/cps/rde/xbcr/na_en/Linear_Guide_Tutorial.pdf
IMS research (2014). The world market for linear motion products.
Klein, B. (1988). Vertical integration as organizational ownership: the fisher-body-gerneral motors relationship revisited. Journal Law, Economic Organization, 4, 199-213.
Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 405-425.
Leuthesser, L. and C. S. Kohli(1995). “Brand Equity: the Halo Effect Measure,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 4, 57-66.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and. Quantitative Approaches (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row Publishers, New York.
Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance, Strategic Management Journal, 7, 485-501.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. Free Press, New York.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New York.
Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance, Strategic Management Journal, 7, 485-501.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization, Organization Science, 16 (2005), 491–508.
Siggelkow, N. (2001). Change in the presence of fit: The rise, the fall and the renascence of Liz Claibome. Academy Management Journal, 44(4), 838-857.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. McGraw Hill, New York.
Teece, D. J. (1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal Economic Behavior Organization, 3, 39-63.
Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280-321.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Free Press, New York.
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organizations: The transaction cost approach. Amer. J. Sociology 87(3) 548-577.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism Free Press. New York.
Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administration Science Quarter, 36(2), 269-296.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study research: Design and methods, 2nd, STAG Publications, New York. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)
101932137
102 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101932137 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [經營管理碩士學程EMBA] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 359 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
