Performance Evaluation of IT Industries Using SERVQUAL, DEA and FMCDM
Subject Areas : Business StrategyAlireza Alinezhad 1 , Ramin Hakimian 2
1 - Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering
Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran,
2 - Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Qazvin, Iran
Keywords:
Abstract :
[1] Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 1984;30;1078-92.
[2] Bouyssou D. Using DEA as a tool for MCDM: some remarks. J Oper Res Soc 1999;50;974-8.
[3] Cavana Robert, Y., Corbett Lawrence, M., & Lo, Y. L. (2007). Developing zones of tolerance for managing passenger rail service quality. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 24(1), 7–31.
[4] Belton V, Vickers SP. Demystifying DEA: A visual interactive approach based on multi criteria analysis.J Oper ResSoc 1993;44;883-96.
[5] Cooper WW, Park KS, Yu G. IDEA and AR-IDEA: models for dealing with imprecise data in DEA. Manage Sci 1999;45;597-607.
[6] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 1978;2;429-44.
[7] Cook WD, Zhu J. Rank order data in DEA: a general framework. Eur J Oper Res 2006;174;1021-38.
[8] Doyle J and Green R. Data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making. Omega 1993;21;713-5.
[9] Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2008). A stated preference experiment for measuring service quality in public transport. Transportation Planning and Technology,31(5), 509–523.
[10] Fick, G. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, Fall, 2–9.
[11] Hensher, D. A., Stopher, P., & Bullock, P. (2003). Service quality- developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(6), 499–517.
[12] Lovell CAK, Pastor JT. Target setting: An application to a bank branch network. Eur J Oper Res 1997;98;290-9.
[13] Lovell CAK, Pastor JT. Radial DEA models without inputs or without outputs. Eur J Oper Res 1999;118;46-51.
[14] Nathanail, E. (2008). Measuring the quality of service for passengers on the Hellenic railways. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(1), 48–66.
[15] Opricovic S,Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade. 1998
[16] Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J Retailing 1988;65;12-40.
[17] Ramanathan R. Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. Com Oper Res 2006;33;1289-307.
[18] Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[19] Stewart TJ. Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multicriteria decision analysis. J Oper Res Soc1996;47;654-65.
[20] Seol H, Choi J, Park G, Park Y. A framework for benchmarking service process using data envelopment analysis and decision tree. Expert Syst Appl 2007;32;432-40.
[21] Yeh, C. H., Deng, H., & Chang, Y. H. (2000). Fuzzy multicriteria analysis for performance evaluation of bus companies. European Journal of Operational Research, 126(3), 459–473.
[22] Yedla, S., & Shrestha, R. M. (2003). Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(8), 717–729.
[23] Yang T, Kuo C. A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. Eur J Oper Res 2003;147;128-36.
6. Appendixes
Table 3. Average weight gain fuzzy numbers extracted from
Table 2 and parameters used in the method of fuzzy VIKOR
|
Average |
Weighted Index |
|
|
Fuzzy Number |
Wi |
|
|
(0.65,0.81,0.905) |
0.799 |
Holding general sessions before project execution |
|
(0.63,0.79,0.885) |
0.779 |
Receiving recognition plan certificate |
|
(0.515,0.68,0.805) |
0.673 |
Special meetings of the directors circles |
|
(0.45,0.645,0.82) |
0.642 |
Presenting successful executive models in similar industries |
|
(0.56,0.745,0.875) |
0.736 |
Expert’s sufficient knowledge regarding the process |
|
(0.315,0.49,0.655) |
0.488 |
Considering special organizational processes |
|
(0.465,0.64,0.79) |
0.636 |
Designing processes having future development as a perspective |
|
(0.305,0.485,0.675) |
0.487 |
Developing executive modules for special processes |
|
(0.3,0.5,0.695) |
0.499 |
Possibility of adding other software systems |
|
(0.73,0.88,0.955) |
0.868 |
Preparing special reports required by the organization |
|
(0.485,0.665,0.81) |
0.659 |
Presenting pamphlet and other educational notes |
|
(0.33,0.53,0.73) |
0.530 |
Possibility of entering test information in educational copy |
|
(0.51,0.705,0.875) |
0.701 |
Presenting executive models in similar industries |
|
(0.48,0.665,0.82) |
0.660 |
Making educational activities proper for various knowledge level |
|
(0.33,0.475,0.625) |
0.476 |
Using useful opinions of users |
|
(0.67,0.845,0.955) |
0.834 |
Increasing number of practical education sessions |
|
(0.52,0.72,0.885) |
0.714 |
Experts with pertinent document and sufficient experience |
|
(0.4,0.585,0.76) |
0.583 |
Accessibility of experts in times other than working hours |
|
(0.4,0.595,0.785) |
0.594 |
Presenting course completion certificate |
|
(0.255,0.42,0.605) |
0.423 |
Preparing new reports by users |
|
(0.33,0.475,0.625) |
0.476 |
Connecting to other existing systems |
|
(0.45,0.645,0.82) |
0.642 |
Linking to other Microsoft facilities |
Table 4. Data Envelopment Analysis and its results
|
Reference Group |
Efficiency Score |
Empathy |
Assurances |
Responsiveness |
Reliability |
Tangibles |
|
|
7,14 |
95 |
3.3 |
4.4 |
2.6 |
1.6 |
2.9 |
DMU1 |
|
|
100 |
1.8 |
5.2 |
3.4 |
0.1 |
3.8 |
DMU2 |
|
6,17 |
54 |
2.3 |
1.0 |
1.2 |
0.1 |
2.5 |
DMU3 |
|
1,6,19 |
58 |
1.1 |
3.5 |
2.1 |
1.9 |
0.1 |
DMU4 |
|
|
100 |
2.6 |
2.9 |
3.5 |
2.7 |
2.5 |
DMU5 |
|
|
100 |
2.5 |
4.9 |
2.7 |
3.9 |
1.5 |
DMU6 |
|
|
100 |
3.8 |
1.9 |
3.2 |
0.7 |
3.2 |
DMU7 |
|
7,17 |
88 |
2.6 |
4.1 |
1.5 |
2.8 |
1.8 |
DMU8 |
|
|
100 |
4.5 |
5.1 |
4.4 |
2.6 |
3.9 |
DMU17 |
Table 5. model of decision making (for example DMU8)
and target setting for Benchmarking
|
Empathy |
Assurances |
Responsiveness |
Reliability |
Tangibles |
|
|
|
3.8 |
1.9 |
3.2 |
0.7 |
3.2 |
DMU 7 |
1 |
|
4.5 |
5.1 |
4.4 |
2.6 |
3.9 |
DMU 17 |
2 |
|
5.1 |
4.7 |
5.3 |
5.6 |
4.7 |
Improvement target |
3 |
|
2.6 |
4.1 |
1.5 |
2.8 |
1.8 |
DMU 8 |
4 |
|
2.5 |
0.6 |
3.8 |
2.8 |
2.9 |
Improvement required |
5 |
