Diplomová práce se zabývá komplexním zhodnocením aktuální situace podniku XXX s.r.o. První část práce teoreticky obsahuje jednotlivé analýzy, které jsou využity v analytické části. Analytická část práce zhodnocuje externí, sektorové a interní okolí firmy. Dále stručně analyzuje finanční zdraví podniku. Na základě provedených analýz s přihlédnutím na specifika podniku jsou formulována doporučení a opatření vedoucí ke zlepšení současné pozice na trhu.

The presented thesis aim is to establishment a competitive business on a basis of a well prepared, viable business plan. A sport center will be designed for its purpose. The sport center wíll offer physical activities, space rental, its own sales and hospitanty. Porter’s Five Force Analysis, SLEPTE Analysis, Market Survey by Questionnaire Survey and SWOT Analysis were used to solve the problem. Privotal chapter is Custom design solutions, which are devided according to the individual subchapter of the business plan. The aim of the thesis is to create a small business.

This diploma thesis drafts concept of winery based on business network of small wineries using synergetic effect. Critical analysis of macro and micro environment together with explorative research of small wineries was used as a starting point. Based on obtained information, concept of mentioned winery is proposed as an outcome of this thesis.

文具的歷史源遠流長，許多數百年老店，至今屹立不搖。國際文具市場的規模約六千億美金，以歐、美、亞太為三大市場。目前世界文具市場年成長僅約4%，歐、美、日更低於此數字，可見已有飽和趨勢。而台灣的現代文具產業，起始於二次大戰後。最早的業者有兩種: 一為台籍人士接下日人留下的設備與技術；另一則是從大陸播遷來台的文具商人另起爐灶。隨著70年代台灣出口導向型的經濟成長，文具業者開始進軍國際。挾日系技術、及當時低工資的優勢，搶下一席之地。然自1980年代後期起，大陸、東南亞的製造商，從低價市場搶進，藉由模仿開始做起。近年來更在不斷引進新設備及技術下，開始有足以與台灣文具業抗衡的業者出現。至此，台灣的文具業不得不開始改變策略，一部分開始外移到東南亞或大陸，尋找製造成本更低的生產地；一部分則投入研發，尋求高附加價值；更有業者是兩種策略都採取。顯然，在總體經濟環境改變、內外在競爭優劣勢消長的情形下，台灣文具業者的策略也跟著在因應、變動。然而，文具產品雖消耗數量大，但單價低，產值亦偏低，故多不受政府、學界重視，相關研究付之闕如。 / 自波特於1980年發表競爭策略(Competitive Strategy)一書以來，競爭優劣勢分析，成為現代企業策略訂定時必做之功課。本文對台灣文具產業的發展做一回顧，並詳述並分析目前市場環境，再以波特的競爭策略理論(五力分析、國家競爭優勢—鑽石體系)，分析個案P公司的競爭優劣勢，及未來策略的建議。研究結果顯示：(1)資訊流通的容易、技術門檻降低，易吸引文具業新進者，造成產業飽和；(2)現有業者的背景、實力相近，又為成熟產業，又本地文具業者多為家族企業，在情感包袱下無人輕易退出，造成競爭激化。再者，全球文具市場成長趨緩的情形，導致市佔率掠奪戰；(3)大型通路取得議價力量。且文具規格已定型化，網路搜尋又日益便利，買主轉換供應商的難度低。又各國不斷推出的新法規，大幅增加了成本；(4)個人電腦侵入了傳統文具的空間。但傳統文具的易攜帶性與低廉價格、美術顏料技法的多變性，仍非電腦設備所能取代；(5)我國文具上游廠商精密技術不足，關鍵零件掌握先進國家手中。但近年韓、大陸供應商漸成氣候，或許可扭轉此情勢。又，文具業多為中小型企業，採購量低，難取得議價力量。 / 最後，對P公司及文具業者的建議：(1)持續研發，創造新利基，建立難以模仿的核心能耐(core capability)；(2) 在低階大量產品市場，如無意繼續投資，則即應選擇退出(或淡出)；反之，可考慮製程外包，或考慮使用替代原物料以降低成本，更可努力提升生產自動化程度；(3)於高階市場，品牌行銷有賴耕耘，若中小型企業財力不足，可考慮自小區域做起，另更可考慮以OEM/ODM形式為歐、美品牌代工；(4)為對買主提升其轉移成本，應努力降低道德危機成本與建立共同資產；(5)專注電子產品尚無法取代的功能加以發揮，並進一步與電子產品結合；(6)持續尋求原物料來源分散；(7)善用專業經理人協助管理。又，對政府的建議為：(1)加強總體競爭力；(2)特別加強對中小企業的輔導；(3)協助廠商開拓大陸市場。 / Modern stationery industry of Taiwan sprouted since the end of World War II. Early industry players could be roughly divided into two kinds: (1) those stationery dealers emigrated from mainland China after Chinese Civil War; (2) locals that bought out manufacturing facilities left over by departing Japanese. With the roaring up of Taiwan’s export-oriented economy, stationery players extend their business into the international markets. With their Japan-rooted technologies and low labor costs, Taiwanese stationery