臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

一般來說，供應鏈本身是由原料供應商、製造商、配銷商、零售商與顧客所組成的複雜網路，觀察其結構組成分子的互動關係，可發現它包含了各組成廠商間相互衝突的目標，這也暗示著要為供應鏈中特定的公司，尋找出最佳的供應鏈策略是一種挑戰。並且各相關企業夥伴雖然可易於結合建構成一供應鏈體系，但由於市場相互競爭的因素，要維持供應鏈體系的穩固並不容易，在這當中企業除了以自身的競爭能力來穩固上游、下游的合作關係外，卻仍然缺乏一個較完善的協商機制。
觀察現實供應鏈環境中各企業的情形，可發現企業在相互合作的前題下彼此競求著自身最大的利益，換言之，即是要在相互牽連的供應鏈環節中，找出符合各方條件的一組解，故本研究希望在一多階層供應鏈的環境下，以單一企業的決策評估角度作深入的探討及研究，待透過相關議題的協商模擬，尋求企業彼此間的一個平衡點，來為供應鏈內的企業提供一個良好的決策方案。

In general, a supply chain consists of the raw material supplier, the manufacturer, the distributor, and retailer and the customer. An observation of the interactions among its constituent elements reveals that it contains goals that exhibit conflicts between factories. It also implies a challenge to find the optimal supply chain strategy for a specific company therein. Moreover, while each involved business partner can form a supply chain system due to the existing market competition, it is not easy to maintain the stability in such a system. Even capable of consolidating its collaboration with businesses in the upper and lower streams using its own competitivity, an enterprise still lacks a good negotiation mechanism.
The situations of businesses in a practical supply chain show that all parties compete for their maximum interest in a collaborative scenario. In other words, the negotiation between businesses aims to conclude with an agreeable collaboration. What determines the value is that instead of leaving one party as the sole winner or loser, the outcome of negotiation creates a situation in which all are winners. Namely, the negotiation starts from the viewpoint of collaboration and proceeds with each party competing with a communal objective for the strategy that can offer it the maximum interest. As a result, this study utilizes Fuzzy constraint-based negotiation to resolve the conflicts among businesses. Furthermore, the technique of Agent is introduced into the simulated negotiation to find the balance point between businesses, and meanwhile effectively screen each practical plan to swiftly obtain a most appropriate and optimal decision plan.

Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viii
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.2 Scope of the Work . . . . . . . . . .6
1.3 Thesis Organization . . . . . . . . .8
2 Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . .9
2.1 Supply Chain . . . . . . . . . . .9
2.2 Agent Negotiation . . . . . . . . . .13
2.2.1 Agent Negotiation as DFCSP . . . . . .14
2.2.2 Agent Negotiation Strategies . . . . . .18
2.3 Transaction of Supply Chain as Agent Negotiation. . . .25
3 Fuzzy Constraint-based Agent negotiation to Supply Chain. . . .28
3.1 Architecture of Supply Chain . . . . . . . .28
3.2 Negotiation Protocol for Supply Chain. . . . . . .30
3.3 Negotiation Strategies for Supply Chain . . . . . .31
4 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
4.1 Decision Making in Assigning Production Orders . . . .36
4.1.1 Horizontal Negotiation . . . . . . .38
4.1.2 Vertical Negotiation . . . . . . .42
4.1.3 Analysis on Decision Making . . . . . .46
4.2 Three-Tiered Supply Chain . . . . . . . .48
4.2.1 Case Analysis . . . . . . . . .49
4.2.2 Case of simulation . . . . . . . .50
4.2.3 Selection of Strategy in Decision Making . . .55
4.3 Adjustment and Comparison. . . . . . . . .75
5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .90
5.2 Future work . . . . . . . . . . .92
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Supply chain flowchart . . . . . . . . .10
Fig. 2.2 Fuzzy Constraint-based negotiation . . . . . .20
Fig. 3.1 Supply chain relational chart . . . . . . . .29
Fig. 4.1 Plot of fuzzy function for the production quantity by business A .39
Fig. 4.2 Plot of fuzzy function for the production quantity by business B .40
Fig. 4.3 Plot of fuzzy function for price . . . . . . .44
Fig. 4.4 Plot of fuzzy function for yield . . . . . . .44
Fig. 4.5 Diagram of the structure of a three-tiered supply chain . . .51
Fig. 4.6 Flowchart of decision making in company X . . . . .54
Fig. 4.7 Diagram of conducting order in a three-party negotiation . .55
Fig. 4.8 Plot of fuzzy function for yield . . . . . . .56
Fig. 4.9 Plot of fuzzy function for delivery time . . . . . .57
Fig. 4.10 Plot of fuzzy function for price . . . . . . .57
Fig. 4.11 Plot of fuzzy function for quantity . . . . . . .58
Fig. 4.12 Plot of fuzzy function for yield . . . . . . .59
Fig. 4.13 Plot of fuzzy function for delivery time . . . . . .60
Fig. 4.14 Plot of fuzzy function for yield . . . . . . .64
Fig. 4.15 Plot of fuzzy function for price . . . . . . .64
Fig. 4.16 Plot of fuzzy function for delivery time . . . . . .65
