臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘 要

我國航空公司自1999年正式推動飛航操作品保(Flight Operational Quality Assurance - FOQA)系統強化飛安管理以來，相關之研究始終欠缺，在管理上、在學術上均應積極面對做一研究。
本研究基於以上之動機試圖透過創新採用模式(Innovation Model)，探討我國航空公司引進FOQA系統，在管理上實際參與或接觸之人員其接受程度之演變如何？在不同之人口統計變數有那些不同之看法？相關的構面因素有那些？其相關情形或差異又如何？並以統計方法加以處理。
本研究調查對象係針對我國航空公司採用FOQA計畫有關之人員，包含航空公司內部參與或接觸之人員，以及公司以外之學者專家與政府監督單位人員等。
其結論與建議有：
一、 員工需持續不斷溝通，全員飛安應繼續推動：
31-40歲區間群組人數最多，“滿意值”與“不滿意值”排序均為最高，人數最多，意見最多。以及高學歷及高職務影響力較大之群組“不滿意值”偏高。基於全員飛安考量，在管理上有必要特別加強溝通。本研究整體“滿意值” 針對264份問卷是67.4%，在創新採用模式過程分析中，全程各階段受訪者均認為飛安重要，且對飛安執行過程滿意，顯示全員飛安之推動是可能且已有相當之成就故應持續進行，並在即有之基礎上注意對少數組群，給予不同之處理方式以追求卓越。
二、 程序與規定應適時修正或宣導，以利遵循：
關於飛行高高度及高坡度項目與FORAS( Flight Operation Risk Analysis System)相關分析中，組織與管理因素呈現負相關，顯示部份飛行員認為管理上過多或過嚴的程序與規定，使原本不算過失的事件，因為認定角度不同，而列為飛安事件。飛行員對組織與管理的不滿，對過於繁瑣規定的不耐煩，恐將造成情緒壓力上之反彈，此點頗值得管理階層之重視。
三、 公司管理階層必需全力支持，安全與營運之成本支出應有平衡機制：
小公司“不滿意值”高，而大公司“滿意值”高，推究其因應是在推動FOQA系統時，支援之人力、物力及作業流程處理方式上有差異，進而影響接受FOQA意願。小公司不可過於追求成本控制，而忽視整個飛安計劃之推動。推動FOQA系統時，全力支援人力、物力固然會有成本上之考量，但如成控過嚴未給予相當比例之支援，實非長久之計。飛航安全必需築基於平時對小事的認真與對飛安觀念的灌輸，否則連串的疏忽一旦造成嚴重飛安事件，實在得不償失。
四、飛航人員之壓力應有疏導機制妥慎處理：
本研究發現部份飛航人員之不滿已達警訊程度，值得採取相當之因應措施，妥善處理，以免普遍認同之良法美意未能盡善，反而受到處理不當之牽累，頗為可惜。如何疏導飛航人員之壓力，應有適當之機制，並能落實發揮實效。FOQA資料在處理上不僅有提升飛安、提升訓練、提升維修、加強績效管制之功能，相信在管理上亦俱有正面之意義，但如將相關資料用在管考人事上且過於誇張運用，而在訓練上、程序法規修正上又過於保守，均會造成飛航人員之壓力，頗值得檢討改進。

ABASTRACT

Since the launching of the Flight operational Quality Assurance ( FOQA) system in 1999 to enhance flight safety management, there are still not enough efforts devoted into the related research in Taiwan. As far as management and academy is concerned that it is imperative to research and use it more aggressively.
This study was motivated by above orientation, and adopted the “Innovation Adoption Process Model” to research the changing of the attitudes of the people involved in the project for their acceptance of FOQA system. What are the different views of the demographic groups? What are the factors belonging the different interfaces? What are their relations and difference? The study was conducted with statistical hypothesis and analysis.
The target for this study were including people participated and involved directly and indirectly in the FOQA’s project , It includes the staffs of the carriers and scholars, government authorities and so on in Taiwan.
Conclusion and suggestions are as follows:
1. To keep constant communications with staff to enhance the plenary flight safety:
Based on the statistics, the age group of 30 to 40 dominates the top ranks both in satisfactory and dissatisfactory ratings. Amount this age group, they rise the most of complains. And people with higher education and higher ranking who have more influential power turn out to show lower satisfactory ratings. In consideration of the flight safety, it is essential to enhance the communications in terms of management. The total average of satisfactory ratings is 67.4% against 264 questionnaires. During the processing of the “Innovation Adoption Process Model”, most of the interviewees recognized the importance of the flight safety, and satisfied with its implementation. The survey signifies the promotion of plenary flight safety implanted to each individual staff has reached a considerable achievement. The continuing effort is still necessary, however, based on the established foundation, they should pay more attention to the opinions of various minorities and deal with them differently according to different cases so as to pursue excellence.
2. Timely revision or proclamation of the procedures and stipulations and to be sure in compliance with all staffs:
Based on the survey, the items of “high altitude” and “high slope ” has a negative correlation with the factor “organization and management” in FORAS. That is revealed with some of the crew did not agree with the view by management in ruling the flight safety events, which might be due to redundant or over stringent procedures and stipulations. The crew member’s dissatisfaction with the organization and management, and their resistance on strenuous stipulation may result in impulsive responses, which reserves management much more attention.
3. Company needs to pay fully endeavor to make the balance about the cost and safety concerns:
Owing to the manpower, facilities and procedures were varied among the carriers, the willingness to accept FOQA system were different. The smaller the firm is the lower the rating and vice versa. In promoting FOQA system, it requires fully support on manpower and facilities, which will incur additional cost inevitably. Otherwise, if the cost is too tight, it would turn out to be a loser in the long run in case of serious events occurred. The flight safety is built in normal time, be scrupulous on minor works and constant communication of safety concept.
4. Flight crew’s stresses have to be handling carefully and in a mechanism system:
This study found out that the dissatisfaction of crew already reached a warning level, which is necessitated a proper precaution and action by management so as to avoid failing on the verge of success. The implication improperly handling may undermine the great significance of FOQA system. Therefore, in order to smooth the press of flight crew, a proper mechanism should be set up and implemented thoroughly. The data generated by FOQA can promote flight safety, upgrade training, strengthen maintenance, improve performance control; besides, it has positive meaning in terms of management. However, if it is over exaggeratedly used in personnel management and training, as well as over conservative in revising procedures and stipulations, it will certainly increase the stress to flight crew. In this regard, the problem should be highly addressed and improved.

參考文獻
一. 中文部分
1. 王美音、楊子江譯，1997，Nonaka & Takeuchi 著（The Knowledge-Creating Company），「創新求勝」台北：遠流出版社。
2. 司徒達賢，2001《策略管理新論—觀念架構與分析方法》。
3. 汪進財，2002等「建立航空公司飛航安全評鑑制度之研究」，交通部民用航空局委託研究案。
4. 吳思華，1998「知識流通對產業創新的影響」，第七屆產業管理研討會論文集。
5. 吳統雄，1986「理論與方法」。
