我国上市公司管理有效性评价研究
|
摘要
作为国民经济的“晴雨表”,上市公司的健康成长直接关系到国民经济的顺利发展。自从1990年上海证券交易所和深圳证券交易所成立以来,在短短的十余年里我国证券市场已逐步发展壮大为能够提高我国金融效率,加快国企改革,推动我国金融发展的中流砥柱。因此,客观、科学、合理的评价上市公司管理绩效将成为提高我国上市公司整体实力的出发点。在我国证券市场发挥重要作用的同时,我们也应该看到,与西方发达国家的证券市场相比,无论从投资者还是融资者的角度来看,我国上市公司的管理还相当不完善,如何评价管理好坏程度是提升管理水平的关键所在。同时我们也应该认识到,作为证券市场主体之一的上市公司本身就存在着由信息披露不完全,过度包装所导致的信息不对称问题。这种博弈的结果必然导致投资者不注重上市公司的投资价值,过度投机也就在所难免。如果要切实加强对上市公司信息披露的监管,就需要我们运用科学的,能够反映上市公司管理好坏程度的评价理论与方法体系,来判断上市公司是否真正创造财富,进而能有的放矢的对上市公司加以监管。因此,深入开展上市公司管理有效性评价理论与方法的研究具有重大理论意义与实践价值。
目前,对于企业绩效评价究竟基于产出记录还是管理行为,理论界远未达成一致的观点。现有的理论与方法体系仅仅是从不同侧面对绩效加以阐述,而并没有从其本质属性出发,去建立能够反映动态性、相对性和多元性等兼容并蓄的基本评价框架。针对以往研究中的不足,本文做出以下一系列工作,以期为今后上市公司管理有效性评价研究提供一种新的理论框架与方法体系。本文在管理有效性理论的基础之上,深入分析了发展上市公司管理有效性评价理论的重要意义,并建立适合我国上市公司的管理有效性评价体系,归纳出应从盈利能力、成长能力、经营效率、偿债能力和现金能力五个方面评价上市公司的管理有效性。同时说明财务指标和非财务指标之间的关系,即可通过财务指标的动态变化,体现非财务指标的有效程度。
针对现有上市公司管理有效性评价方法中较具合理性的数据包络分析(DEA)方法的不足,如传统DEA模型权重系数的随机性,以及如何科学确定锥比率区间等,本文以群决策法、线性规划与统计理论为工具,提出了一种聚类群决策DEA模型。此外,本文还进一步给出了基于聚类群决策DEA模型的扩展二次相对评价模型,从而为上市公司管理有效性建立了适合的评价方法体系,该方法不但可以体现上市公司管理有效性的动态性、相对性和多元性特点,而且还可以消除各个上市公司之间由于客观基础条件差异对管理有效性评价结果的影响。
采用本文提出的上市公司管理有效性评价的扩展二次相对评价模型,并借助于因子分析等多元统计分析方法,结合2004年～2005年不同行业上市公司的财务统计数据,对我国300家样本上市公司进行了实证研究。通过对实证结果的分析,一方面验证了上市公司管理有效性评价理论与方法体系在实际应用中的科学性与可靠性,另一方面结合不同行业的实际情况,在分析管理有效性测算结果的同时,总结归纳了各行业上市公司的发展趋势和对策等。
As the index of national economy, the development of listed companies will make contribute to the development of national economy. Since the establishment of Shanghai Security Exchange and Shenzhen Security Exchange in 1990, the national security markets have become the center of improving the financial efficiency, accelerating national enterprises innovation, and developing the financial reform. Therefore, how to evaluate the listed companies management efficiency and performance effectively and properly will be the starting points of improving listed companies’whole competitiveness. At the same time of developing national security markets, comparing with the western countries security markets, the domestic listed companies management performance is not quite perfect, whatever from the investor viewpoint or manager point. How to evaluate the management quality degree is the strategy for improving management. And we should notice that the problems of information asymmetric and information reporting incompletely for listed companies. This will lead that the investors neglect the investing value of listed companies. If the effective supervision of information reporting for listed companies is needed, scientific evaluation approaches and models will be used to reflect the management quality degree and to tell whether the listed companies create wealth or not. In this sense, the supervision for the listed companies will carry out completely. Therefore, developing management efficiency evaluation methods and theory for listed companies will have important theoretical and practice sense.
Currently, people did not agree with one another that the enterprise performance evaluation should be based on output record or management behavior. Current theories and approaches about it only explained performance through different aspects, but not starting from the essential characters established uniform estimation skeleton, which reflected the dynamic, relative, and multiple characters. According to the restrictions about current research, following work has been proposed to provide a new theory and method system for management efficiency evaluation for listed companies. Based on management efficiency theory, the sense of management efficiency evaluation for listed companies has been deeply analyzed, and management efficiency evaluation system for listed companies has been established generating from benefiting, developing, operating efficiency, repayable and cashing abilities. At the same time, explained the relationship between financial index and non-financial index, that is, through the dynamic change of financial index, to show the effective degree of non-financial index.
Facing the shortcomings of DEA methods in the management efficiency evaluation system for listed companies, for example, the random of traditional DEA model and cone ratio, group decision, linear program and statistics have been used to propose cluster group decision DEA model. Furthermore, comprehensive Two-Stage Relative Evaluation model based on cluster group decision DEA model has been established in order to give complete approach system for management efficiency evaluation system for listed companies, which can not only reflect the dynamic, relative and multiple characters, but also get rid of the basic condition influence to the management efficiency evaluation results for listed companies.
Using the comprehensive Two-Stage Relative Evaluation model based on cluster group decision DEA model for listed companies and multiple statistics analysis, together with the financial data of listed companies from 2004 to 2005, 300 companies empirical research has been analyzed. Through the analysis of the results, not only proved the liability of comprehensive Two-Stage Relative Evaluation model system, but also with the real condition in different industries, at the same time of analyzing management efficiency, generated the developing trend and countermeasures for listed companies.
