Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2014.42.2.131

Regarding the Preliminary Feasibility Study of National R＆D Program : With Focus on the Applicability of Theory of Attractive Quality  

Yim, Sung-Min (Korean Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning)
Jung, Uk (School of Business, Dongguk University-Seoul)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management / v.42, no.2, 2014 , pp. 131-143 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: This paper discusses the intrinsic assumption of one-dimensional relationship between the upper and lower levels in AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) for the Preliminary Feasibility Study of National R&D Program. This assumptions has not been questioned in academia and industry so far. Methods: This discussion is induced by understanding the Theory of Attractive Quality (Kano et al. 1984) and explains the limitation of AHP in the preliminary feasibility study of national R&D program. Results: In this paper, we propose a new questioning method based on two dimensional perspective, which is named as 2D-AHP (two dimensional AHP), to overcome the limitation. The main idea stems from the observation that the relationship between the upper and lower levels in AHP can vary depending on the subject of R&D. Conclusion: The two dimensional perspective pointed out in this paper should be more deeply studied in the field of MCDM(multi-criteria decision making) since it can be applied to the more general problems in human decision making.
Keywords
Preliminary Feasibility; Analytic Hierarchy Process; Theory of Attractive Quality; Kano Model; Two Dimensional Perspective;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Saaty, T. L. 1990. "An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper. Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process." Management Science 36(3):259-268.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Triantaphyllou, E. 2000. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3 Wijnmalen, D. J. 2007. "Analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR) with the AHP-ANP: A critical validation." Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46(7):892-905.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Witell, Lars, Martin, Lofgren, and Jens, J. Dahlgaard. 2013 "Theory of attractive quality and the Kano methodology- the past, the present, and the future." Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24(11-12):1241-1252.   DOI
5 Munger, M. C. 2000. Analyzing Policy. New York: London, W.W.Norton & Company.
6 Ronald, R., Yager, Nikhil Ichalkaranje, and Lakhmi, C. Jain. 2009. Recent Advances in Decision Making. Springer.
7 Saaty, T. L. 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process." European Journal of Operational Research 74:426-447.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Saaty, T. L. 1997. "This is Not the Analytic Hierarchy Process: What the AHP Is and What It Is Not." Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6:324-335.   DOI
9 Saaty, T. L., and Vargas, L. G. 2007. Decision Making with the analytic network process-Economic, Political, Social And Technological Applications With Benefits, Opportunities, Costs And Risks. Springer.
10 Sagoff, M. 2004. Price, Principle and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11 Salo, A. A., and Hamalainen, R. P. 1997. "On the measurement of Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process." Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6:309-319.   DOI
12 Schoner, B., and Wedley, W. C. 1993. "A Unified approach to AHP with linking pins." Europe Journal of Operational.
13 Schoner, B., Choo, E. U., and Wedley, W. C. 1997. "Comment on Salo and Hamalainen's paper." Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6:322-324.   DOI
14 Stewart, T. J. 1992. "A Critical Survey on the Status of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Theory and Practice." OMEGA International Journal of Management Science 20(5-6):569-586.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Jung, U., and Seo, D. W. 2010. "An ANP approach for R&D project evaluation based on interdependencies between research objectives and evaluation criteria." Decision Support Systems 49(1):335-342.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Jang, H. Y., Song, H. G., and Par, Y. T. 2012. "Determining the importance values of Quality Attributes Using ASC." Korean Journal of Quality Management 40(4):589-598.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Jung, U., and Chang, B. Y. 2009. "Selection of Suppliers using the Analytic Network Process." Korean Journal of Quality Management 37(4):1-9.   과학기술학회마을
18 Jung, U. 2010. "A Study of Relative Comparison of R&D Performance Using ANP model." Journal of the Society of Korea Industrial and Systems Engineering 33(2):89-96.
19 Kano, N., Seraku, N., and Takahashi, F. 1984. "Attractive quality and must be quality." The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control 14(2):39-48.
20 Kwon, T. H. 2008 "Critical Issues in Applying Multi-criteria Analysis into Feasibility Studies of Public Projects." Korean Public Management Review 22(3):31-51.   DOI
21 Lee, Y. B., Ahn, S. J., and Hwang, J. H. 2011. "Exploring decision making process in pre-feasibility study of government R&D programs." The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers, Aunnual Spring & Fall Conferences, 3137-3141.
22 Lim, S. U., and Par, Y. T. 2010. "Potential Customer Satisfaction Improvement Index based on Kano Model." The Journal of the Korean Society of Quality Management 38(2):248-260.   과학기술학회마을
23 Mikulic, J., and Prebezac, D. 2011. "A critical review of techniques for classifying quality attributes in the Kano model." Managing Service Quality 21(1):46-66.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Millet, I., and Satty, T. L. 2000. "On the Relative of relative measure accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP." Europe Journal of Operational Research 121:205-212.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Dror, Y. 1963. "The planning process: A fact design." International Review of Administrative Science 29(1):46-58.   DOI
26 Belton, V. 1986. "Comparison of the analytic hierarchy Process and a simple multi-attribute value function." Europe Journal of Operational Research 26:7-21.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Belton, V., and Stewart, T. J. 2002. Multiple Criteria decision making: an integrated approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28 Dong, Y., Xu, Y., Li, H. and Dai, M. 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP." Europe Journal of Operational Research 186:229-242.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Forman, E. H., and Gass, S. I. 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process: An exposition." Operations Research 49(4):469-486.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Finnan, J. S., and Hurley, W. J. 1999. "Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale." Europe Journal of Operational Research 112:367-372.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Goodwin, P., and Wright, G. 2004. Decision Analysis for Management Judgment, 3rd ed. Chichester England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
32 Housman, D. M., and McPherson, M. S. 2006. Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33 Jacobs, M. 1991. The Green Economy. London: Pluto Press.
34 Belton, V. 1982. "On a Short-coming of Saaty's Method of Analytic Hierarchies." OMEGA International Journal of Management Science 11(3):228-230.
35 Gass, S. I. 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate MAUT Versus AHP." Interfaces 35(4): 308-312.   DOI   ScienceOn
36 Herzberg, F. 1966. Work and The Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.
37 Harker, P. T ., and Vargas, L . G. 1990. "Reply to Remarks on the Analytic H ierarchy Process." Management Science 36(3):269-273.   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Schoner, B., and Wedley, W. C. 1989. "Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: Consequences and Solutions." Decision Science 20:462-475.   DOI