| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 會計學系 === 91 === Continuous input of research and development is the best solution for the industry to sustain development. As for product life cycle, the only way is to continually present new products with massive input of research and development in order to get control of the trend of consumption. This is the only way to re-create product value to satisfy the needs of the customers. Therefore, “research and development” is the strategy the enterprise must face, the functions of which must be properly performed. In general, some enterprises would set aside a certain percentage from their sales or net profit as the spending on research and development for the next accounting period. Yet, some enterprises will elect to allocate a fixed budget for such purposes regardless of their sales or earnings. Some will even rely on experience and their sensitivity to the industry by setting aside a certain amount of capital as research and development spending.
However, the economic outcome as a function of research and development spending is so uncertain. Different research and development spending strategies will render different financial results for the enterprises. Therefore, this study intends to analyze and compare two different research and development strategies used in the real world, the “fixed amount strategy” and the “fixed ratio strategy”. The simulation analysis approach is applied in this study. The findings from this study are expected to be served as a reference for the enterprise or the government in mapping out the strategy or policy of research and development.
This study discusses how enterprises use the simulation analysis approach to select the “fixed amount strategy” and the “fixed ratio strategy” under uncertainty so far as the relation between the amount of research and development spending and the rate of success in research and development is concerned. The issues to be explored in this study include, (1) the deferred influence of research and development spending; (2) the deferred period of research and development; (3) the punitive cost incurred if research and development spending is improperly allocated ; and (4) if the influence of the previous results of research and development on the probability of success in subsequent research and development. These variables will be subject to simulation analysis. The mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, t-test, and F-test are used for the comparison between the “fixed amount strategy” and the “fixed ratio strategy” under uncertainty.
As for expected outcome, the probability of success in research and development, as an independent function, is higher under the fixed ratio strategy than under the fixed amount strategy regardless of the existence of punitive cost or deferred outcome. The t-test result indicated a significant level of 10% in the case without influence of deferred outcome of research and development as well as punitive cost. However, if the probability of research and development outcome is dependent and there is punitive cost but no deferred outcome, the fixed ratio strategy will be superior to the fixed amount strategy with the result of the t-test at 1% significant level. If there is deferred outcome of research and development, the fixed amount strategy will be superior to the fixed ratio strategy.
In risk evaluation, if the probability of success in research and development is independent, and if there is punitive cost incurred, the fixed ratio strategy is relatively superior to the fixed amount strategy whether the outcome is deferred or not. However, the result of the F-test on standard deviation indicated insignificance. If the probability of success in research and development is dependent and the outcome is deferred with punitive cost incurred, the fixed ratio strategy will be superior to the fixed amount strategy. However, the F-test result indicated no significance. To contrast, where there is no punitive cost, and regardless of the incurrence of punitive cost, the fixed amount strategy is superior to the fixed ratio strategy, but the F-test result indicated insignificance, too.
|
|---|
