• Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.349-355
• /
• 2012

In this study, we configured a system which ranks hazardous chemicals to determine their management priorities based on experts' opinions and the existing CRS (chemical ranking and scoring). Aggregate exposure of food, health functional food, oriental/herbal medicine and cosmetics have been taken into account to determine management priority. In this study, 25 hazardous chemicals were selected, such as cadmium, lead, mercury, and arsenic, etc. These 25 materials were ranked according to their 1) risk (exposure or hazard) indexes, 2) exposure source-based weight, and 3) public interests, which were also formed based on the existing priority ranking system. Cadmium was scored the highest (178.5) and bisphenol A the lowest (56.8). Ten materials -- cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic, tar, acrylamide, benzopyrene, aluminium, benzene, and PAHs -- scored higher than 100. Eight materials -- aflatoxin, manganese, phthalate, chromium, nitrate/nitrite, ethylcarbamate, formaldehyde, and copper -- recorded scores in the range from 70 to 100. Also evaluated as potential risks were 7 materials; sulfur dioxide, ochratoxin, dioxins, PCBs, fumonisin, methyl mercury, and bisphenol A, and these materials were scored above 50. Then we compared risk index and correlation coefficient of total scores to confirm the validity of the total scores; we analyzed correlation coefficient of parameter and indicator. We discovered that the total score and weight, which has incorporated public interests, were high and statistically significant. In conclusion, the result of this study contributes to strengthening risk assessment and risk management of hazardous chemicals.

• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2021

As the global business environment changes, uncertainties in technology development and market needs increase, and competition among companies intensifies, interests and demands for R&D activities of individual companies are increasing. In order to cope with these environmental changes, R&D companies are strengthening R&D investment as one of the means to enhance the qualitative competitiveness of R&D while paying more attention to facility investment. As a result, facilities or R&D investment elements are inevitably a burden for R&D companies to bear future uncertainties. It is true that the management strategy of increasing investment in R&D as a means of enhancing R&D capability is highly uncertain in terms of corporate performance. In this study, the structural factors that influence the R&D capabilities of companies are explored in terms of technology management capabilities, R&D capabilities, and corporate classification attributes by utilizing data mining techniques, and the characteristics these individual factors present according to the level of R&D capabilities are analyzed. This study also showed cluster analysis and experimental results based on evidence data for all domestic R&D companies, and is expected to provide important implications for corporate management strategies to enhance R&D capabilities of individual companies. For each of the three viewpoints, detailed evaluation indexes were composed of 7, 2, and 4, respectively, to quantitatively measure individual levels in the corresponding area. In the case of technology management capability and R&D capability, the sub-item evaluation indexes that are being used by current domestic technology evaluation agencies were referenced, and the final detailed evaluation index was newly constructed in consideration of whether data could be obtained quantitatively. In the case of corporate classification attributes, the most basic corporate classification profile information is considered. In particular, in order to grasp the homogeneity of the R&D competency level, a comprehensive score for each company was given using detailed evaluation indicators of technology management capability and R&D capability, and the competency level was classified into five grades and compared with the cluster analysis results. In order to give the meaning according to the comparative evaluation between the analyzed cluster and the competency level grade, the clusters with high and low trends in R&D competency level were searched for each cluster. Afterwards, characteristics according to detailed evaluation indicators were analyzed in the cluster. Through this method of conducting research, two groups with high R&D competency and one with low level of R&D competency were analyzed, and the remaining two clusters were similar with almost high incidence. As a result, in this study, individual characteristics according to detailed evaluation indexes were analyzed for two clusters with high competency level and one cluster with low competency level. The implications of the results of this study are that the faster the replacement cycle of professional managers who can effectively respond to changes in technology and market demand, the more likely they will contribute to enhancing R&D capabilities. In the case of a private company, it is necessary to increase the intensity of input of R&D capabilities by enhancing the sense of belonging of R&D personnel to the company through conversion to a corporate company, and to provide the accuracy of responsibility and authority through the organization of the team unit. Since the number of technical commercialization achievements and technology certifications are occurring both in the case of contributing to capacity improvement and in case of not, it was confirmed that there is a limit in reviewing it as an important factor for enhancing R&D capacity from the perspective of management. Lastly, the experience of utility model filing was identified as a factor that has an important influence on R&D capability, and it was confirmed the need to provide motivation to encourage utility model filings in order to enhance R&D capability. As such, the results of this study are expected to provide important implications for corporate management strategies to enhance individual companies' R&D capabilities.