[Harvard Business Review - January-February 1992] - Kaplan & Norton - The Balanced Scorecard - Measu

Measuring theStrategic Readiness of Intangible Assetsby Robert S. Kaplan and David P. NortonA real—and revolutionary—opportunity lies in studying and assessing how wellprepared a company’s people, systems, and culture are to carry out its strategy.Measuring theStrategic Readiness of Intangible Assetsby Robert S. Kaplan and David P. NortonC O P Y R I G H T © 2004 H A R V A RD B U S I NE S S S C H O O L P U B L I S H I N G C O R P O R A T I O N . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D .A real—and revolutionary—opportunity lies in studying andassessing how well prepared a company’s people, systems, and culture are to carry out its strategy.How valuable is a company culture that en-ables employees to understand and believe in their organization’s mission, vision, and core values? What’s the payoff from investing in a knowledge management system or in a new customer database? Is it more important to improve the skills of all employees or focus on those in just a few key positions?Measuring the value of such intangible as-sets is the holy grail of accounting. Employees’skills, IT systems, and organizational cultures are worth far more to many companies than their tangible assets. Unlike financial and phys-ical ones, intangible assets are hard for com-petitors to imitate, which makes them a pow-erful source of sustainable competitive advantage. If managers could find a way to es-timate the value of their intangible assets, they could measure and manage their company’s competitive position much more easily and ac-curately.But that’s simpler said than done. Unlike fi-nancial and physical assets, intangible assets are worth different things to different people.An oil well, for example, is almost as valuable to a retail firm as it is to an oil exploration cor-poration because either company could sell it swiftly if necessary. But a workforce with a strong sense of customer service and satisfac-tion is worth far more to the retailer than it would be to the oil company. Also, unlike tan-gible assets, intangible assets almost never cre-ate value by themselves. They need to be com-bined with other assets. Investments in IT, for example, have little value unless comple-mented with HR training and incentive pro-grams. And, conversely, many HR training pro-grams have little value unless complemented with modern technology tools. HR and IT in-vestments must be integrated and aligned with corporate strategy if the organization is to real-ize their full potential. Indeed, when compa-nies separate functions like HR and IT organi-zationally, they usually end up with competing silos of technical specialization. The HR de-partment argues for increases in employee training, while the IT department lobbies for buying new hardware and software packages.Measuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible AssetsRobert S. Kaplan (rkaplan@) is the Marvin Bower Professor of Leader-ship Development at Harvard Business School in Boston. David P. Norton (dnorton@) is the founder and president of the Balanced Score-card Collaborative () in Lincoln, Massachusetts. This article is based on their book Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tan-gible Outcomes(Harvard Business School Press, 2004).What’s more, intangible assets seldom af-fect financial performance directly. Instead,they work indirectly through complex chainsof cause and effect. Training employees inTotal Quality Management and Six Sigma, forinstance, should improve process quality. Thatimprovement should then increase customersatisfaction and loyalty—and also create someexcess resource capacity. But only if the com-pany can transform that loyalty into improvedsales and margins and eliminate or redeploythe excess resources will the investment intraining pay off. By contrast, the impact of anew tangible asset is immediate: When a re-tailer develops a new site, it sees financial ben-efits from the sales in the newly opened outletright away.Although these characteristics make it im-possible to value intangible assets on a free-standing basis, they also point the way to anew approach for quantifying how intangibleassets add value to the company. By under-standing the problems associated with valuingintangible assets, we learn that the measure-ment of the value they create is embedded inthe context of the strategy the company is pur-suing. Companies such as Dell, Wal-Mart, orMcDonald’s that are following a low-cost strat-egy derive value from Six Sigma and TQMtraining because their strategies are predicatedon continuous process improvement. Thestrategy of offering customers integrated solu-tions (rather than discrete products) pursuedby Goldman Sachs, IBM Consulting, and thelike requires employees good at establishingand maintaining long-term customer relation-ships. An organization cannot possibly assign ameaningful financial value to an intangibleasset like “a motivated and prepared work-force” in a vacuum because value can be de-rived only in the context of the strategy. Whatthe company can measure, however, iswhether its workforce is properly trained andmotivated to pursue a particular goal.Viewed in this light, it becomes clear thatmeasuring the value of intangible assets is re-ally about estimating how closely alignedthose assets are to the company’s strategy. Ifthe company has a sound strategy and if the in-tangible assets are aligned with that strategy,then the assets will create value for the organi-zation. If the assets are not aligned with thestrategy or if the strategy is flawed, then intan-gible assets will create little value, even if largeamounts have been spent on them.In the following pages, we will draw on theconcepts and tools of the Balanced Scorecardto present a way to systematically measure thealignment of the company’s human, informa-tion, and organization capital—what we callits strategic readiness—without which even thebest strategy cannot succeed.Defining Strategic ReadinessIn developing the Balanced Scorecard morethan a decade ago, we identified, in its Learn-ing and Growth Perspective, three categoriesof intangible assets essential for implement-ing any strategy:•Human Capital:the skills, talent, andknowledge that a company’s employees pos-sess.•Information Capital: the company’s data-bases, information systems, networks, andtechnology infrastructure.•Organization Capital: the company’s cul-ture, its leadership, how aligned its people arewith its strategic goals, and employees’ abilityto share knowledge.To link these intangible assets to a com-pany’s strategy and performance, we devel-oped a tool called the “strategy map,” whichwe first introduced in our previous article forHarvard Business Review,“Having Troublewith Your Strategy? Then Map It” (Septem-ber–October 2000). As the exhibit “The Strat-egy Map” shows, intangible assets influence acompany’s performance by enhancing the in-ternal processes most critical to creating valuefor customers and shareholders. Companiesbuild their strategy maps from the top down,starting with their long-term financial goalsand then determining the value propositionthat will deliver the revenue growth specifiedin those goals, identifying the processes mostcritical to creating and delivering that valueproposition, and, finally, determining the hu-man, information, and organization capitalthe processes require.This article focuses on the bottom—thefoundation—of the map and will show how in-tangible assets actually determine the perfor-mance of the critical internal processes. Oncethat link has been established, it becomes easyto trace the steps back up the map to see ex-actly how intangible assets relate to the com-pany’s strategy and performance. That, inturn, makes it possible to align those assetsMeasuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible AssetsMeasuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assetswith the strategy and measure their contribu-tion