Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.6109/jicce.2015.13.2.097

An Integrated DEA-AHP Model for the Acquisition of a Weapon System: Selection of a Next-Generation Fighter System in Korea  

Moon, Jaehun (Department of Management of Technology for Defense, Korea University)
Kang, Seokjoong (Department of Management of Technology for Defense, Korea University)
Publication Information
Journal of information and communication convergence engineering / v.13, no.2, 2015 , pp. 97-104 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a data envelopment analysis (DEA) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) integrated model to improve the selection process in the acquisition of a weapon system which is the key component to the success of the project. In particular, we applied DEA in the first stage to choose a frontier group among the candidates in the selection process of the next-generation fighter system (the 3rd FX) in Korea. Then, by using the Delphi technique, we surveyed military experts and applied AHP to determine the best choice among the candidates. The results of the study match the actual decision made by the Korean government in the weapon system acquisition. The results of the proposed DEA-AHP integrated method in the selection of the next-generation fighter systems in Korea demonstrate the usefulness of the method. In this paper, we also discuss the future implications of the proposed model.
Keywords
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP); Data envelopment analysis (DEA); Decision-making; Weapon system;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 E. H. Ju, H. S. Kim, and D. M. Lee, “The AHP analysis for the factors that influence telecommunication company choice of purchase smartphone,” Journal of the Korea Management Engineers Society, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 163-176, 2011.
2 B. K. Ceylan and D. N. Ford, “Using options to manage dynamic uncertainty in acquisition projects,” Acquisition Review Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 242-257, 2002.
3 J. S. Ryu, Scenario Planning: Future Survival Strategy in Uncertainty. Seoul: Jihyeong, 2009.
4 R. Monczka, R. Handfield, L. Giunipero, and J. Patterson, Purchasing and supply chain management, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing, 2002.
5 T. L. Saaty, “How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process,” Interfaces, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 19-43, 1994.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 L. G. Vargas, “An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 2-8, 1990.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 S. N. Hong, “A case study on risk factors and risk management in a large-scale project,” Journal of Information Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 97-116, 2010.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 H. C. Huang, “Designing a knowledge-based system for strategic planning: a balanced scorecard perspective,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 209-218, 2009.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 S. H. Kim, T. S. Choi, and D. W. Lee, Efficiency Analysis. Seoul: Seoul Economic Management Publishing, 2007.
10 I. Seol and J. Sarkis, “A model for internal auditor selection: the case of a trading company in Hong Kong,” International Journal of Auditing, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 243-253, 2006.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 J. Jablonsky, “Measuring the efficiency of production units by AHP models,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 1091-1098, 2007.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 G. R. Shell, Bargaining For Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. New York, NY: Viking, 1999.
13 M. J. Liberatore and R. L. Nydick, “The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 189, no. 1, pp. 194-207, 2008.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Y. Y. Kim, Decision Making. Seoul: MyungKyungsa, 2012.
15 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2012: Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
16 A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes, “Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through,” Management Science, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 668-697, 1981.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 S. M. Maser and F. Thompson, “Mitigating spirals of conflict in DOD source selections,” Defense Acquisition Review Journal, vol.18, no. 2, pp. 160-175, 2011.
18 R. L. Tremaine, “Incentive contracts: the attributes that matter most in driving favorable outcomes,” Defense Acquisition Review Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 216-238, 2008.
19 R. Angelmar and L. W. Stern, “Development of a content analytic system for analysis of bargaining communication in marketing,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 93-102, 1978.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 G. Blake and R. W. Bly, The Elements of Technical Writing. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1993.
21 G. S. Kang, Management Science. Seoul: O-Rae Publishing, 2012.
22 T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resources Allocation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1980.