政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/57041

政大典藏 > College of Commerce > Graduate Institute of Technology and Innovation Management > Theses > Item 140.119/57041

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/57041

Title:	廠商與供應商的合作關係之探討-以我國資訊業為例 R&D Sharing and Cooperation within the supply chain: the case of Taiwan IT companies
Authors:	吳彥
Contributors:	吳豐祥教授吳彥
Keywords:	New Product Development Architecture change Modularity Modularity trap Buyer-supplier relationship knowledge management
Date:	2011
Issue Date:	2013-03-01 09:24:37 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	The purpose of this study is to better understand the functioning of knowledge sharing in the supply chain of Taiwan IT industry and face the current practice of modular component outsourcing with a theoretical threat of architecture change and modularity trap. Today, modularity and component outsourcing became almost an prerequisite for an successful IT company. Product architectures are widespread and well defined. It is however the question nobody dares to ask – what if this changes? How can the Taiwan suppliers make sure, that they will still be in the game even if the rules change? How can they assure that their position as the cutting edge component providers won"t be taken by someone else? The basic premise of the research is, that the relationship management of supplier and buyers often seen in countries with Confucian tradition can overcome this threat thanks to deeply rooted trust and good and opened communication patterns. This paper first introduces the Supplier-buyer relationship theory and background on its functioning within the New Product Development (NPD) area. The study also touches on the issue of Early Supplier Involvement (ESI) into the New Product Development. Next the theory on Modularity and Modularity Trap are introduced. Based on the literature review, I construct an research framework, consisting of two bodies: The architecture as a variable and Buyer-supplier relationship and NPD. The major conclusions of this study are (1) The architecture of the product to be developed is an important driver on the supplier-buyer relationship creation. (2) To build the relationship with buyers is important step for the suppliers, but it can only be build around technology that is important for the buyer. (3) Supplier"s understanding of architecture knowledge of its buyers is crucial. (4) The main reason to invite supplier into New product development is buyers technological distance between what they can have and what they want to have. (5) Product Complexity (number of parts and their interconnections within the product) have a positive influence on the supplier role creation. (6) All buyers have a rather good component knowledge. (7) The management alignment will be greatly influenced byt architectural attributes of the product to be developed.
Reference:	Baccarini, D., (1996), The Concept of Project Complexity- a Review, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, Issue 4, pp. 201-204. Baldwin, C.Y., and Clark, K.B, (2000). Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. Boston: The MIT Press. Barnett, B.D., and Clark, K.B., (1996), Technological Newness: An Empirical Study in the Process Industries, Journal of Engineering and Technology management, Vol. 13, No. 3-4, pp. 263-282. Bidault, F., Despres, Ch., and Butler, C., (1998), The Drivers of Cooperation Between Buyers and Suppliers for Product Innovation, Research Policy, Vol. 26, No. 7-8, pp. 719-732. Bozdogan, K., Deyst, J., Hoult, D., and Lucas, M., (1998), Architectural Innovation in Product Development Through Early Supplier Integration, R&D Management, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 163- 173. Booz, Allen, & Hamilton, Inc. (1982). New Product Management for the 1980’s. New York: Booz, Allen, & Hamilton, Inc. Chesbrough, H.W., and Kusunoki, K., (2001), “The Modularity Trap: Innovation, Technology Phases Shifts and the Resulting Limits of Virtual Organizations”. In I. Nonaka, and D.J. Teece, (Eds.), Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization (pp. 202- 230). London, UK: Sage Publications. Clark, K.B., and Fujimoto, T., (1991), Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization and Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dyer, J., (1996), How Chrysler created an American Keirestu, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 42-60. Dyer, J., and Singh, H., (1998), The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Inter-organizational Competitive Advantage, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 660-679. Dyer, J.H. Cho, D.S., and Chu, W., (1998), Strategic Supplier Segmentation: the Next ‘Best Practice’ in Supply Chain Management, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No.2, pp 57-77. Ernst, D.,(2005), Limits to Modularity: Reflections on Recent Developments in Chip Design, Industry & Innovation, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp. 303-335. Fine, Ch. H., (1996), Industry Clockspeed and Competency Chain Design: An Introductory Essay, Proceedings of the 1996 manufacturing and Service Operations Management Conference, Darthmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire. Fine, Ch. H., and Whitney, D.E., (1996), Is the Make-buy Decision a Core Competence? New York: MIT Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development. Garud, R., and Kumaraswamy, A., (1993), Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economies of Substitution, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, Issue S1, pp. 93-109. Handfield, R.B., Ragatz, G.L., Petersen, K.J., and Monczka, R.M., (2000), Product Development: Strategies for Supplier Integration. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality. Henderson R.M., and Clark, K.B., (1990), Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No.1 Special Issue: Technology, Organizations, and Innovation, pp. 9-30. Hippel,Von E., (1990), Task Partitioning: An Innovation Process Variable. Research Policy, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 407-418. Kamath, R.R., and Liker, J.K., (1994), A Second Look at the Japanese Product Development, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72, No. 6, pp. 154-170. Langley, R.B., (2000), Smaller and smaller: The Evolution of the GPS Receiver, GPS World, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 54-58. Langlois, R.N., (2003); The Vanishing Hand: The Changing Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Industrial and Corporate Change: Special Issue: Theory of the Firm, Learning and Organization, Vol. 12, No.2, pp. 351-385. Monczka, R.M., Peterson, K.J., Handfield, R.B., (1998), Success Factors in Strategic Supplier Alliances: The Buying Company Perspective, A Journal of Decission Sciences institute, Vol. 29, No.3, pp. 553-577. Nonaka, H., and Takeuchi, (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, USA. Olson, E.M., Walker, O.C., and Ruekert, R.W., (1995), Organizing for Effective New Product Development: The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness, Journal of marketing, Vol. 59, No.1, pp. 48-62. Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B., and Scannel, T.V., (1997), Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers into New Product Development, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 190-202. Sanches, R. (1995), Strategic Flexibility in Product Competition, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. S1, pp. 135-159. Sanchez, R., and Mahoney, J.T., (1996), Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, No.: Special Issue, pp. 63-76. Sanchez, R., and Collins, R.P., (2001), Competing-and Learning-in Modular Markets, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34, Iss. 6, pp. 639-783. Schling, MA (2000), Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity, Academy of management review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 312-334 Simon, H.A. (1962), The Architecture of Complexity, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 106, No.6, pp. 467-482. Sturgeon, T., (2002), Modular Production networks: a New American Model of Industrial Organization, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 451-496. Swink, M. (1999), Threats to New Product Manufacturability and the Effects of Development Team Integration Processes, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 691-701. Takeishi, A., (2002), Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor: The Case of Automotive Product Development, Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 321-338. Ulrich, K., (1995), The Role Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm, Research Policy, Vol. 24, Issue 3, pp. 419-440. Utterback, J.M., (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Veloso, F., and Fixson, S., (2000), Make-Buy Decisions in the Auto industry: New Perspectives on the Role of the Supplier as an Innovator, Technological forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 67, No. 2-3, pp. 239-257. Weick, K.E., (1976), Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, No.1, pp. 1-19. Willias, T.M., (1999), The Need for New Paradigms for Complex Projects, International Journal of Project management, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 269-273. Wheelwright, S.C., and Clark, K.B., (1992), Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality. New York: Free Press. Yin, R.K., (1994), Case study research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage, International Education and Professional. Internet resources: Hewlett-Packard web page: www.hp.com Asus web page: www.asus.com Sanav web page: www.sanav.com Wikipedia web page: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/motherboard www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/heat_pipe
Description:	碩士國立政治大學科技管理研究所 97359037 100
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097359037
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Technology and Innovation Management] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
903701.pdf	1144Kb	Adobe PDF2	743	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...