臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究目的在於瞭解國內企業採行平衡計分卡之情形，並探討集權化、正式化、專精化、資源寬鬆、管理者對創新的態度及管理強度等組織因素，與平衡計分卡實施階段之關係。
本研究採問卷方式蒐集研究所需之資料，以1,130家上市上櫃公司為研究對象，獲得145家公司之有效問卷。本研究結果如下。
國內平衡計分卡實施情形，並未考慮發展平衡計分卡者，佔59.3%；正在考慮發展平衡計分卡者，佔13.8%；曾考慮發展平衡計分卡，經討論後放棄者，佔7.6%；目前正在發展或實施平衡計分卡者，佔19.3%。亦即，樣本公司中，大多數並未發展或實施平衡計分卡(佔80.7%)，實際發展與實施平衡計分卡者僅為少數(佔19.3%)。
OLS迴歸分析結果，不論將平衡計分卡實施階段劃分為25個、8個、5個階段，僅管理者對創新的態度此項變數，與平衡計分卡實施階段呈顯著正相關。
Ordered Logit迴歸分析結果，將平衡計分卡實施階段劃分為25個、5個階段時，僅管理者對創新的態度此項變數，與平衡計分卡實施階段呈顯著正相關，劃分為8個階段時，專精化與管理者對創新的態度兩項變數，與平衡計分卡實施階段呈顯著正相關。
若將應變數改為是否採用平衡計分卡進行binary logit迴歸分析，結果顯示，集權化與正式化兩變數與平衡計分卡之採用呈顯著負相關，管理者對創新的態度與平衡計分卡之採用呈顯著正相關。

This thesis aims to understand the implementation status of the balanced scorecard in Taiwan, and investigate the association between organizational factors and the implementation stages of the balanced scorecard. The organizational factors include centralization, formalization, specialization, slack resources, managerial attitude toward innovation and administrative intensity.
The financial managers of 1,130 listed companies are solicited to respond to the questionnaire. The results based on 145 useful responses are as follows.
As to the implementation status of the balanced scorecard in Taiwan, 59.3% of the respondents have not considered balanced scorecard, 13.8% of the respondents is considering the balanced scorecard, 7.6% of the respondents have considered but later rejected the balanced scorecard, and 19.3% have adopted the balanced scorecard.
In the OLS regression model, whenever implementation stages of the balanced scorecard are divided into 25, 8 or 5 stages, only managerial attitude toward innovation is positively related to the implementation stages of the balanced scorecard.
In the ordered logit model, when implementation stages of the balanced scorecard are divided into 25 or 5 stages, only managerial attitude toward innovation is positively related to the implementation stages of balanced scorecard; when implementation stages of the balanced scorecard are divided into 8 stages, specialization and managerial attitude toward innovation are positively related to the implementation stages of the balanced scorecard.
In the binary logit regression model, where the dependent variable is dichotomized into “adoption” and “no adoption”, centralization and formalization are negatively related to the adoption of the balanced scorecard, and managerial attitude toward innovation is positively related to the adoption of the balanced scorecard.

目錄
謝辭 I
中文摘要 II
英文摘要 IV
目錄 VI
表目錄 VIII
圖目錄 X
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 論文結構 3
第二章 文獻探討與研究假說 5
第一節 組織創新 5
第二節 特定資訊系統之組織創新 28
第三節 平衡計分卡與研究假說 36
第三章 研究方法 59
第一節 變數定義與衡量 59
第二節 研究對象與資料蒐集 65
第三節 資料分析方法 67
第四章 研究結果 68
第一節 敘述性統計 68
第二節 假說檢定 72
第三節 討論 84
第五章 結論與建議 89
第一節 結論 89
第二節 研究限制 90
第三節 建議 91
參考文獻 93
中文部分 93
英文部分 93
附錄：研究問卷 99

參考文獻
一、中文部分
1.吳明隆，SPSS統計應用實務，松崗出版，民國八十九年。
2.張瑞當、張允文，策略、組織結構與環境對管理會計資訊系統的特徵與績效之影響，管理評論，第二十卷第四期，民國九十年十月。
3.黃俊英，多變量分析，華泰書局，民國八十七年。
4.蔡啟通，組織因素、組織成員整體創造性與組織創新之關係，國立臺灣大學商學研究所博士論文，民國八十六年六月。

二、英文部分
1.Aiken, M. and J. Hage. 1971 The organic organization and innovation. Sociology 5：63-82
2.Aiken, M., S. B. Bacharach and J. L. French. 1980. Organizational structure, work process, and proposal making in administrative bureaucracies. Academy of Management Journal 23：631-652
3.Anonymous. 2001. Balanced scorecard is fast becoming a must have process for corporate change. Management Services 45 (8)：5-6
4.Atkinson, A. A., R. Balakrishnan, P. Booth, J. M. Cote, T. Groot, T. Malmi, H. Roberts, E. Uliana and A. Wu. 1997. New directions in management accounting research. Journal of Management Accounting Research 9：70-108
5.Baldridge, J. V. and R. Burnham. 1975. Organizational innovation: Industrial, organizational and environmental impact. Administrative Science Quarterly 20：165-176
6.Banker, R. D., H. Chang and M. J. Pizzini. 2004. The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy. The Accounting Review 79 (1)：1-23
7.Banker, R. D., G. Potter and D. Srinivasan. 2000. An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes nonfinancial performance measures. The Accounting Review 75 (1)：65-92
8.Berliner, C. and J. A. Brimson, eds. 1988. Cost Management for Today’s Advanced Manufacturing: The CAM-I Conceptual Design. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
9.Bjornenak, T. and O. Olson. 1999. Unbundling management accounting innovations. Management Accounting Research 10：325-338
10.Burns, T. and G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.
