本論文將以國內半導體製造產業，晶圓代工廠的個案公司為主要研究對象，透過個案公司設備的評估與選購決策過程，瞭解公司內某些組織部門的變遷，及其對設備採購決策的影響。

就設備採購決策的分析，各個工廠在技術委員會尚未成立以前，設備採購決策由自己工廠內的工程人員就可以決定了，不需要與別的工廠相互比較，相對而言對工廠工程人員較具彈性與靈活運用在設備廠商的選擇上。

技術委員會成立後，一切設備採購與製程技術的規格皆由技術委員會製訂統一的標準指標，此用意是為了有效整合各個工廠間相同資源的有效運用及知識經驗的分享傳承，在設備供應商的管理面也可以集中整合各個工廠的力量，大家一起集中製訂合理有效的管理機制與方法，然而就實際而言，各個工廠接單客戶與製程技術線寬適應層級範圍的不同，因此很難做到各個工廠設備製程的完全一致相同，由技術委員會來製訂統一相同的設備採購與製程技術規格，未必是一件好事。

經過6~7年後，技術委會組織成員因12吋晶圓新技術引進後，整體大環境的變化，與工廠實際應用技術提升的關係，尤其是8吋晶圓工廠的技術已經漸趨成熟穩定，技術委員會因隨著參與人員的執行力不足與各廠支援不夠下，組織型態漸漸形成沒有協調與執行力能力的單位，若是繼續下去沒有修正或改變，相信一定會提早結束其組織或人員編制，而對組織未來的影響與貢獻會愈來愈小，甚至消失也說不定。因此變更與加強其組織結構或組織成員的專業技術能力勢在必行。

The decision making procedures in evaluation and purchasing of production tool in semiconductor manufactory companies and foundry companies in Taiwan are the key subjects studied in this dissertation. Especially, the influences of the progressive evolution of those companies’s organization on tool purchasing decision flow are well discussed.
In the early growing stage of 90s, most semiconductor companies had only one or two factories to process wafers. Single fab’s engineers carried out the evaluation of different vendor’s production tools. And, the final decision of tool purchasing was entirely made by one single fab based on individual its technical requirement. There were no needs to make any comparisons between different fab’s tool types.
Technical boards were set up in late 90s when semiconductor manufacture companies became mature and had more fabs. The role of technical board mostly focused on integrating different fabs’ resources and knowledge sharing. Technical board, not a single fab, defines most purchasing specifications and technology specifications,. The advantages of the change are shortening the experience learning curves, knowledge sharing on the same tool type and more effective power to get vendor’s support and management. Generally speaking, it is very difficult to standardize all tools’ specification by technical board because the difference of process technical constraints and customer requirements in each Fab.
As 6~7 years goes by, the function and organization of technical board do not have much progress with the new development in 300 mm technology and mature process 200 mm technology. It is very danger to this organization because of its passive activities and little knowledge support from each fabs. Such an organization will be closed if we ignore that issues and do not have any improvement plans. Therefore, what we have to do is to help the member of technical board to strengthen their capabilities and technical skills on latest technologies.

