2004 1 10 pair-t independent-t Wilcoxon
1. 1
p< .05 2 2003 3
p< .05 2. 1
2 3.
Balanced Scorecard 1990 Robert Kaplan David Norton
strategic business unit, SBU
Kaplan & Norton, 1996 1998 2004 2004 2003 2000 2003 2004 2004 2002 2002 2003
2 0 0 4 2002 2002 2003 2002 2004 2 0 0 4 2002 2002 2002 2003 2002 1 9 9 9 76.9% 64.1% 61.5% 51.3% 38.5% 25.6% 20.5% 2004 1. 28 2. 20 3 6 2004 1 2004 10 1998; Carr & Kazanowski, 1994; Muller & McCloskey, 1990; Robertson & Cummings, 1991
1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9 . 10. 11. 11 C V I 0.86 Likert scale 45 Cronbach's .87 Likert scale 31 Cronbach's .89 1. 2. / 3. 1. 2002 TQIP 1 / 2 72 a. / b. / c.
/ 3 / 2. / 1. 1. / SWOT SPSS11.0 paired-t Wilcoxon -Mann-Whitney U test 1. 32 28 28 26 2 1 77.8% 66.7% 47.6% 52.4% 20-30 71.5% 61.9% 76.2% 1-2 71.4% 3 76.2% 9.5%
2. 53 53 1 2 4 1 41 41 32 36 7 6 . 6 % 61.1% 80.6% 41-60 61.0% 88.9% 52.7% 63.9% 44.4% 36.1% 30.6% 2-3 25% 3. 36 58.3% 77.5 81 55.5% 49.9% 61.0% 50% 36.6 25-36 27.8% 4 91.7% 3 8.3% 88.9% 16 ᐒᄬნϩ! ԋౣ! ԋ٬ڮϷᜫඳ! ԋࣁᓬ፦୍ܺϷന٫ڂጄ ϐߏྣᐒᄬ! ୍ᄬय़ǹࣁΑ୍ԋфǴךॺᔈӵՖ߄ǻ ౣЬᚒ! ౣҞޑ ՉБਢ! ᕮਏࡰ! ¾ फ़ ե ԋ ҁౣ ¾ Չ ᎍ ౣ! ቚуᔼԏǴ फ़եԋҁǴ ബ୍ᕮ ਏǶ! ¾ ׯ௦ύ ୱྣៈ! ¾ уமଣϣѦ Չᎍ! ¾ ѳ֡ Д ԋҁ! ៝࠼ᄬय़ǺࣁΑၲډᜫඳǴךॺჹ៝࠼ᔈ ӵՖ߄ǻ!! ౣЬᚒ! ౣҞޑ! ՉБਢ! ᕮਏࡰ! ¾Γ ܄ ᜢ ᚶౣ! ගϲྣៈࠔ ፦Ǵቚу៝ ࠼ᅈཀࡋǶ! ¾ ཥቚӭϡϯ ࢲी! ¾ ཥቚ࡚ບՐ ଣྣៈ୍ܺ! ¾ ཥቚВᙴ ৣْ܊ڋࡋ! ¾ ៈϐ ৎ୍ܺ ᅈཀࡋ! ϣࢬำᄬय़ǺࣁΑᅈى៝࠼Ǵব٤ࢬำѸ ߄ڑຫǻ! ౣЬᚒ! ౣҞޑ! ՉБਢ! ᕮਏࡰ! ¾ ࠔ፦ ౣ! ¾ ࢬำׯ ๓ౣ! ׯ๓୍ܺ ࢬำǴගϲ ྣៈࠔ፦Ƕ ¾ Չߏය ྣៈࡰ ᅱෳϷࠔ ፦ׯ๓ ࡼ! ¾ ׯ๓ፁ ᆅࢬำ! ¾ ᓸየᗺՉ ! ¾ གࢉวғ ¾ ߚीฝ܄ᙯ Ր࡚܄ੰ܊ К! ¾ 䉆ᅅ Ꮲಞᆶԋߏᄬय़ǺࣁΑၲډᜫඳǴךॺӵՖ ᆢׯᡂکׯޑૈΚǻ! ౣЬᚒ! ౣҞޑ! ՉБਢ! ᕮਏࡰ! ¾ ޕᆅ ! ቚமπྣ ៈૈΚǴᔼ ྣៈ ຝǶ! ¾ Ӽ௨π ӧᙍ௲ػ! ¾ ڋۓמೌ ྗೕጄ! ¾ ππբ ᅈཀࡋ! ¾ πᚆᙍ ! ¾ ྣៈמૈ ҅ዴ!
