Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/95459
|
| Title: | 智慧資本與經營績效關聯之實證研究－以我國資訊電子業技術人力資本為例 |
| Authors: | 廖芝嫻 |
| Contributors: | 歐進士
廖芝嫻 |
| Keywords: | 技術人員
人力資本
技術人力資本
經營績效
technicians
human capital
technical human capital
operating performance |
| Date: | 2002 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-05-09 16:21:29 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 二十一世紀企業的價值不再僅止於帳面資產所反映的價值，許多無形資產所隱藏的價值更甚於有形資產，這部份即是所謂的智慧資本，其中又以人力資本最為重要，尤其在二十一世紀的知識經濟時代，更須正視「人」所扮演的角色，因為人所具備的知識、技術與能力，已成為企業競爭優勢的來源。近幾年來，台灣資訊電子業之所以能蓬勃發展的主要原因即在於具備了技術密集與知識密集的特性，本研究有鑒於人力資本的重要性日增，而技術又是資訊電子業的關鍵成功因素，因此擬探討技術人力資本強度是否對公司經營績效有顯著的正向影響。
本研究以我國資訊電子業之57家上市上櫃公司1991年至2000年共241個觀察值為樣本，蒐集公司內部技術人員人數之實際資料，運用實證分析方法，探討技術人力資本強度與公司經營績效間的關聯，並將研究發展強度、員工薪資報酬水準、員工生產力、公司規模這四個公司特性一並納入分析。
實證結果顯示，無論以資產報酬率或權益報酬率衡量經營績效，皆與技術人力資本強度呈顯著正相關，且無論是以營業利益、營業毛利、稅前息前淨利、稅前淨利或稅後淨利計算報酬率，結果均支持本研究的假說。至於其他公司特性方面，除公司規模外，研究發展強度、員工薪資報酬水準及員工生產力多與經營績效呈正相關，亦符合本研究的預期。
此外，本研究亦探討技術人力資本的變動對經營績效的解釋程度，研究結果顯示，技術人員人數每增加10%，營業利益即增加4.4%，顯示技術人力資本不僅與公司經營績效有顯著正相關，當技術人員增加時，營業利益也會隨之增加，代表技術人員的人數對公司本業經營績效之影響相當大。另外，研究發現以營業毛利作為獲利的替代變數時，模式的解釋力(Adj-R2)最高，代表技術人員對公司經營績效的影響主要還是反映在製造成本與銷貨成本的降低。
本研究結果可供我國資訊電子業制定人力資源管理決策的參考，在全球競爭日益激烈的環境下，未來我國資訊電子業公司在人才的招募上，應提高技術人員所佔的比例，來增強本身在技術上的競爭力，進而提昇公司的經營績效。
Management theory has gradually accepted that ‘hidden assets’ or most recently ‘intellectual capital’, especially human capital, increasingly play a major role for the survival of companies. With the coming of knowledge economy, knowledge and competence of employees have become the most important sources of competitive advantage. The reason why Taiwanese information and electronic industry has grown rapidly these years lies in the key factor of technology intensity and knowledge intensity. Since technology is the soul of this industry and technology must be realized directly through technicians, this study intends to examine the association between technical human capital intensity and corporate operating performance.
The sample used in this study consists of 57 information and electronic companies listed on TSE and ROSE from 1991 to 2000, totally 241 observations. We collect the data of number of technicians from Public Offering Prospectus. This study uses multi-regression model as the empirical method to test the hypothesis that the technical human capital intensity and corporate operating performance are positively related. In addition, we include R&D intensity, labor compensation level, labor productivity and company scale as the subordinate independent variables.
