【作者】 吴国灿；

【导师】 傅代国；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 会计学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 20世纪80年代以来,企业经营环境和管理方式发生了重大变化,使得传统的基于财务指标的业绩评价体系的局限性日益显现出来。为此,学术界和实务界越来越多地致力于新业绩评价指标的开发。20世纪90年代关于业绩评价改进的探索主要有两种思路,第一种采用EVA等反映经济收益的财务指标,第二种是在财务指标的基础上,增加具有前瞻性的、反映核心竞争力的非财务指标。EVA指标能够揭示企业创造价值增值和股东财富的能力,但仍然不能克服财务指标本身的缺陷。Kaplan和Norton于1992年提出的平衡记分卡(BSC),提倡财务指标与非财务指标的结合和多重业绩评价指标的使用,从财务、顾客、内部经营流程、学习与成长四个各有侧重又相互联系的方面,全面评价企业经营业绩,较好地克服了传统业绩评价的不足。同时,它将企业的战略目标转化为一套具体的业绩评价指标,有助于所有部门和员工更好地理解和执行经营战略。因此,BSC不仅是一种全面的业绩评价体系,而且是一个有效的战略管理工具。BSC自创立以来,已经在越来越多的企业中得到了广泛应用。第二次世界大战以后,世界各国企业规模急剧扩大,形成了很多实行多元化经营和跨国经营的大公司和企业集团,基于事业部制的分权管理成为多元化企业管理内部组织的主要形式。分权管理赋予各业务单元管理人员根据产品和市场特点进行决策的自主权,大大提高了市场响应速度和决策有效性,并能充分调动管理人员的积极性和创造力。但分权管理也加剧了上下级管理人员之间的信息不对称,使委托代理问题更加突出。全面、正确地评价业务单元的经营业绩,是促进业务单元采取与企业整体利益一致的决策和行为、降低代理成本的重要手段。当前学术界关于绩效评价的理论研究,基本上是针对企业整体和员工个人两个层次,而忽视了对业务单元业绩评价的研究。仅有整体业绩评价而不考察业务单元在战略执行方面的成绩与问题,无法从根本上实现战略目标、提高经营业绩；同样,员工个人绩效评价只有与业务单元业绩评价结合起来,才能促使全体员工清楚地了解企业和业务单元的战略目标和要求,采取符合企业整体利益的行动。因此,多元化企业对业务单元进行业绩评价具有重要意义,它在企业整体业绩评价和员工绩效评价之间起到了桥梁作用。多元化企业由不同的业务单元组成,这些业务单元经营不同的产品或服务,在不同的行业和市场领域进行竞争,面临不同的市场机会和风险,因此需要在企业总体战略的框架内制定自己的经营战略。相应地,对业务单元进行业绩评价时,不仅要考虑与企业总体战略的协同,还应当结合业务单元自身的经营战略。BSC是基于战略的业务单元业绩评价体系的基本框架。在多元化企业中,除了制定企业层面的BSC,每个业务单元还必须开发出一套适合其独特情况的BSC。近年来我国学术界关于企业整体业绩评价理论与方法的研究非常众多,但很少有研究涉及战略导向的业务单元业绩评价,有关多重业绩指标应用和提供经验证据的研究,则更是寥寥无几。这些与多重业绩指标应用相关的重要问题包括：基于战略的业务单元业绩评价指标设计和选择；业务单元经营战略对业绩评价指标使用的影响,以及业绩指标使用对经营业绩的影响；非财务指标与未来财务业绩的价值相关性,以及情景变量对这一关系的调节作用；公司高管在评价多个业绩单元业绩时的认知偏差及其解决措施。在国外,近几年针对上述问题的实证研究已经成为管理会计研究的热点,并取得了丰富的研究成果。但这些研究由于研究视角、方法和对象的不同,得出的结论也不完全一致。同时,这些研究几乎都是以西方国家为背景,极少有针对中国企业的相关研究,其研究结论是否适用于中国企业还有待验证。正是基于这一考虑,本文综合运用多种研究方法和数据来源,对上述基于战略的业务单元业绩评价中多重业绩指标应用相关问题进行深入的分析和研究,并提供相应的经验证据。本文研究具有较强的理论与现实意义。本文研究内容包括七章。除了第一章导论外,第二章和第三章的论述旨在形成本文的研究主题——基于战略的业务单元业绩评价。第四到第七章则以多重业绩指标应用为视角,对以BSC为基本框架、以战略为导向的业务单元业绩评价中与多重业绩指标应用相关的四个问题进行研究。各章的主要内容如下：第1章,导论。本章介绍四个部分的内容。一是交代研究背景和研究意义；二是介绍研究内容和篇章结构安排；三是阐述研究方法；四是总结归纳研究创新点。第2章,企业经营环境转变与业绩评价体系改进。本章首先阐述了经营业绩评价的基本含义、功能和理论基础,接着在分析企业经营环境和管理方式转变以及传统业绩评价体系特点与不足的基础上,总结了近二十年来业绩评价的改进思路和创新成果,并着重介绍了BSC的基本理论、优点和不足。第3章,多元化经营、分权管理与业务单元业绩评价。本章阐述企业多元化经营和分权管理组织形式,分权管理引发的委托代理问题以及业绩评价对降低代理成本的作用,企业经营业绩评价的层次性以及多元化企业分层业绩评价体系的构建,业务单元业绩评价的现状和意义,传统业务单元业绩评价模式的不足,以及基于战略的业务单元业绩评价体系的构建。第4章,基于战略的业务单元业绩评价指标设计。本章主要阐述基于战略的业绩指标体系设计原则,业务单元的战略分类,并以BSC指标体系为基本框架,探讨如何设计和选择业务单元战略业绩评价指标,最后介绍影响业务单元业绩指标选择的其他权变因素。第5章,业务单元战略、业绩指标使用与财务业绩相关性的实证研究。本章研究旨在检验业务单元竞争战略对业绩评价指标使用的影响,业绩指标多样化、业绩指标使用与战略之间的匹配是否带来较高的财务业绩。利用93家中国制造企业的调研数据,我们发现：业务单元战略类型及强调程度对财务指标使用没有显著影响；差异化和成本领先战略的强调程度分别与非财务指标、成本效率指标的使用程度正相关；财务指标使用程度对财务业绩没有显著影响；业绩指标多样化程度较高的业务单元,其财务业绩也显著较高；成本效率指标使用与成本领先战略、非财务指标使用与差异化战略之间的匹配对财务业绩有正面影响。第6章,顾客满意度与财务业绩的相关性研究——产品竞争程度的调节作用。本章研究旨在检验产品顾客满意度与未来财务业绩之间是否存在正相关关系,以及产品竞争程度对这一关系的调节作用。该研究以中国顾客满意度指数(CCSI)为自变量,以6个财务指标为因变量。研究发现,CCSI较高的业务单元和企业,其未来财务业绩也显著较高；产品竞争程度较高的业务单元,CCSI与财务业绩之间的正相关程度更高。第7章,多业务单元业绩评价中公司高管认知偏差研究——BSC实验研究的证据。以往研究发现公司高管在评价多个业务单元业绩时存在共性指标偏好,大大削弱了BSC的应用价值。本章在分析共性指标偏好形成原因并借鉴已有研究的基础上,提出了两种减轻认知偏差的措施。实验结果表明共性指标偏好在中国管理者中同样存在,无论是改进战略表述还是激发认知努力,都显著提高了评价者赋予独特性指标的权重、减轻了认知偏差的程度。本文研究的创新点主要体现在以下几个方面：第一,本文详细阐述了多元化企业中业绩评价的层次性,业务单元业绩评价对解决分权管理代理问题的作用,业务单元业绩评价的意义和现状,并构建了基于战略的业务单元业绩评价体系。同时,论文对基于战略的业务单元业绩评价指标的设计和选择问题进行了深入探讨。第二,关于业务单元战略、业绩指标使用和财务业绩相关性的实证研究,本文运用问卷调查获得中国制造企业数据,提供了这方面研究的经验证据。该研究以单一经营企业和业务单元为样本,在测度成本领先或差异化战略类型和战略强调程度的基础上,检验战略选择与业绩指标使用,以及业绩指标使用与财务业绩之间的相关关系。第三,关于顾客满意度与未来财务业绩的价值相关性研究,本文提供了这方面研究的中国背景证据,在国内首次使用CCSI指数检验非财务指标与财务业绩之间的价值相关性。论文使用6个财务指标反映业务单元和多元化企业的财务业绩,并且引入产品竞争程度这一调节变量,分析其对满意度——财务业绩关系的影响。第四,关于多业务单元业绩评价中公司高管认知偏差的研究,本文开展实验研究证实共性指标偏好在中国管理人员中间同样存在,并且提出了两种切实可行的、减轻认知偏差的措施并证明具有显著效果,这对于充分发挥BSC的全面业绩评价和战略管理功能,具有较强的理论和实践意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the 80s of the 20th Century, major changes have occurred in enterprise business environment and management manners, which make increasingly apparent the limitation of the traditional performance measurement system based on financial measures. For this reason, many academics and practitioners made great efforts to develop new performance evaluating measures. There are two main ideas on the exploration of improving the performance evaluation since the 90s of the 20th Century. The first way is to use new financial measures such as EVA reflecting economics income, and the other way is adding nonfinancial measures being forward-looking and reflecting companies’core competence to financial measures. EVA can reveal enterprises’capability creating the value added and stockholder wealth, but still can’t overcome the inherent defects of the financial indicators. The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) put forward by Kaplan and Norton in 1992 advocates the combination of nonfinancial measures and financial measures and the use of multiple performance measures, evaluating companies’business performance in the round from four different and interrelated aspects including financial, customer, internal process, learning and development dimensions, thus overcoming effectively the shortcoming of the traditional performance evaluation. Meanwhile, the BSC translates the strategic goals into a series of specific performance evaluation measures, helping all departments and employee understand and complement the business strategy better. Hence, not only is BSC an all-sided performance evaluation system, but also an effective strategy complementation tool. Since its creation, BSC has been widely used in more and more companies.After World WarⅡ, enterprises around the world expanded their scale rapidly and formed a lot of diversified and multinational large companies or enterprise groups. In this case, decentralized management based on the division structure became the main form of diversified companies to manage their internal organizations. Decentralized management authorizes each business unit manager the right of decision making according to its product and marker features. Doing this can improve largely the marker responding speed and decision-making effectiveness, and fully mobilize the enthusiasm and creativity of business unit managers. On the other side, decentralized management aggravates the extent of information asymmetry between upper and lower managers, making the principle-agent problem more prominent. Evaluating the operating performance of business units is an important means to promote business unit managers adopting decisions and behaviors in line with company entire interests and lower agency costs.Current academic research on performance evaluation is basically related to company as a whole and individual employee, neglecting performance evaluation for business units. It is not enough to achieve strategic goals and improve business performance that only evaluate the performance of the whole company without assessing achievements and problems of business units in complementing business strategies; Similarly, only when the performance evaluation for individual employee is combined with business unit performance evaluation, can it make all of employees understand clearly strategic goals and requirements of the company and its business units, taking actions consistent with the interests of the company as a whole. Therefore, it is of great significance for the diversified company to evaluate the performance of its business units, which serves as a bridge between the performance measurement of the whole company and individual employees.A diversified company is composed of a number of different business units, which operate different products and services, compete in different industries and marker areas, and face with different market opportunities and risks, so they need to develop their own business strategies within the framework of the overall company strategy. Accordingly, when evaluating the performance of its business units, not only should company management consider the strategic collaboration between the company and business units, but also combine performance assessment with the specific strategies of business units. BSC acts as a basic., framework of business unit performance evaluation. Therefore, in addition to developing a set of BSC at company level, each business unit must develop its own BSC adapting to its unique condition. In recent years, researchers in our country have conducted numerous studies on performance evaluation theory and methods for enterprises as a whole, but these studies are seldom involved in the business unit performance evaluation oriented by strategy, and even less studies are related to the application of multiple performance measures and provide empirical evidences. These important issues relevant to the application of multiple performance measures include:the design and choice of performance measures in business unit performance evaluation based on strategy; the impact of business unit strategy on the use of performance measures in its performance assessment, and the impact of the use of performance measures on business unit performance; the value relevance of nonfinancial measures and future financial performance, and the moderating role that contextual factors play in these relationships; the cognitive biases and its solutions when company executives evaluate the performance of business units. Empirical studies addressed on above issues have become research highlights of management accounting in many countries, and have obtained abundant research achievements. However, their research conclusions are not consistent because of their differences in research perspectives, methods and objects. Furthermore, almost all of these studies were addressed under the background of western countries, and there are very few relevant studies aimed at Chinese enterprises, so it has yet to be verified if these study findings are applicable to Chinese enterprises. Just based on this consideration, this article uses a variety of research methods and data sources, and carries out an in-depth analysis and research for above-mentioned questions relating to the application of multiple performance measures in business unit performance evaluation based on strategy, and provides corresponding empirical evidences. This study has strong theoretical and practical significance.This article is composed of seven chapters. Additional to the introduction in chapter 1, chapter 2 and chapter 3 are aimed at forming the research theme of this article-- strategy-based business unit performance evaluation. From the perspective of the use of multiple performance measures, subsequent four chapters of this article conduct a study on four issues relevant to the application of multiple performance measures with BSC as framework in strategy-based performance evaluation of business units. The main content of each chapter are as follows:Chapter 1 is the introduction of this article. This chapter presents four parts of content:the first part tells research background and significance of this article; the second part describes research content and their structural arrangement; the third part talks about research methods employed by this article; the fourth one is to summarize the points of research innovation.Chapter 2 discusses changes in enterprise business environment and the improvement in performance evaluation. This chapter at first illustrates the basic meaning, functions and theoretical basis of business performance evaluation. On the basis of the analysis of changes in business environment and management mode, and the features and disadvantages of the traditional performance evaluation system, this chapter summarizes improvement ideas and innovation achievements on performance evaluation, and then sets forth the basic theory, advantages and disadvantages of the BSC.Chapter 3 addresses diversification, decentralized management and business unit performance evaluation. This chapter describes business diversification and the organizational structure of decentralized management, the principle-agent problem caused by decentralized management and the role that performance evaluation plays in lowering agent costs, the hierarchy of business performance evaluation and the establishment of multilevel performance evaluation in decentralized companies, the current situation and significance of business unit performance evaluation, the shortcoming of the traditional mode business unit performance evaluation, and the establishment of strategy-based business unit performance evaluation.Chapter 4 discusses the design of performance measures in strategy-based business unit performance evaluation. This chapter talks about the design of performance measures based on strategy, the classification of business unit strategy, and discusses how to design and choose strategic performance evaluating measures of business units, and other contingent factors affecting the use of business unit performance measures.Chapter 5 talks about the empirical study on the relationship between business unit strategy, the use of performance measures and financial performance. This chapter aims at investigating the impact of the competing strategy of business units on the use of performance evaluation, and whether the diversification of performance measures or the match between the use of performance measures and strategy leads to higher financial performance. Using survey data from 93 Chinese manufacturing firms, we find that:the strategic types of business units and its emphasis degree have no significant impact on the use of financial measures; the emphasis degree of differentiation and cost leadership strategy is positively related to the extent of use of nonfinancial and cost-efficiency measures respectively; the extent of use of financial measures does not affect financial performance significantly; business units with greater diversification of performance measure have significantly higher financial performance; the match between the use of cost-efficiency measures and the cost leadership strategy or between the use of nonfinancial measures and differentiation strategy has positive impact on the financial performance of business units.Chapter 6 discusses the study on the relationship between customer satisfactory and financial performance-- the moderating effect of product competition. This chapter wants to test if there is a positive relationship between product customer satisfactory and future financial performance, and if product competition exerts a moderating effect on this relationship. This study employs Chinese Customer Satisfactory Index (SSCI) as independent variable and six financial measures as dependent variables. This study suggests that the business units (or companies) with higher product SSCI have significantly higher future financial performance, and for business units (or companies) with higher product competition, there is a stronger positive relevance between CCSI and financial performance.Chapter 7 discusses the study on the cognitive bias of company executives in the performance evaluation for multiple business units--evidences’from a BSC experimental study. Prior studies found that there is a problem of common measure bias when senior executives evaluate the performance of business units, which impairs greatly the application value of the BSC. This study proposes two methods of alleviating the cognitive bias on the basis of analysis for causes of common measure bias and existing researches, i.e., improving strategy description to enhance evaluators’understanding of the strategy of business units and unique measures, and adopting a disaggregated evaluating pattern with requirement to justify performance evaluation so as to stimulate evaluators’cognitive effort. Results of the experimental study confirm the existence of the common measures bias among Chinese managers, and suggest that either of two measures proposed increases significantly the weight evaluators assign to unique measures, and lighten the degree of the cognitive bias.The innovation.points of this article are mainly embodied in following aspects:Firstly, this article illustrates in detailed the hierarchy of business performance evaluation, the role that performance evaluation plays in solving the agent problem, the significance and current situation of business unit performance evaluation, and then develops a strategy-based business unit performance evaluation system. Furthermore, this article conducts an in-depth investigation for the problem of the design and choice of performance measures in strategy-based business unit performance evaluation.Secondly, as for the empirical study on the relationship between the competitive strategy of business units, the use of performance measures and financial performance, this article uses survey to obtain data of Chinese manufacturing firms, and provides empirical evidences on this kind of research. This study takes single-business firms and business units of diversified companies as research samples, and on the basis of measurement of the strategy types of cost leadership or differentiation and their emphasis degree, investigating the relationship between the strategy choice of business units, the use of performance measures and their financial performance.Thirdly, as for the study on the relationship between customer satisfactory and future financial performance, this article provides Chinese background evidences about this research theme, and utilizes CCSI for the first time in China to examine the value relevance between nonfinancial and financial measures. This article uses six financial measures to reflect the financial performance of business units and diversified companies, and introduces product competition as moderating variable to examine its impact on the satisfactory-performance relationship.Fourthly, as for the study on the cognitive bias of company executives in the performance evaluation for multiple business units, this article conducts an experimental study and conforms that there is also common measure bias among Chinese managers, and proposes two feasible measures of alleviating the cognitive bias and finds that either of them has obvious effect. The study in this chapter has strong theoretical and practical significance for exerting fully the function of BSC in all-sided performance evaluation and strategy management.更多还原