Modeling and Analyzing the Occpupational Competence for Tour Bus Drivers

• Main Author: 高嘉仁
• Other Authors: 楊宗璟博士
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2016
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/38201890450965135942

博士 === 逢甲大學 === 土木及水利工程博士學位學程 === 104 === Taiwan has not yet established any bus driver quality standard, does not initiate a written examination for driving license testing, has not implemented road testing, and therefore trainees focus only on vehicle handling skills while ignoring road driving exercises. Although pass rate of the test is over 90%, they do not pay much attention towards acquiring knowledge and cognitive concepts and believe that driving skill involves just vehicle handling and controlling. Thus, there is evidence about poor quality of driver training. Advanced countries’ vocational training includes hundreds of hours of driving instruction, which might result in why Taiwan’s vehicle accident rate is several times more than advanced countries. This study presents three facets of the EU ProfDRV (Professional driving) Project concerning knowledge, skill, and competence. Through the course of research this study obtained dimensions and indicators of Taiwan tour drivers’ occupational competences in safe driving and driving execution, as well as the associated degree of mutual relationship, causation, and quantification of effectiveness and weight. Moreover, this study constructed a Taiwanese bus driver model of safe driving competence and driving execution competence, also enhanced the key factors in driving performance. The results can be provided for the use of tour bus operators and for management, selection, and assessment of the Highway Administration, based on the service performance of the driver training in the future. After all research process, the following results are obtained. Firstly, using the double triangular fuzzy DELPHI and KANO methods to select the driving competence elements of tour bus drivers, the study obtained 53 elements and accordingly constructed 11 dimensions and 28 indicators, thus providing a three-layer functional relationship between these dimensions . Secondly, 11 dimensions of driving safety competence were analyzed by methods of Fuzzy DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory), Fuzzy DANP (Fuzzy DEMATEL with Analytic Network Process, FDANP), ISM (Interpretive Structural Model) and Fuzzy QFD (Fuzzy Quality Function Deployment, FQFD). From the results of DEMATEL and ISM analyses, the top five dimensions with greatest impact were obtained: “safe driving evaluation, adjustment, and duty recognition”, “driving awareness and hazard recognition”, “risk and hazard management ability”, “maintaining fitness and occupational safety management knowledge and ability”, and “recognizing the importance of vocational education and training”. These are the key factors for solving problems and should be listed as a priority project for improvement. The top three dimensions with great importance weight were also obtained: “safe driving evaluation, adjustment, and duty recognition”, “driving awareness and hazard recognition”, and “risk and hazard management ability”. These items are the most important and useful and should be classified as improvement targets. Thirdly, 28 indicators of driving safety competence were analyzed by the methods of Fuzzy DEMATEL and Fuzzy DANP. Consequently, in the analysis the items with greatest impact were: “having knowledge and ability of safe driving responsibility”, “having knowledge and ability of safety motivation”, “defensive driving ability”, “recognizing the importance of continuous vocational education and training”, “driving awareness and hazard recognition”, and “uphill and downhill safe driving on a mountain”. These indicators are expressed as key factors for solving problems and should be considered as priority for improvement in the implementation process, most of which belong to the facet of hazard perception and safety awareness. Another analysis on the importance of indicators showed the most important items were: “driving awareness and hazard recognition”, “recognizing the importance of continuous vocational education and training”, “recognizing the responsibility, honesty, and duty of driving fitness”, “driving capability in bad weather (wind, rain, ice, snow, dew, mist)”, “identifying and adjusting to poor visibility driving conditions”, and “safety inspections (pre-trip, en route, or post-trip )”. The competences of the first three items are still facets of hazard recognition and safety awareness, whereas the latter three have been transferred to practice of technical competences and should be classified as improvement targets. Fourthly, methods of Fuzzy DEMATEL, Fuzzy DANP, ISM, and Fuzzy QFD are used to analyze the importance and impact of 24 indicators of execution competence. In the results of DEMATEL and ISM analyses, there were 9 indicators with greatest impact: “developing and continual learning”, “initiating”, “accountability and dependability”, “achievement orientation”, “commitment to safety”, “tact”, “decision making”, “problem solving”, and “knowledge”. These are key factors for promoting execution competence and should be listed as priority project for improvement. There were 6 indicators with greatest importance: “developing and continual learning”, “commitment to safety”, “tact”, ”accountability and dependability”, “knowledge”, and “skill”. These items are the most important and useful and should be classified as improvement targets. In particular, special attention should be paid toward highlighting the impact power of knowledge in the ISM analysis and the important utility of knowledge and skill in the QFD analysis. Fifthly and finally, the architecture level analysis of competence also supports the views of experts such as those under the European Qualifications Framework specification. A novice driver is at the second level and is able to identify and understand the principles of driving as well as can drive according to guidelines or instructions; urban, while highway passenger bus drivers belong to the third level and can understand the principle of applying external knowledge in order to master more practical control skills; furthermore, a tour bus driver is at the fourth level and should be able to apply practical knowledge as well as to integrate skills in driving; moreover, a bus coach driver is at the fifth level and through knowledge and ability can analyze, evaluate, create, and integrate technical work and responsibilities so as to engage in teaching. In summary, the development of bus driver driving competence should focus on changing knowledge, concepts, and attitudes. From the teaching goal of handling and controlling a vehicle to the promotion of driving safety knowledge, motivation, and values, driver training should aim at reinventing a driver’s driving behavior and adapt to social norms and moral standards.