makers became major suppliers for the world, elbowing their way through German and Japanese competitors. / With the economic reform and liberalization of mainland China since late 1980’s, however, Taiwan’s stationery industries went over a turning point. Those low-cost mainland Chinese makers, providing products mainly copying advanced counterparts in other countries, first entered low-price markets. After years of imitation, learning, and introduction of new facilities and technologies, they gradually establish capability strong enough to compete with Taiwanese. To cope with this change, Taiwan’s stationers either move to Southeast Asia or China to gain cheaper production cost or stay home and invest more in innovation for upgrading their produce and making more added values. Obviously, the change in macroeconomic environment and competition has forced Taiwanese stationers to adjust themselves accordingly. Studies on this developing progress, however, can hardly found within governmental authorities or academic communities. The absence of research on stationery industries could most likely be attributed to the fact that this business accounts for a truly tiny part of the world’s economic production. / In view of this, it arouses the interest in discussing the competitive advantages and disadvantages—an idea brought about by Michael Porter, with his publication of Competitive Advantages in 1980—of Taiwan’s stationery industries for finding a new way. Thus, this thesis is intended to provide an overview of Taiwan’s stationery industries—their history, development, and analysis of current environment. And then, through Porter’s competitive theories—five forces analysis and diamond of national competitive advantages—it looks into the current competitive advantages and disadvantages of Taiwan’s stationery industries and tries to find strategic suggestions for Taiwan’s stationers as well as government. / The conclusion is:(a) for the industries: (1) keep on investing in innovation and finding new niches in order to establish sustainable core capabilities; (2) as to low-end markets, either fade out or stay but pursue low cost by production outsourcing, using alternative materials, and automation; (3) for high-end markets, branding marketing could cost a great deal, a regional, small-scale trial to begin is a safer way; besides, OEM/ODM for existing foreign brands can be a choice; (4) for enhancing switching cost of buyers, lower their moral hazard risk and build up common assets; (5) focus on functions that electronic alternative products haven’t covered, and further incorporate electronic functions with traditional stationery; (6) diversify sources of materials; (7) make good use of professional managers;(b) for the government: (1) keep on enhancing macroeconomic competitive advantages; (2) render more assistances to small- and middle-sized business like stationery industries; (3) render more assistance to business planning to enter mainland China market.

