請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9371
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林世銘 | |
dc.contributor.author | Li-Chin Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳禮琴 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T20:19:35Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-06-23 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T20:19:35Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2009-06-23 | |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2009-06-08 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. 大前研一著,黃宏義譯,策略家的智慧,台北:長河出版社,民國86年。
2. 王世志,以平衡計分卡觀點作航運業經營策略與經營績效之關連性研究,國立海洋大學航運管理研究所碩士論文,民國91年。 3. 司徒達賢,台灣企業之環境分析,企銀季刊,第3卷,第1期,民國68年。 4. 司徒達賢,策略管理,台北:遠流出版事業股份有限公司,民國84年。 5. 司徒達賢,策略管理新論–觀念架構與分析方法,智勝文化事業有限公司,民國90年。 6. 朱文洋,中小型醫院經營策略與營運績效之探討-以平衡計分卡觀點分析,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文,民國90年。 7. 杜善芳,執行力到底是什麼?,http://www.hr.com.cn/articles/new_eyes/new_detail.php?id=14362,民國93年。 8. 沈振芳,台灣地區國際航空客運業策略群組與營運績效關係之研究,國立海洋大學航運管理研究所碩士論文,民國88年。 9. 吳安妮,績效評估之新方向,主計月報社,第530期,民國91年。 10. 吳思華,企業策略的權變理論,政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民國68年。 11. 吳思華,迎接由競爭邁向合作的時代,世界經理文摘,第83期,7月,民國82年。 12. 吳思華,策略九說:策略思考的本質,麥田出版社,民國85年。 13. 洪明洲,抓緊商機,哈佛商業評論中文版,第45期,6月,民國94年。 14. 侯明賢,台灣中小企業組織執行力衡量指標之建構,國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系碩士論文,民國93年。 15. 唐納.薩爾(Donald N.Sull)著,李田樹、李芳齡譯,成功不墜-最適者再生,(revival of the fittest),天下雜誌,民國92年。 16. 唐富藏,企業政策與策略,大行出版社,民國77年。 17. 徐善可,企業策略與企業績效關係之研究,政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民國68年。 18. 陳世穎,領導、策略、執行力及 Jim Collins 之刺蝟原則對企業經營績效之影響-以 A 科技公司為例,元智大學管理研究所碩士論文,民國92年。 19. 陳美玲,環境、競爭策略、平衡計分卡與經營績效關連性之探討-以我國資訊科技業為例,淡江大學會計學系研究所碩士論文,民國90年。 20. 陳依蘋,平衡計分卡與執行力,會計研究月刊,第 211 期,民國92年。 21. 陳哲堯,台灣地區電子商務業者策略群組與策略聯盟夥伴選擇之研究,淡江大學國際貿易學系研究所碩士論文,民國90年。 22. 許士軍,管理學,東華書局,民國70年。 23. 許正昇,我國製藥產業經營策略之研究,國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民國89年。 24. 湯明哲,填補管理最大的黑洞,台北市:天下文化,民國92年。 25. 張立,如何提高企業執行力,人民郵電報社,民國92年。 26. 張茂坤,策略群組與環境認知群組關係之研究-以臺灣汽車業為例,國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文,民國83年。 27. 張英慧,事業策略、績效評估及其成效之探討-以平衡計分卡觀點分析,淡江大學會計學系研究所碩士論文,民國88年。 28. 榮泰生,策略管理。台北:華泰文化事業公司,民國90年。 29. 劉聰賢,策略執行力衡量模式之建構與驗證—考量企業環境變動管理能力與顧客關係管理策略績效之驗證模式,南台科技大學行銷與流通管理研究所碩士論文,民國93年。 30. 謝安田,企業經營策略,台北:成龍圖書,民國69年。 31. 謝丞顯,不同策略群組下教育訓練與組織績效之關聯性研究,靜宜大學企業管理學系碩士論文,民國90年。 32. 謝淑慧,健診中心之經營策略與經營績效之探討─以平衡計分卡觀點分析,雲林科技大學工業工程與管理研究所碩士論文,民國90年。 33. 賴利.包熙迪、瑞姆.夏藍(Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan)著,李明譯,執行力,(Execution),台北:天下遠見出版股份有限公司,民國92年。 34. 羅伯.柯普朗、大衛.諾頓(Kaplan Robert S. and Norton David P.)著,朱道凱譯,平衡計分卡,(The Balanced Scorecard),台北:臉譜文化出版,民國89年。 35. 魏明得,我國資訊電子業策略群組與財務績效關聯性之研究,國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民國88年。 36. 黎文明,水平結構組織與企業組織學習傾向、創新能力及經營績效之關聯性研究,國立成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班碩士論文,民國91年。 37. Aaker, D. A., Strategic Market Management, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1984. 38. Aaker, D. A., Managing assets and skills: The key to a sustainable competitive advantage, California Management Review, 31(2), 1989. 39. Ansoff, I. H., Corporate strategy, New York: McGraw-Hill Press, 1965. 40. Ansoff, I. H., The new corporate strategy, 3rd ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1988. 41. Badri, M. A., and Davis D., Operations strategy,environment uncertainty and performance: A path analytic model of industries in developing countries, The International Journal of Management Science, 28(1),2000. 