面對21世紀與過去經濟型態具有本質上差異的新經濟的衝擊，我國壽險產業由原本的封閉時期，到市場完全被打開，又到今年我國加入WTO後，經濟環境條件變得更複雜，全球購併風四起，金融保險業界限越來越模糊，造成更多潛在競爭者蠢蠢欲動想要進入我國壽險市場。由於我國保險市場長久呈現寡佔局面，新設的保險公司是否還有機會可以在這塊大餅迅速竄起以佔一席之地？

本研究嘗試從壽險業的公開資料及個案訪談中，希望可以將國內壽險公司，包含本土公司及外商公司進行分析研究，之後希望可以分類出不同經濟環境下，組織應該採取何種業務成長分殖模式，可以有效地保證組織持續不斷成長及分殖。

本研究主要針對我國壽險業務不同時期不同組織模式進行分析。

本研究第一部份將經由分析過去成功的壽險公司成長歷程，去探討組織成長各種可能的模式。

第二部分將利用市場數值來實際評估各階段，在不同的環境條件下，不同的組織模式的適用程度。

第三部分預測新經濟環境下，避免企業越大越僵化且能應付動態多變環境之較佳組織模式。

本研究整理發現主要兩大點結果，其中一點是認為組織的最佳模式會依環境而改變，另一點是認為一個與過去本質上具有差異的新經濟環境下，最適合的組織分殖模式是細胞型組織。

本研究指出，隨著經濟環境條件不同，組織模式設計也不同。而組織模式必須與環境相配合才可以創造高成長率。其中封閉市場環境下，適合集中管理式的組織模式設計。而開放市場環境下，則較適合內部創業的組織模式設計。若在複雜競爭環境下，則較適合細胞型的組織模式設計。

另外，透過觀察四個個案發現在開放競爭環境中，壽險業務制度設計為內部創業制度可以維持長期的成長。而且如果壽險公司業務制度設計採內部創業制度，還可以達到高保單的繼續率。另外，越符合成員擁有權的組織模式，人員定著率越高也符合一般的認知。

值得一提的是，內部發展採細胞組織的業務制度設計有助於外部發展之購併策略的成功。事實上，細胞組織確實較有助於組織分殖動作，進行新市場的開發。

由前述內容可以發現，細胞組織由於符合創業精神，因此鼓勵員工進行內部創業，不僅在組織內部進行快速的複製及分裂動作，且因為符合成員擁有權的觀念，可以讓員工有自己當老闆的心態，進而同時可以維持高品質的保單。再者因為細胞組織具有組織自我成長的動力，因此組織除了會自行進行複製之外，在新地區的開發上，也可以搭配購併策略收綜效之益；在新市場開發上，由於組織具有自我成長的能力，可以透過細胞母體（總公司）傳達理念進行分殖，發展專屬核心技能後可以拓展新市場，較競爭者更快速取得競爭優勢。因此本研究認為新經濟環境下，壽險業務制度最佳組織分殖模式為細胞組織。

Facing on the impact of the new economy which is different from the previous one in the essence phase, Taiwan life insurance industry had change from the original oligopoly market to the completely competition one. After Taiwan joining the WTO, the former financing and insurance market boundary will blur into an unrecognized style. Under this condition of that competitors getting more and more in this market, the new setup insurance company will face a great challenge of succeeding in Taiwan life insurance market.

The main object of this study is trying to analysis the organization model in the different economy stage through the manager interviewing and secondary data comparing in the open market. After the necessary data collecting, case study will provide a suitable model of predicting what is better organization form in the 21century economy environment.

The first part of this research is finding every possible model of organization growth through analyzing the leading companies history. The second part is evaluating each stage of economy environment by studying the market data to see the level of adaptable between organization form and environment term. The 3 growth strategy which can help organization grow up steadily is scaling, duplication, and granulation.

Scaling means do more of what you are good at, duplicating means repeat the business model in new region, and granulating is growing the selected business cell.

General economy stage can be divided in to standard stage, customlized stage, and innovation stage. With the different stage, there were different primary commercial systems working.

