臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文以台灣24家生產主機板的廠商為研究對象，探討廠商於1997、1998及1999年之間的經營效率與獲利能力，比較孰優孰劣。我們使用資料包絡分析法（Data Envelopment Analysis）來計算相對效率值，投入項包括：流動資產、固定資產、其他資產、銷貨成本、管銷費用、研發費用及其他費用共七項。產出項包括：主機板銷售額、不含主機板的銷售額及其他收入共三項。其次，以效率/獲利能力矩陣解釋代表經營效率的效率值與代表獲利能力的資產報酬率間之差異，藉以找出經營效率及獲利能力之間的關連性，並對經營效率良好、獲利卻不佳等公司提出改善方式。
本文亦透過兩種方法，協助廠商改善經營效率、增加生產力。使用標竿學習法（Benchmarking）結合DEA法，幫助不具經營效率的廠商得知應從哪方面著手來改善經營效率、增加獲利。其次，我們使用DEA作為挑選合併對象的方法。我們在〝假設合併〞的情況下，使用DEA指出該選擇哪家公司合併，藉以快速提升經營效率、增加生產能力。
研究結果發現，經營具效率的公司大多獲利良好，至於經營效率不佳的廠商，本研究透過與績效優良公司（Best Practice）比較，分析其中差距（Gap），作為不效率公司改善經營效率的努力方向。至於在評選合併公司過程中，DEA亦扮演新的分析角色，來協助決策單位挑選可增加∕維持經營效率的合併對象。

Utilizing Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), this paper examines the relative efficiency of 24 companies over a period of 3 years in the Taiwan computer motherboard industry. The study has indicated how to use DEA to identify individual manufacturing companies that are less efficient than other comparable units in terms of output factors relative to input factors. The study results show that out of a sample of 65 DMUs, 35 were found to be relatively efficient. Simultaneously, we employ efficiency/profitability matrix to explain the difference between efficiency and profitability in these companies.
Furthermore, we utilize the two well-known approaches for corporations to improve their operation efficiency and productivity: Benchmarking and Acquisition/Merger. DEA can identify benchmarking partners who are the best and analyze the inefficiency to improve their efficiency. Furthermore, we use DEA as a tool to find out who is the best candidate to be acquired/merged to get productivity.
We find most efficient companies can have good profitability. For those inefficient and productivity-insufficient companies we also provide the improving way as DEA results show. We believe that such computations hold the potential of becoming a useful tool assisting financial analysts and managers in their routine evaluation of the performance of corporations and industries.

CONTENTS Ⅰ
LIST OF FIGURES Ⅲ
LIST OF TABLES Ⅳ
CH1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION 1
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY 2
1.3 RESEARCH PROCEDURES 3
CH2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 INTRODUCTION OF EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT 5
2.1.1 Definition of Efficiency 5
2.1.2 Comparative Efficiency Measurement 7
2.2 DEA THEORY 12
2.2.1 Historical Background and Philosophy 12
2.2.2 Extension to DEA 14
2.2.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of DEA 18
2.2.4 Future Research Directions and Applications in DEA 19
2.3 APPROACHES FOR EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT 20
2.3.1 The Benchmarking Approach 20
2.3.2 The Merger & Acquisition approach 23
CH3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 26
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN 26
3.2 DEA CALCULATIONS 27
3.2.1 Definition and Selection of DMUs 29
3.2.2 Determination of Input and Output Factors 29
3.2.3 Application of DEA Models 35
3.2.4 About software 36
CH4 OPERATION EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS 37
4.1 CALCULATION OF EFFICIENCY SCORES 37
4.2 LINKING EFFICIENCY AND PROFITABILITY 40
CH5 IMPROVEMENT OF EFFICIENCY AND OPERATION 44
5.1 THE BENCHMARKING APPROACH 44
5.1.1 Inefficiency Analysis 44
5.1.2 Prices Analysis 46
5.1.3 Peer Grouping 48
5.2 THE MERGER & ACQUISITION APPROACH 50
CH6 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 53
6.1 CONCLUSIONS 53
6.2 SUGGESTIONS 54
APPENDIX 56
REFERENCE 60

1. Al-Shammari, M., Optimization modeling for estimating and enhancing relative efficiency with application to industrial companies, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 115, 1999, 488-496.
