中山管理評論

  期刊全文閱覽

中山管理評論  2017/12

第25卷第4期  p.791-828

DOI:10.6160/2017.12.01


題目
選擇產品自有品牌/OEM商業模式之動態
Dynamics of Choosing Brand and/or OEM Product Business Models
(137_M5a336ca727086_Full.pdf 7,040KB)

作者
郭重松/Chung-Song, Kuo
Chung-Song, Kuo/

College of Management, National Taiwan University


摘要(中文)

我們探索供應商在全球供應鏈的演變中,如何選擇產品的自有品牌商業模式、代工業務(OEM) 商業模式、或品牌和OEM 的雙元商業模式 。我們長期研究一個電子供應商個案對不同產品的模式選擇,這些選擇定義了供應商與品牌通路商和OEM買主的活動疆界。我們根據組織疆界的能耐及權力要素,決定一個模式選擇的觀念性框架。這個框架運用代表供應商產品專屬資源的技術暨行銷能力,以及代表市場環境變化的產品生命週期。建議的商業模式種類有:以強烈行銷活動來控制市場的主導性品牌模式、以適當活動以增強產品能耐的實驗性品牌模式、專案技術服務的OEM模式、以及為擴張市場範疇的不同種類的雙元模式。對於每種模式也考慮供應商為了增加產品的效率或適應性,會對品牌通路商及OEM買主,實施不同強度市場活動的跨公司行銷能力,並進而影響通路商及OEM買主有效服務客戶,以極大化產品利潤。本論文的主要貢獻於有關於供應商如何能有效選擇品牌和OEM的商業模式文獻。

(137_M5a336ca727086_Abs.pdf(檔案不存在))

關鍵字(中文)

商業模式、OEM、雙元商業模式、組織疆界


摘要(英文)

We explore how product suppliers effectively choose brand, original equipment manufacturing (OEM), or brand-and-OEM dual business models (BMs) for products in evolving global supply chains. We conduct a longitudinal case study examining an electronics supplier’s BM choices for various products. These choices define suppliers’ activity boundaries with brand channel resellers and OEM buyers. We determine a conceptual framework of BM choice based on competence and power factors indicated in the organizational boundaries and theories. This framework encompasses focal products’ technological and marketing capabilities, representing suppliers’ product-specific resources; and products’ position in the product life cycle, representing markets’ environmental dynamism. Proposed BM types are: dominant brand BMs with significant marketing activities aimed at controlling markets, experimental brand BMs with modest marketing activities aimed at competence enhancement, subcontracted OEM BMs for project-based technological services, and different types of dual BM for expanding market coverage. Each BM also takes into account suppliers’ interfirm marketing power over channel resellers and OEM buyers by defining varying amounts of marketing activities for enhancing product efficiency and adaptability. These activities influence resellers and buyers, who then efficiently serve users and therefore maximize product profit. We add insight to the BM literature on how suppliers effectively choose brand and OEM BMs.

(137_M5a336ca727086_Abs.pdf(檔案不存在))

關鍵字(英文)

