第五章 結論與建議
5.2 研究限制與建議
一、由於本研究礙於時間之限制，只針對科技產業之採購設備知識交付作探 討。因此，對於其他產業上恐有代表性不足之處，後續學者可對其他產 業作更進一步之探討。
二、由於影響知識交付之關鍵因素眾多，本研究所建構之智慧價值模式，依 據專家會談方式尋找出 15 項知識交付之關鍵因素。而本研究僅將這 15 項關鍵因素作為評估準則，恐有不夠全面與完整之慮，後續學者亦可彙 整更多準則，使智慧價值模式更加完整。
三、由於本研究只針對單一家企業執行模式適用性之實證研究。冀望後續研 究者，可增加實證個案數，以增強模式驗證之嚴謹度。
參考文獻
1. 王隆嘉(2002)，「知識管理於機器設備採購之應用-以半導體採購為例」，中 原大學工業工程研究所碩士論文。
2. 池文海、鍾權宏、陳瑞龍(2003)，「應用分析層級程序法於我國政府採購 績效評估指標之研究」，運研究集刊，第五期，第57-82 頁。
3. 林羿吟(2006)，「溫泉旅館服務品質評估模式之構建」，中華大學科技管理 研究所碩士論文。
4. 林原宏(2005)，「模糊取向的詮釋結構模式之概念結構分析與應用」，教育 對心理研究，第28 卷，第 1 期，第 161-183 頁。
5. 邱奕進(2004)，「台商母公司與大陸子公司間內部知識移轉效果之研究」，
中央大學人力資源管理所碩士論文。
6. 柯怡華(2004)，「影響跨團隊知識移轉之研究－以資訊系統開發為例」，中 山大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
7. 洪如珊(2002)，「探討多國籍企業組織內部知識移轉機制之移轉效果」，中 央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
8. 胡瑋珊譯，Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L.著(1998)，「知識管理一企業組織 如何運用知識」，中國生產力中心。
9. 韋國亮(2003)，「企業國際化進入模式影響知識移轉策略之研究」，大葉大 學國際企業管理學系碩士論文。
10. 徐村和、林凌仲(2006)，「應用模糊分析網絡流程於品牌形象評估」，2006 台灣商管與資訊研討會論文集，台北大學：台北。
11. 徐村和、粘淑惠(1997)，「交談式模糊決策輔助系統-以大眾運輸系統營運 方式選擇為例」，運輸學刊，第10 卷，第 4 期，第 79-96 頁。
12. 張松生(2003)，「營業秘密管理與知識管理關係之探討－以金融機構為 例」，中原大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
13. 許史金(2001)，「知識管理推行實務」，城邦文化事業股份有限公司。
14. 陳乃慈(2004)，「運用層級分析法於國運採購績效評估之研究－以某國造 裝備生產用料採購為例」，雲林科技大學工業工程與管理系碩士論文。
15. 陳純玲(2003)，「知識移轉對企業智慧資本影響之研究－以資訊系統導入 為例」，銘傳大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
版。
17. 黃啟誠(2005)，「科技研發專案的模糊網絡決策分析」，中山大學公共事務 管理研究所博士論文。
18. 黃雪晴(2000)，「國內資訊電子業聯盟夥伴選擇模式之研究」，成功大學工 業管理研究所碩士論文。
19. 黃智銘(2004)，「軸承供應商顧客關係管理之研究－以半導體業為例」，中 華大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。
20. 經 濟 部 統 計 處 (2007) ， 「 我 國 主 要 進 口 貨 品 」 ， Http://2k3dmz2.moea.gov.tw/GNWEB/Indicator/indicator.aspx?menu=3 21. 樂為良譯，Bill Gates 著(1999)，「數位神經系統」，商周出版社。
22. 蔡淑鈴(2006)，「國際連鎖旅館合作模式、知識移轉與經營管理之個案研 究」，雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
23. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989a)，「層級分析法的內涵特性與應用(上)」，中國統計 學報，第27 卷，第 6 期，第 5-22 頁。
24. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989b)，「層級分析法的內涵特性與應用(下)」，中國統計 學報，第27 卷，第 7 期，第 1-15 頁。
25. 鄧維兆、廖明宗、林芷郁(2006)，「模糊理論與自動櫃員機管理屬性之確 認」，台灣金融財務季刊，第7 卷，第 4 期，第 29-52 頁。
26. 盧誠德、蔡宗潔(2005)，「公共工程土方爭議問題架構之研究－以雲嘉地 區之公共工程為例」，台灣公路工程，第32 卷，第 1 期，第 8-26 頁。
27. 賴嘉宏(2006)，「結合模糊分析網路程序法與模糊邏輯於營建工程環境影 響評估」，大葉大學環境工程學系碩士論文。
28. 簡禎富(2005)，「決策分析與管理－全面決策品質提升之架構與方法」，雙 葉書廊有限公司。
29. Adamo, J. M. (1980), “Fuzzy Decision Tree,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 207-219.
30. Azadeh, A., S. F. Ghaderi, and Izadbakhsh, H. (2007), “Integration of DEA and AHP with Computer Simulation for Railway System Improvement and Optimization,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, In press.
