分析層級程序法（Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP）及其一般化的分析網路程序法（Analytic Network Process, ANP）可協助我們了解真實世界並用來解決問題，受到廣泛的重視，並為多準則決策（Multiple Criteria Decision Making, MCDM）的重要一支。本研究提出兩種模型建構流程改善方式，並分別應用於綠色供應鏈策略選擇與穿戴式科技接受程度之分析。
首先，係以產品生命週期管理（Product Lifecycle Management, PLM）概念建構綠色供應鏈策略選擇網路模型，同時強調控制準則之設定，使成對比較之影響評估結果更為精確，由模型推導而得之綠色供應鏈管理策略能更符合組織之環保觀點。接著再以某家台灣知名電子公司為例，解釋該模型之分析應用。因PLM管理概念與組織企業功能相近，使得該模型之分析結果更容易應用於各部門之政策、計畫訂定。
	此外，本研究為了改善ANP模型建構之客觀性，嘗試使用科技接受與使用整合模型（Unified Theory of Adoption and Use of Technology, UTAUT）作為分析模型建構之基礎，該模式廣泛應用於新興科技接受程度之評估且解釋能力較高。接著，再以最近受到各界關注的穿戴式科技為探討對象，評估消費者對於此一新興科技之可能使用意圖及真正使用情況。過去研究多運用統計方法進行UTAUT模型分析，但改用ANP方法能避免一些使用限制，如需符合使用統計方法之基本假設及條件，需取得一定適量之樣本數等。又模型中各變數之顯著性差異分析會因每次蒐集樣本不同而有不同結果，進而無法瞭解所有變數之重要性。
	本研究提出兩種之建構方式皆利用敏感度分析確認模型之穩定性，但以管理概念為基礎之建構方式，未來可思考結合其他數量方法，持續改善因素之間關係之判斷；而以理論模型為基礎之建構方式，可持續探討其他理論模型之轉換可能性，進而提出一套更為客觀且合理之模型轉換流程。

Abstract:
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and its general form, Analytic Network Process (ANP), help decision makers understand real world problems and solve them via a hierarchical or network structure. It has been popular for many business applications and has become an important technique in multiple criteria decision making. This study proposes two kinds of improvement processes of model-structuring and applies them to the selection of the appropriate green supply chain management (GSCM) strategy and the evaluation of consumers’ acceptance of wearable technology.
First, the researcher organized the GSCM strategy-selection network structure according to the product lifecycle management (PLM) concept. Then the importance of control criteria which could make the results of pair-comparisons more precise was stressed and the GSCM strategy which conformed to the environmental perspective kept by the organization was chosen. Then the study selected a leading Taiwanese electronics company to demonstrate how to choose an appropriate GSCM strategy via the proposed model. The analytical results derived from the model can provide suggestions for departments’ policies or programs since the concept of PLM corresponds with their business functions/departments types.
In addition, the Unified Theory of Adoption and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model which is a more robust theory model and used commonly to predict the acceptance of a new technology was utilized to be a basis for an analytical network-framing. Then, wearable technology was taken an example to evaluate customers’ intention to use the products and the level-low, medium and high of actual use of wearable technology in Taiwan. This approach not only improved the model-framing objectivity; but also avoided some limitations which existed in statistical methods including some assumptions, problems with sample sizes and so on. The method used in this study allowed for issues related to inaccurate statistical significance magnitude resulted from different samples which keep users from understanding the importance of each variable to be avoided.
The stability of the above tow model-structuring approaches was confirmed via sensitivity analysis;   however, the first approach which is based on managerial concepts should combine other mathematical techniques to show better judgments in relationship–linking between each factor. The other approach which is based on UTAUT model also continuously examined the feasibility of other theoretical models, and then advanced to a more objective and feasible transferring process.

