Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4,July 2002
Department of Business Administration Chaoyang
University of Technology
-
The Study of the Dynamics of Corporates Diversification
from Resource-based ViewA Case of Ruentex Group
(Han-Sheng Lei)
(Chin-Lun Hsu)
4,July 2002
ii
iii
Abstract
Construction industry is the vital part of a nation infrastructure and can be
treated as an indicator of national economic development. Due to the industry
linkage effect during construction process, constructing industry associated with
prosperity can be the trigger power of national economic development.
Construction industry has the characteristics of internal demand because of
its immobility nature and inability of exportation. The transition period of
Taiwans economy can be traced back to agriculture society in early stage, then
the industry society follows. The governments policy coincides with Taiwans
economy development stages, it achieves large scale of enterprise after industry
strategy adjustment and prospers other related industry.
Nevertheless,
construction industry had faced a long-term deflation ever since the collapse of
Taiwans stock market in 1989. The market of real estate keeps lowering down
and this make many construction company going bankruptcy.
Under such circumstance, there still are many difference between
construction company. Especially, the change of global environment is so radical,
and evidences show that only the well-prepared company which kept up with the
global trend can survive. Its of importance to identify how the management in
construction business can do, we are not only focusing on current competitive
advantage but also taking advantage of resources allocation in order to reap
profit and keep growth.
Therefore, construction industry can take advantage of self-understanding ,
proper resource allocation and transfer in order to keep growing, In this case
study, Ruentex Group is being selected and explored the strategy being
adopted during process of diversification.
This study conclude several findings, as follows:
1.Current resources can affect business selections of corporates diversification.
2.The selections of business to entrant can result in demand of new resources.
3. The selection of business strategy can be affected by current resource of
enterprise.
4.Corporatese can accumulate new resources resulted from new business.
Keyword: Construction business, group of businesses, Diversification,
Resource-based theory, Dynamics process
iv
IQ EQ
2002/07/04
...............................................................................................................i
......................................................................................................... ii
........................................................................................................ iii
............................................................................................ 1
.........................................................................1
....................................................................................2
....................................................................................3
....................................................................................4
................................................................................... 5
.....................................................................5
........................................................................... 17
................................................................................. 43
.................................................................................. 43
.................................................................................. 44
............................................................... 49
........................................................................... 49
.................................................................................. 50
................................................................................. 52
.................................................................................. 52
....................................................................... 55
59
.. 75
..................................................................... 80
............................................................................. 95
95
..100
................................................................................................103
............................................................................................... 103
............................................................................................... 104
vi
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
...1
- 10
.10
() .13
.19
.24
.25
. 32
.45
.46
.55
. 56
vii
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
3-1
4-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
..4
15
16
22
. ...28
30
31
34
35
35
44
.. ..53
.. . .95
.. ..96
.. ..96
viii
(1994)
(1995)
WTO
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1-1
(diversification)
1.
(1) Ansoff (1957,1965)
(2) Gort1962
2.
(1) Berry (1975)
(2) Pitts & Hopkins (1982) (business)
1.
(1) Higgin & Schall (1975)
n
l
n
l
l (ROI)
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
(5) Chapin & Jermine (1985)
n
n
(6) Reed & Luffman (1986)
n
n
n
n
(7) Amit & Livant (1988)
(Synergisic)
l (Economic of Scale) (Economic of
scope)
l
l (Related)
l (Predatory Pricing)
n (Financial)
l
(1)
(2)
(3)
2.
(1)
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
(2)
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
9
n
n
n
n
n
()
1. Anoff (1957)
-
2-1 -
\
2-2
10
2. Wrigley (1970)
(Specialization ratio SR
)
n
11
n
n
4. Kotler (1975)
Kolter
5. Glueck (1976)
( )
12
2-3 ()
()
13
6. Aaker (1984)
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
7. Hill & Hoskisson (1987)
14
2-1
Hax. " The Strategy Concept and process " ,1991, p116
15
9. Devlin (1991)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Devlin
2-2
Devlin, G., (1991), Diversification: A redundant strategic
option European Management Journal, 9, 1, pp. 76-81.
16
80
Wernerfelt(1984)
Barney(1986)
(Barney1991Grant1991)
(Peteraf1993)
(Grant1991)
17
Wernerfelt(1984)
Barney(1986)
1.
(heterogeneous)
2.