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
11.1% 41.6% 13.9% 5 44.4% 8 -9 36.2% 27.8% 17.1 50.0% 20% 1. 1 84.19 SD=5.51 89.38 SD=6.93 p< .05 ቚம҅ዴ ྣៈמૈ ٬ڮ.!ගٮԴޣϷѨૈޣᓬ፦ޑВதғࢲྣៈǴගܹғࢲࠔ፦Ƕගٮќঁॶளߞᒘૼ бྕཪޑৎǶ! ! ᜫඳ.!ԋࣁᓬ፦୍ܺϷന٫ڂጄϐߏයྣៈᐒᄬǶ! ୍ᄬय़ ៝࠼ᄬय़ फ़եᔼၮ ԋҁ ϣࢬำᄬ य़ Չߏྣ ࠔ፦ᅱෳ ׯ๓ፁ ᆅࢬำ Ꮲಞᆶԋߏ ᄬय़ ගٮπ ௲ػ૽ግ ڋۓៈ מೌྗ ύୱ ྣ៝ ቚуᡏᔼ ԏ ගٮᅈཀܺ ୍ ගٮВᙴ ৣْ܊ڋࡋ ჴࡼࠔ፦ ׯ๓ࡼ уமଣϣѦ Չᎍ ڋۓགࢉ ᆅڋྗ ගٮ࡚ບ ុྣៈ ගٮӭϡϯ ࢲ!
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. 2001 ARC 2001
Wilcoxon p< .05 p< .05 2 2003 57.1% 2004 1-10 3 2 . 1 % 2 5 % 3 95 ٬ڮ ගٮԴޣϷѨૈޣᓬ፦ޑВதғࢲྣៈǴගܹғࢲࠔ፦Ƕ ගٮќঁॶளߞᒘૼбޑৎǶ ᜫඳ ԋࣁᕮᓬ୍ܺϷന٫ڂጄϐߏයྣៈᐒᄬǶ ਡЈሽॶᢀ аࠔ፦ബΓ܄ϯᓬ፦୍ܺǶ ߏයҞ ᅈཀޑπǴᅈཀޑ៝࠼Ǵԋࣁӄ୯ៈϐৎंᐒᄬǶ ύයҞ ៈϐৎೖϷຑ᠘ᓬǶ อයҞ คဂᆫགࢉ٣ҹวғǶ ᄬय़ ౣЬᚒ ౣҞ ՉБਢ ᕮਏࡰ Ҟॶ ჴࡼ93.1-3. ჴࡼύ93.4-7. 93.8-10.ჴࡼࡕ ππբᅈཀࡋᕴϩ ྗϯϩኧ(%) >75% 84.19 72.5% -89.38 77.0% πᚆᙍ(%) <50 57.1 - 32.1 Ϫៈዽਡ >95 98.29 - 100.00 ᙌيמೌዽਡ >95 93.45 - 97.71 ܜ࿀מೌዽਡ >95 95.82 - 98.80 Ꮲಞᆶԋߏ ᄬय़ ޕᆅౣ ቚமπྣៈૈΚǴᔼ ྣៈຝǶ 1.