臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

當前固網業者對地區維運單位的績效評估，並未有客觀的評估方法。本研究有鑑於此，提出適合固網產業部門績效評估的多指標評估模式（multiple index evaluation model）。本研究首先根據文獻回顧及固網產業的特性，找出構成維運績效的維運區水準、站台建設及電路安裝、障礙查修三個組成成份，然後根據各成份的評估項目，建構83項基本的維運績效評估指標，同時歸納為員工生產力、顧客服務能力、障礙查修能力、設備或線路維修能力、維運區水準五個評估要因，分別包含16、5、19、30及13個評估指標。由於各評估指標均具有客觀量化的績效值（performance value），因此本研究採用entropy法決定評估指標的權重（weight）。最後本研究結合TOPSIS評估法，進行各維運單位的綜合評估及績效優劣的排序。
績效評估是一項複雜的工作，所考量的評估指標越少，複雜性就越高；如果能夠用較少的評估指標進行評估，同時能獲得與考量所有評估指標進行評估的結果並沒有顯著性差異時，則必能使績效評估工作更容易進行。為達此目的，本研究以中位數、第3四分位數法及80百分位數法進行評估指標的篩選，分別選取43、24及20個評估指標，再利用entropy法求取指標權重及應用TOPSIS法進行綜合評估。
最後，本研究以速博電信（sparq*）公司為個案，進行實證分析。就三種選取法則所得到評估指標對四個維運單位進行綜合評估，再分別與考量所有評估指標下得到的評估結果，進行配對t檢定。根據檢定結果顯示，三種選取法則的評估結果，均與考量所有評估指標的評估結果沒有顯著性的差異。顯示速博電信公司進行維運單位績效的評估時，只要利用20個評估指標進行評估即可。本研究的成果，可提供其他電信公司進行部門績效評估的參考。

Currently, the fixed-cable network companies do not have objective evaluation methods for the performance evaluation of the regional operation departments. In consideration of this issue, this study addresses a multiple index evaluation model that is suitable for the performance evaluation of the departments in fixed-cable network industry. First of all, based on documents review and the characteristics of fixed-cable network industry, this study looks for the components that constitute the operation performance, which are operational standard, construction of platform & circuit installation, and trouble-shooting. And then, according to the evaluation items of each component, 83 basic operational performance evaluation indicators are established; in the meantime these 83 indicators are generalized into five important evaluating factors, which include the productivity of employees, the capability of customer services, the capability of trouble-shooting, the capability of equipment or circuit maintenance, and the standard of operational division, and each of them are involved in 16, 5, 19, 30 and 13 evaluation indicators respectively. Consequently, this study uses entropy to decide the weight of the evaluation indicator. Lastly, this study combines with TOPSIS to proceed every operational unit’s integrated evaluation and ranking of performance.
Performance evaluation is a complicated job, the fewer the evaluation indicators being considered, the higher the complexity is. If using fewer evaluation indicators to proceed with the evaluation can still obtain the results that come from the usage of all the evaluation indicators, and no remarkable difference is found between the two results, then the performance evaluation can be proceeded easier. In order to achieve this purpose, this study uses the mean, calculation of the third quartile, calculation of 80% to proceed with the selection of evaluation indicators, and each of them chooses 43, 24, and 20 evaluation indicators respectively. Furthermore, this study uses entropy to get the weight of the indicator and the application of TOPSIS to proceed with integrated evaluation
Last but not least, this study uses Sparq* as a case study to proceed with the analysis of evidence. The evaluation indicators that obtain from 3 kinds of selection criteria are used to proceed with integrated evaluation on four operational departments; then, the evaluation results that obtain from the consideration of all evaluation indicators are used to proceed with the Paired t-test. According to the test results, the evaluation results that obtain from 3 kinds of selection criteria are similar to the one that obtain from the consideration of all evaluation indicators. It shows that when Sparq* proceeds with the evaluation of operational department’s performance, only 20 evaluation indicators are enough to proceed with the evaluation. The achievements of this study can be provided, as a reference, to the other telecommunications companies to proceed with their departments’ performance evaluation.

