本研究有兩個主要研究目的，第一，在不同的績效目標（適應性、財務、行銷）下，不同的事業策略與製造優勢構面 (品質、交期、成本、彈性) 應如何互相配適；第二，在不同的績效目標下，不同的事業策略與製造部門在企業決策項目 (如引進新技術、發展新技術等) 的參與程度應如何互相配適。
為了達到上述之目的，筆者首先探討並整合不同的理論觀點而發展一個更具完整性之事業策略類型分類方式，並將事業策略區分為：先制策略、差異化─跟隨策略及成本化─跟隨策略；此外，筆者並架構出製造優勢、製造部門在企業決策項目的參與程度與事業策略配適關係之研究假設；最後，經由113家台灣高科技產業 (資訊、消費性電子、半導體及通訊產業) 廠商之實證資料收集，來驗證研究假設。
本研究經實證結果後，而有如下之主要結論：
１.採不同事業策略之廠商，應視績效目標之不同，而配適不同之製造優勢構面。
２.先制策略廠商應配適製造部門具產量彈性之優勢，但差異化─跟隨策略或成本化─跟隨策略廠商則不宜配適或強化產量彈性之優勢。
３.先制策略或差異化─跟隨策略廠商應配適製造部門具製造獨特性品質產品之優勢，而成本化─跟隨策略廠商則應配適製造部門具製造低不良率產品之優勢。
４.採不同事業策略之廠商，應視績效目標之不同，而配適其製造部門積極參與特定之企業決策項目。
５.先制策略廠商其製造部門應積極參與是否自外界引進新技術、是否內部自行開發新技術、是否開發新產品等決策，以提昇適應性績效。
６.差異化－跟隨策略廠商，其製造部門應積極參與是否開發新產品決策（或新產品零組件開發決策），以提昇適應性（或財務）績效。
７.成本化－跟隨策略廠商，其製造部門應積極參與新產品零組件開發決策，以提昇財務、行銷績效。
本研究結論在管理上之涵意有四：
１.廠商應該在設定之不同績效目標下，視所採事業策略之不同而強化不同的製造優勢構面。
２.企業決策者在擬定事業策略時，宜將製造部門目前之優勢構面納入考量，以謀取兩者間之較佳配適組合，而提昇競爭力。
３.廠商應該在設定的績效目標下，視所採事業策略之不同，而選擇性的積極參與特定的企業決策項目，才能獲致優勢
４.企業決策者在制定事業策略時，應將製造部門目前在各項企業決策項目之參與程度納入考量，以求取兩者間之較佳配適組合，以提昇競爭優勢。

This study has two main purposes. The first one is,under the different performance objectives(namely adaptablity, finance and marketing performance), how to make various business strategies fit the manufacturing advantage dimensions consisting of quality, delivery, cost as well as flexibility. The second one is, under the different performance objectives, how to make various business strategies fit the degree of manufacturing people participating in the business decision concerns sush as purchasing new technology, developing new technology, etc.
To reach above purposes, the author first reviews and integrates various theoretical perspectives to develop a more comprehensive hybrid typology of business strategies. Besides, several specific propositions concerning the fit relationship between manufacturing advantage dimensions, the degree of manufacturing people participating in the business decision concerns and business strategies are constructed. Finally the propositions are empirically examined based on the data collected from 113 high technology manufacturing firms in Taiwan (four industries: personal computer/peripheral device producers, consumer electronic producers, integrated circuit producer and communication device producers).
The conclusions of this research are presented as the following:
1. The research findings strongly suggest the need to fit between business strategies and manufacturing advantages, but how to fit each other depends upon what kind of performance dimensions the firm sets.
2. Preemptive firms should fit the manufacturing advantage of volume flexibility, but differentiated-follower or low cost-follower firms aren''t suited to fit or reinforce the volume flexibility having a negative effect upon business performance.
3. Preemptive or differentiated-follower firms should fit the manufacturing advantages of feature quality; low cost-follower firms should fit the manufacturing advantages of reliability quality.
4. The research findings also strongly suggest the need to fit between business strategies and the degree of manufacturing people participating in the business decision concerns, but how to fit each other depends upon what kind of performance dimensions the firm sets.
5. Preemptive firms'' manufacturing people should actively participate in the decisions of acquiring new technology, developing new technology and developing new products to increase the adaptability performance dimension.
6. Differentiated-follower firms'' manufacturing people should actively participate in the decisions of designing the parts of new products to increase the finance and marketing performance dimensions.