企業類型與生命週期對公司價值與 經營績效影響之研究-以電子業為例-

The Impact of Enterprise Type and Lifecycle on Company Value and Business Performance: Taking the Electronics Industry as an Example

黃碧秀(Bi-Shiou Huang)

指導教授 ： 簡俱揚 ； 鄒翊

中原大學/商學院/會計研究所/碩士(2004年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200400085

摘要

本研究所欲探討的主要課題是不同的企業類型、企業生命週期及市場地位，其公司價值、經營績效及競爭策略是否有不同的取向與作法，其成效之優劣。因此，從企業類型的觀點，配合傳統企業成長、成熟與衰退等階段之觀察研究，可以將企業價值的變化更具體化呈現，因此透過績效的關聯研究，對於企業競爭力的維繫，提供更充分與有用的資訊。
本實證研究以台灣證券市場交易之民國九十一年前掛牌之電子業公司為研究對象，樣本公司共有三六九家公司，這些樣本公司分別依企業類型與企業生命週期兩大分類模式進行細部分類，並以民國九十一年資料作橫斷面分析。
實證統計檢定程序，首先針對依企業類型及生命週期分類之各樣本公司群，其無形資產評價相對值、淨值報酬率與稅前淨利率之數據資料分佈，假設其符合常態分配。其次藉由F檢定與t檢定，以確認各樣本公司群其無形資產評價相對值、淨值報酬率與稅前淨利率的平均數，在不同的分類模式下是否有顯著的不同；並佐以不同分類模式的交叉關係。最後依企業類型模式挑選出特定產品市場的相關企業，探討市場地位領先之企業與其他企業，其無形資產評價相對值、淨值報酬率與稅前淨利率的平均數是否有顯著的不同，並進一步分析其策略及原因。
本研究經實證分析後，得到以下結論：
一、不同企業類型其經營績效之平均數顯著不同。
即：產品創新型企業大於客戶關係管理型企業大於基礎建設型企業。
但在無形資產評價相對值部分只得到產品創新型企業對客戶關係管理型企業與基礎建設型企業其平均數檢定顯著不同，至於客戶關係管理型企業對基礎建設型企業平均數檢定則不顯著。
即：產品創新型企業大於客戶關係管理型企業不大於基礎建設型企業。
二、不同企業生命週期其無形資產評價相對值、經營績效平均數顯著不同。
即：成長期企業大於成熟期企業大於衰退期企業。
三、不同企業類型在企業生命週期的傾向：
（一）產品創新型企業傾向於成長期。
（二）基礎建設型企業傾向於衰退期。
（三）客戶關係管理型企業傾向於成熟期。
四、在挑選的三種產品市場（IC設計業、主機板業、資訊通路業）中，除主機板業外不同市場地位並不造成各產品市場內之市場地位領先企業與其他企業企業其無形資產評價相對值、經營績效之平均數顯著不同。
因此由本研究之結論證明企業類型、不同生命週期對企業無形資產與經營績效之影響；也說明企業類型在企業生命週期中的傾向；在基礎建設型企業中主機板此一特定產品市場其市場地位與無形資產評價、經營績效相關；藉由一系列的相關評估結果，能應用於公司擬定發展方向及證券市場之投資理財參考。

關鍵字

企業類型 ； 企業生命週期

並列摘要

This thesis addresses different enterprise types, lifecycles, and market position; whether there are different orientations and methods applied to company value, business performance, and competitive strategy; and good or bad performance outcomes. By adopting a research perspective that observes both company type as well as the traditional business lifecycle stages (growth, maturity and decline), it is possible to more concretely show changes in enterprise value, and thereby, through performance research, to provide more comprehensive and useful information on how enterprises can maintain competitiveness.
This empirical study took the TSE-traded electronics companies that had listed publicly before 2002 as its research subject. The sample companies numbered 369; they were categorized according to enterprise type and corporate lifecycle, and a cross-section analysis of the 2002 data was carried out.
The empirical and statistical testing procedure was as follows: first the companies were divided into three sample groups on the basis of company type and lifecycle. The relative value of appraised intangible assets, return on equity (ROE), and pre-tax profit data was distributed according to this categorization. Next, two statistical tests—the F-test and the t-test—were used to ascertain the i) average relative value of appraised intangible assets, ii) average return on equity (ROE), and iii) average pre-tax profit for each sample group; whether there were significant differences for the different categories in this classification. This was supplemented with the intersection relationships among the different categories. Finally, the enterprises related to specified product markets (according to enterprise type): these enterprises were examined to investigate whether market position impacted i) relative value of appraised intangible assets, ii) return on equity (ROE), and iii) pre-tax profit averages. In other words, would frontrunners versus other companies have different averages? Strategies and causes were also analyzed.

Empirical analysis reached the following conclusions:
1) For different business types, there were significant differences in the business performance averages.
Thus: innovator companies＞infomediaries＞infrastructure companies.
However, for the relative value of appraised intangible assets, there was only a significant difference between innovator companies on the one hand and infomediaries and infrastructure companies on the other hand (without any significant difference between the latter two types).
Thus: innovator companies＞infomediaries ≦ infrastructure companies.
2) For different corporate lifecycles, there were significant differences in average relative value of appraised intangible assets and average business performance.
Thus: growth period companies＞mature companies＞decline period companies.
3) There were trends for different enterprise types in the corporate lifecycle:
1. Innovator companies tended to be in the growth period.
2. Infrastructure companies tended to be in decline.
3. Infomediaries tended to be in maturity.
4) In the three product markets that were selected (the IC design industry, the motherboard industry, and the information channel industry), except for the motherboard industry, different market positions did not result in significant differences in average relative value of assessed intangible assets and business performance; in other words, the front runners were not different from other companies in terms of these averages.
The conclusions of this research concern the impact of company type and stage in the corporate life cycle on intangible assets and business performance; they also explain trends of different company types within the business lifecycle; among infrastructure companies, in the motherboard product market in particular, market position correlated with appraised intangible assets and business performance. The results from this series of related assessments can be applied by companies in setting development orientation and can be used as a reference for stock market investment management.

並列關鍵字

enterprise type ； business lifecycle stage

參考文獻

8.曹壽民，商標權的價值攸關性:從企業生命週期與法規大修論析，民國91年。

3. John Hagel Ⅲ & Marc Singer，“Net Worth，Harvard Business School”（1999）（世界經理文摘156期，pp.112-118）。

5. Porter, M. E.. 1980. “Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors.” (Free Press, New York, NY).

參考文獻與書目

（一）中文部分：