醫院設施管理部門之營運績效好壞對於醫療服務、環境品質與醫院的整體營運有很重要的影響。然而國內醫院卻普遍缺乏設施管理部門營運成效之評估方法。資料包絡分析法（Data Envelopment Analysis, DEA）是用一組相互比較受評單位之投入與產出的相對關係，衡量其績效好壞的方式。目前已普遍用於企業、組織之績效評估。因此本研究擬運用DEA，建構一個醫院設施管理部門績效評估模型，協助管理者了解自身營運成效的好壞，並提供營運成效不佳的部門改善的方向與幅度，作為績效改進之依據。故本研究的目的為：運用DEA之理論方法建構醫院設施管理部門績效評估模型（Performance Evaluation of Facility Management in Hospitals, PEFM），與進行PEFM模型之實際案例操作與測試。本研究採文獻回顧的方式，對DEA理論與應用流程、設施管理部門之目標進行回顧整理。
本研究提出PEFM模型以設備材料費用、總人事費用作為投入項；以總樓地板面積、服務人次、病床數、能源效益、滿意度作為產出項。並以投入導向CCR（CCR-I）與投入導向BCC（BCC-I）之DEA績效分析模式運算。透過對台北地區十三家醫院設施管理部門進行PEFM模型實際案例操作與測試，首先診斷出在不同DEA績效分析模式時，相對有效率與相對無效率之FM部門為何；其次，從不同效率值的評估結果，了解當FM部門被評估為無效率時原因為何；最後被評估為無效率之FM部門可藉由績效改善建議中的標竿分析與差額變數分析，診斷出FM部門提升績效之學習對象與改善建議與幅度。本研究將PEFM模型評估結果與FM部門實際經營現況作案例差異測試，發現與PEFM評估結果並無異處。醫院設施管理部門管理者可運用PEFM模型，進行績效評估與提供改善建議之參考。

The performance of Facility Management（FM）department in hospital has important influence to medical care, environmental quality and hospital operation. However, hospitals lack methods to evaluate the performance of FM department. Data Envelopment Analysis（DEA）is a method to measure the relative efficiency between input and output of peer Decision-Making Units. DEA has been universally applied to business and organization for evaluating performance. This paper will use DEA to establish a performance evaluation model of FM in hospitals. For helping the administrator finds out how performance it is, and offering poor performance FM a direction to improve. Proposes of this paper are establishing the PEFM model by DEA theory, and using PEFM model to operate and test with the real case. The paper uses literature reviews to DEA theory, procedure and FM’s goal.
This paper establishes PEFM model with inputs: equipment and materials expenses, total hiring expense; outputs: total floor area, visit, bed, energy benefit, satisfaction and measures performance by CCR and BCC input-oriented. Using PEFM model to operate and test with the 13 real cases. The results of this paper are: First, we differentiate what the relative efficient and relative inefficient FM department is at different DEA performance way. Second, from different evaluating results of efficiency value, we find out the reasons of why the FM department was evaluated as being inefficient. Last of all, the evaluated inefficient FM departments can find out their benchmark by benchmark analysis, and adjust their input and output by slack analysis. here is no difference between PEFM model’s performance evaluation results and the operation state of FM department. The administrator of FM department in a hospital can utilize PEFM model carrying on the performance evaluation and offering improving suggestion as reference

1. Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., and Cooper, W.W. (1984). Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30(9), p. 1078-1092.
2. Barros, P.C. (2006). Productivity Growth in the Lisbon Police Force. Public Organization Review, 6(1), p. 21-35.
3. Braglia, M., Zanoni, S., and Zavanella, L. (2003). Measuring and Benchmarking Productive Systems Performances Using DEA: An Industrial Case. Production Planning & Control, 14(6), p. 542-554.
4. Castro-Lacouture, D., Medaglia A.L., and Skibniewski M. (2006). Supply Chain Optimization Tool for Purchasing Decisions in B2B Construction Marketplaces, Automation in Construction,16(5), p. 569-575.
5. Chandra, P., Cooper, W.W., Li, S., and Rahman, A. (1998). A Using DEA to Evaluate 29 Canadian Textile Companies — Considering Returns to Scale. International Journal of Production Economics, 54(2), p. 129-141.
6. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), p. 429-444.
7. Clark, R.L. (1992). Evaluation USAF Vehicle Maintenance Productivity Over Time: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis. Decision Sciences, 23(2), p. 376-384.
8. Golany, B., Roll, Y. (1989). An Application Procedure for DEA. OMEGA: International Journal of Management Science, 17(3), p. 237-250.
9. Hamer, J.M. (1988). Facility Management Systems. New York :Van Nostrand Reinhold.
10. Hjalmarsson, L., Odeck, J. (1996). Efficiency of Trucks in Road Construction and Maintenance：An Evaluation With Data Envelopment Analysis. Computers & Operations Research, 23(4), p. 393-404.
11. Kim, S.S., Yangb, I.H., Yeo, M.S., and Kim, K.W. (2005). Development of Housing Performance Evaluation Model for Multi-Family Residential Buildings in Korea. Building and Environment, 40(8), p. 1103-1116.
12. Kirigia, J.M., Emrouznejad, A., Sambo, L.G., Munguti, N., and Liambila, W (2002). Measurement of Technical Efficiency of Public Hospitals in Kenya: Using Data Envelopment Analysis, Journal of Medical Systems, 26(1), p. 39-45.
