台灣地區半導體後段設備供應商評選決策之研究

Abstract

2008年底全球金融風暴，帶給進入後摩爾時代利潤式微的半導體產業生死存亡的衝擊。廠商為求生存，成本控制極為重要。半導體產業投資中，機器設備的投資占總資本支出之大宗，是成本控制首要之務。處於半導體後段製造商處於供應鏈之末端、製造時間短、價格較低，讓後段製造商所面臨之設備需求壓力更甚於前段。然而，由於後段製造商因設備單價及影響力不如前段設備，長期以來較缺乏客觀公正的評估方式。

本研究即針對台灣半導體後段設備採購供應商決策要素，透過文獻探討、前段設備評選參考、後段產業專家訪談，發展出半導體後段設備採購供應商決策模型。再利用AHP層級分析法，對於設備採購供應商決策之相關作業人員，包括：段製造商之研發、採購、工程、製造及設備商業務、工程人員，進行問卷調查，得出影響後段設備採購供應商決策之評估準則權重，輔以實證研究企業中對後段設備採購之個案評估，確認結果與本研究模式相符，以做為後段設備採購供應商評選決策之依據。

在各項評估準則中，產業技術趨勢、設備需求緊急程度、景氣循環是影響設備評估之最重要因素。製造商與設備供應商立場不同，設備評估之因素看法不同；技術能力、產業地位不同之製造商，對於設備評估準則也產生差異。

The world financial crisis in 2008 makes semiconductor industry less profitable after the Post Moore Law Era. Cost control becomes more critical to manufactures in this industry during this period of time. In semiconductor industry, equipment investment is the majority of Capex so it is considered the first priority when it comes to cost reduction. The demand for shorter lead time and lower price increases the pressure to backend manufactures who are at the end of this supply chain. However, an objective methodology or procedure to evaluate and select equipment providers has not been established in a good shape in the past. The study is to focus on the selection criteria of semiconductor backend equipment providers in Taiwan. Through thesis study, the selection criteria of frontend equipment and the interview with experts working in backend industry such as R&D, engineering and procurement in the backend manufactures and sales and engineering in the equipment providers, the study develops the selection model for backend equipment providers. By AHP, the study comes out the weighting for supplier evaluation. In addition, the case study verifies the model and gets the identical, consistent results for selection criteria of semiconductor backend equipment providers in Taiwan. In all selection criteria，technical trend of the industry, equipment demand urgency, business cycle are the most critical. However, different equipment suppliers and semiconductor manufactures with different stances and technical capability result in different weight for the selection criteria of equipment providers.