「交通行動服務(Mobility as a Service, MaaS)」為運輸領域的創新服務概念，MaaS亦成為當前許多國家與城市永續運輸政策推行的具體目標。MaaS係涵蓋大眾運輸、共享運具及私人運具之整合運輸服務平台，提供旅運者無縫、及戶之運輸服務。鑑於MaaS為一個創新運輸服務概念，在推行之際，若能先探究瞭解使用者對MaaS之行為意圖與偏好，確實具有研究空間與重要性。
本研究以使用者觀點，初探潛在使用者對MaaS的認知與使用意圖，以科技接受模式為基礎，合併考量創新擴散理論之相容性以及認知風險因素，建構擴展型科技接受模式。同時，亦彙整相關文獻歸納出MaaS的四個重要服務屬性以及屬性內容，以聯合分析模擬使用情境供受測者進行衡量，以瞭解使用者對於MaaS服務屬性與服務內容之偏好。
研究結果發現，本研究擴展型科技接受模式中僅有認知易用性影響態度之路徑關係不成立，其餘路徑關係皆成立，相容性、認知易用性、認知有用性、態度均對MaaS行為意圖具顯著正向影響，而認知風險具負向影響，對行為意圖之影響程度大小依序為：相容性、認知有用性、態度、認知易用性及認知風險。MaaS之服務屬性相對重要程度則依序為：票證形式、平台功能、購買方式及個人化/大眾化選擇。而依聯合分析結果對整體受測者進行集群分析，能劃分出五個偏好結構不同的集群，分別為：票證/購買方式並重群、偏好機動運具群、選項從眾群、嘗新月租群及重視平台功能群，可作為市場區隔之參考。

“Mobility as a Service (MaaS)” is an innovative concept of service in the transportation field. MaaS is enabled by combining transportation services from public transport, shared transport, and private vehicles through a unified platform that creates and manages the trips, which users can pay for with a single account. However, few researches have examined the behavioral intention for MaaS. It is an important topic to analyze the usage intention and preference of service attributes for MaaS in advance of the planning and implementation of MaaS.
This study empirically examines cognitions and behavioral intentions for using “Mobility as a Service (MaaS)”. Based on literature analysis, key factors and service attributes of MaaS are identified; namely, platform functions, transport mode integration, payment integration, ticketing integration, booking system, and personalization. This study applied Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to analyze the relationships among perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, compatibility, perceived risk, attitude, and usage intention of MaaS. The relationships proposed in the framework are tested using structural equation modeling. Analytical results of TAM demonstrated that compatibility, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and attitude all have positive influences, and perceived risk has a negative influence on usage intention of MaaS. The influences are ranked as compatibility, perceived usefulness, attitude, perceived ease of use, and perceived risk. Furthermore, the preference of service attributes was also examined using Conjoint Analysis. From the results of conjoint analysis, the relative importance of service attributes were identified, namely, ticketing, platform functions, payment, and personalized/ordinary options. From the results of Cluster Analysis, the users were classified into five groups with different preference structures, namely, ticketing and payment concerned group, motorized mode preferred group, ordinary choice group, early adopter/monthly package group, and function concerned group.

目錄
誌謝	i
中文摘要	iii
英文摘要	iv
目錄	vi
表目錄	viii
圖目錄	ix
第一章 緒論	1
1.1 研究背景與動機	1
1.2 研究目的	4
1.3 研究範圍	4
1.4 研究流程與架構	4
第二章 文獻回顧	7
2.1 交通行動服務(MaaS)	7
2.1.1 MaaS之定義	7
2.1.2 MaaS之發展	11
2.2 各國相關案例及運輸服務整合概況	13
2.2.1 國外運輸服務整合案例	13
2.2.2 國內運輸服務整合之規劃	21
2.3 科技接受行為理論	23
2.3.1 科技接受模式	23
2.3.2 創新擴散理論	26
2.3.3 認知風險	27
2.3.4 小結	28
2.4 聯合分析法	29
2.4.1 聯合分析法之理論與應用	29
2.4.2 聯合分析之執行步驟	30
2.4.3 小結	34
第三章 研究方法	35
3.1 研究架構	35
3.2 MaaS服務屬性之定義	37
3.3 擴展型科技接受模式之研究設計	41
3.3.1 研究模式	41
3.3.2 研究假說	42
3.3.3 衡量題項之設計	45
3.4 聯合分析之研究設計	47
3.4.1 MaaS服務之屬性與選項	47
3.4.2 聯合分析步驟	50
3.5 調查設計	52
3.5.1 訪談	53
3.5.2 問卷調查	54
3.5.3 資料蒐集方式	55
3.6 資料分析方法	55
第四章 實證分析與結果	59
4.1 樣本結構分析	59
4.2 擴展型科技接受模式分析	64
4.2.1 測量模式之檢測	65
4.2.2 結構模式之檢測	73
4.3 聯合分析結果	83
4.3.1整體受測者之偏好結構	83
4.3.2 分群受測者之偏好結構	86
第五章 結論與建議	100
5.1 結論	100
5.2 建議	102
參考文獻	104
附錄 問卷	111

