| 研究生: |
尹兆鈞 Yin, Chao-Chun |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱: |
應用層級分析程序法建立組裝代工廠評選制度 Applying AHP to Establish a Selection System for Assembly Plants |
| 指導教授: |
王泰裕
Wang, Tai-Yue |
| 學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
| 系所名稱: |
管理學院 - 工業與資訊管理學系碩士在職專班 Department of Industrial and Information Management (on the job class) |
| 論文出版年: | 2021 |
| 畢業學年度: | 109 |
| 語文別: | 中文 |
| 論文頁數: | 61 |
| 中文關鍵詞: | 機車產業 、供應鏈管理 、AHP |
| 外文關鍵詞: | Motorcycle Industry, Supply chain management, AHP |
| 相關次數: | 點閱:119 下載:9 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
在全球化的趨勢和競爭下,為了滿足客戶需求,企業開始思考組裝代工的業務開展,並且也會針對不同的客戶來做組裝代工廠的選擇,組裝代工廠商所提供的產品與相關服務,不論在品質、產品交期、商品價格或彈性,都會影響公司企業因藉由生產製造與物流配送而創造的附加價值,然而當客戶的需求變化越多,也會使得企業的利潤降低、成本增加。因此如何選擇適合的組裝代工廠商對於企業來說相當的重要,本研究主要是以組裝代工廠評選為主,透過了層級分析法之專家問卷調查與訪談後整合群體決策偏好,來做為評選組裝代工廠的準則。
本研究所提出AHP之評估模型可以幫助高階管理者及公司的決策層進行組裝代工廠評選與相關外包策略之參考,該模式的各項構面與影響的因素也可依企業營運之需求與競爭市場環境作調整,評選出最適合個案公司的組裝代工廠策略。
建立一個客觀公正的決策模式,於第一階段的工作是先透過文獻探討,了解機車產業的概況及供應鏈管理的要素因子,接著進行專家的深度訪談,藉由專家訪談確認評估準則是否合宜,並依此來建立層級架構。第二階段再運用AHP專家問卷,計算相關的權重,並依據這些權重排序,期望藉由排序後的評估構面來協助企業能改善組裝代工廠的評選方式。
經由專家問卷及權重排序後建立了一個考慮不同因素的工作選項程序,綜合權重值排序的前五個評估構面依序為合格率、製程能力、交貨速度、供應鏈優化能力、品質不良服務狀況,佔整體的八成左右,對於選擇代工廠有關鍵的影響性。
In order to meet customer needs, companies have to think about the business development of assembly plants due to the current trend toward globalization and competition. A choice of an assembly foundry must also be made for different customers. The products and related services provided by assembly foundry companies will affect the company’s business and the added value created by manufacturing and logistics, regardless of product quality, product delivery, commodity prices, and the degree of flexibility.
However, frequent changes in customer demand lead to lower company profits and increases in costs. Therefore, how to choose a suitable assembly foundry business is very important for companies. This research mainly focuses on the selection of assembly foundries. Expert questionnaire surveys and interviews are administered, and hierarchical analysis methods and integrated group decision-making preferences are considered in order to provide selection guidelines for assembly suppliers.
The AHP evaluation model proposed in this research provide a reference for senior managers and company decision-makers as to the selection of assembly foundries and related outsourcing strategies. The various components of the proposed model and factors being considered can be adjusted according to the needs of the business and the competitive market environment in order to select the most suitable assembly and foundry strategy for each individual company.
中文文獻
仲維清 & 侯強 (2003). 供應商評價指標體系與評價模型研究,數量經濟 技術經濟研究,20(3), 93-97。
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」,初 版,台北市:雙葉書廊。
鄒平 & 袁亦男 (2009),基於EAHP 和GRAP 的供應商選擇,系統工程 理論與實踐,29(3),71-77。
褚志鴻(2009),「層級分析法AHP理論與實作」,國立東華大學企業管理 學系,教學講義,花蓮,台灣。
經濟部 2020 汽機車產業年鑑 工研院 IEK(2020)
英文文獻
Aissaoui, N., Haouari, M., & Hassini, E. (2007). Supplier selection and order lot sizing modeling: A review. Computers & Operations Research, 34(12), 3516-3540.
Barratt, M. (2004). Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management: an international journal.
Bhaskaran, K., & Leung, Y. T. (1997). Manufacturing supply chain modelling and reengineering. Sadhana, 22(2), 165-187.
Bowersox, D. J., Closs, D. J., Cooper, M. B., & Bowersox, J. (2013). Supply Chain Logistics Management, Mc Graw Bill International Edition. New York, NY, USA.
Caliskan-Demirag, O., Chen, Y. F., & Li, J. (2010). Channel coordination under fairness concerns and nonlinear demand. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3), 1321-1326.
Chen, J., Zhang, H., & Sun, Y. (2012). Implementing coordination contracts in a manufacturer Stackelberg dual-channel supply chain. Omega, 40(5), 571-583.
Choi, S., & Messinger, P. R. (2016). The role of fairness in competitive supply chain relationships: An experimental study. European Journal of Operational Research, 251(3), 798-813.
Demirtas, E. A., & Üstün, Ö. (2008). An integrated multiobjective decision making process for supplier selection and order allocation. Omega, 36(1), 76-90.
Erdem, A. S., & Göçen, E. (2012). Development of a decision support system for supplier evaluation and order allocation. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 4927-4937.
Ganeshan, R. (1995). An introduction to supply chain management. http://lcm. csa. iisc. ernet. in/scm/supply_chain_intro. html.
Groom, C. R., Bruno, I. J., Lightfoot, M. P., & Ward, S. C. (2016). The Cambridge structural database. Acta Crystallographica Section B: Structural Science, Crystal Engineering and Materials, 72(2), 171-179.
Haitao Cui, T., Raju, J. S., & Zhang, Z. J. (2007). Fairness and channel coordination. Management Science, 53(8), 1303-1314.
Hamdan, S., & Cheaitou, A. (2017). Supplier selection and order allocation with green criteria: An MCDM and multi-objective optimization approach. Computers & operations research, 81, 282-304.
Ho, T.-H., & Su, X. (2009). Peer-induced fairness in games. American Economic Review, 99(5), 2022-2049.
Humphreys, P., Wong, Y., & Chan, F. (2003). Integrating environmental criteria into the supplier selection process. Journal of Materials processing technology, 138(1-3), 349-356.
Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., & Diabat, A. (2013). Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 355-367.
Kilic, H. S. (2013). An integrated approach for supplier selection in multi-item/multi-supplier environment. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(14-15), 7752-7763.
Lambert, D. M., & Cooper, M. C. (2000). Issues in supply chain management. Industrial marketing management, 29(1), 65-83.
Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998). Supply chain management: implementation issues and research opportunities. The international journal of logistics management, 9(2), 1-20.
Li, L. (2007). Supply Chain Management: Concepts, Techniques and Practices: Enhancing the Value through Collaboration: World scientific publishing company.
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698.
Moschuris, S. J., & Velis, G. F. (2012). Customer Perceptions on Service Satisfaction with Third Party Logistics (3PL) Service. International Journal of Applied Logistics (IJAL), 3(4), 33-47.
Munson, C. L., & Rosenblatt, M. J. (2001). Coordinating a three-level supply chain with quantity discounts. IIE transactions, 33(5), 371-384.
Narus, J. A., & Anderson, J. C. (1996). Rethinking distribution: Adaptive channels. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 112-120.
Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Shakouri, H., Javadi, B., & Keramati, A. (2013). Supplier selection and order allocation problem using a two-phase fuzzy multi-objective linear programming. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(22), 9308-9323.
PrasannaVenkatesan, S., & Goh, M. (2016). Multi-objective supplier selection and order allocation under disruption risk. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 95, 124-142.
Sawik, T. (2014). Optimization of cost and service level in the presence of supply chain disruption risks: Single vs. multiple sourcing. Computers & operations research, 51, 11-20.
Simatupang, T. M., & Sridharan, R. (2002). The collaborative supply chain. The international journal of logistics management, 13(1), 15-30.
Tang, O., & Musa, S. N. (2011). Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(1), 25-34.
Tavana, M., Fallahpour, A., Di Caprio, D., & Santos-Arteaga, F. J. (2016). A hybrid intelligent fuzzy predictive model with simulation for supplier evaluation and selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 61, 129-144.
Weber, C. A., & Current, J. R. (1993). A multiobjective approach to vendor selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 68(2), 173-184.
Zhang, F., & Wang, C. (2018). Dynamic pricing strategy and coordination in a dual-channel supply chain considering service value. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 54, 722-742.