在風險環境下佈署企業敏捷力關鍵因素之研究

A Study on the Key Factors of Deploying Agility of Enterprise under Risk Environment

蔡忠延(Chung-Yan Tsai)

指導教授 ： 張洝源

國立虎尾科技大學/管理學院/工業工程與管理研究所/碩士(2015年)

摘要

在企業的營運過程中，勢必存在著許多未知的風險因素，若無視風險的存在，輕者會帶來企業的重大損失，重者可能導致企業倒閉。在因應國際化趨勢之同時，製造業之競爭更日益激烈，企業必須提升其敏捷能力，以應付快速變化的市場環境，並同時針對企業營運時可能產生的風險進行提早預防，以降低風險造成的損害。鑒於上述之原因，本研究發展一套針對製造業在面臨風險環境下，提升企業敏捷力之評估模式。
本研究利用模糊德爾菲法(Fuzzy Delphi Method, FDM)篩選風險因素與敏捷力準則，並以分析層級程序法(Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP)計算各因素權重，為考量各風險因素之間的影響關係，再結合決策實驗室分析法(Decision Making Trial and Evaluation,DEMATAL)衡量各因素間之相互影響關係，再導入品質機能展開(Quality Function Deployment, QFD)考量敏捷力準則與風險因素間之關聯性，最後利用灰關聯分析(Grey Relation Analysis, GRA)將風險權重與敏捷力準則整合，以決定敏捷力在風險環境下之權重並加以排序。
本研究選擇一傳統機械加工廠為例，分析該廠於風險環境中，確認重要的風險因素，並篩選與排序需優先強化之敏捷力，以增強製造業之競爭力。本研究分析結果顯示，在風險環境下，考量提升企業敏捷力時，可優先針對「提升領導能力(跨職能部門的管理能力)」、「增進成本效益」、「生產擁有高附加價值，且有品質的產品」進行強化。此結果可提供企業決策者在面臨風險環境時，作為企業提升敏捷力之依據，藉此提升企業之競爭力。

關鍵字

敏捷力 ； 風險 ； 模糊德爾菲法 ； 分析層級程序法 ； 決策實驗室分析法 ； 品質機能展開 ； 灰關聯分析法

並列摘要

In business, unknown risk factors are known to lurk at every turn, and if we ignore the possibility of risks, a significant loss could happen most of time while in serious cases it could lead to a business failure. Competition in the manufacturing industry becomes fiercer by day in response to internalization, enterprises must increase their business agility in order to cope with the rapidly changing market as well as take precautions to prevent any possible risk to reduce the damage it could bring. In view of the above reasons, this study develops an evaluation model of business agility while the manufacturing industry is in the face of risks.
This study uses the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) to select risk factors and business agility criteria, and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine the weight of each risk factor. To take the relationship among risk factors into consideration, this study firstly adopts the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATAL) to examine the mutual influence among risk factors, and then uses the quality function deployment (QFD) to find the correlation between business agility criteria and risk factors, and lastly integrates the weight of risk and business agility using the grey relational analysis (GRA) to determine and sort the weight of agility at risk.
In this study, a conventional manufacturing factory is used as an example to be analyzed; to determine significant risk factors while in the risk environment, and then to select and prioritize the agility needed to be increased in order to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturing industry. According to the analytical results, in order to increase business agility while a company is in the risk environment, it could start with “improving leadership skills (management capability of cross-functional department)”, “enhancing cost-effectiveness”, and “producing high-quality and high-value-added products”. Decision makers in the enterprises can use the results as a basis to increase their business agility in the face of risks in order to enhance competitiveness.

並列關鍵字

Agility ； Risk ； Fuzzy Delphi Method ； Analytic Hierarchy Process ； Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory ； Quality Function Deployment ； Grey Relation Analysis

參考文獻

4.黃瀚德(2013), “食品業供應鏈風險分析”, 虎尾科技大學工業工程與管理研究所，學位論文，pp.1-77.

7.Aqlan, F.,& Lam, S. S.(2015), “A fuzzy-based integrated framework for supply chain risk assessment”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.161, pp.54-63.

8.Atwater,C., Gopalan, R., Lancioni, R., Hunt,J.(2014), “Measuring supply chain risk: Predicting motor carriers’ ability to withstand disruptive environmental change using conjoint analysis”, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol.48, pp.360-378.

9.Bai,C., &Sarkis,J.(2013), “A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical success factors”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.146, No.1, pp.281-292.

10.Chang,A.Y.(2012), “Prioritising the types of manufacturing flexibility in an uncertain environment”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol.50, No.8, pp.2133-2149.