Our results provide strong evidence that higher technical human capital intensity leads to better operating performance. Besides, when the gross profit is used to measure profitability, the Adj-R2 of the model achieves 50%, which means the major impact of technicians on corporate performance is reflected in the reduction of manufacturing costs or cost of goods sold. We also investigate more about how the variation of technical human capital influences the operating performance. The result shows that when the number of technicians increases 10%, the operating income increases 4.4%. As for other subordinate variables, R&D intensity, labor compensation level and labor productivity are all significantly positively related to operating performance. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
1. 田鳳娟，1987，不同技術密集度之管理控制與績效的關係，政治大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
2. 江榮國，1987，不同技術密集度之管理風格研究，政治大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
3. 行政院主計處，2001，中華民國統計月報，第428期。
4. 行政院國家科學委員會，2000，中華民國科學技術統計要覽。
5. 吳思華，2001，「知識經濟、知識資本與知識管理」，台灣產業研究，第四期，11-50。
6. 李昭瑢，1987，不同技術密集度下組織結構與績效之關係，政治大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
7. 郭兆玲，1993，經營績效評價方法之研究─以生產力觀念與財務比率評價方法，交通大學管理科學研究所未出版碩士論文。
8. 張東隆，1984，企業人事管理型態、技術及結構對組織效能之影響，中華經濟研究院經濟叢書。
9. 黃雅琪，1997，台灣電子業品質認證與研究發展對經營績效之影響，政治大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文。
10. 黃雅苓，1999，研究發展支出與經營績效關係及其費用化之探討─以台灣上市公司之電子業與非電子業為例，政治大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文。
11. 歐進士，1996，我國企業研究發展與經營績效關聯之實證研究，中山管理評論。
12. 歐進士、傅鍾仁、楊忠城、張寶光，2001，技術密集與員工獲利力關聯之研究，論文草稿，國立政治大學。
13. 「張忠謀：政府應發展特定技術」，經濟日報，2001年11月30日，第34版。
14. 「張忠謀：新經濟造成財富重新洗牌」，工商時報，2000年4月12日，第3版。
二、英文部分
1. Abdel-kahalik, A. R. 2001. Self-Sorting and Human Capital Assets. Working Paper. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
2. Atkinson, R. C. 1990. Supply and Demand for Scientists and Engineers: A National Crisis in the Making. Science 276(4): 425-432.
3. Becker, G. S. 1964. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press.
4. Berman, E., J. Bound and Z. Griliches. 1994. Changes in the Demand for Skilled Labor within U.S. Manufacturing Industries: Evidence from the Annual Survey of Manufactures. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109(2): 367-397.
5. Bernstein, L. A. and J. J. Wild. 2000. Analysis of Financial Statements. 5th ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
6. Bleicher, K., F. Bleicher and H. Paul. 1983. Managerial Frameworks for Innovative Responses in High-Tech Organizations. Business Horizons 26(6): 69-78.
7. Borestsky, M. 1982. The Threat to U.S. High Technology Industries: Economic and National Security Implications Draft. International Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
8. Bouillon, M. L., B. M. Doran and P. F. Orazem. 1995. Human Capital Investment Effects on Firm Returns. Journal of Applied Business Research 12(1): 30-41.
9. Braddock, D. J. 1992. Scientific and Technical Employment, 1990-2005. Monthly Labor Review 115(2): 28-41.
10. Brooking, A. 1996. Intellectual Capital: Core Asset for the Third Millennium Enterprise. International Thomson Business Press.
11. Capon, N. and R. Glazer. 1987. Marketing and Technology: A Strategic Coalignment. Journal of Marketing 51(2): 1-14.
12. Cascio, W. F. 1989. Managing Human Resources: Productivity, Quality of Work Life, Profits. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
13. Chuang, Y. C. 2000. Human Capital, Exports, and Economic Growth: A Causality Analysis for Taiwan. Review of International Economics 8(4): 712-720.
14. Corvers, F. 1997. The Impact of Human Capital on Labor Productivity in Manufacturing Sectors of the European Union. Applied Economics 29(4): 975-987.
15. Davenport, T. O. 1999. Human Capital: What Is It and Why People Invest It. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16. Davis, L. A. 1982. Technology Intensity of U.S. Output and Trade. Office of Trade and Investment Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.
17. Deeds, D. L. 2001. The Role of RandD Intensity, Technical Development and Absorptive Capacity in Creating Entrepreneurial Wealth in High Technology Start-ups. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 18(1): 29-47.
18. Doms, M., T. Dunne and K. R. Troske. 1997. Workers, Wages and Technology. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(1): 253-290.
19. Drucker, P. F. 1999. Knowledge-worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge. California Management Review 41(2): 79-81.
20. Dunne, T. and J. Schmitz. 1995. Wages, Employment Structure and Employer Size-Wage Premia: Their Relationship to Advanced-Technology Usage at U.S. Manufacturing Establishments. Economica 62(1): 89-107.
21. Edvinsson, L. and M. S. Malone. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Roots. Harper Collins.
22. Felsenstein, D. and R. Bar-El. 1989. Measuring the Technological Intensity of the Industrial Sector: A Methodological and Empirical Approach. Research Policy 18(4): 239-252.
23. Fey, C. F., I. Bjorkman and A. Pavlovskaya. 2000. The Effect of Human Resource Management Practices on Firm Performance in Russia. International Journal of Human Resource Management 11(1): 1-18.
