IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/itse19/205194.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Critical development factors in infrastructure for the communications industry based on wholesale leased line services in Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Shu-Hua
  • Chen, Jen-Chieh

Abstract

To address the demand for 5G ultra-high transmission rate and high connection density and to provide high quality service in the area, the future mobile telecommunications network will consist of an overlay of millimeter wave capable small cells, marking a strong need for private leased line transmission capacity. First, this study will use UK, Germany, Japan and Australia as benchmark objects: UK and Germany review their leased line market periodically and frequently, having obtained significant progress in the service over the years, with relevant policies and institutions maturely developed; Japan has frequent technical exchange and interaction with Taiwan as the telecommunication development environments in both countries are quite similar due to geographical proximity; and Australia's WEF ranking and GDP are similar to those of Taiwan. With studies on these countries, we may suggest a benchmarking paths for Taiwan's industrial development. As there is a wide development gap among the countries, and no consensus is achieved, consequently all the conditions are not completed. For this reason, primarily the purpose of this study is to analyze the current development situation of leased line in Taiwan's telecommunications industry and explore its competitive profile and, secondly, to examine the national competitive advantage factor combination for the development of local leased line service. Based on the Diamond model, this study is intended to provide a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the telecommunication market, identifying the resources and conditions required for developing the industry for a nation. If we simply duplicate approaches while ignoring the characteristics of the industry, we may miss the best timing of growth and lose the effects. Based on the Diamond model by Porter (1990), this study employs a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (Fuzzy AHP) approach, together with expert questionnaire survey, to examine the weight for each dimension and factor, identifying the most critical dimension for the development of fixed line and private line in Taiwan and factors with less influence on the industrial growth to avoid excessive unnecessary resource. According to the research result, government is identified as the most important critical factor, followed by related and supporting industries, and then the demand. The final weight analysis shows that the national policy, in the "government" dimension, is a significant critical factor, and the pull-through effect of leased line related industries is also great, followed by the market size. Thus, during the growth of the leased line industry, these three conditions serve as supporting factors and are deemed the decisive factor of whether the leased line wholesale service can be successfully incubated and developed.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Shu-Hua & Chen, Jen-Chieh, 2019. "Critical development factors in infrastructure for the communications industry based on wholesale leased line services in Taiwan," 30th European Regional ITS Conference, Helsinki 2019 205194, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:itse19:205194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/205194/1/Li-Chen.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Escobar, M. T. & Aguaron, J. & Moreno-Jimenez, J. M., 2004. "A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean priorization procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 318-322, March.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    3. Lee, Choongok & Chan-Olmsted, Sylvia M., 0. "Competitive advantage of broadband Internet: a comparative study between South Korea and the United States," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(9-10), pages 649-677, October.
    4. Langdale, John, 1982. "Competition in telecommunications," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 283-299, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S. Lipovetsky, 2009. "Global Priority Estimation in Multiperson Decision Making," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 77-91, January.
    2. Lai, Po‐Lin & Potter, Andrew & Beynon, Malcolm & Beresford, Anthony, 2015. "Evaluating the efficiency performance of airports using an integrated AHP/DEA-AR technique," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 75-85.
    3. Wu-E Yang & Chao-Qun Ma & Zhi-Qiu Han & Wen-Jun Chen, 2016. "Checking and adjusting order-consistency of linguistic pairwise comparison matrices for getting transitive preference relations," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 38(3), pages 769-787, July.
    4. Cortés-Aldana, Félix Antonio & García-Melón, Mónica & Fernández-de-Lucio, Ignacio & Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Poveda-Bautista, Rocío, 2009. "University objectives and socioeconomic results: A multicriteria measuring of alignment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 811-822, December.
    5. Jerónimo Aznar & Francisco Guijarro & José Moreno-Jiménez, 2011. "Mixed valuation methods: a combined AHP-GP procedure for individual and group multicriteria agricultural valuation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 221-238, October.
    6. Gerzson Kéri, 2011. "On qualitatively consistent, transitive and contradictory judgment matrices emerging from multiattribute decision procedures," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 19(2), pages 215-224, June.
    7. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    8. K. Rezaei-Moghaddam & E. Karami, 2008. "A multiple criteria evaluation of sustainable agricultural development models using AHP," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 407-426, August.
    9. Meng, Fanyong & Tan, Chunqiao & Chen, Xiaohong, 2017. "Multiplicative consistency analysis for interval fuzzy preference relations: A comparative study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 17-38.
    10. Çağlar Kıvanç Kaymaz & Salih Birinci & Yusuf Kızılkan, 2022. "Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 2986-3012, March.
    11. Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2015. "Boundary properties of the inconsistency of pairwise comparisons in group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 765-773.
    12. Lin, Robert & Lin, Jennifer Shu-Jen & Chang, Jason & Tang, Didos & Chao, Henry & Julian, Peter C, 2008. "Note on group consistency in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 190(3), pages 672-678, November.
    13. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    14. Fatih Yiğit & Şakir Esnaf, 2021. "A new Fuzzy C-Means and AHP-based three-phased approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1517-1528, August.
    15. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    16. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    17. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    18. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    19. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    20. Mangla, Sachin Kumar & Srivastava, Praveen Ranjan & Eachempati, Prajwal & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar, 2024. "Exploring the impact of key performance factors on energy markets: From energy risk management perspectives," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:itse19:205194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.itseurope.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.