在採購各個議價手法中，最有效達成原供應商降價的方法之一即為新供應商的威脅，而評選新供應商時，第一要件為確定新供應商採用的策略。過去，決策者決定取代範圍時往往經由主觀判斷，依供應商的能力與性質，選擇取代成功機率最高、取代失敗成本最低，或是成功效益最高的範圍開始，卻沒有系統化的決策模型將所有因素加以統整歸納，提供決策者邏輯性的決策準則。
為解決上述問題，本研究探討晶圓代工廠採用新供應商之策略擬定，以蝕刻新設備採用作為案例，使用直觀且能處理不確定事件的決策樹方法建立決策模式，依參數性質由各專業部門給予參數預測，完整呈現可能的取代策略，並融合新供應商取代的成功機率、取代失敗成本、帶來的效益進行評比，期望提供一個最適決策來幫助決策者選定採用策略。其中，效益不同歷史文獻多半以採購價格的下降做計算，本研究參考總體擁有成本 (Total Cost of Ownership, TCO) 並引入國際半導體設備與材料產業協會 (Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, SEMI) 所定義的擁有成本 (Cost of ownership, COO)，將生產過程中發生的相關成本納入，增加模式完整性與正確性。
經由模式建構，給予決策者完整的最佳評估策略藍圖，使決策者及早規劃新設備評估時程獲取最大效益，且經由模式結果得知，當新設備可取代的產能占比較低時，接受原供應商的降價會因影響的範圍較高，反而可能較採用新設備帶來的降幅更多，故應將兩者成本進行比較以選擇最佳的行動策略，並非一味的採用新設備。

The bargaining power of suppliers affects the competitive environment and profit potential of buyers, and the adoption of new suppliers is one of good bargaining. The determination of the adoption of new suppliers previously often depends on subjective judgment without consideration of all related factors. This study uses a decision tree to depict related factors for the adoption of new suppliers, such as (1) the probability of successfully evaluating a new supplier, (2) the loss cost of a new supplier evaluation, and (3) the benefit of a successful evaluation, to provide an optimal adoption strategy for decision makers. This study incorporates the concepts of “total cost of ownership” (TCO) and “cost of ownership” (COO) defined by the Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI) into the proposed model. The result shows that the early evaluation of a new supplier would gain more benefits. Moreover, the decision makers have to compare the benefits between using the existing supplier and adopting a new supplier by reduction of the COO in various cases.

一、英文部分
Berger, P. D., Gerstenfeld, A., & Zeng, A. Z. (2004). How many suppliers are best? A decision-analysis approach. Omega, 32(1), 9-15.
Burger, J.O. (1980), Statistical Decision Theory, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Chai, J., Liu, J. N., & Ngai, E. W. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872-3885.
Cheng, J.-H., Lee, C.-M., & Tang, C.-H. (2009). An application of fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy AHP on evaluating wafer supplier in semiconductor industry. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, 6(5), 756-767.
Degraeve, Z., Labro, E., & Roodhooft, F. (2000). An evaluation of vendor selection models from a total cost of ownership perspective. European Journal of Operational Research, 125(1), 34-58.
Dickson, G. W. (1966). An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. Journal of Purchasing, 2(1), 5-17.
Dogan, I., & Aydin, N. (2011). Combining Bayesian Networks and Total Cost of Ownership method for supplier selection analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61(4), 1072-1085.
Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16-24.
Kanagaraj, G., Ponnambalam, S., & Jawahar, N. (2016). Reliability-based total cost of ownership approach for supplier selection using cuckoo-inspired hybrid algorithm. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 84(5-8), 801-816.
King, R. J. (2007). A decision-making framework for total ownership cost management of complex systems: A Delphi study: University of Phoenix.
Mohammady Garfamy, R. (2006). A data envelopment analysis approach based on total cost of ownership for supplier selection. Journal of enterprise information management, 19(6), 662-678.
Purdy, L., & Safayeni, F. (2000). Strategies for supplier evaluation: a framework for potential advantages and limitations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(4), 435-443.
Ramanathan, R. (2007). Supplier selection problem: integrating DEA with the approaches of total cost of ownership and AHP. Supply Chain Management: an international journal, 12(4), 258-261.
Ruiz-Torres, A. J., & Mahmoodi, F. (2007). The optimal number of suppliers considering the costs of individual supplier failures. Omega, 35(1), 104-115.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation: McGraw-Hill International Book Company.
Sze, S. M. (2008). Semiconductor devices: physics and technology: John Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, B. W., Bector, C., Bhatt, S., & Rosenbloom, E. S. (2004). Introduction to management science: Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ulvila, J. W., & Brown, R. V. (1982). Decision analysis comes of age. Harvard Business Review, 60(5), 130-141.
Visani, F., Barbieri, P., Di Lascio, F. M. L., Raffoni, A., & Vigo, D. (2016). Supplier’s total cost of ownership evaluation: a data envelopment analysis approach. Omega, 61, 141-154.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), 2-18.
Weber, C. A., & Desai, A. (1996). Determination of paths to vendor market efficiency using parallel coordinates representation: a negotiation tool for buyers. European Journal of Operational Research, 90(1), 142-155.
Yoon, K., & Hwang, C. (1981). TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution)–a multiple attribute decision making, w: Multiple attribute decision making–methods and applications, a state-of-the-at survey. In: Berlin: Springer Verlag.

二、中文部分
李天定、陳芃婷. (民102). 由資訊部門之角度探究晶圓代工廠之競爭優勢. 科技管理學刊, 18(1), 27-49.
林世凱、柯富祥. (民99). 研究電漿蝕刻技術製作奈米級光阻線. 交通大學工學院半導體材料與製程設備學程博士論文.
張錦特、周毖劬. (民91). 在風險環境下考量供應商異質性的供應商選擇模型. 資訊管理學報, 15(4), 27-50.
張志煌. (民97). 結合 DEA 及 FAHP 之兩階段供應商評選研究. 成功大學工業與資訊管理學系碩士論文, 1-82.
莊達人. (民91). VLSI 製造技術: 高立出版.
黃國平、陳弘法 & 王明坤. (2012). 策略聯盟兩岸晶圓代工競爭優勢之關鍵因素. 管理與系統, 19(1), 139-167.
菊地正典. (2016). 半導體工廠:設備、材料、製程及提升產業復興的處方簽 (龔恬永) . 新北市: 世茂. (原著出版於2012)

三、參考網站
台灣半導體協會(Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association, TSIA) http://www.tsia.org.tw/
國際半導體設備與材料產業協會 (Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, SEMI) http://www.semi.org/en/