進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-0812200915343115
論文名稱(中文) 提案制度績效之影響因素實證研究
論文名稱(英文) An empirical Research on Suggestion System's Effects
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系專班
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration (on the job class)
學年度 97
學期 2
出版年 98
研究生(中文) 李謹妃
研究生(英文) Chin-Fei Lee
電子信箱 r47961323@mail.ncku.edu.tw
學號 R4796132
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 65頁
口試委員 指導教授-方世杰
口試委員-洪裕原
口試委員-連雅慧
中文關鍵字 衝突  提案制度  知識分享  績效 
英文關鍵字 Suggestion System  Knowledge Sharing  Conflict  Performance 
學科別分類
中文摘要 在知識經濟時代,知識管理被視為企業競爭優勢的重要指標,企業面臨外部環境的競爭與內部管理的挑戰,在組織競爭力方面,知識的取得來自於外部取得與內部創造,在建立關鍵「know-how」之際,內部知識的創造及取得極為重要。因此,員工之知識分享意願是組織知識創造的來源,知識聚積關鍵在於員工是否願意積極主動的參與組織活動,藉由「提案制度」的實行,員工分享知識與專業能力之意願與有效管理衝突,將對績效具有正面的影響程度,實為知識管理之重要一環。
本研究以具提案制度之產業為研究對象,探討知識分享意願,在衝突的干擾下,對績效的影響程度;依據文獻之探究,衝突採用關係衝突、認知衝突、過程衝突等三個構面,而績效採用組織績效與提案品質兩項構面。採用問卷調查方法進行實證研究,共發出210 份問卷,回收有效問卷155 份,並使用描述性統計分析、信度分析、因素分析以及階層迴歸之研究方法為分析工具,探究知識分享意願面對衝突對績效之影響。
研究結果顯示,知識分享對績效具有顯著性,此外,當員工具知識分享意願時,衝突程度愈高,績效則會降低。在管理意涵方面,企業實施「提案制度」有助於知識的分享,並且對績效具有影響力;但當衝突的介入,知識分享意願程度則會減弱,進而降低部門之績效。因此,有效的知識分享與衝突的管理為企業成長的動力。
英文摘要 In the knowledge economy era, knowledge management is the important index of business competing advantages. Businesses face the challenges from external environment competitions and internal management challenges. In organization competing ability aspect, the knowledge is obtained from both outside environment and internal creations. The internal knowledge creation and acquirement are extremely important to establish the key “know-how”. Therefore, the willingness of knowledge sharing among employee is the original source of organization knowledge creation. The level of employees’ participation in organizational activities and knowledge sharing plays
a vital key to knowledge accumulation. By implementing the “Suggestion System” to encourage employees sharing knowledge and skills, as well as managing conflicts will positively contribute to performance. “Suggestion System” is then a key to knowledge management.
The object of this research is to investigate the influence of conflict on the willingness of knowledge sharing and the affect on the performance. According to literature, the conflicts include the relationship conflict, opinion conflict and process conflict. The performance includes the organization performance and suggestion quality. Participants are selected from the industries that implementing suggesting system. This research adopts empirical research, a total of 210 paper-based questionnaires are sent and 155 valid questionnaires are collected. Descriptive statistics analysis, reliability analysis, factor analysis and hierarchical regression analysis are employed to analyze the collected data.
The result suggested that the knowledge sharing is significantly related to performance. However, when the conflict is high, the performance will be reduced which indicates that implementing the “Suggestion System" contributes to knowledge sharing and performance but the level of conflict will affect the willingness of knowledge sharing and departmental performance.
