The Evaluation of the Organizational Performance with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process- Take the Semiconductor Industry in Taiwan as Example

Transcription

1 The Evaluation of the Organizational Performance with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process- Take the Semiconductor Industry in Taiwan as Example Chen Iong- Rong, Ph.D. candidate of Business School, Fu Jen Catholic University, Graduate Institute of Business Administration, Taiwan Shih Yi-Nuo, Associate Professor, Fu Jen Catholic University, Department of Occupational Therapy, Taiwan Gong Shang-Chi, Professor, Fu Jen Catholic University, Graduate Institute of Business Administration, Taiwan ABSTRACT According to the industrial report from Hong Chun-Hui(2016), the consultant of MIC, the ranking of the IC design in Taiwan was the top 2 in the global semiconductor industry 2015, which was only behind USA and the manufacturing of wafer as well as the packaging and testing industry was the number one globally which indicated the importance of the semiconductor industry in Taiwan around the world. The conceptual framework of this research was based on Kaplan & Norton(1996) which evaluated the organizational performance of the balanced scorecard with four measures that were finical, customers, internal process flow of the enterprise and learning and growing. The purpose was to know the priority of the criterion measures while evaluating the organizational performance with the balanced scorecard for the semiconductor industry in Taiwan. What is the order of the priority for the variables of each measure and the criterion measure of the variable? This method of this study was Fuzzy AHP and the objects for the questionnaires were the experts and scholars of the semiconductor industry in Taiwan. Keywords: balanced scorecard, organizational performance, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, semiconductor industry in Taiwan INTRODUCTION Background and Motivation Hong Chun-Hui(2016), the consultant of MIC, indicated the total output of the global semiconductor in 2014 was US$: 336 billion and the MIC (Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute) estimated a growth of 1.2% in 2015 which made it US$: 340 billion. The horizontal cooperation of the industrial value chain in the semiconductor industry in Taiwan and the cluster effect formed in the Hsinchu Science Park established the competitive strength in the world. With the benefits from the demand of the smart phone, the performance of the IC design, IC manufacturing and IC packaging and testing stands superior in the world. The output of the semiconductor in 2014 was NT$: 2.1 trillion which was almost a 20% growth comparing with MIC even mentioned the ranking of the IC design in Taiwan was the top 2 in the global semiconductor industry 2015, which was only behind USA and the manufacturing of wafer as well as the packaging and testing industry was the number one globally. MIC announced the output of the manufacturing of wafer in Taiwan was NT$: 930,320 billion in 2014 that meant a 26% growth comparing with In 2015, for the inferior demand of the smartphone and the low price of the DRAM, the 56 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June, 2016

2 annual output of the semiconductor globally with NT$: trillion was estimated which was even or a small scale of growth. The semiconductor companies face the competitive market globally, such as the cost strength, product strength and marketing strength of the international factories in Japan, USA, Korea and Taiwan. How to use the balance scorecard to evaluate the organizational performance with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is the purpose of this research. Purpose The researcher would like to understand the following about the semiconductor of Taiwan 1. The order of the priority for the measures of the evaluative criteria by using the balance scorecard as the measure for the organizational performance. 2. The order of the priority for the evaluative criteria of the variable with each measure of the balance scorecard. 3. To provide the decision reference for the industrial circles and academia. LITERATURE REVIEW The theoretical review of the organizational performance Evans (1996) stated the performance evaluation of the enterprise was a section of the management control, the performance evaluation and performance management was helpful to the resource management, balance and target control of the company. Performance evaluation is a measure which combines the measures of the reward system that should contain the function of control system and target amendment for the daily working in the short measure and the function of the strategic management and achievement in the long measure. Li Zhang Gui (1998) believed there were four orientations of the organizational performance and evaluative criteria which were: 1. Financial performance indicators: the overall productive forces, the growth potential ratio, the benefit or reward, the use of the source, the evaluation from the market towards the enterprise and the profitability. 2. The customer performance indicators: the strain capacity and adjustability; the flexibility and adaptability. 3. The organizational performance indicators: the quality of the customer s satisfaction; the productivity forces of the organize and individual; the efficiency and the individual productivity force, the efficiency and cost, the stability force; the accident rate, the morale and the encouragement, the commitment and the contribution of the staff; the conflict and cohesion, the ability to control, the ability to aim and plan and the levels of consensus; the role, regulation and construction; the information and communication; the environment and strategy; the value of the labor resource; the participation and the empowerment; the training and development. 4. The creative and learning performance indicators: the ability of innovation, the ability of development; the emphasis of the achievement. The means and indicators to measure the organizational performance. Xing Shuang Yu(1997) indicated the consideration factors to establish the performance indicators were: 1. The indicators should be based on the organizational target; 2. The indicators can be compared with the similar organization internally or externally. 3. The indicators should be capable to specifically explain operational situation; 4. The indicators should match the uniqueness of the organization. The normal measures of the organizational performance are commonly divided into three categories: 1. The Financial performance indicators: the return on assets and profitability. 2. The operational performance indicators: the market share and the unit output cost etc. 3. The quality performance indicators: the customer s satisfaction etc. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June,

3 Huang Jia-Qi (2002) categorized the organizational performance as three types: 1. The internal effect: to attract the talents, remain the nice employees, increase the communication between the management level and the employees, increase the commitments from the employees towards the company, helpful for the development of the human resource, further the strain capacity to the environment, stimulate the learning of the organization, form the aggressive company culture, benefit the reputation and image of the company, advantage to the exhibition of the strategic proposal. 2. The market performance: the customer s satisfaction, revenue growth rate, profitability and market share. 3. The financial performance: net per person, return on assets and return on net worth Zhang Yong-Ren (2013) specified that the organization usually pursued efficiency and effectiveness. The efficiency is like productivity force which focuses on the ratio of the actual output and the actual input; however, the effectiveness means the ratio of the actual output and the actual input yet since it contains the target output, therefore, it includes the value judgement of the human factor. In other words, efficiency is to do things right while effectiveness is to do right things. The combination of the efficiency and effectiveness can understand the outcome of the organizational activities which is the organizational performance. The theoretical review of the balanced scorecard 1) What is the balance scorecard Balanced Scorecard was a restriction by Robert S. Kaplan and Professor David P. Norton (1996) towards the over reliance of the finical measure indicators from the enterprises by Robert S. Kaplan and Professor David P. Norton (1996) in the late 80s, it was also an understanding that the method to improve the short-term performance by the enterprises at that time, such as lay-off, the reduction of research and development, training and the customer services may damage the long existence of the enterprises. Huang Bei-Ling (2012) mentioned that Kaplan & Norton proposed the concept of the balanced scorecard with three points which were the multiple measures, lagging the leading indicators, internal indicators and external indicators. The balanced scorecard starts with the company perspectives and strategies, switches the objectives and measures through four measures of finance, customers, internal process and the employee s learning and growth to measure the enterprise performance. 2) The four measures of the balanced card Kaplan & Norton (1996) divided the balanced card to four measures as finance, customers, internal process and the employee s learning and growth in the book of The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action. 1. The finical measure: considered the life cycle of the enterprise can be simplified as; growing stage, maintenance stage, and maturity stage. The finical targets cycles of different intervals is as following table 1 Table 1: The enterprise s finical target of each life cycle. Enterprise s life cycle Finical target. The sales growth of the new customer and new product in the new market Growing stage. The expense to be able to properly support the research and development, strengthen the employee s capability and explore the new sales channel. Maintenance stage. Emphasize the profitability and the return on investment.. Expand the cash flow to give feedback on the previous investment. Maturity stage. Reduce the requirement for the operational funds. Source of the information: Kaplan & Norton The Balanced Scorecard:Translating Strategy Into Action translated by Zhu Dao-Kai, The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June, 2016

4 The core measures based on the different intervals of the finical aspect are: (1) The return on investment. (2 ) The profitability ratio of the target customers and product line. (3) The revenue growth rate of the market. (4) The cost deduction rate with the competitors. (5) The average earned ratio of the employee. (6) The ratio of the operational funds. 2. The customer measure: The core measures of the customer measure are: (1) The market share ratio: a ration that reflects a sales ratio in the business unit. (2) The customer acquisition rate: to measure the speed that a business unit to win the new customer or new sales. (3) The customer retention rate: to record the ration between the existing customer retention or relationship maintenance and a business unit. (4) The customer satisfaction rate: to evaluate the customer s satisfaction according to the specific performance criteria of the value proposition. (5) The customer s profitability: to measure the net profit of a customer or a region after deducting the special expense to support the customer s needs. 3. The internal process measure: what do you do to make the internal process superior to satisfy the customers and the shareholders? The development of the balanced scorecard is to satisfy the customers and the target customers requirements or anticipation, then to establish all the possible indicators to achieve this target, and finally to extend the internal target and indicators of the process flow with this strategy. The setup of the internal performance indicators of the enterprise should consider the value chain of the enterprise and think of how to satisfy the customer s needs with the three measures of creativity, operation and the process of the after service and establish all the possible indicators to achieve this target. The core measures of the internal process measure are: (1) The average unit price. (2) The turnover rate of the target product. (3) The return rate. (4) The shortage rate. 4. The learning and growing measure: To achieve the prospect, how can we maintain the ability of change and improvement? This measure is to create the basic framework of the long-term growth and improvement of the organization. There are three measure indicators which are: (1) The employee s satisfaction. (2) The employee s retention. (3) The employee s productivity force. The driving factors are: (1) The employee s skills. Such as, the strategic technology, training level and the exhibition of the technology. (2) The infrastructure of technology. Such as the strategic technology, strategic data base, accumulate experiences, exclusive software, patent right and copyright etc. (3) The climate action. The cycle of the major decision, strategy focus, employee authorization, individual cooperation, morale and team awareness. 5. The measure connection and strategy: The target of any measuring system should be to inspire all the management level and employees to implement the strategy of the business unit. Therefore, the development of the balanced scorecard should start with the clarification of the enterprise s perspective and strategy, then to identify the key factors according to the four measures and finally to design the key performance index (KPI). Design of the research Selection of the research method Fuzzy AHP The statement of the Fuzzy AHP from Buckley (1995) is as following, The concept to use Fuzzy AHP for the evaluation of the criteria or proposal is because such judgement or measurement is a subjective and mental appraisal which contains uncertainty. To solve this deficiency, the application of Fuzzy AHP is the best method. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June,

5 The exposition about the amendment of Buckley s fuzzy AHP is as following. This research was based on the fuzzy AHP of Buckley (1995) which included (1) have each expert use the trapezoidal fuzzy number to present the opinion about the relative importance of the paired factors and (2) the deficiency of over complex in the operation by using the triangular fuzzy number as the fuzzy membership function. While giving the questionnaire, ask the decision maker to fill the interval scale based on the own feeling. To calculate the fuzzy weight of each interviewer and use Saaty s method to take geometric mean as the integrated function to integrate the overall decisions. Then obtain the weight as the fuzzy value with Buckley s method. This study developed the method of ranking fuzzy numbers based on Zhau & Govind, 1991; Teng &Tzeng, 1996; Tang & Tzeng, 1999, which was to use center of gravity method to defuzz the triangular fuzzy number and find out the best non-fuzzy value or the best crisp value. This research amended the operation for the weight by Buckley s Fuzzy AHP as stated below, Step 1: Establish the fuzzy matrix of paired comparison Through the questionnaire, get the viewpoint from each expert about the importance of the paired factors with trapezoidal fuzzy number, then establish the fuzzy matrix of paired comparison Ãi. a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 a12 a1n 1 a12 a1n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a21 a22 a2n a21 1 a2n A i a, i 1,2, n ij 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ an1 an2 ann an1 an2 1 ij ij ij ij a ~ l, m, u a. ~ ~ 1, ij 1,2,, n ij a ji l ij : The minimum value of the interval scale from the interviewer. m ij : The average of the interval scale. u ij : The maximum value of the interval scale from the interviewer. Step 2: The consistency verification of the fuzzy matrix According to the Buckley s research, the following result was obtained Set A aij as a positive reciprocal matrix, and A a ij is a fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix. If A aij is consistent, then A a ij is also consistent. Determine if this questionnaire is effective accordingly. Step 3: Calculation of the fuzzy weight Z i Buckley introduced the evaluation of the weight with the concept of the geometric mean Step 4: The series connection of all levels Set the decision framework to 3 levels, if f k f 1k,,f nk and e e,,e 1 k is the fuzzy weight of each proposal A k, is the fuzzy weight of the previous level, then the formula of the overall hierarchical w f e f e weight of each proposal is as following, j j1 1 jk k Step 5: Defuzzy This study developed the method of ranking fuzzy numbers based on Zhau & Govind, 1991; Teng 60 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June, 2016

6 &Tzeng, 1996; Tang & Tzeng, 1999, which was to use center of gravity (Center of Area, COA or Center Index, CI) method to defuzzy the triangular fuzzy number and find out the best non-fuzzy value or the best crisp value, which was to obtain the specific weight of each proposal. The operation is as below DFw1=[( u i -1 i )]+( m i -1 i )/3+1 i Step 6: Normalization Normalize the weight obtained from each proposal to get the below ration W 1 =DFw 1 / DFw 1 FRAMEWORK The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June,

7 The explanation of the variable Table 2: The explanation of the variable Measures Criterion variable (evaluative criteria) Explanation of the variable Finance Customer Internal process Learning and growing. Return on investment. The profitability ratio of the target customers and product line. The revenue growth rate of the market. The cost deduction rate with competitors. The average earned ratio of the employee. The ratio of the operational funds. The market share ratio. The customer acquisition rate. The customer retention rate. The customer satisfaction rate. The customer s profitability. The average unit price. The turnover rate of the target product. The return rate. The shortage rate. The employee s satisfaction. The employee s retention. The employee s productivity force Source of information: Organized by this study : Means the ration between the profit and cost after the investment : Means the profit rate which obtained by selling to the major customers with the product series : Means the scale of the revenue comparing with the previous stage : Means the ratio of the indirect cost over the sales comparing with the competitor s cost : Means the actual profit that the company earns for the operational performance resulted from the employee s quality : Means the rate of the fund that the company should have for the operation : The sales rate that a business unit should obtain : To measure the speed rate of a business unit to attract or win the new customers or new sales : To record the ration between the existing customer retention or relationship maintenance and a business unit. : To evaluate the customer s satisfaction according to the specific performance criteria of the value proposition : The net profit of a customer or a region after deducting the special expense to support the customer s needs. : Means the value of each unit product in the market value that reflects on the unit price : Means the deal rate of the key product sold in the market : Means the return rate caused by the unsatisfaction of the product or the defectiveness after the products sold. : Means the rate of the product shortage that can t meet the market demands : Means the comparison between the employee s anticipation and actual situation. : Means the retention rate of the employee : Means the input and output rate of the production relating to the employee s training and skills Sample selection on the object The sources of the sample of this study were the supervisors of the semiconductor industry in the Hsinchu Science Park (the expert s opinions) and the academia, with the further analysis of 10 effective questionnaires on each. The effectiveness of the questionnaire can be achieved by having the paired comparison be coherent and proceed with the verification of the consistency to make the Consistency Index (CI). C.I.=(λ max -n)/(n-1) n means the criterion numeral; λ is the greatest characteristic root. Normally, when C.I. 0.1, the consistency is acceptable. Use the Expert choice software to verify the C.I and determine the consistency of the questionnaire. Data analysis The research used linguistic variable to express the evaluation of the relative important between two proposals while each expert (the enterprises and academia) answer the questionnaire. These linguistic variables can be presented with positive triangular fuzzy number and positive reciprocal fuzzy number as shown in table 3 62 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June, 2016

8 Table 3: The evaluation scale of the relative importance Linguistic variable Positive triangular fuzzy number Positive reciprocal fuzzy number Extremely strong (9,9,9) (1/9,1/9,1/9) In between (7,8,9) (1/9,1/8,1/7) Extremely (6,7,8) (1/8,1/7,1/6) In between (5,6,7) (1/7,1/6,1/7) Quite strong (4,5,6) (1/6,1/5,1/6) In between (3,4,5) (1/5,1/4,1/3) A little strong (2,3,4) (1/4,1/3,1/2) In between (1,2,3) (1/3,1/2,1) Equally strong (1,1,1) (1,1,1) Source of information: Wang Chung-Hsiang- A Study on the Application of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process to IC Industrial Policy Adoption(2003) In the questionnaire answered by the enterprises and academia, the fuzzy weight (Wi) can be obtained from the four measures of level one, and fuzzy weight (Xi) can be obtained from the eighteen evaluations of level 2, and then to obtain the combined fuzzy weight (Wi Xi) with the triangular fuzzy a l,m,u, and defuzz to obtain the fuzzy number with the center of area (COA). number ij ij ij ij DFw 1u ilim il i / 3li. To obtain the fuzzy number. Take the measure of the enterprise s finance as example, the operation is shown as Table 4: the fuzzy weights (Wi) of the finical measures are (0.291, 0.362, 0.453) and the fuzzy numbers are [( )+( )]/ =0.369 Table 4: The analysis table of fuzzy weight and fuzzy number of each measure for the balanced scorecard-- Enterprises Measure Fuzzy weight(wi) Fuzzy number Importance ranking Finance (0.291,0.362,0.453) Customer (0.256,0.321,0.398) Internal process (0.184,0.213,0.249) Learning and growing (0.089,0.104,0.122) Source of information: Organized by this study Level 1 The fuzzy weight of each measure (Wi) Finance (0.291,0.362,0.453) Customer (0.256,0.321,0.398 Table 5: The analysis table of fuzzy weight and fuzzy number of each evaluation for the balanced scorecard-- Enterprises Level 2 The evaluation Level 2 The fuzzy weight of the evaluation (Xi) Combination of the fuzzy weights (Wi Xi) Fuzzy number Importance Ranking Return on investment ( ,0.278,0.392) (0.057,0.101,0.177) The profitability ratio of the target customers and product line (0.157,0.224,0.317) (0.046,0.081,0.143) The revenue growth rate of the market (0.123,0.179,0.26) (0.036,0.065,0.118) The cost deduction rate with competitors (0.108,0.153,0.216) (0.031,0.055,0.098) The average earned ratio of the employee (0.079,0.109,0.153) (0.023,0.039,0.069) The ratio of the operational funds (0.044,0.058,0.079) (0.013,0.021,0.036) The market share ratio (0.22,0.328,0.477) (0.056,0.105,0.190) The customer acquisition rate (0.131,0.194,0.282) (0.034,0.062,0.112) The customer retention rate (0.166,0.234,0.334) (0.042,0.075,0.133) The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June,

9 The customer satisfaction rate (0.102,0.147,0.219) (0.026,0.047,0.087) The customer s profitability (0.071,0.097,0.137) (0.018,0.031,0.055) The average unit price (0.352, 0.486,0.666) (0.054, 0.104, 0.202) Internal process The turnover rate of the target product (0.274,0.389,0.545) (0.050,0.083,0.135) (0.184,0.213,0.249) The return rate (0.195,0.291,0.42) (0.036,0.062,0.104) The shortage rate (0.148,0.209,0.311) (0.027,0.044,0.077) The employee s satisfaction (0.363,0.511,0.706) (0.032,0.053,0.086) Learning and growing The employee s retention rate (0.232,0.311,0.424) (0.021,0.032,0.052) (0.089,0.104,0.122) The employee s productivity force (0.139,0.178,0.232) (0.012,0.019,0.028) Source of information: Organized by this study Table 6: The analysis table of fuzzy weight and fuzzy number of each measure for the balanced scorecard-- Academia Measure Fuzzy weight(wi) Fuzzy number Importance ranking Finance (0.32,0.419,0.543) Customer (0.26,0.346,0.458) Internal process (0.129,0.165,0.213) Learning and growing (0.058,0.071,0.09) Source of information: Organized by this study Level 1 The fuzzy weight of each measure (Wi) Finance (0.32,0.419,0.543) Customer (0.26,0.346,0.458) Table 7: The analysis table of fuzzy weight and fuzzy number of each evaluation for the balanced scorecard-- Academia Level 2 The evaluation Level 2 The fuzzy weight Combination of the fuzzy Importance Fuzzy number of the evaluation (Xi) weights (Wi Xi) Ranking Return on investment (0.2181,0.294,0.391) (0.070,0.123,0.212) The profitability ratio of the target customers and product line (0.196,0.263,0.35) (0.063,0.110,0.190) The revenue growth rate of the market (0.151,0.205,0.277) (0.049,0.086,0.150) The cost deduction rate with competitors (0.067,0.092,0.127) (0.022,0.039,0.069) The average earned ratio of the employee (0.065,0.08,0.102) (0.021,0.033,0.055) The ratio of the operational funds (0.052,0.067,0.089) (0.017,0.028,0.048) The market share ratio (0.254,0.348,0.472) (0.066,0.120,0.216) The customer acquisition rate (0.181,0.234,0.304) (0.047,0.081,0.139) The customer retention rate (0.147,0.194,0.256) (0.038,0.067,0.117) The customer satisfaction rate (0.129,0.17,0.224) (0.034,0.059,0.103) The customer s profitability (0.043,0.054,0.069) (0.011,0.019,0.032) The average unit price (0.302,0.396,0.517) (0.039,0.065,0.110) Internal process The turnover rate of the target product (0.252,0.328,0.426) (0.033,0.054,0.091) (0.129,0.165,0.213) The return rate (0.154,0.199,0.259) (0.020,0.033,0.055) The shortage rate (0.063,0.076,0.094) (0.008,0.013,0.020) The employee s satisfaction (0.441,0.552,0.69) (0.026,0.039,0.061) Learning and growing The employee s retention (0.258,0.334,0.429) (0.015,0.024,0.038) (0.058,0.071,0.09) The employee s productivity force (0.097,0.114,0.138) (0.006,0.008,0.012) Source of information: Organized by this study Table 8: The comprehensive analysis table of fuzzy weight and fuzzy number of each measure for the store section (location) Enterprises & academia Measure Enterprises Academia Composite average Fuzzy number Ranking Fuzzy number Ranking Fuzzy mean Importance ranking Finance Customer Internal process Learning and growing The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June, 2016

10 In the measure of level 1 as shown on table 8, the importance ranking of the fuzzy weight no matter from the enterprises, academia or the composite average is finance> customer> internal process> learning and growing Table 9: The comprehensive analysis table of fuzzy weight and fuzzy number of each evaluation for the store section (location) The combination of enterprises and academia Level 2 The evaluative criteria (Wi) Enterprises Academia Composite average Fuzzy number Ranking Fuzzy number Ranking Fuzzy number Ranking Return on investment The profitability ratio of the target customers and product line The revenue growth rate of the market The cost deduction rate with competitors The average earned ratio of the employee The ratio of the operational funds The market share ratio The customer acquisition rate The customer retention rate The customer satisfaction rate The customer s profitability The average unit price The turnover rate of the target product The return rate The shortage rate The employee s satisfaction The employee s retention The employee s productivity force In the measure of level 2 as exhibited in table 9, the composite average of the enterprises and academia obtained the ranking of the fuzzy weight as the market share ration> return on investment> the profitability ratio of the target customers and product line> the revenue growth rate of the market> the average unit price> the customer acquisition rate> the customer retention rate> the turnover rate of the target product> the customer satisfaction rate> the cost deduction rate with competitors>the employee s satisfaction rate>the return rate>the average earned ratio of the employee>the employee s retention rate>the customer s profitability>the ratio of the operational funds>the shortage rate>the employee s productivity force. No matter in the enterprises, academia or the composite average, the first three importance ranking of the fuzzy weights that obtained were the market share ratio, return on investment and the profitability ratio of the target customers and product line. The last ranking was the employee s productivity force. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions can be obtained through the data analysis of the composite average of the enterprises and academia for the evaluation of the organizational performance with the balanced scorecard for the semiconductor industry in Taiwan: The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June,

11 1. The importance ranking (order of priority) can be obtained in the measures of evaluative criteria of level 1, which were finance (0.399)> customer (0.340)> internal process (0.192)> learning and growing (0.089). 2. The importance ranking (order of priority) can be obtained in the criterion variable of level 2, which were market share ratio( )> return on investment ( )> the profitability ratio of the target customers and product line ( )> the revenue growth rate of the market ( )> the average unit price ( )> the customer acquisition rate ( )> the customer retention rate ( )> the turnover rate of the target product ( )> the customer satisfaction rate ( )> the cost deduction rate with competitors ( )> the employee s satisfaction ( )> the return rate ( )>the average earned ratio of the employee ( )>the employee s retention rate( )>the customer s profitability (0.0195)> the ratio of the operational funds ( )> the shortage rate )> the employee s productivity force ( ) 3. The fuzzy weights of the finical measure (0.399) was the highest, therefore, the fuzzy weights and the importance ranking (priority) after the combination of the criterion variables of the return on investment ( ), the profitability ratio of the target customers and product line ( ) and the revenue growth rate of the market ( ) were also higher. However, the fuzzy weight of the learning and growing measure (0.089) was the least. Therefore, the fuzzy weights and the importance ranking (priority) after the combination of the criterion variables of employee s productivity force was the least. SUGGESTION For the individual subjective point of view while answering the questionnaires, the result will be difference based on the different objects. Regarding the research method for the performance evaluation, the following researchers may use the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for the further study. With the different research method, the result can be verified. REFERENCES Buckley, J. J., (1985). Ranking Alternatives Using Fuzzy Numbers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 15(1), pp Evans, Hugh, Gary Ashworth, Mike Chellew, Andrew Davidson & David Towers, (1996). Exploiting activity-based information: Easy as ABC, Management Accounting. Huang Bei-Ling, (2002). Balanced Scorecard, e Business Executive Report, No. 40. Huang Jia- Qi, (2002). Human Resource Management Activity and Organizational Performance-the Mediation Effect of the Employee s Skill and Motivation, Journal of human resource management, No..2(4), Hong Chun- Hui, (2016). From the Development of The Semiconductor Industry Across the Taiwan Strait Observe the Challenge and Opportunity of Taiwan. Taiwan semiconductor industry association No.75. Kaplan, R S., and D.P. Norton., (1996). The Balanced Scorecard:translating into action. Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Levinson, P.F., (1970). Managing for Tomorrow-Managing in Turbulent Times, Industry Week, Vol.25. Li Zhang Gui, (1998). Performance Management and Performance Evaluation, Hwa Tai Publishing Co., Ltd., Taipei. Saaty, TL., (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York:McGraw-Hill. Streers, B.P., N.G. Hall and S.W. Smalt., (1998). How no financial performance measures are used, Management Accounting, February. Stephen P. Robbins, (1994). Organizational Behavior, translated by Li Mao-Xing, Li Mu-Hua& Lin Lin Zong- Hong. 66 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June, 2016

12 Stokes, P.M., (1982). A Total System Approach to Management Control. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action - Kaplan, Robert S & Norton, David P original work, translated by Zhu Dao-Kai, (1999). Faces Publishing LTD., Taipei. Wang, Chung-Hsiang, (2003). A Study on the Application of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process to IC Industrial Policy Adoption, Institute of Public Affairs Management National Sun Yat-sen University, a master s thesis. Wu, Wan Yi and Lin Qing, (2000). Business Research Methods, Hwa Tai Publishing Co., Ltd. Xing, Shuang- Yu, (1997). The Review and Decision Model of the Health Insurance and Medical Expense, Institute of Hospital and Health Care Administration, National Yang-Ming University, a research report. Zadeh, L. A, (1965). Information and Control, Fuzzy Sets., 8(3), pp Zhang Yong- Ren, (2013). How the Organization Dynamic Capability and the Training Quality System in Taiwan Affect the Organizational Performance. Au unpublished Master s thesis, Department of Labor Relations, National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi County. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 12, Num. 1, June,