AHP-Consensus Judgement on Transitional Decision-Making: With a Discussion on the Relation towards Open Innovation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Elements and Sub-Elements Selection
2.2. Application of AHP in Development of Transitional Decision-Making Framework (TDMF)
2.2.1. Define the Goal
2.2.2. TDMF-AHP Hierarchy Structure
2.2.3. Pairwise Comparison Matrix
2.3. Respondent Classification and Survey Distribution
2.4. AHP Aggregation Methods and Consistency Judgement Measurement
3. AHP Results and Analysis
4. Discussion
4.1. Primary and Secondary Elements of TDMF
- Develop Financial Strength (DFS): Financial strength and its capabilities must be evaluated and a new financial scheme demanded if required for the suspension of the transition process [76] in its entirety.
- Formulate Marketing Strategies (FMS): Explore various marketing strategies depending on the category of the remanufacturing company [77] (i.e., whether the company is responsible as the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) remanufacturer or is an independent remanufacturer). The remanufacturer identity affects its identification for potential domestic or regional customers, as well as new export possibilities [78].
- Develop Core Management Process (DPC): Identify and evaluate the significant remanufacturing process flow in order to reduce unnecessarily repetitive procedures arising from the uncertainty of a core’s quality [48,50] in each department. An effective core management process would benefit in a cost-effective production process [80].
- Develop Company Structure (DOS): Re-evaluate the necessity of a remanufacturing division internally or as a whole organization in order to support and enhance the remanufacturing process during and after the transition period.
- Human Resources Development (HRD): Continuous professional training development must be adequately provided to employees, thereby allowing competent employees to be responsible for the introduction of new engineering business practices [81].
- Formulate Vision and Goal (FVSG): Determine the company’s long-term direction, goals, and achievements for the transitional operation. Identify the short-term actions required to realize the vision and periodically reassess them.
- Develop Production Layout (DPL): Redesign the layout system and facilities arrangement based on the size of the site location to optimize the current workplace with an effective flow process.
- Formulate Data and Document Management (FDDM): Design and provide a practical documentation management system in order to record current and new practice implementation information for the purpose of internal audits or audits by the authorities.
- Collaborate with OEM (COEM): Develop a cooperation strategy with the OEM for the benefits of sharing intellectual property knowledge and strengthening the marketing channel for remanufactured products.
- Collaborate with Government (CG): Develop collaboration with government agencies, such as MARii, Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA), and Road Transport Department Malaysia to benefit from the development of policies, tax exemptions, and incentives for the Malaysian remanufacturing industry.
- Collaborate with Research Institutes (CRI): Consider investing in a research institute partnership when implementing reverse engineering processes to increase the engineering data precision if the OEM is not willing to collaborate [82].
- Organization Valuation (OV): Re-examine and periodically reassess company performance in remanufacturing to verify it is in line with expectations and achieving the sustainability objective while generating profit.
- Society Engagement (SOE): The company may consider providing an avenue for customers to provide feedback [83] if the product’s remanufacturing improvements dependent on it.
