TFT LCD產業建立供應鏈海運航商評選模式之研究-以A公司為例

Abstract

1970年代以後台灣開始發展高科技產業，需運送大量的原物料進口，成品製造完畢後也需外銷出口，因此各高科技產業皆需找尋最適合產業運作模式的運輸方式以完成供應鏈的無縫接軌。TFT LCD產業為台灣致力發展的重點產業，產品體積大但卻不笨重，相對於消費性電子產品而言在時效性上較有彈性，故以海運為主要的運輸方式，僅針對急貨使用運輸價格較高昂的空運。 2008年全球經濟危機以後，科技產業邁向低毛利時代，各家廠商無不在成本方面做最嚴密的控管，如何在成本管控及目標達成兩項指標中求取平衡為競爭度高的科技產業不斷努力的目標。良好的供應鏈運作仰賴供應鏈中各個夥伴的相互合作，原物料及生產設備的供給以及加工完畢的成品外銷皆需品質可靠的運輸物流夥伴在其中穿針引線，提供最優質的物流服務才可成就整個供應鏈的正常運作。 TFT LCD產業對海運物流服務的要求除了成本上的管控外，亦重視高品質的服務與運輸時效、貨物安全、船期符合產出時間、船期頻率等規格，因此如何在眾多海運航商中找出最符合託運人需求的合作夥伴即為相當重要的問題。本研究即著重於為TFT LCD產業知名A公司建構海運航商遴選的服務構面權重模型，以AHP層級分析法針對TFT LCD產業中知名A公司做專家問卷的施行，歸納出以下結論： 一、個案A公司最為重視海運航商的成本能力，其次為運輸能力、品質能力和服務能力，對於創新與營運能力則較不重視。 二、將TFT LCD產業個案A公司所重視的十大海運航商服務構面排序，最重要的為成本能力下的運輸成本高低，其次為運輸能力下的運輸時間長短(直航、轉船)，接著依序為品質能力下的運輸之準確與正確程度；服務能力下的緊急、異常狀況的處理能力；服務能力下的艙位可取得性(艙位供給能力)；品質能力下的船期可靠度(船期與船期表一致程度)；品質能力下的貨物運輸安全與便利程度；運輸能力下的複合式運輸能力；成本能力下的付款條件；最後則為服務能力下的設備可取得性(櫃型、櫃況及數量調度彈性)。 由本文的研究分析可簡單而富邏輯性地建立一套公正客觀的權重模式，讓個案A公司日後可應用在海運航商的評選的過程，使評選方法更具系統性及科學性以加速決策的過程，並避免因人為主觀偏好而導致決策考慮因子不夠全面的可能性謬誤。

After the 1970s,Taiwan began to develop high-tech industries.It need to import a lot of raw materials for manufacturing and export finished goods for selling after producing.Therefore various high-tech industries are required to find the most suitable transportation mode to complete seamless supply chain.TFT LCD industry is one of key industry which Taiwan commit to develop for a long period.Sea transport way is the main shipping mode used in TFT LCD industry cause its product usually has big volume but not heavy,only urgent cargo will use more expensive air transport way.Thus, it is more flexible on timeliness compared with consumer electronics industry. After the global economic crisis in 2008, the technology industry towards the era of low profit margins, various manufacturers all do very strict control in terms of cost.How to strike a balance between cost control and target achievement is an important goal which high-tech industries concentrate continuously. Good supply chain operations rely on supply chain partners cooperate with each other, the completion of the finished product from the raw materials and equipment supplied to the export processing require qualified and reliable transport and logistics partners to provide high quality services to complete entire daily operation of supply chain. Not only cost control,but specifications on high quality service ,transit time limitation,cargo security,sailing frequency and so on which are TFT LCD industry focus on sea logistics sevice.Thus,how to find out suitable service partner among many carrier candidates is a very important topic. This research is using AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process)methodology and trying to construct the weight selection model for well known A company in TFT LCD industry to define the key criteria and factors on sea carrier vendor selection.The data was collected by expert questionnaires summarized in the following conclusions: 1.Case A company put great emphasis on cost control ability of shipping liners,followed by delivery ability,quality ability ,service ability and pay less attention on innovation and management ability. 2.To sort top ten service criteria which are important for case A company,we could find out the top one is shipping cost under the cost-ability level,followed by the lenth of shipping time under delivery-ability level.Then the top three is delivery accuracy under quality-ability level and top four is ability to handle emergency ,then is vessel capacity supply under service ability.The top six is reliability of sailing schedule and seven is safety and convenience of cargo transportation under quality ability.The top eight is intermodal transport capacity under delivery-ability level,then is payment term of cost ability.Finally,the last one is equipment acquirability(including container type,conditions and quantity)under service-ability level. It is easy to construct a scientific and logical weight model by this research for case A company can be applied to select shipping liners in the future.This model could speed up decision-making and avoid possible error caused from consideration factors is not comprehensive and personal preference.