13. Kontodimopoulos, N., Nanos, P., and Niakas, D. (2006). Balancing Efficiency of Health Services and Equity of Access in Remote Areas in Greece. Health Policy, 76(1), p. 49–57.
14. Lewin, A.Y., Minton, J.W. (1986). Determining Organizational Effectiveness： Another Look and an Agenda for Research. Management Science, 32(5), p. 514-538.
15. Linna, M., Hakkinen, U., and Magnussen, J. (2006). Comparing Hospital Cost Efficiency Between Norway and Finland. Health Policy. Health Policy, 77(3), p 268–278.
16. Loethgren, M., Tambour, M. (1999). Testing Scale Efficiency in DEA Models：A Bootstrapping Approach. Applied Economics, 31(10), p. 1231-1237.
17. McCabe, B., Tran, V., and Ramani, J. (2005). Construction Prequalification Using Data Envelopment Analysis. Can. J. Civ. Eng, 32, p. 183-193.
18. Payne, T., Rees, D. (1999). NHS Facilities Management: A Prescription for Change. Facilities, 17(7/8), p. 217–221.
19. Pentzaropoulos, G.C., Giokas, D.I. (2002). Comparing the Operational Efficiency of the Main European Telecommunications Organizations: A Quantitative Analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 26(11), p. 595-606.
20. Shohet, I.M., Lavy, S. (2004). Integrated Maintenance Management of Hospital Buildings: A Case Study. Construction Management and Economics, 22(1), p. 25-34.
21. Uhlik, F.T., Hinze, J. (1998). Trends in the Construction Needs of Hospital Facilities. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 4(4), p. 132–134.
22. Vitner, G., Rozenes, S., and Spraggett, S. (2006). Using Data Envelope Analysis to Compare Project Efficiency in a Multi-Project Environment. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), p. 323-329.
23. Watcharasriroj, B., Tang, J.C.S. (2004). The Effects of Size and Information Technology on Hospital Efficiency. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15(1), p. 1-16.
24. 王中（2004）。國軍區域教學醫院工務室組織再造之研究，朝陽科技大學碩士論文。
25. 王嘉男、邱述濱、蔡仁瀚、林于正、邱繼加（2006）。台灣與大陸線上遊戲產業策略聯盟之研究─以資料包絡法與二次驗證為基礎，黃埔學報，50，195-206。
26. 卡普朗、諾頓（Kaplan, R.S., Norton D.P.）著（1999）。平衡計分卡─資訊時代的策略管理工具（The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action，朱道凱譯）。台北：臉譜文化。
27. 李英宗（2006）。資料包絡分析法應用於台灣南部公立醫院之實證研究，國立成功大學碩士論文。
28. 杜拉克（Drucker, P.F.）著（2002）。管理的使命（Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices，李芳齡譯）台北：天下雜誌。
29. 林坤緯（2008）。醫療設施管理部門之管理模式研究與營運成效評估，國立台灣科技大學碩士論文。
30. 胡信正，孫遜（2000）。資料包絡分析應用於陸軍聯合保修廠績效評估之研究，科技與管理學術研討會論文集，499-505。
31. 孫遜（2001）。台北市立綜合院營運績效評估之研究，科技與管理學術研討會，490-497。
32. 孫遜（2004）。資料包絡分析法—理論與應用，台北：揚智文化。
33. 高強、黃旭男、Toshiyuki Sueyoshi（2003）。管理績效評估─資料包絡分析法，台北：華泰文化。
34. 高橋政祺著（2000）。醫院管理學入門（第五版）（謝水森譯），新竹：國興。
35. 張玉祥（2006）。醫院工務維修管理服務品質之研究－以三軍總醫院為例，大葉大學碩士論文。
36. 陳思聿（2007）。應用資料包絡分析法於多院區醫院整建方案之評選，國立台灣科技大學碩士論文。
37. 陳澤義、陳啟斌（2006）。企業診斷與績效評估─平衡計分卡之運用，台北：華泰。
38. 吳濟華、何柏正、黃元璋（2008）。台灣地區營造業營運績效與經營策略，建築學報，64(2)，25-48。
39. 鄭高煌（2004）。行政院衛生署屬立醫院經營效率─資料包絡分析法，國立雲林科技大學碩士論文。
40. 鄭達才（1998）。設備維護管理─現在與未來，台北：中國生產力。
41. 鄭瀛川（2005）。績效管理練兵術，台北：汎果文化
42. 墨爾（Moor, D.S.）著（1998）。統計，讓數字說話（Statistics: Concepts and Controversies, 4th ed，鄭惟厚譯）。台北：天下遠見。
43. 薄喬萍（2005）。績效評估之資料包絡分析法，台北：五南圖書。
44. 謝溫國（2001）。利用品質機能展開法解析醫院的服務品質要素與其系統化之研究─以台中澄清醫院為個案，東海大學碩士論文。
45. 羅賓斯、科特（Robbins, S., Coulter, M.）著（1993）。管理學（Management, 7th ed，林孟彥譯），台北：華泰文化。
46. 行政院衛生署。網址：http://www.doh.gov.tw/cht2006/index_populace.aspx。
47. 台北市立聯合醫院。網址：http://www.tpech.gov.tw/。
48. 台北市建築管理處之使照查詢。網址：http://163.29.37.131:8080/