合作网络视角下母子公司业绩评价研究
|
摘要
近年来,随着信息技术的广泛应用与知识经济的快速发展,传统科层制企业集团开始网络化变革,但随着而来的集团网络环境的复杂性使得集团内部信息不对称、组织关系僵化失效等治理问题愈发严重,母子公司间缺乏有机联系,专业化分工与协调性较差,进而导致许多企业集团竞争力不强,难以发挥协同效应。因此,在网络环境下,母公司如何有效地管控子公司成为新的治理难题,而母子公司业绩评价系统作为重要的信息来源和决策依据,已成为企业集团提升管控水平、发挥组织优势的关键之一。因此,在合作网络视角下研究母子公司业绩评价问题,具有重要的理论意义和实践意义。
但是,目前关于业绩评价的研究主要集中于单一企业,少数关于企业集团业绩评价的研究成果要么是针对集团整体业绩的分析,要么仅是单纯地将子公司等同于普通单一企业进行评价,在一定程度忽视了企业集团子公司业绩的特有属性,无论是评价指标,还是评价方法、评价标准等方面均没有显著差异。尤其是随着网络化进程的不断加快,子公司业绩结构不再简单地仅仅局限于常规的财务业绩与非财务业绩,企业集团网络中的组织间关系会对子公司业绩产生显著影响,财务与非财务业绩仅是这种复杂关系影响下的现实产物与经济产物,二者在一定程度上已难以准确衡量子公司的价值贡献和未来发展趋势,更难以满足业绩评价作为预测工具满足母公司后续决策的需求,这不仅限制了企业集团管理控制等理论的进一步丰富与发展,也使得母子公司业绩评价难以在实践中得到有效地应用与检验,不利于业绩评价系统在集团治理中发挥其应有的作用。
基于此,本研究选择合作网络视角对企业集团母子公司业绩评价问题进行深入剖析,通过对目前母子公司业绩评价现状及问题的分析,结合不断发展的国内外业绩评价理论和方法,寻求在新型网络环境中母公司能够有效评价子公司业绩的有效方案,以充分发挥业绩评价系统该有的作用和功能,提升企业集团综合治理能力与核心竞争力。
概括本研究的主要内容,包括以下五方面：
第一,系统分析企业集团的网络属性,结合其演进路径概括主要特征,为母子公司业绩评价系统的构建提供合理的组织基础。随着技术的完善与竞争的加剧,企业集团化、集团网络化已成为现代组织发展变革的趋势之一,网络组织以其特有的竞争优势得以广泛应用,企业集团也开始了从传统层级制向网络化的转变,这种转变更是契合了企业集团本身的组织特性,如天生的强异质性、普遍的信任合作机制、大量的内部交易等等,这种吻合也从侧面进一步加快了企业集团的网络化进程,并使其呈现出新的不同的组织特征,如合作的普遍性、关系的重要性等等。这种变革对企业集团管理控制系统提出了更高的要求,而母子公司业绩评价作为管控系统重要组成部分和决策信息来源,为了适应这种新型组织环境,创新也就成为必然。
第二,在合作网络视角下从业绩本质出发,重新界定并建立完整的子公司业绩结构。本研究根据企业集团网络组织特性以及组织间关系、人力资源等相关理论,采用社会网络分析中主流的“结构—关系”维度,对子公司业绩构成进行梳理,按动因及本质特征的不同将其分为结构业绩和关系业绩。其中,结构业绩涵盖了传统的财务业绩与非财务业绩,强调业绩个体性、结果性的一面；关系业绩则是为了重点衡量组织中复杂多样的关系对业绩的影响而设置的,强调业绩关联性、行为性的一面,二者相互影响、缺一不可,共同构成了子公司综合业绩。此外,重点分析了子公司关系业绩的理论基础和实践方式：企业集团组织效应之所以存在并发挥作用就是因为组织间关系的存在,这种关系资源是影响业绩的关键动因;关系业绩的表现形式是多种多样的,既包括各种各样的内部交易,也包括各种财务上难以衡量的其他合作行为。通过此分析,以强化对这种新型业绩的认识,为评价系统的构建奠定基础。
第三,系统总结影响母子公司业绩评价系统的权变因素,将其归纳为企业集团外部层、企业集团层以及子公司层等三个层面,并完整分析各要素的影响机理；以此为基础,结合企业集团网络组织特性及其对评价系统的内在要求,按照一定的原则与程序,构建全新的合作网络视角下的母子公司业绩评价系统,包括评价主客体、评价目标、评价指标等七大要素,并重点分析了评价目标和评价标准：在平衡记分卡目标体系的基础上加入了“创新”与“合作”目标,将母子公司业绩评价的多元化目标体系分为普遍性目标和特殊性目标两类,并通过“合作”这一关键桥梁搭建了两者间的关系；对于评价标准,不仅明确了母子公司业绩评价标准设置的基本原则,如一致性、可操作性、激励性等,同时还就目前三种典型的评价标准—历史标准、行业标准及预算标准进行了对比,确定了预算标准第一选择的地位。
第四,根据子公司业绩结构的划分,在严格的理论基础和原则的指导下,采用合理的开发程序,构建科学完整的母子公司业绩评价指标体系。本研究将合作网络视角下的母子公司业绩评价指标分为结构业绩评价指标(具体分为财务业绩和非财务业绩评价指标)和关系业绩评价指标。其中,财务业绩评价指标的构建分别从偿债能力、运营能力、盈利能力及发展能力四个方面进行,非财务业绩评价指标主要反映子公司的市场与顾客、学习与成长、组织与流程以及知识与创新等四个方面；关系业绩作为关系资源的直接体现,在评价时按照关系属性分别设置评价指标,其中交易型关系业绩的评价较为简单和直接,由交易价格的公允与否来决定如何调整,非交易型关系业绩的评价是重点也是难点,采用主观评价法从合作范围、合作程度及合作稳定性等三个方面来进行。
第五,通过实地访谈及问卷调查获取一手数据,一方面实证分析权变因素对结构业绩指标采用程度和重视程度以及对关系业绩的影响,另一方面进一步检验本研究所构建的评价指标体系的价值相关性。一般说来,子公司结构业绩指标的采用程度和重视程度以及关系业绩值均与子公司的战略重要性、规模、竞争程度、生命周期及内部关系成显著的正相关关系；子公司结构业绩评价指标(包括财务指标和非财务指标两类二级指标)的采用程度越高、涉及利益相关方越多,子公司业绩就越好；子公司关系业绩(包括合作范围、合作程度及合作稳定性等二级指标)与其综合业绩成正相关关系。
本研究的创新点,主要体现在以下三个方面：
第一,在合作网络这一新型组织背景下,重构了子公司的业绩结构,这不仅有助于全面认识企业集团的业绩属性,也有助于建立更具针对性的评价系统,以更好地发挥母子公司业绩评价系统调配资源、优化提升的功能。具体来讲,根据企业集团网络组织的基本特性以及业绩的本质概念,将子公司业绩由传统的“财务—非财务”类升级为“结构—关系”类,以充分反映合作网络视角下子公司业绩的新形态,也为构建新的评价系统和评价指标体系奠定基础。传统业绩评价仅仅局限于财务业绩和非财务业绩两方面,网络化企业集团中的子公司业绩动因与表现更为复杂,不仅仅局限于财务与非财务两个方面,由于集团网络组织间关系的重要性和多变性,使其成为子公司业绩的关键因素,会极大地影响子公司的业绩结果,因此,为了更加准确全面地评价子公司业绩实现情况,也为了更加有效地服务于母公司管控系统的需要,本研究将子公司业绩分为“结构业绩—关系业绩”这两大类,其中结构业绩具体又分为财务业绩和非财务业绩,关系业绩主要包括交易型和非交易型两种。
第二,在系统分析企业集团网络组织特性及子公司业绩结构基础上,构建了全新的母子公司业绩评价系统。在主要评价要素方面,均进行了不同程度的拓展和创新,如多元化评价目标体系的建立,在传统的平衡记分卡式目标体系的基础上引入了“合作”目标,并将其分为共性和个性两类；特别是评价指标体系的设计,不仅融合了财务指标和非财务指标、客观指标和主观指标等多维指标,更是创新性地将关系业绩评价指标包含在评价系统中,构建了新型的“结构—关系”评价指标体系。具体来讲,财务业绩指标包括偿债能力、运营能力、盈利能力及发展能力等四个方面：非财务业绩指标包括市场与顾客、学习与成长、组织与流程及知识与创新等四个方面；交易型关系业绩则要根据内部交易价格的公允程度来选择适当的评价方法与指标；非交易型关系业绩则需要从子公司的合作范围、合作程度以及合作稳定性等三个方面进行评价,这在很大程度上丰富了母子公司业绩评价的内涵,使评价工作更加全面完整,评价结果更加公正、可接受。
第三,在理论研究的基础上,通过实地访谈和问卷调研所获取的第一手资料对相关问题进行分析,实证检验了一系列研究结论,通过这种理论与实践的结合进一步地对相关问题予以论证和强化。具体而言,本研究一方面实证分析了主要权变因素对结构业绩指标(包括采用程度和重视程度)与关系业绩指标的影响机理,另一方面则重点分析了本研究所构建的评价指标体系的价值相关性,以明确其有效性,为母子公司业绩评价系统的自评提供支持,服务于该系统的后续改进和优化,以保证其持续高效。
In recent years, the enterprise groups have been transforming from traditional bureaucracy to networking, with the wide use of IT and the rapid development of economy. But the complexity of the internal network results in information asymmetries, rigid organizational relationship within the group, which becomes more serious. So there are not enough organic links between parent and subsidiary companies, and specialized division of labor or coordination is also poor, causing a number of enterprise groups being less competitive. And it is difficult to achieve synergistic effect. Thus, in the networked environment, how to manage and control the subsidiary companies effectively has become a new governance challenge for the parent company. While the parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system, which is the important source of information and decision-making basis, plays an important role in enhancing the level of management and control, so the research on the performance evaluation of parent-subsidiary corporations based on cooperative-network has important theoretical significance and practical significance.
However, the current researches on the performance evaluation focus on a single enterprise mainly. Though some of them are about the enterprise group performance evaluation, there is a question that most of them result either for the analysis of the Group's overall performance, or just simply be equated with a subsidiary of a single enterprise, ignoring the specific properties of the Group subsidiaries performance, regardless of the evaluation indicators, or evaluation methods, evaluation criteria, etc. Especially with the accelerating process of networking, the performance structure of subsidiary is no longer simply confined to the financial performance and non-financial performance conventionally, which is the product of the complex network relationships. So only evaluating the financial and non-financial performance has been difficult to accurately measure the value of a subsidiary of the contribution and future development trend, and also difficult to meet the parent company decision-making needs as a predictive tool. This not only limits the further enrichment and development of the theory of enterprise group management control, but also makes the parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system being difficult in practice to be effective in application and inspection, which hinders the system to play its due role.
For this reason, this study chooses the subject on parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation based on cooperative-network. Through the analysis of the current parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation's present situation and problem, combining with the continuous development of the theory and methods of performance evaluation at home and abroad, we try to seek an effective proposal for parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation in new network environment, to help the system play an more and more important role in enhancing the management capacity and core competitiveness of enterprise groups.
We can summarize the main contents of this study to the following five parts:
First, we analyze the network properties of enterprise groups systematically, and summarize its main features, to provide a reasonable organization basis for the performance evaluation system. As the technology improving and competition intensifying, enterprise grouping and group networking has become a modern trend of the organizational development. Network organization has been widely used because of its unique competitive advantages, so enterprise groups have also started to transform from the traditional hierarchical system to the network changes, which is even more fit for the enterprise group's own organizational characteristics, such as the strong natural heterogeneity, universal trust and cooperation mechanism, a large number of insider trading, etc., which further accelerates the enterprise group networking process from the other side, and presents new and different organizational characteristics, such as the importance of the relationship. This change puts forward higher requirements to enterprise group management control systems. While the parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system as an important component of it and decision-making information sources, it is inevitable for the performance evaluation system to innovate to adapt to this new organizational environment.
Second, based on cooperative-network, we redefine and build the performance structure of the subsidiary from the performance nature. This study uses the "structure-relationship" dimension of social network analysis to divide the subsidiary performance into task performance and contextual performance, based on their motivation and the nature of the different characteristics. On one hand, the task performance covers the structure of the traditional financial performance and non-financial performance, emphasizing on the performance nature of individuality and result; on the other hand, the contextual performance focuses on the impact of complex group internal relationship, emphasizing on the performance nature of relativity and ethologisch They affect each other and constitute the integrated performance of a subsidiary. In addition, we analyze the theoretical basis and practical results of the contextual performance:the inter-organizational relationships result in the enterprise group's synergistic effect, which is the key motive to the contextual performance. And its manifestations are varied, including kinds of internal trades and other cooperative behaviors that are difficult to measure. With this analysis, we want to strengthen the understanding of this new type of performance, in order to lay the foundation for building the evaluation system.
Third, in this part, we sum up the main influence factors of the parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system, and divide them into three parts:the part of external layer of enterprise groups, business groups and subsidiary layer. Then, basing on analyzing these elements mechanism, we build a new parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system according to the certain principles and procedures, combining with the group network organization characteristics and its inherent requirements to the evaluation system. The system includes the evaluation objectives, evaluation indicators and so on, and we focus on the analysis of the evaluation objectives and evaluation criteria:we add the "innovation" and "cooperation" objective to the BSC target system and divide it into universality and particularity of targets. Besides, we not only make clear the question that how to choose the evaluation criteria, such as consistency, workability, and incentives, etc., but also compare historical standards, industry standards and the budget standards that are popular at present. We get the conclusion the budget standard is our first choice.
Forth, according to the classification of the performance structure of the subsidiary, following the strict theoretical basis and using the scientific principles and process, we build the parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation index system. The study divides the subsidiary performance into task performance evaluation indicators (divided into financial performance and non-financial performance evaluation indicators) and contextual performance evaluation indicators. Among them, the financial performance evaluation indicators include debt paying ability, operation capacity, profitability and development capacity; and the non-financial performance evaluation index mainly reflected subsidiaries markets and customers, learning and growth, organization and processes, and knowledge of and innovation in four aspects. As the contextual performance is the direct reflection of the relationship, we should set the indicators in accordance with the relationship type. It is relatively simple and straightforward to evaluate the performance of transactional relationships based on the transaction price fair or not to decide how to deal with; while the non-transactional relationship performance evaluation is difficult. We often evaluate it from cooperation scope, cooperation level and cooperation stability using the subjective evaluation method.
Fifth, based on the first-hand data we getting through field interviews and a questionnaire survey, on one hand, we make the empirical analysis between contingency factors and performance indicators (including task performance evaluation indicators and contextual performance evaluation indicators); on the other hand, we also make the empirical analysis between performance indicators using and its performance. Generally speaking, the using and valuing of task performance indicators is a significant positive correlation with its strategic importance, scale, level of competition, life cycle and internal relations, so is task performance indicators. The significant positive correlation also exists between task performance indicators using (including the financial performance evaluation indicators and the non-financial performance evaluation indicators), contextual performance indicators (including cooperation scope, cooperation level and cooperation stability) and its performance.
The innovation points of this research include the following three aspects:
First, we reconstruct the subsidiary's performance structure based on cooperative-network, which will help us not only fully understand the performance properties of the enterprise group, but also build more targeted evaluation system. More specifically, according to the characteristics of enterprise group network organization and the nature of the performance concept, we upgrade the subsidiary's performance structure from the traditional "financial-non-financial" category to "task-contextual" category, in order to fully reflect the performance of cooperative networks and build the basis for a new evaluation system and the evaluation index system. Traditional performance evaluation is limited to financial performance and non-financial performance. But in the networking groups, both the subsidiary performance's agent and show are different. Resulting from the relationship importance and complexity, which makes it become the key point for the subsidiary performance and affect it more and more. Therefore, in order to be more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the achievement of a subsidiary performance, but also to serve the parent company controls system needs more effectively, this research divide the subsidiary performance into task performance(covering financial performance and non-financial performance) and contextual performance(including transaction type and non-transaction type).
