Dynamic Capabilities in New Product Development:
The Case of Asus in Motherboard Production
Ing-Shane Yung, Associate Professor
Department of Business Administration
National Chiayi University
Chiayi, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Tel +886-5-2759917
[email protected]
Ming-Hong Lai*, Associate Professor
Department of Business Administration
No. 129, Section 3, Sun-Min Road
Taichung, Taiwan, R.O.C.
National Taichung University of Science and Technology
Tel +886-4-24817611
[email protected]
© 2011
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
1
Dynamic Capabilities in New Product Development:
The Case of Asus in Motherboard Production
ABSTRACT
This empirical research applies the dynamic capability perspective to the field of new
product development. Our major focus is in the time-to-market competition of
motherboard production in IT hardware industry. Product developments of
motherboard follow standards of CPUs and chipsets. The dominant architecture of
motherboard has been set by Intel and elaborated by Asus. This research studies how
processes, positions, and paths of Asus improve its new product development
performance. The result shows that sustainable competitive advantages of Asus stem
from high-performance routines both inside and outside the firm. The process of
integration and coordination, the process of learning, practicing and accumulation of
core competence, the process of reconfiguration and transformation work jointly to
shape the best practices in its industry. Positions of technological teamwork and
supply chain clustering consolidate its competitive advantages. Learning from OEM
operations and collaboration with key suppliers increase technological opportunities
and mark the road ahead.
Key Words: dynamic capability; motherboard; dominant design; time-to-market
2
I. Introduction
In 2008, 92.4 percent of the global output of motherboards or one hundred and
thirty five million pieces in total were produced by Taiwanese firms. Since the
collective efforts of Intel and Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturers in
establishing the global dominant design of computer hardware, the focus of new
product development of computer hardware has shifted from design competition &
substitution to elaboration of dominant design. In the new era of incremental but rapid
change, the competitive advantage of firm rests on distinctive ways of coordinating
and combining operations. Shaped by their difficult-to-trade knowledge assets and
complementary assets, Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturers have adopted
similar evolutional paths to capture increasing returns of the dominant design,
From the prospective of product architecture, computer hardware is a modular
system with motherboard being the central part containing CPU and interfaces for
other modules such as Memory, chipsets, video card, and other peripheral equipments.
Motherboard controls not only the processing, operation and storage functions of
computer hardware but also the connections with all peripherals such as printer,
keyboard, and display, etc., It is the key component influencing performance and
stability of computer hardware. The understanding of computer hardware cannot be
thorough without a full knowledge of the product design and development of
3
motherboard.
We conduct our empirical research of motherboard using dynamic capability
perspective. The global competitive battles in high-technology industries such as
semiconductors, computer hardware, and computer software have demonstrated the
need for a theory to understand how competitive advantage is achieved. In this new
era of incremental but rapid change, identifying new opportunities and organizing
management activities effectively and efficiently are more fundamental than strategic
leaps and Machiavellian maneuvers which distract managers from seeking to build
more enduring sources of competitive advantage. Focusing on the motherboard
industry, the objective of this paper is to study how winners, especially Asus from
1989 to 2009, in the motherboard industry developed firm-specific capabilities and
how they built up core competences in responding to the shifting business
environment.
Ⅱ. Literature review
According to the dynamic capability perspective (Teece et al., 1997), winners in
the global market of information technology related business have been firms that can
demonstrate timely responsiveness and rapid and flexible product innovation, coupled
with the management capability to effectively coordinate and deploy both internal and
external
competences.
Anderson
and
4
Tushman
(1990)
emphasize
timely
responsiveness using the concepts of technological discontinuity and dominant design.
They propose that before a dominant design is selected, it is an era of ferment with
design competition and substitution. After the rise of a dominant design, it is an era of
incremental change with elaboration of dominant design. Winning strategies in these
two eras are fundamentally different. In the era of ferment, it is better to experiment
different form factors or product deigns to assess market response. In the era of
incremental change, it is better to focus on efficiency and market penetration.
With Intel as the long established dominant design provider in the motherboard
industry, incremental change is the rule of game. Firms may attempt to achieve
greater market segmentation by offering different models and price points. They may
also attempt to lower production costs by simplifying design or improving production
process. Accumulations of small improvements by competing firms can make big
difference in competition for market share (Schilling, 2008).
George and Hout (1990) argue that time-to-market or project development time
is another source of competitive advantage. Because product life cycles of IT related
products are short, efficiencies in new product development and time-to-market
capability become important. For firms which lag behind considerably in its speed of
new product development, the possibility of falling to a vicious circle is high. Sun and
Zhao (2010) also reveal that TQM, teamwork, value analysis and quality function
5
deployment (QFD) are all positively correlated with the speed of new product
development, which means quality management philosophy and tools have a positive
influence on the speed of new product development. Minguela-Rata and Arias-Aranda
(2009) indicate that both multifunctional teams and execution of activities under an
overlapping approach are positively related with shorter development time and higher
product quality.
Macro (1998) points out that integration and coordination process is the other
source of competitive advantage. For a new developed module to function, other
components have to be integrated around it with effective layout. In other words, for
new CPUs and chipsets to function according to their designs, other components in
the motherboard have to be redesigned and assembled with coordination. The whole
system has to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, technology, techniques,
methods and individual skills are all necessary sources of competitive advantage, but
not sufficient to achieve excellence (Conti, 2010). The fundamental role of the
organization’s culture, shared values in particular, also has to be taken into
consideration.
Kawagami (1998) and Harada (2000) bring other perspectives to this field of
study by introducing the concepts of collaboration and knowledge accumulation.
Kawagami argues that collaboration of hardware manufacturers with key component
6
suppliers and with other local suppliers have to be cultivated for the R&D and
production system to function effectively. Harada considers competitive advantage as
a function of knowledge accumulated from past experience and newly acquired ones.
Such perspectives are shared by Dahlgaard-Park and Dahlgaard (2010). They propose
that before companies try to improve their processes of innovation and new product
development they must improve the areas of leadership, people, and partnerships.
Dervitsiotis (2010) further describes that for any organization to address effectively
the innovation challenge, periodic assessment of innovation output, innovation input
and innovation process itself is necessary.
Ⅲ. Research methodology
The research methodology of this study is divided into two parts. The first part
uses archival data such as company annual report, ITIS industrial report and related
literature. The second part uses case study with in-depth interviews of managers from
Asus and Intel’s subsidiary in Taiwan. We applied the dynamic capability perspective
to the empirical research of new product development management of Asus in the
motherboard industry. The research objective is to explain what competitive
advantages Asus possesses, how Asus rise to the top of motherboard industry, and
why these best practices are easy to replicate insides Asus but hard to duplicate for its
competitors. Such a study on firm capabilities needs to be understood not in terms of
7
quantitative calculation, but mainly in terms of organizational structures and
managerial processes which support productive activity.
In this study we identify several classes of factors that will help determine a
firm’s distinctive competence and dynamic capabilities. We organize these in three
categories: processes, positions, and paths. But the content of these processes and the
opportunities they afford for developing competitive advantage at any point in time
are shaped significantly by the assets the firm possesses and by the evolutionary path
it has adopted. Hence organizational processes shaped by the firm’s asset positions
and molded by its evolutionary and co-evolutionary paths, explain the essence of the
firm’s dynamic capabilities and its competitive advantage (Teece et al., 1997).
Ⅳ. Issues on new product development of motherboard
A. Dominant design of motherboard
Dominant design means a product design that is adopted by the majority of
producers, typically creating a stable architecture on which the industry can focus its
efforts (Schilling, 2008). The dominant architecture of motherboard is set by Intel and
modified by Asus. As shown in Figure 1, the major component of motherboard is
north-bridge chipset with CPU socked into it. Video card and memory chip are also
slotted to the north-bridge chipset. South-bridge chipset plays a minor role with USB,
mouse, keyboard, and BIOS connected to it. Manufacturers which develop chipset
8
needs to follow the standard of CPU. And, manufacturers which develop the
motherboard must follow the standards of CPUs and chipsets. Intel, which is the
dominant design provider of CPUs and chipsets, can dictate the architecture of
motherboard.
Motherboard manufacturers follow such architecture with the elaboration of
dominant design set by Intel. It is possible to develop various new types of
motherboards which can load different CPUs, chipsets, memory, Interface cards and
the like. Namely, circuit design and layout of the number of extended slots, the size of
memory capacity, the specification of the other parts which excludes CPUs and
chipsets are left for motherboard manufacturers to develop.
[Insert Figure 1 Here]
B. Time-to-market performance as determining factor
During the stage of incremental change after the dominant design has been
selected, motherboard manufacturers cease to invest in learning about alternative
design architectures and instead invest in refining their competencies related dominant
architecture. Most competition revolves around improving components and processes
rather than altering the product architecture. Firms focus their efforts on developing
component knowledge and elaboration skill.
9
Once a new CPU inside the north bridge chipset has been introduced,
motherboard manufacturers develop their new motherboard accordingly. As a result,
competitive advantage in the motherboard industry comes not only from quality and
cost, but also from elaboration of new product development. Furthermore, because
product life cycles of these new products are short, time-to-market performance
becomes a determining factor for the few competitive motherboard manufacturers that
are equally good in managing component design and cost. Product life cycles of
Pentium 4 CPU series, and the motherboard developed around it, shortened from 1-3
years to 6-12 months and finally to 3-6 months beginning from year 2000. For those
motherboard manufacturers without good new product development management and
time-to-market performance, they have to rush their newest motherboards to the
market, only to find that these products are at the end of their product life cycle.
Ⅴ. Case study and research propositions
A. Processes
CPU and chipset are the most important key components of motherboard. If
technical information on the standard of latest chipset and CPU can be acquired
earlier, the new model of the motherboard can be developed faster than competitors.
Since Intel is the dominant leader of the supply chain, working collaboratively with
Intel becomes important for the motherboard manufacturers. Since Asus and other
Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers produce the majority of motherboards in the
10
world, Intel offers these manufacturers Direct Account status with preferential
treatments. As the CEO of Intel’s subsidiary in Taiwan pointed out that Intel valued
Asus as a Direct Account customer because of its capabilities in new product
development. With former experiences in installing Acer‘s 386 CPU, Asus had
demonstrated its new product development ability before it became a Direct Account
customer of Intel.
As a Direct Account customer of Intel, Asus enjoyed not only discount advantage
in purchase of chipsets but also expeditious information of the latest CPU and chipset
standards for concurrent new product development. For instance, Intel often informed
Asus technological standards of its latest CPU and chipset about 4-6 months before
they were commercialized. Asus could design and lay out the motherboard according
to these standards in advance of the prototypes of CPU and chipset from Intel arrived
about two months before their commercialization. Installation, testing, and debugging
of the latest motherboard from Asus could be done in the same time. Intel also
dispatched FA (Field Appliance) engineers to support Asus in solving the problems of
heat radiation, stability of current, and readjustment of layout etc. that related to the
motherboard. By doing so, Asus could shorten the lead time of development and
improve its time-to-market performance. This is in accordance with the research of
Tahon (2009) that the support from Intel was essential in the development of the
Taiwanese ODM business model, especially in the motherboard and notebook PC
industries in the 1990's. That is, part suppliers integrated key parts from Intel in the
11
modules they developed and coordinated seamlessly with Intel to enhance the
dynamic capability of these motherboard producers. Thus, we propose that:
Proposition 1A: Integration and coordination enhance the dynamic capability in new
product development.
Asus had also built up its dynamic capability from learning, practicing, and
accumulation of core competence in designing motherboard during its OEM
operations for internationally competitive firms. The CEO of Intel’s subsidiary in
Taiwan used the following OEM collaboration of Asus and Compaq as an example:
“When price competition of the PC market became intense in the middle of the 1990's,
Compaq outsourced its computer hardware from Taiwanese manufactures to reduce
cost. Asus improved its new product development capability from its production line
at the same time. Compaq began its joint research programs with the motherboard
manufacturers in Taiwan in 1997. Then, Compaq withdrew its own design
development team, and moved all of its in-house design operations to Taiwanese
manufacturers in 1998 when the design capability of Taiwanese manufacturers
became as good as that of Compaq. Asus was able to evolve from OEM production to
ODM production with the added design function. Finally, Asus began to excel with its
newly built dynamic capability when time-to-market performance was critical in the
global competition of PC industry.” Thus, we propose that:
12
Proposition 1B: Learning , practicing, and accumulation of core competence enhances
the dynamic capability in new product development.
During the 80’s, the majority of Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers focused
on standardization, cost reduction, and production efficiency. Assembling efficiently
all components on the printed circuit board was their major concern. They followed
product standards set by others, which made them always six months late for the
market. Asus defied these practices and focused on product design and time-to-market
performance. Recognizing the importance of innovation in value creation, it strived to
be one of the first movers in the high-end markets. For example, Asus developed its
Catch386/33、Catch486/25 and marketed them at the same time with those of IBM.
Orders for these motherboards were 75 thousand per month in1992. Later on in 1994,
its factory in Taipei was certificated for ISO9002.
Following these reconfigurations and transformations, Asus began its pursuit for
time-to-market performance with production automation and economy of scale. Its
production capability increased to 1 million per month in 1998, and Asus was ranked
top 18 in IT business by Business Week in the same year. In 2009, Asus was the
market leader in motherboard with 33 percent market share. It sold 22.5 million
motherboards that year. Thus, we propose that:
Proposition 1C: Reconfiguration and transformation enhance the dynamic capability
13
in new product development.
B. Positions
Founded by four engineers in 1989, Asus relied on R&D capability to excel in
the highly competitive IT hardware market. Teamwork and brainstorming in product
development differentiated Asus from other motherboard manufacturers. R&D
engineers worked as a team in reducing electromagnetic radiation, in developing heat
scattering module, and in testing of noise, whereas those in other manufacturers
worked alone on similar jobs. For instance, Asus developed Q-FAN technology in
2001. Responding to the problem in controlling heat and noise, the research team
worked collectively in adjusting the rotation speed of FAN according to CPU
temperature. Such teamwork quieted down the noise of FAN rotation, and improved
the efficiency in heat radiation.
Technological teamwork also prevailed among different functional departments
inside Asus. The office of production engineer (PE) responsible for process design
was staffed with engineers from R&D department to insure smooth implementation of
partly parallel development process. Such a practice promoted closer coordination
between different stages of new motherboard development and minimized the chance
that R&D would design motherboards that were difficult or costly to manufacture. It
also eliminated the need for time-consuming iterations between design stages and
14
shortened overall cycle time. Thus, we propose that:
Proposition 2A: Technological teamwork enhances the dynamic capability in new
product development.
Clustering of Asus and most of its supply chain members facilitated dependable
procurement of components. Table 1 shows key suppliers of Asus and the cost ratio of
each key component. Except CPU and chipset, other parts and component such as
semiconductor, printed circuit board, connector etc. came from domestic
manufacturers. Ninety percent of the suppliers, about 400 firms, of Asus are domestic.
Most suppliers cluster around the production base of Asus in Taoyuan, the others are
in nearby Hsinchu Science Park. All of them are within one-hour-drive distance,
which makes it easy in securing timely delivery, in exchanging product and market
information, and in reducing transportation cost. For domestic components, Asus
purchased them from more than one supplier and demanded just-in-time delivery.
However, Asus holds safety stock of components with long purchase lead time, such
as ASIC or PCB. Thus, we propose that:
Proposition 2B: Clustering of supply chain members enhances the dynamic capability
in new product development.
[Insert Table 1 Here]
C. Paths
15
From its modest beginning, Asus had been able to take advantage of its
technological opportunities and learned the latest design standard and technology
from its OEM operations for international brand-name firms. Product quality and
production process of Asus improved further after several rounds of harsh demands
from those internationally competitive firms. The vice president of Asus described
those days when Asus transformed from a newcomer to one of the market leaders as
follows: “The challenge rises when dealings with the brand-name firms. It is a chance
to study and growth for us. The efficiency of our production line was able to improve
dramatically because of the demanding requests from SONY. We were able to come
into contact with the newest design techniques and standards after taking their OEM
orders of motherboard for servers.”
Along the path of OEM operations, Asus had built up a reputation of being a
high end product manufacturer with dependable quality. As the product manager of
Asus emphasized the following:
“For customers whose primary concern is high
quality, we are the first choice. For customers whose primary concern is low cost,
Foxxcon is their choice.” Thus, we propose that:
Proposition 3A: Learning from OEM operation for brand-name buyers enhances the
dynamic capability in new product development.
Wu and Weng (2010) argue that the relationship between manufacturers and
16
suppliers has turned from antagonist to collaboration. Our case supports their
proposition that both parties can be mutually benefited through partnerships. In our
case, collaboration of Asus and Intel has been built on mutual trust and mutual benefit.
In the final stage of new product development and before commercialization, Intel
would send its prototypes to Asus for testing. Asus put these CPUs and chipsets into
its motherboards and tested how well they run. Asus then passes the test results back
to Intel. Intel could compare these test results with its own and decided which final
adjustments to take. Such collaboration was far beyond arm-length transaction
prevailing in other business sectors.
Collaboration with mid-sized local suppliers was through technical assistance
and management support, which was based on long-term relationship. For key
components which could not be standardized, such as PCB or ASIC, Asus offered its
help in co-designing to the local suppliers. The logistic manager of Asus, Mr. Liao,
elaborated such a relationship that:
“We are the leading manufacturer of
motherboard. Local suppliers want to have long-term business relationships with us,
because it helps not only their new product development capability but also their
reputation as top-ranking suppliers.” Asus benefited from such collaboration too. By
improving the quality of the components, Asus improved the built-in quality of its
own motherboards. Thus, we propose that:
17
Proposition 3B: Collaboration with key suppliers enhances the dynamic capability in
new product development.
Ⅵ.
Discussion & Conclusion
Our empirical research using dynamic capability perspective shows how asset
accumulation, replicability, and inimitability improve the new product development of
Asus. It also shows how competitive advantages of Asus in motherboard industry are
achieved. As shown in Figure 2, the sustainable competitive advantages of Asus stem
from high-performance routines inside the firm. The process of integration and
coordination, the process of learning, practicing and accumulation of core competence,
the process of reconfiguration and transformation work together to shape the best
practices in its industry. Position of technological teamwork and position of supply
chain clustering consolidate its competitive advantages. Learning from OEM
operations and collaboration with key suppliers increase technological opportunities
and mark the road ahead.
[Insert Figure 2 Here]
This is in accordance with the dynamic capability perspective proposed by Teece
et al. (1997) that strategy involves choosing committing of long-term paths or
trajectory of competence development. Furthermore, from its years of operation, Asus
has built nontradble “soft” assets such as collaboration and organizational experience
18
which make it difficult for competitors to copy. It is also in agreement with the
concepts about organizational capability to learn and organizational capability to
innovate proposed by Dahlgaard-Park and Dahlgaard (2010). Our study shows that
Asus excels with a corporate culture which is characterized by respect for people and
partnerships, and continuous improvements of processes and products.
Whereas the dynamic capability perspective is firm specific and considers the
role of industrial structure endogenous, our study of Asus in the IT hardware industry
indicates that strategic intents of key firms in the supply chain may have to be studied
further. Asus not only promotes the culture of cooperation inside its own firm, but also
cultivates collaboration among supply chain members. From its humble beginning,
Asus manages to collaborate with its supply chain members. In the long run, such
collaboration benefits Asus and its supply chain members by collectively garnering
sustainable competitive advantages as a team.
REFERENCES
Anderson, P. and M.Tushman (1990). Technological discontinuity and dominant
design: A cycling model of technological change. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35, 404-634.
Asus Corporation 2008 Annual Report and 2009 Annual Report.
Asus Corporation Web site: http:/www.asus.com.tw (May 10, 2010).
Chong A. Y., K. Ooi, B. Lin, and P. The (2010), TQM, knowledge management nad
collaborative commerce adoption: A literature review and research framework.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,21(5), 457-473.
Conti, T. (2010), The dynamics of value generation and their dependence on an
19
organisation’s internal and external value system. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 21(9), 885-901.
Dahlgaard-Park S.M. and J. Dahlgaard (2010), Organizational learnability and
innovability - A system for assessing, diagnosing and improving innovation
excellence. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(2),
153-174.
Dervitsiotis, K. N. (2010), A framework for the assessment of an organization’s
innovation excellence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
21(9), 903-918.
Eisenhardt, K. and J. Martin (2000). Dynamic capability: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21, 1105-1121.
Gareth, R, J. (2004), Organization theory, design, and change. Taipei: Pearson
Education.
George, S. Jr, and T. M. Hout (1990), Competing against time. New York : Free Press.
Harada T. (2000), Management strategy of competition reversal. Tokyo: Toyo Keizai.
Helfat, C. E. (1997), Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability
Accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 339-360.
Henderson, R. and K.Clark (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of
existing product technologies and the failure of established firms,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9-30.
Information & Technology Intelligence Service (ITIS) Organization Web site:
/www.itis.org.tw/report.screen, accessed November 10, 2010.
