台湾造船业的核心能力和竞争策略

1、nCore competence and competitive strategy of the Taiwan shipbuilding industry:a resource-based approachInstitute of Business and Management ，JUNE 2004The shipbuilding output for Taiwan had been 4th in the world until 1999; however, at that time, it dropped to the 9th. Currently, the world shipbuildi

2、ng capacity greatly exceeds the demand and this disparity could grow to 40% by 2005. Facing this turning point, the main objective of this study is to re-examine the international competitive position of Taiwans shipbuilding industry; further-more, to realize the industries core competences and atte

3、mpt to recommend competitive strategies for the future development of Taiwans shipbuilding industry. The results show that Taiwans main core competence is production management, mainly through heterogeneous resource analysis. This paper also proposes that for general types of ships, Taiwans developm

4、ent priority should be to utilize low-cost strategies to occupy the market continuously; as to high value added types of ships, Taiwans priority should be to utilize differential and focus strategies. Finally, the direction of government policy is suggested.IntroductionResource-based view has become

5、 a signicant approach for strategy management through many literature discussions since Wernerfelt highlighted how a department using unique and idiosyncratic organizational resources can sustain superior performance1. Firms can obtain advantages by analyzing and re-assessing information about the a

6、ssets they already control, if these assets can be used to implement valuable market strategies and if similar assets are not controlled by a signicant number of competitors. Navarro suggested that a resource-based view of the rm is a key for the renewal of strategic thinking in mature industries 2.

7、Barney proposed that resources include all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, rm attributes, information, knowledge, etc. controlled by a rm that enable the rm to conceive of and implement strategies that improve its effciency and effectiveness 3. However; there are a few related concep

8、ts in strategy literature which are worth mentioned as follows:Organizational capabilityUlrich & Lake proposed that organizational capability is the ability to build rms internal structure and process, and these structure and process are able to affect employees to create organizational appropri

9、able capability. Hence, the organization is able to t with strategic requirement and environmental change 4, 5.Distinctive competenceSelznick proposed that distinctive competence is to describe the character of an organization, refers to those things that an organization does especially well in comp

10、arison with its competitors 6. Snow & Hrebiniak stated that distinctive competence is the capability that organizations competitors do not possess 7.Core competencePorter proposed that mainstream strategy research through the 1980s and the early 1990s broadly assumed that it is possible for a rm

11、 to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage, a unique position relative to competitors that allows it to consistently outperform them 8. Post Porters ideal, much of the research on competitive advantage focused on core competence as a major source of that advantage 9. Core competence is the coll

12、ective learning in the organization, especially how to coordinate diverse production skills and integrate multiple streams of technologies 10, 11. A rms core competence is dened as the vector of the irreversible assets along which the rm is uniquely advantaged and it is asset of differentiated techn

13、ological skills, complementary assets, and organizational routines and capacities 12. Core competence is skills and areas of knowledge that are shared across business units and result from the integration and harmonization of strategic business unit competence13.In order to observe rms in a wider po

14、int of view and to study in a more specic agglomerate effect, resources and core competences are used in this study. The shipbuilding industry is an internalized, liberalized, and mature industry 2, 14. The related industry network is extensive and contains upstream suppliers for material and equipm

15、ent, e.g. the steel and iron industries, machinery industry, electrical and electronic industries, and downstream customers, e.g. the shipping industry and national defense industry. In post-war Japan, as later in South Korea, shipbuilding was identied as a key, strategic industry capable of promoti

16、ng wider economic growth. In addition, Japan and South Korea comprise the rst and second largest shipbuilding nations in the world. According to statistics in Lloyds Register, in recent years, the main shipbuilding nations: Japan, South Korea, China, Germany, Italy, Taiwan, Poland, Spain, Denmark, a

17、nd Croatia share 90% of the worlds shipbuilding output. The shipbuilding output for Taiwan had been 4th in the world; however, it dropped to the 9th in 1999. At present, there are 98 shipyards in Taiwan, most of them are small to medium sized and the state-owned China Shipbuilding Corporation (CSBC)

18、. Established in 1973, CSBC is the only large shipbuilder to build and repair large merchant vessels and naval ships in Taiwan. The annual output of CSBC shares of the total shipbuilding output is 90%; therefore, CSBC plays a signicant role in Taiwans shipbuilding Industry. In February 1999, 34 ship

19、s were on order, totaling 1,160,000 gross tons at CSBC.76% of the orders were exported to Denmark, Greek, Switzerland, and France, among others. Recently, the world shipbuilding capacity has greatly exceeded the demand and this disparity could grow to 40% by 2005 15. Therefore, Taiwans shipbuilding

20、industry confronts serious competition from the international market. Taiwan is the 15th largest trading nation in the world. The total amount of import and export trade is 210 billion US dollars annually, of which 90% depends on sea transport. Thousands of ships enter and leave Keelung and Kaohsiun

