THE ROLE OF SUNK COSTS IN THE DECISION TO INVEST IN R&D -super-*

We present a dynamic empirical model of a firm's R&D decisions that is consistent with the existence of sunk R&D costs, taking into account that these costs may differ between small and large firms, and among different technological regimes. We estimate a multivariate dynamic discrete choice model using firm-level data of Spanish manufacturing for 1990-2000. Conditional on firm heterogeneity and serially correlated unobservable factors, we find that R&D history matters. This true state dependence allows inferring the existence of sunk R&D costs associated with performing R&D. Sunk R&D costs are found to be higher for large, high-tech firms. Copyright 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and the Editorial Board of The Journal of Industrial Economics.

A panel data analysis of the effects of wages, standard hours and unionization on paid overtime work in Britain

This study examines the effects of the basic wage rate, standard working hours and unionization on paid overtime work in Britain by using individual level data from the New Earnings Survey over the period 1975-2001. For this purpose we estimate a panel data model. We show that to obtain consistent estimates it is important to allow for both the censoring of paid overtime hours at 0 and for correlations between the explanatory variables and unobserved individual-specific effects. The main empirical results are that a reduction in standard hours increases both the incidence of overtime and overtime hours, whereas an increase in the wage rate decreases the incidence of overtime but brings a small increase in overtime hours for those working overtime. For men the effects are stronger than for women. Union coverage is of minor empirical importance. The occupation and industry structure of employment has shifted from high to lower overtime jobs. Taken together, these economic variables can explain almost half of the changing incidence of overtime for men, and most of the change in overtime hours worked by women, but are less successful in explaining the changes in overtime hours worked by men or the incidence of overtime for women. Copyright 2005 Royal Statistical Society.

[[alternative]]Exploring the performance index of different innovation types projects from the perspective of balanced scorecard : an application of AHP

碩士[[abstract]]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。[[abstract]]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".[[tableofcontents]]目 錄 目 錄 I 表目錄 III 圖目錄 V 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 5 第三節 研究範圍 5 第四節 研究流程 6 第二章 文獻探討 7 第一節 創新與管理 7 第二節 創新之類型 10 第三節 創新類型專案績效之衡量指標 19 第四節 平衡計分卡之內涵與應用 28 第五節 創新類型專案績效衡量指標之彙整分析 31 第三章 研究設計 38 第一節 觀念性架構 38 第二節 文獻歸納法 38 第三節 AHP層級分析法 40 第四節 創新類型專案績效衡量架構與階層關係 45 第五節 創新類型專案績效評估之AHP層級分析 51 第四章 資料分析與結果 55 第一節 各創新類型專案之重要性分析 56 第二節 各創新類型專案在平衡計分卡各衡量構面之重要性分析 58 第三節 平衡計分卡各衡量構面指標之重要性分析 66 第四節 各創新類型專案績效衡量指標整體權重與排序之彙整 74 第五章 結論與建議 76 第一節 結論 76 第二節 管理上之意涵 79 第三節 研究限制 80 第四節 建議 81 參考文獻 83 一、中文部分 83 二、英文部分 84 三、網路部分 89 附錄一：專家預試問卷 90 附錄二：問卷 92 表目錄 表2-1 創新之定義 8 表2-2 Trott的創新型態 13 表2-3 創新專案的種類描述 14 表2-4 創新之分類構面 17 表2-5 產品/服務創新專案績效之衡量指標 20 表2-6 流程創新專案績效之衡量指標 22 表2-7 組織創新專案績效之衡量指標 25 表2-8 行銷創新專案績效之衡量指標 27 表2-9 創新類型專案績效衡量指標之彙整 31 表2-10 產品/服務創新專案績效衡量指標之彙整 32 表2-11 產品/服務創新專案績效衡量指標之歸類 33 表2-12 流程創新專案績效衡量指標之彙整 34 表2-13 流程創新專案績效衡量指標之歸類 34 表2-14 組織創新專案績效衡量指標之彙整 35 表2-15 組織創新專案績效衡量指標之歸類 36 表2-16 行銷創新專案績效衡量指標之彙整 36 表2-17 行銷創新專案績效衡量指標之歸類 37 表3-1 AHP評估尺度意義及說明 43 表3-2 隨機指標表 44 表3-3 創新類型專案績效衡量指標之文獻來源總彙整 45 表3-4 創新類型專案績效衡量指標之構面彙整 48 表3-5 預試專家資歷 49 表3-6 衡量構面比較表格 51 表3-7 AHP問卷專家群簡介 52 表4-1 受訪者統計表 55 表4-2 各創新類型專案重要性之權重與一致性檢定 57 表4-3 產品/服務創新專案在平衡計分卡各衡量構面之權重與一致性檢定 59 表4-4 流程創新專案在平衡計分卡各衡量構面之權重與一致性檢定 61 表4-5 組織創新專案在平衡計分卡各衡量構面之權重與一致性檢定 63 表4-6 行銷創新專案在平衡計分卡各衡量構面之權重與一致性檢定 65 表4-7 財務構面衡量指標之權重與一致性檢定 67 表4-8 顧客構面衡量指標之權重與一致性檢定 69 表4-9 企業內部流程與未來發展構面衡量指標之權重與一致性檢定 71 表4-10 創新與學習構面衡量指標之權重與一致性檢定 73 表4-11 各創新類型專案績效衡量指標之整體權重與排序 75 圖目錄 圖1-1 研究流程 6 圖2-1 Henderson-Clark之創新類型 11 圖2-2 創新分類 13 圖2-3 專案的分類 15 圖2-4 專案分類拓展模型 16 圖2-5 平衡計分卡提供轉化策略為營運的架構 29 圖3-1 本研究之觀念性架構 38 圖3-2 AHP層級結構示意圖 41 圖3-3 本研究之層級架構 44 圖3-4 創新類型專案績效指標評估架構與階層關係 50 圖4-1 各創新類型專案對組織重要性之相對權重 56 圖4-2 產品/服務創新專案在平衡計分卡各衡量構面之相對權重 58 圖4-3 流程創新專案在平衡計分卡各衡量構面之相對權重 60 圖4-4 組織創新專案在平衡計分卡各衡量構面之相對權重 62 圖4-5 行銷創新專案在平衡計分卡各衡量構面之相對權重 64 圖4-6 財務構面衡量指標之相對權重 66 圖4-7 顧客構面衡量指標之相對權重 68 圖4-8 企業內部流程與未來發展構面衡量指標之相對權重 70 圖4-9 創新與學習構面衡量指標之相對權重 72 圖4-10 所有創新類型專案績效衡量指標之整體權重 74 圖5-1 創新類型專案衡量構面模型 77 圖5-2 創新類型專案衡量構面評估指標模型 78[[note]]學號: 703610211, 學年度: 10

Process innovations and firm productivity growth

Process innovations, Total factor productivity, Stochastic dominance, Non-parametric tests, Firm size, C12, C14, D2, D24, L6, O3, L26,