臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

營建業在台灣經濟成長過程中，一直扮演著火車頭的角色，經營優劣跟整體經濟穩健成長有著密不可分的關係。但近年來因為整體經濟停滯不前，還有從2002年開始加入WTO之後面臨來自國際外來廠商的競爭，有必要對其經營績效做評估，除了提供投資人與經營者的參考依據，如何提升產業的營運績效更是迫切的課題。
本研究針對國內營建產業，運用資料包絡分析法(DEA)對組織的獲利績效進行效率評估分析。篩選出選出23家符合條件受評單位公司，針對2013年至2017年之台灣23家上市營建產業之公司，分析其各個的相對獲利能力，投入變數有固定資產、員工人數、營業成本，產出變數則有營業利益、營業收入淨額。
2013年至2017年期23間之受評估公司有進步；但在整體技術效率部分仍有一半以上的公司是相對無效率。可參考差額變數分析部分，效率值未達到1的公司，應減少投入量或增加產出量，以改善至相對有效率單位。；或是從敏感部分析了解哪幾個變數對其公司之整體技術效率有較大影響，來調整決策的投入與產出要素，並互相比較個決策單位優、劣勢項目，進而改進。以上分析皆能當成其產業之廠商未來在創新能力上需改善的目標與方向。

In the process of Taiwans economic growth, the construction industry has always played the role of a locomotive. The advantages and disadvantages of the operation is closely related to the overall healthy economic growth.
However, in recent years, because the overall economy has stagnated, and since the beginning of joining the WTO in 2002, it has faced competition from international foreign manufacturers. It is necessary to evaluate its business performance. In addition to providing reference for investors and operators, how to improve the industry, the operational performance is an urgent issue.

This study is aimed at the domestic construction industry, using the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to evaluate the efficiency of the organizations profitability. A total of 23 eligible companies were selected to analyze the relative profitability of each of the 23 listed companies in Taiwan from 2013 to 2017. The investment variables include fixed assets, number of employees, and operating costs. The variable has a business benefit and a net operating income.

The evaluated companies in the 23rd period from 2013 to 2017 have made progress; however, more than half of the companies in the overall technical efficiency are relatively inefficient. Referring to the difference variable analysis section, companies with an efficiency value of less than 1 should reduce the input or increase the output to improve to a relatively efficient unit. Or analyze from the sensitive department to understand which variables have a greater impact on the overall technical efficiency of the company, to adjust the input and output factors of the decision-making, and compare the superior and inferior items of the decision-making unit with each other, and then improve. All of the above analysis can be regarded as the goal and direction for the improvement of the innovation ability of the manufacturers of their industry.

摘 要 i
Abstract ii
謝 辭 iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 v
表目錄 vi
第壹章 緒論 1
1. 1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 4
1.3 研究目的 5
1.4 研究範圍與限制 6
1.5 研究流程 7
第貳章 文獻探討 8
2.1 我國營建產業概況 8
2.2績效評估定義與評估 9
2.3 相關文獻回顧 15
2.4 資料分析包絡法 19
2.5 構面與選擇研究方法 23
第參章 研究方法 24
3.1 研究架構 24
3.2 研究對象之選取 26
3.3 投入項及產出項之選取 29
3.4 分析流程 30
第肆章 實證分析 32
4.1 營運績效能力分析 32
4.2 投入與產出變數相關性分析 34
4.3 整體效率分析 36
4.4. 純技術效率分析、規模效率與規模報酬 42
4.5 差額變數分析 48
4.6 敏感度分析 54
4.7 研究結果分析 62
第伍章 結論與建議 64
5.1 結論: 64

參考文獻 66
 
圖目錄
圖 1-1營造業生產毛額年增率及佔GDP比重走勢 3
圖 1-2 研究流程 7
圖 3-1研究架構 25

中文文獻

1.李春長, 林書正 房屋仲介業營運效率之研究-資料包絡分析法之應用.中華民國住宅學會第十二屆年會論文集, 2003: p. 258~276.
2.溫盛淼, 能源耗用對台灣數位遊戲產業經營績效影響之研究－資料包絡分析法的應用, in 自然資源與環境管理研究所在職專班. 2010, 國立臺北大學: 新北市. p. 100.
3.劉得宇, 跨國線上遊戲產業經營績效分析—資料包絡分析法之應用, in 應用經濟與管理學系經營管理碩士班. 2014, 國立宜蘭大學: 宜蘭縣. p. 75.
4.吳姿儀, 從效率觀點評估建設公司財務績效之研究, in 營建工程系. 2006, 國立臺灣科技大學: 台北市. p. 91.
5.吳濟華, 何柏正, and 黃元璋, 臺灣地區營造業營運績效與經營策略. 建築學報, 2008(64): p. 25-48.
6.林柏君, 我國營造業之發展現況與趨勢. 經濟前瞻, 2017(174): p. 43-48.
7.林進南, 2018年我國營造業分析. 台經院經濟資料庫, 2017.
8.洪海玲, 以資料包絡分析法作製造業之營運效率分析, in 工業管理科學系碩博士班. 2002, 成功大學. p. 1-86.
9.陳俊合, 臺灣營建業上市公司經營績效評估－資料包絡分析法應用. 建築學報, 2018(106): p. 17-30.
10.陳博亮, et al., 台灣地區上市上櫃營建公司經營效率分析. 建築學報, 2010(73): p. 25-50.
11.鄭超文, 營建公司財務績效評估模式之研究, in 土木工程研究所. 2000, 國立中央大學: 桃園縣. p. 84.
12.孫遜，2004，資料包絡分析法：理論與應用，新北：揚智出版社。
13.范氏海燕，2013，以二階段資料包絡分析評估電信服務業經營效率，私立義守大學管理學院管理碩士在職專班碩士論文
14.楊鈞傑，2009，台灣工業電腦產業經營效率之研究，東華大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
15.高強、黃旭男、Toshiyuki Sueyoshi，2003，管理績效評估：資料包絡分析法，台北：華泰文化。




英文文獻
1. Anonymous. (2003). Managing & measuring for R&D success. Strategic Direction, Bradford, 19(8), 31-44.
2. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiency in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078-1092.
3. Bowon, K., & Heungshik, O. (2002). Economic comoensation compositions preferred by R&D personnel of different R&D types and intrinsic values. R&D Management, 32(1), 47-59.
4. Brown, M. G., & Svenson, R. A. (1998). Measuring R&D Productivity. Research Technology Management, 41(6), 30-36.
5. Byrnes, P., Fare, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1984). Measuring productive efficiency: An application to Illinois strip mines. Management Science, 30(6), 671-681.
6. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429-444.
7. Covin, J. G. (1991). Entrepreneurial versus conservative firms: A comparison of strategies and performancd. Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 439-462.
8. Downs, G. W., & Mohr. L. B. (1976). Conceptual Issue in the Study of Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), 700-714.
9. Drucker, P. F. (2006). The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done (Harperbusiness Essentials). New York: Collins.
10. Drucker, P. F. (1991). The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 95-102.
11. Farell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, General, 120(3), 253-290.
12. Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Golany, B., & Roll, Y. (1989). An application procedure for DEA. OMEGA, 17(3), 237-250.
14. Griffin, A., & Page, A. L. (1993). An interim report on measuring product development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(4), 291-308.
15. Hultink, E. J., & Robben, S. J. (1995). Measuring new product success: The difference that time perspective makes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2, 392-405.
16. Iyer, A., Saranga, H., & Seshadri, S. (2013). Effect of quality management systems and total quality management on productivity before and after: Empirical evidence from the Indian Auto Component Industry. Production and Operations Management, 22(2), 283-301.
17. Seiford, L.M. and R.M. Thrall, Recent developments in DEA: the mathematical programming approach to frontier analysis. Journal of econometrics, 1990. 46(1-2): p. 7-38.