智慧製造導入企業作業成效分析之研究

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：26

、訪客IP：18.97.14.91

姓名

蕭淳利(Chun-Li Hsiao) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊管理學系在職專班

論文名稱

智慧製造導入企業作業成效分析之研究
(Research on the Impact of Smart Manufacturing Adoption on Enterprise Operational Performance)

相關論文

★ 航班地勤作業人力需求之研究-基於DQN 在地勤人力調度的應用	★ YMK-FDC：基於對比學習與知識蒸餾之X-Ray晶片瑕疵檢測
★ 以分群法為基礎的對比式學習應用於晶圓製程品質監控	★ 結合 RAG 與 LangGraph 架構提升 LLM 於台灣開放資料平台搜尋效率之研究
★ 時間序列對比學習於晶片製程瑕疵預測	★ 質心優化對比學習於發票內容辨識之研究

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 (2030-6-23以後開放)

摘要(中)

台灣是個兼具勞力密集型產業特性與高度技術能力的地區，產業結構以製造業為主體，是台灣最具代表性之產業之一，於2023年度占整體產業結構32.93%。憑藉長年累積之產業經驗與多元化產品服務，製造業在台灣經濟發展中扮演關鍵角色，是不可或缺之核心產業。自2011年德國提出「工業4.0」概念以來，「智慧製造」逐漸成為全球企業關注的焦點。然觀諸現況，台灣非科技相關之製造業在智慧製造的導入程度仍顯著落後於國際先進企業，這也意味著此類企業正面臨日益嚴峻的轉型壓力與競爭威脅。
生產製造與檢驗為製造業核心流程，資訊若不完整，輕則降低作業效率，重則影響品質追溯與生產力改善，甚至會導致企業遭市場淘汰。本研究旨在探討智慧製造系統之導入對於公司製造部門使用者之滿意度與工作績效之影響，期望藉由實際案例經驗提供其他尚未導入系統之部門參考，作為企業未來推動資訊系統導入與擴展之基礎。本研究透過網路問卷的方式，針對公司內已使用智慧製造系統超過三個月之製造單位員工進行調查，回收有效問卷共計66份，採用統計分析工具SPSS 28.0及Smart PLS 4.0進行資料處理與結構模型分析。研究結果顯示，製造業導入資訊系統時，須充分考量系統與工作任務之適配性，以及使用者對該技術之滿意度等因素，方能有效提升工作績效。本研究結果對於企業在資訊系統投資決策與製造績效管理改善上，提供了實務應用方向與理論支持。

摘要(英)

Taiwan′s manufacturing industry, accounting for 32.93% of the industrial structure in 2023, plays a key role in the nation′s economy by combining labor-intensive characteristics with advanced technologies. Since the introduction of "Industry 4.0" in 2011, smart manufacturing has become a global trend. However, many non-tech-related manufacturers in Taiwan lag in its adoption, facing increasing pressure to transform.
This study investigates the impact of smart manufacturing system implementation on user satisfaction and job performance within a manufacturing department. Using an online survey, data were collected from 66 employees who had used the system for over three months. Analysis was conducted using SPSS 28.0 and Smart PLS 4.0. Results highlight the importance of task-technology fit and user satisfaction in enhancing performance. The findings provide practical insights for enterprises planning system adoption and performance improvement strategies.

關鍵字(中)

★ 智慧製造
★ 工業4.0
★ 任務-科技適配模式
★ 績效
★ 滿意度

關鍵字(英)

★ Smart Manufacturing
★ Industry 4.0
★ Task-Technology Fit
★ Performance
★ Satisfaction

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
致謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 vii
第一章緒論 1
1-1 研究背景 1
1-2 研究動機與目的 5
1-3研究貢獻 6
1-4論文流程與架構 7
第二章文獻探討 8
2-1 智慧製造 8
2-2 任務與科技適配理論 10
2-3資訊系統導入 12
第三章研究方法 14
3-1 智慧製造管理系統 14
3-2 研究模型與假說 17
3-3 操作型定義 23
3-4研究設計 29
第四章資料分析 30
4-1 問卷回收分析 30
4-2 衡量模型 31
4-3 假說驗證 42
第五章結論與建議 46
5-1 研究結果 46
5-2 學術和實務上的意涵 46
5-3 研究限制 48
5-4未來研究方向 49
參考文獻 51
附錄一 54

參考文獻

1. 吳禹澔, et al., 台灣推動智慧製造作法建議與實踐藍圖. 產業管理評論, 2016. 9(1): p. 25-43.
2. 李國瑋, et al., 行動銀行使用意圖之關聯性探討-整合科技接受模式與任務-科技適配模式之觀點. 當代商管論叢, 2017. 2(1): p. 61-86.
3. 許恩得, 吳顯忠, and 王存國, 商業智慧系統導入與公司營運績效. 電子商務學報, 2011. 13(4): p. 895-918.
4. Wang, Y.-H., 企業流程再造與專案制度之實務導入及關鍵成功因素分析. 臺北科技大學工業工程與管理系碩士班學位論文, 2014. 2014: p. 1-63.
5. 劉籹君, 黃興進, and 廖則竣, 決策支援系統使用績效之實證研究: 結合任務-科技適配與資訊系統成功模式. 電子商務學報, 2010. 12(3): p. 407-430.
6. 廖敏季, 林怡君, and 李熙文, 護理交班資訊系統導入暨成效分析: 某區域教學醫院先導研究. 健康促進研究與實務, 2020. 3(1): p. 23-31.
7. Kusiak, A., Smart manufacturing. International journal of production Research, 2018. 56(1-2): p. 508-517.
8. Yang, H., et al., The internet of things for smart manufacturing: A review. IISE transactions, 2019. 51(11): p. 1190-1216.
9. Fang, Y., et al., Digital-twin-based job shop scheduling toward smart manufacturing. IEEE transactions on industrial informatics, 2019. 15(12): p. 6425-6435.
10. Ko, T., J. Lee, and D. Ryu, Blockchain technology and manufacturing industry: Real-time transparency and cost savings. Sustainability, 2018. 10(11): p. 4274.
11. Nagorny, K., et al., Big data analysis in smart manufacturing: A review. International Journal of Communications, Network and System Sciences, 2017. 10(3): p. 31-58.
12. Li, C., et al., Deep reinforcement learning in smart manufacturing: A review and prospects. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 2023. 40: p. 75-101.
13. Liu, Y., et al. A framework for scheduling in cloud manufacturing with deep reinforcement learning. in 2019 IEEE 17th international conference on industrial informatics (INDIN). 2019. IEEE.
14. Goodhue, D.L. and R.L. Thompson, Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS quarterly, 1995: p. 213-236.
15. Sinha, A., et al., Impact of internet of things (IoT) in disaster management: a task-technology fit perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 2019. 283: p. 759-794.
16. 劉有耘, 個人認知負荷對員工之任務科技適配程度之影響-以任務科技適配理論為核心來探討. 2022, 撰者.
17. Gebauer, J. and M. Ginsburg, Exploring the black box of task-technology fit. Communications of the ACM, 2009. 52(1): p. 130-135.
18. 鄭淑華, 結合科技接受模型及任務科技配適度探討護理人員使用社群媒體對工作績效之影響. 中臺科技大學醫療暨健康產業管理系碩士班學位論文, 2018: p. 1-129.
19. Goodhue, D.L., Development and measurement validity of a task‐technology fit instrument for user evaluations of information system. Decision sciences, 1998. 29(1): p. 105-138.
20. DeLone, W.H. and E.R. McLean, Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information systems research, 1992. 3(1): p. 60-95.
21. Lin, H.-Y., P.-Y. Hsu, and P.-H. Ting, ERP systems success: An integration of IS success model and balanced scorecard. Journal o Research and Practice in Information Technology, 2006. 38(3): p. 215-228.
22. Alzahrani, A.I., et al., Modelling digital library success using the DeLone and McLean information system success model. Journal of librarianship and information science, 2019. 51(2): p. 291-306.
23. Ghobakhloo, M. and S.H. Tang, Information system success among manufacturing SMEs: case of developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 2015. 21(4): p. 573-600.
24. Campbell, D.J., Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of management review, 1988. 13(1): p. 40-52.
25. 賴慧敏. Influence of User Expertise, Task Complexity and System Characteristics on Knowledge Seeking Strategy and Task Performance. 2010.
26. Liu, P. and Z. Li, Task complexity: A review and conceptualization framework. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2012. 42(6): p. 553-568.
27. Stock, G.N. and M.V. Tatikonda, External technology integration in product and process development. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2004. 24(7): p. 642-665.
28. Galy, E., C. Downey, and J. Johnson, The effect of using e-learning tools in online and campus-based classrooms on student performance. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 2011. 10(1): p. 209-230.
29. Cho, V., T.E. Cheng, and W.J. Lai, The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Computers & Education, 2009. 53(2): p. 216-227.
30. Hong, W., J.Y. Thong, and K.Y. Tam, The effects of information format and shopping task on consumers′ online shopping behavior: A cognitive fit perspective. Journal of management information systems, 2004. 21(3): p. 149-184.
