Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 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作者 吳彥 貢獻者 吳豐祥教授
吳彥關鍵詞 New Product Development
Architecture change
Modularity
Modularity trap
Buyer-supplier relationship
knowledge management日期 2011 上傳時間 1-Mar-2013 09:24:37 (UTC+8) 摘要 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. 參考文獻 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. 312-334Simon, 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.comAsus web page: www.asus.comSanav web page: www.sanav.comWikipedia web page: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/motherboard www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/heat_pipe 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理研究所
97359037
100資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097359037 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 吳豐祥教授 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 吳彥 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) 吳彥 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2011 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Mar-2013 09:24:37 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Mar-2013 09:24:37 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Mar-2013 09:24:37 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0097359037 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/57041 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 科技管理研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 97359037 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 1 Introduction 1 1.1Research motivation 2 1.2Research objective 21.3 Research question 3 1.4 Outline of the study 42 Literature review 52.1 Buyer-supplier relationship and NPD 52.1.1 Supplier pool management 52.1.1.1 Supplier segmentation 62.1.1.2 Supplier roles 72.1.1.3. Supplier influence over the design 122.1. 1.4. Reason to integrate 132.1.2. Time frame of supplier involvement 152.1.3 Development responsibility and scope 182.1.3.1 Management alignment matrix 182.1.3.2 Degree of knowledge sharing 202.2 On modularity 222.2.1 Theories related to modularity 222.2.2 Modular product and organization design 252.2.3 Dominant design 272.2.4 Architectural innovation and Modularity trap 292.2.5 Architecture Change 322.3 Architecture as variable 352.3.1 Complexity 372.3.1.1 Differentiation 372.3.1.2 Connectivity 382.3.2 Innovativeness 392.3.2.1 Product newness 402.3.2.2 Time to market 414.4 Literature review summary 423 Research design 463.1. Research framework 463.2 Research method 483.2.1 Research strategy 483.2.2 Data collection method 503.3 Sample selection 523.4 Data collection 533.4.1 Primary data 533.4.2 Secondary data 544 Case presentment 554.1 Case background - Asus 554.1.1 Architecture 564.1.2 Buyer-supplier relationship and NPD 58 4.2 Case background – Advansus 634.2.1 Architecture 644.2.2 Buyer-supplier relationship and NPD 664.3 Case background - Sanav 714.3.1 Architecture 724.3.2 Buyer-supplier relationship and NPD 73 4.4 Case background – Thermal Management company 774.4.1 Architecture 784.4.2 Buyer-supplier relationship and NPD 804.5 Summary on cases presented 845 Research findings and discussion 895.1 Architecture as variable 895.1.1 Product innovativeness as involvement driver 895.2 Buyer-supplier relationship and NPD 915.2.1 Relationship importance 915.2.2 Architecture knowledge 925.2.3 Reasons to invite suppliers 945.3 The relationship between “Architecture as a variable" and “Buyer-supplier relationship in NPD” 965.3.1 Complexity and supplier roles 965.3.2 Component knowledge 975.3.3 Managerial alignment 996 Conclusion and suggestion 1016.1 Conclusion 1016.2 Suggestion to the industrial practitioners 1036.3 Research limitations 1066.4 Suggestion to the future research 1077 Literature 108 zh_TW dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097359037 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) New Product Development en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Architecture change en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Modularity en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Modularity trap en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Buyer-supplier relationship en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) knowledge management en_US dc.title (題名) 廠商與供應商的合作關係之探討-以我國資訊業為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) R&D Sharing and Cooperation within the supply chain: the case of Taiwan IT companies en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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. 312-334Simon, 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.comAsus web page: www.asus.comSanav web page: www.sanav.comWikipedia web page: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/motherboard www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/heat_pipe zh_TW
