I
27 20 2 2 EMBA 92 6 300 480 I
II BOT BOO (WTO) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
III
Abstract The engineering industry has set up the foundation for Taiwanese economical and industrial development. During all phases of the developments, the engineering enterprises play the heavy role respectively in various engineering stages, such as feasibility study, environment impact evaluation, planning, design, construction, test, management, trainning, operation and maintenance etc. of engineering projects. Following the expansion in scale and versatility in content of the engineering project, the turn-key contract type instead of the traditional design and then construction splitted contract type will become more and more popular in engineering industry. Especially, the BOT and BOO of the turn-key contract in Taiwan public engineering projects are set with higher priority considering both the engineering benefit to the public and the finacial effectiveness of the government. Taiwan became the #144 member entity of WTO in early of year 2002 just soon after the #143 member of China in the late 2001. The mutual market oppening induces not only more competition but also more opportunity to the industries of the WTO member entities. The top management of individual enterprises shall consider thoroughly and work out an approach of theirwon leading to concord with the world trend, strengthen the competitive advantages, and survive forever in the industry. The research is started with the analysis of Taiwanese engineering industry. The resource-based view points and strategic management activities outline the core competence capabilities and advantages in various work stages of the indussstry. The key successful factors in the industry are recommended as : (1) financing capability; (2) business reputation and customer relationship; (3) capabilities of planning, design and cost estimate; (4) economical scale and negotiation capability; (5) engineering management and integration capabilities; and (6) operation and maintenance capability. The CTCI Corporation is also taken as an example introducing his operation methods and strategies which are worthwhile for reference. BOT or BOO stated in this research is on the prime contract with the real owner, usually the government. The prime contractor who is then called as the second owner shall use every available resource in the industry to complete the project on schedule, in good quality, and earn the appropriate profit for his enterprise. Sub-contracting, therefore is still the same as what people did in the traditional engineering projects. Either big scale complex engineering enterprises or small size expert firms can still find theirown way IV
for future operation. Talking about the tendering competition, the final game is almost staied on the financial issues. The learning curve, scale economic and expertization of the low cost strategy chain up the concentration and differenciation strategies. All of these will promote enterprises capabilities through the improvement in technical aspects, project management, enterprise processing and resource integration, resource leverage etc.. The engineering enterprises, after evaluating their core competitive advantages, may choose and consolidate the market zone most suitable for them and extend therefrom the market through the alliance. Key words: Competitive advantage, Competitive strategy, Resource levarage, Knowledge management, SWOT analysis, Engineering industry, Turn-key contract. V
VI
VII
VIII 3 6 8 9SWOT 4 2
5 IX
1 1950 1963 2002 65 % (Turn-key EPC) - - ( BOT) - - ( BOO) (WTO)
2 1.3
2.1 Michael E. Porter What is Strategy 2.1-1 ( ) ( ) : ( ) ( ) 2.1-1 3
4 (1) (2) (3) M 2.2 : (assets) (competencies) : (1) (sustainable)
5 (2) (unique) (3) (substantial) 2.2-1 (1) (2) 1 2 3 (3) 2.2-1 :
6 (4) 2.3 2.3-1 1 2.3-1 :
7 2 3
2.4 1980 1994 Richard D Aveni Hypercompetition resource creation and accumulation resource leverage resource acquisition resource interchange and combination 2.4-1 : 2.4-1 1 8
2 synergy 1 2 3 3 4 9
2.5 ( ) 2.5-1 (fit) ( ) / logistic / / / : 2.5-1 10
2.6 Competitive Advantage 2.6-1 2.6-1 (1) (2) 11
12 (3) (4) Locking (5)
13 2.7 (1) (2) (3) 2.8 2.8-1
14 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2.8-1
