住宅櫥櫃系統方案的評選，是住戶期望選出花費最省、時間最短、品質最高之最佳方案的過程。然方案的評選過程包含「多準則」、「多方案」、「多人意見整合」等複雜因素，使得住戶面臨候選廠商所提供之櫥櫃方案時經常難以抉擇。因此，如何能於選購期間提供更切中住戶需求，以及能整合家中成員期望之方案篩選機制，成為值得探討之議題。
　　目前在決策理論的研究中，尚未有以住宅櫥櫃系統為研究標的之輔助決策研究。因此，本研究運用多準則決策中的AHP法來找出住戶選購櫥櫃系統的評估準則與偏好，並以TOPSIS法來評估方案的優缺，兩方法相互輔助，以解決住戶在評選櫥櫃系統方案時的決策難題。研究目的為：（1）藉由實際參與案例，歸納住戶評選櫥櫃系統方案時的評估架構；（2）應用多準則決策中之AHP與TOPSIS法，建立「住宅櫥櫃系統選購決策支援模型」；（3）運用住宅櫥櫃系統選購決策支援模型進行實例操作，以檢討其效用。
　　本研究藉由參與住戶選購櫥櫃系統之決策過程，透過決策流程之觀察與分析，擬訂住宅櫥櫃系統之評估架構。以AHP與TOPSIS法為基礎，建立輔助住戶選購住宅櫥櫃系統之決策模型。模型架構內容為：「前置作業」以AHP法之歸納原則，發展出4大評估基準與13項評估項目的層級架構。設計成對比較問卷與方案評比問卷兩大問卷作為，作為住戶使用本模型評估資料的「輸入介面」。模型經由台北縣一室內裝修個案，木作櫥櫃與系統櫥櫃兩個評選方案之實例操作。透過AHP＆TOPSIS法之「運算模組」，得到系統櫥櫃方案與理想解之相對接近度為0.584，木作櫥櫃為0.413，顯示系統櫥櫃為其住家櫥櫃系統的最佳方案。此結果亦與實例之決策結果相符合。而未來研究建議可進一步朝向介面的設計、資料庫以及運算模組的建置，以建立住宅櫥櫃系統選購之電腦輔助決策支援系統。

The selection for residential cabinet systems is a complex process, which meets demand for low price, short time and high quality. The process consists of multiple criteria, alternatives and opinions factors, so it is hard to find out the best decision for residents. Therefore, selecting mechanism for residential cabinet systems became an important issue.
Among decision making method research, decision making for residential cabinet systems has barely been focused. In this research, we combine AHP and TOPSIS to figure out the selecting problem. We utilize AHP to rank(explore) criteria and preference from residents, and employ TOPSIS to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of alternatives. Purposes of the research includes: (1) to generalize evaluating structure of selecting cabinet systems by participating; (2) to build The Decision Support Model For Selecting Residential Cabinet Systems by AHP and TOPSIS; (3) to put The Decision Support Model For Selecting Residential Cabinet Systems into practice and discuss its performance.
　　By participating in the process of selecting cabinet systems with residents, this research proposes thirty factors and builds up the structure for evaluation of residential cabinet systems. Moreover, we build up The Decision Support Model For Selecting Residential Cabinet Systems based on both AHP and TOPSIS method. The model includes establishing criteria and ranking for evaluation of residential cabinet systems .According to generalized principle of AHP, it develops a hierarchical structure which consists of four main criteria and thirteen sub-criteria. There are two main survey in this research, pair wise comparison survey and alternatives evaluation survey, designed as the interface between residents and the model. Then, we practice the model on a case of interior decoration, which selected between system cabinet and carpentry cabinet. The result of arithmetic from the case is consistent with actual decision, which selected system cabinet.

參考文獻
中文部分
張枝坤（1999）。模組化櫥櫃系統研究。大同大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，台北。
馮釗炫（1999）。多評準決策技術應用於電腦模擬分析之研究。中華大學工業工程與管理研究所碩士論文，新竹。
蕭建興（2000）。運用多準則評估方法於新銀行經營績效評估之研究。朝陽科技大學財務金融系碩士論文，台中。
畢威寧（2005）。「結合AHP 與TOPSIS 法於供應商績效評估之研究」。科學與工程技術期刊：第1卷，第6期，p.75~83。
呂建成（2001）。企業電子化策略方案評選之研究。大葉大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文，彰化。
胡清溪（2003）。後SARS時代集合住宅類型選擇多準則評估。國立中央大學土木工程研究所碩士論文，桃園。
李信佑（2002）。宜蘭縣公路建設計畫優先順序之研究。國立交通大學交通運輸研究所碩士論文，新竹。
陳冠傑（2004）。應用近似最佳解績效排序法於多目標設計決策之研究。國立成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，台南。
陳曉琪（2000）。供應商遴選之決策支援系統之研究。義守大學工業管理學系碩士論文，高雄。
鄧振源（2005）。計畫評估─方法與應用。海洋大學運籌規劃與管理研究中心，基隆市。
胡維哲（2006）。住宅類室內設計裝修業主之消費決策模式之探討。銘傳大學設計管理研究所碩士論文，台北。
李朝昇（2003）。住宅室內裝修消費前期之消費者決策行為模式。國立台灣科技大學建築研究所碩士論文，台北。
簡嘉宏（2005）。台北市系統家具市場之消費行為研究。銘傳大學管理學院高階經理碩士碩士論文，台北。

英文部分
Benayoun, R., Roy, B., & Sussman, N. (1966). Manual de Reference du Programme Electre: Note de Synthese et Formation. Direction Scientifique SEMA, 25.
Bernardo, J. J. & Blin J. M.( 1977). A programming model of consumer choice among multi-attributed brands. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(2), 111-118.
Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making : Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Churchman, C. W., & Ackoff, R. L. (1954). An approximate measure of value. Journal of the Operations Research Society of America, 172-187.
Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1995). Consumer Behavior, (8th ed.). New York: The Dryden Press.
Hsu, T. K., Tsai, Y. F., & Wu, H. H. (2008). The preference analysis for tourist choice of destination: A Case Study of Taiwan. Tourism Management, 1–10.
Hwang, C. L. & Lin, M. J. (1987). Group decision making under multiple criteria: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hwang, C. L. & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Işıklar, G. & Büyüközkan, G. (2007). Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 29, 265–274.
Jason, K. L. (2005). Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess, 19, 438-447.
Lin, M. C., Wang, C. C., Chen, M. S., & Chang, C. A. (2008). Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven: product design process. Computers in Industry, 59, 17–31.
Muralidhar, K., Santhanam, R., & Wilson, R. L. (1990). Using the analytic hierarchy process for information system project selection. Information and Management, 18 (2), 87-95.
Nydick, R. L., & Hill, R. P. (1992). Using the analytic hierarchy process to structure the supplier selection procedure. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 28(2), 31-36.
Partovi, F. Y. & Burton, J. (1992). An analytical hierarchy approach to facility layout. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 22 (4), 447-457.
Prasanta, K.D. (2001). Decision Support System for Risk Management: A case study. Management Decision, 39(8), 634-649.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill
Stelios, H. Z. (1998). Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 507-529
Zahedi, F. (1986). A simulation study of estimation methods in the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 20(6), 347-354.
Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.