Sustainability and Kaizen: Business Model Trends in Healthcare

[EN] Kaizen, or continuous improvement, is a management tool that allows the identification of activities that have no value in the processes examined. This identification leads to the improvement of these processes within any organization and promotes economic and social sustainability, and to a lesser extent environmental sustainability. Kaizen, already widely and successfully employed in the industrial sector, is now being applied in the health sector. However, the health sector tends to publish only the results of how processes have been improved in finely focused areas and the resulting benefits. The majority of the benefits focus on time and cost reduction. In this study, the authors carried out a bibliometric analysis using the Scimat program, which maps the thematic evolution of Kaizen in the health sector and its relationship with sustainability, in order to promote the interest of the health sector for this type of process improvement. The findings confirm that the implementation of Kaizen is recent and constantly evolves and grows, and that it can help economic and social sustainability, and to a lesser extent environmental sustainability.Morell-Santandreu, O.; Santandreu Mascarell, C.; García Sabater, JJ. (2020). Sustainability and Kaizen: Business Model Trends in Healthcare. Sustainability. 12(24):1-28. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410622S1281224Sepetis, A. (2019). Sustainable Health Care Management in the Greek Health Care Sector. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 07(12), 386-402. doi:10.4236/jss.2019.712030Sustainable Healthcare—Working towards the Paradigm Shift https://www.anhinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/old/files/100617SustainableHealthcare_White-Paper.pdfWeisz, U., Haas, W., Pelikan, J. M., & Schmied, H. (2011). Sustainable Hospitals: A Socio-Ecological Approach. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 20(3), 191-198. doi:10.14512/gaia.20.3.10McGain, F., & Naylor, C. (2014). Environmental sustainability in hospitals – a systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 19(4), 245-252. doi:10.1177/1355819614534836D’Andreamatteo, A., Ianni, L., Lega, F., & Sargiacomo, M. (2015). Lean in healthcare: A comprehensive review. Health Policy, 119(9), 1197-1209. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.02.002Norazlan, A. N. I., Habidin, N. F., Roslan, M. H., & Zainudin, M. Z. (2014). Investigation of kaizen blitz and sustainable performance for Malaysian healthcare industry. International Journal of Quality and Innovation, 2(3/4), 272. doi:10.1504/ijqi.2014.066381Patient Safety in Developing and Transitional Countries 2012 www.who.int/patientsafety/research/emro_afro_report.pdfElmontsri, M., Almashrafi, A., Banarsee, R., & Majeed, A. (2017). Status of patient safety culture in Arab countries: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 7(2), e013487. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013487Paul Brunet, A., & New, S. (2003). Kaizenin Japan: an empirical study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(12), 1426-1446. doi:10.1108/01443570310506704Ferreira, D. M. C., & Saurin, T. A. (2019). A complexity theory perspective of kaizen: a study in healthcare. Production Planning & Control, 30(16), 1337-1353. doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1615649Chahal, H., & Fayza, N. A. (2016). An exploratory study on kaizen muda and organisational sustainability: patients’ perspective. International Journal of Lean Enterprise Research, 2(1), 81. doi:10.1504/ijler.2016.078249Ishijima, H., Nishikido, K., Teshima, M., Nishikawa, S., & Gawad, E. A. (2019). Introducing the «5S-KAIZEN-TQM» approach into public hospitals in Egypt. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 33(1), 89-109. doi:10.1108/ijhcqa-06-2018-0143Mazzocato, P., Stenfors-Hayes, T., von Thiele Schwarz, U., Hasson, H., & Nyström, M. E. (2016). Kaizen practice in healthcare: a qualitative analysis of hospital employees’ suggestions for improvement. BMJ Open, 6(7), e012256. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012256Gowen, C. R., McFadden, K. L., & Settaluri, S. (2012). Contrasting continuous quality improvement, Six Sigma, and lean management for enhanced outcomes in US hospitals. American Journal of Business, 27(2), 133-153. doi:10.1108/19355181211274442Grove, A. L., Meredith, J. O., MacIntyre, M., Angelis, J., & Neailey, K. (2010). UK health visiting: challenges faced during lean implementation. Leadership in Health Services, 23(3), 204-218. doi:10.1108/17511871011061037Ho, S. K. M. (2010). Integrated lean TQM model for global sustainability and competitiveness. The TQM Journal, 22(2), 143+-158. doi:10.1108/17542731011024264DelliFraine, J. L., Langabeer, J. R., & Nembhard, I. M. (2010). Assessing the Evidence of Six Sigma and Lean in the Health Care Industry. Quality Management in Health Care, 19(3), 211-225. doi:10.1097/qmh.0b013e3181eb140eSouza, J. P. E., & Alves, J. M. (2018). Lean-integrated management system: A model for sustainability improvement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 2667-2682. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.144Costa, L. B. M., & Godinho Filho, M. (2016). Lean healthcare: review, classification and analysis of literature. Production Planning & Control, 27(10), 823-836. doi:10.1080/09537287.2016.1143131Costa, D. G. da, Pasin, S. S., Magalhães, A. M. M. de, Moura, G. M. S. S. de, Rosso, C. B., & Saurin, T. A. (2018). Analysis of the preparation and administration of medications in the hospital context based on Lean thinking. Escola Anna Nery, 22(4). doi:10.1590/2177-9465-ean-2017-0402Van Aken, J., Chandrasekaran, A., & Halman, J. (2016). Conducting and publishing design science research. Journal of Operations Management, 47-48(1), 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2016.06.004Glover, W. J., Farris, J. A., Van Aken, E. M., & Doolen, T. L. (2011). Critical success factors for the sustainability of Kaizen event human resource outcomes: An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 132(2), 197-213. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.005Glover, W. J., Liu, W., Farris, J. A., & Van Aken, E. M. (2013). Characteristics of established kaizen event programs: an empirical study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33(9), 1166-1201. doi:10.1108/ijopm-03-2011-0119Aij, K. H., & Rapsaniotis, S. (2017). Leadership requirements for Lean versus servant leadership in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Healthcare Leadership, Volume 9, 1-14. doi:10.2147/jhl.s120166Garcia, S., Cintra, Y., Torres, R. de C. S. R., & Lima, F. G. (2016). Corporate sustainability management: a proposed multi-criteria model to support balanced decision-making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 181-196. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.110The Sustainability Yearbook 2014 https://www.p-plus.nl/resources/articlefiles/SustainabilityYearbook2014.pdfRebelo, M. F., Santos, G., & Silva, R. (2016). Integration of management systems: towards a sustained success and development of organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127, 96-111. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.011Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1609-1630. doi:10.1002/asi.22688Martínez-Jurado, P. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2014). Lean Management, Supply Chain Management and Sustainability: A Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 134-150. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.042López-Robles, J.-R., Guallar, J., Otegi-Olaso, J.-R., & Gamboa-Rosales, N.-K. (2019). El profesional de la información (EPI): Bibliometric and thematic analysis (2006-2017). El Profesional de la Información, 28(4). doi:10.3145/epi.2019.jul.17WOS Database Available from the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology https://www.recursoscientificos.fecyt.es/Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT) www.fecyt.esJiménez-García, M., Ruiz-Chico, J., Peña-Sánchez, A. R., & López-Sánchez, J. A. (2020). A Bibliometric Analysis of Sports Tourism and Sustainability (2002–2019). Sustainability, 12(7), 2840. doi:10.3390/su12072840Chiarini, A., Baccarani, C., & Mascherpa, V. (2018). Lean production, Toyota Production System and Kaizen philosophy. The TQM Journal, 30(4), 425-438. doi:10.1108/tqm-12-2017-0178Garcia, J. A. M., Sabater, J. J. G., & Bonavia, T. (2009). The impact of Kaizen Events on improving the performance of automotive components’ first-tier suppliers. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 9(4), 362. doi:10.1504/ijatm.2009.028524Schwerdtle, P. N., Maxwell, J., Horton, G., & Bonnamy, J. (2019). ‘12 tips for teaching environmental sustainability to health professionals’. Medical Teacher, 42(2), 150-155. doi:10.1080/0142159x.2018.1551994Vergunst, F., Berry, H. L., Rugkåsa, J., Burns, T., Molodynski, A., & Maughan, D. L. (2019). Applying the triple bottom line of sustainability to healthcare research—a feasibility study. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 32(1), 48-53. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzz049Aznar Mínguet, P., & Barrón Ruiz, Á. (2017). El desarrollo humano sostenible: un compromiso educativo. Teoría de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria, 29(1), 25-53. doi:10.14201/teoredu291253Herrera, J., & de las Heras-Rosas, C. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Management: Towards Sustainable Business Organizations. Sustainability, 12(3), 841. doi:10.3390/su12030841Leite, H., Bateman, N., & Radnor, Z. (2019). Beyond the ostensible: an exploration of barriers to lean implementation and sustainability in healthcare. Production Planning & Control, 31(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1623426Maghsoudi, T., Cascón-Pereira, R., & Beatriz Hernández Lara, A. (2020). The Role of Collaborative Healthcare in Improving Social Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework. Sustainability, 12(8), 3195. doi:10.3390/su12083195Stelson, P., Hille, J., Eseonu, C., & Doolen, T. (2017). What drives continuous improvement project success in healthcare? International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 30(1), 43-57. doi:10.1108/ijhcqa-03-2016-0035Alvarado Ramírez, K., & Pumisacho Álvaro, V. (2017). Prácticas de mejora continua, con enfoque Kaizen, en empresas del distrito metropolitano de Quito: Un estudio exploratorio. Intangible Capital, 13(2), 479. doi:10.3926/ic.901Daly, H. E. (1990). Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 2(1), 1-6. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(90)90010-

Food Supply without Risk: Multicriteria Analysis of Institutional Conditions of Exporters

[EN] International trade in food knows no borders, hence the need for prevention systems to avoid the consumption of products that are harmful to health. This paper proposes the use of multicriteria risk prevention tools that consider the socioeconomic and institutional conditions of food exporters. We propose the use of three decision-making methods-Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite (ELECTRE), and Cross-Efficiency (CE)-to establish a ranking of countries that export cereals to the European Union, based on structural criteria related to the detection of potential associated risks (notifications, food quality, corruption, environmental sustainability in agriculture, and logistics). In addition, the analysis examines whether the wealth and institutional capacity of supplier countries influence their position in the ranking. The research was carried out biannually over the period from 2012-2016, allowing an assessment to be made of the possible stability of the markets. The results reveal that suppliers' rankings based exclusively on aspects related to food risk differ from importers' actual choices determined by micro/macroeconomic features (price, production volume, and economic growth). The rankings obtained by the three proposed methods are not the same, but present certain similarities, with the ability to discern countries according to their level of food risk. The proposed methodology can be applied to support sourcing strategies. In the future, food safety considerations could have increased influence in importing decisions, which would involve further difficulties for low-income countries.Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain) and European Commission-ERDF. Project "Strengthening innovation policy in the agri-food sector" (RTI2018-093791-B-C22).Puertas Medina, RM.; Martí Selva, ML.; García Alvarez-Coque, JM. (2020). Food Supply without Risk: Multicriteria Analysis of Institutional Conditions of Exporters. International Journal of Environmental research and Public Health. 17(10):1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103432S1211710Walker, E., & Jones, N. (2002). An assessment of the value of documenting food safety in small and less developed catering businesses. Food Control, 13(4-5), 307-314. doi:10.1016/s0956-7135(02)00036-1Sun, Y.-M., & Ockerman, H. W. (2005). A review of the needs and current applications of hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system in foodservice areas. Food Control, 16(4), 325-332. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2004.03.012Rohr, J. R., Barrett, C. B., Civitello, D. J., Craft, M. E., Delius, B., DeLeo, G. A., … Tilman, D. (2019). Emerging human infectious diseases and the links to global food production. Nature Sustainability, 2(6), 445-456. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0293-3De Jonge, J., van Trijp, J. C. M., van der Lans, I. A., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2008). How trust in institutions and organizations builds general consumer confidence in the safety of food: A decomposition of effects. Appetite, 51(2), 311-317. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.03.008Neill, C. L., & Holcomb, R. B. (2019). Does a food safety label matter? Consumer heterogeneity and fresh produce risk perceptions under the Food Safety Modernization Act. Food Policy, 85, 7-14. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.04.001Wood, V. R., & Robertson, K. R. (2000). Evaluating international markets. International Marketing Review, 17(1), 34-55. doi:10.1108/02651330010314704Jouanjean, M.-A., Maur, J.-C., & Shepherd, B. (2015). Reputation matters: Spillover effects for developing countries in the enforcement of US food safety measures. Food Policy, 55, 81-91. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.06.001Van Ruth, S. M., Huisman, W., & Luning, P. A. (2017). Food fraud vulnerability and its key factors. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 67, 70-75. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.017Baylis, K., Nogueira, L., & Pace, K. (2010). Food Import Refusals: Evidence from the European Union. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(2), 566-572. doi:10.1093/ajae/aaq149Bouzembrak, Y., & Marvin, H. J. P. (2016). Prediction of food fraud type using data from Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and Bayesian network modelling. Food Control, 61, 180-187. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.09.026Tudela-Marco, L., Garcia-Alvarez-Coque, J. M., & Martí-Selva, L. (2016). Do EU Member States Apply Food Standards Uniformly? A Look at Fruit and Vegetable Safety Notifications. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(2), 387-405. doi:10.1111/jcms.12503Verhaelen, K., Bauer, A., Günther, F., Müller, B., Nist, M., Ülker Celik, B., … Wallner, P. (2018). Anticipation of food safety and fraud issues: ISAR - A new screening tool to monitor food prices and commodity flows. Food Control, 94, 93-101. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.06.029Garcia‐Alvarez‐Coque, J., Taghouti, I., & Martinez‐Gomez, V. (2020). Changes in Aflatoxin Standards: Implications for EU Border Controls of Nut Imports. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(3), 524-541. doi:10.1093/aepp/ppy036Fischer, A. R. H., de Jong, A. E. I., de Jonge, R., Frewer, L. J., & Nauta, M. J. (2005). Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach. Risk Analysis, 25(3), 503-517. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00618.xHoughton, J. R., Rowe, G., Frewer, L. J., Van Kleef, E., Chryssochoidis, G., Kehagia, O., … Strada, A. (2008). The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities. Food Policy, 33(1), 13-26. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.05.001Demortain, D. (2012). Enabling global principle-based regulation: The case of risk analysis in the Codex Alimentarius. Regulation & Governance, 6(2), 207-224. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01144.xFAZIL, A., RAJIC, A., SANCHEZ, J., & MCEWEN, S. (2008). Choices, Choices: The Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to a Food Safety Decision-Making Problem. Journal of Food Protection, 71(11), 2323-2333. doi:10.4315/0362-028x-71.11.2323Ruzante, J. M., Davidson, V. J., Caswell, J., Fazil, A., Cranfield, J. A. L., Henson, S. J., … Farber, J. M. (2010). A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens. Risk Analysis, 30(5), 724-742. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01278.xMazzocchi, M., Ragona, M., & Zanoli, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for the ex-ante impact assessment of food safety policies. Food Policy, 38, 177-189. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.011Govindan, K., Kadziński, M., & Sivakumar, R. (2017). Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain. Omega, 71, 129-145. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2016.10.004Segura, M., Maroto, C., & Segura, B. (2019). Quantifying the Sustainability of Products and Suppliers in Food Distribution Companies. Sustainability, 11(21), 5875. doi:10.3390/su11215875Lau, H., Nakandala, D., & Shum, P. K. (2018). A business process decision model for fresh-food supplier evaluation. Business Process Management Journal, 24(3), 716-744. doi:10.1108/bpmj-01-2016-0015Garcia-Alvarez-Coque, J.-M., Abdullateef, O., Fenollosa, L., Ribal, J., Sanjuan, N., & Soriano, J. M. (2020). Integrating sustainability into the multi-criteria assessment of urban dietary patterns. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 36(1), 69-76. doi:10.1017/s174217051900053xGrant, W. (2012). Economic patriotism in European agriculture. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(3), 420-434. doi:10.1080/13501763.2011.640797Maye, D., & Kirwan, J. (2013). Food security: A fractured consensus. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 1-6. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.12.001Anthony, R. (2011). Taming the Unruly Side of Ethics: Overcoming Challenges of a Bottom-Up Approach to Ethics in the Areas of Food Policy and Climate Change. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(6), 813-841. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9358-7MacMillan, T., & Dowler, E. (2011). Just and Sustainable? Examining the Rhetoric and Potential Realities of UK Food Security. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(2), 181-204. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9304-8Jaud, M., Cadot, O., & Suwa-Eisenmann, A. (2013). Do food scares explain supplier concentration? An analysis of EU agri-food imports. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(5), 873-890. doi:10.1093/erae/jbs038Spink, J., Fortin, N. D., Moyer, D. C., Miao, H., & Wu, Y. (2016). Food Fraud Prevention: Policy, Strategy, and Decision-Making – Implementation Steps for a Government Agency or Industry. CHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry, 70(5), 320-328. doi:10.2533/chimia.2016.320Van Ruth, S. M., Luning, P. A., Silvis, I. C. J., Yang, Y., & Huisman, W. (2018). Differences in fraud vulnerability in various food supply chains and their tiers. Food Control, 84, 375-381. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.08.020Xidonas, P., & Psarras, J. (2009). Equity portfolio management within the MCDM frame: a literature review. International Journal of Banking, Accounting and Finance, 1(3), 285. doi:10.1504/ijbaaf.2009.022717Melo, M. T., Nickel, S., & Saldanha-da-Gama, F. (2009). Facility location and supply chain management – A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(2), 401-412. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.05.007Mandic, K., Delibasic, B., Knezevic, S., & Benkovic, S. (2014). Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Modelling, 43, 30-37. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.036Uygun, Ö., Kaçamak, H., & Kahraman, Ü. A. (2015). An integrated DEMATEL and Fuzzy ANP techniques for evaluation and selection of outsourcing provider for a telecommunication company. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 86, 137-146. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2014.09.014Wanke, P., Azad, M. D. A. K., & Barros, C. P. (2016). Predicting efficiency in Malaysian Islamic banks: A two-stage TOPSIS and neural networks approach. Research in International Business and Finance, 36, 485-498. doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2015.10.002Stojčić, M., Zavadskas, E., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Mardani, A. (2019). Application of MCDM Methods in Sustainability Engineering: A Literature Review 2008–2018. Symmetry, 11(3), 350. doi:10.3390/sym11030350Xu, L., Shah, S. A. A., Zameer, H., & Solangi, Y. A. (2019). Evaluating renewable energy sources for implementing the hydrogen economy in Pakistan: a two-stage fuzzy MCDM approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(32), 33202-33215. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-06431-0Huang, I. B., Keisler, J., & Linkov, I. (2011). Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Science of The Total Environment, 409(19), 3578-3594. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022Pons, O., de la Fuente, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). The Use of MIVES as a Sustainability Assessment MCDM Method for Architecture and Civil Engineering Applications. Sustainability, 8(5), 460. doi:10.3390/su8050460Shishegaran, A., Shishegaran, A., Mazzulla, G., & Forciniti, C. (2020). A Novel Approach for a Sustainability Evaluation of Developing System Interchange: The Case Study of the Sheikhfazolah-Yadegar Interchange, Tehran, Iran. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 435. doi:10.3390/ijerph17020435Wu, H.-Y., Chen, J.-K., Chen, I.-S., & Zhuo, H.-H. (2012). Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by a hybrid MCDM model. Measurement, 45(5), 856-880. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2012.02.009Shakouri G., H., & Tavassoli N., Y. (2012). Implementation of a hybrid fuzzy system as a decision support process: A FAHP–FMCDM–FIS composition. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3682-3691. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.063Mavi, R. K., Goh, M., & Mavi, N. K. (2016). Supplier Selection with Shannon Entropy and Fuzzy TOPSIS in the Context of Supply Chain Risk Management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 216-225. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.017Montgomery, B., Dragićević, S., Dujmović, J., & Schmidt, M. (2016). A GIS-based Logic Scoring of Preference method for evaluation of land capability and suitability for agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 124, 340-353. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2016.04.013Debnath, A., Roy, J., Kar, S., Zavadskas, E., & Antucheviciene, J. (2017). A Hybrid MCDM Approach for Strategic Project Portfolio Selection of Agro By-Products. Sustainability, 9(8), 1302. doi:10.3390/su9081302Seyedmohammadi, J., Sarmadian, F., Jafarzadeh, A. A., Ghorbani, M. A., & Shahbazi, F. (2018). Application of SAW, TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS models in cultivation priority planning for maize, rapeseed and soybean crops. Geoderma, 310, 178-190. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.012Rostamzadeh, R., Ghorabaee, M. K., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., & Nobar, H. B. K. (2018). Evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS- CRITIC approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 651-669. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.071Raut, R. D., Gardas, B. B., Kharat, M., & Narkhede, B. (2018). Modeling the drivers of post-harvest losses – MCDM approach. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 154, 426-433. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2018.09.035Qureshi, M. R. N., Singh, R. K., & Hasan, M. A. (2017). Decision support model to select crop pattern for sustainable agricultural practices using fuzzy MCDM. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(2), 641-659. doi:10.1007/s10668-016-9903-7Srinivasa Rao, C., Kareemulla, K., Krishnan, P., Murthy, G. R. K., Ramesh, P., Ananthan, P. S., & Joshi, P. K. (2019). Agro-ecosystem based sustainability indicators for climate resilient agriculture in India: A conceptual framework. Ecological Indicators, 105, 621-633. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.038Paul, M., Negahban-Azar, M., Shirmohammadi, A., & Montas, H. (2020). Assessment of agricultural land suitability for irrigation with reclaimed water using geospatial multi-criteria decision analysis. Agricultural Water Management, 231, 105987. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105987Balezentis, T., Chen, X., Galnaityte, A., & Namiotko, V. (2020). Optimizing crop mix with respect to economic and environmental constraints: An integrated MCDM approach. Science of The Total Environment, 705, 135896. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135896Jahan, A., & Edwards, K. L. (2013). VIKOR method for material selection problems with interval numbers and target-based criteria. Materials & Design, 47, 759-765. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.072Pourhejazy, P., Kwon, O., Chang, Y.-T., & Park, H. (2017). Evaluating Resiliency of Supply Chain Network: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach. Sustainability, 9(2), 255. doi:10.3390/su9020255Stewart, T. J. (1996). Relationships between Data Envelopment Analysis and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(5), 654-665. doi:10.1057/jors.1996.77Li, X.-B., & Reeves, G. R. (1999). A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 115(3), 507-517. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(98)00130-1Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). STATE OF ART SURVEYS OF OVERVIEWS ON MCDM/MADM METHODS. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165-179. doi:10.3846/20294913.2014.892037Mousavi-Nasab, S. H., & Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2017). A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems. Materials & Design, 121, 237-253. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.02.041Bouyssou, D. (1999). Using DEA as a tool for MCDM: some remarks. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(9), 974-978. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600800Özcan, T., Çelebi, N., & Esnaf, Ş. (2011). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9773-9779. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.022LOKEN, E. (2007). Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(7), 1584-1595. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2005.11.005Darji, V. P., & Rao, R. V. (2014). Intelligent Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods for Material Selection in Sugar Industry. Procedia Materials Science, 5, 2585-2594. doi:10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.519Ceballos, B., Lamata, M. T., & Pelta, D. A. (2016). A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 5(4), 315-322. doi:10.1007/s13748-016-0093-1Sen, B., Bhattacharjee, P., & Mandal, U. K. (2016). A comparative study of some prominent multi criteria decision making methods for connecting rod material selection. Perspectives in Science, 8, 547-549. doi:10.1016/j.pisc.2016.06.016Wu, D. (2006). A note on DEA efficiency assessment using ideal point: An improvement of Wang and Luo’s model. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 183(2), 819-830. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2006.06.030Kou, G., Peng, Y., & Wang, G. (2014). Evaluation of clustering algorithms for financial risk analysis using MCDM methods. Information Sciences, 275, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.137Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theory and Decision, 31(1), 49-73. doi:10.1007/bf00134132YOON, K., & HWANG, C.-L. (1985). Manufacturing plant location analysis by multiple attribute decision making: part I—single-plant strategy. International Journal of Production Research, 23(2), 345-359. doi:10.1080/00207548508904712Doyle, J., & Green, R. (1994). Efficiency and Cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, Meanings and Uses. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(5), 567-578. doi:10.1057/jors.1994.84Martí, L., Martín, J. C., & Puertas, R. (2017). A Dea-Logistics Performance Index. Journal of Applied Economics, 20(1), 169-192. doi:10.1016/s1514-0326(17)30008-9Canadá y la UE: Si Quierohttps://www.Euroganadería.euKARABIYIK, C., & KUTLU KARABIYIK, B. (2018). Benchmarking International Trade Performance of OECD Countries: TOPSIS and AHP Approaches. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences. doi:10.21547/jss.267381Lin, M.-C., Wang, C.-C., Chen, M.-S., & Chang, C. A. (2008). Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry, 59(1), 17-31. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.013Lourenzutti, R., & Krohling, R. A. (2016). A generalized TOPSIS method for group decision making with heterogeneous information in a dynamic environment. Information Sciences, 330, 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2015.10.005Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue française d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, 2(8), 57-75. doi:10.1051/ro/196802v100571Jaini, N., & Utyuzhnikov, S. (2016). Trade-off ranking method for multi-criteria decision analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 24(3-4), e1600. doi:10.1002/mcda.1600Farrell, M. J. (1957). The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 120(3), 253. doi:10.2307/2343100Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429-444. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078-1092. doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078Angulo-Meza, L., & Lins, M. P. E. (2002). Annals of Operations Research, 116(1/4), 225-242. doi:10.1023/a:1021340616758Falagario, M., Sciancalepore, F., Costantino, N., & Pietroforte, R. (2012). Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. European Journal of Operational Research, 218(2), 523-529. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.10.031Puertas, R., & Marti, L. (2019). Sustainability in Universities: DEA-GreenMetric. Sustainability, 11(14), 3766. doi:10.3390/su1114376

Analysing how constraints impact architectural decision-making

Architectural design projects are characterised by a high number of constraints. Along with planning, energy performance and fire safety regulations, current designers have to face constraining factors related to budget, acoustics, orientation, wind turbulence, accessibility for the disabled, and so forth. These constraints steer the design process implicitly and explicitly in certain directions as soon as architectural designers aim at satisfying design briefs. We aim in this article at analysing the impact of such constraints on the design process. At this end, we have studied four design sessions in a particular (student) design use case. In analysing these four sessions, we used linkography as a method, because this appeared to be one of the better options to obtain a more quantitative assessment of the design process. The linkography method was combined with an interview of the student design team, in order to check the correctness of our conclusions

A knowledge based system for valuing variations in civil engineering works: a user centred approach

There has been much evidence that valuing variations in construction projects can lead to conflicts and disputes leading to loss of time, efficiency, and productivity. One of the reasons for these conflicts and disputes concerns the subjectivity of the project stakeholders involved in the process. One way to minimise this is to capture and collate the knowledge and perceptions of the different parties involved in order to develop a robust mechanism for valuing variations. Focusing on the development of such a mechanism, the development of a Knowledge Based System (KBS) for valuing variations in civil engineering work is described. Evaluation of the KBS involved demonstration to practitioners in the construction industry to support the contents of the knowledge base and perceived usability and acceptance of the system. Results support the novelty, contents, usability, and acceptance of the system, and also identify further potential developments of the KBS

Usage habits of business information system in Hungary

The IT functions of the companies can be executed in different ways in-house solution, outsourcing, in sourcing, formation a spin-off company. Predominantly this function is provided within the company in Hungary. The larger a company is; it is more likely that a separate IT manager will be entrusted for the supervision of IT functions. Only a very small number of small-sized enterprises said that they paid special attention to formulating an IT strategy, while it was not considered important by microenterprises at all