IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i8p2742-d161789.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Knowledge Discovery Education Framework Targeting the Effective Budget Use and Opinion Explorations in Designing Specific High Cost Product

Author

Listed:
  • Li-Pin Chi

    (Department of Management Science, College of Management, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu 30010, Taiwan)

  • Zheng-Yun Zhuang

    (Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 80778, Taiwan)

  • Chen-Hua Fu

    (Department of Information Management, College of Management, National Defence University, Taipei 11258, Taiwan)

  • Jen-Hung Huang

    (Department of Management Science, College of Management, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu 30010, Taiwan)

Abstract

For an R&D institution to design a specific high investment cost product, the budget is usually ‘large but limited’. To allocate such budget on the directions with key potential benefits (e.g., core technologies) requires, at first and at least, a priority over the involved design criteria, as to discover the relevant decision knowledge for a suitable budgeting plan. Such a problem becomes crucial when the designed product is relevant to the security and military sustainability of a nation, e.g., a next generation fighter. This study presents a science education framework that helps to obtain such knowledge and close the opinion gaps. It involves several main tutorial phases to construct and confirm the set of design criteria, to establish a decision hierarchy, to assess the preferential structures of the decision makers (DMs) (individually or on a group basis), and to perform some decision analyses that are designed to identify the homogeneity and heterogeneity of the opinions in the decision group. The entire framework has been applied in a training course hold in a large R&D institution, while after learning the staff successfully applied these knowledge discovery processes (for planning the budget for the fighter design works and for closing the opinion gaps present). With the staffs’ practical exercises, several empirical findings except for the budgeting priority (e.g., the discrimination between ‘more important criteria’ against the less important ones) are also interesting. For some examples (but not limited to these), it is found that the results from using two measures (statistical correlation vs. geometrical cosine similarity) to identify the opinion gaps are almost identical. It is found that DMs’ considerations under various constructs are sometimes consistent, but often hard to be consistent. It is also found that the two methods (degree of divergence (DoD) vs. number of observed subgroups (NSgs)) that are used to understand the opinions’ diversity under the constructs are different. The proposed education framework meets the recent trend of data-driven decision-making, and the teaching materials are also some updates to science education.

Suggested Citation

  • Li-Pin Chi & Zheng-Yun Zhuang & Chen-Hua Fu & Jen-Hung Huang, 2018. "A Knowledge Discovery Education Framework Targeting the Effective Budget Use and Opinion Explorations in Designing Specific High Cost Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-37, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2742-:d:161789
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2742/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2742/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Wenhua & Yu, Suihuai & Pei, Huining & Zhao, Chuan & Tian, Baozhen, 2017. "A hybrid approach based on fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic method for evaluation in-flight service quality," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 49-64.
    2. Bian, Tian & Hu, Jiantao & Deng, Yong, 2017. "Identifying influential nodes in complex networks based on AHP," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 479(C), pages 422-436.
    3. MARCUM, Maggie, 2014. "A Comparative Study of Global Fighter Development Timelines," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt1wm202sh, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    4. Adolfo Crespo Márquez, 2007. "The Maintenance Management Framework," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, Springer, number 978-1-84628-821-0, December.
    5. Juan F Gómez Fernández & Adolfo Crespo Márquez, 2012. "Maintenance Management in Network Utilities," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, Springer, edition 127, number 978-1-4471-2757-4, December.
    6. Juan F. Gómez Fernández & Adolfo Crespo Márquez, 2012. "Managing Maintenance Strategy," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, in: Maintenance Management in Network Utilities, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 149-184, Springer.
    7. Bee Yan Aw & Mark J. Roberts & Tor Winston, 2007. "Export Market Participation, Investments in R&D and Worker Training, and the Evolution of Firm Productivity," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 83-104, January.
    8. Govindan, Kannan & Kaliyan, Mathiyazhagan & Kannan, Devika & Haq, A.N., 2014. "Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(PB), pages 555-568.
    9. Nikou, Shahrokh & Mezei, József, 2013. "Evaluation of mobile services and substantial adoption factors with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 915-929.
    10. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 144-156.
    11. Hui-Ping Ho & Ching-Ter Chang & Cheng-Yuan Ku, 2013. "On the location selection problem using analytic hierarchy process and multi-choice goal programming," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 94-108.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li-Pin Chi & Chen-Hua Fu & Jeng-Pyng Chyng & Zheng-Yun Zhuang & Jen-Hung Huang, 2019. "A Post-Training Study on the Budgeting Criteria Set and Priority for MALE UAS Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-28, March.
    2. Teen-Hang Meen & Charles Tijus & Jui-Che Tu, 2019. "Selected Papers from the Eurasian Conference on Educational Innovation 2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Chen-Hua Fu & Chih-Yung Chen, 2021. "A Study on Decision-Making Opinion Exploration in Windows-Based Information Security Monitoring Tool Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-39, March.
    4. Sheng Wu & Yi Zhang & Zheng-Yun Zhuang, 2018. "A Systematic Initial Study of Civic Scientific Literacy in China: Cross-National Comparable Results from Scientific Cognition to Sustainable Literacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li-Pin Chi & Chen-Hua Fu & Jeng-Pyng Chyng & Zheng-Yun Zhuang & Jen-Hung Huang, 2019. "A Post-Training Study on the Budgeting Criteria Set and Priority for MALE UAS Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-28, March.
    2. Md. Raquibuzzaman Khan & Mohammad Jahangir Alam & Nazia Tabassum & Niaz Ahmed Khan, 2022. "A Systematic Review of the Delphi–AHP Method in Analyzing Challenges to Public-Sector Project Procurement and the Supply Chain: A Developing Country’s Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Zhao, Na, 2019. "Managing interactive collaborative mega project supply chains under infectious risks," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 275-286.
    4. Mahdi Bashiri & Benny Tjahjono & Jordon Lazell & Jennifer Ferreira & Tomy Perdana, 2021. "The Dynamics of Sustainability Risks in the Global Coffee Supply Chain: A Case of Indonesia–UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    5. Lin, Zhibin & Vlachos, Ilias, 2018. "An advanced analytical framework for improving customer satisfaction: A case of air passengers," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 185-195.
    6. K. Mathiyazhagan & Udbhav Datta & Rishabh bhadauria & Aditya Singla & S. Krishnamoorthi, 2018. "Identification and prioritization of motivational factors for the green supply chain management adoption: case from Indian construction industries," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 55(1), pages 202-219, March.
    7. Sandra M. Leitner & Robert Stehrer, 2016. "R&D and Non-R&D Innovators During the Global Financial Crisis: The Role of Binding Credit Constraints," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 53(1), pages 1-38, December.
    8. Qazi, Abroon & Dickson, Alex & Quigley, John & Gaudenzi, Barbara, 2018. "Supply chain risk network management: A Bayesian belief network and expected utility based approach for managing supply chain risks," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 24-42.
    9. Lee, Cassey, 2011. "Trade, productivity, and innovation: Firm-level evidence from Malaysian manufacturing," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 284-294, August.
    10. Olivier Cadot & Céline Carrère & Vanessa Strauss-Kahn, 2013. "Trade Diversification, Income, And Growth: What Do We Know?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 790-812, September.
    11. Cassiman, Bruno & Golovko, Elena, 2007. "Innovation and the export-productivity link," IESE Research Papers D/688, IESE Business School.
    12. Bettina Peters & Rebecca Riley & Iulia Siedschlag & Priit Vahter & John McQuinn, 2018. "Internationalisation, innovation and productivity in services: evidence from Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 154(3), pages 585-615, August.
    13. Chia-Hui Huang & Tony Chieh-Tse Hou & Chih-Hai Yang, 2013. "FDI modes and parent firms' productivity in emerging economies:Evidence from Taiwan," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(8), pages 1240-1268, December.
    14. Christopher F. Baum & Mustafa Caglayan & Oleksandr Talavera, 2016. "R&D Expenditures and Geographical Sales Diversification," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 84(2), pages 197-221, March.
    15. Stiebale, Joel, 2016. "Cross-border M&As and innovative activity of acquiring and target firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-15.
    16. Lorenzo Caliendo & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2012. "The Impact of Trade on Organization and Productivity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1393-1467.
    17. Fabian Unterlass, 2013. "The relationship between innovation, exports and economic performance. Empirical evidence for 21 EU countries," EcoMod2013 5655, EcoMod.
    18. Aida Caldera, 2010. "Innovation and exporting: evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 146(4), pages 657-689, December.
    19. Miao Su & Su‐Han Woo & Xiaochun Chen & Keun‐sik Park, 2023. "Identifying critical success factors for the agri‐food cold chain's sustainable development: When the strategy system comes into play," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 444-461, January.
    20. Ruohan Wu & Jong-Rong Chiou, 2021. "Retesting the Learning-by-Exporting Theory: An Investigation of Chinese Manufacturers’ Productivity Under Globalization," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 49(1), pages 71-85, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2742-:d:161789. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.