• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.73-94
• /
• 2006

This study was carried out to show how the Analytic Hierarchy Process technique could be used in setting the priority among selected diseases to increase the range of health insurance benefit. Thirty experts, including doctors (group1), experts for preventive medicine or public health(group2), and representatives of the insured(group 3), participated in the study panel that is conducted for priority setting. They were asked to evaluate the priorities among 6 selected criteria and then 42 selected diseases. The results were as follows; First, representatives of the insured think that the magnitude of out-of-pocket payment should have high priority while doctors think that effectiveness of treatment should have high priority. Second, all experts think that catastrophic diseases such as malignant neoplasm, major heart disease, and cerebral vascular disease should have high priority in health insurance coverage even though there is little difference among groups. These results can be useful to establish a systematic strategy for expanding health insurance benefit package.

• 한국IT서비스학회지
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2017

Recently, due to the economic recession and increase of ITO (IT Outsourcing), bidding in software industry has been recognized as more competitive and the importance of software bid evaluation for corporate selection is being increased. This study aims to analyze and prioritize influential factors in the software bid evaluation criteria which is adopted as the main evaluation model of national software businesses by Ministry of Science. The priority was developed by AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) through pair-wise comparison. For the analysis, this study developed analysis model for AHP and conducted survey of experts who have work experience for more than 10 years in the IT industry. As the result of analysis, weighted factors in the evaluation criteria were deduced and differences of priority factors between purchaser and bidder were investigated. The analysis showed differences of view point in the bidding process. With these results, this study suggests how to write a proposal strategically and effectively in perspective of the purchaser. It is expected that priority factors will be adopted in strategic proposals in both bidder and purchaser. For purchaser, the priority will be adopted to select reliable bidder. So, we expect that the priority factors will be used to get more values for both bidder and purchaser in their business atmosphere.

• Journal of Biosystems Engineering
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.187-194
• /
• 2004

The study focused on setting priority among the future core technologies that were derived by Delphi in agricultural management ＆ information using analytic hierarchy process(AHP). Items for setting priority were decided as ‘technology’, ‘market’, and ‘public concerns’by council. The future core technologies were divided into four parts by importance and R＆D level. Technologies which consisted of upper two parts having higher importance were considered in the study. Questionnaires were given to 9 specialists in biosystems engineering. As the results, ‘market’ was decided as a most important item. The most important technologies were ‘Developing technology and system of post harvest processing for higher quality rice’ in group I, and ‘Developing sensor technology to evaluate quality and safety for agricultural products’ in group II.

• 산업경영시스템학회지
• /
• 제35권3호
• /
• pp.217-224
• /
• 2012

This study is to review strategic priority for Defense Quality Management Factors of the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality. It is necessary to decide which quality factors are more important and which quality factors are relatively less important. In this study, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used in assigning the factors' weights. The survey of fifty one members participated in Defense R&D Programs showed that the Consistency Ratio was under 0.1 in evaluation items and factors.

• 한국경영과학회지
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2002

The objective of this paper is to develop a new priority setting algorithm that considers the cross-impact of the future technology alternatives and that satisfies the final goal of the technology management through multi-hierarchy evaluation criteria. By combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model, which is a well-known priority setting model, and Cross Impact Analysis (CIA) model, which is a technological forecasting method that considers cross-impact among R&D Items, we developed an Integrated Cross-Impact Hierarchical (CIH) model, which sets the priority by considering technological forecasting and technology dependency simultaneously. A step-by-step numerical example of the model developed here is presented as backup of its practicality.

• 기술경영경제학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 기술경영경제학회 2000년도 제17회 하계학술발표회 논문집
• /
• pp.35-46
• /
• 2000

The Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) model developed by Saaty is a very useful decision-making model designed for selecting and evaluating project alternatives through $\ulcorner$pairwise comparison$\lrcorner$ in the context of hierarchical structure. In this paper, we construct a modified AHP model named Analytic Dicho-Hierarchy Process (ADHP) model necessary for evaluating technology alternatives.

• 한국조경학회지
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.42-54
• /
• 1996

Many of urban parks which have been designated for urban planning regulation are not well developed because the priority of investment is inferior to that of other public facilities. Park development is an urgent urban policy and it is hard to decide priority among parks. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the priority of park development. Thus the Analytic Hierarchy Process has been introduced because it is suitable for achieving objectivity by collecting the professional opinions. The goals of park development are evaluated by AHP method and the priorities among goals are conservation of natural environment, satisfying the residents' residents' needs, population density, regional pollution, land acquisition cost, ratio of greeneries and facilities within park areas. Priority of park development is decided by the standardization of each individual inventory data and considering of the professional opinions. Among the multi-attribute judgement methods, AHP method may be the most widely used. Despite the critical evaluations of the AHP, such as limitation of the nine-point scale and the rank reversal problem, application of AHP to decide the priority of park development is suitable for actual circumstances.

• Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology
• /
• 제30권sup호
• /
• pp.3.1-3.11
• /
• 2015

Objectives This study presents the indicators and proxy variables for the quantitative assessment of green chemistry technologies and evaluates the relative importance of each assessment element by consulting experts from the fields of ecology, chemistry, safety, and public health. Methods The results collected were subjected to an analytic hierarchy process to obtain the weights of the indicators and the proxy variables. Results These weights may prove useful in avoiding having to resort to qualitative means in absence of weights between indicators when integrating the results of quantitative assessment by indicator. Conclusions This study points to the limitations of current quantitative assessment techniques for green chemistry technologies and seeks to present the future direction for quantitative assessment of green chemistry technologies.

• 한국경영과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국경영과학회 2000년도 추계학술대회 및 정기총회
• /
• pp.259-262
• /
• 2000

The Cross-impact Hierarchy Process (CHP), an extended model of the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) which is linked to Cross Impact Analysis(CIA), is a powerful decision making tool to assist in the ranking of large number of dependent technological alternatives. In this paper, we will describe an application of the CHP to the aerospace industry. We here conducted a questionnaire survey for S company that is one of the representative aerospace companies in Korea. A questionnaire was designed to obtain both the priority with dependence (the CHP priority) and the priority with independence (the AHP priority) in order to compare the priority derived by each of two methods. The hierarchy in this case study is concerned with priority setting for R&D area to ensure dependent aerospace design technology of the company, The result shows that there exists the difference hard to neglect between the final priorities gained by two methods.

• 경영과학
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.139-153
• /
• 2002

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is known as a very useful decision-making model developed for obtaining the relative weights of alternatives through pairwise comparison in the context of hierarchical structure. In this paper, we propose a method to reflect the reliability of evaluators in the process of pairwise comparison. This method is applied to the evaluation of aerospace technology alternatives. We have conducted a questionnaire survey for S company that is one of the representative aerospace companies in Korea. A questionnaire was designed for obtaining both the priority with considering the reliability of evaluators' importance weights (the modified AHP priority) and the priority with assuming equally reliable evaluators' importance weights (the AHP priority) in order to compare the priority derived by each of two methods. The result shows that there exists the difference hard to neglect between the final priorities gained by two methods.