11.Cooper, R. B. and R. W. Zmud. 1990. Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science 36 (2)：123-139
12.Daft, R. L. 1989. Organization Theory and Design. St. Paul: West.
13.Daft, R. L. 1982. Bureaucratic versus nonbureaucratic structure and the process of innovation and change. Research in the sociology of organizations 1：129-166
14.Daft, R. L. 1978. A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal 21：193-210
15.Daft, R. L. and S. W. Becker. 1978. The innovation organization. New York: Elsevier.
16.Dalton, G. W., L. B. Barns and A. Zaleznik. 1968. The distribution of authority in formal organizations. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
17.Damanpour, F. and S. Gopalakrishnan. 1998. Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: The role of environment change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 15：1-24
18.Damanpour, F. 1996. Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science 42 (5)：693-715
19.Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal 34 (3)：555-590
20.Damanpour, F. 1987. The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors. Journal of Management 13 (4)：675-688
21.Damanpour, F. and Evan, W. M. 1984. Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of organizational lag. Administrativen Science Quarterly 29：392-409
22.Dewar, R. D. and J. E. Dutton. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science 32：1422-1433
23.Dixon, J. R., A. J. Nanni and T. E. Vollman. 1990. The New Performance Challenge: Measuring Manufacturing for World Class Competition. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
24.Downs, G. W. and L. B. Mohr. 1976. Conceptual issues in the study of innovations. Administrative Science Quarterly 21：700-714
25.Duncan, R. B. 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization: Strategy and implementation 1：167-188
26.Ettlie, J. E. 1980. Adequacy of stage models for decisions on adoption of innovation. Psychological Reports 46：991-995
27.Ettlie, J. E. 1983. Organizational policy and innovation among suppliers to the food processing sector. Academy of Management Journal 26：27-44
28.Ettlie, J. E., W. P. Beidges and R. D. O’Keefe. 1984. Organization strategy and structure differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science 30：682-695
29.Evan, W. M. 1966. Organizational lag. Human Organizations 25：51-53
30.Frambach, R. T. and N. Schillewaert. 2002. Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research 55：163-176
31.Frigo, M. L. and K. P. Krumwiede. 2000. The balanced scorecard. Strategic Finance (January)：50-54
32.Ghoshal, S. and N. Nohria. 1989. International differentiation with multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal 10：323-337
33.Gopalakrishnan, S. and F. Damanpour. 1997. A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. Omega 25 (1)：15-28
34.Gordon, L. and V. K. Narayanan. 1984. Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: An empirical investigation. Accounting, Organizations and Society 9 (1)：33-47
35.Gosselin, M. 1997. The effect of strategy and organizational structure on the adoption and implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, Organization and Society 22 (2)：105-122
36.Hage, J. 1980. Theories of Organizations. NewYork: Wiley.
37.Hage, J. and M. Aiken. 1967. Program change and organizational properties: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Sociology 72：503-519
38.Hage, J. and R. Dewar. 1973. Elite values versus organizational structure in predicting innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 18：279-290
39.Hull, F. and J. Hage. 1982. Organizing for innovation: Beyond Burns and Stalker’s organic type. Sociology 16：564-577
40.Johnson, H. T. and R. S. Kaplan. 1987. Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
41.Kald, M. and F. Nilsson. 2000. Performance measurement at Nordic companies. European Management Journal 18 (1)：113-127
42.Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 2001. Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part 1. Accounting Horizons 15：87-104
43.Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press.