The last part is predicting the better organization form, which can meet the criteria of the difficult dynamic environment.

There are 2 main results after survey shown above. One conclusion is the best organization form will change with environment variation by time. Another is that in the new economy environment, which is different from the past, the best organizational granulating model is cellular form.

With the different organization condition, there should be matching with different organizational design. If and only if the organization form is suited with the environment, the organization will represent the higher growth rate.

In the environment of oligopoly market, the concentrated organization is the better design. But in the open market, the organization design with developing the entrepreneurship within the organization is the better. The cellular form is the better organization design in the complex competition environment.

After observing the 4 cases, there are several results that can be found. First, if the life insurance sales system design was set up with developing the entrepreneurship, it will keep a steady growth rate, and higher contract-continuing rate. The organization form with high member ownership shows lower turn over rate.

At the same time, the sales system with cellular form will help the success of growth strategy. Cellular form can really help the granulating of the organization and the exploiting of new market.

Cellular form meets the entrepreneurship organization design criteria implies the fast duplicating and spinning off within the organization. Cellular form meets the concepts of member ownership implies the high contract quality.

Cellular form has the power of self-growth, which implies the cell can do the granulation through the way of spreading the ideal of the parent company.

After the cell having developed their exclusive core-competence, a new chance of new market exploiting will be formed, so that the organization can get the competition advantage than its competitor.

Company may learn the sales system from other company, but the result may different. The root cause is that their final system always different although they learn it from the same source. There is only one form is most suitable in a new economy and the form changes with time and economy style.

In conclusion, the best granulation model of life insurance sales system is cellular form in the new economy environment.

There was still one suggestion can be made. The new entrance competitor should achieve the economy of scale in the shortest time.

The following research can consider about the idea of what’s the effect of cellular form in other industry, what’s the influence of other growth strategy on organization growing, and what’s the impact on the organization growing if the sales system unstable.

