| 摘要(英) |
With the rapidly changing market development, factors such as industry competition, product market share, organizational efficiency, manufacture technology, and R&D innovation can have strong impact on the profit or growth of an enterprise. In order to analyze the pros and cons of enterprise operational efficiency and its future potential, this study summarized four fundamentals and an eight items matrix for measuring operational efficiency based on balanced scorecard and the Intellectual capital theory. ROA and enterprise value matrix with different basis such Tobin’s Q that represents the accounting basis and the market basis were used to investigate the relationship between enterprise value and operational efficiency.
The main criteria used to choose the sample for this study is whether a company is part of the domestic Apple industry chain, and a total of 500 listed domestic companies were chosen. The companies were divided into Apple supply chain and non-Apple supply chain before performing regression to examine whether a significant relationship exists between each component of the operational efficiency matrix and the enterprise value in both the short and long term. The regression result from Apple supply chain and non-Apple supply chain showed that although part of the operational efficiency matrix has varying impact on ROA and Tobin’s Q, its relationship with enterprise value is clear and can be accounted for. This means that the higher the operational efficiency of an enterprise, the higher its value.
In addition to providing enterprise mangers with a reference for operational goal, strategy formulation, and operational planning, this study also demonstrates an evaluation framework that managers can reference to optimize operational efficiency management. By using this matrix framework, the managers can continue to observe, measure and analyze the operational functionality and activity of the enterprise, understand the firm value efficiency evaluation status. This serves as an excellent opportunity to improve operational efficiency and enable growth in firm value.
Keywords：Tobin’s Q , Firm value , Balanced Score Card , Intellectual Capital , Operational Efficiency .
|
| 參考文獻 |
國內文獻：
〔1〕 王文英與張清福(2004)，「智慧資本影響績效模式之探討：我國半導體之實證研究」，會計評論，第39期：89-117頁。
〔2〕 吳安妮(2001)，「談價值管理創造企業競爭利基」，會計研究月刊，178 期，12-14 頁。
〔3〕 吳安妮(2002)，「剖析智慧資本」，會計研究月刊，204期，57-66頁。
〔4〕 吳安妮(2004)，「平衡計分卡重點發展方向-與智慧資本相結合，強化策略核心組織」，會計研究月刊，224 期，98-108 頁。
〔5〕 吳鑑芝(2003)，「智慧資本與公司價值之攸關性探討」，中原大學會計學系碩士論文。
〔6〕 林怡芳(2002)，「市場價值與帳面價值之差異探討-以IC設計產業為例」，國立臺灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
〔7〕 洪俊龍(2002)，「人力資源管理系統、智慧資本與組織績效關聯性之研究」，國立中正大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
〔8〕 黃德舜(1998)，「企業財務分析-企業價值的創造及評估」，台北，華泰文化事業公司。
〔9〕 許士軍(2000)，「走向創新時代的組織績效評估」，績效導讀，天下文化哈佛商業評論，3-9頁，台北，天下遠見出版股份有限公司。
〔10〕 張瑞元(2011)，「策略配適與企業績效之多元關係探討」，中興大學企業管理學系博士論文。
〔11〕 楊朝旭(2006)，「智慧資本、價值創造與企業績效關聯性之研究」，中山管理評論14卷(1)：43-78。
〔12〕 歐進士(1998)，「我國企業研究發展與經營績效關聯之實證研究」，中山管理評論，第6卷第2期，357-386頁。
〔13〕 潘志偉(2002)，「新興財務績效指標與非財務資訊之價值攸關性-以台灣上市上櫃資訊電子公司為實證研究對象」，國立台灣科技大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
〔14〕 陳玉芳(2003)，「以平衡計分卡架構探討我國資訊電子業企業價值之影響因素」，國立政治大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
〔15〕 陳右勳(2007)，「智慧資本的價值創新策略」，中華技術學院學報，第37期，159-171頁。
國外文獻：
〔1〕 Ansoff, Igor. H., & Eward J. McDonne (1968) , “The New Corporate Strateg”, Wiley .
〔2〕 Brooking, A., P. Board & S. Jones(1998) , “The predictive potential of intellectual capital” , International Journal Technology Management 16 , pp.115-125 .
〔3〕 Chung K. H., & S. W. Pruitt. (1994),“A simple approximation of Tobin’s Q” , Financial Management , 23 (3) , pp.70-74 .
〔4〕 Drucker, P. F. (1954) , “The practice of management：An introductory view of management , Harper & Row” , New York .
〔5〕 Edvinsson, L. & Malone, M. (1997) , “Intellectual Capital Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Roots” , Harper Collins .
〔6〕 Fletcher,H.D. & Smith D.B.(2004) ,“Managing for value：Developing a performance measurement system integrating economic value added and the Balanced Scorecard in strategic planning” , Journal of Business Strategies , 21 , pp.1-17 .
〔7〕 Galbraith,J.K.(1969), The Affluent Society,London:Hamish Hamilton .
〔8〕 Hope,Jeremy & Hope,Tony(1997) , “Competing in the Third Wave：The Ten key Management Issues of Information Age” , Harvard Business School Press,Boston .
〔9〕 James Tobin & William C. Brainard(1976) , “Asset Markets and the Cost of Capital” , Cowles Foundation Discussion , pp.427 .
〔10〕 Kaplan,R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1992) , “The balanced scorecard Measures that drive performance” , Harvard Business Review , Vol. 70 , No. 1 , pp.71-85 .
〔11〕 Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1996) , “ The balanced scorecard：Translating strategy into action ” , Harvard Business School Press , Boston , MA.
〔12〕 Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (2000) , “Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It” , Harvard Business Review , September-October , pp.167-176 .
〔13〕 Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (2004) , “Measuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assets” , Harvard Business Review，January-February , pp. 52-63 .
〔14〕 Lindenberg, E. B. & S. A. Ross (1981) , “Tobin’s Q Ratio and Industrial Organization” Journal of Business , Vol.54 , pp.1-32 .
〔15〕 Lang & Litzenberger (1989) , “Dividend announcements：Cash flow signalling vs. free cash flow hypothesis” , Journal of Financial Economics , Vol 24 (2) , pp.81-191. .
〔16〕 Maisel, L.S., (1992) , “Performance measurement: the Balanced Scorecard approach” , Journal of Cost Management , Vol. 6 (2) , pp. 47-52 .
|
[Endnote RIS 格式]
[相關文章]
[文章引用]
[完整記錄]
[館藏目錄]
[檢視]
plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit