품질경영학회지 (Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management)

  • 제42권2호
  • /
  • Pages.131-143
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 1229-1889(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-9005(eISSN)
한국품질경영학회 (Korean Society for Quality Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • 임성민 (한국과학기술기획평가원) ;
  • 정욱 (동국대 경영대학)
  • Yim, Sung-Min (Korean Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning) ;
  • Jung, Uk (School of Business, Dongguk University-Seoul)
  • 투고 : 2014.05.12
  • 심사 : 2014.06.05
  • 발행 : 2014.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: This paper discusses the intrinsic assumption of one-dimensional relationship between the upper and lower levels in AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) for the Preliminary Feasibility Study of National R&D Program. 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, which is named as 2D-AHP (two dimensional AHP), to overcome the limitation. The main idea stems from the observation that the relationship between the upper and lower levels in AHP can vary depending on the subject of R&D. Conclusion: The two dimensional perspective pointed out in this paper should be more deeply studied in the field of MCDM(multi-criteria decision making) since it can be applied to the more general problems in human decision making.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Belton, V. 1982. "On a Short-coming of Saaty's Method of Analytic Hierarchies." OMEGA International Journal of Management Science 11(3):228-230.
  2. Belton, V. 1986. "Comparison of the analytic hierarchy Process and a simple multi-attribute value function." Europe Journal of Operational Research 26:7-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90155-4
  3. Belton, V., and Stewart, T. J. 2002. Multiple Criteria decision making: an integrated approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  4. Dong, Y., Xu, Y., Li, H. and Dai, M. 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP." Europe Journal of Operational Research 186:229-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.044
  5. Dror, Y. 1963. "The planning process: A fact design." International Review of Administrative Science 29(1):46-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/002085236302900108
  6. Finnan, J. S., and Hurley, W. J. 1999. "Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale." Europe Journal of Operational Research 112:367-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00411-6
  7. Forman, E. H., and Gass, S. I. 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process: An exposition." Operations Research 49(4):469-486. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.4.469.11231
  8. Gass, S. I. 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate MAUT Versus AHP." Interfaces 35(4): 308-312. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.1050.0152
  9. Goodwin, P., and Wright, G. 2004. Decision Analysis for Management Judgment, 3rd ed. Chichester England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  10. Harker, P. T ., and Vargas, L . G. 1990. "Reply to Remarks on the Analytic H ierarchy Process." Management Science 36(3):269-273. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.3.269
  11. Herzberg, F. 1966. Work and The Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.
  12. Housman, D. M., and McPherson, M. S. 2006. Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Jacobs, M. 1991. The Green Economy. London: Pluto Press.
  14. Jang, H. Y., Song, H. G., and Par, Y. T. 2012. "Determining the importance values of Quality Attributes Using ASC." Korean Journal of Quality Management 40(4):589-598. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2012.40.4.589
  15. Jung, U., and Chang, B. Y. 2009. "Selection of Suppliers using the Analytic Network Process." Korean Journal of Quality Management 37(4):1-9.
  16. Jung, U. 2010. "A Study of Relative Comparison of R&D Performance Using ANP model." Journal of the Society of Korea Industrial and Systems Engineering 33(2):89-96.
  17. Jung, U., and Seo, D. W. 2010. "An ANP approach for R&D project evaluation based on interdependencies between research objectives and evaluation criteria." Decision Support Systems 49(1):335-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.04.005
  18. Kano, N., Seraku, N., and Takahashi, F. 1984. "Attractive quality and must be quality." The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control 14(2):39-48.
  19. Kwon, T. H. 2008 "Critical Issues in Applying Multi-criteria Analysis into Feasibility Studies of Public Projects." Korean Public Management Review 22(3):31-51. https://doi.org/10.24210/kapm.2008.22.3.002
  20. Lee, Y. B., Ahn, S. J., and Hwang, J. H. 2011. "Exploring decision making process in pre-feasibility study of government R&D programs." The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers, Aunnual Spring & Fall Conferences, 3137-3141.
  21. Lim, S. U., and Par, Y. T. 2010. "Potential Customer Satisfaction Improvement Index based on Kano Model." The Journal of the Korean Society of Quality Management 38(2):248-260.
  22. Mikulic, J., and Prebezac, D. 2011. "A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model." Managing Service Quality 21(1):46-66. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521111100243
  23. Millet, I., and Satty, T. L. 2000. "On the Relative of relative measure accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP." Europe Journal of Operational Research 121:205-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00040-5
  24. Munger, M. C. 2000. Analyzing Policy. New York: London, W.W.Norton & Company.
  25. Ronald, R., Yager, Nikhil Ichalkaranje, and Lakhmi, C. Jain. 2009. Recent Advances in Decision Making. Springer.
  26. Saaty, T. L. 1990. "An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper. Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process." Management Science 36(3):259-268. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.3.259
  27. Saaty, T. L. 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process." European Journal of Operational Research 74:426-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90222-4
  28. Saaty, T. L. 1997. "This is Not the Analytic Hierarchy Process: What the AHP Is and What It Is Not." Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6:324-335. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199711)6:6<324::AID-MCDA167>3.0.CO;2-Q
  29. Saaty, T. L., and Vargas, L. G. 2007. Decision Making with the analytic network process-Economic, Political, Social And Technological Applications With Benefits, Opportunities, Costs And Risks. Springer.
  30. Sagoff, M. 2004. Price, Principle and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Salo, A. A., and Hamalainen, R. P. 1997. "On the measurement of Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process." Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6:309-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199711)6:6<309::AID-MCDA163>3.0.CO;2-2
  32. Schoner, B., and Wedley, W. C. 1989. "Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: Consequences and Solutions." Decision Science 20:462-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1989.tb01561.x
  33. Schoner, B., and Wedley, W. C. 1993. "A Unified approach to AHP with linking pins." Europe Journal of Operational.
  34. Schoner, B., Choo, E. U., and Wedley, W. C. 1997. "Comment on Salo and Hamalainen's paper." Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6:322-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199711)6:6<322::AID-MCDA166>3.0.CO;2-V
  35. Stewart, T. J. 1992. "A Critical Survey on the Status of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Theory and Practice." OMEGA International Journal of Management Science 20(5-6):569-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(92)90003-P
  36. Triantaphyllou, E. 2000. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  37. Wijnmalen, D. J. 2007. "Analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR) with the AHP-ANP: A critical validation." Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46(7):892-905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.020
  38. Witell, Lars, Martin, Lofgren, and Jens, J. Dahlgaard. 2013 "Theory of attractive quality and the Kano methodology- the past, the present, and the future." Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24(11-12):1241-1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.791117