利益相关者的意见是否多余?

Standards Pub Date : 2024-04-19 DOI:10.3390/standards4020003
Lars Carlsen
{"title":"利益相关者的意见是否多余?","authors":"Lars Carlsen","doi":"10.3390/standards4020003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decision-making, bringing in the opinions of several stakeholders, may be a rather time- and resource-demanding process. Partial order-based methods like generalized linear aggregation (GLA) and average ranking appear as advantageous tools for considering several stakeholders’ opinions simultaneously. The present study presents an approach where stakeholders’ opinions/weights are substituted by a series of randomly generated weight regimes, leading to virtually identical rankings as demonstrated through comparisons to examples where true stakeholder opinions are applied, as demonstrated through a study on food sustainability. This study showed a high degree of agreement between the ranking based on random data and that based on real stakeholder data. The method, which is a top-down approach to the decision process, appears to be a highly resource-reducing decision-supporting process. However, the method, by default, excludes the possibility of incorporating specific knowledge from, e.g., employees or other stakeholders in the decision process.","PeriodicalId":21933,"journal":{"name":"Standards","volume":" 79","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Stakeholders’ Opinions Redundant?\",\"authors\":\"Lars Carlsen\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/standards4020003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Decision-making, bringing in the opinions of several stakeholders, may be a rather time- and resource-demanding process. Partial order-based methods like generalized linear aggregation (GLA) and average ranking appear as advantageous tools for considering several stakeholders’ opinions simultaneously. The present study presents an approach where stakeholders’ opinions/weights are substituted by a series of randomly generated weight regimes, leading to virtually identical rankings as demonstrated through comparisons to examples where true stakeholder opinions are applied, as demonstrated through a study on food sustainability. This study showed a high degree of agreement between the ranking based on random data and that based on real stakeholder data. The method, which is a top-down approach to the decision process, appears to be a highly resource-reducing decision-supporting process. However, the method, by default, excludes the possibility of incorporating specific knowledge from, e.g., employees or other stakeholders in the decision process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Standards\",\"volume\":\" 79\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Standards\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/standards4020003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Standards","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/standards4020003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

决策制定需要考虑多个利益相关者的意见,这可能是一个相当耗时耗力的过程。基于偏序的方法,如广义线性聚合(GLA)和平均排序,似乎是同时考虑多个利益相关者意见的有利工具。本研究提出了一种方法,即用一系列随机生成的权重制度来替代利益相关者的意见/权重,从而得出几乎完全相同的排序,这一点通过与应用了真正的利益相关者意见的实例进行比较得到了证明,这一点通过一项关于食品可持续性的研究得到了证明。这项研究表明,基于随机数据的排名与基于真实利益相关者数据的排名高度一致。该方法是一种自上而下的决策过程方法,似乎是一种高度减少资源的决策支持过程。然而,该方法在默认情况下排除了将员工或其他利益相关者的具体知识纳入决策过程的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are Stakeholders’ Opinions Redundant?
Decision-making, bringing in the opinions of several stakeholders, may be a rather time- and resource-demanding process. Partial order-based methods like generalized linear aggregation (GLA) and average ranking appear as advantageous tools for considering several stakeholders’ opinions simultaneously. The present study presents an approach where stakeholders’ opinions/weights are substituted by a series of randomly generated weight regimes, leading to virtually identical rankings as demonstrated through comparisons to examples where true stakeholder opinions are applied, as demonstrated through a study on food sustainability. This study showed a high degree of agreement between the ranking based on random data and that based on real stakeholder data. The method, which is a top-down approach to the decision process, appears to be a highly resource-reducing decision-supporting process. However, the method, by default, excludes the possibility of incorporating specific knowledge from, e.g., employees or other stakeholders in the decision process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Towards Life Cycle Assessment for the Environmental Evaluation of District Heating and Cooling: A Critical Review Towards The Development of a Governance System for Central Purchasing Body Collaboration and Performance Benefit–Risk Assessment in Sport and Recreation: Historical Development and Review of AS ISO 4980:2023 Seasonal Data Cleaning for Sales with Chase Demand Strategy Are Stakeholders’ Opinions Redundant?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1