請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/42460完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陳鴻基(Houn-Gee Chen) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Hsien Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳育仙 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T01:14:09Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2009-07-29 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2009-07-29 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2009-07-29 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Ahmed, P. K., Lim, K. K., & Zairi, M. (1999). Measurement practice for knowledge management. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(8), 304-311.
American Productivity & Quality Center (1996). Knowledge Management: Consortium benchmarking study: Final report. Houston, Texas: American Productivity & Quality Center Arthur Andersen and The American Productivity and Quality Center (1996), The Knowledge Management Assessment Tool: External Benchmarking Version, Arthur Andersen/APQC, Chicago, 1L. Arthur Andersen Business Consulting (1999), Zukai Knowledge Management, TOKYO Keizai, Inc., Tokyo. Becker, W. M., Herman, M. F., Samuelson, P. A., & Webb, A. P. (2001). Lawyers get down to business. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 45-55. Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 41-60. Cnossen, C., & Smith, V. M. (1997). New Technology-Implication for legal research methodology. Paper presented at the 12th BILETA Conference: The future of legal education and practice. Earl, M. J. (1997). Knowledge as strategy: reflections on Skandia International and Shorko Films. In L. Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in organizations. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital : realizing your company's true value by finding its hidden brainpower. New York: Harper Collins. Edwards, D. L., & Mahling, D. E. (1997). Toward knowledge management systems in the legal domain. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work: the integration challenge. Ellis, B. (1966). Basic concepts of measurement: Cambridge Univer. Press. Evans, N. J. (1996). Performance management system as an enabler or inhibito to learning in organizations. University of Toronto. Gottschalk, P. (1999). Knowledge management in the professions: lessons learned from Norwegian law firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(3), 203-211. Gottschalk, P. (2002). A Stages of Growth Model for Knowledge Management Technology in Law Firms. Journal of Information, Law and Technology(2). Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge Flows within Multinational Corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496. Hair, J.F., Anderson R.L., & Tatham W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with reading. Pentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River. Ichijo, K., Krogh, G. v., & Nonaka, I. (1998). Knowledge enablers. Knowing in firms: understanding, managing, and measuring knowledge. London: Sage, 173-203. Jager, M. d. (1999). The KMAT: benchmarking knowledge management. Library Management, 20(7), 367-372. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action: Harvard Business Press. Knowledge Report (1995). Paper presented at the Knowledge Imperative Symposium, Houston, TX, September 1995, co-sponsored by Arthur Andersen and the American Productivity and Quality Center, Arthur Andersen, Chicago, IL Leavitt, H. J. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry: structural, technological and humanistic approaches Handbook of Organizations (J.G. March ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally. Malhotra, Y. (2003). Measuring knowledge assets of a nation: Knowledge system for development. New York: Ad Hoc Group of Experts Meeting. Marr, B., Schiuma, G., & Neely, A. (2004). Intellectual capital – defining key performance indicators for organizational knowledge assets. Business Process Management Journal, 10(5), 551-569. Morcon, C. R., Garcia, J. P., & Pizarro, J. A. S. (2002). Knowledge management in a law firm. Upgrade, 3(1), 51-55. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Plessis, T. d., & Toit, A. d. (2006). Knowledge management and legal practice. International Journal of Information Management, 26(5), 360-371. Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N. C., & Edvinsson, L. (1998). Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape: New York University Press. Rusanow, G. (2001). Culturing Lawyers in Knowledge Management. Knowledge Management Asia Pacific, 1, 1,5,7,9-11. Sherer, P. D. (1995). Leveraging Human Assets in Law Firms: Human Capital Structures and Organizational Capabilities. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 671-691. Skyrme, D. J. (1999). Knowledge networking: creating the collaborative enterprise: Butterworth-Heinemann. Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: managing & measuring knowledge-based assets: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Turney, P. B. B. (1992). Activity based management Management Accounting. Weise, G. (1975). Psychologische Leistungstrests. Hogrefe Gottingen, Germany. Yeh, Y.-J., Lai, S.-Q., & Ho, C.-T. (2006). Knowledge management enablers: a case study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(6), 793-810. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/42460 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 知識管理在過去十年以來一直是相當盛行的概念。然而，很少人會將注意力放在律師事務所的知識管理上，過去研究裡也未能有一個足以反映律師事務所環境的知識管理績效衡量工具。因此，本研究提出一個專為台灣律師事務所環境設計之知識管理績效衡量模型；為了證明其有效性，我們採取了問卷調查方法以了解律師事務所人員對於我們的衡量模型裡的各該指標之重要性感受，同時，我們也試圖找尋出知識管理各個面向與資訊工具採用之間的邏輯。本研究共收集了115份問卷樣本，來源包括中小型、大型律師事務所、專利法律事務所等各階層的法律從業人員。