研究生：江雅文(1999) 論文題目：光電產業競爭優勢之研究--以國內LCD產業為例 研究所名稱：國立政治大學企業管理學系碩士班 論文摘要： 光電產業中的「光電顯示元件」在未來高度資訊化的時代中將扮演著重要的人機界面媒介，除了筆記型電腦及LCD監視器的應用之外，在「後PC時代」中，消費性電子產品及多媒體產品的應用範圍將擴大，對顯示元件之需求量將大增。現在的消費大眾對電子產品的要求傾向輕薄、省電、低輻射、環保性。傳統的CRT(Cathode Ray Tube, 陰極射線管)顯示器已無法滿足這方面的訴求，因而各類的平面顯示器正不斷地被研發中。包括液晶顯示器(LCD，Liquid Crystal Display)、電漿顯示器(PDP，Plasma Display Panel)、電激發光顯示器(ELD，Electron Luminescent Display)、真空螢光顯示器(VFD，Vacuum Fluorescent Display)、發光二極體(LED，Light Emitting Diode)、場發射顯示器(FED，Field Emission Display)等。 液晶顯示器(以下簡稱LCD)則因技術已趨成熟，其需求隨著全球筆記型電腦及LCD監視器市場的成長而迅速擴增，此外，液晶顯示技術的發展也刺激了其他電子產品的創新，其範圍涵蓋了資訊、通訊及消費性電子商品等。因此，LCD產業的發展被資訊界喻為本世紀末的產業革命之一，因為其具有輕薄、省電、無輻射、不佔空間及可攜性等優勢，隨著多元化應用的推廣及技術的發展，LCD的整體市場規模將急遽成長。 由於液晶顯示器產業是一個相當重要的高科技產業，對於國內相關產業的關鍵零組件自主性與促進產業升級都有重大的影響。尤其是這個產業在技術與市場上的變化仍相當快速。目前以日本及韓國對我國之威脅最大，我國廠商要如何在這個光電市場領域中建立競爭優勢，找到適當定位，是一個很重要的課題。此外，自1997年開始，國內各大廠商及集團紛紛集資興建大尺寸TFT-LCD廠，預計在1999年至2001年間投產。究竟這個產業有何吸引力，為何能夠讓各種不同型態的廠商爭相投入，是個有趣的問題。而在一陣投資熱潮之後，業者是否會因產能過剩，面臨殺價競爭的慘烈局面，投入的業者應如何在這樣不確定的環境前題之下建立競爭優勢，則是個應認真思考的嚴肅議題。 本研究希望透過研究的過程，廣泛地探討競爭優勢的觀念，從競爭優勢形成的條件、競爭優勢的來源，到競爭優勢最後表現出的市場競爭效果，做一觀念上的釐清，以便對競爭優勢的分析有一深入的認知。進而找出一套適用於光電顯示元件LCD產業之有系統的競爭優勢分析架構。在實務上則希望能夠作為業者擬定企業競爭策略及政府擬定產業政策的基礎。 研究首先確立研究背景。在釐清研究問題與目的之後，著手蒐集相關產業資訊，並據以界定研究範圍；並根據文獻探討擬定研究架構作為LCD產業分析之基本架構。競爭優勢分析之理論基礎主要係按照Porter(1980)的五力分析架構，於初步了解台灣LCD產業的優勢、劣勢、機會與威脅之後，再根據Porter(1990)國家優勢競爭之鑽石模型概念分析我國發展LCD產業之競爭優勢形成條件，最後，再針對台灣LCD產業的未來發展提出策略建議。 本研究為一探索性研究，為釐清LCD產業的環境及條件前提，必須建立產業分析的基本資料。首先廣泛地蒐集國內外相關的文獻、報告、期刊、雜誌、報紙及新聞等次級資料，採用Porter(1980)五力分析架構及Porter(1990)國家優勢競爭之鑽石模型概念將之整理、歸納。本著資訊收集網路化的原則，透過網際網路瀏覽器廣泛地蒐集相關網站資訊。接著，對國內廠商與相關專家進行訪談，以了解國內產業最新發展動態及其對產業競爭優勢之看法，期能提出我國LCD產業之競爭優勢狀況及可行策略，作為業者之參考。 目 錄 第一章 緒論 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究問題與目的 4 第三節 研究範圍 5 第二章 文獻探討 第一節 競爭優勢的觀念 7 第二節 競爭優勢及其來源 8 第三節 價值鏈模型 22 第四節 鑽石模型 24 第五節 動態競爭理論 26 第三章 研究設計 第一節 研究流程及架構 30 第二節 分析方法及資料來源 31 第三節 研究限制 32 第四章 光電產業概述 第一節 世界光電產業概述 34 第二節 我國光電產業概述 36 第三節 結論 47 第五章 LCD產業之發展概述 第一節 LCD產業概述 50 第二節 整體LCD產業發展趨勢 71 第三節 我國LCD產業發展概況 83 第四節 LCD產業未來發展趨勢 105 第六章 我國LCD產業之競爭優勢分析 第一節 我國LCD產業結構分析 117 第二節 我國LCD產業之競爭優勢分析 121 第三節 LCD產業之鑽石模型分析模式 126 第四節 我國LCD產業未來發展策略建議 130 第七章 結論與建議 第一節 結論 135 第二節 建議 138 參考文獻 141 附錄一 145

近年來因雲端運算(Cloud Computing)、智慧型行動載具(Smart handheld Device)等資訊與通訊技術的整合與匯流，再加上金融證券產業政策開放、國際化與自由化、證劵業在中國大陸發展的限制逐步鬆綁等諸多因素，原本各有自己領域的資訊服務廠商都開始磨拳擦掌，紛紛在手持式裝置上推出各種證券服務商品，這對過往在Ｂ２Ｃ領域獨佔鰲頭的E公司無異是最大的衝擊。 本研究將藉由探討E公司現行定位、分析因智慧型行動載具之演進，對金融資訊服務廠商所產生的市場改變、衝擊與競爭，進而找出新的市場商機、訂定新的市場定位與策略，期盼能為該公司發展再造藍海市場商機。 主要結論為：金融證券資訊服務產業已經是一紅海市場。為解決E公司面臨的產業困境，思考E公司未來發展走向，重新定位E公司的核心競爭力(Core Competence)，如何利用現有智慧型行動載具的特性化阻力為助力，在金融證券資訊服務產業這一片紅海中開闢新藍海。本研究將依據波特(Michael E. Porter)的五力分析及競爭論(On Competition)與洪順慶教授之新產品開發流程，提出新舊產品策略及商業模式(Business Model與Go-To-Market Model)的建議：  舊產品:運用該公司在證券資訊市場的領先地位，作業流程核心管理能力，通路優勢與客戶特性，為進入衰退期的既有產品(專業股票機)發展社群服務，增加老客戶黏著度，並搶食競爭對手市場，以延續該產品生命週期。  新產品:善用既有的雲端優勢及智慧型手持式裝置資通訊整合匯流與Web2.0的新技術，開發客製化(Tailor-Made)、主動揭露(Event Push、Calendar Push)，推出智慧的(Smart)、簡易的(Simple)、方便的(Convenience)的理財生活管家服務，開闢新藍海。 / During the past few years, the information service industry of the securities market has change hugely and the competition becomes more and more intensely, due to the opening and internationalization of the government industry policy and the rapid development of the ICT technology--includes cloud computing, evolution of mobile communication and smart handheld device, and ICT convergence…. Because of these changes, the information service vendors of the securities market have started penetrating their services into mobile device with low-price or price-free strategy. The impact to the E-Corp, the leading company with the B2C business model, is most fiercely. First, the study will analysize the change, impact and competition of the information service industry of the securities market, and will apply E-Corp as the case-study-company and probe the current positioning of E-Corp. Finally, the study will try to find out the new business opportunities for vendors, and will make suggestions on marketing repositioning and product development and business strategy to E-Corp. Exectuctive summary:The information service industry of securities market is a red ocean market. The study will utilzie the theories of Five-Force-Analysis (Michael E. Porter), Product Life Cycle (SC Horng, NCCU Taiwan), Core Competence (Gary Hamel & C.K. Parhalad), and will also think how to apply new technologies, such as cloud computing, smart handheld device, Web2.0,…to solve E-Corp dilemma and to help E-Corp to creat new blue ocean business and market. The suggestions are:  For current product: To extend the product life cycle. First, to apply the strength of the leading position in industry, channel strength and procedure management core competence to develop community network service to increase customers’ loyalty and to low down the rate of loss. Second, to seize the competitors’ customers.  For new product:Apply the strength of cloud computing the E-Corp has, and utilize ICT convergence and smart handheld devices, Web2.0 technologies to extend the service from securities to financial/wealth management service with the functional characters of event push/calendar driven, and smart/simple/convenience.

政府透過法律制度將原先具有非排他性及非敵對性等公共財性質之專利財產化，藉此鼓勵發明人進行研發，間接為整體社會帶來促進創新與阻礙創新等不同面向之影響，而專利之私有化使擁有專利之所有人取得排他獨佔權限，如此累積創新所帶來之結果便是形成專利叢林現象，使單一產品生產時須取得眾多專利，增加未取得專利之侵權風險，該專利叢林現象後續更促使訴訟成為新興專利聚集型態獲取利益之手段。 從專利取得之角度觀察，其取得專利之方式可系統化分為自行研發、併購等內化形式或取得專利授權等外部形式，而專利取得之動機則從單純產業利用轉變為企業策略性考量；現今專利市場中，更經常將取得之專利以授權或出售方式商品化，甚或以專利作為商業談判、利益交換之籌碼，使專利有貨幣化現象。從經濟學之角度思考，專利貨幣化或有交易、預防及投機等動機，並得從專利本質上與後續發展上之特性觀察到專利貨幣化之因素。 由於本文將專利市場分為專利聚集、專利交易平台、專利資訊提供者及一般個人、實際從事生產公司與研究機構等不同類型參與者，並將研究對象著重在專利聚集與專利交易平台二者，因此特於本文中討論專利聚集形成之階段與交易模式，且因應專利交易模式而衍生探討專利交易價金之計算。從本文可知，專利聚集得區分為攻擊型、防禦型、以授權營利型及混合型四大類，各類型專利聚集及專利交易平台皆有其創造價值之價值鏈活動安排、整體產業競爭作用力之五力分析與支援核心競爭優勢之相對應策略活動系統，並從各市場參與者之運作模式中亦得觀察可能存在之缺失。 攻擊型專利聚集表面上雖提供授權服務，然手段上具有強制性，以訴訟等手段迫使下游實際從事生產等公司支付授權金以取得專利授權，從模式上觀察，其存在未經挑選專利、擁有專利過多及組織體系過於龐雜等缺失；而防禦型專利聚集則從下游買方之迫切需求角度出發，以防禦目的之專利授權或出售為訴求，藉由廣泛涵蓋不同領域之專利組合滿足下游買方對於專利侵權風險之控管，然其現有模式可能因支付有限年費導致難以確保購買大量專利之品質，並有為符合眾多會員需求使專利相關性降低以及整體產業難以避免搭便車現象等缺失；至於以授權營利型專利聚集透過技術或產品標準定義之專利組合，包裹式將下游實際從事生產廠商需要之專利一次性授權，雖不見得有授權之急迫需求，但顯然降低下游買方取得授權之交易成本，惟其缺失為權利金分配制度之公平性與專利組合之區別標準。混合型專利聚集則涵蓋上述三種專利聚集之優勢，並以特殊之智財資本市場重新定位無形資產能夠創造之價值，對於下游買方及上游專利供應者而言，皆帶來產業結構變化之衝擊，同時以專利組合授權來滿足下游專利被授權人之需求，不過，混合型專利聚集管理複雜度高、經濟利潤有下降可能，並且長期將有價格扭曲之應變風險。 專利交易平台與專利聚集不同之處在於其不直接取得專利或專利授權，僅以專利供給方與需求方之交易中介者自居，然從廣義概念上，其亦為專利聚集之一種形態，有助於專利買賣雙方取得資訊，降低搜尋、談判或執行等交易成本，並透過其他業務互補專利交易平台業務可能之不足，惟其仍舊有所缺失，亦即價格決定機制之困難、服務範疇過大導致成本控管之不經濟與交易公開之接受程度等問題。從本文各章節之分析中，可比較各市場參與者之不同，亦得觀察彼此間之互動與缺失，從而提出未來可能之研究方向，並針對專利市場之管制與開放給予建議。 / The propertization of patents which intrinsically show the traits of public goods including non-excludable and non-rival was established to encourage inventors and therefore leads to positive and negative influence to the society indirectly. The privatization of patents protects the exclusive rights of the owners, whereas what we called the accumulated innovation set up the patent thickets that enhance the risks of infringement and promote the strategic litigations raised by new patent aggregators. The methods of acquiring patents could systematically divided into internalization which includes R&D and M&A, and externalization which includes licensing and so on. While the motivations of acquiring patents transform from industrial applications to strategic considerations, and the patents gradually become commercialized and even express its monetization. This paper classifies different players in the patent market, such as patent aggregators, patent transaction platforms, patent information providers and operating companies, while with the focus on patent aggregators and patent transaction platform. Besides, the patent aggregators could be categorized into “offensive patent aggregators”, “defensive patent aggregators”, “running by licensing patent aggregators” and “hybrid patent aggregators”. Moreover, the findings of this paper stand on what each patent aggregator and patent transaction platform has its scheduled activities of the value chain, the five forces model to the analysis of its industry and the strategic activities system for supporting its core competence, and even the demerits of its operating model. The offensive patent aggregators provide licensing services, while its services apparently contain compulsive licensing model by raising claims against the operating companies. Instead, defensive patent aggregators help the downstream buyers in need to fight against the offensive patent aggregators by licensing or selling patent portfolios which cover broad technological areas and benefit risk management. Next, the running by licensing patent aggregators package their patents by standards of technologies or products and provide “one-stop-shop licensing solutions” to the downstream buyers to save the transaction costs. Furthermore, the hybrid patent aggregators embrace the advantages of three kinds of patent aggregators mentioned above and try to create the IP capital market leading to the transformation of the industry structure. On the other hand, the patent transaction platforms are different from the patent aggregators in the ownerships of patents. The patent transaction platforms will never become the owner of the patents or acquire the rights of patent licensing, it just named themselves intermediaries of transaction that reduce the transaction cost and enhance the transparency of information. Nevertheless, the diversified operating models of different patent aggregators and patent transaction platforms exist its improvable or inevitable drawbacks. The analysis of each chapter in this paper could help to compare the players in patent market and contribute to observe the shortages and interactions between the ones. What’s more, this paper gives some suggestions for further researches in the future as the conclusion.