電腦產業生產銷售模式的比較 -以宏?硐P戴爾為例

Comparison between Direct Model and Channel Business Model in PC Industry

何宗彥(Tzung-Yen Ho)

指導教授 ： 湯明哲

國立臺灣大學/管理學院/國際企業學研究所/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2006.10416

摘要

在過去數年間，電腦產業以戴爾電腦一枝獨秀，其直接銷售的經營策略幾乎成為電腦業中獲利的唯一方式，但是自從2000年底宏?眱聽炬梒揚姥膉妨寣A宏?眯騉騠s造與銷售業務，宣布專心致力於品牌經營，自此之後宏?砦q腦迅速地在市場上竄起，在歐洲各地佳績頻傳。然而宏?硐P戴爾的經營模式其實截然不同，戴爾將生產與銷售的控制權都穩固地握在手上，反觀宏?眥ㄓF品牌一無所有。當兩家公司都能在市場上獲利時，所代表的意義為何，是以下本文所要討論的重點。
戴爾雖然強力宣傳其直銷模式，但是戴爾真正的經營策略其實是利用快速的生產能力，鎖定大企業或大型機構，接單後生產大量同質的客製化產品，其主要目是降低電腦產業中嚴重侵蝕獲利的存貨跌價損失，但是要實行這種經營模式必須要有非常效率的經營體系，戴爾利用繁雜的資訊系統將所有的訊息串連，並且分享給零組件供應商，讓他們在資訊透明的情況下，安排生產時程，只要戴爾一需要零件，可以立刻供貨，讓戴爾立刻生產出貨，達到快速生產的目的。
宏?眹癡S有戴爾的這種生產能力，所以他們選擇尋求專業代工廠的幫助，利用伙伴快速的生產能力，將存貨天數拉到逼近戴爾的水準，在獲取這樣的生產能力之後，宏?盓Q用通路伙伴的力量，將產品的銷售全權將給當地通路商，本身則積極瘦身，尋求營運成本的降低，雖然宏?皉b生產成本上無法與戴爾競爭，因為宏?眥ㄓF有較多的庫存之外，還必需讓專業代工廠賺取部分利潤，但宏?眽鄑Q用降低的營運成本（固定成本），減少在生產成本（變動成本）的劣勢，尋求獲利。宏?眭爾窶ㄔu剩下其品牌，但是在這種經營模式之下，品牌的功用只是增加通路商的配合意願，宏?眽u正的競爭力是穩固的伙伴關係，尤其是通路管理的能力。
兩種模式都是為了降低成本，尋求更佳的競爭力，但是依據企業本身不同的條件，所可以選擇的經營模式其實截然不同，其執行的策略必然是依照各自的核心競爭力所做的發展。

關鍵字

戴爾 ； 宏? ； 直銷模式 ； 虛擬整合 ； 經銷營運模式

並列摘要

Due to high volatility of the prices and demand/supply conditions of the electronic component industry, inventory losses could be a serious issue in the PC industry. However, Dell adopts the direct model, selling products to end users without any intermediate, to reduce inventory risks and gain a higher gross margin. Relying on its unique MIS to implement the direct model, Dell successfully establishes incredible flexibility, cost advantage and capability of rent appropriation.
While everyone thinks that Dell’s business model is the only way to reduce inventory risks, Acer’s recent rising performance denies the argument. On the one hand Acer cooperates with OEM, ODM and EMS partners to accelerate turnover rate. On the other hand Acer uses of distributors and agents to fast penetrate local markets without any direct sales. Actually Acer owns nothing but the brand, and, therefore, Acer can reduce fixed cost to compete with Dell.
The two business models are proven by the markets that both can work, but face some challenges. Even though Dell still gets ahead in American and European PC markets, the growth rate in the markets is not high enough to support Dell’s stock price. To make matters worse, Dell doesn’t have obvious advantages in server, NB and IT services areas. Acer’s growth rate is very high; nevertheless, Acer’s business model can be imitated by other competitors easily.
To sum up, low inventory can’t promise to succeed anymore in the PC industry. After Acer solved their inventory problems, the next issue is to how expand the business model to a great extent. In conclusion, we show that different business models can achieve the same level of success in the PC industry.

並列關鍵字

Dell ； Acer ； Direct Model ； Virtual Integration ； Channel Business Model

參考文獻

Amit, R., & P. Schoemaker. 1993. Strategic assets and organization rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1): 33-46

Barney, J. B. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectation, luck, and business strategy. Management Science. 32(10); 1231-1241

Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1): 99-120

Barney, J. B. (1999). ‘How a firm’s capabilities affect boundary decisions’, Sloan Management Review, 20, 137-145.

Bettis, R. A., S. P. Bradley, and G. Hamel. 1992. Outsourcing and industrial decline. Academy of Management Executive, 6(1): 7-22.