Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making

被引:119
作者
Chang, YH
Yeh, CH [1 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Sch Business Syst, Clayton, Vic 3800, Australia
[2] Natl Cheng Kung Univ, Dept Transportat Management, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
来源
OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE | 2001年 / 29卷 / 05期
关键词
multiattribute decision making; competitiveness; airline; performance evaluation; ranking;
D O I
10.1016/S0305-0483(01)00032-9
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
This paper presents an objective approach to the evaluation of airline competitiveness. The evaluation problem is formulated as a multiattribute decision making model and solved by three widely used methods (the simple additive weighting method, the weighted product method and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution) based on multiattribute value theory. A new empirical validation procedure is developed to deal with the inconsistency problem of evaluation outcomes produced by the three methods. The procedure selects the evaluation outcome which has a minimum expected value loss. An empirical study on Taiwan's five major domestic airlines is conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach. To measure and compare overall competitiveness of the airlines, five competitiveness dimensions and their associated objective performance measures on both efficiency and effectiveness are identified. The result of empirical validation for the three methods suggests the use of the simple additive weighting method. The evaluation outcome helps an airline identify its competitive advantages relative to its competitors. The objective approach presented is particularly applicable when subjective judgements on performance ratings and attribute weights are not reliable, or suitable decision makers are not available. (C) 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:405 / 415
页数:11
相关论文
共 62 条
[21]  
Good D. H., 1991, J TRANSPORTATION RES, V31, P347
[22]  
Good D.H., 1993, Journal of Productivity Analysis, V4, P115, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF01073469
[23]   AIRLINE EFFICIENCY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPE AND THE UNITED-STATES - IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PACE OF EC INTEGRATION AND DOMESTIC REGULATION [J].
GOOD, DH ;
ROLLER, LH ;
SICKLES, RC .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1995, 80 (03) :508-518
[24]   Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method [J].
Guitouni, A ;
Martel, JM .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1998, 109 (02) :501-521
[25]   DOES CHOICE OF MULTICRITERIA METHOD MATTER - AN EXPERIMENT IN WATER-RESOURCES PLANNING [J].
HOBBS, BF ;
CHANKONG, V ;
HAMADEH, W ;
STAKHIV, EZ .
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 1992, 28 (07) :1767-1779
[26]   DATA AND MODEL MANAGEMENT IN A GENERALIZED MCDM-DSS [J].
HONG, IB ;
VOGEL, DR .
DECISION SCIENCES, 1991, 22 (01) :1-25
[27]  
Hwang C.L., 1981, METHODS MULTIPLE ATT, DOI [10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3]
[28]  
Janic M., 2000, Journal of Air Transport Management, V6, P43, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S0969-6997(99)00021-6, 10.1016/S0969-6997, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6997(99)00021-6]
[29]  
Keeney R. L, 1993, DECISIONS MULTIPLE O, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139174084
[30]   Multi-criterion models for higher education administration [J].
Mustafa, A ;
Goh, M .
OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1996, 24 (02) :167-178