目  錄
第1章	緒論	1
1.1	研究背景與動機	1
1.2	研究問題與目的	2
1.3	研究內容與流程	4
第2章	文獻探討	7
2.1	模型建構	7
2.2	綠色供應鏈管理	11
2.3	科技接受模型理論發展及其延伸模型	22
2.4	科技接受與使用整合模型	29
2.5	穿戴式科技	31
2.6	小結	33
第3章	研究設計	35
3.1	研究範疇	35
3.2	分析網路程序法	35
3.3	模型建構改善流程	39
第4章	實證分析	49
4.1	綠色供應鏈管理策略挑選	49
4.2	穿戴式科技接受預測	58
第5章	結論與建議	67
5.1	理論意涵	67
5.2	管理意涵	68
5.3	未來研究方向	72
參考文獻	79
附錄A		88
附錄B		94
附錄C		95
附錄D		114

表  目  錄
表2.1	綠色管理觀點的類型	13
表2.2	採取預先因應策略組織挑選供應商考量之質化評估標準與作業衡量	15
表2.3	TRA理論中的核心構面及定義	23
表2.4	TAM2模型兩個過程之新增因素及其定義	26
表2.5	TAM3模型中影響知覺易用性之因素及定義	27
表2.6	UTAUT模型整合之8個理論模型	29
表 3.1	整合AHP方法的應用範疇整理	37
表 3.2	電子業擬定綠色策略需考量之影響構面與影響因素	39
表 3.3	電子業採取綠色供應鏈管理策略的選擇方案	40
表 3.4	持有各種綠色管理觀點組織的特徵	41
表 3.5	UTAUT構面及子構面之定義及理論來源	45
表 4.1	專家背景資料表	52
表 4.2	各集群之權重	54
表 4.3	各因素之優先向量表	54
表 4.4	選擇方案結果分析	55
表 4.5	通過一致性檢定填答者之基本資料	59
表 4.6	10位填答者之集群權重（使用意圖）	59
表 4.7	不同子群體在使用意圖之三個影響構面之優先向量表	61
表 4.8	10位填答者之集群權重（使用行為）	63
表 4.9	不同子群體在使用行為之兩個影響構面之優先向量表	64
表5.1	綠色採購的原則	73
表5.2	促進逆物流活動的6Rs	75


圖  目  錄
圖1.1	研究流程圖	5
圖2.1	理性行為理論模型	22
圖2.2	科技接受模式	24
圖2.3	科技接受模式2	26
圖2.4	科技接受模型3	28
圖2.5	科技接受與使用整合模型	30
圖3.1	ANP方法的步驟	38
圖3.2	綠色供應鏈管理策略挑選模型建構流程圖	44
圖3.3	穿戴式科技接受預測模型	46
圖3.4	穿戴式科技接受預測模型分析步驟	47
圖4.1	綠色供應鏈管理策略挑選模型	53
圖4.2	綠色技能之權重變動正負50%之敏感度分析	56
圖4.3	綠色設計之權重變動正負50%之敏感度分析	56
圖4.4	各群體之使用意圖預測結果	62
圖4.5	「社會影響」之權重變動正負50%之敏感度分析	62
圖4.6	各群體之使用行為預測結果	65
圖4.7	「使用意圖」之權重變動正負50%之敏感度分析	65
圖5.1	四個企業功能之各項活動座標圖	70

Aragones-Beltran, P., Aznar, J., Ferris-Onate, J., & Garcia-Melon, M. (2008). Valuation of urban industrial land: An analytic network process approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 185(1), 322-339.
Aragones-Beltran, P., Chaparro-Gonzalez, F., Pastor-Ferrando, J.P., & Rodriguez-Pozo, F. (2010). An ANP-based approach for the selection of photovoltaic solar power plant investment projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 14(1), 249-264.
Azis, I.J. (2010). Predicting a recovery date from the economic crisis of 2008. Socio-Economic Sciences, 44(3), 122-129.
Azzone, G., & Noci, G. (1998). Seeing ecology and "green" innovations as a source of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(2), 94-111.
