近年來，各大機車廠牌無不競相投入通路商e化系統的建置，透過電子化策略的導入，企圖深化包含供應鏈管理、協同商務、顧客關系管理等之管理思維，並搭配通路店頭實務活動，強化整體通路成效，期望在同業競爭中脫穎而出，達到提升機車行整體競爭力之目的。
本研究主要在探討影響機車行採用e化管理系統意願之影響因素。在資管領域，探討使用者採用新資訊系統的影響因素，解決科技與人間的問題，始終是很重要的議題。因此，在透過文獻探討、實務經驗解析、店頭訪談後以Taylor and Todd(1995b)「分解計畫行為理論」為理論基礎，建立本研究模式，採問卷調查方式，以研究個案全省經銷商為對象，回收有效樣本共250份，進行實証研究。
研究結果顯示：(1).影響機車行採用e化系統「行為意向」主要因素是對e化系統的支持程度，也就是「態度」，其次是「知覺行為控制」，也就是對使用e化系統所感知在資源、知識、能力上的掌握度，而「主觀規範」的影響，也就是因為同儕或上級因素而採用的影響，則不顯著。(2).「態度」受到「知覺有用性」、「知覺易用性」、「相容性」影響。對機車行而言，「知覺有用性」與「相容性」的考慮因素高於「知覺易用性」。(3).「知覺行為控制」受到「自我效能」與「科技助益條件」的影響，對機車行而言「資源助益條件」的影響並不顯著。

最後，本研究比較了「科技接受模式」(TAM)(Davis,1989)、計畫行為理論(TPB)(Ajzen, 1985 )、「分解計畫行為理論」(D-TPB)(Taylor and Todd,1995b)三種理論應用在本研究的結果，發現三種理論結果解釋力均非常接近，「分解計畫行為理論」因為考慮較多的社會心理因素，因此，比「科技接受模式」有較高的解釋力。

Today’s motorcycle business has come to the saturation point in the market of Tawian; consequently, the major motorcycle companies recently competed with each other in building the DMS (Dealer Management System) by using the e-solutions. Through the deployment of an e-DMS (e-solutions of Dealer Management System) for shops of motorcycle, the manufacturers hope that all the channels could be more competitive.
The purpose of this research is to explore the influence factors concerning the adoption of e-DMS of motorcycle’s shops. After the studies of literature and empiric, the research is based on “Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior” (Taylor and Todd, 1995b) to establish the research model.This resrerch suveryed 250 samples of motorcycle’s shops for study cases
The result of the research indicated that factors influenced the adoption of e-DMS for motorcycle shops as follows:
(1).“Behavioral Intention” was principally influenced by “Attitude” and “Perceived Behavioral Control”. The later was less important than the former. “Subject Norms” showed no obvious influence.
(2).“Attitude” was mainly influenced by “Perceived Usefulness”, “Perceived Ease of Use” and “Compatibility”. The first two factors were more important than the last one.
(3).“Perceived Behavioral Control” was chiefly influenced by “Self-efficacy” and “Technology Facilitating Conditions”. The later was less essential than the former. “Resource Facilitating Conditions” showed no apparent influence.
In the end, this research checks explanation by using three acceptance models, TAM (Davis, 1989), TPB (Ajzen, 1985) and D-TPB (Taylor and Todd, 1995b) to evaluate. All the explanations were nearly close. Because D-TPB considered the contruct of society psychology, it shows better explanation than the others.

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景
第二節 研究動機
第三節 研究目的
第四節 研究範圍
第五節 研究流程
第六節 論文架構
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 理性行為理論 (THEORY OF REASONED ACTION，TRA)
第二節 科技接受模型(TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL，TAM)
第三節 計畫行為理論(THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR，TPB)
第四節 「資訊系統接受行為」之相關研究
第五節 個案公司通路商E化系統簡介
第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究模式
第二節 研究假說
第三節 操作性定義
第四節 問卷設計
第五節 研究分析方法
第四章 研究分析
第一節 問卷發放與回收處理
第二節 回收樣本敘述性統計
第三節 信度與效度分析
第四節 研究假說檢定
第五節 研究結果分析
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結論
第二節 研究貢獻
第三節 實務建議
第四節 研究限制
第五節 未來研究建議
參考文獻
中文部份：
英文部份：
附錄
附錄一、機車行訪談內容(台南一)
附錄二、機車行訪談內容(台南二)
附錄三、機車行訪談內容(高雄一)
附錄四、機車行訪談內容(高雄二)
附錄五、前測問卷內容
附錄六、正式問卷內容

中文部份：
1. 張春興，1995，「教育心理學」，東華書局
2. 陳玟君，1999，「台灣地區企業採用電子文件傳送之行為意向研究—以計畫行為理論為例」，中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
3. 黃智強，1999，「影響採用網路購物因素之研究－以網路書店為例」，中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文
4. 徐慧婷，2000，「計劃行為理論之應用—以電子折價券為例」，成功大學企業管理所碩士論文
5. 黃正德，2001，「台灣中小製造業高階主管對企業e化意向之研究-以TPB模式來探討」， 中山大學高階經營管理研究所，碩士論文
6. 陳淑鳳，2001，「電子化政府下國稅稽徵人員資訊科技接受行為模式之研究」 中山大學公共事務管理研究所，碩士論文
7. 王淑娟，2002，「資訊系統採用行為之研究-以某大學資訊系統為例」,雲林科技大學資訊管理研究所, 碩士論文
8. 黃富順，1995，「成人參與繼續教育動機取向及其相關因素之研究」，國立台灣師範大學
9. 陳泳成，2003，「以修正後的科技接受模式探討影響「使用者自建系統接受」之因素”， 中山大學資訊管理研究所，碩士論文
10. 尤婷靜，2003，「影響網路報稅接受意向之關鍵因素:三種理論之比較」，中正大學資訊管理研究所，碩士論文
11. 孫培真，2003，「國中教師使用行動教學資訊載具之接受程度研究」， 國立高雄師範大學資訊教育研究所，碩士論文
12. 台灣區車輛工會，2003，「車輛產業與產質相關統計資料」
13. 林東清、孫培真、徐景智，2004，「影響資訊系統使用者抗拒行為之原因﹕以計畫行為理論為基礎之整合研究」，資訊管理研究，第二卷第二期
14. 林文雄，2004，「機車產銷顧客關係管理之研究─以知識管理為基礎」，中原大學資訊管理研究所論文
15. 吳惠宜，2004，「製造商影響策略與經銷商合作績效關係之研究－控制與關係
81
規範之干擾效果」，大葉大學/工業關係學系碩士班
16. 吳惠宜，2004，「製造商影響策略與經銷商合作績效關係之研究－控制與關係規範之干擾效果」，大葉大學/工業關係學系碩士班
17. 蔡秉儒，2004，「影響壽險業務員採用行動壽險業務系統因素之研究」， 樹德科技大學資訊管理研究所，碩士論文
18. 光陽工業，2004，「93年光陽公司通路e化專案結案報告書」，商業司e化活動計畫
19. 洪新原、梁定澎、張嘉銘，2005，「科技接受模式之彙總研究」(A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Research Using TAM)，刊名， 資訊管理學報. 卷期�出版年月， 12卷4期(2005/10). 頁次， 211-234
20. 方郁文、方國定，2005，「入口網站使用者行為模式之研究」，中華管理評論，國際學報，2005年2月第8卷1期•Vol.8， No.1，Feb 2005
21. 經濟部，2006年06月，產業電子化聯合服務網站,，http://www.ecos.org.tw/
22. 光陽工業，2006，「通路商系統使用滿意度調查報告」
82
英文部份：
1. Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M(1985). "Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,”Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Nj.
2. Ajzen, I. (1985). “From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer.
3. Ajzen, Icek and Thomas J. Madden(1985), “Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior： Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Contro,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, pp.453-474.
4. Ajzen, Icek (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.50, pp.179-211
5. Agarwal, R. and J. Prasad(1997), “The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntaries in the Acceptance of Information Technologies,” Decision Sciences, 28(3), pp.557-582.
6. Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W., "Structural Equation modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended two-step Approach", Psychological Bulletin, Vol.103, No.3, 1988, pp. 411-423.
7. Bagozzi, Richard P(1981)., “Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior：A Test of Some Key Hypotheses,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, pp.607-627.
8. Bagozzi, Richard P(1982)., “A Field Investigation of Causal Relations Among Cognitions, Affect, Intentions, and Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Reserach, pp.562-583.
9. Bagozzi, Richard P(1983)., “A Holistic Methodology for Modelling Consumer Response to Innovation,” Operations Research, 31, pp.128-176.
10. Bandura, A. (1977a). “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.” Psychological Review, Vol. 84, No. 2,pp. 191-215.
11. Bandura, A. (1977b). “Social learning theory”. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
12. Bandura, A. (1982). “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”. American Psychologist, 87, 122-147.
13. Bandura, A. (1986). “Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory”. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
14. Berthon,P.,Pitt,L.,Ewing,M., andCarr,C.L.(2002)“Pontential Research Space in
83
MIS:A ramework for Envisionong and Evaluating Research Replication, Extensyon, and Generation ,” Information System Research(13:4),December 2002,pp.416-427.
15. Bhattancherjee, A.(2000), “Acceptance of E-Commerce Services: The Case of Electronic Brokerages,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics- PartA: Systems and Humans, Vol. 30, No. 4, July 2000, pp.411-420.
16. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y.(1988), “On the Evaluation Structural Equation Models,” Academic of Marketing Science, 16, pp.74-94.
17. Bollen, K. A. and Stine, R. (1992), “Bootstrapping Goodness of Fit Measures in Structural Equation Models,” Sociological Methods and Research, 21, pp.205-229.
18. Bontis,Nick (1998), “Intellectual capital:explatory study that devalops measures and models”,Management Decision,Vol. 36,No.2,pp63.
19. Christie, B., Face to File Communication(1981), “A Psychological Approach to Iinformation System” ,Wiley, New York.
20. Cooper, R.B. and Zmud, R.W.(1990), “Information Technology Implementation Research：A Technological Diffusion Approach”, Management Science, 36,2, pp.123-139.
21. C.Aydin, R.E. Rice(1991), “Social Worlds, Individual Differences, and Implementation：Predicting Attitudes Toward a Medical Information Systems” Information and Management, pp.119-136.
22. Chau, P.Y.K. and Hu, P.J-H.(2002) “ Investigating healthcare professionals' decision to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories.” Information and Management, 2002, 39; 297-311.
23. Chin, W. W., and Todd, P. A. "On the Use, Usefulness, and Ease of Use of Structural Equation Modeling in MiS Research: A Note of Caution," MIS Quarterly {^9:2}, June 1995, pp. 237-246.
24. Chin, W.W. (1998), “Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.22, No.1, pp.7-16.
25. Chin, W. W.(1998), "The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modelling," in Modern Methods for Business Research, G. A. Marcoulides (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,NJ, forthcoming
26. Davis, F. D., “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology” MIS Quarterly (13:3), 1989, pp. 319-339.
27. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R., “User Acceptance of Computer
84
Technology：A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models”, Management Science
(35:8), 1989, pp. 982-1002.
28. D. Compeau, C. Higgins(1991),”A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective on Individual Reactions to Computing Technology”, Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Information Systems, pp.187-198.
29. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R., “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace ", Journal of Applied Social Psychology (22:14), 1992, pp. 1111-1132.
30. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I.(1975), "Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior：An Introduction to Theory and Research", Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
31. Fornell, C. R. (1982), "A Second Generation of Multivariate analysis", New York: Praeger Publishers.
32. Fornell, C, and Bookstein, F. L. "Two Structural Equation Models: LiSREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory, Journal of Marketing Research (19:4), November 1982, pp. 440-452.
33. Fornell, C. & Barclay, D.W., "Jackknifing: A supplement to Lohmoller’s LVPLS Program", Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI., 1983.
34. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F., "Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics", Journal of Marketing Research, No.18, 1981, pp.382-388.
35. Fornell, C. "A Second Generation of Multivariate Anaiysis: Classification of Methods and Implications for Marketing Research," in Review of Marketing, M. J. Houston (ed.), American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 1987, pp. 407-450.
36. G.R. Salancik, J. Pfeffer(1978), “A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design” ,Administrative Science Quarterly 23, pp.224-253.
37. Grover, V. and Goslar, M.D., “The Initiation, Adoption and Implementation of Telecommunications Technologies in U.S.”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.10, No.1, Summer, 1993, pp.41-163.
38. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall.
39. Hartwick, Jon and Henri Barki(1994), “Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use,” Management Science, 40(4), pp.440-465.
40. Hsu M.H. and Chiu C.M., Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance,
85
Decision Support Systems, 38:3, 2004, pp.369-381
41. Johansson, Johny K. & Yip, George S., "Exploiting Globalization Potential: U.S. and Japanese Strategies", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, Iss. 8; 1994, pp. 579-601.
