English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113656/144643 (79%)
Visitors : 51707340      Online Users : 310
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 商學院 > 會計學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/49560


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49560


    Title: 在不同工作特性下，酬勞誘因對組織績效之影響：實地實證研究
    Authors: 李伶珠
    Lee, Ling Chu
    Contributors: 吳安妮博士
    李伶珠
    Lee, Ling Chu
    Keywords: 工作特性
    競賽理論
    經營績效
    績效酬勞
    task interdependence
    performance-based compensation
    tournament incentives
    performance
    Date: 2005
    Issue Date: 2010-12-08 13:50:05 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 傳統代理理論主張，企業可利用績效酬勞激勵員工努力工作，提昇組織績效；而競賽理論則強調，利用同儕競賽，並擴大勝負間的酬勞差距，以達企業利潤極大化目標。績效酬勞與競賽誘因對員工投入的努力皆具正面激勵效果，然而，在不同工作特性下，酬勞誘因隨著員工工作所需的合作程度不同，對組織績效的影響卻有所差異。
    本文首先依據代理理論與競賽理論模型，將績效酬勞與競賽誘因同時納入酬勞誘因制度中，以利分析在不同工作特性的情況下，酬勞誘因對於營業單位經營績效之影響。在績效酬勞對經營績效之影響上，理論分析結果發現：不論對員工工作彼此獨立或對工作需合作的營業單位而言，績效酬勞的增加，都可提高經營績效；當隨機干擾因素增加，因員工獲得酬勞的不確定性增加，進而削弱員工努力的意願，降低營業單位之經營績效。在競賽誘因對組織績效的影響方面，靜態分析結果指出：在不同工作特性的情況下，競賽誘因會出現不同的效果。當員工工作彼此獨立時，擴大競賽後贏家與輸家間的酬勞差距，有利於組織績效之提高。相對的，在員工工作彼此合作的情況下，酬勞差距擴大後，一方面使員工最適個人努力提高，有益於組織經營績效；另一方面卻削弱員工彼此合作的意願，降低協助同儕的努力，兩種效果抵銷之後，使得酬勞誘因對組織經營績效之提昇受到限制。
    本文以一家大型連鎖汽車公司為個案公司，研究期間為2001年至2004年，包括86個營業所及90家汽車修護廠的營業績效資料及中低階層員工之酬勞資料，以實地實證研究法進行實證研究。研究結果發現，當員工工作彼此獨立時，營業單位之個人績效酬勞愈大或收入變異程度愈小者，績效愈好；當員工工作彼此需要合作時，營業單位之團體績效酬勞愈大或收入變異程度愈小者，績效愈好。在競賽誘因方面，當員工工作彼此獨立時，不論是職務間或職務內的酬勞差距的擴大，皆對營業單位之經營績效具有正面提昇效果；相較於工作彼此獨立，當員工工作彼此需要合作時，職務間或職務內酬勞差距的擴大對營業單位績效提昇幅度顯著較小。由此可知，企業在進行酬勞誘因設計時，應同步考量工作特性與酬勞誘因機制間的配適性，俾利於組織績效的提昇。
    Agency theory suggests that organizations can motivate employees to exert their efforts by providing individual-based compensation. Tournament theory argues that, by encouraging competition among employees and increasing the compensation gaps between winners and losers, firms can direct employees’ actions in alignment with the firm’s interests. Both compensation schemes can induce employees’ efforts and increase corporate performance. However, the positive effects on corporate performance vary in the need of cooperation among employees, ranging from independent to interdependent tasks.

    This paper uses a theoretical and empirical analysis of performance-based and tournament-based incentives to examine the impacts of compensation incentives on branch performance. For the impacts of performance-based incentives on branch performance, the performance will increase in the individual performance-based incentives. When employees work independently, the greater the compensation gaps lead to more efforts and higher performance. When employees work interdependently, two contradictory effects of greater the compensation gaps make the performance change unclear. On the one hand, greater compensation gaps will increase employees’ efforts for being winner in the tournament. On the other hand, greater compensation gaps will induce employees not to help their competitors and hurt the performance, although help efforts can contribute firms profits.

