تکثرگرایی در روش‌های تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار، گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت، پردیس فارابی دانشگاه تهران، قم، ایران

چکیده

تصمیم‌‌گیری در زمره مهم‌‌ترین وظایف مدیران قلمداد می‌‌شود. تاکنون رویکرد‌‌های متعددی به مقوله تصمیم‌‌گیری وجود داشته است. فلاسفه، مدیران، جامعه‌‌شناسان و روانشناسان، هریک از منظری به مقوله تصمیم‌‌گیری نگریسته‌‌اند. پژوهش حاضر سعی دارد نگاهی نو به فنون تصمیم‌‌گیری کمی در قالب نظریه تکثّرگرایی بیاندازد. بدین منظور سعی بر عملیاتی نمودن و بازآفرینی مفهوم تکثّرگرایی در حوزه تصمیم‌‌گیری کمّی بوده است. در این راستا، ابعاد مثلث سازی، تحلیل پایداری (حساسیت)، توجه به مقوله اعتبار و پایایی و تکثّر داده‌‌ها به‌عنوان ارکان چهارگانه تکثّرگرایی موردبحث قرارگرفته‌اند؛ بنابراین، مهم‌‌ترین نوآوری پژوهش حاضر را می‌‌توان در بسط مفهوم تکثّر داده، در کنار بازتعریف سه رکن دیگر تکثّرگرایی در تصمیم‌‌گیری چندمعیاره، قلمداد کرد. نتیجه تکثّر داده در یک نمونه عملی گویای آن است که رابطه نزدیکی میان رتبه‌‌بندی سه رویکرد قطعی، فازی و خاکستری وجود دارد. ازآنجایی‌که نظریه فوق مبتنی بر مثال‌‌های معدود در یک صنعت است، در تعمیم نتایج بایستی احتیاط نمود. تعمیم‌‌‌‌پذیری، بر قابلیت تعمیم نتایج به دیگر مطالعات مشابه اشارت دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Pluralism in Management Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods

نویسنده [English]

  • Ahmadreza Ghasemi
Assisstant Professor, Industry and Technology Group, College of Farabi, University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

Decision-making is one of the main manager’s functions. Since different decision making approaches were emerged. Each of Philosophers, managers, sociologist and psychologists has different view to decision making. This research aim to have a new look at multiple criteria decision-making techniques by Pluralism theory. To achieve this goal we try to operationalize and redefine pluralism concept in the field of multiple criteria decision making. In this regard, Triangulation, Stability (sensitivity) analysis, Validity and Reliability as a quad dimension of pluralism is discussed. So the main innovation of present paper is extension of data pluralism beside of another three pillars of pluralism. Results of data pluralism reveal that there are significant relationship among Fuzzy, Crisp and grey approaches. Since the result of research is based of analyzing limited case, in Generalization of result, we must be cautious. Generalizability describes the extent to which research findings can be applied to settings other than that in which they were originally tested.Keywords: Quantative Decision Making, Pluralism, Triangulation, Reliability, Validity, Data Pluralism, Stability (Sensitivity).

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Quantitative Decision Making
  • Data Pluralism
  • triangulation
  • stability

[1]    Maleki, M. Ghasemi, A. (2015). Paradimic Analysis of Operation Research Techniques, Darolfonon Pub, Tehran. (In Persian)

[2]    Ghasemi, A.(2015). Decision making in Business, Jahad Daneshgahi, Tehran. (In Persian)

[3]    Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (2001). Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (translated by Azar and Anvari). John Wiley and Sons. (In Persian)

[4]    Haleh, H. and Hamidi, A. (2011). A fuzzy MCDM model for allocating orders to suppliers in a supply chain under uncertainty over a multi-period time horizon. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8): 9076-9083.

[5]    Danaeifard, H. Azar, A. Alvani, M.(2010). Quantative Method of Research, Sffar pub, Tehran. (In Persian).

[6]    Hoseinzadeh, M. Mehregan, M. Amiri, M.(2015). Designing a Framwork by Usisng Operation Research Multi Methodology by General Morphological Analysis, Industerial Management Perspective, 11(1), 69-81. (In Persian)

[7]    Azar, A., Khosravani, F., & Jalali, R. (2013). Soft Operational Research. Industrial Management Publication, Tehran,(In Persian).

[8]    Thurmond, V. (2001), the point of triangulation.  Journal of nursing scholarship 33(3), 253-258.

[9]    Ic, Y. (2012). An experimental design approach using TOPSIS method for the selection of computer-integrated manufacturing technologies. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 28(2): 245-256.

[10] Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, A., & Hejazi, E. (2004). Research methods in behavioral sciences. Tehran: Agah Publication, 132-7.(In Persian)

[11] Saremi, M. Hoseini, M. Mohaghar, A. Heidari, A. (2010). Proposing a Qualitative Model for Competitive Advantage in High Tech Industries. Industerial Management, 1(3), 67-81.(In Persian)

[12] Mosleh shirazi, A. Ranaei, H. Iman, M. Tajic, M.(2016). Systematic Multimethodology, New Approach in Management Researches. Methodology of Social Science and Humanities Journal. 22(87)7-32. (In Persian)

[13] Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. T. (2013). An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 10, 56-66.

[14] Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and economic development of economy, 20(1), 165-179.

[15] Shahin, A. SalehzadehR. Ghandehari, M. (2012). Proposing an Integrated Model of Clustring, AHP and Kano Approaches for Service Recommendation with a Case study in Saman bank of Qom, Management Researches in Iran 16(1), 73-91. (In Persian)

[16] Ghasemi, A. et. Al. (2012). AHP or FAHP that is the question (The Case of Department of., wulfenia, 19(9), 143-161.

[17] Ghasemi, A. Ebrahimi, S.A. (2014). Paradimic Analysis of Operation Research Techniques, International Confrence on Management, Tehran. (In Persian)

[18] Esogbue, A., Theologidu, M., and Guo, K. (1992). On the application of fuzzy sets theory to the optimal flood control problem arising in water resources systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 48(2): 155-172.

[19] Malek, A. Dabbaghi, A.(2013). Basis of Grey Systems Tehory, Termeh Pub, Tehran. (In Persian).

[20] Frost, N., Nolas, S. M., Brooks-Gordon, B., Esin, C., Holt, A., Mehdizadeh, L., & Shinebourne, P. (2010). Pluralism in qualitative research: The impact of different researchers and qualitative approaches on the analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative research, 10(4), 441-460.

[21] Amiri, M. (2010). Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9): 6218-6224.

[22] Wang, T. (2012). The interactive trade decision-making research: An application of novel hybrid MCDM model. Economic Modelling, 29(3): 926-935.

[23]Khadivar, A. Azar, A. Mohebbian, F.(2017). Product pricing in two-echelon supply chain using game theory in intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Industrial Management Studies, 4(43), 1-45.

[24] Liu, X., Chai, T., Wang, W., & Liu, W. (2007). Approaches to the representations and logic operations of fuzzy concepts in the framework of axiomatic fuzzy set theory I. Information Sciences, 177(4), 1007-1026.

[25] Kim, Y., Chung, E., Jun, S., and Kim, S. (2013). Prioritizing the best sites for treated wastewater instream use in an urban watershed using fuzzy TOPSIS. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 73(2013): 23-32.

[26] Lin, Y. H., Lee, P. C., & Ting, H. I. (2008). Dynamic multi-attribute decision-making model with grey number evaluations. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(4), 1638-1644.

[27] Ju-Long, Deng. (1982)Control problems of grey systems. Systems & Control Letters 1(5): 288-294.

[28] Liu, S., & Lin, Y. (2006). Grey information: theory and practical applications. Springer Science & Business Media.

[29] Podvezko, V. (2011). The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. Inzinerine-Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 22(2): 134-146.

[30] Okeola, O., and Sule, B. (2012). Evaluation of management alternatives for urban water supply system using Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences, 24(1): 19-24.

[31] Leung, P., Muraoka, J., Nakamoto, S., and Pooley, S. (1998). Evaluating fisheries management options in Hawaii using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Fisheries Research, 36(2-3): 171-183.

[32] Li, H. and Sun, J. (2008). Ranking-order case-based reasoning for financial distress prediction. Knowledge-Based Systems, 21(8): 868-878.

[33] Noorul Haq, A., & Kannan, G. (2007). A hybrid normalised multi criteria decision making for the vendor selection in a supply chain model. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 8(5-6), 601-622.

[34] Ambrasaite, I., Barfod, M., and Salling, K (2011). MCDA and risk analysis in transport infrastructure appraisals: The Rail Baltica case. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 20, 944-953.

[35] Hemmati, M. Abbasi, S. (2015). Representing a Multi-Step Technique of the Common weights and TOPSIS in order to Ranking of Units, Modern Researches in Decision Making, 1(2), 193-215.

[36] Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative science quarterly, 602-611.

[37] Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282-292.