論文目次 摘要------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
Abstract-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------II
誌謝----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------III
目錄----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IV
表目錄-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------VI
圖目錄---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VIII
第一章 緒論--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
第一節 研究動機--------------------------------------------------------------------------1
第二節 研究目的--------------------------------------------------------------------------2
第三節 研究流程--------------------------------------------------------------------------3
第二章 文獻探討--------------------------------------------------------------------------4
第一節 提案制度--------------------------------------------------------------------------4
第二節 知識分享-------------------------------------------------------------------------10
第三節 衝突-------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
第四節 績效-------------------------------------------------------------------------------21
第三章 研究方法-------------------------------------------------------------------------22
第一節 研究架構-------------------------------------------------------------------------22
第二節 研究變項之操作性定義與衡量--------------------------------------------22
第三節 研究假設-------------------------------------------------------------------------24
第四節 問卷設計-------------------------------------------------------------------------24
第五節 抽樣方法與施測對象---------------------------------------------------------29
第六節 研究工具-------------------------------------------------------------------------29
第四章 研究結果-------------------------------------------------------------------------32
第一節 樣本資料之敘述性統計分析-----------------------------------------------32
第二節 因素分析與信度分析---------------------------------------------------------37
第三節 階層迴歸分析-------------------------------------------------------------------44
第五章 結論與建議----------------------------------------------------------------------50
第一節 研究結論與管理意涵----------------------------------------------------------50
第二節 研究限制--------------------------------------------------------------------------51
第三節 未來研究建議--------------------------------------------------------------------51
參考文獻-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------53
附錄 問卷------------------------------------------------------------------------------------61
參考文獻 一、中文文獻
1. 王韻涵 (2004),派遣員工與正職員工間衝突情形之研究,自派遣員工角度分析,國立中正大學勞工研究所碩士論文。
2. 田婷婷 (民92),影響高科技產業研發團隊學習績效相關因素之研究,彰化師範大學工業教育學系博士論文。
3. 杜武志,1985。員工提案制度實務(第二版),台北:清華管理科學圖書中心。
4. 吳秉恩 (民75),組織行為學,台北;華泰。
5. 李茂興、李慕華、林宗鴻合譯 (民83),Robbins, S.P.原著,組織行為。台北:揚智文化公司。
6. 余伯泉,1989。組織升級的關鍵-提案制度,管理雜誌,第178 期:P83-85。尉謄蛟譯(Yuzo Yasuda 著),1991。
7. 林東清,知識管理,台北,智勝文化,2003。
8. 吳萬益、蔡明田、林佳姿,(民88),海外派遣人員之工作績效及其影響因素之評估-以投資大陸地區之台商為例。管理評論,第18卷第三期,pp.1-34,Sep, 1999。
9. 吳萬益,企業研究方法,台北,華泰文化,2008。
10.吳李長(民84),我國企業駐外管理人員遴選與工作績效之研究,中山大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
11.林秀芬,(民93),管理者與組織因素影響企業導入知識分享意願之研究,國立臺灣科技大學資訊管理系博士學位論文。
12.徐聯恩譯(Imai 著.),1992 年。改善-日本企業成功的奧秘,台北:長河出版社。
13.徐淑娟,2002。提案制度實務研究,台北:國立台北大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
14.莊如松與葉柏秀 (2006),「高績效人力資源管理與知識分享之關係:以組織承諾與組織公民行為為中介變項」,2006 IACMR conference 中文論壇,中國南京。
15.楊子江、王美音譯(Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.著),1997。創新求勝-智價企業論,台北:遠流。
16.陳素勤譯(民90),Robert Kreitner & Angelo Kinicki 原著,組織行為。台北:麥格羅西爾。
17.陳坤賞,1992。如何做好提案改善,台北:遠流。
18.陳必碩,1999 年。員工改善提案績效決定性因素之研究,桃園:國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
19.陳怡辰,(民96),以計畫行為理論和科技接受模式探討知識分享,國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
20.陳怡貝,(民94),知識創造歷程之初探-以B公司之改善提案制度為例,國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
21.陳振東,(民95),組織推行知識管理的績效評估探討,T&D飛訊第45期。
22.尉騰蛟譯 (Yuzo Yasuda 著) ,1992 年。如何使提案制度生生不息,台北:生產力雜誌,280 期。
23.郭來明,(民93),知識創造對部門績效的影響-以改善提案為例,國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
24.黃新福、胡偉琦,(民96),衝突對員工態度與績效之影響研究-以新光及誠泰銀行合併為例。經營管理論叢,2007第二屆管理與決策學術研討會特刊,pp.21-48;2007。
25.黃家齊,(民91),人力資源管理活動認知與員工態度、績效之關聯性差異分析-心理契約與社會交換觀點。管理評論,第21卷第四期,pp.101-127,Oct, 2002。
26.葉穎蓉,(民92),團隊多元化及衝突對團隊學習行為的影響,國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
27.楊國樞、方崇一、吳聰聰賢和李亦園 (1978),社會及行為科學研究法,台北市,東華書局。
28.蔡明田、余明助,(民89),企業文化、組織生涯管理與組織績效之關係研究-以台灣高科技產業為例。管理評論,第19卷第三期,pp.51-75,Sep, 2000。
29.趙必孝,(民83),國際企業子公司的人力資源管理:策略、控制與績效,中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
30.劉復苓譯( Yeung, A. K., Ulrich, D. O., Nason, S. W. & Von Glinow, M. A.著),2001。組織學習能力,台北:聯經。
31.韓志翔 (2004),「高能力-高承諾人力資源管理與個人層次知識管理關連性研究」,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。
32.韓志翔、江旭新、楊敦程 (2009),高承諾人力資源管理、知覺組織支持、信任與知識分享之關係探討:跨層次的分析。管理評論,第28卷第一期,pp.25-44,Jan,2009。

二、英文文獻
1. 45.Litter, J. A. (1980), Organizations, structure and behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.