42. Barney, J., Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17, 1991. 43. Bigler, W. R., The New science of Strategy Execution: How Incomes Become Fast, Sleek Wealth Creators, Strategy and Leadership, 29(3), 2001. 44. Pat, Robertson, Bring it on, Thomas Nelson Inc, 2003. 45. Cannon, J. T., Business strategy and policy, New York: Harcourt Brace of World, 1968. 46. Carrol, S. J. and Schneier, C. E., Performance Appraisal and Development of Performance in Organizations, Glenview Illinois: Scott Foresman, 1982. 47. Certo, S. C., Peter, J. P., Strategic management: Concepts and applications, Random House, Business Division (New York), 1st ed., 1988. 48. Certo, S. C., Peter, J. P. Selected Cases in Strategic Management, Richard D. Irwin Publication, 1995. 49. Chandler, A. D. Jr., Strategy and structure, Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press, 2000. 50. Chenhsl, J. C. and Langfield, S., Companies: A Comparative Longitudinal Analysis, International Journal of Technology Management, 15, 1998. 51. Choi, F. D. S. and Mueller, What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Application, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol., 78, 1992. 52. Chow, W. C. and Haddad, M., Applying the Balanced Scorecard to Small Companies, Management Accounting, August, 1997. 53. Collis, D. J. and Montgomery, C. A., Competing on esources:strategy in the 1990’s, Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 1995. 54. Covin, J. G. and Slevin, D. P., A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 1991. 55. Crosby, L. A. and Johnson, S. L., Friend or Foe to Customer Relationships?, Marketing Science, 28, 2001. 56. Croteau, A. M. and Bergeron, F., An information technology trilogy: business strategy, technological deployment and organizational performance, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol.10, Iss. 2, 2001. 57. Das, S. S. and Van de Ven, A. H., Computing with New Product Technologies: A Process Model of Strategy, Management Sci., Vol. 46, No.10, 2000. 58. Dess, G. and Davis, P., Generic Strategies as Determinant of Strategic Group Membership and Organizational Performance, The Academy of Management Journal,vol.27,1984. 59. Dess, G. C. and Robinson, R. B. Jr., Measuring Organizational Performance in the Absence of Objective Measures , Strategic Management Journal, Vol.5(3), 1984. 60. Drucker, P. F., The Theory of the Business, Harvard Business Review, Sep. 1, 1994. 61. Dyer, L. and Reeves T., Human Resource Strategies and Film Performance: What Do We Know and Where Do We Need To Go? , The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.8 (3), 1995. 62. Eccles, R. B. and Pyburn, P. J., Creating A Comprehensive System To Measure Performance, Management Accounting , Vol. 74, No.4, 1992. 63. Frigo, M. L., Strategy or execution, Strategic Finance, 84(9), 2003. 64. Fuchs, P. H., Mifflin, K. E., Miller, D. and Whitney, J. O., Strategic Integration: Comparing in The Age of Capabilities, California Management Review, 42(3), 2000. 65. Galbraith, C. and Schendel, D., An Empirical Analysis of Strategy Types, Strategic Management Journal, 1983. 66. Glueck, W. F., Business Policy, Strategy Formulation and Management Action, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976. 67. Hammer, M. and Champy, J., Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harpercollins, 2004. 68. Harper, S. C. and Porter, T. W., Execution Minefield, Industrial Management, 45(5), 2003. 69. Hart, B. H., Strategy, New York: Praeger, 1967. 70. Hatten, K. J., Schendel, D. E. and Cooper, A. C., A Strategic Model of the U. S. Brewing Industry: 1952-1971, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.21(4), 1987. 71. Hax, A. C. and Majluf, N. S., The Strategy Concept and Process: A Pragmatic Approach, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prestice Hall, 1991. 72. Hill, Charles W. L. and Jones, Gareth R., Strategic Management Theory, 4th ed., Houghton Mirrlin College, 1998. 73. Hill, Charles W. L. and Jones, Gareth R., Strategy Management, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 74. Hofer, C. and Schendel, D, Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts Minnesota, 1978. 75. Howell, R. A. and Soucy, S. R., The New Manufacturing Environment: Major Trend for Management Accounting, Management Accounting, Jul., 1978. 76. Jauch, L. and Glueck, W. F., Strategy Management and Business Policy, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989. 77. Jones, C. O., An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, California: Wadsworth Inc., 1984. 78. Kast, F. E., Organization and Management, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 4th ed., 1985. 79. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review, January/February, 1992. 80. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996. 81. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 2001. 82. Kotler, P., Marketing Management, Analysis, Planning and Controls, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976. 83. Lasher, William, Strategic thinking for smaller businesses and divisions, Blackwell, Malden, Mass., 1999. 84. Lorange, P., Corporate Planning: An Executive Viewpoint, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1980. 85. McNichols, T. J., Executive Policy and Planning, 1st edition, Mcgraw-Hill, New York, 1977. 86. Miler, S. M., The Strategic Management to Technological Rand - An Ideal Process for the 1990’s, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol.5(2), 1990. 87. Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C., Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. 88. Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C., Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984. 89. Mintzberg, Henry, Patterns of Strategy Formation, Management Science, 24, 1978. 90. Newman, W. H., Logan, J. P., and Harvey, H,, Strategy, Policy and Central Management, 9th,ed., 1985. 91. Mintzberg, H., McHugh, A., Strategy formation in an adhocracy, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995. 92. Niven, Paul R., Balanced Scorecard Step by Step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results, 1st ed., John Wiley and Sons, March 15, 2002. 93. Porter, M. E., Competitive Strategies, New York: Free Press, 1980. 94. Porter, M. E., Competitive strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New York: The Free Press, 1980. 95. Porter, M. E., Competitive advantages: Creating and sustaining superior performance, New York: The Free Press, 1985. 96. Pressman, J. L. and Wildavsky, A. B., Implementation, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. 97. Quinn, R. E. and Rohrbaugh, J., A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards A Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis, Management Science, Vol. 29(3), 1983. 98. Richard, F., Vancil, Peter Lorange, Strategic Planning in Diversified Companies, Harvard Business Review, 1975. 99. Robbins, S. P., Organization Theory: Structure, Design and Application, Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice-Hall Inc. 3rd ed., 1990. 100. Sull, Donald N., Managing by Commitment, Harvard Business Review, June 2003. 101. Szilagyi, A. D. Jr., Management and Performance, California: Guodyear Publishing Company Inc., 1981. 102. Van de Ven, Andrew H. and Diane, L. Ferry, Measuring and Assessing Organizations, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980. 103. Venkartraman, N. and Ramnmujam, V., Measurement of Business Performance on Strategy Research: A Comparison of Approaches, Academy of Management Review, Vol., 11, No.4, 1986. 104. Vickery, Shawneek, A Theory of Performance Competence Revisited, Decision Science, Vol.3, 1991. 105. Von Neumann, John and Oskar, Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton Univ. Press Princeton NJ., 1944. 106. Ward, S. and Webster, F. E., Organization Buying Behavior in Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1991. 107. Wayland, Robert E. and Paul, M. Cole, Customer Connections: New Strategies for Growth, Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 1997. 108. Woo, and Willard, Performance Representation in Business Policy Research: Discuss and Recommendation, Paper presented at the 23rd Annual National Meetings of the Academy of Management, 1983. 109. Zagotta, R. and Robbinson, D., Keys to Successful Strategy Execution, Journal of Business Strategy, 23(1), 2002. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9371 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 現今企業處於競爭激烈的多變環境中,企業經營更具挑戰性,經營者必須針對所面臨的內外在環境加以評估分析,繼而勾勒出一套可行之策略,並貫徹實施,而策略執行的成果,則表現在經營績效上;因此,將經營策略化為具體行動的執行能力,以及衡量策略成果的經營績效衡量,對於企業的經營良窳及存續發展,具有重大意義。
由於此等均為組織管理所應探討及瞭解的重要課題,因此,本論文乃以個案公司為實證研究對象,探討經營策略、執行力及經營績效相互間之關係,期透過本研究能提供個案公司管理階層瞭解目前公司內經營策略、執行力及經營績效相互間之影響程度及關聯性,以做為組織管理之參考。 本研究問卷包括四種量表,分別為「經營策略量表」、「執行力量表」、「經營績效量表」,以及「個人變項量表」,使用 SAS電腦統計軟體進行統計分析,所使用的資料分析方法包含敘述性統計分析、單因子變異數分析、雪費分析、Pearson 相關分析,及多元迴歸分析。本研究主要結論如下: 一、整體而言,本研究個案公司中高階主管對公司所採行之經營策略認同程度頗高(各構面平均數介於 3.35至 4.13間);除執行能力之整合能力,與經營績效之學習成長構面外,中高階主管對公司執行能力(各構面平均數介於 2.74 至 4.41 間)及經營績效(各構面平均數介於2.62 至4.25間)表現,認同程度亦均頗高。 二、執行力與經營績效相關性最顯著(r=+0.72),其次為經營策略與執行力(r=+0.59),再其次為經營策略與經營績效(r=+0.52)。經營策略之技術服務創新構面與執行力之整合能力構面,相關性最高(r=+0.823);經營策略之市場開發,與執行力之組織結構與文化,相關性最低(r=+0.325)。執行力之作業能力構面與經營績效之內部流程構面,相關性最高(r=+0.942);執行力之作業能力與經營績效之學習成長,相關性最低(r=+0.451)。經營策略之市場開發構面與經營績效之財務構面,相關性最高(r=+0.829);經營策略之行銷通路優勢與經營績效之學習成長,相關性最低(r=+0.258)。 三、經營策略各構面可解釋執行力之策略發展構面的變異能力最高(45.3%),其次依序為整合能力(41.2%)、作業能力(35.5%)、資源管理能力(33.8%)、組織結構與文化(31.7%)。執行力各構面可解釋經營績效之內部流程構面的變異能力最高(49.4%),其次依序為財務(45.7%)、顧客(41.2%)、學習成長(37.3%)。經營策略各構面可解釋經營績效之財務構面的變異能力最高(45.8%),其次依序為內部流程(42.2%)、顧客(35.6%)、學習成長(31.3%)。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Enterprises are in an ever-changing competitive environment and corresponding operations are more challenging than ever. Business operators must face the internal and external environments that are to be assessed in the analysis; then outlined with a set of feasible strategies and the outcome of the implemented strategies are reflected in the business performance. Therefore, transferring business strategies into concrete actions as well as measurements on the business performance are significant to the operation of today’s enterprises.