Ӽ௨ៈΓϷϐ ӧᙍ૽ግǶ 2.ڋۓӚמೌྗೕጄϷ ዽਡ߄Ƕ 3.уமמೌᄽግǴቚம҅ዴ ྣៈמૈǶ మࢱዽਡ >95 93.29 - 99.31 Πڥ֎ၰགࢉวғ <0.11 0.05 0.14 0.26 ݜֿၰགࢉวғ <0.16 0.13 0.29 0.17 ϣࢬำᄬ य़ ࠔ፦ౣ ࢬำׯ๓ ౣ ׯ๓୍ܺࢬ ำǴගϲྣៈ ࠔ፦Ƕ 1.ڋۓགࢉᆅڋྗೕጄǶ 2.Չߏයྣៈϖࡰᅱ ෳǶ ဉगၰགࢉวғ <0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 ߚीฝ܄ᙯՐ࡚܄ੰ܊ К <5.81 14.18 18.38 23.30 ᓸየᗺՉ <10.69 7.27 7.83 10.40 3.ჴࡼࠔ፦ׯ๓ࡼǶ 4.Չࠔᆅ୮ࢲǴׯ๓ፁ ᆅࢬำǶ ፁᅅ <2.00 4.03 0.93 0.53 ៝࠼ᄬय़ Γ܄ϯᜢ ᚶౣ ග ϲ ྣ ៈ ࠔ ፦Ǵቚу៝࠼ ᅈཀࡋǶ 1.ཥቚӭϡϯҶ໕ࢲǶ 2.ཥቚ࡚ບ൩ᙴុྣៈ ୍ܺǶ 3.ཥቚВᙴৣْ܊ڋࡋ ៈϐৎ୍ܺᅈཀࡋᕴ ϩ ྗϯϩኧ(%) ᡏ୍ܺᅈཀࡋளϩ 118 >72% >83 113.22 69.0% 81.69 -120.19 73.3% 83.51 ୍ᄬय़ फ़եԋҁ ౣ Չᎍౣ ቚуᔼԏǴफ़ եԋҁǴബ ୍ᕮਏǶ 1.ׯ௦ύୱྣៈǶ 2.уமଣϣѦՉᎍϷрଣ ྗഢ୍ܺǶ ѳ֡Дԋҁ(ϡ) <28,500 (È5%) 30,000 28,300 27,800
p< .05 2. 1 0% 2 ?????? )X ? W.f@)g?O)Xg? ?W&Hf@YO)X?@@@@@)g? ?75??@@@@@@@)?hf? J(Y?e?@e?@H?hf? ?W.Yf?@e?@hg? ?.Y?@?@@@@@@@@@@hf??J5?hf?O)Xg??7H??@@@@@@@?@@@@@@)g?J@e?@f?@f?@h? ?W&@e?@f?@f?@h? W.Y@e?@@@@@@@f?@h?
.Y?@e?@M?@?g?@h??@g@??O)Xe?@h??@?@@@@@@@@@@)e?@h??@?N@?e@?g?@h??@?J@?e@?eO)X??@h??@?7@@@@@@@@@@)??@h??@?@M?e@?g?@h??@g@?g?@h??@g@?e?@@@@5h??@hf?I(Yh????????? 3.5% 3. 113.22 SD=13.73 120.19 SD=17.84 pair-t p< .05 4. 30,000 27,800 2,200 1. ᡂӜᆀ Γኧ ԭϩК ᡂӜᆀ Γኧ ԭϩК ᙍᆀ πբԃၗ ៈΓ 7 33.3 1ԃаΠ 1 4.8 ྣ୍៝ܺ 14 66.7 1-2ԃ 15 71.4 ୯ᝤ 3-4ԃ 1 4.8 ҁ୯ 10 47.6 5ԃа 4 19.0 Ѧ୯ 11 52.4 ᖏ࣬ᜢԃၗ ԃស ค 4 19.0 21-30ྃ 15 71.5 1ԃаΠ 6 28.6 31-40ྃ 2 9.5 1-2ԃ 6 28.6 41-50ྃ 2 9.5 3-4ԃ 2 9.4 51ྃа 2 9.5 5ԃа 3 14.4 ஆ࠷ރݩ ӧᏢঅύ ςஆ 8 38.1 ࢂ 2 9.5 ҂ஆ 13 61.9 ց 19 90.5 ௲ػำࡋ ଯᙍаΠ 4 19.0 ࣽ 16 76.2 εᏢ(֖)а 1 4.8
1 2002 2002 2003 Robertson Cummings 1991 2002 1998 Carr Kazanowski 1994 2002 Kaplan Norton ᡂӜᆀ Γኧ ԭϩК ᡂӜᆀ Γኧ ԭϩК ܄ձ ௲ػำࡋ ت 14 38.9 λᏢаΠ 3 8.4 ζ 22 61.1 ଯύᙍ 14 38.9 يϩ εа 19 52.7 Ր҇ଛଽ 2 5.6 ΕՐচӢ(ፄᒧ) Ր҇ηζ 29 80.6 ৎύલЮΓЋྣ៝ 23 63.9 Ր҇Р҆ 2 5.6 ᏼЈੰᡂϯଌᙴόߡ 16 44.4 Րܻ҇϶ 1 2.8 ৎឦલЮྣ៝ૈΚ 5 13.9 ځд 2 5.6 ۚৎᕉნคݤִ๓Ӽ 13 36.1 ԃស ৎՐୃᇻ܈ଯኴ 6 16.7 21-40ྃ 8 22.3 ځд 2 5.6 41-60ྃ 22 61.0 ৎΓຎᓎ 61ྃа 6 16.7 Ϻ 7 19.4 ஆ࠷ރݩ 2-3Ϻԛ 9 25.0 ςஆ 32 88.9 4-5Ϻԛ 6 16.7 ҂ஆ 3 8.3 ຼԛ 11 30.6 ៨܈ჲ 1 2.8 Βຼԛ 3 8.3
ᡂ Γኧ ԭϩК ѳ֡ॶ ᡂ Γኧ ԭϩК ѳ֡ॶ ܄ձ ࢲ٩ᒘำࡋ(ЃМໆ߄) ت 15 41.7 ֹӄ٩ᒘ 0-20 32 88.9 ζ 21 58.3 ᝄख़٩ᒘ 21-60 4 11.1 ԃស 77.5 ᆅၡ 60ྃаΠ 4 11.2 ค 5 13.9 61-80ྃ 12 33.3 1ᅿ 11 30.6 81а 20 55.5 2ᅿ 15 41.6 ௲ػำࡋ 3ᅿ 5 13.9 λᏢаΠ 18 49.9 ၸѐੰў ଯύᙍ 6 16.7 ค 0 0.0 εа 12 33.4 1-2ᅿ 9 25.0 ΕՐۚՐރݩ 3-4ᅿ 11 30.6 ᐱۚ 2 5.6 5ᅿ(֖)а 16 44.4 ᆶଛଽՐ 5 13.9 ߈ΒঁД࡚ບ൩ᙴԛኧ ᆶηζՐ 22 61.0 0ԛ 23 63.8 ᆶଛଽηζՐ 5 13.9 1-2 ԛ 9 25.0 ځд 2 5.6 3-5ԛ 4 11.2 Րٰ҇ྍ ߈ΒঁД࡚܄Րଣԛኧ ҁଣ 9 25.0 0ԛ 26 72.2 дଣ 18 50.0 1ԛ 7 19.4 ӼᎦៈύЈ 1 2.8 2ԛ 3 8.4 ৎύ 8 22.2 ߈ΒঁД࡚܄ՐଣϺኧ (n=10) 17.1 ΕՐਔ໔(Д) 36.6 1-10Ϻ 2 20.0 12ঁДаϣ 1 2.8 11-20 Ϻ 4 40.0 13-24ঁД 9 25.0 21-30Ϻ 4 40.0 25-36ঁД 10 27.8 ߈ΒঁД࡚܄Րଣບᘐ 37-48ঁД 7 19.4 ޤݹ 5 50.0 4ԃа 9 25.0 ֿၰགࢉ 2 20.0 Мໆ߄ ځд 3 30.0 3ભ 3 8.3 4ભ 33 91.7
ෳ ࡕෳ ᡂ ѳ֡ॶ ྗৡ ѳ֡ॶ ྗৡ Z p ᕴϩ 84.19 5.51 89.38 6.93 -2.42 .015* ѳ֡ 2.90 0.19 3.08 0.23 ᕉნഢБय़ 6.00 0.77 6.62 0.97 -2.47 .014* πբᕉნޑӼӄࡼԖߥም 3.00 0.32 3.29 0.56 ᙴଣගٮޑҔނکഢ಄ӝπբሡा 3.00 0.55 3.33 0.48 ᇡӕБय़ 18.33 1.68 19.14 2.37 -1.15 .250 Ҟπբޑᛙۓ܄ 2.84 0.69 3.05 0.52 ૈΕϷୖᆶߏයྣៈπբ 3.10 0.30 3.24 0.44 ྣ៝πբೢҺޑा 3.14 0.36 3.19 0.51 ૈඓඝϷയҺπբ 2.95 0.50 3.29 0.46 Ր҇Ϸৎឦჹךޑ൧ख़ϷߞҺ 3.14 0.36 3.29 0.46 ᆶՐ҇Ϸৎឦ࣬ೀӝᒋᑼࢳ 3.19 0.40 3.38 0.50 ௨ϷπբໆБय़ 10.38 1.91 11.57 1.33 -1.88 .060 Д௨ޑϦѳ܄ 2.76 0.44 2.95 0.50 πբϩଛޑӝ܄ 2.75 0.55 3.05 0.39 πբϩଛޑϦѳ܄ 2.70 0.57 2.95 0.40 Ҟπբໆޑॄำࡋ 2.43 0.60 2.67 0.58 ӕᏆᜢ߯Бय़ 5.71 0.72 6.14 0.57 -2.07 .038* ӕ٣໔ӝբᆶᔅԆ 2.90 0.30 3.10 0.30 ӕ٣໔࣬ϕ൧ख़ 2.81 0.51 3.05 0.38 ሦᏤБय़ 11.09 1.22 12.29 1.71 -2.23 .026* ჹܭЬᆅ๏ϒךޑπբࡰᏤ 2.90 0.30 3.10 0.44 ჹܭЬᆅૈڐշךှ،ୢᚒ 2.48 0.68 3.05 0.38 ჹܭЬᆅૈௗڙךޑཀـ 2.76 0.54 3.05 0.50 Ьᆅჹךؼӳπբ߄๏ϒޭۓϷႴᓰ 2.95 0.22 3.10 0.54 ،ୖᆶБय़ 9.00 0.00 9.38 1.12 -1.48 .139 ୖᆶՐ҇ྣៈࠔ፦ޑೕჄ 3.00 0.00 3.10 0.44 ୖᆶੰ܊ୢᚒှ،ޑፕ 3.00 0.00 3.10 0.44 ॄೢੰ܊ࢌ୍ 3.00 0.00 3.19 0.40 ૽ግϲᎂБय़ 14.67 1.80 15.52 2.14 -1.37 .171 ᙴଣϷൂՏගٮޑӧᙍ௲ػᐒ 3.05 0.22 3.29 0.56 ӧᙍ௲ػૈᏢಞཥޕ 2.95 0.38 3.33 0.58 ӧᙍ௲ػૈගܹπբמૈ 2.95 0.51 3.15 0.49 ϲᎂڋࡋޑϦѳ܄ 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.32 ϲᎂڋࡋޑӝ܄ 3.00 0.00 3.05 0.23 ᖒၗዛᓰБय़ 9.00 0.95 8.71 1.23 1.20 .232 Ҟᖒၗᆶځдӕભᙴଣ࣬Кၨ 3.00 0.32 2.90 0.44 ᙴଣගٮޑӚᅽճࡼ 3.00 0.32 2.90 0.54 ᙴଣޑዛᓰڋࡋ 3.00 0.32 2.90 0.54 ! . *p< .05
1996 p< .05 2003 2002 2 20%-30% 2003 2 % 4 % - 1 9 6 % 7 8 % Cohen-Mansfield, 1997; Harring-ton 2003 2003 29% ྣ୍៝ܺ(n=14) ៈΓ(n=7) ᡂ ѳ֡ॶ ྗৡ ѳ֡ॶ ྗৡ Z p ᕴϩ 92.63 7.23 86.86 5.24 -1.35 .177 ѳ֡ 3.13 0.26 3.00 0.18 ᕉნഢБय़ 6.86 0.95 6.14 0.90 -1.68 .093 ᇡӕБय़ 19.07 2.43 19.28 2.43 -0.15 .879 ௨ϷπբໆБय़ 12.07 0.92 10.57 1.51 -2.28 .023* ӕᏆᜢ߯Бय़ 6.14 0.66 6.14 0.38 -0.27 .785 ሦᏤБय़ 12.42 1.95 12.00 1.15 -0.61 .543 ،ୖᆶБय़ 9.50 1.34 9.14 0.38 -0.52 .607 ૽ግϲᎂБय़ 15.50 2.21 15.57 2.15 -0.52 .607 ᖒၗዛᓰБय़ 9.07 1.07 8.00 1.29 -2.00 .045* . *p< .05 **p< .01 ***p< .001
ෳ ࡕෳ ᡂ ѳ֡ॶ ྗৡ ѳ֡ॶ ྗৡ t p ᕴک 113.22 13.73 120.19 17.84 3.18 .003** ѳ֡ 2.76 0.33 2.93 0.44 ᕉნࡼБय़ 28.81 4.47 31.50 4.41 4.77 .000*** 1ޜፓྕࡋύ 2.97 0.45 3.17 0.45 2Ӏጕܴߝࡋύ 3.11 0.32 3.25 0.44 3਼܈ܜ࿀ഢሸӄଳృ 3.09 0.28 3.23 0.43 4ᡏᕉნమዅ 3.14 0.42 3.25 0.44 5ᕉნӼӄ܄ 3.12 0.42 3.29 0.46 6ൂǵൂ܈Պܺܭሡाਔૈᒿਔ׳ඤ 3.06 0.41 3.22 0.48 7ൂǵൂ܈Պܺమዅ 2.97 0.45 3.22 0.42 8ВதৎႝҔࠔ٬ҔБߡ 2.97 0.49 3.18 0.46 9Ҷ໕Ϸൺ଼ࡼ٬ҔӼӄϷБߡ܄ 3.00 0.49 3.12 0.55 10ੰ࠻ϣՏޜ໔ёᆢៈঁΓᗦد 3.06 0.33 3.19 0.40 ୍ܺᄊࡋϷמૈБय़ 34.06 4.74 35.22 7.23 1.205 .236 1ៈΓޑ୍ܺᄊࡋᒃϪک๓ǴૈЬᜢᚶ 3.08 0.37 3.25 0.50 2ៈΓޑៈמೌᏹբዕግ 3.11 0.40 3.22 0.48 3ៈΓගٮޑ଼நࡰᏤ 3.06 0.51 3.24 0.56 4ྣ୍୍៝ܺܺᄊࡋᒃϪک๓ǴૈЬᜢᚶ 3.08 0.44 3.19 0.58 5ྣ୍៝ܺޑמೌᏹբዕግ 3.11 0.40 3.20 0.53 6Ѧᝤྣ୍៝ܺޑᇟقྎ೯ૈΚ 3.03 0.29 3.17 0.45 7ᙴৣۓਔບϷᙴᕍ୍ܺ 2.97 0.47 3.12 0.48 8ᔼᎦৣගٮޑ१ᔼᎦ୍ܺ 2.76 0.62 3.21 0.54 9ޗπৣගٮޑᜢᚶᆶڐշ 3.09 0.60 3.26 0.45 10ൺ଼ݯᕍৣගٮޑݯᕍࢲ 2.97 0.49 3.04 0.43 11ᙍૈݯᕍৣගٮޑݯᕍࢲ 2.89 0.46 2.93 0.47 12ځдՉࡹ٣୍Γޑ୍ܺᄊࡋᒃϪک๓ 3.06 0.24 3.20 0.47 13דπΓޑЬᜢᚶϷڐշ 3.06 0.24 3.14 0.49 ྣៈၸำБय़ 27.83 4.60 29.47 4.61 2.729 .010** 1ংៈϐৎՏޑਔ໔ 3.03 0.39 3.09 0.39 2ᒤៈϐৎޑΕՐЋុ 3.09 0.37 3.18 0.39 3πբΓૈϷਔӣᔈாޑྣៈሡ 2.92 0.55 3.11 0.52 4ྣ៝ύૈݙཀঁΓᗦد 3.03 0.38 3.19 0.40 5ྣ៝ύૈݙཀӼӄ 3.06 0.41 3.17 0.51 6ЬගٮৎΓ߈ݩᡣךޕၰ 2.91 0.56 3.14 0.54 7ගٮߐບ൩ᙴਔޑڐշ 2.94 0.59 3.14 0.49 8ගٮᆙ࡚൩ᙴਔޑڐշ 3.06 0.35 3.18 0.39 9ගٮᙯՐ࡚܄ᙴଣය໔ޑᜢᚶڐշ 3.07 0.37 3.16 0.45 10ৎឦ০ፋૈкϩ߄ၲཀـ 3.00 0.50 3.11 0.50 ྣៈ่݀Бय़ 22.53 3.39 24.00 4.25 2.559 .015* 1يᡏమዅЪҜጥคઇཞ 3.06 0.23 3.14 0.49 2Ѥަᜢࢲࡋቚу 3.03 0.38 3.21 0.41 3१ٮᔈૈᕇளىᔼᎦ 3.08 0.28 3.22 0.48 4Ϸ־ިమዅค౦ښ 3.03 0.29 3.19 0.40 5ӢݜֿၰགࢉՐଣޑԛኧ෧Ͽ 3.04 0.43 3.20 0.48 6ӢޤݹՐଣޑԛኧ෧Ͽ 3.11 0.32 3.17 0.47 7ៈϐৎԖႽৎኬޑྕធݗ 3.11 0.40 3.25 0.50 8ቼғϷӚᅿቼࢲૈቚᆶৎΓག 3.14 0.35 3.31 0.47 ᕴᡏ୍ܺᅈཀࡋ 81.69 9.12 83.51 7.70 1.702! .098
2001 2004 3 2002 2002 2003 2. 1 Cohen-Mansfield, 1997; Needleman, et al., 2002 27.8% 50% 2003; Loeb, et al., 2000; Yoshikawa & Norman, 1996 2
1999
2002
3.
