IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i6p946-d772314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Video Conferencing Software for Remote Working Using Two-Stage Grey MCDM: A Case Study from Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Pham Ngoc Toan

    (School of Accounting, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City 740500, Vietnam)

  • Thanh-Tuan Dang

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 807618, Taiwan)

  • Le Thi Thu Hong

    (School of Accounting, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City 740500, Vietnam)

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has completely changed the world, and businesses are struggling to create a new and effective working environment for their employees. Employees worldwide have moved from traditional face-to-face meetings to remote working using video conferencing software (VCS)—a powerful tool to support companies during the pandemic and that can be an increasing trend in the future. For businesses who intend to adopt VCS for their organizations, choosing an appropriate platform can be an arduous task that requires the consideration of multiple criteria to save costs and optimize efficiency. In this paper, we propose a grey-based multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) framework that combines grey Analytical Hierarchy Process (G-AHP) and grey Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (G-EDAS) methodologies, in which grey numbers are used to express the linguistic evaluation statements of experts. Initially, the evaluation criteria based on functionality, security, usability, technical performance, and pricing have been determined using a literature review and expert’s opinions to employ the MCDM approach. G-AHP was utilized to identify the criteria weights, and G-EDAS was then used to select the best VCS among the alternatives. A case illustration in Vietnam is presented to exhibit the proposed approach’s applicability. From the G-AHP findings, quality of video/audio, ease of use, mobile experience, number of participants allowed, and video recording capability have been ranked as the five most important criteria. From G-EDAS analysis, Microsoft Teams (VCS-03) was found to be the best. In addition, the robustness of the proposed model was tested by conducting sensitivity analysis and comparative analysis of methods, in which the priority rankings of the best VCSs are very similar. With the high demand for the trend of the remote working model, this study can be a basis for informed decisions to assist businesses in choosing their best-suited VCS to save costs and enhance productivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Pham Ngoc Toan & Thanh-Tuan Dang & Le Thi Thu Hong, 2022. "Evaluating Video Conferencing Software for Remote Working Using Two-Stage Grey MCDM: A Case Study from Vietnam," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:6:p:946-:d:772314
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/6/946/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/6/946/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ebru Turanoglu Bekar & Mehmet Cakmakci & Cengiz Kahraman, 2016. "Fuzzy COPRAS method for performance measurement in total productive maintenance: a comparative analysis," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 663-684, September.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    3. Ahmad Alkharabsheh & Sarbast Moslem & Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2021. "An Integrated Approach of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making and Grey Theory for Evaluating Urban Public Transportation Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    5. Lai, Vincent S. & Wong, Bo K. & Cheung, Waiman, 2002. "Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 134-144, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paweł Ziemba & Mateusz Piwowarski & Kesra Nermend, 2023. "Remote Work in Post-Pandemic Reality—Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Teleconferencing Software," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.

    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. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Wen-Yu Chen & Chia-Yuan Hsu, 2012. "Assessing Travel Business Partners Using the Critical Incident Technique and the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(2), pages 295-310, April.
    3. Wen‐Hsien Tsai & Yu‐Wei Chou & Kuen‐Chang Lee & Wan‐Rung Lin & Elliott T.Y. Hwang, 2013. "Combining Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory with Analytic Network Process to Perform an Investigation of Information Technology Auditing and Risk Control in an Enterprise Resource Planni," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 176-193, March.
    4. Murat Ayar & Alper Dalkiran & Utku Kale & András Nagy & Tahir Hikmet Karakoc, 2021. "Investigation of the Substitutability of Rubber Compounds with Environmentally Friendly Materials," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, May.
    5. Natalie M. Scala & Jayant Rajgopal & Luis G. Vargas & Kim LaScola Needy, 2016. "Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 355-372, March.
    6. Flavio Martins & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili & Agatha Oliveira, 2020. "Design Thinking Applied to Smart Home Projects: A User-Centric and Sustainable Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    7. Pathiraja, Erandathie & Griffith, Garry & Farquharson, Robert & Faggia, Rob, 2019. "The Cost of Climate Change to Agricultural Industries: Coconuts in Sri Lanka," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(05), December.
    8. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    9. Patricija Bajec & Danijela Tuljak-Suban, 2019. "An Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process—Slack Based Measure-Data Envelopment Analysis Model for Evaluating the Efficiency of Logistics Service Providers Considering Undesirable Performance Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    10. Xinxin Liu & Xiaosheng Wang & Haiying Guo & Xiaojie An, 2021. "Benefit Allocation in Shared Water-Saving Management Contract Projects Based on Modified Expected Shapley Value," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(1), pages 39-62, January.
    11. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    12. Moumita Palchaudhuri & Sujata Biswas, 2016. "Application of AHP with GIS in drought risk assessment for Puruliya district, India," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(3), pages 1905-1920, December.
    13. Tommaso Ortalli & Andrea Di Martino & Michela Longo & Dario Zaninelli, 2024. "Make-or-Buy Policy Decision in Maintenance Planning for Mobility: A Multi-Criteria Approach," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-18, May.
    14. D. K. Choudhury, 2019. "Standard Critical Path and Selection of Most Economic and Quality Contractors for Construction of Thermal Power Plant: A Case Study in NTPC," Metamorphosis: A Journal of Management Research, , vol. 18(2), pages 103-118, December.
    15. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    16. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    17. Levary, Reuven R. & Wan, Ke, 1999. "An analytic hierarchy process based simulation model for entry mode decision regarding foreign direct investment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 661-677, December.
    18. Lilian. O. Iheukwumere-Esotu & Akilu Yunusa-Kaltungo, 2021. "Knowledge Criticality Assessment and Codification Framework for Major Maintenance Activities: A Case Study of Cement Rotary Kiln Plant," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, April.
    19. Karami, Ezatollah, 2006. "Appropriateness of farmers' adoption of irrigation methods: The application of the AHP model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 101-119, January.
    20. Alpana Agarwal & Divina Raghav, 2023. "Analysing Determinants of Employee Performance Based on Reverse Mentoring and Employer Branding Using Analytic Hierarchical Process," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 48(3), pages 343-358, August.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:6:p:946-:d:772314. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.