디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제18권5호
  • /
  • Pages.405-410
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

AHP 기반 국가 연구개발 과제 평가 기준 결정 시스템

An AHP-based Assessment Criteria Decision System for National Research and Development Tasks

  • 박성호 (공주대학교 컴퓨터공학과) ;
  • 오재택 (공주대학교 컴퓨터공학과) ;
  • 이상용 (공주대학교 컴퓨터공학부)
  • Park, Seong-Ho (Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Kongju National University) ;
  • Oh, Jae-Taek (Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Kongju National University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Yong (Division of Computer Science & Engineering, Kongju National University)
  • 투고 : 2020.02.18
  • 심사 : 2020.05.20
  • 발행 : 2020.05.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

국가 연구개발 사업의 과제 평가는 신청된 과제 중에서 기술성 또는 사업화 가능성이 높은 과제를 선별하기 때문에 고도의 전문성 및 객관성, 공정성이 요구된다. 이를 위해 신청된 각 세부과제의 기술 분야 전문가가 해당 과제의 계획서를 중점적으로 검토하게 된다. 그러나 평가 과정에서 평가 위원의 평가 지표 점수가 같다고 하더라도 평가 위원의 평가 의견이 동일하다고 판단할 수 없으며, 실제 적용되는 평가 지표의 가중치가 다르게 적용될 수 있다는 문제점이 있다. 본 연구에서는 국가 연구개발 사업의 선별 평가를 위한 각 지표별 평가 기준을 객관화하여 과제 평가 선정의 오차를 줄이고, 평가의 전문성 및 공정성을 향상시킬 수 있는 AHP 기반 국가 연구개발 과제 평가 기준 결정 시스템을 제안하였다. 본 연구를 통해 국가 연구개발 사업의 지표별 평가 기준을 객관화할 수 있었으며, 부여된 가중치 배점을 이용하여 각 지표별 평가 기준을 산정하는 과정에서 각 분야의 전문가의 전문성 및 공정성을 확보할 수 있었다.

Professionalism, objectivity, and fairness are highly required in the assessment of tasks in national research and development projects. Experts in the technologies should thus focus on the task's plan in the review process. The same scores in the assessment, however, do not mean that the judges don't have the same opinions. Another problem is the possibility that different weights can be applied for evaluation indexes. This study proposed an AHP-based assessment criteria decision system for national research and development tasks to reduce errors in task assessment and selection and improve the professionalism and fairness by objectifying the evaluation criteria of each index. As a result, the assessment criteria were objectified for each index in the projects. In addition, the professionalism and fairness of experts were secured in the process of setting assessment criteria for each index based on the given marks of weights.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. H. I. Lee & H. J. Yoo. (2019). 2019 Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning. Seoul: KISTEP.
  2. S. W. Mo & C. B. Kim. (2012). A relative Importance Evaluation of the Industrial Sector According to the FTA Using AHP and Fuzzy AHP. Journal of Industrial Economics and Business, 25(2), 1827-1842.
  3. T. L. Saaty. (1977). A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
  4. Y. J. Choi. (2013). Analyzing Weights of Certification Assessment Criteria on the G-SEED System Using the AHP Method - Focused on Certification Standards for Apartment Buildings -. Journal of the Korea Institute of Ecological Architecture and Environment, 13(6), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.12813/kieae.2013.13.6.113
  5. Y. G. Shin, C. G. Kim & T. Y. Kim. (2005). Priority Analysis of Environment-friendly Agricultural Policy Programs. Korea Rural Economic Institute, 28(2), 39-56.
  6. K. K. Jo & H. Y. Ha. (2008). Meta Analysis of the Utilization of Analytic Hierarchy Process for Policy Studies in Korea. The Korea Association for Policy Studies, 17(1), 287-313.
  7. Y. J. Kim & J. S. Shim. (2007). A Comparison of Weight Elicitation Techniques: Focusing on AHP, JA, and SW. Public Policy Review, 21(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.17327/ippa.2007.21.1.001
  8. S. H. Jo, T. S. Kim & Y. C. Lee. (1998). A Study on the Aggregation of Multi-Experts Priorities Using Compatibility in the AHP. Journal of the Korea Operation Research and Management Science Society, 23(4), 131-140.
  9. O. S. Vaidya & S. Kumar. (2006). Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
  10. H. W. Chae. (2013). Exploring Urban Spatial Patterns in Seoul: Using Synthetic Deprivation Index by AHP. Journal of the Association of Korean Geographers, 2(2), 147-163. https://doi.org/10.25202/JAKG.2.2.3
  11. W. Ho. (2008). Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process and its Application - A Literature Review -. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.004
  12. H. D. Hong. (2018). A Comparative Study on the Evaluation System of National R&D Projects. Korean Public Management Review, 32(2), 159-182. https://doi.org/10.24210/kapm.2018.32.2.007
  13. J. H. Kim & K. J. Jung. (2009). Design of Model to Evaluate R&D Results using Technology Valuation Program & AHP Techniques for Activating R&BD. The Korean Institute of Information Scientists and Engineering, 36(1C), 6-10.
  14. J. M. Choi & D. M. Lee. (2017). A Study on National R&D Project Proposal Evaluation Indicator for Small-Medium Business - Focusing on R&D Project for Support Marine SMEs. Ocean Policy Research, 32(2), 169-189. https://doi.org/10.35372/kmiopr.2017.32.2.007
  15. J. H. Kim. (2015). A Theoretical Review on the Improved Evaluation Method to Select R&D Project. The Korean Institute of Information Scientists and Engineers, 336-338.