R&D 기술 선정을 위한 시계열 특허 분석 기반 지능형 의사결정지원시스템 (An Intelligent Decision Support System for Selecting Promising Technologies for R&D based on Time-series Patent Analysis)
-
- 지능정보연구
- /
- 제18권3호
- /
- pp.79-96
- /
- 2012
기술의 발전과 융합이 빠르게 이루어지고 있는 오늘날 유망기술을 어떻게 파악하여, 다양한 후보군들 중에서 최적의 R&D 대상을 어떻게 선정할 것인가에 대한 문제는 주요한 경영의사결정문제 중 하나로 부상하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 이러한 R&D 기술 선정 의사결정을 지원할 수 있는 새로운 지능형 의사결정지원시스템을 제안한다. 본 연구의 의사결정지원시스템은 크게 3가지 모듈로 구성되는데, 우선 첫 번째 모듈인 '기술가치 평가' 모듈에서는 기업이 관심을 갖고 있는 분야의 특허들을 분석하여 유망기술 파악에 요구되는 다양한 차원의 기술가치 평가지수 값들을 산출하는 작업이 이루어진다. 이를 통해, 현재 시점에서의 각 기술의 가치가 다양한 차원에서 평가가 이루어지고 나면, 두 번째 모듈인 '미래기술가치 예측' 모듈에서 이들의 시간 흐름에 따른 변화를 학습한 인공지능 모형을 토대로 각 후보기술들이 미래 시점에 어떤 가치지수값을 갖게 될 것인지 예측값을 산출하게 된다. 마지막 세 번째 모듈인 '최적 R&D 대상기술 선정 지원' 모듈에서는 앞서 두 번째 모듈에서 산출된 각 차원별 예상 가치지수값들을 적절히 가중합하여 기술의 종합적인 미래가치 예측값을 산출하여 의사결정자에게 제공하는 기능을 수행한다. 이를 통해 의사결정자가 자사에 적합한 최적의 R&D 대상기술을 선정할 수 있도록 하였다. 본 연구에서는 제안된 시스템의 적용 가능성을 검증하기 위해, 10년치 특허데이터에 인공신경망 기법을 적용하여 실제 기술가치 예측모형을 구축해 보고, 그 효과를 살펴본다.
목 적: 착상전 유전진단(preimplantation genetic diagnosis, PGD)은 유전질환을 가진 부부들을 대상으로 체외수정을 통해 획득한 배아에서 유전진단을 하는 방법이다. 다양한 유전질환을 가진 부부에게 그 질환에 맞는 PGD의 설계가 진행되어야 하기 때문에 PGD 시행 전유전상담을 시행하는 것은 PGD 설계에 있어서 매우 중요하다. 이에, PGD 시행 시 필요한 유전상담의 내용에 대해 환자 및 가족과 전문가의 구체적인 의견을 수렴하고 분석하고자 하였다. 대상 및 방법: 본 연구는 PGD에 있어서 유전상담의 필요성과 중요성에 대한 의견을 알아보고자, 2010년 2월 3일부터 4월 30일까지 PGD를 실시 또는 실시 예정인 부부들과 PGD 관련 전문가들을 대상으로 이메일과 직접 설문지를 배포하여 설문조사를 실시하였다. 결 과: 환자 60명과 전문가 31명을 포함하여 총 91명이 설문조사에 응답하였으며, 환자들은 염색체 이상 질환 49명(81.7%)과 단일유전자 이상 질환 11명(18.3%) 이었다. 설문에 응답한 환자와 전문가 모두 유전상담이 PGD의 의료서비스 일환으로 반드시 필요하다고 답하였다. 환자의 충분한 이해를 위하여 필요한 유전상담의 시간에 대해 환자와 가족 그리고 전문가 의견을 수렴한 결과, 각각 45명(75.0%)과 23명(74.2%)이 적정한 유전상담시간을 30분 이상이라고 응답하였다. 하지만, 현 의료시스템에서는 짧은 진료시간 내 진료와 유전상담을 동시에 진행함으로써 환자에게 완벽한 정보제공이 이루어지지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 한편, 전문가 그룹에서는 진료시간의 부족과 유전질환의 정보 부족이 유전상담의 어려운 점이라고 답하였으며, 이에 비 의사(non-MD) 전문유전상담사가 필요하다는 의견이 30명(96.7%)으로 높게 나타났다. 환자와 가족들은 PGD 시술 시 예기치 못한 결과의 가능성, 환자가 가진 유전질환의 위험을 예방할 수 있는 선택사항, 환자가 가지고 있는 유전질환의 위험도 평가, 유전자 검사 시 검사의 목적 설명 및 검사기술의 한계점과 오진률의 설명, PGD 시술 전반에 관한 기술적인 정보 등에 대하여 관심을 가지고 있으며 더 자세한 설명을 필요로 하는 것으로 나타났다. 이에 대한 전문가 의견 역시 환자 및 가족이 관심 있고 자세한 설명을 원하는 정보와 대부분 일치하였다. 이에 따라 환자의 요구와 의견으로 나타난 위의 결과들을 향후 PGD를 위한 유전상담의 지침(guide-line) 구축 시 반영하여야 할 것으로 사료된다. 결 론: 본 연구에서 유전진단과 생식의학 기술의 발전과 더불어 PGD의 적용과 효율성 등에 대한인식이 높아짐에 따라, PGD를 시행함에 있어서 구체적이고 체계적인 유전상담이 필요하다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구의 설문조사 결과가 향후 PGD를 위한 유전상담 지침서(guideline)에 반영되어 적절한 PGD의 설계, 실시, 사후관리에 큰 도움이 되기를 기대한다.
The objective of this research is to test the feasibility of developing a statewide truck traffic forecasting methodology for Wisconsin by using Origin-Destination surveys, traffic counts, classification counts, and other data that are routinely collected by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Development of a feasible model will permit estimation of future truck traffic for every major link in the network. This will provide the basis for improved estimation of future pavement deterioration. Pavement damage rises exponentially as axle weight increases, and trucks are responsible for most of the traffic-induced damage to pavement. Consequently, forecasts of truck traffic are critical to pavement management systems. The pavement Management Decision Supporting System (PMDSS) prepared by WisDOT in May 1990 combines pavement inventory and performance data with a knowledge base consisting of rules for evaluation, problem identification and rehabilitation recommendation. Without a r.easonable truck traffic forecasting methodology, PMDSS is not able to project pavement performance trends in order to make assessment and recommendations in the future years. However, none of WisDOT's existing forecasting methodologies has been designed specifically for predicting truck movements on a statewide highway network. For this research, the Origin-Destination survey data avaiiable from WisDOT, including two stateline areas, one county, and five cities, are analyzed and the zone-to'||'&'||'not;zone truck trip tables are developed. The resulting Origin-Destination Trip Length Frequency (00 TLF) distributions by trip type are applied to the Gravity Model (GM) for comparison with comparable TLFs from the GM. The gravity model is calibrated to obtain friction factor curves for the three trip types, Internal-Internal (I-I), Internal-External (I-E), and External-External (E-E). ~oth "macro-scale" calibration and "micro-scale" calibration are performed. The comparison of the statewide GM TLF with the 00 TLF for the macro-scale calibration does not provide suitable results because the available 00 survey data do not represent an unbiased sample of statewide truck trips. For the "micro-scale" calibration, "partial" GM trip tables that correspond to the 00 survey trip tables are extracted from the full statewide GM trip table. These "partial" GM trip tables are then merged and a partial GM TLF is created. The GM friction factor curves are adjusted until the partial GM TLF matches the 00 TLF. Three friction factor curves, one for each trip type, resulting from the micro-scale calibration produce a reasonable GM truck trip model. A key methodological issue for GM. calibration involves the use of multiple friction factor curves versus a single friction factor curve for each trip type in order to estimate truck trips with reasonable accuracy. A single friction factor curve for each of the three trip types was found to reproduce the 00 TLFs from the calibration data base. Given the very limited trip generation data available for this research, additional refinement of the gravity model using multiple mction factor curves for each trip type was not warranted. In the traditional urban transportation planning studies, the zonal trip productions and attractions and region-wide OD TLFs are available. However, for this research, the information available for the development .of the GM model is limited to Ground Counts (GC) and a limited set ofOD TLFs. The GM is calibrated using the limited OD data, but the OD data are not adequate to obtain good estimates of truck trip productions and attractions .. Consequently, zonal productions and attractions are estimated using zonal population as a first approximation. Then, Selected Link based (SELINK) analyses are used to adjust the productions and attractions and possibly recalibrate the GM. The SELINK adjustment process involves identifying the origins and destinations of all truck trips that are assigned to a specified "selected link" as the result of a standard traffic assignment. A link adjustment factor is computed as the ratio of the actual volume for the link (ground count) to the total assigned volume. This link adjustment factor is then applied to all of the origin and destination zones of the trips using that "selected link". Selected link based analyses are conducted by using both 16 selected links and 32 selected links. The result of SELINK analysis by u~ing 32 selected links provides the least %RMSE in the screenline volume analysis. In addition, the stability of the GM truck estimating model is preserved by using 32 selected links with three SELINK adjustments, that is, the GM remains calibrated despite substantial changes in the input productions and attractions. The coverage of zones provided by 32 selected links is satisfactory. Increasing the number of repetitions beyond four is not reasonable because the stability of GM model in reproducing the OD TLF reaches its limits. The total volume of truck traffic captured by 32 selected links is 107% of total trip productions. But more importantly, ~ELINK adjustment factors for all of the zones can be computed. Evaluation of the travel demand model resulting from the SELINK adjustments is conducted by using screenline volume analysis, functional class and route specific volume analysis, area specific volume analysis, production and attraction analysis, and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) analysis. Screenline volume analysis by using four screenlines with 28 check points are used for evaluation of the adequacy of the overall model. The total trucks crossing the screenlines are compared to the ground count totals. L V/GC ratios of 0.958 by using 32 selected links and 1.001 by using 16 selected links are obtained. The %RM:SE for the four screenlines is inversely proportional to the average ground count totals by screenline .. The magnitude of %RM:SE for the four screenlines