Barney(1991)
(1994)
(1995)
()
18
2-4
(resources)
Barney(19861991)
(invisible or intangible assets)Itami & Roehl(1987)Hall(19921993)
Grant(1991)Stalk(1992)
(capability)
Ladoetal(1992)
Selznick(1957)Andrews(1971)
Snoqw & Hrebiniak(1980)Hitt &
(distinctive competence)
Ireland(1985)Stoner(1987)
(1994)
Prahalad & Hamel(1991)
Leonard-Barton(1992)
(core competence)
Schoemaker(1992)Bakker et
al.(1994)Markides
&Williamson(1994)Tampoe(1994)
(1995)
Reimann(1982)Hayes et al.(1988)
(organizational
Ulrich & Wiersema(1989)Ulrich &
competence or resources)
lake(19901991)Chandler(1992)
Lado & Wilson(1994)
Winter(1987)Amit &
(strategic assets)
Schoemaker(1993)Black &
Boay(1994)
(critical resources)
Tilles(1963)Wernerfelt(1989)
Pavitt(1991)
(firm-specific
competence)
Hofer & Schendel(1978)
(resource deployment)
19
Coyne(1986)(having)
(doing)
1.
()
2.
Wernerfelt(1989)
1. (fixed assets)
2. (blueprints)
3. (cultures)
20
Barney(1991)
2.
3.
4.
5. (
)
21
Hall(1992) Coyne(1986)
2-3
Hall, R. (1992), The Strategic Analysis of Intangible
resources, Stratgic Management Journal, Vol.13,
pp.135-144.
22
1. (tangible resources)
(financial resources)
(physical resources)(human resources)
(organizational resources)
2. (tangible resources)
Grant(1995) (tangible
resources)(intangible resources)(human resouces)
1. (tangible resources)
2. (intangible resources)
(technology)(reputation)(culture)
3. (human resources)
(specialized
skills & knowledge)(communicative & interactive
ability)(motivation)
(1996)
1.
23
(1)
(2)
2.
(1)
(2)
()
2-5
/ (
) /
1996P102
24
2-6
Coyne
1986 1. 2.
Wernerfelt
1989 1. 2. 3.
Barndy
1991 1. 2. 3.
Verdin &
Williamson
Hall
1992
1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
1992 1. 2. 3. 4.
2. (specificity)
25
2. (complexity)
/
3. (specificity)
Grant(1990)
1. (barriers to resources imitability)
(preemption)
2. (causal ambiguity leading to uncertain
imitability)
()
3. (imperfect transferability)
Barney(1991)
1. (valuable)
2. (rare)
(2)(causal ambiguity)-
27
(3)(social complexity)-
(4)(insubstitutability)
n
n
l
l
l
l
2-4
Barney, J. (1991), Firm Resources and Sustained
Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, Vol.17,
pp. 99-120.
28
Collis(1991)
1.
2.
3. (
)()
Leonard-Barton(1992)
2. (technical system)
3. (managerial system)
29
()
2-5
Amit and SchoemakerStrategic Management Journal1993P38.
Peteraf(1993)
30
()
()
()
()
2-6
Peteraf, M. A. (1993), The Cornerstone of Competitive
Advantage: A Resource-Based View , Strategic Management
Journal, Vol.14, pp. 179-191.
Grant(1995)(rent)
1.(substainability)
(1)(durability)
()
(2)(transparancy)
31
(3)(tranferability)
(3)(replicability)
2.(appropriability)
2-7 ()
1984
1. 2.
1990
1. 2. 3. 4.
Grant
1990
1. 2.
3. 4.
Barney
1991
1. 2. 3.
4.
Chemanat
1991
Porter
1991
Collis
1991
1. 2. 3.
32
2-7
Leonard and Barton
1992
1. 2. 3.
4.
1993
1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
6. 7. 8.
Peteraf
1993
1. 2. 3.
4.
Tempose
1993
Grant
1995
1. 2. 3. 4.
()Grant
1980
Grant(1991)
1. (resource)
2. (capabilities)
3.
(1)
(2)
33
4.
5.
4.
3.
(1)
2.
(1)
(2)
1.
(1)
(2)
5.
(1)
2-7
Grant , California Management Review , 1991, p115
34
() 1994
1.
2.
3.
4.
2-8
2000P137
35
Grant
Grant
()
()
1. Wrigley(1970)
36
(1)(single business)
(2)(dominant business)
n -(dominant-vertical)
n -(dominant-constrained)
n -(dominant-linked)
n -(dominant-unrelated)
(3)(related business)
n -(related-constrained)
n -(related-linked)
(4)(unrelated)
n -(acquisition-conglomerate)
n -(unrelated-passive)
Rumelt(1974)
3.Aaker(1984)
(1)
37
n
n A.B.
C. D. E.
(2)
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
(1)
38
(2)
n
n
(3) Penrose(1959)
(4)
()
1.Teece(1982)
2.Montgomery(1982)
(
),
39
Montgomery(1982)
3.Ingham&Thompson(1994):
(1)
(2)
(3)
4.Chatterjee(1986)
,
5.Mahoney&Pandian(1992)
:
(1)
.
;
(2)
40
(3)
(4)
(1)(1985)
(2)
()
(3)
(4)
41
(5),
?
(6)Chatterjee&Wernerfelt(1991)
42
3-1
43
()
()
()
3-1
1.
(1995)
Barnard(1938) Selznick(1957)
(institutionalization)
(characters)
(means)
44
2.
3-1
3-1
/ (
) /
2000P128
3.
(1995)
( 3-2)
(tacitness)
45
(nontradability)
3-2
1995P41
()
Allen & Hamiltom (1985)
1.
Porter(2000)
2.
Aaker (1984)
Rumelt (1974)
(Single product
firm)(Dominant product firm) (Related product
firm) (Unrelated product firm)Hill & Hoskisson (1987)
(Vertical Integration) (Horizontal
Integration) (Conglomerate Diversification)
2.
Daniel(1961)
Daniel
47
(1)(1988)
(
)
()
1.(Strategy Business Units)
Hall(1978)
2.(Business Strategies)
48
1.
2.
49
axMajluf(1991)
Hill&Hoskisson(1987)
Asker(1984)
1. 2. 3.
4. 5. 6. 7.
Barney(1991)
50
(2001)
Porter(2000)
(1995)
(Grant,1991)
(Appropriability)
(Grant,1991)
(1994a)
(
1994b1995b) H M(1997)
51
1953
1976
6
1975
1995
2000
140
4-1
52
4-1 ()
53
2001
1999
1998
1998
()1998
1997
1996
1998
()1998
1997
1996
1976
1953
1999
1996
1995
1995
1993
1992
1992
1992
() 1991
1991
9991
1991
1991
1990
1989
1988
1984
1977
2001
2000
1994
1991
1989
1974
2001
1993
1993
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
SINOPAC BAN CORP. 1997
1996
(B.V.I) 1994
1994
1993
1989
1988
1988
1987
() 1985
2001
2001
FENB SECURITIES INC. 2000
2000
2000
2000
SINOPAC CAPITAL(B.V.I.) 1999
1999
SINOPAC ASSET MANAGEMENT 1999
1999
() 1999
1998
GRAND CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL 1998
ASIAN GLORY INTERNATIONAL 1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1993
1993
1993
1992
1990
1988
FAR EAST CAPITAL
CORPORATION 1988
1987
1985
FAR EAST
NATIONAL BANK 1974
4-1
54
2001
2000 729
36 4,218 13 868
23 13,567 19
4-1
()
()
()
3,535
7,550
2,788
1988
3,503 68
13,960 30
5,901 30
1989
11,262 33
17,466 26
7,086 31
1990
12,696 36
30,481 24
10,805 31
1991
13,813 40
36,361 23
13,278 28
1992
19,546 108,368
32,612
1993
26,047 149,305
37,135
1994
31,571 207,926
30,840
1995
40,324 21 260,847 6
37,211 22
9,399 17
1996
53,707 22 272,797 7
40,166 24
4,506 1997
84,239 15 363,163 7
72,019 20
19,145 8
1998
102,466 20 417,982 9
61,225 29
22,554 10
1999
72,937 36 421,821 13
86,896 23
13,567 19
2000
11,438
19,326
8,986
1,802
2000
39,682
87,689
32,912
4,730
55
4-2 ()
2001
()
1966 12
()
91,580
1974 12 100,000
()
1976 1 7,880,511
()
1977 6 7,830,435
()
1984 3
130,000
()
1985 3
199,000
()
1987 5
100,000
()
1988 1
900,000
()
1988 1
167,000
()
1988 3
400,194
()
1988 3
1988 9
20,000
141,278
1988
()
1989 1 1,530,650
()
1989 11
90,000
()
1990 8
1,000
1991
()
1991 11
20,000
()
1991 12
15,000
()
1992 1 1,584,060
()
1992
168
56
4-2 ()
()
()
()
()
1992 3
58,798
1992 9
10,000
1992 9
198,000
1993 2
32,064
()
1993 5
624,400
()
1993 6 1,200,000
()
1993 6
50,000
()
1993 8
28,807
1993 12 1,000,000
1994 11
()
1994 2
70,000
()
1994 10
20,000
()
1995 7 2,000,000
()
()
1995 8
1996 1
1996 9 1,000,000
()
1996 12 2,000,000
()
1997 4
624,000
()
1997 4
30,000
()
1997 6
300,000
1997 6 3,211,894
()
1997 6 3,561,268
()
1997 7
()
1997 8 2,000,000
()
1997 8 1,500,000
()
1997 9 1,000,000
416,667
198,000
7,000
57
4-2
1,570
21,977
ASIAN GLORY
INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED
1998 1
GRAND CAPITAL
INTERNATIONAL LTD.
1998 1
()
1998 2
500,000
()
1998 11
200,000
()
1998 12
10,000
1999
1,208
()
()()
1999 1
121,185
()
1999 6
2,000
()
1999 6
40,000
SINOPAC
CAPITAL(B.V.I.)LTD.
1999 10
NA
()
1999 12
50,000
2000
()
2000 3
NA
2000 7
NA
2000 7
NA
()
2001 6
()
2001 10
2001 8
()
()
2001
2001
58
1943 1953
(1968)
1976
1977
( 66.05.27
)
(
67.04.21 ) 1981
(
91.06.28)
1996
59
1994
Nautica
l
1977
1986 6 11
1990
58
1993 8
1994 3
( B.V.I )
2002 3 2000
78.3 114 46.92
235.05
60
1984
61
1988
1991
1992 1992
1998
1999
2000
2000
2001 1 921
2001
4 89
2001 7 ISO 9002 2000
62
1. 2. 3. 4.
()
1988
1988
1991 12
63
1991 11
:
1998 5
1995
( 86.1.7.15 )
Eastern Pretech
Eastern Pretech
64
1992 9
l
1985
( 193 P.24)
1985 11
()
1996 ; 1997 12
65
503
147
7
17 :
( 193 P.25)1988
1853
1987
1997 197
;
66
( 193 )
100 1992 1
1997 5
(Far East National Bank)
67
2000
MMA (Money Management Account )
MMA
B to B
(Pay-Web) ( e-Factoring)
1993 32
1997 9 450
2001 9
(SinoPac Holdings)
(
89.8.23)
1988 3
68
1992
1992
1993 2 A.T.S(
)
()()
()()
9,635
1997 9,585
69
1996 5
:
:
1996 3
1997 3
20
1998
70
1999
1999
2000
(ING)
71
Nautica
1996 9
;
;
1997
2000
72
1997 4
1998 7
1999
( 90.6.19) 2001
(AUCHAN SA)
2001
(
90.2.8)
2001
( 2001.6.9)
( 90.6.19)
1996-2001
2000
73
1974 1989
1991
1991
1995
2000 1000
1993
1991
l997
74
1943
1953
1968
1973
1974
1976
1977
1981
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
75
1990
1991
1992
1993
85%
5A
Nautica
76
1994
1995
A.T.S.
Nautica
Shal Bovis
Nautica
77
1996
A
C1~C4
C5~C7
Partek
Nautica
Energy
78
1997
1998
ISO 9002
79
IBISWorld
1977
1953
1996
1981
2002 IBISWorld
80
1990
1977
()
IBISWorld
1985
1985
11
81
1996
IBISWorld
1977 ..
82
1990
1994 3
1993 8
1991 11
83
1990
1985 11
()
84
(AUCHAN SA)
2001
85
86
MMA
2002
2000 MMA (Money Management Account )
B to B (Pay-Web)
( e-Factoring)
1985 11
87
()
1997 5 (Far East
National Bank)
1997 3
1997 9 450
2002 5 28
88
89
POS
150
1996 8 8 3
3 1 15 1997 3
1998 7 1998 1
9 12 1999 1
4 1999 6
12 2000 3 1997 7
90
91
91 9
1985 11
()
92
1996 ; 1997 12
503
7
17 :
1987 1997
197
1997 5
(Far East National Bank)
2000 MMA
(Money Management Account )
B to B (Pay-Web)
( e-Factoring)
1997 9 450
2002 5 28
93
1996
150
(AUCHAN SA)
2001
2000
94
5-1
++
95
5-2
96
1985
()
97
1990
1993
1990
MMA
98
()
99
MMA
2002
POS
100
2002 3 2000
78.3 114 46.92 235.05
1997 1999
(AUCHAN SA)
101
C
STORE
(1)
(2)
(3)
102
(4)
(5)
(6)
(1)
(2)
(3)
103
1. (1995)
2. (1994)-
89
1pp. 74-87.
3. (1996)
4. (2001)
5. (1994)
6. (1995)
7. (1999)
8. (1998)
9. (1994)
10. (1998)
11. (1992)
12. (1974)
104
13. (1998)
14. (1998)
15. (1999)
16. (1998)
17. (1983)
18. (1985)
19. (2001)
20. (1988)
1. Aaker, D. A.(1984), Strategic Market Management, NY: John Wiley and
Sons Incorporation.
2. Amihud, Y. and Lev, B. (1981), Risk Reduction as a Managerial Motive for
Conglomerate Mergers, Bell Journal of Economics, 12, pp. 823-837.
3. Amit, R. and J. Livnat. (1988), Diversification and the risk-return trade-off,
Academy of Management Journal, 31, pp.154-166.
4. Amit, R. and P. J. H. Schoemaker (1993), Strategic Assets and
Organizational Rent, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.14, pp. 33-46.
5. Barnard, C. I., (1938), The Function of the Executive, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
105
109