誌 謝............................................................... I
摘 要.............................................................. II
ABSTRACT.......................................................... IV
目錄............................................................... VI
表目錄............................................................. IX
圖目錄............................................................ XII
第一章 緒論......................................................... 1
1.1 研究緣起........................................................ 1
1.2 研究目的........................................................ 3
1.3 研究範圍與限制................................................... 4
1.4 研究內容........................................................ 5
1.5 研究方法........................................................ 6
1.6 研究流程........................................................ 9
第二章 文獻回顧..................................................... 13
2.1 電信效率衡量方法之回顧........................................... 14
2.2 績效評估相關文獻回顧............................................. 19
2.3 評估指標選取之原則............................................... 22
2.4 權重決定方法之回顧............................................... 23
2.5 各種權重求算方法之比較........................................... 28
第三章 固網產業現況分析.............................................. 31
3.1 固網產業特性分析................................................ 31
3.2 固網產業營運現況分析............................................ 34
3.3 固網產業維運績效評估現況分析..................................... 37
第四章 維運績效評估模式之建立......................................... 42
4.1 績效評估模式之架構............................................... 42
4.2 代表性指標的選取方法............................................. 48
4.3 Entropy權重決定法............................................... 54
4.4 TOPSIS評估法................................................... 58
4.5 配對t檢定方法................................................... 61
第五章 實証分析..................................................... 64
5.1 個案公司說明.................................................... 64
5.2 評估指標初擬.................................................... 66
5.3 代表性評估指標篩選............................................... 79
5.4 評估指標權重的求取............................................... 90
5.5 維運單位營運績效的評估...........................................107
5.6 三種選取法則評估結果有無差異之檢定................................ 134
5.7 結果與討論..................................................... 136
第六章 結論與建議.................................................. 138
6.1 研究結論...................................................... 138
6.2 建議事項...................................................... 139
參考文獻...........................................................141

王榮祖（2002）,運輸產業營運績效評估架構之建立及其應用之研究－以公路客運業與國內線航空運輸業為例，交通大學交通運輸所碩士論文,新竹。
王孟平 (2002) ,電信事業的自由化、民營化對普及服務供給之影響，以中華電信為例,中央大學工業工程管理所碩士論文,桃園。
林道桑（2006）,「固網產業的未來」，台灣工銀投資分析二月號。
林啟淐（2003）,台灣地區肉品市場經營效率之研究，南華大學管理科學所碩士論文,嘉義。
徐若倩（2003）,灰關聯分析與TOPSIS方法應用於企業經營績效評估之研究，義守大學資訊工程所碩士論文,高雄。
速博電信(2006) ,網路事業處網路維運操作手冊,速博電信。
張瑞濱（2002）,我國私立技術學院經營效率之研究，中華大學科技管理所博士論文,新竹。
張永成（2003）,雲林縣鄉鎮市農會信用部經營績效之評估,南華大學管理科學所碩士論文,嘉義。
陳正宏（2002）,非營利組織績效評估指標之研究- 以台灣300 家主要基金會為例，國防管理學院資源管理研究所碩士論文,台北。
郭峻廷（2002）,以品質機能展開法-電信產業之服務品質，台灣科技大學工業管理所碩士論文,台北。
程齡葵（2001）,台灣有線電視系統台之經營效率評估，逢甲大學經濟系碩士論文,台中。
曾國雄、鄧振源（1989）,「層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與研究（上）」，中國統計學報，27(6)，5-22。
曾國雄、鄧振源（1989）,「層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與研究（下）」，中國統計學報，27(7)，1-20。
