236 /302
分析台灣金控公司之關鍵風險因子：以風險平衡計分卡結合決策分析實驗室法為基礎之分析網路法
236
execution and to diminish the excessive focus on statistics and data collection, future
studies should focus on analysis and review. Moreover, future studies should distinguish
between the head offices and branches of FHCs for analysis and comparison to verify
improvements in execution. By doing so, they can yield more precise and comprehensive
empirical results for the risk management systems of FHCs in Taiwan. Second, the
unbalanced number of criteria under the dimensions might have led to biased evaluation
of the criteria. For example, the learning and growth dimension contains only three
criteria, which are listed as the top three. Conversely, the eight criteria in the business
process dimension are typically ranked lower. However, the structure of the criteria was
derived from the literature review and was confirmed by senior domain experts through
interviews, thus meeting the requirements for ensuring content validity. Moreover, the
results obtained by Tseng et al. (2011) using the same dimensions and criteria did not
reveal an unbalanced ranking. In addition, it is not easy to explain why intellectual
property risk belongs to the learning and growth dimension, and why legal risk belongs to
the financial dimension. Therefore, we recommend that future researchers consider
developing a modified model to remove the dimensions and to analyze the criteria
interrelations directly.