| 研究生: |
林展慶 Lin, Cheng-ching |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱: |
德菲法與模糊邏輯知識整合模式於軍事課程績效評估之研究 The Evaluation of the Military Training Courses with Delphi and Fuzzy Method |
| 指導教授: |
李昇暾
Li, Sheng-tun |
| 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: | 2008 |
| 畢業學年度: | 96 |
| 語文別: | 中文 |
| 論文頁數: | 73 |
| 中文關鍵詞: | 軍事課程 、績效評估 、德菲法 、模糊理論 |
| 外文關鍵詞: | Achievements Appraisal, Delphi Method, Fuzzy Theory, Military Courses |
| 相關次數: | 點閱:84 下載:2 |
| 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 |
現代化的軍事教育為國防戰力提升的基本要件,其成功與否除了關係到軍隊幹部素質以及專業學能優劣外,更直接影響到建軍備戰的成敗。若以一般民間學術院校評量方法,使用財務、校地面積等等一般性指標來評量非營利組織型態的軍事院校,將無法完整掌握其關鍵核心資訊、並難以針對教育績效產生正確的評估。
在尚未有效的評估不同班隊之課程前,教學資源未能有效利用,容易造成教學時數浪費,教學器材損耗率平白增加的狀況。特別是在義務役役期近年來大幅縮短為一年,以及國軍精實案及精進案之裁員制度持續推動下,造成班隊接訓更為頻繁,且人力素質要求日益增高。舊式的班隊課程內容組成方式並不能合乎於目前部隊的使用狀況。兵科學校面臨必須在最短的訓期內,有效的將教學資源分配於每個課程,才能達到兵科學校教育之目標。本研究首先將使用德菲法,請教五位專家訪談後歸納出可有效評估課程優劣的屬性,再透過模糊理論(fuzzy theory)所建構出的專家意見整合模式,將其應用在兵科學校課程績效評估方面,以此模型彙整專家意見,期能提供管理者更為有效之課程組合。
Modernized military education is the basic for the national defense power promotion. Its success or not relates not only the army cadre quality as well as specialized study, but also directly affects the success or failure which founds an armed force preparing for war. We can’t use general index just like finance, school area and so on to comment the nonprofit organization : military school. Or we will not handle the core of its information, could not focus on the education achievements.
Before we appraisal the courses of the military classes effectively , the resource of education could not be used very well. It usually leads to the waste of teaching hours and the detrition of equipments. Especially under the situation of compulsory military service time today has reduced to one years. And the downsizing of our army in recent years goes on and on. The composition of our old-style class courses becomes hard to fit this situation today. Military schools are forced to allocate the teaching resources to all courses in pretty short training period. The research begins with the Delphi method. By consulting the five experts who are good at military education and serve in artillery school for many years, we could induce the attributes for the curriculums appraisal. Then we continue with the expert advice conformity model, which is constructed by the fuzzy theory. We use this model to the application in the military school curriculum achievements appraisal, and collect the entire experts' advice by this model to help managers make decision more efficiently.
[1] Ben-Arieh, D., & Chen, Z. (2006). Linguistic-labels aggregation and consensus measure for autocratic decision making using group recommendations , IEEE trans. On Syst., Man and Cybernetics part A: systems and Humans, 36, 558-568.
[2] Benke, R. L., & Hermanson, R. H. (1994). Accounting Education-part 2. Management Accounting, 72.
[3] Bolongaro & Gianni (1994). Delphi technique can work for new product development. Marketing News, 28(12), 32-34.
[4] Barletta, R. (1991). An introduction to case-based reasoning. AI Expert, 6, 42-49.
[5] Bradley, P. A. (1994). Case-based Reasoning: Business Applications. Knowledge Engineering Systems, 37(3), 40-42.
[6] Chu, A. T. W., Kalaba, R. E., & Spingarn, K. (1979). A Comparison of Two Methods for Determining the Weights of Belonging to Fuzzy Sets. Journal of Optimization Theory and Application, 27(4), 531-538.
[7] Cunningham P., & Bonzano A. (1999). Knowledge engineering issues in developing a case-based reasoning. Knowledge-Based Systems, 12, 371-379.
[8] Leake, D. B., Kinley, A., & Wilson, D. (1995). Learning to Improve Case Adaptation by Introspective Reasoning and CBR. 1st International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning.
[9] Edmond, R. R. (1979). Effective School for the Uran Poor Educational Leadership, 37, 15-27.
[10] Fan, Z. J., Jiang, Ma. Y., Sun, Y., & Ma, L. (2006) A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and fuzzy reference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 174, 311-321.
[11] Fritz H. (1993). Case-Base Reasoning Applying Past Experience to New Problems. Information Systems Management, Spring.
[12] Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. E. (1986). The social context of effective schools.American Journal of Education, 94, 328-355.
[13] Herrera-Viedma, E., Martinez, L., Mata, F., & Chiclana, F. (2005) A consensus support system model for group decision-making problems with multigranular linguistic preference relations, IEEE trans. on fuzzy systems, 13, 644-658.
[14] Herrear, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Verdegay, J. L. (1996) Direct approach in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,79, 175-190.
[15] Hwang, C. L., & Lin, M. J. (1987). Group decision making under multiple criteria –methods and applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 169-174.
[16] Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, New York, 1-7.
[17] Lee, H. S. (2002). Optimal consensus of fuzzy opinions under group decision making environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 132, 303-315.
[18] Li, S. T., & Ho, H. F. (2007). Fuzzy Rating Framework for Knowledge Management, The third International Conference on Intelligent Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing proceeding, IEEE press, 2, 601-604.
[19] Maher, M. L., Balachandran, M. B., & Zhang, D. M. (1995). Case-based Reasoning in Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 58-64,
[20] Riesbeck, C., & Schank, R. (1989). Inside Case-based reasoning. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[21] Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill Company, New York.
[22] Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal , 27, 623-656.
[23] Tsabadze, T. (2006). A method for fuzzy aggregation based on group expert evaluations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157, 1346-1361.
[24] William, M. G., & Paul W. T. (1961). Training in Busines sand Indusery, New York: Mcgaw Book co., 12.
[26] Wilson B. L., & Corcoran, T. B. (1988). Successful secondary schools-visions of excellence in American public education. Philadelphia:The Falmer.
[27] 張火燦,1988,”企業訓練與發展的概念性模式建立”,就業與訓練,第6卷,第1 期,頁65-70。
[28] 李建華,1996,”從平衡計分卡理論談會計教育績效指標之釐清”,會計研究月刊, 第163期,頁33-36。
[29] 吳璣玲,2001,”企業倫理規範教育訓練對員工企業倫理行為之影響-以銀行業為例”,逢甲大學企業管理研究所,碩士論文。
[30] 林素真,1987,”德爾菲技巧應用於垃圾掩埋廠址之評估體系建立與權重分配”,中國土木工程學會75年年會論文集。
[31] 周齊武、杜榮瑞、顏信輝,2000,”我國會計系教學績效評量之研究”,會計研究月刊,第170期,頁113-122。
[32] 唐研理,1999,”德爾菲法應用於廠址評選之研究-以花蓮縣北區垃圾焚化爐為例”,國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所,碩士論文。
[33] 洪維賢,1997,人力資源管理與發展,台中:國彰。
[34] 梅興邦,2001,”資料包絡分析法應用於軍事院校系(所)辦學成效評估之研究-以國防大學國防管理學院為例”,國防大學國防管理學院資源管理研究所,碩士論文。
[35] 張瓊玲,1993,”人力資源培訓理論的探討”,人事月刊,第1卷,第5期,頁52-57。
[36] 黃英忠,1993,產業訓練論,台北:三民。
[37] 楊承亮,1995,”國軍基礎院校教育評鑑制度之研究”,國防管理學報,第十六卷第一期,頁1-9。
[38] 廖冠力,2001,”以平衡計分卡來探討績效衡量指標-以國立成功大學學生事務處為例”,國立成功大學工業管理研究所,碩士論文。