現在位置首頁 > 博碩士論文 > 詳目
  • 同意授權
論文中文名稱:應用AHP探討使用者採用行動支付的考量因素 [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
論文英文名稱:Applying AHP to Research Users Consideration Factors for Adopting Mobile Payment [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
院校名稱:臺北科技大學
學院名稱:管理學院
系所名稱:管理學院資訊與財金管理EMBA專班
畢業學年度:105
畢業學期:第二學期
出版年度:106
中文姓名:張嘉憲
英文姓名:Chia-Hsien Chang
研究生學號:104C23515
學位類別:碩士
語文別:中文
口試日期:2017/06/15
論文頁數:54
指導教授中文名:王貞淑
口試委員中文名:陳煒朋;丁一賢
中文關鍵詞:行動支付層級分析法多準則決策方法智慧型手機
英文關鍵詞:Mobile PaymentAnalytical Hierarchy ProcessMultiple Criteria Decision MethodSmart Phone
論文中文摘要:本研究透過相關文獻及市場調查的彙整,遴選合適的評估構面與要素,並應用層級分析法 (Analytical Hierarchy Process, AHP),分析使用者在採用行動支付時所考量的關鍵因素為何,最後歸納出研究結果與建議,可提供廠商及使用者作為未來開發或推廣採用行動支付時之參考依據。
研究結果發現,六大構面重要性的前三名依序為「安全」、「系統品質」和「 費用」,在十九項考量要素重要性排序,排名前五名的考量要素依序為「交易安全」、「用戶個資」、「手續費」、「系統穩定性」及「介面友善性」。
將資料分群分析後,發現男性、女性前四名考量要素竟然是一模一樣,依序皆為「交易安全」、「用戶個資」、「手續費」和「系統穩定性」,可見男女性考量差異不大。
依據年齡分成4個群組,分析顯現36-45歲群組,其排序前四名考量要素,竟然和所有樣本的排序結果是一模一樣,依序皆為「交易安全」、「用戶個資」、「手續費」和「系統穩定性」。而46-55歲群組,其前四考量要素也是一樣,只不過1、2 名互換而已。
另依據使用經驗分成6個群組,分析顯示6個群組中,有五個群組其排序前四名考量要素,竟然和所有樣本的排序結果是一模一樣,依序皆為「交易安全」、「用戶個資」、「手續費」和「系統穩定性」,而另一個群組只不過3、4 名互換,可見當使用者曾經有過行動支付的使用經驗後,其考量的要素竟趨向一致。
論文英文摘要:This study is based on the relevant literature and market research, the selection of appropriate assessment of structural facets and elements. The application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (Analytical Hierarchy Process, AHP), analysis of users in the use of action to consider the key factors, and finally summed up the results and recommendations to provide manufacturers and end users as a future development or reference to promote mobile payment.
The results of the study found that the top three priorities of the six facets were "safety", "system quality" and "cost". In the nineteen important elements of importance, the top five elements were "Transaction security", "users personal info.", "fee", "system stability" and "interface friendly".
After analyzing these data, it was found that the first four factors of male and female were exactly the same, and the order was "transaction security", "users personal information ", "handling fee" and "system stability". The differences were not big
In the other, according to the age group divided into four groups, analysis showed the first four elements of the selection of 36-45 year old group are exactly the same as all the sample sorting results , followed by "transaction security", "users info" , "Fee" and "system stability". The first four considerations elements of 46-55 years old group are the same, but 1 and 2 swapped only.
Divide into six groups according to the experience of users. The analysis shows that, among the six groups, there are five groups whose first four elements are sorted and the results of all the samples are exactly the same, and are all "transaction safe" "Users personal information ", "handling fee" and "system stability", while the other group is only 3 and 4 swapped. We can see the consideration of the elements actually tend to be consistent when the user has had the experiences of using mobile payment.
論文目次:摘要 i
ABSTRACT iii
誌謝 v
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 2
1.3 研究限制 3
1.4 研究流程 3
第二章 文獻探討 6
2.1 行動支付(MOBILE PAYMENT) 6
2.1.1 行動支付之定義 7
2.1.2 行動支付之功能與架構 7
2.1.3 行動支付相關文獻探討 8
2.2 多準則決策方法 10
2.3 層級分析法 (AHP) 11
第三章 研究架構與方法 14
3.1 研究架構 14
3.2 多準則決策評估 15
3.2.1 遴選各層級評估要素 15
3.2.2 層級分析法操作流程 18
第四章 問卷設計與結果分折 27
4.1 問卷設計 27
4.2 問卷訪談對象與問卷檢核 29
4.3 結果分析 29
4.3.1 相對權重計算 30
4.3.2 絕對權重計算 33
4.3.3 樣本分群 35
第五章 結論 43
5.1 「六大構面」 排序分析 43
5.2 「單一構面考量要素」排序分析 44
5.3 「十九項考量要素」排序分析 45
5.4 「性別分群」分析 47
5.5 「年齡分群」分析 48
5.6 「使用經驗分群」分析 50
5.7 建議 51
參考文獻 52
論文參考文獻:[1] 王貞淑、張嘉憲、林湘霖,2017年5月,「應用AHP探討使用者採用行動支付的考
量因素之研究」,第28屆國際資訊管理學術研討會,台北市,國立政治大學。
[2] 林湘霖,數位學習系統活動流程評估準則之建置,國立台北科技大學資訊與運
籌管理研究所,碩士論文,2012年
[3] 鄭菀瓊(2008)。科技化創新金融服務規範研析-以行動支付和第三方支付為
例。科技法律透析,20(3),15-38
[4] 許嘉琤,行動支付可用性相關因素探討,國立宜蘭大學應用經濟與管理學系,碩士論文,2013年
[5] 陳勁甫,「決策分析方法與應用」,華泰文化,第1章,4-55頁,2007年。
[6] 陳勁甫,折衷權重多準則評估法,國立交通大學交通運輸研究所,碩士論文,1989年。
[7] 詹慧純,結構化校園學習系統平台模式建構─以知識管理為基,南華大學資訊管理學系碩士班,碩士論文,2002年。
[8] 鄧振源、曾國雄,層級分析程序法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上),中國統計學報,第27卷,第6期,5-22頁,1989年。
[9] Bai, L., Chou, D. C., Yen, D. C., and Lin, B. (2005). Mobile Commerce: its Marke Analyses. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 3(1), 66-81
[10] Herzberg, A. (2003). Payments and Banking with Mobile Personal Devices.Communications of the ACM, 46(5), 53-58
[11] Karnousko, S. and Fokus, F. (2004). Mobile Payment: a Journey Through Existing Procedures and Standardization Initiatives. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 6(4), 44-66.
[12] Mallat, N. (2007). Exploring Consumer Adoption of Mobile Payments–a QualitativeStudy. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(4), 413-432
[13] Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., Ondrus, J., and Zmijewska, A. (2008). Past, Present and Future of Mobile Payments Research: A Literature Review. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(2), 165–181
[14] Gerpott, T. and Kornmeier, K. (2009). Determinants of Customer Acceptance of Mobile Payment Systems. International Journal of Electronic Finance, 3(1), 1-30.
[15] Alonso, G., Hagen, C., Agrawal, D., El Abbadi, A.& Mohan, C., “Enhancing the Fault Tolerance of Workflow Management System,” IEEE Concurrency, Vol.8, No.3, pp.74-81, 2000.
[16] Belton V., “Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Practically the Only Way to Choose,” Hendry LC, Eglese RW, editors, Operational research tutorial papers, pp.53-102, 1990.
[17] Colace, F., Santo, M. D. & Pietrosanto, A., “Evaluation Models for e-Learning Platform: an AHP approach,” 36th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conf.,2006.
[18] Golden, B. L., Wasil, E. A.& Levy, D. E., “Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process: a Categorized, Annotated Bibliography,” Published by Springer-Verlag, 1989.
[19] Harker, P. T.& Vargas, L. G., “The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Management Science, Vol.33, No.1, pp.1383-1403, 1987.
[20] Hunjak, T.&Jakovčević, D., “AHP Based Model for Bank Performance Evaluation and Rating,” ISAHP 2001, Berne, Switzerland, pp.149-158, 2001.
[21] Keeney, R. L.& Raiffa, H., “Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs,” Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1976.
[22] Keeney, R.& Raiffa, H., “Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs,” Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1993.
[23] MacCrimmon, K. R., “Improving the System Design and Evaluation Process by the Use of Trade-Off Information: An Application to Northeast Corridor Transportation Planning,” Published by RAND Corporation, 1969.
[24] Mahdavi, I., Fazlollahtabar, H., Heidarzade, A., Mahdavi-Amiri N.& Rooshan, Y. I., “A Heuristic Methodology for Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Web-Based E-Learning Systems Based on User Satisfaction,” Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol.8, No.24, pp.4603-4609, 2008.
[25] Meade, L. M.& Presley, A., “R&D Project Selection Using the Analytic Network Process,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol.49, No.1, pp.59-66, 2002.
[26] Saaty, T. L.& Vargas, L. G., “The Logic of Priorities: Applications in Business, Energy, Health, and Transportation,” Published by Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1982.
[27] Saaty, T. L., “How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.48, No1, pp.9-26, 1990.
[28] Skibniewski, M. J.& Chao L. C., “Evaluation of Advanced Construction Technology with AHP Method,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.118, No.3, pp.577-593, 1992.
[29] Shee, D. Y., Tzeng, G. H.& Tang, T. I., “AHP, Fuzzy Measure and Fuzzy Integral Approaches for the Appraisal of Information Service Providers in Taiwan,” Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol.6, No.1, pp.8-30, 2003.
[30] Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H.& Li, C.W., “Evaluating Intertwined Effects in e-Learning Programs-A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Based on Factor Analysis and DEMATEL,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.32, No.4, pp.1028-1044, 2007.
論文全文使用權限:同意授權於2017-07-28起公開