本研究以組織常規（Nelson and winter，1992）為出發點，分析IC設計產業之新產品開發流程，為了激勵專案成員與組織目標一致，以Milgrom and Roberts（1992）提出的誘因契約理論，建構績效管理制度。實證結果如下：
1.基於任務互依性，應提高團隊績效比重。
2.IC設計產業對研發工程師與測試工程師之各項績效指標的重視程度排名符合誘因強度排名（1）工作進度達成率、（2）工作產出品質、（3）成本控制與分析、（4）個人取得專利數目，將可有效提升新產品開發績效。
3.若IC設計產業對「成本控制與分析」指標採取相對績效標準；對「個人取得專利數目」指標採取絕對績效標準，將有助於提升新產品開發績效。
4.若IC設計產業對新產品開發專案成員實施員工入股計畫，將有助於提升新產品開發績效。

This thesis uses organizational routines（Nelson and Winter, 1982）as a starting point to analyze NPD （New Product Development）routine in IC design industry. To align the interests between project members and organization, we apply the incentive contract theory（Milgrom and Roberts, 1992）to devise a performance management system. Our empirical findings are listed in the following:
1.The weight of team performance measure should be increased due to the task interdependence.
2.The optimal weights of performance measures for R&D and test engineers should be in the following decreasing order: (1) rate of on-time progress, (2) output quality, (3) cost control and analysis, (4) the number of patents by individuals, NPD performance will be improved. The fitter the actual weights of performance measures to theoretical ones, the better the performance of NPD would be.
3.The NPD performance would be better if IC design industry adopts a relative measure to assess the performance of cost control and analysis; and an absolute measure to assess the performance of the number of patents by individuals.
4.The NPD performance would be better if IC design industry implements the employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) for project members.

一、中文文獻
1.林維熊（2005），策略管理，未出版書籍。
2.謝佩蓉（1996），「資訊研發人員誘因薪資制度之研究」，台灣科技大學管理研究所未出版之碩士論文。
二、英文文獻
1.Ashton, W. Bradford and Sen, Rajat K. (1988), “Using Patent Information In Technology Business Planning”, Research Technology Management, Vol.31 (6), pp.42-46.
2.Barczak, G. (1995), “New Product Strategy, Structure, Process, and Performance in the Telecommunications Industry”, Journal of Product Innovation management, Vol. 12(2), pp.224-234.
3.Bowon, Kim and Heungshik (2002), “Economic compensation compositions preferred by R&D personnel of different R&D types and intrinsic values”, R&D management, Vol. 32(1).
4.Brickley, J.A., Smith, C.W. Jr., and Zimmerman, J.L. (2004), Managerial Economics and Organizational Architecture, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
5.Carr, C. (1992), Teampower: Lessons form America’s Top Companies on Putting Team-Power to Work, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hill, Inc.
6.Chuck Tomkovick (2000), “Perspective-Riding the Wind: Managing New Product Development in An Age of Change”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17, pp.413-423.
7.Cooper, R. G. and Kleinschrnidt E. J. (1986), “Investigation into the New Product Process: Steps, Deficiencies and Impact”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 3(2), pp. 71-85.
8.Cooper, R. G. and Kleinschrnidt E. J. (1988), “Resource Allocation in the New Product Process”, Industrail Marketing Management, Vol. 17, pp.249-262.
9.David Besanko, David Dranove, Mark Shanley and Scott Schaefer (2006), Economics of strategy, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10.Feldman, M. S. and Brian T. Pentland (2003), “Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp.94-118.
11.Garvin David A. (2002), General Management Process and Action, McGraw-Hill Press.
12.Griffin, A. and Page, A.L. (1993), “An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 10(4), pp.291-308.
13.Griffin, A. (1997), “PDMA Research on New Product Development Pratice: Updating Trends, and Benchmarking Best Practices”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, pp.429-458.
14.Hackman, J. R. (1983), A Normative Model of Work Team Effectivesness, New Haven, CT: Yale University.
15.Hauptman, O. (1990), “The Different Roles of Communication in Software Development and Hardware R&D: Phenomenological Paradox or A theoretical Empiricism?” Journal of Engineering Technology Management, pp.49-71.
16.Jaccard, James J., Robert Turrisi, and Choi K.Wen (1990), Interaction Effects in Multiple Regession. Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications.
17.Jesen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling (1976), “Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of Financia Economics, Vol. 3, pp.305-360.
18.Jesen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling (1995), “Specific and General Knowledge, and Organizational Structure”, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 8(2).
19.Johnson, D. W., Gohnson, R. and Anderson, D. (1983), “Social Interdependence and Classroom Climate”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 114(1), pp.135-142.
20.Kanter, R. M. (1984), “Innovation: Our only Hope for Time Ahead?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 25, pp.51-55.
21.Kiggundu, M. N. (1981), “Task Interdependence and the Theory of Job Design”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6.
22.Lee, C. (1985), “Increasing performance appraisal effectiveness: Matching task types, appraisal process, and rater training”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10(2), pp.322-331.
23.Lin, Wei-Shong, Albert Kuo-Chung Mei, (2006), “The Effects of Performance Management on Non-Performing Loan Ratios: An Empirical Study of the Banking Industry in Taiwan”, 2006 Annual Conference of Academy of Management, Atlanta, USA.
24.Markus C. Becker. (1982), “The concept of routines twenty years after Nelson and Winter-A review of the literature”, Danish Research Unit For Industrial Dynamics.
25.McCann, J. E. and Ferry, D. L. (1979), “An Approach for Assessing and Managing Inter-Unit Interdependence”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4(1), pp.113-119.
26.Mishar S., Kim, D. and Lee D.H. (1996), “Factors Affecting New Product Success: Cross-Country Comparisons”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 13, pp. 530-550.
27.Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, Organization and Management, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
28.Mitchell, T. R. and Silver, W.S. (1990), “Individual and Group Goals When Workers Are Interdependent: Effects on Task Strategies and Performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp.185-193.
29.Mower and Wilemon (1989), “Rewarding technical teamwork”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 32(5), pp.24-29.
30.Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
31.Nonaka, I. And Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York, Oxford University Press.
32.Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H. (1994), Psychometric theory(3 ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
33.Pachico D. (1996), “Innovation Indicators in the Agricultural Sector in Latin American”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 6(3), pp.205-208.
34.Sbragia, Roberto (1984), “Clarity of management Roles and Performance od R&D Multidisciplinary Projects in Matrix Structures”, R&D Management, pp.113-126.
35.Shea, G. P. & Guzzo, R. A. (1987), “Interclass Correlations：US in Assessing Rater Reliability”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86, pp.420-428.
36.Song, X. Michael and M. Montoya-Weiss (1998), "Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products," Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15:2 (March), 124-135.
37.Song, X.M., Thieme, R.J. and Xie, J. (1998a), “The Impact of Cross-Functional Joint Involvement across Product Development Stages: an Exploratory Study”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15, pp.289-303.
38.Stewart, G. L. and Barrick, M. R. (2000), “Team Structure and Performance: Assessing the Mediating Role of Intrateam Process and the Moderating Role of Task Type”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43(2), pp.135-148.
39.Takeuchi, Hirotaka and Ikujiro Nonaka (1986), “The Product Development Game”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.64(1), pp.137-146.
40.Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organization in Action, New York: Mcgraw Hill, pp.51-65.
41.Van De Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L. and Koenig, R. Jr. (1976), “Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations, American Sociological Review”, Vol. 41, pp.322-338.
42.Wageman, R. (1995), “Interdepnedence and Group Effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly”, Vol. 40(1), pp.145-180.