陳鴻基Chen, Houn-Gee臺灣大學:商學研究所陳育仙Chen, Yu-HsienYu-HsienChen2010-06-012018-06-292010-06-012018-06-292009U0001-2907200910301300http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/184577知識管理在過去十年以來一直是相當盛行的概念。然而，很少人會將注意力放在律師事務所的知識管理上，過去研究裡也未能有一個足以反映律師事務所環境的知識管理績效衡量工具。因此，本研究提出一個專為台灣律師事務所環境設計之知識管理績效衡量模型；為了證明其有效性，我們採取了問卷調查方法以了解律師事務所人員對於我們的衡量模型裡的各該指標之重要性感受，同時，我們也試圖找尋出知識管理各個面向與資訊工具採用之間的邏輯。本研究共收集了115份問卷樣本，來源包括中小型、大型律師事務所、專利法律事務所等各階層的法律從業人員。研究結果說明了我們提出的衡量模型有效地適用在律師事務所，實證結果更顯示出律師事務所人員認為知識管理流程是知識管理中最重要的面向。此外，知識管理中的各個面向與知識管理工具採用之間有正相關，我們也為日後律師事務所在資訊工具的採用上進行建議。Knowledge Management has been prevalent concept for the past decade. However, little attention is paid to Knowledge management practices in law firms, nor is knowledge management performance appraisal tool designed in reflection of legal context. Thus, in this research, we propose our KM performance assessment model after reviewing KM in legal context herein Taiwan and several KM performance measurement models. To further prove the effectiveness, we conduct a questionnaire survey to find out the perception of legal professionals towards the practice indexes given our assessment model. Moreover, we try to plot the clue behind the dimensions of KM with the KM tools adoption of the firms. This study collected 115 samples, including different level of legal professionals from both small-to-medium-sized and big-sized law firms.he result of this study shows that our assessment model is effective to apply to law firms. Empirical study also shows that legal professionals view process as the most important dimension. In addition, there is positive correlation between the dimensions of KM and the adoption of KM-specific tools.謝辭 i要 iibstract iiindex ivist of Tables viist of Figures viihapter 1 Introduction 1-1 Research Motivation and Objectives 1-2 Organization of This Study 3hapter 2 Literature Review 5-1 The Analysis of Law Firms 5-1-1 Tasks, structure, people and technology of a law firm 5-1-2 Data, information and knowledge included in the practice of law 7-1-3 Knowledge management in law firms 12-2 Knowledge Management Enablers 15-3 Knowledge Management Performance Measurement Models 17-3-1 Performance measurement 17-3-2 Knowledge management measurement models 18-4 Knowledge Management Tools 27hapter 3 Research Design and Methodology 33-1 Research Framework 33-2 Construct measurement 40-3 Sampling Plan and Data Collection 40-4 Questionnaire Design 42-5 Statistic Method 43-5-1 Descriptive Statistics Analysis 44-5-2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 44-5-3 Reliability Test 44-5-4 Correlation Test 45hapter 4 Analysis and Results 46-1 Structure of Sample 46-2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Reliability/Validity Test 48-2-1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis & Reliability Test 48-2-2 Validity Test 51-2-3 Correlation Analysis 51-3 Descriptive Statistics Analysis 52-3-1 Comparison between dimensions 53-3-2 Comparison by practice indexes within the dimension 54-3 Correlation Analysis between KM dimensions and KM Tools adoption 65hapter 5 Conclusions and Suggestions 72-1 Discussion and Implications 72-1-1 The effectiveness of KMAT model 72-1-2 Positive correlation between KM dimensions and the adoption of KM-specific tools 73-2 Limitations and Suggestions for future study 75eference 77ppendix-Questionnaire 80application/pdf654626 bytesapplication/pdfen-US知識管理律師事務所知識管理衡量知識管理工具Knowledge Managementlaw firmsKM performance measurementKM toolsthesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/184577/1/ntu-98-R96741026-1.pdf