臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

知識資產能帶給企業競爭優勢與提升組織績效，是現代企業運作的核心資源。為了能有效的做好知識管理以發揮知識的功效，如何評估出優質的知識並有效運用，為企業創造價值與利益是重要的課題。過去文獻的研究都是針對整體企業的智慧資本或知識管理系統做評估，而非以個別的知識進行分析，因此無法讓企業去細部比較個別知識的優劣，進而讓優良的知識能投入知識螺旋模式中加速組織知識的分享及創造，以加強組織的競爭力。一般而言知識的來源可以由組織內部的員工與研發部門，或從組織外部導入。了解來源知識的價值能協助企業在知識導入上的決策判斷與做為員工能力上績效考核的參考依據。為了讓知識在採用之前能了解其價值，本研究提出了兩個知識評價模型，首先是在不考慮時間因素下採用以層級分析法為基礎之效用值導向知識評價模型，其次為結合有形資產的時間價值衰退的觀念所建構之時間價值導向的知識價值衡量模型。在知識評價模型中，本研究以效用理論來轉換知識項目之評估參數，透過層級分析法為工具來分析無形知識的價值及其對企業利益貢獻度。但由於知識的價值並非一成不變，專業技術知識可能伴隨的所生產之產品退出市場而失去其價值，為了有效掌握知識的現值以利於知識項目間得以對等比較分析，因此建立了得以將不同時間點之知識進行分析的時間價值導向知識評價模式。而透過案例廠商的實證研究發現，本研究可以有效地幫助企業評估旗下專業知識的價值，及對企業員工擁有之專業技能及特殊技術等知識的總量進行評核。藉由模型的分析與比較，將可提供知識管理者採用知識的決策依據，並使得決策者能掌握員工的知識量，便於考核績效與企業整體的知識管理與規劃。

Knowledge Property brings corporate competitive advantage, upgrading performance of organization, and is taken as the core resource for business operation. In order to manage intelligence efficiently and to bring knowledge into full play, how to evaluate high-quality intelligence, applying it effectively and create value for the corporate is a critical topic.
Most of the previous research focused on the overall corporate intellectual property evaluation and knowledge management system, instead of on individual intelligence; therefore the advantages and disadvantages of single specific knowledge cannot be compared in detail, impeding the sharing and creating of organization knowledge, as well as the improvement of the organization competitiveness.
In this research, two knowledge assessment models are proposed to understand the value of knowledge before applying it. The first is a knowledge evaluation model based on AHP without considering time factor. The other one is a model combining the concept of the depreciation of the time value in tangible assets. The utility theory is used to exchange the item parameters estimation of knowledge; through AHP, to analyze the value of intangible knowledge as well as its contribution to corporate profitability.
Because the specialized skills and knowledge can lose its value as the product fading out of the market, a time-value-oriented knowledge evaluation model, that can make analysis of knowledge at different timing, is set up.
According to the factual case study in this research, intelligence manager can make decision by analyzing and comparing with this model. As the decision makers can control the knowledge capacity of employees, performance appraisal and overall enterprise intelligence management can therefore carry out fluently.

摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
致謝 ii
目次 iv
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 vii
第一章 緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究目的 3
1.3研究範圍與限制 4
1.4研究方法與流程 4
第二章 文獻探討 6
2.1 智慧資本(知識資產) 6
2.2 無形資產衡量 10
2.2.1 市場價值與帳面價值比（Market/Book Value） 12
2.2.2 Tobin's q值 12
2.2.3 無形資產價值法（Calculated Intangible Value, CIV） 13
2.2.4 智慧資本方程式（Intellectual Capital Equation） 13
2.2.5 知識資本價值（Knowledge Capital Value，KCV） 14
2.2.6 知識增值係數法(Value Added Intellectual Coefficient ,
VAIC） 15
2.2.7 活動基礎成本法（Activities Based Costing, ABC） 16
2.3 層級分析法(Analytic Hierarchical Process, AHP） 18
2.4 知識時間價值 21
2.4.1 知識價值的衰退 21
2.4.2 折舊計算法 22
第三章 研究方法 24
3.1 模式架構 24
3.2 數值的轉換 29
3.3 知識評價的分析 32
3.4 時間價值導向知識評價模式 34
3.4.1 知識的時間價值 35
3.4.2 知識的來源 36
3.4.3 知識效用值與時間價值轉換 37
3.4.4 進行層級分析法知識評價 40
3.5 員工知識總量評價方法 42
第四章 個案分析 44
4.1 案例公司背景資料 44
4.2 知識評價模型的權重評比 47
4.3 知識項目的計算與分析 51
4.4 時間價值導向知識評價模式分析 53
4.4.1 建立知識參數來源 53
4.4.2 知識價值評估 54
4.5 員工知識總量評價 56
第五章 結論與建議 60
5.1 結論 60
5.2 未來研究方向 62
參考文獻 63
附錄
問卷 67

