台灣高科技廠商營運模式與競爭優勢之研究—以新竹科學工業園區廠商為例

Abstract

電腦產業的宏□，率先在2000年12月將旗下公司，切割為品牌營運、研製服務兩個專注事業，然系出同門的華碩與明基卻仍堅持品牌與代工一體，以追求綜效，台灣高科技廠商的營運模式是近年來管理理論與實務一個引人注目的課題。在台灣積體電路產業，IC設計與晶圓代工採取垂直分工，形成互利互補的產業結構；在網路通訊業與光電產業，許多廠商面臨品牌與代工是否應切割的議題。本研究探討台灣高科技產業營運模式相關的概念架構，並以新竹科學園區廠商為實證，研究台灣高科技廠商資源能力、營運模式與競爭優勢間的相關性，以及多重營運模式是否會具有競爭優勢或競爭劣勢。 經過問卷調查新竹科學園區52家上市、上櫃公司，實證研究顯示： 1. 積體電路業的營運模式最明確，電腦及週邊業營運模式最多元，通訊與光電產業營運模式仍處於動態變化階段，生物科技業則因尚未有上市、上櫃公司，所以未列入研究範圍。 2. 廠商的資源與能力，其「價值性」、「組織性」平均數高於「稀少性」與「難以模仿性」。依Barney(1996)理論僅具有價值性與組織性，但缺乏稀少性及難以模仿性的資源與能力，並無法形成持久性競爭優勢。 3. 以單因子變異數分析(ANOVA)各種營運模式的資源能力是否有顯著差異，發現相對於OBM廠商，ODM與OEM廠商具有較高「製造能力」與「實體資產」。 4. 由Pearson積差相關分析發現資源與能力與競爭優勢有顯著之相關，其中行銷能力、研發能力、無形資產、財務資產與差異化競爭優勢有顯著正向相關；而研發能力、製造能力、無形資產、財務資產與成本領導競爭優勢有顯著正向相關；且實體資產與競爭優勢無顯著相關。 5. 以單因子變異數分析(ANOVA)各種營運模式之競爭優勢是否有顯著差異，本研究發現不同營運模式之競爭優勢並無顯著差異。以t檢定分析採取多種營運模式廠商與採取單一營運模式廠商之競爭優勢是否有顯著差異，研究發現兩者並無顯著差異。

Acer, the well-known personal computer company, divided itself into two business groups – DMS (Design Manufacturing Services) and ABO (Acer Brand Operation) in Dec., 2000. In the mean while, Asus and BenQ insist to have two business models in their companies so as to pursuit synergy. In these recent years, business models of high-tech firms drew a lot of attentions in industry and in academy. This research intends to find out the conceptual framework of Taiwan high-tech firms’ business model. Based on the data sourced from Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park firms, this research finds out the relation among resource and capability, business model and competitive advantage of high-tech firms in Taiwan. Below are the results of this research: 1. The business model of IC industry is very clear, that of computer industry is the most diversified one, and that of communication and electro-optics is the most dynamic one. Biotechnology industry isn’t included in this research for there are none IPO firms yet with enough information. 2. As for the resource and capability of a firm, the average of its Value and Organization is higher than its Rareness and Imitability. According to Barney’s theory (1996), a firm can’t gain and sustain competitive advantage with only Value and Organization but without Rareness and Imitability resource and/or capability. 3. This research finds that ODM and OEM firms have significant better manufacturing capability and physical assests, compared with OBM firms. 4. As for the correlation between resource capability and competitive advantage, this research finds that marketing capability, R&D capability, intengitible asset and financial asset are siginificantly positive correlated with differentiation competitive advantage, while R&D capability, manufacturing capability, intengitible asset and financial asset are siginificantly positive correlated wih cost leadership. 5. This research finds that the competitive advantage of diffirent business models doesn’t have siginificant variance, and firms with multiple business models don’t have significant competitive advantage over firms with single business model.