31. Badaracco, J. (1991), “The Knowledge Link: How Firms Compete through strategic Alliances,” Mass: Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
32. Baily, P. and Farmer, D. (1982), “Purchasing Principles and Management,”
33. Baranson, J. (1966), “Transfer of Technology Knowlodge by International Corporations to Developing Economics,” American Economic Review, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 259-267.
34. Bozbura, F. T., A. Beskese, and Kahraman, C. (2007), “Prioritization of Human Capital Measurement Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32, pp. 1100-1112.
35. Bresman, H., J. Birkinshaq, and Nobel, R. (1999), “Knowledge Transfer in Intermational Acquisitions,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 439-462.
36. Buckley, J. J. (1985), “Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 233-247.
37. Buyukozkan, G., T. Ertay, C. Kahraman, and Ruan, D. (2004), “Determining the Importance Weights for the Design Requirements in the House of Quality Using the Fuzzy Analytic Network Approach,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 19, pp. 443-461.
38. Campos Ibanez, L. M. and Gonzalez Munoz, A. (1989), “A Subjective Approach for Ranking Fuzzy Numbers,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 29, pp.
145-153.
39. Carlsson, C. and Fuller, R. (1996), “Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Dcision Making:
Recent Developments,” Fuzzy Sets and System, Vol. 78, pp. 139-153.
40. Carrillo, P. (1996), “Technology Transfer on Joint Venture Projects in Development Countries,” Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 14, pp. 45-54.
41. Chen, C. S. and Liu, Y.C. (2007), “A methodology for Evaluation and Classification of Rock mass Quality on Tunnel Engineering,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 22, pp. 377-387.
42. Chen, H. H., H. I. Lee, and Tong, Y. (2007), “Prioritization and Operations NPD Mix in a Network with Strategic Partners Under Uncertainty,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 33, pp. 337-346.
43. Cheng, C. H. (1998), “A New Approach for Ranking Fuzzy Numbers by Distance Method,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 95,pp. 307-317.
44. Chiu, Y. J. and Chen, Y. W. (2007), “Using AHP in Patent Valuation,”
45. Choi, B. and Lee. H. (2003), “An Empirical Investigation of KM Styles and their Effect on Corporate Performance,” Information & Management, Vol. 40, pp. 403-417.
46. Clark, H. H. and Marshall, C. R. (1981), “Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge,” In Elements of Discourse Understanding, Aravind J, Webber BL, Sag IA(eds). Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 10-63.
47. Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986), “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design,” Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 554-571.
48. Harem, T., G. V. Krogh, and Roos, J. (1996), “Knowledge-Based Strategic Change,” In Georg Von Krogh and Roos Johan, Managing Knowledge-Perspectives On Cooperation and Competition, SAGE Publications.
49. Huang, J. J., G. H. Tzeng, and Ong, C.S. (2005), “Multidimensional Data in Multidimensional Scaling Using the Analytic Network Process,” Pattern Recognition Letters, Vol. 26, pp. 755-767.
50. Jain, R. (1977), “A Procedure for Multiple-Aspect Decision Making Using Fuzzy Set,” International Journal of Systems Science, Vol. 8, pp. 1-7.
51. Kim, K. and Park, K. S. (1990), “Ranking Fuzzy Numbers with Index of Optimism,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 35, pp. 143-150.
52. Kinosita, E. (2003), “From AHP to ANP,” Operations Research of Japan, Vol.
48, No. 9, pp. 677-683.
53. Korpela, J., Antti, Lehmusvaara and Nisonen, J. (2007), “Warehouse Operator Selection by Combining AHP and DEA methodologies,” International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 108, pp. 135-142.
54. Kostova, T. (1999), “Transnational Transfer of Strategic Organizational Practices: A Contextual Perspective,” Academy of Management Review, Vol.
24, No. 2, pp. 308-324.
55. Lee, A. R. (1995), “Application of Modified Fuzzy AHP Method to Analyze Bolting Sequence of Structural Joints,” Doctoral Dissertation, Lehigh University, U.S.A.
56. Lee, E. S. and Li, R. J. (1988), “Comparison of Fuzzy Numbers Based on the
Applications, Vol. 15, No. 10, pp. 887-896.
57. Madhavan, R. and Grover, R. (1998), “From Embedded Knowledge to Embodied Knowledge: New Product Development as Knowledge Management,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 1-12.
58. Mansfield, E. (1982), “Technology Transfer Productivity and Economic Policy,” W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
59. Martin, M. J. C. (1984), “Managing Technological Innovation and Enterepreneurship,” Reston, Virginia: Reston Publishing Company, Inc.
60. Mikhailov, L. and Singh, M.G. (2003), “Fuzzy Analytic Network Process and its Application to the Development of Decision Support Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 33-41.
61. Mohanty, R. P., R. Agarwal, A. K. Choudhury, and Tiwari, M. K. (2005), “A Fuzzy ANP-Based Approach to R&D Project Selection: A Case Study,”
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43, No. 24, pp. 5199-5216.
62. Murray, T. J., L. L. Pipino, and Gigch, J. P. (1985), “A Pilot Study of Fuzzy Set Modification of Delphi,” Human Systems Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.
76-80.
63. Nonaka, I. (1994), “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation,” Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 14-37.
64. Ounjian and Carne, (1987), “A Study of the Factors which Affect Technology Transfer in Multilocation Multilbusiness Unit Corporation,” IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, EM-Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 194-201.
65. Papows, J. (1999), “Enterprise.com: Market Leadership in the Information Age,” Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing.
66. Pedrycz, W. (1994), “Why Triangular Membership Function?,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 64, pp. 21-30.
67. Phillis, Y.A. and Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L.A. (2001), “Sustainability: An Ill-defined Concept and Its Assessment Using Fuzzy Logic,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 435-456.
68. Promentilla, M. A. B., T. Furuichi, K. Ishii, and Tanikawa, N. (2007), “A Fuzzy Analytic Network Process for Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Contaminated Site Remedial Countermeasures,” Journal of Environmental
69. Runkler, T. A. (1997), “Selection of Appropriate Defuzzification Methods Using Application Specific Properties,” IEEE Transactions of Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 5, No, 1, pp. 72-79.
70. Ruoning, X. and Xiaoyan, Z. (1992), “Extensions of the Analytic Hierarchy Procss in Fuzzy Environment,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 52, pp. 251-257.
71. Saaty, R. W. (2003), “Decision Making In Complex Environments: A Tutorial for the SuperDecisions Software,” Creative Decisions Foundation.
72. Saaty, T. L. (1977), “A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structure,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 234-281.
73. Saaty, T. L. (1980), “The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” McGraw-Hill.
74. Saaty, T. L. (1996), “Decision Making With Dependence And Feedback－The Analytic Network Process,” RWS Publication.
75. Saaty, T. L. and Takizawa, M. (1986), “Dependence and Independence: From Linear Hierarchies to Nonlinear Networks,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 26, pp. 229-237.
76. Shedian, E. H. (1985), “Organizational Culture and Leadership,” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Senge.
77. Silvert W. (2000), “Fuzzy Indices of Environmental Conditions,” Ecological Modelling, Vol. 130, pp. 111-119.
78. Simonin, B. L. (1999), “Ambiguity and the Process of Knowledge Transfer in Strategic Alliances,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 595-623.
79. Szulanski, G. (1996), “Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
17, pp. 27-43.
80. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1995), “Architecture of Knowledge Structures and Cognitive Diagnosis: A statistical Pattern Recognition and Classification Approach,” In P.
D. Nichols, S. F. Chipman, & R. L. Brennan (Eds.), Cognitively Diagnostics Assessment, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 327-359.
81. Teng, J. Y. and Tezng, G. H. (1993), “Transportation Investment Project Selection with Fuzzy Multi-objectives,” Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 91-112.
82. Wang, H. F. (2004), “Multicriteria Decision Analysis－From Certainty to
83. Warfield, J. N. (1974a), “Toward Interpretation of Complex Structural Modeling,” IEEE Transportation Systems Man Cybernet, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp.
405-417.
84. Warfield, J. N. (1974b), “Developing Interconnection Matrices in Structural Modeling,” IEEE Transportation Systems Man Cybernet, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.
81-87.
85. Warfield, J. N. (1976), “Societal Systems Planning, Policy and Complexity,”
New York: Wiley.
86. Wilderman, L. (1998), “Alliances and Network：The Next Generation,”
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 15, pp. 96-108.
87. Wind, Y. and Saaty, T. L. (1980), “Marketing Applications of The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Management Science, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 641-657.
88. Wu, W. W. and Lee, Y. T. (2007), “Selecting Knowledge Management Strategies by Using the Analytic Network Process,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32, pp. 841-847.
89. Yeh, C. H. and Deng, H. (2004), “A Practical Approach to Fuzzy Utilities Comparison in Fuzzy Multicriteria Analysis,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 35, pp. 179-194.
90. Yu, J. R. and Cheng, S. J. (2007), “An Integrated Approach for Deriving Priorities in Analytic Network Process,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 180, pp. 1427-1432.
91. Zadeh, L. A. (1965), “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control, Vol. 8, pp.
338-353.
92. Zadeh, L. A. (1973), “The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning,” New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
附錄一 ISM 專家問卷
敬啟者鈞鑒：
本問卷是一份學術研究調查，主要是探討企業採購設備的交易過程中，影響設備基 礎知識的移轉之關鍵因素，並建構
企業與供應商知識交付之智價模式
，使採購案更順利 的完成。本研究前一階段應用群體決策之方式篩選出15 個關鍵因素，本階段將利用詮 釋結構模式(ISM)決定準則與準則間是否有關係的存在。希望您能夠參與我們此一研究，透過您的協助，將能使我們對企業採購設備之知識 移轉上更加深入的了解。您的參與將是本研究成功的關鍵，期望您能撥冗回答，協助本 研究順利進行。您所提供之資料，僅供學術研究之用，我們會絕對保密，不會轉作他用，
請您依實際感受放心填答，最後感謝您的合作。
敬祝
身體健康 萬事如意
中華大學科技管理研究所 指導教授：鄧維兆 博士 研 究 生：林芷郁 敬上 電話：03-5876504
E-mail：m09403007@chu.edu.tw 中華民國九十六年四月
【評估項目說明】
本研究進行智價模式之建置時，主要考量五個構面，構面下共包含十五個準則，。
茲就每個評估準則的意義說明如下。
1、溝通協調
(1) 溝通頻率：賣方對溝通頻率安排之合適性。
(2) 溝通方式：賣方對溝通方式選用之效用性。
2、技術經驗
(1) 技術能力：賣方在技術能力之勝任性。
(2) 配合意願：賣方在技術上配合意願之程度。
(3) 經驗：賣方在技術之相關經驗之完備性。
3、關係特質
(1) 信任：賣方會以信任基礎進行企業交易。
(2) 風險共享：賣方具備風險共享之共識。
(3) 承諾：賣方會提供買方相關承諾。
(4) 長期關係：賣方具備長期合作關係建立意願。
(5) 配合度：賣方對買方意見之全力配合度
4、知識能力
(1) 教育訓練：賣方在教育訓練課程安排之周全性。
(2) 技術手冊與說明書：賣方在技術手冊與說明書內容敘述之完整性。
(3) 資訊交換平台：賣方在資訊交換平台提供之便利性。
5、售後服務
(1) 技術支援服務：賣方在售後技術支援服務之勝任性。
(2) 諮商服務：賣方在售後諮商服務之便捷性。
【填寫問卷範例】
若您認為，賣方在配合意願的程度(準則 X)上會影響到賣方對溝通頻率安排的合適 性(準則 Y)，則勾選此項 X→Y，如表 1 所示。
a. 無影響：X 和 Y 沒有影響關係。
b. X→Y：X 影響 Y。
c. Y→X：Y 影響 X。
d. X↔Y：X 和 Y 是相互影響。
表1、影響關係之範例
【問卷內容】
一、請依現實情況判斷準則X 是否會影響準則 Y。請在適當的□內打9。
準則間之影響關係 準則X 準則Y
無影響 X→Y Y→X X↔Y
配合意願 溝通頻率 □ 5 □ □
準則間之影響關係 準則X 準則Y
無影響 X→Y Y→X X↔Y
溝通方式 □ □ □ □
技術能力 □ □ □ □
配合意願 □ □ □ □
經驗 □ □ □ □
信任 □ □ □ □
風險共享 □ □ □ □
承諾 □ □ □ □
長期關係 □ □ □ □
配合度 □ □ □ □
教育訓練 □ □ □ □
技術手冊與說明書 □ □ □ □
資訊交換平台 □ □ □ □
技術支援服務 □ □ □ □
溝通頻率
諮商服務 □ □ □ □