請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/31098
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳添枝(Tain-Jy Chen) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yen-Er Hsu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 許苑娥 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T02:29:40Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2007-04-01 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2007-01-29 | |
dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2007-01-25 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 英文部份
Alchian, Armen. & Demsetz , Harold. 1972. 'Production, information costs, and economic organization', American Economic Review, 11, pp. 191-212. Asanuma, B. 1985. “The contractual framework for parts supply in the Japanese automotive industry” and “The organization of parts supply in the Japanese automotive industry”, Japanese Econmic Studies, 15 (Summer 1985a,b), pp32-78. Asanuma, B. 1989. “Manufacturer-supplier relationships in Japan and the concept of relation-specific skill“. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 3:1-30. Baldwin, Carliss Y., and Kin B. Clark. 2003.”The architecture of cooperation: Does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model?”, Harvard Business School working paper No. 03-209. Coase, Ronald H.1937.”The nature of the firm”, Economic 4(16):386-405. Dea-young Joo, 2002.”Change of competition in the semiconductor industry and restructuring trend”, KIET Industrial Economic Rewiew, Vol. 7:6, 37-52. Ernst, Dieter. 2004.”Pathways to innovation in the global network ecoomy:Asian upgrading strategies in the electronics industry”, Economics study area working papers No.58, East-west center, University of Hawaii. Ernst, Dieter. 2003.”Internationalisation of innovation: why chip design moving to Asia.”, Economics study area working papers No. 64, East-west center, University of Hawaii., revised 2004. Dyer, J.H. 1997. “Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18:7, 535-556. Dyer, J.H. 1998. “The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Review 1998, Vol. 23, No. 4, 660-679. Flamm, Kenneth, 1996.”Mismanaged trade? Strategic policy and the semiconductor industry”, Brooking institution press, Washinton, D.C. Hong, Yoo-Soo, 1995. ”Technology Transfer: The Korean Experience”, The Korea Economic Institute of America, Washinton, D.C., Korea’s Economy 1995,Vol. 11, Table 5, p 47. Langlois, Richard N. and Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2000. “Strategy and Circumstance:the response of American firms to Japanese competition in semiconductors, 1980-1995”, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1163-1173. McGuinness, T. 'Markets and Managerial Hierarchies.' In G. Thompson, et al. (Eds.), Markets, Hierarchies and Networks, Sage, London, England, 1994, pp. 66-81. Kim, Linsu, 1997. “The dynamics of Samsung’s technological learning in semiconductors,” California Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, 86-100, Berkeley. Kim, S. Ran, 1998.“The Korean System of Innovation and the Semiconductor Industry: A Governance Perspective”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 7 (2): 275-309. Parkhe, A. 1993. “Strategic alliance structuring: A game theorietic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation”, Academy of management Journal, 36(4), 794-829. Williamson, Oliver E. 1987, c1985. “The economic institution of capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting”, New York: Free press. 中文部份 王慧美,2001,”國際代工夥伴關係下之資產專屬性與能力建構-供應商觀點分析”,台灣大學國際企業研究所博士論文 行政院主計處,2005,”我國主要工具機進出口概況”,國情統計通報專題分析 李奉煦,楊純惠等譯,2003,“三星秘笈:超一流企業的崛起與展望”,台北:大塊文化 洪堯勳,1997, ”我國半導體製程設備發展策略”,交通大學經營管理研究所博士,經濟情勢及評論季刊,第三卷第三期,經濟部 哈建宇,2002,“國內半導體設備發展與市場切入之機會研究”,工研院,IT IS計畫 黃茂業,2004,“全球半導體設備市場規模”,ITIS產業評析,工研院,IT IS計畫 彭茂榮,2002,“堆疊式與深溝式電容技術-全球DRAM二大陣營”,工研院,IT IS計畫 郭伶伶,2004,”台灣DRAM產業與TFT-LCD產業價值鏈分析-自protfolio角度切入”,國立交通大學管理科學系碩士論文 張維安等,2000,“台灣半導體產業的競爭力”,全球化下的社會學想像:國家、經濟與社會研討會,台灣大學 經濟部技術處,1995-2002(各年度),“半導體工業年鑑”, 工研院,IT IS計畫 經濟部技術處,2001 ,“次世代半導體設備專題研究”,工研院,IT IS計畫 經濟部技術處,2003,“半導體國際分工趨勢與發展機會探討” 工研院,IT IS計畫 電子時報,2000,”半導體趨勢圖示”,台北:大椽 電子時報,2002,”半導體與零組件產業趨勢”,台北:大椽 秦宗春,1997, ”韓國與新加坡科技發展政策之比較”,經濟情勢及評論季刊,第三卷第三期,經濟部 顧瑩華、陳添枝,1999,“日本半導體共同研發制度之研究”,經濟部研發會委託研究報告,中華經濟研究院 顧瑩華,2000,“日韓IC 產業的發展策略分析”,經濟部研發會委託研究報告,中華經濟研究院 韓國半導體產業協會(KSIA),韓國半導體統計報告,www.ksia.or.kr 國立交通大學思源基金會網站,http://www.spring.org.tw | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/31098 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 動態隨機存取記憶體(Dynamic Random Access Memory , DRAM)產業競爭,從1970年代美國以技術開發領先,到1980年代中期日本以製程及良率領先,轉變到1990年代韓國以規模及速度領先。1995年以後隨著DRAM產業在市場面、規模面及技術面的變化,DRAM產業的競爭優勢亦隨之改變。尤其DRAM產品大宗商品化及生命週期縮短的特性更加明顯,產品先趨者更具先行者優勢,製程的重要性對DRAM產業而言,相對提高。
