臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

供應商績效評估一直都是供應鏈管理重要的課題，企業中的採購部門必須定期的評估供應商的績效，以期望供應商能達到企業的需求。在進行供應商評估時，必須同時考慮多個指標及決定指標的權重，由於指標間具有相依及回饋的情形，因此權重的決定也較為複雜，此外，由於績效指標有互相影響的情形，指標間的關連度也是評估供應商時必須考慮的問題。本研究提出一個新的供應商績效評估方法，結合分析網路程序法(Analytic Network Process, ANP)及決策實驗室法(Decision making trial and evaluation laboratory, DEMATEL)建構評估模式，以達到正確的評估供應商績效，及可回溯績效表現找出關鍵改善原因之目的。
在進行供應商績效評估時，利用分析網路程序法求出各指標的權重，量化指標並求得供應商的總分；另外利用決策實驗室法得知各指標的因果關係及關連度大小，當檢視供應商績效時，可從權重大或關連度大但表現差的指標回溯，以提供供應商改善的方向。最後以模擬的方式進行驗證，結果顯示本研究對指標之排序符合模擬之結果，因此可供企業參考使用。

Supplier performance evaluation for some time now has been receiving increasing importance as a supply chain management component. Purchasing managers need to periodically evaluate supplier performance in order to retain those suppliers who meet their requirements. Buyers usually consider multi-criteria and must determine the relative weights of the criteria when evaluating suppliers. Because of these performance criteria usually exist interdependence and feedback, the weights of the criteria are hard to obtain. In addition, performance criteria usually affect each other, so the direct and indirect effects are also a crucial problem when evaluating suppliers. This paper proposes a model which combines the methods of the analytic network process (ANP) and the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) to evaluate supplier performance accurately and can find out which criterion is the key factor to improve performance.
When evaluating a supplier, ANP are used to determine the weights of performance criteria and can get the total performance of the supplier. DEMATEL are used to compute the effects between criteria. The model can propose the criterion which is the most important or affects other criteria the most, so buyers will know which criterion can improve the performance the most and can ask suppliers to modify it. Finally, a simulation is employed to verify our model. The result through the simulation is complied with our model, so it can provide the information for making decision concerning suppliers performance.

摘 要 I
ABSTRACT II
致 謝 III
目 錄 IV
表 目 錄 VI
圖 目 錄 VIII

第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 1
1.3 研究目的 1
1.4 研究架構 2
1.5 研究方法 3
1.6 研究限制 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
2.1供應商管理 5
2.1.1 供應商評估程序 5
2.1.2 供應商評估模式 6
2.1.3 供應商評估準則 13
2.2分析網路程序法( ANALYTIC NETWORK PROCESS，ANP ) 17
2.2.1 ANP法簡介及應用 17
2.2.2 ANP法決策程序 18
2.2.3 ANP與AHP之比較 21
2.3 決策實驗室法(DECISION MAKING TRIAL AND EVALUATION LABORATORY，DEMATEL) 22
2.3.1 DEMATEL簡介及應用 22
2.3.2 DEMATEL架構及運算步驟 22
2.3.3 DEMATEL範例說明 26
第三章 研究方法 29
3.1 選定供應商績效指標 31
3.2 使用DEMATEL方法找出績效指標的直接/間接影響程度 31
3.3 應用分析網路程序法決定供應商績效指標權重 33
3.4結合DEMATEL計算之關連度與ANP計算之權重 39
3.5找出可改善績效指標 40
第四章 模擬驗證 41
4.1系統動態學模擬架構 42
4.1.1 模擬範圍限制及說明 42
4.1.2 模擬基本假設 44
4.1.3 模擬系統設計 45
4.1.4 模擬結果呈現 56
4.2 DEMATEL關連度計算 58
4.2.1 定義元素 58
4.2.2 判斷績效指標關係 60
4.2.3 計算直接/間接關係矩陣 66
4.2.4 績效指標因果圖 67
4.3 ANP權重計算 69
4.3.1 供應商績效評估網路層級架構之建立 69
4.3.2 決定供應商績效指標相關性權重 71
4.3.3 特徵向量之計算 73
4.3.4 一致性檢定 74
4.3.5 超級矩陣之計算 74
4.3.6 各績效指標權重確定 77
4.3.7 計算混和權重關連度矩陣 77
4.4 結果與分析 78
第五章 結論與建議 81
5.1 研究結論 81
5.2 未來研究方向 82
參考文獻 84

一、中文部分
1. 林宗明、民94，管理問題因果複雜度分析模式建立之研究─以DEMATEL為方法論，中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。

2. 胡秀珍、民92，供應商評估選擇與其影響原因之探討，國立高雄第一科技大學運輸與倉儲營運研究所碩士論文。

3. 胡雪琴、民92，企業問題複雜度之探討及量化研究--以DEMATEL為分析工具，私立中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。

4. 陳虹遐、民93，應用分析網路程序法於液晶電視之生態效益評估，國立成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。

5. 陳貴琳、民92，供應商績效評估與品質改善模式，國立交通大學工業工程管理研究所博士論文。

6. 黃敏宗、民93，以平衡計分卡建構逆向物流業者績效評估模式之研究，南台科技大學工業管理研究所碩士論文。

7. 廖慈惠、民92，製造商領導之供應鏈合作規劃架構，元智大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。

二、英文部分
1. Bititci U.S., Suwignjo P., and Carrie A.S. “Strategy management through quantitative modeling of performance measurement systems,” International Journal of Production Economics (69) 2001, pp:15-22

2. Bolaños R., Fontela E., Nenclares A. and Pastor P. “Using interpretive structural modelling in strategic decision-making groups,” Management Decision (43:6) 2005, pp:877-895

3. Chen I. J. and A. Paulraj, “Understanding supply chain management: critical research and a theoretical framework”, International Journal of Production Research(42:1) 2004, pp: 131–163

4. De Boer, L. and E. Labro, P. Morlacchi. “A review of methods supporting supplier selection,” European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (7)2001, pp:75-89

5. Dickson, G. “An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions,” Journal of Purchasing (2)1966, pp:28–41

6. Ellram, L.M. “The supplier selection decision in strategic partnerships,” Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management (26:4)1990, pp:8–14

7. Fontela E. and Gabus A. “Current perceptions of the world problematique,” in Churchman, C.W. and Mason, R.A. (Eds), World Modeling: A Dialogue, North Holland/Elsevier, Amsterdam/New York, 1976

8. Huang J.J., Tzeng G.H., and Ong C.S. “Multidimensional data in multidimensional scaling using the analytic network process,” Pattern Recognition Letters (26) 2005, pp:755-767

9. Hiroyuki Tamura, Haruna Nagata, and Katsuhiro Akazawa. “Structural modeling and systems analysis of various factors for realizing safe, secure, and reliable society.” Scientific Research (Project No. 13GS0018) ,2003

10. Jain, V., Tiwari, M.K. and Chan, F.T.S. “Evaluation of the supplier performance using an evolutionary fuzzy-based approach,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management (15:8) 2004, pp:735-744

11. Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. “Supplier selection and assessment: their impact on business performance, ”Journal of Supply Chain Management (38:4) 2002 pp:11-21

12. Krause, D.R. and Ellram, L.M. “Critical elements of supplier development,” European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management (3:1)1997, pp:21-31

13. Lin Chi-Jen and Wu Wei-Wen “A fuzzy extension of the DEMATEL method for group decision making,” 第一屆作業研究學會學術研討會論文集，台北科技大學，台灣 (2004)

14. Lasch, R and Janker, C.G.. “Supplier selection and controlling using multivariate analysis,” International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics Management (35:6) 2005, pp:409-425

15. Melnyk S.A., Stewart D.M., and Swink M. “Metrics and performance measurement in operations management: dealing with the metrics maze,” Journal of Operations Management (22) 2004, pp:209-217

16. Muralidharan C., Anatharaman N. and Deshmukh S.G. “A multi-criteria group decision making model for supplier rating,” Journal of Supply Chain Management (38:4)2002, pp:22–33

17. Pi W.-N. and Low C. “Supplier evaluation and selection via Taguchi loss functions and an AHP,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (27:5-6) 2006, pp:625-630

18. Prahinski C. and Benton W.C. “Supplier evaluations: communication strategies to improve supplier performance,” Journal of Operations Management (22) 2004, pp:39-62

19. Ricardo B., Emilio F., Alfredo N., and Pablo P. “Using interpretive structural modeling in strategic decision-making groups,” Management Decision(43:6)2005, pp:877-895

20. Sarkis, J. “Quantitative models for performance measurement systems-alternate considerations,” International Journal of Production Economics (86) 2003, pp:81-90

21. Sarkis, J. and Talluri, S. “A model for strategic supplier selection,” Journal of Supply Chain Management(38:1) 2002, pp:18–28

22. Satty, T.L. Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process, 2nd ed, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, USA, 2001

23. Simpson, P.M., Siguaw, J.A. ,and White, S.C. “Measuring the performance of suppliers: an analysis of evaluation processes,” Journal of Supply Chain Management (38:1) 2002, pp:29-41

24. Suwignjo P., Bititci U.S. ,and Carrie A.S. “Quantitative models for performance measurement system,” International Journal of Production Economics (64) 2000, pp:231-241

25. Stevenson, William J. Operations Management, Boston : McGraw-Hill/Irwin, c2002

26. Talluri, S. and Narasimhan, R. “Vendor evaluation with performance variability: A max-min approach,” European Journal of Operational Research(146) 2003, pp:543-552

27. Tan, K.C., Kannan, V.R. and Handfield, R.B. “Supply chain management: supplier performance and firm performance,” International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management (34:3) 1998, pp:2-9

28. Tan, K.C. and Kannan, V.R. “Supplier selection and assessment: their impact on business performance,” Journal of Supply Chain Management (38:4) 2002, pp:11-21

29. Thompson, K.N. “Scaling evaluative criteria and supplier performance estimates in weighted point prepurchase decision model,” International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management (27:1)1991, pp:27-36

30. Weber, Charles A., Current, John R. and Benton, W.C. “Vendor selection criteria and methods,” European Journal of Operational Research (50:1)1991, pp:2-18

31. 潘俊宏、民94，一衡量供應鏈績效之整合性架構，國立中央大學工業管理研究所碩士論文。