2. Ali, A. I., Data envelopment analysis: computational issues, Computer, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 14, 1990, 157-165.
3. Ali, A. I., C. S. Lerme and L. M. Seiford, Components of efficiency evaluation in data envelopment analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 80, 1995, 462-473.
4. Ali, A. I., and L. M. Seiford, Translation invariance in data envelopment analysis, Operations Research Letters, Vol. 9, 1990, 403-405.
5. Avkiran, N. K., The evidence on efficiency gains: the role of mergers and the benefits to the public, Journal of Bank & Finance, Vol. 23, 1999, 991-1013.
6. Banker, R. D., “Maximum likelihood, consistency and data envelopment analysis: a statistical foundation, Management Science, Vol. 39, No. 10, 1993, 1265-1273.
7. Banker, R. D., A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper, Some models for estimating technical and scale efficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Management Science, Vol. 30, No. 9, 1984, 1078-1092.
8. Banker, R. D. and R. C. Morey, The use of categorical variable in data envelopment analysis, Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 12, 1986, 1613-1627.
9. Banker, R. D. and R. M. Thrall, Estimation of returns to scale using data envelopment analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 62, 1992, 75-84.
10. Bell, R.A. and R. C. Morey, The search for appropriate benchmarking partners: a macro approach and application to corporate travel management, Omega, International Journal of Management Science. Vol. 22, No. 5, 1994, 477-490.
11. Biesada, A., Benchmarking, Financial World, Vol. 160, No. 19, 1991, 28-32.
12. Boussofiane, A., R.G. Dyson, and E. Thanassoulis, Applied data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 52, 1991, 1-15.
13. Bowlin, W. F., Evaluating the efficiency of US air force real-property maintenance, Journal of Operation Research Society, Vol. 38, No. 2, 1987, 127-135.
14. Bowlin, W. F., A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, and H. D. Sherman, Data envelopment analysis and regression approaches to efficiency estimation and evaluation, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1985, 113-138.
15. Camp, R. C., Benchmarking — the search for industry’s best practices that lead to superior performance, American Society of Quality Control, Milwaukee: Quarterly Press, Vol. 17, 1989.
16. Caves, R. and D. Barton, Efficiency in US manufacturing industry, The MIT Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1990.
17. Chapin, A. and S. Schmidt, Do mergers improve efficiency? Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 33, Part 2, 1999,147-162.
18. Charnes, A., C. T. Clark, W. W. Cooper, and B. Golany, A development study of data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of maintenance units in the US air forces, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 2, 1985, 95-112.
19. Charnes, A. and W. W. Cooper, Programming with linear fractional functionals, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, Vol. 9, 1962, 181-186.
20. Charnes, A. and W. W. Cooper, The non-Archimedean CCR ratio for efficiency analysis: a rejoinder to Boyd and Färe, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 15, 1984, 333-334.
21. Charnes, A. and W. W. Cooper, Preface to topics in data envelopment analysis, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 2, 1985, 59-94.
22. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, A.Y. Lewin and L.M. Seiford, Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology, and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, 1994.
23. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, 1978, 429-444.
24. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through, Management Science, Vol. 27, No. 6, 1981, 668-697.
25. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, Q. L. Wei, and Z. M. Huang, Cone ratio data envelopment analysis and multi-objective programming, International Journal of System Science, Vol.20, No. 7, 1989, 1099-1118.
26. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, and R. M. Thrall, A structure for classifying and characterizing efficiency and inefficiency in data envelopment analysis, Journal of Productivity Analysis, Vol. 2, 1991, 197-237.
27. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, Y. A. Lewin, R. C. Morey, and J. J. Rousseau, Sensitivity and stability analysis in DEA, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 2, 1985, 139-156.
28. Collier, D. A. and J. E. Storbeck, A data envelopment approach to benchmarking in the telecommunications industry. Ohio State Faculty of Management Science Working Paper, Columbus: Ohio State University, 1993.
29. Cook, W. D., M. Kress, and L. M. Seiford, On the use of ordinal data in data envelopment analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 44, No. 2, 1993, 133-140.
30. Dyson, R. G. and E. Thanassoulis, Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 39, No. 6, 1988, 563-576.
31. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and J. Logan, The relative performance of publicly-owned and privately-owned electric utilities, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 26, 1985, 89-106.
32. Farrell, M. J., The measurement of productive efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, Vol.120, 1957, 253-281.
33. Foster, G., Financial Statement Analysis, 2nd, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NY, 1986.
34. Golany, B., and Y. ROLL, An application procedure for DEA, OMEGA, International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1989, 237-250.
35. Hartman, T. E. and J. E. Storbeck, Input congestion in loan operations, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 46-47, 1996, 413-421.
36. Hedley, B., A fundamental approach to strategy development, Long Range Planning, December 1976, 2-11.
37. Jacob, R., How to steal the best idea around, Fortune, 19 October, 1992, 80-83.
38. Lewin, A. Y., R. C. Morey and T. J. Cook, Evaluating the administrative efficiency of Courts, OMEGA, International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1982, 401-411.
39. Morey, R. C., D. F. Fine and S. W. Loree, Comparing the allocative efficiencies of hospitals, Omega, Vol. 18, 1990, 71-83.
40. Murphy, D. J., J. N. Pearson and S. P. Siferd, Evaluating performance of the purchasing department using data envelopment analysis, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 17, 1996, 77-91.
41. Norman, M. and B. Stoker, Data Envelopment Analysis: The Assessment of Performance, Wiley, 1991.
42. Nyhan, R. C. and L. L. Martin, Comparative performance measurement, Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 22, 1999, 348-364.
43. Post, T. and J. Spronk, Performance benchmarking using interactive data development analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 115, 1999, 472-487.
44. Resti, A., Regulation can foster mergers, can mergers foster efficiency? The Italian case, Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 50, 1998, 157-169.
45. Robinson, B. R., Strategic Acquisitions: A Guide to Growing and Enhancing the Value of Your Business, IRWIN, 1995.
46. Schefczyk, M, Industrial benchmarking: a case study of performance analysis techniques, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 32, 1993, 1-11.
47. Seiford, L. M., Data envelopment analysis: the evolution of the state of the art (1978-1995), The Journal of Productivity Analysis, Vol. 7, 1996, 99-137.
48. Seiford, L. M. and J. Zhu, Profitability and marketability of the top 55 US commercial banks, Management Science, Vol. 45, No. 9, 1999, 1270-1288.
49. Sherman, H. D., Hospital efficiency measurement and evaluation: empirical test of a new technique, Med. Care, Vol. 22, 1984, 927.
50. Smith, P., Data envelopment analysis applied to financial statements. OMEGA, International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1990, 131-138.
51. Soteriou, A. and S. A. Zenios, Operations, quality, and profitability in the provision of banking services, Management Science, Vol. 45, No. 9, 1999, 1221-1238.
52. Thanassoulis, E., A comparison of regression analysis and data envelopment analysis as alternative methods for performance assessment, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 44, No. 11, 1993, 1129-1144.
53. Thompson, R. G., L. N. Langemeier, C. T. Lee, E. Lee, and R. M. Thrall, The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2, 1990, 93-108.
54. Thore, S., F. Phillips, T. W. Ruefli, and P. Yue, DEA and the management of the product Cycle: The U.S. computer industry, Computers Operations Researches. Vol. 23, No. 4, 1996, 341-356.
55. Thore, S., G. Kozmetsky and F. Phillips, DEA of financial statements data: The U.S. computer industry, The Journal of Productivity Analysis, Vol. 5, 1994, 229-248.
56. Tofallis, C., Input efficiency profiling: an application to airlines, Computers Operations Researches. Vol. 24, No. 3, 1997, 253-258.
57. Tulip, S., Made to measure, Supply management, Vol. 2, 1997, 18-20.
58. Tulkens, H. and P. V. Eeckau, Non-parametric efficiency, progress and regress measures for panel data: methodological aspects, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 80, 1995, 474-499.
59. Trautwein, F., Merger motives and merger prescriptions. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, 1990, 283-295.
60. Yue, P., Competition Between U.S. and Japanese Electronics Companies, IC Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, 1991.