進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-0812200911254847
論文名稱(中文) 公司治理、競爭策略、環境與公司績效關連性之研究:台灣半導體產業之實證
論文名稱(英文) The study on Relationships Between Corporate governance, Competitive strategy, Environment, and Firm performance:Empirical evidence of Taiwan's Semiconductor industries
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 高階管理碩士在職專班(EMBA)
系所名稱(英) Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA)
學年度 93
學期 1
出版年 94
研究生(中文) 黃裕洲
研究生(英文) Yu-Chou Huang
學號 r0791143
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 64頁
口試委員 指導教授-吳學良
口試委員-陳忠仁
召集委員-史習安
中文關鍵字 績效  交互作用  環境  爭策略  公司治理  半導體產業 
英文關鍵字 nteraction  and Firm performance  Environment  Competitive strategy  Corporate Governance  Semiconductor 
學科別分類
中文摘要   近幾個月來台灣的高科技產業爆發了幾件重大淘空案,使得社會投資大眾對於地雷股的警戒心又再度提高。造成這些淘空案的主要原因來自於企業經營階層或控制股東罔顧一般小股東權益淘空公司資產所致,也就是在這個背景下,落實公司治理的聲浪與呼聲又再度蔓延開來。其實公司治理議題自1997年亞洲金融風暴及2001年美國恩龍案爆發後即成為全球注目焦點,而台灣的產業在面臨全球化競爭下,亦必須藉由改善本身的治理系統,提昇其於國際市場上的競爭力。
  本研究以半導體產業為研究樣本,蒐集2000年至2003年之135家半導體公司次級資料進行研究,資料蒐集之來源為證券基金會與台灣經濟新報資料庫,由於半導體產業不僅是目前台灣發展重要的經濟命脈之一,也是少數台灣能立足國際邁向21世紀的重要產業。基於此產業之重要性,研究結果除證實半導體產業強化公司治理對績效有正向關係之影響外,亦透過研究證實策略選擇、環境面因素對公司治理與與績效的關係有強化作用,由於外在環境長期被視為影響組織發展之權變因素,策略選擇也攸關企業資源運用之模式及強度,加入策略及環境變數的條件後,確實能夠解釋公司治理變數與績效的關聯性是如何受到策略及環境之調和,亦即透過權變觀點或策略行為的選擇會影響公司治理對績效之良窳。

  另外,本研究依實證結果發展之管理意涵有三:
1. 對於半導體產業而言,公司治理愈受重視,愈能對公司績效產生正面的影響。
2. 對於半導體產業而言,公司治理加入技術差異化策略變數的條件後,確實能夠證明其交互作用會強化公司治理與績效的關聯性。
3. 對於半導體產業而言,公司治理加入環境變數的成長機會條件後,確實能夠證明其交互作用會強化公司治理與績效的關聯性。


英文摘要  In the past year, there were several corrupts explored in Taiwan’s high tech industry, which make the stockholders be extra cautious about firm’s bankrupt. The main reason of these corrupts came from the corporation shareholders who ignored the privileges of the general stockholders. Under this circumstance, corporate governance is back in trend. The issues of Corporation Governance had been the focus topic of business administration after the Asian finance storm in 1997 and the scandal of Enron in 2001. Therefore, Taiwan’s corporations have to improve the governance system of themselves in order to increase their competitiveness in the worldwide.

 The object of study is focused on the semiconductor industry, with 135 relative companies’ secondary data from 2000 to 2003. The major resources of the data came from the Securities & Futures Institute and Taiwan Economic Journal Data Bank (TEJ). Semiconductor industry is extremely significant in Taiwan’s economic development. It is the important industry that represents Taiwan to the world. Because of its significance, the results of this study have verified that the semiconductor corporations not only reinforce the practice of corporate governance to accomplish the performance, also proven the linkage of corporate governance, competitive strategy, environment, and firm performance. Since the external circumstance has been classified as the contingency view to influence the organization development for a long time, and the choice of strategies is linkage to the corporate resources usage and its intensity. With the conditions of strategic and environmental variable, the relationship between the corporate governance and performance can indeed be resolved. Furthermore, it will be affected by the contingency view or the choice of strategic choice.

 As for the semiconductor industry, the significances of this study includes:
1. The better corporate governance, the better the performance.
2. Competitive strategy of technological differentiation can strengthen the linkage between corporate governance and performance.
