:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:運用商業模式及績效評估之觀點 分析台灣社會企業發展模式
作者:陳於志
作者(外文):Yu-Chih Chen
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:成人及繼續教育研究所
指導教授:胡夢鯨
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2016
主題關鍵詞:社會企業社會企業發展商業模式績效評估CVIPBPsocial businesssocial enterprise developmentbusiness modelsperformance evaluationCVIPBP
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(3) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:3
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:80
社會創業的起點是創業環境,有好的創業環境才會有好的創業成果。近年來台灣社會企業如雨後春筍般林立,掀起一波社會創業的浪潮;但眾多新設社會企業因為政策資訊不足或營運技術不佳而發生經營不善的問題,社會企業正面臨極大挑戰。如何提升社會創業者尋求支援、整合資源的能力,縮短創業的摸索歷程,提高創業的成功機率,將是未來政府扶植或推動社會企業改善及發展的重要課題。本研究從社會企業專業化的觀點,分析台灣社會企業發展模式,期以建構一套完整且系統化的自我檢測模型與指標,提供社會企業創業家在實際投入創業與經營時,能按圖索驥,不至於走許多冤枉路或失敗而終。如此則能為社會造福而不致於枉費社會資源。
有鑑於此,本研究以台灣社會企業為研究主體,以應用商業模式與績效評估之觀點,藉以探討台灣社會企業之:一、創業動機與設立目的;二、發展歷程可能發生的困難與解決方案;三、經營成功關鍵因素;四、具社會價值的商業模式; 五、企業發展可能模式。最後綜合研究結果,歸結出不同發展可能模式的社會企業在其發展歷程階段自我檢測模型之建議。
本研究採用深度訪談法進行研究,以立意採樣方式選取在Alter(2007)所提出的社會混合光譜上不同落點的10家社會企業為研究對象。經過深度訪談、觀察與文獻及資料分析與討論,根據研究發現,歸納結論如下:
一、台灣社會企業蓋以解決社會問題為創業動機與設立目的。創業之初應優先重視內外部情境分析與願景組織狀態的自我檢測,以有效制訂具體經營計畫與策略目標。
二、台灣社會企業發展各階段面臨的問題,以資金、人才、產銷平衡與營運模式為主要,應優先重視政策資訊、資源挹注、流程管理、人才培育與商業模式的建構,以強化社會企業有效生存與發展的能力。
三、台灣社會企業成功經營關鍵因素,除創業家特質與明確的社會使命及願景目標外,以擁有具有能完成社會使命的商業模式為最主要,應優先重視社會使命的確認與商業模式的自我檢測,以有效創造成功的產出成果。
四、從商業模式的觀點來分析社會企業發展模式,可歸納出社區協力組織、社會與經濟性混合機制、共同平台商業模式、分享或共有經濟模式、體驗式經濟及虛擬實體O2O模式等六種商業模式。社會企業如能建構適用的商業模式,則可創造社會效益及經濟成果,以實現價值主張。
五、應用CVIPBP績效評估的觀點分析社會企業發現其社會效益及經濟成果比例將會影響社會企業的發展。而以CVIPBP做為社會企業自我檢測指標對分析創業前、中、後之組織績效與營運成果,具有積極意義。對於社會企業的產出成果與未來發展至關重要,能有效及時改善營運作為。
六、本研究根據研究結果與結論,針對社會企業發展彙整出六大商業模式,並
根據CVIPBP關鍵指標,分就政府、社會企業、成功企業主及未來研究提出
相關建議。
The origin of social enterprise is enterprise environment; a good enterprise environment will have a good enterprise performances. In resent years, social enterprises have sprung up everywhere in Taiwan, setting off a tide of social entrepreneurship. However, a number of new social enterprises failed because of the lack of information or poor policies and poor management of operating technical problems. The social enterprises in Taiwan are facing great challenges. How to enhance the ability of social entrepreneurs to seek support, to integrate the resources, how to shorten the exploration process of the staring stage and how to elevate the chances of success of entrepreneurship, will be an important issue for the government to support or promote the improvement and development of social enterprises in the future. From the point of view of the professional social enterprises, this study attempts to analysis the development models of the social enterprises in Taiwan and tries to construct a complete and systematic self-testing models and norms for the social entrepreneurs to follow when they began to run a social enterprise. Therefore, they will not make many costly mistakes or failure, and eventually, they can bring the society with a great benefit, instead of wasting social resources.