to it. The degree to which the current set of assets does—or does not—contribute to the performance of the critical internal processes determines the strategic readiness of those as-sets and thus their value to the organization. The strategic readiness of each type of intangi-ble asset can be thought of as follows: Human Capital (HC): In the case of human capital, strategic readiness is measured by whether employees have the right kind and level of skills to perform the critical internal processes on the strategy map. The first step in estimating HC readiness is to identify the stra-tegic job families—the positions in which em-ployees with the right skills, talent, and knowl-edge have the biggest impact on enhancing the organization’s critical internal processes. The next step is to pinpoint the set of specific competencies needed to perform each of those strategic jobs. The difference between the requirements needed to carry out these jobs effectively and the company’s current ca-pabilities represents a “competency gap” that measures the organization’s HC readiness.Information Capital (IC): The strategic readiness of information capital is a measure of how well the company’s strategic IT portfo-lio of infrastructure and applications supports the critical internal processes. Infrastructure comprises hardware—such as central servers and communication networks—and the man-agerial expertise—such as standards, disaster planning, and security—required to effec-tively deliver and use applications. Two cate-gories of applications, in turn, are built on this infrastructure: Transaction-processing applica-tions,such as an ERP system, automate the basic repetitive transactions of the enterprise. Analytic applications promote analysis, inter-pretation, and sharing of information and knowledge. Either type may or may not be a transformational application—one that changes the prevailing business model of the enterprise. Levi’s uses a transformational ap-plication to tailor jeans to individual custom-ers. Home Shopping Network uses a transfor-mational application to measure the “profits per second” being generated by currently of-fered merchandise. Transformational applica-tions have the most potential impact on stra-tegic objectives and require the greatest degree of organization change to deliver their benefits.Organization Capital (OC): Organization capital is perhaps the least understood of the intangible assets, and the task of measuring it is correspondingly difficult. But in looking at the strategic priorities that companies in our database of Balanced Scorecard implementa-tions used for their organization capital objec-tives, we found a consistent picture. Success-ful companies had a culture in which people were deeply aware of and internalized the mission, vision, and core values needed to exe-cute the company’s strategy. These companies strove for excellent leadership at all levels, leadership that could mobilize the organiza-tion toward its strategy. They strove for a clear alignment between the organization’s strate-gic objectives and individual, team, and de-partmental goals and incentives. Finally, these companies promoted teamwork, especially the sharing of strategic knowledge throughout the organization. Determining OC readiness, we concluded, would involve first identifying the changes in organization capital required by the new strategy—what we call the “orga-nization change agenda”—and then sepa-rately identifying and measuring the state of readiness of the company’s cultural, leader-ship, alignment, and teamwork objectives.Strategic readiness is related to the concept of liquidity, which accountants use to classify financial and physical assets on a company’s balance sheet. Accountants divide a firm’s as-sets into various categories, such as cash, ac-counts receivable, inventory, property, plant and equipment, and long-term investments. These are ordered hierarchically according to the ease and speed with which they can be converted to cash—in other words, according to the degree of their liquidity. Accounts re-ceivable is more liquid than inventory, and both accounts receivable and inventory are classified as short-term assets since they typi-cally convert to cash within 12 months, faster than the cash recovery cycle from such illiquid assets as plant and equipment. Strategic readi-ness does much the same for intangible as-sets—the higher their state of readiness, the faster they contribute to generating cash. Human Capital ReadinessAll jobs are important to the organization; otherwise, people wouldn’t be hired and paid to perform them. Organizations may require truck drivers, computer operators, productionMeasuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible AssetsMeasuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assetssupervisors, materials handlers, and call cen-ter operators and should make it clear that contributions from all these employees can improve organizational performance. But we have found that some jobs have a much greater impact on strategy than others. Man-agers must identify and focus on the critical few that have the greatest impact on success-ful strategy implementation.John Bronson, vice president of human re-sources at Williams-Sonoma, estimates that people in only five job families determine 80% of his company’s strategic priorities. The exec-utive team of a chemical company has identi-fied eight job families critical to its strategy of offering customized innovative solutions. These job families employ, in aggregate, 100 individuals—less than 7% of the total work-force. Kimberlee Williams, vice president of human resources at Unicco, a large integrated facilities-services management company, says that three job families are key to its strategy: project managers, who oversee the operations in specific accounts; operations directors, who broaden the relationships within existing ac-counts; and business development executives, who help acquire new accounts. These three job families employ only 215 people, less than 4% of the workforce. By focusing human capi-tal development activities on these critical few individuals, the chemical company, Unicco, and Williams-Sonoma can greatly leverage their human capital investments. It is sobering to think that strategic success in these three companies is determined by how well they de-velop competencies in less than 10% of their workforces.Once a company identifies its strategic job families, it must define the requirements for these jobs in considerable detail, a task often referred to as “job profiling” or “competency profiling.” A competency profile describes the knowledge, skills, and values required by suc-cessful occupants in the job family. Often, HR managers will interview individuals who best understand the job requirements to develop a competency profile they can use to recruit, hire, train, and develop people for that posi-tion. To see how this might be done, consider Consumer Bank, a composite example distilled from our experiences in working with about a dozen retail banks.Consumer Bank was migrating from its his-toric strategy of promoting individual products to one offering complete financial solutions and one-stop shopping to targeted customers. The map for this new strategy identified seven critical internal processes, one of which was “cross-sell the product line.” Human resources and line executives then identified the finan-cial planner as the job most important to the effective performance of this process. A plan-ning workshop further identified four skills fundamental to the financial planner’s job: so-lutions selling, relationship management, product-line knowledge, and professional certi-fication. For each internal process on its strat-egy map, Consumer Bank replicated this ap-proach, identifying the strategic job families and critical competencies each required. The results are summarized in the exhibit “Human Capital Readiness at Consumer Bank.”To take the next step—assessing the