Delphi/AHP를 이용한 여수·광양항의 중장기 발전전략수립을 위한 우선순위에 관한 연구 = A Study on the Priority Analysis for Establishing Development Strategy of the Yeosu·Gwangyang Port using Delphi/AHP

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Currently, Yeosu·Gwangyang ports need to come up with a new business promotion plan for the development strategy of Yeosu·Gwangyang ports at a time when overall volume of goods is stagnant or slowing down. Therefore, in this paper, we will study the mid- to long-term development strategies of Yeosu·Gwangyang ports using Delphi analysis and AHP techniques to create a new development strategy for Yeosu·Gwangyang ports.
A Delphi questionnaire was created by comprehensively analyzing prior research on the development strategy of Yeosu·Gwangyang Port and interviews with stakeholders, and the contents of the development strategy of Yeosu·Gwangyang Port were organized into major categories and sub-categories related to this to design an AHP model. This study differs from previous studies in that it established Yeosu·Gwangyang Port development strategies by comparing and analyzing the opinions of various port stakeholders by job type.
Through the AHP technique, priorities by class were derived by job type (terminal operation workers, port unit operators, port-related associations, and professors of related departments). As a result of AHP analysis, the priorities of the upper class were analyzed differently by job type (terminal operation workers, port unit operators, port-related associations, and professors of related departments).
In establishing the development strategy of Yeosu·Gwangyang Port, what port stakeholders commonly consider important is the integrated operation plan of terminal operators. Therefore, in establishing the development strategy of Yeosu·Gwangyang Port, it is necessary to discuss the strategy in the field of operation management in more depth.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

현재 여수․광양항은 전반적으로 물동량이 정체 혹은 둔화되는 시점에서 여수· 광양항의 발전 전략에 관한 새로운 사업 추진 방안을 마련하는 것이 필요하다. 이에 본 논문에서는 여수·광양항의 새로운 발전 전략을 만들기 위해 Delphi 분 석과 AHP 기법을 이용한 여수·광양항의 중장기 발전전략을 연구하고자 한다.
여수·광양항의 발전 전략에 관한 선행연구와 이해관계자 인터뷰 등을 종합적 으로 분석하여 Delphi 설문 문항을 만들고 전문가의 의견 분석을 반복적으로 진행하여 여수·광양항의 발전전략에 관한 내용을 대분류와 이에 관한 소분류로 정리하여 AHP 모형을 설계하였다. 본 연구는 다양한 항만 이해관계자들의 의 견을 직종별로 비교·분석하여 여수·광양항 발전 전략을 수립했다는 점에서 선 행연구와는 차별성이 있다.
AHP 기법으로 직종별(터미널 운영 종사자, 항만부대사업자, 항만관련협회, 관련학과 교수)로 계층별 우선순위를 도출하였다. AHP 분석 결과, 상위계층에서의 우선 순위는 직종별(터미널 운영 종사자, 항만부대사업자, 항만관련협회, 관련학과 교수) 우선순위는 모두 다르게 분석되었다.
여수·광양항의 발전전략을 수립함에 있어 항만 이해관계자들이 공통적으로 중요하게 여기는 것은 터미널 운영사의 통합 운영 방안으로 판단된다. 따라서 여수·광양항의 발전전략을 수립함에 있어 운영관리 분야의 전략은 보다 심도 있게 논의할 필요성이 있다

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 ······························································································· 1
• 제1절 연구배경과 목적 ······················································································ 1
• 제2절 연구의 방법 및 절차 ·············································································· 3
• 제2장 선행연구 및 이론적 배경 ························································ 5
• 제1절 선행연구 ···································································································· 5
• 1. 항만의 국내외 환경분석 ··········································································· 5
• 2. 여수·광양항의 현황과 미래 ··································································· 20
• 3. 여수·광양항의 활성화 방안 연구 ························································· 30
• 제2절 이론적 배경 ···························································································· 44
• 1. 델파이 기법 ······························································································ 44
• 2. AHP 기법 ································································································· 48
• 3. Delphi/AHP 기법 ················································································· 53
• 4. AHP 기반의 항만 발전전략 사례 분석 ············································· 59
• 제3장 연구모형 설계 ··········································································· 62
• 제1절 Delphi/AHP를 이용한 연구모형 설계 ··········································· 62
• 1. Delphi/AHP 기법을 이용한 연구모형 설계 ··································· 62
• 2. Delphi 설문지 개발 ············································································· 64
• 3. Delphi/AHP 모형 설계 ······································································· 67
• 제2절 Delphi/AHP를 이용한 설문조사 개요 ··········································· 69
• 1. 델파이 전문가 선정 및 설문조사 대상 ·············································· 69
• 2. AHP 전문가 선정 및 설문조사 대상 ················································· 71
• 제4장 Delphi/AHP 기반 실증분석 결과 ································ 73
• 제1절 터미널 운영 종사자 실증분석 결과 ·················································· 73
• 1. 상위계층 평가요인 분석결과 ······························································· · 73
• 2. 법제도분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석결과 ·········································· 73
• 3. 운영관리분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석 결과 ···································· 74
• 4. 기술분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석 결과 ············································ 75
• 5. 터미널 운영 종사자 최종 분석 결과 ·················································· 76
• 제2절 항만부대사업자 실증분석 결과 ·························································· 78
• 1. 상위계층 평가요인 분석결과 ······························································· · 78
• 2. 법제도분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석결과 ·········································· 78
• 3. 운영관리분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석 결과 ···································· 79
• 4. 기술분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석 결과 ············································ 80
• 5. 항만부대사업자 최종 분석 결과 ·························································· 80
• 제3절 항만관련협회 실증분석 결과 ······························································ 82
• 1. 상위계층 평가요인 분석결과 ······························································· · 82
• 2. 법제도분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석결과 ·········································· 82
• 3. 운영관리분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석 결과 ···································· 83
• 4. 기술분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석 결과 ············································ 84
• 5. 항만관련협회 최종 분석 결과 ······························································ 84
• 제4절 관련학과 교수 실증분석 결과 ···························································· 86
• 1. 상위계층 평가요인 분석결과 ······························································· · 86
• 2. 법제도분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석결과 ·········································· 86
• 3. 운영관리분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석 결과 ···································· 87
• 4. 기술분야 하위계층 평가요인 분석 결과 ············································ 88
• 5. 관련학과 교수 최종 분석 결과 ···························································· 88
• 제5장 결론 ······························································································· 90
• 제1절 연구의 요약 ···························································································· 90
• 제2절 연구의 시사점 및 향후과제 ································································ 93
• 참고 문헌 ············································································································ 96
• [부록 1] - Delphi 1차 설문지 ································································· 101
• [부록 2] - Delphi 2차 설문지 ································································· 105
• [부록 3] - AHP 1차 설문지 ····································································· 109