隨著半導體工業的發展與產業需求與變化的迅速發展，作為半導體設備供應商必須持續建設核心競爭力，以保持其業務優勢和長期發展性。在半導體產業中，管理每個公司或產品的核心競爭力通常與其技術、質量或運營效率有關。例如，ASML由於長期所累積與開發最先進的黃光掃描技術，持續領先並主宰紫外光（Extreme Ultra-Violet, EUV）和氟化氬浸潤式掃描技術(ArF Emersion Scannin)市場。而KLA-Tencor之所以能持續成為檢測和量測技術的領導者，亦是因為他們在這方面的持續致力與發展先進技術，進而保持市場優勢維持領先。
在半導體行業中，IC設計公司、設備和材料供應商、晶圓製造廠，封裝和測試廠以及最終客戶組成了整個價值鏈。這些公司分享了半導體產業鏈中的市場，利潤和責任。在過去的20年中，我們觀察到一個明顯的趨勢，主要供應商不斷收購/合併擁有先進技術的較小供應商以取得其技術，其原因是這些先進技術可以延續、滿足次一代或特定市場的需要具有極大的利基潛力。這一策略能協助主要供應商持續壯大自己、擴展市場爭取更多機會及獲利，亦能夠為晶圓製造廠提供“全面解決方案”。此一有效的策略，即所謂的“多角化經營”。不過，我們也同時觀察到許多試圖由核心技術擴展並實現他們的多角化經營策略，結果卻是不成功的。這其中自有其原因，但關鍵總不出乎於該新技術與其核心競爭力的低關聯性，或者其公司規模、資源仍不足以在當時實現此多角化經營的目標。我們都知道，在時機不成熟或資源不足時做出不恰當展開多角化經營的決策，可能會對其核心競爭力產生風險，影響其在市場上的領先地位，甚至更糟糕可能大幅失去市場的優勢，因此，在關鍵時刻做出適當的決定，持續專注本業、開始實行多角化經營或售出部門，至關重要，且必須進行全面的、完整的評估。
本文以紫式決策分析架構為基礎，建構以核心能力評估半導體設備商的最佳經模型，研究企業應在決定專注本業持續核心競爭力，或在適當的條件及時間時推展多角化經營做了完整的研究與分析。共以兩家前五大半導體檢測和量測設備供應商（R公司與C公司）的實際案例為實證研究以檢驗研究效度，觀察過去所做的關鍵決策以實現他們的目標，包含了專注本業與多角化經營。文中亦對這兩家公司提出了適當建議，以檢視其所作具有爭議的方向或時機的決定、回到當下分析這兩家公司可考慮改採的適當策略，以取得最佳的預期成果。本文結論並彙整研究貢獻，探討研究限制及未來研究方向。
關鍵詞：紫式決策分析架構，核心競爭力，多角化經營，半導體產業，檢測與量測設備。

As the development of Semiconductor industry and the changes of industrial demands move fast, Semiconductor equipment suppliers have to continue building core competence in order to keep their business advantage and long term sustainability. Managing core competence of each firm or product usually associate with their technology, quality or operational efficiency related. For instance, ASML continue developing the most advanced Lithography Pattern scanning technology and dominate the EUV (Extreme Ultra-Violet) and ArF Emersion market, while KLA-Tencor continue becoming the leader of Inspection and Metrology technologies due to their dedication and technology advantage in this market.
There are several major segment involve in the semiconductor industry, for instance, Designing houses, Equipment and Materials suppliers, Wafer manufacturing Fabrications, Assembly and Testing houses, and the users. These parties are sharing the market, profit and responsibility within this value chain of semiconductor industry. In the past 20 years a trend was observed that the key suppliers keep acquiring/merging others who own potential advanced technologies that can be adopted into the need of next generation or a niche market. This strategy also leads the suppliers to be able to offer a “Total solution” to the wafer manufacturers. In other words, this is a significantly effective strategy so called “Diversification”.
However, we also observed that some firms were trying to diversify their business model by extending from core technology but somehow were unsuccessful. Several reasons can explain why but mainly due to the new technology being developed wasn’t strongly correlated to their core competence, the resources of business unit wasn’t sufficient, or the technology wasn’t a right forget for these to make such diversification at that moment. The consequence of making inappropriate decision to diversify may usually generate risk to their core competence which makes impact to their business position in the market, and even losing the market as the worst scenario.
Making appropriate decision for either continue focusing on the core competence or start diversifying their business scope into similar/different market is critical which has to be comprehensively evaluated. This thesis is subject to study the model of implementing Core Competence of firm to achieve the goal of appropriate diversification at the right time, by using the Unison Decision Framework. Empirical studies of two top-5 Semiconductor Inspection and Metrology Equipment Suppliers (Company R & Company C) were conducted for validation to investigate how their strategic decisions were made to achieve the goals, no matter Focusing on their core competence or making diversification. A recommendation was made for these two firms whether there were strategic steps made in inappropriate direction or timing, and what strategy they could consider to make to approach a better business outcome back to the moment. This thesis concludes with discussions of research contributions, research constraints and future research directions.

