韓台自動車産業のモジュール化の特性について : 日米欧の先発企業との比較観点から

Modularization in design, production and supplier system is currently prevalent in many European and Japanese big assemblers. But modularization in the auto industry has been developed differently from region to region, and from company to company. Korean and Taiwanese companies are 'latecomers' in modularization with their unique environments and different capabilities from the advanced automakers in Japan and Europe. This paper analyzes the dynamic development forms of the modularization in the Taiwanese and Korean auto industry-latecomers' auto industry-and singles out the characteristics and development path of modularization unique to those latecomers' auto industry by case studying the major automakers in Taiwan and Korea (Kia motors and China motor co.), and comparing their modularization with that of Japanese and European major automakers. Based on our case study, the following facts and implications are revealed: First, both Korea and Taiwan promote modularization by making the most of their unique environments. Nonetheless, there are distinctive differences in the development forms of modularization between Korea and Taiwan resulted from differences in various conditions and restrictions imposed by corporations. Second, in case of Korea, the modularization is promoted internally within the established corporate groups. That results in the highly integrated sub-assembly through outsourcing. In other words, the modularization in Korea is defined as a closed modularization structured primarily by the super suppliers of the corporate groups. Third, the modularization in Taiwan is being promoted by following the international standard, which is defined as less integrated sub-assembly type of modularization in house. That is, the modularization in Taiwan is an open modularization that emphasizes the relationships among overseas makers, Taiwanese final assembler, and suppliers. Finally, based on the aforementioned analyses, it is clear that there are two types of development forms of modularization among the latecomers. As the previous studies suggest, modularization is not necessarily developed in an open system. But modularization can be developed and promoted in different forms depending on corporate strategy and national factors. That is, there are possibilities for various forms of modularization shaped by different characteristics of regions, industries, and corporations.