IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/oprepe/v9y2022ics2214716022000252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A novel methodology employed for ranking and consolidating performance indicators in holding companies with multiple power plants based on multi-criteria decision-making method

Author

Listed:
  • Murad, C.A.
  • Bellinello, M.M.
  • Silva, A.J.
  • Netto, A. Caminada
  • de Souza, G.F.M.
  • Nabeta, S.I.

Abstract

A large international energy corporation owning power operations in several countries, including several generation plants as well as transmission and distribution units in Brazil's energy matrix, adopts for quite some time now the policy that performance monitoring should be left to each individual operation's management. This decentralized approach is viewed as undoubtedly having a number of managerial advantages, so much, so that it is currently in force and performance indicators are being established locally. This approach, however, has the basic disadvantage that quantitative comparisons are hard to make between operations, i.e., adequate tactical comparative assessment at corporate level, with immediate and potential unfavorable implications. Therefore, the present work undertakes to investigate the possibility of consolidating a comprehensive set of indicators capable of accommodating more possibilities of comparison between different power generation plants. The research also employs an effective ranking method in order to take as much managerial advantage as possible of the new body of identified indicators. An application example involving a set of selected indicators is presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Murad, C.A. & Bellinello, M.M. & Silva, A.J. & Netto, A. Caminada & de Souza, G.F.M. & Nabeta, S.I., 2022. "A novel methodology employed for ranking and consolidating performance indicators in holding companies with multiple power plants based on multi-criteria decision-making method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:9:y:2022:i:c:s2214716022000252
    DOI: 10.1016/j.orp.2022.100254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214716022000252
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.orp.2022.100254?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muchiri, Peter & Pintelon, Liliane & Gelders, Ludo & Martin, Harry, 2011. "Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and indicators," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 295-302, May.
    2. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Katharina Schmidt & Ana Babac & Frédéric Pauer & Kathrin Damm & J-Matthias von der Schulenburg, 2016. "Measuring patients’ priorities using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in comparison with Best-Worst-Scaling and rating cards: methodological aspects and ranking tasks," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Betti, Alessandro & Crisostomi, Emanuele & Paolinelli, Gianluca & Piazzi, Antonio & Ruffini, Fabrizio & Tucci, Mauro, 2021. "Condition monitoring and predictive maintenance methodologies for hydropower plants equipment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 246-253.
    5. Dionysios Pramangioulis & Konstantinos Atsonios & Nikos Nikolopoulos & Dimitrios Rakopoulos & Panagiotis Grammelis & Emmanuel Kakaras, 2019. "A Methodology for Determination and Definition of Key Performance Indicators for Smart Grids Development in Island Energy Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, January.
    6. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    7. Jafar Rezaei, 2020. "A Concentration Ratio for Nonlinear Best Worst Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(03), pages 891-907, May.
    8. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    9. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    10. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, December.
    11. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    2. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    3. Burak Can Altay & Abdullah Erdem Boztas & Abdullah Okumuş & Muhammet Gul & Erkan Çelik, 2023. "How Will Autonomous Vehicles Decide in Case of an Accident? An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Best–Worst Method for Weighting the Criteria from Moral Values Point of View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, June.
    4. Kheybari, Siamak & Javdanmehr, Mahsa & Rezaie, Fariba Mahdi & Rezaei, Jafar, 2021. "Corn cultivation location selection for bioethanol production: An application of BWM and extended PROMETHEE II," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    5. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Besharati Fard, Moein & Moradian, Parisa & Emarati, Mohammadreza & Ebadi, Mehdi & Gholamzadeh Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad & Klemeŝ, Jiří Jaromír, 2022. "Ground-mounted photovoltaic power station site selection and economic analysis based on a hybrid fuzzy best-worst method and geographic information system: A case study Guilan province," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Sarbast Moslem & Muhammet Gul & Danish Farooq & Erkan Celik & Omid Ghorbanzadeh & Thomas Blaschke, 2020. "An Integrated Approach of Best-Worst Method (BWM) and Triangular Fuzzy Sets for Evaluating Driver Behavior Factors Related to Road Safety," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Orji, Ifeyinwa Juliet & Gupta, Himanshu & Kunc, Martin, 2021. "Risks associated with the implementation of big data analytics in sustainable supply chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    10. Fahim, Patrick B.M. & Rezaei, Jafar & Montreuil, Benoit & Tavasszy, Lorant, 2022. "Port performance evaluation and selection in the Physical Internet," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 83-94.
    11. Fumin Deng & Yanjie Li & Huirong Lin & Jinrui Miao & Xuedong Liang, 2020. "A BWM-TOPSIS Hazardous Waste Inventory Safety Risk Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Arman Nedjati & Mohammad Yazdi & Rouzbeh Abbassi, 2022. "A sustainable perspective of optimal site selection of giant air-purifiers in large metropolitan areas," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8747-8778, June.
    13. Elkadeem, M.R. & Younes, Ali & Sharshir, Swellam W. & Campana, Pietro Elia & Wang, Shaorong, 2021. "Sustainable siting and design optimization of hybrid renewable energy system: A geospatial multi-criteria analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 295(C).
    14. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    15. Tavana, Madjid & Mina, Hassan & Santos-Arteaga, Francisco J., 2023. "A general Best-Worst method considering interdependency with application to innovation and technology assessment at NASA," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    16. Sisto, Roberta & Fernández-Portillo, Luis A. & Yazdani, Morteza & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi, 2022. "Strategic planning of rural areas: Integrating participatory backcasting and multiple criteria decision analysis tools," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    17. Samieinasab, Mina & Hamid, Mahdi & Rabbani, Masoud, 2022. "An integrated resilience engineering-lean management approach to performance assessment and improvement of clinical departments," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    18. Maghsoud Amiri & Mohammad Hashemi-Tabatabaei & Mohammad Ghahremanloo & Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2021. "Evaluating Life Cycle of Buildings Using an Integrated Approach Based on Quantitative-Qualitative and Simplified Best-Worst Methods (QQM-SBWM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-28, April.
    19. Aziz Naghizadeh Vardin & Ramin Ansari & Mohammad Khalilzadeh & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Romualdas Bausys, 2021. "An Integrated Decision Support Model Based on BWM and Fuzzy-VIKOR Techniques for Contractor Selection in Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-28, June.
    20. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Qin, Jindong & Zhou, Ligang & Mardani, Abbas & Deveci, Muhammet, 2022. "An integrated multi-criteria decision-making and multi-objective optimization model for socially responsible portfolio selection," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:9:y:2022:i:c:s2214716022000252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/operations-research-perspectives .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.