本研究擬發展一考慮本土化維修資源管理訓練成效評估之量測工具，以迅速有效反應MRM訓練的成效。本研究之問卷以Taylor&Thomas(2001) 的訓練成效評估問卷為基礎，同時針對潘義鉦(民92年)之研究發現國籍維修人員在文化習性上之差異問題加以補充與修正以及加入開放性問題建立本研究問卷。問卷調查分訓練前、訓練後一星期內與訓練六個月後三階段實施，藉以觀察受訓者在訓練前後的行為轉移及態度的改變，俾能充分瞭解該訓練的成效及其受益性。研究對象為四家國籍航空公司、二家民用航空維修廠與飛安基金會訓練課程之受訓人員。三階段共發出1795份，有效回收率為56.66％。經由因素分析、變異數分析 (ANOVA)、多變量變異數分析(MANOVA)及典型相關(Canonical Correlation)等統計分析方法驗證分析後結論如下:
1. MRM訓練成效與持續性只有「信任主管安全之執行力」較佳，團隊合作與績效、同仁溝通與信任雖有高度的認同，但訓練後成效仍無法顯出，故應在訓練中加入團隊情境模擬的課程以及定期複訓加強認知。
2. MRM訓練後，準時完工的「工作導向」之比例增加，但值得注意的是對現有安全設備充分信賴及對工作的過度自信之「負面安全態度」，往往是危害安全的因子。
3. MRM訓練後，對於同仁共同組織目標與主管決策下達方面由信任轉為壓力，回報系統的設置由溝通轉為壓力亦發現國人較無責任分擔的觀念。壓力認知的想法分歧尤其是壓力表現，而時間緊迫為主要執行工作的壓力來源。
4. 由MRM訓練後自評結果發現，維修工作進度延後頻率顯著低於訓練前，而受訓人員更加贊同課程會提升航空安全與組員效能，且呈現適度以上的行為改變程度。
5. 國外果斷敢言的研究構面無法顯出，表示對事不對人的作風不被國人接受，且相信懲罰，此文化深植的觀念問題非常困難藉由訓練改善。
6. 未婚、輪班以及無執照狀況之受訓人員在團隊合作與績效、同仁溝通與信任、正負面安全態度的表現持續性不佳、故應加強訓練或縮短複訓間隔。
7. 由相關性研究發現，上對下之信任溝通在訓練後轉變為影響工作之維修績效與負面的安全態度，顯示受訓人員對上的安全信任與互動溝通，雖帶來工作積極表現，然為求表現對自身的安全注意力與敏感度因而降低。
8. MRM訓練課程中最具實用性與對實際工作的改變方面最主要的課程內容為「溝通」。

　　This study is trying to develop a valid toll for Maintenance Resource Management (MRM) training of the localism, which can rapidly and effectively evalulate the training outcome.The questionnaire is developed in accordance with the Taylor & Thomas(2001) tool for evaluating MRM programs. In addition, based on the finding from Yi-Chen Pan(2003),we make some modification and additional questions to take the respondents’(AMT’s) culture shock and inability in adapting training procedure into consideration. The questionnaire is used to survey participants before MRM training, after MRM training in a week, and after MRM training 6 months in viewing AMT’s behavior changing and its effectiveness.The paticipants of the servey come from flag carriers, aircraft maintenance depots and flight safety foundation. And 1017 out of 1795 copies of questionnaires has returned, the vaild statistics techniques (Factor Analysis, ANOVA and MANOVA ect.) the results of this survey include:
1. The effectiveness and persistency of MRM training is better within“Supervisor’s Trust & Safety,” but the effectiveness of trainees are not clear, although they highly agree with“Teamwork and Performance”and“Value Coworker Trust & Communication.”In order to strengthen their understanding, we should add the team-simulated scenario program and retrain regularly.
2. After MRM training, the percentage of finishing job on time increases ,but the over-confindence on the working environment of trainees could be one of the factors to endanger aviation safety.
3. After MRM training, the trust of the trainees in sharing goal with coworkers and supervisor’s decision making will be transferred to pressure. The setting of Aviation Safety Reporting System is also transferred from communication to pressure. As a result, we could find that domestic trainees do not have the sense of sharing responsibility. The understanding of stress is discrepant for domestic MRM trainees, especially in stress expression. Urgent time is the primary working stress while trainees are working.
4. From the self evaluation after MRM training, the progress of maintence is better than it was. And the trainees agree that MRM training can increase aviation safety and crew effectiveness. The change of their behavior is above moderation.
5. Neither is assertiveness in the U.S. accepted by domestic trainees, nor do they believe in encouragement, means they do not accept the culture of confining the discussion to the matter at issue rather than to people. This culture is hard to be changed through training.
6. The trainees who are single, without technical qualification, and who work by shift do not have good persistency on “Teamwork and Performance,” “Value Coworker Trust & Communication,” “Positive Safety Attitude” and “Negative Safety Attitude.” It is necessary to enhance the content of program or shorten the period between trainings.
7. By correlative study,we have discovered that the trust and communication with supervisors are transferred to elements of influencing “Maintenance Performance” and “Negative Safety Attitude.” This reveals that the safety trust to supervisors and inter-communication with supervisors of trainees result in harder working, but the attention and sensitivity of self-safety are decreased.
8. In MRM training, the most practical and the major work-changing program is “Communication”.

中文部分
[1] 王小娥、陸鵬舉、陳啟昭、潘義鉦，「由機師族群探討國籍航空公司組織氣候及安全氣候與組員資源管理間之關聯性」，運輸計劃季刊，第三十二卷，第三期，頁527~560，民國92年。
[2] 行政院飛安委員會網站http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc/_file/2006/html/index_zh_TW.html
[3] 交通部民用航空局飛航標準組，民航通告AC-120-00A，2002/12/28，網站http://www.caa.gov.tw/
[4] 邱宏益，員工培訓成效評估之研究，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所之碩士論文，民國85年。
[5] 吳祉龍，企業營業人員訓練活動之規劃及其成效評估~以X公司為例分析，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所之碩士論文，民國90年。
[6] 林坤茂，以策略性人力資源管理觀點探討組織訓練移轉之成效：以台灣糖業公司為個案分析，東華大學企業管理研究所之碩士論文，民國86年。
[7] 林奕如，變革管理課程訓練成效之評估及影響訓練成效因素之探討，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所之碩士論文，民國89年。
[8] 楊國樞、鄭伯勳，傳統價值觀、個人現代性及組織行為:後儒家假說的一項微觀驗證，民國76年。
[9] 高純如，壓力管理訓練在工廠管理階層者心生反應與自陳工作壓力的立即效應，民89年
[10] 陸鵬舉、王小娥、柯慧貞、景鴻鑫、袁曉峰、戴佐敏，「組員資源管理與企業文化」，航空器飛航安全委員會委計國立成功大學研究發展基金會計畫，民國89年。
[11] 陳順宇，多變量分析，華泰書局，民國87年。
[12] 傅永均，企業教育訓練方案成效評估模式之實驗研究－以燁隆鋼鐵公司為例，私立高雄工學院管理科學研究所之碩士論文，民國83年。
[13] 趙其文，人事行政（全），台北：華視文化，民國84年。
[14] 潘義鉦，國籍航空公司維修資源管理與安全態度及其相關性研究，成功大學航空太空研究所碩士論文，民國92 年。
[15] 戴幼農，訓練成效評核，就業與訓練，頁55~ 59，民國72年。
[16] 簡建忠，訓練評鑑，台北：五南書局，民國83年。
[17] 戴淑媛，中高齡者職業訓練成效評估之研究，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士在職專班，民國90年。

英文部分
[18] ATA(1999),” Maintenance Human Factors Program Guidelines”,
Washington DC: Air Transport Association of America,SP-113, Availiable electronically at http://www.airlines.org/public/publications/display1.asp?id=42
[19] Brinkerhoff, R. O.(1988)，”Achieving Results from Training”， San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers.