Kawagamu, M.(1998). Division of labor among enterprises and business growth.
Asian Economy, 39(12), 2-28.
Lee, C., S. Y. Huang, F. B. Barnes, and L. Kao (2010), Business performance and
customer relationship management: the effect of IT, organizational
contingency and business process on Taiwanese manufacturers. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 21(1), 43-65.
Luo, T. (2000), Dynamic capabilities in international expansion. Journal of World
Business, 35, 355-378.
Macro, I. (1998). Technology integration. Boston : Harvard College Press.
Minguela-Rata, B. and D. Arias-Aranda (2009), New product performance through
multifunctional team: An analysis of the development process towards quality
excellence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(4),
381-392.
Owlia, M. S. (2010), A framework for quality dimensions of knowledge management
system. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(11),
1215-1228.
20
Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel (1990). The core competence of the corporation.
Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
Schilling. M. A. (2008). Strategic management of technological innovation. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Sun, H. and Y. Zhao (2010), The empirical relationship between quality management
and the speed of new product development. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence,21(4), 351-361.
Teece. D. J., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen (1997). Dynamic capability and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
Teece. D. J. (2007), Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and
microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 28, 1319-1350.
Wu, M. and Y. Weng (2010), A study of supplier selection factors for high-tech
industries in the supply chain. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 21(4), 391-413.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. CA: Sage.
Yung, I., H. Lee, and M. Lai (2009). Competitive advantages created by a cluster
collaboration net work for supplier management in notebook PC production.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(7), 763-775.
Zollo, M. and S. G. Winter (2002), Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic
capabilities. Organization Science, 13( 3), 339-351.
Zott, C. (2003), Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intra-industry differential
firm performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management
Journal, 24, 97-125.
Figure 1. Architecture of Motherboard
N-B
Chipset
Video-Card
（Slot）
USB
Mouse
Keyboard
BIOS
S-B
Chipset
CPU
(Socket)
Memory (Slot)
Origin: 'PC Shopper' No.33, 2001, page 22, rearranged in this research
21
Figure 2. Dynamic Capabilities of Asus in New Product Development
Sustainable Competitive Advantages
Processes
Positions
Paths
1A. Integration &
2A. Technological
3A. Learning from
Coordination
1B.Learning , Practicing,
& Accumulation of
Teamwork
2B. Clustering of
Supply Chain
OEM Operations
3B. Collaboration
with Key
Core competence
1C. Reconfiguration
& Transformation
Members
Suppliers
Table1. Key component suppliers of Asus
Supplier
Domestic supplier
Overseas supplier
Cost Ratio
VIA、SIS
Intel、NVIDIA
About 30%
component
Chipset
(global standard part)
( 15-40 dollars).
Logic IC, DRAM, and
Winbond, ITE, LITZ,
TI、Fairchild、
About 15％
ASIC
Nanya
Samsung、Elpida
PCB
GCE, ZNE, YNE
none
About 10％
Connector, socket, and
Foxxcon,
AMP、Molex
About 15％
slot
LOTES
Passive components
YAGEO, TA-I, Team
Murata、TDK
About 15％
(resistor, relay, and
Young, ECE
capacitor)
Origin: From ' Asus 2008 Annual Report and from interview with General manage Liao of the
purchasing department of Asus
22
附上接受函之通知如下:
楊兄你好：
正式接受的通知已到。
明弘 2011.12.10
-----Forwarded message----From:tqmbe_ism.lu.se<[email protected]>
To:[email protected]<[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:11:22 +0000
Subject: RE: Review Feedback (20110430)
Dear Ming-Hong Lai,
It is a pleasure to inform you that the editorial team has decided to accept your
paper for publication in TQM&BE journal.
Congratulations!
You will be contacted by the production team regarding timing, proofs etc.
I expect that your paper will be published within the next 6 months.
Best regards
Jens J. Dahlgaard
editor in chief
From: mhlai [[email protected]]
Sent: 08 December 2011 23:07
To: tqmbe_ism.lu.se
Subject: RE: Review Feedback (20110430)
Dear Editor,
We are happy to hear the good news. Attached with this letter is the second revision
of our manuscript. Please keep us informed. By the way, when will the special issue
be published?
Best Regards,
Ming-Hong Lai 2011.12.09
23