1.董玉娟，知識分享意願影響前因之研究：威脅之情境效果，人力資源管理學報 2004 秋季號 第四卷第三期 PP 117- 137，民93年。
2.蔡志明，知識擴散模式之於知識價值與企業利益之相關性研究，國立成功大學工業與資訊管理研究所 博士論文，民94年。
3.Albayrakoglu, M. M., Justification of new manufacturing technology: A strategic approach using the analytical hierarchy process, Production and Inventory Management Journal, 37(1), pp. 71-76, 1996.
4.An, S. H., Kim, G. H and Kang, K. I., A case-based reasoning cost estimating model using experience by analytic hierarchy process, Building and Environment, 42, pp. 2573-2579, 2007.
5.Barsky, N and Marchant, G., The most valuable resource measuring and managing intellectual capital, Strategic Finance, 81(8), 58-62, 2000.
6.Bass, F. M., A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables, Management Science, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 215-227, 1969.
7.Bassi, L. J. and Buren, M. E. V., Valuing Investments in Intellectual Capital, International Journal technology Management, Vol. 18, Nos. 5/6/7/8, pp. 414-432, 1999.
8.Bryson, N. Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: exploring the consensus-relevant information content, Computers Operations Research, 23(1), pp. 27-35, 1996.
9.Carlucci, D and Schiuma, G., Knowledge assets value creation map assessing knowledge assets value drivers using AHP, Expert Systems with Applications, 32, pp. 814-821, 2007.
10.Damanpour, F., Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators, Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), pp. 555-591, 1991.
11.Dekker, R and de Hoog, R., The monetary value of knowledge assets: A micro Approach, Expert Systems With Application, 18(2), pp.111-124, 2000.
12.Dewar, R. D. and Dutton, J. E. (1986), “The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis,” Management Science, 32, pp.1422-1433.
13.Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B and Grewal, D., Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product Evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), pp. 307-319, 1991.
14.Dzinkowski, R., Mining intellectual capital, Strategic Finance, 81(4), pp. 42-46, 1999.
15.Dzinkowski, R., The measurement and management of intellectual capital: An Introduction, Management Accounting, 78(2), pp. 32-36, 2000.
16.Dzinkowski, R., The value of intellectual capital, The Journal of Business Strategy, 21(4), pp. 3-4. 2000.
17.Edvinsson, L and Malone, M. S., Intellectual Capital: Realizing your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Roots. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997.
18.Edvinsson, L., Developing intellectual capital at Skandia, Long Range Planning, 30(3), pp. 366-373, 1997.
19.Firer, S and Williams, S, W., Intellectual Capital and Traditional Measures of Corporate Performance, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(3), pp.348-360, 2003.
20.Hofmann, C and Orr, S., Advanced manufacturing technology adoption—the German experience, Technovation, 25, pp. 711-724, 2005.
21.Kahneman, D and Tversky, A., Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk, Econometrical, 47, pp. 313-327, 1979.
22.Knight, D.J., Performance measure for increasing intellectual capital, Strategy and Leadership, 27(2), pp. 22-27, 1999.
23.Lee, W.B., Lau, H., Liu, Z. Z and Tam, S., A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach in modular product design, Expert Systems, 18(1), pp. 32-42, 2001.
24.Lev, B., Knowledge Management: Fad or Need? , Research Technology Management, 43, pp.9-10, 1999.
25.Masoulas, V., Organizational requirements definition for intellectual capital management, International Journal of Technology Management, 16(1-3), pp. 126-143, 1998.
26.Mon, D.L., Cheng, C.H and Lin, J. C., Evaluation weapon system using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based on entropy weight, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 62(1), pp. 127-134, 1994.
27.Ngai, E. W. T and Chan, E. W. C., Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP, Expert Systems with Applications 29, pp. 889-899, 2005.
28.Nonaka, I and Takeuchi, H., The knowledge-creating company, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
29.Nonaka, I., Toyama, R and Konno, N., SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation, Long Range Planning, 33(1), pp. 5-34, 2000.
30.Roos, J., Roos, R., Edvinsson, L and Dragonetti, N., Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape. New York: New York University Press, 1998.
31.Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation (Vol. I), Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications, 1990.
32.Saaty, T. L., How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operation Research, 48(1), pp. 9-26, 1990.
33.Sarvary, M., Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry, California Management Review, 41(2), pp. 95-107, 1999.
34.Steward, T. A., Intellectual capital : The new wealth of organization, Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, New York, 1997.
35.Sveiby, K. E., The Intangible Assets Monitor, available at: www. sveiby.com/.
36.Tobin, J., A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 1, pp. 15-29, 1969.
37.Vargas, L.G., An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), pp. 2-8, 1990.
38.Weck, M., Klocke, F., Schell, H and Ruenauver, E., Evaluating alternative production cycles using the extended fuzzy AHP method, European Journal of Operational Research, 100(2), pp. 351-366, 1997.
39.Wiig, K., Hoog, R. and Spek, R., Supporting Knowledge Management: A Selection of Methods and Techniques, Expert Systems with Application, 13 (1), pp.15-27, 1997.
40.Wilkins, J., Wegen,B and Hoog, R., understanding and valuing knowledge assets: overview and method, Expert Systems with Application, 13(1), pp. 55-72, 1997.
41.Yurdakul, M., AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 146(3), pp. 365-376, 2004.
42.Zahir, S., Geometry of decision making and the vector space of formulation of the analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, 112(2), pp. 373-396, 1999.