企業的永續經營始終是每位企業主所追求的，然而，隨著內外在環境的變遷，企業於每一個階段都會面對不同的經營問題、不同的抉擇。誠如陳永隆(2003)提到2002年為「即時經濟」(Now Economy)時代的來到，新時代的來臨帶給企業不同的經營方向：隨時監控、立即反應環境變遷、根據新資訊發展領先的產品與服務。而在「即時經濟」時代，成功致勝的關鍵為：協同合作、虛擬工作團隊、動態企業管理、資源整合應用、多元價值。本研究個案公司所處年代、轉型的過程、達到最終成功的經營模式，整個過程中的每一個步伐似乎依循著如上的軌跡。
個案公司世平、品佳屬於IC通路商。2000年起，面臨新興市場中國大陸的經營問題，以及本身獲利成長的問題，共同尋求新的契機－企業轉型。公司高階主管憑藉多年經營通路的經驗、對於產業特性的了解、以及明確的企業轉型後的效益，透過證券公司專業團隊的輔佐，於2005年11月共同成立大聯大控股集團。
控股集團成立後，左手則運用橫向跨公司的組織設計進行資源整合，子公司共享資源，高階主管跨公司互相切磋管理精隨；右手則維持子公司團隊獨立競爭，市場前端業務保有靈活度與競爭力。控股集團則負責監查與控制子公司日常的營運。有效的資源共享提供子公司更佳的經營體制，使得前端競爭的業務團隊擁有優勢爭取訂單，高階主管間無私的經驗分享，讓子公司齊頭並進的學習成長，對於外界環境的變化有著更加敏銳的觸角，以做即時反應，易於做出合乎時宜的策略。
大聯大控股集團的成功關鍵，不僅僅在於控股體制中的資金運用彈性，更在於它的組織設計與管理意境。集團內『整合與競爭』兩相衝突的管理機制，子公司間合作又競爭的競合關係，產生了整個集團的群體協同創新，開創了通路業一個『新商業平台』，張開雙臂迎接更多志同道合公司加入，團結力量大，持續『新商業平台』的優勢。
本論文包含個案本文與個案討論兩部分。透過本論文，讓讀者學習企業透過轉型、資源整合、跨界管理、左右開弓等管理概念，可以解決經營上的困境，甚而創造新的商業模式，改變整個業界的經營生態。

Sustainable operation is what every corporate owner looks for. However, with external and internal environment changes, corporate might have to face different business issues and make different decisions at different stages. Just like what Dr. Yeong-Long Chen (陳永隆) mentioned in his presentation“中小企業的新難題與新契機”(2003), year 2002 is the beginning of “Now Economy”era, which has brought the industry new directions of operation: Real-time monitoring, immediate reaction to environment changes, developing leading products and services by new information. And in the era of “Now Economy”, the key to success will be: collaboration, virtual work team, dynamic business management, resources integration/application and multi-value. The timeline, process of reform, successful business model achieved of the company in this case seem quite a fit to that path.
WPI and SAC mentioned in this case are both IC Distributors. Since year 2000, they both faced the business difficulty because of the emerging market in China as well as problem on slow profit growth. Both of them were looking for a new chance – corporate reform. With top managements’ past experiences on channel operation, understanding of the industry and clear performance target of the reform, they formed the WPG Holdings in November 2005 through the help of a professional team from a security firm.
When the holdings group was found, on the left-hand side, resources integration was done through mechanism of inter-company organization, with which subsidiary companies can share the resources and the top managements can share the experiences. While on the right-hand side, as independent entities, subsidiary companies compete with each other maintaining the flexibility and competence on the sales at the market front. The holdings group is responsible for auditing and control of subsidiary’s daily operations. Effective resources’ sharing provides a better management for subsidiary companies bringing advantage for sales team to obtain orders. Through experience sharing between top managements, subsidiary companies have a chance to learn and grow to be more sensible to the change of outside world so as to come up with appropriate and immediate strategy.
The key successful factor of WPG Holdings is not only on its flexibility of capital utilization within holding companies, but also on the design and operation of its organization. The seeming conflict “Co-competition” management model within the corporate and between subsidiary companies have been encouraging group innovation within the corporate and has created a new model of commercial platform for such distribution business by inviting more and more partners with the similar philosophy to join for synergy.