1.中文部分
中文期刊論文
簡禎富、游智閔、徐紹鐘(2009)，紫式決策分析以建構半導體晶圓廠人力規劃決策模型，管理與系統，16卷2期，頁157-180。
林繼勇、簡禎富、胡志翰(2008)，紫式決策分析以建構液晶原料廠製程確效評估模式，品質學報，15卷5期，頁385-398。
書籍
簡禎富(2005)， 決策分析與管理。新竹：雙葉書廊有限公司。
邵穎紅、黃渝祥、楊建民(2005)。工程經濟學概論。台北：新文京開發出版股份有限公司。
余通權(2007)，活用財務分析創造競爭優勢。台北：中小企業聯合輔導中心。
張保隆(2000)，現代管理數學。台北：華泰文化事業股份公司。
李宏健(1997)，現代管理會計。台北：華泰文化事業股份公司。
學位論文
曾柏穎(2009)，應用類神經網路於供應商選擇之研究。國立中興大學企業管理學系所，96年碩士論文。
鄭凱元(2009)，評選綠色供應商之模式研究-以F公司為例。國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理學系所，97年碩士論文。
吳吉政(2008)，製造策略決策架構及其半導體後端製造之實證。國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理學系所，97年碩士論文。
巫浩原(2008)，積體電路封裝外包管理：以整合元件製造商為例。國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理學系所，96年碩士論文。
楊崧佑(2007)，利用迴歸方法分析相同尺寸晶片堆疊式封裝之最佳化。國立成功大學工程科學系所碩博士班，95年碩士論文。
阮敬文(2004)，供應商評選模式之建構-以無線網路設備製造商為例。國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理學系所，92年碩士論文。
許漢昇(2004)，結合層級分析法與資料包絡分析法之績效評估模式-以某背光模組公司之供應商評選為例。國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理學系所，92年碩士論文。
連偉熊(2006)，建構連接器產業對模具廠之效益評估架構及實證研究。國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理學系所，94年碩士論文。
陳良顯(2003)，台灣IC設計公司之外包策略探討。國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理學系所，91年碩士論文。
蘇紀彰(2001)，IC封裝廠的選擇。國立交通大學科學管理學程碩士班，89年碩士論文。
研究報告/技術報告
施雅茹(2009a)，DRAM廠商對mobile DRAM產品佈局分析。MIC研究報告。
施雅茹(2009b)，全球可攜式產品市場與關鍵IC。MIC研究報告。
郭明洲(2009)，2010台灣各產業景氣趨勢調查報告 – 第十一章 – 行動電話製造業。
劉佩真(2009)，2010台灣各產業景氣趨勢調查報告 – 第十一章 – DRAM產業。
劉佩真(2010)，2011 台灣各產業景氣趨勢調查報告 – 第十二章 半導體業 P259。
網際網路
MBA智庫(2006)，決策樹法 (Decision Tree)。http://doc.mnbalib.com/

2.英文部分
Axel Johne, Patricia Snelson. Auditing product innovation activities in manufacturing firms. R&D Management, 1988, 18 (3): 227- 233.
Edward B Roberts. Toward a world 2 class research, development and engineering organization: a synopsis, MIT Readings on TI Management, 1995.
James W, Tipping, Eugene Zeffren, Alan R Fusfeld. Assessing the value of your technology. Research 2 Technology Management, 1995, (5): 25- 31.
John R Hauser, Florian Zettelmeyer. Evaluating and managing the tiers of R&D. International Center for Research on the Management of Technology, MIT Sloan School, Cam bridge, M A 02142, 1996.
Michael E McGrath, Michael N Romeri. The R&D effectiveness index: a metric for product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1994, (11): 213- 220.
Michael L Tushman, Philip Anderson. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1986, (31): 439- 465.
Burgelman R A, Kosnik T J, Vanden Poe. l, M. Toward an innovative capability audit framework. Strategic Management of Techno logy and Innovation. Robert A. Burgelman and Modesto A. Maidique (eds.). Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1988. 31- 34.
Richard A Pappas, Donald S Remer. Measuring R&D productivity. Research Management, 1985, (2): 15- 22.
Richard R Nelson. Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 1991, (12): 61- 74.
Robert Szakonyi, Measuring R&D effectiveness. Research 2 Technology Management, 1994, (3): 12- 19.
Vittorio Chiesa, Paul Coughlan, Chris A. Voss. Development of a technical innovation audit. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1996, (13): 105- 136.