--------

表目錄
表2.1 MaaS帶給多方之益處	11
表2.2 MaaS之SWOT分析	13
表2.3 各國運輸服務整合概況比較	20
表2.4 依產品表現方式區分之產品屬性	30
表2.5 兩因素法與整體輪廓法之優缺點	32
表3.1 MaaS的原則	38
表3.2 MaaS的服務構件	39
表3.3 本研究擴展型TAM構面衡量問項	46
表3.4 MaaS服務之屬性與選項	47
表3.5 MaaS聯合分析卡片設計	51
表3.6 模式配適度評鑑指標	57
表4.1 樣本基本統計	60
表4.2 受測者現用運具	61
表4.3 受測者使用交通運輸App時機	62
表4.4 受測者對MaaS月租套餐的期望運具	63
表4.5 最吸引受測者之MaaS優點	63
表4.6 擴展型TAM各因素之信度分析	64
表4.7 驗證性因素分析之參數估計表	66
表4.8 整體模式配適度	70
表4.9 模式之收斂效度檢驗	72
表4.10 模式之區別效度檢驗	73
表4.11 路徑關係檢定表	75
表4.12 整體模式影響效果表	80
表4.13 整體受測者選擇行為效用函數之校估結果	84
表4.14 整體受測者最偏好MaaS服務組合	86
表4.15 不同集群屬性重要程度之ANOVA檢定與事後多重比較	88
表4.16 不同集群選擇行為效用函數之校估結果	90
表4.17 各集群之最適MaaS服務組合	98

--------

圖目錄
圖1.1 研究流程圖	6
圖2.1 MaaS的兩種商業模式	12
圖2.2 法國蒙彼利埃運輸服務網路平台	16
圖2.3 法國蒙彼利埃之運輸服務	17
圖2.4 芬蘭於2017年始營運之MaaS平台—Whim	19
圖2.5 國內MaaS整合營運概念	21
圖2.6 國內MaaS平台示意圖	22
圖2.7 票證與付款整合示意圖	23
圖2.8 科技接受模式架構	25
圖2.9 整體輪廓法實例	32
圖3.1 研究架構圖	36
圖3.2 研究模式	42
圖4.1 MaaS行為意圖結構模式分析圖	74
圖4.2 整體受測者之MaaS服務屬性相對重要程度	84
圖4.3 整體受測者之成份效用值	85
圖4.4 不同集群屬性重要程度之比較	89
圖4.5 「票證/購買方式並重」群之成份效用值	92
圖4.6「偏好機動運具」群之成份效用值	92
圖4.7 「選項從眾」群之成份效用值	95
圖4.8 「嘗新月租」群之成份效用值	95
圖4.9 「重視平台功能」群之成份效用值	97

