多角化經營不是大型企業的專利，台灣中小企業面對國際化的市場競爭，為了分散風險、提高經營效益，成長到一定程度時，雖不具足夠財力可用合資併購等手法進行多角化，但仍可應用自己的核心技術，或提供新產品新服務，或進入開發新市場新領域。中小企業以核心技術進行相關性多角化經營，也同樣有企業持續發展的效果。
相較於集中經營單一產業的企業來說，多角化經營的企業有機會在綜效的發揮上，取得難以模仿的競爭優勢，而一套適當的管理機制對綜效發揮是重要的。本研究以單一個案深入分析的方式，藉由理論、實務作法以及主管認知三個不同方向加以分析，並提出以下四個管理機制設計來促成綜效發揮：
(1) 組織架構與整合協調：非營運直接相關的功能集中由總部規劃執行，再依規模逐漸轉由當地執行、總部負責規劃監督。在當地建立連絡窗口負責第一線的整合協調，並將問題回報總部，轉由主管間直接接觸協調。
(2) 內部交易與轉撥計價：事業單位間有供需關係時，只針對扶植階段的新事業單位，或是預期另有綜效發生之集團政策專案，才予以內部交易及低轉撥計價保護。其餘交易開放事業單位自由選擇，由事業單位自行建立互利的交易模式。
(3) 跨事業單位的資訊分享：建立資訊系統平台，在權限控管下進行簡單快速的跨事業單位資訊分享。經過篩選聚焦後產生專案，再於專案會議中以會議方式針對特定主題持續進行資訊分享。
(4) 績效考核與獎勵制度：獎勵制度應該與績效考核直接連動。總部績效納入對共用資源的改進效果、執行滿意程度以及集團整體目標達成。事業單位績效應涵蓋綜效績效，綜效發揮所產出的集團績效，應依比例回饋給參與的事業單位。資訊分享的績效考核可用計量計質的方式執行，並納入延伸專案所產生績效。

Diversification is not only for large enterprises. Small and medium enterprises in Taiwan are facing with intense competition in the international market. In order to spread risk and improve operational efficiency, many of them still attempt to diversify. These are often based on their original core competence, offering new products or services, and to expand into new territory or markets. While diversifying, they may not with enough financial resources for joint ventures or mergers, but with the foundation of core technology in related areas, SMEs can also achieve the effect of sustainable development.
Comparing with companies focused on a single business, diversified companies have the opportunity to gain competitive advantage through synergy among the various business operations, which is difficult to imitate. However, an effective management system is necessary to achieve synergy effects. This study focuses on the relationship between management system and synergy effects in a related diversified small and medium enterprise. This case study looks into the Auden Techno Corporation, from three different directions – theory, real-world practice and awareness of top executives. This study analyzes the relationship between four management system and synergy effects, and proposes changes in the following areas.
(1) Organizational structure, integration and coordination: Planning and execution of non-operating functions at remote sites should be centralized at the headquarters. As the size of the local site grows, execution can gradually de decentralized. Liaison should be established at the local sites for effective coordination and reporting.
(2) Transfer pricing: In general, business units should be free to choose their suppliers, and internal trading should be establish based on mutual profits. However, low transfer pricing protection may apply for new business units in development stage, or strategic projects with expected synergy mandated by company policy.
(3) Information sharing among business units: Information sharing platform should be established to facilitate information sharing, under appropriate security measures. Special projects may be selected, and ongoing information sharing should be done on selected topics in the form of project meetings.
(4) Performance assessment and reward systems: rewards should be directly linked with performance assessment. The performance of headquarter functions should include improvements on shared resources, satisfaction of local units, and achievement of the corporate target. The performance of business units should include synergy effects, and the synergy effects at the corporate level should be fairly allocated to the participating business units. The performance of information sharing should be assessed by quantity and quality of the information, and included the performance generated by the resulting projects.