Bayazita, O., & Karpakb, B. (2007). An analytical network process-based framework for successful total quality management (TQM): An assessment of Turkish manufacturing industry readiness. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(1), 79–96.
Beamon, B.M. (1999). Designing the green supply chain. Logistics Information Management, 12(4), 332-342. 
Begičević, N., Divjak, B., & Hunjak, T. (2010). Decision-making on prioritization of projects in higher education institutions using the analytic network process approach. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 18(3), 341-364.
Bernhard, W., & Harald, V. (2008). Evaluating sustainable forest management strategies with the Analytic Network Process in a Pressure-State-Response framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(1), 1-10.
Bhat, V.N. (1993). Green marketing begins with green design. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 8(4), 26-31.
Blair, A., Nachtmann, R., Saaty, T.L., & Whitaker, R. (2002). Forecasting the resurgence of the US economy in 2001: an expert judgment approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 36(2), 77-91.
Blair, A., Nachtmann, R., Saaty, T.L., & Whitaker, R. (2010). Forecasting the resurgence of the US economy in 2010: an expert judgment approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 44(3), 114-121.
Bottero, M., & Ferretti, V. (2011). An analytic network process-based approach for location problems: the case of a new waste incinerator plant in the Province of Torino (Italy). Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 17(3-4), 63-84.
Chen, C. (2001). Design for the environment: A quality-based model for green product development. Management Science, 47(2), 250-263.
Chiu, W.Y., Tzeng, G.H., & Li, H.L. (2013). A new hybrid MCDM model combingin DANP with VIKOR to improve e-store business. Knowledge-Based Systems, 37, 48-61.
Chiu, W.Y., Tzeng, G.H., & Li, H.L. (2014). Developing e-store marketing strategies to satisfy customers’ needs using a new hybrid gray relational model. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 13(2), 231-261.
Daellenbach, H.G. (1994). Systems and Decision Making: A Management Science Approach. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Dağdeviren, M., & Eraslan, E. (2008). Priority determination in strategic energy policies in Turkey using analytic network process (ANP) with group decision making. International Journal of Energy Research, 32(11), 1047-1057.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Eden, C. (1994). Cognitvie mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 257-276.
Erdoğmuş, Ş., Aras, H., & Koc, E. (2006). Evaluation of alternative fuels for residential heating in Turkey using analytic network process (ANP) with group decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 10(3), 269-279.
Erdoğmuş, Ş., Kapanoglu, M., & Koc, E. (2005). Evaluating high-tech alternatives by using analytic network process with BOCR and multiactors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(4), 391-399.
Gencer, C., & Gurpinar, D. (2007). Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31(11), 2475-2486.
Ginsberg, J.M., & Bloom, P.N. (2004). Choosing the right green marketing strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 79-84.
Goldberg, L.H., & Middleton, W. (2000). Green Electronics/Green Bottom Line – Environmentally Responsible Engineering. Boston: Newnes.
Golden, B.L., & Wasil, E.A. (Eds). (1989). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies. New York: Springer.
Govindan, Kl, Sarkis, J., Jabbour, C.J.C., Zhu, Q., & Geng, Y. (2014). Eco-efficiency based green supply chain management: Current staus and opportunities European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 293-298.
Green, K., Morton, B., & New, S. (1996). Purchasing and environmental management: interactions, policies and opportunities. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5(1), 188-197.
Green, K., Morton, B., & New, S. (1998). Green purchasing and supply policies: do they improve companies’ environmental performance? Supply Chain Management, 3(2), 89-95. 
Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2340-2350.
Handfield, R.B., Sroufe, R., & Walton, S.V. (2005). Integrating environmental management and supply chain strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(1), 1-19.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(4), 330-353.
Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211-228.
Hsieh L.F., Lin, L.H., & Lin, Y.Y. (2008). A service quality measurement architecture for hot spring hotels in Taiwan. Tourism Management, 29(3), 429-438.
Hsu, C.W., & Hu, A.H. (2009). Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2), 255-264.
Huang, J.P., Poh, K.L., & Ang, B.W. (1995). Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling. Energy, 20(9), 843-855.
Karlsson, R., & Luttropp, C. (2006). EcoDesign: what’s happening? An overview of the subject area of EcoDesign and of the papers in this special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(15-16), 1291-1298.
King, W.R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43(6), 740-755.
Kopicki, R., Berg, M.J., Legg, L., Dasppa, V., & Maggioni, C. (1993). Reuse and Recycling-Reverse Logistics Opportunities, Oak Brook: Council of Logistics Management.
Kurk, F., & Eagan, P. (2008). The value of adding design-for-the-environment to pollution prevention assistance options. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(6), 722-729.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A., & Larsen, K.R.T. (2003). The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), 752-780.
Lee, Y.C., Li, M.L., Yen, T.M., & Huang, T.H. (2010). Analysis of adopting an integrated decision making trial and evaluation laboratory on a technology acceptance model. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2), 1745-1754.
Legris, P., Ingham, J. & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 40(3), 191-204.
Liang, C., & Li, Q. (2008). Enterprise information system project selection with regard to BOCR. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 810–820.
Liu, C.H., Tzeng, G.H., & Lee, M.H. (2012). Improving metro-airport connection service for tourism development: using hybrid MCDM models. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 95-107.
Maier, K. & Stix, V. (2013). A semi-automated approach for structuring multi criteria decision problems. European Jouranl of Operational Research, 225(3), 487-496.
Mantymaki, M. & Salo, J. (2013). Purchasing behavior in social virtual worlds: An examination of Haboo Hotel. International Journal of Information management, 33(2), 282-290.
Marianna, G., Laia, F-M., Alessandra, B., & Simona, T. (2011). Multi-criteria analysis for improving strategic environmental assessment of water programmes. A case study in semi-arid region of Brazil. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(3), 665-675.
Martin, H.S., & Herrero, A. (2012). Influence of the user’s psychological factors on the online purchase intention in rural tourism: Integrating innovativeness to the UTAUT framework. Tourism Management, 33(2), 341-350.
Min, H., & Galle, W.P. (2001). Green purchasing practices of US firms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(9), 1222-1238.
Muller-Seitz, G., Dautzenberg, K. Creusen, U., & Stromereder, C. (2009). Customer acceptance of RFID technology: Evidence from the German electronic retail sector. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(1), 31-39.
Newman, W.R., & Hanna, M.D. (1996). An empirical exploration of the relationship between manufacturing strategy and environmental management: Two complementary models. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(4), 69-87.
Niemira, M.P., & Saaty, T.L. (2004). An Analytic Network Process model for financial-crisis forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 20(4), 573-587.
Noci, G. (1997). Design "green" vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier’s environmental performance. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 3(2), 103-114.
Pal, U. (2002). Identifying the path to successful green manufacturing. Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, 54(5), 25. 
Peniwati, K. (2007). Criteria for evaluating group decision-making methods. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8), 935-947.
Polonsky, M.J. (1994). An introduction to green marketing. Electronic Green Journal, 1(2), 1-10.
Polonsky, M.J., & Rosenberger III, P.J. (2001). Reevaluating green marketing: A strategic approach. Business Horizons, 44(5), 21-30.
Porter, M. & C. Van Der Linde. (1995). Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 120-134.
Prakash, A. (2002). Green marketing, public policy and managerial strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 285-297.
Pun, K.F. (2006). Determinants of environmentally responsible operations: a review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 23(3), 279-297.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M.K. (2005). Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 48(2), 327-356.
Saaty, T.L. (1996). Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L. (2005). Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal Services, 1(1), 83-98.
Saaty, T.L. (2010). Principia Mathematica Decernendi: mathematical Principles of Decision Making. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L., & Begicevic, N. (2010). The scope of human values and human activities in decision making. Applied Soft Computing, 10(4), 963-974.