In view of this, the study took the social enterprises in Taiwan as the study objects. Based on the view of the business model and performance evaluation, the study researched the social enterprises in Taiwan into the following. First, the motivations and the purposes of establishing the social enterprises; Second, the difficulties that may occur in the development processes as well as the solutions; Third, the key factors in business success; Fourth, the business models with social value; Five, the possible models for business development. Finally, according to the results of such a comprehensive study, the researcher will have a suggestion of self-testing models for different development processes of social enterprises.
The study adapted in-depth interview and purposive sampling method to select 10 social enterprises in Taiwan as the study objects according to the different placements on the spectrum of social enterprises designed by Alter. Through individual in-depth interviews, observation and literature data analysis and discussion as well as the study findings, conclusions are summarized as follows:
1. The social enterprises in Taiwan tend to take “solving the social problems” as the motivations and the purposes of establishing the social enterprises. At the beginning of entrepreneurship, the self-testing of both scenario analysis of internal and external tissue and enterprise vision should be given priority to effectively develop specific business plans and strategic objectives.
2. The problems of the social enterprises in Taiwan in different development stages are mostly about financial, personnel, balance production and sales and business model. Information policy, funds injection, process management, talent education and business models should be given as the main priority in order to strengthen the effective ability to survival and development of social enterprises.
3. The key factors in business success of the social enterprises in Taiwan lie in not only the characteristics of entrepreneurs with a clear social mission and vision of the goal but also the business models with a confirm social mission to complete. The confirmation of social mission and the self-testing of the business models should be given priority to take care of in order to effectively create a successful outputs achievement.
4.Based on the perspective of business model to analysis of social enterprise development, the following six business models can be developed:the collaborative community organization, the hybrid social and economic system, platform business models, sharing economic models, Experiential Economy and virtual entities O2O models. If social enterprises can construct suitable business models, then they will create social benefits and economic outcomes so as to realize the value proposition.
5. With the application of CVIPBP performance evaluation to analysis social enterprises, the researcher found that the proportion of social benefits and economic outcomes will affect the development of social enterprises. And as self-test indicators of social enterprises, CVIPBP have a great influence on the analysis of the organizational performance and operations outcomes in the period of before, during and after the entrepreneurship. It would significantly affect the outputs and outcomes of social enterprises and their future development, improving the operation effectively and timely.
6. According to the findings of this study and conclusions, the study proposed the six major business models for social enterprises and has made a suggestion to the government, social enterprises, successful entrepreneurs and future research according to CVIPBP key indicators as well.
一、中文部分
大前研一(1984)。策略家的智慧。台北:長河出版社。
王文科(1994)。教育研究法。台北:五南。new window
王仕圖(2007)。社區型非營利組織資源動員與整合-以社區發展協會為例。台灣社會福利學刊,5(2),103-137。new window
王仕圖(2013)。非營利組織在社區照顧服務的協調合作-以社區照顧關懷據點為例。台大社工學刊,27,185-228。new window
王全興(2009)。CIPP評鑑模式的概念與發展。慈濟大學教育研究學刊,5,1-27。
司徒達賢(1995)。策略管理。台北:遠流出版社。
司徒達賢(1999)。非營利組織的經營管理。台北:天下遠見。
江明修主編(2000)。第三部門經營策略與社會參與。台北:智勝文化。
江明修、鄭勝分(2003)。全球治理與非政府組織。全球化下的全球治理學術研討會,國立政治大學企業管理研究所主辦。
江明修、鄭勝分(2004)。從政府與第三部門互動內涵的觀點析探台灣社會資本之內涵及其發展策略。理論與政策,17(3),37-58。new window
池祥麟(2007)。績效評估與責信。台北:喜瑪拉雅基金會非營利組織經營管理
系列講座,未出版。
行政院(2014)。社會企業行動方案。台北:行政院。2014 年 10 月 7 日取自:
http://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/RelFile/27/716149/8d8b6be7-0e21-4a37-9c72-871e28b325d2.pdf。
余佩珊譯,Drucker, F., Peter(1994)。非營利機構的經營之道。台北:遠流。
吳思華(2000)。策略九說。台北:臉譜出版公司。
呂育一、徐木蘭(1994)。非營利組織績效指標之研究—以文教基金會為例。new window
台大管理論叢,5(1),165-188。
呂春嬌(1999)。從CIPP評鑑模式談圖書館的評鑑。大學圖書館,3(4),19-32。new window
呂朝賢(2008)。社會企業與創業精神:意義與評論。國立政治大學
社會學報,39,81-117。
李衍儒(2009)。美國、英國及香港特區政府社會企業對台灣的政策啟示。二一世紀海峽兩岸青年論壇。
官有垣(2000)。非營利組織與社會福利:台灣本土的個案分析。台北:亞太。
官有垣、王仕圖(2000)。非營利組織的相關理論。蕭新煌(主編),非營利部門:組織與運作,43-74。台北市,巨流出版。
官有垣(2005)。社會企業在經營管理上面臨的挑戰:以台灣喜憨兒社會福利基金會為案例。發展公益事業建構和諧社會學術研討會。上海:復旦大學社會發展研究中心。
官有垣(2006)。社會企業在台灣的發展。社會企業國際研討會。香港別行政區。
官有垣(2007)。社會企業在台灣的發展。中國非營利評論, 1 ,146-181 。
林吉郎(2006)。民間團體發展社會企業的策略途徑:香港經驗的啟發」。國立政治大學非營利組織研討會,47-68。
林怡君(2008),社會企業在台灣的發展與限制-以多元就業發展方案經濟型計畫為例。就業安全, 7 ( 1 ),63-67 。
社企流(2014)。社企力!社會企業=翻轉世界的變革力量,用愛創業,做好事又能獲利。台北市,大雁出版社。
胡夢鯨(2008)。樂齡學習中心的經營成效評估指標。國立中正大學,未出版。
胡夢鯨(2010)。台灣地區成人教育機構績效評估CVIPP模型之建構與應用:機構專業化的觀點。行政院國科會專題研究報告。(NSC 98-2410-H-194-014-SS2)
胡夢鯨、嚴嘉明、施宇澤(2013)。成人及高齡教育機構績效評估-CVIPP模型的建構與應用。日臺樂齡學習論壇,東京,日本東京大學高齡社會綜合研究中心暨台灣樂齡發展協會聯合舉辦。
胡夢鯨、嚴嘉明、詹浚煌(2015)。台灣地區成人教育組織績效評估CVIPP模型與指標之建構。成人及終身教育學刊,24,1-34。new window
胡哲生,張子揚(2009),社會企業創業議題:社會創新與管理融入。創業管理研究, 4 (4 ),85-105 。new window
胡哲生、陳志遠(2009)。社會企業本質、任務與發展。創業管理研究,4(4),1-28。new window
胡哲生、張子揚、黃浩然(2012)。社會創業模式社會企業資源整合的關聯性。創業管理研究,7(1), 1-25。
孫本初編著(2005)。公共管理。台北:智勝出版。
高文彬、李雅慧(2011)。樂齡學習的重要推手:樂齡志工組織RSVP。胡夢鯨(主編),新加坡樂齡學習組織與實務,79-103。台北:五南出版。
高文彬、趙黃鉉(2015),高齡產業社會企業創業家轉化學習歷程。勞資關係論叢,16,2。
高永興(2010)。政府監督與NPO責信。災害救助與社會工作研討會。
陳金貴(1994)。美國非營利組織的人力資源管理。台北:瑞興圖書。new window
陳金貴(2002)。非營利組織社會企業化經營之探討。新世紀智庫論壇,19,39-51。
陳慶得(2001)。連鎖式經營關鍵成功因素之探討-以美語補習業為例。新北市:淡江大學。
黃德舜、鄭勝分、陳淑娟、吳佳霖(2014)。社會企業管理。新北市:指南書局。
彭錦鵬、江瑞祥、許耿銘(2011)。非營利組織績效評量指標之建構。政治科學論叢,49,125-160。new window
楊君琦、郭佳佳、周宗穎、吳宗昇(2010)。探索以公益為基礎之組織經營型態。創業管理研究,5 ( 2)。
楊銘賢、吳濟聰、蘇哲仁、高慈薏(2009)。社會企業經營模式之建構。創業管理研究。new window
楊銘賢、吳濟聰、蘇哲仁、高慈薏(2011)。企業家社會資本對社會企業創業與創新之影響。創業管理研究。new window
鄭勝分(2005)。歐美社會企業發展及其在台灣應用之研究,國立政治大學公共行政學系博士論文。new window
鄭勝分(2007)。社會企業的概念分析。政策研究學報,7,65-108。new window
蕭新煌主編(2000)。非營利部門:組織與運作。台北:巨流。
蕭新煌、馮燕、官有垣、李禮孟、陸宛蘋、王金英、黃慶讚、徐木蘭、邱瑜瑾、江明修、楊君琦、王仕圖、陳定銘、孫志慧(2009)。非營利部門-組織與運作。台北:巨流圖書。

二、英文部分
Alter, K. (2004). Social Enterprise Typology. Search date: 2013.06.21, From http://www.virtueventures.com/setypology.pdf.