24. Flannery, T. P., D. A. Hofrichter and P. E. Platten. 1996. People, Performance, and Pay. New York: The Free Press.
25. Frantzen, D. 2000. RandD, Human Capital and International Technology Spillovers: A Cross-country Analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 102(1): 57-75.
26. Fridson, M. S. 1995. Financial Statement Analysis: A Practitioner’s Guide. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons.
27. Gibson, C. H. 1998. Financial Statement Analysis: Using Financial Accounting Information. South-Western College Publishing.
28. Harvey, E. 1968. Technology and the Structure of Organizations. American Sociological Review 33(1): 247-259.
29. Hilton, D. 1997. When a TECHCAPITAL Leaves. Managing Office Technology 42(9): 42.
30. Howard, B. and D. Lebell. 1989. Tapping Technical Talent. Personnel 65(11): 53-56.
31. Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press.
32. Katrak, H. 1994. Imports of Technology, Enterprise Size and RandD-Based Production in a Newly Industrializing Country: The Evidence from Indian Enterprises. World Development 22(10): 1599-1608.
33. Kelly, R. K. 1977. The Impact of Technological Innovation on International Trade Patterns. Office of International Economic Research, U.S. Department of Commerce.
34. Khandwalla, P. N. 1974. Mass Output Orientation of Operations Technology and Organizational Structure. Administrative Science Quarterly 19(1): 74-97.
35. Klette, T. J. 1996. RandD, Scope Economies, and Plant Performance. Rand Journal of Economics 27(3): 502-522.
36. Krueger, A. 1993. How Computers Have Changed the Wage Structure: Evidence from Microdata. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108(1): 33-60.
37. Miller, D. M. 1984. Profitability＝Productivity＋Price Recovery. Harvard Business Review 62(3): 145-153.
38. Mincer, J. 1993. Studies in Human Capital. Cambridge: Edward Elgar.
39. Mohr, L. B. 1971. Organizational Technology and Organizational Structure. Administrative Science Quarterly 16(4): 444-459.
40. Morbey, G. K. 1989. RandD Expenditures and Profit Growth. Research-Technology Management 32(3): 20-23.
41. Oliver, R. W. 2001. The Return on Human Capital. Journal of Business Strategy 22(4): 7-10.
42. Perrow, C. 1967. A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations. American Sociological Review 32(1): 194-208.
43. Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.
44. Roos, G. and J. Roos. 1997. Measuring Your Company’s Intellectual Performance. Long Range Planning 30(3): 413-426.
45. Roos, J., G. Roos, L. Edvinsson and N. C. Dragonetti. 1998. Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape. New York: New York University Press.
46. Sciberras, E. 1986. Indicators of Technical Intensity and International Competitiveness: A Case for Supplementing Quantitative Data with Qualitative Studies in Research. RandD Management 16(1): 3-14.
47. Schultz, T. W. 1961. Investment in Human Capital. American Economic Review 51(3): 1-17.
48. Schuster, J. R. and P. K. Zingheim. 1992. The New Pay: Linking Employee and Organizational Performance. New York: Lexington Books.
49. Sinclair, S. A. and D. H. Cohen. 1992. Adoption of Continuous Processing Technologies: Its Strategic Importance in Standardized Industrial Product-Markets. Journal of Business Research 24(3): 209-224.
50. Sougiannis, T. 1994. The Accounting Based Valuation of Corporate RandD. Accounting Review 69(1): 44-68.
51. Stewart, T. A. 1994. Your Company’s Most Valuable Asset: Intellectual Capital. Fortune 130(7): 28-33.
52. Stewart, T. A. 1997. Intellectual Capital. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.
53. Stickney, C. P. 1996. Financial Reporting and Statement Analysis: A Strategic Perspective. 3rd ed. The Dryden Press.
54. U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. 1983. An Assessment of U.S. Competitiveness in High Technology Industries.
55. Weiss, B. D. 1998. Information-Age Acquisitions: Talent and Technology. Mergers and Acquisitions 32(5): 25-27.
56. White, G. I., A. C. Sondhi and D. Fried. 1998. The Analysis and Use of Financial Statements. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons.
57. Zhou, X. 2000. CEO Pay, Firm Size, and Corporate Performance: Evidence from Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics 33(1): 213-251.
三、網站資料
http://tw.stock.yahoo.com |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
會計學系 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2010000347 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [會計學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