2002 2002 2002 2002 Kaplan & Norton, 1996
2002 4. 27,800 2,200 2001 22 35,160 2002 35,000 1. 1999 32(2):48-56 2. 2003 49:20-2 3. 2001 6:223-32 4. 2004 7 2004 5. 2004 51:31-64 6. 2004
48:71-90 7. 2002 8. 2003 23:79-89 9. 2000 10. 2003 -66:1-18 11. 1998 -155:28-38 12. 2002 11 -13. 2002 -14. 2004 51(1):70-6 15. 2002 16. 2003 17. 2002 18. 2003 39(11):76-9 19. 1998 32:29-45 20. 2004 3(2):110-21 21. 2002 19(1):53-63 22. 2002 19:207-28 23. 2003 4(1):11-21 24. 2004
29:38-58 25. 2004 8(1):13-24 26. 2001 34(2):54-64 27. 2003
-28. Carr, K. K., & Kazanowski, M. K. (1994). Factors affecting job satisfaction of nurses who work in long-term care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(5): 878-83.
29. Cohen-Mansfield, J. (1997). Turnover among nursing home staff. Nursing Management, 28(5):59-60, 62, 64. 30. Harrington, C., Meara, J. O., Collier, E.,
& Schnelle, J. F. (2003). Nursing indica-tors of quality in nursing homes. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 29:10-4. 31. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996).
The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston Massachu-setts: Harvard Business School Press.
32. Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. 2001
ARC
2001 33. Loeb, M., McGeer, A., McArthur, M.,
Peeling, R. W., Petric, M., & Simor, A. E. (2000). Surveillance for outbreaks of respiratory tract infection in nursing homes. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 162(8):1133-7.
34. Muller, C. W., & McCloskey, J. C. (1990). Nurses' job satisfaction: a pro-posed measure. Nursing Research, 39(2):113-7.
35. Needleman, J., Nuerhaus, P., Mattke, S., Stewart, M., & Zelevinsky, K. (2002). Nurse-staffing levels and the quality of care in hospitals. The New England Journal of Medicine, 345(22):1715-23. 36. Robertson, J. F., & Cummings, C. C.
(1991). What makes long-term care nursing attractive? American Journal of Nursing, 91(11):41-6.
37. Yoshikawa, T. T., & Norman, D. C. (1996). Approach to fever and infection in the nursing home. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 44(1):74-82.
Fu-Mei Lin, Meei-Show Lu, Ming-Chin Yang, Wen-Ta Chiu
As the population is aging rapidly, quality, cost-effectiveness, and cus-tomer satisfaction should be the goals that long-term care institutions strive for. Balanced scorecard is a strategic management tool to transform strategies into practice, to effectively implement strategies so as to meet organization s mis-sions. The study was designed to be an interventional study, applying balanced scorecard in hospital nursing home, to establish strategic objectives and perfor-mance indicators, improve the perforperfor-mance of nursing home, and compare the differences of each performance indicator after implementing balanced score-card. The sample is selected by convenient sampling. The study subjects were selected from some hospital nursing home in Taipei, consisting of employees, residents and their relatives. Study instruments include employee satisfaction questionnaire, customer satisfaction questionnaire for nursing home, nursing technique audit statistics, quality monitoring statistics, and monthly services re-ports. Data collection was done from January to October in 2004. We used de-scriptive statistics, pair-t test, independent-t test, and nonparametric Wilcoxon test for data analysis.
The results of this study are as follow: 1.Learning and growth perspective: (1)Employees satisfaction was improved, and the difference is statistically sig-nificant (p< .05). The highest score is on harmonious interaction with residents and their relatives whereas the lowest score is on current workload . (2)The
personnel turnover rate decreased from 57.1% in 2004 to 32.1% in 2003. (3)The nursing care techniques accuracy improved, and the difference is statistically significant (p< .05). 2.Internal process perspective: (1)Nosocomial infection rate, pressure sore point prevalence, and the rate of unexpected transfers/dis-charges to acute inpatient care all experienced a slight increase. The reason may be due to the delay of recruiting new members after certain staff members quit their job. (2)The rate of missed billing of medical supplies was decreased. 3.Customer perspective: the satisfaction score of residents relatives for the nurs-ing home was improved, and the difference is statistically significant (p< .05). 4.Financial perspective: the cost per bed per month was decreased.