楊明宗（2002）,醫學中心之教學醫院績效評估，成功大學企業管理所碩士論文,高雄。
楊詠凱（2002）,台灣地區主要航空站營運與財務之績效評估，交通大學交通運輸所碩士論文,新竹。
葉士群（2002）,台灣ISP 產業經營績效之研究，真理大學管理科學所碩士論文,台北。
鄧振源（2002）,計畫評估-方法與應用-第一版，運籌規劃與管理研究中心,基隆。
鄧振源（2002）,模糊多準則策略評估模式之建立與應用，策略管理講義，華梵大學工業管理學系,台北。
鄧振源（2006）,統計學講義，華梵大學工業工程暨經營資訊學系,台北。
蔡麗華（2002）,老人福利機構治理機制及其績效之研究，南華大學非營利管理所碩士論文,嘉義。
鄭媚伊（2003）,農業合作社經營效率之研究－資料包絡分析法之應用，屏東科技大學農業企業管理所碩士論文,屏東。
蕭建興（2000）,運用多準則評估方法於新銀行經營績效評估之研究，朝陽科技大學財務金融系碩士論文,南投。
盧佳宏（2002）,我國民營行動電話服務業者經營績效之研究，國立成功大學電信管理科學所碩士論文,高雄。
盧建川（2001）,員工績效考核辦法之研究-以R公司為例，交通大學科學管理所碩專班碩士論文,新竹。
Rushdi,A.A.(2000), “Total factor productivity measures for Telstra,” Telecommunications Policy 24 (2),143-154.
Aigner,D. J. and C. A. K. Lovell, and P.Schmidt(1977),”Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models,” Journal of Econometrics 6,21-37.
Caves, D. W, L. R. Christensen and W. E. Diwert (1982), “The economic theory of, index numbers and the measurement of input, output and productivity,” Econometrica 50,1393-1414.
Charnes.A, W.W.Cooper and E.Rhodes（1978）,”Measuring the efficiency of decision making units,”European Journal of Operational Research 2(6),429-444.
Diakoulaki, D.,G.Mavrotas,L.Papayannakis(1995),“Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method,” Computers & Operations Research 22(7),763-770.
Edwards, W.(1977), “How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 7(5),326-340.
Fuss, M.,and L. Waverman(1994), “Regulation and the multiproduct firm：The case of telecommunication in Canada,”The NBER Conference On Public Regulation, Washington,December.
Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, M. Norris, and Z. Zhang(1994), “Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries,” American Economic Review 84(1),66-83.
Foreman, R. D.（2003）, “A logistic analysis of bankruptcy within the US local telecommunications industry,” Journal of Economics and Business 55(2),135-166.
Giokas, D. I. and G. C.Pentzaropoulos（2000）, “Evaluation productivity efficiency in telecommunications: Evidence from Greece,” Telecommunications Policy 24,781-794.
Goto, M.and T. Sueyoshi( 1998), On the Economies of Scale of Japan’s Electric Power Industry, No.275,50-70,NTT Publication,Tokyo.
H. Lee, B. Han, Y. Shin, and S. Im, (2000), “Multipath Characteristics of Impulse Radio Channels,” Proc. IEEE VTC 2000,2487-2491.
Hill, M.(1968), “A goal achievement matrix for evaluating alternative plans,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 44(1),40-72.
Hwang, C. L. and K.Yoon (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Madden, G. and S. J.Savage（1999）,“Telecommunications productivity, catch-up and innovation,” Telecommunications Policy 23,65-81.
Oniki, H., T.H. Oum, R. Stevenson and Y. Zhang(1994), “The productivity effects of the liberalization of Japanese telecommunication policy,” Journal of Productivity Analysis 5, 63-79.
Resende, M.(1999), “Productivity growth and regulation in U.S. local telephone,”Information Economics and Policy 32,23-44.
Schimpeler C.C., W.L. Grecco (1968), “Systems evaluation: an approach based on community structure and values,”Highway Research Record 238,123-152.
Uri, N. D.（2000）, “Measuring productivity change in telecommunications,” Telecommunications Policy 24,439-452.
Edwards,W. and F. H. Barron(1994), “SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurements,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60,306--325.