Количественный подход в бенчмаркинге: обеспечение выбора оптимальных стратегических действий

Milan Nikolic; Branka Nikolic; Elena Vukonyanski

Authors

Milan Nikolic University of Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia
Branka Nikolic University of Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia
Elena Vukonyanski University of Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia

Abstract

The primary objective of the paper is to consider the possibilities of quantitative approach in individual (corresponding) segments of the benchmarking process. Then the objective was widened to establishing and defining concrete procedures for quantification in the segments of the benchmarking process which were identified as favorable. The structure of the paper follows the applied methodology, which consists of several steps. Appropriate procedures and methods were applied in each step. All the calculations are shown on an imaginary model. Concrete procedures are proposed to quantification in benchmarking. General conclusion is that quantitative approach very well fits into the concept and philosophy of benchmarking. The importance of the paper arises from the development of the procedures for quantification in individual segments of the benchmarking process. The originality is present in three points: application of appropriate measures in order to determine the similarities between companies, two criteria selection of the competent benchmarking partner, the method of defining and selecting strategic actions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

REFERENCES IN LATIN ALPHABET

Alshawaf A. H., Ali J. M. H., Hasan M. H. 2005. A benchmarking framework for information systems management issues in Kuwait. Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 (1): 30–44.

Bouchereau V., Rowlands H. 2000. Methods and techniques to help quality function deployment (QFD). Benchmarking: An International Journal 7 (1): 8–19.

Brans J. P., Mareschal B., Vincke P. 1984. A New Family of Outranking Methods in Multicriteria Analysis. North-Holland: Amsterdam.

Chen H. L. 2005. A competence-based strategic management model factoring in key success factors and benchmarking. Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 (4): 364–382.

Enea M., Piazza T. 2004. Project selection by costrained fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making (3): 39–62.

Farinwata Sh. S., Filev D., Langari R. (eds.). 2000. Fuzzy Control — Synthesis and Analysis. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK.

Garg R. K., Ma J. 2005. Benchmarking culture and performance in Chinese organizations. Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 (3): 260–274.

Höppner F., Klawonn F., Kruse R., Runkler T. 1999. Fuzzy Cluster Analysis . John Wiley and Sons: N. Y.

Hwang C. L., Yoon K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Methods and Applications, A State-of-the-Art Survey . Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Klement E. P. Mesiar R., Pap E. 2004. Measure-based aggregation operators. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 144 (1): 3–14.

Koh S. C. L., Gunasekaran A., Saad S. M. 2005. A business model for uncertainty management. Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 (4): 383–400.

Laininen P., Hämäläinen R. P. 2003. Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression. European Journal of Operational Research 148: 514–524.

Larichev O. I., Kortnev A. V., Kochin D. Yu. 2002. Decision support system for classification of a finite set of multicriteria alternatives. Decision Support System (33): 13–21.

Lau H. C. W., LeeW. B., Lau P. K. H. 2001. Development of an intelligent decision support system for benchmarking assessment of business partners. Benchmarking: An International Journal 8 (5): 376–395.

Leskinen P. 2000. Measurement, scales and scale independence in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 9 (4): 163–174.

McCrimmon K. R. 1968. Decision Making Among Multiple-Attribute Alternatives: Survey and Consolidated Approach. RAND Memorandum, RM-4823-ARPA.

Noghin V. D. 1997. Relative importance of criteria: A quantitative approach. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6 (6): 355–363.

Oberstone J. 1990. Management Science — Concepts, Insights and Applications. West Publ. Co.: St. Paul.

Pedrycz W., Gomide F. 1998. An Introduction to Fuzzy Sets — Analysis and Design. A Bradford Book: Cambridge; Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Podinovski V. V. 2002. The quantitative importance of criteria for MCDA. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11 (1): 1–15.

Razmi J., Zairi M., Jarrar Y. F. 2000. The application of graphical techniques in evaluating benchmarking partners. Benchmarking: An International Journal 7 (4): 304–314.

Royo A. S., Verdegay J. L. 2000. Coherence measures on finite fuzzy sets. International Journal of Uncertainly, Fuzziness and Knowledge — Based Systems 8 (6): 641–663.

Saaty T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill: N. Y. (Русск. пер.: Саати Т. Л. 1993. Принятие решений: Метод анализа иерархий. М.: Радио и связь.)

Srinivasan V., Shoker A. D. 1973. Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preference. Psychometrica 25 (1): 337–369.

Triantaphyllou E. 2000. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA.

Ungan M. 2004. Factors affecting the adoption of manufacturing best practices. Benchmarking: An International Journal 11 (5): 504–520.

Yager R. R. 1988. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 18: 183–190.

Walsh P. 2000. Targets and how to assess performance against them. Benchmarking: An International Journal 7 (3): 183–199.