Browse > Article

- A Study on the Priority Evaluation Model to Improve the Reliability & Feasibility of Public Projects -  

Seo Jang Hoon (명지대 산업공학과)
Jang Hyeon Soo (경기공업대 산업시스템경영과)
Park Myeong Kyu (명지대 산업시스템공학부)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science / v.6, no.4, 2004 , pp. 107-122 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to examine the usefulness on the Evaluation Process for the Feasibility & Priority of A Certain Public Projects. and the Methodology used AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) which used pairwise comparisons of the alternatives and criteria for solving discrete alternative multicriteria decision problems. In this paper, we present a similar phenomenon, rank reversal problem, when we apply the AHP to group decision making process. The problem is identified by an example problem in that the previous rank order of Public Projects choices. we also present three different methods to prevent the undesirable characteristic of the original AHP in appling to Decision Making Process.
Keywords
AHP; Pairwise Comparison; Decision Making Process;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 정호원 . 강인배 (1996), 'AHP를 이용한 전자경비 시스템의 평가에 관한 연구', '경영과학', 제13권 제2호, pp. 49-60
2 안두현, '기술의 투자가치 분석방법 및 개선방안', 과학기술정책, 2001, pp2-20
3 Boer, F, P., The Valuation of Technology, John Wiley & Sons, 1999
4 Olson, D. L., Fliedner, G., and Currie, K., (1995), Comparison of the REMBRANDT System with Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 82, pp.522-539
5 Saaty, T. L., (1987), Rank Generation, Presentation, and Reversal in the Analytic Hierarchy Decision Process, Decision Science, 18, pp.157-177
6 고길곤, 이경전, 'AHP에서의 응당일관성 모수의 통계적적용방안', '한국경영과학회지', 제 26 권 제 4 호, 2001, pp. 71-82
7 이동엽 . 이장우 (1999), '집단의사결정에 의한 정보통신기술 분야별 R&D 투자배분 결정모형 개발: 다목적선형계획법의 응용', '기술혁신연구', 제7권 제2호, pp. 21-36
8 백광천 . 서의호 . 서창교 . 이영민 (1993), 'R&D 투자규모 결정 및 자원배분에 관한 연구', '경영과학', 제10권 제1호, pp. 81-105
9 Saaty, T.(1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw-Hill
10 김성희, '의사결정론', '영지출판사', 2004, pp358-360
11 Barron, F. H., and Barrett, B. E., (1996), Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights, Management Science, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp.1515-1523   DOI   ScienceOn
12 유일근, 사업성분석과 경영전략, '형설출판사', 2003, pp402-410
13 Dyer, J., Remarks on the Analytical Hierarchy Process, Management Science, Vol. 36, No.3, 1990, pp. 249-258
14 최영출, 하혜수, '행정서비스헌장제 평가지표개선 연구', 한국지방자치학회보 2000, 14, No.2. pp.77-95
15 Bana e Costa, C. and J. Vansnick, A fundamental criticism to Saaty's use of the eigenvalue procedure to derive priorities, Cashier Du LAMSADE 275, 2000
16 Zahedi, F.(1986), 'The Analytic Hierarchy Process-A survey of the Method and its Applications', Interfaces, Vol. 16, No. 4
17 Kester, W. C., 'Today's Options for Tomorrow's Growth,' Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 153-160
18 이영찬 . 민재형 (1995), '불확실한 상황 하에서의 다목적 R&D 투자계획수립에 관한 연구', '한국경영과학회지', 제20권, 제2호, pp. 39-60
19 Saaty, T.(1983), 'Priorty Setting in Complex Problem', IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 140-155
20 강근복, 정책사업분석론, '대영문화사', 2000, pp 30-36
21 황용수 외 (1998), '정보통신 연구개발사업의 자원배분 및 산학연 연계의 적정화 방안', 정보통신연구관리단. p233-238