Business Model Analysis of Kyoto Enterprises
Business Model Analysis of Kyoto Enterprises StudentYi-Jen Chan AdvisorMuh-Cherng Wu A Thesis Submitted to Master Program of Management for Executives College of Management National Chiao Tung University in partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Executive Master of Business Administration December 2009 Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China
i
Business Model Analysis of Kyoto Enterprises StudentYi-Jen Chan AdvisorMuh-Cherng Wu Master Program of Management for Executives National Chiao Tung University ABSTRACT Based on the self-esteemed culture and focusing on the technology skill, it cultivates the unique so called Kyoto enterprises, which is totally different from the Tokyo based bloc enterprises. The unique features of Kyoto enterprises include not belonging to any bloc, not aiming for final products but on market share, and dismantling the vertical supply chain. It results in that Kyoto enterprises achieve a better performance as compared with the Tokyo based bloc enterprises, in terms of profit margin, return on equity and financial risk control. Similarly, Taiwanese ICT related enterprises are all based on the dismantling supply chain, the quick responses to customer s needs and cost down capabilities are the advantages of Taiwanese enterprises. However, what we are missing as compared to Kyoto enterprises are the development of technology depth and the branding for world wide market share. Keywords: Kyoto enterprises, operating profit, Return on Equity (ROE) ii
EMBA JosephRichard SimonPabloJohn iii
...i ABSTRACT...ii...iii...iv...v...vi...1 1.1...1 1.2...2...4 2.1 (Kyocera)...5 2.2 (Murata)...7 2.3 (Rohm)...9 2.4 (OMRON)... 11 2.5...12...13 3.1...14 3.2...17 3.3 (Return on Equity, ROE)...20 3.4...21...22 4.1...22 4.2...24 4.3...25 4.4...27...28...30 iv
3-1 2008 2009...17 3-2 2008 2009...17 4-1...26 5-1...29 v
2-1 2004-2008...7 2-2 2004-2008...9 2-3 2004-2008... 11 2-4 2004-2008...12 3-1 2008...15 3-2 2009...15 3-3 2008...19 4-1 2008...23 4-2 2008...24 4-3 2008...25 4-4 2008...27 5-1...28 vi
1.1 794 1868 () ( 1949)( 1965)( 1981)( 1987)( 2001) ( 2008)( 2008) 1
1.2 2009 1 (Kyocera)(Murata)(Nintendo)(Omron) (Rohm) (Toshiba)(HITACHI) (SONY)(Panasonic)(NEC)(Sharp) [1] 2
( )() 3
[2] 1. 2. 3. 4. 2008 (Rohm) (Kyocera)TDK (Murata) 1970 1971 1950 1973 (OMRON) 1945 4
1984 2.1 (Kyocera) 1959 59,000 9%~15% 42% [1] New Value Frontier 1980 () 1984 KDDI NTT 5
( 1944 ) [3] 1984 (DDI) NTT NTT DDI DDI DDI KDD IDO KDDIKDDI Fortune 500 NTT 1984 1984 [4] 6
2-1 2004-2008 2.2 (Murata) 1944 ( ) 33,000 2008 13% 15%~20% [1] 1957 1973 1988 1994 7
75% [1] Innovator in Electronic 1950 50 (Murata Boy) 8
