• Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.81-91
• /
• 2004

Although it is suggested that risk -based management plan is needed to manage air pollution effectively, we have no resources enough to evaluate all aspects of substances and set priorities. So we need to develop a logical and easy risk-based priority setting method. However, it if impossible that only one generic system that is consistent with all the use is developed. In this study, we proposed a human health risk based priority-setting method for hazardous air pollutants, and ranked priorities for this method. First of all, after investigating previous chemical ranking and scoring systems, we chose appropriate indicators and logics to goal of this study and made a chemical priority ranking method using these. As results, final scores in priority ranking method were derived for 25 substances, and ethylene oxide, acrylonitrile and vinyl chloride were included in high ranks. In addition, same substances were highly ranked when using default values like when using no default, but the scores of hydrofluoric acid and ryan and compounds were sensitive to default values. This study could be important that priorities were set including toxicity type and quality and local inherent exposure conditions and we can set area-specific management guidelines and survey plans as a screening tool.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.12 no.12
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2014

This article has reviewed some possible factors of priority setting in the government R&D investment, and also reviewed the roles of scientific community. Recently many development countries have planned more and more large-scale researches which require huge resources. Many large-scale researches have presented strikingly poor performance records in terms of efficiency. Nevertheless, more and more large-scale researches have been selected and executed. According to this article, some factors such as attracting attention of the media and the public, enhancing national prestige, raising the technological independence for economic growth were raised. As implications for policy, this article presented a necessity of strengthening the public control for priority setting of government R&D investment. And new procedures such as public discourse and National Assembly's in-depth deliberation were presented.

• Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.31-42
• /
• 2011

Objectives: Busan had the highest mortality and the shortest life expectancy at birth among 16 provinces in Korea in 2008 and there were considerable health inequalities within the region. This study was performed to build up a priority setting framework in Healthy City Busan project. Methods: Analytic hierarchy process was used to determine the relative priority weight for different strategic and program dimensions along with the consistency of response. An on-site workshop-based meeting (calculating importance) and online survey (calculating risk) were conducted to obtain data from 8 experts. Results: The results showed that in strategic criteria "active health promotion & diseases prevention" and "building infrastructure for the Health City project" were two most important factors. In program criteria, considering both importance and risk scores, "making a healthy community" and "building community health centers" in disadvantaged areas were a top priority group. In addition, "enacting an ordinance for the Healthy City", "building the infrastructure for health impact assessment" and "making health care safety net for vulnerable population" were also higher priorities group. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the Healthy City project in Busan should be focused on strengthening health equity and building infrastructure for sustainability of the project.

• Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning
• /
• v.9 no.3 s.20
• /
• pp.41-46
• /
• 2003

The study was focused on setting priority for future core technologies in rural development and resources using AHP. The technologies were derived by Delphi method. Evaluation criteria for the priority setting were decided as 'technology', 'market oriented', and 'public concerns' by council. The future core technologies were divided as four groups by importance and R&D level. Technologies in upper two groups were considered in the study. Group I had high importance and high R&D level. Group II had high importance and lower R&D level. Questionnaires were given to 9 specialists in agricultural resources. As the results, 'public concerns' was decided as a most important evaluation criterion. The most important technologies are "technology developing for animal feces and urine treatment, and restoration it to farm land" in group I, and "technology developing for agricultural by-products as energy source" in group II.

• Proceedings of the Korean Operations and Management Science Society Conference
• /
• 2001.10a
• /
• pp.242-245
• /
• 2001

This study is aimed to design a priority setting algorithm necessary for evaluating and selecting interdependent R&D planning system alternatives. In case that the relationship of technology alternatives is interdependent, a relative importance as occurrence or nonoccurrence of the technology alternatives viewed from the future time varies. So, we are subject to design the evaluation process considering a cross- impact of future technology alternatives. Thus, we apply the cross impact analysis (CIA) model to consider the cross-impact among interdependent system alternatives. Also, the analytic hierarchy process(AHP) model is applied to determine the priority of alternatives by taking the pair-wise comparison among factors.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.201-218
• /
• 1999

The article contains an introduction of possibility of applying Multi-Attribute Utility Theory(MAUT) for priority setting of R&D projects. MAUT is compared with AHP, which is widely used recently. These two techuiques are applied to set priorities of R&D projects In a Government-funded Research Institute. Six criteria are chosen from consultation with decision makers. They are composed of 1) validity as representative projects, 2) possibility of resource mobilization, 3) spillover effect of developed technologies, 4) possibility of success, 5) scope of participation and 6) clarity of research goal. To set priorities of R&D projects, SMART(Simple MultiAttribute Rating Technique) and DVM(Difference Value Measurement) out of many MAUT methods are used to design the utility function and to determine the weights among criteria. The aggregation model is additive on the assumption the criteria are independent. AHP executes pairwise comparisons for criteria and alternatives. From the results of the case study, the results and theoretical characteristics are compared.

• Proceedings of the Korean Operations and Management Science Society Conference
• /
• 2000.04a
• /
• pp.122-125
• /
• 2000

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a decision making model, which is more applicable than other methods to R&D project selection, particularly when it is applied to intangibles. The objective of this paper is to develop an extended model of the AHP which Is linked to Cross Impact Analysis to assist in the ranking of a large number of technological alternatives. In this study, we developed a priority setting algorithm which considers the cross-impact of the future technology alternatives and thus developed an integrated cross-impact hierarchical decision-making model, which sets the priority by considering technological forecasting and technology dependency

• Proceedings of the Korean Operations and Management Science Society Conference
• /
• 2000.10a
• /
• pp.259-262
• /
• 2000

The Cross-impact Hierarchy Process (CHP), an extended model of the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) which is linked to Cross Impact Analysis(CIA), is a powerful decision making tool to assist in the ranking of large number of dependent technological alternatives. In this paper, we will describe an application of the CHP to the aerospace industry. We here conducted a questionnaire survey for S company that is one of the representative aerospace companies in Korea. A questionnaire was designed to obtain both the priority with dependence (the CHP priority) and the priority with independence (the AHP priority) in order to compare the priority derived by each of two methods. The hierarchy in this case study is concerned with priority setting for R&D area to ensure dependent aerospace design technology of the company, The result shows that there exists the difference hard to neglect between the final priorities gained by two methods.

• Journal of Korean Society of Industrial and Systems Engineering
• /
• v.23 no.54
• /
• pp.77-85
• /
• 2000

One form of job shop scheduling problem in contemporary automated manufacturing such as flexible manufacturing systems (FMS's) is presented which we call the FMS dispatching priority problem. The FMS dispatching priority problem seeks the best dispatching priority of parts and operations, and is essentially a combinatorial optimization problem. Because of the complicated mechanism of the system, the performance of a given dispatching priority must be evaluated via simulation. Simulated annealing have been applied to the problem, and it is found that appropriate parameter setting will be desirable to get good, if not the optimal, solutions within a limited amount of time under the presence of heavy computational burden due to simulation. More specifically, experiments reveal that initial temperature is the single most important factor among other parameters and factors, and that the appropriate initial temperature depends on the allowable computer time in such a way that the less time one can afford to spend, the lower the appropriate initial temperature should be.

• Korean Journal of Environmental Agriculture
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.395-405
• /
• 2008

The objective of this study was to set priority for future core technologies in agricultural and environmental science using analytic hierarchy process(AHP). Forty-six technologies were derived by specialist meetings. Evaluation criteria, for setting the priority were decided as 'technology', 'marketability', and 'public'. Eighteen specialists in agricultural and environmental science answered to the questionnaire for AHP. As the results, 'technology' was decided as the most important evaluation criterion. The 'Feasibility' in 'technology' criterion, 'Market Growth' in 'marketability' criterion, and 'Impact to other industry' in 'public' criterion were decided as sub-criteria in each criterion. The most important technology was 'Risk assessment of toxic heavy metals and establishment of accreditation criteria for environmentally friendly agricultural products.