21、g harbors annually. Therefore, the shipbuilding industry plays an important role in assisting national defense construction, promoting shipping development, and boosting related industrial development. Facing the dilemma of Taiwans shipbuilding industry, the main objective of this study is to nd out

22、 the competitive position of Taiwans shipbuilding industry; furthermore, to realize the core competences and attempt to recommend competitive strategies for future development of Taiwans shipbuilding industry.Competitiveness analysisCompetitiveness of rms implicates the competitive capability of the

23、 international market through a set of globalization strategies 16. However, Porters framework does not recommend a common yardstick of practical comparative analysis for competitiveness. In the commercial competitive world of shipbuilding a measure of cost per unit output indicates a shipyards effe

24、ctiveness 17. In table 1, Japan, South Korea, China, West Europe, and Taiwans costs per compensated gross tonnage ($/CGT) are shown. Table 1. Index of competitive factors for shipbuilding.NationMan-year/CGTCost$/man-yearCost$/CGTJapan0.0093US$39,716US$369.35South Korea0.0166US$26,226US$435.35China0.

25、1157US$7,170US$829.56W.Europe0.02US$37,146US$742.92Taiwan0.0112US$37,682US$422.40Source :World ShipbuildingThe Challenges Ahead, Dreway Shipping Consultants Limited,1999. Japan is the most competitive nation with US$369.35; Taiwan at US$422.2 and South Korea at US$435.35 are in second and third plac

26、e for competitiveness. Birmingham, Hall & Kattan argued that performance should be presented simply as cost$/CGT; however, this fails to indicate the qualitative difference between shipyards operating in high- or low-wage economies 18. This issue can be addressed if the measure is disaggregated

27、into two components, namely: cost$/man-year and man-year/CGT. As can be seen in gure 1, the cost$/man-year is represented on the horizontal axis, and the man-year/CGT is on the vertical axis. Together, these construct an ISO-cost curve. Each point (country) on the ISO-cost curve has the same cost$/C

28、GT. Regarding the cost$/man-year, China with a gure of around US$7,170, possesses the most competitive advantage of wage level. South Korea, with a gure of US$26,226 is the 2nd nation. West Europe, Japan, and Taiwan are close, as all are high-wage level nations. Regarding the statistics of man-year/

29、CGT, Japan with 0.0093, has the highest productivity. Both South Korea and Taiwan are quite close, and better than West Europe. The productivity of China, at 0.1157, is the lowest. Concerning the ISO-cost curve, Japan holds the most competitive position, which implies that Japan has the potential fo

30、r keeping the lead in the shipbuilding market. Both South Korea and Taiwan fall in approximately the same ISO-cost curve, and have little choice but to focus on maintaining a quality lead over their competitors, while making steep change in productivity, based on their core competences as shown in g

31、ure 1.Figure1. Indicative ISO-cost competitiveness curve. Source :World ShipbuildingThe Challenges Ahead, Dreway Shipping Consultants Limited,1999.Industry resources basedBarney proposes that a variety of authors have generated lists of attributes that may enable rms to conceive of and implement val

32、ue-creating strategies 3. Barney also proposes that rm resources can be classied into three categories: physical capital resources, human capital resources, and organizational capital resources. Chatterjee & Wernerfeld recommended that rm resources be classied into three categories: physical res

33、ources, intangible assets, and nancial resources 19. Fernandez, Montes & Vazquez propose that intangible resources can be classied as human capital, organizational capital, relational capital, and technological capital 20. This study synthesizes these discussions and recommends that resources fo

34、r shipbuilding rms can be classied into four categories: tangible assets, intangible assets, management capabilities, and technology capabilities; and analyzes the resources for major shipbuilding nations as follows:Tangible assetsPhysical assets. Taiwans CSBC was the 6th largest shipbuilding rm in

35、the world from 1990 to 1998; of the other top 10 shipyards, six belong to Japan, and three are South Korean shipyards; implying that the shipbuilding scale of Japan and South Korea is very large. On the other hand, there are only a few nations with 1,000,000 DWT of dry dock, e.g. the RESA shipyards

36、in Spain, Harland & Wolff shipyard in the UK, Hyundai Heavy Industry and Daewoo Heavy Industry in South Korea, and CSBC in Taiwan. Taiwan must utilize its competitive advantage of such physical assets to acquire VLCC/ULCC and very large container orders. Vertical integration. The total cost for

37、building ships can be divided into direct material cost, direct labor cost, and manufacturing expense. The cost of direct materials shares 54% of the total shipbuilding cost as shown in table 2.Table 2. Cost structure for Taiwans shipbuilding (unit %).Item19961997199819992000AverageDirect material51

38、.1353.7055.9956.9453.4554.24Direct labor25.0624.6015.7713.5415.4118.87Manufacturing expense23.8121.7028.2429.5231.1426.89Total100100100100100100Direct material cost is one of the key factors in increasing competitiveness for contract quotes in the world shipbuilding market, and the direct material c

39、ost competitive advantage concerns the vertical integration degree of upstream material suppliers for shipbuilders. If the vertical integration degree of upstream material suppliers is higher, the marine equipment market could be self-sufficient and the material transportation costs will be lowered.