Business Model, OEM, Dual Business Model, Organizational Boundaries


領域
General management

政策與管理意涵

We explore how product suppliers effectively choose brand, original equipment manufacturing (OEM), or brand-and-OEM dual business models (BMs) for products in evolving global supply chains. We conduct a longitudinal case study examining an electronics supplier’s BM choices for various products. These choices define suppliers’ activity boundaries with brand channel resellers and OEM buyers. We determine a conceptual framework of BM choice based on competence and power factors indicated in the organizational boundaries and theories. This framework encompasses focal products’ technological and marketing capabilities, representing suppliers’ product-specific resources; and products’ position in the product life cycle, representing markets’ environmental dynamism. Proposed BM types are: dominant brand BMs with significant marketing activities aimed at controlling markets, experimental brand BMs with modest marketing activities aimed at competence enhancement, subcontracted OEM BMs for project-based technological services, and different types of dual BM for expanding market coverage. Each BM also takes into account suppliers’ interfirm marketing power over channel resellers and OEM buyers by defining varying amounts of marketing activities for enhancing product efficiency and adaptability. These activities influence resellers and buyers, who then efficiently serve users and maximize product profit. The implications of this research for management are as follows: First, decision makers need a framework for quickly and effectively choosing business models for products as competition evolves, in order to easily reach a consensus. Previous studies focused on descriptive accounts of brand BM choice. This proposed framework guides the choice of BMs with different combinations of brand and OEM business. Second, one of the prevailing subjects of BM research is the business ecosystem. We focus on matching competence and resources with the right BM for cooperating with channel resellers and OEM buyers, addressing suppliers’ reachable and unreachable markets, and forming an optimal ecosystem. Third, we consider inter-firm marketing power, as indicated by the level of marketing activities necessary for successful implementation of each BM. We propose levels of activities from modest, for enhancing adaptability and improving weak technology and marketing capabilities, to significant, for increasing efficiency and maximizing market share and profit. Previous studies paid little attention to this factor. Our results help suppliers manage risk during BM implementation. Fourth, this study proposes four types of brand-and-OEM dual BM in addition to pure brand or OEM BMs, in contrast to previous studies which only focused on one type of dual BM. Each proposed BM type represents different ratios of revenue from brand or OEM business. Suppliers can choose one of these types during the growth and maturity stages of the product life cycle, based on their technology and marketing capability readiness. In summary, when choosing a BM, suppliers should ensure their business partners have complementary marketing attributes in the supply chain that satisfy users’ demands. Suppliers implement beneficial inter-firm marketing power relationships with partners in order to efficiently market products to the most potential users with the least time and effort. Partnerships with channel resellers promote suppliers’ brand names; partnerships with OEM buyers promote the buyers’ brand names. In the end, users enjoy the brand owner’s services regardless of who they buy from. Less desirable partners have little or no positive effect on the outcome despite exhausting much time and effort. Thus, a mediocre product with a great BM may be more valuable than a great product with a mediocre BM.


參考文獻

Alcacer, J. and Oxley, J., 2014, “Learning by Supplying,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, 204-223.
Amit, R. and Zott, C., 2001, “Value Creation in E-Business,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 6-7, 493-520.
Amit, R. and Zott, C., 2015, “Crafting Business Architecture: The Antecedents of Business Model Design,” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 9, No.4, 331-350.
Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Ricart, J. E., 2010, “From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2-3, 195-215.
Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Tarzijan, J., 2012, “When One Business Model isn’t Enough,” Harvard Business Review, No. January-February, 132-137.
Chatterji, A. K. and Fabrizio, K. R., 2014, “Using Users: When Does External Knowledge Enhance Corporate Product Innovation?” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 35, No.10, 1427-1445.
DaSilva, C. M. and Trkman, P., 2014, “Business Model: What It Is and What It Is Not,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 47, No.6, 379-389.
Demil, B. and Lecocq, X., 2010, “Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamic Consistency,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2-3, 227-246.
Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., and Zott, C., 2015, “Introduction to the SEJ Special Issue on Business Models: Business Models with the Domain of Strategic Entrepreneurship,” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 9, No, 1, 1-11.
Dyer, W. G. and Wilkins, A. L., 1991, “Better Stories, not Better Constructs, to Generate Better Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, 613-619.
Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989, “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., 1991, “Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, 620-627.
Grant, R. M., 2008, Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 6th, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Hallen, B. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M., 2012, “Catalyzing Strategies and Efficient Tie Formation: How Entrepreneurial Firms Obtain Investment Ties,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, No.1, 35-70.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., and Collins, B. J., 2009, “Resource Dependence Theory: A Review,” Journal of Management, Vol. 35, No. 6, 1404-1427.
Kalinowski, M. and Vives, L., 2013, “Multi-Perspective View on Business Models: Review and Research Agenda,” Proceeding of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Florida, USA.
Kang, M. P., Mahoney, J. T., and Tan, D., 2009. “Why Firms Make Unilaternal Investments Specific to Other Firms: The Case of OEM Supplier,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30, 117-135.
Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., Ang, S. H., Leong, S. M., and Tan, C. T., 2006, Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective, 4th, Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Kuo, C. S. and Lee, J. R., 2016, “Exploring Dual-Business Model Choice of Brand and OEM Business,” NTU Management Review, forthcoming.
Lee, J. R. and Chen, J. S., 2000, “Dynamic Synergy Creation with Multiple Business Activities: Toward a Competence-Based Growth Model for Contract Manufactures,” Advances in Applied Business Strategy, Vol. 6A, 209-228.
Markides, C. C., 2013, “Business Model Innovation: What Can the Ambidexterity Literature Teach Us?” Academy Management Prospect, Vol. 27, No. 4, 313-323.
Markides, C. C. and Charitou, C. D., 2004, “Competing with Dual Business Models: A Contingency Approach,” Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18. No.3, 22-36.
Markides, C. C. and Sosa, L., 2013, “Pioneering and First Mover Advantages: The Importance of Business Models,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 46, No. 4-5, 325-334.
McGrath, R. G., 2001. “Exploratory Learning, Innovative Capacity, and Managerial Oversight,” Academy of Management Journal,” Vol. 44, No.1, 118-131.
McGrath, R. G., 2010. “Business Models: A Discovery Driven Approach,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2-3, 247-261.
McGrath, R. G. and MacMillan, I. C., 1995, “Discovery Driven Planning,” Harvard Business Review, Vol.73, No. 4, 44-54.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., and Allen, J., 2005, “The Entrepreneur’s Business Model: Toward a Unified Perspective,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, No. 6, 726-735.
Ozcan, P. and Eisenhardt, K. M., 2005, “Start-Ups in An Emerging Market: Building A Strong Alliance Portfolio from A Low-Power Position,” Proceeding for the DRUID Summer Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Parmigiani, A. and Mitchell, W., 2009, “Complementarity, Capabilities, and the Boundaries of the Firm: The Impact of Within-Firm and Interfirm Expertise on Concurrent Sourcing of Complementary Components,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30, No. 10, 1065-1091.
Penrose, E., 1959, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G., 1978, The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependenece Perspective, New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Porter, M. E., 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E., 1996, “What is Strategy?” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, No. 6, 61–78.
Priem, R. L., Butler, J. E., and Li, S., 2013, “Toward Reimagining Strategy Research: Retrospection and Prospection on the 2011 AMR Decade Award Article,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, 471-489.
Sabatier, V., Mangematin, V., and Rousselle, T., 2010, “From Recipe to Dinner: Business Model Portfolio in the European Biopharmaceutical Industry,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2-3, 431-447.
Santos, F. M. and Eisenhardt, K. M., 2005. “Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization,” Organization Science, Vol. 16, No. 5 491-508.
Santos, F. M. and Eisenhardt, K. M., 2009, “Constructing Markets and Shaping Boundaries: Entrepreneurial Power in Nascent Fields,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52, No. 4, 643-671.
Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J., and Linder, J. C., 2005, “The Power of Business Models.” Business Horizons, Vol. 48, No. 3, 199-207.
Siggelkow, N., 2001, “Change in the Presence of Fit: The Rise, the Fall, and the Renaissance of Liz Claiborne,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, 838-857.
Smith, W. K., Binns, A., and Tushman, M. L. 2010, “Complex Business Models: Managing Strategic Paradoxes Simultaneously,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2, 448-461.
Song, M. C., Di Benedetto, C. A., and Nason, R. W., 2007, “Capabilities and Financial Performance: The Moderating Effect of Strategic Type,” Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, Vol. 35, No. 1, 18-34.
Spence, M., 1973, “Job Market Signaling,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol, 87, No. 3, 355-374.
Yin, R. K., 2009, Case Study Research—Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zott, C. and Amit, R., 2010, “Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective,” Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2-3, 216-226.
Zott, C., Amit, R., and Massa, L., 2011, “The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research,” Journal of Management, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1019-1042.