본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

국가연구개발사업 예비타당성조사 제도의 평가방식에 대한 연구 : 매력적 품질이론의 적용 가능성에 대하여

Regarding the Preliminary Feasibility Study of National R&D Program : With Focus on the Applicability of Theory of Attractive Quality

0

조회

0

다운로드

9

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류학제간연구

초록

Purpose: This paper discusses the intrinsic assumption of one-dimensional relationship between the upperand lower levels in AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) for the Preliminary Feasibility Study of National R&DProgram. This assumptions has not been questioned in academia and industry so far. Methods: This discussion is induced by understanding the Theory of Attractive Quality (Kano et al. 1984)and explains the limitation of AHP in the preliminary feasibility study of national R&D program. Results: In this paper, we propose a new questioning method based on two dimensional perspective, whichis named as 2D-AHP (two dimensional AHP), to overcome the limitation. The main idea stems from the observationthat the relationship between the upper and lower levels in AHP can vary depending on the subjectof R&D. Conclusion: The two dimensional perspective pointed out in this paper should be more deeply studied inthe field of MCDM(multi-criteria decision making) since it can be applied to the more general problems inhuman decision making.

Abstract

Purpose: This paper discusses the intrinsic assumption of one-dimensional relationship between the upperand lower levels in AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) for the Preliminary Feasibility Study of National R&DProgram. This assumptions has not been questioned in academia and industry so far. Methods: This discussion is induced by understanding the Theory of Attractive Quality (Kano et al. 1984)and explains the limitation of AHP in the preliminary feasibility study of national R&D program. Results: In this paper, we propose a new questioning method based on two dimensional perspective, whichis named as 2D-AHP (two dimensional AHP), to overcome the limitation. The main idea stems from the observationthat the relationship between the upper and lower levels in AHP can vary depending on the subjectof R&D. Conclusion: The two dimensional perspective pointed out in this paper should be more deeply studied inthe field of MCDM(multi-criteria decision making) since it can be applied to the more general problems inhuman decision making.

참고문헌 (38)

  1. Belton, V., "On a Short-coming of Saaty's Method of Analytic Hierarchies", OMEGA International Journal of Management Science, 11(3), pp.228~230 (1982)
  2. Belton, V., "Comparison of the analytic hierarchy Process and a simple multi-attribute value function", Europe Journal of Operational Research, 26, pp.7~21 (1986)
  3. Belton, V., "Multiple Criteria decision making: an integrated approach" (2002), Kluwer Academic Publishers
  4. Dong, Y., "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP", Europe Journal of Operational Research, 186, pp.229~242 (2008)
  5. Dror, Y., "The planning process : A fact design", International Review of Administrative Science, 29(1), pp.46~58 (1963)
  6. Finnan, J. S., "Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale", Europe Journal of Operational Research, 112, pp.367~372 (1999)
  7. Forman, E. H., "The Analytic Hierarchy Process: An exposition", Operations Research, 49(4), pp.469~486 (2001)
  8. Gass, S. I., "Model World : The Great Debate MAUT Versus AHP", Interfaces, 35(4), pp.308~312 (2005)
  9. Goodwin, P., "Decision Analysis for Management Judgment, 3rd ed" (2004), John Wiley & Sons Ltd
  10. Harker, P. T, "Reply to R emarks on the Analytic H ierarchy P rocess", Management Science, 36(3), pp.269~273 (1990)
  11. Herzberg, F., "Work and The Nature of Man" (1966), World Publishing Company
  12. Housman, D. M., "Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy, 2nd ed" (2006), Cambridge University Press
  13. Jacobs, M., "The Green Economy" (1991), Pluto Press
  14. 장흥엽, "ASC를 이용한 품질특성의 중요도 결정", 품질경영학회지, 40(4), pp.589~598 (2012), 한국품질경영학회[DOI]
  15. 정욱, "네트워크 분석과정을 이용한 공급업체 평가에 대한 연구", 품질경영학회지, 37(4), pp.1~9 (2009), 한국품질경영학회
  16. 정욱, "ANP모델을 이용한 연구개발 성과의 상대적 비교에 대한 연구", 산업경영시스템학회지, 33(2), pp.89~96 (2010), 한국산업경영시스템학회
  17. Jung, U., "An ANP approach for R&D project evaluation based on interdependencies between research objectives and evaluation criteria", Decision Support Systems, 49(1), pp.335~342 (2010)
  18. Kano, N., "Attractive quality and must be quality", The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), pp.39~48 (1984)
  19. 권태형, "공공사업 타당성평가에서 다기준분석의 의의와 한계: 예비타당성조사의 AHP평가기법 활용 사례를 중심으로", 한국공공관리학보, 22(3), pp.31~51 (2008), 한국공공관리학회
  20. Lee, Y. B., "Exploring decision making process in pre-feasibility study of government R&D programs", The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers, Aunnual Spring & Fall Conferences, pp.3137~3141 (2011)
  21. 임성욱, "Kano 모델을 기반으로 한 잠재적 고객만족 개선지수", 품질경영학회지, 38(2), pp.248~260 (2010), 한국품질경영학회
  22. Mikulic, J., "A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model", Managing Service Quality, 21(1), pp.46~66 (2011)
  23. Millet, I., "On the Relative of relative measure accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP", Europe Journal of Operational Research, 121, pp.205~212 (2000)
  24. Munger, M. C., "Analyzing Policy" (2000), London, W.W.Norton & Company
  25. Ronald, R. Yager, "Recent Advances in Decision Making" (2009), Springer
  26. Saaty, T. L., "An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper. Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process", Management Science, 36(3), pp.259~268 (1990)
  27. Saaty, T. L., "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process", European Journal of Operational Research, 74, pp.426~447 (1994)
  28. Saaty, T. L., "This is Not the Analytic Hierarchy Process : What the AHP Is and What It Is Not", Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, pp.324~335 (1997)
  29. Saaty, T. L., "Decision Making with the analytic network process-Economic, Political, Social And Technological Applications With Benefits, Opportunities, Costs And Risks" (2007), Springer
  30. Sagoff, M., "Principle and the Environment" (2004), Cambridge University Press
  31. Salo, A. A., "On the measurement of Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process", Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, pp.309~319 (1997)
  32. Schoner, B., "Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP : Consequences and Solutions", Decision Science, 20, pp.462~475 (1989)
  33. Schoner, B., "A Unified approach to AHP with linking pins", Europe Journal of Operational (1993)
  34. Schoner, B., "Comment on Salo and Hamalainen's paper", Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, pp.322~324 (1997)
  35. Stewart, T. J, "A Critical Survey on the Status of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Theory and Practice", OMEGA International Journal of Management Science, 20(5-6), pp.569~586 (1992)
  36. Triantaphyllou, E., "Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study" (2000), Kluwer Academic Publishers
  37. Wijnmalen, D. J., "Analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR) with the AHP–ANP: A critical validation", Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7), pp.892~905 (2007)
  38. Witell, Lars., "Theory of attractive quality and the Kano methodology–the past, the present, and the future", Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(11-12), pp.1241~1252 (2013)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)