隨著行動電話業務的蓬勃發展，我國電信業者的競爭亦日漸激烈，不斷地推出各種手機補貼與費率等優惠方案供消費者選擇，其目的無非是想以薄利多銷的方式提高市場占有率，但是由行動電話普及率已破百分之百的情況來看，電信業者要如何維持營收，同時留住既有之客戶，皆是需要予以正視的議題；然而如何利用適當的評估方法量測公司本身與競爭對手之經營績效是否維持在一定的成長水準之上，進而掌握自身之優勢並改正缺失，自然成為現今行動電話業者所關心的課題。
　　過去國外文獻針對電信業者經營績效之評估多是採用生產力來衡量，且大部分探討廠商是否具生產效率與規模報酬，然而這些方法皆需大量數據並搭配相關之衡量指標才能完整地描述各電信業者在營運績效上的表現，以行動電話市場而言，由於業者間競爭激烈導致成本營收相關資料難以取得，因此在相關數據收集不如預期理想的情況下求取各業者之績效表現，難免會令人產生以偏概全之疑慮，然而，由Deng(1982)所提出的灰色系統理論具有處理「數據少、因素多」的特性，可彌補數據資料不足之缺失，因此，本研究欲以灰色關聯分析法對我國自由化後的民營行動電話業者之經營績效做一評估，探討期間為民國87~92年，衡量的電信公司分別為遠傳、台灣大哥大、泛亞、和信、東信，並將各衡量指標分別歸類為投入、產出，以及財務等不同構面，分析過程在於求算各構面指標的權重值與各業者的灰關聯度，之後根據灰關聯度的高低對業者進行排序，並針對各構面間不同之排序，找出國內民營行動電話業者在生產力與財務面績效表現上之優勢或缺失。
　　最後將本研究的結論簡述如下：
1.以指標選取的結果來看，資金靈活調度為影響業者績效好壞之關鍵，亦即在營收有限的情況之下，如何壓低成本以創造出更多利潤為行動電話業者競逐的重點。
2.以財務面績效排序結果來看，單區業者的表現較佳，原因在於財務面首重成本攤提速度，單區業者因受限於經營範圍，在投入較少的情況之下，成本的回收較全區業者來的快。
3.以生產力排序結果來看，全區業者的表現較佳，原因在於生產力首重營收與成本的表現，而在長期經營之下，全區業者具有規模經濟的特性，因此獲利空間較單區業者來的多。
4.經營績效之衡量應同時將生產力與財務納入，方能完整描述行動電話業者之表現。
5.以局部性灰色關聯分析法評估行動電話業者之經營績效為一較正確的做法。

　　With the booming development of mobile telephone services, the competition of Taiwan telecommunications operators is getting fierce gradually. In order to improve the market sharing, the operators provide various schemes for consumers to choose, such as handset subsidy and price rate. Under the circumstances penetration rate has overtaken by 100%, the operators have no choice but to keep their income and retain the consumers. Furthermore, using proper method to measure operators’ performance and to find their strength and weakness is the key point that we discuss.
　　It was common to use productivity to evaluate telecommunications operators’ productive efficiency and return to scale in the past literatures. However, a great deal of data and indicators were required in the past model. As for mobile telephone market, it’s difficult to obtain operators’ income and cost data due to large competition. If we adopt the past method to analyze these insufficient information, we will get a wrong outcome. To make up for insufficient data, grey system theory can deal with small sample size and multi- factor by Deng (1982). In this paper, we apply grey relational analysis to evaluate the performance of Taiwan private telecommunications operators with input, output, and financial aspects during the period of 1998-2003. This method mainly computes indicators’ weighted values and operators’ grey relational degrees, and we can outrank operators in terms of grey relational degrees.
　　The main findings of this research can be summarized as the following. First, the results of representative indicators show that making good use of capital is a key point to affect the operators. Second, in financial aspect, regional operators perform better compared to nation-wide operators. Third, in productivity aspect, nation-wide operators are better than regional operators, which reveals that nation-wide operators possess scope economic in long-run operation. Finally, it should be considered both productivity and financial factors for the purpose of explaining operators’ performance completely.

一、中文文獻
　1.交通部電信總局，交通政策白皮書－電信，民國91年1月。
　2.交通部電信總局，電信總局91年度年報，民國91年。
　3.交通部電信總局，電信總局92年度年報，民國92年。
　4.江金山、吳佩玲、蔣祥第、張廷政、詹福賜、張軒庭、溫坤禮，「灰色理論入門」，高立圖書有限公司，台北市，民國87年1月。
　5.林灼榮、徐啓升、李智隆，「中華電信市內電話經營效率與影響因子分析」，經濟研究，第38卷第2期，頁203-244，民國91年。
　6.林龍樹、吳英明，「電信業務營運目標的訂定與績效的評估」，電信研究雙月刊，第29卷第6期，頁687-703，民國88年12月。
　7.周文生，「灰色關聯分析應用於計程車服務品質績效指標擷取之研究－以台北市品牌無線電計程車為例」，運輸學刊，第14卷第1期，頁87-106，民國91年3月。
　8.張有恆、陳俊魁，「鐵路立體化評估準則與方案選擇之研究－灰色關聯分析法之應用」，運輸計劃季刊，第26卷第2期，頁353-378，民國86年6月。
　9.張清亮、蔡志弘、陳烈，「應用灰關聯分析於供應商評選模式之分析」，機械工業，第238期，頁182-188，民國92年1月。
　10.馮正民、王榮祖，「應用灰色關聯分析於航空運輸業營運與財務績效代表性指標之擷取」，民航季刊，第3卷第1期，頁107-126，民國90年3月。
　11.黃旭男、張保隆、張德儀，「台灣地區國際觀光旅館績效評估之研究－灰色關聯分析與資料包絡分析法應用之比較」，灰色系統理論與應用研討會論文集，頁237-246，民國89年。
　12.楊靜婷，「知識經濟對電信生產力及效率的影響」，國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所，碩士論文，民國92年。
　13.鄧聚龍，「灰色系統理論與應用」，高立圖書有限公司，台北市，民國89年。
　14.盧佳宏，「我國民營行動電話服務業者經營績效之研究」，國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所，碩士論文，民國92年。
　15.顏榮祥、張子明，「整合灰關聯分析與層級分析法在供應商評選之應用研究」，運籌研究集刊，第1期，頁15-42，民國91年6月。
二、英文文獻
　1.Banker, R. D., Chang, H., Janakiraman, S. N. and Konstans, C., “A balanced scorecard analysis of performance metrics”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 154, pp. 423-436, 2004.
　2.Bortolotti, B., D’Souza, J., Fantini, M. and Megginson, W. L., “Privatization and the sources of performance improvement in the global telecommunications industry”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 243-268, 2002.
　3.Chen, C. N. and Ting, S. C., “A study using the grey system theory to evaluate the importance of various service quality factors”, The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19, Issue 6/7, pp. 838-861, 2002.
　4.Choi, S. K., Lee, M. H. and Chung, G. H., “Competition in Korean mobile telecommunications market: business strategy and regulatory environment”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 25, pp. 125-138, 2001.
　5.Deng, J. L., “Control Problem of Grey System”, System and Control Letter, Vol. 1, Issue 5, pp. 228-294, 1982.
　6.Evans, H., Ashworth, G., Gooch, G. and Davies, “Who needs Performance Management?”, Management Accounting, pp. 20-25, 1996.
　7.Feng, C. M. and Wang, R. T., “Considering the financial ratios on the performance evaluation of highway bus industry”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 21, Issue 4, pp. 449-467, 2001.
　8.Feng, C. M. and Wang, R. T., “Performance evaluation for airlines including the consideration of financial ratios”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 6, pp. 133-142, 2000.
　9.Giokas, D. I., and Pentzaropoulos G. C., “Evaluating productive efficiency in telecommunications: evidence from Greece”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 781-794, 2000.
　10.Lee, Y. Y., Park, Y. T. and Oh, H. S., “The impact of competition on the efficiency of pubic enterprise: The case of Korea Telecom”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 423-442, 2000.
　11.Madden, G. and Savage, S. J., “Telecommunications productivity, catch-up and innovation”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 23, pp. 65-81, 1999.
　12.Pentzaropoulos, G. C. and Giokas, D. I., “Comparing the operational efficiency of the main European telecommunications organizations: A quantitative analysis”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 595-606, 2002.
　13.Rushdi, A. A., “Total factor productivity measures for Telstra”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 143-154, 2000.
　14.Sueyoshi, T., “Privatization of Noppon Telegraph and Telephone: Was it a good policy decision?”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 107, pp. 45-61, 1998.
　15.Tam, M. C. Y. and Tummala, V. M. R., “An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system”, Omega, Vol. 29, pp. 171-182, 2001.
　16.Uri, N. D., “The Measurement of the Change in Productivity in Telecommunications”, Telecommunication System, Vol. 20, Issue 3/4, pp. 177-194, 2002.
　17.Uri, N. D., “Measuring productivity change in telecommunications”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 439-452, 2000.
　18.Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V., “Measurement of business performance on strategy research: A comparison of approaches”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 801-814, 1986.
　19.Wang, R. T., Ho, C. T., Feng, C. M. and Yang, Y. K., “A comparative analysis of the operational performance of Taiwan’s major airports”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 10, pp. 353-360, 2004.
　20.Wu, C. H., Hsieh, T. Y., Cheng, W. L. and Lu, S. T., “Grey relational analysis of causes for change orders in highway construction”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 509-520, 2004.6.