2-2 2004-2008 2.3 (Rohm) 1958 (Ohm) R (Reliability) 25,000 50% 36% 15~25% [1] Quality Reliability Excellence in 9
Electronics Semiconductor 1960 1971 IC 1971 Intel (1968 ) (Flash)CMOS image sensor 1991 850 10
2-3 2004-2008 2.4 (OMRON) 1933 32,000 2008 52% 8%~11% 1/20 X-ray [1] 1953 1980 1963 1964 1971 11
Sensing Tomorrow 2-4 2004-2008 2.5 12
( ) NEC (Fujitsu) NEC (Mitsubishi)(HITACHI) DRAM DRAM (Elpida)NEC IC (Renesas) NEC Electronics Renesas Electronic 13
NEC(Toshiba) (Panasonic)(SONY)(Sharp) [1] 3.1 3-1 2008 5% 8.4% 10% 30% 5% 3%~4% 2009 () 2008 ( 3-2 ) 30% 14
Rohm Nintendo Murata Kyocera OMRON Sharp Panasonic NEC Toshiba HITACHI SONY 3-1 2008 Nintendo Rohm Murat OMRON a Kyocera Sharp NEC Toshiba SONY HITACHI Panasonic 3-2 2009 15
2008 566 349 284 185 2012 368 133 93 17 3-1 40% 10%~20% 13% 6%~12% 2009 10% 367 463 25% 18% 15% 12% 3-2 2008 2009 2008 42.8% 60% 76.5% 2009 86% 39% 20% 16
3-1 2008 2009 2008 2009 () () () () 1.976 23.3% 8% 1.516 1.773 22% 8.6% 1.383 1.030 18.1% 6% 844 909 13.7% 6% 784 871 13.2% 6% 756 809 12.2% 3.8% 710 617 40% 11.3% 368 538 44% 19.2% 298 3-2 2008 2009 2008 2009 () () () () 12.552 70% 38% 3741 12.013 73.2% 41.5% 3215 5.935 76.5% 26% 1.392 5.453 86% 30% 758 7.443 42.8% 8.4% 4.256 6.403 49.8% 18.6% 3.212 10.530 68.5% NA 3.312 9.403 76.8% NA 2.179 3.073 60% 13% 1.242 2.688 61% 16.7% 1.048 3.2 3-3 2008 17
12.7% 6.8% 2.2% 6.1% 5.9% 3.8% 5%~6% 3-4 2008 1 3 1 0.5 5%~6% (AT&T) (Bell Labs) 18
Rohm Mura OMRON Kyocera Nintendo Sharp Panasonic Toshiba SONY HITACHI 3-3 2008 Kyocera Murata Sharp Toshiba Nintendo OMRON Rohm HITACHI SONY Panasonic 3-4 2009 19
3.3 (Return on Equity, ROE) (Dupont equation) (ROE) = = -------- --------- ---------- 3-3 2008 [1] 3-1 () 4.26 3-2 76.5% 30.7% 1.48 1.15 20
3-3 2008 (ROE) 11.9% 0.65 1.3 10% 18.3% 0.61 1.22 13.6% 18% 1.48 1.15 30.7% 8.4% 1.24 1.68 17.5% 4.2% 0.71 3.36 10% 3.1% 1.29 4.26 17.1% 4.8% 1.22 1.74 10.2% -0.5% 1.07 3.18-1.7% 5.4% 1.11 2.47 14.8% 3.4 21
[2] LED 4.1 4-1 2008 () () 12% 38% 38% [5] 22
( 3-112%~29%) 2%~6% 6.6% 3-1 3%-5% 4-2 4.7 3.8 10.9 3.6 3.7 3.3 3.9 3.0 5.6 2008 11% 40% 29% 25% 62% 45% [5] 4-1 2008 23
4-2 2008 4.2 4-3 2008 5.3% 3.8% 1%~2% 0.7% 3-3 ( 5%~6% 24
% 4-3 2008 4-4 3-4 1 4 3.5 3 0.5 4.3 4-1 25
1 0.46 0.38 2.74 3.4 LED 2.63 2 2.64% 23.6% 4-1 27% 0.46 1.4 17.4% 37.9% 0.38 1.27 18.3% 17.8% 0.93 1.12 18.5% 14.5% 0.81 1.43 16.8% 12.3% 0.68 1.67 14% 3.1% 2.74 1.89 16% 6.6% 1.12 1.33 9.8% 3.55% 1.19 1.82 7.7% 2.64% 3.4 2.63 23.6% 26
4-4 2008 4.4 ICT 27
5-1 5-1 5-1 28
1. 2. 3. ICT 5-1 29
[1] www.kyocera.co.jp www.murata.co.jp www.rohm.co.jp www.omron.co.jp www.sony.co.jp www.hitachi.jp www.panasonic.jp www.toshiba.jp www.sharp.jp [2] 2006 [3] 2008 [4] 2009 [5] www.newmops.twse.com.tw 30