采用多标准方法选择最具经济效益的标书

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Public Procurement Pub Date : 2019-09-02 DOI:10.1108/JOPP-05-2018-0020
G. Marcarelli, Andrea Nappi
{"title":"采用多标准方法选择最具经济效益的标书","authors":"G. Marcarelli, Andrea Nappi","doi":"10.1108/JOPP-05-2018-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to show how the proposed approach (two analytic hierarchy process [AHP] models) may allow dealing with the best tender selection process in an organic and simple way and ensure the consistency check of the judgements, the necessary step for having reliable results. At first, this paper highlights some critical issues regarding the weighted sum model (WSM) and the algorithms frequently used to evaluate the most economic advantageous tender. Then, it proposes to extend the AHP approach to the evaluation of both the qualitative and quantitative components of a public procurement award. Finally, the WSM and the AHP are applied to the same case study to show, step by step, some criticisms of the former and some advantages of the latter.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis paper proposes to apply two AHP models to evaluate both qualitative and quantitative components of a public tender. The quality and cost models allow to identify and select the tender associated with the highest quality/cost ratio.\n\n\nFindings\nThe assessment of the WSM and the AHP models, and some differences between them, build upon their application as an example of public procurement. A case study is used as a teaching device (Yin, 2003) to highlight why the AHP may provide different results. In particular, an important issue concerning the evaluation of qualitative requirements is explored: the consistency of judgements expressed by the committee members.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThis approach provides analytical tools for public management that allow appropriate implementation of their management function and allow a realisation of the strategic objectives of European Union law and Italian legislation on public procurement. It would help managers to prioritise their goals and criteria and evaluate them in a scientific way. The model integrates multiple qualitative and quantitative criteria, simplifies the selection process, achieves optimal use of funds and leads to cost savings. It allows to reduce the discretional power of both the contracting issuer, in the choice of the formula to adopt for calculating the coefficients, and the committee members, allowing tender evaluation to have more trust and ensure the fairness of public procurement matters and quality of the object purchased.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper proposes the use of two hierarchical models to evaluate qualitative and quantitative requirements and provide the ranking among several tenders.\n","PeriodicalId":45136,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Procurement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JOPP-05-2018-0020","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multicriteria approach to select the most economically advantageous tender\",\"authors\":\"G. Marcarelli, Andrea Nappi\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/JOPP-05-2018-0020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis paper aims to show how the proposed approach (two analytic hierarchy process [AHP] models) may allow dealing with the best tender selection process in an organic and simple way and ensure the consistency check of the judgements, the necessary step for having reliable results. At first, this paper highlights some critical issues regarding the weighted sum model (WSM) and the algorithms frequently used to evaluate the most economic advantageous tender. Then, it proposes to extend the AHP approach to the evaluation of both the qualitative and quantitative components of a public procurement award. Finally, the WSM and the AHP are applied to the same case study to show, step by step, some criticisms of the former and some advantages of the latter.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis paper proposes to apply two AHP models to evaluate both qualitative and quantitative components of a public tender. The quality and cost models allow to identify and select the tender associated with the highest quality/cost ratio.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe assessment of the WSM and the AHP models, and some differences between them, build upon their application as an example of public procurement. A case study is used as a teaching device (Yin, 2003) to highlight why the AHP may provide different results. In particular, an important issue concerning the evaluation of qualitative requirements is explored: the consistency of judgements expressed by the committee members.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nThis approach provides analytical tools for public management that allow appropriate implementation of their management function and allow a realisation of the strategic objectives of European Union law and Italian legislation on public procurement. It would help managers to prioritise their goals and criteria and evaluate them in a scientific way. The model integrates multiple qualitative and quantitative criteria, simplifies the selection process, achieves optimal use of funds and leads to cost savings. It allows to reduce the discretional power of both the contracting issuer, in the choice of the formula to adopt for calculating the coefficients, and the committee members, allowing tender evaluation to have more trust and ensure the fairness of public procurement matters and quality of the object purchased.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis paper proposes the use of two hierarchical models to evaluate qualitative and quantitative requirements and provide the ranking among several tenders.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Procurement\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JOPP-05-2018-0020\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Procurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-05-2018-0020\",\"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-05-2018-0020","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: 11

摘要

目的本文旨在展示所提出的方法(两个层次分析法模型)如何以有机和简单的方式处理最佳投标选择过程,并确保判断的一致性检查,这是获得可靠结果的必要步骤。首先,本文重点讨论了加权和模型(WSM)和常用算法评估最具经济优势投标的一些关键问题。然后,它建议将AHP方法扩展到公共采购奖励的定性和定量评估。最后,将WSM和AHP应用于同一案例研究,逐步展示了对前者的一些批评和后者的一些优点。设计/方法论/方法本文提出应用两个AHP模型来评估公开招标的定性和定量组成部分。质量和成本模型允许识别和选择与最高质量/成本比率相关联的投标。发现WSM和AHP模型的评估,以及它们之间的一些差异,建立在它们作为公共采购示例的应用之上。案例研究被用作教学手段(Yin,2003),以强调为什么AHP可以提供不同的结果。特别是,探讨了评价质量要求的一个重要问题:委员会成员所作判断的一致性。社会影响这一方法为公共管理提供了分析工具,使其能够适当履行管理职能,并实现欧盟法律和意大利公共采购立法的战略目标。这将有助于管理者优先考虑他们的目标和标准,并以科学的方式对其进行评估。该模型集成了多个定性和定量标准,简化了选择过程,实现了资金的最佳使用,并节省了成本。它可以减少订约签发人和委员会成员在选择计算系数的公式时的自由裁量权,使评标更有信任,并确保公共采购事项的公平性和采购对象的质量。原创性/价值本文提出使用两个层次模型来评估定性和定量需求,并提供几个投标书之间的排名。
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
Multicriteria approach to select the most economically advantageous tender
Purpose This paper aims to show how the proposed approach (two analytic hierarchy process [AHP] models) may allow dealing with the best tender selection process in an organic and simple way and ensure the consistency check of the judgements, the necessary step for having reliable results. At first, this paper highlights some critical issues regarding the weighted sum model (WSM) and the algorithms frequently used to evaluate the most economic advantageous tender. Then, it proposes to extend the AHP approach to the evaluation of both the qualitative and quantitative components of a public procurement award. Finally, the WSM and the AHP are applied to the same case study to show, step by step, some criticisms of the former and some advantages of the latter. Design/methodology/approach This paper proposes to apply two AHP models to evaluate both qualitative and quantitative components of a public tender. The quality and cost models allow to identify and select the tender associated with the highest quality/cost ratio. Findings The assessment of the WSM and the AHP models, and some differences between them, build upon their application as an example of public procurement. A case study is used as a teaching device (Yin, 2003) to highlight why the AHP may provide different results. In particular, an important issue concerning the evaluation of qualitative requirements is explored: the consistency of judgements expressed by the committee members. Social implications This approach provides analytical tools for public management that allow appropriate implementation of their management function and allow a realisation of the strategic objectives of European Union law and Italian legislation on public procurement. It would help managers to prioritise their goals and criteria and evaluate them in a scientific way. The model integrates multiple qualitative and quantitative criteria, simplifies the selection process, achieves optimal use of funds and leads to cost savings. It allows to reduce the discretional power of both the contracting issuer, in the choice of the formula to adopt for calculating the coefficients, and the committee members, allowing tender evaluation to have more trust and ensure the fairness of public procurement matters and quality of the object purchased. Originality/value This paper proposes the use of two hierarchical models to evaluate qualitative and quantitative requirements and provide the ranking among several tenders.
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