Second, based on the systematic analysis of enterprise group network characteristics and subsidiary performance structure, we build a new parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system and carry out varying degrees of expansion and innovation on the main evaluation elements. For example, we add the "cooperation" objective to the Balanced Scorecard traditional target system. Especially the evaluation index system designing, we not only make the integration of the financial indicators and non-financial indicators, objective indicators and subjective indicators and task indicators and the contextual indicators, etc., but also build the contextual indicators innovatively. More specifically, the financial performance indicators include solvency, operational capacity, profitability and development capacity; the non-financial performance indicators include market and customers, learning and growth, organization and processes and four aspects of knowledge and innovation and so on. We can evaluate the performance of transactional relationships based on the transaction price fair or not to decide how to deal with; while the non-transactional relationship performance evaluation is often evaluated from cooperation scope, cooperation level and cooperation stability using the subjective evaluation method. This enriches the connotation of parent-subsidiary corporation performance largely, so that a more comprehensive evaluation is completed and the result of evaluation is more just and acceptable.
Third, based on the theoretical study, we design the interviews and questionnaire survey to obtain first-hand information, with which we can make analysis and empirical testing to the anterior conclusion. Through this combination of theory and practice, we have demonstrated and reinforced the relevant issues. In brief, on one hand, we make the empirical analysis between contingency factors and performance indicator using and valuing; on the other hand, we also make the empirical analysis between performance indicators using and its performance to clarify its effectiveness, in order to provide supporting services for the system follow-up improvement and optimization, and ensure its continued efficient.
但是,目前关于业绩评价的研究主要集中于单一企业,少数关于企业集团业绩评价的研究成果要么是针对集团整体业绩的分析,要么仅是单纯地将子公司等同于普通单一企业进行评价,在一定程度忽视了企业集团子公司业绩的特有属性,无论是评价指标,还是评价方法、评价标准等方面均没有显著差异。尤其是随着网络化进程的不断加快,子公司业绩结构不再简单地仅仅局限于常规的财务业绩与非财务业绩,企业集团网络中的组织间关系会对子公司业绩产生显著影响,财务与非财务业绩仅是这种复杂关系影响下的现实产物与经济产物,二者在一定程度上已难以准确衡量子公司的价值贡献和未来发展趋势,更难以满足业绩评价作为预测工具满足母公司后续决策的需求,这不仅限制了企业集团管理控制等理论的进一步丰富与发展,也使得母子公司业绩评价难以在实践中得到有效地应用与检验,不利于业绩评价系统在集团治理中发挥其应有的作用。
基于此,本研究选择合作网络视角对企业集团母子公司业绩评价问题进行深入剖析,通过对目前母子公司业绩评价现状及问题的分析,结合不断发展的国内外业绩评价理论和方法,寻求在新型网络环境中母公司能够有效评价子公司业绩的有效方案,以充分发挥业绩评价系统该有的作用和功能,提升企业集团综合治理能力与核心竞争力。
概括本研究的主要内容,包括以下五方面：
第一,系统分析企业集团的网络属性,结合其演进路径概括主要特征,为母子公司业绩评价系统的构建提供合理的组织基础。随着技术的完善与竞争的加剧,企业集团化、集团网络化已成为现代组织发展变革的趋势之一,网络组织以其特有的竞争优势得以广泛应用,企业集团也开始了从传统层级制向网络化的转变,这种转变更是契合了企业集团本身的组织特性,如天生的强异质性、普遍的信任合作机制、大量的内部交易等等,这种吻合也从侧面进一步加快了企业集团的网络化进程,并使其呈现出新的不同的组织特征,如合作的普遍性、关系的重要性等等。这种变革对企业集团管理控制系统提出了更高的要求,而母子公司业绩评价作为管控系统重要组成部分和决策信息来源,为了适应这种新型组织环境,创新也就成为必然。
第二,在合作网络视角下从业绩本质出发,重新界定并建立完整的子公司业绩结构。本研究根据企业集团网络组织特性以及组织间关系、人力资源等相关理论,采用社会网络分析中主流的“结构—关系”维度,对子公司业绩构成进行梳理,按动因及本质特征的不同将其分为结构业绩和关系业绩。其中,结构业绩涵盖了传统的财务业绩与非财务业绩,强调业绩个体性、结果性的一面；关系业绩则是为了重点衡量组织中复杂多样的关系对业绩的影响而设置的,强调业绩关联性、行为性的一面,二者相互影响、缺一不可,共同构成了子公司综合业绩。此外,重点分析了子公司关系业绩的理论基础和实践方式：企业集团组织效应之所以存在并发挥作用就是因为组织间关系的存在,这种关系资源是影响业绩的关键动因;关系业绩的表现形式是多种多样的,既包括各种各样的内部交易,也包括各种财务上难以衡量的其他合作行为。通过此分析,以强化对这种新型业绩的认识,为评价系统的构建奠定基础。
第三,系统总结影响母子公司业绩评价系统的权变因素,将其归纳为企业集团外部层、企业集团层以及子公司层等三个层面,并完整分析各要素的影响机理；以此为基础,结合企业集团网络组织特性及其对评价系统的内在要求,按照一定的原则与程序,构建全新的合作网络视角下的母子公司业绩评价系统,包括评价主客体、评价目标、评价指标等七大要素,并重点分析了评价目标和评价标准：在平衡记分卡目标体系的基础上加入了“创新”与“合作”目标,将母子公司业绩评价的多元化目标体系分为普遍性目标和特殊性目标两类,并通过“合作”这一关键桥梁搭建了两者间的关系；对于评价标准,不仅明确了母子公司业绩评价标准设置的基本原则,如一致性、可操作性、激励性等,同时还就目前三种典型的评价标准—历史标准、行业标准及预算标准进行了对比,确定了预算标准第一选择的地位。
第四,根据子公司业绩结构的划分,在严格的理论基础和原则的指导下,采用合理的开发程序,构建科学完整的母子公司业绩评价指标体系。本研究将合作网络视角下的母子公司业绩评价指标分为结构业绩评价指标(具体分为财务业绩和非财务业绩评价指标)和关系业绩评价指标。其中,财务业绩评价指标的构建分别从偿债能力、运营能力、盈利能力及发展能力四个方面进行,非财务业绩评价指标主要反映子公司的市场与顾客、学习与成长、组织与流程以及知识与创新等四个方面；关系业绩作为关系资源的直接体现,在评价时按照关系属性分别设置评价指标,其中交易型关系业绩的评价较为简单和直接,由交易价格的公允与否来决定如何调整,非交易型关系业绩的评价是重点也是难点,采用主观评价法从合作范围、合作程度及合作稳定性等三个方面来进行。
第五,通过实地访谈及问卷调查获取一手数据,一方面实证分析权变因素对结构业绩指标采用程度和重视程度以及对关系业绩的影响,另一方面进一步检验本研究所构建的评价指标体系的价值相关性。一般说来,子公司结构业绩指标的采用程度和重视程度以及关系业绩值均与子公司的战略重要性、规模、竞争程度、生命周期及内部关系成显著的正相关关系；子公司结构业绩评价指标(包括财务指标和非财务指标两类二级指标)的采用程度越高、涉及利益相关方越多,子公司业绩就越好；子公司关系业绩(包括合作范围、合作程度及合作稳定性等二级指标)与其综合业绩成正相关关系。
本研究的创新点,主要体现在以下三个方面：
第一,在合作网络这一新型组织背景下,重构了子公司的业绩结构,这不仅有助于全面认识企业集团的业绩属性,也有助于建立更具针对性的评价系统,以更好地发挥母子公司业绩评价系统调配资源、优化提升的功能。具体来讲,根据企业集团网络组织的基本特性以及业绩的本质概念,将子公司业绩由传统的“财务—非财务”类升级为“结构—关系”类,以充分反映合作网络视角下子公司业绩的新形态,也为构建新的评价系统和评价指标体系奠定基础。传统业绩评价仅仅局限于财务业绩和非财务业绩两方面,网络化企业集团中的子公司业绩动因与表现更为复杂,不仅仅局限于财务与非财务两个方面,由于集团网络组织间关系的重要性和多变性,使其成为子公司业绩的关键因素,会极大地影响子公司的业绩结果,因此,为了更加准确全面地评价子公司业绩实现情况,也为了更加有效地服务于母公司管控系统的需要,本研究将子公司业绩分为“结构业绩—关系业绩”这两大类,其中结构业绩具体又分为财务业绩和非财务业绩,关系业绩主要包括交易型和非交易型两种。
第二,在系统分析企业集团网络组织特性及子公司业绩结构基础上,构建了全新的母子公司业绩评价系统。在主要评价要素方面,均进行了不同程度的拓展和创新,如多元化评价目标体系的建立,在传统的平衡记分卡式目标体系的基础上引入了“合作”目标,并将其分为共性和个性两类；特别是评价指标体系的设计,不仅融合了财务指标和非财务指标、客观指标和主观指标等多维指标,更是创新性地将关系业绩评价指标包含在评价系统中,构建了新型的“结构—关系”评价指标体系。具体来讲,财务业绩指标包括偿债能力、运营能力、盈利能力及发展能力等四个方面：非财务业绩指标包括市场与顾客、学习与成长、组织与流程及知识与创新等四个方面；交易型关系业绩则要根据内部交易价格的公允程度来选择适当的评价方法与指标；非交易型关系业绩则需要从子公司的合作范围、合作程度以及合作稳定性等三个方面进行评价,这在很大程度上丰富了母子公司业绩评价的内涵,使评价工作更加全面完整,评价结果更加公正、可接受。
第三,在理论研究的基础上,通过实地访谈和问卷调研所获取的第一手资料对相关问题进行分析,实证检验了一系列研究结论,通过这种理论与实践的结合进一步地对相关问题予以论证和强化。具体而言,本研究一方面实证分析了主要权变因素对结构业绩指标(包括采用程度和重视程度)与关系业绩指标的影响机理,另一方面则重点分析了本研究所构建的评价指标体系的价值相关性,以明确其有效性,为母子公司业绩评价系统的自评提供支持,服务于该系统的后续改进和优化,以保证其持续高效。
In recent years, the enterprise groups have been transforming from traditional bureaucracy to networking, with the wide use of IT and the rapid development of economy. But the complexity of the internal network results in information asymmetries, rigid organizational relationship within the group, which becomes more serious. So there are not enough organic links between parent and subsidiary companies, and specialized division of labor or coordination is also poor, causing a number of enterprise groups being less competitive. And it is difficult to achieve synergistic effect. Thus, in the networked environment, how to manage and control the subsidiary companies effectively has become a new governance challenge for the parent company. While the parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system, which is the important source of information and decision-making basis, plays an important role in enhancing the level of management and control, so the research on the performance evaluation of parent-subsidiary corporations based on cooperative-network has important theoretical significance and practical significance.
However, the current researches on the performance evaluation focus on a single enterprise mainly. Though some of them are about the enterprise group performance evaluation, there is a question that most of them result either for the analysis of the Group's overall performance, or just simply be equated with a subsidiary of a single enterprise, ignoring the specific properties of the Group subsidiaries performance, regardless of the evaluation indicators, or evaluation methods, evaluation criteria, etc. Especially with the accelerating process of networking, the performance structure of subsidiary is no longer simply confined to the financial performance and non-financial performance conventionally, which is the product of the complex network relationships. So only evaluating the financial and non-financial performance has been difficult to accurately measure the value of a subsidiary of the contribution and future development trend, and also difficult to meet the parent company decision-making needs as a predictive tool. This not only limits the further enrichment and development of the theory of enterprise group management control, but also makes the parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system being difficult in practice to be effective in application and inspection, which hinders the system to play its due role.
For this reason, this study chooses the subject on parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation based on cooperative-network. Through the analysis of the current parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation's present situation and problem, combining with the continuous development of the theory and methods of performance evaluation at home and abroad, we try to seek an effective proposal for parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation in new network environment, to help the system play an more and more important role in enhancing the management capacity and core competitiveness of enterprise groups.
We can summarize the main contents of this study to the following five parts:
First, we analyze the network properties of enterprise groups systematically, and summarize its main features, to provide a reasonable organization basis for the performance evaluation system. As the technology improving and competition intensifying, enterprise grouping and group networking has become a modern trend of the organizational development. Network organization has been widely used because of its unique competitive advantages, so enterprise groups have also started to transform from the traditional hierarchical system to the network changes, which is even more fit for the enterprise group's own organizational characteristics, such as the strong natural heterogeneity, universal trust and cooperation mechanism, a large number of insider trading, etc., which further accelerates the enterprise group networking process from the other side, and presents new and different organizational characteristics, such as the importance of the relationship. This change puts forward higher requirements to enterprise group management control systems. While the parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system as an important component of it and decision-making information sources, it is inevitable for the performance evaluation system to innovate to adapt to this new organizational environment.
Second, based on cooperative-network, we redefine and build the performance structure of the subsidiary from the performance nature. This study uses the "structure-relationship" dimension of social network analysis to divide the subsidiary performance into task performance and contextual performance, based on their motivation and the nature of the different characteristics. On one hand, the task performance covers the structure of the traditional financial performance and non-financial performance, emphasizing on the performance nature of individuality and result; on the other hand, the contextual performance focuses on the impact of complex group internal relationship, emphasizing on the performance nature of relativity and ethologisch They affect each other and constitute the integrated performance of a subsidiary. In addition, we analyze the theoretical basis and practical results of the contextual performance:the inter-organizational relationships result in the enterprise group's synergistic effect, which is the key motive to the contextual performance. And its manifestations are varied, including kinds of internal trades and other cooperative behaviors that are difficult to measure. With this analysis, we want to strengthen the understanding of this new type of performance, in order to lay the foundation for building the evaluation system.
Third, in this part, we sum up the main influence factors of the parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system, and divide them into three parts:the part of external layer of enterprise groups, business groups and subsidiary layer. Then, basing on analyzing these elements mechanism, we build a new parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system according to the certain principles and procedures, combining with the group network organization characteristics and its inherent requirements to the evaluation system. The system includes the evaluation objectives, evaluation indicators and so on, and we focus on the analysis of the evaluation objectives and evaluation criteria:we add the "innovation" and "cooperation" objective to the BSC target system and divide it into universality and particularity of targets. Besides, we not only make clear the question that how to choose the evaluation criteria, such as consistency, workability, and incentives, etc., but also compare historical standards, industry standards and the budget standards that are popular at present. We get the conclusion the budget standard is our first choice.
Forth, according to the classification of the performance structure of the subsidiary, following the strict theoretical basis and using the scientific principles and process, we build the parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation index system. The study divides the subsidiary performance into task performance evaluation indicators (divided into financial performance and non-financial performance evaluation indicators) and contextual performance evaluation indicators. Among them, the financial performance evaluation indicators include debt paying ability, operation capacity, profitability and development capacity; and the non-financial performance evaluation index mainly reflected subsidiaries markets and customers, learning and growth, organization and processes, and knowledge of and innovation in four aspects. As the contextual performance is the direct reflection of the relationship, we should set the indicators in accordance with the relationship type. It is relatively simple and straightforward to evaluate the performance of transactional relationships based on the transaction price fair or not to decide how to deal with; while the non-transactional relationship performance evaluation is difficult. We often evaluate it from cooperation scope, cooperation level and cooperation stability using the subjective evaluation method.
Fifth, based on the first-hand data we getting through field interviews and a questionnaire survey, on one hand, we make the empirical analysis between contingency factors and performance indicators (including task performance evaluation indicators and contextual performance evaluation indicators); on the other hand, we also make the empirical analysis between performance indicators using and its performance. Generally speaking, the using and valuing of task performance indicators is a significant positive correlation with its strategic importance, scale, level of competition, life cycle and internal relations, so is task performance indicators. The significant positive correlation also exists between task performance indicators using (including the financial performance evaluation indicators and the non-financial performance evaluation indicators), contextual performance indicators (including cooperation scope, cooperation level and cooperation stability) and its performance.
