Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49561
|
| Title: | 創新性智慧資本之評估：以醫療產業為例 |
| Authors: | 林貞瑜 |
| Contributors: | 吳安妮
林貞瑜 |
| Keywords: | 智慧資本
醫療產業創新
聯合價值層級
Intellectual capital
innovation in hospital industry
conjoint value hierarchy |
| Date: | 2006 |
| Issue Date: | 2010-12-08 13:52:18 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 全民健康保險實施，促使醫院走向非價格競爭的經營模式，「創新」將會是醫院維持競爭力的利器。
本研究透過兩兩成對比較之問卷調查方式了解影響醫療產業創新之組成要素權重，並進一步經由訪談之方式針對醫療產業創新性智慧資本之價值加以衡量，為個案醫院建立一套創新性智慧資本的聯合價值層級衡量系統。
考量院方之與創新相關之核心價值及願景的情況下，個案醫院最看重的是人力資本，其次依序是財務資本、結構資本及關係資本，代表在創新策略為導向的情況中，人力資本更是醫院最重要的無形資產。推導出個案醫院創新性智慧資本之價值為0.380，處於醫療產業的個案醫院的創新性智慧資本之價值較低。
聯合價值層級衡量系統除了解關鍵成功因素外，針對該因素實際成果進行探討，其價值結果可以提供管理者於資源投入時重要的參考依據與策略執行力及權重認知的檢視。
The hospitals tend to non-price competition because of the National Health Insurance. “Innovation” will be hospitals’ sharp weapons to maintain their competitive advantage.
This thesis conducted the case study under the hospital industry to confer two themes. The first is the weights of determinants of innovation within hospital industry via pair-comparison in a questionnaire. The last is the value of innovative intellectual capital within hospital industry through interviews. This thesis developed a new measurement system of innovative intellectual capital within hospital industry-- conjoint value hierarchy.
Considering the core value and vision, the most capital is human capital for object of the case study. the next are financial capital and structural capital. The last one is relational capital this order implicated that human capital is the most important intangible asset in the case the innovation strategy as a consideration. The value of innovative intellectual capital in object of the case study is low, only 0.380.
The measurement system, conjoint value hierarchy, cannot only understand key success factors, but also consider the value of actual result of the key success factors. The value result can provide management a important reference basis for resource input and review of execution of strategy and of weight perception. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部份
IBM全球企業諮詢服務部，2006，拓展創新視野：2006年全球CEO調查，於網頁http://www-900.ibm.com/cn/services/bcs/ceostudy2006.html?re=hero取得。
王文英與張清福，2004，智慧資本影響績效模式之探討：我國半導體業之實證研究，會計評論，第39期（7月）：89-117。
王敏容、王如萱、王佳惠與敦乃文，2005，市場競爭程度對醫院開發自費醫療服務之影響，北市醫學雜誌，第2卷第10期（10月）：895-906。
台灣智慧資本研究中心與資訊工業策進會資訊情報中心，2006，智慧資本管理，台北：華泰文化事業股份有限公司。
曲永智，2004，智慧資本與創新策略對企業經營績效影響之研究－以台灣地區生物技術產業為例，私立中國文化大學國際企業管理研究所碩士論文。
吳昭怡，2006，2006標竿企業聲望調查-變局下 誰能成功不墜？天下雜誌，第357期（10月），199-210。
李自平，2001，我國醫療產業智慧資本之衡量，私立義守大學管理研究所碩士論文。
張峰源，2003，服務導向型科技專案之特質，經濟情勢暨評論季刊，第9卷第1期（6月）：252-269。
張錦文，2005，醫院總額支付與未來的因應措施，福爾摩莎醫務管理雜誌，第1卷第1期（6月）：1-7。
梁美慧，2004，全民健保前後台灣家計單位醫療需求之結構變化分析，中國文化大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
陳淑玲，2005，運用層級分析法於平衡計分卡指標權重之設定－以某醫院之護理部門為例，國立政治大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
葉金川，2000，台灣醫療體系之未來發展，北市衛生，第53 期：頁2-5。
熊毅晰，2006，從創意中淘出金沙，天下雜誌，第345期（5月）：76-79。
趙文璋，2006，服務業創新與主要國家服務之創新政策（上），今日合庫（7月）：50-73。
蔡宗宏，楊朝堂與蘇東城，2006，醫院知識管理系統成功模型之研究－以某醫學中心為例，顧客滿意學刊，第2卷第2期（9月）：87-120 。
鄧振源與曾國雄，1989，層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用（下），中國統計學報，第27卷第7期（7月），1-20。
盧瑞芬、謝啟瑞，2003，台灣醫院產業的市場結構與發展趨勢分析，經濟論文叢刊，第31卷第1期：107-153。
簡瑞峰，1995，產業創新力的研究，國立臺灣大學商學硏究所碩士論文。
藍麗娟，2005，標竿企業聲望調查，天下雜誌，第333期（10月）：216-231。
闕河楠，1994，服務業創新成功因素之研究-以我國銀行業為例，國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
羅詩城，2003，2003年標竿企業聲望調查-誰能在逆境中彰顯價值？天下雜誌，第284期（10月）：156-168。
譚士屏，2004，2004年標竿企業聲望調查-風起雲湧 挑戰極限，天下雜誌，第309期（10月）174-193。
蘇勳璧，2000，醫療產業資源優勢、策略優勢與績效關係之硏究 : 以衛生署所屬醫院實証分析，私立朝陽科技大學企業管理所究所碩士論文。
二、英文部份
Barron, H., and C. Schmidt. 1988. Sensitivity analysis of additive multiattribute value models. Operation Research 36 (January/February): 122-127.
Bowers, M. 1989. Developing new services: improving the process makes it better. The Journal of Services Marketing 3 (winter): 15-20.
Chapman, R., C. Soosay, and J. Kandampully. 2002. Innovation in logistic services and the new business model-a conceptual framework. Managing Service Quality 12 (November): 358-371.
Chen, J., Z. Zhu, and H. Xie. 2004. Measuring intellectual capital: a new model and empirical study. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (January): 195-212.
Collins, T., M. Rossetti, H. Nachtmann, and J. Oldham. 2006. The use of multi-attribute utility theory to determine the overall best-in-class performer in a benchmarking study. Benchmarking: An International Journal 13 (July): 431-446.
de Brentani, U. 1989. Success and failure in new industrial services. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 6 (December): 239-258.
Duarte, B., and A. Reis. 2006. Developing a projects evaluation system based on multiple attribute value theory. Computers & Operations Research 33 (May): 1488-1504.
Dzinkowski, R. 2000. The measurement and management of intellectual capital: an introduction. Management Accounting 78 (February): 32-36.
Easingwood, C. 1986. New product development for service companies. Journal of Innovation Management 4 (December): 264-275.
Edvinsson, L., and M. Malone. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company`s True Value by Finding its Hidden Roots. New York: HarperBusiness.
Eldieb, A., M. Marzouk, and M. Elsaid. 2005. Multi-attribute utility model for quantifying schedule and cost overruns in pipe-line projects. AACE International Transactions: R131-R138.
Fischer, G. 1995. Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multiattribute value models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62 (June): 252-266.
Fleuren, M., K. Wiefferink, and T. Paulussen. 2004. Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: literature review and Delphi study. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 16 (April): 107-123.
Grant, R. 2002. Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Huber, G. 1974. Multi-attribute utility models: a review of field and field-like studies. Management Science 20 (June): 1393-1402.
Johne, A., and C. Storey. 1998. New service development: a review of the literature and annotated bibliography. European Journal of Marketing 32 (March/Apirl): 184-251.
Kandampuuly, J. 2002. The concept of technology and innovation in services. Managing Service Quality 12 (September): 270.
Kim, Tai-Yoo., Seung-Jun. Kwak, and Seung-Hoon. Yoo. 1998. Applying multi-attribute utility theory to decision making in environmental planning: a case study of the electric utility in Korea. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 4 (September): 597-609.
Magnusson, P. 2003. Benefits of involving users in service innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 6 (4): 228-238.
Mavrotas, G., and P. Trifillis. 2006. Multicriteria decision analysis with minimum information: combining DEA with MAVT. Computers & Operations Research 33 (August): 2093-2098.
M`Pherson, P., and S. Pike. 2001. Accounting, empirical measurement and intellectual capital. Journal of intellectual capital 2 (August): 246-260.
Neumann, P., and E. Sandberg. 1998. Trends in health care R&D and technology innovation. Health affairs 17 (November/December): 111-119.
Pike, S., and G. Roos. 2004. Mathematics and modern business management. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (February): 243-256.
Pike, S., L. Fernström, and G. Roos. 2005. Intellectual capital management approach in ICS Ltd. Journal of Intellectual Capital 6 (October): 489-506.
Pöyhönen, M., and R. Hämäläinen. 2001. On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. European Journal of Operational Research 129 (March): 569-585.
Roos, G., S. Pike, and L. Fernstrom. 2005. Managing Intellectual Capital in Practice. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Roos, J., G. Roos, L. Edvinsson, and N. Dragonetti. 1998. Developing an intellectual capital system: the process model. In Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape, edited by Roos, J., G. Roos, L. Edvinsson, and N. Dragonetti. London: Macmillan Business: 59-77.
Stillwell, W., D. Von Winterfeldt, and R. John. 1987. Comparing hierarchical and nonhierarchical weighting methods for eliciting multiattribute value models. Management Science 33 (April): 442450.
Sveiby, K. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publisher.
Tether, B. 2003. The sources and aims of innovation in services: variety between and within sectors. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 12 (December): 481-505.
Tether, B. 2005. Do services innovate (differently)? Insights form the European Innobarometer Survey. Industry and Innovation 12 (June): 153-184.
Ulvila, J., and W. Snider. 1980. Negotiation of international oil tanker standards: an application of multiattribute value theory. Operation Research 28 (January/February): 82-96.
Youngblood, A., and T. Collins. 2003. Addressing balanced scorecard trade-off issues between performance metrics using multi-arrtibute utility theory. Engineering Management Journal 15 (March): 11-17. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
會計研究所
94353021
95 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094353021 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [會計學系] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
