學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 社會福利組織績效衡量制度之探討－以某基金會為例 作者 洪佳新 貢獻者 許崇源
洪佳新日期 2002 上傳時間 9-May-2016 16:20:48 (UTC+8) 摘要 近年來，社會福利組織績效衡量的議題備受重視。但因為社會福利組織特性，使其績效衡量遠比營利組織困難，尤其在績效衡量指標的選擇上，應兼顧財務性與非財務性指標，以達成組織的宗旨目的。所以平衡計分卡所發展的績效衡量指標最能衡量社會福利組織績效之優劣。本研究以個案研究為研究方法，針對個案之特性，以平衡計分卡設計其績效衡量指標，並檢測組織內不同部門成員對各績效衡量指標的看法是否有差異。 本研究結果如下： 一、建構個案之平衡計分卡與績效衡量指標，其中平衡計分卡分為顧客、內部流程、財務與學習成長構面，以此建構的績效衡量指標共42項。 二、問卷研究結果顯示，全體受試者對績效衡量指標重要性的看法都認為重要，但相對較重要的十個指標為(1)成員瞭解基金會的宗旨及目的；(2)政府對基金會評鑑結果的優劣；(3)社會大眾對基金會形象意見；(4)簡化捐款人捐款的步驟(便利捐款)；(5)政府補助金額及委辦項目金額；(6)受服務案主滿意度；(7)對受服務者需求的回應速度；(8)定期轉帳捐款佔總捐款的比率；(9)捐款者滿意度；(10)捐款者再次捐款的比率。 全體受試者認為相對較不重要指標依次為(1)志工佔基金會工作人員的比率；(2)創新服務的數量多寡；(3)員工訓練時數；(4)運用「資料挖掘(data mining)」所產生資訊進而滿足案主的「潛在需求」的次數；(5)運用資料庫提供案主服務的比率；(6)運用資訊科技的程度；(7)員工所提出的建議案次數與內容；(8)員工教育訓練的範圍；(9)基金會與政府、企業合辦活動的次數；(10)創新服務推出的時間快慢。 結果顯示受試者認為財務與顧客構面的指標相對來說較為重要，而相對較不重要的指標多落在學習與成長構面，此一結果可提供給個案基金會於決定各個績效衡量指標之權重的參考。另外，本研究以平衡計分卡設計組織績效衡量指標的過程與所遭遇到的問題，則可以做為其他類似組織設計績效衡量制度之參考。
In recent years, there has been considerable attention given to research on the performance measurement of social welfare organizations. However, due to the special characteristics of social welfare organizations, performance measurement study on nonprofits is more complicated than that of for-profit organizations. This is particularly so when it comes to selecting performance measurement indicators, because one must often check the financial and non-financial indicators as the aim and mission of these organizations. Thus, the development of performance indicators based on balanced scorecards has become the most suitable tool to gauge the performance of social welfare organizations. This thesis employs the case study approach and bases on balanced scorecard concept to design the performance indicators for the case organization, and collects the opinions of the employees from the different departments of the organization in selecting the most important indicators. The results of this study are as follows: 1. Forty-two performance indicators have been developed according to the mission of the organization and concept of balanced scorecard, which includes the customer, internal process, finance, and learning and growth dimensions of the organization. 2. The results of the survey questionnaires reveal that the employees gave a greater relative importance to the following ten indicators: (1) the employees` understanding of the aim and mission of the foundation; (2) the result of the government`s evaluation for the foundation; (3) the opinions and image of the general public toward the foundation; (4) the simplification of processing donations; (5) the amount of government subsidy and the amount of subsidy for particular projects; (6) the satisfaction of the beneficiaries; (7) the prompt response to the demands of the beneficiary; (8) the amount ratio of recurring donors to the overall contributions; (9) the donors` satisfaction; and (10) the ratio of repeating donors. The respondents believe that the following ten indicators are relatively less important in the performance measurement: (1) the ratio between volunteers and employees of the foundation; (2) the amount of service creativity; (3) the amount of time expended in training employees; (4) the frequent use of data mining to obtain information in measuring beneficiaries` satisfaction and needs; (5) the use of database to provide service ratios; (6) the use of high-technology information; (7) the frequency and the content of employees` suggestions; (8) the scope of teaching and training of the employees; (9) the frequency of joint activities between the government, the business sector and the foundation; and (10) the speed in promoting creative service. The results imply that the customer and the financial indicators are viewed more important than the learning and growth indicators for the organization. These results offer a very powerful reference in the decisions regarding the performance measurement within the foundation. Furthermore, the process of employing balanced scorecard to induce the performance indicators in this study offers a good reference for those who wish to design performance measurements of similar organizations.