| 摘要: | 面臨「區域化、國際化、全球化」等競爭壓力，再加上大陸政策法規與投資環境巨變之衝擊，大陸台商「轉型升級」屬勢在必行之趨勢。傳統上，為求維繫核心能力與競爭優勢，台商「傳產公司」經營(營收及獲利)目標通常在於追求「獲利成長」，台商「科技公司」經營策略則在於追求「創新與差異化」，惟兩類公司之管理模式與方法仍有改善空間。
本文綜合運用「比較研究法」、「深度訪談法」、及參酌作者經營輔導實務經驗，針對大陸台商「科技公司」與「傳產公司」，探討造成其「績效指標」之形成與運用，並進行比較分析。研究結果發現，科技公司若採用「關鍵績效指標」，傾向低績效，若採用「策略性關鍵績效指標」則績效較高；傳產公司若採用「品質績效指標」則績效較低，若採用「日常績效指標」則傾向高績效。
依據上述四大指標的意涵，參酌「企業文化與核心價值、組織變革與經營策略、生產模式、及在地化實施程度」等績效控制因素，一併歸納出一套具有動態的(dynamic)、系統化的(systematic)、及比較分析能力的(comparatively analytical)「績效指標常模」，充分發揮「績效指標」運用之效應。
Due to competitive pressures of regionalism, internationalism and globalization, and additionally, significant changes of policies, regulations and investment environments made by China, Taiwanese companies that locates in China have been facing huge pressures in “transforming and upgrading” trends. Traditionally, in order to maintain core capabilities and competitive advantages, hi-tech companies always seek for “creativity & differentiation”, while traditional companies continues to look for “income and growth” in terms of sales and profitability concerns.
By using “Comparative Research method”, “In-depth Interview”, and writer’s practical training and consultation experience in related fields to initiate the comparative analysis for formulations and applications of performance indicators against “high performance and low performance” status in “hi-tech and traditional companies respectively. Usually, hi-tech companies adopt “Key Performance Indicators” would lead to low performance, while adopting “Strategy-focused Key Performance Indicators” would lead to high performance; and traditional companies adopt “Quality Performance Indicators” would generate low performance, while adopting “Daily Performance Indicators” would generate high performance.
Referring to definitions of above-mentioned four-group performance indicators and taking “Business Culture & Core value, Organizational Transformation & Business Strategy, Production Model, and Localization etc.” as performance control factors, conclude and develop one set of “Performance Indicators Model” with dynamic, systematic, and comparatively analytical capabilities, that will adequately reflect effects of applications of the said performance indicators. |