This thesis is divided into two sections, case context and case study, with which readers can learn how a corporate resolves its difficulty in management and further creates a new business model platform to change the eco-system of the industry through enterprise grouping, resource integration, boundary-spanning management and ambidexterity organization skills

一、 中文部分
1. IBM商業價值研究院(文章來源：經理人月刊40期)，跨界協同創新,讓1+1>2。
2. 工業技術研究院(2008)，跨界整合人才、企業更上一層樓，頁10-11。http://college.itri.org.tw/document/ClassList/2008.pdf
3. 中時電子報(2004)，從夾縫中長出的美麗花朵－台灣IC通路業，看衰IC通路股的10個理由V.S. 5個IC通路大不同。http://www.digitimes.com.tw/tw/dt/n/shwnws.asp?CnlID=1&Cat=130&Cat1=&id=0E2E40A56098412948256E77004AFAB5&query=%A7%A8%C1%5F#ixzz1uZP7FA7P
4. 王泰允(1991)，企業併購實用，台北市，遠流出版事業股份有限公司。
5. 司徒達賢(2001)，策略管理新論－觀念架構與分析方法，台北，智勝文化，初版。
6. 胡聖生(2002)，我國半導體零件通路商產業之競爭策略分析¬¬－以世平興業股份有限公司為例，國立中山大學企業管理學系碩士論文，頁114-115。
7. 畢德士、華特曼著(Thomas J. Peters & Robert H. Waterman)(1983)，追求卓越－美國傑出企業成功的祕訣，台北，天下編譯，，經濟與生活出版，頁13-19。
8. 郭錦榮(2010)，商業生態策略與資訊分享之適配研究，國立台北大學企業管理系博士論文－平台與平台領導，頁77。
9. 陳永隆(2003)，中小企業的新難題與新契機¬－10倍速時代的成功關鍵，陳永隆顧問研究室，頁 5。
10. 趙基楠(2005)，從日本NTT DoCoMo 公司探討雙面式組織之運作，政治大學企業管理研究所，碩士論文。
11. 劉長星(2007)，創新管理之策略矩陣分析－針對流程與構面研析，國防大學管理學院，資源管理及決策研究所，碩士論文，頁31。http://dalab.ie.nthu.edu.tw/dalab_old/Symposium/da07/das07_43.pdf
12. 閻永誠(2004)，電子暨光電零組件商，交通銀行產業調查與技術第一四八期。
13. 魏俊卿與李國樑教授研究室，組織環境。http://w3.cyu.edu.tw/ccwei/
二、 英文部分
1. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999), “Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System,” Organization Science, 10(1), p 43.
2. Birkinshaw, J. & Gibson, C. (Summer 2004), “Building Ambidexterity Into An Organization,” MIT Sloan Management Review p 50.
3. Brouthers, K. D., Hastenburg, P.V.& Joran, V.D.（1998）, ”If most mergersfail why are they so popular?” Long Range Planning, vol.31,iss.3, p347-353.
4. Canals, Jordi (2001), “How to Think about Corporate Growth?” European Management Journal, Vol.19, No.6,pp. 587-598.
5. Chandler, A.D.(1975), “Business Policy & Strategy-Concept & Reading,” p.374.
6. Cusumano, M. and Gawer, A. (2002), “The Elements of Platform Leadership,” MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol,43(3),pp.51-58.
7. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004),”The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity,” Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), p209.
8. Haspeslagh, Philippe C. and David B. Jemison (1991), “Managing Acquisitions: Creating Value Through Corporate Renewal,” New York: The Free Press, pp.271-291.
9. He, Z. L. and P. K. Wong (2004), “Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis,” Organization Science, 15(4): pp.481-494.
10. Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004), “The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation and Sustainability,” Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
11. Kitching, J. (1967), “Why Do Mergers Miscarry?” Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, pp.84-85.
12. Kitching, John, (1967). “Why do mergers miscarry?” Harvard Business Review, 45: 6, pp.84-101.
13. Kodama, M. (2001), ”Customer Value Creation Business through Learning Process with Customers: Case Studies Of Venture Businesses In Japan.” Management Service Quality Vol. 11 No. 3 p 166.
14. Marks, M. L. & Mirvis, P. H. (2000), “Management mergers, acquisitions, and alliances: creating an effective transition structure,” Organizational Dynamics, vol.28, iss.3, pp.35-47.
15. Moore, J. (1993), “Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71(3), pp.75-86.
16. Moore, J. (2006), “Business Ecosystems and the View from the Firm,” The Antitrust Bulletin, Vol.51(1),pp.31-75.
17. Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A., III. (1996),”Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change, “ California Management Review, 38(4), p8.
18. Tushman, M.L. & O’ Reilly III, C.A. (April 2004), ”The Ambidextrous Organization.” Harvard Business Review p 76.
19. Vernadat, F. B. (2002), ”Enterprise modeling and integration (EMI): Current status and research perspectives.” Annual Reviews in Control, 26(1), 15-25.
20. Waterman, R. H., T. J. Peters, and J. R. Phillips (1980), “Structure Is Not Organization,” Business Horizon, Vol. 23, 3, pp. 14-26.
21. Williamson, O. (1975), “Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications,” Free Press, New York.