Communicating and prioritizing science and technology policy using AHP

Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 437-451

  Wu, Yi Ching ^a   Lin, Bou Wen ^a   Shih, Chintay ^a   Chen, Chung Jen ^b  

^a NATIONAL TSING HUA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchical process (AHP); Innovation policy; Multi criteria decision making; Policy communication; Policy prioritization; Science and technology policy (S T policy)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939168421     PISSN: 14479338     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5172/impp.2013.15.4.437     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Andelin, J., & Naismith, N. C. (1986). Research funding as an investment: Can we measure the returns? Washington, DC: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.
2. Belton, V., & Gear, T. (1983). On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies, Omega, 11, 228-230.
3. Byun, D.-H. (2001). The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model. Information & Management, 38, 289-297.
4. Callon, M., Courtial, P. J., Crance, P., Laredo, P., Mauguin, P., Rabeharisoa, V., Rocher, A. Y., & Vinck, D. (1991). Tools for the evaluation of technological programmes: An account of work done at the centre for the sociology of innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 3, 3-41.
5. Charles, D., & Benneworth, P. (2001). Are we realizing our potential? Joining up science and technology policy in the English regions. Regional Studies, 35, 73-79.
6. Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry/Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy/MS. (2006). Summary of the workshop on science of science policy: Developing our understanding of public investments in science. Helsinki, Finland: DSTI/STP/MS.
7. Forgionne, G. A., & Kohli, R. (2001). A multiple criteria assessment of decision technology system journal quality. Information and Management, 38, 421-435.
8. Forman, E. H. (1990). AHP is intended for more than expected value calculations. Decision Sciences, 21, 670-672.
9. Freitas, I. M. B., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Mapping public support for innovation: A comparison of policy alignment in the UK and France, Research Policy, 37, 1446-1464.
10. Gelders, D. (2006). Improving public policy communication in Belgium. Public Manager, 35(3), 32-36.
11. Georghiou, L. (1996). The UK technology foresight programme. Futures 28, 359-377.
12. Hambrick, R., Jr. (1998). Building the policy studies enterprise: A work in progress. Public Administration Review, 58, 533-539.
13. Hart, D. M. (2001). Antitrust and technological innovation in the US: Ideas, institutions, decisions, and impacts, 1890-2000. Research Policy, 30, 923-936.
14. Hond, F. D., & Groenewegen, P. (1996). Environmental technology foresight: New horizons for technology management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8, 33-46.
15. Huang, C.-Y., Shyu, J. Z., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2007). Reconfiguring the innovation policy portfolios for Taiwan's SIP mall industry. Technovation, 27, 744-765.
16. Jamison, A. (2001). Science, technology and the quest for sustainable development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13, 9-22.
17. Lai, V. S., Trueblood, R. P., & Wong, B. K. (1999). Software selection: A case study of the application of the analytical hierarchical process to the selection of a multimedia authoring system. Information & Management, 36, 221-231.
18. Leydesdroff, L., & Gauthier, é. (1996). The evaluation of national performance in selected priority areas using scientometric methods. Research Policy, 25, 431-450.
19. Luis, S.-M. (1995). Policy choices, institutional constraints and policy learning: The Spanish science and technology policy in the Eighties. International Journal of Technology Management, 10, 622-641.
20. Macharis, C., Springael, J., De Brucker, K., & Verbeke, A. (2004). PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 153, 307-317.
21. MacRae, D., Jr., & Whittington, D. (1997). Expert advice for policy choice: Analysis and discourse. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
22. National Science Council, Executive Yuan. (2005). National Science and Technology Development Plan (2005-2008). Taipei City, Taiwan: Author.
23. OECD. (2005a). The governance of innovation systems: Synthesis report. Paris, France: Author.
24. OECD. (2005b). Innovation policy and performance: A cross-country comparison. Paris, France: Author.
25. Pavitt, K. (1998). The inevitable limits of EU R&D funding. Research Policy, 27, 559-568.
26. Radosevic, S. (2003). Patterns of preservation, restructuring and survival: Science and technology policy in Russia in Post-Soviet era. Research Policy, 3, 1105-1124.
27. Rappert, B. (1999). Rationalising the future? Foresight in science and technology policy co-ordination. Futures, 31, 527-545.
28. Ramanathan, R. (2001). A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 27-35.
29. Ryan, T. B., & Mothibi, J. (2000). Towards a systemic framework for understanding science and technology policy formulation problems for developing countries. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17, 375-381.
30. Saaty, T. L. (2001). Decision making for leaders: The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
31. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (1994). Decision making in economic, political, social and technological environments with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
32. Sabatier, P. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research, Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21-48.
33. Science and Technology Advisory Group. (2008). Guidelines for science and technology development. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.
34. Slaughter, R. (1995). The foresight principle. London, England: Adamantine Press.
35. Taylor, R. (2003). Current policies are failing to improve UK skills and productivity. Management Services, 47(7), 14-17.
36. The Economist. (2009). Global Innovation Index: Exercising patents. Retrieved from: http://www.economist.com/node/13562333
37. Tisdell, C. A. (1981). Science and technology policy: Priorities of governments. London, England: Chapman and Hall.
38. Vargas, L. G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 2-8.
39. Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. M. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. London, England: Sage.
40. Yurdakul, M. (2004). AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 146, 365-376.
41. Zahedi, F. (1986). The analytic hierarchy process: A survey of the method and its application. Interfaces, 16(4), 96-108.