3. Environment can enhance the relationship of corporate governance and performance.


論文目次 目 錄
摘 要.....................................................................II
Abstract ..................................................................III
謝 辭.....................................................................IV
第一章 緒論................................................................1
第一節 研究背景與動機......................................................1
第二節 研究目的............................................................3
第三節 研究流程與章節安排..................................................5
第二章 文獻探討............................................................6
第一節 公司治理 ...........................................................6
第二節 代理問題............................................................7
第三節 公司治理與績效......................................................8
第四節 公司治理與績效關聯性之權變觀點.....................................16
第五節 小結...............................................................20
第三章 研究架構與研究方法.................................................22
第一節 觀念性研究架構.....................................................22
第二節 研究變數衡量與變數定義.............................................24
第三節 研究樣本...........................................................27
第四節 資料分析方法.......................................................29
第四章 資料分析與討論.....................................................32
第一節 基本資料分析.......................................................32
第二節 公司治理、競爭策略、環境與績效之實證...............................33
第三節 階層迴歸及變異數分析...............................................37
第四節 假設驗證總結.......................................................44
第五章 結論與建議.........................................................45
第一節 研究結論與貢獻.....................................................45
第二節 研究限制...........................................................47
第三節 研究建議...........................................................48
參考文獻..................................................................50
參考文獻 一、中文部份
1. 李振宇 (2004),以權變觀點審視混合策略之可行性~以全球研發型企業之實證,成功大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
2. 吳令儀 (2004),董事會特性、績效與多角化程度關連性之權變觀點—以台灣電子產業為例,成功大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
3. 吳思華 (1996),「策略九說」,遠流出版社。
4. 吳昆皇 (1995),上市公司董事會組成與特性對企業經營績效之關聯性研究,台灣大學商學研究所未出版之碩士論文。
5. 伍忠賢 (2003),「公司治理的第一本書」,商周出版社。
6. 洪美蘭(1989),「所有權結構、投資與公司價值之實証研究」,高雄第一科技大學金融營運所未出版碩士論文。
7. 張毓強(2003),「公司治理機制與經營績效關聯性研究--以中國大陸上市企業為例」,雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
8. 葉銀華 (1998),「家族控股、董事會組成與經營績效—台灣家族企業管治機制之研究」,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。
9. 葉銀華 (2000),「家族控股集團、核心企業與報酬互動之研究—台灣與香港證券市場之比較」,管理評論,第18卷,第2期,頁59-86。
10. 劉紹樑 (2002),「從莊子到安隆 - A+公司治理」,臺北,天下雜誌。

二、英文部份
1. Agrawal, P. H & Knoeber, C. R. (1996). Firm performance and mechanisms to
control agency problems between managers and shareholders. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31(3), 379-397.
2. Alchain, A.A. and H. Demsetz, (1972) “Production, Information Costs and Economic Organization, American Economic Organization,” American Economic Review, 62(5), pp. 777-795.
3. Alexander, J. A, Fennell, M. L., & Halpern, M. T. (1993) “Leadership Instability in Hospitals: The Influence of Board-CEO Relations and Organizational Growth and Decline.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, pp. 74-99.
4. Amihud, Y. and Baruch, L. (1999) “Research Notes and Communications: Does Corporate Ownership Structure Affect its Strategy Towards Diversification?” Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp.1063-1069.
5. Beasley, M. S. and Salterio, S. E. (2001) “The relationship between board characteristics and voluntary improvements in audit committee composition and experience,” Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(4); pp. 539-571.
6. Berle, A. and Means, G. (1932) The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York, MacMillan.
7. Birnbaum, P. H. (1984) “The Choice of Strategic Alternatives Under Increasing Regulation in High Technology Industries.” Academy of Management Journal, 27, pp. 489-510.
8. Booth, J. R. and Deli, D. N. (1996) “Factors Affecting the Number of Outside Directorships Held by CEOs.” Journal of Financial Economics, 40, pp. 81-104.
9. Brickley, J.A., Lease, R.C., & Smith, C.W. Jr. (1988) “Ownership Structure and Voting on Antitakeover Amendments.” Journal of Financial Economics, 20(1), pp. 267–291.
10. Bruce, A. K. (2002) “Evaluating corporate board cultures and decision making,” Corporate Governance, 2(2), pp. 27-36.
11. Bushee, B. J. (1998) “The Influence of Institutional Investors on Myopic R&D Investment Behavior.” Accounting Review, 73, pp. 305-333.
12. Chandler, A. D. (1962) ‘Strategy and Structure: Chapters in The History of American Enterprise’, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
13. Chen, C. and Lin, B. (2002) “The effects of formation motives and interfirm diversity on the performance of strategic alliance,” Asia Pacific Management Review, 7 (2), 139-166.
