Propuesta metodológica de un sistema de benchmarking para un sector industrial basado en el método multicriterio ANP

Trabajo presentado al XVI Congreso Internacional de Ingeniería de Proyectos (AEIPRO), celebrado en Valencia (España) del 11 al 13 de julio de 2012.[EN]: In benchmarking process it is not enough to compare competitors among them, but it is also important to determine which indicators of competitiveness are to be measured and therefore to know to what extent each indicator contributes to the competitiveness of the sector. Therefore, the objective of this research is to provide a methodology that will allow any industry to develop a benchmarking system that includes the identification of appropriate indicators to the business environment, selected by industry experts. This research presents a methodological approach aimed at industry and promotes the implementation of new indicators to measure competitiveness, capability-oriented innovation, organizational learning and entrepreneurship. Consequently, the selection of indicators for measuring system competitiveness is a complex decision process and that is where the multicriteria method ANP (Saaty, 1996) helps to solve the selection problem as a natural way to incorporate experts’ opinion. This methodology should provide a ranking of companies according their competitiveness level.[ES]: En un proceso de Benchmarking ya no es suficiente compararse con los competidores, si no que es importante determinar con qué indicadores de competitividad se van a medir y, en consecuencia, conocer en qué medida contribuye cada indicador a la competitividad del sector. Por tal motivo, el objetivo de esta investigación es proporcionar una metodología que le permita a cualquier sector industrial desarrollar un sistema de Benchmarking que incluya la identificación de los indicadores adecuados a su entorno empresarial, indicadores seleccionados por expertos del sector. La presente investigación expone una propuesta metodológica dirigida a sectores industriales y promueve la aplicación de nuevos indicadores para medir la competitividad, orientados hacia la capacidad de innovación, aprendizaje y conocimiento empresarial y la capacidad emprendedora. En consecuencia, la selección de los indicadores para el sistema de medición de la competitividad es un proceso de decisión complejo y es ahí, donde el método multicriterio ANP (Saaty, 1996) contribuye a resolver el problema de selección, ya que de una forma natural incorpora la opinión de los expertos. Dicha metodología debe dar como resultado una jerarquización de empresas a través de un sistema de medición de la competitividad acorde a los criterios de su entorno empresarial.Peer Reviewe

