跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.169.3) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/12/01 00:34
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:黃宇辰
研究生(外文):Yu-Chen Huang
論文名稱:淡海地區大眾運輸組織整合之研究
論文名稱(外文):The integration of public transport organization in Tanhai area
指導教授:蕭再安蕭再安引用關係
指導教授(外文):Tzay-An Shiau
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣海洋大學
系所名稱:河海工程學系
學門:工程學門
學類:河海工程學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:200
中文關鍵詞:大眾運輸組織整合方案評估科技社會建構論層級分析法D-S理論
外文關鍵詞:Organizational integration of public transportationProject evaluationSCOT (Social Construction of Technology)AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process)DST (Dempster-Shafer Theory)
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:360
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:53
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
近年來,台灣在大眾運輸組織整合上還未興盛,而組織整合確實能帶給民眾更好的服務及提升運輸生活品質。因此,本研究將評估未來有可能營運淡海輕軌的組織,與其餘在淡水境內有營運路線的大眾運輸組織的整合方案,藉以此方案評估,評估出最適合當前淡海的運輸組織整合方案。
而運輸組織整合方案與準則之探討,必須藉由不同權益關係人的參與,取得其看法,以建構適當的運輸組織整合方案及準則。本研究在此利用科技社會建構論(Social Construction of Technology; SCOT)建構出兩項未來淡海輕軌的營運方式,包括委託及營運-移轉方式(Operate-Transfer; OT),並且取得專家、業者及政治菁英對於整合方案及準則之看法,建構了新的7項方案及14項準則,後續則利用層級分析法(Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP)及D-S理論(Dempster-Shafer Theory; DST)的資訊整合方法,取得管理面、財務面及發展面專家或業者的看法,以建構準則的權重,並且在後續與DST資訊整合且利用效用轉換之數值結合,以評估出適合的整合方案。
而根據AHP的評估結果中,管理面人員以路線規劃適當性為優先考量,財務面人員以投資報酬率為主要考量,而發展面人員以方案可行性為主要考量。此AHP結果與DST整合且進行效用轉換後的數值合併的結果顯示,效用較高的整合方案包括了組織合併(A1)、運輸聯盟(B5)及股權轉換(A4)方案,在最後也針對此三項方案進行效益分析,以探討出使用上述方案時,所能產生較高的效益為何。因此,本研究評估結果,不僅能看出哪些整合方案較適於當前淡海地區的大眾運輸組織,也能清楚的看出,使用某種整合方案進行組織整合後,有可能產生各種效益的機率為何,這結果將能引導相關當局於未來制定相關運輸組織整合措施時,能夠根據本身之偏好,選擇適當的大眾運輸組織整合方案進行整合,並且促使當地地區的整體運輸服務品質提升。

In recent years, the organizational integration of public transportation in Taiwan has not yet thrived; however, organizational integration can certainly bring better service to people and elevate transportation and life qualities. Therefore, this study evaluated integration project of the organization that is likely to operate Danhai Light Rail Transit in the future, and other public transport organizations with operating routes in Tamsui. By evaluating the project, an organizational integration project that is most appropriate for the present Danhai transportation is presented.
The discussion of the organizational integration project and criteria for transportation must rely on the participation of different stakeholders and obtain their viewpoints to construct a suitable organizational integration project and criteria for transportation. This study adopted Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) to construct two operation methods for future Danhai Light Rail Transit including authorization and OT (operate-transfer), and the opinions on the integration project and criteria of experts, operators and political elites were acquired to construct 7 new alternatives and 14 new criteria. Subsequently, information integration approaches of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Dempster-Shafer Theory (DST) were adopted to obtain perspectives of experts or operators in management, financial and development aspects to construct the weight of criteria. Moreover, the information of DST was integrated and combined with the transfer values of utility functions to evaluate an appropriate integration project.
According to the evaluation results of AHP, personnel in the management aspect placed a high priority on the appropriateness of route planning, and return on investment was the main consideration of personnel in the financial aspect, while the feasibility of a project was the top concern of personnel in the development aspect. The combined values of AHP results integrated with DST after conducting utility transfer indicated that, integration projects with higher utility included organizational merging (A1), transportation league (B5) and equity transfer (A4). The study also conducted benefit analysis on the three projects in the end to discuss which above-mentioned project can generate higher benefits. Therefore, the evaluation of the study could not only show which integration projects were better suited for the public transportation organizations in the present Danhai District, but also display the probability of each benefit likely to be generated after using a certain integration project to conduct organizational integration. The results would guide competent authorities to formulate related organizational integration measures for transportation in the future according to their preferences, select appropriate organizational integration projects for public transportation, and to raise the overall transportation service quality in the area.

目錄
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究目的 5
1.3 研究架構與方法 7
1.4 研究範圍與限制 9
1.4.1 研究範圍 9
1.4.2 研究限制 11
1.5 研究內容與流程 12
第二章 文獻回顧 14
2.1 公共運輸 14
2.1.1 公共運輸介紹 14
2.1.2 公共運輸網絡 16
2.2 運輸組織整合 17
2.2.1 運輸組織整合介紹 17
2.2.2 運輸組織整合的動機 17
2.2.3 組織整合方式 19
2.2.4 運輸組織整合之效益 27
2.2.5 組織整合之評估準則 27
2.3 科技社會建構論(SCOT) 35
2.3.1 SCOT介紹 35
2.3.2 SCOT基本架構 36
2.3.3 SCOT 運作流程 38
2.4 層級分析法(AHP) 39
2.4.1 AHP之簡介 39
2.4.2 AHP之概念與特性 40
2.4.3 AHP之優缺點 46
2.4.4 AHP之應用範疇 48
2.5 D-S理論(DST) 49
2.5.1 DST之簡介 49
2.5.2 DST之基本公式與概念 50
2.5.3 DST相關優點 54
2.5.4 DST相關限制與缺點 54
2.5.5 DST的應用範疇 55
第三章 案例與現況分析 56
3.1 相關案例分析 56
3.1.1國外案例 56
3.1.2 國外組織整合案例之整理 61
3.2現況分析 62
第四章 實例分析 69
4.1 初始方案與準則建構 69
4.1.1 淡海輕軌營運方式探討之SCOT應用 69
4.1.2 初始整合方案建構 73
4.1.3 初始評估準則建構 77
4.1.4 評估準則之衡量 80
4.1.5 小結 84
4.2 整合方案與評估準則之SCOT分析 85
4.2.1 SCOT第二部分之應用 85
4.2.2 SCOT建構新整合方案與評估準則架構 86
4.2.3 SCOT第二部分問卷架構 89
4.2.4 SCOT第二部分運作結果 92
4.2.5 小結 102
4.3 評估準則之AHP分析 103
4.3.1 AHP之應用 103
4.3.2 AHP層級架構建立 103
4.3.3 各層面之綜合分析 103
4.3.4 小結 117
4.4 整合方案評估之DST分析 118
4.4.1 DST之應用 118
4.4.2 AHP/DST參與人員 118
4.4.3 DST方案評估 119
4.4.4 DST問卷架構 122
4.4.5 DST分析結果 124
4.4.6 小結 147
第五章 結論與建議 148
5.1 結論 148
5.2 建議 150
參考文獻 151
附錄一 大眾運輸組織整合方案及評估準則建構之問卷 158
附錄二 大眾運輸組織整合議題探討之問卷 165
附錄三 大眾運輸組織評估準則AHP問卷 168
附錄四 大眾運輸組織整合方案評估之問卷(管理面) 175
附錄五 大眾運輸組織整合方案評估之問卷(財務面) 180
附錄六 大眾運輸組織整合方案評估之問卷(發展面) 185

圖目錄
圖1-1 91年~99年企業整合案件統計-產業分布圖 4
圖1-2 研究架構圖 7
圖1-3 研究範圍示意圖 10
圖1-4 研究流程圖 13
圖2-1 評估準則構面轉換示意圖 31
圖2-2 SCOT概念架構圖 37
圖2-3 SCOT運作架構圖 39
圖2-4 AHP運作流程圖 41
圖2-5 AHP層級架構圖 42
圖2-6 信任區間示意圖1 52
圖2-7 信任區間示意圖2 52
圖3-1 淡海新市鎮願景圖 64
圖4-1 SCOT第一部分運作流程圖 69
圖4-2 SCOT第一部分價值判斷與因果關係圖 70
圖4-3 淡海輕軌可能之營運方案 72
圖4-4 初始替選方案架構 73
圖4-5 初始評估準則架構 79
圖4-6 SCOT第二部分運作流程圖 85
圖4-7 SCOT第二部分參與團體及人員簡圖 86
圖4-8 SCOT參與人員階段圖 88
圖4-9 SCOT第二部分問卷架構圖 90
圖4-10 SCOT第二階段簡易價值判斷圖 95
圖4-11 各方案之分數示意圖 97
圖4-12 新整合方案架構 98
圖4-13 各評估準則之分數示意圖 100
圖4-14 新評估準則架構 101
圖4-15 AHP/DST參與人員圖示 119
圖4-16 不同決策者偏好效用之類型 120
圖4-17 DST運作流程圖 121
圖4-18 最適方案產生之效益機率雷達圖 145
圖4-19 最適整合方案效益比較圖 146

表目錄
表1-1 淡海地區大眾運輸產生之問題 1
表1-2 國外運輸組織整合案例 2
表1-3 研究限制 11
表2-1公共運輸系統路權型態及運輸技術分類 15
表2-2 組織整合動機 18
表2-3 運輸組織整合案例之文獻整理 19
表2-4 整合方式一覽表 23
表2-5 國外實際案例適用評估準則表 28
表2-6 組織績效之評估準則 32
表2-7 AHP特性說明表 40
表2-8 評估尺度表 43
表2-9 隨機指標表 45
表2-10 DST不合理結果 54
表3-1 國外公共運輸組織整合之案例 61
表3-2 台灣運輸組織整合案例整理 62
表3-3 輕軌業者相關資訊 65
表3-4 公車業者相關資訊 66
表3-5 台北捷運相關資訊 67
表3-6 藍色公路業者相關資訊 68
表4-1 SCOT第一部分詳細問題詮釋表 71
表4-2 初始大眾運輸整合方案架構 74
表4-3 評估準則檢核表 77
表4-4 評估準則之衡量方式 80
表4-5 SCOT問卷運作方式 91
表4-6 SCOT問卷與調查方法 92
表4-7 SCOT問卷調查結果 92
表4-8 SCOT第二部分價值判斷表 93
表4-9 整合方案篩選結果 96
表4-10 評估準則適用性填答結果 99
表4-11 AHP/DST參與人員列表 104
表4-12 管理面參與人員於各構面成對比較矩陣及權重 105
表4-13 管理面參與人員於管理面成對比較矩陣及權重 106
表4-14 管理面參與人員於財務面成對比較矩陣及權重 106
表4-15 管理面參與人員於發展面成對比較矩陣及權重 107
表4-16 管理面參與人員於大眾運輸組織整合評估整層級架構 107
表4-17 財務面參與人員於各構面成對比較矩陣及權重 108
表4-18 財務面參與人員於管理面成對比較矩陣及權重 108
表4-19 財務面參與人員於財務面成對比較矩陣及權重 109
表4-20 財務面參與人員於發展面成對比較矩陣及權重 109
表4-21 財務面參與人員於大眾運輸組織整合評估整層級架構 110
表4-22 發展面參與人員於各構面成對比較矩陣及權重 111
表4-23 發展面參與人員於管理面成對比較矩陣及權重 111
表4-24 發展面參與人員於財務面成對比較矩陣及權重 112
表4-25 發展面參與人員於發展面成對比較矩陣及權重 112
表4-26 發展面參與人員於大眾運輸組織整合評估整層級架構 113
表4-27 整體於各構面成對比較矩陣及權重 114
表4-28 整體於管理面成對比較矩陣及權重 114
表4-29 整體於財務面成對比較矩陣及權重 115
表4-30 整體於發展面成對比較矩陣及權重 115
表4-31 整體於大眾運輸組織整合評估整層級架構 116
表4-32 效用值轉換對應表 120
表4-33 DST問卷架構表 122
表4-34 DST問卷運作方式 123
表4-35 DST問卷設計與調查方法 123
表4-36 管理面BPA整合數值表 125
表4-37準則效用轉換表(管理面) 126
表4-38權重整合(管理面) 128
表4-39 財務面BPA整合數值表 130
表4-40 準則效用轉換表(財務面) 132
表4-41權重整合(財務面) 134
表4-42 發展面BPA整合數值表 135
表4-43 準則效用轉換表(發展面) 136
表4-44 權重整合(發展面) 138
表4-45 整體構面之效用整合 140
表4-46 大眾運輸組織整合方案排序 141
表4-47 方案可行性之提升機率表 142
表4-48 最適方案之可行性排序 143
表4-49 最適整合方案之正面效益產生機率 144


參考文獻
