自2001年半導體走入0.13微米時代後，隨著製程進步也伴隨著更多的半導體物理效應，讓先進製程IC製造與設計的議題越來越複雜，先進製程所需的資本投資也隨之倍數膨脹，導致許多半導體業者放棄追隨莫爾定律，被迫採取不同的經營方式。晶圓代工業中的領導業者台灣積體電路公司（Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC）自2001年始終保持領導廠商的地位，TSMC經營模式其成功的理由不只是純粹技術的進步，必定有一些獨特的理由存在。
Ackoff（1999）指出系統是由系統內個別元素，以及其互動關係所構成；過去本研究團隊（郭冠甫，2006）對TSMC與聯華電子公司（United Microelectronics Corporation, UMC）的經營模式的研究當中，發現TSMC與UMC經營模式內地元件會不斷地互相「跟進」。但是並未明TSMC與UMC經營模式的異同之處，以及解釋TSMC於晶圓代工績效遠勝過UMC的原因。
本研究欲透過經營模式元件與元件間互動關係形成的經營模式結構來探究TSMC與UMC經營模式上的差異，本研究採用陳銑鈞（2006）對於經營模式所提出的十大構面做為為基礎，針對TSMC與UMC兩家具有代表性的公司個案，以紮根理論為研究方法以及因果脈絡圖之網路結構分析，以結構及演進的觀點進行經營模式之比較分析，以回答出「深次微米時代之後TSMC與UMC經營模式的發展重心與演進過程為何？」以及「造成TSMC和UMC經營績效的差異點（point of differences）為何？」兩大問題。
本研究發現TSMC與UMC在經營模式結構與演進上有相同點與差異點，相同點可代表領導晶圓廠共有的核心經營結構，可供同業晶圓代工業者一個尋求成長的參考範例，差異點則可提供未來學者探討TSMC經營模式勝出原因的切入點。協助業界內新創企業進入該產業的指標與方針與提供產業內既有成員尋求成長時，其下一步經營模式創新的規劃藍圖。對學界則藉由視覺化的網路圖形表示抽象的企業經營模式元件與元件之關係，提供後來研究者在探討經營模式與經營模式元件互動的關係之基礎。

Since 2001 when technology process moved forward to the generation of 0.13 mircon, the semiconductor industry has faced tremendous physical effects which lead to more complex integrated circuit (IC) manufacturing and design issues of advanced process. The growing capital-intensive nature of the semiconductor industry has driven numerous companies to consider alternative ways to run their businesses such as fablite strategy.
Accordingly, we have conducted several longitudinal exploratory case studies about the evolutionary business model innovation and the developing process of dominant design of business model in the foundry industry. Our preliminary study found that the dominant design of business model is developed from the continually imitating processes of the major competitive firms, TSMC and UMC, in the foundry industry. That is, TSMC may follow, imitate, or learn a new business model from UMC, and vice versa. Consequently, it is very clear that TSMC and UMC have almost 90% of parity in their designs of business model. In other words, the dominant design of business model becomes the “common asset” of TSMC and UMC. However, The research results still remained a critical and interesting question to be studied. If the business models of TSMC and of UMC are similar, then why does TSMC become the winner with more than 50% market share in the foundry industry? The answer may be the points of difference of TSMC and UMC. This study, therefore, attempts to find the answer by dissecting the business model structures of these two leading foundries.
Grounded theory qualitative research method, casual map, and structure characteristics were imported to collect and analyze various data for the business model structures of TSMC and UMC. Data were analyzed by following three coding procedures of the grounded theory technique. We find that the structure of TSMC and of UMC incorporates both similarities and differences. The similarities, which represent common core business model structure of leading foudries could provide a referential example for fledging foundries. Morerover, the differences could provide insightful discussion about why TSMC wins the foundry market. The results would give researchers more tangible concepts of the structure of a business model. We hope that the findings could give hints on design of business model from structural and evolutionary perspective for the next development of Taiwan’s foundry industry.

英文文獻
[1]Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Re-creating the corporation: A design of organizations for the 21st century. Oxford University Press.
[2]Barr, P. S., & Huff, A. S. (1997). Seeing isn’t believing: Understanding diversity in the timing of strategic response. Journal of Management Studies, 34, pp. 337-370.
[3]Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13, pp. 15-36.
[4]Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92 (5), pp. 1170-1182.
[5]Bossidy, L., & Charan, R. (2002). Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. New York: Crown Business.
[6]Bougon, M., Weick, K., & Binkhorst, D. (1977). Cognition in organizations: An analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22 (4), pp. 606-639.
[7]Brown, S. (1992). Cognitive mapping and repertory grids for qualitative survey research: Some comparative observations. Journal of Management Studies, 29 (3), pp. 287-307.
[8]Calori, R., Johnson, G., & Sarnin, P. (1994). CEOs'' Cognitive maps and the scope of the organization. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (6), pp. 437-457.
[9]Carley, K., & Palmquist, M. (1992). Extracting, representing and analyzing mental model. Social Forces, 70, pp. 601-636.
[10]Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Havard Business School Press.
[11]Chesbrough, H. W., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence form Xerox Corporation''s Technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (3), pp. 529-555.
[12]Coles, C., & Mitchell, D. (2003). The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing business model innovation. The Journal of Business Strategy, 24 (5), pp. 15-21.
[13]Cossette, P. (2002). Analysing the thinking of FW Taylor using cognitive mapping. Management Decision, 40 (2).
[14]Cossette, P., & Audet, M. (1992). Mapping of an idiosyncratic schema. The Journal of Management Studies, 29 (3), pp. 325-347.
[15]Eden, C. (1988). Cognitive mapping. European Journal of Operational Research, 36 (1), pp. 1-13.
[16]Eden, C. (1992). On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29 (3), pp. 261-265.
[17]Fiol, C., & Huff, A. (1992). Maps for managers: where are we? Where do we go from here? . Journal of Management Studies, 29 (3), pp. 267-285.
[18]Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1 (3), pp. 215-239.
[19]Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction.
[20]Hitt, M., Ireland, R., & Hoskisson, R. (1999). Strategic management: competitiveness and globalization: cases. South-Western College Publishing.
[21]Hodgkinson, G. P., Bown, N. J., & Maule, A. J. (2004). Causal cognitive mapping in the organizational strategy field: A comparison of alternative elicitation procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 7 (1), pp. 3-26.
[22]Ibarra, H. (1993). Network Centrality, Power, and Innovation Involvement: Determinants of Technical and Administrative Roles. The Academy of Management Journal, 36 (3), pp. 471-501.
[23]Kwahk, K., & Kim, Y. (1999). Supporting business process redesign using cognitive maps. Decision Support Systems, 25 (2), pp. 155-178.
[24]Langfield-Smith, K. (1992). Exploring the need for a shared cognitvie map. Journal of Management Studies, 29 (3), pp. 349-368.
[25]Magretta, J., & Stone, N. (2002). What management is: how it works and why it''s everyone''s business. New York: Free Press.
[26]Mitchell, D. W., & Coles, B. C. (2004). Establishing a Continuing Business Model Innovation Process. Journal Of Business Strategy, 25 (3), pp. 33-49.
[27]Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur''s business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58 (6), pp. 726-735.
[28]Narayanan, V. K., & Nadkarni, S. (2005). Validity of the structural properties of text-based causal maps: An empirical assessment. Organizational Research Methods, 8 (1), pp. 9-40.
[29]Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
[30]Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R. C., & Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways for companies to innovate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47 (3), pp. 75-81.
[31]Shafer, S., Smith, H., & Linder, J. (2005). The power of business models. Business horizons, 48 (3), pp. 199-207.
[32]Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press.
[33]Siggelkow, N. (2002). Evolution toward Fit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (1), pp. 125-159.
