ارزیابی کیفیت خدمت دهی با رویکرد ترکیبی مدل سازی ساختاری تفسیری، فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی فازی، تودیم توسعه یافته در سیستم حمل و نقل ریلی (موردی : استان قم)

نویسندگان
دانشگاه قم
چکیده
صنعت حمل­ و­نقل ریلی یکی از صنایع رو به رشد در ایران محسوب می­شود و رقابت در این صنعت همواره رو به افزایش بوده و ‌این موضوع موجب شده شناسایی وضعیت شرکت‌ها­ی فعال در این حوزه مسئله بسیار مهم بشمار آید. هر شرکت دارای یک یا چند مزیت رقابتی می‌باشد که موجب برتری آن نسبت به رقبای خود می‌شود. کیفیت خدمات ارائه شده در این شرکت­ها می‌تواند برای هر کدام از آن‌ها یک مزیت رقابتی مهم به حساب آید. هدف این پژوهش مطالعه بر روی عوامل تاثیرگذار بر روی کیفیت خدمت­دهی در حوزه حمل نقل ریلی و رتبه بندی شرکت های فعال در حمل‌ و نقل ریلی ایستگاه راه آهن شهر قم بر اساس این عوامل می‌باشد. در این پژوهش ابتدا سلسله مراتب معیارها بر اساس روش مدل سازی ساختاری تفسیری بدست آمده است و پس از آن اهمیت آن ها با روش فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی فازی محاسبه شده است. در انتها با روش تودیم (مخفف تصمیم گیری چندمعیاره و تعاملی در زبان پرتغالی) توسعه یافته شرکت­ها رتبه ­بندی شده ­اند که نتایج نشان می­ دهد که شرکت فدک به عنوان بهترین شرکت از نظر کیفیت خدمت­ دهی انتخاب شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله English

Service quality assessment with a combined approach to interpretive structural modeling, fuzzy AHP, extended TODIM in the rail transport system (Study of Qom)

نویسندگان English

Jalal Rezaeenour
ali shahidian
hamed zaker
qom university
چکیده English

Rail transport industry is one of the growing industries in Iran, and competition in this industry has always increased, and this has led to the recognition of the status of companies active in this area is very important. Each company has one or more competitive advantages that make it superior to its competitors. The quality of services provided by companies can be considered as a competitive advantage for each of them. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors affecting the quality of service in the railway transportation area and ranking of the companies active in the rail transport of Qom railway station based on these factors. In this research, the hierarchy of criteria was obtained using interpretive structural modeling method, and then their significance was calculated by fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method. Finally, companies have been ranked by the Extended TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese of interactive and multiple attribute decision making) methods, which showed that Fadak company has been selected as the best company in terms of service quality.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Service Quality Evaluation
Rail Transport
ISM
Fuzzy AHP
Extended TODIM
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., Omrani, H., & Panahi, A. (2011). A hybrid approach based on SERVQUAL and fuzzy TOPSIS for evaluating transportation service quality. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61(3), 637-646.
Aydin, N. (2017). A fuzzy-based multi-dimensional and multi-period service quality evaluation outline for rail transit systems. Transport Policy, 55, 87-98.
Celik, E., Aydin, N., & Gumus, A. T. (2014). A multiattribute customer satisfaction evaluation approach for rail transit network: A real case study for Istanbul, Turkey. Transport Policy, 36, 283-293.
Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 95(3), 649-655.
Chen, I. S. (2016). A combined MCDM model based on DEMATEL and ANP for the selection of airline service quality improvement criteria: A study based on the Taiwanese airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 57, 7-18.
de Oña, J., de Oña, R., Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2013). Perceived service quality in bus transit service: a structural equation approach. Transport Policy, 29, 219-226.
Fan, Z. P., Zhang, X., Chen, F. D., & Liu, Y. (2013). Extended TODIM method for hybrid multiple attribute decision making problems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 42, 40-48.
Filipović, S., Tica, S., Živanović, P., & Milovanović, B. (2009). Comparative analysis of the basic features of the expected and perceived quality of mass passenger public transport service in Belgrade. Transport, 24(4), 265-273.
Gomes, L. F. A. M. (2009). An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. European Journal of Operational Research, 193(1), 204-211.
Gomes, L. F. A. M., & Lima, M. M. P. P. (1992). TODIM: Basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 16(4), 113-127.
Hassan, M. N., Hawas, Y. E., & Ahmed, K. (2013). A multi-dimensional framework for evaluating the transit service performance. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 50, 47-61.
Ji, G. J. (2008). Reverse Logistics Operation Management Based on Virtual Enterprises and Complaint Service Manage-ment. Journal of Service Science and Management, 1(01), 51.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics information management, 16(6), 382-394.
Krohling, R. A., & de Souza, T. T. (2012). Combining prospect theory and fuzzy numbers to multi-criteria decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(13), 11487-11493.
Lee, A. H., Chen, W. C., & Chang, C. J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert systems with applications, 34(1), 96-107.
Liu, P. D., & Wang, T. J. (2007). A method for multiple attribute decision making with triangular fuzzy number and partial attribute weight information. Journal of Information and Computational Science, 4(3), 1017-1022.
Nassereddine, M., & Eskandari, H. (2017). An integrated MCDM approach to evaluate public transportation systems in Tehran. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 106, 427-439.
Nishat Faisal, M., Banwet, D. K., & Shankar, R. (2006). Supply chain risk mitigation: modeling the enablers. Business Process Management Journal, 12(4), 535-552.
Redman, L., Friman, M., Gärling, T., & Hartig, T. (2013). Quality attributes of public transport that attract car users: A research review. Transport Policy, 25, 119-127.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning. Priority Setting. Resource Allocation, MacGraw-Hill, New York International Book Company, 287.
Sen, D. K., Datta, S., & Mahapatra, S. S. (2017). Extension of TODIM for decision making in fuzzy environment: a case empirical research on selection of industrial robot. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 26(2), 238-276.
Singh, A., & Prasher, A. (2017). Measuring healthcare service quality from patients’ perspective: using Fuzzy AHP application. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1-17.
Sivilevičius, H., & Maskeliūnaite, L. (2010). The criteria for identifying the quality of passengers’ transportation by railway and their ranking using AHP method. Transport, 25(4), 368-381.
Su, A. Y. L. (2004). Customer satisfaction measurement practice in Taiwan hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23(4), 397-408.
Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, 17, 105-116.
Wang, L., Wang, Y. M., Rodríguez, R. M., & Martínez, L. (2017, July). A hesitant fuzzy linguistic model for emergency decision making based on fuzzy TODIM method. In Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2017 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Wang, Y., & Yeo, G. T. (2017). Intermodal route selection for cargo transportation from Korea to Central Asia by adopting Fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy ELECTRE I methods. Maritime Policy & Management, 1-16.
Warfield, J. N. (1974). Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (1), 81-87.
Yu, C. S. (2002). A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems. Computers & Operations Research, 29(14), 1969-2001.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8(3), 338-353.
Zimmermann, H. J. (1978). Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective functions. Fuzzy sets and systems, 1(1), 45-55.