中文部分：
1. 吳政達(2004)，相關多角化企業共享活動與控制方式之探討，政治大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
2. 任慶宗(2003)，集團企業子公司之綜效利益與彈性限制 - 網絡觀點，政治大學企業管理學系博士論文。
3. 李雨師(2008)，集團企業綜效之管理--子公司間交易情境之探討，政治大學企業管理學系博士論文。
4. 徐楓淇(2009)，集團企業之多角化策略與組織設計-以大同集團為例，銘傳大學國際企業學系在職專班碩士論文。
5. 許朝芳(2002)，集團式組織推動應用整合問題之研究，中原大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
6. 吳志成(2008)，集團資源、組織特性、事業經營模式與新創事業組織績效影響因素之研究-台灣地區集團企業為例，成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班(EMBA)碩士論文。
7. 司徒達賢(2000)，策略管理新論 - 觀念架構與分析方式，智勝出版社。
8. 王君儀(2011)，台灣聯合報集團多角化經營之綜效研究，國立師範大學大眾傳播研究所碩士論文。
9. 張膺燦(2001)，台電公司責任中心制度之研究，國立交通大學經營管理研究所碩士論文。
10. 張瑜真(2000)，利潤中心制度下內部移轉計價方法對效績衡量之影響，國立臺北大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
11. 陳美月(1998)，成本會計學(下冊)，臺灣西書出版社。
12. 黃佳玲(1993)，責任中心制度對經營績效衡量之貢獻，今日會計，頁37-56。

英文部分：
1. Aaker, D. A. (1984), Strategic Market Management. NY: John Wiely and Sons.
2. Ansoff, H. I. (1957), “Strategies For Diversification.” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 35, P. 113-124.
3. Ansoff, H. I. (1988), The new corporate strategy. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Amit, R., and Livnat, J. (1988), “Diversification Strategies, Business Cycle, and Economic Performance.” Strategic Management Journal, 9, P. 99-110.
5. Amit, R., and Livnat, J. (1988), “Diversification and Risk-return Trade-off.” Acadeny of Management Journal, 31, P. 154-166.
6. Berry, C. H. (1975), Corporate Growth And Diversification. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
7. Bowman, E. H. and Helfat, C. E. (2001), “Does corporate strategy matter?” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.22, P. 1-23.
8. Chandler, A. D. (1962), Strategy And Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.
9. Horngren, C. T., Foster, G., and Datar, S. M. (1996), Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis. 9th ed. PrenticeHall, P. 912.
10. Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986), “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structure Design.” Management Science, 32, P. 554-571.
11. Das, R., and Mohanty, B. (1981), “Choosing a Diversification Project in a Regulated Economy.” LongRange Planning, 14, P. 78-86.
12. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Gulunic, D. C. (2000), “Coevolving: At Last, a Way to Make Synergies Work.” Harvard Business Review, Jan, P. 91-101.
13. Ferri, S. P., Kim, K. A. and Kitsabunnarat, P. (2003), “The cost (and benefit） of diversified business groups: The case of Korean chaebols.” Journal of Banking and Finance, 27(2), P. 251-273.
14. Gareth R. J. (2004), Organizational Theory, Design and Change. 6th ed. Pearson.
15. Garrison, R. H. and Noreen, E. W. (1997), Managerial Accounting. 8th ed. Chicago, Irwin, P. 541 & 547.
16. Goold, M., and Campbell, A. (2000), “Taking stock of synergy: A framework for assessing linkage between businesses.” Long Range Planning, 3, P. 72-96.
17. Goold, M. and Campell, A. (1998), “Desperately seeking synergy.”, Harvard Business Review, Sep.-Oct., P. 130-143.
18. Gort, M. (1962), Diversification and Integration In American Industrial. Princeton University Press.
19. Gupta, A. K. and Govindarajan, V. (1986), “Resource sharing among SBUs: strategic antecedents and administrative implications.”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1986, P. 685-714.
20. Hamer, L. H., Carter, W. K. and Milton, F. U. (1994), Cost Accounting. 11th ed. South-Western, P. 805.
21. Hoskinson, R. E. and Hitt, M. A. (1990), “Antecedents And Performance Outcomes Of Diversification: A Review and Critique of Theoretical Perspectives.” Journal of Management, 16, P. 461-509.
22. Jauch, L. R. and Glueck, W. F. (1988), Strategic Management and Business Policy. McGraw-Hill.
23. Khanna, T. and Rivikin, W. (2001), “Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets.” Strategic Management Journal, 22, P. 45-74.
24. Lauenstein, M. C. (1985), “Diversification- The hidden explanation of success.” Sloan Management Review, 27(1), P. 49-55.
25. Martin, J. A. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001), “Cross-business synergy: Source, process, and the capture of corporate level.” Academy of Management Proceedings, Working paper.
26. Montgomery, C. A. and Singh, H. (1984), “Diversification Strategy and Systematic Risk.” Strategic Management Journal, 5, P. 1-11.
27. Ramanjuam, R. and Varadarajan, P. (1989), “Research On Corporate Diversification: A Synthesis.” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, P. 523-551.
28. Reed, R. and Luffman, G. A. (1986), “Diversification: The Growing Confusion.” Strategic Management Journal, 15, P. 29-35.