中文部分
1.	王念慈(2013)。遊客選搭綠能遊憩船之偏好與影響因素。臺南大學生態科學與技術學系生態旅遊碩士班碩士論文。
2.	王鴻康(2008)。探討電子智慧卡支付系統的採用決定要素與產品組合策略。暨南大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
3.	台灣網路暨電子商務產業發展協會(2015)。共享經濟時代的新政策管理思維 – 以運輸服務為例。取自http://www.tieataiwan.org/
4.	任維廉、呂堂榮、劉柏廷(2009)。科技接受行為模式之整合分析-三個主要模式之比較。資管評論，15(1)，101-138。
5.	朱莉芳(2011)。探討影響電子書使用意圖之因素－計劃性行為理論與科技接受模式觀點。國立成功大學企業管理研究所在職專班碩士論文。
6.	江啟明(1988)。模組化行銷偵測系統。交通大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
7.	吳明隆(2009)。結構方程模式：AMOS的操作與應用。台北：五南。
8.	吳萬益(2011)。企業研究方法。台北：華泰文化。
9.	李政儀(2014)。以聯合分析法探討乘客對國道客運路線營運型態之偏好行為。交通大學運輸與物流管理學系碩士論文。
10.	林陽助(1993)。聯合分析及其在行銷上的應用。四海學報，8，245-259。
11.	邱皓政(2003)。結構方程模式：LISREL的理論技術與應用。台北：雙葉書廊。
12.	卓繼寬(2012)。以聯合分析法探討消費者對便利商店屬性偏好之研究-以新北市與台南市為例。國立成功大學企業管理研究所在職專班碩士論文。
13.	洪嘉良、周志隆、王鴻康(2009)。智慧卡系統的最適產品特徵組合：聯合分析之應用。行銷評論，6(3)，449-474。
14.	張學孔、陳雅雯(2016)。應用智慧城市與智慧交通技術推動永續發展。城市發展，20，57-67。
15.	梁金樹、丁吉峰、劉逸文(2007)。應用聯合分析法評估定期航運公司之品牌權益：四大國際航商之實證分析。運輸學刊，19(4)，333-362。
16.	陶治中(2015)。我國發展智慧運輸系統之重要課題：車路協同系統技術發展藍圖與推動策略。國土及公共治理季刊，3(2)，32-43.
17.	郭奕妏(2017)。以店配系統為基礎提供創新速遞服務之消費者偏好行為分析。運輸計劃季刊，46(1)，19-50。
18.	陳玉清、林晏州(2003)。生態旅遊地遊客選擇行為之研究。戶外遊憩研究，16(3)，23-40。
19.	陳敦基、洪鈞澤、陳奕廷、陳其華、劉仲潔(2017)。我國公共運輸行動服務(MaaS)未來發展應用與策略規劃。都市交通半年刊，32(1)，11-45。
20.	陳寬裕、王正華(2010)。結構方程模型分析實務：AMOS的運用。台北：五南。
21.	陳耀茂(譯)(2006)。聯合分析的SPSS 使用手冊(原作者：真城知己)。台北：鼎茂圖書。
22.	黃芳銘(2002)。結構方程模式－理論與應用。台北：五南。
23.	黃俊英(2000)。多變量分析(第七版)。台北：中國經濟企業研究所。
24.	葉淨瑜(2014)。以聯合分析法探討電子書使用者屬性偏好。國立成功大學企業管理研究所在職專班碩士論文。
25.	鄭亦卉、林晏州、林寶秀(2009)。聯合分析法中替選方案呈現方式對公園使用者願付費用之影響。戶外遊憩研究，22(1)，77-98。
26.	蕭景楷、潘利易、邱泰穎(2000)。台灣農地屬性偏好之研究-聯合分析怯之應用。東海學報，41，161-174。

