中国高技术企业知识管理能力与绩效研究

【作者】 马宏建；

【导师】 芮明杰；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 企业管理， 2005， 博士

【摘要】 本研究工作以知识管理为中心视角，综合运用知识管理理论、人力资源管理理论、统计科学理论与方法、系统科学观等，围绕知识管理相关活动要素与企业的绩效关系，对我国高技术企业知识管理活动与绩效进行了研究。本研究以模型分析与实证调查相结合，调查的对象全部是高技术企业。基于文献综述和企业知识管理状态与绩效评价模型的分析，本文提出企业知识管理的绩效决定于企业三个方面的能力，即：过程能力、知识创新能力、基础设施能力。这三个方面能力建设的强弱直接决定着以知识为基础的企业绩效的发展。知识管理的过程能力包括了知识的获取过程、传递过程、应用过程、保护过程等四个方面的活动；知识创造能力反映了企业的管理、环境文化对企业员工学习知识和运用知识的能动性能力，战略、激励、文化三种要素影响着企业员工能动性的有效发挥；基础设施能力对应于技术和结构两个要素。通过对影响着上述三个能力的各个活动要素的测评，可以反映出企业绩效与企业知识管理的状态和关系。通过对高技术企业知识管理活动三种能力的测评及其与企业绩效关系的研究，本研究探讨了当今我国高技术企业知识管理的现状及其对企业绩效的影响，并对我国高技术企业知识管理活动中存在的一些问题进行了分析。在以上研究的基础上得出了以下的结论：1．创造性地提出了企业知识管理活动与企业绩效关系模型，企业知识管理能力由过程能力、创新能力、设施能力组成；并在面向132家企业所获得的270份问卷的实证分析结果中验证了这一模型。2．在我国高技术企业的发展中，企业绩效与过程能力、创新能力、设施能力都有较强的正相关性(显著性水平0.01)。其中对企业绩效贡献程度最大的是创新能力，其次分别是过程能力和设施能力。对于过程能力来讲，创新能力比设施能力具有更强的贡献。在过程能力的发展中，知识应用有着更为突出的贡献，其次是知识传递、知识获取、知识保护。对于创新能力来讲，过程能力比设施能力具有更强的贡献。在创新能力的发展中，文化的因素有着更为突出的贡献，其次是激励和战略。对于设施能力来讲，创新能力比过程能力具有稍强一些的贡献。在基础设施能力的发展中，技术和组织结构发挥着相当的作用。3．知识获取、知识应用、知识传递和知识保护在不同规模、不同行业、不同组织结构和不同产权结构类型的企业中呈现不同的特征：(1)对于不同规模的企业，当企业规模在500万—3000万和规模在3000万—2亿时，这两个组群的企业在知识应用和知识传递上表现出明显差异，而在知识获取和知识保护方面没有显示出差异性。(2)对于不同行业类型的企业，电子与信息技术、生物工程和新医药技术、航空航天技术三个行业与现代农业在知识获取方面表现出明显的差异性，而在知识应用、知识传递、知识保护方面则没有显示出差异性。(3)对于不同组织结构类型的企业，直线职能制、事业部制企业与矩阵式企业在知识获取、知识传递、知识保护方面有明显的差异性；而直线职能制企业与网络型、矩阵式企业在知识应用方面有明显的差异性。(4)对于不同产权结构的企业，国有或国有控股企业与民营企业和股份制企业在知识保护方面显示出明显的差异性，而在知识获取、知识应用、知识传递等方面则没有显示出差异性。4．统计分析研究的结果检验和支持了第四章中提出的假设。5．案例的实证研究验证了企业知识管理的模型。案例研究结果显示出极大的差异性：跨国公司在华投资企业在知识管理上表现出明显的系统性、整体性，其知识管理在融合国际先进管理理念和基于传统特征的中国文化上表现出非常明显的独特性和科学性；而我国本土企业则表现出模糊的知识管理特征，大多是基于隐性和通用的行业规则来组织知识管理的有关活动，其知识管理的活动尚处于导入期。更多还原

【Abstract】 By applying various theories of knowledge management, human resources management, statistics science and systematical view, this work studied the relationship between the elements of knowledge management and the performance of enterprises of China’s Hi-Tech industry. The analysis was based on both case studies and model building.We propose that the performance of knowledge management of enterprises depends on three capabilities, namely, the process capacity, the knowledge innovation capacity and the infrastructure capacity. The strength of these three capacities will have a direct bearing on the performance and development of knowledge-based enterprises.The process capacity includes the acquisition, transfer, application and protection of knowledge. The knowledge innovation capability reflects the influence of corporate management, environment and culture on employees’ acquisition and application of knowledge, strategies, incentives, and culture determine how effective the employees can be brought into play. The infrastructure capability mainly corresponds to technology and corporate structure. By studying the elements affecting the aforementioned capabilities, one should be able to obtain the relationship between corporate performance and knowledge management.This work applied the approach to the analysis of Chinese Hi-Tech enterprises in knowledge management and corporate performance. We further analyzed the existing problems and suggested possible remedies.Conclusions from this study:1. This study puts forward a model for the relationship between enterprise knowledge management and corporate performance. The knowledge management capability isfurther divided into process capability, knowledge innovation capability and infrastructure capability. This model was verified by an empirical analysis of 270 surveys from 132 enterprises.2. For Hi-Tech enterprises in China, strong correlations (p=0.01) were found between corporate performance and process capability, innovation capability and infrastructure capability. The innovation capability contributes more to corporate performance, followed by process capability and the infrastructure capability.Within the innovation capability, the influence of culture plays a most important role, followed by incentives and strategies. With regard to the process capability, the application of knowledge plays the most important role, followed by knowledge transfer, acquisition, and protection. With respect to infrastructure capability, both technology and corporate structures play a significant role.3. The acquisition, transfer, application and protection of knowledge show different patterns in enterprises of different sizes, fields, organization structures, and ownerships:(a) For enterprises of different sizes, obvious differences were found in terms of application and transfer of knowledge for two groups of enterprises, one with sales amount from five million to 30 million yuan, and the other one from 30 million to 200 million yuan, while no difference could be detected in the acquisition and protection of knowledge.(b) For enterprises in different fields, notable differences were seen in the acquisition of knowledge among IT and modern agriculture, biotechnology and modern agriculture, aeronautics and modern agriculture enterprises, while no difference appeared in the application and transfer and protection of knowledge.(c) For enterprises of different organization structures, apparent differences existed in the acquisition, transfer and protection of knowledge between enterprises with verticalfunctional departments or multi-tasking-departments and those with matrix style departments. Notable differences also existed in the application of knowledge between enterprises with vertical functional departments, and those with network and matrix style departments.(d) For enterprises of different ownership structures, marked differences in knowledge protection were observed between state-owned or state-controlled enterprises, and private or stock holding ones, while no difference appeared in the acquisition, application, and transfer of knowledge.4. The hypothesis put forward in Chapter IV has been verified and supported by the findings of the statistical analyses in this study.5. The case studies attest to the applicability of the model of enterprise knowledge management. The results reveal great disparity: enterprises founded and invested by multi-national corporations are notably systematical and integral in knowledge management, and the combination of advanced managerial concepts with traditional Chinese culture in knowledge management is impressively unique and scientifically sound. The Chinese local enterprises, however, do not display clearly discernable features of knowledge management. Most of these local enterprises conduct knowledge management by relying on covert or generally acceptable rules in different trades, and their knowledge management is still in the primitive stage.更多还原