2. Amason, A. C. (1996), Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 123-148.
3. Anonymous, 1993. Open to suggestions, HRMagazine, 38(2):85-88.
4. Anonymous, 2002. Securition embraces Kaizen, SDM, 32 (10):24.
5. Arthrur Andersen Business Consulting, Zukai Knowledge Management, Tokyo: Toyo Keizai., 1999.
6. Aris, O. and Ronald, V. (2000), “Performance of organization design models and their impact on organization learning,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 395-410.
7. Baker, T., McKay, I., Morden, D. L., Dunning, K. and Schuster, F. E. (1996),“Breakthrough in organization performance: Competitive advantage throughemployee-centered management,” Human Resource Planning, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.14-16.
8. Bock, G.W. & Kim, YG. “Determinants of the Individual’s Knowledge Sharing Behavior:The Theory of Reasoned Action Perspective, ” Proceedings of 6th Pacific Asia Conference on Information System. (PACIS)., 2002b.
9. Bodek, N. (2002). Quick and easy Kaizen, IIE Solutions, 34 (7), 43-45
10. Carnevale, D. G., & Sharp, B. S. (1993). The Old Employee Suggestion Box. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 13(2), 82-92.
11. Cuieford, J.P.(1965), Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Eduction, 4th edition, New York, Mcgrain Hill.
12. Davenport, T.H. & Prusak, L., Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business schoolPress, 1998.
13. De Long, D. W. & Fahey, L., 2000. Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management, The Academy of Management Executive, 14(4):113-127.
14. Denz, F. A. (1946). Why a Suggestion Plan? In American Association (ED), Getting and Using employees’ ideas, pp3-6
15. Eisenhardt, K. M., Jean L. K., & Bourgeois, L. J.(1997), How management teams can have a good fight. Harvard Business Review, 75(4): 77-85.
16. Elbo, R. A. H., 2000. Bussinessworld (Philippines):In the Workplace: Team factor inperformance appraisal, Bussinessworld:1.
17. Ely R. J. & Thomas, D. A. (2001), Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2): 229-273.
18. Garrity, E.J., & Siplor, J.C., “Multimedia as a Vehicle for Knowledge Modeling in Expert System,” Expert System with Application, Vol.7, No.3, pp.397-406., 1994.
19. Guestzkow, H. & Gyr. J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-Making group. Human Relations, 7,367-381.
20. Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W. & Woodman, R. W. (1986), Origanizational behavior. New York:West Publishing Company.
21. Hidding, G. & Shireen, M.C., “Anatomy of a learning organization: Thrning knowledge into capital at Andersen Consulting”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol.5, No.1, pp.3-13.1998.
22. Holtshous, D., “Ten Knowledge domains: model of a knowledge-driven company?”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol6.N.1, pp.3-8., 1999.
23. Imai M. (1986). KAIZEN-The Key To Japan’s Competitive Success,New York; McGraw-Hill , Inc.
24. Imai, M., 1986. KAIZEN-The Key To Japan’s Competitive Success, NewYork; McGraw-Hill, Inc.
25. Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Staples., D.S., “Exploring Oerceptions of Organizational Ownership of Information and Expertise,” Journal of Management Information System, Vol.18, No.1, pp.151-183.,2001.
