面對激烈的競爭市場，企業往往運用許多策略求勝，其中之一就是進入時點的選擇。過去學者大多鼓吹企業應該愈早進入市場愈好，以便享受所謂的「先佔優勢」；然而近幾年來陸續有研究發現，許多績效表現良好的企業，反而是較遲進入市場的企業，且績效表現比先進者還優異，與之前學者對後進企業的假設(ex.只能採取模仿、被動的方式)與研究發現明顯不同。
本研究以資源基礎理論出發，結合社會學中的社會資本理論，來看這些市場中成功的後進者是如何創造本身的競爭優勢、贏過先進入市場的企業，以期能為台灣的企業帶來一些思考。
個案研究的對象是台灣的TFT-LCD產業與量販產業，分別是台灣製造業與服務業的代表性產業，再從中各選取出先進者與後進者一名，加以分析探討何以該產業的後進者能夠「後發先至」？具備了哪些後進優勢？而先進者又有何先進劣勢？
經過與高階經理人的訪談以及次級資料的整理之後，本研究提出以下幾點重要發現︰
(一)企業本身的資源與社會資本會影響其進入市場的時點。
(二)不同產業的關鍵核心資源與社會資本的內容往往不同，後進企業因為在關鍵核心資源與社會資本的配置上略勝一籌，所以能夠擊敗先進入市場的企業。
(三)市場中的確存在學者所提出的先進劣勢與後進優勢，而不同的產業和企業所產生的先進劣勢與後進優勢也不同。
(四)「市場不確定性高」是每個先進者勢必會遇到的一項挑戰，重點是先進的企業能否藉由本身的資源與能耐來克服之。
(五)不但企業所擁有的資源會影響競爭優勢(或劣勢)的形成，某些競爭優勢(或劣勢)也會反過來影響企業資源的建構。

Facing a highly competitve environment, companies usually manipulate all kinds of strategies to succeed in their business. One of these manipulative strategies is the timing of entering the market. For the most past, studies on timing of entry have asserted that early entrants could help to build lasting competitive advantages, which is so called the “first-mover advantages.” However, in recent studies, studies have proved that some late movers could also perform quite well, or even better than those early movers in the market.
In this paper, we focus exclusively on those successful late movers and try to figure out how they win a victory over the first mover in the market. We also adopt both the RBV and social capital theory to interpret the process of building late-mover advantages and forming first-mover disadvantages. The paper utilizes the case of TFT-LCD industry and the wholesaling industry in Taiwan to illustrate the issues involved.
After interviewing some top managers and analyze related data, we get five discoveries:
(1)The resources and social capital of a company do affect its enrty timing.
(2)Different industries would have different kind of key resources and social capitals, and the reason for late-movers to beat first-movers and to win in the last is because late-movers could allot its own resources more effectively.
(3)Late-mover advantages and first-mover disadvantages are proved to exist in the market. Besides, the content of different industries and companies would be different, too.
(4)"High uncertainty of the market” is the challenge that first-movers are sure to encounter, but what counts is that whether the first-mover could conquer this problem by using its own resources successfully or not.
(5)The relationship of resources and (dis)advantages are not only one way direction. Companies’ resources would affect its own (dis)advantages, and on the other hand, (dis)advantages would also turn back to affect the forming of its own resources.

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機
第二節 研究目的
第三節 研究流程
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 首動者的優勢與劣勢
第二節 資源基礎理論
第三節 社會資本理論
第三章 研究方法與研究設計
第一節 概念性研究架構
第二節 研究方法
第三節 研究設計
第四節 研究限制
第四章 資料分析
第一節 台灣TFT-LCD產業
第二節 台灣量販產業
第五章 研究發現與結論
第一節 研究發現
第二節 研究結論
參考文獻