參考文獻 中文部分：王韡康，1998，文教財團法人績效指標之研究，國立政治大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。司徒達賢，1999，非營利組織的經營管理，台北：天下。朱道凱譯，Kaplan and Norton著，1999，平衡計分卡：資訊時代的策略管理工具，台北：臉譜。呂豐足，1996，老人扶療養機構的績效評估及其影響因素之探討，中正大學社會福利研究所未出版碩士論文。呂芳堯，1985，台灣地區基金會經營績效綜合評價之研究，交通大學管理科學研究所未出版碩士論文。呂育一，1992，非營利組織績效指標之研究─以文教基金會為例，國立台灣大學商學研究所未出版碩士論文。高翠霜譯，Drucker等著，2000，哈佛商業評論精選：績效評估，台北：遠流。財團法人陽光社會福利基金會，2001，陽光社會福利基金會89年工作報告，董事會報告。張苙雲，1986，組織社會學，台北：三民書局。陳金貴，1994，美國非營利組織的人力資源管理，台北：瑞興圖書。傅文，1986，非營利組織之效率評估，東吳大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。程瑞玲，1984，非營利組織之績效衡量，東吳大學會計學系未出版碩士論文。鄒平儀，2000，醫療社會工作績效評估模式之建構，東海大學社會工作研究所未出版博士論文。詹火生，1988，社會福利工作方案評估方法概論，台北：中華民國社區發展研究訓練中心。楊錦蓁，1995，非營利組織工作人員激勵力量之研究─以基金會為例，國立中正大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。鄭家銘，1997，志願組織參與公益福利服務績效評估之研究：陽光社會福利基金會之個案分析，中國文化大學政治學研究所未出版碩士論文。鄭讚源，1997，組織效能與順從相關因素之分析--台灣省基層農會之實證研究，國立臺灣大學農業推廣教育研究所未出版碩士論文。蔡淑芳，1983，社會工作價值體系之研究，社區發展季刊，第23期：56-67。蔡青墉，2000，醫務社會工作者對績效指標重要性看法之研究，高雄醫學大學行為科學研究所未出版碩士論文。謝安田，1979，企業研究方法，台北：水牛出版社。蘇信如，1985，志願服務組織運作之研究，國立台灣大學社會學研究所未出版碩士論文。英文部分：Anthony, R. N. and D. W. Young. 1988. Management control in nonprofit organizations. Homewood, Illinois: IRWIN.Argyris, C. and D. Schon.1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Au, C. 1996. Rethinking organizational effectiveness: Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of organizational effectiveness for social welfare organizations. Administration in social work 20 (4): 1-21.Babbie, E. 1995. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Baker, T. D. and M. Perlman. 1967. Health Manpower in a Developing Economy：Taiwan, A Case Study in Planning. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Barnard, C. 1938. The functions of the executive. MA: Harvard University Press.Bitter, B. J. and K. J. George.1976. The Exemption of Nonprofit Organizations from Federal Income Taxation. Yale Law Journal 85: 299-358.Blickendorfer, R. and J. Janey. 1988. Measuring performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit World (Mar/Apr): 18-22.Bozzo, L. 2000. Evaluation resources for nonprofit organizations: Usefulness and applicability. Nonprofit Managememnt & Leadership 10 (4): 463-473.Bryson, J. 1995. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Cameron, K., and D. Whetten. 1983. Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press.Cameron, K. .1978. Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly 23: 604-629.Cameron, K. 1981. Domains of organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities. Academy of Management Journal 24: 25-47.Campbell, D. P. 1977. Take the Risk to Creativity and Get off your Dead End. Allen Texas: Argus.Cyert, R. 1975. The Management of Nonprofit organizations. D.C.: Health and Company.Daft, R. and R. Lengel 1986. Organizational requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science 32: 554-569.Drucker, R. 1990. Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Practices and Principles. New York: HarperCollins.Etzioni, A. 1964. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice-Hall.Forbes, D. 1998. Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 27 (2): 183-202.Feigenbaum, P. 1987.Examining the relationship between capital investment and hospital operating expenditures. The Review of Economics and Statistics 69 (4): 709-714Hall, R. H. 1991. Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Hansmann, H. 1981. The rational for exemption nonprofit organizations from corporation income taxation. The Yale Law Journal 91 (1): 54-100.Herman, D. and O. Renz. 1997. Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Contrasts between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 9 (1): 23-39.Kanter, R., and D. Summers. 1987. Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organization and the need for a multiple-constituency approach. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.Katz, D. and R. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Kaplan, S. 2001. Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 11 (3): 353-371.Kaplan, S., and P. Norton. 1992. The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70 (1): 71-79.Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 1996a. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review 74 (1): 75-85.Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 1996b. The balanced scorecard：Translating strategy into action. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.Levin, H. 1990. Voluntary Organization in Social Welfare in National Association of Social Workers, Encyclopedia of Social Work. New York: Prentice-Hall Press.O`Neill, M., and D. Young. 1988. Educating Managers of Nonprofit Organizations. New York: Praeger.Oster, S. M. 1995. Strategic Management For Nonprofit Organization--Theory & Cases. Oxford: Oxford Chiv. Press.Portor, M. 1996. What Is Strategy? Harvard Business Review (Nov.-Dec.): 61-78.Salamon, L. 1999. America’s Nonprofit Sector: A Primer. New York: Foundation Center.Sawhill, C. and D. Williamson 2001. Mission impossible? : Measuring success in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 11 (3): 371-286.Scott, W. R. 1992. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open System. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Seashore, S. E. and E. Yuchtman. 1967. Factorial Analysis of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (3): 377-395.Sheehan, R. 1996. Mission accomplishment as philanthropy project. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 25 (1): 110-123.Swanson, R. A. 1994. Analysis for Improving Performance: Tools for Diagnosing Organizations & Documenting Workplace Expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Weisbrod, B. 1977. The voluntary nonprofit sector: An economic analysis. San Francisco: Now Lexington Press.Wolf, T. 1990. Managing A Nonprofit Organization. N.Y.: Simon & Shuster. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
會計學系資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2010000210 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 許崇源 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 洪佳新 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) 洪佳新 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2002 en_US dc.date.accessioned 9-May-2016 16:20:48 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 9-May-2016 16:20:48 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 9-May-2016 16:20:48 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) A2010000210 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/95452 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 會計學系 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 近年來，社會福利組織績效衡量的議題備受重視。但因為社會福利組織特性，使其績效衡量遠比營利組織困難，尤其在績效衡量指標的選擇上，應兼顧財務性與非財務性指標，以達成組織的宗旨目的。所以平衡計分卡所發展的績效衡量指標最能衡量社會福利組織績效之優劣。本研究以個案研究為研究方法，針對個案之特性，以平衡計分卡設計其績效衡量指標，並檢測組織內不同部門成員對各績效衡量指標的看法是否有差異。 本研究結果如下： 一、建構個案之平衡計分卡與績效衡量指標，其中平衡計分卡分為顧客、內部流程、財務與學習成長構面，以此建構的績效衡量指標共42項。 二、問卷研究結果顯示，全體受試者對績效衡量指標重要性的看法都認為重要，但相對較重要的十個指標為(1)成員瞭解基金會的宗旨及目的；(2)政府對基金會評鑑結果的優劣；(3)社會大眾對基金會形象意見；(4)簡化捐款人捐款的步驟(便利捐款)；(5)政府補助金額及委辦項目金額；(6)受服務案主滿意度；(7)對受服務者需求的回應速度；(8)定期轉帳捐款佔總捐款的比率；(9)捐款者滿意度；(10)捐款者再次捐款的比率。 全體受試者認為相對較不重要指標依次為(1)志工佔基金會工作人員的比率；(2)創新服務的數量多寡；(3)員工訓練時數；(4)運用「資料挖掘(data mining)」所產生資訊進而滿足案主的「潛在需求」的次數；(5)運用資料庫提供案主服務的比率；(6)運用資訊科技的程度；(7)員工所提出的建議案次數與內容；(8)員工教育訓練的範圍；(9)基金會與政府、企業合辦活動的次數；(10)創新服務推出的時間快慢。 結果顯示受試者認為財務與顧客構面的指標相對來說較為重要，而相對較不重要的指標多落在學習與成長構面，此一結果可提供給個案基金會於決定各個績效衡量指標之權重的參考。另外，本研究以平衡計分卡設計組織績效衡量指標的過程與所遭遇到的問題，則可以做為其他類似組織設計績效衡量制度之參考。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In recent years, there has been considerable attention given to research on the performance measurement of social welfare organizations. However, due to the special characteristics of social welfare organizations, performance measurement study on nonprofits is more complicated than that of for-profit organizations. This is particularly so when it comes to selecting performance measurement indicators, because one must often check the financial and non-financial indicators as the aim and mission of these organizations. Thus, the development of performance indicators based on balanced scorecards has become the most suitable tool to gauge the performance of social welfare organizations. This thesis employs the case study approach and bases on balanced scorecard concept to design the performance indicators for the case organization, and collects the opinions of the employees from the different departments of the organization in selecting the most important indicators. The results of this study are as follows: 1. Forty-two performance indicators have been developed according to the mission of the organization and concept of balanced scorecard, which includes the customer, internal process, finance, and learning and growth dimensions of the organization. 2. The results of the survey questionnaires reveal that the employees gave a greater relative importance to the following ten indicators: (1) the employees` understanding of the aim and mission of the foundation; (2) the result of the government`s evaluation for the foundation; (3) the opinions and image of the general public toward the foundation; (4) the simplification of processing donations; (5) the amount of government subsidy and the amount of subsidy for particular projects; (6) the satisfaction of the beneficiaries; (7) the prompt response to the demands of the beneficiary; (8) the amount ratio of recurring donors to the overall contributions; (9) the donors` satisfaction; and (10) the ratio of repeating donors. The respondents believe that the following ten indicators are relatively less important in the performance measurement: (1) the ratio between volunteers and employees of the foundation; (2) the amount of service creativity; (3) the amount of time expended in training employees; (4) the frequent use of data mining to obtain information in measuring beneficiaries` satisfaction and needs; (5) the use of database to provide service ratios; (6) the use of high-technology information; (7) the frequency and the content of employees` suggestions; (8) the scope of teaching and training of the employees; (9) the frequency of joint activities between the government, the business sector and the foundation; and (10) the speed in promoting creative service. The results imply that the customer and the financial indicators are viewed more important than the learning and growth indicators for the organization. These results offer a very powerful reference in the decisions regarding the performance measurement within the foundation. Furthermore, the process of employing balanced scorecard to induce the performance indicators in this study offers a good reference for those who wish to design performance measurements of similar organizations. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 謝辭摘要Abstract目錄-----ii圖次-----iii表次-----iv第一章 緒論-----1 第一節 研究動機與目的-----1 第二節 研究問題-----5 第三節 研究架構-----6第二章 文獻探討-----8 第一節 非營利組織理論-----8 第二節 績效理論-----17 第三節 社會福利組織績效衡量-----22 第四節 平衡計分卡理論-----29第三章 研究設計-----38 第一節 研究方法-----38 第二節 個案研究之設計-----39第四章 個案實地研究-----41 第一節 個案基金會簡介-----41 第二節 目前績效衡量制度-----52 第三節 績效衡量指標設計-----56 第四節 問卷發放過程與結果分析-----67第五章 結論與建議-----86 第一節 研究結論-----86 第二節 研究限制-----90 第三節 對後續研究建議-----91參考文獻-----92附錄一：問卷內容-----97圖次圖1-1 研究架構-----7圖2-1 非營利組織分類-----14圖2-2 志願性組織範疇-----15圖2-3 營利與非營利組織光譜圖-----16圖2-4 績效評估的三種途徑-----19圖2-5 CORPS模式的架構圖及五項基本要素-----26圖2-6 平衡計分卡提供轉化策略為營運之架構-----30圖2-7 新英格蘭聯合勸募所採用的平衡計分卡架構-----33圖3-1 個案研究流程圖-----40圖4-1 提供服務流程-----44圖4-2 伊甸組織圖-----47圖4-3 職位層級圖-----48圖4-4 總會績效衡量制度與部門、個人績效考核之關係圖-----51圖4-5 伊甸平衡計分卡-----55圖4-6 伊甸策略目標之因果關係圖-----57圖4-7 顧客價值計劃-----58圖4-8 企業內部流程構面-一般價值鏈模式-----60圖4-9 伊甸內部流程價值鏈-----61表次表2-1 國內文獻對本研究之貢獻表-----28表2-2 新英格蘭聯合勸募之平衡計分卡-----34表4-1 伊甸的服務項目-----42表4-2 內部績效衡量指標分類表-----54表4-3 伊甸績效衡量指標彙整表（以平衡計分卡為觀點）-----65表4-4 績效衡量指標重要性分數之平均數與標準差（全體受試者）-----70表4-5 績效衡量指標重要性分數之平均數與標準差（直接服務部門）-----72表4-6 績效衡量指標重要性分數之平均數與標準差（後勤支援部門）-----75表4-7 績效衡量指標重要性差異t檢定（直接服務部門與後勤支援部門）-----77表4-8 績效衡量指標重要性分數之平均數與標準差（一、二級主管）-----79表4-9 績效衡量指標重要性分數之平均數與標準差（其他）-----81表4-10 績效衡量指標重要性差異t檢定（一、二級主管與其他）-----83 zh_TW dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2010000210 en_US dc.title (題名) 社會福利組織績效衡量制度之探討－以某基金會為例 zh_TW dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分：王韡康，1998，文教財團法人績效指標之研究，國立政治大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。司徒達賢，1999，非營利組織的經營管理，台北：天下。朱道凱譯，Kaplan and Norton著，1999，平衡計分卡：資訊時代的策略管理工具，台北：臉譜。呂豐足，1996，老人扶療養機構的績效評估及其影響因素之探討，中正大學社會福利研究所未出版碩士論文。呂芳堯，1985，台灣地區基金會經營績效綜合評價之研究，交通大學管理科學研究所未出版碩士論文。呂育一，1992，非營利組織績效指標之研究─以文教基金會為例，國立台灣大學商學研究所未出版碩士論文。高翠霜譯，Drucker等著，2000，哈佛商業評論精選：績效評估，台北：遠流。財團法人陽光社會福利基金會，2001，陽光社會福利基金會89年工作報告，董事會報告。張苙雲，1986，組織社會學，台北：三民書局。陳金貴，1994，美國非營利組織的人力資源管理，台北：瑞興圖書。傅文，1986，非營利組織之效率評估，東吳大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。程瑞玲，1984，非營利組織之績效衡量，東吳大學會計學系未出版碩士論文。鄒平儀，2000，醫療社會工作績效評估模式之建構，東海大學社會工作研究所未出版博士論文。詹火生，1988，社會福利工作方案評估方法概論，台北：中華民國社區發展研究訓練中心。楊錦蓁，1995，非營利組織工作人員激勵力量之研究─以基金會為例，國立中正大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。鄭家銘，1997，志願組織參與公益福利服務績效評估之研究：陽光社會福利基金會之個案分析，中國文化大學政治學研究所未出版碩士論文。鄭讚源，1997，組織效能與順從相關因素之分析--台灣省基層農會之實證研究，國立臺灣大學農業推廣教育研究所未出版碩士論文。蔡淑芳，1983，社會工作價值體系之研究，社區發展季刊，第23期：56-67。蔡青墉，2000，醫務社會工作者對績效指標重要性看法之研究，高雄醫學大學行為科學研究所未出版碩士論文。謝安田，1979，企業研究方法，台北：水牛出版社。蘇信如，1985，志願服務組織運作之研究，國立台灣大學社會學研究所未出版碩士論文。英文部分：Anthony, R. N. and D. W. Young. 1988. Management control in nonprofit organizations. Homewood, Illinois: IRWIN.Argyris, C. and D. Schon.1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Au, C. 1996. Rethinking organizational effectiveness: Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of organizational effectiveness for social welfare organizations. Administration in social work 20 (4): 1-21.Babbie, E. 1995. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Baker, T. D. and M. Perlman. 1967. Health Manpower in a Developing Economy：Taiwan, A Case Study in Planning. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Barnard, C. 1938. The functions of the executive. MA: Harvard University Press.Bitter, B. J. and K. J. George.1976. The Exemption of Nonprofit Organizations from Federal Income Taxation. Yale Law Journal 85: 299-358.Blickendorfer, R. and J. Janey. 1988. Measuring performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit World (Mar/Apr): 18-22.Bozzo, L. 2000. Evaluation resources for nonprofit organizations: Usefulness and applicability. Nonprofit Managememnt & Leadership 10 (4): 463-473.Bryson, J. 1995. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Cameron, K., and D. Whetten. 1983. Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York: Academic Press.Cameron, K. .1978. Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly 23: 604-629.Cameron, K. 1981. Domains of organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities. Academy of Management Journal 24: 25-47.Campbell, D. P. 1977. Take the Risk to Creativity and Get off your Dead End. Allen Texas: Argus.Cyert, R. 1975. The Management of Nonprofit organizations. D.C.: Health and Company.Daft, R. and R. Lengel 1986. Organizational requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science 32: 554-569.Drucker, R. 1990. Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Practices and Principles. New York: HarperCollins.Etzioni, A. 1964. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice-Hall.Forbes, D. 1998. Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 27 (2): 183-202.Feigenbaum, P. 1987.Examining the relationship between capital investment and hospital operating expenditures. The Review of Economics and Statistics 69 (4): 709-714Hall, R. H. 1991. Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Hansmann, H. 1981. The rational for exemption nonprofit organizations from corporation income taxation. The Yale Law Journal 91 (1): 54-100.Herman, D. and O. Renz. 1997. Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Contrasts between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 9 (1): 23-39.Kanter, R., and D. Summers. 1987. Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organization and the need for a multiple-constituency approach. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.Katz, D. and R. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Kaplan, S. 2001. Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 11 (3): 353-371.Kaplan, S., and P. Norton. 1992. The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70 (1): 71-79.Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 1996a. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review 74 (1): 75-85.Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 1996b. The balanced scorecard：Translating strategy into action. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.Levin, H. 1990. Voluntary Organization in Social Welfare in National Association of Social Workers, Encyclopedia of Social Work. New York: Prentice-Hall Press.O`Neill, M., and D. Young. 1988. Educating Managers of Nonprofit Organizations. New York: Praeger.Oster, S. M. 1995. Strategic Management For Nonprofit Organization--Theory & Cases. Oxford: Oxford Chiv. Press.Portor, M. 1996. What Is Strategy? Harvard Business Review (Nov.-Dec.): 61-78.Salamon, L. 1999. America’s Nonprofit Sector: A Primer. New York: Foundation Center.Sawhill, C. and D. Williamson 2001. Mission impossible? : Measuring success in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 11 (3): 371-286.Scott, W. R. 1992. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open System. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Seashore, S. E. and E. Yuchtman. 1967. Factorial Analysis of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (3): 377-395.Sheehan, R. 1996. Mission accomplishment as philanthropy project. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 25 (1): 110-123.Swanson, R. A. 1994. Analysis for Improving Performance: Tools for Diagnosing Organizations & Documenting Workplace Expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Weisbrod, B. 1977. The voluntary nonprofit sector: An economic analysis. San Francisco: Now Lexington Press.Wolf, T. 1990. Managing A Nonprofit Organization. N.Y.: Simon & Shuster. zh_TW
