全球3C品牌效率之研究

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：44

、訪客IP：3.142.98.147

姓名

翁叔君(Shu-chun Weng) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

全球3C品牌效率之研究

相關論文

★ 二氧化鈦技術生命週期之研究	★ 整體後勤業參與同步工程於產品開發績效關係之研究—以中科院為例
★ 筆記型電腦之IFA/PIFA天線技術生命週期分析	★ 國籍航空公司經營績效分析－以資料包絡分析方法分析
★ 從專利分析看3D IC技術與市場發展	★ 影響企業導入電子發票系統成效之因素探討
★ 影響企業導入數位學習成功因素之探討-以個案公司為例	★ 產品生命週期管理系統導入成功要素之探討--以S科技公司為例--
★ 組織創新能力影響因素研究	★ 製造業閒置資產轉售平台製造業閒置資產轉售平台-以廣達電腦股份有限公司為例
★ 供應商先行者優勢探討-以宸鴻科技為例	★ 團隊領導者創新特質與開放式創新專案關係之研究
★ 從商業生態系統談樞紐者策略-以Apple 與Nokia 為例	★ 個人電腦的競爭與發展策略-以台灣電子產業為例
★ 應用兩階段資料包絡分析法評估高級職業學校之經營績效	★ ERP導入的促進因素:使用者觀點

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]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

由傳統市場一路發展到電子市場，電子產業也由原本的傳統3C擴展出物聯網的概念，在探討這些人們生活中不可或缺的日常生活產品時，是否我們所購買到的產品，它的價格和品質是能呈現同樣比例的上升，或是相類似產品中存在著價格離散，過去研究顯示，因為資訊不對稱，會導致價格離散程度擴大，但在現今這樣資訊流通的時代，是否也存在著我們不可預測的價格和品質不符的狀況，這是我們這個研究中要探討的，我們以品牌為單位，使用美國消費者報導中之資料，評估品牌在產品類別中屬於有效率或是無效率。使用資料包絡法，結合共同邊界理論和窗口分析，探討3C代表產品中，五年來品牌的有無效率程度，和技術進步程度。研究結果顯示品牌效率和技術缺口比率表現好之品牌相似性極高，並說明各產品類別中表現較好的品牌；電視產品類別技術缺口比例逐年提高，代表各品牌技術逐年上升，群體逐漸追上總體效率；各分段趨勢類似於總體趨勢，而區段內之表現好之品牌各有不同。文後提及此研究中的限制和未來研究方向，並對消費者和廠商做進一步的建議。

摘要(英)

When all the way from the traditional market development to the electronic market, the electronics industry has expanded from the original tradition 3C to the concept of Internet of Things (IOT). In exploring these indespensable daily life products, whether we buy into the product, its price and quality are able to show the same percentage rise or similar products exist in price dispersion. Past studies have shown that because of information asymmetry, will lead to the expansion of price dispersion.But in this era of modern flow of information, whether there are the situation does not match the price and quality of our unpredictable, which we want to explore in this study. Our brand for the unit, using the US Consumer Reports in the data, evaluate brands in product categories belong efficient or inefficient. Using Data Envelopment Analysis(DEA), Metafrointer theory and Window theory to discuss on the behalf of 3C products, whether the degree of efficiency of the brand, and the degree of technological progress in five years. The results show that the brand is good efficiency and technical performance of the brand similarity gap ratio is extremely high, and the description of each product category performed better brand; TV product categories gap ratio increased year by year, on behalf of the brand technology increased year by year, the group gradually catch up the overall efficiency; each segment trend similar to the overall trend, but outperformed the sector within the brands are different. After this study mentioned limitations and future research directions, and consumers and manufacturers to make further recommendations.

關鍵字(中)

★ 品牌效率
★ 技術缺口比率
★ 資料包絡法
★ 共同邊界
★ 消費者報導

關鍵字(英)

論文目次

中文摘要………………………………………………………………………………i
英文摘要………………………………………………………………………………ii
誌謝…………………………………………………………………………………...iii
目錄………………………………………………………………………………..…iv
圖目錄..........................................................................................................................v
表目錄.........................................................................................................................vi
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

第三節研究方法..................................................................................................2

第四節研究流程..................................................................................................3

第二章文獻探討.....................................................................................................5

第一節 3C產品定義與特性............................................……………………….5

第二節 3C產業現狀.............................................................................................7

第三節價格效率..................................................................................................9

第四節價格與品質關係相關文獻....................................................................12

第三章研究設計..................................................................................................14

第一節變數選取與資料來源...........................................................................14.

