產業技術研發是促進產業升級以及創造競爭力的重要因素，我國經濟部自1999年積極推動業界科技專案，透過專家學者審查以經費補助企業從事研發，鼓勵我國企業進行產業技術的研發創新，本研究自群體決策角度出發，提出模糊網絡分析法(Fuzzy Analytic Network Process, Fuzzy ANP)以建構科技研發專案評選決策模式，內容包含：(1)建構業界科專評審委員會對於研發專案的評選準則與模式，(2)運用模糊網絡分析法分析業界科專評審委員對於該模式的判斷，(3)使用模擬來分析不同外在決策環境與不同風險態度對業界科專評審委員對於模式判斷的變動，(4)分析評審委員對於業界科專政策的看法與建議。本研究結果顯示技術價值為業界科專評審委員最重視的評選準則，而專案執行是次重要的評選準則，此外，模糊網絡分析法適用在不確定性高的業界科技專案評選，而且隨著外在決策環境與評審委員風險態度的改變會造成評審委員改變評選準則的重要性排序，此外，業界科技專案政策是提升產業科技研發的重要因素。

Fuzzy Analytical Network Process (fuzzy ANP) is a helpful approach for the selection cooperative R&D projects developed by firms in collaboration with government. A technical committee for Industrial Technology Development Program (ITDP) in Taiwan regularly evaluates and decides proper public subsidiary of cooperative R&D projects. In this paper, we first discuss important decision criteria and establish decision model for ITDP projects selection. We apply fuzzy ANP to integrate decisions of members in the technical committee. In addition, we use simulation to analyze how decisions of technical committee change. Our results indicate that scientific & technology merit criterion is most important considered in overall technical committees. Besides that, the project execution is more important criteria than potential benefits and project risk in ITDP selection. Generally speaking, the paper reveals below results: (1) the fuzzy ANP is an appropriate method in multi-criteria technology R&D projects selection; (2) the decisions of technical committee will change under different decision risk and different risk attitude; (3) the interviews of technical committee indicate that ITDP is very important policy for improvement firms’ R&D abilities.

目 錄

第一章 緒論………………………………………………….1
1.1 研究背景………...…………………………………...……………………1
1.2 研究方法及研究目的………………………..……………………………7
1.3 研究流程…………………………..………………………………………8
第二章 各國政府補助創新研發計畫……………………...10
2.1 國外政府相關財務補助計劃…………………………………..………..10
2.2 台灣科技專案…………………..…………………………………..……19
2.3 業界開發產業技術計畫…………………..…………………………..…27
第三章 研究發展專案評選 35
3.1 研發專案評選的準則 35
3.2 研發專案選擇模式 43
第四章 模糊理論與網絡分析法 52
4.1 網絡分析法 52
4.2 模糊理論 55
4.3 模糊網絡分析法………………………………………………………….58
4.4 模糊網絡分析法的應用差異 63
第五章 研究設計 68
5.1 業界科專評選層級架構 68
5.2 問卷設計……………………………………………………………...…..74
5.3 分析方法………………………………………………………………….77
第六章 模糊資料分析與討論 89
6.1 評審委員的AHP專案權重分析 89
6.2 評審委員的模糊AHP專案權重分析 96
6.3 評審委員的模糊ANP專案權重分析 112
6.4 評審委員對業界科專政策的訪談 120
第七章 研究結論與建議………………………………..….124
7.1 研究結論 124
7.2 研究建議 128
7.3 研究貢獻 131
7.4 後續研究方向 132
參考文獻…………………………………………………….134
附錄一 現階段業界開發產業技術計畫評審表格……………………………1
附錄二 模糊ANP問卷………………………………………………….….…2
附錄三 訪談名單………………………………………………...………...…12
附錄表……………………………………………………..………..……..…..…1
附錄圖……………………………………………………..………..……..……21

參考文獻
中文文獻
方彥永(2003)。知識經濟體系下政府協助產業創新之研究-以業界開發產業技術計畫為例。中山大學公共事務管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
李明軒、邱如美（譯）(1996)。Porter, E. M.著。國家競爭優勢。台北：天下文化。
何雍慶(1987)。工研院歷年來研究專案對產業影響之追蹤與分析，工業技術研究院研究報告。
林欣吾(2002)。業界科專之績效評估機制。臺灣經濟研究月刊，25(11)，72-77。
林治廷(2000)。科技研究發展專案的連續多期的效率評估(GIPOTE)模式。交通大學工工所未出版碩士論文。
洪靜宜(2000)。我國廠商參加業界科技專案動機之研究。國立政治大學財政研究所未出版碩士論文，台北。
徐作聖(1999)。科技政策與國家創新系統。台北：華泰文化事業股份有限公司。
袁建中，黃志男，張寶誠(1999)。資料包絡分析法在科技專案執行效率評估的應用－以能源科技研發專案為例。科技管理學刊，4 (1)，17-38。
徐村和、楊宗欣(2000)，應用模糊層級分析法評選廣告媒體，管理與系統，7(1)，19-40。
楊千(2000)。科技專案計畫績效評估。研考雙月刊，24( 4)，30-36。
陳正福(2001)。研發活動之資源基礎分析-以主導性新產品開發計畫廠商為例。國立台灣科技大學企業管理系未出版碩士論文，台北。
陳嘉萍(2002)。政府研發獎助與中小企業研發創新關係之研究-以新竹科學園區廠商為例。國立中央大學產業經濟研究所未出版碩士論文，中壢。
葉勝年(1991)。科技發展專案計畫追蹤驗證評估模式之研究。經濟部科技顧問室。
董鍾明(2001)。研發效率評估之資料包絡分析法實證研究－以主導性新產品開發計畫為例。國立台灣科技大學企業管理系未出版碩士論文。
郭雍信(2003)。資料包絡分析法應用於科技研發專案計畫績效評估之研究-以XX科學研究院為例。國防管理學院資源管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
蘇雲一(1998)。資料包絡分析法與比例分析法運用於科技專案效率評估之研究。國立交通大學管理科學研究所未出版碩士論文。
經濟部技術處(2004)。業界科專操作手冊。台北：經濟部。
經濟部技術處(2003)。業界開發產業技術計劃成果摘要彙編。台北：經濟部。
中華民國科學技術統計要覽(2003)。2003年11月10日取自http://www.nsc.gov.tw/tech/pub_data_main.asp。
中小企業廳(2004)。2004年5月30日取自
http://www.chusho.meti.go.jp。
中國科學技術部(2004)。中國科技統計。2005年3月15日取自http://www.sts.org.cn/nwdt/gndt/document/035.htm。
行政院經濟建設委員會(2000)。知識經濟發展方案。2004年5月30日取自http://www.cedi.cepd.gov.tw/index.php?fPath=1&CediID=029b532d1dc091bc03d6507292edc78f。
科技型中小企業技術創新基金(2004)。科技型中小企業技術創新基金的基本特性與特質。2005年3月15日取自http://www.innofund.gov.cn/intro/se_list_01.htm。
科技型中小企業技術創新基金(2004)。科技型中小企業技術創新基金的定位。2005年3月15日取自http://www.innofund.gov.cn/intro/se_01_b.htm。
科技型中小企業技術創新基金(2004)。基金文件。2005年3月15日取自http://www.innofund.gov.cn/innofile/se_02.asp。
科技型中小企業技術創新基金(2004)。創新基金2002年執行情況。2005年3月15日取自http://www.innofund.gov.cn/innomsg/view.asp。
陳信宏(2004)。台灣不能自外於跨國企業研發中心移向東亞的浪潮。2004年5月30日取自http://doit.moea.gov.tw/。
產業技術綜合研究所(2004)。2004年5月30日取自
http://www.aist.go.jp。
經濟部技術處(2004)。http://doit.moea.gov.tw/tier。
經濟產業省(2004)。2004年5月30日取自
http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/innovation_policy。
經濟部工業局企業研發聯盟(2004)。2005年1月30日取自http://www.erai.org.tw/。
經濟部技術處(2004)。2003年11月10日取自
http://doit.moea.gov.tw/03know/product.asp。
經濟部技術處(2004)。2004年5月25日取自
http://innovation1.tdp.org.tw/group/application/tdp_itdp/index.php。
戴佳恩、何秋萍、陳彥瑋、宋恩生(2004)。人工智慧與類神經網路簡介。http://www.im.ntu.edu.tw/~b8705005/report/AIrpt.htm。
韓國科技部(2004)。2004年5月25日取自
http://www.most.go.kr/。
英文文獻
Adamo, J.M. (1980). Fuzzy decision tree. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 4, 207-219.
Al-Mazidi, S. & Ghosn, A.A. (1997). A management model for technology and R&D selection. International Journal of Technology Management, 13(5/6), 525-541.
Archer, N. P. & Ghasemzadeh, F. (2000). An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207-216.

Arthur Andersen Business Consulting (1999). Zukai Knowledge Management: Jissen No Tame No Best Practice. Tokyo: Toyo Keizai Inc.
Baker, N.R. (1974). R&D project selection models: An assessment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-21, 4,165-171.
Baker, M. R. & Freeland, J. (1975). Recent advances in R&D benefit measurement and project selection: where we stand. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-11, 124-134.
Baker, M.R. & Pound, W.H. (1964). R and D project selection: Where we stand. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, December, 125-134.
Balachandra, R. & Friar, J.H. (1997). Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation: a contextual framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44 (3), 276-287.
Ballesteros, J. A. & Rico, A. M. (2001). Public financing of cooperative R&D projects in Spain: The concerted projects under the national R&D plan. Research Policy, 30(4), 625-641.
Baltes, B.B., Dickson, M.W., Sherman, M.P., Bauer, and LaGanke, J.S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), 156-179.
Bhat, V. (1991). Generic risk reduction strategies for R&D projects. Technology Management : the New International Language, 262-265.
Bilalis, N., Lolos, D., Antoniadis, A., & Emiris, D. (2002). A fuzzy sets approach to new product portfolio management. Engineering Management Conference, 2002 IEEE International, 1, 485 – 490.
Buckley, J. J. (1984). The multiple judge, multiple criteria ranking problem: A fuzzy set approach. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 13, 25-37.
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 233-247.
Buckley, J.J., Feuring, T., & Hayashi, Y. (1999). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. In Proceedings of IEEE International Fuzzy Systems Conference, 1009-1013, Seoul, Korea.
Buckley, J.J., Feuring, T., & Hayashi, Y. (2001). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis revisited. European Journal of Operational Research, 129, 48-64.
Buyukozkan, G., Ertay, T., Kahraman, C., & Ruan, D. (2004). Determining the importance weights for the design requirements in the house of quality using the fuzzy analytic network approach. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 19, 443-461.
Cetron, M., Martino, J., & Roepcke, L. (1967). The selection of R&D program content-survey of quantitative methods. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-14, 4-13.
Chen, S.H. (1985). Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing set and minimizing set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 113-129.
Chen, S. M. (1996). Evaluation weapon system by AHP using fuzzy arithmetic operation. Fuzzy Set and Systems, 77, 265-276.
Cheng, C.H. (1998). A new approach for ranking fuzzy numbers by distance method. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 95, 307-317.
Chien, C. F. (2002). A portfolio-evaluation framework for selection R&D projects. R&D Management, 32(4), 359-369.
Chu, P.Y., Hsu, Y.L., & Fehling, M. (1996). A decision support system for project portfolio selection. Computers in Industry, 32, 141-149.
Clemen, R.T. (1991), Making hard decisions: An introduction to decision analysis. PWS-KENT Publishing Company.
Coldrick, S., Lawson, C.P., Ivey, P.C., & Lockwood, C. (2002). A decision framework for R&D project selection. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 413-418.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt, E. (2001). Portfolio management for new product development: results of an industry practices study. R&D Management, 31(4), 361-380.
Costello, D. (1983). A practical approach to R&D project selection. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 353-368.
Csutora, R. & Buckley, J.J. (2001). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: The lambda-max method. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 120, 181-195.
David, P. A., Toole A. A., & Hall, B. H. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manufacturing? Research Policy, 25, 633-645.
de Campos Ibanez, L.M. & Gonzalez Munoz, A. (1989). A subjective approach for ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 29, 145-153.
Doctor, R.N., Newton, D.P., & Pearson, A. (2001). Managing uncertainty in research and development. Technovation, 21(2), 79.
Elkington, P. & Smallmman, C. (2002). Managing project risk: a case study from utilities sector. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 49-57.
Entani, T., Sugihara, G., & Tanaka, H. (2001). Analytic hierarchy process based on interval analysis. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 956-958.
Fahrni, P. & Spatig, M. (1990). An application-oriented guide to R&D project selection and evaluation methods. R&D Management, 20(2), 155-171.
Fan, Y., Miyagi, H., & Yamashita, K. (1998). Decision-making problem with the vague criteria based on the fuzzy related equation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2574-2578.
Feldman, M. P. & Kelly, M.R. (2003a). Leveraging research and development: Assessing the impact of the U.S. advanced technology program. Small Business Economics, 20, 153-165.
Forman, E. & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research; 108, 165-169.
Gaber, M.T., Rabelo, L.C., & Hosny, O.A. (1992). An integrated artificial neural networks model for industrial projects risk assessment. Engineering Management Conference, Managing in a Global Environment, 206 – 210.
Gargiulo, G.R., Hannoch, J., Hertz, D.B., & Zang, T. (1961). Developing systematic procedures for directing research programs. IRE Transaction on Engineering Management, EM-8, 24-29.
Ghasemzadeh, F. & Archer, N. P. (2000). Project portfolio selection through decision support. Decision Support Systems, 29, 73-88.
Guellec, D. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2003). The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 12(3), 225-243.
Hall, D. & Nauda, A. (1990). An interactive approach for selecting IR&D projects. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 37(2), 126-132.
Hamalainen, R.P. & Seppalainen, T.O. (1986). The analytic networks process in energy policy planning. Socioeconomic Planning Science. 20(6), 399-405.
Henriksen, A. D. & Traynor, A. J. (1999). A practical R&D project-selection scoring tool. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(2), 72.
Hollenstein, H. (1996). A composite indicator of a firm’s innovativeness: An substitute for private R&D. Research Policy, 29(4/5), 497-529.
Hsu, Y.G.., Tzeng,G. H., & Shyu, J.Z. (2003). Fuzzy multiple criteria selection of government-sponsored frontier technology. R&D projects. R&D Management, 33(5), 539-550.
Hsu, C.W. & Chiang, H.C. (2001). The government strategy for the upgrading of industrial technology in Taiwan. Technovation, 21(2), 123-132.
Jain, R. (1977). A procedure for multiple-aspect decision making using fuzzy set. International Journal of Systems Science, 8, 1-7.
Kim, K. & Park, K.S. (1990). Ranking fuzzy numbers with index of optimism. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 35, 143-150.
Kim, S.H. & Ahn, B.S. (1997). Group decision making procedure considering preference strength under incomplete information. Computers Operation Research, 24(12), 1101-1112.
Kelly, J.R. & Kaarau, S.J. (1999). Group decision making: the effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 25(11), 1342.
Korvin, A. de. & Kleyle, R. (1999). Fuzzy analytical hierarchical processes. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 7, 387-400.
Kutlaca, D. (1997). Multicriteria-based procedure as decision support in the selection of government financed R&D project. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 7(1), 133-148.
Kwong, C.K. & Bai, H. (2002). A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function development. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13, 367-377.
Kwong, C.K. & Bai, H. (2003). Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE Transactions, 35, 619-626.
Laarhoven, P.J.M. & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(3), 229-241.
Lahdalma, R. & Salminen, P. (2001). SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Operations Research, 49(3), 444-455.
Lai, V.S., Wong, B.K., and Cheung, W. (2002). Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment. European Journal of Operation Research, 137, 134-144.
Lious, T.S. & Wang, M.J.J. (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 50, 247-255.
Lee, A.R. (1995). Application of modified fuzzy AHP method to analyze bolting sequence of structural joints. Doctoral dissertation. Lehigh University, U.S.A.
Lee, M. & Om, K. (1996). Different factors considered in project selection at public and private R&D institutes. Technovation, 16(6), 271-276.
Lee, M., Son, B. & Om, K. (1996). Evaluation of national R&D projects in Korea. Research Policy, 25, 808-818.
Lee, J. W. & Kim, S. H. (2000). Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Computer Operation. Research, 27, 367–382.
Lee, J. W. & Kim, S. H. (2001). An integrated approach for interdependent information system project selection. Interational Journal of Project Management, 19, 111-118.
Lee, E.S. & Li, R.J. (1988). Comparison of fuzzy numbers based on the probability measure of fuzzy events. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 15(10), 887-896.
Lee, Z.Y., Tzeng, G.H., & Yu, H.C. (2001). Fuzzy MCDM approach for IC company’s strategy in the semiconductor industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 776-787.
Leung, H.M., Chuah, K.B., & Tummala, V.R. (1998). A knowledge-based system for identifying potential project risk. Omega, 26(5), 623-638.
Liberatore, M.J. & Titus, G.J. (1983). The practice management science in R&D project management. Management Science, 29(8), 962-975.
Libby, R., Trotman, K.T., & Zimmer, I. (1987). Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 81-87.
Linstone, H. A. & Turoff, M. (1975). The delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Linto, J.D., Walsh, S.T., Kirchhoff, B.A., Morabito, J., & Merges, M. (2000). Selection of R&D projects in a portfolio. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 506-511.
