This thesis indicates that the relationship between the budgetary participation and managerial performance of Japanese companies in Taiwan is practical. If organizational performance is an intervening variable of budgetary participation and organizational commitment, it proves that the relationship budgetary participation and organizational commitment is positive and obvious. It also reveals that organizational commitment and managerial performance also have a positive relationship. In addition, budgetary participation can get an indirect influence to increase managerial performance by adding organizational commitment., The demonstrations show that the relationship between budgetary participation and managerial performance is negative, which is the same as the outcome of Sterdry (1960), Bryan & Locke (1967), Blumenfield & Leidly (1969) and Cherrington (1973). However, it is different from that of Argyris (1955), Brownell (1982), Brownell & McInnes (1986), Govindarajan (1986), Dunk (1990), Kren (1992). Therefore, the relationship between budgetary performance and managerial performance has not reached a consistent conclusion until now. In order to explain the inconsistent relationship between budgetary participation and managerial performance, the studies are based on the organizational commitment as an intervening variable. After the demonstrations, without dividing into groups, organizational commitment has an indirect influence between budgetary participation and managerial performance. However, by dividing into groups, it does not indicate the causation relationship except that of the group of Taiwanese managers to join the formal budgetary participation. According to different nations and different ways to join in a group by dividing into variable groups, with an advanced research, it reveals that the relevant coefficient of organizational commitment and managerial performance is positive for Japanese managers. Moreover, the relevant coefficient of the group of informal budgetary participation is much higher than that of the group of formal budgetary participation. Thus, it proves that Japanese managers prefer to the informal budgetary participation, which matches the assumption of studies. For Japanese companies, the pattern to make decisions depends on the agreement of each member, and the managers prefer to cooperate with them in private (NEMAWASHI). For Budgetary Participation, it is just formal. Although the relevant coefficient of budgetary participation and organizational commitment for Taiwanese managers shows the positive aspects, it is impossible to achieve the indirect affection to increase the managerial performance within the use of organizational commitment. It indicates that Taiwanese managers can¡¦t possess the power to make decisions in the Japanese companies. Though they join those formal meetings of budgetary participation, they still can¡¦t increase managerial performance without any incentives. Therefore, it is not ideal to establish the budge of each department in a company only to encourage them to join meetings. It is to reward them or to give them spiritual support that can increase the managerial performance. This research can provide Japanese companies in Taiwan with the most important references to design or implement the budgetary system in achieving the expected goal.

專家系統自1965年發展至今，其發展是與日遽增，在邁入二十一世紀這個新紀元，傳統的專家系統遭遇到不同以往的問題，不僅處理的問題複雜度提高之外，在建置系統的過程中需要更多專家提供其寶貴的意見，以期讓系統在處理問題的層面能更加寬廣及增進其彈性和效用。因此，多專家系統能夠解決傳統上單一專家先天上的限制。Gaines和Shaw於1989年在其論著中指出，利用一群專家的知識來發展專家系統其效益比單一專家來的更好。 然而，在多專家的專家系統中會產生案例選取的衝突，過去大都依賴人為的經驗法則判斷。如此一來，不僅在處理的時間成本上產生耗損，其選取案例的公信力亦容易令人產生存疑。此外在相關的研究上，絕大多數都未對於此一衝突提出另外一套較具公正性的解決辦法。 針對此一現象，本研究發現欲解決其中之案例衝突，可以藉由群體決策和多評準決策領域中尋求解決之辦法，透過本研究一連串的文獻蒐集與探討，得到Nemawashi決策模式可以加以導入應用，因此，本研究嘗試引用案例式推論（Case-Base Reasoning）、Nemawashi 決策模式，提出一個整合多專家的意見和解決其案例產生衝突的方法。 / Expert system has been in speeding development since 1965. With the advent of the 21st century, the traditional expert system is encountering problems different from the past. With the rising complexity of nowadays problems, it requires valuable opinions from more professionals in the construction of expert system. The multi-expert knowledge can not only broaden the scope in which the system handles problems, but also enhance the system’s flexibility and efficiency. Thus, multi-expert system outsmarts the conventional expert system which is restricted by the voice of a single expert. Gaines and Shaw in 1989 commented that the expert system was better quipped with a group of experts than with one single expert. Nevertheless, multi-expert system contains the problem of case conflict. To undermine the conflict, it is common for people to resort to experts’ judgments and their personal experiences. Consequently, the multi-expert system has the disadvantage of consuming time in the process of case selection. Moreover, the case selected out of this process may be unconvincing due to its overdependence on human decisions. As to the problem of case conflict, most of the researches related to multi-expert system do not propose other more objective solutions. Focus on the problem mentioned above, this study tends to solve case conflict through the use of Group Decision and Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM). After the collection and analysis of data, the study finds out that Nemawashi Decisions are effective in handling the problem of case conflict. Thus, this study attempts to apply Nemawashi Decisions in Case-Base Reasoning in order to combine opinions from different experts and to solve the case conflict in the multi-expert system.