current capabilities and competencies of each of the employees in each strategic job family—com-panies can draw from a broad range of ap-proaches. For example, employees can them-selves assess how well their current capabilities fit the job requirements and then discuss those assessments with a mentor or career manager. Alternatively, an assessor can solicit 360-de-gree feedback on employees’ performance from their supervisors, peers, and subordi-nates. From these assessments, employees get a clear understanding of their objectives, meaningful feedback on their current levels of skill and performance, and specific recommen-dations for future personal development.Consumer Bank estimated that it needed 100 trained and skilled financial planners to ex-ecute the cross-selling process. But in assessing its recent targeted hiring, training, and devel-opment programs, the bank’s HR group deter-mined that only 40 of its financial planners had reached a high enough level of profi-ciency. The bank’s human capital readiness for this piece of the strategy was, therefore, only 40%, as the exhibit shows. By replicating this analysis for all its strategic job families, the bank learned the state of its human capital readiness and thus whether the organization could move forward quickly with its new strat-egy.Information Capital Readiness Executives must understand how to plan, set priorities for, and manage an information capital portfolio that supports their organiza-Measuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible AssetsMeasuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assetstion’s strategy. As with human capital, the strategy map serves as a starting point for de-lineating a company’s IC objectives. In the case of Consumer Bank, the chief information officer led an initiative to identify the specific information capital needs of each of the seven internal processes previously identified as crit-ical to the bank’s new value proposition.For the customer management process “cross-sell the product line,” the workshop team identified an application for customers to analyze and manage their portfolios by themselves (a customer portfolio self-manage-ment system) as a transformational applica-tion. The workshop team identified an analyti-cal application for the same process (a customer profitability system) and a transac-tion-processing application (an integrated cus-tomer file). The internal process “understand customer segments” also needed a customer profitability system, as well as a separate customer feedback system to support market research. The process “shift to appropriate channel” required a strong foundation of transactional systems, including a packaged CRM software suite that included modules for lead management, order management, and sales force automation. For the operations pro-cess “provide rapid response,” participants identified a transformational application (cus-tomer self-help) as well as an analytic applica-tion (a best-practice community knowledge management system) for sharing successful sales techniques among telemarketers. Finally, the “minimize problems” process required an analytical application (service quality analy-sis) to identify problems and two related trans-action-level systems (one for incident tracking and another for problem management).After defining its portfolio of IC applica-tions, the project team identified several re-quired components of IT infrastructure. Some applications needed a CRM transactions data-base. Others required that a Web-enabled in-frastructure be integrated into the bank’s over-all Web site architecture. The team also learned about the need for an internal R&D project to develop a new interactive voice-re-sponse technology. All together, the bank’s planning process defined an information capi-tal portfolio made up of 14 unique applications (some of which supported more than one in-ternal process) and four IT infrastructure projects. (See the exhibit “Information Capital Readiness at Consumer Bank.”)The team then turned to assessing the readi-ness of the bank’s existing portfolio of IC infra-structure and applications, assigning a numeri-cal indicator from 1 to 6 to each system. A score of 1 or 2 indicates that the system is al-ready available and operating normally, per-haps needing only minor enhancements. A score of 3 or 4 indicates that the system has been identified and funded but is not yet in-stalled or operational. In other words, current capability does not yet exist but development programs are under way to close the gap. A score of 5 or 6 signals that a new infrastructure or application is needed to support the strat-egy, but nothing has yet been done to create, fund, and deliver the capability. Managers re-sponsible for the IC development programs provided the subjective judgments for this sim-ple measurement system, and the CIO was re-sponsible for assessing the integrity of the re-ported numbers. In the IC exhibit, we can also see that Consumer Bank aggregated the readi-ness measures of individual applications and infrastructure programs—designating them green, yellow, or red, based on the worst-case application in the category—to create a portfo-lio status report. With such a report, managers can see the strategic readiness of the organiza-tion’s information capital at a glance, easily pinpointing the areas in which more resources are needed. It is an excellent tool for monitor-ing a portfolio of information capital develop-ment programs.Many sophisticated IT organizations al-ready use more quantitative, objective assess-ments of their information capital portfolios than the subjective process we’ve just de-scribed for Consumer Bank. These organiza-tions survey users to assess their satisfaction with each system. They perform financial anal-yses to determine the operating and mainte-nance costs of each application. Some conduct technical audits to assess the underlying qual-ity of the code, ease of use, quality of docu-mentation, and frequency of failure for each application. From this profile, an organization can build strategies for managing its portfolio of existing IC assets just as one would manage a collection of physical assets like machinery or a fleet of trucks. Applications with high lev-els of maintenance can be streamlined, for ex-ample, applications with high operating costs can be optimized, and applications with highMeasuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assetslevels of user dissatisfaction can be replaced. This more comprehensive approach can be ef-fective for managing a portfolio of applica-tions that are already operational. Organization Capital Readiness Success in performing the critical internal pro-cesses identified in an organization’s strategy map invariably requires an organization to change in fundamental ways. Assessing OC readiness is essentially about assessing how well the company can mobilize and sustain the organization change agenda associated with its strategy. For instance, if the strategy involves focusing on the customer, the com-pany needs to determine whether its existing culture is customer-centric, whether its lead-ers have the requisite skills to foster such a cul-ture, whether employees are aware of the goal and are motivated to deliver exceptional cus-tomer service, and, finally, how well employ-ees share with others their knowledge about the company’s customers. Let’s explore how companies can make these kinds of assess-ments for each of the four OC dimensions.Culture. Of the four, culture is perhaps the most complex and difficult dimension to un-derstand and describe because it encompasses a wider range of behavioral territory than the others. That’s probably why “shaping the cul-ture” is the most often-cited objective in the Learning and Growth section of our Balanced Scorecard database. Executives generally be-lieve that changes in strategy require basic changes in the way business is conducted at all levels of the organization, which means, of