Identifying Operational Requirements to Select Suitable Decision Models for a Public Sector E-Procurement Decision Support System

Authors

  • Mohamed Adil University of Sheffield
  • Miguel Baptista Nunes University of Sheffield
  • Guo Chao Peng University of Sheffield

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4301/s1807-17752014000200001

Keywords:

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Decision Model, Focus Group, Public Sector, e-Procurement

Abstract

Public sector procurement should be a transparent and fair process. Strict legal requirements are enforced on public sector procurement to make it a standardised process. To make fair decisions on selecting suppliers, a practical method which adheres to legal requirements is important. The research that is the base for this paper aimed at identifying a suitable Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method for the specific legal and functional needs of the Maldivian Public Sector. To identify such operational requirements, a set of focus group interviews were conducted in the Maldives with public officials responsible for procurement decision making. Based on the operational requirements identified through focus groups, criteria-based evaluation is done on published MCDA methods to identify the suitable methods for e-procurement decision making. This paper describes the identification of the operational requirements and the results of the evaluation to select suitable decision models for the Maldivian context.

Author Biographies

Mohamed Adil, University of Sheffield

Mohamed Adil, Information School, University of Sheffield, Room 224, Regent Court, 211 Portobello Street, Sheffield S1 4DP, UK, E-mail: m.adil@sheffield.ac.uk

Miguel Baptista Nunes, University of Sheffield

Miguel Baptista Nunes, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, E-mail: j.m.nunes@sheffield.ac.uk

Guo Chao Peng, University of Sheffield

Guo Chao Peng, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, E-mail: g.c.peng@sheffield.ac.uk

References

Aghajani, M., & Hadi-Vencheh, A. (2011). A multiple attribute decision making model in the presence of grey numbers. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Management Science, Singapore.

Amponsah, C. T. (2011). Application of multi-criteria decision making process to determine critical success factors for procurement of capital projects under public-private partnerships. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 3(2), 107-129.

Arrowsmith, S., & Anderson, R. D. (Eds.). (2011). The WTO regime on government procurement: challenge and reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baily, P., Farmer, D., Jessop, D., & Jones, D. (1994). Purchasing Principles and Management (7th ed.). London: Pitman Publishing.

Barbour, R. S., & Kitzinger, J. (Eds.). (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice. London: SAGE.

Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Dordrecht Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bottani, E., & Rizzi, A. (2006). A fuzzy TOPSIS methodology to support outsourcing of logistics services. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11(4), 294-308.

Brown, R. B., Wright, R. D. J., Cloke, C. G., Morris, T. B., & Trumper, I. F. S. (1984). Government purchasing : a multi-department review of government contract and procurement procedures. London: HMSO.

Chamodrakas, I., Leftheriotis, I., & Martakos, D. (2011). In-depth analysis and simulation study of an innovative fuzzy approach for ranking alternatives in multiple attribute decision making problems based on TOPSIS. Applied Soft Computing, 11(1), 900-907.

Chen, S., Osman, M., & Peng, G. C. (2012). Information systems evaluation: methodologies and practical case studies. In P. Isaias & J. M. B. Nunes (Eds.), Information systems research and exploring social artifacts: Approaches and methodologies. Hershey, USA: IGI Global.

Dhaulathuge Maaliyyathu Gaanoonu 2006 (Maldives).

Dhaulathuge Maaliyyathuge Gavaaidhu 2009 (Maldives).

England, W. B. (1967). The purchasing system. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin.

Falagario, M., Sciancalepore, F., Costantino, N., & Pietroforte, R. (2012). Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. European Journal of Operational Research, 218(2), 523-529.

Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: SAGE.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Guitouni, A., & Martel, J.-M. (1998). Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 109(2), 501-521.

Huang, S.-l. (2011). Designing utility-based recommender systems for e-commerce: Evaluation of preference-elicitation methods. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10(4), 398–407.

Jahanshahloo, G. R., Lotfi, F. H., & Davoodi, A. R. (2009). Extension of TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data: Interval efficiency. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49(5-6), 1137-1142.

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Analyzing and reporting focus group results. London: Sage.

Leenders, M. R., & Fearon, H. E. (1997). Purchasing and supply management (7th ed.). Chicago: Irwin.

Lloyd-Evans, S. (2006). Focus groups. In V. Desai & R. B. Potter (Eds.), Doing development research (pp. 153-162). London: Sage publication.

Min, H. (1994). International supplier selection: A multi-attribute utility approach. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 24(5), 24-33.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

Moshkovich, H., Mechitov, A., & Olson, D. (2005). Verbal decision analysis. In J. Figueira, S. Greco & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis : state of the art surveys (pp. 609-637). Boston: Springer.

Olson, D. L. (2004). Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 40, 721-727.

Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455.

Rowlinson, S., & McDermott, P. (Eds.). (1999). Procurement Systems: A guide to best practice in construction. London: E & FN Spon.

Sanayei, A., Mousavi, S. F., Abdi, M. R., & Mohaghar, A. (2008). An integrated group decision-making process for supplier selection and order allocation using multi-attribute utility theory and linear programming. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 345(7), 731–747.

Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods : a comparative study. Dordrecht ; Boston, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tsaur, R.-C. (2011). Decision risk analysis for an interval TOPSIS method. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(8), 4295–4304.

Weele, A. J. v. (2000). Purchasing and supply chain management : analysis, planning and practice (2nd ed.). London: Business Press.

Weele, A. J. v. (2010). Purchasing and supply chain management : analysis, strategy, planning and practice (5th ed.). Andover: Cengage Learning.

Downloads

Published

2014-08-21

How to Cite

Adil, M., Nunes, M. B., & Peng, G. C. (2014). Identifying Operational Requirements to Select Suitable Decision Models for a Public Sector E-Procurement Decision Support System. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 11(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.4301/s1807-17752014000200001

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 2 (2014)

Section

Articles

License

Terms and Conditions The articles are author's responsibility. The publisher allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and to retain publishing rights without restrictions. When submitting an article to JISTEM, authors are responsible for acknowledge and list any conflict of interest and financial support that may have influenced on the research results. Authors are required to sign an official copyright form. CC licensing You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Notices: You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation. No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material. The aim of the Directory of Open Access Journals is to increase the visibility and ease of use of open access scientific and scholarly journals thereby promoting their increased usage and impact. The articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles Creative Commons License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Al papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Journal's policy of screening for plagiarism: Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered.