AHP 분석을 이용한 민간과 공공조직의 조달업체 선정요인 비교연구

초록

If an inappropriate procurement company is selected, the private company suffers damage, such as deterioration in quality and customer trust. While the risk burden is limited to individual entities, public procurement is enforced by tax the risk burden of public institutions has a devastating impact on the lives and safety of many unspecified citizens, i.e. a bridge collapse accident and a fire disaster. The purpose of this study is to derive the priority criteria in selecting procurement company by private companies and public institutions and then to compare and analyze the differences between the two organizations. For this study, the two groups of procurement companies were selected by analyzing common factors for selecting procurement companies by two groups, selecting variables, and conducting a questionnaire with experts in charge of selecting procurers from private companies and public institutions based on this. For the factors, comparative analysis was performed by the AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) method. Furthermore, a statistical analysis of the difference between the two groups was performed by T-test on the derived importance. As a result of the analysis, the high-ranking factors were the same in the order of quality, price, on-time delivery, and credibility. There was no difference between the two groups in priority for the lower factors of price and quality, but the lower-order factors of delivery and reliability were different. In the sub-factors of delivery time, private companies placed more importance on the ability to perform on-time delivery, and public institutions placed more importance on the quantity of delivery. In addition, in the sub-factors of credibility, private companies placed more importance on corporate reputation and public institutions placed more importance on corporate support. There was no significant difference in priority between the two groups, but as a result of independent sample t-test, the difference between the importance average of the delivery factor was significant, and the lower factor was the average of the importance of quality awareness and corporate support, which produced significant results in difference.

키워드