中文摘要
台灣的電子產業是以代工為主的產業型態，由於產業供應鏈分工精細，因此產業上下游緊密合作的夥伴關係亦日趨重要。如何選擇能夠長久合作的夥伴，進而鞏固企業整體的競爭力，價格絕非唯一的考量因素。在提升多重競爭力的面向中，選擇可長遠合作夥伴關係的供應商或代工廠，是維持企業競爭力的一項重要課題。企業在供應商評選的活動中，如何從品質層面向企業決策高層清楚表達客觀的品質成本，使其能更有所依循並做出正確的決策，將更符合企業長遠利益。
本研究係探討並建構出一套基於品質成本分析供應商選擇的客觀評估方式，從品質層面向企業決策高層清楚表達客觀的品質成本，使其能更有所依循並做出正確的決策，以期符合企業長遠利益。我們以美國品質學會(American Society for Quality，ASQ)品質成本的分類為基準，透過問卷設計並收集專家意見，決定企業在供應商選擇活動中，較具代表性與影響力的品質成本項目，再透過層級分析法(Analytic Hierarchy Process，AHP)將品質成本中的預防成本、評鑑成本、內部失效成本與外部失效成本，及其下一階層細項的評估準則求算其權重，並歸納整理出供應商評選方案的權重，作為選擇我們在供應商時的參考。
本研究以台灣一家3C品牌公司的供應商品質成本資料為例，分析其規模、企業文化與品質管理模式迥異的兩家供應商品質成本結構與AHP權重間之關係，作為於品質構面評選其供應商之重要依據。最後，再進行個案公司與兩家供應商分別合作後，其品質績效之實證研究，結果由AHP分析所建議選擇的之供應商，其在案例公司之各項品質指標均優於另外一家供應商。由於本研究係由品質構面所作出的供應商評選，故建議個案公司提出應進一步運用AHP方法，從品質、成本、交期、創新、服務等構面建立供應商評選方式，同時建議A供應商應提高預防成本並降低評鑑成本，B供應商應在維持現有品質水準下，降低其評鑑成本。本研究成果可供同一企業內其他產品線及相關產業之參考。
關鍵字：品質、品質成本、供應商選擇、層級分析法

SUMMARY
This research focused on how to select an appropriate supplier based on quality cost analysis. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are adopted in this research. First, a 2-stage questionnaire survey is conducted for soliciting the opinions from experts in order to select the key quality cost items and construct the hierarchical structure. Then, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is utilized to calculate the weighted value of each quality cost item for suppliers and the appropriate one is further determined based on AHP results. Finally, two suppliers from the case company with different business scale, culture and management style are used as an example for validation. We compare 2 suppliers` quality performance in the case company and explain why supplier B is selected. The research results can provide a useful reference for other product lines in this case company as well as in the related industries.
Keywords: Quality, Cost of Quality, Supplier Selection, Analytic Hierarchy Process
INTRODUCTION
The mainstream type of electronic industry concentrates on contract manufacturing in Taiwan. Due to the specialization and close collaboration in the entire supplier chain, creating a long-term partnership with vendors becomes extremely important. To enhance the company`s competitiveness, price is not the only factor to be considered in the selection of an appropriate ODM (Original Design Manufacturer) as a partner for a 3C (Computing, Communication, Consumer) branding company. From the perspective of enhancing the company`s competitiveness, it becomes an important subject to select an appropriate supplier and further strengthen the mutual relationship and its long-term partnership between each other. In the activities of supplier selection, the decision making based on sound quality cost analysis will meet the long-term benefit for the company.
According to ASQ (American Society of Quality), the quality cost can be divided into four (4) categories, i.e. preventive cost, appraisal cost, internal failure cost and external failure cost. We further determine the important quality cost items in supplier selection based on questionnaire survey and experts` opinions. Then the weighted values of all quality cost items for each layer in AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) are calculated as a guideline for selecting an appropriate supplier.
A 3C company is adopted as an example to analyze its suppliers with different business scales, cultural and quality management styles. We further explain the relationship between quality cost items and their weighted values using AHP. Finally, we compare two suppliers` quality performance in this case company to demonstrate why B supplier should be selected in terms of quality costs in practice.
The research results can provide a useful reference for other product lines in this case company as well as in the related industries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this research, we focus on developing an objective evaluation method based on quality cost analysis. First, we investigate the common process flow of suppliers to acquire the quality cost items according to ASQ principle. Then, a 2-stage questionnaire survey is conducted for soliciting the opinions from experts related to supplier selection and quality management issues. In the first stage of questionnaire survey, Delphi method is utilized to summarize the important quality cost items in order to construct the hierarchical structure. In the second stage of questionnaire survey, we build up the pairwise comparison matrix to calculate the eigenvectors and maximum eigenvalues in order to calculate the consistency ratio (C.R.). Then, the weighted values of all quality cost items for each layer in AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) are calculated to serve as a guideline for selecting an appropriate supplier.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In the first stage of questionnaire survey, the experts get the consensus on the quality cost items after 3 rounds. The hierarchical structure is constructed based on the confirmed quality items. In the second stage of questionnaire survey, 7 out of 11 experts fulfill the consistency ratio (C.R.) so that we further calculate the weighted value of all quality cost items. As a result, the weight of prevention, appraisal, internal failure and external failure cost is 60.0%, 11.8%, 6.9% and 21.4% respectively.
Finally, we use 2 suppliers of the case company as examples. The AHP weight value of supplier B is higher than supplier A. And the Euclidean Distance of supplier B is shorter. In a hence, B supplier is the appropriate supplier to be selected. As for the quality indices of 2 suppliers in the case company, supplier B is better than supplier A.
CONCLUSION
Due to the fact that supplier selection is a critical issue of multi-criteria decision making, we cannot select a supplier by just considering a single criterion. We suggest the case company to establish an appropriate model on vendor selection using both qualitative and quantitative methods. AHP definitely is one of the appropriate methods to be recommended. Regarding supplier A, with insufficient prevention cost, we suggest that supplier A should establish quality assurance organization to develop the quality continuous improvement activities utilizing the tools related to quality prevention, such as QFD (Quality Function Deployment), FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis), etc. Furthermore, there are too many inspectors to maintain the product quality so that the appraisal cost is extremely high, Supplier A should phase in the automatic inspectional tool instead of artificial inspection. Regarding supplier B, the appraisal cost is also high due to exceeded test plan in design phase. We suggest that supplier B should simplify its test plan for better maintaining its current quality level.