As these are the important subjects to be explored and understood in relation to organizational managements, this study is based on the empirical case study which is to explore the business strategy, execution and mutual relevance between business performance; related view through this study can provide cases to the organizational management to understand the current business strategy, execution and related business performance and impacts on the inter-level and relevance within the organization and management as a reference. Questionnaires of this study include four parts, namely the 'Operation Strategy Questionnaire' ,'Execution Measuring Questionnaire' , ' Business Performance Questionnaire ', and ' Demographic Information Questionnaire” while using the Statistical Analysis System for statistical analysis. The methods used for data analysis include Descriptive Statistical Analysis, One-way ANOVA, Scheffe’s Multiple Comparison Technique, Pearson’s Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation, and Multiple Regression Analysis. This study has found the following main results as follows: Firstly, on the whole, the case study indicate that enterprise executives adopt a high degree of identity on the company's business strategy (the measure of the average dimensions of between 3.35 to 4.13); in addition to the integration ability dimension of execution, learning and growth dimension of business performance, the executives demonstrate a high level of recognition on the company’s execution (the measure of the average dimensions of between 2.74 to 4.41) and business performance (the measure of the average dimensions of between 2.62 to 4.25). Secondly, the execution and business performance illustrate the most significant correlation (r = +0.72), followed by the business strategy and execution (r = +0.59), and lasted by the business strategy and business performance (r = +0.52); technical service and innovation dimension of business strategy, and integration ability of execution have the highest correlation (r =+ 0.823); market development dimension of business strategy, and organizational structure and culture dimension of execution have the lowest correlation (r = +0.325); operational capability dimension of execution, and internal business processes dimension of business performance also exemplify the highest correlation (r = +0.942); the operational capability dimension of execution, and, learning and growth dimension of business performance show the lowest correlation (r = +0.451); market development dimension of business strategy, and financial dimension of the business performance point up the highest correlation (r = +0.829); trade marketing advantage dimension of business strategy, and, the learning and growth dimension of business performance indicate the lowest correlation (r = +0.258). Finally, the various dimensions of business strategy can explain why the strategy development dimension of execution has the highest on the variability (45.3%), followed by integration ability (41.2%), operating ability (35.5%), resource management ability (33.8%), organizational structure and culture (31.7%). The various dimensions of Execution can further explain why the internal business processes dimension has the highest variability in business performance (49.4%), followed by financial (45.7%), customer (41.2%), learning and growth (37.3%). The various dimensions of business strategy can also explain the reasons on the financial dimension of business performance with the highest variability (45.8%), followed by internal business processes (42.2%), customer (35.6%), learning and growth (31.3%) in accordance. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T20:19:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-P96744011-1.pdf: 2901239 bytes, checksum: 0de5f8b56ad608b2934214091818299c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 i
誌謝 ii 中文摘要 iii 英文摘要 v 目錄 viii 圖目錄 x 表目錄 xi 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 2 第三節 研究範圍與限制 2 第四節 研究流程 3 第二章 文獻探討 4 第一節 經營策略意涵與定義 4 第二節 經營策略構面與類型 9 第三節 經營策略層級與管理流程 15 第四節 執行力意涵與定義 18 第五節 執行力流程與模式 22 第六節 經營績效意涵與定義 27 第七節 平衡計分卡 31 第八節 經營策略、執行力與經營績效關係 40 第三章 研究方法 42 第一節 研究架構 42 第二節 名詞操作性定義 42 第三節 衡量工具度量與效度信度分析 44 第四節 研究假設 52 第五節 研究樣本 53 第六節 資料分析方法 56 第四章 實證分析結果 59 第一節 研究構面敘述性統計分析 59 第二節 個人變項與研究構面單因子變異數分析 67 第三節 研究構面相關分析 78 第四節 研究構面多元迴歸分析 87 第五節 實證結論 93 第五章 結論與建議 103 第一節 研究結論 103 第二節 管理意涵 105 第三節 研究建議 106 參考文獻 109 附 錄 116 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 組織經營策略、執行力及經營績效之關係研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A Study on the Relationship among Organizational Business Strategy, Execution and Business Performance | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 97-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳國泰,黃美祝 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 經營策略,執行力,經營績效,平衡計分卡, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | business strategy,execution,business performance,balanced scorecard, | en |
dc.relation.page | 121 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2009-06-08 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 會計與管理決策組 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 會計與管理決策組 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-98-1.pdf | 2.83 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。