查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 技術與製造策略配合對新產品績效影響之研究=Strategic Fit of Technology and Manufacturing with New Product Performance |
---|---|
作 者 | 呂鴻德; | 書刊名 | 中原學報 |
卷 期 | 23:4 1995.10[民84.10] |
頁 次 | 頁1-9 |
分類號 | 555.8 |
關鍵詞 | 技術策略; 製造策略; 策略配合; 產業技術軌跡; Technology strategy; Manufacturing strategy; Strategic fit; Tehnological tracjectory; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本研究係探討功能策略之配合對新產品績效之影響﹒並導入技術軌跡的動態產業分類的概念,選擇食品、機械、汽車、資訊電子等四產業為研究對象。經由分析得到結論如后:(一)藉由集群分析將技術策略分為技術攻擊型、技術防禦型。攻擊策略類型之廠商不僅在產品上追求技術上的領先、在組織內部強化研發與建立技術的獨特性與新事業發展方向,在產業動態方面並能對進行競爭者技術能力評估、進行正式之技術預測。此類廠商屬於積極、追求挑戰,重視機會的尋求而非威脅的規避,具有較高之績效,而技術防禦型則反之。(二)經由集群分析將製造策略分為彈性反應群、穩健低成本型。彈性反應群具有為預應外部變化的較高預備產能、選擇接近顧客的廠址、較高的生產數量變化、及內部因應的高生產排程變動頻率、較高變化工作流程、密切的工作相關程度、品管授權程度大、容許較大的製程改變、較嚴密的控制,所強調的為對外部的迅速反應、強調顧客的服務﹒並在內部有較大彈性的作業,穩健低成本群則反之o兩者在績效上並無顯著之差異,其原因可能為從製造策略單一策略,無法解釋新產品績效差異的原因,必須在加上其他策略配合的影響。(三)在策略配合方面之整體績效部份,以技術攻擊型配合彈性反應群的策略配合群,其績效最佳;而技術防禦群與彈性反應群策略的策略配合群,其績效最差﹒其餘則屬其中。造成此不同策略配合群之績效差異的可能原因為:公司對研發的投入與重視仍然為影響新產品技術績效的主要因素,若能結合技術策略之顧客導向則更能藉由回饋訊息,滿足顧客需求,以獲得更好之市場績效。 |
英文摘要 | This study investigate the influence of the fitness of functional strategy with new product performance based on the concept of dynamic industry typology of thecnology trajectory taking industries of food, machinery, automobile and electronics as research object. The conc1u-sions are as follow: (l)Byc1usteranalysis, we divide the R&D strat-egy into offensive R&D and defensive R&D, they are the leader of technology able to evaluate the technology competences of their competitors,and to predict formal technology, they are usually aggressive, challenging, acquiring opportunity, so there are high performances resulted. On the other side, opposite effects are founded on factories with defensive R&D. (2)We divide manufacturing strategy into stra-tegy of flexible-respone and strategy of stable-low cost. Factories with flexible respone strategy are able to proactive to extenal chan-ges, c10sedto their customer, high volume buffer and internally rea-ctive to higher rescheduling, rerouting, c10sedjob relvance, high quality authorization, high process change. They emphasize quickly external response, customer service, and more flexible operation, while stable-low cost strtegy resulted oppositely. These two groups have no significant difference on performance, it seems we need to inc1ude the influence of other strategy fitness for the explanation. (3)On the total performance of strategy fitness, the best is the fit-ing of offensive R&D with flexible-respone strategy, the worst is the fiting of defensive R&D with flexiblerespone strategy. This is due to to the reason that R&D investment and involvement are the critical factor of new product performance. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。