目前,对于企业绩效评价究竟基于产出记录还是管理行为,理论界远未达成一致的观点。现有的理论与方法体系仅仅是从不同侧面对绩效加以阐述,而并没有从其本质属性出发,去建立能够反映动态性、相对性和多元性等兼容并蓄的基本评价框架。针对以往研究中的不足,本文做出以下一系列工作,以期为今后上市公司管理有效性评价研究提供一种新的理论框架与方法体系。本文在管理有效性理论的基础之上,深入分析了发展上市公司管理有效性评价理论的重要意义,并建立适合我国上市公司的管理有效性评价体系,归纳出应从盈利能力、成长能力、经营效率、偿债能力和现金能力五个方面评价上市公司的管理有效性。同时说明财务指标和非财务指标之间的关系,即可通过财务指标的动态变化,体现非财务指标的有效程度。
针对现有上市公司管理有效性评价方法中较具合理性的数据包络分析(DEA)方法的不足,如传统DEA模型权重系数的随机性,以及如何科学确定锥比率区间等,本文以群决策法、线性规划与统计理论为工具,提出了一种聚类群决策DEA模型。此外,本文还进一步给出了基于聚类群决策DEA模型的扩展二次相对评价模型,从而为上市公司管理有效性建立了适合的评价方法体系,该方法不但可以体现上市公司管理有效性的动态性、相对性和多元性特点,而且还可以消除各个上市公司之间由于客观基础条件差异对管理有效性评价结果的影响。
采用本文提出的上市公司管理有效性评价的扩展二次相对评价模型,并借助于因子分析等多元统计分析方法,结合2004年～2005年不同行业上市公司的财务统计数据,对我国300家样本上市公司进行了实证研究。通过对实证结果的分析,一方面验证了上市公司管理有效性评价理论与方法体系在实际应用中的科学性与可靠性,另一方面结合不同行业的实际情况,在分析管理有效性测算结果的同时,总结归纳了各行业上市公司的发展趋势和对策等。
As the index of national economy, the development of listed companies will make contribute to the development of national economy. Since the establishment of Shanghai Security Exchange and Shenzhen Security Exchange in 1990, the national security markets have become the center of improving the financial efficiency, accelerating national enterprises innovation, and developing the financial reform. Therefore, how to evaluate the listed companies management efficiency and performance effectively and properly will be the starting points of improving listed companies’whole competitiveness. At the same time of developing national security markets, comparing with the western countries security markets, the domestic listed companies management performance is not quite perfect, whatever from the investor viewpoint or manager point. How to evaluate the management quality degree is the strategy for improving management. And we should notice that the problems of information asymmetric and information reporting incompletely for listed companies. This will lead that the investors neglect the investing value of listed companies. If the effective supervision of information reporting for listed companies is needed, scientific evaluation approaches and models will be used to reflect the management quality degree and to tell whether the listed companies create wealth or not. In this sense, the supervision for the listed companies will carry out completely. Therefore, developing management efficiency evaluation methods and theory for listed companies will have important theoretical and practice sense.
Currently, people did not agree with one another that the enterprise performance evaluation should be based on output record or management behavior. Current theories and approaches about it only explained performance through different aspects, but not starting from the essential characters established uniform estimation skeleton, which reflected the dynamic, relative, and multiple characters. According to the restrictions about current research, following work has been proposed to provide a new theory and method system for management efficiency evaluation for listed companies. Based on management efficiency theory, the sense of management efficiency evaluation for listed companies has been deeply analyzed, and management efficiency evaluation system for listed companies has been established generating from benefiting, developing, operating efficiency, repayable and cashing abilities. At the same time, explained the relationship between financial index and non-financial index, that is, through the dynamic change of financial index, to show the effective degree of non-financial index.
Facing the shortcomings of DEA methods in the management efficiency evaluation system for listed companies, for example, the random of traditional DEA model and cone ratio, group decision, linear program and statistics have been used to propose cluster group decision DEA model. Furthermore, comprehensive Two-Stage Relative Evaluation model based on cluster group decision DEA model has been established in order to give complete approach system for management efficiency evaluation system for listed companies, which can not only reflect the dynamic, relative and multiple characters, but also get rid of the basic condition influence to the management efficiency evaluation results for listed companies.
Using the comprehensive Two-Stage Relative Evaluation model based on cluster group decision DEA model for listed companies and multiple statistics analysis, together with the financial data of listed companies from 2004 to 2005, 300 companies empirical research has been analyzed. Through the analysis of the results, not only proved the liability of comprehensive Two-Stage Relative Evaluation model system, but also with the real condition in different industries, at the same time of analyzing management efficiency, generated the developing trend and countermeasures for listed companies.
