隨人工智慧需求爆發性成長，伺服器產業近年正經歷需求規模、產品規格與供應鏈佈局的深刻轉型，品牌廠於此環境變動下須同時面對地緣政治壓力、關鍵零組件供應緊縮與需求劇烈波動等多重風險。L6 製程階段作為品牌廠與 ODM 合作關係中的關鍵決策節點，其策略性採購決策所涉及之風險治理實踐，成為理解品牌廠供應鏈韌性運作邏輯之重要切角。
本研究以國際伺服器品牌廠 A 公司於 L6 製程階段為個案，透過對決策鏈上四位資深實務工作者的深度訪談，並結合企業年報、產業分析報告等次級資料，整合資源依賴理論、交易成本理論、關係觀點及供應鏈風險管理與韌性理論等框架進行分析。
研究發現可歸納為以下四項:其一，於 L6 階段單一供應來源結構下，品牌廠將供應穩定性風險排序置於成本風險之上，惟此排序將依組織財務負擔容忍度進行動態調整;其二，品牌廠透過治理、緩衝與供應分散三類機制協同運作進行風險治理，並於單一機制受結構性限制時以其餘機制相互補強;其三，不同風險類型透過品牌廠與 ODM 間依賴、衝突與共創等關係性質，差異化地形塑合作模式與決策權分配;其四，風險管理機制對採購策略靈活性兼具促進與限制的雙面效果，其中治理機制受制於跨組織界線而使效果驗證困難，緩衝機制則於內部引入財務性負擔。
本研究於理論層面整合多重理論視角建構層次性分析框架，並補充當代環境脈絡下的伺服器供應鏈治理研究;於實務層面則為面對相似風險之品牌廠提供風險治理機制配置與動態調整的參照架構。

AI demand is growing rapidly, transforming the server industry in demand scale, product specifications, and supply chain configuration. Brand companies now face geopolitical pressures, critical component shortages, and demand volatility. The L6 process stage, a key decision point in the brand-ODM relationship, offers an important perspective on supply chain resilience through the risk management practices used in strategic procurement decisions.
This study examines the L6 process stage of Company A, an international server brand, through in-depth interviews with four senior practitioners along the decision- making chain and secondary data such as annual reports and industry analyses. It integrates Resource Dependence Theory, Transaction Cost Theory, the Relational View, and Supply Chain Risk Management and Resilience Theory.
Four findings emerge. First, under the L6 stage's single-source structure, brand companies prioritize supply stability risk over cost risk, though this priority shifts with the organization's financial tolerance. Second, risk management operates through the coordinated use of governance, buffering, and supply diversification mechanisms, which support one another when any faces structural limits. Third, different risk types shape cooperation modes and decision-making authority differently, through relationships of dependence, conflict, and co-creation between brand companies and ODMs. Fourth, risk management mechanisms both enable and constrain procurement flexibility: governance mechanisms are limited by cross-organizational boundaries, making verification difficult, while buffering mechanisms create internal financial burdens.
Theoretically, this study integrates multiple perspectives into a layered analytical framework and adds to current server supply chain management research. Practically, it offers brand companies facing similar risks a reference framework for setting up and dynamically adjusting risk management mechanisms.

技嘉科技股份有限公司（2025）. Server | 伺服器. 技嘉科技股份有限公司. Retrieved 11/10 from https://www.gigabyte.com/tw/Glossary/server
陳彥丞（2019）. 從最賺部門調去虧損團隊！堅持一個心態，讓他做出 2000 億商機. 經理人月刊. https://www.managertoday.com.tw/articles/view/57550
陳儀錚（2012）. 台灣伺服器代工產業價值鏈的破壞與重組（碩士論文）. 取自http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/56572
董建志、丑宛茹（2016）.白牌機架式儲存設備產品設計之探討 [A Case Study on Product Design of the White Box Rack-Mount Storage Device]. 實踐設計學報(10), 300-315.
蕭聖倫、邱欣蕙、陳加鑫（2025）. Special Report No 3: 2025年AI伺服器產銷趨勢分析. DIGITIMES , 5-8.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mz3_5Q9dyYMIzk5IZwj6fb6fab3Jymv9/view?usp=sharing
豐雲學堂（2025）. 液冷時代來臨!大摩全面調升散熱族群目標價 四大廠商迎AI伺服器黃金商機｜股市話題. 永豐金證券股份有限公司. https://www.sinotrade.com.tw/richclub/hotstock/液冷時代來臨-大摩全面調升散熱族群目標價-四大廠商迎AI伺服器黃金商機-股市話題-690978ce2a074211d5deac37
AMAX. (2024). Server Manufacturing Levels Defined. AMAX Engineering. https://www.amax.com/server-manufacturing-levels-defined/
Amsden, A., & Chu, W.-W. (2003). Beyond Late Development: Taiwan's Upgrading Policies, 19-76. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1577.001.0001
Anderson, M. G., & Katz, P. B. (1998). Strategic Sourcing. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574099810805708
Aqlan, F., & Lam, S. S. (2016). Supply chain optimization under risk and uncertainty: A case study for high-end server manufacturing. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 93, 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.12.025
Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the Resilient Supply Chain. International Journal of Logistics Management, 15, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090410700275
Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679. https://doi.org/10.2307/259056
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2005). Association between supply chain glitches and operating performance. Management science, 51(5), 695-711.
Hillman, A., Withers, M., & Collins, B. (2009). Resource Dependence Theory: A Review. Journal of Management, 35, 1404-1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309343469
Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing Must Become Supply Management. Harvard Business Review, 61, 112-114. https://hbr.org/1983/09/purchasing-must-become-supply-management
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row.
Sheffi, Y., & Rice, J. J. (2005). A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47, 44-46.
Sturgeon, T. J. (2002). Modular production networks: a new American model of industrial organization. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 451-496. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/11.3.451
Wieland, A., & Durach, C. (2021). Two perspectives on supply chain resilience. Journal of Business Logistics, 42, 316-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12271
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. Free Press.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.