| 摘要: | 創新及創新力是在現今多變環境中，企業獲得競爭優勢以追求成長與獲利所必須具備的重要策略及能力。然而，如何使在兼具高風險與高報酬下的創新策略，能善用有限的資源去聚焦在各創新類型專案績效的關鍵指標，將是整個企業成功的基石。一般傳統專案的績效評估，較偏向評估屬於其專案特性構面的績效指標。但在系統的觀點下，每一個創新專案均會影響到企業的整體績效，若只重視專屬某一特定專案的相關指標，將容易顧此失彼，而造成次佳化（sub-optimization）的效果；換言之，傳統專案的績效評估常忽視到牽一髮而動全身的本質。基此，本研究從考量多元準則且具全方位之「平衡計分卡」觀點去探討不同類型創新專案之績效評估指標，以建構一個一般化的績效評估指標架構。
本研究利用文獻歸納法及層級分析法去進行質化的探討性研究。本研究以奧斯陸手冊(Oslo Manual 2005)中所分類的四種創新領域--產品/服務創新、流程創新、組織創新、及行銷創新--為創新專案之類型，去分析其相關的績效指標並將之歸類至「平衡計分卡」之適當構面，以建構出「創新類型專案績效指標評估架構」。本研究發放問卷給15位具有豐富管理或執行過創新類型專案實務經驗之相關專家學者進行兩兩構面比較。結果有下列重要發現：
1.創新專案類型依重要性排序，分別為「產品/服務創新」、「行銷創新」、「組織創新」及「流程創新」；由此可知，「產品/服務創新」於創新活動中屬於較易獲得高績效及吸引市場，其專案的啟動可順勢連帶其他專案的啟動。
2.以「平衡計分卡」衡量構面為評估指標之重要性依序為「創新與學習」、「顧客」、「企業內部流程與未來發展」及「財務」，此有別於傳統平衡計分卡通常是先制定財務構面和顧客構面的目標和量度，再制定其他二個面。排序最為優先重要的是「創新與學習」構面，此正符合了創新類型專案重視組織內的關鍵核心能力，此能使組織聚焦在長期規劃的目標及未來的投資展望，去獲得永續的競爭優勢。
3.「創新與學習」與「顧客」二個構面的指標在四種創新專案類型中，相對地比另外的「企業內部流程與未來發展」與「財務」二個構面還重要；此意味著創新價值與高質化服務二個目標的重要性，因此若能從顧客的角度去思考其需求並重視顧客導向的「附加價值」，則可以「感動」及「品質」來強化創新本身所帶來的獨特價值。
In today''s changing environments, innovation and creativity are the important strategy and competency for a company to gain the competitive advantage in pursuit of growth and profit. However, due to the nature of high risk and high reward, how to utilize the limited resources and focus on the critical index of each innovation type project will be the cornerstone of organizational success. Generally, traditional evaluation of project performance might favor the performance index which belongs to those specific dimensions of its project characteristics. From the view of system, however, because every innovation project will affect the overall performance of the organization, it will easily result in the effectiveness of sub-optimization due to its bias; in other words, although the traditional project performance evaluation has the goodness of specific focus, it often neglects the interactive impact on other project. Therefore, this study constructs a generalized framework of performance evaluation index for different project from the perspective of Balanced Scorecard(BSC) which takes consideration of multi-criteria and overall system.
This study conducts qualitative exploratory research using the literatures induction and Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP). To construct the generalized framework, the four types of innovation field in the classification of Oslo Manual(2005)—product/service innovation, process innovation, organization innovation and marketing innovation—are analyzed in this study, and then the related index are classified to the appropriate dimensions of BSC. In this study, the questionnaires were issued to some experts and scholars who have performed extensive management experience in innovation project. Below are some important findings in this study:
1.The priority of importance in innovation project types is "product/service innovation", "marketing innovation", "organization innovation" and "process innovation"; which means the "product/service innovation" is relatively easy to obtain high performance and attract attention of market, and it then can facilitate the introduction of other type projects.
2.The priority of importance in the dimensions of BSC is "innovation and learning", "customer", "internal processes and future development" and "financial", that is different from traditional evaluation priority which "financial" and "customer" are the top two priorities. The most important priority is "innovation and learning" which meets the concept—“innovation type project emphasizes the key core competency and enables the organization to obtain sustainable competitive advantage by focusing on the long-term goals and future prospect.”
3.The index of two dimensions--"Innovation and Learning" and "customer"--are more important relatively than other two dimensions--"internal processes and future development" and "financial" that shows the importance of two objectives--innovation value and high-quality service; therefore, if the organization can think from customer needs and then pay attention on customer-oriented value-added, it can obtain the unique value of reinforcing innovation through "affecting" and "quality". |
