在日常生活中，我們常會遇到許多決策問題，而這些決策問題，很多具有複雜性及不確定性，造成在評估的過程中，很難權衡取捨，或僅能單靠個人的主觀判斷來決定，常常造成結果不如預期的情況，如何改善與精進決策過程，則必須由決策者與規劃者密切的配合，方能符合實際問題的需要。
因此，本研究針對多準則決策評估模式，探討多準則決策分析方法及模糊多準則決策分析方法在各種產業上的應用，如：分析層級程序法(Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP)、理想解類似度順序偏好法(Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, TOPSIS)、優勢排序結構評估法(Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation, PROMETHEE)、一致性模糊偏好關係(Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations)、不完全語意偏好關係(Incomplete Linguistic Preference Relations)以及模糊最佳化折衷排序法(Fuzzy VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje, Fuzzy VIKOR)等七種分析方法，在入口網站及醫療院所上的應用，佐以實證研究問卷資料加以分析及討論，並比較其差異與優缺點，以調和、折衷決策過程中的衝突與矛盾，提出客觀之評估建議，有效解決傳統決策方法對處理模糊問題的彈性欠缺、計算複雜與不一致性的問題，俾利各領域之廣泛應用，並作為後續學術研究之參考依據。

Decision or selection making is a vital part of daily life; of which the major concern is that almost all issues requiring decisions have multiple, often conflicting, criteria. In reality, there is no avoidance of the coexistence of qualitative and quantitative data, and the data are often full of complex, fuzziness and uncertainty. Due to this, it is difficult to make a proper selection or decision based on individual subjective judgment. With closer cooperation between the decision-makers and schemers, the actual demands of problems can be realized.
Therefore, the thesis proposes multi-criteria decision making methods and fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods to evaluate decision problems in various applications. The methodologies in the thesis include Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE), Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations, Incomplete Linguistic Preference Relations and Fuzzy VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (Fuzzy VIKOR). The methodologies have be analyzed and compared each other with two empirical cases in web portals and healthcare organizations and several authenticated examples.
These methodologies can properly mediate the conflicts and contradictions during the decision-making processes. The thesis proposes an objective evaluation suggestions to slove the traditional decision-making problems effectively, such as: the lack of flexibility, computational complexity and inconsistent. The results provide useful suggestions for both researchers and decision-makers in every fields.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
論文口試委員會審定書III
中文摘要V
ABSTRACT VII
誌謝IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS X
LIST OF TABLES XIV
LIST OF FIGURES XVII
CHAPTER ONE：INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Definition of Terms 6
1.3 Objective of the Thesis 7
1.4 Organization 7
CHAPTER TWO：LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1 Quality Consciousness 10
2.2 Service Quality 12
2.3 Electronic Commerce (EC) 14
2.4 Balanced Scorecard (BSC) 14
2.5 Fuzzy Set Theory 17
2.6 Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations 20
CHAPTER THREE：METHODOLOGY 27
3.1 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) 27
3.2 Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations (Fuzzy PreRa) 32
3.3 Incomplete Linguistic Preference Relations 37
3.4 Fuzzy VIKOR 40
3.5 TOPSIS 47
3.6 ELECTRE I 49
3.7 PROMETHEE 55
CHAPTER FOUR：EMPIRICAL CASE ONE 64
4.1 The Scale of User Perceived Service Quality of Information Presentation of Web Portals 64
4.2 Determining the Priority Weights of Influential Factors 66
4.2.1 Linguistic variables 66
4.2.2 Prioritizing the influential factors 67
4.3 Questionnaire Design 70
4.4 Data Collection 71
4.5 Sample Profile 71
4.6 Data Analysis 73
4.7 Discussion 77
CHAPTER FIVE：EMPIRICAL CASE TWO 79
5.1 Case Study 79
5.2 Data Analysis and Results 80
CHAPTER SIX：AUTHENTICATED EXAMPLE ONE 89
6.1 Fuzzy VIKOR Model 89
6.2 A Numerical Example 91
CHAPTER SEVEN：AUTHENTICATED EXAMPLE TWO 98
7.1 Incomplete Linguistic Preference Relations 98
7.2 Compared Incomplete Linguistic Preference Relations and Fuzzy Preference Relation 104
CHAPTER EIGHT：AUTHENTICATED EXAMPLE THREE 108
8.1 Illustration Example 108
8.2 A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS 112
CHAPTER NINE：CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 116
9.1 Conclusions 116
9.2 Contributions 118
9.3 Future Works 119
BIBLIOGRAPHY 121
APPENDIX：QUESTIONNAIRE 141
PUBLICATION 147
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Major service quality dimensions 13
Table 3.1. Linguistic variables for the weight of criteria 41
Table 3.2. Linguistic variables for the rating of alternative 42
Table 3.3. The level of four criteria in this example 52
Table 3.4. The results after assessment 52
Table 4.1. The scale of user perceived service quality of information presenting 65
Table 4.2. Linguistic terms for priority weights of influential factors 67
Table 4.3. Demographics 72
Table 4.4. Five-dimensional transformed fuzzy preference values 74
Table 4.5. Preference values transformed by linear solution (five-dimensional) 75
Table 4.6. Normalized matrix of priority weight and rank of influential factors (five-dimensional) 75
Table 4.7. The whole rank of the perceived service quality of information-presenting web portals (index by dimensions) 76
Table 4.8. The whole rank of the perceived service quality of information-presenting web portals (index by rank) 78
Table 5.1. The balanced scorecards of healthcare organizations 81
Table 5.2. The original data of the pairwise comparison matrices with respect to the criteria 82
Table 5.3. The original data of the pairwise comparison matrices with respect to the PS criteria 82
Table 5.4. The original data of the pairwise comparison matrices with respect to the CUO criteria 83
Table 5.5. The original data of the pairwise comparison matrices with respect to the FPC criteria 83
Table 5.6. The original data of the pairwise comparison matrices with respect to the SIC criteria 83
Table 5.7. Preference relation matrix for pairwise comparison of criteria (Fuzzy PreRa) 84
Table 5.8. The weights and ranking of each dimension 88
Table 5. 9. The weights of each attribute 88
Table 6.1. The importance weight of the criteria 93
Table 6.2. The rating of candidates under five criteria 93
Table 6.3. Aggregated Fuzzy Weight of Criteria 94
Table 6.4. Aggregated Fuzzy Decision Matrix 94
Table 6.5. Fuzzy Best Value(FBV) and Fuzzy Worst Value(FWV) 95
Table 6.6. Index (S_i)~ and (R_i)~ 95
Table 6.7. (S^*)~, (S^-)~, (R^*)~ and (R^-)~ 96
Table 6.8. Index (Q_i)~, Q_i and rank for candidates 96
Table 6.9. Acceptable stability in decision making 97
Table 7.1. Linguistic variables for the preference relations 103
Table 7.2. Comparison table 104
Table 8.1 Multicriteria selection for a restaurant location in Taipei 108
Table 8.2 Normalized decision matrix 109
Table 8.3 Weighted normalized decision matrix 110
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. The membership degree of fuzzy numbers in the weight of criteria 42
Figure 3.2. The membership degree of fuzzy numbers in the rating of alternative 42

[1]Aladwani, A. M. and Palvia, P. C., ”Developing and Validating an Instrument for Measuring User-Perceived Web Quality”, Information and Management, Vol. 39, 2002, pp. 467-476.
[2]Al-Harbi, K.M. and Al-S, ”Application of the AHP in project management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19, 2001, pp. 19-27.
[3]Bell, H., Tang and N.K.H., ”The Effectiveness of Commercial Internet Web Sites: a User’s Perspective”, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1998.
[4]Belton, V. and Stewart, T.J., ”Multi criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2002.
[5]Berredo, R.C., Ekel, P.Y., and Palhares, R.M., ”Fuzzy preference relations in models of decision making”, Nonlinear Analysis, Vol. 63, 2005, pp. 735-741.
[6]Beynon, M., ”DS/AHP method: A mathematical analysis, including an understanding of uncertainty”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 140, 2002, pp. 148-164.
[7]Bitner M. J., Booms B. H. and Tetreault M. S., ”The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, 1990, pp. 71-84.
[8]Byun, D. H., ”The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model”, Information and Management, Vol. 38, 2001, pp. 289-297.
[9]C.H. Cheng and Y. Lin, ”Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 142, No. 1, 2002, pp.174-186.
[10]C.T. Chen, ”A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 118, 2001, pp. 65-73.
[11]Chen, S.J. and Hwang, C.L., ”Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making”, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer–Verlag, 1992.
[12]Chen''s honour and Du Win Lung, ”Promote the Research of the Information Service Quality through the Inner Part Marketing- to take National Library as an Example”, Central Library in National Taiwan the Building of Cent Publishes, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2003, pp. 1-16.
[13]Chiclana, F., Herrera, F. and Herrera-Viedma, E., ”Integrating multiplicative preference relations in a multipurpose decision-making model based on fuzzy preference relations”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 122, 2001, pp. 277-291.
[14]Chiclana, F., Herrera, F. and Herrera-Viedma, E., ”Integrating Three Representation Models in Fuzzy Multipurpose Decision Making Based on Fuzzy Preference Relations”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 97, 1998, pp. 33-48.
[15]Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Martinez, L., ”A note on the reciprocity in the aggregation of fuzzy preference relations using OWA operators”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 137, 2003, pp. 77-83.
[16]Cho, N. and Park, S., ”Development of Electronic Commerce User Consumer Satisfaction Index (ECUSI) for Internet Shopping”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 101, No. 8, 2001, pp. 400-405.
[17]Choi, T. Y. and Hartley, J. L., ”An exploration of supplier selection practices across the supply chain”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 14, 1996, pp. 333-343.
[18]Churchill, G.A., ”A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1979, pp. 64-73.
[19]D. Dubois and H. Prade, ”Recent models of uncertainty and imprecision as a basis for decision theory: toward less normative frameworks”, Intelligent Decision Support in Process Environment, Spring-Verlag, New York , 1985.
[20]Donthu, N., ”Does Your Web Site Measure Up? ”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2001, pp. 29.
[21]E.S. Rosenbloom, ”A probabilistic interpretation of the final rankings in AHP”, European Journal of Operational Research,Vol. 96, 1997, pp. 371-378.
[22]E.U. Choo, B. Schoner and W.C. Wedley, ”Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision-making”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1999, pp. 527-541.
[23]Ekel, P.Y., Silva, M.R., Neto, F.S. and Palhares, R.M., ”Fuzzy preference modeling and its application to multiobjective decision making”, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 52, 2006, pp. 179-196.
[24]Fan, Z.P., Ma, J., Jiang, Y.P., Sun, Y.H. and Ma, L., ”A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and fuzzy preference relations”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 174, 2006, pp. 311-321.
[25]Fedrizzi, M., ”Multiperson Decision Making using Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory”, Kluwer Academic. Boston, N.Y., 1990.
[26]Fernando Bobillo, Miguel Delgado, Juan Go’mez-Romero and Enrique Lo’pez, ”A semantic fuzzy expert system for a fuzzy balanced scorecard”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 423-433.
[27]Figueira, J., Greco, S. and Ehrgott, M., ”Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys”, Springer, New York, 2005.
[28]Fletcher, H. D. and Smith, D. B., ”Management for value: Developing a performance measurement system integrating economic value added and the balanced scorecard in strategic planning”, Journal of Business Strategies, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2004, pp.1-17.
[29]Fonville, W. and Carr, L.P., ”Gaining strategic alignment: making scorecards work”, Management Accounting Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2001, pp. 4-14.
[30]Forgionne, G. A., Kohlib, R. and Jennings, D., ”An AHP analysis of quality in AI and DSS journals”, Omega, Vol. 30, 2001, pp. 171-183.
[31]Garvin, D. A., ”Quality on the Line”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, 1983, pp. 65-73.
[32]Grönroos, C., ”An Applied Service Marketing Theory”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 17, 1984, pp. 30-41.
[33]Gumbus, A. and Lyron, B., ”The balanced scorecard at Philips Electronics”, Strategic Finance, Vol. 45, 2002 November, pp. 47-49.
[34]H. Deng, C.H. Yeh and R.J. Willis, ”Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights”, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 27 , 2000, pp.963-973.
[35]Herrera, F. and Herrera-Viedma, E., ”Choice functions and mechanisms for linguistic preference relations”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 120, 2000b, pp. 144-161.
[36]Herrera, F. and Herrera-Viedma, E., ”Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 115, 2000a , pp. 67-82.
[37]Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana, F. and Luque, M., ”Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 154, 2004, pp. 98-109.
[38]Holbrook, M. B. and Corfman, K. P., ”Quality and Value in the Consumption Experience: Phaedra’s Rides Again”, In Jacoby J. & Olson J. (Eds.), Perceived Quality, MA: Lexington Books, 1985, pp. 31-57.
[39]Huang, H.C., ”Designing a knowledge-based system for strategic planning: A balanced scorecard perspective”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 209-218.
[40]Inamdar, N., Kaplan, R.S. and Bower, M., ”Applying the balanced scorecard in healthcare provider organizations”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2002, pp. 179-195.
[41]Juran, J. M., ”A Universal Approach to Managing for Quality: The Quality Trilogy”, Quality Progress, Vol. 19, No. 8, 1986, pp. 19-24.
[42]K.K. Jae, H.C. Sang, H.H. Chang and H.K. Soung, ”An interactive procedure for multiple criteria group decision making with incomplete information”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 1-2, 1998, pp. 295-298.
[43]Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., ”Alignment: Using the balanced scorecard to create corporate synergies”, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
[44]Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., ”How strategy maps frame an organization’s objectives”, Financial Executive, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2004d, pp. 40-45.
[45]Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., ”Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy” California Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1996c, pp. 53-79.
[46]Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., ”Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 2, 2004b, pp. 52-63.
[47]Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., ”Putting the balanced scorecard to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, No. 5, 1993, pp. 134-140.
[48]Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., ”Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes”, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2004a.
[49]Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., ”The strategy- focused organization”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2001c, pp. 41–43.
[50]Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., ”The strategy map: Guide to aligning intangible assets”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 32, No. 5, 2004c, pp. 10-17.
[51]Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., ”Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2001b, pp. 87-106.
[52]Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., ”Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part II”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2001d, pp. 147-162.
[53]Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., ”Strategic learning and the balanced scorecard”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 24, No. 5, 1996d, pp. 19-24.
[54]Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., ”The balanced scorecard-measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business Review, 1992, January/February, pp. 71-79.
[55]Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., ”The balanced scorecard-translating strategy into action”, Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1996b.
[56]Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., ”The strategy-focused organization: how balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment”, Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2001a.
[57]Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., ”Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system”, Harvard Business Review, 1996a, January/February , pp. 75-85.
[58]Kulak, O. and Kahraman, C, ”Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process”, Information Sciences, Vol. 170, 2005, pp. 191-210.
[59]Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J. R., ”Service Quality: a Study of Quality Dimensions”, Helsinki Finland OY: Service Management Institute, 1982.
[60]Leung, L. C., Lam, K. C. and Cao, D., ”Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, No. 6, 2006, pp. 682-691.
[61]Liberatore, M. J. and Miller, T., ”A framework for integrating activity-based costing and the balanced scorecard into the logistics strategy development and monitoring process”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1998, pp. 131-154.
[62]Lilian Chan, Y.C., ”An analytic hierarchy framework for evaluating balanced scorecards of healthcare organizations”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2006, pp. 85-104.
[63]Lin, J.L. and Lin, C.L., ”The use of the orthogonal array with grey relational analysis to optimize the electrical discharge machining process with multiple performance characteristics”, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 42, 2002, pp. 237-244.
[64]Liu, C. and Arnett, K.P., ”Exploring the Factors Associated with Web Site Success in the Context of Electronic Commerce”, Information and Management, Vol. 38, 2000, pp. 23-34.
[65]Liu, F. H. and Hai, H. L., ”The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 97, 2005, pp. 308-317.
[66]Loiacono, E.T., Watson, R.T. and Goodhue, D.L., ”WebQual: a Measure of Website Quality”, 2002 Marketing Educators’ Conference: Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol. 13, 2002, pp. 432-437.
[67]Louis A. L. and Elisabeth L., ”E-commerce and virtual enterprises: issues and challenges for transition economies”, Technovation, Vol. 22, 2002, pp. 313-323.
[68]M. Rogers and M. Bruen, ”A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 107, No. 3, 1998, pp. 552-563.
[69]M. Zeleny, ”Multiple Criteria Decision Making”, 1sted NY: McGraw-Hill, 1982.
[70]Ma, J., Fan, Z.P., Jiang, Y.P., Mao, J.Y. and Ma, L., ”A method for repairing the inconsistency of fuzzy preference relations”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 157, 2006, pp. 20-33.
[71]Myers, J. H. and Shocker, A. D., ”The Nature of Product-Related Attributes”, Research in Marketing, Vol. 5, 1981, pp. 211-236.
[72]N. Karacapilidis and C. Pappis, ”Computer-supported collaborative argumentation and fuzzy similarity measures in multiple criteria decision making”, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 27, No. 7-8, 2000, pp. 653-671.
[73]Ngai, E. W. T., ”Selection of web sites for online advertising using the AHP”, Information and Management, Vol. 40, 2003, pp. 233-242.
[74]Olson, J. C. and Reynolds, T. J., ”Understanding Consumers, Cognitive Structures: Implications for Advertising Strategy”, In L. Percy and A. Woodside. (Eds.), Advertising and Consumer Psychology, Lexington. MA: Lexington Books, 1983.
[75]P.L. Yu, ”A class of solutions for group decision problems”, Management Science, Vol. 19, No. 8, 1973, pp. 936-946.
[76]Parasuraman A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry L.L., ”A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, 1985, pp. 41-50.
[77]Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L., ”SERVQUAL: a Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, 1988, pp. 12-37.
[78]Pomerol and Barba-Romero, ”Multicriterion Decision in Management: Principles and Practice”, Kluwer Academia, Boston, 2000.
[79]R. Ramanathan and L.S. Ganesh, ”Energy resource allocation incorporating qualitative and quantitative criteria: an integrated model using goal programming and AHP”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1995, pp. 197-218.
[80]Rayport, J. F. and Jaworski, B. J., ”E-commerce”, Singapore: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
[81]Reisinger, H., Cravens, K. S. and Tell, N., ”Prioritizing performance measures within the balanced scorecard framework”, Management International Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2003, pp. 429-437.
[82]S. Opricovic, ”Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems”, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 1998.
[83]S.H. Chen, ”Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing set and minimizing set”, Fuzzy Sets and System, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1985, pp. 113-129.
[84]Saaty, T.L., ”A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology”, Vol. 15, 1977, pp. 234-281.
[85]Saaty, T.L., ”Exploring the Interface between Hierarchies: Multiple Objective and Fuzzy Sets”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 1, 1978, pp. 57-68.
[86]Saaty, T.L., ”How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process”, Interfaces, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1994, pp. 19-43.
[87]Saaty, T.L., ”Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990.
[88]Saaty, T.L., ”The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
[89]Saaty, T.L., ”The analytic network process”, REW Publications, 1996.
[90]Sasser, W.E., Olsen, R.P. and Wyckoff, D.D., ”Understanding Service Operations, In Management of Service Operations”, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978.
[91]Speier, C., Harvey, M. and Palmer, J., ”Virtual management of global marketing relationships”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1998, pp. 263-276.
[92]Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict and E.M., ”Conceptual Model of the Quality Perception Process”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 21, 1992, pp. 309-333.
[93]Stewart, R. A. and Mohammed, S., ”Utilizing the balanced scorecard for IT/IS performance evaluation in construction”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2001, pp. 147-163.
[94]Sueyoshi , Toshiyuki, Shang , Jennifer and Chiang, Wen-Chyuan, ”A decision support framework for internal audit prioritization in a rental car company: A combined use between DEA and AHP”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 199, 2009, pp. 219-231.
[95]Sun, C.C., Lin , Grace T.R. and Tzeng, G.H., ”The evaluation of cluster policy by fuzzy MCDM: Empirical evidence from HsinChu Science Park”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 11895-11906.
[96]Tsai, M.C. and Su, C.H., ”Political risk assessment of five East Asian ports- the viewpoints of global carriers”, Marine Policy, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2005, pp. 291-298.
[97]Vaidya, O.S. and Kumar, S., ”Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 169, 2006, pp. 1-29.
[98]Wang, G., Huang, S. H. and Dismukes J. P., ”Product-driven supply chain selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 91, 2004, pp. 1-15.
[99]Wang, T. C. and Chen, Y. H., ”Applying consistent fuzzy preference relations to partnership selection”, Omega, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2007, pp. 384-388.
[100]Wang, T. C. and Chen, Y. H., ”Comparing fuzzy preference relations and AHP as for the decision making”, 2005 The 13th National Conference on Fuzzy Theory and Its Applications, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, 2005a.
[101]Wang, T. C. and Chen, Y. H., ”Some issues on the consistency of fuzzy AHP”, 2005 The 13th National Conference on Fuzzy Theory and Its Applications, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, 2005b.
[102]Wang, T.C. and Chang, T.H., ”Application of consistent fuzzy preference relations in predicting the success of knowledge management implementation”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 182, No. 3, 2007a, pp. 1313-1329.
[103]Wang, T.C. and Chang, T.H., ”Forecasting the Probability of Successful Knowledge Management by Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2007.
[104]Wang, T.C. and Chang, T.H., ”Fuzzy VIKOR as a resolution for multicriteria group decision-making”, The 11th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2005, pp. 352-356.
[105]Wang, T.C. and Chen, Y.H., ”A New Method on Decision-Making Using Fuzzy Linguistic Assessment Variables and Fuzzy Preference Relations”, The 9th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics(WMSCI 2005), 2005, Orlando, Florida, USA.
[106]Wang, T.C. and Chen, Y.H., ”Applying fuzzy linguistic preference relations to the improvement of consistency of fuzzy AHP”, Information Sciences, 2008a.
[107]Wang, T.C. and Chen, Y.H., ”Incomplete fuzzy linguistic preference relations under uncertain environment”, Information Fusion, 2008b.
[108]Wang, T.C. and Chen, Y.S., ”Apply Fuzzy Preference Relation to Predicate AMT”, The 8th Chinese Culture and Management Conference, 2005, China.
[109]Wang, T.C. and Liang, J.L., ”Measure user perceived service quality of information-presenting web portals: ranking with fuzzy preference relations”, WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, Vol. 3, No. 7, 2006, pp. 517-524.
[110]Wang, T.C. and Lin, Y.L., ”Accurately predicting the success of B2B e-commerce in small and medium enterprises”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2008.
[111]Wang, T.C. and Lin, Y.L., ”Incomplete fuzzy preference relations and the consistency”, WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Application, Vol. 4, No. 5, 2007, pp. 982-987.
[112]Wang, T.C., Liang, J.L. and Liu, S.L., ”A Study of User-Perceived Web Quality”, The 1st International Conference on Information Management and Business (IMB 2005), 2005, Taipei, Taiwan.
[113]Wang, T.C., Liu, S.L. and Chu, H.L., ”User-Perceived Web Quality”, 2004 Modern Business Conference, 2004, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
[114]Wang, Y.M. and Fan, Z.P., ”Fuzzy preference relations: aggregation and weight determination”, Computer and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 53, 2007a, pp. 163-172.
[115]Wang, Y.M. and Parkan, C., ”A general multiple attribute decision-making approach for integrating subjective preferences and objective information”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 157, 2006, pp. 1333-1345.
[116]Wang, Y.M., Fan, Z.P. and Hua, Z., ”A chi-square method for obtaining a priority vector from multiplicative and fuzzy preference relations”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 182, 2007b, pp. 356-366.
[117]Wang, Y.S., Tang, T.I. and Tang, J.T.E., ”An Instrument for Measuring Customer Satisfaction toward Web Sites that Market Digital Products and Services”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2001, pp. 1-14.
[118]Wei, C. C., Chien, C. F. and Wang, M. J., ”An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96, 2005, pp. 47-62.
[119]Wolfinbarger, M.F. and Gilly, M.C., ”.ComQ: Dimensionalizing, Measuring and Predicting Quality of the E-Tailing Experience”, MSI Working Paper Series, Vol. 2, No. 100, 2002.
[120]Xu, Z.S. and Da, Q.L., ”A least deviation method to obtain a priority vector of a fuzzy preference relation”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 164, 2005, pp. 206-216.
[121]Xu, Z.S. and Da, Q.L., ”An approach to improving consistency of fuzzy preference matrix”, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Vol. 2, 2003, pp. 3-12.
[122]Xu, Z.S., ”A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations”, Information Sciences, Vol. 166, 2004a, pp. 19-30.
[123]Xu, Z.S., ”Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making”, Omega, Vol. 33, 2005a, pp. 249-254.
[124]Xu, Z.S., ”Goal programming models for obtaining the priority vector of incomplete fuzzy preference relation”, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 36, 2004b, pp. 261-270.
[125]Xu, Z.S., ”On compatibility of interval fuzzy preference matrices”, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Vol. 3, 2003, pp. 217-225.
[126]Xu, Z.S., ”On method for uncertain multiple attribute decision making problems with uncertain preference information on alternatives”, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005b, pp. 131-139.
[127]Yang, Ching-Chow and Chen, Bai-Sheng, ”Key quality performance evaluation using fuzzy AHP”, Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2004, pp. 543-550.
[128]Yang, Z., Peterson, R.T. and Huang, L., ”Taking the Pulse of Internet Pharmacies: Online Consumers Speak Out on Pharmacy Services”, Marketing Health Services, Vol. 21, 2001, pp. 4-10.
[129]Yoo, B. and Donthu, N., ”Developing a Scale to Measure the Perceived Quality of Internet Shopping Sites (SITEQUAL)”, Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2001, pp. 31-47.
[130]Yuan, F.C. and Chiu, Chaochang, ”A hierarchical design of case-based reasoning in the balanced scorecard application”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 333-342.
[131]Z.C. Lin and C.B. Yang, ”Evaluation of machine selection by the AHP method”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 57, No. 3-4, 1996, pp. 253-258.
[132]Zadeh, L.A., ”Fuzzy sets”, Information Control, Vol. 8 , 1965, pp. 29-44.
[133]Zeithaml, V. A., ”Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: a Means ENS Model and Synthesis of Evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 7, 1988.
[134]Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A., ”A Conceptual Framework for Understanding E-Service Quality: Implications for Future Research and Managerial Practice”, MSI Working Paper Series, No. 00-115, Cambridge, MA, 2001, pp. 1-49.
[135]Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A., ”Service Quality Delivery through Web Sites: a Critical Review of Extant Knowledge”, Journal of the Academic of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2002, pp. 362-375.
[136]Zhang, P. and Von Dran, G.M., ”Expectations and Rankings of Website Quality Features: Results of Two Studies”, User Erceptions Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2001.
[137]Zhang, P. and Von Dran, G.M., ”User Expectations and Rankings of Quality Factors in Different Web Site Domains”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2002, pp. 9-33.
[138]Zhilin Yang, Shaohan Cai, Zheng Zhou and Nan Zhou, ”Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure User Perceived Service Quality of Information Presenting Web Portals”, Information and Management, Vol. 42, 2005, pp. 575-589.