The innovation points of this research include the following three aspects:
First, we reconstruct the subsidiary's performance structure based on cooperative-network, which will help us not only fully understand the performance properties of the enterprise group, but also build more targeted evaluation system. More specifically, according to the characteristics of enterprise group network organization and the nature of the performance concept, we upgrade the subsidiary's performance structure from the traditional "financial-non-financial" category to "task-contextual" category, in order to fully reflect the performance of cooperative networks and build the basis for a new evaluation system and the evaluation index system. Traditional performance evaluation is limited to financial performance and non-financial performance. But in the networking groups, both the subsidiary performance's agent and show are different. Resulting from the relationship importance and complexity, which makes it become the key point for the subsidiary performance and affect it more and more. Therefore, in order to be more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the achievement of a subsidiary performance, but also to serve the parent company controls system needs more effectively, this research divide the subsidiary performance into task performance(covering financial performance and non-financial performance) and contextual performance(including transaction type and non-transaction type).
Second, based on the systematic analysis of enterprise group network characteristics and subsidiary performance structure, we build a new parent-subsidiary corporation performance evaluation system and carry out varying degrees of expansion and innovation on the main evaluation elements. For example, we add the "cooperation" objective to the Balanced Scorecard traditional target system. Especially the evaluation index system designing, we not only make the integration of the financial indicators and non-financial indicators, objective indicators and subjective indicators and task indicators and the contextual indicators, etc., but also build the contextual indicators innovatively. More specifically, the financial performance indicators include solvency, operational capacity, profitability and development capacity; the non-financial performance indicators include market and customers, learning and growth, organization and processes and four aspects of knowledge and innovation and so on. We can evaluate the performance of transactional relationships based on the transaction price fair or not to decide how to deal with; while the non-transactional relationship performance evaluation is often evaluated from cooperation scope, cooperation level and cooperation stability using the subjective evaluation method. This enriches the connotation of parent-subsidiary corporation performance largely, so that a more comprehensive evaluation is completed and the result of evaluation is more just and acceptable.
Third, based on the theoretical study, we design the interviews and questionnaire survey to obtain first-hand information, with which we can make analysis and empirical testing to the anterior conclusion. Through this combination of theory and practice, we have demonstrated and reinforced the relevant issues. In brief, on one hand, we make the empirical analysis between contingency factors and performance indicator using and valuing; on the other hand, we also make the empirical analysis between performance indicators using and its performance to clarify its effectiveness, in order to provide supporting services for the system follow-up improvement and optimization, and ensure its continued efficient.
引文
①陈志军.母子公司管理控制研究[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007年
① Powell, W.W. Neither Market nor Hierarchy:Network Forms of Organization [J]. Research in Organization Behavior,1990(12).
①迈克尔·波特.竞争优势[M].北京：华夏出版社,1991年版
①席酉民,韩平,张禾.企业集团竞争力与业绩评价[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2004,PP149-150
① White, H. C., Boorman, S. A.& Breiger, R. L., Social Structure from Multiple Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1976(81-4):730-780.
② Granovetter, M., The Strength of Weak Ties [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1973(78-6):1360-1380.
③ Granovetter, M., Network Sampling:Some First Strps [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1976(81-6): 1287-1303.
①李彬、潘爱玲.母子公司业绩评价的理论基础整合研究[J].华东经济管理,2010(3)：63-66
① Kaplan. S. and D. Norton.1992. The Balanced-Scorecard:Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review (January-February):71-79
①王化成,刘俊勇,孙薇.企业业绩评价[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004
①注：在子公司非财务指标研究方面,美国会计学会于1973年就在其研究报告中指出要关注子公司面临的可控与不可控因素,建议使用附加的非财务指标。
② Fatouros, A. A., Towards an Iiternational Agreement on Foreign Direct Investment, in Towards Multinational Investment Rules, Paris, OECD.1996.
②刑汉兵.跨国公司战略管理子系统—业绩评价系统研究[D].南京理工大学博士论文,2005
①刘郎道(韩)著,卢珍译.综合绩效管理革命[M].北京：新华出版社,2004年,PP13-17
①李彬、潘爱玲.企业集团母子公司业绩评价研究：回顾与展望[J].会计之友,2010(3)：10-13
①注：还有的学者从权变理论、企业蜕变理论、组织生态理论、资源依附理论、新制度主义理论等方面分别论述了组织外部网络化的必要性。
②朱涛.企业网络战略[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2008年,PP1-11
①喻卫斌.不确定性和网络组织研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2007年,PP88-89.
② Preffer and Salancik. The External Control of Organization. Harper and Row,1978
① Duhaime, IreneM·, et al. Determinates of Competitive Advantage in the network Organizational Form:a Pilot Study[R]working paper,2002·
②顾江.生态系统稳定性统计模型分析运用[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2001(1)：98-100
①注：子公司稳定性评价主要从影响其稳定性的内部因素入手,包括子公司个体网络的规模、数量以及关系。其中关系对稳定性的影响最大,也是评价的主体,要从横向关系和纵向关系两方面分析其对稳定性的影响,一般说来横向关系一般有助于保持稳定,纵向关系则要具体分析。具体参见：黄志鸿.生态工业园工业共生网络稳定性研究[J].科技与产业,2006(10)：28-31;蓝庆新,韩晶.网络组织成员合作的稳定性模型分析[J].财经问题研究,2006(6)：49-53
①注：本表格是在池国华(2005)相关研究成果的基础上结合参考资料总结提炼而成。[英]理查德·S·威廉姆斯著,赵正斌等译.业绩管理[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2003(第1版),PP217;[英]加里·阿什沃斯著,李克成译.整合绩效管理[M].北京：电子工业出版社,2002(第1版),PP51。
①注：该图引自池国华教授的博士论文《现代企业内部管理业绩评价系统设计研究》(东北财经大学,2005年),并结合企业集团网络组织特性绘制而成。
①张先治.内部管理控制论[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004(第1版),第85页
①权变理论成熟之后,研究者便开始将这种方法引入到管理控制研究当中,并逐渐成为不可或缺的一部分。如Dent (1990)就指出,权变方法已成为管理控制系统研究的主旋律,不考虑控制环境而孤立的研究管理控制系统是很难设计出科学合理的控制体系的。(详见：Dent J.F.1990. Strategy. organization and control:some possibilities for accpunting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society,15, pp3-25.)
② Chenhall, R.H.2003. Management control system design within its organizational context:findings from contingency-based research and directions from the future. The AOS 25th Anniversary Conference. Chenhall, R.H.1997. Reliance on manufacturing performance measures, total quality management and organizational performance. Management Accounting Research,8, pp187-206.
①注：不确定性是影响母子公司业绩评价系统主要的外部因素,企业集团网络化和权变理论均关注其影响；对不确定程度的分析,可以采用“简单—负责”和“稳定—不稳定”两方面来判断。
② Govindarajan, V.1984, Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation:An empirical examination of environmental uncertainity as an intervening variable. Accounting, Organizations and Society.9, pp125-135.
③ Moores, K. and Sharma, D.1998. The influence of environmental uncertainity on performance evaluation style and managerial performance. Accountability and Performance,4,2, pp1-16.
④ Ross, A.1995. Job related tension, budget emphasis and uncertainty. Management Accounting Research,6, pp1-11.
⑤ Chapman C.S.1998. Accountants in organizationganl networks. Accounting, Organizations and Society,23,8, pp737-766.
① Bruns, W. J. and Waterhouse. J. H.1975. Budgetary control and organizational structure. Journal of Accounting Research.8. pp177-203.
② Merchant, K.1981. The design of the corporate budgeting system:influences on managerial behavior and performance. The Accounting Review,4, pp813-829.
③ Chenhall. R.H. and Morris, D.1986. The impact of structure, environment and interdependencies on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems. The Accounting Review,61, pp16-35.
④王化成,刘俊勇.企业业绩评价模式研究—兼论中国企业业绩评价模式选择[J].管理世界,2004(4)：82-91.
⑤注:Hayes的研究表明,业绩评价的影响因素和评价指标的选择应根据部门职能性质的不同有所区别。参见Hayes, D.1977. The contingency theory of managerial accounting. The Accounting Review,1, pp23-39.
⑥注：例如对生产型子公司,影响其业绩的主要因素主要来自于内部营运,因此评价的重点应放在作业流程上；而对于研发型子公司,对其评价时不能以短期的财务指标为主,而应强调被评价单位的参与程度,更多的采用非财务指标。
⑦ Gedajlovic, E. R., and Shapiro, D. M., Management and Ownership Effects:Evidence from Five Countries, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.19,533-553,1998.
①注：专制型是一种高度控制下的等级结构制度,决策权大多集中在母公司,子公司仅负责行动,不许对结果负责；仁慈专制型和专制型基本类似,仅是增加了组织成员发言的机会。控制民主型将决策权适当的下放,鼓励成员按照自己的想法去行动并勇于承担责任,母公司保留必要条件下的最终决策权；自由民主型母公司将决策权充分下放,等级制度不严格且相当灵活,组织成员大多均有权参与决策并承担责任。但是,对于企业集团网络组织而言,复杂的外部环境和组织间关系使得完全专制和完全民主的方式受到限制,相比较而言,控制民主型的管理风格可能更适合于企业集团。
②注：企业集团内部财务安排是指母公司与子公司、子公司之间发生的财务联系。其中经营性财务安排是指集团内部发生的与实业有关的资金、产品、技术等资源的转移；权益性财务安排包括母子公司间及子公司之间相互进行权益性投资以及由此产生的股利支付等问题；债务性财务安排,包括母子公司之间及子公司之间相互直接或者间接发生的借贷活动以及由此产生的还本付息等。
①李转良.全球经济一体化[M].天津：天津人民出版社,1999年
① Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A. K.1985. Linking control systems to business unit strategy:impact on performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, pp51-66.
① McNair, Carol J. Lynch, Richaed L; Cross, Kelvin F.1990. Do financial and non-financial performance measures have to agree? Manangement Accounting Nov.28-36. ② Abdel-Maksouda, David Dugdaleb and Robert Luther,2005. Non-financial performance mearsurement in manufacturing companies. The British Accounting Review,37:261-297.
③ Defond, M. L., Park, C. W.1999, The effect of competition on CEO turnover. Journal of Accounting ang Economics.27:35-56.
④ Khandwalla P..1977. Design of organizations. New York. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
⑤ Daft R.L. and Macintosh N.J.1981. A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp207-244.
⑥ Dunk, A.S.1992. Reliance on budgetary control, manufacturing process automation and production sub-unit performance:a research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society,17,3\4, pp185-239.
① Hirst, M. K.1983. Reliance on accounting performance measures, task uncertainty and dysfunctional behaviour. Journal of Accounting Research,21.2, pp596-605.
②注：集合依存性是指相邻部门间不存在直接的联系,序列依存性是指部门间仅存在单向联系,相互依存性是指部门间存在双向的相互联系。参见Macintosh, N. and Daft. R. L.1987. Manangement control system and departmental interdependencies:an empirical study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, pp23-48.
③周长青.当代公司业绩评价体系创新的若干问题研究.厦门大学博士学位论文,2001年.
①安德烈·A·德瓦尔著,汪开虎译.绩效管理魔力[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2002年(第一版),PP6-10
①财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价工作指南[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2002年
①理查德·威廉姆斯著,赵正斌等译.业绩管理[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,1999(第1版),PP122
①张川 2008年的研究亦是采用这种方法。朱朝霞于2000年也提到了类似的观点(参见朱朝霞.关于国有资本金效绩评价体系的研究—基于委托代理理论的研究[J].财经研究,2000(5)：9-13)。
①郭立田,张旭蕾.建立企业集团内部效绩评价体系的再思考[J].河北经贸大学学报,2005(1)：63-67
① Back B, Sere K, Vanharanta H. Analyzing financial performance with self-organizing maps[A]. Proceedings of the workshop on self-organizing maps WSOM'97[c]. Espo. Finland. June 4-6,1997:356-361.
①王爱民.神经网络应用于模糊综合评价的研究[J].系统工程理论与实践,1995(10)：37-42.
①赵全波、汪波、梁振.BP神经网络在企业综合业绩评价中的应用研究与改进[J].工业工程,2005(5)：102-107.
[1]张维迎.企业理论与中国企业改革[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1999：32-52
[2]陈志军.母子公司管理控制研究[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007
[3]伍柏麟,胡雄飞.关于发展大型企业集团的若干思考[J].毛泽东邓小平理论研究,1998(4)：15-22
[4]李森,韩树彦.企业集团发展的经济学解释[J].经济纵横,2008(7)：24-26
[5]仲伟周.企业集团与一体化经济组织[J].中国软科学,2000(8)：68-72
[6]席酉民等.企业集团竞争力和业绩综合评价[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2004：3-10
[7]李心合.企业集团财务管理问题研究[J].财经论丛,1994(5)：49-56
[8]吕源,姚俊,蓝海林.企业集团的理论综述与探讨[J].南开管理评论,2005(8)：28-35
[9]姚颐,刘志远,李冠众.我国企业集团财务控制现状的问卷调查与分析[J].会计研究,2007(8)：28-35
[10]阎海峰.跨国公司网络组织[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2007：115-126
[11]郭劲光.企业网络--类型比较及发展研究[J].郑州航空工业学院学报,2008(4)：118-122
[12]迈克尔·波特.竞争优势[M].北京：华夏出版社,1991年版。
[13]张富春,冯子标.企业集团：中间组织与有组织的市场[J].中国工业经济,1997(12)：45-50
[14]林云.我国企业集团形成中的市场作用和政府作用[J].中国工业经济,1998(6)：36-39
[15]魏守华,石碧华.论企业集群的竞争优势[J].中国工业经济,2002(1)
[16]黄龙英,郝新艳.企业集团与企业集群：两种企业组织形式的比较分析[J].社会科学论坛,2008(3)：83-85
[17]杜龙政,熊妮.企业集团与企业集群的互动与集群式创新的实施机制[J].改 革与战略,2008(1)：118-120
[18]李焕英,林键.企业战略网络管理模式[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2007：135-147
[19]高勇强,田志龙.母公司对子公司的管理和控制模式研究[J].南开管理评论,2002(4)：28-31
[20]葛晨,徐金发. 母子公司的管理与控制模式--北大方正集团、中国华诚集团等管理与控制模式案例评析[J].管理世界,1999(6)：190-196
[21]陈志军. 谈集团公司对子公司的控制与协调[J].山东经院学报,2001(1)：35-37
[22]王海光.企业集群共生治理的模式及演进研究[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2009：31-33
[23]刘清华,吴晓波.中小企业集群的知识转移分析[J].技术经济与管理,2002(4)：88
[24]中国集团公司促进会.母子公司关系研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004：13-21
[25]孟建民.中国企业效绩评价方法研究[M].北京,中国财政经济出版社,2002年(第一版)
[26]冯丽霞.企业财务分析与业绩评价[M].长沙,湖南人民出版社,2002(第1版)：1-3
[27]于增彪,张双才.企业集团业绩评价系统设计[J].新理财,2004(2)：20-27
[28]李玲玲.企业业绩评价---方法与运用[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2001
[29]任浩等.企业集团组织设计[M].上海：学林出版社,005：220-275
[30]张瑞君等.企业集团财务集中管理模式—e化财务集中管理模式的基本框架[J].管理世界,2004(2)：141-142
[31]巫升柱.企业集团母子公司公司财务控制系统构建研究[J].当代经济科学,2003(3)：78-83
[32]李艳平,谢福泉.子公司绩效评估探析[J].现代管理科学,2005(9)：88-89
[33]陈保华.所有权结构、代理冲突和公司价值---来自中国股票市场的经验数据[D].浙江大学博士学位论文,2004年
[34]高晨,汤谷良.主观业绩评价、高管激励与制度效果[J].中国工业经济,2009(4)：147-156
[35]李东红. 企业业绩评价体系与企业的性质[J].经济问题探索,2003(10)：11-14
[36]金井贤一著,金洪云译.内部组织的经济学[M].北京：三联书店,2004
[37]袁纯清.金融共生理论与城市商业银行改革[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002：7-12
[38]张蕊.企业经营业绩评价理论与方法的变革[J].会计研究,2001(12)：46-50
[39]李玲玲.企业业绩评价---方法与运用[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2004
[40]杜胜利.企业经营业绩评价[M].北京：经济科学出版社,1999
[41]杨雄胜,杨臻黛.企业综合评价指标体系研究[J].财政研究,1998(5)：6-10
[42]王化成,刘俊勇,孙薇.企业业绩评价[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004
[43]张川.业绩评价指标的采用与后果—基于我国企业的实证研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2008：30-31
[44]陈宝森.美国跨国公司的全球竞争[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999
[45]秦斌.一体化国际经营—关于跨国公司行为的分析[M].北京：中国发展出版社,1999.
[46]陈建梁.跨国公司投资管理[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1995
[47]刘郎道(韩)著,卢珍译.综合绩效管理革命[M].北京：新华出版社,2004：13-17
[48]邢向阳.企业集团子公司业绩评价研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报,2007(5)：119-121
[49]韵江,刘立,高杰.企业集团的价值创造与协同效应的实现机制[J].财经问题研究,2006(4)：79-86
[50]周昀.企业集团业绩评价指标体系的构建[J].集团经济研究,2007(10)：23-25
[51]罗彪.企业集团业绩管理系统比较研究[J].软科学,2007(8)：134-137
[52]孙永风,李垣.企业绩效评价的理论综述及存在的问题分析[J].预测,2004(2)：36-39
[53]卡明斯,沃里.组织发展与变革[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003
[54]夏立容.信息时代的标志及基本特征[J].自然辩证法研究,1996(8)：43-45
[55]欧阳锋,林丹阳等.信息时代的企业组织变革[M].北京：经济管理出版社,P79-81
[56]张钢,罗军.组织网络化发展研究述评[J].科学管理研究,2003(1)：60-64
[57]薛求知.无国界经营[M].上海：上海译文出版社,1997
[58]朱涛.企业网络战略[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2008：1-11
[59]林润辉,李维安.网络组织--更具环境适应能力的新型组织描述[J].南开管理评论,2000(3)：55-62
[60]李维安.网络组织：组织发展新趋势[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2000：219-225
[61]王凤彬.企业集团组织规模及边界的有效性[J].中国工业经济,1998(10)：44-49
[62]E.Laszlo & Ch.Laszlo著.文昭,黄丽华译.管理的新思维—第三代管理思想(中译本)[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2001年版：61-63
[63]喻卫斌.不确定性和网络组织研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2007：88-89
[64]安娜·格兰多里.企业网络：组织和产业竞争力[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005
[65]李海舰,聂辉华.论企业与市场的相互融合[J].中国工业经济,2004(8)：26-35
[66]黄咏梅.企业集团母公司和母合优势的形成[J].经济体制改革,2008(1)：85-89
[67]罗珉等.中间组织理论：基于不确定性和缓冲视角[J].中国工业经济,2005(10)：104-112
[68]罗仲伟,罗美娟.网络组织对层级组织的替代[J].中国工业经济,2001(6)：23-30
[69]罗仲伟.网络组织的特征及其经济学分析[J].外国经济与管理,2000(3)：25-32
[70]丸川知雄.关于集团中间组织产生的理论依据[J].中国工业经济,1992(9)：15-18
[71]庄慧彬等.国有企业集团公司组织结构与运营效率分析[J].财政研究,2008(7)：71-73
[72]孙国强.关系、互动与协同：网路组织的治理逻辑[J].中国工业经济,2003(11)：14-20
[73]冯巨章.企业合作网络边界—以商会为例[J].中国工业经济,2006(1)：72-79
[74]覃征等.网络企业管理[M].西安：西安交通大学出版社,2001：P87-90
[75]刘璐.企业外部网络对企业绩效影响研究：基于吸收能力视角[D].山东大学博士论文,2009年
[76]陈福添.跨国子公司定位研究—从科层范式到网络范式的演化[J].中国工业经济,2006(1)：64-71
[77]程国定,杨政.企业集团亟需理顺母子公司管理关系[J].中国工业经济,1999(3)：51-54
[78]陈劲,李飞宇.社会资本：对技术创新的社会学诠释[J].科学学研究,2001(9)：102-107
[79]张方华.知识型企业的社会资本与技术创新绩效的关系研究[D].浙江大学博士学位论文,2004
[80]孙天琦.产业组织结构研究--寡头主导大中小共生[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2001版
[81]顾江.生态系统稳定性统计模型分析运用[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2001(1)：98-100
[82]王兆华,尹建华.生态工业园中工业共生网络运作模式研究[J].中国软科学,2005(2)：80-85
[83]孙儒泳,李庆芬,牛翠娟等.生态学[M].北京：科学出版社,2000
[84]张萌,姜振寰,胡军.工业共生网络运作模式及稳定性分析[J].中国工业经济,2008(6)：77-85
[85]黄志鸿.生态工业园工业共生网络稳定性研究[J].科技与产业,2006(10)：28-31
[86]蓝庆新,韩晶.网络组织成员合作的稳定性模型分析[J].财经问题研究,2006(6)：49-53
[87]杨蕙馨,冯文娜.中间层次组织存在的合理性与稳定性分析[J].经济学动态,2004(9)
[88]韩翼,廖建桥.组织成员绩效结构理论研究述评[J].管理科学学报,2006(4)：86-94
[89]周智红,王二平.作业绩效和关系绩效[J].心理学动态,2000(8)：54-57
[90]罗正学等.任务绩效、关系绩效与工作绩效的关系研究[J].中国行为医学科学,2006(5)：451-452
[91]高红卫.企业集团内部交易问题研究[J].航天工业管理,2003(3)：4-6
[92]曹建安,张禾.国内外绩效评价发展的几个新特点[J].生产力研究,2003(1)：36-39
[93][英]理查德·S·威廉姆斯著,赵正斌等译.业绩管理[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2003(第1版)：217-220
[94][英]加里·阿什沃斯著,李克成译.整合绩效管理[M].北京：电子工业出版社,2002(第1版)：51-53
[95]池国华.现代企业内部管理业绩评价系统设计研究[D].东北财经大学博士学位论文,2005年
[96]张先治.内部管理控制论[M].北京,中国财政经济出版社,2004(第1版)：78-87
[97]王雎.跨组织资源与企业合作：基于关系的视角[J].中国工业经济,2006(4)：44-51
[98]刘运国,陈国菲.BSC与EVA相结合的企业绩效评价研究—基于GP企业集团的案例分析[J].会计研究,2007(9)：50-59
[99]季红梅,罗彪.国有企业集团业绩管理政策及主要工具述评[J].价值工程,2007(5)：10-15
[100]张跃宁.企业集团绩效评价模式比较[J].经济理论研究,2006(6)：32-35
[101]王化成,刘俊勇.企业业绩评价模式研究—兼论中国企业业绩评价模式选择[J].管理世界,2004(2)：82-91
[102]陈共荣,曾峻. 企业绩效评价主体的演进及其对绩效评价的影响[J].会计研究,2005 (4) 65-68
[103]陆庆平.以企业价值最大化为导向的企业绩效评价体系[J].会计研究,2006(3)56-62
[104]李苹莉.经营者业绩评价—利益相关者模式[M].杭州,浙江人民出版社,2001年
[105]华锦阳.转型时期公司治理与公司绩效的关联研究[M].上海,上海财经大学出版社,2003年
[106]杨宗昌,许波.企业经营绩效评价模式研究—我国电信企业集团经营绩效考评方法初探[J].会计研究,2003(12)
[107]傅元略.企业集团财务资源协同管理效应的度量[J].中国工业经济,2003(9)：66-71
[108]陈宏明,卢凤君,苏文凤. 企业集团内部效绩评价体系模式研究—以电力企业集团为例[J].会计研究,2003 (3) 28-34
[109]周长青.当代公司业绩评价体系创新的若干问题研究[D].厦门大学博士学位论文,2001年
[110]安德烈·A·德瓦尔著,汪开虎译.绩效管理魔力[M].上海,上海交通大学出版社,2002年(第一版)：6-10
[111]财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价工作指南[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2002年
[112]张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002年
[113]支晓强.如何选择业绩评价标准[J].会计研究,2000(11)：11-15
[114]于增彪.关于集团公司预算管理系统的框架研究[J].会计研究,2004(8)：22-26
[115]潘琰,程小可.上市公司经营业绩的主成分评价方法[J].会计研究,2000(1)：32-36
[116]米传军,李志祥.基于模糊综合评判的企业集团内部绩效评价[J].中国管理科学,2005(10)：536-542
[117]徐光华.基于共生理论的企业战略绩效评价研究[D].南京农业大学博士学位论文,2007年：84-86
[118]张川,潘飞等.业绩评价指标在我国的运用现状及启示[J].经济与管理研究,2007(12)：22-27
[1]9]吴应宇.企业可持续竞争能力系统评价指标体系研究[J].《会计研究》2003(7)：43-47
[120]田超.企业集团经营业绩评价体系设计[J].交通财会,2006(4)：50-54
[121]田超.我国企业集团内部业绩评价指标体系的建立及应用[J].集团经济研究,2006(1)：17-18
[122]崔芳芳.产业型企业集团对子公司业绩评价体系研究[J].集团经济研究,2007(12)：30-31
[123]王月欣.集团公司评价子公司业绩指标与方法探讨[J].国有资产管理,2004(8)：11-13
[124]刘俊勇,孙薇.集团公司业绩评价的案例分析[J].中国注册会计师,2004(8)：49-50
[125]张宏亮,王军.集团公司业绩评价体系研究[J].经济与管理,2003(8)：42-43
[126]吴文具.企业集团管理业绩评价指标的选择[J].经济论坛,2004(6)：63-65
[127]邹志勇,武春友.企业集团管理协同能力理论模型研究[J].财经问题研究,2008(9)：99-102
[128]杨立芳,李薇等.分布特点与分部财务业绩指标关系的实证研究.摘自《业绩评价与激励机制实证研究》[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2008：1-9
[129]李晓梅.企业战略业绩评价研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2008：137-138
[130]孙国忠,赵文祥.关于对业务流程重组的再评述[J].工业技术经济,2001(6)
[131]赵延东.求职者的社会网络与就业保留工资--以下岗职工再就业过程为例[J].社会学研究,2003(4)
[132]赵延东,罗家德.如何测量社会资本：一个经验研究综述[J].国外社会科学,2005(2)：18-24
[133]王夏阳,陈宏辉.基于资源基础与网络能力的中小企业国际化研究[J].外国
经济与管理,2002(6)：23-28
[134]徐金发,许强,王勇.企业的网络能力剖析[J].外国经济与管理,2001(11)：21-25
[135]吴结兵.基于企业网络结构与动态能力的产业集群竞争优势研究[D].浙江大学博士论文,2006
[136]张宝贵,刘东.企业能力：理论与实证研究文献综述[J].经济评论,2006(6)：147-151
[137]慕继丰,冯宗宪,陈方丽.企业网络的运行机理与企业的网络管理能力[J].外国经济与管理,2001(10)：21-25
[138]王学工,刘人怀.我国企业集团化与企业绩效关系实证研究[J].经济管理,2008(14)：45-50
[139]李文海.我国企业集团多元化与竞争力关系实证研究[J].统计教育,2008(8)：3-9
[140]朱朝霞.关于国有资本金效绩评价体系的研究—基于委托代理理论的研究[J].财经研究,2000(5)：9-13
[141]郭立田,张旭蕾.建立企业集团内部效绩评价体系的再思考[J].河北经贸大学学报,2005(1)：63-67
[142]张川,潘飞等.非财务指标与企业财务业绩相关吗—一项基于中国国有企业的实证研究[J].中国工业经济,2006(11)：99-107
[143]张川,潘飞等.企业发展潜力指标对财务业绩的反映与预测能力分析—来自中国国有企业的证据[J].山西财经大学学报,2007(9)：118-124
[144]张川,潘飞,John Robinson.非财务指标采用后的业绩后果实证研究—代理理论Vs.权变理论[J].会计研究,2008(2)：39-46
[145]胡至勇.国有资本金效绩评价体系的价值相关性[J].会计研究,2004(10)：54-62
[146]陈琳,王平心,汪方军.EVA对企业绩效评价模式的改进—神经网络在绩效评价中的应用[J].系统工程,2006(3)：88-94
[147]李永锋,司春林.基于神经网络的制造业企业供应链合作绩效模糊综合评价[J].经济管理,2008(2)：17-21
[148]朱启红,张钢.人工神经网络在组织网络化发展评价中的应用[J].计算机应用研究,2007(6)：239-241
[149]王爱民.神经网络应用于模糊综合评价的研究[J].系统工程理论与实践,1995(10)：37-42
[150]胡守仁.神经网络导论[M].北京：国防科技大学出版社,1993：25-36
[151]赵全波,汪波,梁振.BP神经网络在企业综合业绩评价中的应用研究与改进[J].工业工程,2005(5)：102-107
[152]Abdel-Maksouda, David Dugdaleb and Robert Luther. Non-financial performance mearsurement in manufacturing companies. The British Accounting Review,2005(37):261-297.
[153]Adler, Paul&Kwon, Seok-Woo, Social capital:prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review,2002,27(1).
[154]Ahmad Hosseini, Zabihollah Rezaee. Impacts of SFAS No.52 and Performance Measures of Multinationls. The International Journal of Accounting, 1990.25(1):43-52.
[155]Alan C. Maltz, Aaron J. Shenhar and Richars R. Reilly. Beyond the balanced scorecard:refining the search for organizational success measures. Long Range Planning,2003.36.
[156]Amal A. Said, Hassan R. Hassab Elnaby, and Benson Wier. An Empirical Investigation of the Performance Consequences of Non- financial Measures[J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,2003, (15).
[157]Anderson, E., C. Fornell, and D. Lehmann. CS, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden [J]. Journal of Marketing,1994,(7).
[158]Arrow, Kenneth. J. Control in Large Organizations. [J]. Management Science, 10:397-408.
[159]Back B, Sere K, Vanharanta H. Analyzing financial performance with self-organizing maps [A]. Proceedings of the workshop on self-organizing maps WSOM.97[c]. Espo. Finland.1997,June 4～6:356-361.
[160]Baliga and Wayne. Incentive pay plans emphasize nonfinancial measures. [J]. Journal of Accountancy. New York:May 1993. Vol.175, Iss.5:17-18.
[161]Band, William. Measuring the High Payoff from Satisfied Customers [J]. Sales & Marketing Management in Canada,1988, (December).
[162]Banker, R.D., Potter, G., Srinivasan D. An Empirical Investigation of an Incentive Plan that Includes Nonfinancial Performance Measures.[J]. The Accounting Review,2000, (75).
[163]Behin, B. and Riley, R. Using nonfinancial information to predict financial performance:the case of the U.S. airline industry. [J]. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance,1999(14):29-56.
[164]Bernhardt, N. Donthu,& P.A. Kennett. A Longitudinal Analysis of Satisfaction and Profitability [J]. Journal of Business Research,2000, (47).
[165]Birkinshaw, J. and N. Hood. Multinational Subsidiary Evolution:Capabilities and Charter Change in Foreign-owned Companies [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1998, (4).
[166]Borman W C, Motowidlo S J. Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance [CJ. In N. Schmitt,& W. C. Borman(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1993.71-98
[167]Bonnan W C, Motowldlo S J. Task and contextual performance:the meaning for personnel selection research [J]. Human Perforinsnce,1997(10)99-109.
[168]Borman,W C, Motowldlo S J. A theory of individual diferent in task and contextual performance [J]. Human Performance,1997,10(2):71-83.
[169]Bruns,W. J. and Waterhouse, J. H. Budgetary control and organizational structure. Journal of Accounting Research,1975(8):177-203.
[170]Burt, R.S. Schott, T. Relation Contents in Multiple Networks.[J]. Social Science Research,1985(14):297-308.
[171]Burt, R.S. Structural Holes [M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1992.
[172]Burt, R.S. The Network Structure of Social Capital. [J]. Research in Organizational Behavior,2000, Vol.22.
[173]Bushman, R.M., R.J. Indejejikian, and Simith, A. CEO compensation:the role of individual performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1996(21):161-193.
[174]Callen J C, Kwan C C Y, Yip P C Y, Yuan Y. Neural network forecasting of quarterly accounting earnings [J]. International Journal of Forecasting, 1996,12(4):475-482.
[175]Cambell J P. Modeling the performance prediction Problem in industrial and organutional Psyehology ln:MD Dunneue, LM Hough ed. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology.2nded. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press,1990:687-732
[176]Chang. S.j. and Choi. U. Strategy, structure, and performance in Korean business groups:A transaction cost approach [J].Journal of Industrial Economics, 1988,Voll.37
[177]Chapman C.S. Accountants in organizationganl networks.[J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1998(8):737-766.
[178]Chenhall, R.H. and Morris, D. The impact of structure, environment and interdependencies on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems.[J]. The Accounting Review,1986(61):16-35.
[179]Chenhall, R.H. Reliance on manufacturing performance measures, total quality management and organizational performance.[J]. Management Accounting Research,1997(8):187-206.
[180]Chenhall, R.H. Management control system design within its organizational context:findings from contingency-based research and directions from the future. 2003, The AOS 25th Anniversary Conference
[181]Chuan Zhang, Fei Pan, John Robinson. An empirical study on performance results after adopting non-financial indicators-Contingency theory Vs. Agency theory, International Symposium on Chinese Accounting, Finance and Management, Cardiff,2006(6):29-30/
[182]Coase, R. H. The Nature of the Firm[J]. Economica,1937,4(16):386-405
[183]Daft R.L. and Macintosh N.J. Atentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units.[J] Administrative Science Quarterly,1981, pp207-244.
[184]Daft R.L. Essentials of Organization Theory and Design.[M]. South-Western College Press,1998.
[185]Daniel, S.J. and W.D. Reitsperger. Linking quality strategy with management control system:Empirical evidence from Japanese industry.[J] Accounting, Organization and Society,1991, Vol.16, No.7:603-617.
[186]Defond, M. L., Park, C. W. The effect of competition on CEO turnover.[J] Journal of Accounting ang Economics.1999(27):35-56.
[187]Desai V S · Bharati R. A comparison of linear regression and neural network methods for predicting excess returns on large stocks. [J]. Annals of Operations Research,1998(78):127-163
[188]Dent J.F. Strategy, organization and control:some possibilities for accpecting research. [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1990(15):3-25.
[189]Duhaime, IreneM , et al. Determinates of Competitive Advantage in the network Organizational Form:a Pilot Study[R]·working paper,2002·
[190]Dunk, A.S. Reliance on budgetary control, manufacturing process automation and production sub-unit performance:a research note.[J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1992(17,3\4):185-239.
[191]Eelke Wierama. An exploratory study of relative and incremental information content of two non-financial performance measures:Field study evidence on absence frequency and on-time delivery [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,2008(33):249-265.
[192]Eugene W. Anderson, Claes Fornell, & Sanal K. Mazvancheryl, Customer Satisfaction and Shareholder Value [J]. Journal of Marketing,2004,68(10).
[193]Fatouros, A. A., Towards an Iiternational Agreement on Foreign Direct Investment, in Towards Multinational Investment Rules, Paris, OECD,1996.
[194]Feltham, G. A., and J. Xie. Performance Measures Congruity and Diversity in Multi-task Principal/Agent Relations [J]. The Accounting Review,1994, 69(July).
[195]Fornell, Claes. A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer:The Swedish Experience [J]. Journal of Marketing,1992,56(January).
[196]Fountain, J. Social Capital:A Key Enable of Innovation in Science and Technology[A]. In Branscomb L. M.& Keller, J. (Eds.), Investing in Innovation towards a Consensus Strategy for Federal Technology Policy[M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press,2000(1997)
[197]Freeman, L. C. Centrality in Social Networks:Conceptual Clarification. [J]. Social Networks,1979,1:215-239
[198]Freeman, C. Networks of Innovators:A Synthesis of Research Issues [J].
Research Policy,1991,20(5):499-514
[199]Froot, K. Foreign direct investment. Chicago, IL:The University of Chicago Press.1993.
[200]Galaskiewicz, J. Inter-organizational Relations. [J].Annual Review of Sociology, 1985,11:281-304.
[201]Gedajlovic, E. R., and Shapiro, D. M., Management and Ownership Effects: Evidence from Five Countries [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1998, Vol.19, 533-553.
[202]Geoffrey, B. Sprinkle. The effect of incentive contracts on learning and performance. [J]. The Accounting Review,2000, Vol.75. No.3:299-326.
[203]Ghoshal, S., Nohria, N. Internal Differentiation Within Multinational Corporations. [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1980(10):323-327.
[204]Ghoshal, S.,Bartlett,C. The Multinational Corporation as an Inter-organizational Network [J]. Academy of Management Review,1990,15(4):603-625.
[205]Ghoshal, S., Westney, D.E. Organization Theory of Multinational Corporation [M]. New York,1993:7.
[206]Govindarajan, V. Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: An empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable. [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1984(9,):125-135.
[207]Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A. K. Linking control systems to business unit strategy:impact on performance. [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1985:51-66.
[208]Granovetter, M., The Strength of Weak Ties [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1973(78-6):1360-1380.
[209]Granovetter, M., Network Sampling:Some First Strps [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1976(81-6):1287-1303.
[210]Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure:the problem of embeddedness.[J]. American Journal of Sociology,1985,91(3):481-510.
[211]Grieves J. The origins of organizational development.[J]. Journal of Management Development,2000,19(5):345-447.
[212]Guill e. n, M. F. Business Groups in Emerging Economies:A Resource-based View [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(3):362-380.
[213]Gulati. Ranjay et al. Strategic Networks. [M]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, Vol.211:pp781-790.
[214]Gulati. Network Location and Learning:The Influence of Network Resources and Firm Capabilities on Alliance Formation. [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1990,20:397-420.
[216]Gulati. Alliances and Networks. [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1999(19), special issue.
[217]Gupta, A. K.& Govindarajan, V. Knownoledge Flows and the Structure of Control Within Multinational Firms. [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1991(16):768-792.
[218]Hayes, D. The contingency theory of managerial accounting. [J]. The Accounting Review,1977(1):23-39.
[219]Hirschey, M., V. Richardson and S. Scholz. Value relevance of non-financial information:The case of patent data. [J].1998, Working paper, University of Kansas.
[220]Hirst, M. K. Reliance on accounting performance measures, task uncertainty and dysfunctional behaviour.[J]. Journal of Accounting Research,1983(21, 2):596-605.
[221]Holmstrom B. Moral Hazard and Observability.[J]. Bell Journal of Economics, 1979(10):74-91.
[222]Hoskisson. R.E. Multidivisional structure and performance:The contingency of diversification strategy [J]. Academy of Management Journal,1987, Vol.30.
[223]Ittner C. D., and David F. Larcker. Are Non- financial Measures Leading Indicators of Financial Performance? An Analyse of Customer Satisfaction [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,1998, (Supplement):1-35.
[224]Ittner C. D., and David F. Larcker, Innovations in Performance Measurement: Trends and Research Implications [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,1998, (10):205-238.
[225]Ittner C. D., and David F. Larcker, Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting:A value-based management perspective. [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,2001(32):349-410.
[226]Ittner C. D., and David F. Larcker. Determinants of performance measure choices in worker incentive plans. [J]. Journal of Labor Economics.2002, 20(2):59-91.
[227]Ittner C. D., and David F. Larcker and Taylor Randall. Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial service firms. [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,2003(28):715-741.
[228]Jarillo, J. Carlos and Martinez, J. I. Different Roles for Subsidiaries:The Case of Multinational Corporations in Spain [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1990, (11):501-512.
[229]Jean-Francois Henri. Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. [J].Accounting, Organizations and Society,2006(31):77-103.
[230]Johnson. J.& L. C. Mattsson. Interorganizational Relations in Industrial Systems:A Network Approach Compared with the Transaction-cost Approach, in Bengt Johannisson, eds [J]. International Studies of Management & Organization, M. E. Shape Inc.,1987:34-48.
[231]Johanna Hyvonen. Strategy, performance measurement techniques and information technology of the firm and their links to organizational performance. [J]. Management Accounting Research,2007(3).
[232]John C H S, Balakr Ishnan N, et al, Modeling the relation between corporate strategy and wealth creation using neural networks. [J]. Compute r & Operations Research,2000,27 (11-12):1077-1092.
[233]Kaplan. S. Measuring manufacturing performance:A new challenge for managerial accounting research. [J]. The Accounting Review,1983(10):686-705.
[234]Kaplan. S. and Mackey, J.T. An examination of the association between managerial Performance Evaluation. [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,1992(4):116-130.
[235]Kaplan. S. and D. Norton. The Balanced-Scorecard:Measures that Drive Performance. [J].Harvard Business Review,1992(1-2):71-79.
[236]Kaplan. S. and D. Norton. The Balanced-Scorecard:Translating Strategy into Action. [M]. Boston. MA. Havard Business School Press,1996.
[237]Katz D., Kahn, R L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. [J].2nd. New York:Wiley,1978.
[238]Keating, A. Determinants of Divisional Performance Evaluation Practices [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,1997(24):243-273.
[239]Keister, L. f. Engineering Growth:Business Group Structure and Firm Performance in China's Transition Economy [J]. American Journal of Sociology,1998,104(2):404-440
[240]Khandwalla P. Design of organizations. New York. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1977..
[241]Khanna, T, Rivkin, J. W. Estimating the Performance Effects of Business Groups in Emerging Markets [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(1): 45-74.
[242]Kogut, B., Zander, U. Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation. [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1993,24(4):625-645.
[243]Kogut, B., Kulatilaka, N. Operating Flexibility, Global Manufacturing, and the Option Value of a Multinational Network. [J]. Management Science, 1995,40:123-139.
[244]Langfield-Smith. K. Management Control Systems and Strategy:A Critical Review. [J]. Accounting, Organization and Society.1997, Vol.22, No.2:207-232
[245]Lazzarini, Sergio Giovanetti. Formal and Informal Governance of Interorganization Relations. PH.D Dissertation. Washington University,2002.
[246]Lechner, C.& Dowling, M. Firm Networks:External Relationships Sources for the Growth and Competitiveness of Entrepreneurial Firms [J]. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,2003,15(2-4):1
[247]Luthans, F. The contingency theory of management:a path out of the jungle. [M]. Business Horizons,1973(6):67-72.
[248]Macintosh, N. and Daft, R. L. Management control system and departmental interdependencies:an empirical study.[J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1987:23-48.
[249]Mark L. Frigo. Nonfinancial performance measures and strategy execution. [J]. Strategic finance,2002(8):6-9.
[250]Mary A. Malina and Frank H. Selto. Communicating and controlling strategy: an empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. [J]. Journal of
Management Accounting Research,2001(13):47-89.
[251]Matthew C. H. Yeung and Christine T. Ennew. From Customer Satisfaction to Profitability [J]. Journal of Strategic Marketing,2000, (8).
[252]McNair, Carol J. Lynch, Richaed L; Cross, Kelvin F. Do financial and non-financial performance measures have to agree? [J]. Management Accounting 1990(11):28-36.
[253]Megan.Walters. Performance Measurement Systems-a Case Study of Customer Satisfaction [J]. Facilities,1999,17, (March/April).
[254]Merchant, K. The design of the corporate budgeting system:influences on managerial behavior and performance.[J].The Accounting Review, 1981 (4):813-829.
[255]Miguel I. G'omez, Edward W. McLaughlin, Dick R. Wittink. Customer Satisfaction and Retail Sales Performance:An Empirical Investigation [J]. Journal of Retailing,2004, (80).
[256]Moores, K. and Sharma, D. The influence of environmental uncertainity on performance evaluation style and managerial performance.[J]. Accountability and Performance,1998(4\2):1-16.
[257]Nahapiet, J.& Ghoshal, S. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1998, 23(2):242-266
[258]Nanni, A.J.Jr, Dixon, J.R. and Vollmann, T.E. Integrated performance measurement:Management accounting to support the new manufacturing realities. [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,1992:1-19.
[259]Nelson, Eugene C., et al. Do Patient Perceptions of Quality Relate to Hospital Financial Performance [J]. Journal of Health Care Marketing,1992, (December).
[260]Nooteboom, B, and V.A. Gilsing. Density and strength of ties, a competence and governance view. Working Paper,2004.
[261]Otley, D. The Contingency Theory of Management Accounting:Achievement and Prognosis [J]. Accounting, Organization and Society.1980, Vol.5, No.4, PP.413-428.
[262]Otley, D. Performance management:a framework for management control system research. [J]. Management Accounting Research,1999(10):363-382.
[263]Park, Seung Ho. Managing an Inter-organizational Network:A Framework of the Institutional Mechanism for Network Control. [J]. Organization Studies, 1996,17(5):795-824.
[264]Perera, CT., Harrison and Poole. Customer- focused Manufacturing Strategy and the Use of Operations- based Non- financial Performance Measures:A Research Note [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1997(6):557-572.
[265]Peter J. Buckley, Foreign Direct Investment and Multinational Enterprises, Macmillan Press Ltd.,1995.
[266]Peter F. Drucker. The Information Executives Truly Need to Know. Harvard Business Review, January/February,1995.
[267]Polanyi. K. Trade and market in the early empires. [M]. Glencoe:The Free Press,1957.
[268]Powell, W.W. Neither Market nor Hierarchy:Network Forms of Organization [J]. Research in Organization Behavior,1990(12).
[269]Powell, W. W.,& Koput, K.W.,& Smith-Doerr, L. Inter-organizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation:Networks of Learning in Biotechnology [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(1):116-145.
[270]Preffer and Salancik. The External Control of Organization. Harper and Row, 1978
[271]Quinlan, Michael R., et al. How Does Service Drive the Service Company [J]. Harvard Business Review,1991, (November-December).
[272]Reichheld & Frederrick F. The loyalty effect-the relationship between loyalty and profits. European Business Journal,2000,12(3):173-179.
[273]Richard A, Lambert. Customer Satisfaction and Future Financial Performance Discussion of are Nonfinancial Measures Leading Indicators of Financial Performance? An Analysis of Customer Satisfaction [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,1998,36(Supplement).
[274]Ross, A. Job related tension, budget emphasis and uncertainty. Management Accounting Research,1995(6)1-11.
[275]Sally K. Widener. Associations between strategic resource importance and performance measure use:The impact on firm performance. [J]. Management Accounting Research,2006(17):433-457.
[276]Schiff. A.D. and L.R. Hoffman. An exploration of the use of financial and nonfinancial measures of performance in a service organization. [J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting,1996(8):134-153.
[277]Simons, R. The role of management control system in creating competitive advantage:new-perspective.[J].Accounting,OrganizationandSociety,1990(15):12 7-143.
[278]Snow, C. C., Miles, R.E., Coleman, JR.H.J. Managing 21st Century Network Organizations. [J]. Organizational Dynamics, Winter,1992.
[279]Stuart, T.E. Producer Network Positions and Propensities to Collaborate:An Investigation of Strategic Alliance Formations in a High-technology Industry. [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1998,43:668-698.
[280]Tichy, N. M.& Tushman, M. L.& Fombrun, C. Social Network Analysis for Organizations[J]. Academy of Management Review,1979,4(4):507-519
[281]Tornow, Walter W., and Wiley, Jack W. Service Quality and Management Practices:A Look at Employee Attitudes, Customer Satisfaction, and Bottom-line Consequences. [J]. Human Resource Planning,1991, (14).
[282]Uzzi, B. The Sources and Consequence of Embeddedness for Economic Performance of Organizations:The Network Effect. [J]. American Sociological Review,1996(61):674-698.
[283]Waterhouse, J. and Tiessen, P. A contingency framework for management accounting systems research. [J]. Accounting, Organization and Society,1978, Vol.3, No.1:65-76.
[284]White, H. C., Boorman, S. A.& Breiger, R. L., Social Structure from Multiple Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1976(81-4):730-780.
[285]Yeung, Matthew C.H. and Ennew, Christine T. From customer satisfaction to profitability. [J].Journal of Strategic Marketing,2000(12):313-326.
[286]Zahirul Hoque, Lokman Mia and Manzurul Alam. Market competition, computer-aided manufacturing and use of multiple performance measures:an empirical study.[J]. British Accounting Review,2001(33):23-45.
[287]Zahirul Hoque and Wendy James. Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors:impact on organization performance. [J]. Journal of management Accounting Research,2000(12):1-17.
[288]Zheng R Y, Harrison R G.. Analysing company performance using templates [J]. Intelligent Data Analysis,2002,6(1):3-15.
① Powell, W.W. Neither Market nor Hierarchy:Network Forms of Organization [J]. Research in Organization Behavior,1990(12).
①迈克尔·波特.竞争优势[M].北京：华夏出版社,1991年版
①席酉民,韩平,张禾.企业集团竞争力与业绩评价[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2004,PP149-150
① White, H. C., Boorman, S. A.& Breiger, R. L., Social Structure from Multiple Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1976(81-4):730-780.
② Granovetter, M., The Strength of Weak Ties [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1973(78-6):1360-1380.
③ Granovetter, M., Network Sampling:Some First Strps [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1976(81-6): 1287-1303.
①李彬、潘爱玲.母子公司业绩评价的理论基础整合研究[J].华东经济管理,2010(3)：63-66
① Kaplan. S. and D. Norton.1992. The Balanced-Scorecard:Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review (January-February):71-79
①王化成,刘俊勇,孙薇.企业业绩评价[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004
①注：在子公司非财务指标研究方面,美国会计学会于1973年就在其研究报告中指出要关注子公司面临的可控与不可控因素,建议使用附加的非财务指标。
② Fatouros, A. A., Towards an Iiternational Agreement on Foreign Direct Investment, in Towards Multinational Investment Rules, Paris, OECD.1996.
②刑汉兵.跨国公司战略管理子系统—业绩评价系统研究[D].南京理工大学博士论文,2005
①刘郎道(韩)著,卢珍译.综合绩效管理革命[M].北京：新华出版社,2004年,PP13-17
①李彬、潘爱玲.企业集团母子公司业绩评价研究：回顾与展望[J].会计之友,2010(3)：10-13
①注：还有的学者从权变理论、企业蜕变理论、组织生态理论、资源依附理论、新制度主义理论等方面分别论述了组织外部网络化的必要性。
②朱涛.企业网络战略[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2008年,PP1-11
①喻卫斌.不确定性和网络组织研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2007年,PP88-89.
② Preffer and Salancik. The External Control of Organization. Harper and Row,1978
① Duhaime, IreneM·, et al. Determinates of Competitive Advantage in the network Organizational Form:a Pilot Study[R]working paper,2002·
②顾江.生态系统稳定性统计模型分析运用[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2001(1)：98-100
①注：子公司稳定性评价主要从影响其稳定性的内部因素入手,包括子公司个体网络的规模、数量以及关系。其中关系对稳定性的影响最大,也是评价的主体,要从横向关系和纵向关系两方面分析其对稳定性的影响,一般说来横向关系一般有助于保持稳定,纵向关系则要具体分析。具体参见：黄志鸿.生态工业园工业共生网络稳定性研究[J].科技与产业,2006(10)：28-31;蓝庆新,韩晶.网络组织成员合作的稳定性模型分析[J].财经问题研究,2006(6)：49-53
①注：本表格是在池国华(2005)相关研究成果的基础上结合参考资料总结提炼而成。[英]理查德·S·威廉姆斯著,赵正斌等译.业绩管理[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2003(第1版),PP217;[英]加里·阿什沃斯著,李克成译.整合绩效管理[M].北京：电子工业出版社,2002(第1版),PP51。
①注：该图引自池国华教授的博士论文《现代企业内部管理业绩评价系统设计研究》(东北财经大学,2005年),并结合企业集团网络组织特性绘制而成。
①张先治.内部管理控制论[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004(第1版),第85页
①权变理论成熟之后,研究者便开始将这种方法引入到管理控制研究当中,并逐渐成为不可或缺的一部分。如Dent (1990)就指出,权变方法已成为管理控制系统研究的主旋律,不考虑控制环境而孤立的研究管理控制系统是很难设计出科学合理的控制体系的。(详见：Dent J.F.1990. Strategy. organization and control:some possibilities for accpunting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society,15, pp3-25.)
② Chenhall, R.H.2003. Management control system design within its organizational context:findings from contingency-based research and directions from the future. The AOS 25th Anniversary Conference. Chenhall, R.H.1997. Reliance on manufacturing performance measures, total quality management and organizational performance. Management Accounting Research,8, pp187-206.
①注：不确定性是影响母子公司业绩评价系统主要的外部因素,企业集团网络化和权变理论均关注其影响；对不确定程度的分析,可以采用“简单—负责”和“稳定—不稳定”两方面来判断。
② Govindarajan, V.1984, Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation:An empirical examination of environmental uncertainity as an intervening variable. Accounting, Organizations and Society.9, pp125-135.
③ Moores, K. and Sharma, D.1998. The influence of environmental uncertainity on performance evaluation style and managerial performance. Accountability and Performance,4,2, pp1-16.
④ Ross, A.1995. Job related tension, budget emphasis and uncertainty. Management Accounting Research,6, pp1-11.
⑤ Chapman C.S.1998. Accountants in organizationganl networks. Accounting, Organizations and Society,23,8, pp737-766.
① Bruns, W. J. and Waterhouse. J. H.1975. Budgetary control and organizational structure. Journal of Accounting Research.8. pp177-203.
② Merchant, K.1981. The design of the corporate budgeting system:influences on managerial behavior and performance. The Accounting Review,4, pp813-829.
③ Chenhall. R.H. and Morris, D.1986. The impact of structure, environment and interdependencies on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems. The Accounting Review,61, pp16-35.
④王化成,刘俊勇.企业业绩评价模式研究—兼论中国企业业绩评价模式选择[J].管理世界,2004(4)：82-91.
⑤注:Hayes的研究表明,业绩评价的影响因素和评价指标的选择应根据部门职能性质的不同有所区别。参见Hayes, D.1977. The contingency theory of managerial accounting. The Accounting Review,1, pp23-39.
⑥注：例如对生产型子公司,影响其业绩的主要因素主要来自于内部营运,因此评价的重点应放在作业流程上；而对于研发型子公司,对其评价时不能以短期的财务指标为主,而应强调被评价单位的参与程度,更多的采用非财务指标。
⑦ Gedajlovic, E. R., and Shapiro, D. M., Management and Ownership Effects:Evidence from Five Countries, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.19,533-553,1998.
①注：专制型是一种高度控制下的等级结构制度,决策权大多集中在母公司,子公司仅负责行动,不许对结果负责；仁慈专制型和专制型基本类似,仅是增加了组织成员发言的机会。控制民主型将决策权适当的下放,鼓励成员按照自己的想法去行动并勇于承担责任,母公司保留必要条件下的最终决策权；自由民主型母公司将决策权充分下放,等级制度不严格且相当灵活,组织成员大多均有权参与决策并承担责任。但是,对于企业集团网络组织而言,复杂的外部环境和组织间关系使得完全专制和完全民主的方式受到限制,相比较而言,控制民主型的管理风格可能更适合于企业集团。
②注：企业集团内部财务安排是指母公司与子公司、子公司之间发生的财务联系。其中经营性财务安排是指集团内部发生的与实业有关的资金、产品、技术等资源的转移；权益性财务安排包括母子公司间及子公司之间相互进行权益性投资以及由此产生的股利支付等问题；债务性财务安排,包括母子公司之间及子公司之间相互直接或者间接发生的借贷活动以及由此产生的还本付息等。
①李转良.全球经济一体化[M].天津：天津人民出版社,1999年
① Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A. K.1985. Linking control systems to business unit strategy:impact on performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, pp51-66.
① McNair, Carol J. Lynch, Richaed L; Cross, Kelvin F.1990. Do financial and non-financial performance measures have to agree? Manangement Accounting Nov.28-36. ② Abdel-Maksouda, David Dugdaleb and Robert Luther,2005. Non-financial performance mearsurement in manufacturing companies. The British Accounting Review,37:261-297.
③ Defond, M. L., Park, C. W.1999, The effect of competition on CEO turnover. Journal of Accounting ang Economics.27:35-56.
④ Khandwalla P..1977. Design of organizations. New York. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
⑤ Daft R.L. and Macintosh N.J.1981. A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp207-244.
⑥ Dunk, A.S.1992. Reliance on budgetary control, manufacturing process automation and production sub-unit performance:a research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society,17,3\4, pp185-239.
① Hirst, M. K.1983. Reliance on accounting performance measures, task uncertainty and dysfunctional behaviour. Journal of Accounting Research,21.2, pp596-605.
②注：集合依存性是指相邻部门间不存在直接的联系,序列依存性是指部门间仅存在单向联系,相互依存性是指部门间存在双向的相互联系。参见Macintosh, N. and Daft. R. L.1987. Manangement control system and departmental interdependencies:an empirical study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, pp23-48.
③周长青.当代公司业绩评价体系创新的若干问题研究.厦门大学博士学位论文,2001年.
①安德烈·A·德瓦尔著,汪开虎译.绩效管理魔力[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2002年(第一版),PP6-10
①财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价工作指南[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2002年
①理查德·威廉姆斯著,赵正斌等译.业绩管理[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,1999(第1版),PP122
①张川 2008年的研究亦是采用这种方法。朱朝霞于2000年也提到了类似的观点(参见朱朝霞.关于国有资本金效绩评价体系的研究—基于委托代理理论的研究[J].财经研究,2000(5)：9-13)。
①郭立田,张旭蕾.建立企业集团内部效绩评价体系的再思考[J].河北经贸大学学报,2005(1)：63-67
① Back B, Sere K, Vanharanta H. Analyzing financial performance with self-organizing maps[A]. Proceedings of the workshop on self-organizing maps WSOM'97[c]. Espo. Finland. June 4-6,1997:356-361.
①王爱民.神经网络应用于模糊综合评价的研究[J].系统工程理论与实践,1995(10)：37-42.
①赵全波、汪波、梁振.BP神经网络在企业综合业绩评价中的应用研究与改进[J].工业工程,2005(5)：102-107.
[1]张维迎.企业理论与中国企业改革[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1999：32-52
[2]陈志军.母子公司管理控制研究[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007
[3]伍柏麟,胡雄飞.关于发展大型企业集团的若干思考[J].毛泽东邓小平理论研究,1998(4)：15-22
[4]李森,韩树彦.企业集团发展的经济学解释[J].经济纵横,2008(7)：24-26
[5]仲伟周.企业集团与一体化经济组织[J].中国软科学,2000(8)：68-72
[6]席酉民等.企业集团竞争力和业绩综合评价[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2004：3-10
[7]李心合.企业集团财务管理问题研究[J].财经论丛,1994(5)：49-56
[8]吕源,姚俊,蓝海林.企业集团的理论综述与探讨[J].南开管理评论,2005(8)：28-35
[9]姚颐,刘志远,李冠众.我国企业集团财务控制现状的问卷调查与分析[J].会计研究,2007(8)：28-35
[10]阎海峰.跨国公司网络组织[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2007：115-126
[11]郭劲光.企业网络--类型比较及发展研究[J].郑州航空工业学院学报,2008(4)：118-122
[12]迈克尔·波特.竞争优势[M].北京：华夏出版社,1991年版。
[13]张富春,冯子标.企业集团：中间组织与有组织的市场[J].中国工业经济,1997(12)：45-50
[14]林云.我国企业集团形成中的市场作用和政府作用[J].中国工业经济,1998(6)：36-39
[15]魏守华,石碧华.论企业集群的竞争优势[J].中国工业经济,2002(1)
[16]黄龙英,郝新艳.企业集团与企业集群：两种企业组织形式的比较分析[J].社会科学论坛,2008(3)：83-85
[17]杜龙政,熊妮.企业集团与企业集群的互动与集群式创新的实施机制[J].改 革与战略,2008(1)：118-120
[18]李焕英,林键.企业战略网络管理模式[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2007：135-147
[19]高勇强,田志龙.母公司对子公司的管理和控制模式研究[J].南开管理评论,2002(4)：28-31
[20]葛晨,徐金发. 母子公司的管理与控制模式--北大方正集团、中国华诚集团等管理与控制模式案例评析[J].管理世界,1999(6)：190-196
[21]陈志军. 谈集团公司对子公司的控制与协调[J].山东经院学报,2001(1)：35-37
[22]王海光.企业集群共生治理的模式及演进研究[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2009：31-33
[23]刘清华,吴晓波.中小企业集群的知识转移分析[J].技术经济与管理,2002(4)：88
[24]中国集团公司促进会.母子公司关系研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004：13-21
[25]孟建民.中国企业效绩评价方法研究[M].北京,中国财政经济出版社,2002年(第一版)
[26]冯丽霞.企业财务分析与业绩评价[M].长沙,湖南人民出版社,2002(第1版)：1-3
[27]于增彪,张双才.企业集团业绩评价系统设计[J].新理财,2004(2)：20-27
[28]李玲玲.企业业绩评价---方法与运用[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2001
[29]任浩等.企业集团组织设计[M].上海：学林出版社,005：220-275
[30]张瑞君等.企业集团财务集中管理模式—e化财务集中管理模式的基本框架[J].管理世界,2004(2)：141-142
[31]巫升柱.企业集团母子公司公司财务控制系统构建研究[J].当代经济科学,2003(3)：78-83
[32]李艳平,谢福泉.子公司绩效评估探析[J].现代管理科学,2005(9)：88-89
[33]陈保华.所有权结构、代理冲突和公司价值---来自中国股票市场的经验数据[D].浙江大学博士学位论文,2004年
[34]高晨,汤谷良.主观业绩评价、高管激励与制度效果[J].中国工业经济,2009(4)：147-156
[35]李东红. 企业业绩评价体系与企业的性质[J].经济问题探索,2003(10)：11-14
[36]金井贤一著,金洪云译.内部组织的经济学[M].北京：三联书店,2004
[37]袁纯清.金融共生理论与城市商业银行改革[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002：7-12
[38]张蕊.企业经营业绩评价理论与方法的变革[J].会计研究,2001(12)：46-50
[39]李玲玲.企业业绩评价---方法与运用[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2004
[40]杜胜利.企业经营业绩评价[M].北京：经济科学出版社,1999
[41]杨雄胜,杨臻黛.企业综合评价指标体系研究[J].财政研究,1998(5)：6-10
[42]王化成,刘俊勇,孙薇.企业业绩评价[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004
[43]张川.业绩评价指标的采用与后果—基于我国企业的实证研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2008：30-31
[44]陈宝森.美国跨国公司的全球竞争[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999
[45]秦斌.一体化国际经营—关于跨国公司行为的分析[M].北京：中国发展出版社,1999.
[46]陈建梁.跨国公司投资管理[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1995
[47]刘郎道(韩)著,卢珍译.综合绩效管理革命[M].北京：新华出版社,2004：13-17
[48]邢向阳.企业集团子公司业绩评价研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报,2007(5)：119-121
[49]韵江,刘立,高杰.企业集团的价值创造与协同效应的实现机制[J].财经问题研究,2006(4)：79-86
[50]周昀.企业集团业绩评价指标体系的构建[J].集团经济研究,2007(10)：23-25
[51]罗彪.企业集团业绩管理系统比较研究[J].软科学,2007(8)：134-137
[52]孙永风,李垣.企业绩效评价的理论综述及存在的问题分析[J].预测,2004(2)：36-39
[53]卡明斯,沃里.组织发展与变革[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003
[54]夏立容.信息时代的标志及基本特征[J].自然辩证法研究,1996(8)：43-45
[55]欧阳锋,林丹阳等.信息时代的企业组织变革[M].北京：经济管理出版社,P79-81
[56]张钢,罗军.组织网络化发展研究述评[J].科学管理研究,2003(1)：60-64
[57]薛求知.无国界经营[M].上海：上海译文出版社,1997
[58]朱涛.企业网络战略[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2008：1-11
[59]林润辉,李维安.网络组织--更具环境适应能力的新型组织描述[J].南开管理评论,2000(3)：55-62
[60]李维安.网络组织：组织发展新趋势[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2000：219-225
[61]王凤彬.企业集团组织规模及边界的有效性[J].中国工业经济,1998(10)：44-49
[62]E.Laszlo & Ch.Laszlo著.文昭,黄丽华译.管理的新思维—第三代管理思想(中译本)[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2001年版：61-63
[63]喻卫斌.不确定性和网络组织研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2007：88-89
[64]安娜·格兰多里.企业网络：组织和产业竞争力[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005
[65]李海舰,聂辉华.论企业与市场的相互融合[J].中国工业经济,2004(8)：26-35
[66]黄咏梅.企业集团母公司和母合优势的形成[J].经济体制改革,2008(1)：85-89
[67]罗珉等.中间组织理论：基于不确定性和缓冲视角[J].中国工业经济,2005(10)：104-112
[68]罗仲伟,罗美娟.网络组织对层级组织的替代[J].中国工业经济,2001(6)：23-30
[69]罗仲伟.网络组织的特征及其经济学分析[J].外国经济与管理,2000(3)：25-32
[70]丸川知雄.关于集团中间组织产生的理论依据[J].中国工业经济,1992(9)：15-18
[71]庄慧彬等.国有企业集团公司组织结构与运营效率分析[J].财政研究,2008(7)：71-73
[72]孙国强.关系、互动与协同：网路组织的治理逻辑[J].中国工业经济,2003(11)：14-20
[73]冯巨章.企业合作网络边界—以商会为例[J].中国工业经济,2006(1)：72-79
[74]覃征等.网络企业管理[M].西安：西安交通大学出版社,2001：P87-90
[75]刘璐.企业外部网络对企业绩效影响研究：基于吸收能力视角[D].山东大学博士论文,2009年
[76]陈福添.跨国子公司定位研究—从科层范式到网络范式的演化[J].中国工业经济,2006(1)：64-71
[77]程国定,杨政.企业集团亟需理顺母子公司管理关系[J].中国工业经济,1999(3)：51-54
[78]陈劲,李飞宇.社会资本：对技术创新的社会学诠释[J].科学学研究,2001(9)：102-107
[79]张方华.知识型企业的社会资本与技术创新绩效的关系研究[D].浙江大学博士学位论文,2004
[80]孙天琦.产业组织结构研究--寡头主导大中小共生[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2001版
[81]顾江.生态系统稳定性统计模型分析运用[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2001(1)：98-100
[82]王兆华,尹建华.生态工业园中工业共生网络运作模式研究[J].中国软科学,2005(2)：80-85
[83]孙儒泳,李庆芬,牛翠娟等.生态学[M].北京：科学出版社,2000
[84]张萌,姜振寰,胡军.工业共生网络运作模式及稳定性分析[J].中国工业经济,2008(6)：77-85
[85]黄志鸿.生态工业园工业共生网络稳定性研究[J].科技与产业,2006(10)：28-31
[86]蓝庆新,韩晶.网络组织成员合作的稳定性模型分析[J].财经问题研究,2006(6)：49-53
[87]杨蕙馨,冯文娜.中间层次组织存在的合理性与稳定性分析[J].经济学动态,2004(9)
[88]韩翼,廖建桥.组织成员绩效结构理论研究述评[J].管理科学学报,2006(4)：86-94
[89]周智红,王二平.作业绩效和关系绩效[J].心理学动态,2000(8)：54-57
[90]罗正学等.任务绩效、关系绩效与工作绩效的关系研究[J].中国行为医学科学,2006(5)：451-452
[91]高红卫.企业集团内部交易问题研究[J].航天工业管理,2003(3)：4-6
[92]曹建安,张禾.国内外绩效评价发展的几个新特点[J].生产力研究,2003(1)：36-39
[93][英]理查德·S·威廉姆斯著,赵正斌等译.业绩管理[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2003(第1版)：217-220
[94][英]加里·阿什沃斯著,李克成译.整合绩效管理[M].北京：电子工业出版社,2002(第1版)：51-53
[95]池国华.现代企业内部管理业绩评价系统设计研究[D].东北财经大学博士学位论文,2005年
[96]张先治.内部管理控制论[M].北京,中国财政经济出版社,2004(第1版)：78-87
[97]王雎.跨组织资源与企业合作：基于关系的视角[J].中国工业经济,2006(4)：44-51
[98]刘运国,陈国菲.BSC与EVA相结合的企业绩效评价研究—基于GP企业集团的案例分析[J].会计研究,2007(9)：50-59
[99]季红梅,罗彪.国有企业集团业绩管理政策及主要工具述评[J].价值工程,2007(5)：10-15
[100]张跃宁.企业集团绩效评价模式比较[J].经济理论研究,2006(6)：32-35
[101]王化成,刘俊勇.企业业绩评价模式研究—兼论中国企业业绩评价模式选择[J].管理世界,2004(2)：82-91
[102]陈共荣,曾峻. 企业绩效评价主体的演进及其对绩效评价的影响[J].会计研究,2005 (4) 65-68
[103]陆庆平.以企业价值最大化为导向的企业绩效评价体系[J].会计研究,2006(3)56-62
[104]李苹莉.经营者业绩评价—利益相关者模式[M].杭州,浙江人民出版社,2001年
[105]华锦阳.转型时期公司治理与公司绩效的关联研究[M].上海,上海财经大学出版社,2003年
[106]杨宗昌,许波.企业经营绩效评价模式研究—我国电信企业集团经营绩效考评方法初探[J].会计研究,2003(12)
[107]傅元略.企业集团财务资源协同管理效应的度量[J].中国工业经济,2003(9)：66-71
[108]陈宏明,卢凤君,苏文凤. 企业集团内部效绩评价体系模式研究—以电力企业集团为例[J].会计研究,2003 (3) 28-34
[109]周长青.当代公司业绩评价体系创新的若干问题研究[D].厦门大学博士学位论文,2001年
[110]安德烈·A·德瓦尔著,汪开虎译.绩效管理魔力[M].上海,上海交通大学出版社,2002年(第一版)：6-10
[111]财政部统计评价司.企业效绩评价工作指南[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2002年
[112]张蕊.企业战略经营业绩评价指标体系研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002年
[113]支晓强.如何选择业绩评价标准[J].会计研究,2000(11)：11-15
[114]于增彪.关于集团公司预算管理系统的框架研究[J].会计研究,2004(8)：22-26
[115]潘琰,程小可.上市公司经营业绩的主成分评价方法[J].会计研究,2000(1)：32-36
[116]米传军,李志祥.基于模糊综合评判的企业集团内部绩效评价[J].中国管理科学,2005(10)：536-542
[117]徐光华.基于共生理论的企业战略绩效评价研究[D].南京农业大学博士学位论文,2007年：84-86
[118]张川,潘飞等.业绩评价指标在我国的运用现状及启示[J].经济与管理研究,2007(12)：22-27
[1]9]吴应宇.企业可持续竞争能力系统评价指标体系研究[J].《会计研究》2003(7)：43-47
[120]田超.企业集团经营业绩评价体系设计[J].交通财会,2006(4)：50-54
[121]田超.我国企业集团内部业绩评价指标体系的建立及应用[J].集团经济研究,2006(1)：17-18
[122]崔芳芳.产业型企业集团对子公司业绩评价体系研究[J].集团经济研究,2007(12)：30-31
[123]王月欣.集团公司评价子公司业绩指标与方法探讨[J].国有资产管理,2004(8)：11-13
[124]刘俊勇,孙薇.集团公司业绩评价的案例分析[J].中国注册会计师,2004(8)：49-50
[125]张宏亮,王军.集团公司业绩评价体系研究[J].经济与管理,2003(8)：42-43
[126]吴文具.企业集团管理业绩评价指标的选择[J].经济论坛,2004(6)：63-65
[127]邹志勇,武春友.企业集团管理协同能力理论模型研究[J].财经问题研究,2008(9)：99-102
[128]杨立芳,李薇等.分布特点与分部财务业绩指标关系的实证研究.摘自《业绩评价与激励机制实证研究》[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2008：1-9
[129]李晓梅.企业战略业绩评价研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2008：137-138
[130]孙国忠,赵文祥.关于对业务流程重组的再评述[J].工业技术经济,2001(6)
[131]赵延东.求职者的社会网络与就业保留工资--以下岗职工再就业过程为例[J].社会学研究,2003(4)
[132]赵延东,罗家德.如何测量社会资本：一个经验研究综述[J].国外社会科学,2005(2)：18-24
[133]王夏阳,陈宏辉.基于资源基础与网络能力的中小企业国际化研究[J].外国
经济与管理,2002(6)：23-28
[134]徐金发,许强,王勇.企业的网络能力剖析[J].外国经济与管理,2001(11)：21-25
[135]吴结兵.基于企业网络结构与动态能力的产业集群竞争优势研究[D].浙江大学博士论文,2006
[136]张宝贵,刘东.企业能力：理论与实证研究文献综述[J].经济评论,2006(6)：147-151
[137]慕继丰,冯宗宪,陈方丽.企业网络的运行机理与企业的网络管理能力[J].外国经济与管理,2001(10)：21-25
[138]王学工,刘人怀.我国企业集团化与企业绩效关系实证研究[J].经济管理,2008(14)：45-50
[139]李文海.我国企业集团多元化与竞争力关系实证研究[J].统计教育,2008(8)：3-9
[140]朱朝霞.关于国有资本金效绩评价体系的研究—基于委托代理理论的研究[J].财经研究,2000(5)：9-13
[141]郭立田,张旭蕾.建立企业集团内部效绩评价体系的再思考[J].河北经贸大学学报,2005(1)：63-67
[142]张川,潘飞等.非财务指标与企业财务业绩相关吗—一项基于中国国有企业的实证研究[J].中国工业经济,2006(11)：99-107
[143]张川,潘飞等.企业发展潜力指标对财务业绩的反映与预测能力分析—来自中国国有企业的证据[J].山西财经大学学报,2007(9)：118-124
[144]张川,潘飞,John Robinson.非财务指标采用后的业绩后果实证研究—代理理论Vs.权变理论[J].会计研究,2008(2)：39-46
[145]胡至勇.国有资本金效绩评价体系的价值相关性[J].会计研究,2004(10)：54-62
[146]陈琳,王平心,汪方军.EVA对企业绩效评价模式的改进—神经网络在绩效评价中的应用[J].系统工程,2006(3)：88-94
[147]李永锋,司春林.基于神经网络的制造业企业供应链合作绩效模糊综合评价[J].经济管理,2008(2)：17-21
[148]朱启红,张钢.人工神经网络在组织网络化发展评价中的应用[J].计算机应用研究,2007(6)：239-241
[149]王爱民.神经网络应用于模糊综合评价的研究[J].系统工程理论与实践,1995(10)：37-42
[150]胡守仁.神经网络导论[M].北京：国防科技大学出版社,1993：25-36
[151]赵全波,汪波,梁振.BP神经网络在企业综合业绩评价中的应用研究与改进[J].工业工程,2005(5)：102-107
[152]Abdel-Maksouda, David Dugdaleb and Robert Luther. Non-financial performance mearsurement in manufacturing companies. The British Accounting Review,2005(37):261-297.
[153]Adler, Paul&Kwon, Seok-Woo, Social capital:prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review,2002,27(1).
[154]Ahmad Hosseini, Zabihollah Rezaee. Impacts of SFAS No.52 and Performance Measures of Multinationls. The International Journal of Accounting, 1990.25(1):43-52.
[155]Alan C. Maltz, Aaron J. Shenhar and Richars R. Reilly. Beyond the balanced scorecard:refining the search for organizational success measures. Long Range Planning,2003.36.
[156]Amal A. Said, Hassan R. Hassab Elnaby, and Benson Wier. An Empirical Investigation of the Performance Consequences of Non- financial Measures[J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,2003, (15).
[157]Anderson, E., C. Fornell, and D. Lehmann. CS, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden [J]. Journal of Marketing,1994,(7).
[158]Arrow, Kenneth. J. Control in Large Organizations. [J]. Management Science, 10:397-408.
[159]Back B, Sere K, Vanharanta H. Analyzing financial performance with self-organizing maps [A]. Proceedings of the workshop on self-organizing maps WSOM.97[c]. Espo. Finland.1997,June 4～6:356-361.
[160]Baliga and Wayne. Incentive pay plans emphasize nonfinancial measures. [J]. Journal of Accountancy. New York:May 1993. Vol.175, Iss.5:17-18.
[161]Band, William. Measuring the High Payoff from Satisfied Customers [J]. Sales & Marketing Management in Canada,1988, (December).
[162]Banker, R.D., Potter, G., Srinivasan D. An Empirical Investigation of an Incentive Plan that Includes Nonfinancial Performance Measures.[J]. The Accounting Review,2000, (75).
[163]Behin, B. and Riley, R. Using nonfinancial information to predict financial performance:the case of the U.S. airline industry. [J]. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance,1999(14):29-56.
[164]Bernhardt, N. Donthu,& P.A. Kennett. A Longitudinal Analysis of Satisfaction and Profitability [J]. Journal of Business Research,2000, (47).
[165]Birkinshaw, J. and N. Hood. Multinational Subsidiary Evolution:Capabilities and Charter Change in Foreign-owned Companies [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1998, (4).
[166]Borman W C, Motowidlo S J. Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance [CJ. In N. Schmitt,& W. C. Borman(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1993.71-98
[167]Bonnan W C, Motowldlo S J. Task and contextual performance:the meaning for personnel selection research [J]. Human Perforinsnce,1997(10)99-109.
[168]Borman,W C, Motowldlo S J. A theory of individual diferent in task and contextual performance [J]. Human Performance,1997,10(2):71-83.
[169]Bruns,W. J. and Waterhouse, J. H. Budgetary control and organizational structure. Journal of Accounting Research,1975(8):177-203.
[170]Burt, R.S. Schott, T. Relation Contents in Multiple Networks.[J]. Social Science Research,1985(14):297-308.
[171]Burt, R.S. Structural Holes [M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1992.
[172]Burt, R.S. The Network Structure of Social Capital. [J]. Research in Organizational Behavior,2000, Vol.22.
[173]Bushman, R.M., R.J. Indejejikian, and Simith, A. CEO compensation:the role of individual performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1996(21):161-193.
[174]Callen J C, Kwan C C Y, Yip P C Y, Yuan Y. Neural network forecasting of quarterly accounting earnings [J]. International Journal of Forecasting, 1996,12(4):475-482.
[175]Cambell J P. Modeling the performance prediction Problem in industrial and organutional Psyehology ln:MD Dunneue, LM Hough ed. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology.2nded. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press,1990:687-732
[176]Chang. S.j. and Choi. U. Strategy, structure, and performance in Korean business groups:A transaction cost approach [J].Journal of Industrial Economics, 1988,Voll.37
[177]Chapman C.S. Accountants in organizationganl networks.[J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1998(8):737-766.
[178]Chenhall, R.H. and Morris, D. The impact of structure, environment and interdependencies on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems.[J]. The Accounting Review,1986(61):16-35.