本研究結果說明了我們提出的衡量模型有效地適用在律師事務所，實證結果更顯示出律師事務所人員認為知識管理流程是知識管理中最重要的面向。此外，知識管理中的各個面向與知識管理工具採用之間有正相關，我們也為日後律師事務所在資訊工具的採用上進行建議。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Knowledge Management has been prevalent concept for the past decade. However, little attention is paid to Knowledge management practices in law firms, nor is knowledge management performance appraisal tool designed in reflection of legal context. Thus, in this research, we propose our KM performance assessment model after reviewing KM in legal context herein Taiwan and several KM performance measurement models. To further prove the effectiveness, we conduct a questionnaire survey to find out the perception of legal professionals towards the practice indexes given our assessment model. Moreover, we try to plot the clue behind the dimensions of KM with the KM tools adoption of the firms. This study collected 115 samples, including different level of legal professionals from both small-to-medium-sized and big-sized law firms.
The result of this study shows that our assessment model is effective to apply to law firms. Empirical study also shows that legal professionals view process as the most important dimension. In addition, there is positive correlation between the dimensions of KM and the adoption of KM-specific tools. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T01:14:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-R96741026-1.pdf: 654626 bytes, checksum: d0763eed37f510d9a26b22a216178592 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 i
摘要 ii Abstract iii Index iv List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1-1 Research Motivation and Objectives 1 1-2 Organization of This Study 3 Chapter 2 Literature Review 5 2-1 The Analysis of Law Firms 5 2-1-1 Tasks, structure, people and technology of a law firm 5 2-1-2 Data, information and knowledge included in the practice of law 7 2-1-3 Knowledge management in law firms 12 2-2 Knowledge Management Enablers 15 2-3 Knowledge Management Performance Measurement Models 17 2-3-1 Performance measurement 17 2-3-2 Knowledge management measurement models 18 2-4 Knowledge Management Tools 27 Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology 33 3-1 Research Framework 33 3-2 Construct measurement 40 3-3 Sampling Plan and Data Collection 40 3-4 Questionnaire Design 42 3-5 Statistic Method 43 3-5-1 Descriptive Statistics Analysis 44 3-5-2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 44 3-5-3 Reliability Test 44 3-5-4 Correlation Test 45 Chapter 4 Analysis and Results 46 4-1 Structure of Sample 46 4-2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Reliability/Validity Test 48 4-2-1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis & Reliability Test 48 4-2-2 Validity Test 51 4-2-3 Correlation Analysis 51 4-3 Descriptive Statistics Analysis 52 4-3-1 Comparison between dimensions 53 4-3-2 Comparison by practice indexes within the dimension 54 4-3 Correlation Analysis between KM dimensions and KM Tools adoption 65 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Suggestions 72 5-1 Discussion and Implications 72 5-1-1 The effectiveness of KMAT model 72 5-1-2 Positive correlation between KM dimensions and the adoption of KM-specific tools 73 5-2 Limitations and Suggestions for future study 75 Reference 77 Appendix-Questionnaire 80 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 律師事務所 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 知識管理工具 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 知識管理衡量 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 知識管理 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | KM tools | en |
| dc.subject | law firms | en |
| dc.subject | KM performance measurement | en |
| dc.subject | Knowledge Management | en |
| dc.title | 律師事務所知識管理績效衡量模型與資訊工具採用關聯之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Study on Knowledge Management Performance Appraisal Model and the Correlation with Adoption of Information Tools | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 97-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 蕭正平,許瑋元 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 知識管理,律師事務所,知識管理衡量,知識管理工具, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Knowledge Management,law firms,KM performance measurement,KM tools, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 84 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2009-07-29 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 商學研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-98-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 639.28 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。