新產品開發之供應商的選擇與評量

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：63

、訪客IP：3.135.247.94

姓名

康馨予(Hsin-yu Kang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

新產品開發之供應商的選擇與評量
(A Study On The New Product Development Supplier Selection And Evaluation)

相關論文

★ 全球供應鏈下專業代工夥伴的管理模組與績效評估模組之因果關係的研究-- 以A公司為例	★ 以平衡計分卡的觀念及層級分析法所建立的相連部件供應商篩選模式– 個案研究
★ 接單式生產環境下之物料管控問題的探討 -- 以一牙科用鹵素燈生產業者為研究對象	★ 國際標準品質管理系統共同之關鍵成功因素對組織績效的影響
★ 工業安全衛生研究與探討-以高科技A公司作業流程為例	★ 推行六標準差品質管理系統之研究 -- 以A公司為例
★ 記憶體模組廠商進入小型記憶卡的產業競爭優勢之探討	★ 電子產品製造商成立模具中心之優劣分析—以A公司為研究對象
★ 臺灣筆記型電腦廠商績效分析	★ 設計協同機制導入過程及實施績效探討- 以 A 公司為例
★ JIT交貨看板電子化導入與應用方式之探討--以A公司為研究對象	★ 顧客關係管理關鍵影響因素之研究 - 以S公司為例
★ 供應商端綠色產品管理系統之研究--以國內主要鋁鎂合金件供應商(W科技公司)為例	★ 台灣IP安全監控產業之競爭優勢與策略建構-以A公司IP監控產品為例
★ 探討ERP系統導入後之組織績效－以A公司為對象分析	★ 拉式生產模式的物料管理資訊系統導入--以A公司為例

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

新產品開發即為知識創造的過程(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)，且新產品開發研究亦已證實廠商在新產品開發過程中整合供應商，將可有效提升新產品開發績效。因此，廠商如何評選出適合的供應商，並將其整合於新產品開發專案中，實屬實務界極欲迫切了解之議題。
本研究根據文獻探討與前測問卷分析之結果，建構新產品開發之供應商的選擇與評量模式。同時，運用Saaty 於1971年所提出之分析層級程序法(analytic hierarchy process, AHP)分析新產品開發之供應商的選擇與評量模式中，各項評量構面與評量指標之相對權重值與重要性排序。並藉由模擬新產品開發供應商選擇情境，驗證本研究所提出之新產品開發供應商的選擇與評量模式於實務中運作之可行性。
研究結果顯示，廠商於選擇與評量新產品開發供應商時，最重視之評量構面依序為「整合供應商之新產品開發績效」、「整合供應商知識」，以及「廠商與供應商間關係」。傳統用以評量供應商之「供應商基礎評量」構面的相對重要程度反而比其它評量構面低，顯示廠商應以有別於傳統之評量方式進行新產品開發供應商的選擇與評量。在廠商選擇與評量新產品開發供應商之前十一大關鍵評量指標依序為「增進新產品品質」、「降低新產品開發成本」、「雙方共同解決問題」、「雙方之溝通強度」、「加快新產品開發流程」、「促進新產品創新度」、「提升開發新產品之技術能力」、「廠商與供應商間合作夥伴關係之持續性」、「廠商與供應商間彼此之信任」、「廠商與供應商間彼此維持關係之承諾」、「廠商與供應商間之技術互補性」。同時，根據驗證結果顯示，本研究所建立之評量模式是可於實務中運作的。

摘要(英)

New product development is knowledge-creating process (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 2005). Previous researches have confirmed integrating supplier has positive influence to new product development (NPD) performance. As a result, one important issue that arises is how to select and evaluate the right new product development supplier to integrate into the new product development project.
This study reviews the relative literatures on the subject of supplier selection, and bases on the analysis result of the questionnaire survey to build up the selection model of the new product development supplier. Then use Satty’s analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method to analyze the relative weight and the important rank of the dimensions and factors. We also simulate the selective situation of the new product development supplier to test the validity and performance of the model.
The research finds that the most important dimensions of selecting and evaluating new product development supplier are: the new product development performance of integrating supplier, Buyer-supplier relationships, and Integrating supplier’s knowledge. The relative importance of the traditional supplier selection dimension is lower than the other dimensions. The study’s findings suggest that manufacturer should use the new way to select and evaluate the new product development supplier. The results also shows that the top eleven factors domination new product development supplier are: enhance new product quality, reduce development cost of the new product, buyer and supplier could solve problem mutually, buyer-supplier’s mutual communication, quicker new product development processes, increase innovation of the new product, greater technological improvements, the collaborative relationship between buyer and supplier, mutual trust, mutual promise, and complementary skill between the buyer and supplier. Result also shows that the proposed selection and evaluation model can evaluate very correctly. Manufacturers can use these results to help them better understand the process and criteria for future new product development supplier selection and evaluation.

關鍵字(中)

★ 供應商選擇與評量
★ 新產品開發
★ 整合供應商知識
★ 廠商與供應商間關係
★ 新產品開發績效

關鍵字(英)

★ Supplier selection and evaluation
★ New product development
★ Integrating supplier’s knowledge
★ Buyer-supplier relationships
★ New product development performance.

論文目次

論文提要 IV
目錄 VI
圖目錄 VIII
表目錄 IX
第一章緖論 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究架構 3
第二章文獻探討 6
2.1 供應商評量構面與指標 6
2.2 新產品開發與整合供應商 11
2.2.1 整合供應商與供應商涉入之定義 12
2.2.2 有效整合供應商知識之關鍵因素 13
2.3 廠商與供應商間關係 16
2.4 整合供應商之新產品開發績效 20
第三章研究設計與研究方法 21
3.1 研究設計 21
3.1.1 建立評量模式之步驟 21
3.1.2 新產品開發之供應商的選擇與評量模式 22
3.1.3 評量構面與指標之定義與衡量 24
3.1.4 問卷設計與樣本選擇 30
3.2 資料分析方法與工具 31
3.2.1 資料分析方法 31
3.2.2 資料分析工具 37
第四章研究分析與討論 39
4.1 前測問卷之樣本結構與資料分析 39
4.1.1 前測問卷之樣本結構分析 39
4.1.2 前測問卷資料分析 40
4.2 AHP專家問卷之樣本結構與資料分析 47
4.2.1 AHP專家問卷之樣本結構分析 48
4.2.2 AHP專家問卷資料分析 49
4.3 驗證問卷之樣本結構與資料分析 54
4.3.1 驗證問卷之樣本基本背景分析 54
4.3.2 驗證模式之說明 55
4.3.3 模式驗證之結果 56
4.3.4 本研究之新產品開發供應商評鑑表 58
第五章研究結論與建議 60
5.1 研究結論 60
5.2 研究建議 61
5.2.1 對企業之建議 61
5.2.2 對後續相關研究者之建議 62
參考文獻 63
附錄一前測問卷 68
附錄二 AHP專家問卷 71
附錄三驗證問卷 78

參考文獻

中文部份：
1. 何安邦，2000，『影響供應商涉入角色因素之研究』，國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
2. 吳俊誼，2001，『採購部門參與、供應商選擇標準、供應商發展活動與新產品開發績效關係之研究』，國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
3. 黃延聰、許雅莤，2008，“廠商與供應商間關係、供應商知識整合與新產品開發績效-臺灣資訊科技廠商之個案研究”，商管科技季刊，9(1)，99-135。
4. 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。
5. 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。
6. 蕭文龍，2007，『多變量分析最佳入門實用書：SPSS+LISREL(SEM)』，台北市：碁峰資訊。
英文部份：
1. Anderson, J. C. and Norus, J. A. (1990), “A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships,” Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58.
2. Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1992), “The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 18-34.
3. Arino, A. and de la Torre, J. (1998), “Learning form failure : Towards and evolutionary model of collaborative ventures,” Organization Science, 9(3), 306-325.
4. Bidault, F., Despres, C. and Butler, C. (1998), “The drivers of cooperation between buyers and suppliers for product innovation,” Research Policy, 26(7-8), 719-732.
5. Bonaccorsi, A. and Lipparini, A. (1994), “Strategic Partnerships in New Product Development-an Italian Case Study,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(2), 134-145.
6. Choi, T. Y. and Hartley, J. L. (1996), “An exploration of supplier selection practices across the supply chain,” Journal of Operations Management, 14, 333-343.
7. Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991), “Product development performance- strategy organization, and management in the world auto industry,” Boston (MA): Harvard Business School Press.
8. Dickson, G. W. (1966), “An Analysis of Supplier Selection Systems and Decisions,” Journal of Purchasing, 2(1), 5-17.
9. Dyer, J. H. and Ouchi, W. G. (1993), “Japanese-style partnerships-giving companies a competitive edge,” Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 51-63.
10. Dyer, J. H. and Singh, H. (1998), “The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage,” Academy of Management Revieew, 23(4), 660-679.
11. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Tabrizi, B. N. (1995), “Accelerating adaptive processes: product innovation in the global computer industry,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84-110.
12. Ellram, L. M. (1990), “The supplier selection decision in strategic partnerships,” International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 26(4), 8-14.
13. Gemunden, H. G., Ritter, T. and Heydebreck, P. (1996), “Network configuration and innovation success: an empirical analysis in German high-tech industries,” International Journal Report Marketing, 13, 449-462.
14. Goffin, K., Szwejczewski, M. and New, C. (1997), “Managing suppliers: When fewer can mean more,” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistices Management, 27(7), 422-436.
15. Granovetter, Mark. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
16. Gupta, A.K. and Wilemon, D.L. (1990), “Accelerating the development of technology-based new products,” California Management Review, 32(2), 24-53.
17. Hakansson, H. (1987), Industrial technological development: a network approach, London: Croom Helm.
18. Handfield, R. B., Ragatz, G. L., Petersen, K. J., and Monczka, R. M. (1999), “Involving suppliers in new product development,” California Management Review, 42(1), 59-82.
19. Houshyar, A. and Lyth, D. (1992), “A Systematic Selection Procedure,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, 23(1-4), 173-176.
20. Hsu, C. C., Kannan, V. R., Leong, G. and Tan, K. C. (2006), “Supplier selection construct: Instrument development and validation,” International Journal of Logistics Management, 17(2), 213-239.
21. Imai K, Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. (1984), “Managing the new product development process: How Japanese companies learn and unlearn,” Colloquium on Productivity and Technology, Harvard Business School, March, 27-29.
22. LaBahn, D. W. and Krapfel, R. (2000), “Early supplier involovment in customer new product development: A contingency model of component supplier intentions,” Journal of Business Research, 47(3), 173-190.
23. Lam, P. L. and Chin, K. S. (2005), “Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for conflict management in collaborative new product development,” Industrial Marketing Management, 34(8), 761-772.
24. Langerak, F., Peelen, E. and Nijssen, E. (1999), “A laddering approach to the use of methods and techniques to reduce the cycle time of new-to-the-firm products,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(2), 173-182.
25. Lehmann, D. R. and O’Shaughnessy, J. (1974), “Difference in Attribute Importance for Different Industrial Product,” Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 36-42.
26. Lehmann, D. R. and O’Shaughnessy, J. (1982), “Decision criteria used in buying different categories of products,” Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, spring, 9-14.
27. Liker, J. K., Sobek, D. K., Ward, A. C. and Cristiano, J. J. (1996), “Involving suppliers in product development in the United States and Japan: evidence for set-based concurrent engineering,” IEEE Trans Eng Management, 43(2), 165-178.
28. Mabert, V. A., Muth, J. F. and Schmenner, R. W. (1992), “Collapsing new product development times: six case studies,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(3), 200-212.
29. Maidique M. A., Zirger B. J. (1985), “The new product learning cycle,” Research Policy, 14(8), 299-313.
30. Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
31. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The knowledge creating company, New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Petersen, K. J., Handifield, R. B. and Ragatz, G. L. (2005), “Supplier integration into new product development: Coordinating product, process and supply chain design,” Journal of Operations Management, 23(3-4), 371-388.
33. Pfeffer, T. J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978), The external control of organizations, New York: Harper and Row.
34. Powell, Walter, (1990), “Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
35. Ragatz, G. L., Handield, R. B. and Scannell, T.V. (1997), “Success factors for integrating suppliers into new product development,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3), 190-202.
36. Ring, P. S. and Van de Ven, A. H. (1992), “Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations,” Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), 483-498.
37. Rothwell, R. and Dodgson, M. (1991), “External linkages and innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises,” R&D Management, 21(2), 125-137.
38. Ruyter, K., Moorman, L., and Lemmink, J. (2001), “Antecedents of commitment and trust in customer-supplier relationships in high technology markets,” Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 271-286.
39. Saaty, T. L. (1980), The analytic hierarchy process, New York: McGraw-Hill
40. Saaty, T. L. (1995), Decision Making for Leaders: The analytic hierarchy process for devisions in a complex world, RWS Publications.
41. Sheth, J. N. and Sharma, A. (1997), “Supplier relationships: Emerging issues and challenges,” Industrial Marketing Management, 26(2), 91-100.
42. Spekman, R. E. (1988), “Strategic supplier selection: Understanding long-term buyer,” Business Horizons, 31(4), 75-81.
43. Swink, M. (1999), “Threats to new product manufacturability and the effects of development team integration processes,” Journal of Operations Management, 17(6), 691-709.
44. Takeishi, A. (2001), “Bridging inter-and intra-firm boundaries: Management of supplier involvement in automobile product development,” Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 403-433.
45. Ulrich, D. and Barney J. B. (1984), “Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence, efficiency, and population,” Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 471-481.
46. Uzzi, B. (1997), “Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-67.
47. Walter, A. (2003), “Relationship-specific factors influencing supplier involvement in customer new product development,” Journal of Business Research, 56(9), 721-733.
48. Wasti, S. N. and Liker, J. K. (1997), “Risky business or competitive power? Supplier involvement in Japanese product design,” Journal of Product Innvation Management, 14(5), 337-355.
49. Weber, C. A., Current, J. R. and Benton, W. C. (1991), “Vendor Selection Criteria and Methods,” European Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), 2-18.
50. Williamson, O. (1975), “Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual process,” Journal of Law and Economics, XXII(2), 233-261.
51. Wilson, E. J. (1994), “The relative importance of suppliers selection criteria: A review and update,” International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 30(3), 35-41.

指導教授

何應欽(Ying-chin Ho)

審核日期

2009-7-29

推文