淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-0208201121163400
中文論文名稱 灰色多目標計畫組合規劃於運輸計畫規劃之研究
英文論文名稱 A Grey Multi-objective Project Portfolio Programming for Transportation Programming
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 運輸管理學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Transportation Management
學年度 99
學期 2
出版年 100
研究生中文姓名 牛紀芸
研究生英文姓名 Ji-Yun Niou
學號 698660031
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2011-07-07
論文頁數 67頁
口試委員 指導教授-溫裕弘
委員-黃寬丞
委員-邱裕鈞
中文關鍵字 運輸計畫規劃  計畫組合管理  灰色多目標整數規劃  灰色TOPSIS 
英文關鍵字 Transportation Programming  Project Portfolio Management  Grey Multi-objective Project Portfolio Programming Model  Grey Numbers 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學管理學
中文摘要 運輸計畫規劃(Transportation programming)是運輸部門進行運輸建設計畫選擇之過程,包括計畫評估、選擇、排程與預算限制,以決策核定之運輸計畫集合。過去相關運輸計畫規劃問題大多假設互斥且獨立之計畫方案,較無計畫組合與綜效之考量,因此,導入計畫組合概念,建構計畫組合規劃模式,可同時考慮多重計畫組合下所衍生之綜效,進行最適計畫組合方案選擇,以滿足計畫組合決策目標並為整體社會得到最大利益,藉此完成政府投資計畫目的,即成為值得研究的議題。
本研究整合灰數建構灰色多目標0-1整數規劃之計畫組合規劃模式,有別於過去計畫規劃問題以個別計畫為規劃對象,本研究計畫組合規劃係以計畫組合為決策對象,並考慮成本、利益以及預算之不確定性,建構灰色多目標0-1整數規劃問題,並應用灰色TOPSIS法求解多目標計畫組合規劃模式之妥協解。本研究以公共工程委員會之大型運輸建設計畫作為實務數值範例假設之基礎,透過數值範例分析驗證本研究模式之可行性;藉由不同目標式權重組合之計畫組合規劃妥協解決策空間可顯示,不同權重組合所代表之兩目標之間的權衡取捨率,亦即可提供較大之決策彈性。透過預算額度與灰色程度之敏感度分析,發現總預算改變對計畫組合規劃結果影響較為明顯,而灰色程度改變之規劃結果則堪稱強固。預算改變即會改變計畫組合結果,隨預算提高,較傾向組合計畫之規劃解。
本研究計畫組合規劃模式係以計畫組合為決策對象,可作為以計畫組合管理進行運輸計畫規劃之規劃模式基礎;整合灰數於規劃模式中,即允許成本、利益及預算輸入值為大概範圍之區間值,有助於規劃者面對並處理不明確規劃條件下,維持規劃結果之變動決策彈性。
英文摘要 Transportation programming, a process of selecting final sets of projects for funding given budget and other constraints, is becoming more complex as a result of new federal laws, local planning regulations, and increased public involvement. This study develops a grey multiobjective project portfolio programming model towards the problem of transportation programming. In contrast with other conventional transportation programming models, a mathematical programming model for choosing optimum portfolios of transportation projects is developed. Maximize the net present worth of project portfolios and the mean-variance criteria are taken into consideration. Since the programming tasks are filled with uncertainties, the parameters (costs, benefits, and budgets) and mean-variance of project period are all designed as grey numbers, which represented the possible ranges other than crisp values. Additionally, a grey TOPSIS approach for solving the proposed model is developed. Finally, a case study with a numerical example demonstrates the feasibility of applying the proposed models. Sensitivity analysis is also discussed. The results of this study verify that the models are practicable, and also provide higher flexibility on decision-making for transportation programming.
論文目次 目錄
中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 v
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 vii
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 3
1.3 研究範圍與限制 4
1.4 研究架構與流程 5
第二章 文獻回顧 8
2.1 運輸計畫評估 8
2.2 計畫組合理論 (PROJECT PORTFOLIO) 12
2.3 運輸計畫規劃問題 17
2.4 小結 23
第三章 模式建構 24
3.1 決策變數與計畫組合定義 24
3.2 計畫成本、利益與風險函數 27
3.2.1成本估計函數 27
3.2.2利益估計函數 29
3.2.3風險函數 32
3.3 數學規劃模式 33
3.4 灰色多目標規劃與求解 35
3.4.4灰色數 35
3.4.5灰色多目標整數規劃求解 37
第四章 模式應用 43
4.1 實例說明 43
4.2 規劃分析 49
4.3 敏感度分析 56
第五章 結論與建議 60
5.1 結論 60
5.2 建議 62
參考文獻 63
附錄一 白數與灰數轉換 67 
表目錄
表2.1 經濟效益與財務效益評估要項(交通建設) 11
表3.1 運輸建設的生命週期成本項目分析 28
表4.1 個別計畫之基本資料 44
表4.2 計畫組合方案及其總成本與總利益 47
表4.3 不同目標式權重之計畫組合選擇結果 53
表4.4 預算額度增減後計畫組合方案規劃結果表 57
表4.5 參數灰色程度改變之計畫組合方案規劃結果表 58
表4.6 計畫組合風險改變之計畫組合方案規劃結果表 59



圖目錄
圖1.1 研究流程圖 6
圖1.2 研究架構圖 7
圖2.1 經濟效益評估流程圖 9
圖2.2 計畫選擇組合架構圖 14
圖3.1 求解流程 39
圖4.1 對應下界值與不同權重下之規劃解決策空間 54
圖4.2 對應上界值與不同權重下之規劃解決策空間 54
圖4.3 對應預估值與不同權重下之規劃解決策空間 55
參考文獻 參考文獻
1. Beaujon, G.J., Marin, S.P., and McDonald, G.C., “Balancing and Optimizing a Portfolio of R&D Projects”, Naval Research Logistics, 48(1), 18-40, 2001
2. C.T. Lin and C.T. Chen, “Bid/no-bid decision-making – a fuzzy linguistic approach”, International Journal of Project Management, pp. 585–593., 2004
3. Cooper, R.G.. , Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1998). Portfolio Management for New Products. Perseus Books.
4. Gage, R. W., & McDowell, B. D., “ISTEA and the role of MPOs in the new transportation environment: A midterm assessment”, Publius, Vol.25, Issue 3, pp133~154, 1995
5. Greenstone, M., “The impacts of environmental regulations on industrial activity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufactures”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.110, Issue 6, pp1175~1219, 2002.
6. Heidenberger, K., Stummer, C., “Research and development project selection and resource allocation: a review of quantitative modeling approaches”, International Journal of Management Review,1(2), 197-224, 1999
7. Humphrey, T., “Summary of findings, issues in statewide transportation planning. Washington”, Transportation Research Board, 1974
8. Kleijnen, P.C., “An overview of the design and analysis of simulation experiments for sensitivity analysis”, European Journal of Operational Research, 164, 287-300. , 2005
9. Kumares C. Sinha & Samuel Labi, “Transportation Decision Making-Principles of Project Evaluation and Programming”, pp.497-523, 2007
10. Lin and Chen, 2004 C.T. Lin and C.T. Chen, Bid/no-bid decision-making – a fuzzy linguistic approach, International Journal of Project Management 22 (2004), pp. 585–593.