[179]Chenhall, R.H. Reliance on manufacturing performance measures, total quality management and organizational performance.[J]. Management Accounting Research,1997(8):187-206.
[180]Chenhall, R.H. Management control system design within its organizational context:findings from contingency-based research and directions from the future. 2003, The AOS 25th Anniversary Conference
[181]Chuan Zhang, Fei Pan, John Robinson. An empirical study on performance results after adopting non-financial indicators-Contingency theory Vs. Agency theory, International Symposium on Chinese Accounting, Finance and Management, Cardiff,2006(6):29-30/
[182]Coase, R. H. The Nature of the Firm[J]. Economica,1937,4(16):386-405
[183]Daft R.L. and Macintosh N.J. Atentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units.[J] Administrative Science Quarterly,1981, pp207-244.
[184]Daft R.L. Essentials of Organization Theory and Design.[M]. South-Western College Press,1998.
[185]Daniel, S.J. and W.D. Reitsperger. Linking quality strategy with management control system:Empirical evidence from Japanese industry.[J] Accounting, Organization and Society,1991, Vol.16, No.7:603-617.
[186]Defond, M. L., Park, C. W. The effect of competition on CEO turnover.[J] Journal of Accounting ang Economics.1999(27):35-56.
[187]Desai V S · Bharati R. A comparison of linear regression and neural network methods for predicting excess returns on large stocks. [J]. Annals of Operations Research,1998(78):127-163
[188]Dent J.F. Strategy, organization and control:some possibilities for accpecting research. [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1990(15):3-25.
[189]Duhaime, IreneM , et al. Determinates of Competitive Advantage in the network Organizational Form:a Pilot Study[R]·working paper,2002·
[190]Dunk, A.S. Reliance on budgetary control, manufacturing process automation and production sub-unit performance:a research note.[J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1992(17,3\4):185-239.
[191]Eelke Wierama. An exploratory study of relative and incremental information content of two non-financial performance measures:Field study evidence on absence frequency and on-time delivery [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,2008(33):249-265.
[192]Eugene W. Anderson, Claes Fornell, & Sanal K. Mazvancheryl, Customer Satisfaction and Shareholder Value [J]. Journal of Marketing,2004,68(10).
[193]Fatouros, A. A., Towards an Iiternational Agreement on Foreign Direct Investment, in Towards Multinational Investment Rules, Paris, OECD,1996.
[194]Feltham, G. A., and J. Xie. Performance Measures Congruity and Diversity in Multi-task Principal/Agent Relations [J]. The Accounting Review,1994, 69(July).
[195]Fornell, Claes. A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer:The Swedish Experience [J]. Journal of Marketing,1992,56(January).
[196]Fountain, J. Social Capital:A Key Enable of Innovation in Science and Technology[A]. In Branscomb L. M.& Keller, J. (Eds.), Investing in Innovation towards a Consensus Strategy for Federal Technology Policy[M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press,2000(1997)
[197]Freeman, L. C. Centrality in Social Networks:Conceptual Clarification. [J]. Social Networks,1979,1:215-239
[198]Freeman, C. Networks of Innovators:A Synthesis of Research Issues [J].
Research Policy,1991,20(5):499-514
[199]Froot, K. Foreign direct investment. Chicago, IL:The University of Chicago Press.1993.
[200]Galaskiewicz, J. Inter-organizational Relations. [J].Annual Review of Sociology, 1985,11:281-304.
[201]Gedajlovic, E. R., and Shapiro, D. M., Management and Ownership Effects: Evidence from Five Countries [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1998, Vol.19, 533-553.
[202]Geoffrey, B. Sprinkle. The effect of incentive contracts on learning and performance. [J]. The Accounting Review,2000, Vol.75. No.3:299-326.
[203]Ghoshal, S., Nohria, N. Internal Differentiation Within Multinational Corporations. [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1980(10):323-327.
[204]Ghoshal, S.,Bartlett,C. The Multinational Corporation as an Inter-organizational Network [J]. Academy of Management Review,1990,15(4):603-625.
[205]Ghoshal, S., Westney, D.E. Organization Theory of Multinational Corporation [M]. New York,1993:7.
[206]Govindarajan, V. Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: An empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable. [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1984(9,):125-135.
[207]Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A. K. Linking control systems to business unit strategy:impact on performance. [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1985:51-66.
[208]Granovetter, M., The Strength of Weak Ties [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1973(78-6):1360-1380.
[209]Granovetter, M., Network Sampling:Some First Strps [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1976(81-6):1287-1303.
[210]Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure:the problem of embeddedness.[J]. American Journal of Sociology,1985,91(3):481-510.
[211]Grieves J. The origins of organizational development.[J]. Journal of Management Development,2000,19(5):345-447.
[212]Guill e. n, M. F. Business Groups in Emerging Economies:A Resource-based View [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(3):362-380.
[213]Gulati. Ranjay et al. Strategic Networks. [M]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, Vol.211:pp781-790.
[214]Gulati. Network Location and Learning:The Influence of Network Resources and Firm Capabilities on Alliance Formation. [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1990,20:397-420.
[216]Gulati. Alliances and Networks. [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1999(19), special issue.
[217]Gupta, A. K.& Govindarajan, V. Knownoledge Flows and the Structure of Control Within Multinational Firms. [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1991(16):768-792.
[218]Hayes, D. The contingency theory of managerial accounting. [J]. The Accounting Review,1977(1):23-39.
[219]Hirschey, M., V. Richardson and S. Scholz. Value relevance of non-financial information:The case of patent data. [J].1998, Working paper, University of Kansas.
[220]Hirst, M. K. Reliance on accounting performance measures, task uncertainty and dysfunctional behaviour.[J]. Journal of Accounting Research,1983(21, 2):596-605.
[221]Holmstrom B. Moral Hazard and Observability.[J]. Bell Journal of Economics, 1979(10):74-91.
[222]Hoskisson. R.E. Multidivisional structure and performance:The contingency of diversification strategy [J]. Academy of Management Journal,1987, Vol.30.
[223]Ittner C. D., and David F. Larcker. Are Non- financial Measures Leading Indicators of Financial Performance? An Analyse of Customer Satisfaction [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,1998, (Supplement):1-35.
[224]Ittner C. D., and David F. Larcker, Innovations in Performance Measurement: Trends and Research Implications [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,1998, (10):205-238.
[225]Ittner C. D., and David F. Larcker, Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting:A value-based management perspective. [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,2001(32):349-410.
[226]Ittner C. D., and David F. Larcker. Determinants of performance measure choices in worker incentive plans. [J]. Journal of Labor Economics.2002, 20(2):59-91.
[227]Ittner C. D., and David F. Larcker and Taylor Randall. Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial service firms. [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,2003(28):715-741.
[228]Jarillo, J. Carlos and Martinez, J. I. Different Roles for Subsidiaries:The Case of Multinational Corporations in Spain [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1990, (11):501-512.
[229]Jean-Francois Henri. Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. [J].Accounting, Organizations and Society,2006(31):77-103.
[230]Johnson. J.& L. C. Mattsson. Interorganizational Relations in Industrial Systems:A Network Approach Compared with the Transaction-cost Approach, in Bengt Johannisson, eds [J]. International Studies of Management & Organization, M. E. Shape Inc.,1987:34-48.
[231]Johanna Hyvonen. Strategy, performance measurement techniques and information technology of the firm and their links to organizational performance. [J]. Management Accounting Research,2007(3).
[232]John C H S, Balakr Ishnan N, et al, Modeling the relation between corporate strategy and wealth creation using neural networks. [J]. Compute r & Operations Research,2000,27 (11-12):1077-1092.
[233]Kaplan. S. Measuring manufacturing performance:A new challenge for managerial accounting research. [J]. The Accounting Review,1983(10):686-705.
[234]Kaplan. S. and Mackey, J.T. An examination of the association between managerial Performance Evaluation. [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,1992(4):116-130.
[235]Kaplan. S. and D. Norton. The Balanced-Scorecard:Measures that Drive Performance. [J].Harvard Business Review,1992(1-2):71-79.
[236]Kaplan. S. and D. Norton. The Balanced-Scorecard:Translating Strategy into Action. [M]. Boston. MA. Havard Business School Press,1996.
[237]Katz D., Kahn, R L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. [J].2nd. New York:Wiley,1978.
[238]Keating, A. Determinants of Divisional Performance Evaluation Practices [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics,1997(24):243-273.
[239]Keister, L. f. Engineering Growth:Business Group Structure and Firm Performance in China's Transition Economy [J]. American Journal of Sociology,1998,104(2):404-440
[240]Khandwalla P. Design of organizations. New York. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1977..
[241]Khanna, T, Rivkin, J. W. Estimating the Performance Effects of Business Groups in Emerging Markets [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(1): 45-74.
[242]Kogut, B., Zander, U. Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation. [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1993,24(4):625-645.
[243]Kogut, B., Kulatilaka, N. Operating Flexibility, Global Manufacturing, and the Option Value of a Multinational Network. [J]. Management Science, 1995,40:123-139.
[244]Langfield-Smith. K. Management Control Systems and Strategy:A Critical Review. [J]. Accounting, Organization and Society.1997, Vol.22, No.2:207-232
[245]Lazzarini, Sergio Giovanetti. Formal and Informal Governance of Interorganization Relations. PH.D Dissertation. Washington University,2002.
[246]Lechner, C.& Dowling, M. Firm Networks:External Relationships Sources for the Growth and Competitiveness of Entrepreneurial Firms [J]. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,2003,15(2-4):1
[247]Luthans, F. The contingency theory of management:a path out of the jungle. [M]. Business Horizons,1973(6):67-72.
[248]Macintosh, N. and Daft, R. L. Management control system and departmental interdependencies:an empirical study.[J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1987:23-48.
[249]Mark L. Frigo. Nonfinancial performance measures and strategy execution. [J]. Strategic finance,2002(8):6-9.
[250]Mary A. Malina and Frank H. Selto. Communicating and controlling strategy: an empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. [J]. Journal of
Management Accounting Research,2001(13):47-89.
[251]Matthew C. H. Yeung and Christine T. Ennew. From Customer Satisfaction to Profitability [J]. Journal of Strategic Marketing,2000, (8).
[252]McNair, Carol J. Lynch, Richaed L; Cross, Kelvin F. Do financial and non-financial performance measures have to agree? [J]. Management Accounting 1990(11):28-36.
[253]Megan.Walters. Performance Measurement Systems-a Case Study of Customer Satisfaction [J]. Facilities,1999,17, (March/April).
[254]Merchant, K. The design of the corporate budgeting system:influences on managerial behavior and performance.[J].The Accounting Review, 1981 (4):813-829.
[255]Miguel I. G'omez, Edward W. McLaughlin, Dick R. Wittink. Customer Satisfaction and Retail Sales Performance:An Empirical Investigation [J]. Journal of Retailing,2004, (80).
[256]Moores, K. and Sharma, D. The influence of environmental uncertainity on performance evaluation style and managerial performance.[J]. Accountability and Performance,1998(4\2):1-16.
[257]Nahapiet, J.& Ghoshal, S. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage [J]. The Academy of Management Review,1998, 23(2):242-266
[258]Nanni, A.J.Jr, Dixon, J.R. and Vollmann, T.E. Integrated performance measurement:Management accounting to support the new manufacturing realities. [J]. Journal of Management Accounting Research,1992:1-19.
[259]Nelson, Eugene C., et al. Do Patient Perceptions of Quality Relate to Hospital Financial Performance [J]. Journal of Health Care Marketing,1992, (December).
[260]Nooteboom, B, and V.A. Gilsing. Density and strength of ties, a competence and governance view. Working Paper,2004.
[261]Otley, D. The Contingency Theory of Management Accounting:Achievement and Prognosis [J]. Accounting, Organization and Society.1980, Vol.5, No.4, PP.413-428.
[262]Otley, D. Performance management:a framework for management control system research. [J]. Management Accounting Research,1999(10):363-382.
[263]Park, Seung Ho. Managing an Inter-organizational Network:A Framework of the Institutional Mechanism for Network Control. [J]. Organization Studies, 1996,17(5):795-824.
[264]Perera, CT., Harrison and Poole. Customer- focused Manufacturing Strategy and the Use of Operations- based Non- financial Performance Measures:A Research Note [J]. Accounting, Organizations and Society,1997(6):557-572.
[265]Peter J. Buckley, Foreign Direct Investment and Multinational Enterprises, Macmillan Press Ltd.,1995.
[266]Peter F. Drucker. The Information Executives Truly Need to Know. Harvard Business Review, January/February,1995.
[267]Polanyi. K. Trade and market in the early empires. [M]. Glencoe:The Free Press,1957.
[268]Powell, W.W. Neither Market nor Hierarchy:Network Forms of Organization [J]. Research in Organization Behavior,1990(12).
[269]Powell, W. W.,& Koput, K.W.,& Smith-Doerr, L. Inter-organizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation:Networks of Learning in Biotechnology [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(1):116-145.
[270]Preffer and Salancik. The External Control of Organization. Harper and Row, 1978
[271]Quinlan, Michael R., et al. How Does Service Drive the Service Company [J]. Harvard Business Review,1991, (November-December).
[272]Reichheld & Frederrick F. The loyalty effect-the relationship between loyalty and profits. European Business Journal,2000,12(3):173-179.
[273]Richard A, Lambert. Customer Satisfaction and Future Financial Performance Discussion of are Nonfinancial Measures Leading Indicators of Financial Performance? An Analysis of Customer Satisfaction [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,1998,36(Supplement).
[274]Ross, A. Job related tension, budget emphasis and uncertainty. Management Accounting Research,1995(6)1-11.
[275]Sally K. Widener. Associations between strategic resource importance and performance measure use:The impact on firm performance. [J]. Management Accounting Research,2006(17):433-457.
[276]Schiff. A.D. and L.R. Hoffman. An exploration of the use of financial and nonfinancial measures of performance in a service organization. [J]. Behavioral Research in Accounting,1996(8):134-153.
[277]Simons, R. The role of management control system in creating competitive advantage:new-perspective.[J].Accounting,OrganizationandSociety,1990(15):12 7-143.
[278]Snow, C. C., Miles, R.E., Coleman, JR.H.J. Managing 21st Century Network Organizations. [J]. Organizational Dynamics, Winter,1992.
[279]Stuart, T.E. Producer Network Positions and Propensities to Collaborate:An Investigation of Strategic Alliance Formations in a High-technology Industry. [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1998,43:668-698.
[280]Tichy, N. M.& Tushman, M. L.& Fombrun, C. Social Network Analysis for Organizations[J]. Academy of Management Review,1979,4(4):507-519
[281]Tornow, Walter W., and Wiley, Jack W. Service Quality and Management Practices:A Look at Employee Attitudes, Customer Satisfaction, and Bottom-line Consequences. [J]. Human Resource Planning,1991, (14).
[282]Uzzi, B. The Sources and Consequence of Embeddedness for Economic Performance of Organizations:The Network Effect. [J]. American Sociological Review,1996(61):674-698.
[283]Waterhouse, J. and Tiessen, P. A contingency framework for management accounting systems research. [J]. Accounting, Organization and Society,1978, Vol.3, No.1:65-76.
[284]White, H. C., Boorman, S. A.& Breiger, R. L., Social Structure from Multiple Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions [J]. The American Journal of Sociology,1976(81-4):730-780.
[285]Yeung, Matthew C.H. and Ennew, Christine T. From customer satisfaction to profitability. [J].Journal of Strategic Marketing,2000(12):313-326.
[286]Zahirul Hoque, Lokman Mia and Manzurul Alam. Market competition, computer-aided manufacturing and use of multiple performance measures:an empirical study.[J]. British Accounting Review,2001(33):23-45.
[287]Zahirul Hoque and Wendy James. Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors:impact on organization performance. [J]. Journal of management Accounting Research,2000(12):1-17.
[288]Zheng R Y, Harrison R G.. Analysing company performance using templates [J]. Intelligent Data Analysis,2002,6(1):3-15.