第二節品牌效率架構.............................................…………………………..16

第三節資料包絡分析理論...............................................................................16

第四節共同邊界理論........................................................................................32

第四章實證分析..................................................................................................37

第一節品牌效率................................................................................................37

第二節技術缺口................................................................................................42

第三節規格區別分段........................................................................................46

第五章結論與建議............................................................................................50

第一節研究結論..............................................................................................50

第二節研究建議.............................................................................................51

參考文獻..................................................................................................................52

參考文獻

中文部分
1.尤志育，「中小型企業對大型企業的競爭策略研究─以台灣3C電器零售通路業
2.為例」，國立中山大學管理學院高階經營碩士學程未出版在職專班碩士論文，2009：46-47
3.吳濟華、何柏正，「組織效率與生產力評估」，前程文化，2009
4.林瑞瑜，「3C市場無限寬廣，合縱連橫各顯神通」，台灣通訊雜誌，七月號，2000：22-26
5.孫遜，「資料包絡分析法理論與應用」，楊智文化，2004
6.郝祥麒，「台灣3C通路廠商的經營效率分析─DEA方法之應用」，大同大學，碩士論文，2013
7.陳榮傑，「3C產業通路競合策略個案之探討」，國立中興大學，碩士論文，1986
8.游欣怡，「3C產品特性與經營關鍵」，電子商務報，2004
9.趙盈潔，「3C連鎖體系經營策略之研究」，淡江大學，碩士論文，1999
10.簡嘉宏，「3C產業多重通路─服務品質、滿意度及忠誠度關係之研究」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，2014
11.羅文火，「台灣3C零售店形式之研究」，國立東華大學，碩士論文，1998

英文部分
1. Banker, R. D., & Morey, R. C. (1986). The use of categorical variables in data envelopment analysis. Management science, 32(12), 1613-1627.
2. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis.Management science, 30(9), 1078-1092.
3. .Battese, G. E., & Rao, D. P. (2002). Technology gap, efficiency, and a stochastic metafrontier function. International Journal of Business and Economics, 1(2), 87-93.
4. Battese, G. E., Rao, D. P., & O′Donnell, C. J. (2004). A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 21(1), 91-103.
5. Bodell, R. W., Kerton, R. R., & Schuster, R. W. (1986). Price as a signal of quality: Canada in the international context. Journal of Consumer Policy, 9(4), 431-444.
6. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European journal of operational research, 2(6), 429-444.
7. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1981). Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through. Management science, 27(6), 668-697.
8. Chr. Hjorth-Andersen. (1984). The concept of quality and the efficiency of markets for consumer products. Journal of Consumer Research, 708-718.
9. Curry, D. J., & Faulds, D. J. (1986). Indexing product quality: Issues, theory, and results. Journal of Consumer Research, 134-145.
10. Färe, R., & Primont, D. (2012). Multi-output production and duality: theory and applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
11. Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 253-290.
12. Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 253-290.
13. Faulds, D. J., & Lonial, S. C. (2001). Price-quality relationships of nondurable consumer products: a European and United States perspective. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 3(1), 59-76.
14. Hayami, Y. (1969). Sources of agricultural productivity gap among selected countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(3), 564-575.
15. Jiang, P., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2014). An empirical comparison of market efficiency: Electronic marketplaces vs. traditional retail formats. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 13(2), 98-109.
16. Kamakura, W. A., Ratchford, B. T., & Agrawal, J. (1988). Measuring market efficiency and welfare loss. Journal of Consumer Research, 289-302.
17. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. The journal of political economy, 132-157.
18. Morris, R. T., & Bronson, C. S. (1969). The chaos of competition indicated by Consumer Reports. The Journal of Marketing, 26-34.
19. Nagle, T. (1984). Economic foundations for pricing. Journal of Business, S3-S26.
20. O’Donnell, C. J., Rao, D. P., & Battese, G. E. (2008). Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empirical Economics, 34(2), 231-255.
21. Oxenfeldt, A. R. (1950). Consumer knowledge: Its measurement and extent.The Review of Economics and Statistics, 300-314.
22. Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers′ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of marketing Research, 351-357.
23. Ratchford, B. T. (1980). The value of information for selected appliances.Journal of Marketing Research, 14-25.
24. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. The journal of political economy, 34-55.
25. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404.
26. Schlenker, B. R., Helm, B., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1973). The effects of personality and situational variables on behavioral trust. Journal of personality and social psychology, 25(3), 419.
27. Spence, A. M. (1974). Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening processes (Vol. 143). Harvard Univ Pr.
28. Steenkamp, J. B. E. (1988). The relationship between price and quality in the marketplace. De Economist, 136(4), 491-507.
29. Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. The journal of political economy, 213-225.
30. Tellis, G. J., & Wernerfelt, B. (1987). Competitive price and quality under asymmetric information. Marketing science, 6(3), 240-253.
31. Yamada, Y., & Ackerman, N. (1984). Price‐Quality Correlations in the Japanese Market. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 18(2), 251-265.

指導教授

洪秀婉

審核日期

2015-7-21

推文