系統識別號 U0026-0812200914295423
論文名稱(中文) 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
論文名稱(英文) The Evaluation of the Military Training Courses with Delphi and Fuzzy Method
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 工業與資訊管理學系專班
系所名稱(英) Department of Industrial and Information Management (on the job class)
學年度 96
學期 2
出版年 97
研究生(中文) 林展慶
研究生(英文) Cheng-ching Lin
電子信箱 R3794108@mail.ncku.edu.tw
學號 R3794108
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 73頁
口試委員 口試委員-張秀雲
中文關鍵字 軍事課程  績效評估  德菲法  模糊理論 
英文關鍵字 Achievements Appraisal  Delphi Method  Fuzzy Theory  Military Courses 
中文摘要 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。
英文摘要 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.
論文目次 表目錄 vii
圖目錄 ix
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 2
第三節 研究架構 3
第二章 文獻回顧 4
第一節 軍事課程評估屬性 4
一、教育與訓練之差異 4
二、軍事訓練相關屬性 5
三、國軍軍事教育評量現況 10
第二節 模糊邏輯知識整合模式 11
一、模式概述 11
二、群體決策 12
第三節 教育績效評估 13
第四節 準則權重計算法 15
第三章 研究方法 18
第一節 德菲法 18
一、德菲法特徵 18
二、德菲法主要步驟 19
第二節 模糊邏輯知識整合模式 20
一、模式簡介 20
二、模式流程 21
第四章 案例介紹 27
第一節 組織任務 27
第二節 組織願景 28
第三節 研究範圍 28
第五章 實證結果分析 30
第一節 德菲法問卷調查與結果分析 30
一、德菲法問卷設計 31
二、德菲法問卷發放與回收 31
三、德菲法問卷分析之說明 32
四、德菲法問卷調查結果分析 33
第二節 模糊邏輯知識整合模式實證分析 34
一、流程一:專家知識萃取 34
二、流程二:以一致性檢驗知識品質 44
三、流程三:群體意見最佳化 45
四、研究分析 49
第六章 結論與未來研究方向 61
第一節 研究結論 61
第二節 研究限制 61
第三節 未來研究方向 62
參考文獻 64
附錄 67
參考文獻 [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。
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-08-20起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-08-20起公開。

  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館