Journal of Nutrition and Health

The Korean Nutrition Society (한국영양학회)
권호 표지

Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach to Estimate Weights of Evaluation Categories for School Food Service Program in Korea

계층적 분석 과정을 이용한 학교급식 운영 품질 평가 분야의 중요도 분석

  • Lee Min-A (Food Industry Promotion Division, Korea Food Research Institute) ;
  • Yang Il-Sun (Department of Food and Nutrition, Yonsei University) ;
  • Yi Bo-Sook (Department of Food and Nutrition, Hanyang Women's College) ;
  • Kim Hyun-Ah (Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Kyungnam University) ;
  • Park So-Hyun (Department of Food and Nutrition, Yonsei University)
  • 이민아 (한국식품연구원 식품산업진흥본부) ;
  • 양일선 (연세대학교 식품영양학과) ;
  • 이보숙 (한양여자대학 식품영양과) ;
  • 김현아 (경남대학교 식품영양학과) ;
  • 박소현 (연세대학교 식품영양학과)
  • Published : 2006.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to (1) identify the evaluation categories, areas, attributes, and criteria of the school food service program using both a qualitative and a quantitative analyses, (2) define the relative importance of the evaluation categories, areas, attributes, and criteria of the school food service program using analytic hierarchy process, (3) organize the evaluation system to improve quality of the school food service in Korea. A survey was conducted from August to October 2004 to collect data from 172 dietitians, 15 school food service officials at the educational board, 10 professionals of school food service. Statistical analyses were performed on the data utilizing the SPSS 12.0 for Windows and Excel, such as Descriptive statistics and analytic hierarchy process was performed. The result of the analytic hierarchy process indicated that relative importance of evaluation category was 0.4319 (food service manage ment), 0.2369 (nutrition education), 0.1455 (satisfaction) and 0.0912 (parent involvement program). 'Sanitation, safety and facility (0.1739)' was the most important area among the subcategories of food service management, followed by nutrition management (0.1581), procurement (0.1375), production (0.1345), organization and personnel management (0.0662), planning (0.0644), food service evaluation (0.0585), financial accountability (0.0555), and information management (0.0554). There existed a relative importance on the three areas of the nutrition program and satisfaction evaluation category: students (0.5281, 0.6221), parents (0.1812, 0.1491), and teachers (0.1838, 0.1618). In the parent involvement program evaluation category, relative importance of committee and monitoring management was 0.4658 and information communication was 0.3724. The quality of food and service to school children can be improved by the appropriate application of the developed evaluation tool for the school food service program.

Keywords

References

  1. Blackburn R, Rosen B. Total quality and human resource management-lessons learned from Baldrige Award winning companies. Executive 7(3): 46-66, 1993
  2. Kim JH, Ji MG. A study on the improvement of service quality evaluation. Korea Customer Satisfaction Management Association Fall Conference, 2002
  3. Reiner G. Customer-oriented improvement and evaluation of supply chain process supported by simulation models. Int J Production Economics 96: 381-395, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.07.004
  4. Choi TY, Eboch K. The TQM Paradox: Relations among TQM practices, plant performance, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management 17: 59-75, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00031-X
  5. Henry GT. Influential evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation 24(4): 515-524, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400409
  6. Mark MM, Henry GT. Julines G. Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000
  7. Weiss CH. Improving the use of evaluations: Whose job is it anyway? Advances in Educational Productivity 7: 263-276, 1998
  8. Professional standards manual, 2nd edition, The National Association of College & University Foodservice, Michigan State University, 1991
  9. American Dietetic Association. The American Dietetic Association standard of professional practice for dietetics professionals. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 98(1): 83- 87, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(98)00023-6
  10. Edelstein SF. Washing thresholds go monitor dietetic services: The JCAHO 10-step process for quality assurance. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 91(10): 1261, 1991
  11. Kim HM. Criteria of service evaluation in medical center. Korea Dietitian Association Conference, 1997
  12. Lee SJ, Yang IS. Factor analysis of affecting on the service quality in hospital foodservice. Journal of Community Nutrition 6(3):429, 2001
  13. Yang IS. Analysis and evaluation of performance for the contract-managed hospital foodservice in Seoul national university. Research report, 2003
  14. Cross EW, Shanklin CW, Ryan MT. Texas school food service association standards of excellence program, part 1: Development of standards and manual. School Food Service Research Review 13(2): 114, 1989
  15. Food Quality Evaluation and Assurance Manual for School food Service, National Food Service Management Institute, The University of Mississippi, 1995
  16. A model for school evaluation. http://evaluation.wmich.edu/resources/schooleval/
  17. Daegu Dalseo Elementary School. Study on the evaluation of operation for school food service. Journal of the Korean Society of School Health 13(1): 49-62, 2000
  18. Song JY. Development of Measurements based on Balanced Score Card (BSC) for the Purpose of Evaluating Performance of School Foodservice Operations. Master thesis, Yonsei University, 2003
  19. Liberatore MJ, Monahan TF, Stout DE. A framework for integrating capital budgeting analysis with strategy. The Engineering Economist 38(1): 31-43, 1992 https://doi.org/10.1080/00137919208903085
  20. Simon H. A strategy evaluation model for management. Management Decision 34(1): 25-34, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749610106945
  21. Saaty TL. Fundamentals of Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications. Pittsburgh, 2000
  22. Jo KT, Jo YG, Kang HS. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Donghyun Press, Seoul, 2003
  23. Saaty TL, Vargas LG. The Logics of priorities. RWS Publications, 1991
  24. Kang MK. Decision making on the uncertainty. Hoejungdang, Seoul, 1995
  25. Rao RV. Evaluation of metal stamping layouts using an analytic hierarchy process method. Journal of aterials Processing Technology 152: 71-76, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.03.007
  26. Kang KS. The theory of business science. Youngji Press, Seoul, 1993
  27. Halachmi A, Bouckaert G. Organizational Performance and Measurement in the Public Sector, Quorum Books. Westport, Connecticut. London, 1996