1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4.
ABSTRACT Institute of Human Resource Management National Sun Yat-Sen University Title of the thesis: The Research on Implementing Competency into Human Resource System Name: Chien-Yi Liao Advisor: Chin-Kang Jen, Ph. D. Graduate date: July, 2003 Degree conferred: Master As for the implementation of competency into Human Resource system, more companies consider to apply it in Taiwan. To provide related experience, this research uses the single case study method and comes out some topics as follows: 1. To study the individual company s competency implementation to provide the company s experience to those who will apply competency in the future. 2 By related researching documents, to find out the improving methods for the individual company. Some findings of this research as follows: 1. For the project, to gain recognition by communication; to apply competency into to selection, training, performance review and to link with the strategy plan. 2. Some problems arisen: no data computerized; no project & training evaluation and no calculation method of performance review. 3. The suggestions to the companies intend to apply competency: (1) For the project: recognition, process, communication & competency model setup. (2) For the selection: data collection, competency model adjustment based on the organization change. (3) For the training: to find critical competency & people by competency model. (4) For the performance review: to set up the evaluation of behavior.
3 6 13 14 17 28 34 40 45 49 50 59 61 1 63 2 64 I
1 4 2 25 3 25 4 30 5 31 6 2002 35 7 36 8 38 9 42 10 45 11 51 12-1 52 12-2 53 12-3 55 13-1 56 13-2 57 13-3 58 II
1 7 2 13 3 14 4 18 5 21 6 23 7 24 8 27 9 27 10 29 11 29 12 30 13 34 14 40 15 41 III
; 1973 McClelland performance knowledge skill competency job- based job description competency model 1
competency-based 2
McClelland 1973 competency McClelland 1 Guglielmino 1979 1988 Woodruffe 1990 Spencer & Spencer 1993 Byham & Moyer 1996 Blancero Boroski & Dyer 1996 3
Parry 1996 Green 1999 Roberson Callinan & Dave 1999 Anntoinette & Lepsinger 1999 Mclelland 1973 Guglielmino 1979 1 1988 Woodruffe 1990 Spencer&Spencer 1993 Byham&Moyer 1996 Blancero Boroski & Dyer 1996 Parry 1996 4
Green 1999 Anntoinette& Lepsinger 1999 Roberson Callinan & Dave 1999 Dalton 1997 competency model Anntoinette & Lepsinger 1999 Spencer & Spencer 1993 Spencer & Spencer 1993 360 5
HR 360 Spencer & Spencer 1993 6
Anntoinette & Lepsinger 1999 Spencer & Spcener 1993 / / / 7
Dubois 1996 Spencer & Spencer 1993 Anntoinette & Lepsinger 1999 1 Dubois 1996 8
( ) 1 Dubois 1996 Dubois 1996 Dubois 1996 9
Green 1999 Anntoinette & Lepsinger 1999 Green 1999 10
Green 1999 Dubois 1998 11
1993 cluster 12
2 2 13
1987 1990 2003 150 3 3 / / ( ) ( ) ( ) 14
employability GSM GPRS WCDMA TDMA CDMA/CDMA2000 2003 61,000 15
2001 656 2002 455 CDMA 2000 16
2000 17
1998 2000 4 4 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 18
(steering team) 19
20
5 5 21
telecom infocom 22
( ) (Technical/Professional Competency) (Human Competency) (Business Competency) 6 (individual capability) 6 ( ) 23
7 ( ) 7 H H H H B 2 24
2,, A B C D 3 3 A B C D A B 25
C D A B C D A B C D, A B C D 8 D B D B 26
8 9 9 27
competency modeling 10 28
10 11 11 29
30 4 4 (target selection) 12 12 STAR
5 STAR STAR situation target action result S situation T target A action R result 5 STAR 5, *, * * * * 1? ( ) 2. 31
3.? ( ) / (situation/target) (action) (result) : : 32
STAR STAR STAR STAR (Simility) (Influence) (Recency) STAR STAR (+) ( ) STAR STAR STAR 33
13 13 e- learning center 34
2002 6 15% 3 30% 10 6 2002 1 15% 2 3 30% 1 2 10 35
2002 business champion 7 (applying learning to action) 7 4 36
4 1 3 4 4 3 50% 35% 45% 24% 35% 32% 32% 35% 37
8 value creation business acumen awareness insight 8 (value 1 38
creation) 2 3 4 1 awareness 2 insight 3 4 39
14 14 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 15 40
15 / 1 2002 41
, SMART SMART S Specific M Measurable A Achievable R Relevant T Trackable ( ) 9 9 NA A G E O 42
(1) 15% (2) 15% (3) 30% (4) 43
(stay in demand) 2 44
10 10 45
46
2001 2000 47
( ) 2000 9% 12% 36% 43% 2002 18% 10% 16% 56% 2000 45% 2002 55% 10% 48
, 49
Spencer & Spencer trainable 50
Anntoinett & Lepsinger Byham & Moyer 11 11 (1) Spencer & (1) Spencer (2) (2) - - Anntoinette & Lepsinger Green Roberson 51
Spencer & Spencer Dubois 2002 SAP 12-1 Spencer & Spencer Dubois 52
53 / / 2002 SAP Dubois Dubois 12-2 Dubois Dubois
54 Green Green
12-3 Green Anntoinette & Lepsinger 1999 Dubois 1996 55
56 Spencer & Spencer 1993 13-1 Anntoinette & Lepsinger Dubois
Dubois 1996 Anntoinette & Lepsinger 1999 13-2 Anntoinette & Lepsinger Dubois 57
58 Green 1999 Anntoinette & Lepsinger 1999 13-3 Green Anntoinette & Lepsinger
59
60
1988 - Anntoinette, D.L. & Lepsinger, R. 1999. The art and science of competency models, San Francisco Jossey-Bass. Blancero, D., Boroski, & Dyer, L. 1996. Key competencies for a transformed human resource organization: results of a field study, Human Resource Management. 380-405. Byham, W.C., & Moyer,R.P. 1996. Using competencies to build a successful organization, Development Dimensions International. Dubois, D.D. 1996. The executives guide to competency-based performance improvement. Dubois. D.D. 1998. The competency casebook. Hartle, F. 1997. Performance management. Guglielmino, P.J. 1979. Development journal. Roberson, I.T., Callinan, M. Bartram, D. 1999. Organizational effectiveness the role of psychology, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Ledford, G.E. Jr. 1995. Paying for the skill, knowledge and competencies of knowledge workers, Compensation and Benefits Review, 55-62. Paul C. Green, P.C. 1999. Building robust competencies, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 61
Spencer, L. & Spencer, S. 1993. Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 62
1 ( : 2002) A: : : : : : B: % TOTAL 100% C * * * D E F ( B E) 1 : Outstanding (O) 4 : Acceptable (A) 2 : Excellent (E) 5 : 3 : Good (G) Not Acceptable (NA) / / / 63
2 Xxx Lily Frank 2002 1. ( ) :1 1. ( ):,, :,,, :,, 1. 2 Lily 3. (criterion) (assessment scale)... A. G. G G.,,.. E 64
: 2 (Outstanding):, (Excellent): (Good):.,,,.,, (Acceptable):,.,. (Not Acceptable),,. ( ) Lily, -,.. -,. 4. :( ) (planner&organizer):.. ( team member):,. 5. (competency development plan). 5-1 (competence chart) (competence profile) : ( ) (level) (required) (gaps) (competency gaps) 65
3 1. 4 9.. 3 2.. 2. 1 A 3.. 0. 4.. 6.. 5.. 5-2 B C A B On-job training A B : ( ) Lily, : / / 66