Department of International Business, National Taiwan University; Department of International Business, National Taiwan University; Department of Marketing Management, Takming University of Science and Technology
本個案主要描述臺灣一家以「少量多樣」商業模式見長的工業電腦公司，研華科技在組織成長與精實間之背景、策略定位及改變的具體作法。2015年，在全球經濟不景氣的大環境下，在前有世界級強敵、後有追兵，自身又成長趨緩的局勢下，研華決定將「產品、區域」的組織架構轉向以「市場/產業」為導向，以期產生「精實」效果的策略佈局。藉由此個案之討論，期許學生在真實情境中建構起「環境－策略－組織」的策略思考邏輯，啟發其思考「成長」與「精實」除了衝突之外，是否可以被管理，進而達到雙元共存之可能性的做法。
(135_M5a1e40c1e22fd_Abs.pdf(檔案不存在))成長、精實、衝突、雙元性
This case aims to explore the organizational consolidation attempt of Advantech Corporation which is characterized by its unique customization model of industrial computer manufacturing. In the face of the world-class leaders ahead and ambitious followers behind, Advantech, subject first time to the slowing growth caused by the global recession in 2015, decided to shift from the “product + region” focus to the sector-oriented structure so as to incorporate a drive of consolidation into its growth momentum. Through the case, readers are required to understand the “Environment-Strategy-Structure” (ESS) framework and to sharpen the managerial acumen for the tension and reconciliation of organizational growth and consolidation.
(135_M5a1e40c1e22fd_Abs.pdf(檔案不存在))Growth, Consolidation, Conflict, Ambidexterity
「它山之石，可以攻玉」。本個案中所描述的「成長」與「精實」的矛盾與雙元性的問題，不僅出現在研華科技，也廣泛發生於其它產業、其它公司。因此，此個案不僅是研華科技自身發展軌跡之展示，也反映出企業如何根據環境來決定組織「成長」與「精實」的時機與步調。本個案提供企業以下管理意涵： 第一，呈現「環境－策略－組織」的策略思維，即環境決定策略，而策略決定組織結構。起初在一個機會眾多的工業自動化市場，研華選擇了一條利用“阿米巴原則”來成長的策略，採用的是分權、自主性成長的組織結構；而當環境使成長趨緩，產品趨同時，研華在策略上開始重視效率，提出從「產品、區域」導向轉向以「市場/產業」為導向的組織精實策略，進而採取將原來的七大事業群（BG）組合為三大策略事業群（SBG）的組織結構。 第二，呈現企業成長過程的三要素：Scope(範疇)、Synergy(綜效)、Succession(傳承)。企業透過經營範疇擴大來擴張版圖，但隨著而來的組織膨脹、產品線重疊，則會產生產品與事業部門間的Synergy的問題，這也是為何研華近年積極推動組織精實的原因。另外，研華董事長劉克振已屆退休之齡，透過組織精實也能藉以培養出能綜觀全域的接班人，讓組織文化與價值得以順利傳承下去。 第三，不僅讓企業認識到「成長」與「精實」的衝突性，更重要的是啟發企業思考「成長」與「精實」可否被管理，進而達到雙元共存的可能性。「成長」與「精實」是一放一收兩種方向相反的力量：「成長」可以使企業版圖快速擴張，但成長過程可能造成原本聚焦的模糊及資源運用的不效率。「精實」可以通過共用資源而產生綜效，但卻可能減少寬裕資源及造成創新的流失。本個案提供背景與討論空間予企業思考「組織雙元性」背後的衝突及相關作法。
Barney, J., 1991, “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, 99-120.
Benner, M. J. and Tushman, M. L., 2015, “Reflections on the 2013 Decade Award—‘Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited’ Ten Years Later,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 4, 497-514.
Burgelman, R. A., 1994, “Fading memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1, 24-56.
Chandler, A. D., 1962, Strategy and Structure, 1st, Boston: MIT Press.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A., 2000, “Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They?” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 10, 1105-1121.
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., and Corley, K. G., 2000, “Organizational Identity, Image, and Adaptive Instability,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, 63-81.
He, Z. L. and Wong, P. K., 2004, “Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis,” Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 4, 481-494.
Helfat, C. E. and Peteraf, M. A., 2003, “The Dynamic Resource-based View: Capability Lifecycles,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 10, 997-1010.
Moon, H., Quigley, N. R., and Marr, J. C., 2012, “How Interpersonal Motives Explain the Influence of Organizational Culture on Organizational Productivity, Creativity, and Adaptation,” Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 109-128.
Penrose, E. T., 1959, The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1st, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G., and Verona, G., 2013, “The Elephant in the Room of Dynamic Capabilities: Bringing Two Diverging Conversations Together,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 12, 1389-1410.
Porter, M. E., 1980, Competitive strategy, 1st, New York: Free Press.
Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J., 2008, “Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators,” Journal of Management, Vol. 34, No. 3, 375-409.
Santos, F. M. and Eisenhardt, K. M., 2005, “Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization,” Organization Science, Vol. 16, No. 5, 491-508.
Siggelkow, N. and Levinthal, D. A., 2003, “Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation,” Organization Science, Vol. 14, No. 6, 650-669.
Walsh, J. P., 1995, “Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane,” Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 3, 280-321.