太陽能產業後進者關鍵成功因素之探討研究

Abstract

過去近十年為了降低環境污染和生態破壞，讓太陽能光電相關產業迅速蓬勃發展，然因2008下半年爆發的金融海嘯及 2011年爆發的歐債危機讓太陽能產業發展面臨瓶頸。就後進者-友達之觀點，鑒於過往至今其他台灣一般以代工為主的台灣太陽能光電業者而言，後進者有相當的難度與挑戰。在內在條件與外在環境的交互影響下，太陽能產業後進者的心態必須重新調適，對於產業未來發展策略也將有一段調整期，不僅是對現況做出因應，也必須重新客觀地清楚判斷自身的優劣勢以及調整既有策略，方能以後進者的角色開創出一條撥雲見日的新路。 因此本研究將以五力分析，產業後進者和關鍵成功因素等理論，探索太陽能產業後進者策略之可能關鍵成功要素，讓後進者可以據此取捨未來的資源與策略，可以後來居上，建立連續、持久且符合市場變化的競爭優勢，達成永續經營目標。 經由相關文獻的整理以及對產業現況的分析，並利用層級分析法(Analytic Hierarchy Process，AHP)發展出本研究之架構，以分析歸納太陽能產業後進者策略的關鍵成功因素。本研究採用專家問卷的方式，藉由諮詢產業界專業經理人的不同意見並加以整合，以明瞭太陽能產業後進者可以採用的關鍵成功因素，俾於其未來發展。 根據研究結果，本研究結果發現太陽能產業後進者最重要的關鍵成功因素為供應商構面的「支持度」，顯示太陽能產業後進者之策略若要提高成功度就必須與供應商發展良好關係及增加選擇性。其次依序為購買者構面的「品牌通路」、購買者構面的「客戶集中度」、產業競爭者構面的「產品差異化」、供應商構面的「品質控制能力」以及供應商構面的「可選擇性」。最後依據上述分析結果，本研究進一步提出相關建議。

In the past decade, the solar industry grows prosperously in order to decrease environment pollution. However, owing to 2008 Financial Tsunami and 2011 Euro bond crisis, the solar industry faces the battleneck. As a later comer, AUO has the hard chanlleges different from Taiwan conventional OEM approach. Under internal criteria and external situation, the later comer must adjust the attitudes and refine future development successful key factors, not only for recorresponding to the status, but objectively re-judging self advantages and weaknesses, furthermore modifying existed successful key factors. In this way, the late comer could create new approaches. Hence, this study aims to explore key successful factors (KSFs) for the later comers in solar industry through literature review and design of a questionnaire survey. The research structure comprises five major aspects base on five forces analysis model. Under the structure, we proceed with categorization and analysis by using analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which was applied to this study to discover the KSFs on the viewpoints of the later comers. The research expects help the later comer to integrate resources to build successive competences to reach substaintial management targets. The ordered ranking of the five aspects is: “the bargaining power of suppliers”, “the bargaining power of consumers”, “competitive rivalry within an industry”, “threat of substitute products” and “threat of new entrants”. The results sifted from the AHP approach suggest six top KSFs: “Degree of Supporting”, “Brand and Ditribution”, “Client Concentration”, “Differentiation of Products”, “Capability of Quality Control”, and “Supplier Choicable”. In future, enterprises in this industry should concern factors of supplier and customer sides more.