應用Poretr之策略理論於平衡計分卡的規劃與設計

Abstract

平衡計分卡為1990年代初期，鑑於傳統績效衡量方式的缺失，由Kaplan與Norton所提出之適合未來組織的績效衡量系統。本研究於平衡計分卡相關文獻的回顧過程中，發現兩項在規劃設計平衡計分卡上的障礙。首先，以往的研究在設計平衡計分卡時，僅依據管理者經驗所認定之關鍵成功因素，並沒有一套策略分析工具來研擬策略，使得策略因考量不夠周延而較不具有代表性。再者，平衡計分卡不管是各構面的策略目標之間或是績效量度之間應該具有因果關係，但是以往研究亦未提出一套有系統的分析工具，用來串連各構面的因果關係，導致各構面的策略目標與量度之因果關係缺乏說服力。 為突破以往平衡計分卡設計時的障礙，本研究建構一套修正後之平衡計分卡分析架構，並提出其分析技術與方法。基於公司之願景與目標，首先應用顧客價值主張一般通用模型的概念，尋求顧客價值主張。其次，應用Porter的五力分析，探討產業結構內的五種作用力對公司策略選擇的影響。再透過Porter提出的價值鏈分析，確認公司本身內部所具備的資源與競爭優勢。然後將此三構面同步分析考量，以形成策略。在策略分析的過程中，驅動財務面績效之顧客面、內部程序面、學習成長面的關鍵成功因素及其績效量度將一一浮現，形成策略、具體行動、與績效量度環環相扣之平衡計分卡。 本研究並以國內A客運公司國道台北—新竹線為個案，探討此分析架構與方法技術之可行性。研究結果發現，利用此規劃設計方法，至少較原本規劃平衡計分卡的方式有以下好處： 1. 參與者能夠更有系統的聚焦討論，以達到澄清願景、上下溝通的目的。 2. 此設計方式不但考量顧客的需求、產業競爭環境，亦將公司具有的資源能力納入考量，故不至於訂出不符合顧客需求、或是陳義過高卻無法執行的策略。 3. 透過本研究的分析架構，對於各構面的因果關係，有較為合理的推論與假設。 4. 參與規劃者，可藉此釐清策略目標與現況之障礙癥結，並激發出具體行動方案。

In early 1990s, Kaplan and Norton addressed the "balanced scorecard", a new performance measurement system that fit future organizations, in view of defects of the traditional performance measurement system. After reviewing related references, we found two barriers in the process of designing a balanced scorecard. First, most of the past studies identified the critical successful factors of an organization only depend on the accumulated experience of senior executives. They didn't have an analytic tool to formulate their strategies efficiently and effectively. Second, not only the strategic objectives in each of the four scorecard perspectives but also the performance measures in each perspective should have causal relationships. But most of the past studies didn't have a analytic tool to link these components, and it made the causal relationships lack of preciseness. This study attempts to construct " an adjusted balanced scorecard analytic framework" to breakthrough the barriers stated above. First, we found out the "customer value proposition" by applying a generic model proposed by Kaplan and Norton. Second, by employing the industry analysis method addressed by Porter, we discussed the effect of the "five forces" in the industry on strategy selection. Third, we analyzed the activities of the "value chain" addressed by Porter to identify the competitive advantages of the company. To sum up, by considering all of the three analytic tools at the same time to formulate the business strategies, the relationships of the strategies, actions, and performance measures will fit tightly. To empirical testing the feasibility of the adjusted framework, this study took a bus company as a case study. We found that by using the new framework can get several advantages: 1. Participants can discuss their vision and strategies more comprehensively, thus it can reach the goals of (1) clarifying vision and (2) communicating each other from top to down. 2. The adjusted framework has synchronously considered (1) customer needs, (2) competitive environment in the industry, and (3) the competitive advantages of the company, so we won't draw up inadequate strategies. 3. The causal relationships of key components in each perspective can have more reasonable inference. 4. Participants can clarify the gaps between strategic objectives and current status, and excite some initiatives.