[20] Boeing Commercial Airplane Group(1998), Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959-1997.
[21] Boeing Commercial Airplane Group(2002), Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Aircraft Accident-Worldwide Operations 1991-2001.
[22] Federal Aviation Administration (2000),”Maintenance Resource Management Trianing .”(Available electronically at http://www.faa.gov./) Advisory Circular No.120-72.
[23] Goldstein, I. L.(1993),” Training in Organizations : Needs assessment, Development, and Evaluation”，3rd ed.,Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
[24] Hair, J. F.,Anderson R. E., Tatham, R. L.& Black, W. C.(1995).Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings.New York:Macmillian.
[25] International Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO)(2002),Annual Report of the Coucil.
[26] Kirkpatrick, D. L.(1959),”Techniques for Evaluating Training Program”, Training and Development Journal V13(11),pp3- 9.
[27] Mcdonald,N.,Corrigan ,S.,Daly,C.,and Cromis, S.,”Safety Management Systems and Safety Culture in Aircraft Maintenance Organization,”The Journal of Safety Science ,Vol.34,2000,pp.151-176.
[28] Newstorm, J. W.(1978),”The Problems of Incomplete Evaluation of Training”, Training & Development Journal V32, pp.23.
[29] Overall, J. E and Klett, C . J.(1972),Allpied Multivariate Analyis ,McGraw-Hill,New York
[30] Phillips, J. J.(1983),”Handbook of Training Evaluation and Measurement Methods.” Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.
[31] Reason, J. T.(1990),” Human Error”, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press.
[32] S. P. Robbins（1989）, “Organizational Behavior：Concept, Controversies and Application”, Prentice Hall, Inc., pp.86.
[33] Snyder, R. Raben, C.,& Farr J.(1980),”A Model for the Systemic Evaluation Human Resource Development Programs”,Academy Management Review,53,pp.431-444.
[34] Taylor, J. C.(1995), ”Effects of Communication & Participation in Aviation Maintenance,” Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 472-477.
[35] Taylor, J. C., Robertson, M. M., and Choi, S.(1997), “Empirical Results of Maintenance Resource Management Training for Aviation Maintenance Technicians,” Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 1020-1025.
[36] Taylor,J. C.,& Christensen, T (1998).,”Airline Resource Management:
Improving Communication.” Warrendale , PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
[37] Taylor, J. C.(1998), “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Maintenance Resource Management (MRM)“ Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Human Factors in Aircraft Maintenance and Inspection, Gatwick, UK, pp. 85-99.
[38] Taylor , J. C (2000),”A New Model for Measuring Return on Investment (ROI) For Safety Programs in Aviation :An Example from Airline Maintenance Resource Management(MRM)” Proceeding of the 2000 SAE Advances in Aviation Safety Conference, Daytona Beach, FL.
[39] Taylor , J. C and Patankar , M. S.(2000),” Targeted MRM Programs: Setting ROI Goals and Measuring the Results” Proceedings of the SAE Advances in Aviation Safety Conference & Exposition ,Daytona Beach, FL.
[40] Taylor, J. C.& Thomas, R. L.(2001), “Toward Measuring Safety Culture in Aviation Maintenance: The structure of trust and professionalism” Project Report,MRM Research Program ,Engineering School, Santa Clara University .
[41] Taylor, J.C and Patankar, M.S(2001),”Four Generations of Maintenance Resource Management Problems in the U.S.: an Analysis of the Past, Present, and Future”, The Journal of Air Transportation World Wide,Vo1.6,No 2,pp3-32.
[42] Thomas, R. L(2002),” Evaluating MRM Programs: A New Method and Tool “ Alliant University .
[43] Werther, W. B.(1989),“Human Resources and Personnel Management”, New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company.