Quart. J. For. Res. of Taiwan.23 (4) : 5772(2001) 1 2 Kruskal-Wallis 41 The Fuzzy Delphi used to Forestry Administration Management A Case Study of Taiwan Forestry Bureaus Entrepreneurial Spirits Indexes You-Jei Huang 1 Shaw-Lin Lo 2 AbstractThis study was investigated Fuzzy Delphi technique which was used to Forestry administration organization of Entrepreneurial spirit's features, and introduced Fuzzy Delphi technique's features, selecting specialists, Questionnaire design, Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks of Nonparametric Statistical. It can catch the reasons and understanding of specialist's policy. The result conducting form Fuzzy Delphi selected 41 indexes and the most important are "the revision of outdated laws or regulations" and "occupation education and on-the-job training". Key wordsfuzzy Delphi technique, Forestry administration organization, Entrepreneurial spirit. Noorderhaven, 1995 1998 Linstone1977 1995 1948 1. Graduate Student, Department of Forestry, NCHU. 2. Professor, Department of Forestry, NCHU. 57
Delphi technique Linstone, 1978Rowe et al., 1991 1996 1998 1 1948Rand Project Delphi1995 1. 1998 Fig. 1. The theory of Delphi specialists policy change. 58
Quart. J. For. Res. of Taiwan.23 (4) : 5772(2001) Delphi technique 1996 1960 Linstone, 1978 50% 50% 1999 1995 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 45 2 2 ab ab 2. 1995 Fig. 2. Sketch map of Traditional Delphi. J fj1ajb m fj0otherwise 59
ab 1995 1998 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Hwang and Lin, 1987 1 4 ~ N ~ NALiMiUi...1 LiMinXik k1~ n...2 n 1/n Mi Xik k1~ n...3 k=1 UiMaxXik k1~ n...4 Xik k i Li i Mi i Ui i i k 3 ba M S MS MS S ~ UNX 3. 1995 Fig. 3. Sketch map of Fuzzy Delphi. ~ U NX=J = a = b = M = 60
Quart. J. For. Res. of Taiwan.23 (4) : 5772(2001) S S1998 Ishikawa et al., 1993 1998 1. 2. 3. 4. Fuzzy Delphi 19831995 Dalkey 1969 10 Delbecq 1975 15 30 5 10 1996 15 30 1998 19991996 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 28 21 1 61
1. Table. 1. The speciality distribution of specialists. 11 10 a. b. c. d. 5 6 5 5 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 +=10+=11 19961998 43 2 43 9 1997 1 23 9 3 15 90 3 19 4 13 21 SPSS For Windows Microsoft Excel 97 K-W 43 4 G 62
63 Quart. J. For. Res. of Taiwan.23 (4) : 5772(2001) 1999 1999 Gore1993 Daft1998 OsborneGaebler 1992 1994 Tavia1999 1997 1996 1999 1999 OsborneGaebler 1992 Tavia1999 1997 1996 1999 2000 2. Table. 2. List about the indexes of Entrepreneurial spirit in forestry administration organizations.
2. Table. 2. List about the indexes of Entrepreneurial spirit in forestry administration organizations. 1999 1999 Gore1993 OsborneGaebler 1992 1994 1999 Tavia1999 1997 1996 1999 2000 Q Q1 Q3 1. (1)Q14Q35 75% 4 (2)Q13Q34 75% 3 (3) 2. Q Q0.5 4 0.5Q1 Q1 9 45. 6.8. 9. 13. 16.30. 35. 40. 64
Quart. J. For. Res. of Taiwan.23 (4) : 5772(2001) 3. Table. 3. Hierarchy about the indexes of Entrepreneurial spirit in forestry administration organizations. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 65
4. Table. 4. Analytic result of the first stage questionnaire. 1. 3.000 2.856 1.00 2. 4.000 4.019 1.00 3. 3.000 2.161 1.50 4. 4.000 3.807 1.00 5. 4.000 4.044 6. 5.000 4.435 7. 4.000 3.927 1.00 8. 5.000 4.265 9. 4.000 4.100 10. 4.000 3.163 0.75 11. 4.000 3.491 0.75 12. 4.000 3.568 0.75 13. 4.000 4.328 14. 4.000 4.054 1.00 15. 2.000 2.566 1.00 16. 4.000 4.167 17. 4.000 3.828 1.00 18. 4.000 3.873 1.00 19. 4.000 4.054 1.00 20. 4.000 3.977 1.00 21. 4.000 3.828 1.00 22. 4.000 3.711 1.00 23. 4.000 3.635 0.75 24. 4.000 3.847 1.00 25. 4.000 3.850 1.00 26. 3.000 3.065 1.00 27. 4.000 3.746 1.00 28. 3.000 2.867 0.75 29. 4.000 3.885 0.75 30. 5.000 4.151 31. 4.000 3.606 1.00 32. 3.000 3.407 33. 4.000 3.727 1.00 34. 4.000 3.584 1.00 35. 4.000 3.665 1.00 36. 5.000 0 1.00 37. 4.000 3.676 1.00 38. 4.000 3.624 1.00 39. 3.000 2.616 1.00 40. 5.000 4.516 41. 4.000 4.024 0.75 42. 4.000 3.989 0.75 43. 4.000 3.365 1.00 Q0.5 66
Quart. J. For. Res. of Taiwan.23 (4) : 5772(2001) 5 90 4 16 5 4 21 SPSS For Windows Microsoft Excel 97 Kruskal-Wallis 43 5 G 1995 Q1 Q3 SD K-W H 1.G S3 3 Q1Q3 2.K-W H(k-1) reject Ho 3. G 5 1. 7. 12. 1. 23. 2. S=33.12. 36. 6 1. 67
5. K-W Table. 5. K-W one-way analysis of variance by ranks result of the second stage questionnaire. H G 1. 1.266 3.173 2. 2.147 4.167 3. 1.136 2.334 4. 0.290 3.981 5. 0.860 3.905 6. 4.848 3.132 7. 8.828 3.947 8. 1.920 3.241 9. 1.939 3.876 10. 2.279 3.804 11. 0.563 4.205 12. 8.327 2.450 13. 4.255 3.335 14. 8.115 3.436 15. 2.743 3.630 16. 6.285 3.727 17. 5.802 3.883 18. 11.038 3.568 19. 2.327 4.022 20. 3.278 3.927 21. 2.258 3.757 22. 1.000 1 23. 7.993 3.471 24. 3.564 3.512 25. 4.432 3.710 26. 4.644 3.354 27. 2.506 3.830 28. 0.479 3.740 29. 2.236 3.740 30. 2.297 3.350 31. 5.793 3.333 32. 5.533 3.290 33. 2.202 3.901 34. 4.170 3.676 35. 4.429 3.708 36. 2.356 2.677 37. 0.471 4.087 38. 2.520 0 39. 5.281 3.799 =0.05df=21 68
Quart. J. For. Res. of Taiwan.23 (4) : 5772(2001) 6. Table. 6. Four types specialists selected the indexes and weights of Entrepreneurial spirit. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 3.06 3.90 4.78 3.73 3.17 3.44 4.32 4.57 3.57 3.37 3.56 3.57 3.44 3.78 4.32 4.57 3.73 3.10 3.68 3.52 3.73 3.37 3.49 4.11 3.92 3.98 4.64 3.84 4.42 3.77 2.57 3.26 3.77 3.77 4.47 4.11 3.92 2.75 3.36 2.85 2.99 3.66 3.73 3.26 3.92 3.09 3.18 3.30 3.53 4.14 3.60 3.80 3.46 3.30 2.70 3.30 3.38 2.93 4.51 3.90 3.78 4.57 3.90 3.90 3.37 2.70 3.73 3.68 3.90 3.90 3.06 3.81 3.76 3.90 3.52 3.81 3.81 3.73 3.18 4.00 4.57 3.78 3.98 4.16 3.10 3.57 4.57 3.57 4.00 3.90 4.57 3.29 3.57 3.18 3.78 3.78 3.18 3.78 2.86 3.10 2.77 4.57 2. 2.99 3.90 3.73 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 4.32 4.57 4.32 3.20 4.42 3.80 4.42 4.14 3.57 4.32 3.37 4.78 3.57 3.173 4.167 3.981 4.044 4.435 3.905 4.265 4.100 3.132 3.241 3.876 3.804 4.328 4.205 4.167 3.335 3.630 3.727 3.883 4.022 3.927 3.757 1 3.512 3.710 3.354 3.830 4.151 3.740 3.407 3.740 3.350 3.333 3.290 3.910 3.676 3.708 4.516 4.087 0 3.799 69
70 2. 3. 4. AHP 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1996 7 G
Quart. J. For. Res. of Taiwan.23 (4) : 5772(2001) 7. Table. 7. Comparison with different of four types specialists understanding. 1. 2. 1999 6332-47 1999 363-81 1998 31 (4) : 387-404 1999 10240-58 1997 34 (12) : 4-27 1998 4447-50 71
1998 87 00173 1998 4 (1) : 59-72 1995 13-43 1996 61-24 1995 3-25 2000 26 (2) : 9-13 1999 9 (2) : 131-143 1999 29-44 129-154 1994 51758-60 1983Delphi 18 :109-132 1995 86 1999 25(3) : 6-16 1996 36-61 Dalkey, N. O., Helmer (1969) An experimental application of the delphi method to use of experts. Management Science. 9(3):458-467. Delbecq, A.L., A.H. Van de Ven D.H. Gustafson (1975) Group techniques for program planning : A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. NJ:Scott, Foresman and Company.1996 Gore, A.l. (1993) From Red Tape to Results Creating A Government That Works Better Costs Less, New York, N. Y. : A Plume Book. Hwang, C.L. M.L., Lin (1987) Group Decision Marking under Miltiple Criteria. Springer- Verlag, New York.1998 Ishikawa, A., M., Amagasa, T., Shiga, G., Tomizawa, R., Tatsuta, H., Mieno. (1993) The Max-Min Delphi Method and Fuzzy Delphi Method vie Fuzzy Integration. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 55 : 241-253. Linstone, H.A. (1978) The delphi technique. In J. Fowless (Ed.). Handbook of futures research. London : greenwood Press. P.274. Linstone, H.A., M., Turoff (1977) The Delphi method : techniques and applications. MA: Addison-Wesley. Noorderhaven, N.(1995) Strategic Decision Making, Addison-Wesley, U.k. 1998 Osborne, D.J. T., Gaebler (1992) Reinventing Government, Addison Wesley, Reading. 1999 Richard, L.D.1998Organization Theory and Design. South-Western College Publishing. P.55-58,232. Rowe, G. et al. (1991) DelphiA reevaluation of research and theory. Technology Forecasting and Social Change. 39 (3):235-251. Tavia, H. (1999) Giving Shape to the Shape of Things to Come Joint Financial Management Improvement Program NewsletterA Newsletter for Government 72