2.9 SWOT SWOT(Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) SWOT SWOT (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) 15
(1) (2) (3) Weihrich HSWOT SO ( )ST ( )WO ( )WT ( ) 2 x 2 SWOT (O) (T) (S) (W) 2.9-1 SWOT 16
17 2.10 1970 1980 90 11 /
18 11 BOT 36 8 (strategic fit) (operational fit)
19 2.11 2.11-1 2.11-1
/ 20
21
22
23 3.1 3 3.1-1.. 3 3.1-2 5 3.1-1 :9
How, Why Yes Yes Who, What, Where, How No No many, How much Who, What, Where, How No Yes/No many, How much How, Why No No How, Why No No :9 24 3.1-2 ( Phenomenon ) ( Entity ) () 1 2,,,,, 24
25 () 1.,, 2.,,,,,,,,, 3.2 3.2-1,
/ 3.2-1 26
3.3 3.3.1 3.1 ( ) 1. 2. 3. 500 200 (Design firms) 225 (Contractors) 2001 4. 5. SARS 6. 7. 27
28 3.3.2 8. EPC EPC 0
29
4.1 60 347 45 7 49 4 3 9 4.3 45 7 53 6 8 31.8 30
48 56 10 62 10 6 60.3 20 57 58 12 63 6 4 10 51.3 40% 59 124.5 68 76 6 7 10 1 2 3 4 63 1,947.5 31
32 67 4,200 ( ) 69 73 9,000 80
33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 86 96 29.09% 42.65% 0.34% 13.13% 7.32% 7.47% ( 4.1-1)
34
35
36 () () () () () ()
37 () () MH MH 92 10 94 12 1,246
38
4.1-1 39
4.1-2 40
41
42
43 4.2 4.2-1 84 4.2-2 4.2-1 6
( ) ( ) 13 44
45 / / 8 3
46 3
BOT 47
48 100% 100% 0% 0% 5 :21
4.3 83 90 4.3-1 90 87 90 6,985 1,115 8,100 62%8100 ( ) 13,661 13,861 1.4% 12,784-8.4% 13,121 2.6% 13,935 5.8% 14,512 4.0% 14,153-2.5% 13,073-8.3% 2 31 4.3-1 49
1953 (1) (2) (3) 1995 1999 4.3-2 2002 WTO 2 27 4.3-2 4.4 1 1500 300 89 11,232 88 1,456 (13.73%) 1,855 1,580 7,797 4.4-1 89 1.4 1620 412 50
2 35 4.4-1 50 50 100 100 48 19 11 18 4.4-2 51
( ) ( ) 2 150 76 v v v v v v v v v 18 5 21 14 96 2 12 52 30 220 250 8 122 58 v v v v v v v 755 40 34 5 39 61 44 35 32 14 235 1298 1607 9 0.5 48 v v v 49 11 27 133 12 27 62 311 424 11 5 74 v v v v v v v v v 166 221 146 57 20 16 3 25 469 1233(2200) 13 180 14 v v v v v v v v 6 101 49 17 4 3 2 124 14 10 330 374 16 100 65 v v v v v v v v v 12 62 28 5 5 1 33 22 181 348 385 17 100 68 v v v v v v v v v 33 29 6 6 52 13 33 172 207 19 60 78 v v v v v v 41 5 96 122 157 21 20 v v v v v v v v 151 9 8 13 14 5 85 285 345 52
( ) ( ) 22 20 72 v v v v v v v v v 12 26 14 10 2 6 2 16 10 153 165 24 100 64 v v v v v v v 210 10 12 9 12 48 10 3 10 314 367 25 100 68 v v v v v v v v 10 110 70 20 30 4 2 130 34 250 660 760 27 50 73 v v v v v v v v v 95 2 8 4 4 43 4 2 162 190 29 650 59 v v v v v v v v v 5 28 1 3 6 13 5 6 4 11 82 127 30 180 82 v v v v v v v v v 8 401 52 86 46 95 82 62 72 17 5 181 1107 1240 31 100 65 v v v v v v v v 115 2 1 4 5 4 2 21 133 154 41 30 71 v v v v v v v v v 21 2 1 23 2 24 2 3 9 87 100 44 68 86 v v v v 9 10 8 6 2 8 3 2 15 6 9 115 26. 53
54 4.5 WTO 3~5 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 4.5-1 WTO (1/2)
55 1. BOT 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. BOTBOOPFIDPC 1. 2. 1. 2. 4.5-1 WTO (2/2)
56 4.6 BOTBOO BOT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
5.1 (1) 36.57 %(2) 36.83 %(3) 26.6 % 200 (Design firms) 225 (Contractors) 2001 ( 5.1-3) ( 5.1-4) 57
58 39 11
59 UU2SPP R
60 CAD/CAE... 2000
Internet ISDN PSTN 5.2 61
62
SAMOA 5.3 1. BOT/BOO 2. 3. 4. 4.6 63
64
25 25 65
5.1-3 66
TYPICAL CTCI PROJECT TASK FORCE ORGANIZATION CHART OWNER OWNER / / CLIENT CLIENT VICE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT IN IN CHARGE CHARGE QA QA DEPT. DEPT. MANAGER MANAGER PROJECT PROJECT MANAGER MANAGER PROJECT PROJECT QA QA MANAGER MANAGER PROJECT ADMINISTRATION PROJ. ENGINEER(S) PROJ. COORDINATOR PROJ. SECRETARY PROJ. CONTROL MANAGER COST / SCH. ENGINEER MATERIAL CONTROLLER ( * SEE NOTES 4 ) PROJECT PROJECT ENGINEERING ENGINEERING MANAGER MANAGER PROJECT PROJECT PROCUREMENT PROCUREMENT MANAGER MANAGER PROJECT PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION MANAGER MANAGER PROJECT PROJECT COMMISSIONING COMMISSIONING MANAGER MANAGER * FLD ENGINEER'S ACTIVITIES INCLUDING: DWG. CONTROL / COORDINATION FLD. CHANGE CONTROL FIELD ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR WAREHOUSE CONTROLLER PURCHASER ACCOUNTANT GEN. CLERK SECURITY PROCESS ENGINEER(S) CIVIL & STRUC LEAD ENGINEER EQUIPMENT LEAD ENGINEER INSTRUMENT LEAD ENGINEER PIPING LEAD ENGINEER ELECTRICAL LEAD ENGINEER ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP ENGINEER(S) EQUIPMENT & MATERIAL PURCHASER INSPECTOR EXPEDITOR SUBCONTRACTING ENGINEER TRAFFIC & CUSTOM CLEARANCE Q.C. CHIEF