臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

教育訓練的目的是希望透過訓練的課程強化員工的知識、技能與行為，並使其所學得以應用到平日的工作上，模擬中心教育訓練的紮實與否更是影響到T公司的運轉績效，而教育訓練投資對T公司的貢獻有賴採行有效的評估分析與改善措施來加以衡量，引發本研究的動機。訓練評估模式中以Kirkpatrick 四層次評估模式被廣泛地使用，本研究以Kirkpatrick 訓練評估模式為基礎，配合研究目的，以受訓員工及其主管為對象，以問卷調查及完全、一般結構式訪談方式蒐集資料，以探討學員對於訓練評估項目的滿意度(學習層次)、學員主管對於訓練後學員工作行為改變的滿意度(行為層次)、學員主管對於訓練後學員工作效益改變的滿意度(結果層次)。
經過資料分析得知，T公司A廠模擬中心受訓學員人口統計變數在訓練學習成果的各項因數項目有很高的滿意度且有顯著性的影響。受訓學員主管對於受訓學員整體工作行為、顯性工作行為、隱性工作行為的改變構面滿意度上很高的滿意度且有顯著性的影響。受訓學員主管對受訓學員學習模擬事故處理導入之教學整體工作效益、顯性工作效益、隱性工作效益的改變構面滿意度上有非常高滿意度且有顯著性影響。
經與受訓學員主管一般結構式訪談後普遍發現可以讓受訓學員願意自主思考，如何改進流程與設備、節省用電並且節省燃料費用無非利用獎金制度員工提案去激勵他們效果較佳，並且大部份主管認為受訓學員經過教育訓練後有效減少受訓學員在機組個人啟動操作時間，而模擬中心和現場機組相似度愈高愈能達成，模擬中心講師除了專業知識更應瞭解各電廠各部機組實際狀況及人員配置，如此一來對受訓學員更能貼近事實情況，對於受訓後實際操作也比較符合現況，有效增加受訓學員在團隊合作時的領導能力，進而使其在指揮現場工作人員效率提高。
受訓學員主管大致上一致建議在T公司的經費野i之下其餘各廠可比照核能電廠在廠區設置模擬中心，針對各火力電廠機組多模擬演練操作，訓練效益就能顯現出來；而目前模擬中心每3～5年對運轉人員實施在職訓練，對於運轉人員而言必須天天面對機組突發狀況是不夠的，他們希望就現有編制人力可比照核能電廠實施五班制，運轉人員每一年120小時訓練時數的規定，因為，教育訓練可增加對機組操作熟練度，減少誤操作及操作不慎，我們可從歷年來機組事故及機組異常數據比較分析得知模擬中心教育訓練的重要性，進而達到工安零災害、機組零事故為目標，永遠不斷改善前進。

The target of educational training is hoping to strengthen the personnel’s knowledge, skills, and behavior via the training courses, and enable them to apply what they have learned to daily work; whether the simulation center’s educational training is solid or not affects the T Company operatingl performance, and educational training investment’s contribution to Company T depends on adopting effective evaluation, analysis, and improvement measures to examine, leading to the research’s motive. Among the training evaluation models, Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model is extensively used; the research took Kirkpatrick training model as the basis, cooperated with the research purpose, took the trainees and their chiefs as the research subjects, and utilized questionnaire, and complete and ordinary structured interviews to collect the data to explore the trainees’ satisfaction to the training evaluation items (learning level), the trainees’ chief’s satisfaction to the trainees’ work behavior change after the training (behavior level), and the trainees’ chief’s satisfaction to the trainees’ work efficiency change after the training (result level).

Through data analysis, it was known that the demographic variables of Company T Plant A Simulation Center trainees had a high satisfaction on each factor item of training learning results, and there was a significant influence. The trainees’ chief had a high satisfaction on the changing dimension of the trainees’ overall work behavior, dominant work behavior, and recessive work behavior, and there was a significant influence. The trainees’ chief had a very high satisfaction on the changing dimension of the trainees’ overall work efficiency, dominant work efficiency, and recessive work efficiency accomplished after the introduction teaching for them to learn and simulate troubleshooting, and there was a significant influence.

Through the ordinary structured interview of the trainees’ chiefs, it was generally found that to stimulate the trainees’ autonomous thinking of how to improve the process and equipment, and save the electricity and fuel expense was simply by making use of the reward system personnel proposal to encourage them, and most of the chiefs thought that after experiencing the educational training, the trainees’ personal start operating time at the unit could be effectively lessened, and the higher was the similarity between the simulation center and the on-site unit, the easier to achieve; in addition to the professional know-how, the lecturer of simulation center should understand the practical situation and personnel allocation of each unit of the power plant, so that for the trainees, the simulation could be closer to the actual situation, the practical operation after the training could be more conforming to the present condition relatively, the trainees’ leadership at teamwork could be effectively increased, and the efficiency of their commanding the field personnel could be heightened.

By and large, the trainees’ chiefs suggested in unanimity that under the situation that Company T’s budget allowed, the rest each plant should follow the example of the nuclear power plant to set up a simulation center at the plant area, aim at each thermal power plant unit to simulate, drill, and operate more, and in this way, the training benefit could show; presently, the simulation center implements the on-the-job training for the operation personnel every 3~5 years; however, as far as the operation personnel are concerned, it’s not enough to just face the unit’s emergency situation everyday; the trainees’ chiefs hoped the existing manpower under the organization could follow the precedent of the nuclear power plant to carry out the five-shift system, and the regulation of the operation personnel’s training hours in one year should be 120 hours, because the educational training can increase the familiarity of the unit’s operation, decrease the wrong operation and careless operation; we can understand the importance of the simulation center’s educational training from the unit’s accidents and the comparison and analysis of abnormal data over the years, and thus achieve the goal of industrial safety to be zero disaster and zero accident at the unit, and constantly improve and make progress forever.

誌 謝..........................................................................................................................i
摘 要.........................................................................................................................ii
Abstract....................................................................................................................iii
目 錄.........................................................................................................................v
圖目錄......................................................................................................................vii
表目錄.....................................................................................................................viii
第一章 緒 論..........................................................................................................1
1.1 研究背景與動機........................................................................................1
1.2 研究目的....................................................................................................2
1.3 研究範圍與對象........................................................................................3
1.4 研究流程....................................................................................................3
第二章 文獻探討....................................................................................................5
2.1 教育訓練之定義與目的............................................................................5
2.2 教育訓練的種類及方法............................................................................8
2.3 教育訓練的實施程式...............................................................................10
2.4 訓練成效評估...........................................................................................10
2.4.1 訓練成效定義...................................................................................10
2.4.2 訓練成效評估模式...........................................................................11
2.4.3訓練成效評估方法與標準................................................................19
第三章 研究方法...................................................................................................24
3.1 研究架構...................................................................................................24
3.2 研究變數...................................................................................................26
3.3 研究假設...................................................................................................29
3.4 問卷設計...................................................................................................31
3.5 抽樣...........................................................................................................35
3.6 資料處理與分析.......................................................................................36
第四章 個案分析...................................................................................................38
4.1 T公司A廠模擬中心訓練業務概況........................................................38
4.2 受訓學員人口統計變數在訓練學習成果的達成構面滿意度有無顯著性 影響...........................................................................................................48
4.2.1受訪者資料分析................................................................................48
4.2.2敘述性統計分析................................................................................50
4.2.3效度與信度分析................................................................................51
4.2.4獨立樣本檢定....................................................................................52
4.3受訓學員主管完全結構式訪談..... ..........................................................54
4.3.1受訓學員主管對受訓學員整體工作行為的改變構面滿意度上有無
顯著性影響...................................................................................54
4.3.2受訓學員主管對受訓學員顯性工作行為的改變構面滿意度上有無
顯著性影響...................................................................................57
4.3.3受訓學員主管對受訓學員隱性工作行為的改變構面滿意度上有無
顯著性影響...................................................................................59
4.3.4受訓學員主管對受訓學員學習模擬事故處理導入之教學整體工作
效益的改變構面滿意度上有無顯著性影響...............................61
4.3.5受訓學員主管對受訓學員學習模擬事故處理導入之教學顯性工作
效益的改變構面滿意度上有無顯著性影響...............................64
4.3.6受訓學員主管對受訓學員學習模擬事故處理導入之教學隱性工作
效益的改變構面滿意度上有無顯著性影響...............................67
4.4受訓學員主管一般結構式訪談............................................................70
4.4.1 B廠與C廠受訓學員主管對於教育訓練認知比較分析…….....70
4.4.2 受訓學員主管對於訓練中心效益之分析與建議……….....73
第五章 結論與建議.............................................................................................74
5.1研究結論................................................................................................74
5.1.1受訓學員及主管滿意度分析......................................................74
5.1.2 受訓學員的員工提案件數、品管圈、線上維修及T公司火力廠
每年降低多少機事故發生.........................................................76
5.2研究建議................................................................................................95
5.3後續研究建議........................................................................................96
參考文獻：.............................................................................................................97
中文參考文獻.................................................................................................97
英文參考文獻.................................................................................................98
附錄一:受訓學員及主管問卷...............................................................................99
附錄二:受訓學員主管質性訪談 .......................................................................104

壹、中文部份
1.羅大涵，「企業辦理員工進修訓練的策略與途徑」，就業與
訓練，第6期，92-96，1988年。
2. 釩n雄，「人事行政學」，臺北，商鼎文化出版社，民國82年
3月。
3. Dessler，「人力資源管理（華泰書局譯）」，臺北：華泰，民
國85年（原著出版年：1994）。
4. 載幼農，1994，「訓練成效評核」，就業與訓練，第七卷第一
期，頁55-60。
5. 釦貍?A1995，高科技產業的教育訓練制度與組織績效之相關性
研究，國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
6. 簡建忠，「人力資源發展」，臺北：五南圖書出版公司，1995
年。
7. 邱宏益，1996，員工培訓成效評估之研究，國立中央大學人力資
源管理研究所碩士論文。
8.公務人員保障暨培訓委員會委託研究計畫，「公務人員高普考試
錄取人員訓練改進之研究」，臺北，保訓會，民國87 年6月。
9. 林欽榮，「人力資源管理」，臺北：前程，民國87年。
10.黃英忠、曹國雄、黃同圳、張火燦與王秉鈞，「人力資源管
理」，臺北：華泰，民國87年。
11. 張火燦，1998，策略性人力資源管理，臺北：楊智文化事業公
司。
12. 張添洲，「人力資源-組織、管理、發展」，臺北：五南，民國
88年。
13.江琬瑜，1999，訓練成效評估之研究，國立中央大學資源管理
研究所碩士論文。
14.陳永甡，「教育訓練品質的探討」，品質管理月刊，36（8）66- 70民國89年。
15.陳思均，2001，地方公務員訓練成效評估之研究，東海大學公
共事務所研究所碩士論文。
16.陳明陽，2001，台電公司核能在職訓練評估之研究 –以林口核
能訓練中心為例,國立交通大學經營管理研究所碩士論文。
17.趙其文，2002，人事行政學 –兼論現行考詮制度，臺北：華泰
書局。
18.鄭本竹，2003，中油公司在職訓練評估之研究-以中油嘉義訓練
所為例，國立東華大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
19.吳崇雄(2004)，模擬器未來走向之淺思和建言
A廠模擬中心維護組知識社群。
20.簡福成(2005)，台電公司在職人員訓練成效評估之研究國立雄
第一科技大學行銷與流通管理系碩士論文。
21.李佩玲(2006) ，人才教育訓練反應層次評估之探討
國立中央大學企業管理系碩士論文。
22. T公司A廠模擬中心訓練組。
貳、英文部份
1.Brinkerhoff, R . O. An Integrated Evaluation Model for
HRD, Training andDevelopment Journal, Vol.42, No.2,
1998, pp.66-68.
2. Bushnell, D.S., Input, Process, Output .A Model for
Evaluation Training, Training and Development Journal,
Vol.44, No.3,1990, pp.41-43.
3. Hamblin, A.C., Evaluation and Control Training, 1974,
McGraw –Hill Inc ., New York,NY
4. Kirkpatrick, D.L., Evaluation Training In R.L. Craig
(Ed), Training and Development Handbook (2nd ), 1987,
McGraw –Hill Inc ., New York, NY
5. McGehee, W., & Thayer, P. W., “Training in Business
and Industry”, NewYork:Wiley, 1961.。
6. Miller, V.A., “The Guide Book for International
Training in Business and Industrial”, Madison, WI:
ASTD, 1979.。
7. Nadler, L., “The Handbook of Human Resource
Development”, New York:John Wiley & Sons, 1984。
8. Phillips, J.J., Handbook of Training Evaluation and
Measurement Method –Instructors,(2nd ed.), 1991, Gulf
Publishing Co., Houston, TX
9. Phillips, J.J., Handbook of Training Evaluation and
Measurement Methods, 1990, Kogan Page, London .
10. Phillips, J.J., Handbook of Training Evaluation and
Measurement Method –Instructors,(2nd ed.), 1991, Gulf
Publishing Co., Houston, TX
11. Raymond A.Noe Employee Training and Development P5。
12. Snyder, R., Raben, C., and Farr, J.,A Model for the
Systemic Evaluation Human ResourceDevelopment
Programs, Academy Management Review, Vol.5,No.3,1980
pp.431-444.
13. Tracey, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.1.,and Kavanagh, M.J.,
Applying Trained Skills on the Job .The Importance of
the Work Environment, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol.0, No.2,1995, pp.239-252.
14. Wallace Marc J., “Human Resource: An Introduction to
the Profession”,New York: Random House, Inc., 1982。
15. Wexley, Kenneth N. & Latham, Gary P., “Developing and
Training Human Resources in Organizations,” Glenview,
Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1981。