一、中文文獻
1.方至民，2000，企業競爭優勢，台北︰前程企管。
2.王建二，2004，「奇美跳級找客戶」，台灣的驚嘆號—台日韓TFT世紀之爭 插文。
3.侯君儀，2000，「量販店」，交銀產業調查與技術季刊，http://www.ctnbank.com.tw/ctb_4_4/6b.htm
4.袁偉昌，1999，液晶顯示器產業調查與技術。
5.陳泳丞，2004，台灣的驚嘆號—台日韓TFT世紀之爭，台北︰時報文化。
6.許庭禎，2004，「台灣原始創業精神的體現」，台灣的驚嘆號—台日韓TFT世紀之爭 推薦序。
7.黃素莉，2003，台灣TFT-LCD廠商對關鍵零組件之統治結構，中原大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
8.黃成忠，2004，台灣量販店經營及獲利模式之研究(以家樂福與大潤發為例)，義守大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
9.楊景行，2001，營建業知識移轉系統與組織學習關係之研究，中山大學管理學院碩士論文。
10.劉怡君，2004，影響組織掌握創業契機能力之研究—以社會資本理論來討論，中山大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
11.蔡林展，2003，台灣TFT-LCD產業面對產業外移趨勢下之經營策略分析-以C公司為例，中山大學管理學院碩士論文。
12.劉楚慧，2005，「人才爭奪戰一級戰區」，Career就業情報雜誌。
13.劉容生，2003，「世界共同的視窗」，科學人網站，http://sa.ylib.com/forum/forumshow.asp?FDocNo=92&CL=16
14.蔡東松，2005/04/27，「奇美實業獲twA評等」，中華信評新聞網站，http://www.taiwanratings.com/tw/A/TRC/2005/cnx_ChiMei04272005.asp
15.中華映管2004年年報，公司網站www.cpt.com.tw
16.奇美電子2004年年報，公司網站www.cmo.com.tw
17.友達公司網站www.auo.com.tw
18.ITIS產業資訊服務網，http://www.itis.org.tw/index.html
19.經濟部商業動態統計月報，2002年。
二、 英文文獻
1.Aaker, D. A., 1989. Managing assets and skills: The key to a sustainable competitive advantage, California Management Review, Winter.
2.Barney, J. B., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
3.Bourdieu, P. and G. B. Richardson (Eds.), 1986. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood, New York, 241-258.
4.Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a theory of practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.Bresnahan, T. F., 1985. Post-entry competition in the plain paper copier market. American Economic Review, 75: 15-19.
6.Burt, R. S., 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.Carolis, D. M., C. W. Choo, and N. Bontis (Eds.), 2002. The role of social capital and organizational knowledge in enhancing entrepreneurial opportunities in high-technology environments. The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, 699-710.
8.Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto, 1989. Consumer preference formation and pioneering advantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 26: 285-298.
9.Coleman, J. S., 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
10.Cooper, A. C. and D. Schendel, 1976. Strategic responses to technological threats. Business Horizons, 19: 61-69.
11.Eaton, B. C. and R. Lipsey, 1979. The theory of market pre-emption: the persistence of capacity and monopoly in growing spatial markets. Economica, 46: 149-158.
12.Eaton, B. C. and R. Lipsey, 1981. Capital, commitment and entry equilibrium. Bell Journal of Economics, 12: 593-604.
13.Foster, R. N., 1986. The attacker’s advantage. Summit Books, New York.
14.Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis, 1993. Pioneeer advantage: Marketing logic or marketing legend. Journal of Market Research, 30(2): 158-170.
15.Grant, R. M., 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation, California Management Review, 114-135.
16.Hansen, M., 1996. Using the wisdom of others: Searching for and transferring knowledge. Presentation at the London Business School.
17.Henderson, J. C., 1990. Plugging into strategic partnerships: The critical IS connection. Sloan Management Review, 31(3), 7-18.
18.Jacobson, G. and J. Hillkirk, 1986. An American Samurai, Macmillan, New York.
19.Kerin, Roger A., P. Rajan Varradarajan, and Robert A. Peterson, 1992. First-mover advantage: A synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 56(4), 33-52.
20.Lane, W. J., 1980. Product differentiation in a market with endogenous sequential entry. Bell Journal of Economics, 11: 237-260.
21.Lieberman, Marvin B. and David B. Montgomery, 1988. First mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 41-58.
22.Nahapiet, J. and S. Ghoshal, 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
23.Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel, 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 79-91.
24.Prescott, E. and M. Visscher, 1977. Sequential location among firms with foresight. Bell Journal of Economics, 8: 378-393.
25.Rao, R. and D. Rutenberg, 1979. Pre-empting an alert rival: strategic timing of the first plant by analysis of sophisticated rivalry. Bell Journal of Economics, 10: 412-428.
26.Robinson, William T. and Claes Fornell, 1985. Sources of market pioneer advantages in consumer goods industries. Journal of Marketing Research, 22: 305-317.
27.Pondy, L. R. and I. I. Mitroff, 1979. Beyond open systems models of organizations. Research in Organizaton Behavior (1), 3-39.
28.Schmalensee, R., 1978. Entry deterrence in the ready to eat breakfast cereal industry. Bell Journal of Economics, 9: 305-327.
29.Schmalensee, Richard, 1982. Product differentiation advantages of pioneering brands. American Economic Review, 72: 349-365.
30.Sullivan, M., 1991. Brand extension and order of entry. Marketing Science Institute, 91-105.
31.Teece, David J., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15: 285-305.
32.Urban, Glen L., Theresa Carter, Steven Gaskin, and Zofia Mucha, 1986. Market share rewards to pioneering brands: An empirical analysis and strategic implications. Management Science, 32: 645-659.
33.Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171-180.