42. J. Fulk, C.W. Steinfield, J. Schmitz, G.J. Power(1987), “A Social Information Processing Model of Media Use in Organizations”, Communication Research, pp.529-552.
43. J. Fulk, J. Schmitz, C.W. Steinfield(1990), “A Social Influence Model of Technology Use in Organizations and Communication Technology” ,Newbury Park, CA.
44. Lee,Y.,Kozar,K.A., and Larsen,K. R. T. "The Technology Acceptance Model : Past , Present , ans Future , " Communications of the Association for Information Systems” (12),2003,pp.752-780.
45. Liao, S., Shao, Y.P., Wang, H., and Chen, A., “The Adoption of Virtual Banking:an Empirical Study”,Internationa l Journal of Information Management, Vol. 19, 1999,pp. 63-74.
46. Lucas, H.C., and V.K. Spitler, “Technology Use and Performance: A Field Study of Broker Workstations” Decision Sciences 30(2), 1999, pp.291-311.
47. Mathieson, Kieran(1991), “Predicting User Iintentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior”,Information Systems Research, pp.173-191.
48. Moore, G.C., and Benbasat, I., “Development of an Instrument to Measure the
Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation”, Information
Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1991, pp. 192-222
49. Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, Second Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill. Osgood, C.E., Suci,G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957), The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana, IL:University of Illinois Press.
50. Oliver, Richard L. and William O. Bearden(1985), “Crossover Effects in the Theory of Reasoned Action”, Journal of Consumer Research, pp.324-340.
51. Paul Legris,*, John Ingham, Pierre Collerette,“Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model”, Information & Management 40 (2003) ，pp. 191–204
52. Rogers, E.M., “ The Diffusion of Innovations”, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York, 1983
86
53. Russell, L. P., Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R. W. (2001), “The assimilation of knowledge platforms in organizations: an empirical investigation,” Organization Science, 12(2), pp.117-135.
54. Schwab, D.P. (1980), “Construct Validity in Organizational Behavior,” in B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, pp.3-34.
55. Shimp, Terence and Alican Kavas(1984), “The Theory of Reasoned Action Applied to Coupon Usage” ,Journal of Consumer Research, 11, pp.795-809
56. Sethi, V. and Carraher, S. (1993), “Developing Measures for Assessing the Organizational Impact of Information Technology: A Comment on Mahmood and Soon’s Paper,” Decision Science, 24(4), pp.867-877.
57. Taylor, S., and Todd, P. A., "Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience", MS Quarterly (19:2), 1995a, pp. 561-570.
58. Taylor, S., and Todd, P.A., “Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models ", Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1995b, pp.144-176.
59. Triandis HC(1971), "Attitude and Attitude Change ", John Wiley, New York, 1971.
60. Triandis, H.C., "Values, Attitudes and Interpersonal Behavior", in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1979: Beliefs, Attitudes and Values, H. E. Howe (ed.), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, 1980,pp.195-259.
61. Venkatesh, V., and Speier, C., "Computer Technology Training in the Workplace: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Effect of the Mood," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (79:1), 1999, pp. 1-28.
62. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., and Ackerman, P. L., "A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision Making Processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes(83:1), 2000, pp. 33-60.
63. Venkatesh, V, “Determinants of perceived ease of use integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model.＂ Information Systems Research 11(4), 2000, pp.342- 265.
64. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D., "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science (45:2),2000, pp. 186-204.
65. Venkatesh, V., and Morris, M. G., "Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask For Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance
87
and Usage Behavior," MIS Quarterly (24:1), 2000, pp.115-139.
66. Venkatesh, V., M.G., Morris, G.. B. Davis and F. D. Davis, "User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View," MIS Quarterly,27,2003, 425-478.
67. Wixom, B.H. & Watson, H.J., "An Empirical Investigation Of The Factors Affecting Data Warehousing Success", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, Iss. 1; 2001, pp. 17-41.
68. Wold, H. (1966). Estimation of principal components and related models by iterative least squares. In P.R. Krishnaiaah (Ed.). ultivariate Analysis.(pp.391-420) New York: Academic Press.
69. Wold, H., "Systems under Indirect Observation Using PLS". In C. Fornell(ed.), A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis. Praeger, New York, 1982, pp. 325-347.