[34]Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2005). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications.
[35]Tapscott, D. (2001). Rethinking strategy in a networked world (or why Michael Porter is wrong about the Internet). Strategy Business, 24.
[36]Ticoll, D., Tapscott, D., & Lowy, A. (2000). Digital Capital: Harnessing the Power of Business Webs. Harvard Business School Press.
[37]Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J., Parvinen, P., & Kallunki, J. (2005). Managerial cognition, action and the business model of the firm. Management Decision, 43 (6), pp. 789-809.
[38]Tsadiras, A., & Margaritis, K. (1997). Cognitive mapping andcertainty neuron fuzzy cognitive maps. Information Sciences, 101 (1), pp. 109-130.
[39]Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2 ed.). McGraw-Hill.
[40]Winter, S., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12 (6), p. 730.
[41]Zhang, W., Chen, S., & Bezdek, J. (1989). Pool2: A generic system for cognitive map development and decision analysis. IEEE Transactions, 19 (1), pp. 31-39.
中文文獻
[1]吳芝儀與廖梅花譯(2001)。質性研究入門：紮根理論研究方法。濤石。
[2]李興益(2007)。經營模式元件角色之分析。國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
[3]胡幼慧(1996)。質性研究─理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。巨流。
[4]范揚君(2007)。經營模式階次區塊之分析。國立中央大學企業管理研究所。
[5]張芬芬譯(2005)。質性研究資料分析。雙葉書廊。
[6]張景翔(2005)。商業智能與經營模式設計之文獻研究—兼論與突破式創新演進之關係。國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
[7]張曉環(2006)。電子設計自動化工具供應商與晶圓專製廠互動關係演進之探索性研究。國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。
[8]郭冠甫(2006)。半導體晶圓專製業經營模式主宰設計之探索性研究：聯電與台積電之比較分析。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
[9]陳浩民(2005)。突破式創新與經營模式對創新導入之影響的文獻研究—兼論商業智能之前導作用。國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
[10]陳銑鈞(2006)。經營模式元件及其間關係之紮根研究。國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
[11]黃佳瑜譯(2001)。交響樂組織：互動管理：循環式組織、內部市場經濟、多層面組織。大塊文化。
[12]黃詩婷(2005)。經營模式創新之探索性研究－以台積電為例。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
[13]楊豐豪(2007)。經營模式元件橋接關係之分析。國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
[14]劉乙興(2005)。突破式創新與經營模式對主宰設計之影響的文獻研究—兼論商業智能之前導作用。國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
[15]劉雅妍(2005)。商業智能與經營模式設計之文獻研究--兼論與突破式創新進入策略之關係。國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
[16]劉佩真(2003)。晶圓代工產業基本資料。台灣經濟研究院產經資料庫。
[17]蕭佳嫻(2006)。晶圓代工廠與設計服務供應商垂直合作模式之研究。國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。
[18]賴以代(2006)。技術演進下垂直分工廠商經營疆界變遷之研究－以台積電及聯電為例。國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。
[19]謝文淵(2004)。矽智財供應商經營模式之研究。國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。
網站資料
[1]台經院產經資料庫：http://tie.tier.org.tw，取用於2008年四月。
[2]電子工程專輯：http://www.eetaiwan.com，取用於2008年四月。
[3]電子時報：http://www.digitimes.com.tw，取用於2008年四月。
[4]聯合資料庫：http://www.udndata.com/library，取用於2008年四月。
[5]ITIS產業資訊服務網：http://www.itis.org.tw，取用於2008年四月。
[6]Fabless Semiconductor Association：http://www.fsa.org，取用於2008年四月。
[7]台積電：http://www.tsmc.com.tw，取用於2008年四月。
[8]聯電：http://www.umc.com.tw，取用於2008年四月。
[9]ITIS產業資訊服務網：http://www.itis.org.tw/，取用於2008年四月。