    Using four years of data from a large car company with 86 car dealer branches and 90 car repair service branches, we find that for the independent tasks, the branch performance increase as individual performance-based compensation increases or revenue variance decreases. For the tasks needed cooperation among employees, the branch performance is increasing in group-based compensation or decreasing in revenue variance. Besides, we find that the larger the compensation gaps between inter- or intra-jobs, the branch performance for the independent tasks are better. The impacts of the compensation gaps on the interdependent tasks are smaller than on the independent tasks. Therefore, incentive policy rewards the best performances with the complementary fit between tasks design and compensation schemes
    Reference: 一、中文文獻：
    1. 王濟川與郭志剛，2003，Logistic迴歸模型—方法及應用，五南圖書出版有限公司。
    2. 李佳玲與劉維琪，1997，會計師事務所最適薪資契約之設計，會計評論，第30期，頁157-179。
    3. 李佳玲與李孟燕，2003，不對稱的產品資訊、經理人薪酬差距與公司績效之研究：競賽理論之驗證。2003會計理論與實務國際研討會，成功大學。
    4. 沈慶龍，2002，業務員人格特質、推銷行為及其績效之研究—以汽車代理商為例，人力資源管理學報，第二卷，第四期，p. 107-126
    5. 吳安妮與劉俊儒，2001，員工面、內部營運面、及顧客面對財務績效影響之實證研究，臺灣管理學刊，第1卷第1期(8月)：125-150。
    6. 林庭瑋，2002，業務人員銷售效率評估及銷售績效影響因素之研究-以某汽車經銷商為例，國立政治大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文。
    7. 許哲源，1995，員工獎金與升遷激勵誘因之研究，國立中山大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
    8. 張允文與賴淑蓉，2004，從組織公平性的觀點探討團隊獎酬與財務誘因對團隊績效的影響，2004會計理論與實務研討會，政治大學。
    9. 楊朝旭，1998，非財務性衡量指標與徵授信分工對員工績效之影響—實地實證研究，國立政治大學會計研究所未出版博士論文。
    10. 盧振昇，2003，汽車修護人員事業生涯發展與管理機制之研究，國立中央大學管理學院高階主管企管碩士班未出版碩士論文。
    11. 謝劍平，1999，財務管理—新觀念與本土化，再版，智勝文化事業有限公司。
    二、英文文獻：
    1. Abowd, J. 1990. Does Performance-Based Managerial Compensation Affect Corporate Performance? Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43 (February)：52S-73S.
    2. Andrews, I. R. and M. M. Henry. 1963. Management Attitudes toward Pay. Industrial Relations 3：29-39.
    3. Antle, R. and A. Smith.1986. An Empirical Investigation of the Relative Performance Evaluation of Corporate Executives. Journal of Accounting Research 24：1-39.
    4. Autrey, R., S. Dikolli and P. Newman. 2004. The Effect of Career Concerns on the Contracting Use of Public and Private Performance Measures. Working paper at University of Texas at Austin.
    5. Bailey, C., L. Brown, and A. Cocco. 1998. The Effects of Monetary Incentives on Worker Learning and Performance in an Assembly Task. Journal of Management Accounting Research 10：119-131.
    6. Baker, G. P. 1992. Incentive Contracts and Performance Measurement. The Journal of Political Economy 100 (3)：598-614.
    7. Baker, G., R. Gibbons, and K. J. Murphy. 1994. Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts. Quarterly Journal of Economics：1125-1156.
    8. Baker, G., M. Gibbs and B. Holmstrom. 1994. The Wage Policy of a Firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109 (4)：921-955.
    9. Baker, G.and B. Holmstrom. 1995. Internal Labor Markets: Too Many Theories Too Few Facts. AEA Papers and Proceedings (May)：255-259.
    10. Baker, G. P., M. C. Jensen, and K. J. Murphy.1988. Compensation and Incentives: Practice vs. Theory. The Journal of Finance：XLII (3)：593-616.
    11. Baker, G., M. Gibbs and B. Holmstrom. 1993. Hierarchies and Compensation. European Economic Review 37：366-378.
    12. Banker, R. D., G. Potter, and D. Srinivasan. 2000. An Empirical Investigation of an Incentive Plan that Includes Nonfinancial Performance Measures. The Accounting Review 25 (1): 65-92.
    13. Banker, R. D., S. Lee, G. Potter and D. Srinivasan.2001.An Empirical Analysis of Continuing Improvements Following the Implementation of a Performance-based Compensation Plan. Journal of Accounting and Economics 30：315-350.
    14. Barkema, H. G. and L. R. Gomez-Mejia.1998.Managerial Compensation and Firm Performance: A General Research Framework. Academy of Management Journal 41(2)：135-145.
    15. Baron, J. N. and D. M. Kreps. 1999. Strategic Human Resource. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Printed in the United States of America.
    16. Becker, B. and M. Huselid. 1992. The Incentive Effects of Tournament Compensation Systems. Administrative Science 37：336-350.
