题名

提升高雄捷運營運量之研究:多元利害關係人之觀點

并列篇名

A Study of Promoting KMRT’s Performances: The View of Stakeholder

作者

張寧(Ning Chang);蔡雅惠(Ya-Hui Tsai)

关键词

高雄捷運 ; 認知衝突 ; 德菲法 ; 層級分析法 ; 社會判斷理論 ; Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit (KMRT) ; cognitive conflict ; Delphi, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) ; social judgment theory (SJT)

期刊名称

商略學報

卷期/出版年月

8卷1期(2016 / 03 / 01)

页次

55 - 76

内容语文

繁體中文

中文摘要

提升營運量是高雄捷運永續經營之迫切課題。本研究以德菲法在公共政策、經營管理、乘客感受等3個構面中,篩檢出提升高雄捷運營運量之9項重要因素,再利用層級分析法及社會判斷理論評估各構面與因素間之相對權重與函數形式。在4組受測群體分別操作AHP與SJT所獲得的構面權重中,除政府官員在AHP組的權重呈現公共政策略重於經營管理外,其餘各組受測者均最重視乘客感受,其次是經營管理,最後才是公共政策。另外,各受測群體對乘客感受及經營管理兩者與提升運量間的函數形式,均以正相關的比例為最高。而公共政策與提升運量間的函數形式卻以負相關或適中最好的比例最高,顯示多數受測者認為政府的過度介入未必有利於運量提升。

英文摘要

From the beginning of opening, KMRT is suffering from the loss. It has become an urgent issue to improve the performance. This study used Delphi to select nine important decision-making factors about promoting KMRT’s performances in three dimensions−public policy, management, and affection of passengers. Then this study applied analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and social judgment theory (SJT) to get the weights and the function forms for dimensions and factors analysis. AHP and SJT test were applied in four stakeholder groups separately. All groups agree the ranking of weights is affection of passengers, management, and public policy except officers in AHP test, who attach a lightly higher weight to public policy than management. Besides, for all stakeholder groups the highest proportion of function form between management, affection of passengers and KMRT’s performances are positive linear. But the highest proportion of function forms between public policy and performances are negative or inverted U-shaped quadratic. It shows that most of the subjects don’t think the involvement of public policy will improve performance.