4.2. The Relation between Transition Decision-Making with Open Innovation
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
If you consider Element A to be more important than Element B, please respond as follows: | ||||||||||||||||||
SCALE | 1 = EQUAL | 3 = MODERATE | 5 = STRONG | 7 = VERY STRONG | 9 = EXTREME | |||||||||||||
Element | More important | Equal | More important | Element | ||||||||||||||
9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||
A | / | B | ||||||||||||||||
If you consider Element B to be more important than Element A, please respond as follows: | ||||||||||||||||||
SCALE | 1 = EQUAL | 3 = MODERATE | 5 = STRONG | 7 = VERY STRONG | 9 = EXTREME | |||||||||||||
Element | More important | Equal | More important | Element | ||||||||||||||
9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||
A | / | B |
References
- Ferrer, G.; Ayres, R.U. The impact of remanufacturing in the economy. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 413–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Z.; Jiang, Q.; LI, T.; Dong, S.; Yan, S.; Zhang, H.; Xu, B. Environmental benefits of remanufacturing: A case study of cylinder heads remanufactured through laser cladding. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 1027–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.S.; Ngiam, H.Y.; Ong, S.K.; Nee, A.Y.C. The impact of automotive product remanufacturing on environmental performance. Procedia CIRP 2015, 29, 774–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raz, G.; Ovchinnikov, A.; Blass, V. Economic, Environmental, and Social Impact of Remanufacturing in a Competitive Setting. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2017, 64, 76–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindan, K.; Shankar, K.M.; Kannan, D. Application of fuzzy analytic network process for barrier evaluation in automotive parts remanufacturing towards cleaner production—A study in an Indian scenario. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 114, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ijomah, W.L.; McMahon, C.A.; Hammond, G.P.; Newman, S.T. Development of design for remanufacturing guidelines to support sustainable manufacturing. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2007, 23, 712–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.H.; Yang, B.; Chen, M. Challenges of the development for automotive parts remanufacturing in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 140, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Sutherland, J.W. Development of multi-criteria decision making model for remanufacturing technology portfolio selection. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1939–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsumoto, M.; Umeda, Y. An analysis of remanufacturing practices in Japan. J. Remanufacturing 2011, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saavedra, Y.M.B.; Barquet, A.P.B.; Rozenfeld, H.; Forcellini, F.A.; Ometto, A.R. Remanufacturing in Brazil: Case studies on the automotive sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, V.; Garg, S.K.; Sharma, P.B. Identification of major drivers and roadblocks for remanufacturing in India. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 112, 1882–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaowanapong, J.; Jongwanich, J.; Ijomah, W. The determinants of remanufacturing practices in developing countries: Evidence from Thai industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yusop, N.M.; Wahab, D.A.; Saibani, N. Analysis of remanufacturing practices in the malaysian automotive industry. J. Teknol. 2012, 59, 77–80. [Google Scholar]
- APEC. Centre of Remanufacturing and Reuse, Remanufacturing in Malaysia An Assessment of the Current and Future; APEC: Maynila, Philippines, 2015; p. 57. [Google Scholar]
- Misran, M.F.R.; Roslin, E.N. Challenges and Barriers to the Implementation of Automotive Remanufacturing in Malaysia: A Review. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control. Syst. 2018, 10, 17–22. [Google Scholar]
- van Hemel, C.; Cramer, J. Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 439–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halbe, J.; Pahl-wostl, C. A Methodological Framework to Initiate and Design Transition Governance Processes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- VoSS, J.P.; Kemp, R. Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. In Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2006; pp. 3–28. [Google Scholar]
- Folke, C.; Colding, J.; Berkes, F. Synthesis: Building Resilience and Adaptive Capacity in Social–Ecological Systems; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Pahl-Wostl, C. The implications of complexity for integrated resources management. Environ. Model. Softw. 2007, 22, 561–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foxon, T.; Stringer, L.; Reed, M. Comparing adaptive management and transition management. Ökologisches Wirtsch. Fachz. 2008, 20–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haxeltine, A.; Whitmarsh, L.; Bergman, N.; Rotmans, J.; Schilperoord, M.; Kohler, J. A conceptual framework for transition modelling. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2008, 3, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Haan, J. Pillars of change: A theoretical framework for transition models. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE), Leipzig, Germany, 5–8 June 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Stephens, J.C.; Graham, A.C. Toward an empirical research agenda for sustainability in higher education: Exploring the transition management framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 611–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loorbach, D.; van Bakel, J.C.; Whiteman, G.; Rotmans, J. Business Strategies for Transitions Towards Sustainable Systems. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2010, 19, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boons, F.; Montalvo, C.; Quist, J.; Wagner, M. Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage Publication: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1984; p. 5. [Google Scholar]