resulting from the fourth and last GM run by using 32 and 16 selected links is 22% and 31 % respectively. These results are similar to the overall %RMSE achieved for the 32 and 16 selected links themselves of 19% and 33% respectively. This implies that the SELINICanalysis results are reasonable for all sections of the state.Functional class and route specific volume analysis is possible by using the available 154 classification count check points. The truck traffic crossing the Interstate highways (ISH) with 37 check points, the US highways (USH) with 50 check points, and the State highways (STH) with 67 check points is compared to the actual ground count totals. The magnitude of the overall link volume to ground count ratio by route does not provide any specific pattern of over or underestimate. However, the %R11SE for the ISH shows the least value while that for the STH shows the largest value. This pattern is consistent with the screenline analysis and the overall relationship between %RMSE and ground count volume groups. Area specific volume analysis provides another broad statewide measure of the performance of the overall model. The truck traffic in the North area with 26 check points, the West area with 36 check points, the East area with 29 check points, and the South area with 64 check points are compared to the actual ground count totals. The four areas show similar results. No specific patterns in the L V/GC ratio by area are found. In addition, the %RMSE is computed for each of the four areas. The %RMSEs for the North, West, East, and South areas are 92%, 49%, 27%, and 35% respectively, whereas, the average ground counts are 481, 1383, 1532, and 3154 respectively. As for the screenline and volume range analyses, the %RMSE is inversely related to average link volume. 'The SELINK adjustments of productions and attractions resulted in a very substantial reduction in the total in-state zonal productions and attractions. The initial in-state zonal trip generation model can now be revised with a new trip production's trip rate (total adjusted productions/total population) and a new trip attraction's trip rate. Revised zonal production and attraction adjustment factors can then be developed that only reflect the impact of the SELINK adjustments that cause mcreases or , decreases from the revised zonal estimate of productions and attractions. Analysis of the revised production adjustment factors is conducted by plotting the factors on the state map. The east area of the state including the counties of Brown, Outagamie, Shawano, Wmnebago, Fond du Lac, Marathon shows comparatively large values of the revised adjustment factors. Overall, both small and large values of the revised adjustment factors are scattered around Wisconsin. This suggests that more independent variables beyond just 226; population are needed for the development of the heavy truck trip generation model. More independent variables including zonal employment data (office employees and manufacturing employees) by industry type, zonal private trucks 226; owned and zonal income data which are not available currently should be considered. A plot of frequency distribution of the in-state zones as a function of the revised production and attraction adjustment factors shows the overall " adjustment resulting from the SELINK analysis process. Overall, the revised SELINK adjustments show that the productions for many zones are reduced by, a factor of 0.5 to 0.8 while the productions for ~ relatively few zones are increased by factors from 1.1 to 4 with most of the factors in the 3.0 range. No obvious explanation for the frequency distribution could be found. The revised SELINK adjustments overall appear to be reasonable. The heavy truck VMT analysis is conducted by comparing the 1990 heavy truck VMT that is forecasted by the GM truck forecasting model, 2.975 billions, with the WisDOT computed data. This gives an estimate that is 18.3% less than the WisDOT computation of 3.642 billions of VMT. The WisDOT estimates are based on the sampling the link volumes for USH, 8TH, and CTH. This implies potential error in sampling the average link volume. The WisDOT estimate of heavy truck VMT cannot be tabulated by the three trip types, I-I, I-E ('||'&'||'pound;-I), and E-E. In contrast, the GM forecasting model shows that the proportion ofE-E VMT out of total VMT is 21.24%. In addition, tabulation of heavy truck VMT by route functional class shows that the proportion of truck traffic traversing the freeways and expressways is 76.5%. Only 14.1% of total freeway truck traffic is I-I trips, while 80% of total collector truck traffic is I-I trips. This implies that freeways are traversed mainly by I-E and E-E truck traffic while collectors are used mainly by I-I truck traffic. Other tabulations such as average heavy truck speed by trip type, average travel distance by trip type and the VMT distribution by trip type, route functional class and travel speed are useful information for highway planners to understand the characteristics of statewide heavy truck trip patternS. Heavy truck volumes for the target year 2010 are forecasted by using the GM truck forecasting model. Four scenarios are used. Fo~ better forecasting, ground count- based segment adjustment factors are developed and applied. ISH 90 '||'&'||' 94 and USH 41 are used as example routes. The forecasting results by using the ground count-based segment adjustment factors are satisfactory for long range planning purposes, but additional ground counts would be useful for USH 41. Sensitivity analysis provides estimates of the impacts of the alternative growth rates including information about changes in the trip types using key routes. The network'||'&'||'not;based GMcan easily model scenarios with different rates of growth in rural versus . . urban areas, small versus large cities, and in-state zones versus external stations. cities, and in-state zones versus external stations.