一、中文部分
1. 彭蕙仙(民82)億兆傳奇—國泰人壽之路，商周文化。
2. 彭蕙仙(民87)真誠、創新、卓越—異軍突起的安泰人壽，安泰心文化。
3. 刁明芳（民90）撼動國泰人壽巨牛蔡宏圖再造國壽，遠見雜誌2001年6月份，80頁-99頁。
4. 羅介山（民88），壽險業務人員管理之研究，台北大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
5. 李偉嘉(民88)，以系統動力學研究壽險業務員質量搭配問題，國立中山大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
6. 陸早行（民84）壽險經營長短期利益之探討，保險專刊，第42輯，84年12月，44-50頁。
7. 李家泉(民84) 壽險業務經營特質與自由化、國際化之影響分析，保險專刊，第42輯，84年12月，18-25頁。
8. 李仁芳(民88) 第三代知識管理，數位時代1999年12月份。
9. 管康彥(民87)，組織演進的四大階段，能力雜誌1998年2月份，86-89頁。
10. 管康彥(民87)，學習型組織的再認識，能力雜誌1998年3月份，140-145頁。
11. 何艷宏(民85)市場開放對壽險公司經營行為的影響—寡佔模型分析觀點，保險專刊，第46輯，85年12月，151-157頁。
12. 許士軍（民85）組織活化與競爭力，保險專刊，第46輯，85年12月，22-25頁。
13. 許雅惠(民83)，台灣人壽保險業經營策略與經營績效之相關研究，國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。
14. 謝俊怡(民85)組織分殖與資源再生策略之關聯以電子資訊產業為例，政治大學企業管理研究所碩士學位論文。
15. 鄭濟世(民87)我國保險業未來發展趨勢與保險革新，保險專刊第53輯，87年9月。
16. 張文武(民83)日本人壽保險業外務員脫落率和改進措施，保險專刊，第38輯，83年12月，202-213頁。
17. 朱志堅(民89)壽險業納入勞基法後對外勤組織文化的影響：南山人壽保險公司個案研究，中山大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
18. 陳貞夙（民87）網路合作環境對中文教學組織的影響─從組織轉型面分析，文獻處理實驗室，行政院科技顧問組委辦研究計劃 1998年2月。
19. 施振榮(民89)iO—知識經濟的經營之道，天下文化出版社。
20. 蔡新豐（民89）集團企業赴大陸之經營模式與其影響因素研究，中原大學企研所碩士論文。
21. 吳思華（民85）策略九說，麥田出版社。
22. 吳福仁(民87)在保險全球化發展下對我國壽險經營型態影響之探討，逢甲大學保險學系碩士論文。
23. 王文靜（民83）南山人壽蛻變之路，商周文化。
24. 壽險業招攬體制階段改善計畫六項指標彙總，八十六年度至九十年度，中華民國人壽保險商業同業公會編印。
25. 人壽保險業務統計年報，六十六年度至九十年度，中華民國人壽保險商業同業公會編印。
二、英文部分
1. Art Budros (1992) The Making of an Industry: Organizational Birth in New York’s Life Insurance Industry, 1842-1904,Social Force, June 1992。
2. Briner, Rob B (1996) Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of Everyday Life / Emotion in Organizations; Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Leicester, Sep 1996; Vol. 69; pg. 311, 3 pgs。
3. Chiara Francalanci(1998) Information technology and worker composition: Determinants of productivity in the life insurance industry; MIS Quarterly, Minneapolis; Jun 1998; Vol. 22, Iss. 2; pg. 227, 15 pgs。
4. Clark Davis(1996)”You are the company:” The demands of employment in the emerging corporate culture, Los Angeles, 1900-1930,Business History Review, Boston; Autumn 1996; Vol. 70, Iss. 3; pg. 328, 34 pgs。
5. David J Ketchen Jr(1997) Organizational configurations and performance: A meta-analysis; Academy of Management Journal, Mississippi State Vol. 40, Iss. 1; pg. 223, 18 pgs。
6. Diacon, S R (1996) Can business ethics enhance corporate governance? Evidence from a survey of UK insurance executives; Journal of Business Ethics, Dordrecht; Jun 1996; Vol. 15, Iss. 6; pg. 623, 12 pgs。
7. Frederick A Russ (1998) Exploring the impact of critical sales events; The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, New York; Spring 1998; Vol. 18, Iss. 2; pg. 19, 16 pgs。
8. Georg von Krogh; Michael A Cusumano(2001)Three Strategies for managing fast grow, MIT Sloan Management Review; Cambridge; Winter 2001。
9. James McIntosh (1998) Scale efficiency in a dynamic model of Canadian insurance companies; Journal of Risk and Insurance, Malvern; Jun 1998; Vol. 65, Iss. 2; pg. 303, 15 pgs。
10. Jane B Moosbruker (1998) Business process redesign and organizational development: Enhancing success by removing the barriers;The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Arlington; Sep 1998; Vol. 34, Iss. 3; pg. 286, 19 pgs。
11. Kalleberg, Arne L; Van Buren, Mark E(1996)Is bigger better? Explaining the relationship between organization size and job rewards; American Sociological Review, Albany; Feb 1996; Vol. 61, Iss. 1; pg. 47, 20 pgs。
12. Lehrman, William G (1994) Diversity in decline: Institutional environment and organizational failure in the American life insurance industry; Social Forces, Chapel Hill; Dec 1994; Vol. 73; pg. 605, 31 pgs。
13. O Leary-Kelly, Anne M(1996) Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework;; Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, Mississippi State; Jan 1996; Vol. 21, Iss. 1; pg. 225, 29 pgs。
14. Raymond E Miles; Charles C Snow; John A Mathews; Grant Miles; Henry J Coleman Jr.（1997）Organizing in the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form, The Academy of Management Executive; Ada; Nov 1997。
15. Schoemaker, Paul J H (1995)Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking; Sloan Management Review, Cambridge; Winter 1995; Vol. 36, Iss. 2; pg. 25, 16 pgs。
16. S.L.Brown & K.M. Eisenhardt(1998) Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos, Boston Harvard Business School Press。