本研究探討會計師事務所採取聯盟方式提供管理顧問業務對經營績效之影響。先將會計師事務區分為全國型、區域型與地方型三種規模類型，再依Miles and Snow (1978)將事務所區分為防禦者與分析者兩種策略類型。實證結果發現，當不考慮事策略類型時，不論全國型、區域型或地方型事務所，與管理顧問公司有聯盟者之經營績效皆勝過無聯盟者。若進一步考慮事務所採取之策略類型，當全國型事務所採取防禦者策略時，有聯盟者之績效並未優於無聯盟者。另外，提供管理顧問業務時，事務所應採取聯盟方式或由事務所本身較為有利？實證發現，在全國型事務所，由事務所本身提供對績效較有利；在區域型事務所，聯盟與否並沒有顯著的績效影響；在地方型事務所，採取防禦者策略且以聯盟方式提供管理顧問業務者之績效顯著優於採取分析者策略且非以聯盟方式提供者。

This study investigates audit firms about the relation between providing management advisory service (MAS) through alliance with consulting firms and operational performance. The audit firms in our sample are classified into national, regional, and local firms. Based on Miles and Snow (1978), the audit firms are further classified as defender and analyzer, according to their organizational strategies. Our empirical results indicate that, for all of national, regional and local audit firms, those providing MAS through alliance with consulting firms show better performance than those without the alliance. However, we further consider the audit firm’s organizational strategies and find that our national firms using defender strategy show worse performance with the allied consulting firms than without the alliance when providing MAS. We further examine whether the audit firms are more profitable rendering MAS by themselves or by alliance with consulting firms. The empirical results reveal that national firms are more profitable if providing MAS by themselves than by allied consulting firms. Regional firms show indifferent performance under both alternatives. However, local audit firms show better performance in the case of defenders providing MAS by allied consulting firms than the case of analyzers providing MAS without allied consulting firms.