Saaty, T.L., & Peniwati, K. (2007). Group decision making: Drawing out and reconciling difference. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L., & Shih, H.S. (2009). Structures in decision making: On the subjective geometry of hierarchies and networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(3), 867-872.
Saaty, T.L., & Takizawa, M. (1986). Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonliear networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 26(2), 229-237.
Saaty, T.L., & Ozdemir, M. (2003). Negative Priorities in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 37(9-10), 1063-1075.
Sarkis, J. (2003). A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(4), 397-409.
Seppala, J., Basson, L., & Norris, G.A. (2001). Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle impact assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(4), 45-68.
Shih, H.S., Lee, E.S., Chuang, S.H. & Chen, C.C. (2012). A forecasting decision on the sales volume of printers in Taiwan: An exploitation of the analytic network process. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 64(6), 1545-1556.
Simpon, D., & Samson, D. (2008). Developing strategies for green supply chain management. Decision Line, 39(4), 12-15.
Sipahi, S., & Timor, M. (2010). The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications. Management Decision, 48(5), 775-808.
Swanson, M., Weissman, A., Davis, G., Socolof, M.L., & Davis, K. (2005). Developing priorities for greener state government purchasing: a California case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(7), 669-677.
Tan, X.C., Liu, F., Cao, H.J., & Zhang, H. (2002). A decision–making framework model of cutting fluid selection for green manufacturing and a case study. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 129(1-3), 467-470.
Thakkar, J., Deshmukh, S.G., Gupta, A.D., & Shankar, R. (2006). Development of a balanced scorecard: An integrated approach of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP). International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56(1), 25-59.
Tuzkaya, G., Onut, S., Tuzkaya, U.R., & Gulsun, B. (2008). An analytic network process approach for locating undesirable facilities: An example from Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 970-983. 
Vaidya, O.S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1-29.
Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H., & Li, C.W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028-1044.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B., & Melnyk, S.A. (1998). The green supply chain: Integrating suppliers into environmental management processes. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 34(2), 2-11.
Wang, G., Qin, L., Li, G., & Chen, L. (2009). Landfill site selection using spatial information technologies and AHP: A case study in Beijing, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(8), 2414-2421.
Wijnmalen, D.J.D. (2007). Analysis of Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks (BOCR) with the AHP-ANP: A critical validation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8), 892-905.
Yazgan, H.R., Boran, S., & Goztepe, K. (2010). Selection of dispatching rules in FMS: ANP model based on BOCR with choquet integral. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 49(5-8), 785-801.
Yousafzai, S.Y., Foxall, G.R., & Pallister, J.G. (2007). Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: Part2. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 281-304.
Zhang, Y., Li, Z.H., Qi, T., Zheng, S.L., Li, H.Q., & Xu, H.B. (2004). Green manufacturing process of chromium compounds. Environmental Progress, 24(1), 44-50.
Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2004). Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 265-289.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J. & Lai, K.H. (2011). Evaluating green supply chain management among Chinese manufacturers from the ecological modernization perspective. Transportation Researhc Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(6), 808-821.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K.H. (2008). Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain management practices implementation. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 261-273.
Zsidisin, G.A., & Siferd, S.P. (2001). Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory development. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(1), 61-73.


網路資料
Andes Technology Corporation. (2013, September 18). Put on the future: Wearable Technology. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://www.andestech.com/en/news-events/press-release/2013/WP_Put_on_the_Future_Wearable_Technology_WP012_V1%200%2020130918_Rev1%200.pdf.
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI). (2013, November 8). 7 Things You Should Know About Wearable Technology. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/7-things-you-should-know-about-wearable-technology.
IHS Electronics & Media. (2013, September). Wearable Technology－Market Assessment, An HIS Whitepaper. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://www.ihs.com/pdfs/Wearable-Technology-sep-2013.pdf.