| 摘要: | 論文摘要： 由於智慧資本的重要性日漸凸顯，實務上的應用需求亦日漸殷切，因此許多專家學者投入相關的研究，期望能找出衡量智慧資本的主要變項以協助企業掌握關鍵指標，不過大部分研究皆未處理指標間的關係。本研究的目的除嘗試建構一套適合國內高科技產業的企業智慧資本評價架構及發展企業智慧資本評價之各項指標的衡量方法之外，並以系統理論的觀點來釐清智慧資本衡量指標之間的關係，及探討企業智慧資本對企業績效之影響，協助企業以最少的企業資源來掌握關鍵的智慧資本指標，提升企業未來的競爭力。 本研究以我國在全球市場有優異表現的資訊科技產業為研究對象，調查範疇包含公開發行、上櫃及上市之資訊科技企業，研究分二階段進行，第一階段進行深度個案訪談，以進一步了解智慧資本指標的重要性，並分析各別智慧資本指標的重要性在資訊科技產業之次產業是否有所不同。第二階段則針對公開發行及上櫃及上市之資訊科技公司，徵詢其受訪意願後，依據修正後之問卷，進行人員親訪，共計訪問100家業者。 研究結果有以下發現： 一、所處產業不同，企業所重視的智慧資本指標並不相同。總體而言，資訊科技產業所共同重視的智慧資本指標包括經營團隊領導力、策略執行力及對客戶需求的了解等指標。 二、智慧資本管理能力對智慧資本投入變項與智慧資本產出變項之間的交互作用具統計上的顯著性。亦即企業智慧資本管理能力的不同，的確會調節智慧資本投入對智慧資本產出的影響。此外，在智慧資本產出對企業財務績效的影響方面，智慧資本產出愈高的企業，其財務績效會愈好此一假說獲得部份的支持。 三、智慧資本投入對智慧資本中間變項、智慧資本中間變項對智慧資本產出、智慧資本投入對智慧資本產出變項之影響，皆達顯著水準。意味著智慧資本投入除透過中間變項影響智慧資本產出外，其本身亦可直接影響智慧資本產出的水準。因此企業若能對智慧資本投入與中間變項之間作良好的配適管理的話，智慧資本投入對於智慧資本產出的效果還能進一步向上提升。 本研究最後針對實務界，包括產業、政府及投資界提出綜合性建議如下： 一、對產業界的建議 由於智慧資本攸關企業的無形資產價值，因此企業應建構配合所處市場特性的智慧資本系統模型，持續監控改善，並應持續投入資源提升企業智慧資本系統之價值。 二、對投資界的建議 評估企業的指標應由以有形資產為主體的評價模式轉變為能表現出無形資產的新評價模式，本研究所提供的智慧資本IPO模型(Input, Process, Output)可作為一個參考架構。 其次，企業的智慧資本管理能力對於智慧資本投入對智慧資本產出的影響有調節作用，因此投資者在評估企業的價值時，除衡量智慧資本產出的價值之外，智慧資本管理能力變項亦應是重要的評估標的之一。 三、對政府相關機構的建議 本研究認為政府應透過彙整企業的無形資產能力之評價形成產業的常模來掌握產業的核心價值，並應發展一套具前瞻性的衡量指標，藉以扶持具潛力之企業，而智慧資本系統模型亦可作為評估架構的參考。 Abstract The importance of intellectual capital is becoming more widely recognized, and demand for the application of intellectual capital is increasing. Many experts have undertaken research in this field, in an attempt to find the major variables for the measurement of intellectual capital, so as to help enterprises to identify the key indicators. However, very little of this research has addressed the relationship between indicators. The objective in undertaking this research was to construct an architecture suitable for the evaluation of enterprise intellectual capital in Taiwan’s hi-tech sector, and to develop methods for measuring the indicators used to evaluate enterprise intellectual capital. System theory was used to clarify the relationship between the intellectual capital measurement indicators, and to explore the impact of intellectual capital on enterprise performance. It was hoped that this would help enterprises to monitor the key intellectual capital indicators using the minimum amount of resources, thereby enhancing enterprise competitiveness. The research targeted Taiwan’s hi-tech sector, which has achieved impressive performance in global markets. The sample included IT companies which are either listed on the stock market or OTC exchange or have made a public offering. The research was undertaken in two stages. In the first stage, in-depth interviews were conducted with each company to gain a better understanding of the importance of intellectual capital indicators, and to determine whether the importance of individual intellectual capital indicators various between the different industries in the hi-tech sector. In the second stage, further interviews were conducted in person using a revised questionnaire; a total of 100 companies were interviewed. The following discoveries were made: (1) The intellectual capital indicators to which enterprises attach most importance vary from industry to industry. The indicators which were felt to be particularly important in all industries within the hi-tech sector included management team leadership, strategy implementation capability and understanding of customer needs. (2) Intellectual capital management capability had a statistically significant impact on the relationship between intellectual capital input variables and intellectual capital output variables. That is to say, differences in enterprise intellectual capital management capability do affect the impact which intellectual capital inputs have on intellectual capital outputs. As regards the impact which intellectual capital outputs have on enterprises’ financial performance, the research results supported the hypothesis that the higher an enterprise’s intellectual capital output, the better its financial performance would be. (3) As regards the impact of intellectual capital inputs on intellectual capital mediator, intellectual capital mediator on intellectual capital outputs and intellectual capital inputs on intellectual capital outputs, all of these were statistically significant. This means that, not only do intellectual capital inputs affect intellectual capital outputs indirectly through intellectual capital mediator, they also affect intellectual capital outputs directly. If enterprises can regulate intellectual capital inputs and intellectual capital mediator properly, it should be possible to further increase the impact which intellectual capital inputs have on intellectual capital outputs. On the basis of this research, the following recommendations can be offered to industry, government and investors: (1) Recommendations for industry: Intellectual capital affects the value of an enterprise’s intangible assets. Enterprises should establish a intellectual capital system model suited to the characteristics of the industry in which the enterprise operates; they should conduct ongoing monitoring and improvement of this model, and should continue to allocate resources to enhance the value of the enterprise’s intellectual capital system. (2) Recommendations for investors: When evaluating enterprises, investors need to move away from appraisal models which place undue emphasis on tangible assets to models which take intangible assets into consideration. The intellectual capital IPO (Input, Process, Output) model used in this research could be a useful reference here. In addition, it is clear that an enterprise’s intellectual capital management capability serves to regulate the impact which intellectual capital inputs have on intellectual capital outputs. When appraising the value of an enterprise, besides measuring the value of intellectual capital outputs, investors also need to look at intellectual capital management capability. (3) Recommendations for government agencies: By collating the results of the appraisal of enterprises’ intangible assets, the government should develop a model which can be used to monitor core value in industry. The government also needs to develop a set of forward-looking measurement indicators which can help it to determine which enterprises have potential and should be supported. The intellectual capital system model could be used as a reference for the establishment of the evaluation architecture. |
