Search results

This study presents the development of a supply chain (SC) observatory, which is a benchmarking solution to support companies within the same industry in understanding their positioning in terms of SC performance.

A case study is used to demonstrate the set-up of the observatory. Twelve experts on automatic equipment for the wrapping and packaging industry were asked to select a set of performance criteria taken from the literature and evaluate their importance for the chosen industry using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. To handle the high number of criteria without requiring a high amount of time-consuming effort from decision-makers (DMs), five subjective, parsimonious methods for criteria weighting are applied and compared.

A benchmarking methodology is presented and discussed, aimed at DMs in the considered industry. Ten companies were ranked with regard to SC performance. The ranking solution of the companies was on average robust since the general structure of the ranking was very similar for all five weighting methodologies, though simplified-analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was the method with the greatest ability to discriminate between the criteria of importance and was considered faster to carry out and more quickly understood by the decision-makers.

Developing an SC observatory usually requires managing a large number of alternatives and criteria. The developed methodology uses parsimonious weighting methods, providing DMs with an easy-to-use and time-saving tool. A future research step will be to complete the methodology by defining the minimum variation required for one or more criteria to reach a specific position in the ranking through the implementation of a post-fact analysis.

This research investigates when and how brands influence attribute importance weights. Most past studies modelling consumer decision processes treated the brand of a product as an attribute parallel to the price, color or size of a product, and as a result, those studies assigned an equal (i.e. non-contingent) importance weight across brands for each attribute. In contrast, this study introduces a brand-contingent attribute-weighting process, in which brand is a higher-order construct that influences attribute importance.

This study presents a multi-level choice model in which the importance weight of an attribute can vary across brands. This study then estimates the model using real purchase data and survey data from an airline industry.

This study finds that attribute importance weights are contingent upon two aspects of a brand – the perceived relative position of the brand and consumers’ brand usage experiences. Specifically, when consumers perceive a brand to be inferior to its competitors in a given attribute, they generally place greater weight on that attribute for that brand. In contrast, when consumers perceive a brand to be superior to its competitors in a given attribute, only consumers with extensive brand usage experiences place greater weight on that attribute for that brand.

The findings provide managerial insights on brand positioning and segmentation strategies using consumers’ brand usage experiences.

This study advances the literature on consumer decision processes by modeling an attribute-weighting process that is contingent upon brands. The present study models this process based on consumer behavior theories and estimates the model using real market data.

The shipper selects a suitable shipping route and plans for a voyage in order to import and export cargo on the basis of published sailing schedules. The reliability of the sailing schedule will influence the shipper’s logistics expense, which means that the logistics costs will depend on the reliability of schedules published by container shipping companies. Therefore, it is important to consider factors which can cause delays would for container ships sailing on sea routes. The reliability of published sailing schedules can be affected by a number of different factors. This study adopts the multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method to estimate the importance of the delaying factors in a sailing schedule. In addition, the consistent fuzzy preference relations (CFPR) method is applied to identify the subjective importance (weights) of the delaying factors. The entropy weight method combined with the actual performance of the container shipping company are both used when estimating the objective importance (weights) of the delaying factors. According to the analysis results, the criteria can be divided into four quadrants with different management implications, which indicate that instructions for chase strategy, sailing schedule control, fleet allocation, transship operation arrangement and planning for ports in routes are often ignored by container shipping companies. Container shipping companies should consider adjusting their operational strategies, which would greatly improve their operational performance.

The purpose of this study is to develop a method to assess social performance. Traditionally, environment, social and governance (ESG) rating providers use subjectively weighted arithmetic averages to combine a set of social performance (SP) indicators into one single rating. To overcome this problem, this study investigates the preconditions for a new methodology for rating the SP component of the ESG by applying machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) anchored to social controversies.

This study proposes the use of a data-driven rating methodology that derives the relative importance of SP features from their contribution to the prediction of social controversies. The authors use the proposed methodology to solve the weighting problem with overall ESG ratings and further investigate whether prediction is possible.

The authors find that ML models are able to predict controversies with high predictive performance and validity. The findings indicate that the weighting problem with the ESG ratings can be addressed with a data-driven approach. The decisive prerequisite, however, for the proposed rating methodology is that social controversies are predicted by a broad set of SP indicators. The results also suggest that predictively valid ratings can be developed with this ML-based AI method.

This study offers practical solutions to ESG rating problems that have implications for investors, ESG raters and socially responsible investments.

The proposed ML-based AI method can help to achieve better ESG ratings, which will in turn help to improve SP, which has implications for organizations and societies through sustainable development.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is one of the first studies that offers a unique method to address the ESG rating problem and improve sustainability by focusing on SP indicators.

Port performance and port choice have been treated as separate streams of research. This hampers the efforts of ports to anticipate on and respond to possible future changes in port choice by shippers, freight forwarders and carriers. The purpose of this paper is to develop and demonstrate a port performance measurement methodology, extended from the perspective of port choice, which includes hinterland performance and a weighting of attributes from a port choice perspective.

A review of literature is used to extend the scope of port performance indicators. Multi-criteria decision analysis is used to operationalize the context of port choice, presenting a weighted approach using the Best-Worst Method (BWM). An empirical model is built based on an extensive port stakeholder survey.

Transport costs and times along the transport chain are the dominant factors for port competitiveness. Satisfaction, reputation and flexibility criteria are the other important decision criteria. The results also show how the availability of different modal alternatives impact on the position of a port. A ranking of routes for hinterland regions is done.

The paper focuses on two extensions of port performance measurement. So far, not all factors that determine port choice have been included in port performance studies. Here, first, factors related to hinterland services are included. Second, a weighting of port performance measures is proposed. The importance of factors is assessed using BWM. The approach is demonstrated empirically for a case of the European contestable hinterland regions, which so far have lacked quantitative analysis.

This paper aims to examine the valuation precision of composite models in each of six key industries in South Africa. The objective is to ascertain whether equity-based composite multiples models produce more accurate equity valuations than optimal equity-based, single-factor multiples models.

This study applied principal component regression and various mathematical optimisation methods to test the valuation precision of equity-based composite multiples models vis-à-vis equity-based, single-factor multiples models.

The findings confirmed that equity-based composite multiples models consistently produced valuations that were substantially more accurate than those of single-factor multiples models for the period between 2001 and 2010. The research results indicated that composite models produced up to 67 per cent more accurate valuations than single-factor multiples models for the period between 2001 and 2010, which represents a substantial gain in valuation precision.

The evidence, therefore, suggests that equity-based composite modelling may offer substantial gains in valuation precision over single-factor multiples modelling.

In light of the fact that analysts’ reports typically contain various different multiples, it seems prudent to consider the inclusion of composite models as a more accurate alternative.

This study adds to the existing body of knowledge on the multiples-based approach to equity valuations by presenting composite modelling as a more accurate alternative to the conventional single-factor, multiples-based modelling approach.

Several researchers in the construction industry have mentioned that quality of tender documents is declining without tangibly assessing quality. Similarly, in practice, no standardised instrument exists to assess tender document quality. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to develop a framework to assess the quality of tender documents produced by built environment professionals in the construction industry. A framework was chosen to address the gaps in theory and practice as it provides a flexible but structured mechanism to assess tender document quality.

The research methodology contained three stages, namely: multi-investigator triangulation, a workshop with infrastructure experts and framework development and validation. A consolidated list of key quality indicators was developed following the literature review and multi-investigator triangulation. The indicators were discussed with ten experts in the South African construction industry, who were responsible for validating and providing insight on whether additional indicators were required. This informed development of the framework.

This paper proposes a framework to assess tender document quality by evaluating six key quality indicators namely: accuracy, clarity, completeness, standardisation, relevance and certainty.

The framework is limited to the assessment of tender document quality in the construction industry and is suited to the “Design by Employer” contracting strategy. From an academic perspective, this paper provides researchers with a framework to measure and benchmark quality of tender documents in future studies.

This framework can be used by clients to continuously assess and benchmark quality of tender documents produced by professionals.

A comprehensive and standardised approach to assess tender document quality was not available in the construction literature or the construction industry. Therefore, this paper addressed this gap in knowledge, by providing consumers (clients and contractors) of tender documents and researchers a mechanism to assess quality.

This paper aims to propose an integration of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) methods in a multiattribute grey relational analysis (GRA) methodology in which the attribute weights are completely unknown and the attribute values take the form of fuzzy numbers.

This research has been organized to proceed along the following steps: computing the grey relational coefficients for alternatives with respect to each attribute using a fuzzy GRA methodology. Grey relational coefficients provide the required (output) data for additive DEA models; computing the priority weights of attributes using the AHP method to impose weight bounds on attribute weights in additive DEA models; computing grey relational grades using a pair of additive DEA models to assess the performance of each alternative from the optimistic and pessimistic perspectives; and combining the optimistic and pessimistic grey relational grades using a compromise grade to assess the overall performance of each alternative.

The proposed approach provides a more reasonable and encompassing measure of performance, based on which the overall ranking position of alternatives is obtained. An illustrated example of a nuclear waste dump site selection is used to highlight the usefulness of the proposed approach.

This research is a step forward to overcome the current shortcomings in the weighting schemes of attributes in a fuzzy multiattribute GRA methodology.

Several healthcare quality assessment tools measure the processes and outcomes of the care system. The actual physical infrastructure (buildings and organizational) aspects are, however, rarely considered. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of validation and weighting of an evidence-informed framework for the quality assessment of hospital facilities from social, environmental and organizational perspectives to complement other assessments.

Sustainable High-quality Healthcare version 2 (SustHealth v2) is the updated version of an existing framework composed of three domains (social, environmental and organizational quality). To validate and establish a relevant weighting, interviews were conducted with 15 professionals within the field of healthcare planning, design, research and management. The study has been conducted through semi-structured interviews and the application of the Simon Roy Figueras (SRF) procedure for the elicitation of weights criteria. The data collected have been processed through the DecSpace web platform.

Among the three domains, the organizational qualities appear to be the most important (W = 49%), followed by the environmental (W = 29%) and social aspects (W = 22%). Relevant indicators such as future-proofing, wayfinding and users’ space control emerged as the most important within each macro-area. Those results are confirmed by the outcome of the interviews that highlight user/patient-centeredness, wayfinding strategies and space functionality as the most important concepts to foster in existing healthcare facilities improvement.

The study highlights important structural and organizational aspects that hospital managers and planners can consider when dealing with healthcare facilities’ quality improvement.

The use of the SRF multicriteria method is novel in this context when used to weight an assessment tool with a focus on hospital built environment.

This study aims to apply new modifications by changing the nonlinear logarithmic calculation steps in the method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC) method. Geometric and harmonic mean from multiplicative functions is used for the modifications made while extracting the effects of the criteria on the overall performance one by one. Instead of the nonlinear logarithmic measure used in the MEREC method, it is desired to obtain results that are closer to the mean and have a lower standard deviation.

The MEREC method is based on the removal effects of the criteria on the overall performance. The method uses a logarithmic measure with a nonlinear function. MEREC-G using geometric mean and MEREC-H using harmonic mean are introduced in this study. The authors compared the MEREC method, its modifications and some other objective weight determination methods.

MEREC-G and MEREC-H variants, which are modifications of the MEREC method, are shown to be effective in determining the objective weights of the criteria. Findings of the MEREC-G and MEREC-H variants are more convenient, simpler, more reasonable, closer to the mean and have fewer deviations. It was determined that the MEREC-G variant gave more compatible findings with the entropy method.

Decision-making can occur at any time in any area of life. There are various criteria and alternatives for decision-making. In multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models, it is a very important distinction to determine the criteria weights for the selection/ranking of the alternatives. The MEREC method can be used to find more reasonable or average results than other weight determination methods such as entropy. It can be expected that the MEREC method will be more used in daily life problems and various areas.

Objective weight determination methods evaluate the weights of the criteria according to the scores of the determined alternatives. In this study, the MEREC method, which is an objective weight determination method, has been expanded. Although a nonlinear measurement model is used in the literature, the contribution was made in this study by using multiplicative functions. As an important originality, the authors demonstrated the effect of removing criteria in the MEREC method in a sensitivity analysis by actually removing the alternatives one by one from the model.