臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

PC industry is a highly competitive industry. In this fast changing environment,
no company can simply rely on basic core competencies to stay-up with the
market & competitions. The growth of global demand for PCs has reached a
plateau in recent years, and as products are becoming commoditized the
differentiation between products are hardly distinguishable. And price war is
inevitable.
This study investigated how does a global computer company build and manage
its dynamic capabilities to stay competitive and make appropriate adjustment to
leverage its dynamic capabilities in the new business. The study finds that in
order to sustain competitiveness in the market, corporation needs to look inward
and institute a process to manage product and service development and business
risks. Having good products and customer relationship are just the starting
point for a successful business. A continuous learning system can help
company to constantly strive for better improvement and in a long run this
becomes a strong driving factor to improve operation excellence. It takes
persistent and relentless drive for improvement to make a good company to
great.
When a company is going to start a new business and break an existing model,
one of the effective approaches is to form a special task team that is given the
full ownership in making sure the project is successful. In addition, senior
management team needs to work closely with the project team via regular
meetings and to offer help in clearing roadblocks within the organization and
allowing team to think out-of-box and propose necessary changes. Without
management support and foster, the chance of success for the special task team is
minimal.

PC industry is a highly competitive industry. In this fast changing environment,
no company can simply rely on basic core competencies to stay-up with the
market & competitions. The growth of global demand for PCs has reached a
plateau in recent years, and as products are becoming commoditized the
differentiation between products are hardly distinguishable. And price war is
inevitable.
This study investigated how does a global computer company build and manage
its dynamic capabilities to stay competitive and make appropriate adjustment to
leverage its dynamic capabilities in the new business. The study finds that in
order to sustain competitiveness in the market, corporation needs to look inward
and institute a process to manage product and service development and business
risks. Having good products and customer relationship are just the starting
point for a successful business. A continuous learning system can help
company to constantly strive for better improvement and in a long run this
becomes a strong driving factor to improve operation excellence. It takes
persistent and relentless drive for improvement to make a good company to
great.
When a company is going to start a new business and break an existing model,
one of the effective approaches is to form a special task team that is given the
full ownership in making sure the project is successful. In addition, senior
management team needs to work closely with the project team via regular
meetings and to offer help in clearing roadblocks within the organization and
allowing team to think out-of-box and propose necessary changes. Without
management support and foster, the chance of success for the special task team is
minimal.

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
LIST OF FIGURES 6
LIST OF TABLES 8
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 9
1.1. MOTIVATION 9
1.2. OBJECTIVE AND INVESTIGATION 10
1.2.1 Thesis Objective 10
1.2.2 Investigation 10
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 12
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 18
3.1. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 18
3.2. METHODOLOGY AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION 19
3.3. RESEARCH LIMITATION 19
CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY 20
4.1. INTRODUCTION ON COMPANY X 20
4.2. COMPANY X’S DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES 23
4.3. PROCESS 24
4.3.1 Coordination: 24
4.3.2 Learning 27
4.3.3 Reconfiguration 28
4.4. POSITION 28
4.4.1 Technological Asset 28
4.4.2 Complementary Asset 35
4.4.3 Market Asset 39
4.4.4 Financial Asset 40
4.4.5 Structural Asset 42
4.4.6 Organization Boundaries 44
4.4.7 Reputational Asset 46
4.5. PATH 53
4.5.1 Looking for opportunity 53
4.5.2 Challenges to enter the new market 58
4.5.3 Alternative Strategy: 59
CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH FINDINGS 67
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 72
6.1. CONCLUSION 72
6.2. IMPLICATION 74
6.3. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES 75
GLOSSARY 76
REFERENCE 78
CHINESE LITERATURE 78
ENGLISH LITERATURE 79

1. Ansoff, H. I.（1965）, Corporate Strategy-An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion, New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Biggadike, H. R.（1979）, “The Risky Business of Diversification”, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp.103-111.
3. Bakker, H., Jones, W. and Nichols, M.（1994）, “Using Core Competences to Develop New Business”, Long Range Planning, Vol.27, No.6, pp.13-27.
4. Briody, D. and Moskowitz, E. (2001), “Dell: the antitechnology company”, Red Herring Magazine
5. Dell, M. (1999), Direct from Dell Strategies That Revolutionized an Industry, Harper Business
6. Fichthorn, L. and Su, C. (2001), Dell Computer Corporation, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC
7. Gallon, M. R., Stillman, H. M. and Coates, D.（1995）, “Putting Core Competency thinking into Practice,” Research Technology Management, May-June, pp.20-28.
8. Hafeez, K., Zhang, Y. B. and Malak N.（2002）, “Core Competence for Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Structured Methodology for Identifying Core Competence,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 49, No.1, Feb, pp.28-35.
9. Kuaunoki k., Nonaka I. & Nagata A., ( 1998 ) “Organizational Capabilities”, Organization Science, Vol.9, No.6
10. Killing, J. P.（1978）, “Diversification through Licensing”, R&D Management, June, pp.159-163.
11. Leonard-Barton D. （1992）, “Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.13, pp.111-125.
12. Leonard-Barton D., （1995）, Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
13. Long, C. & Vickers-koch, M.（1995）, “Using Core Capabilities to Create Competitive Advantage”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol.24, No.1, summer, pp.6-22.
14. Mascarenhas, B., Baveja, A. & Jamil, M.,( 1998 ), “Dynamics of Core Competencies in Leading Multinational Companies”, California Management Review, Vol.40, No.4, Summer,1998
15. Nakoka, I. & Takeuchi, H. ( 1995 ). The Knowledge-Creating Company, New York：Oxford University Press
16. Ng, P. ( 2000 ), “Dell: Selling Directly, Globally”, Centre for Asian Business Cases, The University of Hong Kong
17. Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G.（1990）, “The Core Competence of the Corporation”, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp.79-91.
18. Roberts, E. B. & Berry, C. A.（1985）, “Entering New Businesses: Selecting Strategies for Success”, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp.3-17.
19. Ryans, A. and Vandenbosch M. ( 2000 ), “Compaq Computer Corporation: The Dell Challenge”, Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario
20. TBR Corporate IT Buying Behavior & Customer Satisfaction Study: Notebooks First Quarter 2005
21. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. （1997）, “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.18, No.7, pp.509-533.
22. Teece, D. J. and Gray P., （1994）, “The Dynamic of Firms：An Introduction”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 3（3）：537-556
23. Teece, D. J., （1996）, “Firm Organization, Industrial Structure, and Technological Innovation”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 31：193-224
24. Teece, D. J., Gray P., and Shuen, A., （1997）, “The Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.18：7, 509-533
25. Thomke, S. ( 1998 ), “Product Development at Dell Computer Corporation”, Harvard Business School
26. Tripsas M.( 1997 ), “Surviving Radical Technological Change through Dynamic Capability: Evidence from the Typesetter Industry”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.6 No.2, March 1997
27. von Hippel, E. ( 1998 ), "Economics of product Development by users: the Impact of Sticky Local Information", Management Science , 44(5), pp. 629-644.