209 /302
209
臺大管理論叢
第
28
卷第
2
期
provide a specific judgment of cost analysis and increase the accuracy of profitability
evaluation, and thus, enhance enterprises’ efficiency and ability to achieve strategic goals.
Calandro Jr. and Lane (2006) used the BSC to introduce the enterprise risk scorecard.
Enterprises have employed the BSC as a management instrument for reducing risks.
Accordingly, risk management can be conducted for eliminating or reducing risks that
jeopardize the research and development (R&D) process, and for facilitating the
achievement of R&D goals. Cai, Liu, Xiao, and Liu (2009) integrated the BSC into key
indicators to improve supply chain performance and enterprise operation.
Tseng et al. (2011) proposed an RM-BSC approach involving 21 key risk factors
(Table 1) for international B2B Internet banking and employed the AHP to calculate the
relevant weights and priorities of the key risk factors. The BSC was also integrated with
the AHP to evaluate the relative importance of the four dimensions and indicators in the
BSC (Bentes, Carneiro, da Silva, and Kimura, 2012). Although the AHP has been useful
for selecting consumer banks (Javalgi, Armacost, and Hosseini, 1989) and for evaluating
e-payment systems in mobile commerce (Chou, Lee, and Chung, 2004), a basic
assumption in the AHP is that dimensions and indicators are independent. This assumption
contradicts the argument by Kaplan and Norton (1996) that dimensions influence one
another. The ANP, as an advanced AHP (Saaty, 2001), is more suitable for analyzing key
criteria proposed using the BSC, because the ANP addresses the dependency and feedback
relationship between programs and criteria. Therefore, the test results obtained using the
RM-BSC approach with the AHP (Tseng et al., 2011) may contain faults. To overcome
any such possible weak points in the approach, this study applied a hybrid method (i.e.,
RM-BSC based on the DANP).