232 /302
分析台灣金控公司之關鍵風險因子：以風險平衡計分卡結合決策分析實驗室法為基礎之分析網路法
232
feedback in the decision problem. For this reason, the ANP method is better to provide a
flexible model to solve real world situations as compared to the AHP method. It is thus
expected that ANP will gain more popularity in the future, as the benefits of ANP become
better understood.” In addition, the results once again support the necessity and validity of
ANP application, despite the ANP is a more complex survey method compared to AHP.
Lee et al. (2013, 2016) has also found significant differences between AHP and ANP
results. Their multiple-case analyses confirmed that the ANP is more effective and reliable
compared to AHP, where complex interdependencies are involved among the criteria.
Finally, our DANP results can more clearly explain the RM-BSC factors compared to
those obtained by Tseng et al. (2011), who reported that the sum of relative weights from a
number of respondents was unequal to unity, thus partly violating the fundamentals of the
AHP.
Regarding the dimensions, the financial indicators prioritized by the experts in risk
management departments were strategic risk in the financial dimension, integration risk in
the customer dimension, operational risk in the business process dimension, and
management risk in the learning and growth dimension. At present, in a society offering
diverse choices, an abundance of information, and simplified transaction processes, the
financial holding industry strengthens the interactions between enterprises and customers
through the integration of customer relationship management and the convenience of one-
stop shopping. Moreover, the financial holding industry obtains key performance
indicators and consistent customer support by adopting the interactive model. Elyasiani,
Mehdian, and Rezvanian (1994) asserted that the financial performance and production
performance of large banks are significantly positively correlated. Therefore, according to
the opinions of the experts in risk management departments, among the five criteria with
the highest weights, the three criteria in the learning and growth dimension were ranked
the highest. This result is in agreement with those reported in previous studies (Ellul and
Yerramilli, 2013; Buston, 2016). Integration risk in the customer dimension was ranked
fourth, whereas strategic risk in the financial dimension was ranked fifth. These two risks
were found to be substantially more important for massive and diversified FHCs than they
were in the Internet banking study conducted by Tseng et al. (2011). Compared with the
risk factors in the other dimensions, those in the business process dimension had lower
overall weights. This might be partly explained by the well-controlled business processes
at FHCs in Taiwan. Comparison with the results obtained by Tseng et al. (2011) revealed
that service and security risks are not as important in FHCs as they are in Internet banking.