Austin, J. E., Stevenson, H .H., and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial
Entrepreneurship : Same, Different, or Both?, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 30(1), 1-22.
Boschee, J. and McClurg, J. (2003). Toward a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship : Some Important Distinction.
Bacchiega A. & Borzaga C. (2004). Social Enterprise as Incentive Structires: An
Economic Analysis, in Borzaga C. & Defourny J. eds., The Emergence of Social
Enterprise. London: Routledge, pp. 273-295.
Dees, G. (1994) Social enterprise: Private initiatives for the common good. Retrieved Jan 20, 2015, from https://hbr.org/product/social-enterprise-private-initiatives-for-the-comm/an/395116-PDF-ENG
Dees, J. G.(1996). The Social Enterprise Spectrum: Philanthropy to Commerce. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 9,396-343.
Dees, J. G.(1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review. Jan-Feb: 55-67.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Working paper, Stanford University ─ Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA.
Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, vol.76, 55-67.
Dees, J. Gregory & Elias, Jann (1998). The challenges of combing social and commercial enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly. 8,1: 165-178.
Dees, J. G., & Anderson, B. B. (2003). Sector‐Bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for‐profit. Society, 40(4): 16‐27.
Dees, J. Gregory & Defourny, Jacques(2006). Social Enterprise : at the crossroads of market , public policies and civil society. London and New York:Routledge.
Defourny, Jacques( 2001). Introduction:From Third Sector to Social Enterprise. In Borzaga, Carlo & Jacques Defourny. eds., The Emergence of Social Enterprise. London, England: Routledge, pp.1-28.
Defourny, J., & Marthe, N. (2006). Defining social enterprise. Social enterprise: At the crossroad of market, public policies and civil society, pp.3-26. New York: Routledge.
Defourny, Jacques & Marthe Nyssens( 2010). Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States:Convergences and Divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1):32-53.
Defourny, Jacques & Marthe Nyssens.(2012). Conceptions of Social Enterprise in Europe:A Comparative Perspective with the United States, in Benjamin, Gidron & Yeheskel, Hasenfeld(Eds.), Social Enterprises: An organizational Perspective.
Defourny, Jacques & Marthe Nyssens( 2014). The EMES approach of Social Enterprise in a comparative perspective. in Jacques, Defourny, Lars Hulgard & Victor Pesroff ( eds.), Social Enterprise and the Third Sector. Abingdon:Routledge, pp. 42-65.
Dixon, J., Makarov D., and M. David( 1998). Poverty. London & New York: Routledge.
Drucker, Peter F.(1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review. XXVI, 2: 53-63.
Drucker, Peter F.(1999). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Burrerworth-Heinemann.
Emerson, J., & Twerksy, F. (Eds). (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The success, challenge and lessons of non-profit enterprise creation. San Francisco: Roberts foundation, Homeless Economic Development Fund.
Hamel, Gary.(2000). Leading the Revolution. Boston. Harvard Business School.
Hostick-Boakye, S. and Hothi, M. (2011) Grow Your Own: How Local Authorities Can Assist Social Enterprises. London, The Young Foundation.
Magretta, Joan(2002). Why Business Models Matter. Harvard Business Review ,Vol. 80, No. 5,pp. 86-92.
OECD.(1999). Social Enterprises. OECD.
OECD.(2003). The Non-Profit Sector in Changing Economy. OECD.
Porter, M. E.,(1985). Competitive Advantage:Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York, The Free Press.
Porter, M.E. and M.R. Kramer ( 2011). Creating shared value. Harvard business review, January-February, 62-77.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Slywotzky AJ.( 1996). Value migration. Boston. Harvard Business Review Press.
Stevenson, H.H. (1983). A perspective on entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Working Paper. 9.384-131. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Stewart DW., Zhao Q.( 2000). Internet marketing, business models, and public policy. J Public Policy Mark: 287– 96.
Teasdale, Simon.( 2011). What’s in a Name? Making Sense of Social Discourses. Public Policy and Administration, 27(2):99-119.
Thompson, J., Alvy, G., and Less, A. ( 2000). Social entrepreneurship: A new look at the people and the potential. Management Decision, 38(5): 328-338.
Young, D. R. (2001). Organizational Identity in Nonprofit Organization: Strategic and Structural Implications. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(2):139-157.
Young, Dennis R.(2007). A unified of social enterprise. Atlanta, GA: Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE