隨著兩岸政策的逐漸鬆綁，台灣地區銀行業進入中國大陸深耕勢在必行，然而在兩岸分立分治之情況下，台灣地區之銀行業進入中國大陸設立分支機構時，除應符合台灣地區銀行監理機制外，更應了解中國大陸銀行業之監理規範，以期在符合兩岸監理機制及相關法令之規定下創造雙贏。 兩岸之監理原則，皆以母國監理原則為前提，並依據國際清算銀行（BIS）1992年公佈之「監理國際性銀行集團及海外分支機構最低標準」為指導原則，但針對目前兩岸跨國銀行之監理，台灣面臨最大的困境即是「國家認同」的問題。台灣目前的監理制度存在有深度（一般檢查）及廣度（專案檢查）的問題，且金融檢查係屬於交易發生後之事後檢查，故金融主管機關除加強金融檢查外，尚需督促金融機構建立落實內部控制及內部稽核機制，以健全金融機構之經營。 / As the cross-strait policy gradually untie, Bank deep into mainland China in Taiwan is a must, however in the case of partition of separation between the two sides, when set up branches of Taiwan banks entering the Mainland, apart from banking supervision mechanism in Taiwan should be consistent with, and should be aware of mainland China's banking supervision norms, with a view to in the cross-strait supervision mechanism and under the relevant provisions of the Act creates a win-win. Principles of supervision across the Taiwan Strait, are premised on the principle of home country supervision, and in accordance with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) published in 1992 "minimum standards for the supervision of international banking groups and overseas branches" as the guiding principle, however, in response to the current cross-strait supervision of transnational Bank, Taiwan faces the biggest dilemma that is "national identity" issues. Taiwan depth with the existing supervision system (General check) and breadth (project review) issues, and financial checks belonging to transactions that took place after the ex-post checks, financial authorities in addition to strengthening the financial checks, still need to urge financial institutions to establish the implementation of internal control and internal audit mechanisms, based on sound management of financial institutions.

The focus of strategy research has long revolved around strategy formulation rather thanstrategy implementation, despite the evidence indicating that intended strategies are rarelyachieved. Project portfolio management, PPM, assumes a crucial role in enabling strategyimplementation and can be regarded as a representation of the organization's actual pursuedstrategy. Existing research on PPM has predominantly centered around portfolios in the contextof new product development, NPD, and research and development, R&D. However, there hasbeen relatively less exploration of PPM within internal development departments, warrantingfurther investigation. To contribute to the understanding on strategy implementation throughPPM and its conditional factors, this qualitative case study expands the existing research bystudying the PPM process within an internal development department. The study wasconducted at the Business Improvement department, which oversees improvement projects forthe service branch of EnergyComp, a company specializing in the development of complexenergy solutions. Using an abductive research approach, a literature review was conducted inparallel with data collection and analysis. The empirical data was mainly collected throughsemi-structured interviews at the company, but also through meetings and companydocumentation. The results of the study show that PPM actions connected to projects, portfolio and resourceallocation are undertaken to effectively implement the organization's strategy within theinternal development department. Common to all areas is the importance of accurate andavailable information that effects the decisions connected to strategy implementation. On aproject level, Insufficient information poses challenges in accurately assessing project success,resulting in measurements that fail to cover all strategic objectives. In the context of theportfolio, the absence of project information and uncertainties can lead to a misalignmentbetween the actual prioritization criteria employed in the selection process and the strategicobjectives of the organization. Additionally, it may contribute to a less detailed and formalstrategic plan. Furthermore, the cost associated with adjusting the portfolio is directly linked tothe effort and expenses involved in obtaining project information. Regarding resources,insufficient information on supply and demand creates challenges in considering projectdependencies and synergies during the evaluation of project groups. Moreover, limitedtransparency across functional boundaries within the organization leads to a system wheredecision rules cannot be established at the portfolio level. Instead, it encourages bottom-uppriority decisions. Furthermore, a biased assessment by stakeholders in the functionaldepartments may result in an inadequate screening process, leading to an increased workloadin the portfolio structuring process. Finally, the large variation in project types, coupled withdiverse impact targets spanning individual and multiple functions, makes it difficult to createrelevant project categories for budgeting and portfolio structuring.