Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChi, Li-Pinen_US
dc.contributor.authorZhuang, Zheng-Yunen_US
dc.contributor.authorFu, Chen-Huaen_US
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Jen-Hungen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-02T06:00:32Z-
dc.date.available2019-04-02T06:00:32Z-
dc.date.issued2018-08-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn2071-1050en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10082742en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11536/148264-
dc.description.abstractFor 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.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectmilitary and security sustainabilityen_US
dc.subjectscience educationen_US
dc.subjectdecision knowledge discoveryen_US
dc.subjectlarge scale budgetingen_US
dc.subjectspecific high-cost product designen_US
dc.subjectemployee trainingen_US
dc.subjectdata-driven decision-makingen_US
dc.titleA Knowledge Discovery Education Framework Targeting the Effective Budget Use and Opinion Explorations in Designing Specific High Cost Producten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/su10082742en_US
dc.identifier.journalSUSTAINABILITYen_US
dc.citation.volume10en_US
dc.contributor.department管理科學系zh_TW
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Management Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.wosnumberWOS:000446767700158en_US
dc.citation.woscount2en_US
Appears in Collections:Articles