    17. Belsley, A., E. Kuh, and R. Welsch. 1980. Regression Diagnostics, New York: Wiley.
    18. Bognanno, M. L.2001. Corporate Tournaments. Journal of Labor Economics 19 (2)： 290-315.
    19. Bonner, S. E., R. Hastie, G. B. Sprinkle and S.M.Young. 2000. A Review of the Effects of Financial Incentives on Performance in Laboratory Tasks: Implications for Management Accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research 12：19-64.
    20. Bonner, S. E.and G. B.Sprinkle. 2002. The Effects of Monetary Incentives on Effort and Task Performance: Theories, Evidence, and a Framework for Research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27：303-345.
    21. Bull, C., A. Schotter and K. Weigelt. 1987. Tournaments and Piece Rates: An Experimental Study. Journal of Political Economy 95 (1): 1-33.
    22. Bushman, R. M., R. J. Indjejikian, and A. Smith. 1995. Aggregate Performance Measures in Business Unit Manager Compensation: The Role of Intrafirm Interdependencies. Journal of accounting Research 33：101-134.
    23. Chan, W. 1996. External Recruitment versus Internal Promotion. Journal of Labor Economics 14 (4)：555-570.
    24. Coughlan, A. T. and C. Narasimhan. 1992. An Empirical Analysis of Sales-Force Compensation Plans. Journal of Business 65 (1): 93-121.
    25. Cowherd, D. M. and D. I. Levine. 1992. Product Quality and Pay Equity between Lower-level Employees and Top Management: An Investigation of Distributive Justice Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (June): 302-329.
    26. Daft, R. L.1997. Organization Theory and Design. 6th ed. South-Western College Publishing.
    27. Dorstein, M. 1988. Wage Reference Groups and their determinants: A study of Blue-collar and White-collar Employees in Israel. Journal of Occupational Psychology 61: 221-235.
    28. Drago, R. and G.T. Garvey. 1998. Incentives for Helping on the Job: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Labor Economics 16 (January)：1-25.
    29. Drake, A. R., S. F. Haka, and S. P. Ravenscroft.1999. Cost System and Incentive Structure Effects on Innovation, Efficiency and Profitability in Teams. The Accounting Review 74(3)：323-345.
    30. Dye, R. A. 1984. The Trouble with Tournaments. Economic Inquiry 12(January): 147-149.
    31. Ehrenberg, R.G. and M.L.Bognanno. 1990a. Do Tournaments Have Incentive Effects? Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 1307-1324.
    32. Ehrenberg, R.G. and M.L.Bognanno. 1990b. The Incentive Effects of Tournaments Revisited: Evidence from the European PGA Tour. Industrial and Labor Relations Review (February)：S74-88.
    33. Eriksson, T. 1999. Executive Compensation and Tournament Theory: Empirical Test on Danish Data. Journal of Labor Economics 17(2)：262-280.
    34. Eriksson, T. and M.Lausten.2000. Managerial pay and firm performance—Danish Evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Management 16：269-286.
    35. Fairbrun, J. A. and J. M. Malcomson. 2001. Performance, Promotion, and the Peter Principle. Review of Economics Studies 68：45-66.
    36. Feltham, G. A. and J. Xie. 1994. Performance Measure Congruity and Diversity in Multi-Task Principal/Agent Relations. The Accounting Review 69 (3)：429-453.
    37. Fisher, J. G., L. A.Maines, S. A. Peffer., and G. B. Sprinkle.2003. An Experimental Investigation of Objective and Subjective Performance Evaluation. 2003 American Accounting Association Annual Meeting.
    38. Gibbs, M., K. A. Merchant, W. A. Van der Stede and M. E. Vargus. 2004. Determinants and Effects of Subjectivity in Incentives. The Accounting Review 79 (2): 409-436.
    39. Gibbs, M. 1995. Incentive Compensation in a Corporate Hierarchy. Journal of Accounting and Economics 19：247-277.
    40. Gibbons, R. and K. J. Murphy. 1992. Optimal Incentive Contracts in the Presence of Career Concerns: Theory and Evidence. The Journal of Political Economy 100 (3): 468-505.
    41. Greene, William H. 2000. Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall Internation Editions.
    42. Hair, J., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, and W. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th Ed. Prendice-Hall Inc.
    43. Hausman, J.A.1978. Specification tests in Econometrics. Econometrica 46 (November)： 1251-1271.
    44. Hayes, R. M. and S. Schaefer. 1999. How Much are Differences in Managerial Ability Worth? Journal of Accounting and Economics 27：125-148.