14. Claessens, Stijn, Simeon Djankov, Joseph P H Fan, Larry H P Lang (1999) Expropriation of minority shareholders in East Asia., Unpublished working paper. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
15. Claessens, Stijn, Simeon Djankov, Lixin Colin Xu,(2000) “Corporate Performance in the East Asian Financial Crisis”, The World Bank Research Observer, 15(1), pp.23-47.
16. D’Aveni, R. A. (1994) ‘Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering’, New York: Free Press.
17. Dalton, Dan R. and Daily, C. M. (1999) “Number of Directors and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), pp. 674-687.
18. Daily, C. M. and Dalton, D. R. (1993) “Board of Directors Leadership and Structure: Control and Performance Implications,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(3), pp.65-81.
19. David , P., Hitt, M. A., & Gimeno, J. (2001) “The Role of Institutional Investors in Influencing R&D.” Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp. 144-157.
20. Denis, D. K. (2001) “Twenty-Five Years of Corporate Governance Research and Counting”, Review of Financial Economics, 2001, 10(3), pp.191-212.
21. Demsetz, H. and Lehn, K. (1985) “The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences”, Journal of Political Economy, 93(6), pp.1155-1178.
22. Dechow, P. M., Sloan, R. G., and Sweeney, A. P. (1996) “Causes and Consequences of Earnings Manipulations: An Analysis of Firms Subject to Enforcement Actions by the SEC,” Contemporary Accounting Research, 13(1), pp.1-35.
23. DeZoort, F. T. and Salterio, S. E. (2001) “The Effects of Corporate Governance Experience and Financial-Reporting and Audit Knowledge on Audit Committee Members' Judgments,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(2), pp.2-11.
24. DeZoort, F. T. and Salterio, S. E. (2001) “The effects of corporate governance experience and financial-reporting and audit knowledge on audit committee members' judgments,” Auditing, 20(2), pp.31-49.
25. Dogan, R. S. (2002) “Board remuneration, company performance, and ownership concentration: Evidence from publicly listed Malaysian companies,” ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 19(3), pp.319-348.
26. Elloumi, F. and Gueyie, J. P. (2001) “CEO Compensation, IOS and the Role of Corporate Governance,” Corporate Governance, 1(2), pp.23-33.
27. Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency Problem and Theory of the Firm. Journal of
Political Economy , 88(2), 288- 307.
28. Fama, E. F. and Jensen, M. C. (1983) “Separation of Ownership and Control”, Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), pp. 301-326.
29. Gedajlovic, E. D. and Shapiro, M. (2002) “Ownership structure and firm profitability in Japan,” Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), pp.565.
30. Gibbons, R. and Murphy, K. (1990) “Relative Performance Evaluation and Chief Executives Officers,” Industrial and Labor Relatives, 43, pp.30-51.
31. Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. (1994) “The Effects of Board Size and Diversity on Strategic Change” Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp. 241-250.
32. Goldberg, L. G. and Idson, T. L. (1995) “Executive compensation and agency effects,” The Financial Review, 30(2), pp. 313-335.
33. Goll, I. and Rasheed, A. A. (2004) “The Moderating Effect of Environmental Munificence and Dynamism on the Relationship Between Discretionary Social Responsibility and Firm Performance,” Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), pp.41-55.
34. Goyer, M. (2001) “Corporate Governance & Innovation System in France 1985-2000,” Journal of Industry Studies, pp.
35. Grimm, C. M. and Smith, K. G. (1997) ‘Strategy as Action: Industry Rivalry and Coordination’, Cincinnati, OH: South Western.
36. Grossman, S. J. and Hart, O. D. (1980) “Takeover Bids, the Free-Rider Problem, and the Theory of the Corporation”, Rand Journal of Economics, 11(1), pp.42.
37. Harris, M. and A. Ravis (1998) “Corporate Governance: Voting Rights and Majority Rules,” Journal of Financial Economics 20, pp. 203-235.
38. Haynes, M., Steve T., & Mike W. (2003) “The Determinants of Corporate Divestment: Evidence from a Panel of UK Firms”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(1), pp.147.
39. Hill, C. W. L. and Snell, S. A. (1988) “External Control, Corporate Strategy, and Firm Performance in Research-Intensive Industries,” Strategic Management Journal, 9, pp.577-590.
40. Hitt, M. A. and Ireland, R. D. (1985) “Corporate Distinctive Competence Strategy, Industry and Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 6, pp.273-293.
41. Hoshi, T., Kashyap, A. & Scharfstein, D. (1991) “Corporate Structure, Liquidity, and Investment: Evidence from Japanese Industrial Groups.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, pp. 33-60.
42. Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Johnson, R. A. & Grossman, W. (2002) “Confliction Voices: The Effects of Ownership Heterogeneity and Internal Governance on Corporate Strategy.” Academy of Management Journal, 45, pp. 697-716.
43. Jensen, M. C. (1986) “Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers”, American Economic Review, 76(2), pp. 323-329.
44. Jensen, M. C. (1988) “Takeovers: Their Causes and Consequences.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(1), pp. 21-48.
45. Jensen, M. C. (1993) “The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure”, Journal of Finance, 48(3), pp. 831-881.
46. Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. (1976) “Theory of The Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, 3, pp.305-360.
47. Jensen, M. C. and Ruback, R. S. (1983) “The Market for Corporate Control: The Scientific Evidence”, Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1-4), pp. 5-51.
48. Jones, G. R. and Butler, J. E. (1992) “Managing internal corporate entrepreneurship: An agency theory perspective,” Journal of Management, 18, pp.733–749.
49. Judge, W. Q. and Zeithaml, C. P. (1992) “Institutional and Strategic Choice Perspectives on Board Involvement in the Strategic Decision Process.” Academy of Management Journal, 35, pp. 766-794.
50. Kang, J. and Shivdasani, A. (1995) “Firm Performance, Corporate Governance, and Top Executive Turnover in Japan.” Journal of Financial Economics, 38, pp. 29-58.
51. Kaplan, S. N. (1994) “Top Executive Rewards and Firm Performance: A Comparison of Japan and the United States.” Journal of Political Economy, 102, pp. 510-556.
52. Kaplan, S. N. and Minton, B. A. (1994) “Appointments of Outsiders to Japanese Boards: Determinants and Implications for Managers.” Journal of Financial Economics, 36, pp. 225-283.
53. Keats, B. W and Hitt, M. A. (1988) “A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance,”
54. Kesner, I. F. (1987) “Directors' Stock Ownership and Organizational Performance: An Investigation of Fortune 500 Companies”, Journal of Management, 13(3) pp. 499-509.
55. Kelm, K. and Narayanan, V. K. and Pinches, G. E. (1995) “Shareholder value creation during R&D innovation and commercialization stages,” Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp.770-786.
56. Kesner, I. F. (1987) “ Directors stock ownership and organization performance: an investigation of Fortune 500 companies,” Journal of Management, 13, pp. 499~507.
57. Lang, M. and McNichols, M. (1997) “Institutional Trading and Corporate Performance.” Research paper no. 1460, Stanford University Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA.
58. La Porta, R., Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer,(1998) “Law and finance”, Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), pp.1113.
59. La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, Robert W. Vishny, (1999) ,“Corporate Ownership Around the World.”, Journal of Finance, 54(2), pp. 471-517.
60. Lawless, M. W. and Finch, L. K. (1989) “Choice And Determinism: A Test Of Hrebiniak And Joyce's Framework On Strategy-Environment Fit,” Strategic Management Journal, 10, pp.351-365.
61. Lee, P. M., O’Neill, and Hugh, M. (2003) “Ownership Structures And R&D Investments of U.S. And Japanese Firms: Agency And Stewardship Perspectives,” Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), pp.212-226.
62. Li, J. (1994) “Ownership Structure and a Board Composition: A Multi-Country Test of Agency Theory Predictions.” Management and Decision Economics, 15(4), pp. 359-369.
63. Li, H. (2001) “How does new venture strategy matter in the environment-performance relationship?” Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12(2), pp.183.
64. Li, M. and Ye, L R. (1999) “Information technology and firm performance: Linking with environmental, strategic and managerial contexts,” Information & Management, 35(1), pp.43-52.
65. McArthur, A. W. and Nystrom, P. C. (1991) “Environmental Dynamism , Complexity, and Munificence as Moderators of Strategy-Performance Relationships,” Journal of Business Research, 23, pp.349-361.
66. Mintzberg, H. T. (1978) ‘Patterns in Strategy Formation’, Management Science, 24, pp. 934-948.
67. Mitton (2002) “A Cross-firm Analysis of the Impact of Corporate Governance on the East Asian Financial Crisis,” Journal of Financial Economics, 64, pp.215-241.
68. Morck, R., Shleifer, A. & Vishny, R. W. (1988) “Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Financial Economics, 20(1-2), pp. 293-316.
69. Morck, R., Masao N. & Anil S. (2000) “Banks, Ownership Structure, and Firm Value in Japan”, Journal of Business, 73(4), pp. 539-568.
70. Myers, S. (1977) “Determinants of Corporate Borrowing.” Journal of Financial Economics, 5, pp. 147-223.
71. Mitton (2002) “A Cross-firm Analysis of the Impact of Corporate Governance on the East Asian Financial Crisis,” Journal of Financial Economics, 64, pp.215-241.
72. Nowak, M. J. and McCabe, M. (2003) “Information Costs and the Role of the Independent Corporate Director,” Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(4), pp.300-309.
73. Oltra, M. J. and Flor, M. (2003) “The Impact of Technological Opportunities and Innovative Capabilities on Firms’ Output Innovation,” Creativity & Innovation Management, 12(3), pp.137-145.
74. Pearce, J. A. and Zahra, S. A. (1992) “Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective,” Journal of Management Studies, 29, pp.411~438.
75. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978), “The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective,” Harper & Row Publishers, NY.
76. Porter, M. E. (1980), “Competitive Strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors,” New York: The Free Press.
77. Pfeifer, J. (1972) “Size and Composition of Corporate Board of Directors: The Organization and Its Environment.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, pp. 218-229.
78. Pfeifer, J. (1973) “Size, Composition, and Function of Hospital Boards of Directors: The Organization and Its Environment.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, pp. 349-364.
79. Rajan, R. (1992) “Insiders and Outsiders: The Choice between Relationship and Arm's Length Debt.” Journal of Finance, 47, pp.1367-1400.
80. Ramaswamy, K. (2001) “Organizational Ownership, Competitive Intensity, and Firm Performance: an Empirical Study of the Indian Manufacturing Sector” Strategic Management Journal. 22(10), pp. 989-998.
81. Samra-Fredericks, D. (2000) “An Analysis of the Behavioural Dynamics of Corporate Governance – a talk-based ethnography of a UK manufacturing ‘board-in-action’,” Corporate Governance: An International Review, 8(4), pp.311-326.
82. Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. W. (1986) “Large Shareholders and Corporate Control.”, Journal of Political Economy, 94(3), pp.461-487.
83. Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. W. (1997) “A Survey of Corporate Governance”, Journal of Finance, 52(2), pp.737-784.
84. Simon, H. A. (1960) ‘The New Science of Management Decision’, New York: Harper and Row.
85. Smith T. M. and J. S. Reece (1998) ‘The Relationship of Strategy, Fit, Productivity, and Business Performance in a Services Setting’, Journal of Operations Management, 17(2), pp. 145-161.
86. Stearns, L. B. and Mizruchi, M. S. (1993) “Board Composition and Corporate Financing: The impact of Financial Institution Representation on Borrowing.” Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), pp. 603-618.
87. Stern Stewart (1994), “EVA Round table at Johnson & JohnsonHeadquarters,” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Summer1994,pp.46-70.
88. Stern, Joel M. G., Bennett Stewart, Donald H., Chew, J. R. (1995), “The EVA imancial management system,” Journal of AppliedCorporate Finance 8, No.2, Summer 1995, pp.32-46.
89. Stewart, III G. Bennett(1994), “EVA ™ : Fact and fantasy,” Journal of appliedcorporate finance 7 (Summer):71-84
90. Stulz, R. M. (1988) “Managerial Control of Voting Rights.” Journal of Financial Economics, 20(1/2), pp. 25-54.
91. Strebel, P. (2004) “The Case for Contingent Governance,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(2), pp.59-67.
92. Tihanyi L., Johnson R., Hoskisson R. & Hitt M. (2003) “Institutional Ownership Differences and International Diversification: The Effects of Boards of Directors and Technological Opportunity” Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), pp. 195-211.
93. Thomsen, S. and Pendersen, T. (2000) “Ownership Structure and Economic Performance in the Largest European Companies.” Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp.689-705.
94. World Bank. (1999). Corporate governance: A framework for implementation overview, September 1999. Washington, District of Columbia: Author.
95. Wright, P., Kroll, M., Lado, A. and Bonnie, V. N. (2002) “The Structure of Ownership and Corporate Acquisition Strategies,” Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp.41-53.
96. Yeh, Y. H., Lee, T. S. & Woidtke, T. (2001) “Family Control and Corporate Governance: Evidence for Taiwan,” International Review of Finance 2, pp.21-48.
97. Yermack, D. (1996) “Higher Market Evaluation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors.” Journal of Financial Economics, 40, pp. 185-211.
98. Zahra, S. A. and Pearce, J. A. (1989) “Boards of Directors and Corporate Financial Performance: A Review and Integrative Model.” Journal of Management, 15, pp. 291-334.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2105-02-03起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2105-02-03起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw