Performance benchmarking of European postal incumbents with TOPSIS and BMW-TOPSIS

IF 3.8 3区 经济学 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS
Bojan Jovanović, Dragana Šarac, Nataša Čačić
{"title":"Performance benchmarking of European postal incumbents with TOPSIS and BMW-TOPSIS","authors":"Bojan Jovanović,&nbsp;Dragana Šarac,&nbsp;Nataša Čačić","doi":"10.1016/j.jup.2024.101845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Given the uncertain position and specific role of postal incumbents in Europe, creating a framework for mutual comparison is essential. In this regard, this study aims to develop a methodology that will compare their relevant performance. On the other hand, management and host countries can be promptly alerted if something hinders postal incumbents from providing optimal performance. Two methods have been applied: the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and its variation, Best-Middle-Worst (BMW)-TOPSIS, on a sample of 16 incumbents from the EU and candidate countries. The results indicate that a finer adjustment is achieved in terms of ranking by the BMW-TOPSIS method. An open question regarding the selection of postal incumbents is whether it is necessary to strictly adhere to the rule that the number of their attributes is less than or equal to half of the attributes of the Middle point. The example of Latvia shows that if an alternative contains values from which the Best point is composed, an exception can be made in the selection. The development of the Middle point provides an opportunity for a more in-depth analysis, especially in cases where the values of the criteria differ significantly. Unlike classical TOPSIS, it offers a clearer visualization that supports the understanding of postal incumbents and their performance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23554,"journal":{"name":"Utilities Policy","volume":"91 ","pages":"Article 101845"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utilities Policy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178724001395","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given the uncertain position and specific role of postal incumbents in Europe, creating a framework for mutual comparison is essential. In this regard, this study aims to develop a methodology that will compare their relevant performance. On the other hand, management and host countries can be promptly alerted if something hinders postal incumbents from providing optimal performance. Two methods have been applied: the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and its variation, Best-Middle-Worst (BMW)-TOPSIS, on a sample of 16 incumbents from the EU and candidate countries. The results indicate that a finer adjustment is achieved in terms of ranking by the BMW-TOPSIS method. An open question regarding the selection of postal incumbents is whether it is necessary to strictly adhere to the rule that the number of their attributes is less than or equal to half of the attributes of the Middle point. The example of Latvia shows that if an alternative contains values from which the Best point is composed, an exception can be made in the selection. The development of the Middle point provides an opportunity for a more in-depth analysis, especially in cases where the values of the criteria differ significantly. Unlike classical TOPSIS, it offers a clearer visualization that supports the understanding of postal incumbents and their performance.
利用 TOPSIS 和 BMW-TOPSIS 对欧洲邮政现有企业的绩效进行基准测试
鉴于欧洲邮政运营商的不确定地位和特殊作用,建立一个相互比较的框架至关重要。为此,本研究旨在制定一种方法,对它们的相关绩效进行比较。另一方面,如果有什么因素阻碍了邮政企业提供最佳服务,管理部门和东道国可以及时得到提醒。在对欧盟和候选国的 16 个邮政企业进行抽样调查时,采用了两种方法:"与理想方案相似度排序技术"(TOPSIS)及其变体 "最佳-中间-最差(BMW)-TOPSIS"。结果表明,BMW-TOPSIS 方法在排序方面实现了更精细的调整。关于邮政现任者的选择,一个尚未解决的问题是,是否有必要严格遵守其属性数小于或等于中间点属性数一半的规则。拉脱维亚的例子表明,如果一个备选方案包含了由最佳点组成的值,那么在选择时就可以破例。中间点的发展为更深入的分析提供了机会,特别是在标准值相差很大的情况下。与传统的 TOPSIS 方法不同的是,它提供了一种更清晰的可视化方法,有助于了解邮政现任者及其表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Utilities Policy
Utilities Policy ENERGY & FUELS-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
66 days
期刊介绍: Utilities Policy is deliberately international, interdisciplinary, and intersectoral. Articles address utility trends and issues in both developed and developing economies. Authors and reviewers come from various disciplines, including economics, political science, sociology, law, finance, accounting, management, and engineering. Areas of focus include the utility and network industries providing essential electricity, natural gas, water and wastewater, solid waste, communications, broadband, postal, and public transportation services. Utilities Policy invites submissions that apply various quantitative and qualitative methods. Contributions are welcome from both established and emerging scholars as well as accomplished practitioners. Interdisciplinary, comparative, and applied works are encouraged. Submissions to the journal should have a clear focus on governance, performance, and/or analysis of public utilities with an aim toward informing the policymaking process and providing recommendations as appropriate. Relevant topics and issues include but are not limited to industry structures and ownership, market design and dynamics, economic development, resource planning, system modeling, accounting and finance, infrastructure investment, supply and demand efficiency, strategic management and productivity, network operations and integration, supply chains, adaptation and flexibility, service-quality standards, benchmarking and metrics, benefit-cost analysis, behavior and incentives, pricing and demand response, economic and environmental regulation, regulatory performance and impact, restructuring and deregulation, and policy institutions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信