Abstract
SAS (Service After Sales) Helix Circulation, founded on service after sales, is widely used to gain more profits and raise added value. By means of gathering more useful information that helps know their clients’ value chain well, companies are more likely to be able to propose a higher value-added initiative and provide it to their clients afterwards in the next circulation. Based on service after sales, SAS Helix Circulation is capable of producing a higher value-added initiative with deep insight into it. In many practical affairs, however, it was observed that many companies failed to sustain successful SAS Helix Circulation with their clients. This research studied the SAS (Service After Sales) Helix Circulation relationship of a foundry failure analysis department (case company A) with its two measurement system suppliers (case companies B and C). Using a benchmarking technique, the most important 18 service items provided by both companies B and C were listed and used to make a comparison in order to try to extract some key factors used to explain why a nanoprober supplier (case company B) can sustain SAS Helix Circulation relationship with the company A while a C-AFM supplier (case company C) cannot with an explanatory comment using both stakeholder identification theory (Mitchell, 1997) and customer relationship groups analysis (Reinartz and Kumar, 2002). This case study reveals that the origin that causes an unsuccessful SAS Helix Circulation relationship between companies A and C mainly comes from the difference of the main fields that both companies A and C have long been focused on, respectively. Company B, which has been focused on the semiconductor field just like the company A can sustain a better SAS Helix Circulation relationship than the company C did with the company A.