- Misran, M.F.R.; Roslin, E.N.; Nur, N.M.; Othman, J. Transition Decision-Making Framework for Remanufacturing: A Case Study in Malaysia Automotive Sector. Test Eng. Manag. 2020, 83, 1079–1086. [Google Scholar]
- Martens, M.L.; Carvalho, M.M. Key factors of sustainability in project management context: A survey exploring the project managers’ perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1084–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sühlsen, K.; Hisschemöller, M. Lobbying the ‘Energiewende’. Assessing the effectiveness of strategies to promote the renewable energy business in Germany. Energy Policy 2014, 69, 316–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ying, J.; Li-jun, Z. Study on Green Supply Chain Management Based on Circular Economy. Phys. Procedia 2012, 25, 1682–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xia, W.H.; Jia, D.Y.; He, Y.Y. The remanufacturing reverse logistics management based on closed-loop supply chain management processes. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2011, 11, 351–354. [Google Scholar]
- AlSagheer, A.; Ahli, M. Impact Of Supply Chain Integration On Business Performance And Its Challenges. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 2011, 10, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subramoniam, R.; Huisingh, D.; Chinnam, R.B. Remanufacturing for the automotive aftermarket-strategic factors: Literature review and future research needs. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1163–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, S.; Tang, O.; Sundin, E. Core (product) Acquisition Management for remanufacturing: A review. J. Remanufacturing 2015, 5, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nasiri, M.; Rantala, T.; Saunila, M.; Ukko, J.; Rantanen, H. Transition towards sustainable solutions: Product, service, technology, and business model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghazilla, R.A.R.; Sakundarini, N.; Abdul-Rashid, S.H.; Ayub, N.S.; Olugu, E.U.; Musa, S.N. Drivers and barriers analysis for green manufacturing practices in Malaysian smes: A preliminary findings. Procedia CIRP 2015, 26, 658–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McAdam, R.; McConvery, T.; Armstrong, G. Barriers to innovation within small firms in a peripheral location. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2004, 10, 206–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guidat, T.; Seidel, J.; Kohl, H.; Seliger, G. A Comparison of Best Practices of Public and Private Support Incentives for the Remanufacturing Industry. Procedia CIRP 2017, 61, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Wang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Tang, J.; Zhu, X.; Liu, Z. The effect of introducing upgraded remanufacturing strategy on OEM’s decision. Sustainability 2018, 10, 828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karvonen, I.; Jansson, K.; Tonteri, H.; Vatanen, S.; Uoti, M. Enhancing remanufacturing—Studying networks and sustainability to support Finnish industry. J. Remanufacturing 2015, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitra, S.; Webster, S. Competition in remanufacturing and the effects of government subsidies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buhalis, D.; Main, H. Information technology in peripheral small and medium hospitality enterprises. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 1998, 5, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, H.; Jun, Y.; Kim, Y.; Jo, H. Comparative Analysis on Cross-national System to Enhance the Reliability of Remanufactured Products. Procedia CIRP 2016, 40, 280–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naqvi, S.A.A.; Fahad, M.; Atir, M.; Zubair, M.; Shehzad, M.M. Productivity improvement of a manufacturing facility using systematic layout planning. Cogent Eng. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drira, A.; Pierreval, H.; Hajri-Gabouj, S. Facility layout problems: A survey. Annu. Rev. Control. 2007, 31, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, H.H.; Noble, J.S. The impact of facility layout on overall remanufacturing system performance. Int. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2006, 1, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teunter, R.H.; Flapper, S.D.P. Optimal core acquisition and remanufacturing policies under uncertain core quality fractions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2011, 210, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kin, S.T.M.; Ong, S.K.; Nee, A.Y.C. Remanufacturing process planning. Procedia CIRP 2014, 15, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kurilova-Palisaitiene, J.; Sundin, E.; Poksinska, B. Remanufacturing challenges and possible lean improvements. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3225–3236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tattersall, A. Business process transition: Managing a successful business process transition in a multinational organization. Inf. Serv. Gr. 2013, pp. 1–11. Available online: https://isg-one.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/58-managing-successful_interactive.pdf?sfvrsn=905ef831_0 (accessed on 10 August 2020).
- Yu, L.C.; Hui, H.Y. An empirical study on logistics service providers’ intention to adopt green innovations. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2008, 3, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
- Arredondo-Soto, K.C.; Realyvasquez-Vargas, A.; Maldonado-Macías, A.A.; García-Alcaraz, J. Impact of human resources on remanufacturing process, internal complexity, perceived quality of core, numerosity, and key process indicators. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2019, 59, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahamed, S.T.; Niyas, P.T.M.; Rifky, A.L.M. Identify the Significance of Performance Appraisals on Employee Work Improvement in Software Development Organizations. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2018, 8, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medvecká, I.; Biňasová, V.; Kubinec, L. Planning and Performance Evaluation of the Manufacturing Organizations. Procedia Eng. 2017, 192, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, S.I.; Yousof, J.; Khan, M.R.; Masood, S.A. Evaluation of performance in manufacturing organization through productivity and quality. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 5, 2211–2219. [Google Scholar]
- Khor, K.S.; Hazen, B.T. Remanufactured products purchase intentions and behaviour: Evidence from Malaysia. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 2149–2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steingrímsson, J.G.; Bilge, P.; Heyer, S.; Seliger, G. Business Strategies for Competition and Collaboration for Remanufacturing of Production Equipmen. In Advance in Sustainable Manufacturing; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 91–97. [Google Scholar]
- Sabaei, D.; Erkoyuncu, J.; Roy, R. A review of multi-criteria decision making methods for enhanced maintenance delivery. Procedia CIRP 2015, 37, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Velasquez, M.; Hester, P.T. An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. Int. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 10, 56–66. [Google Scholar]
- Taherdoost, H. Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); A Step by Step Approach. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Syst. 2018, 2, 244–246. [Google Scholar]
- Wheelwright, S.C. Reflecting corporate strategy in manufacturing decisions. Bus. Horizons 1978, 21, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, R.D.F.S.M.; Camanho, R. Criteria in AHP: A systematic review of literature. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 55, 1123–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kil, S.H.; Lee, D.K.; Kim, J.H.; Li, M.H.; Newman, G. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process to establish weighted values for evaluating the stability of slope revegetation based on hydroseeding applications in South Korea. Sustainability 2016, 8, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ulkhaq, M.M.; Wijayanti, W.R.; Zain, M.S.; Baskara, E.; Leonita, W. Combining the AHP and TOPSIS to evaluate car selection. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on High Performance Compilation, Computing and Communications, Hongkong, China, 15–17 March 2018; pp. 112–117. [Google Scholar]
- Melillo, P.; Pecchia, L. What Is the Appropriate Sample Size To Run Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Survey-Based Research? In Proceedings of the The International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, London, UK, 4–8 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, R.Y.; Yeh, C.H. Development of an assessment framework for green highway construction. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2008, 31, 573–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paleie, I.; Lalic, B. Analytical hierarchy process as a tool for selecting and evaluating projects. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2009, 8, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
- Ijzerman, M.J. Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial. Patient 2014, 7, 129–140. [Google Scholar]
- Ho, D.; Newell, G.; Walker, A.; Newell, G. The importance of property-specific attributes in assessing CBD office building quality. J. Prop. Invest. Financ. 2006, 23, 424–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, P.S.; Chu, P.; Lin, M. On Vargas’s proof of consistency test for 3 × 3 comparison matrices in AHP. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Jpn. 2002, 45, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Forman, E.; Peniwati, K. Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1998, 108, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, Y.; Zhang, G.; Hong, W.C.; Xu, Y. Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decis. Support Syst. 2010, 49, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Jiménez, J.A.; María, J. The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2003, 147, 137–145. [Google Scholar]