6. 李仁芳，1997「高科技事業中創新類型與組織知識創造之研究」，第二屆管理學術定性研究研討會論文集。
6. 林靈宏、劉水深、洪順慶，1994，「消費品類型、創新類型與新產品行銷策略關係研究」， 管理評論。
7. 莊立民，2001「組織創新模式建構與實證之研究---以台灣資訊電子業為例」，國立成功大學企業管理研究所未出版博士論文。
8. 野中郁次郎（Nonaka）、清澤達夫，1989「向創意挑戰」，天下文化出版。
9. 黃佑安，1997「企業創新能力對新產品研發過程影響之研究」，國立政治大學企業管理研究所博士論文。
10. 交通部民用航空局，2001「美國聯邦航空總署飛安評鑑報告」。
11. 蕭富峰、李田樹譯，1998，Drucker, P.F 著，「創新與創業精神： 管理大師談創新實務與策略」，麥田出版。
12. 賴士葆，1996，商學總論，台北：麥田出版股份有限公司。
13. 魏文忠，沈中華合譯，1997，Douglas Lamont (1991)著，「贏得全世界」，聯經出版。
14. 劉春初、蔡明田、莊立民，2001，「台灣高科技企業組織創新衡量模式建構之研究」，人力資源管理學報。
15. 邱皓政，2004「量化研究與統計分析」。
16. 喬志弘，1999，飛行安全季刊第19 期「航空安全人為因素」。
17. 張有恆，2001「國籍航空器失事人為因素之探討」。
18. 胡逵然，2004 「中國式高可靠度組織原則之選構—以國籍航空公司航務管理為例」。
19. 高國恩，2004「大台北地區對智慧型手機有接受意願消費者之市場區隔研究---以創新採用過程為例」。
20 葉又青，2004、2005「中華航空公司飛安管理簡報」。
21. 葉聿珮，2004「飛航操作品保系統成功因素之探討」。
22. 陸鵬舉、嵇允嬋，1996成功大學航太研究所「國籍航空器飛安事故模型建立及預測之研究」。
23. 蔡啟通，1997「組織因素、組織成員整體創造性與組織創新之關係」。
24. 鄭永安，2001 「民航駕駛員工作壓力模式之研究－以中華航空公司為例」，國立交通大學運輸工程與管理系碩士論文。
二. 英文部分
1. Afuah, A.(1998), “Innovation Management：Strategies, Implementation, and Profits”, New York：Oxford University Press.
2. Drucker, P.F. (1986), “Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principle”, New York: Harper & Row Publisher, Inc., 1986
3. Damanpour, F. (1991). “Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators”. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590.
4. Flight Safety Digest, 1998 July.
5. Griffin, A. & Page, A. L. (1993), “An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success and Failure ”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 4. 291-308.
6. Kogut, B. and U. Zander (1992), “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Tehnology” Oxford University Press, pp 306-326
7. Kumar, Aaker & Day(1999), “Essentials of Marketing” “Reseach”,p.309
8. Montoya-Weiss, M. M. & Calantone, R. (1994), “Determinants of New Product Performance: A Review and Mata-Analysis,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 394-397.
9. Newell, S. & Swan, J. (1995), “Professional Associations as Inportant Mediators of The Innovation Process.” Science Communication, 16(4), 371-87.
10. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H., (1995) “The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation”, Oxford University Press,
11. Nonaka,I.& Takeuchi,H.(1995), “The Knowledge Creating Company:How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation.” Oxford University Press.
12. Olson, Eric M., Walker, Orville C., and Ruekert, Robert W. (1995), “Organizing for Effective New Product Development: The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness,” Journal of Marketing, 59(January), 48-62.
13. Parry, Mark E. & Song, X. M. (1994), “Identifying New Product Success in China,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 15-30.
14. Rogers, Everett M. (1962), “Diffusion of Innovation”, The Free Press, New York, P.79-86, 1962
15. Rogers, Everett M. (1983), “Diffusion of Innovation”, 3rd. ed., The Free Press, New York,
16. Song, X. Michael, Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi M., and Schmidt, Jeffrey B. (1997), “Antecedents and Consequences of Cross-Functional Cooperation: A Comparison of R&D, Manufacturing, and Marketing Perspectives,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 35-47.
17. Souder, W. E. and Jenssen, S. A. (1999), “Management Practices Influencing New Product Success and Failure in the United States and Scandinavia: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 183-203.
18. Schiffman, W. L. and L. L. Kaunk (2001), “Consumer Behavior”, 7th. ed.., NewJersey: Prentice-Hall, p.4., 2001
19. Teece, D.J. (1998), “Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets For Know-How, and Intangible”.