國防 戰力所要 優先順位決定 政策模型에 관한 硏究 = (A) study of priority selection model on force requirement

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Modern world is all about heated competition amid changes to economic and political environments of each nation and prolific developments in science and technology. Facing the potent threat of North Korea, the Republic of Korea armed forces needs to respond to the dynamic changes to the security environment epitomized by the developmental changes of the ROK-US alliance and the unidentified threats of the neighboring countries based on the increasing economic mutual interdependency along with politico-military conflict factors. Defense budget invested to overcome such threat factors has not reached exponential increase to the force requirement.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore and propose the new policy model to make a decision on the integrated priority of the force requirement with macro and strategic perspective centered around the planning stage of the PPBEE system, the starting point of the effective allocation of limited defense budget. The study has been carried out to suggest a course of action to unearth the utility and continuously reinforce this policy model from actually applying this and deriving the result to prove its utility. As a result of analyzing force requirement decision data and comparing related decision making methodology and previous model in a critical manner to accomplish the purpose effectively, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), one of the multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) procedures, was elected for application. However, this approach also exposed its own limitation in that agreement upon the evaluation standard and hierarchical structure has to be made, many rounds of bilateral comparison is needed, and simple increasing and decreasing function has to be processed properly. To that notion, a single paradigm to decide the force requirement priority policy model consist of 7 steps is brought about by integrating positives and negatives of prevailing methodologies outside the boundary of the traditional and hierarchical AHP analytical methodology.
The standard of the joint evaluation assessment of the policy model began with setting the basic standard by thoroughly analyzing documental studies, force requirement analysis results, and expert opinions, followed by circulating survey. Final decision was made relying on the experts in-depth discussion. The evaluation standard was categorized into three separate levels of effect analysis, cost analysis, and risk analysis. The effect analysis is consist of total of 20 standards including 3 primary standards, 9 secondary standards, and 8 detailed standards. The cost analysis and risk analysis is consist of 9 standards each, 3 primary and 6 secondary, and 4 primary and 5 secondary respectively. In result, total number of standards of policy model decision making hierarchical structure to decide the force requirement priority is 38.
Common evaluation standard was weighed by bilateral comparison and survey run among agencies in charge of requirement proposal, requirement decision, and research institute. Priority was derived based on the group assessment framework of 5 points action category based on the absolute degree, and the comparison of 10 different alternatives. Especially in this process, weighted B/C/R, an expansion of the hierarchical AHP, was carried out to analyze effect, cost, and risk in a singular model and enhance the utilization.
As a result of this policy model's actual implementation, weighted number of the evaluation standard is highly applicable for its close nature to the core matter related to reality. Alternative priority depicts the correlation between the project priority and effect, cost, and risk wise stability, requiring the development of scientific and rational requirement proposal system. In terms of sensitivity, highly touted alternatives were proven to be superbly distinctive, solidifying its trust.
Therefore, this policy model is expected to be the unbiased and strategic force requirement priority decision methodology taking into account direct and indirect effect, available budget, expected project risk of force requirement from the planning procedure, boasting objectivity, transparency, and efficiency. In addition, this framework is expected to offer a macro resource allocation guideline to construct a purpose fitting combat power inside the force planning picture.
Finally, it is with strong confidence that this study will serve a stepping stone to stand against the lack of efforts to come to a rational resolution due to the expertise and broad scope this area entails, though there has been a common agreement to the necessity of such study. Taking into account many complicated factors and accepting many opinions to result to an agreement, the more realistic study based upon the formulated decision making policy model capable of integrating many variables will be more feasible with this work

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차 = 2
• 제Ⅰ장 서론 = 1
• 제1절 문제의 제기 = 1
• 제2절 연구의 목적 = 5
• 제3절 연구의 범위 및 방법 = 6
• 제Ⅱ장 전력소요 우선순위결정 이론과 실제 = 9
• 제1절 전력소요결정 의의 = 9
• 제2절 전력소요 우선순위결정 기법 = 14
• 1. 의사결정 기법 검토 = 14
• 1) 비용효과 분석(Cost-Effective Analysis) = 15
• 2) 평점모형(Scoring Method) = 16
• 3) 목표달성평가법(GAM : Goal Achievement Method) = 17
• 4) 계층적 분석절차(Analytic Hierarchy Process) = 19
• 5) 정성적 접근방법 = 25
• 2. 선행모형 기법 분석 = 28
• 1) 과업지향분석 모형(STT : Strategy to Task Technique) = 28
• 2) 부가가치분석 모형(VAA : Value Added Analysis) = 32
• 3) 임무지향분석 모형(MOA : Mission Oriented Analysis) = 35
• 3. 전력소요 우선순위결정 기법 검토 및 분석 결과 = 36
• 제3절 전력소요결정체계 실제와 쟁점분석 = 41
• 제Ⅲ장 전력소요 우선순위결정 정책모형 형성과 분석 = 46
• 제1절 전력소요 우선순위결정 정책모형 설계 = 46
• 제2절 전력소요 우선순위결정 정책모형 형성 = 59
• 제3절 전력소요 우선순위결정 정책모형 적용결과 분석 = 79
• 1. 평가기준 가중치 적용결과 분석 = 79
• 2. 대안 우선순위 적용결과 분석 = 86
• 3. 민감도 분석 = 89
• 제4절 전력소요 우선순위결정 정책모형의 유용성과 한계 = 91
• 1. 전력소요 우선순위결정 정책모형의 유용성 = 91
• 2. 전력소요 우선순위결정 정책모형의 한계 = 93
• 제Ⅳ장 전력소요 우선순위결정 수정 정책모형 제안 = 95
• 제1절 효과분석 계층구조의 과학적 분석체계 구축 = 95
• 제2절 비용분석 계층구조의 합리성 제고 = 100
• 제3절 리스크분석 계층구조의 미래예측체계 정립 = 103
• 제4절 수정된 통합 정책모형 = 106
• 제Ⅴ장 결론 = 108
• 제1절 연구결과 요약 = 108
• 제2절 연구의 한계와 향후과제 = 110
• 참고문헌 = 112
• ABSTRACT = 116
• 부록#1 전력투자사업 우선순위결정 위한 공동기준에 대한 AHP 설문 = 119
• 부록#2 효과 의사결정계층구조 가중치 및 우선순위 결과물 = 128