- Bolton, R.; Hannon, M. Governing sustainability transitions through business model innovation: Towards a systems understanding. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 1731–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kutlu, M.B. Marketing for core acquisition and remarketing of remanufactured products. In Proceedings of the The LCBR European Marketing Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 28–28 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Govindan, K.; Beatriz, J.-P.; Sergio, R.; María, A.; Vicente, M. Marketing issues for remanufactured products Kannan. J. Clean. Prod. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, S.; Cheng, D.; Sundin, E.; Tang, O. Motives and barriers of the remanufacturing industry in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 94, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casper, R.; Sundin, E. Addressing Today’s challenges in automotive remanufacturing. J. Remanufacturing 2018, 8, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abadijoo, M.; Moghadam, M.N.; Beheshtifar, M. Role of Human Resource Development in the Organization Success. J. Soc. Issues Humanit. 2015, 3, 44–47. [Google Scholar]
- Gunasekara, H.; Gamage, J.; Punchihewa, H. Remanufacture for Sustainability: A review of the barriers and the solutions to promote remanufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Production and Operations Management Society (POMS), Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 14–16 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, W.; Moultrie, J.; Ye, S. The Customer-Dominated Innovation Process: Involving Customers as Designers and Decision-Makers in Developing New Product. Des. J. 2019, 22, 299–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henkel, J.; Schöberl, S.; Alexy, O. The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 879–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiaroni, D.; Chiesa, V.; Frattini, F. The Open Innovation Journey: How firms dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation 2011, 31, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Park, K.; Kim, J.; Yang, J. Open Innovation Effort, Entrepreneurship Orientation and their Synergies onto Innovation Performance in SMEs of Korea. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2016, 21, 366–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Elements | Sub-Elements | References |
---|---|---|
Strategic Element (SE) | Formulate Vision and Goal (FVSG) | [29,30] |
Develop Supply Chain System (DSCS) | [30,31,32] | |
Develop Financial Strategies (DFS) | [33,34] | |
Formulate Marketing Strategies (FMS) | [26,35] | |
Tactical Elements (TE) | Develop Organization Support (DOS) | [36,37,38] |
Collaborate with OEM (COEM) | [9,39,40,41] | |
Collaborate with Government (CG) | [9,42] | |
Collaborate with Research Institution (CRI) | [43,44] | |
Operational Element (OE) | Develop Production Layout (DPL) | [45,46,47] |
Process Chain/Core Management Process (DPC) | [48,49] | |
Formulate Data/Documents Management (FDDM) | [50,51] | |
Reflexive Element (RE) | Human Resources Development (HRD) | [52,53] |
Organization Evaluation (OV) | [54,55,56] | |
Society Engagement (SOE) | [57,58] |
Importance Scale | Definition | Explanation |
---|---|---|
1 | Equally important | Two activities contribute equally to the objective |
3 | Moderately important | Experience and judgement slightly favour one activity over another |
5 | Strongly important | Experience and judgement strongly favour one activity over another. |
7 | Very strong or demonstrates importance | An activity is favoured very strongly over another. Its dominance demonstrated in practice. |
9 | Extremely important | The evidence favouring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation. |
2, 4, 6, 8 | Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments | When compromise is needed. |
Reciprocals of above | If activity i has one of the above non-zero numbers assigned to it when compared with activity j, then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i. | A reasonable assumption. |
Major | Organisation | Professional Experience |
---|---|---|
Expert 1 | Government Authority Enforcement Body | More than 10 years |
Expert 2 | Private Company (Managerial level) | |
Expert 3 | OEM Company (Senior engineer) | |
Expert 4 | University Researcher | More than 7 years |
Expert 5 |