44.Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 1996. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review (January/ February)：75-85
45.Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 1992. The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review (January/ February)：71-79
46.Kim, L. 1980. Organizational innovation and structure. Journal of Business Research 8：225-245
47.Kimberly, J. R. and M. J. Evanisko. 1981. Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal 24 (4)：689-713
48.Knight, K. E. 1967. A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation process. Journal of Business 40：478-496
49.Krumwiede, K. R. 1998. The implementation stages of activity-based costing and the impact of contextual and organizational factors. Journal of Management Accounting Research 10：239-277
50.Kwon, T. H. and R. W. Zmud. 1987. Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. Critical Issues in Information Systems Research. John Wiley, New York.
51.Lawson, R., W. Stratton and T. Hatch. 2003. Winning ways: Implementation strategies for balanced scorecard success. CMA Management (November)：22-24
52.Lawson, R., W. Stratton and T. Hatch. 2003. The benefits of a scorecard system. CMA Management (June/ July)：24-26
53.Lipe, M. G. and S. E. Salterio. 2000. The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. The Accounting Review 75 (3)：283-298
54.Lundblad, J. P. 2003. A review and certique of Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory as it applies to organizations. Organization Development Journal 21 (4)：50-64
55.Malina, M. A. and F. H. Selto. 2001. Communicating and controlling strategy: An empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Management Accounting Research 13：47-77
56.Meyer, A. D. and J. B. Goes. 1988. Organizational assimilation of innovation: A multilevel contextual analysis. Academy of Management Journal 31：897-923
57.Miller, D. and P. H. Friesen. 1984. Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial configurations. Organizations: A quantum view：155-175
58.Nicholson, N. 1990. Organizational innovation in context: Culture, interpretation and application. Innocation and creativity at work：179-204. New York: Wiley.
59.Niven, P. R. 2002. Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results. New York, N. Y.：Wiley.
60.Norreklit, H. 2000. The balanced scorecard- a critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research 11：65-88
61.Nord, W. R and S. Tucker. 1987. Implementing routine and radical innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
62.Olve, N., J. Roy and M. Wetter. 1999. Performance driver： A practical guide to using the balanced scorecard. Wiley.
63.Pierce, L. J. and A. L. Delbecq. 1977. Organizational structure, individual attitudes, and innovation. Academy of Management Review 2：26-37
64.Rappaport, A. 1999. New thinking on how to link executive pay to performance. Harvard Business Review (March/ April)：91-101
65.Rigby, D. 2001. Management tools and techniques: A survey. California Management Review 43 (2)：139-160
66.Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.
67.Rosner, M. M. 1968. Economic determinants of organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 12：614-625
68.Ross, P. F. 1974. Innovation adoption by organizations. Personnel Psychology 27：21-47
69.Silk, S. 1998. Automating the balanced scorecard. Management Accounting (May)：38-44
70.Speckbacher, G., J. Bischof and T. Pfeiffer. 2003. A descriptive analysis on the implementation of balanced scorecards in German-speaking countries. Management Accounting Research 14：361-387
71.Thompson, V. A. 1965. Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 10：1-20
72.Tornatzky, L. G. and M. Fleischer. 1990. The Pross of Technological Innovation. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
73.Tornatzky, L. G., J. D. Eveland, M. G. Boylan, W. A. Hetzner, E. C. Johnson, D. Roitman and J. Schneider. 1983. The process of technological Innovation: Reviewing the Literature. Productivity Improvement Research Section, Division of Industrial Science and Technological Innovation, National Science Foundation.
74.Tushman, M. L. 1977. Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly 22：587-605
75.Van de Ven, A. H., H. L. Angle and M. S. Poole. 1989. Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies. New York: Harper & Row.
76.Wolfe, R. A. 1994. Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research direction. Journal of Management Studies 31 (3)：405-430
77.Zaltman, G., R. Duncan and J. Holbek. 1973. Innovation and Organization. New York: Wiley.
78.Zelman, W. N., G. H. Pink and C. B. Matthias. 2003. Use of the balanced scorecard in health care. Journal of Health Care Finance 29 (4)：1-16
79.Zmud, R. W. 1982. Diffusion of modern software practices: Influence of centralization and formalization. Management Science 28：1421-1431