中文部份
1.陳俊穎, 環境、組織生命週期與企業策略之關聯性研究-以台灣地區製造業為例, 國立交通大學管理科學研究所, 研士論文, 1995.
2.陳勇龍, 組織理論與管理之研究:以A公司為例, 國立成功大學工程管理學系,碩士論文,2003.
3.黃原福, 組織生命週期的解釋架構及管理策略- 採資訊處理觀點, 國立交通大學管理科學研究所, 碩士論文,1990.
4.余盛文, 國營事業機構組織變革之研究-以台糖公司為例, 淡江大學商管學院高階主管管理碩士學程,碩士論文,2002.
5.侯望倫, 組織知識管理整合架構設計與探討-資訊軟體業為例, 國立政治大學資訊管理學系,博士論文,2001.
6.馬玉山, 客戶導向之組織結構變革與經營績效之研究-以台灣建築投資業之住宅為例, 國立台灣大學商學研究所,碩士論文,2001.
7.黃鴻圖, 市場資訊處理能力與組織設計對新產品績效之研究,國立中央大學企業管理研究所,碩士論文,2000.
8.江正信, 高階經營團隊與企業策略決策模式組織學習傾向創新能立即經營績效之關系研究,國立成功大學企業管理學系,碩士論文,1999.
9. 李宜軒, 企業創新策略、經營績效與競爭優勢關係之研究-以台灣地區製造業為例, 國立東華大學國際企業管理研究所, 碩士論文,1999.
10. 劉鑫, 晶圓代工市場的回饋與前瞻, 新電子科技雜誌143期,1998.
11. 黃達人, IC產業篇-TSMC獲利金額居IC產業之冠,電子時報,2002.
12. 馬維揚, 竹科IC產業群聚成功實例之探討,科學園區管理局期刊, 2002.
13. 王志仁, 吹奏重組矽工業的號角,數位時代, 2000.
14. Chen,Chaos, 全球晶圓代工市場現況及2005年景氣預測,電子時報,2002
15. 王建華,台灣晶圓代工產業發展現況, 台灣半導體產業協會簡訊專專文，http://www.tsia.org.tw/industry/Monograph/專題-台灣晶圓代工產業發展現況-TSIA200204.doc，2002.
16. 古昌恭, 晶圓代工整體瓶頸機台與個別產品瓶頸機台關係之研究, 中華大學工業工程與管理研究所,碩士論文, 2001.
17. 台灣網站 http://www.tsmc.com.tw
18. 林玉貞,限制驅導式排程方法在晶圓廠黃光區之應用, 國立交通大學工業工程與管理研究所, 碩士論文, 2000.
19. 張百棧, 生產管理, 華泰書局, 1996
20. 張順教, 台灣電子資訊業的未來走向,經濟前瞻, 1999.
21. 陳碧暉，半導體多廠區生廠計劃, 國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理研究所，2001
22. 林亞偉、林宏文，「台積電張忠謀接班人」，今周刊，439期, 2005

英文部份
1. Richard L. Daft, Organization Theory and Design, South Western Press, 2001.
2. James D. Thomason, Organization in Action, McGraw-Hill press, New York, 1967.
3. Henry Mintzberg, organizations Design: Fashion or Fit, Harvard Business Review 59 (January-February), 1981.
4. D. S. Pugh, The Measurement of Organization Structure: Does Context Determine Form, Organization Dynamics 1(spring), 1973.
5. John P. Kotter, That Effective General Manager Really Do, Harvard Business Review (November-December), 1982.
6. Arie Y. Lewin and Carrol U. Stephen, EO attributes as Determinants of Organization Design: An Integrated Model, Organization Studies 15, Vol.2, 1994.
7. Michael E. Porter, competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New York, 1980.
8. Michael E. Porter, That is Strategy, Harvard Business Review (November-December), 1996.
9. Robert Duncan, That is Right Organization Structure, Decision Tree Analysis Provides the Answer, Organization Dynamics, 1979.
10. Henry Mintzberg, the Structure of Organizations, Prentice-Hall press, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1979.
11. David Nobler and Michael Tushman, Strategic Organization Design, Scott Foresman Press, Glenview, Ⅲ., 1988.
12. Joan Woodward, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, London, 1965.
13. Charles Perrow, Framework for Comparative Analysis and Organization Analysis, Free Press, New York, 1966.
14. Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organization, Prentice Hall Press, New York, 1962.
15. David L. Blenkhorn and Brian Gaber, The Use of Warm Fuzziest Access Organization Effectiveness, Journal of General Management, Vol 21, no.2, 1995.
16. Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Gaber, sing the Balanced Scored as a Strategic Management System, Harvard Business Review (January-February), pp.75-85, 1996.;
17. Craig Eric Schneider, Douglas G. Shaw and Richard W Beatty, Performance Measurement and Management: A Tool for Strategy Execution, Human Resource Management 30(Fall), 1991.
18. James L. Price, The Study of Organization Effectiveness, Sociological Quarterly 13, 1972.
19. Anne S. Tusi, Multiple-Constituency Model of Effectiveness: An Empirical Examination at the Human Resource Subunit Level, Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 1990.
20. Robert E. Quinn and Kim Cameron, organizational Life Cycle and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: some Preliminary Evidence, Management Science 29, 1983.
21. Tom Peter, bethinking Scale, California Management Review (Fall), 1992.
22. John A. Byrne, Your Company Too Big, Business Week 27, March 1989.
23. Larry E. Geriner, valuation and Revolution as Organization Grow, Harvard Business Review 50(July-August), 1972.
David A. Whetten, Responses, John R. Kimberly and Robber-H Miles, The Organizational Life Cycle, Josser-Bass, San Francisco, 1980.