IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1201.1604.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deriving consensus rankings via multicriteria decision making methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Amy Poh Ai Ling
  • Mohamad Nasir Saludin
  • Masao Mukaidono

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to take a cautionary stance to the impact of the marketing mix on customer satisfaction, via a case study deriving consensus rankings for benchmarking on selected retail stores in Malaysia. Design/methodology/approach - The ELECTRE I model is used in deriving consensus rankings via multicriteria decision making method for benchmarking base on the marketing mix model 4P's. Descriptive analysis is used to analyze best practice among the four marketing tactics. Findings - Outranking methods in consequence constitute a strong base on which to found the entire structure of the behavioral theory of benchmarking applied to development of marketing strategy. Research limitations/implications - This study looks only at a limited part of the puzzle of how consumer satisfaction translates into behavioral outcomes. Practical implications - The study provides managers with guidance on how to generate a rough outline of potential marketing activities that can be used to take advantage of capabilities and convert weaknesses and threats. Originality/value - The paper interestingly portrays the effective usage of multicriteria decision-making and ranking method to help marketing managers predict their marketing trends.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy Poh Ai Ling & Mohamad Nasir Saludin & Masao Mukaidono, 2012. "Deriving consensus rankings via multicriteria decision making methodology," Papers 1201.1604, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1201.1604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1604
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John T. Buchanan & Erez J. Henig & Mordecai I. Henig, 1998. "Objectivity and subjectivity in thedecision making process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 333-345, January.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    3. Lucio Biggiero & Domenico Laise, 2003. "Choosing and evaluating technology policy: A multicriteria approach," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 13-23, February.
    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. Mortenson, Michael J. & Doherty, Neil F. & Robinson, Stewart, 2015. "Operational research from Taylorism to Terabytes: A research agenda for the analytics age," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 583-595.
    2. Alina Cristea, 2015. "HOW WE CAN RESTORE THE BALANCE IN THE ROMANIAN ENERGY MARKET (International Conference "Recent Advances in Economic and Social Research", 13-14 mai 2015, București)," Institute for Economic Forecasting Conference Proceedings 151201, Institute for Economic Forecasting.
    3. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    4. Fatih Yiğit & Şakir Esnaf, 2021. "A new Fuzzy C-Means and AHP-based three-phased approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1517-1528, August.
    5. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    6. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    7. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    8. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    9. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    10. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    13. Jitendar Kumar Khatri & Bhimaraya Metri, 2016. "SWOT-AHP Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing Strategy Selection: A Case of Indian SME," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 17(5), pages 1211-1226, October.
    14. Vlachokostas, Ch. & Michailidou, A.V. & Achillas, Ch., 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    15. Cui, Ye & E, Hanyu & Pedrycz, Witold & Fayek, Aminah Robinson, 2022. "A granular multicriteria group decision making for renewable energy planning problems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 1047-1059.
    16. Jha, Madan K. & Chowdary, V.M. & Kulkarni, Y. & Mal, B.C., 2014. "Rainwater harvesting planning using geospatial techniques and multicriteria decision analysis," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 96-111.
    17. Om Prakash Mishra & Mahesh Chand & Krishan Kumar & Prashant Mishra, 2023. "Investigating applicability of green supply chain management in manufacturing sectors," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(4), pages 1183-1196, August.
    18. David Han-Min Wang & Quang Linh Huynh, 2013. "Mediating Role of Knowledge Management in Effect of Management Accounting Practices on Firm Performance," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, ScientificPapers.org, vol. 3(3), pages 1-10, June.
    19. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    20. Neha Arora & Naresh Kumar, 2021. "Does Financial Inclusion Promote Human Development? Evidence from India," Jindal Journal of Business Research, , vol. 10(2), pages 163-184, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:1201.1604. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.