IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i5p2448-d505012.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 & Saeid 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, January.
    2. Theodosios Dimopoulos & Stefano Sacchetto, 2014. "Merger Activity in Industry Equilibrium," GSIA Working Papers 2012-E47, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Dimopoulos, Theodosios & Sacchetto, Stefano, 2017. "Merger activity in industry equilibrium," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 200-226.
    11. 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.
    12. Antoniou, Antonios & Arbour, Philippe & Zhao, Huainan, 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    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. Jacques Dreze, 2012. "Nested identification of subjective probabilities," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 259-271, March.
    2. McClellon, Morgan, 2016. "Confidence models of incomplete preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 30-34.
    3. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2015. "Harsanyi's Aggregation Theorem with Incomplete Preferences," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 61-69, February.
    4. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    5. Dubra, Juan, 2011. "Continuity and completeness under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 80-81, January.
    6. Bos, Martijn & Demirer, Riza & Gupta, Rangan & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar, 2018. "Oil returns and volatility: The role of mergers and acquisitions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 62-69.
    7. Cosimo Munari, 2020. "Multi-utility representations of incomplete preferences induced by set-valued risk measures," Papers 2009.04151, arXiv.org.
    8. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2023. "Tailored recommendations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 60(1), pages 15-34, January.
    9. Pivato, Marcus, 2010. "Risky social choice with approximate interpersonal comparisons of well-being," MPRA Paper 25222, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Larkin, Yelena & Lyandres, Evgeny, 2019. "Inefficient mergers," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    11. Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff and Kyoungwon Seo, 2011. "Relevance and Symmetry," Economics Series Working Papers 539, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    12. Xiaosheng Mu, 2021. "Sequential Choice with Incomplete Preferences," Working Papers 2021-35, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    13. 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.
    14. McCarthy, David & Mikkola, Kalle & Thomas, Teruji, 2016. "Utilitarianism with and without expected utility," MPRA Paper 72578, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Amparo M. Mármol & Luisa Monroy & M. Ángeles Caraballo & Asunción Zapata, 2017. "Equilibria with vector-valued utilities and preference information. The analysis of a mixed duopoly," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 365-383, October.
    16. Bosi, Gianni & Herden, Gerhard, 2012. "Continuous multi-utility representations of preorders," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 212-218.
    17. Leonardo Pejsachowicz & Séverine Toussaert, 2017. "Choice deferral, indecisiveness and preference for flexibility," Post-Print hal-02862199, HAL.
    18. Buturak, Gökhan & Evren, Özgür, 2017. "Choice overload and asymmetric regret," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), September.
    19. Susumu Cato, 2013. "Quasi-decisiveness, quasi-ultrafilter, and social quasi-orderings," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(1), pages 169-202, June.
    20. Eric Danan, 2021. "Partial utilitarianism," Working Papers hal-03327900, HAL.

    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.