這個個案的故事背景發生於2006年，經營IP Camera網路監控攝影機的尚亞科技董事會通過與明泰科技合併案，總經理Eric必須執行董事會通過的合併案，但是執行副總Robert很清楚以軟體研發主管Angus為首的研發團隊必定會選擇離開，不會接受此案。面對此次合併案，經營團隊成員多次開會討論並多方評估另一方案–損失營業額比重30%的母公司訂單，從此與集團漸行漸遠及往後獨自面臨風險的情勢。此時IP Camera產業才剛開始，處處充滿機會，經營團隊對IP Camera市場的經營有極高的期望，所作的選擇將至為關鍵，影響尚亞未來發展。
本個案之討論將藉由此一併購案的評估及思考，開展一系列的企業經營議題探討，從外部競爭環境及內部資源基礎的不同角度觀點切入來看競爭優勢，企業之所以進行併購是經由併購活動組合不同型態的資源，集合雙方相似資源，重新組合內部及外部資源的獨特能力，以創造更高價值，成為未來競爭優勢的來源，以此來源加入無形資產與營運機能結合才能提升為智慧資本，創造更明顯的持久性競爭優勢。在併購中，當然「人」是最重要的資產、核心主角，競爭優勢、資源基礎及智慧資本都是人所創造出來的，併購要能發揮綜效，不但要引導組織承諾的延伸，也要了解非正式組織的影響，避免反抗力量的集結，功虧一簣，企業該如何進行此併購策略的思考及擬定，自是重要之課題，本個案之研究希望能藉由實際個案之發展經驗與理論之結合印證，提供企業進行併購之參考。
本個案相關理論為競爭優勢、資源基礎理論、智慧資本、組織承諾、非正式組織。

This case is regarding the merger into Alpha Network has accepted by the board of director at Cellvision Systems, an IP Camera solution providers in 2006. The general manger Eric has to perform his duties, but the executive VP Robert is quite clear about the software RD director Angus and his team members will certainly choose to leave to against the merger. The members of management team held several meetings to discuss and evaluate another proposal – 30% loss of sales revenue from the parent company, prepare to break up with parent company and then confront the risk alone. The IP Camera market has just begun, full of opportunities. The management team has very high expectations of IP Camera market, how they choose will deeply affect the future of Cellvision Systems.
This case study will discuss a merger, starting with evaluating the fundamental elements of internal resources and external competitive environment, from two different points of view to examine the competitive advantage. The reasons of merger are to collect the similar resources and the recombination of unique abilities from the internal and external resources through mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activities in order to create higher value and become the future source of competitive advantage. For sustained competitive advantage, this source must combine the intangible assets and operations of corporation into intellectual capital. Furthermore, staff (human beings) is the most important assets, the competitive advantage, the resources-based and intellectual capital are created by them. To avoid the resistance and increase the M&A synergy, it is not only to extend the organizational commitment, but also to understand the impact of the informal organization. It becomes the major tasks to plan the appropriate M&A strategies and give priority to the corporation. This case study strives to combine the theory and practical experiences in hopes of providing a solid reference for M&A within a corporation. Related theories include Competitive Advantage, Resources-Based Theory, Intellectual Capital, Organizational Commitment and Informal Organization.

一、 英文部分
1. Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1991), “A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations,” Human Resource Management Review, Vol.1, No.1, pp.61-98.
2. Barnard, C. I. (1968), The Functions of Executive, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Bassi, L. J. and Van Buren, M. E. (1999), “Valuing Investment in Intellectual Capital,” International Journal of Technology Management, Vol.18, No.5/6/7/8, pp.414-432.
4. Becker, H. S. (1960), “Notes on the Concept of Commitment,” The American Journal of Sociology, Vol.66, No.1. July, pp.32-40.
5. Bontis, N. (1996), “There’s a Price on Your Head: Managing Intellectual Capital Strategically,” Ivey Business Quarterly, Vol.60, No.4, Summer, pp.40-47.
6. Brooking, A. (1996), Intellectual Capital, London: International Thomason Business Press.
7. Dzinkowski, R. (2000), “The Measurement and Management of Intellectual Capital: An Introduction,” Management Accounting, Vol.78, No.2, Feb, pp.32-36.
8. Edvinsson, L. (1997), “Developing Intellectual Capital at Skandia,” Long Range Planning, Vol.30, No.3, pp.366-373.
9. Grant, R.M. (1991), “The Resource-Base Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implivations for Strategy Formulation,” California Management Review, Vol.33, p.118
10. Kaplan, Rober S. and David P. Norton (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, p.139.
11. Porter, M.E.(1985). Competitive Advantage, New York.
 
12. Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, N. (1974), “Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.59, No.5, pp.603-609.
13. Masoulas, V. (1998), “Organizational Requirements Definition for Intellectual Capital Management,” International Journal of Technology Management, Vol.16, No.1/2/3, pp.126-143.
14. Roos, G. and Roos, J. (1997), “Measuring Your Company’s Intellectual Performance,” Long Range Planning, Vol.30, No.3, pp.413-426.
15. Stevens, J.M., Beyer, J.M., & Trice, H.M. (1978), “Assessing Personal, Role, and Organizational Predictors of Managerial Commitment,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol.21, No.3, pp.380-396.
16. Stewart, T. A.(1991), “Brainpower,” Fortune, June, pp.44-60.
17. Stewart, T. A.(1994), “Your Company’s Most Valuable Asset: Intellectual Capital,” Fortune, Oct, pp.68-74.
18. Ulrich, D. (1998), “Intellectual Capital = Competence * Commitment,” Sloan Management Review, Vol.39, No.2, Winter, pp.15-26.
19. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). “A Resources-based View of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.5, pp.171-180.

二、 中文部分
1. 杜敏綺 (2002)，企業文化對智慧資本蓄積之關係性研究，成功大學工業管理研究所碩士論文
2. 林佳暖 (2005)，師徒關係與組織承諾，中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文
3. 周延鵬 (2006)，《虎與狐的智慧力》，頁50，台北：天下文化
4. 馬昌宜 (2010)，企業購併之工作內容改變與角色衝突對員工的組織支持知覺與工作態度和績效的影響，中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
5. 陳美純 (2001)，資訊科技投資與智慧資本對企業績效影響之研究，中央大學資訊管理學系博士論文 
6. 詹文男 (2002)，資訊科技產業智慧資本衡量之研究，中央大學資訊管理學系博士論文
7. 蔡惠雯 (2010)，組織配適、組織重組與策略更新，東海大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
8. 謝俊傑 (2012)，服務事業轉型決策，台灣科技大學管理研究所碩士論文