Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society

The Korean Data and Information Science Society (한국데이터정보과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A method for selecting the evaluation index of defence R&D project by AHP

계층분석법에 의한 국방연구개발 평가지표 선정에 관한 연구

  • Park, Seong (School of Management & Tourism, Dongyang University) ;
  • Hong, Yeon-Woong (School of Management & Tourism, Dongyang University) ;
  • Na, Joong-Kyung (School of Management & Tourism, Dongyang University)
  • 박승 (동양대학교 경영관광학부) ;
  • 홍연웅 (동양대학교 경영관광학부) ;
  • 나중경 (동양대학교 경영관광학부)
  • Received : 2012.08.03
  • Accepted : 2012.09.12
  • Published : 2012.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

To evaluate companies that participated in the defense R&D project, 27 variables are chosen through literature survey, feature analysis of defense R&D and interviews with military experts. 17 variables are selected after factor analysis which is applied to reduce the number of variables and to detect structure in the relationships among variables, that is to classify variables using Likert-type scales. And then 17 variables are prioritized by AHP (analytic hierarchy process) method. It is shown that communication skill & cooperation strategy, level of technology, possession of needs technology have high priorities. However, protection plan of technology leakage, expertise of subcontractors, software development plan have low priorities.

국방연구개발에 참여하는 업체 중에 특정기술을 일정기간에 개발할 수 있는 역량을 구비한 업체를 선정하기 위해서는 사업목적에 적합한 평가지표를 개발하는 것이 매우 중요하다. 본 연구는 선행연구와 국방 연구개발의 특성, 현재 사용하고 있는 항목을 종합하여 새로운 지표를 개발하고 전문가 인터뷰를 통해 객관화 하였다. 선정항목의 타당성 검증과 계층구조 모형설계를 위해 주축요인분석을 실시하였으며 27개 변수 중 타당성이 없는 10개를 제외하고 17개 변수를 최종 선정하였다. 17개 변수는 계층분석법 (analytic hierarchy process)을 통해 평가지표 항목의 가중치를 부여하였으며, 상위계층에서는 업체능력이 개발계획보다 중요하게 나타났고, 하위계층에서는 고객과의 의사소통 및 협력방안과 현 사업 유사기술 특허 및 논문의 우수성, 소요기술 확보현황 등이 높은 순위로 나타났다. 반면 기술유출 방지대책, 협력업체 전문성 및 관리의 적절성, 소프트웨어 개발방안 등은 낮은 순위로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Chaiy, S. I. (2010). Social science research & methodology, 3rd Ed., B&M Books, Seoul, 377-395.
  2. Choi, H. S., Lee, Y. S. and Ha, J. C. (2011). A study on the impact of stress on self-confidence in job-seeking through structural equation modeling. Journal of the Korean Data & Information Science Society, 22, 313-322.
  3. Choi, W. H. and Jo, K. T. (2003). Analytic process, Donghyun Publishing Company, Seoul.
  4. Defense acquisition program act, article 3. (2011).
  5. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. and Anderson. R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis, 7th Ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
  6. Hong, J. M. (2011). An AHP approach for the importance weight of renewable energy investment criterion in the private sector. Korea Energy Economic Review, 10, 115-142.
  7. Jang, J. S. (2008). A study on selecting the evaluation index of defence key technology R&D project by AHP, Ph. D. Thesis, Chungnam National University, Chungnam.
  8. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
  9. Kang, W. J. (2009). A study on selecting the evaluation index of defense key technology project by AHP, M. D. Thesis, Hanyang University, Seoul.
  10. Kim, C. S. (2008). A study on selecting the evaluation index for defence key technology project, Ph. D. Thesis, Busan National University, Busan.
  11. Kim, S. Y. (2010). A study on selecting the development company project for defense information system, Ph. D. Thesis, Dongguk University, Seoul.
  12. Mayoux, L. (2002). From impact assessment to sustainable and participatory practical learning: A guide for enterprise development, working paper, Open University , Milton Keynes, UK, 1-23.
  13. Mun, T. H. (2009). AHP analysis for the successful factors in 6-sigma activities, Ph. D. Thesis, Yeungnam University, Daegu.
  14. Namlu, A. G. and Odabasi, H. F. (2007). Unethical computer using behavior scale; A study of reliability and validity on Turkish university student. Computers & Education, 48, 205-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.12.006
  15. Pak, R. J. (2009). More active application of importance-performance analysis in the case of cyber lecture. Journal of the Korean Data & Information Science Society, 20, 329-338.
  16. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York.
  17. Saaty, T. L. (1996). Multicriteria decision making: The analytical hierarchy process, RWS publications, Pittsburgh.
  18. Sin, J. Y., Kun, R. M. and Mun, S. W. (2008). Application of AHP to improve department management class satisfaction of university students. Proceedings of Korea International Accounting Association, 52-58.
  19. Wadhwa, V. and Ravindran, A. R. (2007). Vendor selection in outsourcing. Computers & Operations Research, 34, 3725-3737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2006.01.009
  20. Wilson, G. A. and Butler, H. (2001). The use of socio-economic and environmental indicators in assessing the effectiveness of EU agri-environmental policy. European Environment, 11, 297-313. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.273
  21. Yang, H. S. (2004). A study on the improving of research evaluation index for national R&D project. Proceedings of Spring Conference of The Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society/ Korea Institute of Industrial Engineers, 486-502

Cited by

  1. Study on the defence R&D project risk analysis using AHP vol.24, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7465/jkdi.2013.24.3.557
  2. An analysis on the influence of the China government's software support policy on the revenue of software export vol.27, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7465/jkdi.2016.27.4.875
  3. Development of brand equity index model and a strategy to improve brand equity: Focus on National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives vol.24, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7465/jkdi.2013.24.6.1231
  4. A study on the evaluation of the support policy for the export of China software using fuzzy-AHP vol.27, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7465/jkdi.2016.27.6.1499
  5. Analysis of Relative Importance of Key Performance Indicators for Center for Child-Care Foodservice Management through Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) vol.18, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5720/kjcn.2013.18.2.154
  6. 전력소요 통합검증을 위한 국방 R&D사업 우선순위 선정에 관한 연구 vol.19, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5762/kais.2018.19.5.153
  7. 델파이 및 AHP를 활용한 연구개발 주관기관 선정에 관한 연구 vol.20, pp.10, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5762/kais.2019.20.10.179