臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

論文名稱：矩陣式組織之專案績效考核制度探討—以某公司為例
院校名稱：國立中央大學
系所名稱：人力資源管理研究所
學位類別：碩士
畢業年度：九十九學年度第二學期
指導教授：黃同圳　博士
論文頁數：126頁
論文摘要：
團隊在全世界的很多組織中已經變得越來越普遍，因此團隊績效已經變得非常重要。我們現在已經無法想像出還有哪個組織可以不在團隊的基礎上完成其至少一部份職能(Naquin & Tynan, 2003)。在對企業所做的調查中發現，很多公司都把實現團隊工作以及如何從團隊中取得最大的成果視為自己的首要任務(Roomkin, Rosen, & Dubbs, 1998)。

在以OEM為主的高科技業，企業以客戶下單的產品以成立專案形成團隊，以具結果導向及彈性的專案管理方式營運；這當中關鍵為專案經理在組織中獲得何種支持，以促進其在矩陣式組織中，發揮功能，達成組織目標。在Z公司中，以施行專案績效考核制度之方式，給予專案經理等同部門主管相同的考核權，於每個專案完成時，讓專案經理對其專案成員進行專案績效考核，其成績使用強迫分配，專案考核結果佔專案成員年度考績50%的比例，並與組織晉升、分紅，並以專案之團隊基礎，發放獎金，將績效結果與獎酬高度連結。

本研究以問卷及訪談方式進行研究，發現Z公司在專案績效考核制度下，對組織有下列的影響：
1.部門主管的權力弱化，成員指派進入專案後，專案主管在專案期間，擁有對專案成員在加班、請假、出差及任務要求之核決權，此時，部門主管的介入有限，改變原來的組織指揮結構。
2.專案考核結果不透過直線主管直接上呈總經理，與直線主管所評之年度考核結果，總經理可收交叉監控管理者在打考核客觀性之效果。
3.給予專案經理考核權的同時要求其背負專案的成敗責任，由原傳統直線主管所負擔任務完成，權責轉移。
4.專案成員失去功能主管的保障，此可收破除技術本位主義之效，一切以專案完成之結果為導向。
5.透過專案績效考核，橫切破除組織山頭，專案經理隨機由總經理核定指派，並以完成專案為必然要求，由於指派權在總經理身上，在專案發生狀況時，總經理及客戶由原傳統找直線主管改為找專案經理，因此比較不會產生山頭文化。

本研究認為，在ODM的公司中，可透過此制度之執行，讓同仁產生高度投入與配合度，讓工作能有效率的完成，致使獲得良好的經營績效，雖然其對內部溝通、成員壓力與對制度上有些需要留意的部份，但在以團隊為基礎及激勵下，推動專案績效考核下，對公司的經營績效是有正面的幫助與影響。

Abstract

The concept of team-based work has already become widespread around the world. Hence, the team performance framework has also become paid attention in the organizations. Group performance is thought as a vital determinant and frequently used indicator of organizational outcome, so we are hard to image that which organization was not based on team performance to execute their essential competencies (Naquin & Tynan, 2003). In the business survey, we can find many companies put their most efforts on realizing team-based work and try to get maximum benefits (Roomkin, Rosen, & Dubbs, 1998).

In the OEM-based high-tech industry, the corporate form their project teams by customer need, and operate their projects by outcome-oriented and flexible management. The critical key of its success was the extent of project support from other managers. This key would help project managers to develop their strength to attain organizational performance in the matrix structure.

In our study, Z Company gives project managers right to execute performance appraisal while managers finished each project. This right is equivalent with department managers’. The measurement is force distribution which account for 50% of the annual performance appraisal for project members and the result is highly related with their promotion and bonus.

This study conducted by the questionnaire and the interview method, and according to analytic results, we could find the following phenomenon in the Z Company after conducting project performance evaluation system:

1. The department managers’ power is weakening after members are assigned in the project team. During the project, project managers have a right to evaluate members’ work situation, including their overtime, ask to leave, travel or others. In this time department managers have limit power to involve and original organizational structure have changed.

2. The result of performance appraisal is directly reported for general manager, not through line managers’ report. The general manager could get big effect from the appraisal result by line managers and objective appraisal by cross-monitoring managers.

3. There are some transformations of responsibilities in the company. Project managers are assigned with appraisal right and asked to undertake the outcome of project. Traditional responsibilities of line managers are transformable.

4. In the company each project is evaluated by result-based. Thus, project members will lose department managers’ protection and the consequences could help company to break the departmental selfishness.

5. As mentioned earlier, by the project performance evaluation system, company can break the departmental selfishness. Each project manager is assigned by general manager and they only put their effort on project completion. In addition, while projects have the problem, general manager and customers can quickly find project managers and they would be responsible for those mistake.

This study claimed that in the ODM Company, it can get better performance result by executing project management systems. This system would cause not only high employee involvement, but also effective work result. Although there are still some problem need to overcome (e.g. internal communication, members’ pressure, institution development), project management systems are proved having positive influence on company''s operating performance.

目 錄
摘要----------- I

Abstract------III

誌謝-----------VI

目錄----------VII

表目錄---------IX

圖目錄----------X

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　研究流程 4
1-4 研節架構 4
第二章　文獻探討 6
2-1 專案與專案管理 6
2-2 矩陣式組織與功能性組織之運作比較 13
2-3 團隊績效考核與獎勵 29
2-4 本章小結 38
第三章 Z公司專案績效制度執行現況之探討 41
3-1 個案公司背景 41
3-2 個案公司專案組織 44
3-3 個案公司專案績效考核及獎勵制度 50
第四章 Z公司專案績效制度問題之探討 62
4-1 執行專案績效考核制度之經營績效 62
4-2 專案績效考核制度之研究方法 66
4-3 專案績效考核制度之訪談結果 68
4-4 本章小結 78
第五章 結論與建議 82
5-1 結論 82
5-2 研究發現、建議與應用限制 89
參考文獻 93
附錄1 開放性訪談問題 97
附錄2 封閉式填答問題 98
附錄3 訪談記錄-1~6 101

參考文獻
1.沈勁利、林麗惠、陳昭如(2008)，服務業專案管理之研究，2008 現代經營管理研討會，德霖技術學院企業管理系。
2.林正杰(2006)，工程顧問公司專案管理組織績效與型態之研究，營建管理季刊，第69期，pp.35~37。
3.林炳文(2007)，專案管理的核心概念，2007海峽兩岸及東亞地區財經與商學研討會，蘇州大學。
4.林信惠、黃明祥、王文良編(2004)，軟體專案管理，智勝圖書，台北。
5.吳思華(1998)，策略九說，臉譜文化出版社，台北。
6.許光華、龔昶元、沈肇基(2001)，專案管理，國立空中大學，台北。
7.陳玉波(2003)，企業專案管理之風險評估流程，國立中山大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
8.曹廷傑(1990)，專案管理，格致圖書有限公司，台北。
9.彭文賢 (1996)，組織結構，三民書局，台北。
10.溫金豐(2007)，組織理論與管理，學貫行銷股份有限公司，台北。
11.楊望遠(2001)，管理雜誌，181期，pp.26~29
12.榮泰生(1994)，專案管理，自動化科技，台北
13.鄧明燦(2008)，公有建築工程專業營建管理績效問題之研究，國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
14.國際專案管理協會，專案管理知識體指南PMBOK Guide，第三版，台北。
15. Aguinis, H. (2008),”Performance Management”, Pearson International Education.
16. Clements, J. P. & Gido, J.(2010) , Effective Project Management, 4e, 2010, 滄海書局
17. Daft, R. L.(2008), “Organization Theory and Design, 9e”, South-Western Press, USA
18. Davis, S.M.& Lawrence, P.(1977), “Matrix”, Addison-Wesley Publish Company, London.
19. Davis, S.M.& Lawrence, P.(1978), “Problems of Matrix Organization”, Harvard Business Review, May/June, P.131-142
20. Duncan, D. (1979),”What is the right organization structure? Decision tree analysis provides the answer.” Organization Dynamics (Winter 429) pp.149-163
21. Ezez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms,H.(2002), “Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning of effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment”, Personnel Psychology, 55,929-948
22. Galbraith, Jay R.(1973), “Design Complex Organizations”, Addison-Wesley Publish Company, London.
23. Garvey, C.(2002), “Steer teams with the right pay”, HR Magazine, 47, 70-78
24. Hackma, J. R., & Wageman, R.(2005), “A theory of team coaching.” Academy of management Review, 30, P.269-287
25. IBM(1997), “Project Management Fundamentals Handbook”
26. Kerr, S. (1999), “Organizational rewards: Practical, cost Neutral Alternatives That You may Know, But Don’t Practice”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol 28, pp.61-70
27. Khandwalla, P.(1981), “The design of Organization”, Brace Publishers, USA
28. Knight, K.(1977), “Matrix Management: Across-Functional Approach to Organization”, PBI-Petrocelli Book, New York.
29. Lewis, J. P. (1995) “Project Planning, Scheduling and Control,” Irwin Professional Publish
30. Liz Maclachlan (1996) ”Making Project Management for You”, Library Association Publishing, London
31. Lovejoy, S. (1996), “A Systematic Approach to Getting Result”, Gower, USA
32. MacBryde, J., & Mendibil, K.(2003), “Designing performance measurement systems for teams: Theory an practice.”, Management Decision, Vol 41, pp.722-733
33. Marks, M. A., & Panzer, F. J.(2004), “The influence of team monitoring on team processes and performance”, Human Performance, Vol 17, 25-41
34. Meyer, C.(1994), “How the right measures help teams excel”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 72,95-101
35. Middleton C. J.(1967), “How to Set Up a Project Organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 5, No.2, pp.69-77
36. Naquin, C.E. & Tynan, R.O.(2003), “The team halo effect: Why teams are not blamed for their failure.”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 88, pp.332-340
37. Peter, T. J.(1979), “Beyond the Matrix Organization”, Business Horizons October, pp.15-17
38. Robbins, S. P.(1983), “Organization Theory: The Structure and Design og Organizations”, Prentice-Hall Inc., USA
39. Roomkin, M. Rosen, S. & Dubbs, N.(1998), “Human resources practices survey.” Deloitte & Touche, New York
40. Sayles, L. R.(1979), “Leadership: What Effective Managers Really Do and how They Do It. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
41. Scott, S. G. & Einstein, W. O.(2001), “Strategic performance appraisal in team-based organizations: One size does not fit all”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol 15, pp.107-116