IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i5p2448-d505012.html

Establishing Merger Feasibility Simulation Model Based on Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Method: Case Study of Taiwan’s Property Management Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Li-Ming Chien

    (Department of Architecture, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No. 43, Keelung Rd., Sec. 4, Da’an Dist., Taipei City 10607, Taiwan)

  • Kung-Jen Tu

    (Department of Architecture, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No. 43, Keelung Rd., Sec. 4, Da’an Dist., Taipei City 10607, Taiwan)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to propose a feasible operational evaluation model for property mergers. It is expected that through the merger of enterprises, the comprehensive improvement of business management and the promotion of logistics supply resources will be effectively promoted, so that enterprises can effectively reduce operating costs and achieve maximum profits. This study uses the modified Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process method to find out the key factors of the common dilemmas in Taiwan’s property management companies, and the weight of their impact on the operation. Finally, we use the expected utility theory to develop a valuation model for whether the property is suitable for integration, and to evaluate this, the result is used as a reference indicator for merger operations. After 30 years of vigorous development in Taiwan’s property management companies, due to fierce market competition, most of the companies have reduced their profitability in the face of common dilemmas. The study found that the merger model should be accurately evaluated by the evaluation model. The sharing of logistics resources can indeed bring about the benefits of investment and marketing to the merger, and improve the profitability of the company. At the time of writing, there is no research on such a combined analysis of the property management industry in Taiwan. This research method uses multiple decision analysis theory and utility theory to develop a decision-making model that is suitable for consolidation. It can also be applied to the assessment of mergers in other fields, such as the clean service industry, real estate brokerage and other industry merger assessments. This is also the biggest contribution of this research paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Li-Ming Chien & Kung-Jen Tu, 2021. "Establishing Merger Feasibility Simulation Model Based on Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Method: Case Study of Taiwan’s Property Management Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:2448-:d:505012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2448/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2448/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramin Gharizadeh Beiragh & Reza Alizadeh & Saeed Shafiei Kaleibari & Fausto Cavallaro & Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Romualdas Bausys & Abbas Mardani, 2020. "An integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for Sustainability Performance Assessment for Insurance Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Dimopoulos, Theodosios & Sacchetto, Stefano, 2017. "Merger activity in industry equilibrium," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 200-226.
    3. Theodosios Dimopoulos & Stefano Sacchetto, 2014. "Merger Activity in Industry Equilibrium," GSIA Working Papers 2012-E47, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    4. Sung-Lin Hsueh, 2012. "A Fuzzy Utility-Based Multi-Criteria Model for Evaluating Households’ Energy Conservation Performance: A Taiwanese Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Dubra, Juan & Maccheroni, Fabio & Ok, Efe A., 2004. "Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 118-133, March.
    6. Matej Lahovnik, 2011. "Strategic fit between business strategies in the post-acquisition period and acquisition performance," Journal of East European Management Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 16(4), pages 358-370.
    7. Pierfrancesco Fiore & Giuseppe Donnarumma & Carmelo Falce & Emanuela D’Andria & Claudia Sicignano, 2020. "An AHP-Based Methodology for Decision Support in Integrated Interventions in School Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Antonios Antoniou & Philippe Arbour & Huainan Zhao, 2011. "Measuring the Economic Gains of Mergers and Acquisitions: Is it Time for a Change?," Journal of Financial Transformation, Capco Institute, vol. 32, pages 159-168.
    9. Fee, C. Edward & Thomas, Shawn, 2004. "Sources of gains in horizontal mergers: evidence from customer, supplier, and rival firms," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 423-460, December.
    10. Jap, Sandy & Gould, A. Noel & Liu, Annie H., 2017. "Managing mergers: Why people first can improve brand and IT consolidations," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 123-134.
    11. Juan Dubra & Fabio Maccheroni & Efe A. Ok, 2004. "Expected Utility Without the Completeness Axiom," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm404, Yale School of Management.
    12. Willebrands, Daan & Lammers, Judith & Hartog, Joop, 2012. "A successful businessman is not a gambler. Risk attitude and business performance among small enterprises in Nigeria," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 342-354.
    13. Matej Lahovnik, 2011. "Strategic fit between business strategies in the post-acquisition period and acquisition performance," Journal of East European Management Studies, Rainer Hampp Verlag, vol. 16(4), pages 358-370.
    14. Davis, Douglas D. & Wilson, Bart J., 2008. "Strategic buyers, horizontal mergers and synergies: An experimental investigation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 643-661, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Dianfa Wu & Zhiping Yang & Ningling Wang & Chengzhou Li & Yongping Yang, 2018. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model and AHP Weighting Uncertainty Analysis for Sustainability Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Units," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, May.
    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. McClellon, Morgan, 2016. "Confidence models of incomplete preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 30-34.
    2. Cosimo Munari, 2020. "Multi-utility representations of incomplete preferences induced by set-valued risk measures," Papers 2009.04151, arXiv.org.
    3. Arts, Sara & Ong, Qiyan & Qiu, Jianying, 2020. "Measuring subjective decision confidence," MPRA Paper 117907, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff and Kyoungwon Seo, 2011. "Relevance and Symmetry," Economics Series Working Papers 539, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    5. Xiaosheng Mu, 2021. "Sequential Choice with Incomplete Preferences," Working Papers 2021-35, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    6. Kraus, Alan & Sagi, Jacob S., 2006. "Inter-temporal preference for flexibility and risky choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 698-709, September.
    7. Bosi, Gianni & Herden, Gerhard, 2012. "Continuous multi-utility representations of preorders," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 212-218.
    8. Eric Danan, 2021. "Partial utilitarianism," Working Papers hal-03327900, HAL.
    9. Marcus Pivato, 2020. "Subjective expected utility with a spectral state space," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(2), pages 249-313, March.
    10. Karni, Edi, 2020. "Probabilistic sophistication without completeness," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 8-13.
    11. M. Ali Khan & Metin Uyanık, 2021. "Topological connectedness and behavioral assumptions on preferences: a two-way relationship," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(2), pages 411-460, March.
    12. Wang, Wenyu & Wu, Yufeng, 2020. "Managerial control benefits and takeover market efficiency," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(3), pages 857-878.
    13. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-060 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Nisani, Doron & Shelef, Amit & Sonenshine, Ralph & David, Or, 2024. "The mutual funds puzzle and the elusive von Neumann-Morgenstern preference relation," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    15. Frick, Mira & Iijima, Ryota & Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2019. "Boolean Representations of Preferences under Ambiguity," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 173, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    16. Arts, Sara & Ong, Qiyan & Qiu, Jianying, 2020. "Measuring subjective decision confidence," MPRA Paper 106811, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    18. Özgür Evren, 2008. "On the existence of expected multi-utility representations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 35(3), pages 575-592, June.
    19. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2015. "Expected utility without full transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 707-722, December.
    20. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Yves Le Yaouanq, 2019. "Dispersed Behavior and Perceptions in Assortative Societies," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2180, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    21. Eric Danan, 2010. "Randomization vs. Selection: How to Choose in the Absence of Preference?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(3), pages 503-518, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:2448-:d:505012. 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.