資源配置最適化二階層線性規劃模型之研究：以科技專案計畫預算分配為例

Resource Allocation Using Bi-Level Linear Programming Model: Example on Technology Development Program of MOEA

10.6378/JTM.200706.0093

楊有恆(Yeou-Herng Yang)；虞孝成(Hsiao-Cheng Yu)；劉宜欣(Yi-Hsin Liu)

資源配置 ； 最適化 ； 二階層線性規劃 ； 科技專案 ； Resource Allocation ； Optimal ； Bi-Level Linear Programming ； MOEA ； Technology Development Program TDP

科技管理學刊

12卷2期（2007 / 06 / 01）

93 - 124

繁體中文

在「資源有限」而「需求無度」的現實環境下，有效的資源分配一直是公民營機構不斷追求的理想。傳統上資源分配的方法多傾向依據專家的主觀經驗來判斷，而衡量指標大部分仍以申請單位過去的績效表現為主，作為資源分配的依據。這種單向思維的分配模式很難達到資源配置最適化之目標。因此，如何突破過去由上而下的單向資源分配思維，建構一套客觀及可量化的「資源配置最適化」模型，來克服因資源配置不當所衍生的相關問題，是值得深入研究的議題。 本研究的目的係在有限的資源條件下，避免資源過度集中，讓資源分配者與被分配者均覺得滿意，使資源配置能發揮最大效益。基此，本研究首先適度修正Fishbein模式，並構建一個預算分配二階層線性規劃模型，再採取「線性規劃法」及「Kth-best法」的求解方式，對經濟部2003年「法人科技專案」之87筆研發計畫進行實證研究，分析結果發現運用二階層線性規劃模型進行預算分配時，可使各產業分別累積的貢獻度達到最大，且可使不同產業的滿意程度落差由40.8%大幅縮減至2.6%。

Due to the fact that precious resource is always limited but the demand for it is unlimited, the optimal allocation of resource is a problem of paramount importance in government or in business. Existing practices of resource allocation are generally based on past performance measures by projects or by organizations. Simple arithmetic average of such performance measures was used to calculate the average unit of resource that an average performer can receive. However, other important criteria should be considered to make resource allocation more objective and more acceptable to resource contenders. Additional resource allocation objectives include: maximizing the overall potential benefits of projects to be funded, minimizing the difference between the highest and the lowest hit rates of resource contending organizations, and selecting projects with strategic importance etc. To formulate a mathematical resource allocation model with the above objectives and constraints is a challenging problem. To solve this type of problems is even a bigger challenge. The mathematical model of bi-level linear programming will be attempted to address this problem. The R&D funding subsidy of Ministry of Economic Affairs' ”Technology Development Program” was used as an example to demonstrate the feasibility of our proposed model formulation and solution algorithms in resource allocation.

1. Chenggen Shi,Guangquan Zhang,Jie Lu(2005).On the definition of linear bilevel programming solution.Applied Mathematics and Computation,160,169-176.
2. Chenggen Shi,Jie Lu,Guangquan Zhang(2005).An extended Kth-best approach for linear bilevel programming.Applied Mathematics and Computation,164,843-855.
3. Fishbein, M.(1975).Attitude Theory and Measurement.New York:John Wiely & Sons.
4. Hart, S. M.(1989).Omaha,University of Nebraska.
5. Economic Analysis of Research Spillovers: Implications for the Advanced Technology Program
6. Khorramshahgol R.,Moustakis V. S.(1988).Delphi Hierarchy Process (DHP): A Methodology for Priority Setting Derived from the Delphi Method and Analytical Hierarchy Process.European Journal of Operations Research,37(3),347-354.
7. Liu Yi-Hsin,Hart Stephen M.(1994).Characterizing an Optimal Solution to the Linear Bi-level Programming Problem.European Journal of Operational Research,73(1),164-166.
8. Liu Yi-Hsin,Thomas H. Spencer(1995).Solving a Bilevel Linear Program When the Inner Decision Maker Controls Few.European Journal of Operational Research,81(3),644-651.
9. OECD(1999).Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology-Towards Best Practices.Paris:
10. Multilevel Optimization
11. 王健全(2000)。科技專案經費分配之優先順序：專家昀觀點。亞太經濟管理評價，4(1)，1-17。
12. 王慶富(1996)。專案管理。台北:聯經出版社。
13. 周妍劭(2004)。專家爲主、指標爲輔－科技專案績效考評作業運作模式。台灣經濟研究月刊，27(1)，27-33。
14. 周霞麗(2004)。九十二年度科技專案執行年報。經濟部技術處。
15. 林欣吾(2002)。一般科專計畫績效評估指標。台灣經濟研究月刊，25(11)，62-71。
16. 高強、高重光(1994)。由資源分配提升多單位組織之整體效率。中山管理評論，2(2)，18-28。
17. 許光華、何文榮(1998)。專案管理－理論與實務。台北:華泰書局。
18. 許榮榕(1995)。系統方法專案管理。台北:天一圖書公司。
19. 黃重球(2004)。2004年科技研究發展專案簡介。經濟部技術處。
20. 顧志遠(1999)。高等教育單位之生產力評估與資源分配整合模式研究。管理與系統，6(3)，347-364。

1. 劉庭豪、馮正民、陳正杰(2015)。應用多目標規劃法於低碳運輸計畫之預算分配。運輸計劃季刊，44(4)，373-400。