n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RI | 0 | 0 | 0.52 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.25 | 1.35 | 1.40 | 1.45 |
GCI (X) Value | Consistency Condition |
---|---|
0 | A is fully consistent |
0.31 | n = 3 |
0.35 | n = 4 |
0.37 | n > 4 |
Decision Maker/Sub-Elements | FVSG | DSCS | DFS | FMS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DM1 | FVSG | 1 | 1/7 | 1/5 | 1/5 |
DSCS | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
DFS | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
FMS | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
DM2 | FVSG | 1 | 5 | 1/4 | 1/3 |
DSCS | 1/5 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/5 | |
DFS | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | |
FMS | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | |
DM3 | FVSG | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
DSCS | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
DFS | 1 | 1/3 | 1 | 1/4 | |
FMS | 1 | 1/3 | 4 | 1 | |
DM4 | FVSG | 1 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1/3 |
DSCS | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | |
DFS | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | |
FMS | 3 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 1 | |
DM5 | FVSG | 1 | 1/8 | 1/9 | 1/9 |
DSCS | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
DFS | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
FMS | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Decision Makers | Individual Attribute |
---|---|
DM1 | wDM1 = {0.0565, 0.3330, 0.3052, 0.3052} T σmax = 4.0172 CI = 0.0057 CR = 0.64% |
DM2 | wDM2 = {0.1670, 0.0619, 0.4008, 0.3703} T σmax = 4.2795 CI = 0.0932 CR = 10.35% |
DM3 | wDM3 = {0.2316, 0.3824, 0.1334, 0.2525} T σmax = 4.4728 CI = 0.1576 CR = 17.51% |
DM4 | wDM4 = {0.0669, 0.4079, 0.4079, 0.1173} T σmax = 4.2236 CI = 0.0745 CR = 8.28% |
DM5 | wDM5 = {0.0371, 0.3148, 0.3240, 0.3420} T σmax = 4.0022 CI = 0.0001 CR = 0.08% |
Element/Sub-Elements | FVSG | DSCS | DFS | FMS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SE | FVSG | 1.0000 | 0.4471 | 0.2565 | 0.3010 |
DSCS | 2.2369 | 1.0000 | 0.9029 | 1.2457 | |
DFS | 3.8981 | 1.1076 | 1.0000 | 1.0456 | |
FMS | 3.3227 | 0.8027 | 0.9564 | 1.0000 | |
Element/Sub-elements | DCS | CG | COEM | CRI | |
TE | DCS | 1.0000 | 1.9473 | 0.9349 | 3.6801 |
CG | 0.5135 | 1.0000 | 0.5326 | 2.3714 | |
COEM | 1.0696 | 1.8776 | 1.0000 | 3.1777 | |
CRI | 0.2717 | 0.4217 | 0.3147 | 1.0000 | |
Element/Sub-elements | DPL | DPC | FDDM | ||
OE | DPL | 1.0000 | 0.7740 | 1.5518 | |
DPC | 1.2920 | 1.0000 | 2.7241 | ||
FDDM | 0.6444 | 0.3671 | 1.0000 | ||
Element/Sub-elements | HRD | OV | SOE | ||
RE | HRD | 1.0000 | 1.5518 | 2.9302 | |
OV | 0.6444 | 1.0000 | 3.2453 | ||
SOE | 0.3413 | 0.3081 | 1.0000 | ||
Element/Sub-elements | SE | TE | OE | RE | |
ME | SE | 1.0000 | 1.3195 | 0.9417 | 2.6867 |
TE | 0.7579 | 1.0000 | 0.7860 | 2.0678 | |
OE | 1.0619 | 1.2723 | 1.0000 | 1.9332 | |
RE | 0.3722 | 0.4836 | 0.5173 | 1.0000 |
Consistency Measures | Strategic Element | Tactical Element | Operational Element | Reflexive Element | Main Element |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
GCI | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.02 |
Element | Priority Weight (wj) | Sub-Elements | Local Weight (wi) | Global Weight | Local Rank | Global Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SE | 0.3196 | FVSG | 0.0977 | 0.0312 | 4 | 12 |
DSCS | 0.2855 | 0.0912 | 3 | 4 | ||
DFS | 0.3304 | 0.1056 | 1 | 2 | ||
FMS | 0.2864 | 0.0915 | 2 | 3 | ||
TE | 0.2491 | DOS | 0.3550 | 0.0884 | 1 | 5 |
CG | 0.1980 | 0.0493 | 3 | 10 | ||
COEM | 0.3507 | 0.0873 | 2 | 6 | ||
CRI | 0.0962 | 0.0240 | 4 | 13 | ||
OE | 0.3006 | DPL | 0.3319 | 0.0997 | 2 | 7 |
DPC | 0.4750 | 0.1428 | 1 | 1 | ||
FDDM | 0.1931 | 0.0581 | 3 | 8 | ||
RE | 0.1306 | HRD | 0.4862 | 0.0635 | 1 | 9 |
OV | 0.3753 | 0.0490 | 2 | 11 | ||
SOE | 0.1385 | 0.0181 | 3 | 14 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Misran, M.F.R.; Roslin, E.N.; Mohd Nur, N. AHP-Consensus Judgement on Transitional Decision-Making: With a Discussion on the Relation towards Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030063
Misran MFR, Roslin EN, Mohd Nur N. AHP-Consensus Judgement on Transitional Decision-Making: With a Discussion on the Relation towards Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2020; 6(3):63. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030063
Chicago/Turabian StyleMisran, Mohd Fakhrur Razi, Eida Nadirah Roslin, and Nurhayati Mohd Nur. 2020. "AHP-Consensus Judgement on Transitional Decision-Making: With a Discussion on the Relation towards Open Innovation" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6, no. 3: 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030063