course, that people will need to develop new attitudes and behaviors—in other words, change their culture.Assessment of cultural readiness relies heavily on employee surveys. But in preparing surveys, companies need to distinguish clearly between the values that all employees share—the company’s base culture—and the percep-tions that employees have of their existing sys-tem—the climate. The concept of base culture has its roots in anthropology, which defines an organization’s culture as the symbols, myths, and rituals embedded in the group conscious-ness (or subconscious). To describe a com-pany’s base culture, therefore, you have to un-cover the organization’s systems of shared meanings, assumptions, and values.The concept of climate has its roots in social psychology and is determined by the way orga-nizational influences—such as the incentive structure or the perceived warmth and support of superiors and peers—affect employees’ mo-tivation and behavior. The anthropological component reflects employees’ shared atti-tudes and beliefs independent of the actual or-ganizational infrastructure, while climate re-flects their shared perception of existing organizational policies, practices, and proce-dures, both formal and informal.Surveying perceptions of existing organiza-tional policies and practices is a fairly straight-forward task, but getting at the base culture re-quires a little more digging. Anthropologists usually rely on storytelling to identify shared beliefs and images, but that approach is inade-quate for quantifying the alignment of culture to strategy. Organizational behavior scholars have developed measurement instruments, such as Charles O’Reilly and colleagues’ Orga-nizational Culture Profile, in which employees rank 54 value statements according to their perceived importance and relevance in the or-ganization. Once ranked, an organization’s cul-ture can be described with a reasonable degree of reliability and validity. Then the organiza-tion can assess to what extent the existing cul-ture is consistent with its strategy and what kinds of changes may be needed.One caveat: Managers do need to be aware that some variations in culture are necessary and desirable in different operating units or functions. The culture of an R&D group, for example, should be different from the culture of a manufacturing unit; the culture of an emergent business unit should be different from the culture of a mature one. Executives should strive for agreement throughout the or-ganization about corporatewide values such as integrity, respect, treatment of colleagues, and commitment to customer satisfaction. But some value statements in the survey instru-ment should refer to the culture of specific op-erating units. So, for example, surveys of the employees in operations and service-delivery units would include statements about quality and continuous improvement, whereas the R&D department survey might include state-ments about creativity and innovation. For employees involved in customer acquisition, statements might relate to retention and growth or to a deep understanding of individ-ual customers’ preferences and needs.Measuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible AssetsLeadership. If companies change their strat-egies, people will have to do some things differ-ently as well. It is the responsibility of leaders at all levels of the organization—from the CEO of a retail chain down to the local store manag-ers—to help employees identify and under-stand the changes needed and to motivate and guide them toward the new ways of working.In researching the best practices in our Bal-anced Scorecard database, we were able to identify seven generic types of behavioral changes that build organization capital, and each fell into one of two categories: changes that support the creation of value—such as in-creasing people’s focus on the customer—and those required to carry out the company’s strategy—such as increasing accountability. The sidebar “Seven Behaviors for Transforma-tion” describes these behavioral changes in more detail.To ensure that it gets the kind of leaders it needs, a company should draw up a leadership competency model for each of its leadership po-sitions. This is a kind of job profile that defines the competencies a leader is expected to have to be effective in carrying out the company’s strategy. For example, one manufacturing company, attempting to create teams to solve customers’ problems, identified and defined three competencies essential for people in team leadership positions:•Customer Focus—Outstanding leaders understand their customers. They place them-selves in the customers’ minds and spend time with them to understand their current and fu-ture needs.•Fostering Teamwork—Outstanding lead-ers work collaboratively with their own teams and across organizational and geographic boundaries. They empower their teams to achieve excellence.•Open Communications—Outstanding leaders tell the truth. They openly share infor-mation with peers, managers, and subordi-nates. They tell the whole story, not just how it looks from their position.Often, organizations will measure leader-ship traits, such as those listed above, through employee surveys. A staff or external unit so-licits information from subordinates, peers, and superiors about a leader’s mastery of the critical skills. This personal feedback is used mainly for coaching and developing the leader, but the unit can also aggregate the de-tailed (and confidential) data from the individ-ual reviews to create a status report on the readiness of key leadership competencies needed throughout the organization.Alignment. An organization is aligned when all employees have a commonality of purpose, a shared vision, and an understanding of how their personal roles support the overall strat-egy. An aligned organization encourages be-haviors such as innovation and risk taking be-cause individuals’ actions are directed toward achieving high-level objectives. EncouragingSeven Behaviors for TransformationAll new strategies require employees to make, and leaders to identify and foster, some specific changes in behavior. But in our research, companies that have success-fully changed their strategies have needed only a limited number of behavioral changes—just seven, in fact—to maximize the contributions of their people to the exe-cution of their new strategies. The changes fall into two categories:•Value Creation: Behaviors that support value creation are those that increase focus on customers, innovation, and re-sults.•Strategy Execution: Behaviors that sup-port strategy execution are those that in-crease employees’ understanding of thecompany’s mission, vision and values; ac-countability; communications; and team-work.Of course, no organization will try tochange all seven behaviors at once. Typi-cally, a company will identify the two to fourmost important ones for implementing aspecific strategy. For example, firms in de-regulated industries like utilities or telecom-munications now place a heavy emphasison becoming customer focused and innova-tive, which are, for them, totally new behav-iors. Previously, operating from a monopolyposition, they had focused on operating effi-ciency and on avoiding risks to protect reve-nues.That said, customer focus was the mostfrequently identified required new behaviorin all the companies we studied. That’spartly because virtually every strategy initia-tive starts with a clarification or redefinitionof the customer value proposition. But somenew strategies impose different priorities.Companies introducing shareholder valueprograms, for example, may already be suf-ficiently customer focused and will need in-stead to focus on results.Companies adopting strategies that re-quire high degrees of integration commonlyneed to increase communication. That wasso, for instance, for one pharmaceuticalcompany in our database that was attempt-ing to transfer knowledge and marketplaceexperience from its commercial division to。