一、 中文部分
1. 王銘宗、董玉麟(1999)，品質成本報導制實施現況與品質作業績效相關分析，中國工業工程學會論文集。
2. 李文成、郭書聿、鄭博文(2008)，醫管期刊，Vol.9，No.3。
3. 余天右(2012)，以品質成本作為代工廠評選之研究—以電子業為例，國立台北大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
4. 吳有龍、郭明芳、鍾沛源(2004)，以模糊層級分析法探討遴選供應商之指標，義守大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
5. 吳明哲(2007)，供應鏈系統下供應商評選之研究—以台灣區合成樹脂產業為例，國立成功大學工程管理學系碩士論文。
6. 吳明毅(2002)，跨國企業對供應商選擇之比較，中山大學國際高階經營碩士學程碩士論文。
7. 吳萬益(2011)，企業研究方法 第四版，華泰文化。
8. 林千仁(2000)，供應商選擇標準與供應商發展活動對製造績效影響之研究，國立中央大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
9. 徐燕娟(2008)，以AHP法探討供應商遴選關鍵決定因素權重之研究，國立中央大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
10. 辜宏義(1994)，品質成本制度之規劃與設計─國內製藥廠之個案研究，國立台灣大學會計學系碩士論文。
11. 賀燕紅、朱軍勇、許麗紅、王媛(2005)，供應商選擇方法綜述，中國河北工業科技，第22卷，第5期。
12. 褚志鵬(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。
13. 廖健仲(2004)，少量多樣製造業選擇供應商評估模式之研究—以某航太工業為例，義守大學工業工程與管理學系碩士論文。
14. 潘浙楠(2009)，品質管理理論與實務，華泰文化。
15. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)，分析層級法的內涵特性與應用，中國統計學報27卷第6期，頁5-27。
16. 賴世鐸(2002)，品質成本制度之規劃設計及檢討分析—國內光電業之個案研究，中原大學會計學系碩士論文。
17. 謝玲芬(1989)，多目標多準則評估技術之探討及其在組織績效評估之運用，國立清華大學工業工程學系碩士論文。
18. 饒淑芳(2011)，探討供應商評選準則之品質成本觀點，國立高雄應用科技大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
19. 鐘漢清(1996)，品質成本管理，中華民國品質管制學會。

二、 英文部分
1. American Society of Quality (1967), Quality Cost — What and How
2. Chan, F. T. S., & Kumar, N. (2007). Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega, 35(4), p. 417-431
3. Crosby, P (1979), “Quality is free：The Art of Making Quality Certain, New York : McGraw-Hill.
4. Deming, W.E. (1982), Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, Cambridge：MIT Center for Advanced Engineering
5. Dickson, Gray W (1996), An Analysis of Supplier Selection System and Decision, Journal of Purchasing, Vol. 2, No.1, p. 5-17.
6. Feigenbaum, A.V. (1956), Total Quality Control, Harvard Business Review, 34(6), p. 131-152
7. Feigenbaum, A.V. (1961), Total Quality Control, New York: McGraw-Hill
8. Garvin, D.A. (1984), What Does Product Quality Really Mean? MIT Salon Management Review 26, No.1, p. 25-43
9. Ghodsypour, S.H. (1998), A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 56/57 p. 199-212
10. Juran, J.M. (1951), Quality Control Handbook, New York : McGraw-Hill
11. Juran, J.M. and Lundvall, D.M. (1974), Quality Control Handbook, New York : McGraw-Hill
12. Kane, V. E. (1986), Process capability indices, Journal Quality Technology, 18(1), p. 41-52
13. Lundvall, D.M. (1969), Quality Costs — Friend or foeman, International Conference on Quality Control Proceedings
14. Masser, W.J. (1957), The Quality Manager and Quality Cost, Industrial Quality (October), p. 5-8.
15. Morth, W. Roth, H. and Poston, K. (1987), Measuring, Planning and Controlling Quality Cost, National Association Accountants
16. Noci, G. (1991), Designing Green Vendor Rating Systems for Assessment if Supplier`s Environmental Performance, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 3, No.2, p. 103-114.
17. Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, New York：Free Press
18. Roper-Lowe, G.C. and Sharp, J.A. (1990), The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Application to An Information Technology Decision, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 41, No.1, p. 49-59.
19. Saaty, T. L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York : McGraw-Hill
20. Saaty, T. L. (1986), Axiomatic Foundation of Analytic Hierarchy Process, Management Science Vol. 32, No.7, p. 841-855
21. Saaty, T. L. (1990), Decision Making for Leaders：The Analytical Hierarchy
22. Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Benton, W.C. (1991), Vendor Selection Criteria and Methods, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 50, No.1, p. 2-18.
23. Wilson, E.J. (1994), The Relative Importance of Suppliers Selection Criteria：A Review and Update, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 30, No.3, p. 35-41