供應商所提供的產品與服務，無論在品質、交期、價格或彈性，皆會影響企業藉由製造與流通配送所創造的附加價值。因此，企業在評選供應商時必須非常謹慎。供應商評選工具的相關文獻主要在探討工具使用及功能，卻無法告訴決策者，所評選到的供應商是否真能為滿足企業的採購需求。然而，無法滿足企業的採購要求，將會增加企業額外的交易成本及影響到企業的競爭優勢。有鑑於此，本研究想要了解以專家經驗判斷所決定的供應商是否能帶來最佳的採購滿意度，並以層級分析法（analytic hierarchy process, AHP）為例，建構一個AHP模式及探討模式的有效性。由G公司的個案結果得知，AHP準則重要性的加權總分與採購滿意度的相關係數有正有負。在低重要性情境下，AHP準則重要性的加權總分與採購滿意度呈現不顯著的正相關，表示G公司透過AHP法評選出來的供應商對滿足G公司的採購要求是處於不明確的情況，故不建議使用AHP法於此情境的供應商評選。然而，在高重要情境下，AHP準則重要性的加權總分與採購滿意度呈現顯著的負相關，表示AHP法所評選出來的供應商無法滿足企業的要求，故不建議使用AHP法。最後，本研究將說明有效性對企業的管理意涵，以及有效性對供應商評選文獻的理論意涵。 For the product or service of suppliers, whether the quality, delivery date, price or flexibly would affect the additional value which were created by manufacturing and delivering form the companies. Thus, the enterprises must be cautious about selecting the suppliers. According to the related literature which gave us supplier selecting tools, they only showed us how to use the tools and defined the function of them. However, they didn't tell the decision makers how to evaluate if the selected suppliers satisfied the needs of their companies. If the suppliers couldn't meet the needs of the companies, it would have increased the trading cost and decreased the competitive advantage of the company. For these reason, this research come up with if the decision made by experienced professor had the best purchasing satisfaction. Also, we used analytic hierarchy process to build up AHP model and value its efficiency. As the result of the case of G Company, the correlation between the weighted result of the importance of the APH and purchasing satisfaction were both positive and negative. Under the low important condition, the weighted result of the importance of the APH and purchasing satisfaction was insignificant positive correlation. It meant that AHP wasn't a good tool for G Company to select a good supplier. Hence, we don't recommend the company using AHP to make decision in this case. On the other hand, under the high important condition, the weighted result of the importance of the APH and purchasing satisfaction was significant negative correlation. It meant the same as above. Finally, this research tells us two things. One is what the management meaning of efficiency is for the company. The other is what the theoretical meaning of efficiency is for the suppliers selecting.