Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 29 (2001)
Issue (Month): 5 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Good, David H. & Roller, Lars-Hendrik & Sickles, Robin C., 1995. "Airline efficiency differences between Europe and the US: Implications for the pace of EC integration and domestic regulation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 508-518, February.
- Encaoua, David, 1991. "Liberalizing European airlines : Cost and factor productivity evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 109-124, March.
- Parkan, Celik & Wu, Ming-Lu, 1999. "Measurement of the performance of an investment bank using the operational competitiveness rating procedure," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 201-217, April.
- Raju, Komaragiri Srinivasa & Pillai, C. R. S., 1999. "Multicriterion decision making in river basin planning and development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 249-257, January.
- Siskos, Y. & Spyridakos, A., 1999. "Intelligent multicriteria decision support: Overview and perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 236-246, March.
- F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
- Janic, Milan, 2000. "An assessment of risk and safety in civil aviation," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 43-50.
- Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
- Oum, Tae Hoon & Yu, Chunyan, 1998. "Cost competitiveness of major airlines: an international comparison," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 407-422, August.
- Bose, Utpal & Davey, Anne M. & Olson, David L., 1997. "Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 691-706, December.
- Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
- Fischer, Gregory W., 1995. "Range Sensitivity of Attribute Weights in Multiattribute Value Models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 252-266, June.
- James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1992. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: The Next Ten Years," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 645-654, May.
- Yeh, Chung-Hsing & J. Willis, Robert & Deng, Hepu & Pan, Hongqi, 1999. "Task oriented weighting in multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 130-146, November.
- Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Deng, Hepu & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2000. "Fuzzy multicriteria analysis for performance evaluation of bus companies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 459-473, November.
- Weber, Martin & Borcherding, Katrin, 1993. "Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-12, May.
- Oral, Muhittin, 1993. "A methodology for competitiveness analysis and strategy formulation in glass industry," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 9-22, July.
- Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
- Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
- Good, D.H. & Nadiri, M.I. & Roller, L.H. & Sickles, R., 1992.
"Efficiency and Productivity Growth Comparisons of European and U.S. Air Carriers : A First Look at the Data,"
92-22, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- David Good & M. Nadiri & Lars-Hendrik Röller & Robin Sickles, 1993. "Efficiency and productivity growth comparisons of European and U.S. Air carriers: A first look at the data," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 115-125, June.
- Mustafa, A. & Goh, M., 1996. "Multi-criterion models for higher education administration," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 167-178, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:29:y:2001:i:5:p:405-415. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.