An Empirical Study of Railroad Technology Improvement Using AHP and QFD

Abstract Purpose : This study aims to determine the needs of customers who use railroads as a mode of transportation and propose customer-oriented improvements in railroad technology by making connections between custom-er needs and railroad technology. Methods : We primarily used two methods for this study, AHP and QFD. First, AHP was used to evaluate the relative importance among the different components of railroad technology. Second, the QFD was applied to make a link between customer needs and railroad technology. Results: Railroad technology is largely divided into development, maintenance, and support. Empirical results showed the following improvement priorities in development, vehicle, system, line, signal/communication, power, and structure, in maintenance, vehicle, signal/communication, line, process, power, and structure, and in support, safety/precaution, management, environmental energy, operations/logistics, and station.Conclusion : Recognizing limitations in measuring the level of railroad technology when using the existing ‘Technology Growth Model,’ we used AHP and QFD to explore improvement directions for customer-oriented railroad technology. By offering customer-oriented services based on this study, railroad service providers will be able to acquire competitive advantage in the market. Key Words : Railroad Technology, AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process), QFD(Quality Function Deployment), Customer Satisfaction

[1]  J. Hauser,et al.  The House of Quality , 1988 .

[2]  Hee-Min Noh,et al.  A Study on Interior Noise Characteristics of High-speed Trains , 2013 .

[3]  Sung Hong Kim.  A Study on the Priorities of Quality Dimensions for the Quality Competitive Advantage , 2012 .

[4]  장수은,et al.  예비)타당성조사의 교통사고 감소편익 산정방안 보완 연구 , 2007 .

[5]  Susan Carlson Skalak.  House of Quality , 2002 .

[6]  José María Moreno-Jiménez,et al.  A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean priorization procedure , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  Emin Babakus,et al.  An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale , 1992 .

[8]  T. L. Saaty.  A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[9]  R. Teas,et al.  Expectations, Performance Evaluation, and Consumers’ Perceptions of Quality , 1993 .

[10]  T. Saaty,et al.  Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference , 2007 .

[11]  L. Winner.  Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought , 1977 .

[12]  Seetharaman Hariharan,et al.  Managing healthcare performance in analytical framework , 2008 .

[13]  Jerry R. Goolsby,et al.  Cognitive Moral Development and Marketing , 1992 .

[14]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  A MULTIPLE-ITEM SCALE FOR MEASURING CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY , 1988 .

[15]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. , 1988 .

[16]  Steven A. Taylor,et al.  Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension , 1992 .