FIELD INSPECTOR SAFETY SUPERVISOR CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENT FIELD ENGINEER/ CONTROLLER COMMISSIONING TEAM DESIGNERS DRAFTSMEN & DESIGNERS & DRAFTSMEN DESIGNERS DRAFTSMEN & DESIGNERS DRAFTSMEN & DESIGNERS & DRAFTSMEN CIVIL & BUILDING SUPERVISOR EQUIPMENT ERECTION SUPERVISOR INSTRUMENTATION SUPERVISOR STRUCTURAL STEEL SUPERVISOR PIPING SUPERVISOR INSUL / PAINTING SUPERVISOR ELECTRICAL SUPERVISOR NOTES: 1. The task force size is flexible and may range from a few individuals for a small project to a group of several hundred for the larger projects. Typical shown is for EPC (engineering, procurement, construction) project. 2. Projects vary in type and scope of work. The flexibility of the task force mode of operation permits variation in the task force organization to suit the project or any phase of a particular project. 3. On smaller projects, the project manager can supervise the engineering functions. This is not a one-man task force but the personnel assigned as task force members are few in number and greater dependence is placed on the part time use of personnel from the various supporting / technical departments. 4. When the project goes into the construction phase, the project control manager will move to the field to supervise the field engineer and/or controller to provide the field control services. PROCEDURE NO. 30P-01 (ATT8D-6) 5.1-4 67
68
69 6.1 5.1-2 90 152 92 94 60/40 SARS
70 6.2 ENR ( Engineering News-Record) 120 6.3 BOTBOO
6.4 911 SARS 6.5 SWOT SWOT (Strength) S1EPC S2 S3 S4 (Weakness) W1 W2 (Opportunity) O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 71
(Threat) T1 T2 T3 72
SO (Strength) (Opportunity) 1. EPC 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 1. 73
ST (Strength) (Threat) 1. EPC 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. / 74
WO (Weakness) (Opportunity) 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 4. 5. / 1. 75
WT (Weakness) (Threat) 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. / / 1. 76
77 6.6 EPC (ERP) WTO
78
6 79
80 () e 800 900 EPC (1) (2)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) () 1. 2. 3. EPC EPC EPC 81
82 () EPC E (over design) EPC E(Engineering ) P(Procurement )C(Construction ) EPC (Value EngineeringVE) E E () EPC
83 ERP(Enterprise Resource Planning ) (Corporate IT) (Data Bank) ERP (Road Map) (Project IT) e ERP EPC
() EPC () () 23 3 1. (Core Business) 2. BOOBOT (Project based) 3. ( ) (core business) BOTBOO ( local portion on shore portion) 84
85 WTO WTO (entity) BOTBOO EPC () WTO
EPC EPC EPC 113 114 EPC 32 32 ( ) EPC ( ) EPC EPC () EPC EPC (Prime Contractor) (Strength) (Weakness) (Opportunity) (Threat) BOT/BOO 86
2. 3. 4. 1. 2. BOT 87
BOO 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. e (DSS) 88
3. (Knowledge) (Innovation) (Technology) (Information Technology) e () SARS SARS SARS SARS 92 3 26 3 15 112 SARS 15 ( ) 25 SARS SARS SARS SARS 89
90 2 140 SARS 5 27 S ( ) / WTO
WTO EPC 113 91
() 1. 2000 2. 2002 3. 2001 Michael. E. Porter Competitive Advantage, 4. 2002 e 5. 1999, 6. 2000 7. 2001 Michael. E. Porter On Competition, 8. 1998 9. 2001, 10. 11. 12. 13. 84 14. 294 15. 16. 1994 6 17. 18. 92
() 19. Beckman, T.,1997, A Methodology for Knowledge Management, Proceeding of the IASTED International Conference on AI and Soft Computing. 20. Boyd C. Paulson,Jr., Design to Reduce Construction Costs, Journal of the Construction Division. ASCE, vol1, 102, No. CO4 21. Hira N. Ahuja, S.P. Dozzi and S.M. Abourizk,1994, Project Management, Technique in Planning and Controlling Construction project, WileyN.Y., 22. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., and Umermoto, K.,1996, A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, International Journal of Technology Management (11). 23. Weihrich, H.,1982, The TOWS Matrix-A Tool for Situational Analysis, Long Range Planning, Vol.15,No.2. 24. Yin,R.k.1994,Case study research-design and methods Applies social research methods,5,london: Sage Pub. () 25. http://www.ctci.com.tw 26. http://www.cgec.org.tw 27. http://www.cae.ac.cn 28. http://www.dorts.gov.tw 29. http://wwwthsrc.com.tw 30. http://www.fpc.com.tw 31. http://www.pcc.gov.tw 32. http://www.hsr.gov.tw 33. http://www.kcg.tw 34. http://www.krtco.com.tw 35. http://www.capmi.gov.tw 93