英文部分
1.	Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J. (1997). The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557–582.
2.	Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). The antecedents and consequents of user perceptions in information technology adoption. Decision Support Systems, 22(1), 15–29.
3.	Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, 11–39.
4.	Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
5.	Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
6.	Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, 23–33. Boston: Harvard University Press.
7.	Burrows, A., Bradburn, J., Cohen, T. (2015). Journeys of the Future: Introducing Mobility as a Service. Atkins Global, 1–31.
8.	Chang, S. C., & Tung, F. C. (2010). An empirical investigation of students' behavioural intentions to use the online learning course websites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 71–83.
9.	Chen, L. D., Gillenson, M. L., & Sherrell, D. L. (2002). Enticing online consumers: An extended technology acceptance perspective. Information and Management, 39(8), 705–719.
10.	Cho, V. (2006). A study of the roles of trusts and risks in information-oriented online legal services using an integrated model. Information & Management, 43(4), 502–520.
11.	Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
12.	Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–339. 
13.	Ehningen (2014, October 28). Daimler subsidiary Moovel GmbH helps clients find the shortest route with the IBM cloud. Retrieved from https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/45251.wss
14.	Eryilmaz, E., Kagerbauer, M., Schuster, T., & Wolf, O. (2014). Collaborative management of intermodal mobility. Collaborative Systems for Smart Networked Environments, 713–721.
15.	Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474.
16.	Ferber, S. (2013, May 7). How the internet of things changes everything. HBR Blog Network. 
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/05/howPthePinternetPofPthingsPcha/
17.	Finger, M., Bert, N., & Kupfer, D. (2015). Mobility-as-a-Service: from the Helsinki experiment to a European model? FSR Transport, 01.
18.	Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 41(4), 842-844.
19.	Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.  Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
20.	Forsythe, S.M., & Shi, B. (2003). Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet shopping. Journal of Business Research, 56, 867–875.
21.	Fu, J. R., Farn, C. K., & Chao, W. P. (2006). Acceptance of electronic tax filing: a study of taxpayer intentions. Information & Management, 43(1), 109–126.
22.	Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 355–363.
23.	Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook. Journal of Consumer Research. 5(2), 103–123.
24.	Guilford, J. P. (1965). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (4th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
25.	Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th Ed.). Pearson Education.
26.	Head, M., & Ziolkowski, N. (2012). Understanding student attitudes of mobile phone features: Rethinking adoption through conjoint, cluster and SEM analyses. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2331–2339.
27.	Heikkilä, S. (2014). Mobility as a Service - A Proposal for Action for the Public Administration, Case Helsinki. Aalto University.
28.	Hietanen, S. (2014). Mobility as a Service and the effects of it. 10th ITS European Congress.
29.	Hietanen, S. (2014). Mobility as a Service - the new transport model? Eurotransport 12(2), 1–4.
30.	Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness of fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11, 325–344. 
31.	Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91–112.
32.	Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Tractinsky, N. (1999). Consumer trust in an Internet store: A cross cultural validation. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 5(2), 1–5. 
33.	Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer Trust in an Internet Store. Information Technology and Management, 1(12), 45–71. 
34.	Kamargianni, M., Matyas, M., Li, W., & Schäfer, A. (2015). Feasibility Study for “Mobility as a Service” concept in London. London: UCL Energy Institute.
35.	Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information & Management,35(4), 237–250.
36.	Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
37.	Kowalewski, S., Arning, K., Minwegen, A., Ziefle, M., & Ascheid, G. (2013). Extending the engineering trade-off analysis by integrating user preferences in conjoint analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(8), 2947–2955. 
38.	Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 40(3), 191–204.
39.	Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27.
40.	MaaS Alliance (2017, June 1). What is MaaS? Retrieved from https://maas-alliance.eu/homepage/what-is-maas/
41.	MaaS Global (2016, February 23). What is Mobility as a Service (MaaS). Retrieved from
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ctbssp/ctbssp_syn_15.pdf
42.	Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191. 
43.	Moore, G. C. & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perception of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
44.	Murray, K. B., & Schlacter, J. L. (1990). The Impact of Services versus Goods on Consumers’ Assessment of Perceived Risk and Variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 51–65.
45.	Plouffe, C. R., Hilland, J. S. & Vandenbosch, M. (2001). Richness versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decision - Understanding Merchant Adoption of Smart Card-Based Payment System. Information System Research, 12(2), 208-222.
46.	Rawstorne, P., Jayasuriya, R., & Caputi, P. (2000). Issues in predicting and explaining usage behaviours with the Technology Acceptance Models and Theory of Planned Behaviour when usage is mandatory. International Conference on Information Systems, 35–44.
47.	Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd). New York: Free Press.
48.	Rohrleef, M. (2008). HANNOVERmobil: Turning Public Transport into a full service mobility provider. Public Transport International, 57(2), 28–29.
49.	Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343. 
50.	Steckel, J. H., Desarbo, W. S., & Mahajan, V. (1991). On the creation of acceptable conjoint analysis experimental designs. Decision Sciences, 22(2), 435–442.
51.	Stopka, U. (2014). Identification of user requirements for mobile applications to support door-to-door mobility in public transport. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8512(3), 513–524.

52.	Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience. MIS Quarterly 19(4), 561-570.
53.	Tornatzky, L. G. & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption-Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Findings. Engineering Management 29(1), 28-45.
54.	Transdev (2013). Portfolio of Expertise: Remote Sales. Retrieved from https://www.transdev.com/en/
55.	Transport de Montpellier [TaM] (2017, Februay 23). Pricing & Purchasing. Retrieved from 
http://commercial.tam-voyages.com/?age_voyageur=9&frequence_utilisation=
14&mode_transport=4_3_7_6
56.	Transport Systems Catapult (2016). Mobility as a service: exploring the opportunity for mobility as a service in the UK. Retrieved from https://ts.catapult.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Mobility-as-a-Service_Exploring-the-Opportunity-for-MaaS-in-the-UK-Web.pdf
57.	West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority [WMITA] (2016, January 26). Developing Intelligent Mobility and exploring Mobility as a Service. Retrieved from https://www.tfwm.org.uk/media/1176/mobility-as-a-service-report.pdf
58.	Whim (2017). Limitless travel. Retrieved from http://whimapp.com/fi-en/
59.	Williams, L. J. and Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction and Commitment in Turnover Models. A Reanalysis Using Latent Variable Structural Equation Methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 219-231.
60.	Wu, J. H. & Wang, S. C. (2005). What Drives Mobile Commerce? An Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 42(5), 719-729.