跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 16:15
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:巫俊蒼
研究生(外文):Chun-TsangWu
論文名稱:工程爭議處理之策略分析
論文名稱(外文):Strategy Analysis of Engineering Dispute Resolutions
指導教授:潘南飛潘南飛引用關係
指導教授(外文):Nan-Fei Pan
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:土木工程學系碩博士班
學門:工程學門
學類:土木工程學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:146
中文關鍵詞:工程爭議Toshihiko Omoto賽局理論討價還價
外文關鍵詞:Construction disputeToshihiko OmotoGame theoryBargain
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:541
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:59
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
近年來工程爭議問題依舊屢見不鮮,業主常藉由契約條款企圖轉嫁工程風險,而在「台灣高鐵-跨國仲裁」事件後,承包商索賠意識也逐漸抬頭,無疑的工程爭議議題在未來只會越演越烈。現行國內對於工程爭議處理的方式為和解、調解、仲裁及訴訟,過程中因雙方皆爭取對己方之最大利益及最小損失,故常為了爭議處理策略之不同而耗時費力,進而造成許多負面影響。鑑此,本研究在 (1)歸責承包商(2)歸責業主與 (3)可歸責雙方三種爭議情況下,分別以兩個公共工程與一個民間工程共三個案例下進行探討,利用Toshihiko Omoto et al.(2002)之相關爭議因子及索賠公式使工程爭議透明化,量化評估雙方在和、調、仲、訴四種策略下之期望報酬,並利用模糊理論克服過程中之不確定性-爭議處理時間,再導入賽局理論及討價還價概念模擬雙方互動,計算出雙方在各策略下的使用機率及報酬關係,建構出有系統的參考準則,以利爾後發生爭議時,能迅速有效做出最適當之決策,將工程爭議之不良影響降至最低。
案例結果顯示:(1)歸責承包商狀況下:業主優先考慮和解、而承包商則優先考慮調解,(2)歸責業主狀況下:業主優先考慮調解、而承包商則優先考慮和解(3)可歸責雙方狀況下:業主及承包商均優先考慮調解,意即雙方均偏好選擇索賠金額最大及賠償金額最小的爭議處理方式。分析結果對日後類似案例具有參考價值,除了可以事先掌握對方對爭議處理之重視度外,更能有助於化異求同與有效解決爭議問題。

Construction projects involve many uncertainties between owner and contractor. For example : incomplete information, price volatility and time factor, etc. The problems like these resulted in increasing engineering dispute. So nowadays, disputes are getting likely to occur to any construction project.
Methods of dispute resolution included conciliation, mediation, arbitration and litigation in Taiwan. But most of owners and contractors have different solving strategies. These does not only impact cost overrun and work stoppage. More indirect cause harm to the social and country. In order to solve these problems, by use of Toshihiko Omoto et al. formulas, game theory, fuzzy theory, a fuzzy game model and so on. And consider the controversial causes of such three situations: (1) dispute caused by owner, (2) dispute caused by contractor and (3) dispute caused by owner and contractor. Sum up to above, that can effectively simulate and analyze the construction dispute decision-making problem. Besides, we can get the probability of each strategy and expect payoff, too.
Two cases showed: (1) dispute caused by owner: owner select mediation and dislike conciliation. Contractor select conciliation and dislike mediation, (2) dispute caused by contractor: owner select conciliation and dislike mediation. Contractor select mediation and dislike conciliation (3) dispute caused by owner and contractor: both they select mediation and dislike conciliation. It means they prefer pay the cost of minimum and get the benefit of maximum. Results obtained from these studies are able to guide future decision-making in dispute resolution.

摘要 I
Abstract II
誌謝 III
目錄 IV
表目錄 VII
圖目錄 IX
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的 1
1.3 研究範圍 2
1.4 研究流程 3
1.5 論文內容與架構 3
第二章 文獻回顧 6
2.1 工程爭議概述 6
2.1.1 爭議處理過程 7
2.1.2 國內工程爭議處理方法 8
2.1.3 國外工程爭議處理方式 13
2.1.4 工程爭議相關文獻 26
2.2 賽局理論 29
2.2.1 賽局理論概述 29
2.2.2 賽局理論相關文獻 29
2.3 模糊賽局理論 31
2.3.1 模糊賽局概述 31
2.3.2 模糊賽局相關文獻 32
2.4 小結 33
第三章 研究方法 34
3.1 模糊集 34
3.1.1 隸屬函數 34
3.2 賽局理論 36
3.2.1 賽局理論基本元素 36
3.2.2 賽局理論類型 37
3.3 賽局理論分析流程 41
3.3.1 明確及模糊賽局報酬矩陣 43
3.3.2 民間工程之明確值與模糊值賽局求解模式 56
3.3.3 公共工程之明確值與模糊值賽局求解模式 64
第四章 案例分析與探討 66
4.1 案例說明 66
4.2 研究案例 68
4.2.1 民間工程案例 68
4.2.2 公共工程案例 72
4.3 案例分析 79
4.3.1 民間工程案例分析 80
4.3.2 公共工程案例分析 89
4.4.1 民間工程案例結果 99
4.4.2 公共工程案例結果 102
第五章 結論與建議 108
5.1 結論 108
5.2 未來研究方向與建議 110
參考文獻 112
附錄一、問卷調查表 127

一.英文文獻
〔1〕Aibinu, A.A., Ofori, G. and Florence Y.Y. (2008), “Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Building and Civil ngineering Projects’ Claims Process: Interactive Effects of utcome Favorability and Procedural Fairness, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 314, No. 9, pp. 681-691.
〔2〕Ariel Rubinstein (1982), “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model, Econometrica, VoL 50, No. 1, pp.97-110.
〔3〕Arditi, D. , Fatih, E. and Tokdemir O.B. (1998), “Predict the Outcome of onstruction Litigation Using Neural Networks , Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 13, pp. 75-81.
〔4〕Barron, E.N. (2008), Game Theory: An Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
〔5〕Basar T. and Olsder G.J. (1999), “ Dynamic Non-cooperative Game Theory, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.
〔6〕Bentham, J. (1948), “An introduction to principles of morals aand legislation, Oxford : Blackwell.
〔7〕Bernoulli, D. (1738), “Exposition of a new theory of the measurement of risk, Econometrica, Vol. 22, pp. 23-36.
〔8〕Bryan, M.S (2005), “International Construction Dispute Adjudication under International Federation of Consulting Engineers Conditions of Contract and the Dispute Adjudication Board, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Educationand Practice, Vol. 131, No. 2, pp.149-157.
〔9〕Butnariu, D. (1978), “Fuzzy games: A description of the concept, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 181-192.
〔10〕Buckley, J.J. (1984), “Multiple goal non-cooperative conflicts under uncertainty: A fuzzy set approach, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 13, pp. 107-124.
〔11〕Campos, L. (1989), “Fuzzy linear programming models to solve fuzzy matrix games, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 32, pp. 275-289.
〔12〕Carol, M.S(2010), “Study of Real Options with Exogenous Competitive Entry to Analyze Dispute Resolution Ladder Investments in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136, No. 3, pp.377-390.
〔13〕Chan W.M. and Kumaraswamy M. (2002),“Compressing construction duration: lessons learned from Hong Kong building projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, pp. 23-25.
〔14〕Chen, S.J. and Hwang, C.L. (1992), “Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making:Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
〔15〕Cheung, S.O. (1999), “Critical factors affecting the use of alternative dispute resolution processes in construction, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.189-194.
〔16〕Cheung, S.O., Au-Yeung and Wong, V.W (2004), “A CBR based dispute resolution process selection system, International Journal of IT in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp.129-145.
〔17〕Cheung, S.O. and Yiu, T.W. (2006), “Are Construction Disputes Inevitable, Ieee transactions on engineering management, Vol. 53, No. 3.
〔18〕Cheung, S.O. and Yiu, T.W. (2010), “Exploring the Potential for Predicting Project Dispute Resolution Satisfaction Using Logistic Regression, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136, pp.508-517.
〔19〕Chia-Wen Liao (2012), “Analysis of Occupational Accidents during Construction, Instrumentation, Measurement, Circuits and Systems, AISC 127, pp. 1003–1010.
〔20〕Dhingra, A.K. and Raob, S.S.(1995), “A cooperative fuzzy game theoretic approach to multiple objective design optimization, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 83, pp.547-567.
〔21〕Donald R. Goodkind, (1987), “Mediation of Construction Disputes. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 9-15, February.
〔22〕Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole (1991), “ Game Theory, The MIT Press
〔23〕E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, F. Chiclana, and M. Luque, “Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 154, no.1, pp. 98-109, 2004.
〔24〕Fodor, J. and Roubens, M. (1994), “Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
〔25〕Friedman, J.W.(1991), “Game theory with applications to economics, Oxford University Press.
〔26〕Fuss, M., McFadden, D. and Mundlak Y., “A Survey of Functional Forms in the Econometric Analysis of Production, Production Economics, 1978.
〔27〕H. M. Al-Humaidi & F. Hadipriono Tan (2010), “Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, A fuzzy logic approach to model delays in construction projects using rotational fuzzy fault tree models, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 329-351
〔28〕Ho, S.P. (2005), “Bid compensation decision model for projects with costly bid preparation, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 2, pp.151-159.
〔29〕Iwamatsu, J, Akiyama, T. and Endo, K. (2008), “Construction Claims and Disputes and the Business Culture of Construction in Japan, Journal of professional issues in engineering education nad practice,Vol. 134, No.1, pp. 119-127
〔30〕James L.C. and Craig W. Kirkwood(1991), “Decision analysis applications in the operations research literature, 1970-1989, Operations Research, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 206-219.
〔31〕Just, M.R. and Torone, B. (1997), “How to lose money negotiating a construct claim, AACE, C&C.07, pp.01-04.
〔32〕John, B. (2000) , “Disputes Without Tears, RIBA Publications Ltd.
〔33〕Kahneman, D. (1994), “New Challenges to the Rationality Assumption, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 150, No. 1, p. 18-36.
〔34〕Kahneman, D. (2003), “Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics, The American Economic Review, Vol. 93, No. 5, pp. 1449-1475.
〔35〕Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979),“Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp. 263-291.
〔36〕Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H.(1993),“Decision with multiple objectives preferences and value tradeoffs, Cambridge University Press.
〔37〕Kirkwood, C.W. (1991), “Notes on attitude toward risk taking and the exponential utility function, Department of Management, Arizona State University.
〔38〕Kirkwood, C.W. (2004), “Approximating Risk Aversion in Decision Analysis Applications , Decision Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-67.
〔39〕Kreps, D.M. (1990), “A Course in Microeconomic Theory , Harvester Wheatsheaf.
〔40〕Kurt Heidenberger(1995), “Dynamic project selection and funding under risk: A decision tree based MILP approach , European Journal of Operational Research 95,pp.284-298.
〔41〕Lazar, F. D. (2000), “Project partnering: improving the likelihood of win/win outcomes, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.71-83.
〔42〕Li H. (1996), “Case-based reasoning for intelligent support of construction negotiation, Information & Management, Vol. 30, pp. 231-238.
〔43〕Markowitz, H. (1952), “The Utility of Wealth , The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 151-158.
〔44〕Mohamed M.G. (2011), “Fuzzy Preference Relations Consensus Approach to Reduce Conflicts on Shared Responsibilities in the Owner Managing Contractor Delivery System, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137, No. 8, August 2011, pp. 609-618,
〔45〕Pan, N.F. (2008), “Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method, Automation in Construction, pp. 958-965.
〔46〕Quinlan (1993). “C4.5:programs for machine learing, San mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
〔47〕Raiffa, H. (1982), “The Art and Science of Negotiation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
〔48〕Ramik, J. and Rimanek, J. (1985),“Inequality relation between fuzzy numbers and its use in fuzzy optimization, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 16,pp.123-138.
〔49〕Randall J. Essex, (1994), “Means of Avoiding and Resolving Disputes During Construction, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 27-31.
〔50〕Roger A. McCain著/陳建良譯,2006,“賽局理論Game Theory – A Non-Technical Introductions to The Analysis of Strategy, 智勝文化事業有限公司。
〔51〕Romp, G. (1997), “Game theory: Introduction and application, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
〔52〕Saaty, T.L. (1980),“The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hillm, New York.
〔53〕Sakawa, M. and Nishizaki, I. (1994),“Max-min solutions for fuzzy multiobjective matrix games, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 67,pp.53-69.
〔54〕Sakawa, M. and Nishizaki, I. (1995),“Equilibrium solution for multiobjective bimatrix games incorporating fuzzy goal, Journal of Optimal Theory and Applications, Vol. 86,pp.433-457.
〔55〕Sakawa M. and Nishizaki, I. (2000),“Equilibrium solutions in multiobjective bimatrix games with fuzzy payoffs and fuzzy goals, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,Vol. 111, pp.99-116.
〔56〕Sarat, A. and Grossman, J.B. (1975), “Courts and conflict resolution: problems in the mobilization of adjudication, American Political Science Review 69 (4), pp. 1200–1217.
〔57〕Schmidt. W.H. and Tannenbaum R. (2000), “Harvard business review on negotiation and conflict resolution, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
〔58〕Scott, G.G. (1998) Resolving conflict (中譯:如何解決衝突),台北市,桂冠.
〔59〕Satchidananda, S.S and Jay, B.S (2006), “Comparing decision trees with logistic regression for credit risk analysis, SAS APAUGC 2006 MUMBAI .
〔60〕Tanino, T. (1988), “Fuzzy preference relations in group decision making, J. Kacprzyk, M. Roubens(Eds.), Non-Conventional Preference Relations in Decision Making, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 54-71
〔61〕Tazelaar, F. and Snijders, C. (2010), “Dispute resolution and litigation in the construction industry. Evidence on conflicts and conflict resolution in The Netherlands and Germany , Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol.16, pp. 221–229.
〔62〕Timothy Hill and Colin J. Wall (2007) , “Adjudication: Temporary Binding and Tiered Dispute Resolution in Construction and Engineering:Hong Kong Experience, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 134, No. 3, pp.306-308.
〔63〕Toshihiko, Kiyoshi and Masamitsu (2002), “Bargaining Model of Construction Dispute Resolution", IEEE SMC.
〔64〕Tsai, J.S. and Chi, S.F. (2009) , “Influences of Chinese Cultural Orientations and Conflict anagement Styles on Construction Dispute esolving Strategies, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135, No. 10, pp.955-964.
〔65〕Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992), “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation under Uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 5, pp. 297-323.
〔66〕Tversky Amos & Craig R. Fox(1995), “Weighting Risk and Uncertainty, Psychological Review, Vol.102,pp. 269-283.
〔67〕Vallero D.A., Vesilind P.A. and F.ASCE (2006), “Preventing Disputes with Empathy, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 132, No. 3, pp.272-278.
〔68〕Von Neumann J. and Morgenstern O. (1994), “Theory of games and economic behavior (2nded.) , Princeton University Press.
〔69〕Wen-Chieh Chou and Wen-Tzu Lin (2007), “Application of fuzzy theory and PROMETHEE technique to evaluate suitable ecotechnology method: A case study in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed, Taiwan, Ecological engineering, Vol. 31, pp. 269-280.
〔70〕Wu, George & Richard Gonzalez (1996), “Curvature of the Probability Weightingb Function, Management Science, 42, pp.1676-1690.
〔71〕Wu, S.H. and Soo, V.W. (1998), “Escape from a Prisoners' Dilemma by ommunication with a Trusted Third Party , IEEE, pp.58-65.
〔72〕Wu, S.H. and Soo, V.W. (1999), “Fuzzy Game Theoretic Approach to Multi-Agent Coordination, T. Ishida (Ed.): PRIMA’98, LNAI 1599, pp. 76-87.
〔73〕Wu, S.H. and Soo, V.W. (1999), “Risk control in multi-agent coordination by negotiation with a trusted third party, IJCAI , Vol. 1, pp. 500-505.
〔74〕Wu, S.H. and Soo, V.W. (2000), “Risk Control in Multi-agent Coordination by Negotiation with a Trusted Third Party, DISTRIBUTED Al, pp.500-505.
〔75〕Xing, W. and Wu, F F. (2001), “A game-theoretical model of private power production, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy System, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 213-218.
〔76〕Yiu, T.W., and Lee, H.K. (2011), “How Do Personality Traits Affect Construction Dispute egotiation? Study of Big Five Personality Model, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137, No. 3, pp.169-179.
〔77〕Yiu, T.W. and Law, Y.M. (2011), “Moderating Effect of Equity Sensitivity on Behavior-Outcome Relationships in Construction Dispute Negotiation, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137, No. 5, pp.322-332.
〔78〕Zedeh, L.A. (1965), “Fuzzy sets, Information and control, Vol. 8, pp. 338-353.
二.中文文獻
〔1〕王添才(1994),工期展延(上),現代營建,第15卷,第8期,頁37-33。
〔2〕王添才(1994),工期展延(下),現代營建,第15卷,第9期,頁45-48。
〔3〕王伯儉(2003),工程糾紛與索賠實務,台北:元照出版有限公司。
〔4〕王明德、游瑞榮(2001),「台北捷運工程糾紛與仲裁之研究」,第五屆營建工程與管理研究成果聯合發表會,第 427-438頁。
〔5〕王俊皓(1994),「多人多屬性模糊非合作賽局之研究」,義守大學工業工程與管理學系碩士論文。
〔6〕王舜民(2002),「BOT特許公司股權結構之研究-風險規避」,國立交通大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
〔7〕王政準(2007),「以賽局理論與孫子兵法探討台灣高速鐵路工程BOT案」,國立屏東科技大學。
〔8〕王震宇(2005),「公共工程履約爭議關鍵因素之研究」,國立交通大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
〔9〕石道清(2005),「國道新建工程廠商違約處理程序之研究」,國立交通大學營建技術與管理組碩士專班論文。
〔10〕包晃豪(2011),「決策樹運用於工程查核選案之研究」,國立臺灣科技大學營建工程系碩士論文。
〔11〕冉怡瑄(2010),「應用迴歸樹演算法於房地產估價之研究」,長庚大學資訊管理研究所碩士班論文。
〔12〕朱敬一、陳恭平(2005),個體經濟學,臺北市:臺灣東華。
〔13〕朴大成(1991),「中國大陸勞動爭議之訴訟外處理研究」,國立中山大學大陸研究所碩士論文。
〔14〕呂世通(2004),「政府採購委託技術服務廠商評選決策模式之研究」,國立中央大學土木工程研究所博士論文。
〔15〕呂世通、譚沛珊(2009),「營建施工廠商風險防制能力評估模式之研究」,第17屆模糊理論及其應用研討會。
〔16〕行政院公共工程委員會(2007),政府採購法令彙編(第20版),台北:工程會。
〔17〕行政院公共工程委員會(2009),97年度政府採購法業務推動情形及執行績效。
〔18〕何德操(2003),工程爭議處理,台北:台灣營建研究院。
〔19〕李永然(2009),工程爭議與解決法律實務,台北:永然文化出版股份有限公司。
〔20〕李明聰(2001),「民間參與公共建設特許契約談判行為之研究」,國立交通大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
〔21〕李佩穎(2003),「應用賽局理論分析公共工程採購申訴調解行為之研究」,國立雲林科技大學營建管理系碩士論文。
〔22〕李得璋(1993),營建工程爭議與仲裁之處理 (下),商務仲裁。
〔23〕沈勁利、謝惠珠、游步上、翁復中(2008),政府採購法增訂工程採購先調後仲機制產生影響之研究,2007土木與生態工程研討會。
〔24〕吳忠波(2010),「從法院判決研擬公共工程爭議處理對策之研究」,國立臺灣大學土木工程學研究所碩士論文。
〔25〕吳家德(2003),「公共工程仲裁制度應用之研究」,國立高雄第一科技大學營建工程系碩士論文。
〔26〕吳家興(2010),「工程仲裁之研究」,國立政治大學法學院碩士在職專班論文。
〔27〕吳銜桑、李建中、吳文彥、李振榮(2009),「公共工程履約爭議民事訴訟地方法院判決量化分析」,營建管理季刊,第80期,頁1-15。
〔28〕吳道生(1993),「賽局理論在公共工程合約授與行為之應用」,國立台灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
〔29〕林丙輝(2002),「實質選擇權與合作賽局在聯合投資策略之應用」,國科會專題研究報告,計畫編號 NSC90-2416-H011-001。
〔30〕林金面(2008),營建管理學,台北:文笙書局股份有限公司。
〔31〕林永盛(2005),「民間參與公共建設計畫談判模式之研究」,國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文。
〔32〕林美惠(2002),營建工程爭議索賠探索(1),技師月刊,第23期,頁11-13。
〔33〕林美惠(2002),營建工程爭議索賠探索(2),技師月刊,第25期,頁13-17。
〔34〕林峻谷(2005),「工程爭議處理過程之量化評估研究」,國立雲林科技大學營建工程系碩士論文。
〔35〕林榮泰(2007),「應用模糊決策樹分析於研發型專案風險之評估」,國立成功大學製造工程研究所碩士論文。
〔36〕林豈汶(2008),「模糊偏好新相似度量測與演化式支撐向量機模式於連續壁工法選擇與工期預測之研究」,國立台灣科技大學營建管理系碩士論文。
〔37〕房樹貴(2007),「解決公共工程履約糾紛問題之研究」,世新大學法學院碩士論文。
〔38〕施百鍵(2004),「公共工程爭議事件類型與其救濟途徑選擇之研究」,國立中央大學營建管理研究所碩士論文。
〔39〕高孔廉、張緯良(1993),作業研究,台北:五南圖書出版公司。
〔40〕康尚德(2011),「營建專案選擇總承包商之多準則展望模式」,國立台灣科技大學營建管理系博士論文。
〔41〕郭斯傑、詹前輝(1995),「浮時所有權及工程耽延責任歸屬之探討」,台灣大學工程學刊,第56 期,第85-100 頁。
〔42〕梁高榮、林金慧(2006),「決策過程的分析與應用」,機械工業雜誌,6,pp.91-103。
〔43〕梁鑑(1999),國際工程施工索賠,台北:淑馨出版社。
〔44〕陳湛勻(1999),現代決策應用與方法分析,台北:五南圖書出版有限公司。
〔45〕陳玉玲(2002),「BOT附屬事業(批地)對本體事業投資行為之影響」,國立交通大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
〔46〕陳君諭(2010),「以模糊層級分析法評選工程爭議處理之方式」,國立成功大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
〔47〕陳志銘(1990),「大陸地區勞動訴訟法制之研究」,國立中山大學大陸研究所碩士論文。
〔48〕陳建良(2006)譯,賽局理論/Roger著,台北:智勝文化事業有限公司。
〔49〕陳國書(2003),「公共工程履約爭議處理之研究」,國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
〔50〕戚淑芳(2005),「工程爭議之有效管理」,國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
〔51〕張文輝,2001,「工程爭議解決新途徑-爭議審查委員會(DRB)在我國實行之可行性研究」,東吳大學法律學系碩士論文。,
〔52〕張明珠(2005),「政府採購爭議處理之履約爭議調解制度」,公共工程電子報。
〔53〕張保隆(2006),決策分析-方法與應用,華泰書局。
〔54〕張清溪、許嘉棟、劉鶯釧、吳聰敏(2002),經濟學二版,台北:翰蘆圖書出版有限公司。
〔55〕張浚威(1999),「模糊線性規劃方法之分析比較」,國立台灣大學化學工程研究所碩士論文。
〔56〕張國慶(2004),「中國勞動爭議處理體制研究」,鄭州大學法學碩士論文。
〔57〕張雅各(1997),「公共工程爭議處理之研究」,中華大學土木工程系碩士論文。
〔58〕張維迎(2003),賽局理論與信息經濟學,台北:茂昌圖書有限公司。
〔59〕湯宗旻(2011),「應用賽局理論探討風險分攤之影響」,國立台灣科技大學營建工程系碩士論文。
〔60〕項家騏(2011),「展望賽局理論決策模式之研究-以高科技廠房競標決策為例」,國立台灣科技大學營建工程技術研究所博士論文。
〔61〕葉建良(2006),「利用CART 分類與迴歸樹建立消費者信用貸款違約風險評估模型之研究-以國內A 銀行為例」,輔仁大學應用統計研究所碩士論文。
〔62〕蔡美華(2006),「風險決策行為之實驗研究」,東吳大學經濟學系博士論文。
〔63〕褚乃慈(1999),「工程契約文件在工程糾紛處理上之應用探討」,國立交通大學土木工程學系碩士論文。
〔64〕楊英君(1998),「公共工程履約爭議處理制度之研究」,國立台灣科技大學營建工程技術研究所碩士論文。
〔65〕劉芮圻(209),「工程契約定作人義務之研究」,國立高雄大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。
〔66〕劉欣憲(2006),「應用程序分析、分類樹與類神經網路建構肇事鑑定模式之研究」,逢甲大學交通工程與管理學系研究所碩士論文。
〔67〕潘南飛、許文宗、陳君諭(2010),「工程爭議處理方法之評選」,現代營建,第364期,頁1-6。
〔68〕薄喬萍(2005),作業研究與資料包絡分析,台南:復文書局。
〔69〕鄧方(1996)譯,賽局理論與經濟模型/David著,台北:五南圖書出版社。
〔70〕盧誠德(2005),「公共工程土方爭議處理之研究─ 以雲嘉地區之公共工程為例」,國立雲林科技大學營建工程系碩士論文。
〔71〕蘇訓弘(2010),「以賽局分析工期延誤之爭議處理」,國立成功大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
〔72〕蘇淑婷(2009),「我國個別勞資爭議處理程序之研究」,銘傳大學法律學系碩士論文。
〔73〕簡志邦(1997),「公共工程資訊不對稱問題之研究-以底價及品質為例」,國立台灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
〔74〕簡禎富(2005),決策分析與管理,台北:雙葉書廊。
〔75〕蕭羨一(2001)譯,談判與解決衝突/Schmidt等著,台北:天下遠見。
〔76〕蕭家進(2001),「公共工程爭議處理的省思」,現代營建,第260期,頁65-70。
〔77〕藍兆杰、徐偉傑,陳怡君(2002)譯,策略的賽局/Dixit, A and Skeath, S.,台北:弘智文化事業有限公司。

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top