臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

對於企業而言，績效衡量與知識管理，前者是目標，後者則是方法，兩者最終目的皆是提昇企業的整體績效。然而，無論是學術界或實務界，一般論述及做法多數僅單獨探討績效衡量或知識管理的課題，甚至將知識管理視為目的，而非提昇績效之工具，導致所收集之知識缺乏聚焦，亦即企業缺乏一個整合性的理論架構及可行系統，以解決績效管理的效率問題。
本研究整合有關績效衡量與知識管理的理論及企業實務，提出一套結合績效衡量與知識管理的績效管理系統架構，在論文中將企業所需的知識範圍限制在企業的實證知識，並提出與績效指標相關性作為過濾企業實證知識的基礎，如此可以確保所獲得的知識對於企業的可用性與效益性。這個系統以績效衡量指標作為知識分佈圖的主要索引，過去成功經驗知識的作者則是知識分佈圖的次要索引，如此可確保知識對於企業的可用性與效益性。
本研究提出的整合性績效管理系統及其導入步驟，可以有效地應用於一般企業中。透過一個台灣半導體廠的個案研究，驗證了此整合性績效管理系統一方面可讓高階主管的目標落實到基層員工的績效目標及工作計劃中，另一方面亦可作為促進組織內上下層級間及功能組織間溝通與學習的管理工具。

To an enterprise, performance measurement is the objective while knowledge management is the method and purpose of both is to enhance overall performance of the enterprise. Both academic circles and enterprise circles investigated performance measurement and knowledge management alone, even regarded knowledge as the objective rather than the enabler to improve performance, and subsequently most of the knowledge gathered lacked boundary and focus. I.e., the generic enterprises lack an integrated theoretical framework and a feasible system to help them solve problems of performance management efficiently.
This study integrates both performance measurement and knowledge management to develop a performance management framework and a practical system. The framework links performance measurement and knowledge management. Although the framework may limit the scope of knowledge to enterprise empirical knowledge, however it also provide a mechanism to filter knowledge which is irrelevant to an enterprise’s performance by the performance indicators, and thereby it can ensure both usefulness and cost-effectiveness of the created knowledge for the enterprise.
The proposed integrated performance management system and procedure to introduce it into an enterprise could be effectively applied to generic enterprises. A case study of a semi-conductor company in Taiwan also has proved that the integrated performance management system could assure the conveyance of performance objectives and work plans from high-level managers to low-level labors and can also facilitate both vertical and horizontal communication and learning in an enterprise.

第一章. 緒論............................................1
1.1. 研究背景與動機.................................1
1.2. 研究範圍與目的.................................1
1.3. 論文架構.......................................2
第二章. 文獻探討........................................4
2.1. 策略規劃與績效衡量.............................4
2.2. PDSA 循環.....................................13
2.3. 知識管理......................................14
2.4. 系統工程程序與資料倉儲........................19
2.5. 歸納與績效衡量及知識管理相關探討主題..........22
2.6. 本章小結......................................24
第三章. 整合性績效管理架構及發展程序...................26
3.1. 整合性績效管理系統之架構......................26
3.2. 整合性績效管理系統導入步驟及其電腦環境之發展..37
3.3. 本章小結......................................45
第四章. 個案分析與應用.................................46
4.1. 個案背景說明與分析............................46
4.2. 導入整合性績效管理系統於個案..................51
4.3. 本章小結......................................67
第五章. 研究結論與未來研究方向.........................68
5.1. 研究結論......................................68
5.2. 未來研究方向..................................68
參考文獻...............................................70
附錄...................................................74
附錄1. 文獻探討主題歸納整理........................74
附錄2. 績效管理系統功能設計問卷....................83
附錄3. 企業實證知識文件-實例.......................85

中文部分
1. TQM 研究小組譯, 長田洋等著, 策略方針管理, 先鋒企業管理展中心, 民國 87 年 3 月。
2. 司徒達賢, 策略管理, 遠流出版社, 台北 , 民國 84年。
3. 朱道凱譯, Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. 著, 平衡計分卡, 臉譜文化, 民國88 年 6 月。
4. 林有志譯, Atkinson 等著, 管理會計, 華泰書局, 台北, 民國 86 年 4月。
5. 徐聖忠, 責任中心制度設立之研究, 台灣大學會計學系碩士論文, 民國 87 年 6月。
6. 陳宏博、徐景亮, 利潤中心制度, 中華企業管理發展中心, 台北, 民國 80 年 7月。
7. 黃德順、陳國泰、季延平, 管理會計學, 國立空中大學, 台北, 民國 87 年 6月。
8. 勤業管理顧問公司譯, Hronce, Steven M. 作,非常訊號-如何做好企業績效評估, 台北, 聯經出版, 民國 87 年 6 月。
9. 戴久永譯, Deming 著, 戴明的新經濟觀, 天下文化, 台北, 民國 86 年 4月。
10. 嚴紀中、陳鴻基, 管理資訊系統, 台北, 松崗電腦圖書資料股份有限公司, 民國 88 年 5 月。
英文部分
1. Allee, V. (1997), The knowledge evolution, Butterworth-Heinemann.
2. Blanchard, B. S. and Fabrychy, W. J. (1998), System Engineering and Analysis, Prentice-Hall.
3. Camp, R. C. (1989), Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance, Quality Press.
4. Cross, R. and Baird, L. (2000), Technology is Not Enough: Improving Performance by Building Organizational Memory, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41, No.3, Spring 2000, pp. 69-78.
5. Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998), Working knowledge-how organizations manage what they know, Harvard Business School Press.
6. Drucker, P. F. (1954), The Practice of Management, New York: Harper & Brothers publishers.
7. Drucker, P. F. (1998), The coming of the new organization, Harvard Business Review, January-February.
8. Eccles, R. G. & Nohria, N. (1992), Beyond The Hype-Rediscovering the essence of Management, Harvard Business School Press.
9. Edvinsson, L. (1996), Developing a Model for managing Intellectual Capital, European Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 356-364.
10. Ford, D. N., Voyer, J. J. and Wilkinson, J. M. G. (2000), Building Organizations in Engineering Cultures: Case Study, Journal of Management in Engineering, July/August 2000, pp.72-83.
11. Garvin, D. A. (1993), Building a learning organization, Harvard Business Review, July-August.
12. Goldratt, D. M. (1990), Theory of Constraints, Cronton-on-the-Hudson, NY: North River Press.
13. Gray, P. & Watson, H. J. (1998), Decision Support in the Data Warehouse, Prentice Hall.
14. Hofer, C.W. and Schendel, D.(1978), Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts, St. Paul: West Publishing.
15. IBM (1988), System Engineering Principles and Practice Training Course, Bethesda, MD:Author.
16. Inmon, W.H. and Hackathorn, R.D.(1994), Using the Data Warehouse, John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
17. Kerr, R. (1991), Knowledge-based Manufacturing Management, Addison-Wesley.
18. Lockamy, A. and Cox, J. F. (1994), Reengineering Performance Measurement, Richard D. IRWIN, INC.
19. Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K. and Senoo, D. (1996), from Information Processing to Knowledge Creation: A Paradigm Shift in Business Management, Technology In Society, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 203-218.
20. Quinn , J. B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996), Managing Professional Intellectual Capital: Making the Most of the Best, Harvard Business Review, March-April.
21. Rulke, D. L. and Galaskiewicz, J. (2000), Distribution of Knowledge, Group Network Structure, and Group Performance, Management Science, Vol. 46, No.5, May 2000, pp. 612-625.
22. Saaty, T. L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGrow-Hill.
23. Senge, P. M. (1990), The fifth discipline —The art and practice of the learning organization, Doubleday.
24. Sharma, A., Levy, M. and Kumar, A. (2000), Knowledge Structures and Retail Sales Performance: An Empirical Examination, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, No.1, 2000, pp. 53-69.
25. Sprow, E. E. (1994), Benchmarking Manufacturing Process: Your practical guide for becoming best in class, Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
26. Weihrich, H. (1982), The TOWS Matrix: A Tool for Situational Analysis, Long Range Planning, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1982, pp. 54-66.