中文部分
1. 林樹禮(2009),「結合層級理論的層級分析法於多準則決策之研究」,國立屏東科技大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
2. 陳宏鎧(2012),「地方基層金融之績效指標及組織變革之探討-以C信合作社為例」,私立育達商業科技大學行銷與流通管理學系碩士論文。
3. 陳香文(2008),「論我國企業併購法制—以合併及收購為中心」,國立高雄大學法律學系碩士論文。
4. 陳偉星(2005),「應用證據推理於供應商評選之研究」,技術學刊第二十卷第四期,pp.339-355。
5. 黃偉峰(2007),企業併購法,元照出版社。
6. 張曉凌(2011),「偏遠地區公共運輸政策之研究-政策工具之觀點」,私立中華大學行政管理學系碩士論文。
7. 新北市政府(2011),「台北縣輕軌運輸發展計畫-期末報告」。
8. 廖大穎(2004),股份轉換制度之研究—兼評控股公司的管理機制—,正典出版文化有限公司。
9. 劉奇(2011),運輸規劃學(A),正志光出版社。
10. 蕭宇軒(2010),「影響大眾運輸使用因素之研究」,國立成功大學都市計畫學系碩士論文。
11. 薛明玲(2005),企業併購策略與最佳實務,資誠教育基金會。
12. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989),「層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上)」,中國統計學報,第27卷,第6期。

英文部分
1. Andreou, P.C., Louca, C., Panayides, P.M. (2012). Valuation effects of mergers and acquisitions in freight transportation. Transportation Research Part E. 48, 1221-1234.
2. Attard, M. (2012). Reforming the urban public transport bus system in Malta: Approach and acceptance. Transportation Research Part A. 46, 981-992.
3. Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S. (2011). Using AHP and dempster shafer theory for evaluating sustainable transport solutions. Environmental Modelling &; Software. 26, 787-796.
4. Beynon, M. (2002). DS/AHP method: A mathematical analysis, including an understanding of uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research. 140, 148-164.
5. Beck, A. (2010). Commercial public bus transport services in Germany: How a market in motion struggles with its regulatory framework. Research in Transportation Economics. 29, 183-194.
6. Belton, V., Gear, A.E. (1983). On a shortcoming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. Omega. 11, 227-230.
7. Bijker, W. E. (1987).The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Technology and Society, 17-50.
8. Bijker, W. E. (1993). Do not despair: there is life after constructivism. technology &; human values. 18, 113-138.
9. Bijker, W. E. (2001). Understanding technological cuture through a constructivist view of science, technology, and society. Visions of STS: Counterpoints in science, technology, and society studies, 19-34.
10. Bijker, W. E. (2009). How is technology made?—That is the question!. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 34, 63-76.
11. Bilotkach, V., Hüschelrath, K. (2012). Airline alliances and antitrust policy: The role of efficiencies. Journal of Air Transport Management. 21, 76-84.
12. Blancas, F.J., Lozano-Oyola, M., González, M., Guerrero, F.M., Caballero, R. (2011). How to use sustainability indicators for tourism planning: The case of rural tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Science of the Total Environment. 412-413, 28-45.
13. Boardman, A.E., Laurin, C., Moore, M.A., Vining, A.R. (2012). Efficiency, profitability and welfare gains from the canadian national railway privatization. Research in Transportation Business &; Management. xxx, xxx-xxx.
14. Bureau, B., Glachant, M. (2011). Distributional effects of public transport policies in the paris region. Transport Policy. 18, 745-754.
15. Burningham, D. (1992). An overview of the use of performance indicators in local government,” in christopher pollitt and stephen harrison (eds.) Handbook of Public Services Management. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
16. Carse, A. (2011). Assessment of transport quality of life as an alternative transport appraisal technique. Journal of Transport Geography. 19, 1037-1045.
17. Carter, N., Rudolf, K., Patricia, D. (1992). How organisations measure success: the use of performance indicators in government. London: Routledge.
18. Collins, H. (1975). The seven sexes:astudy in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics. Sociology. 9, 205-24.
19. Deng, Y., Chan, F.T.S., Wu, Y., Wang, D. (2011). A new linguistic MCDM method based on multiple-criterion data fusion. Expert Systems with Applications. 38, 6985-6993.
20. Deng, Y., Chan, F.T.S. (2011). A new fuzzy dempster MCDM method and its application in supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications. 38, 9854-9861.
21. DePamphilis, D. M. (2012). Chapter 1 - introduction to mergers and acquisitions. mergers, acquisitions, and other restructuring activities (sixth edition), 3-50.
22. Dittmar, A., Shivdasani, A. (2003). Divestitures and divisional investment policies. The Journal of Finance. 6, 2711-2743.
23. Doganis, R. (2001). The airline business in the 21st century. Routledge. London.
24. Driessen, P.H., Kok, R.A.W., Hillebrand, B. (2012). Mechanisms for stakeholder integration: Bringing virtual stakeholder dialogue into organizations. Journal of Business Research. xxx, xxx-xxx.
25. Dye, C.Y. (2007). Joint pricing and ordering policy for a deteriorating inventory with partial backlogging. Omega, 184-189.
26. Dymova, L., Sevastjanov, P. (2010). An interpretation of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in terms of evidence theory: Decision making aspect. Knowledge-Based Systems. 23, 772-782.
27. Dymova, L., Sevastianov, P., Bartosiewicz, P. (2010). A new approach to the rule-base evidential reasoning: Stock trading expert system application. Expert Systems with Applications. 37, 5564-5576.
28. Elgazzar, S.H., Tipi, N.S., Hubbard, N.J., Leach, D.Z. (2012). Linking supply chain processes’ performance to a company’s financial strategic objectives. European Journal of Operational Research. 223, 276-289.
29. Elle, M., Dammannb, S., Lentsch, J., Hansen, K. (2010). Learning from the social construction of environmental indicators: From the retrospective to the pro-active use of SCOT in technology development. Building and Environment. 45, 135-142.
30. Fahy, F., Ó Cinnéide, M. (2008). Developing and testing an operational framework for assessing quality of life. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 28, 366-379.
31. Foros, Q., Kind, H.J., Shaffer, G. (2011). Mergers and partial ownership. European Economic Review. 55, 916-926.
32. Forsyth, P., Niemeier, H.M., Wolf, H. (2011). Airport alliances and mergers e Structural change in the airport industry?. Journal of Air Transport Management. 17, 49-56.
33. Garcia-Feijoo, L., Madura, J., Ngo, T. (2012). Impact of industry characteristics on the method of payment in mergers. Journal of Economics and Business. 64, 261-274.
34. Gerson, E.M. (2012). Integration of specialties: An institutional and organizational view. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. xx, xxx-xxx.
35. Gudmundsson, H., Sorensen, C.J. (2012). Some use—Little influence? On the roles of indicators in European sustainable transport policy. Ecological Indicators. x, xxx.
36. Gugler, K., Mueller, D.C., Weichselbaumer, M. (2012). The determinants of merger waves: An international perspective. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 30, 1-15.
37. Guo, Z., Wilson, N.H.M. (2011). Assessing the cost of transfer inconvenience in public transport systems: A case study of the London Underground. Transportation Research Part A. 45, 91-104.
38. Haghshenas, H., Vaziri, M. (2012). Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison. Ecological Indicators. 15, 115-121.
39. Han, S.S. (2010). Managing motorization in sustainable transport planning: the Singapore experience. Journal of Transport Geography. 18, 314-321.
40. Hijzen, A., Görg, H., Manchin, M. (2008). Cross-border mergers and acquisitions and the role of trade costs. European Economic Review. 52, 849-866.
41. Horta, I., Camanho, A.S., Costa, J.M. (2010). Performance assessment of construction companies integrating key performance indicators and data envelopment analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 136, 581–594.
42. Ju, Y., Wang, A. (2012). Emergency alternative evaluation under group decision makers: A method of incorporating DS/AHP with extended TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications. 39, 1315-1323.
43. Klein, H.K., Kleinman, D.L. (2002). “The social construction of technology: structural considerations. Science, Technology, &; Human Values. 27, 28-52.
44. Lambkin, M.C., Muzellec, L. (2010). Leveraging brand equity in business-to-business mergers and acquisitions. Industrial Marketing Management. 39, 1234-1239.
45. Larson, P. (2013). Deregulation of and mergers among American and Canadian railroads: A study of four decades. Research in Transportation Business &; Management. xxx, xxx-xxx.
46. Lee, H., Cho, E., Cheong, C., Kim, J. (2013). Do strategic alliances in a developing country create firm value? Evidence from Korean firms. Journal of Empirical Finance. 20, 30-41.
47. Martin, S. (2011). Analysis of prospective airline mergers using a simulated annealing model. Journal of Air Transport Management. 17, 80-87.
48. Merkert, R., Morrell, P.S. (2012). Mergers and acquisitions in aviation – Management and economic perspectives on the size of airlines. Transportation Research Part E. 48, 853-862.
49. Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus Two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 81-97.
50. Millet, I., Harker. P.T. (1990). Globally effective questioning in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research. 48, 88-97.
51. Milne, E.M.G. (2012). A public health perspective on transport policy priorities. Journal of Transport Geography. 21, 62-69.
52. Miyake, D. (2002). Implementing strategy with the balanced scorecard: an introduction to the strategy-focused organization. Information Management Magazine.
53. Mizutani, J. (2011). Airline merger and competition in Japan: A conduct parameter and theoretical price approach. Journal of Air Transport Management. 17, 120-124.
54. Narasimhan, R. (1983). An analytic approach to supplier selection. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. 1, 27-32.
55. Németh, A., Niemeier, H.M. (2012). Airline mergers in Europe e An overview on the market definition of the EU commission. Journal of Air Transport Management. 22, 45-52.
56. Pickering, A. (1984). Constructing quarks—A sociological history of particle physics. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
57. Pinch, T. (2009). On making infrastructure visible: putting the non-humans to rights. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 34, 77-89.
58. Popova, V., Sharpanskykh, A. (2011). Formal modelling of organisational goals based on performance indicators. Data &; Knowledge Engineering. 70, 335-364.
59. Preston, J. (2009). Transport, public. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 452-459.
60. Rajesh, R., Pugazhendhi, S., Ganesh, K., Ducq , Y., Lenny Koh, S.C. (2012). Generic balanced scorecard framework for third party logistics service provider. Int. J. Production Economics. 140, 269–282.
61. Redman, L., Friman, M., Garling, T., Hartig , T. (2013). Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review. Transport Policy. 25, 119–127.
62. Roca-Riu, M., Estrada, M., Trapote , C. (2012). The design of interurban bus networks in city centers. Transportation Research Part A. 46, 1153-1165.
63. Roper-Low, G.C., A.Sharp, J. (1990). The analytic hierarchy process and its application to an information technology decision. Journal of Operational Research Society. 41, 49-59.
64. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 234-281.
65. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting. New York: McGraw-Hill International Book.
66. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operation Research, 9-26.
67. Saito, T. (1989). Transport coordination debate and the Japanese national railways problem in postwar Japan. Transportation Research Part A: General. 23, 13-18.
68. Schubert, J. (2011). Conflict management in Dempster–Shafer theory using the degree of falsity. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. 52, 449-460.
69. Shiau, T.A. (2012). Evaluating sustainable transport strategies with incomplete information for Taipei City. Transportation Research Part D. 17, 427-432.
70. Siebenhuner, B. (2004). Social learning and sustainability science: which role can stakeholder participation play?. International Journal of Sustainable Development. 2, 146-163.
71. Singh, H., Montgomery, C.A. (1987). Strategies and economic performance. Strategic Management Journal. 8, 377-386.
72. Sjogren, S., Soderberg, M. (2011). Productivity of airline carriers and its relation to deregulation, privatisation and membership in strategic alliances. Transportation Research Part E. 47, 228-237.
73. Steven, M., Merklein, T. (2012). The influence of strategic airline alliances in passenger transportation on carbon intensity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-9.
74. Stiebale, J., Reize, F. (2011). The impact of FDI through mergers and acquisitions on innovation in target firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 29, 155-167.
75. Stucchi, T. (2012). Emerging market firms_ acquisitions in advanced markets: Matching strategy with resource-, institution- and industry-based antecedents. European Management Journal. 20, 278-289.
76. Tze, Z. (2010). Introduction to mergers and acquisitions (M&;As). mergers, acquisitions, and other restructuring activities, 3-46.
77. Vargas, L.G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applictions. European Journal of Operation Research. 48, 2-8.
78. Veronese Bentes, A., Carneiro, J., da Silva, J.F., Kimura, H. (2012). Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP. Journal of Business Research. 65, 1790-1799.
79. Wang, W.Y.C., Chan, H.K. (2012). Virtual organization for supply chain integration: Two cases in the textile and fashion retailing industry. Int. J. Production Economics. 127, 333-342.
80. Willoughby, C. (2013). How much can public private partnership really do for urban transport in developing countries?. Research in Transportation Economics. 40, 34-55.
81. Wing Chow, C.K., Yiu Fung, M.K. (2012). Measuring the effects of China’s airline mergers on the productivity of state-owned carriers. Journal of Air Transport Management. 25, 1-4.
82. Won Cho, D., Hae Lee, Y., Hwa Ahn, S., Kyu Hwang, M. (2012). A framework for measuring the performance of service supply chain management. Computers &; Industrial Engineering. 62, 801-818.
83. Wu, D. (2009). Supplier selection in a fuzzy group setting: A method using grey related analysis and Dempster–Shafer theory. Expert Systems with Applications. 36, 8892-8899.
84. Wu, C., Barnes, D. (2012). Formulating partner selection criteria for agile supply chains: A Dempster– Shafer belief acceptability optimization approach. Int. J. Production Economics. 125, 284-293.
85. Xenias, D., Whitmarsh, L. (2012). Dimensions and determinants of expert and public attitudes to sustainable transport policies and technologies. Transportation Research Part A. xx, xxx-xxx.
86. Xiao, Z., Yang, X., Pang, Y., Dang, X. (2012). The prediction for listed companies’ financial distress by using multiple prediction methods with rough set and Dempster–Shafer evidence theory. Knowledge-Based Systems. 26, 196-206.
87. Yu, I., Kim, K., Jung, Y., Chin, S. (2007). Comparable performance measurement system for construction companies. Journal of Management in Engineering. 23, 131–139.
88. Zaefarian, Z., Henneberg, S. C., Naudé, P. (2011). Resource acquisition strategies in business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management. 40, 862-874.

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