使用多标准决策分析方法选择最具经济优势的投标

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Public Procurement Pub Date : 2022-03-10 DOI:10.1108/jopp-06-2021-0040
Juha-Matti Lehtonen, K. Virtanen
{"title":"使用多标准决策分析方法选择最具经济优势的投标","authors":"Juha-Matti Lehtonen, K. Virtanen","doi":"10.1108/jopp-06-2021-0040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to propose and test a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach based on an additive value function (AVF) to select the most economically advantageous tender under European Union public procurement regulations.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA case study in which the AVF tender evaluation model is constructed by the procurement personnel and the results of the original, real-life public procurement evaluation model are compared to those discovered by the MCDA approach.\n\n\nFindings\nThe AVF model captures the preferences of the procurement authority in a more reliable and transparent manner than commonly used evaluation models based on scoring formulas.\n\n\nPractical implications\nWhile commonly used in public procurement, relative scoring formulas can neither present the preferences of a procurement unit accurately nor do they enable bidders to draft bids according to these preferences. The proposed MCDA approach can achieve both.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe contribution of this paper is threefold. First, the successful construction of the AVF model with procurement personnel is introduced. Second, the model is used in an actual, real-life case. Third, a thoughtful comparison of features, structures and results of the AVF model and the evaluation model using scoring formulas is presented.\n","PeriodicalId":45136,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Procurement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing the most economically advantageous tender using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach\",\"authors\":\"Juha-Matti Lehtonen, K. Virtanen\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jopp-06-2021-0040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe purpose of this paper is to propose and test a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach based on an additive value function (AVF) to select the most economically advantageous tender under European Union public procurement regulations.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nA case study in which the AVF tender evaluation model is constructed by the procurement personnel and the results of the original, real-life public procurement evaluation model are compared to those discovered by the MCDA approach.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe AVF model captures the preferences of the procurement authority in a more reliable and transparent manner than commonly used evaluation models based on scoring formulas.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nWhile commonly used in public procurement, relative scoring formulas can neither present the preferences of a procurement unit accurately nor do they enable bidders to draft bids according to these preferences. The proposed MCDA approach can achieve both.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe contribution of this paper is threefold. First, the successful construction of the AVF model with procurement personnel is introduced. Second, the model is used in an actual, real-life case. Third, a thoughtful comparison of features, structures and results of the AVF model and the evaluation model using scoring formulas is presented.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Procurement\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Procurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jopp-06-2021-0040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Procurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jopp-06-2021-0040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文的目的是提出并测试一种基于附加价值函数(AVF)的多标准决策分析(MCDA)方法,以选择欧盟公共采购法规下最具经济优势的招标。设计/方法/途径一个由采购人员构建AVF投标评估模型的案例研究,并将原始的、现实的公共采购评估模型的结果与MCDA方法发现的结果进行比较。结果:与基于评分公式的常用评估模型相比,AVF模型以更可靠和透明的方式捕捉了采购当局的偏好。实际意义虽然在公共采购中常用,但相对评分公式既不能准确地呈现采购单位的偏好,也不能使投标人根据这些偏好起草标书。提出的MCDA方法可以实现这两个目标。本文的贡献有三个方面。首先,介绍了有采购人员参与的AVF模型的成功构建。其次,该模型是在一个实际的、现实的案例中使用的。第三,比较了AVF模型和基于评分公式的评价模型的特点、结构和结果。
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
Choosing the most economically advantageous tender using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose and test a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach based on an additive value function (AVF) to select the most economically advantageous tender under European Union public procurement regulations. Design/methodology/approach A case study in which the AVF tender evaluation model is constructed by the procurement personnel and the results of the original, real-life public procurement evaluation model are compared to those discovered by the MCDA approach. Findings The AVF model captures the preferences of the procurement authority in a more reliable and transparent manner than commonly used evaluation models based on scoring formulas. Practical implications While commonly used in public procurement, relative scoring formulas can neither present the preferences of a procurement unit accurately nor do they enable bidders to draft bids according to these preferences. The proposed MCDA approach can achieve both. Originality/value The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, the successful construction of the AVF model with procurement personnel is introduced. Second, the model is used in an actual, real-life case. Third, a thoughtful comparison of features, structures and results of the AVF model and the evaluation model using scoring formulas is presented.
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
Journal of Public Procurement
Journal of Public Procurement PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Procurement (JOPP) seeks to further the understanding of public procurement. JOPP publishes original, high-quality research that explores the theories and practices of public procurement. The journal ensures that high-quality research is collected and disseminated widely to both academics and practitioners, and provides a forum for debate. It covers all subjects relating to the purchase of goods, services and works by public organizations at a local, regional, national and international level. JOPP is multi-disciplinary, with a broad approach towards methods and styles of research as well as the level of issues addressed. The Journal welcomes the submission of papers from researchers internationally. The journal welcomes research papers, narrative essays, exemplar cases, forums, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Approaching transcendence: a conceptual discussion on procurement fraud, education, professionalism maturity, ethics and implications Procurement practices and operational performance: a study of linear and curvilinear relationships in a developing economy The predicting role of sustainable supplier selection on lead-time performance in public procurement: relational capability as a moderator Challenges of black construction professionals with Black Economic Empowerment as a procurement policy in South Africa Streamlining professionalisation in public procurement: Romanian competency frameworks as a case study (Part B)
×
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