31. Swanson, E.B., Maintaining IS quality. Information and Software Technology, 1997. 39(12): p. 845-850.
32. Sethi, V., K. Hwang, and C. Pegels, Information technology and organizational performance: A critical evaluation of Computerworld′s index of information systems effectiveness. Information & Management, 1993. 25(4): p. 193-205.
33. DeLone, W.H. and E.R. McLean, The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of management information systems, 2003. 19(4): p. 9-30.
34. Tafti, A., S. Mithas, and M.S. Krishnan, The effect of information technology–enabled flexibility on formation and market value of alliances. Management science, 2013. 59(1): p. 207-225.
35. Hall, C.C., L. Ariss, and A. Todorov, The illusion of knowledge: When more information reduces accuracy and increases confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2007. 103(2): p. 277-290.
36. Baringer, D.K. and J.C. McCroskey, Immediacy in the classroom: Student immediacy. Communication education, 2000. 49(2): p. 178-186.
37. Du, J., et al., Zero latency: Real-time synchronization of BIM data in virtual reality for collaborative decision-making. Automation in construction, 2018. 85: p. 51-64.
38. Jensen, M.L., et al., Technology dominance in complex decision making: The case of aided credibility assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2010. 27(1): p. 175-202.
39. Hla, D. and S.P. Teru, Efficiency of accounting information system and performance measures. International journal of Multidisciplinary and Current research, 2015. 3(2): p. 976-984.
40. Grande, E.U., R.P. Estébanez, and C.M. Colomina, The impact of Accounting Information Systems (AIS) on performance measures: empirical evidence in Spanish SMEs. The international journal of digital accounting research, 2011. 11(1): p. 25-43.
41. Wei, J.-L., 智慧製造垂直系統整合之資產管理殼. 2021, National Central University.
42. Oliver, R.L., A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 1980. 17(4): p. 460-469.
43. Reinig, B.A., Toward an understanding of satisfaction with the process and outcomes of teamwork. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2003. 19(4): p. 65-83.
44. Miranda, S.M. and R.P. Bostrom, Meeting facilitation: process versus content interventions. Journal of Management information systems, 1999. 15(4): p. 89-114.
45. Briggs, R.O., et al., Facilitator-in-a-box: process support applications to help practitioners realize the potential of collaboration technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2013. 29(4): p. 159-194.
46. Bolton, R.N. and K.N. Lemon, A dynamic model of customers’ usage of services: Usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of marketing research, 1999. 36(2): p. 171-186.
47. van de Ridder, J.M., et al., Framing of feedback impacts student’s satisfaction, self-efficacy and performance. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2015. 20: p. 803-816.
48. 王宗鴻, 人格特質, 主管領導風格與人力資源管理措施對工作投入與工作績效之影響. 中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士在職專班學位論文, 2006. 2006: p. 1-87.
49. Yen, Y.-J., 資訊系統特性, 任務特性與電腦自我效能對工作績效的影響. 2002, National Central University.
50. Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric theory—25 years ago and now. Educational Researcher, 1975. 4(10): p. 7-21.
51. Tavakol, M. and R. Dennick, Making sense of Cronbach′s alpha. International journal of medical education, 2011. 2: p. 53.
52. Fornell, C. and D.F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 1981. 18(1): p. 39-50.
53. Hair, J.F., C.M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 2011. 19(2): p. 139-152.
54. Henseler, J., C.M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 2015. 43: p. 115-135.
55. Dormann, C.F., et al., Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography, 2013. 36(1): p. 27-46.
56. Podsakoff, P.M., et al., Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 2003. 88(5): p. 879.
57. Hair Jr, J.F., et al., PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 2017. 1(2): p. 107-123.
58. Efron, B. and R.J. Tibshirani, An introduction to the bootstrap. 1994: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

指導教授

陳以錚葉羅堯(Yi-Cheng Chen Luo-Yao Ye)

審核日期

2025-6-25

推文