40、 The shipbuilders in Japan and South Korea operate within a group. Those groups are divided to shipbuilding, heavy machinery, and electronics divisions, and can manufacture marine equipment by themselves. Therefore their material costs are lower than that of Taiwan by about 1015%. For instance, for

41、four 1200TEU container vessels, both the A category (Main Diesel Engine) and B category (auxiliary machinery) parts, which take 70% of the cost of direct materials, need to be imported due to the fact that no domestic supplier is willing to manufacture these products because of the economic scale. I

42、ntangible assetsShip-owners focus on shipbuilding quality and delivery during contract quotation negotiation. CSBC in Taiwan has carried out complete quality management for many years. At present, CSBC has already acquired ISO-9001 certication for quality management systems for shipbuilding by Lloyd

43、s Register of Shipping in the UK and ISO-9002 certication for quality management systems for ship repair by Det Norgke Veritas. Due to this, 76% of Taiwans orders are exported to Denmark, Greece, and Switzerland, among others. This implies that Taiwans shipbuilding quality is affirmed by internation

44、al society and foreign ship-owners. Product quality is the competitive advantage for high manufacturing cost nations. Generally speaking, the shipbuilding quality of Japan is the best, and that of South Korea and Taiwan are equivalent. For the most part, all nations are able to control their product

45、 delivery in a timely manner. Details of this will be discussed in next section.Management capabilityProduction management capability. Production management capability for shipbuild- ing can be evaluated by scheduling, resource allocation, manpower leveling, and cost control. Regarding scheduling, J

46、apan requires 1112 months, South Korea 1213 months, China 1820 months 21, and Taiwan 1113 months from the time a contract is signed to the launching of a vessel. The reason that Taiwan possesses this competitive advantage is due to production-oriented design and modular production as follows:Product

47、ion-oriented design. Production-oriented design means that the design department can negotiate effectively with the factory during the design stage to comply with the requirements of the contract and specications. The action plan of production-oriented design for CSBC is as follows:(1) The conrmatio

48、n of production strategy: The design department negotiates with the factory the strategy for executing production, e.g. the general arrangement and cabin plan to be considered, to make the work convenient for shop.(2) The conrmation of production factors: In the early design stage, it is necessary t

49、o conrm and be careful of the factors that can promote productivity, e.g. work quantity, effciency, redundant work, auxiliary work, facility, environment, so as to prevent unnecessary rework.(3) The recommendation of a basic index for production: A basic index forproduction is used to evaluate effci

50、ency during the building process. The items of a basic index include: construction weight, pipe and cable pieces and lengths, etc. The index is also used by the shop to arrange the work to be done.Modular production method. The traditional production method begins from laying the keel and installati

51、on of internal equipment and system, and nish outtting work after the launch. It is not the most effcient method due to an extended dry dock period. CSBC carries out modular production in order to reduce its cycle time. Modular production means that the outtting material is installed in the block at

52、 the assembly shop, with the block then being hung by crane, so that workers in all areas can work simultaneously. For instance, when an outtting worker, e.g. electrical work, bench work, piping work, installation of equipment and systems is working on one block, the smithing and welding can be done

53、 on the next block.Other advantages for modular production are:(1) The main system, such as the diesel engine, can be installed into a complete block instead of installing it on board through an opening in the deck.(2) The complicated pipeline work can be installed from the top, side, and front, ins

54、tead of installing it on board only from one direction.(3) Building each block on the ground is easier than building it in the dock, and helps reduce man-hours and rework, shortening cycle time, and reducing production costs.Marketing management capability. In terms of product, Japans shipbuilding q

55、uality is the best in the world, with South Korea and Taiwans quality as reported before. Regarding the characteristics and type of product, Japans main products are high value-added ship and general ship; therefore, Japan is the most competitive in terms of advantages. As for price, South Korea has

56、 maintained control of pricing during the recent expansion phase so that prices remain low 8, and the other shipbuilding nations are the price follower. As for promotion, Japan and South Korea have established eld offices or send their marketers overseas extensively, to gather customer information a

57、t the source. At present, Taiwan acquires orders mainly through brokers, however, establishing a system to investigate the relationship between the broker and the customer is lacking. Besides, estimating and bidding is an important process during the contract quotation period, which should represent

58、 the wisdom of an interdisciplinary shipbuilding team consisting of the design department, the production control department, the accounting department, and others 22. For instance, previously, the labor cost estimate for building a new ship at CSBC was simply calculated as a function of hull steel weight. However, there might be an enormous deviation between the actual labor cost and the estimated labor cost such as with the container vessel No. 101 built for a German ship-owner, in which the actual labor cost was about twice as much as the estimated