摘 要
本研究使用成對比較的概念來設計問卷，取代以往對單一方案採五點量表的評分方式，並針對限制形式之KR模式，包含分群方法及模擬最大概似(Maximum Simulated Likelihood，MSL)模式、巢式羅機模式以及選擇彈性等三種定位方法來探討國道客運公司於高雄-台北路線上市場定位的狀況，並將結果繪圖以便於說明並討論。三種研究方法的結果如下：

(1) 限制形式之KR模式可指定為不同維度之模式，研究結果發現，指定維度為2時使用MSL模式來校估參數所需之變數較分群方法為少，校估較容易且解釋能力亦較佳；而指定維度為3時去探討定位可以更清楚地找出個體對客運公司之品味差異，但利用三個二維座標之位置圖較不容易看出客運公司定位的狀況。

(2) 以巢式羅機模式來對國道客運市場定位可較嚴密地找出客運公司間某種程度的相關，進而探討其相近之競爭狀況。

(3) 由於國道客運市場競爭激烈，以票價來競爭並不會取得絕對之優勢，故必須考慮所有可能影響其營運好壞之因素。而使用選擇彈性之方法時猜想票價感受度變數可能包含其餘服務品質變數之因素，故僅以票價感受度變數之彈性來探討市場結構，而未考慮所有指定變數，所以可能會無法完全解釋其競爭的情況。

In this reaearch, we considered the concepts of pairwise comparisons to construct a
questionnaire instead of facing a alternative by Likert 5-point scale. We used three position methods, the restricted version of KR model (including the clustering method and Maximum Simulated Likelihood(MSL) model), nested multinomial logit model and choice elasticitity to discuss the intercity bus market position situation between Kaohsiung-Taipei route, and showed the results by map. The results of three method are shown as follows:

1. The restricted version of KR model could be designated by different dimensions. The results of this method showed that we needed fewer variables when using 2-dimension MSL model, and it was also easier to estimate and the explanatory power was better than using the clustering method. When using 3-dimension model, we could find the taste variations clearly among the individual toward the intercity bus passenger company, but it was not easy to observe the position.

2. Positioning the intercity bus market by nested multinomial logit model could find out the correlation strictly between the intercity bus passenger company, and discussed the competitive situation.

3. Due to the high competition of intercity bus market, no one had the absolute advantage of price competition, we must consider all the factors that affected the benefits of companies. When using the choice elasticitity, we supposed that the consciousness of price variable may contain all the other variables of service quality, and only used one variable to analyze the market structure without considering all variables. Therefore, it could never explain the competition completely.

1.宋蓓娜，「網際網路消費市場區隔與定位策略之研究－以台灣地區消費市場為例」，國立政治大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文，民國88年8月。
2.施鴻志、段良雄、凌瑞賢，「都市交通計劃－理論、實務」，茂昌圖書有限公司，民國73年9月。
3.徐偉智，「消費者態度對意圖影響之研究」，私立淡江大學管理科學研究所碩士論文，民國89年6月。
4.許昭琮，「城際間個體運具選擇模式之研究」，國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文，民國74年6月。
5.曾鵬庭，「以旅運者行為探討中長程國道客運市場之行銷契機」，國立交通大學運輸工程與管理研究所碩士論文，民國90年6月。
6.趙國婷，「國道客運車輛下層空間設置臥舖或座位顧客接受之研究」，國立交通大學交通運輸研究所碩士論文，民國90年6月。
7.鄧振源、曾國雄，「層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用」，中國統計學報，27卷6期，頁5-22。
8.Aaker, D.A. and Shansby, G.J. (1982), Positioning Your Product, Business Horizons, May-June, 1982, pp.56-62.
9.Chintagunta, P.K. (1994), “Heterogeneous Logit Model Implications for Brand Positioning,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31, pp.304-311.
10.Curtis, F. A. (1981), “Work Trip Travel Demand Modelling in Kingston Township, Ontario, Canada,” Transportation Planning and Technology, 7, pp.11-19.
11.Elrod, T. (1988), “Choice Map：Inferring A Product-Market Map from Panel Data,” Marketing Science, 7, pp. 21-40.
12.Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1986), Comsumer Behavior, ed., Dryden Press, pp.120.
13.Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978), “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research：Issues and Outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5, pp.103-123.
14.Harker, Patrick T. (1987), “Alternative Modes of Questioning in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,”Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 353-360.
15.Harker, Patrick T. (1987), “Incomplete Pairwise Comparisons in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Mathematical Modelling, 9(11), 837-848.
16.Kamakura, W.A. and Russell, G.J. (1989), “A Probabilistic Choice Model for Market Segmentation and Elasticity Structure,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26, pp. 379-390.
17.Kaul, A. and Rao, V.R. (1995), “Research for product positioning and design decisions：An integrative review,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, pp.293-320.
18.Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management：Analysis , Planning , Implementation and Control, 9th ed., New Jersey , Prentice Hall.
19.Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1982), Positioning：The Battle for Your Mind, New York：Warner Book.
20.Saaty, T. and Hu, G (1998), “Ranking by Eigenvector Versus Other Methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Appl. Math. Lett, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 121-125.
21.Takeda, E. and Yu, P. (1995), “Assessing priority weights from subsets of pairwise comparisons in multiple criteria optimization problems,” European Journal of Operational Research 86, pp.315-331.
22.Wind, Y. (1977), “The Perception of the Firm’s Competitive Position,” in Behavioral Models of Market Analysis：Foundations for Marketing Action, F. M. Nicosia and Y. Wind, eds. Hinsdale, Illinois: Dryden Press.