Competitiveness measurement system in the advertising sector

In this paper a new approach to find indicators that can be used to measure companies’ competitiveness and performance in an efficient and reliable way is presented. The aim is to assist managers of companies within a specific industrial sector by providing information about their relative position in the market so as to define better action plans that may improve the company’s performance. The approach combines the use of the Analytic Network Process, a multicriteria decision method, with the Balanced Scorecard. It allows the definition of a number of competitiveness indicators based on the performance and setting of the advertising sector. In this way it is possible to obtain a Competitiveness Index that allows a company to know its relative position with respect to other companies in the sector, and establish a ranking of the companies ordered by their competitiveness level. A case study in the advertising industry of Venezuela is provided. Results show that improvement plans for the agencies analyzed should promote creativity, innovation and the use of new technologies, as a particular form of innovation. These factors were considered to be the most relevant indicators in the advertising sector. The participating experts agreed that the methodology is useful and an improvement over current competitiveness assessment methods.Poveda Bautista, R.; García Melón, M.; Baptista, DC. (2013). Competitiveness measurement system in the advertising sector. SpringerPlus. 2(438):1-14. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-438S1142438Augusto M, Lisboa J, Yasin M, Figueira JR: Benchmarking in a multiple criteria performance context: An application and a conceptual framework. Eur J Oper Res 2008, 184(1):244-254. 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.10.052Barba-Romero S, Pomerol J: Decisiones Multicriterio. Fundamentos Teóricos y Utilización Práctica. Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid; 1997.Bell JA: Creativity, commercial popularity, and advertising expenditures. International journal of advertising 1992, 11: 165-183.Belton V, Stewart T: Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston; 2002.Boojihawon D: Network dynamics and the internationalisation process of small advertising agencies. The Service Industries Journal 2007, 27(6):809-829. 10.1080/02642060701453304Ding J, Qiu J: An Approach to Improve the Indicator Weights of Scientific and Technological Competitiveness Evaluation of Chinese Universities. Scientometrics 2010, 86(2):285-297.Durkin M, Lawlor MA: The implications of the Internet on the advertising agency-client relationship. The Service Industries Journal 2001, 21(2):175-190. 10.1080/714005026Ellis S, Elnatha D, Raz T: Applying benchmarking: an organizational learning perspective. Human System Management 2002, 21(3):183-191.Grigoroudis E, Orfanoudaki E, Zopounidis C: Strategic performance measurement in a healthcare organisation: A multiple criteria approach based on balanced scorecard. Omega 2012, 40(1):104-119. 10.1016/j.omega.2011.04.001Hermelin B: Producer service firms in globalising cities: the example of advertising firms in Stockholm. The Service Industries Journal 2009, 29(4):457-471. 10.1080/02642060802304828Hertog P, Aa W, Jong M: Capabilities for managing service innovation: towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Service Management 2010, 21(4):490-514. 10.1108/09564231011066123Hipp C, Grupp H: Innovation in the service sector: The demand for service-specific innovation measurement concepts and typologies. Res Policy 2005, 34: 517-535. 10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.002Hsu CW, Hu A, Chiou C, Chen TC: Using the FDM and ANP to construct a sustainability balanced scorecard for the semiconductor industry. Expert Syst Appl 2011, 38(10):12891-12899. 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.082Hult G, Snow C, Kandermir D: The Role of Entrepreneurship in Building Cultural Competitiveness in Different Organizational Types. J Manag 2003, 29(3):401-426.Jalali Naini SG, Aliahmadia AR, Jafari-Eskandaria M: Designing a mixed performance measurement system for environmental supply chain management using evolutionary game theory and Balanced Scorecard: A case study of an auto industry supply chain. Resour Conserv Recycl 2010, 55(6):593-603.Jeffcutt P, Pratt AC: Managing Creativity in the Cultural Industries. Creativity and Innovation Management 2002, 11: 225-233. 10.1111/1467-8691.00254Kaplan R, Norton D: Cuadro de Mando Integral. Ediciones Gestión, S.A., Barcelona; 2000.Keeney R, Raiffa H: Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and values tradeoffs. John Wiley, New York; 1976.Ko H-T, Lu H-P: Measuring innovation competencies for integrated services in the communications industry. Journal of Service Management 2010, 21(2):162-190. 10.1108/09564231011039277Lampel J, Lant T, Shamsie J: Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices in cultural industries. Organ Sci 2000, 11: 263-269. 10.1287/orsc.11.3.263.12503Lee A, Chen H, Tong Y: Developing new products in a network with efficiency and innovation. Int J Prod Res 2008a, 46(17):4687-4707. 10.1080/00207540701233484Lee A, Chen W-C, Chang C-J: A Fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Syst Appl 2008b, 34(1):96-107. 10.1016/j.eswa.2006.08.022Leung LC, Lam KC, Cao D: Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process. J Oper Res Soc 2006, 57(6):682-691. 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602040Liedtka S: Analytic Hierarchy Process and multi-criteria performance management systems. Cost Management 2005, 19(6):30-38.Lightfoot HW, Gebauer H: Exploring the alignment between service strategy and service innovation. Journal of Service Management 2011, 22(5):664-683. 10.1108/09564231111175004Lin Y-H, Tsai K-M, Shiang W-J, Kuo T-C, Tsai C-H: Research on using ANP to establish a performance assessment model for business intelligence systems. Expert Syst Appl 2009, 36(2):4135-4146. 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.03.004Nachum L: Winners and losers in professional service industries: What makes the difference? The Service Industries Journal 1996, 16(4):474-490. 10.1080/02642069600000042Öztayşi B, Uçal Ĭ: Comparing MADM Techniques For Use In Performance Measurement. ISAHP 2009 Proceedings. The 10th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. July 29- August 1, 2009. Pittsburgh, PA, USA 2009, 53-64.Öztayşi B, Kaya T, Kahraman C: Performance comparison based on customer relationship management using analytic network process. Expert Syst Appl 2011, 38(8):9788-9798. 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.170Porter M: Ventaja Competitiva. Cecsa, Buenos Aires; 1995.Porter M: Estrategia Competitiva. Cecsa, México D.F; 1997.Poveda-Bautista R, Baptista D, García-Melón M: Setting competitiveness indicators using BSC and ANP. Int J Prod Res 2012, 50(17):4738-4752. 10.1080/00207543.2012.657964Pratt AC: Advertising and creativity, a governance approach: a case study of creative agencies in London. Environment and Planning A 2006, 38(10):1883-1899. 10.1068/a38261Raisinghani HS, Meade L, Schkade L: Strategic e-business decision analysis using Analytic Network Process. IEEE transactions on Engineering Management 2007, 54(4):673-686.Reisinger H, Cravens K, Tell N: Prioritizing performance measures within the Balanced Scorecard framework. Manag Int Rev 2003, 43(4):429-437.Ren Q’e, Gong X: Evaluation Index System for Academic Papers of Humanities and Social Sciences. Scientometrics 2012, 93(3):1047-1060. 10.1007/s11192-012-0790-xRoy S: Competitiveness in Service Sector: A case of Hotel Industry in India. Glob Bus Rev 2011, 12(1):51-69. 10.1177/097215091001200104Saaty T: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York; 1980.Saaty T: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh; 1996.Saaty T: Fundamentals of Decision Making and priority theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh; 2000.Saaty T: Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh; 2005.Shahin A, Mahbod MA: Prioritization of key performance indicators: An integration of analytical hierarchy process and goal setting. Int J Product Perform Manag 2007, 56(3):226-240. 10.1108/17410400710731437Sigala M: Social networks and customer involvement in New Service Development (NSD. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 2012, 24(7):966-990. the case of http://www.mystarbucksidea.com 10.1108/09596111211258874Sirikrai S, Tang J: Industrial competitiveness analysis: Using the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of High Technology Management Research 2006, 17(1):71-83. 10.1016/j.hitech.2006.05.005Smith-Perera A, García-Melón M, Poveda-Bautista R, Pastor-Ferrando J: A Project Strategic Index proposal for portfolio selection in electrical company based on the Analytic Network Process. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010, 14(6):1569-1579. 10.1016/j.rser.2010.01.022Spendolini M: Benchmarking. Norma, New York; 1994.Superdecisions: CREATIVE decision Foundation. 2009. (1 April 2010) http://www.superdecisions.comTaylor PJ: Advertising and Cities: a relational geography of Globalization in the early Twenty First Century. GaWC Research Bulletin, 215. 2006. . Accessed November 19, 2012 http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb215.htmlTaylor R, Grubbs H, Haley E: How French advertising professionals develop creative strategy. The journal of advertising 1996, 15: 1-13.Temur G, Emeksizoglu B, Gozlu S: A Study on performance measurement of a Plastic Packaging Organization’s Manufacturing System by AHP Modeling. In PICMET 2007 Proceedings. Portland International Conferences on Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland, OR; 2007:5-9.Thakkar J, Deshmukh SG, Gupta AD, Shankar R: Development of a balanced scorecard. An integrated approach of interpretative Structural Modeling (ISM) and Analytic Network Process(ANP). Int J Product Perform Manag 2007, 56(1):25-59. 10.1108/17410400710717073Tseng M-L: Implementation and performance evaluation using the fuzzy network balanced scorecard. Computers and Education 2010, 55(1):188-201. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.004Yang C-L, Chuang S-P, Huang R-H: Manufacturing evaluation system based on AHP/ANP approach for wafer fabricating industry. Expert Syst Appl 2009, 36(8):11369-11377. 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.023Yüksel I, Dagdeviren M: Using the fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) for Balanced Scorecard (BSC): A case study for manufacturing firm. Expert Syst Appl 2010, 37(2):1270-1278. 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.00

Setting competitiveness indicators using BSC and ANP

[EN] In this paper a new approach to assess companies' competitiveness performance in an efficient and reliable way is presented. It introduces a rigorous methodology, based on multi-criteria techniques, which seeks to assist managers of companies within a specific industrial sector in providing information about their relative position in order to define improvement action plans. The approach combines the use of the analytic network process (ANP) method with the balanced scorecard (BSC) to achieve competitiveness indicators. The ANP method allows the aggregation of experts judgments on each of the selected indicators used into one company competitiveness index (CCI). To demonstrate the goodness of the methodology, a case study of the plastic sector of Venezuela has been carried out. Three companies have been analysed using the CCI proposed. The participating experts agreed that the methodology is useful and an improvement from current competitiveness measurement techniques. They found the results obtained coherent and the use of resources significantly less than in other methods.Poveda Bautista, R.; Baptista, DC.; García Melón, M. (2012). Setting competitiveness indicators using BSC and ANP. International Journal of Production Research. 50(17):4738-4752. doi:10.1080/00207543.2012.657964S47384752501

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field