企业绩效管理和员工激励是企业管理中的重要组成部分，对于提高企业的运营效率和员工的工作动力具有重要作用。

下面我们将介绍一些关于企业绩效管理和员工激励的参考文献，供大家参考。

一、企业绩效管理的参考文献1. Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance. Harvard business review,70(1), 71-79.这篇文章主要介绍了平衡计分卡在企业绩效管理中的应用。

作者提出了以财务、客户、内部业务流程和学习与成长四个维度来衡量企业的绩效，这些维度能够全面地反映企业的经营状况，有助于企业制定合理的经营战略和目标。

2. Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F. (1998). Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of accounting research, 36, 1-35. 这篇文章研究了非财务指标是否能成为企业财务绩效的领先指标。

作者以客户满意度作为非财务指标，发现客户满意度确实能够预示企业未来的财务表现，为企业绩效管理提供了新的思路。

3. Neely, A., Gregory, M., Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations ProductionManagement, 15(4), 80-116.这篇文章对企业绩效管理中的绩效测量系统进行了文献综述和研究议程的探讨。

平衡计分卡的主要内容平衡计分卡（Balanced Scorecard，BSC）是一种管理工具，用于衡量组织的绩效，并将绩效指标与组织的战略目标相对应。

它被广泛应用于企业、非营利组织以及政府部门，帮助管理者更好地制定和执行战略。

平衡计分卡的主要内容包括四个方面：财务指标、客户指标、内部业务指标和学习与成长指标。

1. 财务指标（Financial Perspective）：财务指标是衡量组织财务绩效的重要指标，它关注组织的盈利能力、增长率、利润率等方面。

这些指标可以包括销售额、利润、股东回报率等。

财务指标对于企业而言是最重要的维度，因为它们直接关系到组织的长期生存和发展。

2. 客户指标（Customer Perspective）：客户指标是衡量组织与客户关系的指标，它关注客户满意度、市场份额、客户忠诚度等方面。

这些指标可以包括客户投诉率、客户流失率、市场份额增长等。

客户指标可以帮助组织了解客户需求和期望，进而制定相应的战略来提供更好的产品和服务。

3. 内部业务指标（Internal Process Perspective）：内部业务指标是衡量组织内部运营绩效的指标，它关注组织的流程效率、质量控制、创新能力等方面。

这些指标可以包括产能利用率、产品质量指标、流程改进时间等。

内部业务指标有助于提高组织的运营效能，提高产品或服务的质量和效率。

4. 学习与成长指标（Learning and Growth Perspective）：学习与成长指标是衡量组织学习和发展能力的指标，它关注组织的员工能力、员工满意度、技术创新等方面。

这些指标可以包括员工培训参与率、员工流失率、技术创新指数等。

学习与成长指标对于组织的长期发展至关重要，它们能够促进组织不断学习和成长，保持竞争优势。

通过使用平衡计分卡，组织可以通过四个维度的指标对绩效进行综合评估，帮助管理者了解组织的整体情况，从而更好地制定和改进战略。

平衡计分卡可以帮助组织确立战略目标，并将其落实到具体的绩效指标上，使组织能够全面衡量和管理绩效。

战略管理的经典文献▪Andrews K. (1986). The Concept Of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, Ill: Irwin.Chapters 2,3,4.▪Porter, M. What Is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 1996, 6.▪Drucker, P. The Theory Of The Business, Harvard Business Review, 1994, 5.▪Hamel, G. Strategy As Revolution, Harvard Business Review, 1996, 4▪Hamel, G. & C. K. Prahalad, Strategic Intent, Harvard Business Review, 1989,3.▪Hamel, G. & C. K. Prahalad, Strategy As Stretch And Leverage, Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 2.▪Rumelt, R. Schendel, D., & Teece, D. (1991). Fundamental Research Issues In Strategy And Economics. Strategic Management Journal. Special Issue. Vol. 12.▪Schoemaker, P. (1990). Strategy, plexity And Economic Rents. Management Science.Special Issue, Vol. 36 (10), 1178-1192.▪Christensen, C., Kenneth R. Andrews, Joseph L. Bower, Richard G. Hamermesh, Michael E. Porter, Business Policy: Text And Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1982 ▪Mintzberg, H.; Bruce Ahlstrand; Joseph Lampel, Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds Of Strategic Management, Free Press, 1998.▪Grant, R. Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Applications, 4th Ed, Blackwell Publishers Inc., 20XX.▪Bettis, R.A. (1991). Strategic Management And The Straightjacket: An Editorial Essay, Organization Science, Vol. 2. 315-319.▪Canella, A. & Paetzold, R. (1994) Pfeffer’S Barriers To The Advance Of Organizational Science: A Rejoinder. Academy Of Management Review, 19(2):331-341.▪Gioia, D. & E. Pitre, (1990). Multiparadigm Perspectives On Theory Building.Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 15. 584-602.▪Pfeffer J. (1993) Barriers To The Advance Of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development As A Dependent Variable. Academy Of Management Review, 18 (4):599-620.▪Ansoff, H.I. (1987). The Emerging Paradigm Of Strategic Behavior. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8. 501-515.▪Daft, R.L. & Lewin, A.Y. (1990). Can Organization Studies Begin To Break Out Of The Normal Science Straightjacket? Organization Science, 1(1).1-9.▪Hambrick, D. (1994) 1993 Presidential Address: What If The Academy Actually Mattered? Academy Of Management Review, 19(1) 11-16.▪Macmillan, I. C. (1991). The Emerging Forum Of Business Policy Scholars.Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12. 161-165.▪Besanko, D., David Dranove, Mark Shanley, The Economics Of Strategy, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996The Art And Practice Of Strategic Management▪Ness, J. & T. Cucuzza, Tapping The Full Potential Of Abc, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 4▪Tufano, ., How Financial Engineering Can Advance Corporate Strategy?, Harvard Business Review, 1996, 1▪Gadiesh, O.; James L. Gilbert, How To Map Your Industry's Profit Pool, Harvard Business Review, 1998, 3▪Gadiesh, O.; James L. Gilbert, Profit Pools: A Fresh Look At Strategy, Harvard Business Review, 1998, 3▪Deephouse, D., To Be Different,Or To Be The Same? It's A Question (And Theory) Of Strategy Balance, Strategic Management Journal, 1999, 2▪Grimm, C. & Smith, K. G. (1997). Strategy As Action. Dallas, Tx: Southwest Publishing.▪Henderson, B. The Concept Of Strategy, In The Strategic Management Handbook (Kenneth J. Albert Ed.), Mcgraw-Hill Book pany, 1983: 1-3~4.▪Kaplan, R.; David P. Norton, Having Trouble With Your Strategy? Then Map It, Harvard Business Review, 2000, 5.▪Hambrick, D. (1983). Some Tests Of The Effectiveness And Functional Attributes Of Miles And Snow’S Strategic Types. Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 26, 5-26.▪Hatten, K.J., Schendel, D.E., & Cooper, A.C. (1978). A Strategic Model Of The U.S. Brewing Industry: 1952-1971. Academy Of Management Journal. Vol. 21.592-610.▪Barney, J. (1986). Types Of petition And The Theory Of Strategy: Toward An Integrative Framework. Academy Of Management Review. Vol. 11, 791-800.▪Hambrick, D., I. Macmillan & D. Day (1982). Strategic Attributes And Performance In The Four Cells Of The Bcg Matrix—A Pims –Based Analysis Of Industrial–Product Businesses. Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 25, 510-531.▪Costin, H. Ed., Readings In Strategy And Strategic Planning, Harcourt Brace & pany, 1998.▪Rowe, A., Richard O. Mason, Karl E. Dickel, Richard B. Mann, Robert J. Mockler, Strategic Management: A Methodological Approach (4th Ed.), Addison-WesleyPublishing pany, Inc., 1994▪Luehrman, T., Strategy As A Portfolio Of Real Options, Harvard Business Review, 1998, 5▪Dixit, A. & R. Pindyck, The Options Approach To Capital Investment, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 3▪Mintzberg, H.; Joseph Lampel, Reflecting On The Strategy Process, Sloan Management Review, 1999, 3External And Internal Models Of StrategyIndustry Analysis And Strategy▪Zajac, E. & Bazerman, M. (1991). Blind Spots In Industry And petitor Analysis: Implications Of Interfirm (Mis)Perceptions For Strategic Decisions. Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 16 (1): 37-56.▪Porter, M.E. (1981). The Contribution Of Industrial Organization To Strategic Management. Academy Of Management Review. Vol. 6,137-156.▪Foss, N, Research In Strategy, Economics, And Michael Porter, Journal Of Management Studies, January 1996.▪Cool, K.O. & Schendel, D.E. (1987). Strategic Group Formation And Performance: U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry. Management Science, 33, 1102-1124.▪Nath, D.; Thomas S. Gruca, Convergence Across Alternative Methods For Forming Strategic Groups, Strategic Management Journal, 1997, 9: 745-760▪Peteraf, M.; Mark Shanley, Getting To Know You: A Theory Of Strategic Group Identity, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, Summer Special Issue▪Porter, M., How petitive Forces Shape Strategy, Harvard Business Review, 1979,2.▪Sampler, J., Redefining Industry Structure For The Information Age, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 4▪Caves, R. & Ghemawat, P. (1992). Identifying Mobility Barriers. Strategic Management Journal. 13, 1-12.▪Brush, T., P. Bromiley,. & M. Hendrickx (1999). The Relative Influence Of Industry And Corporation On Business Segment Performance: An AlternativeEstimate. Strategic Management Journal. Vol 20 (6)519-548.▪Caves R. & Porter, M. (1977). From Entry Barriers To Mobility Barriers. Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 91, 241-261.▪Chang, S.& H.Singh. (2000). Corporate And Industry Effects On Business Unit petitive Position. Strategic Management Journal. Vol 21 739-752.▪Mcgahan, A.M. & M. E. Porter (1997). How Much Does Industry Matter, Really?Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, 15-30.▪Peteraf, M.A. & M. Shanley (1997) Getting To Know You: A Theory Of Strategic Group Identity. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, 165-186.▪Porter, M. (1979). The Structure Within Industries And panies Performance.Review Of Economics And Statistics, 61: 214-227.▪Rumelt, R. (1991). How Much Does Industry Matter? Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12. 167-185.▪Powell, R. C. (1996). How Much Does Industry Matter? An Alternative Empirical Test. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, 323-334.▪Smith K.G., Grimm, C. Young, G., & Wally, S. (1997). Strategic Groups And Rivalrous Firm Behavior: Towards A Reconciliation, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 (2).▪Barney, J. & Hoskisson R (1990). Strategic Groups: Untested Assertions And Research Proposals. Managerial And Decision Economics, Vol. 11 (3)▪Harrigan, K. R. (1982). Exit Decisions In Mature Industries. Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 25. 707-732.▪Hatten, K. & Schendel, D. Heterogeneity Within An Industry: Firm Conduct In The U.S. Brewing Industry, 1952-1971. Journal Of Industrial Economics. 26, 97-113.▪Mcgee, J. & Thomas, H.(1989). Strategic Groups: A Further ment. Strategic Management Journal. 10, 105-107.▪Nayyar, P. (1989). Strategic Groups: A ment. Strategic Management Journal. 10, 101-104.▪Wiggins R. & Ruefli, R. (1995). Necessary Conditions For The Predictive Validity Of Strategic Groups: Analysis Without Reliance On Clustering Techniques. Academy Of Management Review Vol. 38, 1635-1655.Resource-Based View And Strategy▪Rouse, M.; U. S. Daellenbach, Rethinking Research Methods For The Resource-Based Perspective: Isolating Sources Of Sustainable petitive Advantage, StrategicManagement Journal, 1999, 5▪Collis, D., How Valuable Are Organizational Capabilities?, Strategic Management Journal, 1994, Winter Special Issues▪Barney, J. (20XX). Is The Resource-Based 'View' A Useful Perspective For Strategic Management Research? Yes. Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 26 (1) ▪Priem, R.L. & Butler, J.E. (20XX). Is The Resource-Based "View" A Useful Perspective For Strategic Management Research? Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 26 (1)▪Grant, R, (1991). Resource Based Theory Of petitive Advantage: Implications For Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, Vol. 33 (3).▪Wernerfelt, B., A Resource-Based View Of The Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 1984, 2.▪Wernerfelt, B., The Resource-Based View Of The Firm: Ten Years After, Strategic Management Journal, 1995, 3.▪Mosakowski, E., Managerial Prescriptions Under The Resource-Based View Of Strategy: The Example Of Motivational Techniques, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 12▪Medcof, J., Resource-Based Strategy And Managerial Power In Networks Of Internationally Dispersed Technology Units, Strategic Management Journal, 20XX,11.▪Mahoney, J. T. & Pandian, J. (1992). The Resource-Based View Within The Conversation Of Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, 363-380.▪Barney, J., How A Firm's Capabilities Affect Boundary Decisions, Sloan Management Review, 1999, 3▪Barney, J. (1991). Special Theory Forum, The Resource -Based Model Of The Firm: Origins, Implications And Prospects. The Journal Of Management. Vol. 17, 97-98.▪Conner, K. (1991). A Historical parison Of Resource-Based Theory And Five Schools Of Thought Within Industrial Organization Economics: Do We Have A New Theory Of The Firm? Journal Of Management. Vol. 17, 121-154.▪Liererman, M.; David B. Montgomery, First-Mover (Dis)Advantages: Retrospective And Link With The Resource-Based View, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 12 ▪Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The Cornerstones Of petitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (3): 179-192.▪Miller, D. & Shamsie J. (1996). The Resource-Based View Of The Firm In Two Environments: The Hollywood Film Studies From 1936 To 1965. Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 39 (3) 519-543.▪Mcwilliams, A. & Smart, D.L. (1995). The Resource-Based View Of The Firm: Does It Go Far Enough In Shedding The Assumptions Of The S-C-P Paradigm? Journal Of Management Inquiry, 4:309-316.Environment Vs Organization: An Integration▪Evans, P. & T. Wurster, Strategy And The New Economics Of Information, Harvard Business Review, 1997, 5▪Porter, M., Strategy And The Internet, Harvard Business Review, 20XX, 3▪Tapscott, D., Rethinking Strategy In A Networked World Or Why Michael Porter Is Wrong, Strategy & Business (Strategy-Business) (Third Quarter 20XX) ▪Ghoshal, S. & Westney, D. (1991). Organizing petitor Analysis Systems. Strategic Management Journal. 12, 17-31.▪Schoenecker, T.; Arnold C. Cooper, The Role Of Firm Resources And Organizational Attributes In Determining Entry Timing: A Cross-Industry Study, StrategicManagement Journal, 1998, 12▪Jemison, D. (1981). The Contribution Of Organizational Theory To Strategic Management. Academy Of Management Review. Vol. 21.▪Aktouf O. (1992). Management And Theories Of Organizations In The 1990s: TowardA Critical Radical Humanism? Academy Of Management Review. Vol. 17 407-431.▪Bettis, R., Michael A. Hitt, The New petitive Landscape, Strategic Management Journal, 1995, 1▪Smith, K.G., C. Grimm, M. Gannon, & M.J. Chen, (1991). Organizational Information Processing: petitive Responses And Performance In The Us Domestic AirlineIndustry. Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 34, 60-85.▪Rugman, A.; Alain Verbeke, Corporate Strategies And Environmental Regulations: An Organizing Framework, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 4 ▪Hansen, G. & Wernerfelt, B. (1989). Determinants Of Firm Performance: The Relative Importance Of Economic And Organizational Factors. StrategicManagement Journal, 10: 399-411.▪Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable petitive Advantage: bining Institutional And Resource-Based Views. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18: 697-713.▪Dean, T.; R. L. Brown; C. E. Bamford, Differences In Large And Small Firm Responses To Environmental Context Strategic Implications From A parativeAnalysis Of Business Formations, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 8 ▪Burt, R. (1997). The Contingent Value Of Social Capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42: 339-365.▪Burt, R., R. Hogarth,& C. Michaud (2000). The Social Capital Of French And American Managers. Organizational Science. Vol 11(2): 123-147.▪Galaskiewicz, J. & S. Wasserman. (1993). Social Network Analysis. Sociological Methods & Research. Vol. 22: 3-22.▪Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength Of Weak Ties. American Journal Of Sociology.Vol. 78▪Nahapiet J. & S. Ghoshal (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital And The Organizational Advantage. Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 23: 242-266.▪Tsai, W. & S. Ghoshal. (1998). Social Capital And Value Creation: The Role Of Intrafirm Networks. Academy Of Management Journal. Vol 41 (4) 464-478.▪Teece, D. (1998) Capturing Value From Knowledge Assets. California Management Review. Vol 40 (3).▪Spender, J.; Robert M. Grant, Knowledge And The Firm: Overview, Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 1: 5-9▪Tsoukas, H., The Firm As A Distributed Knowledge System : A Constructionist Approach, Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 1: 11-25Sustained petitive Advantage▪Ancona, Deborah, Bresman, Henrik, Kaeufer, Katrin, (20XX). The parative Advantage Of X-Teams. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43 (3).▪Dierickx , I. & Cool, K. (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation And Sustainability Of petitive Advantage. Management Science, 35: 99-120.▪Prahalad, C., Gray Hamel, The Core petence Of The Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 1990, 3▪Stabell, C.; ΦYstein D. Fjeldstad, Configuring Value For petitive Advantage: On Chains, Shops, And Networks, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 5▪Bettis R. & Hitt, M. (1995). Technological Transformation And The New petitive Landscape. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16: Special Issue.▪Henderson R. & I. Cockburn. (1994). Measuring petence? Exploring Firm Effects In Pharmaceutical Research. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 15 63-84.▪Ross, J., C. Beath, D. Goodhue, Develop Long-Term petitiveness Through It Assets, Sloan Management Review, 1996, 1, Fall: 31-41▪Collis, D. & C. Montgomery, peting On Resources: Strategy In The 1990s, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 4▪Barney, J., Assets Stocks And Sustained petitive Advantage: A ment, Management Science, 1989: 1504-1511▪Black, J.; Kimberly B. Boal, Strategic Resources: Traits, Configurations And Paths To Sustainable petitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, 1994: 131-148▪Barney, J. (1997). Gaining And Sustaining petitive Advantage, Addison-Wesley Publishing pany, Inc.▪Amit, R. & P. J. H. Schoemaker, Strategic Assets And Organizational Rent, Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 1▪Amit, R.. & Schoemaker, P.J. (1993). Strategic Assets And Organizational Rent.Strategic Mangement Journal, 14:33-46.▪Irvine, I.; Willam A. Sims, Measuring Consumer Surplus With Unknow Hicksian Demands, The American Economic Review, 1998, 1▪Porter, M., The petitive Advantage Of Nations, Harvard Business Review, 1990,2.▪Barney, J., petitive Organizational Behavior: Toword An Organizationally-Based Theory Of petitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, 1994, 1 ▪Schendel, D., Introduction To "petitive Organizational Behavior: Toword An Organizationally-Based Theory Of petitive Advantage", Strategic ManagementJournal, 1994, 1▪Robinson, W. T.; Claes Fornell; Mary Sullivan, Are Market Pioneers Intrinsically Stronger Than Later Entrants?, Strategic Management Journal, 1992: 609-624 ▪Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources And Sustained petitive Advantage. The Journal Of Management. Vol. 17, 99-120.¨ Barney, J. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can It Be ASource Of Sustained petitive Advantage? Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 11(3)▪Weigelt, K. & Camerer, C. (1988). Reputation And Corporate Strategy: A Review Of Rent Theory And Applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 443-454.▪Kanter, R., Thriving Locally In The Global Economy, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 5▪Garvin, D., Leveraging Processes For Strategic Advantage, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 5▪Hay, D., The Efficiency Of Firms: What Difference Does petition Make?, The American Economic Review, 1998, 5Strategic Change And Impediments To Change▪Kotter, J., Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 2▪Gersick, C. (1994). Pacing Strategic Change. The Case Of A New Venture. Academy Of Managementjournal, 37(1): 9-45.▪Pascarella, P., Charting A Course For Change, Management Review, 1998, 1.▪Markides, C., Strategic Innovation, Sloan Management Review, Spring 1997: 9-23.▪Spender, J., Making Knowledge The Basis Of A Dynamic Theory Of The Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 1: 45-62▪Szulanski, G., (1996). Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments To The Transfer Of The Best Practice Within The Firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 (1).▪Hamel, G. & C. Prahalad, (1996). peting In The New Economy: Managing Out Of Bounds, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 (3).▪Lane, P. & M. Lubatkin, Relative Absorptive Capacity And Interorganizational Learning, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 5▪Christensen, C. & M. Overdorf, Meeting The Challenge Of Disruptive Change, Harvard Business Review, 2000, 2.▪Fiegenbaum, A. Sudharshan, D. & Thomas, H. (1987). The Concept Of Strategic Time Periods In Strategic Group Research. Managerial And Decision Economics. 8,139-148.▪Gersick, C. (1994). Pacing Strategic Change. The Case Of A New Venture. Academy Of Management Journal, 37 (1): 9-45.▪Ginsberg, A. (1988). Measuring And Modeling Changes In Strategy: Theoretical Foundations And Empirical Directions. Strategic Management Journal. 9 (6)559-576.▪Hambrick, D. M. Geletkanycz & J. Fredrickson, J. (1993). Top Executive mitment To The Status Quo: Some Tests Of Its Determinants. StrategicManagement Journal, 14 (6): 401-419.▪Mascarenhas, B (1989). Strategic Group Dynamics. The Academy Of Management Journal. 32 (2) 333-352.▪Miller, D. (1993) The Architecture Of Simplicity. Academy Of Management Review, 18(1): 116-138.▪Mintzberg, H. & Westley, F. (1992). Cycles Of Organizational Change. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 39-60.▪Mitchell, W. & K. Singh, (1993) Death Of The Lethargic: Effects Of Expansion Into New Technical Subfields On Performance In A Firm’S Base Business.Organization Science, 4 (2): 152-180.▪Quinn, J.B. (1980). Strategies For Change. Homewood, Il: Irwin. Chapters 2,3, & 4.▪Smith K.G, & Grimm, C (1987). Environmental Variation, Strategic Change And Firm Performance: A Study Of Railroad Deregulation. Strategic Management Journal.Vol. 8. 363-376.▪Zajac, E.J. & Shortell, S.M. (1989). Changing Generic Strategies: Likelihood, Direction And Performance Implications. Strategic Management Journal. 10 (5) 413-430.Execution Of StrategyMulti-Business Strategy▪Collis, D. & C. Montgomery, Creating Corporate Advantage, Harvard Business Review, 1998, 3.▪Campbell, A.; Michael Good; Marcus Alexander, Corporate Strategy: The Quest For Parenting Advantage, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 2▪Campbell, A. & Marcus Alexander, What's Wrong With Strategy, Harvard Business Review, 1997, 6▪Jones, T. & W. Earl Sasser, Why Satisfied Customers Defect, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 6▪Grant, A. & L. Schlesinger, Realize Your Customers' Full Profit Potential, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 5▪Pine Ii, B., Don Peppers, Martha Rogers, Do You Want To Keep Your Customers Forever?, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 2▪Riordan, M., Antipetitive Vertical Integration By A Dominant Firm, The American Economic Review, 1998, 5▪Lamoreaux, N., Partnerships, Corporations, And The Theory Of The Firm, The American Economic Review, 1998, 2▪Rayport, J. & J. Sviokla, Exploiting The Virtual Value Chain, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 6.▪Hagel Ⅲ, J. & Marc Singer, Unbundling The Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 1999, 2▪Landfield-Smith, K. & Michelle R. Greenwood, Developing Co-Operative Buyer-Supplier Relationships: A Case Study Of Toyata, Journal Of Management Studies, 1998, 3▪Birkinshaw, J.; Neil Hood; Stefan Jonson, Building Firm-Specific Advantages In Multinational Corporations: The Role Of Subsidiary Initiative, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 3▪Fast, Globle, And Entreneurial: Supply Chain Management, Hong Kong Style, Harvard Business Review, 1998, 3▪Markides, C., To Diversify Or Not To Diversify, Harvard Business Review, 1997, 6▪Harper, N. & S. Patrick Viguerie, Are You Too Focused? The Mckinsey Quarterly, Special Edition, 20XX.▪Kochhar, R. & M. A. Hitt, Linking Corporate Strategy To Capital Structure: Diversification Strategy, Type And Source Of Financing, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 6▪Prahalad, C. & Bettis, R. 1986. The Dominant Logic: A New Linkage Between Diversity And Performance. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 7(6).。