引文
1 Idaho Legislature. Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement. Boise, Idaho: Office of Performance Evaluations, Dec. 2004
2 Idaho Legislature. Public Education Technology Initiatives. Boise, Idaho: Office of Performance Evaluations, Jan. 2005
3 Jati K. Sengupta. Quanlity and Efficiency, Economic Modelling. 2000, 17:195~207
4 黄志忠, 陈龙. 中国上市公司盈利成长规律实证分析. 经济研究. 2000,(12): 11~18
5 林锉云, 董加礼. 多目标决策分析. 吉林教育出版社, 1992:1~18
6 孙敏. 优先上市公司综合评价方法的研究. 西安理工大学学报. 1999,(15): 83~89
7 A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, E. Rhodes. Measuring the Efficiency of Decision- making Units. European Journal of Operation Research. 1978,(2): 429~444
8 Aly, H.Y., R. Grabowski, Technical Change, Technical Efficiency and Input Usage in Taiwanese Agricultural Growth, Applied Economics. 1988,20(7): 89~99
9 Andersen, P., N. C. Petersen. A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science. 1993,39(12):61~64
10 Banker, R.D., A. Charnes and W.W. Cooper, Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis, Management Sciences. 1984,30(9):78~92
11 Kerstens, K., Technical Efficiency Measurement and Explanation of French Urban Transit Companies, Transportation Research. 1996,30(6): 43~52
12 魏权龄. 评价相对有效性的 DEA 方法. 中国人民大学出版社, 1987:45~89
13 Tauer, L., W., Z. Stefanides, Success in Maximising Profits and Reasons for Profit Deviation on Dairy Farms, Applied Economics. 1998,30(1): 151~156
14 Shestalova, V.. Sequential Malmquist Indices of Productivity Growth: An Application to OECD Industrial Activities, Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2003,19(2/3): 211~226
15 Sedik, D., Corporate Farm Performance in Russia, 1991-1995: An EfficiencyAnalysis, Journal of Comparative Economics.1999,27(5):14~33
16 Earle, J. and A. Telegdy, Privatisation Methods and Productivity Effects in Romanian Industrial Enterprises, Journal of Comparative Economics. 2002, 30(6): 57~82
17 Coricelli, F., S. Djankov. Hardened Budgets and Enterprise Restructuring: Theory and an Application to Romania, Journal of Comparative Economics, 2001,29(7): 49~63
18 Kao C, Hung H-T Data Envelopment Analysis with Common Weights: the Compromise Solution Approach. J Oper Res Soc. 2005, 56: 1196~1203
19 Sarrico CS, Dyson RG Restricting Virtual Weights in Data Envelopment Analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2004,159:17~34
20 Lins, M.P.E, et al. Olympic Ranking Based on a Zero Sum Gains DEA Model. European Journal of Operational Research. 2003, 148: 312~322
21 Liu,W.B., W. Meng. Using DEA to Evaluate Scale Efficiency of Research Groups. to be Published in Scientific Research Management. 2006,4:109~116
22 Podinovski, V.V. Suitability and Redundancy of Non-Homogeneous Weight Restrictions for Measuring the Relative Efficiency in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research. 2004, 154: 380~395
23 Mayne, J. Reporting on Outcomes: Setting Performance Expectations and Telling Performance Stories. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2004, 19: 31~60
24 Mayne, J. Audit and Evaluation in Public Management: Challenges, Reforms, and Different Roles. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2006,21: 11~45
25 McLaughlin, J. A., Jordan, G. B. Using Logic Models. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, K. E. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004:33~45
26 Poister, T. H. Performance Monitoring. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, K. E. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004:13~25
27 Sanders, J. R. Mainstreaming Evaluation. In J. J. Barnette, J. R. Sanders (eds.), The Mainstreaming of Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2003,(99): 35~42
28 Aigner, D. J., C.A.K. Lovell. and P.J. Schmidt, Formulation and Estimation ofStochastic Frontier Production Function Models, Journal of Econometrics. 1977, 6(1): 21~37
29 Evan Kraft, Dogan Tirtiroglu. Bank Efficiency in Croatia: A Stochastic- Frontier Analysis. Journal of Comparative Economics. 1998, 26: 282~300
30 George E. Battese. Almas Heshmati, Lennart Hjalmarsson. Efficiency of Labor Use in the Swedish Banking Industry: A Stochastic Frontier Approach. Empirical Economics. 2000, 25: 623~640
31 Dimitris K. Christopoulos, Sarantis E.G. Lolos and Efthymios G. Tsionas. Efficiency of the Greek Banking System in View of the EMU: A Heteroscedastic Stochastic Frontier Aproach. Journal of Policy Modeling. 2002, 24: 813~829
32 Tai -Hsin Huang, Mei -Hui Wang. Measuring Scale and Scope Economies in Multi-product Banking? A Stochastic Frontier Cost Function Approach, Applied Economics Letters. 2001, 8:159~162
33 Rafael A. Cuesta, Luis Orea. Mergers and Technical Efficiency in Spanish Savings Banks: A Stochastic Distance Function Approach. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2002, 26: 2231~2247
34 Robert M Adams, Allen N. Berger and Robin C. Sickles. Semiparametric Approaches to Stochastic Panel Frontiers with Applications in the Banking Industry, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. 1999, 17 (3): 349~358
35 Kaparakis Emmanuel, Miller Stephen and Noulas Athanasios. Short-run Cost Inefficiency of Commercial Banks: A Flexible Stochastic Frontier Approach. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking. 1994, 26 (4): 875~893
36 Andrew C. Worthington. The Determinants of Non-bank Financial Institution Efficiency: A Stochastic Cost Frontier Approach. Applied Financial Economics. 1998, 8: 279~287
37 T.L.Saaty. the Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill International Book Company. 1980:1~35
38 吴家培, 周方主. 经济模型及其应用. 经济科学出版社, 1986: 87~92
39 丁俭, 郑垂勇. 上市公司综合评价的属性方法.系统工程理论与实践. 2001, 6:59~67
40 师萍, 曾艳玲, 张炳臣. 一种简便实用的经营业绩评价方法——沃尔比重法的应用与改进. 中国软科学. 2000,2:119~120
41 刘序球. 数理统计方法在经济管理中的应用. 中国财政经济出版社, 1991
42 王曼华.上市公司经济效益综合评价方法探讨.广东商学院学报. 2000,(3): 6~11
43 邹洪丽. 上市公司财务状况的主成分分析. 沈阳航空工业学院学报. 2001, (18):36~37
44 姜艳, 杨学兵. 上市公司成长模式分析. 商业研究. 2001,(2):105~108
45 F.W.泰勒. 科学管理原理. 中国社会科学出版社, 1984:1~20
46 H.法约尔. 工业管理与一般管理. 中国社会科学出版社, 1982:1~18
47 S. Globerson. Issues in Developing a Performance Criteria System for An Organisation, International Journal of Production Research. 1985,23(4): 639~ 646
48 J.R.Dixon, A.J.Nanni and T.E.Vollman. The New Performance Challenge: Measuring Operations for World Class Competition. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.1990: 1~29
49 B.H. Maskell. Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing: A Model for American Companies, Productivity Press, Cambridge. 1992
50 Vicker S.K., Droge C. and Markland R.E. Poduction Competence and Business Strategy: Do They Affect Business Performance?, Decision Science. 1993,24: 435~455
51 Schmenner R.L., Swink M.L. On Theory in Operations Management, Journal of Operations Management. 1998,(17): 97~113
52 Darius Palia, Frank Lichtenberg. Managerial Ownership and Firm Performance: A Re-examination Using Productivity Measurement, Journal of Corporate Finance. 1999,(5): 323~339
53 Gyula Vastag. The Theory of Performance Frontier, Journal of Operations Management. 2000, (8): 353~360
54 Jati K. Sengupta. Quanlity and Efficiency, Economic Modelling. 2000,(17): 195~207
55 T.C.Koopmans. Analysis of Production As an Efficient Combination of Activities, in: T.C. Koopmans (Ed.). Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. 1951,36: 27~56
56 M.J.Farrell. The Measurement of Production Efficiency. Journal of Royal Statistical Society. 1957,Series A-120: 253~281
57 Aigner, D. J., and S.F. Chu. On Estimating the Industry Production Function, American Economic Review.1968,58(4), 26~39
58 Briec, W., B. Lemaire, Technical Efficiency and Distance to a Reverse Convex Set, European Journal of Operational Research. 1999, 114(1):78~87
59 Chambers, R., Y. Chung and R. Fare, Benefit and Distance Functions, Journal of Economic Theory. 1996,70(4):7~19
60 Chambers, R., Y. Chung and R. Fare, Profit, Directional Distance Functions and Nerlovian Efficiency, Journal of Optimisation Theory and Application. 1998, 98(2):51~64
61 F(a|¨)re, R., S. Grosskopf and C.A.K. Lovell. The Structure of Technical Efficiency, Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 1983, 85(2):81~90
62 F(a|¨)re, R., S. Grosskopf and C.A.K. Lovell, The Measurement of Efficiency of Production, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1985
63 F(a|¨)re, R., C. Sawyer. Expenditure Constrained Profit maximisation: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1998, 70: 594~604
64 F(a|¨)re, R., S. Grosskopf, Profit Efficiency, Farrell Decompositions and the Mahler Inequality, Economics Letters. 1997, 57:28~37
65 F(a|¨)re, R., S. Grosskopf, Theory and Application of Directional Distance Functions, Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2000, 13(2): 93~103
66 Farrell, M., J. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A. 1957, 120(3):53~90
67 Fecher, F., S. Perelman. Productivity Growth and Technical Efficiency in OECD Industrial Activities, in "Industrial Efficiency in Six Nations", Ed. Richard E. Caves et Associates, MIT PRESS, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 1992: 459~488
68 Ferrier, G., M. Klinedinst and C. Linvill, Static and Dynamic Productivity Among Yugoslav Enterprises: Components and Correlates, Journal of Comparative Economics. 1998, 26(4):805~821
69 Forsund, F. R., L. Hjalmarsson, Generalised Farrell Measures of Efficiency: An Application to Milk processing in Swedish Dairy Plants, The Economic Journal. 1979, 89(354): 294~315
70 Forsund, F. R., L. Hjalmarsson, Frontier Production Functions and Technical Progress: A Study of General Milk Processing in Swedish Dairy Plants,Econometrica. 1979b, 47(4): 883~900
71 Fried, H.O., C.A.K. Lovell and S. Schmidt. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications, Oxford University Press, New York. 1993
72 Luenberger, D. Benefit Functions and Duality, Journal of Mathematical Economics. 1992, 21: 461~481
73 Prior, D., Long-and Short-Run Non Parametric Cost Frontier Efficiency: An Application to Spanish Savings Banks, Journal of Banking & Finance. 2003,27: 655~671
74 Schmidt, P., R. Sickles. Production Frontiers and Panel Data, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 1984,(2): 367~374
75 Segerson, K., D. Squires, On the Measurement of Economic Capacity Utilisation for Multi-Product Industries, Journal of Econometrics. 1990, 44(3), 347~361
76 Lewin, A., Morey, R. C. and Cook,T.J. Evaluating the Administrative Efficiency of Court, Omega. 1982,10(4):401~411
77 Joe Zhu. Multi-factor Performance Measure Model with An Application to Fortune 500 Companies, European Journal of Operational Research. 2000, 123: 105~124
78 Gary Hamel, Aim Heene. Competence-based Competition. New York Wiley. 1994
79 John A. Hawkins. A performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge University Press. 1994
80 赫伯特, 西蒙. 管理决策新科学. 中国社会科学出版社, 1982:1~15
81 哈罗得·孔茨. 管理学. 贵州人民出版社, 1983:19~23
82 Holmstrom B., Ricard I. Costa. Managerial Incentives and Capital Management, Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1986,101:403~460
83 Itoh H. Incentives for Help in Muti-Agency Situation, Econometrica. 1991, 59: 611~636
84 Lambert R., Weigelt K. The Structure of Organizational Incentives, Administrative Science Quarterly. 1993,38:438~461
85 Jeffrey P. Katz, Brian P. Niehoff. How Owners Influence Strategy-A Comparison of Owner-Controlled and Manager-Controlled Firms, Long RangePlanning. 1998, 31(5):755~761
86 Gomez Mejia, L.R.Tosi. Managerial Control, Performance, and Executive Compensation, Academy of Management Journal. 1987,30:51~70
87 Gomez Mejia, L., Wiseman R.M. Reframing Executive Compensation: An Assessment and Outlook, Journal of Management. 1997,23:291~374
88 张维迎. 博弈论与信息经济学. 上海三联书店, 上海人民出版社, 1996:1~9
89 Kaplan S. Top Executive Rewards and Firm Performance: A Comparison of Japan and the United States, Journal of Political Economy. 1994,102: 510~546
90 Fama E. Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy, 1980
91 Lazear E.,S. Rosen. Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts, Journal of Political Economy. 1981,89:841~864
92 Eriksson,T. Executive Compensation and Tournament Theory: Empirical Tests on Danish Data, Journal of Labor Economics. 1999,17:224~242
93 M.Porter. From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy, Harvard Business Review. 1987,May-June:43~60
94 Shahid Yamin, A. Gunasekaran, Felix T. Relationship between Generic Strategies, Competitive Advantage and Organizational Performance: an Empirical Analysis, Technovation. 1999,19:507~518
95 Nicolai J. Foss, Christian Knudsen. Towards a Competence Theory of the Firm. New York Routledge. 1996
96 J. Katz, A.Simanek and J.Townsend. Causes and Consequences of Mergers: One More Wave to Consider, Business Horizons. 1997,40(1): 32~40
97 A. Seth, H. Thomas. Theories of the Firm: Implications for Strategy Research, Journal of Management Studies. 1994,31(2):165~191
98 Robert A. Burgelman. A Process Model of Strategic Business Exit: Implications for Evolutionary Perspective on Strategy, Strategic Management Journal. 1996,17: 193~214
99 R.S. Kaplan, D.P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press. 1996:1~17
100 Peter F. Drucker. Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance. Harvard Business School Press. 1998:33~41
101 Magnus Kald, Fredrik Nilsson. Performance Measurement At NordicCompanies, European Management Journal. 2000,18(1): 113~127
102 Buzzell R. D., Gale B. T. The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance. Harvard Business School Press. 1986:19~29
103 Leibenstein, Allocative Efficiency vs. X-efficiency, American Economic Review. 1966, 56: 392~415
104 Leibenstein H., Maital S. Empirical Estimation and Partitioning of X-inefficiency: a Data Envelopment Approach. American Economic Review. 1992, 82: 428~ 433
105 王成武, 李如林. 标杆管理及其在现代企业中的应用. 现代管理科学. 2003, (2): 49~50
106 孔杰, 程寨华. 标杆管理理论述评. 东北财经大学学报. 2004,(2): 3~7
107 冯俊文. 现代企业标杆管理. 现代企业管理. 2001,(5): 61~64
108 申嫦娥, 王晓强. 企业绩效评价方法的改进. 经济管理. 2003,(22):17~19
109 李玲玲. 企业业绩评价——方法与运用. 北京:清华大学出版社, 2004: 122~147
110 R.S. Kaplan, D.P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press. 1996:15~39
111 Kaplan S. Top Executive Rewards and Firm Performance: A Comparision of Japan and the United States, Journal of Political Economy. 1994, 102: 510~546
112 孟建民. 中国企业绩效评价. 北京:中国财政经济出版社, 2002: 3~15
113 冯英浚, 李成红. 二次相对效益——衡量企业经济效益的一种新指标, 中国软科学. 1995,7: 30~37
114 Feng Yingjun, Lu Hui. An AHP/DEA Method for Measurement of the Efficiency of R&D Management Activities in Universities. International Transactions in Operational Research. 2004,(11): 181~191
115 Zhuang Siyong, Feng Yingjun. Evaluation of Management Performance about Company Core Competence Based on DEA.. Journal of System Science & Information. 2005,3 (2): 363~371
116 王巍, 冯英浚. 领导者行为素质相对进步效度测评分析. 中国软科学. 2004 (11): 138~141
117 冯英浚, 康梅, 任柏明. 描述不同行业投入产出差别的一种技术系数. 系统工程理论与实践. 2004,24 (6): 41~45
118 王宇, 冯英浚, 庄思勇. 群组决策 DEA 模式研究. 中国软科学. 2004,(10):140~142
119 王晓红, 王雪峰, 冯英浚. 一种基于 DEA 和多指标综合评价的大学科研绩效评价方法. 中国软科学. 2004,(8): 156~160
120 王震, 冯英浚, 孟岩. 基于工作和能力的动态人力资源管理模式.中国软科学. 2003,(9): 69~72
121 冯英浚, 王大伟, 丁文桓. 绩效管理与管理有效性. 中国软科学. 2003, (4):132~136
122 丁文桓, 冯英浚, 康宇虹, 王宇.上市公司业绩的二次相对评价. 管理工程学报. 2003, (2): 65~74
123 吕绘, 冯英浚. 泰罗模式与管理有效性. 哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版). 2002, (4): 67~71
124 丁文桓, 冯英浚, 康宇虹. 基于 DEA 的投资基金业绩评估. 数量经济技术经济研究. 2002,(3): 98~101
125 冯英浚, 马魁东, 孙剑飞. 管理在经济增长中贡献率的一种测算方法. 数量经济技术经济研究. 2003,(3): 49~53
126 胡季英, 冯英浚. 建筑企业绩效的二次相对评价. 哈尔滨工业大学学报. 2003,35(7): 799~801
127 张晓慧, 冯英浚, 白莽. 一种反映突出影响因素的评价模型. 哈尔滨工业大学学报. 2003,35(10): 1168~1170
128 王巍, 冯英浚. 领导者综合素质进步效度分析. 运筹与管理. 2005,(5): 67~70
129 田波平, 苏杭, 冯英浚. 二次相对效益法对沪深并购上市公司绩效评估. 哈尔滨工业大学学报. 2004,38(2): 231~237
130 冯英浚, 王震, 孟岩. 管理理论的困惑与创新. 预测. 2005,23(4): 1~5
131 肖玲诺, 姜振寰, 冯英浚. 知识经济下的管理有效性. 科学研究. 2005,23(4): 531~535
132 马魁东, 冯英浚. 全国各省市“九五”期间工业经济增长中管理要素的贡献. 商业研究. 2003,(22): 1~3
133 冯英浚. 管理理论要适应时代需要. 管理科学. 2004, (4): 1
134 冯英浚, 王晓红, 任柏明. 管理有效性——两种绩效评估体系的统一. 工程研究. 跨学科视野中的工程. 2005,1:107~114
2 Idaho Legislature. Public Education Technology Initiatives. Boise, Idaho: Office of Performance Evaluations, Jan. 2005
3 Jati K. Sengupta. Quanlity and Efficiency, Economic Modelling. 2000, 17:195~207
4 黄志忠, 陈龙. 中国上市公司盈利成长规律实证分析. 经济研究. 2000,(12): 11~18
5 林锉云, 董加礼. 多目标决策分析. 吉林教育出版社, 1992:1~18
6 孙敏. 优先上市公司综合评价方法的研究. 西安理工大学学报. 1999,(15): 83~89
7 A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, E. Rhodes. Measuring the Efficiency of Decision- making Units. European Journal of Operation Research. 1978,(2): 429~444
8 Aly, H.Y., R. Grabowski, Technical Change, Technical Efficiency and Input Usage in Taiwanese Agricultural Growth, Applied Economics. 1988,20(7): 89~99
9 Andersen, P., N. C. Petersen. A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science. 1993,39(12):61~64
10 Banker, R.D., A. Charnes and W.W. Cooper, Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis, Management Sciences. 1984,30(9):78~92
11 Kerstens, K., Technical Efficiency Measurement and Explanation of French Urban Transit Companies, Transportation Research. 1996,30(6): 43~52
12 魏权龄. 评价相对有效性的 DEA 方法. 中国人民大学出版社, 1987:45~89
13 Tauer, L., W., Z. Stefanides, Success in Maximising Profits and Reasons for Profit Deviation on Dairy Farms, Applied Economics. 1998,30(1): 151~156
14 Shestalova, V.. Sequential Malmquist Indices of Productivity Growth: An Application to OECD Industrial Activities, Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2003,19(2/3): 211~226
15 Sedik, D., Corporate Farm Performance in Russia, 1991-1995: An EfficiencyAnalysis, Journal of Comparative Economics.1999,27(5):14~33
16 Earle, J. and A. Telegdy, Privatisation Methods and Productivity Effects in Romanian Industrial Enterprises, Journal of Comparative Economics. 2002, 30(6): 57~82
17 Coricelli, F., S. Djankov. Hardened Budgets and Enterprise Restructuring: Theory and an Application to Romania, Journal of Comparative Economics, 2001,29(7): 49~63
18 Kao C, Hung H-T Data Envelopment Analysis with Common Weights: the Compromise Solution Approach. J Oper Res Soc. 2005, 56: 1196~1203
19 Sarrico CS, Dyson RG Restricting Virtual Weights in Data Envelopment Analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2004,159:17~34
20 Lins, M.P.E, et al. Olympic Ranking Based on a Zero Sum Gains DEA Model. European Journal of Operational Research. 2003, 148: 312~322
21 Liu,W.B., W. Meng. Using DEA to Evaluate Scale Efficiency of Research Groups. to be Published in Scientific Research Management. 2006,4:109~116
22 Podinovski, V.V. Suitability and Redundancy of Non-Homogeneous Weight Restrictions for Measuring the Relative Efficiency in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research. 2004, 154: 380~395
23 Mayne, J. Reporting on Outcomes: Setting Performance Expectations and Telling Performance Stories. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2004, 19: 31~60
24 Mayne, J. Audit and Evaluation in Public Management: Challenges, Reforms, and Different Roles. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2006,21: 11~45
25 McLaughlin, J. A., Jordan, G. B. Using Logic Models. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, K. E. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004:33~45
26 Poister, T. H. Performance Monitoring. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, K. E. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004:13~25
27 Sanders, J. R. Mainstreaming Evaluation. In J. J. Barnette, J. R. Sanders (eds.), The Mainstreaming of Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2003,(99): 35~42
28 Aigner, D. J., C.A.K. Lovell. and P.J. Schmidt, Formulation and Estimation ofStochastic Frontier Production Function Models, Journal of Econometrics. 1977, 6(1): 21~37
29 Evan Kraft, Dogan Tirtiroglu. Bank Efficiency in Croatia: A Stochastic- Frontier Analysis. Journal of Comparative Economics. 1998, 26: 282~300
30 George E. Battese. Almas Heshmati, Lennart Hjalmarsson. Efficiency of Labor Use in the Swedish Banking Industry: A Stochastic Frontier Approach. Empirical Economics. 2000, 25: 623~640
31 Dimitris K. Christopoulos, Sarantis E.G. Lolos and Efthymios G. Tsionas. Efficiency of the Greek Banking System in View of the EMU: A Heteroscedastic Stochastic Frontier Aproach. Journal of Policy Modeling. 2002, 24: 813~829
32 Tai -Hsin Huang, Mei -Hui Wang. Measuring Scale and Scope Economies in Multi-product Banking? A Stochastic Frontier Cost Function Approach, Applied Economics Letters. 2001, 8:159~162
33 Rafael A. Cuesta, Luis Orea. Mergers and Technical Efficiency in Spanish Savings Banks: A Stochastic Distance Function Approach. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2002, 26: 2231~2247
34 Robert M Adams, Allen N. Berger and Robin C. Sickles. Semiparametric Approaches to Stochastic Panel Frontiers with Applications in the Banking Industry, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. 1999, 17 (3): 349~358
35 Kaparakis Emmanuel, Miller Stephen and Noulas Athanasios. Short-run Cost Inefficiency of Commercial Banks: A Flexible Stochastic Frontier Approach. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking. 1994, 26 (4): 875~893
36 Andrew C. Worthington. The Determinants of Non-bank Financial Institution Efficiency: A Stochastic Cost Frontier Approach. Applied Financial Economics. 1998, 8: 279~287
37 T.L.Saaty. the Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill International Book Company. 1980:1~35
38 吴家培, 周方主. 经济模型及其应用. 经济科学出版社, 1986: 87~92
39 丁俭, 郑垂勇. 上市公司综合评价的属性方法.系统工程理论与实践. 2001, 6:59~67
40 师萍, 曾艳玲, 张炳臣. 一种简便实用的经营业绩评价方法——沃尔比重法的应用与改进. 中国软科学. 2000,2:119~120
41 刘序球. 数理统计方法在经济管理中的应用. 中国财政经济出版社, 1991
42 王曼华.上市公司经济效益综合评价方法探讨.广东商学院学报. 2000,(3): 6~11
43 邹洪丽. 上市公司财务状况的主成分分析. 沈阳航空工业学院学报. 2001, (18):36~37
44 姜艳, 杨学兵. 上市公司成长模式分析. 商业研究. 2001,(2):105~108
45 F.W.泰勒. 科学管理原理. 中国社会科学出版社, 1984:1~20
46 H.法约尔. 工业管理与一般管理. 中国社会科学出版社, 1982:1~18
47 S. Globerson. Issues in Developing a Performance Criteria System for An Organisation, International Journal of Production Research. 1985,23(4): 639~ 646
48 J.R.Dixon, A.J.Nanni and T.E.Vollman. The New Performance Challenge: Measuring Operations for World Class Competition. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.1990: 1~29
49 B.H. Maskell. Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing: A Model for American Companies, Productivity Press, Cambridge. 1992
50 Vicker S.K., Droge C. and Markland R.E. Poduction Competence and Business Strategy: Do They Affect Business Performance?, Decision Science. 1993,24: 435~455
51 Schmenner R.L., Swink M.L. On Theory in Operations Management, Journal of Operations Management. 1998,(17): 97~113
52 Darius Palia, Frank Lichtenberg. Managerial Ownership and Firm Performance: A Re-examination Using Productivity Measurement, Journal of Corporate Finance. 1999,(5): 323~339
53 Gyula Vastag. The Theory of Performance Frontier, Journal of Operations Management. 2000, (8): 353~360
54 Jati K. Sengupta. Quanlity and Efficiency, Economic Modelling. 2000,(17): 195~207
55 T.C.Koopmans. Analysis of Production As an Efficient Combination of Activities, in: T.C. Koopmans (Ed.). Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. 1951,36: 27~56
56 M.J.Farrell. The Measurement of Production Efficiency. Journal of Royal Statistical Society. 1957,Series A-120: 253~281
57 Aigner, D. J., and S.F. Chu. On Estimating the Industry Production Function, American Economic Review.1968,58(4), 26~39
58 Briec, W., B. Lemaire, Technical Efficiency and Distance to a Reverse Convex Set, European Journal of Operational Research. 1999, 114(1):78~87
59 Chambers, R., Y. Chung and R. Fare, Benefit and Distance Functions, Journal of Economic Theory. 1996,70(4):7~19
60 Chambers, R., Y. Chung and R. Fare, Profit, Directional Distance Functions and Nerlovian Efficiency, Journal of Optimisation Theory and Application. 1998, 98(2):51~64
61 F(a|¨)re, R., S. Grosskopf and C.A.K. Lovell. The Structure of Technical Efficiency, Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 1983, 85(2):81~90
62 F(a|¨)re, R., S. Grosskopf and C.A.K. Lovell, The Measurement of Efficiency of Production, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1985
63 F(a|¨)re, R., C. Sawyer. Expenditure Constrained Profit maximisation: Comment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1998, 70: 594~604
64 F(a|¨)re, R., S. Grosskopf, Profit Efficiency, Farrell Decompositions and the Mahler Inequality, Economics Letters. 1997, 57:28~37
65 F(a|¨)re, R., S. Grosskopf, Theory and Application of Directional Distance Functions, Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2000, 13(2): 93~103
66 Farrell, M., J. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A. 1957, 120(3):53~90
67 Fecher, F., S. Perelman. Productivity Growth and Technical Efficiency in OECD Industrial Activities, in "Industrial Efficiency in Six Nations", Ed. Richard E. Caves et Associates, MIT PRESS, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 1992: 459~488
68 Ferrier, G., M. Klinedinst and C. Linvill, Static and Dynamic Productivity Among Yugoslav Enterprises: Components and Correlates, Journal of Comparative Economics. 1998, 26(4):805~821
69 Forsund, F. R., L. Hjalmarsson, Generalised Farrell Measures of Efficiency: An Application to Milk processing in Swedish Dairy Plants, The Economic Journal. 1979, 89(354): 294~315
70 Forsund, F. R., L. Hjalmarsson, Frontier Production Functions and Technical Progress: A Study of General Milk Processing in Swedish Dairy Plants,Econometrica. 1979b, 47(4): 883~900
71 Fried, H.O., C.A.K. Lovell and S. Schmidt. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications, Oxford University Press, New York. 1993
72 Luenberger, D. Benefit Functions and Duality, Journal of Mathematical Economics. 1992, 21: 461~481
73 Prior, D., Long-and Short-Run Non Parametric Cost Frontier Efficiency: An Application to Spanish Savings Banks, Journal of Banking & Finance. 2003,27: 655~671
74 Schmidt, P., R. Sickles. Production Frontiers and Panel Data, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 1984,(2): 367~374
75 Segerson, K., D. Squires, On the Measurement of Economic Capacity Utilisation for Multi-Product Industries, Journal of Econometrics. 1990, 44(3), 347~361
76 Lewin, A., Morey, R. C. and Cook,T.J. Evaluating the Administrative Efficiency of Court, Omega. 1982,10(4):401~411
77 Joe Zhu. Multi-factor Performance Measure Model with An Application to Fortune 500 Companies, European Journal of Operational Research. 2000, 123: 105~124
78 Gary Hamel, Aim Heene. Competence-based Competition. New York Wiley. 1994
79 John A. Hawkins. A performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge University Press. 1994
80 赫伯特, 西蒙. 管理决策新科学. 中国社会科学出版社, 1982:1~15
81 哈罗得·孔茨. 管理学. 贵州人民出版社, 1983:19~23
82 Holmstrom B., Ricard I. Costa. Managerial Incentives and Capital Management, Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1986,101:403~460
83 Itoh H. Incentives for Help in Muti-Agency Situation, Econometrica. 1991, 59: 611~636
84 Lambert R., Weigelt K. The Structure of Organizational Incentives, Administrative Science Quarterly. 1993,38:438~461
85 Jeffrey P. Katz, Brian P. Niehoff. How Owners Influence Strategy-A Comparison of Owner-Controlled and Manager-Controlled Firms, Long RangePlanning. 1998, 31(5):755~761
86 Gomez Mejia, L.R.Tosi. Managerial Control, Performance, and Executive Compensation, Academy of Management Journal. 1987,30:51~70
87 Gomez Mejia, L., Wiseman R.M. Reframing Executive Compensation: An Assessment and Outlook, Journal of Management. 1997,23:291~374
88 张维迎. 博弈论与信息经济学. 上海三联书店, 上海人民出版社, 1996:1~9
89 Kaplan S. Top Executive Rewards and Firm Performance: A Comparison of Japan and the United States, Journal of Political Economy. 1994,102: 510~546
90 Fama E. Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy, 1980
91 Lazear E.,S. Rosen. Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts, Journal of Political Economy. 1981,89:841~864
92 Eriksson,T. Executive Compensation and Tournament Theory: Empirical Tests on Danish Data, Journal of Labor Economics. 1999,17:224~242
93 M.Porter. From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy, Harvard Business Review. 1987,May-June:43~60
94 Shahid Yamin, A. Gunasekaran, Felix T. Relationship between Generic Strategies, Competitive Advantage and Organizational Performance: an Empirical Analysis, Technovation. 1999,19:507~518
95 Nicolai J. Foss, Christian Knudsen. Towards a Competence Theory of the Firm. New York Routledge. 1996
96 J. Katz, A.Simanek and J.Townsend. Causes and Consequences of Mergers: One More Wave to Consider, Business Horizons. 1997,40(1): 32~40
97 A. Seth, H. Thomas. Theories of the Firm: Implications for Strategy Research, Journal of Management Studies. 1994,31(2):165~191
98 Robert A. Burgelman. A Process Model of Strategic Business Exit: Implications for Evolutionary Perspective on Strategy, Strategic Management Journal. 1996,17: 193~214
99 R.S. Kaplan, D.P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press. 1996:1~17
100 Peter F. Drucker. Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance. Harvard Business School Press. 1998:33~41
101 Magnus Kald, Fredrik Nilsson. Performance Measurement At NordicCompanies, European Management Journal. 2000,18(1): 113~127
102 Buzzell R. D., Gale B. T. The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance. Harvard Business School Press. 1986:19~29
103 Leibenstein, Allocative Efficiency vs. X-efficiency, American Economic Review. 1966, 56: 392~415
104 Leibenstein H., Maital S. Empirical Estimation and Partitioning of X-inefficiency: a Data Envelopment Approach. American Economic Review. 1992, 82: 428~ 433
105 王成武, 李如林. 标杆管理及其在现代企业中的应用. 现代管理科学. 2003, (2): 49~50
106 孔杰, 程寨华. 标杆管理理论述评. 东北财经大学学报. 2004,(2): 3~7
107 冯俊文. 现代企业标杆管理. 现代企业管理. 2001,(5): 61~64
108 申嫦娥, 王晓强. 企业绩效评价方法的改进. 经济管理. 2003,(22):17~19
109 李玲玲. 企业业绩评价——方法与运用. 北京:清华大学出版社, 2004: 122~147
110 R.S. Kaplan, D.P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press. 1996:15~39
111 Kaplan S. Top Executive Rewards and Firm Performance: A Comparision of Japan and the United States, Journal of Political Economy. 1994, 102: 510~546
112 孟建民. 中国企业绩效评价. 北京:中国财政经济出版社, 2002: 3~15
113 冯英浚, 李成红. 二次相对效益——衡量企业经济效益的一种新指标, 中国软科学. 1995,7: 30~37
114 Feng Yingjun, Lu Hui. An AHP/DEA Method for Measurement of the Efficiency of R&D Management Activities in Universities. International Transactions in Operational Research. 2004,(11): 181~191
115 Zhuang Siyong, Feng Yingjun. Evaluation of Management Performance about Company Core Competence Based on DEA.. Journal of System Science & Information. 2005,3 (2): 363~371
116 王巍, 冯英浚. 领导者行为素质相对进步效度测评分析. 中国软科学. 2004 (11): 138~141
117 冯英浚, 康梅, 任柏明. 描述不同行业投入产出差别的一种技术系数. 系统工程理论与实践. 2004,24 (6): 41~45
118 王宇, 冯英浚, 庄思勇. 群组决策 DEA 模式研究. 中国软科学. 2004,(10):140~142
119 王晓红, 王雪峰, 冯英浚. 一种基于 DEA 和多指标综合评价的大学科研绩效评价方法. 中国软科学. 2004,(8): 156~160
120 王震, 冯英浚, 孟岩. 基于工作和能力的动态人力资源管理模式.中国软科学. 2003,(9): 69~72
121 冯英浚, 王大伟, 丁文桓. 绩效管理与管理有效性. 中国软科学. 2003, (4):132~136
122 丁文桓, 冯英浚, 康宇虹, 王宇.上市公司业绩的二次相对评价. 管理工程学报. 2003, (2): 65~74
123 吕绘, 冯英浚. 泰罗模式与管理有效性. 哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版). 2002, (4): 67~71
124 丁文桓, 冯英浚, 康宇虹. 基于 DEA 的投资基金业绩评估. 数量经济技术经济研究. 2002,(3): 98~101
125 冯英浚, 马魁东, 孙剑飞. 管理在经济增长中贡献率的一种测算方法. 数量经济技术经济研究. 2003,(3): 49~53
126 胡季英, 冯英浚. 建筑企业绩效的二次相对评价. 哈尔滨工业大学学报. 2003,35(7): 799~801
127 张晓慧, 冯英浚, 白莽. 一种反映突出影响因素的评价模型. 哈尔滨工业大学学报. 2003,35(10): 1168~1170
128 王巍, 冯英浚. 领导者综合素质进步效度分析. 运筹与管理. 2005,(5): 67~70
129 田波平, 苏杭, 冯英浚. 二次相对效益法对沪深并购上市公司绩效评估. 哈尔滨工业大学学报. 2004,38(2): 231~237
130 冯英浚, 王震, 孟岩. 管理理论的困惑与创新. 预测. 2005,23(4): 1~5
131 肖玲诺, 姜振寰, 冯英浚. 知识经济下的管理有效性. 科学研究. 2005,23(4): 531~535
132 马魁东, 冯英浚. 全国各省市“九五”期间工业经济增长中管理要素的贡献. 商业研究. 2003,(22): 1~3
133 冯英浚. 管理理论要适应时代需要. 管理科学. 2004, (4): 1
134 冯英浚, 王晓红, 任柏明. 管理有效性——两种绩效评估体系的统一. 工程研究. 跨学科视野中的工程. 2005,1:107~114