國內醫療產業之創新商業模式比較分析- 以國內醫療器材商為例

A Study on the Business Model for Medical Industry- The Case Study of Domestic Medical Equipment Company

劉慶森(Ching-Sen Liu)

指導教授 ： 陳建勝

朝陽科技大學/管理學院/企業管理系台灣產業策略發展博士班/博士(2016年)

摘要

隨著醫療器材及設備製造業的快速發展，再加上政府積極推動生技政策及健康照護產業的發展，使得國內許多業者紛紛投入資源到本產業，然而在產業發展初期的獲利模式通常較為模糊且不明確，惟有透過商業模式的整合與創新，方能創造出差異化的競爭優勢，其中設備創新研發及全方位的整合性服務將是醫療設備業未來差異化發展的關鍵。
綜觀過去有關醫療器材設備之相關文獻和研究，顯少有研究探討醫療器材設備業多元的經營成長策略，以及其新商業模式的運作型態，過去主要的研究大多探討醫療器材設備業之關鍵成功因素及遠距照護產業的市場進入模式。本研究嘗試了解不同個案公司之成長方式及競爭優勢的形成、不同個案公司所建構之新商業模式的內涵，以及不同個案公司之商業模式的差異，藉此歸納醫療器材設備業者之新商業模式組成的差異，以及商業模式背後的學術意涵。為深入了解此議題，本研究採個案訪談法，挑選三家在醫療器材產業具代表性之個案廠商，並與專家學者3位、6位個案公司之總經理等專業人員進行訪談，以獲取更豐富之個案內容；並輔以次級資料進行資料彙整和分析。
研究結果顯示，A個案公司整合從醫院空間的整體規劃到醫材設備的相關售前、售中及售後之一條龍式的全方位服務；B個案公司則係建基於過去某家醫工團隊累積的實績及某儀器集團的海外通路資源，讓B個案公司不僅擁有提供全方位及客製服務的能力，同時具備將這些服務輸出到海外市場的能力。C個案公司在3家個案公司裡規模相對較小，且其過去的經營模式定位在追求穩定的獲利，不求營運規模的成長，組織相對有彈性，反應客戶需求的速度也比較快，因此，C個案公司的優勢在於能提供快速維修保養的服務，再者，C個案公司的業務模式有別於前兩家個案公司，其採取和醫材設備經銷商合作的模式，透由經銷商的業務介紹，間接接觸醫材設備維修保養的客戶，就經銷商而言，其不需要自已培育設備維修保養團隊，就C個案公司而言，其不需要額外培育業務團隊，這便是C個案公司與前兩家個案公司商業模式最主要的差異所在。
A個案公司、B個案公司及C個案公司雖然皆同屬在醫療產業中同一個供應鏈的位置(醫材設備的銷售維修保養)，但卻因為不同的經營成長背景及資源能耐組成，進而衍生出不同的商業獲利模式，A個案公司整合從醫院空間的整體規劃到醫材設備的相關售前、售中及售後之一條龍式的全方位服務；B個案公司則係建基於過去彰基醫工團隊累積的實績及某儀器集團的海外通路資源，讓B個案公司不僅擁有提供全方位及客製服務的能力，同時具備將這些服務輸出到海外市場的能力。
根據上述研究結果，引用相關理論文獻的結論來進一步驗證及說明與本研究結果之關連性及互補性。A個案公司及C個案公司的經營成長模式較符合資源基礎理論的觀點。其中A個案公司從初期醫材設備品牌代理的模式進入市場，在這中間的過程慢慢瞭解醫材設備市場客戶未被滿足的其它需求及累積設備的相關知識及經驗後，陸續跨入醫材設備後段的售後維修保養服務及更前段的醫療院所空間設計規劃，形成具備提供全方位客製服務的整合性方案的廠商；而C個案公司基於公司內部主要的資源在於設備維修保養服務能力，再加上企業經營的定位在於追求利基及強調利潤，而不追求營運規模上的成長，因此，C個案公司在現有的小型規模讓其可以更彈性應變客戶的維修保養服務需求

關鍵字

醫療器材設備 ； 創新商業模式 ； 商業模式九宮格 ； 資源基礎理論

並列摘要

With the rapid development of medical devices industry, the government actively promoting the development of biotechnology policy and health care industry has attracted many domestic firms to invest resources to the medical devices industry. However, the profit model in the early of development of the medical devices industry is usually more vague and ambiguous. In order to differentiate and create competitive advantage, the firm must create and integrate innovative business model. That is, R&D and total solution service will be the key difference between the medical device industry in the future development.
Reviewing the past literature and research related to medical devices, little studies investigated multiple business growth strategy and business models in the medical devices industry. Past studies investigated the medical devices industry success factors and long term care industry market entry mode. This study attempts to understand the different cases competitive advantage, the connotation of new business models and the differences in business models. Through case studies explore the induction of the medical devices industry new business model difference in academic implications.
To better understand this issue, the study adopted case interview and select three firms in medical devices industry as case studies. Besides, this study invited three experts and six general managers of case studies to interview in order to obtain richer contents of the case. At the same time, this study used secondary data to aggregate and analyze those contents.
The result of this study showed that case A combined company form the overall planning of the hospital medical supplies and equipment to the space-related presale and after-sale of the One-stop service. Case B was established in the past accumulation of a medical engineering team performance and a instrument Group’s overseas channel resources. Case B not only has the ability to provide comprehensive and customized services, but also has the output of these services to overseas markets capabilities.
In the three cases, Case C is relatively small. Case C in the past the business model was positioned in the pursuit of stable profit, relative elastic and the speed of response to customer needs faster. Thus, the advantage of Case C provides fast maintenance service. Furthermore, the business model of Case C adopts medical material and equipment distributor’s pattern. That is, Case C' dealers visit clients to ‎indirectly Case C can contact medical material equipment maintenance customers. Therefore, Case C doesn’t need extra nurture business team.
Finally, implications of the present study and directions for future research are discussed. Case A and C with the company’s business growth model are closer view of resource-based theory. Finally, implications of the present study and directions for future research are discussed. Case A and C with the company’s business growth model are closer view of resource-based theory. Early, Case A used brand agency model to enter medical devices market and got to slowly insight into the medical devices market which customer exist unsatisfied needs and accumulate related knowledge. Finally, Case A have entered after-sale service and space design and planning of medical institutions. Case A become a full range of customized services integrated programs. Case C owns equipment maintenance service capability and emphasizes profits, rather than the pursuit of growth on the scale of operation. Therefore, Case C could be more elastic strain maintenance service needs of customers

並列關鍵字

medical devices ； new business model ； business model blueprint ； Resource-Based View

參考文獻

Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001). Value Creation in e-Business. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 493-520.

Amit, Schoemaker and Paul J.H. (1993). Strategic Assets and Organizational Rant. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (1), 33-46.

Barney, J, B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.

Bowman, C., and Ambrosini, V. (2003). How the Resource-Based and the Dynamic Capability Views of the Inform Corporate-Level Strategy. British Journal of Management, 14(4), 289-303.

Chamberlin, Edward H. (1933). The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.