    45. Henderson, A. D. and J. W. Fredrickson. 2001. Top Management Team Coordination Needs and the CEO Pay Gap: A Competitive Test of Economic and Behavioral View. Academy of Management Journal 44 (1)：96-117.
    46. Hill, R. C., W. E. Griffithsl, G. G. Judge. 2000. Undergraduate Econometrics. John Wiley & Son, Inc.
    47. Holmstrom, B. 1979. Moral Hazard and Observability. Bell Journal of Economics 10 (Spring)：74-91.
    48. Holmstrom, B. 1982. Moral Hazard in Teams. Bell Journal of Economics 13：324-340.
    49. Holmstrom, B. and P. Milgrom. 1991. Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design. The Journal of Law Economics and Organizaiton 7：24-52.
    50. Holmstrom, B and P. Milgrom. 1994. The Firm as an Incentive System. American Economic Review 84 (4): 972-991.
    51. Indjejikian, R. J. 1999. Performance Evaluation and Compensation Research: An Agency Perspective. Accounting Horizons (June)：147-157.
    52. Ittner, C., and D. Larcker. 1997. The performance effects of process management techniques. Management Science 43 (4): 522-534.
    53. Ittner, C., W. Lanen., and D. Larcker. 2002. The Association between Activity-based Costing and Manufacturing Performance. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (3): 711-726.
    54. Ittner, C. and D. Larcker.2002. Determinants of Performance Measure Choices in Worker Incentive Plans. Journal of Labor Economics 20 (2)：58-90.
    55. Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F. and M. W. Meyer. 2003. Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard. The Accounting Review 78 (3)：725-758.
    56. John, G. and B. A. Weitz. 1989. Salesforce Compensation: An Empirical Investigation of Factor Related to the Use of Salary versus Incentive Compensation. Journal of Marketing Research 26 (February)：1-14.
    57. Joseph G. Laureen A. Sean A. and Geoffrey B. 2003. An experimental investigation of objective and subjective performance evaluation. 2003 American Accounting Association Annual Meeting.
    58. Joseph, K. and M. U. Kalwani. 1998. The Role of Bonus Pay in Salesforce Compensation Plans. Industrial Marketing Management 27：147-159.
    59. Kahn, L. M. and P. D. Sherer. 1990. Contingent Pay and Managerial Performance. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43 (Special)：107-120.
    60. Kang, J., K. Kim, and W. C. Henderson. 2002. Economic Value Added (EVA): A Financial Performance Measure. Journal of Accounting and Finance Research 10 (Spring)：48-60.
    61. Ke, B., K. Petroni, and A. Safieddine.1999. Ownership Concentration and Sensitivity of Executive Pay to Accounting Performance Measures: Evidence from Publicly- and Privately-held Insurance Companies. Journal of Accounting and Economics 28：185-209.
    62. Kohn, A. 1998. Inner and Outer Rewards. Across the Board. New York 25(3): 11-13.
    63. Kreps, D.M. 1997.The Interaction between Norms and Economic Incentives：Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives. The American Economic Review 87(2)：359-364.
    64. Kunz, A. H. and D. Pfaff. 2002. Agency Theory, Performance Evaluation, and the Hypothetical Construct of Intrinsic Motivation. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27：275-295.
    65. Lambert, R. A. 2001. Contracting Theory and Accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 32：3-87.
    66. Lawler, E. 1973. Motivation in Work Organizations. Belmont Calif: Wadsworth.
    67. Lazear, E. P. and S. Rosen. 1981. Rank-order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts. Journal of Political Economy 89 (5)：841-864.
    68. Lazear, E. P. 1986. Salaries and Piece Rates. The Journal of Business 59 (3)：405-431.
    69. Lazear, E. P. 1989. Pay Equality and Industrial Politics. Journal of Political Economy 97 (June)：561-580.
    70. Lazear, E. P. 1991. Labor Economics and the Psychology of Organizations. Journal of Economics Perspectives 5 (Spring)：89-110.
    71. Lazear, E. P.1998. Personnel Economics for Managers. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    72. Lazear, E. P. 1999. Personnel Economics: Past Lessons and Future Directions— Presidential Address to the Society of Labor Economists. Journal of Labor Economics 17 (2)：199-236.
    73. Lazear, E. P. 2004. The Peter Principle: A Theory of Decline. Journal of Political Economy 112 (1): S141-S163.
    74. MacLeod, W. B. 2003. Optimal Contracting with Subjective Evaluation. The American Economic Review 93 (1)：216-240.
    75. MacLeod, W. B. and D. Parent. 1999. Job Characteristics, Wages, and the Employment Contract. Review—Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (May/June)：13-27.
    76. Malcomson, J. M.1984. Work Incentives, Hierarchy, and Internal Labor Markets. Journal of Political Economy 92 (June)：486-507.
    77. Main, B. G. M., C.A. O’Reilly Ⅲ and J. Wade.1993. Top Executive Pay: Tournament or Teamwork? Journal of Labor Economics 11 (4)：606-628.
    78. Matsumura, E. M.and J. Y. Shin. 2004. An Empirical Analysis of a Relative Performance-based Incentive Plan. Working paper at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    79. Medoff, J. L. and K. G. Abraham. 1980. Experience, Performance, and Earnings. The Quarterly Journal of Economics (December)：703-736
    80. Merchant, K. A., W. A.Van der Stede, and L. Zheng. 2003. Disciplinary Constraints on the Advancement of Knowledge: The Case of Organizational Incentive Systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28：251-286.
    81. Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts. 1988. An Economic Approach to Influence Activities in Organizations. American Journal of Sociology 94：S154-S179.
    82. Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts. 1992. Economics, Organization and Management. Prentice Hall International Editions.
    83. Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts. 1995. Complementarities and Fit Strategy, structure, and Organizational change in Manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics 19 (March/May): 179-208.
    84. Mishra, D. P., J. B. Heide, and S. G. Cort. 1998. Information Asymmetry and Levels of Agency Relationships. Journal of Marketing Research (August): 277-295.
    85. O´Reilly, C. A., B. G. M. Brain, and G. S. Crystal. 1988. CEO Compensation as Tournament and Social Comparison: A Tale of Two theories. Administrative Science Quarterly 33(June)：257-274.
    86. Peter, L. and R. Hull. 1969. The Peter Principle. W. Morrow. New York, NY.
    87. Prendergast, C. and R. H. Topel. 1993. Discretion and Bias in Performance Evaluation. European Economic Review 37：355-365.
    88. Prendergast, C. 1999. The Provision of Incentives in Firms. Journal of Economic Literature (March)：7-63.
    89. Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci. 2000. When Rewards Compete with Nature: The Undermining of Intrinsic Motivation and Self-regulation. Sansone, I. and J. Harackiewicz(Eds.). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The search of optimal motivation and performance：12-54. San Diego: Academic Press.
    90. Rob, R. and P. Zemsky. 2002. Social Capital, Corporate Culture, and Incentive Intensity. RAND Journal of Economics 33(2)：243-257.
    91. Scott. T. W. and P. Tiessen. 1999. Performance measurement and managerial teams. Accounting, Organizations and Society 24：263-285.
    92. Silberberg, E. and W. Suen. 2000. The Structure of Economics—A Mathematical Analysis 3th. McGraw-Hill. Printed in Singapore.
    93. Sim, K. L. and L. N. Killough. 1998. The Performance Effects of Complementarities between Manufacturing Practices and Management Accounting Systems. Journal of Management Accounting Research.
    94. Taylor, B. A. and J. G. Trogdon. 2002. Losing to Win: Tournament Incentives in the National Basketball Association. Journal of Labor Economics 20(1)：23-41.
    95. Wageman, R. 1995. Interdependence and Group Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(1)：145-180.
    96. Wageman, R. and G. Baker. 1997. Incentives and Cooperation: the Joint Effects of Task and Reward Interdependence on Group Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18：139-158.
    97. Wier, B., D. N. Stone and J. E. Hunton. 2002. Promotion and Performance Evaluation of Managerial Accountings. Journal of Management Accounting Research 14：189-208.
    98. Zhou, X. and P. L. Swan. 2003. Performance Thresholds in Managerial Incentive Contracts. The Journal of Business 76(4): 665-696.
    Description: 國立政治大學
    會計研究所
    87353502
    94
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0087353502
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[會計學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    35350201.pdf74KbAdobe PDF2768View/Open
    35350202.pdf105KbAdobe PDF2760View/Open
    35350203.pdf168KbAdobe PDF21332View/Open
    35350204.pdf108KbAdobe PDF2848View/Open
    35350205.pdf189KbAdobe PDF21789View/Open
    35350206.pdf258KbAdobe PDF22285View/Open
    35350207.pdf279KbAdobe PDF210981View/Open
    35350208.pdf270KbAdobe PDF21467View/Open
    35350209.pdf275KbAdobe PDF21232View/Open
    35350210.pdf284KbAdobe PDF21334View/Open
    35350211.pdf181KbAdobe PDF2999View/Open
    35350212.pdf128KbAdobe PDF21521View/Open
    35350213.pdf114KbAdobe PDF2810View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback