跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.48.196) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/16 10:55
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:彭聖育
研究生(外文):Sheng-Yu Peng
論文名稱:策略聯盟型態與營運績效之關聯性研究-以台灣定期航商為例
論文名稱(外文):A Study on the Strategic Alliances and Performance in Liner Shipping Industry
指導教授:林泰誠林泰誠引用關係
指導教授(外文):Taih-Cheng Lirn
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄第一科技大學
系所名稱:運籌管理所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:行銷與流通學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:96
語文別:中文
論文頁數:76
中文關鍵詞:策略聯盟多屬性決策定期航運營運績效
外文關鍵詞:MADMPerformanceStrategic allianceContainer liner industries
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:253
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
在全球化的趨勢下,產業間的競爭將越來越激烈,因此,企業便以策略聯盟為主要的策略藉以增加自己的競爭力。在定期航運業中,這樣的策略以實行已久,而策略聯盟的對象也從定期航商本身擴大至其他相關的產業。
因此,本研究選取五項績效指標「擴大服務範圍」、「顧客滿意度」、「利潤」、「規模經濟」和「降低成本」來評估四種不同的定期航商聯盟類型。本研究在使用三種不同的權重方法和四種多屬性決策方法來評估策略聯盟之績效後,得到下列幾點結論:
1.在定期航商與定期航商之聯盟方面,以規模經濟為其最佳營運績效;在定期航商與裝卸公司之聯盟方面,以利潤和降低成本為其最佳營運績效;在定期航商與物流業之聯盟方面,以擴大服務範圍為其最佳營運績效;在定期航商與港口之聯盟方面,以擴大服務範圍和降低成本為其最佳營運績效。
2.本研究發現以定期航商與定期航商聯盟之績效表現最佳,定期航商與港口聯盟之表現次佳,其後依序為定期航商與物流業聯盟和定期航商與裝卸公司聯盟。
3.在不同方法之結果比較後,本研究之最適評估方法為CRITIC法和WPM法。
In a globalization era, competition among various industries is becoming much intense than ever before. Thus, strategic alliance is employed by many enterprises as a popular strategy to increase their competitiveness. In liner shipping industries, various types of alliance strategies are adopted to cope with external challenges for a long time, and the possible strategic alliance partners are also found across a broad professional area. Partnership can be found not only between ocean container carriers (OCCs) and OCCs, but also between OCCs and other stakeholders (e.g. container terminal operators) in liner shipping industries.
This research firstly employs five performance indexes, which include expanding service range, customer satisfaction, profit, the economies of scale, and cost reduction, to assess the overall performances among four types of alliances strategies in ocean container shipping industry. Secondly, this research utilizes three different weights methodologies and four multiple attribute decision making methodologies to evaluate the overall performance of the four types of alliance strategies.

Following conclusions are summarized from this empirical research
1.Strategic alliance partnership between OCCs and OCCs has the best performance on ‘the economies of scale’ index. OCCs and stevedore’ strategic partnership has the best performance on both the ‘profit’ and ‘cost reduction’ indexes. OCCs and LSPs’ strategic partnership has the best performance on ‘the expanding service range’ index. Strategic partnership between port authorities and OCCs has the best performance on the ‘expanding service range’ and ‘cost reduction’ indexes.
2.Of the four types of possible strategic partnerships, partnership between OCCs and OCCs has the best overall performance, following by OCCs and PAs (port authorities), OCCs and LSPs (logistics service providers), and OCCs and stevedoring companies.
3.Four types of MADMs (multiple attributes decision making) methodologies are employed to analyze the data gathered from empirical surveys. When the research results are systematically compared, the CRITIC (CRieter Important Through Intercriteria Correlation) and WPM (Weighted Product Method) are found to be two of the more appropriate methods.
目錄
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
致謝辭 v
表目錄 iii
圖目錄 iv
第一章 前言 1
第一節 研究動機與背景 1
第二節 研究目的 2
第三節 研究範圍與限制 2
第四節 研究流程 2
第二章 文獻回顧 5
第一節 策略聯盟之定義 5
第二節 策略聯盟之形式 6
第三節 定期航運策略聯盟型態 9
第四節 策略聯盟之動機 14
第五節 策略聯盟之績效 18
第六節 小結 20
第三章 研究方法 21
第一節 多屬性決策方法(Multiple Attribute Decision Making) 21
一、簡單加總法(Simple Additive Weighting Method, SAW) 23
二、層級加總法(Hierarchical Additive Weighting, HAW) 24
三、權重相乘法(Weighted Product Method, WPM) 25
四、TOPSIS 26
第二節 屬性權重之方法 27
一、熵值權重法(Entropy Method) 28
二、CRITIC法(CRieter Important Through Intercriteria Correlation) 29
三、標準差(Standard Deviation) 30
第三節 研究設計 31
一、績效評估準則與策略聯盟方案 31
二、研究對象和限制 33
三、研究架構 33
第四章 問卷結果與分析 36
第一節 基本統計分析 36
第二節 多屬性方法之評估 37
一、Entropy權重之多屬性方法 38
二、CRITIC權重之多屬性方法 39
三、SD權重之多屬性方法 40
四、小結 42
第三節 排序結果之分析比較 43
一、排序結果的誤差均方(Mean Squared Error, MSE) 44
二、排序結果的平均絕對誤差(Mean Absolute Error, MAE) 44
三、最佳方案之一致性(Top Rank Count, TOP) 45
四、排序結果相同之方案數(number of rank matched, MATCH%) 45
五、Spearman等級相關係數(Spearman’s Correlation for Rank, SRC) 49
第四節 小結 51
第五章 結論與建議 54
第一節 結論 54
第二節 建議 55
參考文獻 56
ㄧ、中文部份 56
二、英文部分 57
附件一 60
ㄧ、中文部份
1.方至民,2000,企業競爭優勢,初版,台北縣,前程企管出版社。
2.吳青松,1996,「策略聯盟之國際發展趨勢」,經濟情勢暨評論,3,8-13。
3.李長貴,1997,績效管理與績效評估,初版,華泰文化事業股份有限公司。
4.林光,1999,海運學,華泰文化事業股份有限公司。
5.林光、張志清,2001,航業經營管理,航貿出版公司。
6.林光、梁金樹、周聰佑,2000,航運公司績效評估模式之建立,第一屆兩岸航運科技學術研討會。
7.林芳如,2003,策略聯盟型態與營運績效之關聯性研究-以台灣航空業為例,國立中山大學國際高階經營管理碩士論文
8.張世龍、王穆衡、陳一平,2007,「定期航運策略聯盟之探討」,交通部運輸研究所
9.曹翠英,2006,策略聯盟強化大學競爭優勢,初版,五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
10.趙郁文,1999,國際企業管理系統化理論與分析,初版,台北,華泰文化事業股份有限公司。
11.劉森榮,2003,「貨櫃碼頭聯營方式之研究─高雄港為例」,中山大學企管研究所碩士論文。
12.蔡嘉恩,2004,「貨櫃碼頭策略聯盟之研究─以高雄港為例」,國立成功大學交通管理科學所碩士論文。
二、英文部分
1.Anderson, E. (1990). Two firms, One Frontier: On Assessing Joint Venture Performance? Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31(2), 19-30.
2.Arino, A., Ring, P. S., & Torre, J. (2001). Relational quality: Managing trust in corporate alliances.
3.Aulake, P. S., Masaaki, K., & Arrind, S. (1996). Trust and Performance in Cross-Broader Marketing Partnerships: A Behavioral Approach? Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27(5), 1005-1032.
4.Barney, J. B. (1997). Cooperative strategies: Strategic alliances. Gaining and ustaining Competitive Advantage, 284-313.
5.Bititci, U. S., Suwignjo, P., & Carrie, A. S. (2001) Quantitative models for performance measurement system. International Journal of production economics, Vol. 69(3), 15-22.
6.Chang, Y. -H., & Yeh C. –H. (2001). Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making. The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 29, 405-415.
7.Chathoth P. K., & Olsen M. D. (2003). Strategic alliances: a hospitality industry perspective. Journal of Hospitality Management.
8.Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, 37-52.
9.Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G. & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computer ops Res., Vol.22(7), 763-770.
10.Ellram, L. (1991). A managerial guideline for the development and implementation of purchasing partnerships. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 27(3), Summer, 2-8.
11.Emden, Z., Yarprak, A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2003). Learning from experience in international alliance: antecedents and firm performance implications. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, 883-892.
12.Harrigan, K. R. (1988). Joint venture and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 9(2), 141-158.
13.Harvey, G. M., & Lusch F. R. (1994). Systematic Assessment of Potential International Strategic Alliance Partners. International Business Review, Vol. 4(2), 195-212.
14.Heaver, T., Meersman, H., Moglia, F., & Van de voorde, E. (1999). Do mergers and alliance influence European shipping and port competition.
15.Hoffmann, W. H., & Schlosser, R. (2001). Success factors of strategic alliance in small and medium-sized enterprise─An empirical survey. Journal of Long Rang Planning, Vol. 34, 357-381.
16.Hyder, S., & Eriksson L. (2005). Success is not enough: the spectacular rise and fall of a strategic alliance between two multinationals. Industrial marketing management, Vol.34(8), 783-796.
17.Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Alliance orientation: Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34(3), 324-340.
18.Killing, J. P. (1983). How to make a global joint venture work. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 60(3), 120-127.
19.Mahdy, I. A. (1999). Impact of privatization on airlines performance: an empirical analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 5, 45-52.
20.Midoro, R., & Pitto, A. (2000). A Critical evaluation of strategic alliances in liner shipping. Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 27(1), 31-40.
21.Murray, J. Y., & Kotabe, M. (2005). Performance implications of strategic fit between alliance attributes and alliance forms. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, 1525-1533.
22.Nielsen, B. B., (2007). Determining international strategic alliance performance: A multidimensional approach. International business review, 16, 337-361.
23.Pierre, C. (2000). Strategic Alliance in Liner Shipping: An Analysis of “Operational Synergies”.
24.Ryoo, D. K., & Thanopoulou, H. A. (1999). Liner alliance in the globalization era: a strategic tool for Asian container carriers. Maritime Policy & Management, 26(4), 349-367.
25.Siguaw, J. A., Penny, M. S., & Baker, T. L. (1998). Effects of Supplier Market Orientation on Distributor Market Orientation and the Channel Relationship: The Distributor Perspective? Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, 99-111.
26.Song, D. W., & Panayides, P. M. (2002). A conceptual application of cooperative game theory to liner shipping strategic alliance. Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 29(3), 285-301.
27.Varadarajan, P.R., & Cunningham, M.H. (1995). Strategic alliances: A synthesis of conceptual foundations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23(4), 282-296.
28.Yan, A., & Gary, B. (1994). Bargaining Power, Management Control, and Performance In United States-China Joint Ventures: A Comparative Case Study? Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37(6), 478-517.
29.Yoon, K. P., & Hwang C. -L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making: An introduction. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.Yoshino, M. Y., & Rangan U. S. (1995). Strategic Alliance: An Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization. Harvard Business School Press.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top