本研究主要目的在探討資產專屬性(asset-specificity)對產業競爭優勢的重要性,並以DRAM產業為研究領域。鎖定研究範圍以1995年至2002年間,全球DRAM產業競爭之下,韓國三星超越日本半導體廠商的原因,及如何建立與維持此優勢。尤其,日本1980年代在半導體市場上,即以其DRAM產品的製程及良率優勢超越美國,何以1990年代改由韓國起而代之,而且延續其競爭力優勢,至2002年韓國三星電子的DRAM市場占有率為33%,若再加上韓國海力士的市場占有率13%,二者合計為46%,已大幅超過日本主要DRAM廠商爾必達的市場占有率5.6%。 本研究首先假設,韓國半導體廠商的競爭優勢,在於其與設備供應商之間,建立了專屬性資產及關係資產(relational assets)的優勢,從而使得日本半導體業者無法藉由跟進的投資,突破韓國DRAM產業既成優勢所形成的競爭障礙。本文除進行資產專屬性相關文獻探討,並從三個論點進行印證,包括:(1)製程設備廠商是主要的技術創新者,而韓國三星受惠於此;(2)韓國DRAM大廠以量產的速度建立與設備製造廠的資產專屬性,以排除競爭;(3)日本DRAM廠商投資力道減弱,難以突破三星與設備廠所建立之關係資產障礙。 一般研究認為,韓國DRAM廠主要在製程及量產上超越日本,本研究的結果,更進一步明確地指出,其優勢主要係建置在1994年以後韓國DRAM大廠與設備供應商之間的資產專屬性,以及日漸累積的關係資產,此優勢亦成為1995~2002年間造成國際DRAM大廠勢力消長的關鍵因素之一。且此結論,得以對於2002年以後全球DRAM產業的發展趨勢,做出合理解釋。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The industrial competition of DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory) originated in the 70’s when the U. S. led by technological development, in the mid 80’s Japan led the competition by manufacturing process and yield rate, Korea won the race by manufacturing scale and speediness in the 90’s. With the market maturity, technological evolvement and entrance of new competitors, the competitive advantage of DRAM industry changes accordingly. From 1995 onwards, with the popularization of information, booming of internet usage and increasing industrial competition, product commoditization as well as shortened product life cycle become common characteristics of DRAM industry. Thus speed advantage had become the critical successful factor for DRAM’s competitive strategy. The manufacturing processes of DRAM also have relatively higher importance.
The main objective of this study focuses on the significance of asset-specificity in relation to industrial competitive advantage of the DRAM industry. This study analyzes how Samsung established and maintained competitive advantages over its Japanese rivals in DRAM industry during 1995 and 2002. Especially when Japan had already exceeded the U. S. in its DRAM products by manufacturing process and yield rate advantages, how and why Korea can take over the leadership from Japan and maintained its competitive advantage? In 2002, Samsung had a market share of 33% in DRAM industry, when we add up the 13% of market share from another Korean manufacturer Hynix, Korea had an overall market share of 46% in DRAM industry, which exceeded the total market share of major Japanese DRAM manufacturers by 5.6%. The findings of this study show that the competitive strategy of Korean semi-conductor manufacturers is based upon establishing asset-specific competitive advantage with their equipment suppliers and forming relational assets gradually. The Japanese semiconductor manufacturers are not able to break through the competitive barriers set up by their Korean counterparts by further investment. Other than researching through references about asset-specificity, further analyses are done based on three aspects including: 1). The suppliers of manufacturing process equipment are also leaders in technological innovation, Samsung is a beneficiary of this; 2). The major Korean DRAM manufacturers established asset specificity with their equipment manufacturers by speediness of volume production to rule out competition; 3). The Japanese DRAM manufacturers did not invest enough to break through the barriers set up by Samsung with its equipment sppliers based on relational assets. The conclusion of this study not only indicates that the asset-specific advantage established by the Korean DRAM industry during 1995 and 2002 is the key determining factor for its growing influence among international rivalries, it can also provide reasonable explanations for the DRAM industry development trend after 2002 and onwards. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T02:29:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-96-P93323007-1.pdf: 2425519 bytes, checksum: 0bcd90b32b6d9f9cb318648e7dbaa0bc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要……………………………………………………… i
英文摘要……………………………………………………… ii 第一章 前言…………………………………………………… 1 1.1研究動機…………………………………………… 1 1.2研究範圍及目的…………………………………… 3 1.3研究方法及架構…………………………………… 4 第二章 全球DRAM產業發展概況……………………………… 5 2.1 DRAM市場變化……………………………………… 5 2.2 DRAM產業特性變化………………………………… 8 2.3記憶體產品分類…………………………………… 12 2.4 DRAM應用市場……………………………………… 16 第三章 DRAM廠商策略行為…………………………………… 21 3.1國際主要DRAM廠商變化…………………………… 21 3.2 DRAM廠商經營策略………………………………… 24 3.3 DRAM技術發展策略………………………………… 26 第四章 資產專屬性與競爭優勢……………………………… 32 4.1文獻回顧…………………………………………… 32 4.2製程設備廠商成為主要技術創新者……………… 35 4.3韓國DRAM大廠以量產速度建立專屬資產優勢…… 42 4.4日本DRAM廠商投資力道減弱難以突破韓國 關係資產之障礙…………………………………… 47 第五章 結論 ………………………………………………… 55 參考文獻……………………………………………………… 58 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | DRAM產業競爭之資產專屬性優勢 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A study of asset-specific competitive advantages of the DRAM industry | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 95-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林惠玲,劉碧珍 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 半導體,動態隨機存取記憶體,資產專屬性,競爭優勢,製程設備, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | semiconductor,DRAM,asset-specificity,competitive advantage,manufacturing process equipment, | en |
dc.relation.page | 60 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2007-01-26 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 經濟學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 經濟學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-96-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.37 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。