刺繡物只要掌握流行的變化與趨勢，在刺繡的素材做改變，刺繡的針黹作突破性的組合，加上擁有高科技刺繡機器的生產，便是另一種有商機的產品，絕對比單純的紡織成品更有市場價值。所以台灣的刺繡業為了永續經營應尋求良好的經營績效。過去文獻沒有對刺繡業經營績效有任何的探討，本研究以30位刺繡業的主管為問卷調查對象輔以訪談及產業特性，擬出三個構面:「人力資源管理」、「設計研發能力」與「經營管理能力」，並運用因素分析，萃取出10個重要因素，進行典型相關分析及迴歸分析等實証，結果顯示：
（1）10個因素：「教育訓練」、「薪資福利」、「員工任免」、「創新能力」、「商品化能力」、「設計能力」、「技術力」、「資源力」、「品牌力」、「經營績效」。
（2）教育訓練與設計能力、資源力成正相關。
（3）商品化能力與資源力成正相關。
（4）設計能力與資源力成負相關。
（5）高績效的廠商，其資源力豐富和商品化能力都較為強。

　　Only if embroidery can catch up with the fashion trend, seek for new possibilities by changing ground materials together with phenomenal stitching combination and produce with high-tech embroidery machine, it will always be another kind of very commercial products highly valued even more than texture itself. Therefore, embroidery industry should imporve operation efficiency and competition ability to survive in Taiwan. Hardly can find any analysis comment or any past literature on the critical factors of operation performance among firms in the embroidery industry. Questionnaires in this research is designed aiming to 30 typical managers in Taiwan embroidery field, backed up with more interviews in embroidery profession to take view from three aspects : Human Resource Management, Research and Development and Operation Management. This research project adopts factor analysis, canonical correlation analysis and regression analysis and come to the conclusion as follows:

(1) Ten critical operation performance valuation factors:「Education & Training」,「Wages, Salary, and Welfare」,「Career opportunity」,「
Innovation capabilities」,「Commercialized capabilities」,「Design capabilities」,「Technology capabilities」,「Resource capabilities」,「
Brand」,「Operation performance」.
(2) Education and Design capabilities with Resource capabilities are positively correlated
(3) Commercialized capabilities & Resource capabilities is positively correlated.
(4) Design capabilities and Resource capabilities is negatively correlated.
(5) The firms having higher Commercialized capabilites and Resource capabilities can usually maintain higher operation efficiency

一. 中文部分
1.王振州，2000，知識整合與新產品開發績效之研究---動態能力觀點，中原大學企業管理學研究所碩士論文。

2.石賜亮，1999，台灣傳統集團企業多角化與國際化成長策略之研究，國立台灣大學，國際企業研究所碩士論文。

3.江玫君，2001，人力資源管理與組織績效之相關研究，嶺東學報，第十二卷，頁219-237。

4.李元墩、蔡東峻、陳孟謙，1999，企業策略、人力資源策略、人力資源管理效能與組織績效關係之研究—以台灣高科技產業為例，長榮學報，第三卷，第一期，頁65-81。

5.李宗哲，1998，亞太地區中小企業之比較研究，第二屆中小企業學術研討會，頁19。

6.吳萬益，1996，集團企業組織文化，決策模式與經營策略之研究─中、美、日、德、韓、墨主要集團企業運作模式之實証分析，行政院月。

7.邱皓政，2000，量化研究與統計分析，台北，五南圖書。

8.俞慧芸，1995，政府科技專案最適移轉模式選用之研究─以電子資訊產業為例，中山管理評論，第二卷，第三期。

9.孫佩蘭、張美芳、沈國慶，1989，蘇繡針法與技巧，江蘇科學技術出版社，頁1-5。

10.徐聯恩、謝瑞史，1999，創新性人力資源管理制度概況及其對企業績效之影響，勞資關係月刊，第十七卷，第十一期，頁40-52。

11.陳世哲，2001，人力資源管理與組織績效之研究：大陸台商企業的實證分析，台灣管理學刊，第一卷，第一期，頁1-18。

12.陳佩佩，2000，影響新事業技術商品化與績效相關因素之研究─以高科技產業為例，國立成功大學，企業管理學系研究所碩士論文。

13.陳怡之、郭明宗，1999，智慧財產權之衍生研究─技術商品化問題之研究，智慧財產權，頁182-192。

14.黃英忠、陳榮德、凌雅慧、劉維寧，2001，整合性人力資源資訊系統在績效管理體系應用之研究，企銀季刊，第廿四卷，第四期，頁17-33。

15.黃家齊，2000，人力資源管理系統內部契合與組織績效之關聯性研究，中山管理評論，第八卷，第三期，頁511-536。

16.葉時匡，1998，人力資源管理的新議題，中山管理評論，秋季號，第六卷，第三期，頁741-752。

17.趙必孝、陳榮德，1999，我國因應亞洲金融風暴之人力資源管理與發展，企銀季刊，第廿二卷，第三期，頁53-63。

18.蔡敦浩、周德光，1994，技術能力的形成與發展，經濟部技術處：1994產業科技研究發展管理論文集，頁237-264。

19.闕河士、菅瑞昌、黃旭輝，2000，研究發展密集度與專利對股票績效影響---以台灣上市公司為例，產業管理學報，第一卷，第二期，頁257-268。

二. 英文部分
1. Adoutte, R., 1989, High Technology as a Commercial Asset, Int. J. Technology Management, Vol.44, pp.397-460。

2. Argyres, N., 1996, Capabilities, Technological Diversification and Divisionalization, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.17, Issue 5, pp.395-410。

3. Baker, S., Frastaci, M., 1999, Uncharted Niches: Hi-tech Skus in the Wilderness, Apparel Industry Magazine, Vol.60, Issue 2, pp.40-44。

4. Barney, J. B., 1991, Firm sources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, Vol.17, Issue 1, pp.99-120。

5. Betz, F., 1993, Managing Technology Competing Through New Ventures, Innovation, and Corporate Research, Prentice Hall。

6. Bititci, S. U., 1994, Measuring Your Way to Profit, Management Decision, Vol.32, No.6, pp.16-24。

7. Borosky, J. W., 1990, Puttiy it Fogether: HR Planning in 3rd at Eastman Kodak, Human Resource Planning, Vol.13, Issue 1, pp.45-47。

8. Brown, G. M., Stvenson, A. R., 1998, Measuring R & D Productivity, Research Technology Management, Vol.41, Issue 6, pp.30-38。

9. B. W. Associates, 1994, Facilities Economics, Building Economics Bureau Ltd, Kent.。

10.Cooper & Lybrand Consulting Group, 1985, Business Planning in the Eighties: The New Marketing Shape of North American Corporations, New York: Corgers & Lybrand/Yankelovich, Skelly & White.

11.Dodd, K., 2001, Research and Design Success, Design Management Journal, Vol.12, Issue 3, pp.58-62。

12.Drucker P. F., 1986, Innovation and Entrepreneurship-Practice and Principles。

13.Freeis, R. G., Hochwarter, A. W., Buckley, R. M., Harrell-Cook G., Frink, D. D., 1999, Journal of management, Vol.25, No.3, pp.385-415。

14.Gaiss, M., 1998, Enterprise Performance Management, Management Accounting, Vol.80, Issue 6, pp.44-46。

15.Grabowsski, H.G., 1968, The Determinants of Industrial Research and Development: A Study of the Chemical, Drug and Petroleum Industry, Journal of Political Economics, pp.292-306。

16.Hall, R., 1993, A Framework Linking Intangible Resources & Capabilities to Sustainable Competitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.14, pp.607-618。

17.Harris, C. L., Ogbonna E., 1999, Strategic human resource management, market orientation, and organizational performance, Journal of Business Research 51, pp.157-166。

18.Higgins, J. M., 1995, The Core Competence: Innovation,
Planning Review, Vol.23, Issue 6, pp.32-35。

19.Huang, T. C., 2001, The effects of linkage between business and human resource management strategies, Personnel Review, Vol.30, Num.2, pp.132-151。

20.Huselid, M A., 1995, The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance, Academy of Management Journal 38, pp.635-672。

21.Jayaram, J., Droge, C., Vickery, K.S., 1999, The impact of human resource management practices on manufacturing performance, Journal of Operations Management 18, pp.1-20。

22.Jones, D. W., 1982, Characteristics of Planning in Small Firms, Journal of Family Owned Business Management, July, pp.15-25。

23.Kelm, K. M., V. K. Narayanan & P. E. Pinches, 1995, Shareholder Value Creation During R & D Innovation and Commercialization Stages, Academy of Management Jourmal, Vol.38, Issue 3, pp.770-786。

24.Lau, R. S. M., 1998, How does Research and Development Intensity Affect Business Performance, South Dakota Business Review, Vol.57, Issue 1, pp. 1-6。

25.Lesllie, W. R., Nabil, A. I., 1998, The Relationship Between Planning Sohpistication and Performance in Small Business, Vol.36, Issue 4, pp.24-32.

26.Lloyd, C. H., Emmanuel, O., 1999, Strategic human resource management, market orientation, and organizational performance, Journal of Business Research 51, pp.157-166。

27.MacDuffid, J P., 1995, Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48, pp.197-221。

28.Milkovich, T. G., Newman, M. J., 1999, compensation, N. T.: Mcgraw-Hill。

29.Neven, T. M., G. L. Summe & B. Uttal, 1990, Commercializing Technology: What the Best Companies Do?, Havard Business Review, May/Jun, pp.154-163。

30.Panda, H., Ramanathan, K., 1996, Technological capability assessment of a firm in the electricity sector, Technovation, Vol.16, Issue 10。

31.Prahalad, C. K., G. Hamel, 1990, The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review.68, pp.79-91。

32.Robbins, S. P., 1996, Organizational Beharior, 7th ed., Englewood Cliffs., NJ: Prentice Hall Internatronal, Inc。

33.Schuler, R. S., 1994, Personnel and Human Resource management, N. Y. West-Publishing Company。

34.Schneider C., 1991, The Art of Embroidery in the 90’s, Revised, Tenafly, NJ.

35.Takikonda U. L., Takikonda J. R., 1998, We Need Dynamic Performance Measures, Management Accounting; Vol.80, Issue 3, pp.49-51。

36.Ulrich, D., Lake, D., 1990, Organizational capability: competing from inside out, New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp.220-232。

37.Venkatraman, N., Vasudevan, R., 1986, Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Reaseorch: A Comparison of Approaches., Academy of Management Review, Vol.11, Issue 4, pp.801-814。

38.Wong, J. K., 1995, Technology transfer in Thailand: descriptive validation of a technology transfer model, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol.10, No.7/8, pp.788-796。