(100.26.179.251) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/14 08:07
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:陳均竹
研究生(外文):Chun Chu
論文名稱:研發部門績效衡量因子之研究
論文名稱(外文):Research on Performance Measurement for the R&D Department
指導教授:吳淑鈴吳淑鈴引用關係溫金豐溫金豐引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shu-Ling WuJin Feng Uen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中山大學
系所名稱:人力資源管理研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:其他商業及管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:96
語文別:英文
論文頁數:122
中文關鍵詞:層級分析法研發績效
外文關鍵詞:R&D performance measurementAnalytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:187
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
隨著產品生命週期縮短及日新月異的科技技術,整個產業及環境正快速變遷著,因而使得開發新產品及新技術的成敗日形重要,更對研發活動的貢獻能力倍感重視,因此衡量研發部門的績效益發顯得格外重要。本研究透過彙整研發績效的相關文獻建立層級式之研發績效架構,並根據以層級分析法(analytic hierarchy process, AHP)作為研究方法,透過系統性的方式建立研發部門績效衡量因子之權重比値,提供業界或組織設計研發績效制度參考。
依據AHP法建立專家問卷,針對研發部門績效進行問卷調查,並透過AHP研究方法的特殊計算得之各層級研發衡量因子之權重。研究顯示根據不同產業及研發功能的觀點去調查及計算,有四個相同的核心績效衡量因子,分別是「顧客滿意度」、「市場佔有率」、「技術研發成果」及「技術商品化能力」,然而在各個觀點下的權重及重要性排序上卻有所不同。本研究劃分產業類別為高科技產業及傳統產業,根據結果顯示有相同的前五位績效衡量因子,分別是「顧客滿意度」、「市場佔有率」、「技術研發成果」、「技術商品化能力」及「獲利能力」,然而不同產業類別有著不同的權重及重要性排序。本研究劃分研發功能類別為新產品開發及製程改良,根據結果顯示前五位績效衡量因子有四個是相同的,分別是「顧客滿意度」、「市場佔有率」、「開發新市場」、「技術商品化能力」,然而不同研發功能類別有著不同的權重及重要性排序。
研究結果不但顯示研發績效衡量因子的重要性排序,並且透過各個衡量因子的權重,可讓衡量研發績效時更為準確。同時研究發現不分產業功能,有著相似的核心研發績效衡量因子,因此在實務上可使用相似的研發績效系統;然而由於不同的權重,卻需有不同的研發績效衡量評算。
Toady, the rapid changes in business environment of shortened product life cycles and advanced technology, drew the attention upon research and development’s (R&D) contribution to competitive advantage. As a result, valuing the performance of R&D has become exceedingly important. This study established a general framework of R&D performance measurements by reviewing and organizing literatures and researches on R&D performance, along with giving an insight on what are the most valued measurements with applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method.
The questionnaire which developed from AHP was filled by senior managers of R&D. Valuing from industry and R&D function perspective, we had the results of four similar core R&D performance measurements of Customer Satisfaction, Technology commercialized, Market Share, and Technical achievement. However, the individual ranking from these perspectives, are quite different. In the sense of high-technology and traditional industry, having the same top five measurements of Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, Technical achievement, Technology commercialized, and Profitability, the ranking for each industry is differ. As for new product development (NPD) and process improving function, having the same four out of five core R&D performance measurements of Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, Access to New Market, and Technology commercialized, the ranking for each function is differ.
The results for priorities and weights of each R&D performance measurements, are not only giving an insight on the most preferred measurements, but also when coming for measuring performance, the weights upon the measurements should be considered for more accuracy in performance evaluation. Also the indifference of core measurements for differ industries or R&D functions, which indicates when establishing performance measurement in practice, there can be same measurements; however there should be different ways upon valuing, since the priority for them are different.
中文摘要.. II
Abstract III
Keywords: R&D performance measurement, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) .. III
Content . IV
Table .. VI
Figure . X
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND .. 1
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1
Chapter 2 Theoretical Backgrounds . 3
2.1 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D) 3
2.1.1 Classification of R&D 3
2.1.2 Research and New Product Development 5
2.1.3 Summary on Research and Development . 6
2.2 R&D PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 6
2.2.1 Dimensions of R&D performance 7
2.2.2 Parameters of R&D performance . 22
2-3 THEORY OF ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS . 27
2.3.1 Steps for the AHP Method . 27
2.3.2 Summary on AHP method . 34
Chapter 3 Methodology .. 35
3.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 35
3.2 DIMENSIONS & MEASUREMENTS .. 36
3.2.1 Financial Performance .. 37
3.2.2 Market-Oriented Performance 37
3.2.3 Process Control Performance . 37
3.2.4 Technology Performance 37
3.3 SURVEY SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION 38
3.3.1 Survey sampling . 38
3.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis .. 39
Chapter 4 Research Results .. 42
4.1 OVERALL SYNTHETIC RESULTS . 42
4.2 ANALYSIS RESULTS OF DIFFERENT INDUSTRY . 51
4.2.1 High-Technology Industry . 51
4.2.1 Traditional Industry . 60
4.2.3 Synthetic analysis among industries 69
4.3 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT R&D FUNCTION .. 73
4.3.1 New Product Development Function .. 73
4.3.2 Process Improvement Function .. 81
4.3.3 Synthetic analysis among R&D functions . 89
4.4 SUMMARY ON RESEARCH RESULT 93
4.4.1 Comparison with different industries and overall priority weights .. 93
4.4.2 Comparison with different R&D functions and overall priority weights .. 94
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Discussions . 98
5.1 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS . 98
5.1.1 Criteria and measurements of R&D performance measurements . 98
5.1.2 Overall priority weights of R&D performance measurements 98
5.1.3 Comparison with different industries .. 98
5.1.4 Comparison with different R&D functions 99
5.2 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS .. 99
5.3 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS . 100
5.3.1 Limitations . 100
5.3.2 Suggestions for Future Study 100
References 101
Appendix .. 106
Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14: 141-151.
Brown, S. & Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995). Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20: 343-378.
Clark, K. & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance. Strategy, organization and management in the world auto industry. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Clarke, A. (1999). A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 17: 139-145.
Chao, C.Y., Huang, Y.L. & Wang, M.Y. (2006). An application of the analytic hierarchy process for a competence analysis of technology managers from the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 5: 59-62.
Chatterji, D. (2000). Strategic impact of the information age. Research Technology Management, 43: 35-37.
Chen, C.F. (2006) Applying the analytical hierarchy process approach to convention site selection. Journal of Travel Research, 45: 167-174.
Cheng, E.W.L. & Li, H. (2001) Analytic hierarchy process: An approach to determine measures for business performance. Measuring Business Excellence, 5: 30-36.
Chien, C.F. (2005). Decision Analysis and Management: A Unison Framework for Total Decision Quality Enhancement. Taipei: Yeh Yeh Book Gallery.
Chiesa, V. & Masella, C. (1996). Searching for an effective measure of R&D performance. Management Decision, 34: 49-57.
Cho, E. & Lee, M. (2005). An exploratory study on contingency factors affecting R&D performance measurement. International Journal of Manpower, 26: 502-512.
Coccia, M. (2001). A basic model for evaluating R&D performance: theory and application in Italy. R&D Management, 31: 453-464
Coombs, J. E. & Bierly, P. E. (2006). Measuring technological capability and performance. R&D Management, 36: 421-438.
Cooper, R.G. (1984). How new product strategies impact on performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1: 5-18.
Cooper, R.G. & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987). New products: What separates winners from losers: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4: 169-184.
Cooper, R.G. & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1991). New product processes at leading industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 20: 137-141.
Cooper, R.G. & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2000). New product performance: what distinguishes the star products. Australian Journal of Management, 25: 17-29.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S. & Kleinschmidt, E. (2001). Portfolio management for new product development: results of an industry practices study. R&D Management, 31: 361-381.
Cusumano, M.A. & Nobeoka, K. (1998). Thinking beyond lean, how multi-project management is transforming product development at Toyota and other companies. New York: Free Press.
Dyer, R.F. & Forman, E.H. (1991). An analytic approach to marketing decisions. N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Edelheit, L.S. (1998). GE’s R&D strategy: Be vital. Research Technology Management, 41: 21-28.
Griffin, A. & Hauser, J.R. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature. J Prod Innovation Management, 13: 191-215.
Griffin, A. & Page, A.L. (1993). An interim report on measuring product measuring product development success and failure. J Prod Innovation Management, 10:291-308.
Griffin, A. & Page, A.L. (1996). PDMA Success measurement project: Recommended measures for product development success and failure. J Prod Innovation Management, 13: 478-496.
Goderen, A. & Soderquist, K. E. (2004). Use and impact of performance measurement results in R&D and NPD: an exploratory study. R&D Management, 34: 191-219.
Gupta, A.K. & Souder, W.E. (1998). Key drivers of reduced cycle time. Research Technology Management, 41: 38-43.
Hauser, J.R. & Zettelmeyer, F. (1997). Metrics to evaluate R, D and E. Research Technology Management, 40: 32-38.
Holder, R.D. (1990). Some comments on the analytic hierarchy process. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41: 1073-1076.
Kerssens-van Drongelen, Inge C. & Cook, Andrew. (1997). Design principles for the development of measurement systems for research and development processes. R&D Management, 27: 345-357.
Kerssens-van Drongelen, I.C. & Bilderbeek, J. (1999). R&D performance measurement: more than choosing a set of metrics. R&D Management, 29, 35-46.
Kerssens-van Drongelen, I.C., Nixon, B. & Pearson, A. (2000). ‘Performance measurement of industrial R&D’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 2: 111-144.
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1992). The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, January-February.
Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, January-February.
Kim, B. & Oh, H. (2001). An effective R&D performance measurement system: survey of Korean R&D researchers. The International Journal of Management Science, 30: 19-31.
Kolodny, H.F. (1980). Matrix organization designs and new product success. Research Management, 23: 29-33.
Kuhn, M. (2002). Introduction to decision support software. Adelphi Research.
Kulatunga, U. Amarartunga, D. & Haigh, R. (2007). Performance measurement in the construction research and development. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56: 673-688.
Kumpe, T. & Bolwijn, P.T. (1994). Towards the innovative firm challenge for R&D management. Research, Technology Management, January-February: 38-44.
Kusunoki, K., Nonaka, I., & Nagata, A. (1998). Organizational capabilities in product development of Japanese firms: A conceptual framework and empirical findings. Organization Science, 9: 699-718.
Lin, B.W. & Chen, J.S. (2005). Corporate technology portfolios and R&D performance measures: a study of technology intensive firms. R&D Management, 35: 157-170.
Lin, Y.J., Lin, J.C., Hwang, G.S. & Lee, K.C. (2007). Application of the analytic hierarchy process to analyze the importance of bamboo charcoal quality indicators. Taiwan Journal for Science, 22: 15-28.
Loch, C., Stein, L. & Terwiesch, C. (1996). Measuring development performance in the electronics industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1: 3-20.
Lynn, G. (1998). New product team learning. California Management Review, 40: 74-93.
McGrath, M.E. & Romeri, M.N. (1994). The R&D effectiveness index: A metric for product development performance. World Class Design to Manufacture, 1: 24-33.
Meyer, M.H, Tertazakian, P. & Utterback, J.M. (1997). Metrics for managing research and development in the context of the product family. Management Science, 43: 88-111.
Moser, M.R. (1985). Measuring performance in R&D settings. Research Technology management, 28: 31-33.
Nobeoka, K. & Cusumano, M.A. (1992). Strategy, structure and performance in product development; Observations from the auto industry. Research Policy, 21: 265-293.
Ouchi, W.G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25: 9.
Pappas, R.A. & Remer, D.S. (1985). Measuring R&D productivity. Research, Technology Management, May-June.
Pearson, A.W. & Nixon, W.A. (2000). R&D as a business: what are the implications for performance measurement? R&D Management, 30: 355-367.
Robertson, D. & Ulrich, K. (1998). Planning for product platforms. Sloan Management Review, 39: 19-31.
Roussel, P.A., Saad, K.N. & Erickson, T.J. (1991). Third Generation R&D, Managing the link to Corporate Strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T.L. (1990). Multi-criteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy Process. N.Y.: RWS Publications.
Schrank, R., Hoolax, M. & Schug, K. (1996).
Performance definition and performance measurement in R&D – results of a European-Japanese survey. Proceedings of the R&D Management conference on ‘Quality and R&D’,
Enschede, The Netherlands, March.
Schumann, P.A. Jr, Ransley, D.L & Prestwood, D.C.C. (1995). Measuring R&D performance. Research, Technology Management, May-June.
Song, X.M. & Parry, M.E. (1997). A cross-national comparative study of new product development processes: Japan and the United States. Journal of Marketing, 61: 1-18.
Souder, W.E., Sherman, J.D., & Davies-Cooper, R. (1998). Environmental uncertainty, organizational integration, and new product development effectiveness: A test of contingency theory. J Prod Innovation Management, 15: 520-533.
Thamhain, H.J. (2003). Managing innovative R&D teams. R&D Management, 33: 297-311.
Tsai, K.H. & Wang, J.C. (2004). The R&D performance in Taiwan’s electronics industry: a longitudinal examination. R&D Management, 34: 179-189.
Werner, B. & Souder, W.E. (1997). “Measuring R&D performance – US and German practices”, Research Technology Management, May-June: 28-32.
Wheelwright, S.C. & Clark, K.B. (1992) Revolutionizing Product Development. New York: The Free Press.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