Currently, in Japan, women are required to participate and advance in the workplace because of the decline in the labor population. However, it is very difficult for them to do so because of the patriarchal system within Japanese history. In the 1990s, local governments began various projects to encourage women to participate in society. At the same time, local government administrations were introduced to project evaluation to boost the efficiency of their projects. However, project evaluation did not function well because project evaluation needs to be linked to outcomes of the program, and the outcome step was often performed independently. The purpose of this paper is to show how to perform project evaluation to promote women’s active participation in society in Japan. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process, we show how to evaluate projects in a way that can connect to the outcomes of the program. This framework can also be used to calculate the degree of contribution of projects in the program from two perspectives. First, the decision makers in a local government evaluate the outcomes of the program and second, the people in charge of the projects that make up the program do the evaluation for their own projects. In this paper, we evaluated actual projects of a city in Japan and were able to show the direction they should take, such as reduction or expansion for each project in the next fiscal year, by using numerical values obtained in the process of calculation by this framework.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), local government, project evaluation, relative evaluation, contribution degree
Dey, P. K. (2006). Integrated project evaluation and selection using multiple-attribute decision-making technique. International Journal of Production Economics, 103(1), 90-103. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.11.018
Hatry, P.H. (2007). Performance measurement: Getting results, 2nd edition. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360701755709
Huang, C. C., Chu, P. Y., & Chiang, Y. H. (2008). A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. Omega, 36(6), 1038-1052. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2006.05.003
Inazawa, K. (2012). Gyosei-hyoka no donyu to katsuyo: yosan/kesan, sogokeikaku (zoho ban) (in Japanese) [Introduction and practical use of administrative evaluation: budget, settlement of accounts, comprehensive plan (enlarged edition)]. Japan: Imagine Syuppan.
Ishihara, T. (Eds.). (2005). Jichitai-gyosei-hyoka case study (in Japanese) [Performance Measurement in Japanese local government]. Japan: Toyo Keizai.
Kinoshita, E., & Ohya, T. (Eds.). (2007). Kigyo & gyosei notameno AHP jireisyu (in Japanese) [The collection of AHP practical use examples]. Japan: JUSE Press.
Kinoshita, E., & Taji, K. (Eds.). (2005). Gyosei-keiei notameno ishiketteiho: AHP wo tsukatta nanmon-dakai no shinsyuho (in Japanese) [Decision making methods for administrative management: a new method by AHP to overcome difficult problems]. Japan: Gyosei.
Mahmoodzadeh, S., Shahrabi, J., Pariazar, M., & Zaeri, M. S. (2007). Project selection by using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 30, 333-338.
Miyagawa, K. (1994). Seisaku-kagaku no kiso (in Japanese) [Foundations of policy sciences]. Japan: Toyo Keizai.
Naito, K. (2015). Danjyo-kyodosankaku-syakai-keisei seisaku (in Japanese) [Gender equality society formation policy]. In Naito, K., & Yamaya, K. (Eds.). Danjyo-kyodosankaku-seisaku: Gyosei-hyoka to shisetsu-hyoka (in Japanese) (1-12). Japan: Koyoshobo.
Naito, K., & Yamaya, K. (Eds.). (2015). Danjyo-kyodosankaku-seisaku: Gyosei-hyoka to shisetsu-hyoka (in Japanese) [Gender equality policy: Administrative evaluation and facility evaluation]. Japan: Koyoshobo.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocatiom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T.L. (1982). Decision making for leaders. New York: Lifetime Learning.
Saaty, T.L. (1983). Priority setting in complex problems. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management EM, 30, 140–155. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1983.6448606
Saaty, T.L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L. (2001). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2nd Edition. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L., & Özdemir, M.S. (2005). The Encyclicon: A Dictionary of decisions with dependence and feedback based on the Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Stipak, B. (1987). Using subjective measures in program evaluation. In Busson, T., & Coulter, P. (Eds.). Policy evaluation for local government (45-61). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Tanaka, K. (2014). Jichitai-hyoka no senryaku (in Japanese) [Strategy of local government evaluation]. Japan: Toyo Keizai.
Vargas, L.G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research 48 (1), 2–8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90056-H
Yamaya, K. (2016). Many faces of evaluation in Japanese local governments: 20 years of decentralization and financial crisis (in Japanese). Japanese Journal of Evaluation Studies, 16(1), 31-45.
Zayed, T., Amer, M., & Pan, J. (2008). Assessing risk and uncertainty inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 408-419. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.012
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.