Fig. 4.17 Screenshot of the negotiation system for Agent X and
Agent I. . . . . . . . . . . . .67
Fig. 4.18 Distribute Fuzzy constraint network . . . . . .75
Fig. 4.19 Flowchart of traditional manual decision making . . . .83
Fig. 4.20 Comparison of main board cost . . . . . . .89
List of Tables
TABLE 1.1 Man-operated negotiations and software-agent-operated
negotiations . . . . . . . . . . .4
TABLE 2.1 Members in different levels of IC industry supply chain . .11
TABLE 4.1 Table of satisfaction for business A . . . . . .39
TABLE 4.2 Table of satisfaction for business B . . . . . .40
TABLE 4.3 Table of negotiation process . . . . . . . .40
TABLE 4.4 Table of yield vs. cost . . . . . . . . .42
TABLE 4.5 Table of satisfaction in product price by Agent A . . . .44
TABLE 4.6 Table of satisfaction in product price by Agent C . . . .44
TABLE 4.7 Table of satisfaction in product yield by Agent A . . . .45
TABLE 4.8 Table of satisfaction in product yield by Agent C . . . .45
TABLE 4.9 Table of negotiation process . . . . . . . .45
TABLE 4.10 Table of evaluation on decision making for business A . . .47
TABLE 4.11 Table of satisfaction and yield for products by Agent Y . . .56
TABLE 4.12 Table of satisfaction and yield for products by Agent X . .56
TABLE 4.13 Table of delivery time and satisfaction for products by Agent Y .57
TABLE 4.14 Table of delivery time and satisfaction for products by Agent X .57
TABLE 4.15 Table of purchasing price and satisfaction for products
by Agent Y. . . . . . . . . . . .58
TABLE 4.16 Table of selling price and satisfaction for products by
Agent X . . . . . . . . . . . .58
TABLE 4.17 Table of supported quantity and satisfaction for
Agent A . . . . . . . . . . . .59
TABLE 4.18 Table of supported quantity and satisfaction for
Agent X . . . . . . . . . . . .59
TABLE 4.19 Table of yield for supported main board and satisfaction
for Agent A . . . . . . . . . . .59
TABLE 4.20 Table of yield for supported main board and satisfaction
for Agent X . . . . . . . . . . .59
TABLE 4.21 Table of delivery time and satisfaction for Agent A . . .60
TABLE 4.22 Table of delivery time and satisfaction for Agent X . . .60
TABLE 4.23 Table of negotiation process between Agents X and Y . . .61
TABLE 4.24 Table of negotiation process between agents Agent X and A . .61
TABLE 4.25 List of negotiation values used in the three-party negotiation .62
TABLE 4.26 Table of yield and satisfaction for Agent X . . . . .64
TABLE 4.27 Table of yield and satisfaction for Agent I . . . . .64
TABLE 4.28 Table of purchasing price and satisfaction for Agent X . . .65
TABLE 4.29 Table of selling price and satisfaction for Agent I . . . .65
TABLE 4.30 Table of delivery time and satisfaction for Agent X . . .65
TABLE 4.31 Table of yield and satisfaction for Agent I . . . . .65
TABLE 4.32 Table of negotiation process between Agents X and I . . .66
TABLE 4.33 Table of ability of OEM companies . . . . . .67
TABLE 4.34 List of OEM strategies for company X . . . . . .68
TABLE 4.35 Table of processing capability of company X . . . . .70
TABLE 4.36 List of integrated decision of company X . . . . .71
TABLE 4.37 Table of satisfaction in the integrated cost of decision by
company X . . . . . . . . . . .72
TABLE 4.38 List of overall satisfaction in decisions by company X . . .73
TABLE 4.39 List of decisions and plans . . . . . . . .73
TABLE 4.40 Table of process capability after adjustment of company X . .77
TABLE 4.41 Table of decision plans (after adjustment of process strategy) .77
TABLE 4.42 Table of satisfaction for issues by companies X and I . . .79
TABLE 4.43 Table of capability of OEM factories after adjustment . . .80
TABLE 4.44 Table of decision plans (after adjustment in process
strategy and OEM strategy) . . . . . . . .80
TABLE 4.45 Table of decision results before adjustment . . . . .81
TABLE 4.46 Table of decision results after adjustment . . . . .81
TABLE 4.47 Table of decision results after overall adjustment in
process and OEM capabilities . . . . . . . .82
TABLE 4.48 Table of PCB production capability of OEM factories . . .83
TABLE 4.49 Table of process capability of company X . . . . .84
TABLE 4.50 Comparison of Weber method and the traditional manual
Model . . . . . . . . . . . .88
TABLE 4.51 Comparison of fuzzy constraint theory (before adjustment)
and Weber method . . . . . . . . . .89
TABLE 4.52 Comparison of fuzzy constraint (after adjustment)
and Weber method . . . . . . . . . .89

[Baismeier 1996] Baismeier, P. W. and Voisin, W. J., 1996. “Supply chain management: a time-based strategy,” Journal of Management Science, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 24-27.
[Cachon 2000] Cachon, G. and Fisher, M., 2000. “Supply chain inventory management and the value of shared information,” Management Science, Vol. 46, No. 8, pp. 1032-1048.
[Chan 2002] Chan, Chih-Long., 2002. “Practical Study on the Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains”, Proceedings of Conference on Science, Technology, and Management, pp.119-126.
[Chao 1998] Chao, Guo-Ren., 1998. E-Commerce and Smart Agent, Ph.D. candidate, Graduate Institute of Business Administration, National Taiwan University.
[Chen 2000] Chen, Rui-Bin., 2000. Study on Smart On-Line Auctioning and Bargaining Mechanism, Master thesis, Dept. of Computer Science and Information Management, ChaoYang University.
[Chen 2003] Chen, Chih-Cheng., 2003. Evaluation Model for Analysis on Suppliers’ Performances Utilizing Overall Quality Cost , Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University.
[Christopher 1992] Christopher, M., 1992. “Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing Costs and Improving Services”, Pitman, London.,
[Douglas 2000] Douglas, M., and Martha, C., 2000. “Issues in Supply Chain Management,” Industrial Marketing Management, pp. 65-83.
[Ferber 1999] Ferber, J. 1999.,“Multi-Agent System-An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence,” Addison Wesley.
[Guttman 1998] Guttman, R. H. and Maes, P., 1998. “Cooperative vs. Competitive Multi-Agent Negotiations in Retail Electronic Commerce,” Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents (CIA'98). Paris, France.
[Holland 1975] Holland, J. H., 1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
[Ishida 1994] Ishida, T., Parallel, 1994 Distributed and Multi-Agent Production System, Springer-Verlag.
[Jennings 1998] N. R. Jennings and S. Parsons and P. Noriega and C. Sierra, 1998.”On Argumentation-Based Negotiation”, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems,
[Krovi 1999] Krovi, R., Graesser, A.C., Pracht, W.E. 1999. ,“Agent Behaviors in Virtual Negotiation Environments,”IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, and Cybern (Part C: Applications and Reviews), Vol.29, No.1, pp.15-19
[Lai 1992] Lai, R. 1992. Fuzzy Constraint Processing, Ph.D. thesis, NCSU, Raleigh, N. C.
[Lee 1997] Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V., and Whang, S., “Information Distortion in a Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect,” Management Science, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 546-558
[Lin 1999] Lin, R., Chou, S.T. 1999.,“Forming Dynamic Supply Chains in the Electronic Marketplace: A Partnership Negotiation Mechanism,” National Computer Symposium.
[Lin 2003] Lin, Meng-Wen., Lai, R. and Yu, Ting-Jung., 2003. “Fuzzy Constraint-Based Agents for Negotiation in E-Commerce,” IKE 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 452-459.
[Persson 2002] Persson, F. and Olhager, J. 2002.“Performance Simulation of Supply Chain Designs,”International Journal of Production Economics , Vol.77, No. 3, pp. 231-245.
[Rosenschein 1994] Rosenschein, J. S., and Zlotkin, G., 1994, Rules of Encounter: designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[Sen 1995] Sen, S., and Senkaran, M. 1995. “Multiagent Coordination with Learning Classifier Systems”, In Proceedings of the IJCAI-95 workshop on Adaptation and Learning in Multiagent Systems.
[Seo 2002] Seo, Y., Jung, S. and J. Hahm, 2002. “Optimal reorder decision utilizing centralized stock information in a two-echelon distribution system,” Computers & Operations Research, pp. 171-193.
[Simchi-Levi 2000] Simchi-Levi, D. , Kaminsky, P. and Simch-Levi, E., 2000 Designing and Managing the Supply Chain, USA, The McGraw-Hill Company.
[Soo 2000] Soo, V.W., Wu, S.H. 2000. “Negotiation Without Knowing Other Agents Payoffs in the Trusted Third-Party Mediated-Game,“ Second Workshop on Game Theoretic and　Decision Theoretic Agents.
[Stevenson 2002] Stevenson, W. J., 2002. Operations Management, McGraw-Hill, pp. 504-524.
[S.J. 1996] New, S.J. 1996. “A Framework for Analysing Supply Chain Improvement,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management , Vol.16, No.4, pp. 19-34.
[Tsai 1998] Tsai, Ming-Gong., 1998. Study on Model of Collaboration in On-Line Production of Supply Chains, Master thesis, Graduate Institute of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Tsing Hua University.
[Weber 1993] Weber, C. A. and Current, J. R., “A Multi-objective Approach to Vendor Selection,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp173-18.
[Wu 1999] Wu, S. and Soo, V., 1999. ”Risk Control in Multi-agent Coordination by Negotiation with a Trusted Third Party,” in Proceeding of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'99), Stockholm, Sweden, pp.500-506.
[Yang 1998] Yang, Tsi-Ching., and Chi-Ming Lin, 1998. “Agent-Based On-Line Negotiation Support System,” 14th International Conference on Computer Science and Information Management.
[Yu 2003] Yu, Ting-Jung, Lai, R. and Lin, Meng-Wen. 2003. ”Multi-Agent System for Collaborative design,“ PDPTA2003, Vol. 3, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 1012-1018.