26. Jehn, K. A. & Mannix, E. A. (2001), The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academic of Management Journal,
44 (2), 238-251..
27. Jehn, K. A.(1995), A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Ithaca; 40,(2): 256-282.
28. Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W.H., “Specific and General Knowledge, and Organizational Structure,” in Werin, L., and Wijkander, H. (eds.), Contract Economics, Basil Blackwell Ltd., Oxford, U.K.; pp.251-274., 1992.
29. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard-measured that drive performance,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 71-79.
30. Lee, J. N. (2001). The impact of knowledge sharing, organization capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information & Management, Vol. 38,
pp323-335..
31. Lin, W. J. (1995). Identifying the Determinants of a Kaizen-Suggestion System and Assessing its Impact of Plant Level Productivity: A pooled Cross-Sectional and Time
Series Analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University.
32. Lin, W. J.,(林文政)(1995). Identifying the Determinants of a Kaizen-Suggestion System and Assessing its Impact of Plant-Level Productivity ; A Pooled
Cross-Sectional and Time Series Analysis, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University.
33. Musen, A.M., “Dimensions of Knowledge Sharing and Resuse”. Computers and Bio-medical Research, 25, 435-467., 1992.
34. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1), 14-37
35. Nonaka, Ikujiro and Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Nonaka, L., and Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge-Creating Company Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
37. Pearson Allison W., Ensley, Michael D. & Amason, Allen C. (2002). An assessmentand refinement of Jehn’s intragroup conflictsacale. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2), 101-127..
38.. Petrash, Gordon (1996), “Dow’s Journal to a Knowledge Value Management Culture,” European Management Journal, 14, 365-373.
39. Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. N.Y. , M. E. , Sharp Inc
40. Polled, L.H., Eisenhardt K.M. & Xin K.R.(1999), Exploring the Black box:An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1):1-28..
41. Pondy, L.R. (1967), “Organizational conflict: Concepts and models”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12,296-320.
42. Quinn, James B., Philip Anderson and Sydney Finkelstein (1996), “Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best,” Harvard Business Review, 74,
71-80.
43. Resser, C., & Loper, M. (1978), Management:The Key to organizational effectiveness. Glenview, Illinois:ScottForesman & Company.
44. Robbins, S. P.(1996), Organizational behavior; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Ltd.
45. Ruggles, R., “The state of the Notion: Knowledge management in Practice”. California Management Review, Vol.40. No.3, pp.80-89. 1998。.
46. Schon, D.(1983), The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
47. Seinworth. (1948). Getting Results From Suggestion Plans,New York;McGraw-Hill Book Company..
48. Senge, P.M., “Transforming the practice of management”. Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol.4, No.1, pp.5-31., 1997.
49. Shockley III, W. (2000). Planning for knowledge management, QualityProgress, 33 (3):57-62.
50. Shukla, A. & Srinivasan, R., 2003. Manage knowledge successfully, Businessline:1.
51.Silverman, R. S. and Menessa, I. R. (1976), “Employee appraisal system,”Journal of Systems Management, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 36-42.
52. Starbuck, W.H., “Learning by Knowledge Intensive Firms,” Journal of Management studies, 29, pp. 713-740., 1992.
53. Sveiby, K., “The New Organizational Wealth”. San Francisco: Berrettn Koehler, 1997.
54. Syverson, N. (2001). Kaizen:Continuing to Improve. IndustrialMaintenance & Plant Operation, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp.16-18, Feb 2001.
55. Wall, J.A. &Callister, R.R. (1995). “Conflict and its management”. Journal of Management. 21,515-558。
56. Wittenberg, G., 1994. Kaizen-The many ways of getting better, Assembly Automation, 14(4):12-17.
57. Wortzel. R. (1979), “New life style determinants of women’s food shopping behavior,” Journal of Marketing, Vol.43, No8, pp28-29.
58.Weiner, N. (1978), “Situational and leadership influences on organization performance.” Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 230-234.
59. Zack, M.H., “Managing Codified Knowledge,” Sloan Management Review, pp.45-58., 1999.
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2012-08-24起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2014-08-24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