主题分类 基礎與應用科學 > 資訊科學
社會科學 > 經濟學
社會科學 > 管理學
参考文献
  1. 任維廉、徐士弘、李偉義、廖宜靖(2007)。新的路邊停車收費設備之使用者接受意向影響因素之探討。都市交通,22(1),1-17。
    連結:
  2. 朱斌妤、黃仟文、翁少白(2008)。以科技接受模式探討即時交通資訊系統之使用意願。電子商務學報,10(1),173-200。
    連結:
  3. 宋鴻麒、黃隆昇(2014)。自行車道結合捷運系統做為高雄城市民眾通勤運具意向之研究。都市與計劃,41(3),229-258。
    連結:
  4. 洪新原、梁定澎、張嘉銘(2005)。科技接受模式之彙總研究。資訊管理學報,12(4),211-234。
    連結:
  5. 張辰秋、徐守德、張學孔(2010)。財務永續導向之都市捷運營運策略。運輸計劃季刊,39(4),413-440。
    連結:
  6. 張高賓、戴嘉南、楊明仁、顏正芳(2006)。國內學齡兒童憂鬱症狀之分析研究。諮商輔導學報,14,64-101。
    連結:
  7. 張寧、汪明生、郭瑞坤(2007)。社會判斷理論對互動管理成果之評估。管理學報,24(2),135-154。
    連結:
  8. 張寧、汪明生、龔慧芳、邱靖蓉(2011)。推廣健保網路承保申報作業之策略:互動管理之應用。管理學報,28(4),309-324。
    連結:
  9. 賴文泰、呂錦隆(2008)。應用涉入理論於運具選擇行為之研究。運輸計劃季刊,37(2),37-262。
    連結:
  10. Tolman, E. C. and Brunswik, E., 1935. The Organism and the Causal Texture of the Environment, Psychological Review, 42(1), 43-77.
  11. 高雄市政府捷運工程局,2013。高雄市議會第1 屆第5 次定期大會市政府以修約方式, 提前移轉高雄捷運公司機電資產以改善經營現況專案報告, 取自http://mtbu.kcg.gov.tw/cht/info/contract_20130807_02.pdf
  12. 謝梅芬,2012。買屋送萬行卡免費搭高捷一年,聯合報, 四月二十四日。取自http://money.udn.com/fund/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=262547
  13. 高雄市政府,2014。103 年高雄捷運定檢 財務首見盈餘及服務安全提升,市政新聞,高雄市政府全球資訊網。取自http://www.kcg.gov.tw/CityNews.aspx?n=F71DD73FAAE3BE82
  14. Brunswik, E., 1943. Organismic Achievement and Environmental Probability, Psychology Review, 50(3), 255-272.
  15. 高雄市政府交通局,2011。100 年統計專題: 台灣地區城市汽機車持有因子之探討,取自http://www.tbkc.gov.tw/census-03.asp
  16. 葛祐豪,2014。去年帳面首見盈餘?高捷:實虧虛盈,自由時報, 二月六日。取自http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/752017
  17. 高雄市政府捷運工程局,2014。財務計畫,高雄市政府捷運局全球資訊網,取自http://mtbu.kcg.gov.tw/cht/project_red_orange_line.php
  18. Anderson, B. F.,Deane, H. D.,Hammond, K. R.,McClelland, G. H.,Shanteau, J. C.(1981).Concepts in Judgment and Decision Research.New York, NY:Praeger Publishers.
  19. Anderson, N. H.(1981).Foundations of Information Integration Theory.New York, NY:Academic press.
  20. Anderson, N. H.(2001).Empirical Direction in Design and Analysis.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  21. Bamberg, S.(2003).How Does Environmental Concern Influence Specific Environmentally Related Behaviors? A New Answer to an Old Question.Journal of Environmental Psychology,23(1),21-32.
  22. Bly, P. H.,Webster, F. V.,Pounds, Susan(1980).Effect of Subsidies on Urban Public Transport.Transportation,9(4),311-331.
  23. Brehmer, B.(Ed.),Joyce, C. R. B.(Ed.)(1988).Human Judgment: The SJT View.New York, NY:North-Holland.
  24. Brinberg, D.,Bumgardner, M.,Daniloski, K.(2007).Understanding Perception of Wood Household Furniture: Application of a Policy Capturing Approach.Forest Products Journal,57(7/8),21-26.
  25. Brunswik, E.(1955).Representative Design and Probabilistic Theory in a Functional Psychology.Psychological Review,62(3),193-217.
  26. Buckley, J. J.(1985).Fuzzy Hierarchical analysis.Fuzzy Sets and Systems,17(3),233-247.
  27. Castellan, N. J.(1973).Comments on the "Lens Model" and Equat ion and the Analysis of Multiple-cue Judgment Tasks.Psychometrika,38(1),87-100.
  28. Cooksey, R. W.(1996).Judgment Analysis: Theory, Methods, and Applications.San Diego ,CA:Academic Press.
  29. Cooksey, R. W.,Freebody, P.(1985).Generalized Multivariate Lens Model Analysis for Complex Human Inference Tasks.Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes,35(1),46-72.
  30. Davis, F. D.(1989).Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.MIS Quarterly,13(3),319-340.
  31. Delp, P.,Thesen, A.,Motiwalla, J.,Seshadri, N.(1977).System Tools for Project Planning.Bloomington, IN:Indiana University.
  32. Dodds, W. B.,Monroe, K. B.(1985).The Effect of Brand and Price Information on Subjective Product Evaluation.Advances in Consumer Research,12(1),85-90.
  33. Fahety, V.(1979).Continuing Social Work Education: Results of a Delphi Survey.Journal of Education for Social Work,15(1),12-19.
  34. Fishoff, B.,Slovic, P.,Lichenstein, S.,Read, S.,Combs, B.(1978).How Safe Is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes towards Technological Risks and Benefits.Policy Science,9(2),127-152.
  35. Ganzach, Y.(2009).Coherence and Correspondence in the Psychological Analysis of Numerical Predictions: How Error-Prone Heuristics Are Replaced by Ecologically Valid Heuristics.Judgment and Decision Making,4(2),175-185.
  36. Gunn, C. A.(1972).Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions.Washtington DC:Taylor and Francis.
  37. Hammond, K. R.(1965).New Directions in Research on Conflict Resolution.Journal of Social Issues,21(3),44-66.
  38. Hammond, K. R.,McCelland, G. H.,Mumpower, J.(1980).Human Judgment and Decision Making: Theories, Methods, and Procedures.New York, NY:Praeger.
  39. Hammond, K. R.,Stewart, T. R.,Brehmer, B.,Steinmann, D. O.(1975).Social Judgment Theory.Human judgment Decision Process,New York, NY:
  40. Hsu, C.,Sandford, B. A.(2007).The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus, Practical Assessment.Research & Evaluation,12(10),1-8.
  41. Hsu, P.,Wu, C.(2007).Adopting GRA and Entropy to Select the Optimal Location for Taiwanese Correctional Facilities.Journal of Grey System,10(3),159-168.
  42. Hursch, C. J.,Hammond, K. R.,Hursch, J. L.(1964).Some Methodological Considerations in Multiple-cue Probability Studies.Psychological Review,71(1),42-60.
  43. Lagnado, D. A.,Newell, B. R.,Kahan, S.,Shanks, D. R.(2006).Insight and Strategy in Multiple-Cue Learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,135(2),162-183.
  44. Liginal, D.,Ow, T. T.(2005).On Policy Capturing With Fuzzy Measures.European Journal of Operational Research,167(2),461-474.
  45. Linstone, H. A.,Turoff, M.(1976).The Delphi Method: Techniques and Application.Technometrics,18(3),363-364.
  46. Mohammed, S.,Ringseis, E.(2001).Cognitive Diversity and Consensus in Group Decision Making: The Role of Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,85(2),310-335.
  47. Moore, M.(1995).Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
  48. Murry J. W.,Hammons, J. O.(1995).Delphi: A Versatile Methodology for Conducting Qualitative Research.The Review of Higher Education,18(4),423-436.
  49. POLICY PC(1991).Judgment Analysis Software-Reference Manual.Albany, NY:Executive Decision Services.
  50. Rappoport, L.(Ed.),Summers, D. A.(Ed.)(1973).Human Judgment and Social Interaction.New York, NY:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  51. Rohrbaugh, J.(1981).Improving the Quality of Group Judgment: Social Judgment Analysis and the Nominal Group Technique.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,28(2),272-288.
  52. Rohrbaugh, J.(1979).Improving the Quality of Group Judgment:Social Judgment Analysis and the Delphi Technique.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,24(1),73-92.
  53. Saaty, T. L.(1980).The Analytic Hierarchy Process.New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.
  54. Saaty, T. L.,Vargas, L. G.(2006).Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks.New York, NY:Springer.
  55. Seong, Y.,Nam, C. S.(2008).Capturing judgment Policy on Customers' Creditworthiness: A Lens Model and SDT Approach.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,38(7/8),593-600.
  56. Slovic, P.,Fischhoff, B.,Lichtenstein, S.(1981).Informing the Public about the Risks from Ionizing Radiation.Health Physic,41(4),589-598.
  57. Stewart, T. R.(1987).The Delphi Technique and Judgmental Forecasting.Climatic Change,11(1/2),97-113.
  58. Stewart, T. R.,Leschine, T. M.(1986).Judgment and Analysis in Oil Spill Risk Assessment.Risk Analysis,6(3),305-315.
  59. Thaler, R.(1985).Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice.Marketing Science,4(3),199-244.
  60. Turoff, M.(1970).The Design of a Policy Delphi.Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2(2),149-171.
  61. Venkatesh, V.,Bala, H.(2008).Te chnology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions.Decision Science,39(2),273-315.
  62. Venkatesh, V.,Davis, F. D.(2000).A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies.Management Science,46(2),186-204.
  63. Venkatesh, V.,Morris, M. G.,Davis, G. B.,Davis, F. D.(2003).User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View.MIS Quarterly,27(3),425-478.
  64. Yin, J.,Rothrock, L.(2006).A Rule-Based Lens Model.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,36(5),499-509.
  65. Zeithaml, V. A.(1988).Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.Journal of Marketing,52(3),2-22.
  66. 李美華譯、Babbie, E.(1998)。社會科學研究方法。台北:時英。
  67. 汪明生(2006)。公共事務管理研究方法。台北:五南。
  68. 高雄捷運公司(2014)。2013 高雄捷運公司年報
  69. 高雄捷運公司(2010)。2009 高雄捷運公司年報
  70. 高雄捷運公司(2011)。2010 高雄捷運公司年報
  71. 張有恆、黃培原(1990)。大眾運輸補貼政策之研究。運輸計畫季刊,19(1),1-26。
  72. 張寧(2005)。互動管理之方法與應用。公共事務評論,6(2),1-24。
  73. 陳怡靜、胡學誠、徐牧群(2010)。共乘媒合網站使用行為之結構化模式分析。資訊管理展望,12(2),149-176。
  74. 陳勁甫、趙韋翔(2009)。結合計畫行為理論、科技接受模式與慣性行為探討運具轉移行為:以涉入程度為干擾變數。中華民國運輸學會九十八年學術論文國際研討會,台北市:
  75. 陳淑娟、郭仕堯(2011)。應用科技接受模式探討悠遊卡使用者之行為意向─以認知風險為干擾變數。都市交通,26(2),28-42。
  76. 楊子葆、溫蓓章(1998)。台灣地區引進輕軌系統之課題探討。都市交通,101/102,50-68。
  77. 溫蓓章、王淑美(1999)。推動街走式輕軌運輸系統之適法課題初探。都市交通,14(4),1-14。
  78. 榮泰生(2011)。Expert Choice 在分析層級程序法(AHP)之應用。台北市:五南。
  79. 趙櫻玲(2008)。台灣發展大眾運輸的新選擇─公車捷運BRT。生活科技教育月刊,41(5),36-48。
  80. 鄭啟瑞(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。長榮大學經營管理系。
  81. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(下)。中國統計學報,27(7),1-20。
  82. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上)。中國統計學報,27(6),5-22。
  83. 賴文泰、李俊賢(2007)。捷運涉入程度與運具選擇行為之關聯性研究。公共事務評論,8(2),1-20。
  84. 謝伯鴻(2005)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。逢甲大學交通工程與管理所。
  85. 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。台北市:雙葉書廊。
被引用次数
  1. 管浩宇,張寧(2021)。需求層級理論之認知分析:以金錢與休閒為例。台灣管理學刊,21(2),61-81。