Machacha L.L. & Bhattacharya, P. (2000). A fuzzy-logic-based approach to project selection. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1), 65-73.
Mohamed, S. & McCowan, A.K. (2001). Modelling project investment decisions under uncertainty using the possibility theory. The International Journal of Project Management, 19(4), 231-241.
Meade, L.M. & Presley, A. (2002). R&D project selection using the analytic network process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(1), 59-66.
Meade, L.M. & Sarkis, J. (1999). Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile manufacturing processes: An analytical network approach. International Journal of Production Research, 37(2), 241-261.
Mikhailov, L. & Singh, M.G. (2003). Fuzzy analytic network process and its application to the development on decision support systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 33(1), 33-41.
Miller, M. (1993). Enhancing regional analysis with the delphi method. Review of Regional Studies, 23, 191-212.
Mitchell, G. & Hamilton, W. (1988). Managing R&D as a strategic option. Research Technology Management, 31(3), 15–22.
Mottley, C.M. & Newton, R.D. (1959). The selection of projects for industrial research. Operations Research, 7, 740-751.
Mustafa, M.A. (1991). Project risk assessment using the analysis hierarchy process. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 38(1), 46-52.
OECD (2003). Main Science and Technology Indicators 2003/1. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
O´Dell, C. & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If Only We Knew What We Know: the transfer of internal knowledge and best practice. New York: The Free Press.
Oral, M., Kettani, O., & Lang, P. (1991). A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects. Management Science, 37(7), 871-885.
Pandy, I.N. & Jang, A. (1996). Venture capital for financial technology in Taiwan. Technovation, 16(9), 499-514.
Pedrycz, W. (1994). Why triangular membership functions? Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 64, 21-30.
Pound, W.H. (1964). Research project selection: Testing a model in the field. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, EM-11, 16-22.
Raj, P.A. & Kumar, D.N. (1999). Ranking alternatives with fuzzy weights using maximizing set and minimizing set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 105, 365-375.
Runkler, T.A. (1997). Selection of appropriate defuzzification methods using application specific properties. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 5(1), 72-79.
Sackman, H. (1975), Delphi critique: Expert opinion, forecasting, and group process. Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts.
Santhanam, R. & Kyparisis, J. (1995). Multiple criteria decision model for information system project selection. Computers Operations Research, 22(8), 807-818.
Satty. T.L. (1980). A analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Satty. T.L. & Vargas, L. G. (1984). The legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega, 12(5), 513-516.
Saaty T.L. & Takizawa, M. (1986). Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research. 26, 229-237.
Saaty, T.L. (1996). The analytic network process: Decision making with dependence and feedback. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
Saaty, T.L. (2004). Fundamentals of the Analytic Network Process: Dependence and Feedback in Decision-Making with a Single Network. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering. Published at Tsinghua University, Beijing (to appear), 13(2).
Sarkis, J., Nehman, G., & Priest, J. (1996). A system evaluation model for environmentally conscious business practices and strategy. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 281-286.
Schmidt, R.L. & Freeland, J.R. (1992). Recent process in modeling R&D project selection processes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,39(2), 189-201.
Sounder, W.E. (1973). Analytical effectiveness of mathematical models for R&D project selection. Management Science, 19(8), 907-923.
Sounder, W.E. & Mandakovic, T. (1986). R&D project selection models. Research Technology Management, 29(4), 36-42.
Stewart, R. & Mohamed, S. (2002). IT/IS projects selection using multi-criteria utility theory. Logistic information management , 15(4), 254-270.
Tian, Q., Ma, J., Liang, C.J., Kwok, R.C.W., Liu, O., & Zhang, Q. (2002). An organizational decision support approach to R&D project selection. In the Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Triantophyllou, E. & Lin, C. T. (1996). Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision-making methods. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 14, 281-310.
Tsaur, S.H., Chang, T.Y., & Yen, C.H. (2002). The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management, 23, 107-115.
Tsaur, S.H., Tzeng, G.H., & Wang, K.C. (1997). Evaluating tourist risks from fuzzy perspectives. Annals of Toruism Research, 24(4), 796-812.
van den Honert, R.C. (2001). Decisional power in group decision making: A Note on the allocation of group members’ weights in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(3), 275-286.
Walker, R.W. (2000). Assessment of technical risks. Management of Innovation and Technology, 2000. In the Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference, 1 , 402 - 406 .
Williams, T. (1995). A classified bibliography of recent research relating to project risk management. European Journal of Operational Research, 85, 18-38.
Yeh, C.H. & Deng, H. (2004). A practical approach to fuzzy utilities comparison in fuzzy multicriteria analysis. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 35, 179-194.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy set. Information and control, 8(3), 338-353.
Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision-making. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Zhang, H., Dong, Yi., Li, M., & Sun, Z. (2001). Research for application of group decision method on appraisement system of science research schema. In the Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation. 602-606, June 10-14, Shanghai, China.
Agency for science, technology and research. (2004). Annual R&D Survey for 2003. http://www.a-star.edu.sg/astar/about/action/about_astar_pub_annualrnd.do.
ATP. (2004). Overview of ATP. http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/overview.htm.
ATP. (2004). Fiscal Year 2004 Competition Results. http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/current.htm.
ATP (2005). Questions and Answers About the Advanced Technology Program. http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/kit-04/chapt1.htm#Eligibility.
Azis, I.J. (2003). Analytic network process with feedback influence: A new approach to impact study. http://www.iwanazis.net/papers/.
Cordis. (2004). The 6th framework programme service. www.cordis.lu/fp6.
Cordis. (2004). Nuclear fission and radiation protection. http://www.cordis.lu/fp6-euratom/.
EUROPA. (2004). Statistics. http://europa.eu.int/pol/rd/index_en.htm.
EUROPA. (2004). Communication from the commission more research for Europe towards 3% of GDP. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2002/com2002_0499en01.pdf
Europa. (2004). The 6th framework programme (2002-2006). http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/i23012.htm.
Europa. (2004). Towards a European research area. http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/i23010.htm.
Feldman, M. P. & Kelly, M.R. (2003b). http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/ir-6577.pdf.
JRC. (2004). http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/.
Kondo, M. (2004). R&D evaluation in japanese MITI. http://www.apecevalu.org/content/Japan-1.htm.
LINK. (2004). http://www.ost.gov.uk/link/info.html.
LINK. (2004). How are projects funed. http://www.ost.gov.uk/link/funding.html.
LINK. (2004). Type of project. http://www.ost.gov.uk/link/project.html.
LINK. (2004). Link projects database. http://www.ost.gov.uk/link/linkprojects/.
McCarthy, J. (2003). What is artifical intelligence? http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/whatisai.html.
MOST. (2004). Science and technology in Korea. http://www.most.go.kr/.
NSC (2004). https://web01.nsc.gov.tw/wtp/index.jsp.
Piric, A., Reeve, N., & Buwalda, J. (2004). Evaluation of public investment in S&T: Outcome focus learning for an effective integrated management practice. http://www.apecevalu.org/content/newzealand-2.htm.
Ruegg, R. & Feller, I. (2004). A toolkit for evaluating public R&D investment models, methods, and findings from ATP's first decade. http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr03-857/pdfs/part1a.pdf.
Statistics Finland. (2004). The key statistics on Finland. http://tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/taskue_tiede.html.
Statistics Finland. (2004). The world in figures. http://tilastokeskus.fi/tup/maanum/index_en.html.
Statistics Finland. (2004). Comparative data on all the countries of the world. http://tilastokeskus.fi/index_en.html.
Stanley, M. G. (2004). Advance technology program. http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/kit-04/chapt1.pdf.
Tekes annual review. (2004). http://www.tekes.fi/eng/tekes/annuals/2003.html.
Tekes. (2004). What are technology programmes? http://www.tekes.fi/english/programmes/what/what.html.
Tekes. (2004). R&D funding. http://www.tekes.fi/eng/tekes/rd/.
Tekes. (2004). Funding statistics. http://www.tekes.fi/eng/tekes/fundingstatistics/.
Tekes. (2004). International cooperation with technology programmes. http://www.tekes.fi/english/programmes/index/cooperation.html.
Tekes. (2004). Technology programmes. http://www.tekes.fi/english/programmes/index/frontpage.html.
VINNOVA. (2004). Competence centres programme. http://publiceng.vinnova.se/main.aspx.
VINNOVA. (2004). Evaluation of competence centres programmes. http://publiceng.vinnova.se/Main.aspx?ID=18487d49-6d85-434c-88a2-4626d08d9c65.
WEF. (2004). Global competitiveness report. http://www.weforum.org/.
Yapp, T. (2004). From opportunities to outcomes – evaluating research priorities and performance in CSIRO Australia. http://www.apecevalu.org/content/Australia-2.htm.