A study of asset-specific competitive advantages of the DRAM industry

• Main Authors: Yen-Er Hsu, 許苑娥
• Other Authors: Tain-Jy Chen
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2007
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/03377926275312642893

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 經濟學研究所 === 95 === The industrial competition of DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory) originated in the 70’s when the U. S. led by technological development, in the mid 80’s Japan led the competition by manufacturing process and yield rate, Korea won the race by manufacturing scale and speediness in the 90’s. With the market maturity, technological evolvement and entrance of new competitors, the competitive advantage of DRAM industry changes accordingly. From 1995 onwards, with the popularization of information, booming of internet usage and increasing industrial competition, product commoditization as well as shortened product life cycle become common characteristics of DRAM industry. Thus speed advantage had become the critical successful factor for DRAM’s competitive strategy. The manufacturing processes of DRAM also have relatively higher importance. The main objective of this study focuses on the significance of asset-specificity in relation to industrial competitive advantage of the DRAM industry. This study analyzes how Samsung established and maintained competitive advantages over its Japanese rivals in DRAM industry during 1995 and 2002. Especially when Japan had already exceeded the U. S. in its DRAM products by manufacturing process and yield rate advantages, how and why Korea can take over the leadership from Japan and maintained its competitive advantage? In 2002, Samsung had a market share of 33% in DRAM industry, when we add up the 13% of market share from another Korean manufacturer Hynix, Korea had an overall market share of 46% in DRAM industry, which exceeded the total market share of major Japanese DRAM manufacturers by 5.6%. The findings of this study show that the competitive strategy of Korean semi-conductor manufacturers is based upon establishing asset-specific competitive advantage with their equipment suppliers and forming relational assets gradually. The Japanese semiconductor manufacturers are not able to break through the competitive barriers set up by their Korean counterparts by further investment. Other than researching through references about asset-specificity, further analyses are done based on three aspects including: 1). The suppliers of manufacturing process equipment are also leaders in technological innovation, Samsung is a beneficiary of this; 2). The major Korean DRAM manufacturers established asset specificity with their equipment manufacturers by speediness of volume production to rule out competition; 3). The Japanese DRAM manufacturers did not invest enough to break through the barriers set up by Samsung with its equipment sppliers based on relational assets. The conclusion of this study not only indicates that the asset-specific advantage established by the Korean DRAM industry during 1995 and 2002 is the key determining factor for its growing influence among international rivalries, it can also provide reasonable explanations for the DRAM industry development trend after 2002 and onwards.