| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 高階主管管理碩士在職專班 === 105 === Liberalization of Power Industry and privatization for the global development trend. A significant impact on the national energy policy. With the power law to complete the law. Re-structure of the domestic electricity market business model, in the electricity market gradually open, full of unlimited business opportunities, with the industrial environment expand the competition mechanism, bring the power industry opportunities and challenges.
With the changes in industrial structure and environment, " nuclear power free homeland " was included in the national energy policy , and push forward the development of green energy industry, the Taiwan power industry must pay attention to the internal and external resources inventory and integration, through the value network architecture system, analysis and its suppliers, manufacturers, customers and suppliers of Co-opetition relations. The value of the network between the close interaction between manufacturers, and both the dual characteristics of competition and cooperation. In the face of different objects and inside and outside the factors will have different changes, thus triggering this study want to explore the Taiwan IPP industries value network manufacturers Co-opetition relationship.
In this study, qualitative case studies were used to classify the value network architecture proposed by Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996): Supplier, Competitor, complementor and Customer. To Taiwan IPP industries, as a case study, to analyze their various competitive and cooperative action, as well as for the competition and cooperation activities in response to action. And summarized the attitudes and practices of the various participants in the value network that will offer to existing IPP industries and company who have the intention to enter the Taiwan power market.
The results show that for Independent Power Producer, the possibility of taking the initiatively cooperative activities to suppliers is lower, the possibility of responding to supplier’s cooperative activities is higher, the possibility of taking the initiatively competitive activities to competitors is lower, the possibility of responding to competitor's competitive activities is lower, the possibility of taking the initiatively competitive activities to complementors is lower, the possibility of responding to complementor 's competitive activities is lower, the possibility of taking the initiatively cooperative activities to customers is lower, the possibility of responding to customer’s cooperative activities is higher.
|
|---|
