| 摘要: | 本論文主要之目的在於探討C銀行平衡計分卡四大構面之因果關係是否顯著，以及C銀行實施平衡計分卡失敗的關鍵因素為何？ 本論文採實證研究及實地訪談與問卷調查的方法，根據C銀行2005年至2009年實施平衡計分卡之經營績效考核結果，以結構方程模式分析方法進行因果關係分析，以及實地訪談與問卷調查找出C銀行實施平衡計分卡失敗的關鍵因素。 研究結果顯示: 一、整體模式適配度並非良好，四大構面間之因果關係不顯著。 二、失敗之關鍵因素: 1.系統設計面: 各構面權重差距大，衡量指標不平衡，因果關係不顯著。 2.執行面 (1)財務構面衡量指標權重太高，有失平衡計分卡之精神。 (2)非財務性衡量指標，其質化資料難以量化。 (3)財務構面衡量指標太多，執行有問題。 (4)各營業單位規模差異過大。 (5)推動單位層級低，部門間之協調溝通不足。 (6)對員工之訓練不足，無法使其深切了解平衡計分卡之內涵，導致員工欠缺對 此制度之參與感及認同度。 (7)策略難以落實。 (8)僅著重營運性之回饋及未能持續改善。 (9)難以將策略與各部門、及員工個人目標連結。 (10)高階主管之認同度低。The purpose of this thesis is to explore the causal relationship significance of the balanced scorecard at Bank C, and the key factors that resulted in failure when implementing the balanced scorecard. In this thesis, we performed the empirical research, field interviews, and questionnaire survey. Based on the Bank C Balanced Scorecard performance appraisal results from 2005 to 2009, we used structural equation modeling to conduct a casual relationship analysis by making questionnaire survey and interviewing the subjects to find out the key factors that resulted in failure. The result are (a) the overall goodness of fit is not good, (b) the casual relationship of the four perspectives is not significant. The key factors in system designing that resulted in failure are (a) the differentiation of percentage weight of each perspective is too high, (b) the evaluation indicators are not balanced, and the casual relationship is not significant. The key factors in implementing that resulted in failure are (a) unable to meet the requirements of the Balanced Scorecard, due to high percentage weight in evaluation indexes of the finance aspect, (b) unable to quantify the qualitative data of non-financial evaluation indexes, (c) unable to implement so many evaluation indexes of the finance aspect,(d) scale differentiation in various departments, (e) unable to communicate properly among departments due to low ranking personnel in charge,(f) unable to understanding the content of the Balanced Scorecard due to staff’s lack of training and participation, (g) unable to implement the strategies thoroughly,(h) unable to make continuous improvement due to much attention to operative feedback, (i) difficult to link strategies with personal objectives of the staff ,and (j) low acceptance of the top management. |