11. Loch, C.H., Pich, M.T., Terwiesch, C. and Urbschat, M., “Selecting R&D Projects at BMW: A Case Study of Adopting Mathematical Programming Models” IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 48(1), 70-80, 2001
12. N.P. Archer and F. Ghasemzadeh, “An integrated framework for project portfolio selection”, International Journal of Project Management, pp. 207–216, (1999)
13. Neumann, L. A., Harrison, F., Sinha, K. C., “The Changing Context for Transportation Programming”, Transportation Research Board, 1993
14. Niemeier, D. A., Zabinsky, Z. B., Zeng, Z., & Rutherford, G. S. “Optimization models for transportation project programming process”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 121(1), pp14,1995
15. Onga C.S., Huanga J.J., Tzeng G.H., “A novel hybrid model for portfolio selection”, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vo169, Issue 2, pp 1195-1210, 2005
16. Ron Vreeker and Peter Nijkamp., “Multicriteria evaluation of transport policies”, Handbook of Transport Strategy, Policy and Institutions, pp.507-525, 2005
17. S. Sadi-Nezhad, K. Khalili Damghani, N. Pilevari, “Application of 0-1 Fuzzy Programming in Optimum Project Selection”, 5th International Project Management Conference,pp.335-339, 2010
18. Sharpe, P., Keelin, T., How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. Harvard Business Review (March–April), pp. 45–57, 1998.
19. Sinha, K.C. and Jukins, D.P., “Transportation Project Evaluation and Priority Programming: Techniques and Criteria”, Washington DC: Transportation Research Board,1980
20. Sinha, K.C. and Labi, S., “Transportation Decision Making: Principles of Project Evaluation and Programming”, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2007
21. Sinha, K.C. and Muthusubramanyam, M., “Optimization Approach in Highway Programming and System Analysis,” Transportation Research Record, No. 867, Washington DC: Transportation Research Board,1981
22. Stankeviciene J., Jachimaviceiene I., “A Multi-Objective Project Portfolio Formation Model: Case Study Of Lithuanian Transport Sector”, 6th International Scientific Conference BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT, pp. 230-238, 2010
23. Turshen, I. J., & Wester, K. W., “Allocation of funds to local transportation activities: Goal programming and the Virginia Rideshare Program”, Transportation Journal, Vol.26, Issue 6, pp61–70, 1986
24. United States Congress, “Safe, accountable, flexible, efficient transportation equity act: A legacy for users”, Public Law, pp109~159, 2005
25. Teng, J.Y. and Tzeng, G.H., “A Multiobjective Programming Approach for Selecting Non-independent Transportation Investment Alternatives,” Transportation Research-B, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.291-307,1996
26. Teng, J.Y. and Tzeng, G.H., “Transportation Investment Project Selection Using Fuzzy Multiobjective Programming,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 96, pp.259-280,1998
27. Young, R., “Multimodal investment choice analysis: application of goal programming for selection of transportation projects”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, USA, 2002
28. Zhong, T.,Young R., “Multiple choice knapsack problem:Example of planning choice in transportation,” Evaluation and program planning, Vol. 33, pp. 128-137, 2010
29. 鄧振源(1992),相關性運輸投資計畫選擇之研究-非模糊與模糊多目標規劃方法,國立交通大學交通運輸研究所博士論文
30. 史開泉、吳國威、黃有評(1994),灰色信息關係論,台北,全華科技
31. 行政院公共工程委員會,http://cmdweb.pcc.gov.tw/pccms/pwreport/showpeople_hm99.showhm99
32. 行政院經建會(2008),公共建設計畫經濟效益評估及財務計畫作業手冊(97年版)
33. 李家儂(2003),都會區大中運疏導向發展之規劃模式,台北大學都市計劃研究所碩士
34. 林國顯等(2008),運輸部門中長程計畫審議決策支援系統與整合資料庫建置之研究,交通部運輸研究所
35. 林國顯等(2009),交通建設計畫經濟效益評估作業之研究,交通部運輸研究所
36. 傅立(1996),灰色系統理論及其應用,北京,科學技術文獻
37. 馮正民、邱裕鈞(2004),研究分析方法,新竹,建都文化事業
38. 蕭宜倫(2009),探討運輸政策中不同決策模式之研究-以蘇花高速公路為例,逢甲大學運輸科技與管理學研究所碩士論文
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2011-08-03公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2012-08-03起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信