the use of promethee method for evaluating the strategic potential of ...

Table 5. The numbers of preference functions of criteria and values of their parametersNo. Criterion Function No. min d max d q s1Ability to analyse macroeconomic situation in hostand foreign countries4 0.31 2.42 0.32 1.22Ability to determine in time the main needs of potentialclients5 0.07 1.46 0.35 1.33Ability to analyse the demand for products and services,enabling an enterprise to supply the market with 2 0.13 0.73 0.13 0.4quality products in time4Ability to analyse factors of success and activity ofrival groups in the market5 0.13 1.25 0.13 1.05Ability to generate new ideas in the field of developingand organizing production and providing new5 0.13 1.99 0.6 1.5competitive products and services6Ability to implement other new competitive ideas inthe fields of producing new goods and providing new 4 0.05 2.52 0.65 1.9services7Ability to guarantee the development of the productivesystem of an enterprise and its flexibility5 0.03 0.75 0.14 0.758 Ability to maintain the competitive status of enterprise 2 0.24 2.0 0.8 2.09Ability to maintain inner flexibility in terms of providingadaptive technologies and other means2 0.17 0.78 0.4 0.7810Ability to maintain inner flexibility of the productivesystem by forming human potential adequate to changing3 0 0.21 0.08 0.21objectives11Ability to maintain competitive ability in the prospectivemarkets4 0.13 1.05 0.3 0.912Ability to produce and supply products and services involumes corresponding to enterprise potential and5 0.02 0.91 0.15 0.7targeted market share13Ability to maintain effective enterprise performanceby rational use of investment possibilities4 0.19 1.89 0.5 1.714Ability to plan and implement efficiently a strategicprogramme of technical and social development of anenterprise5 0.1 1.02 0.2 1.0The values of pairwise comparison relationship( A , A ) of four construction enterprises, the sums ofπjkall positive (‘outcoming’) relationships F j+and negative(‘incoming’) relationships F j − , as well as the differencesbetween−them F j F j − F j ( j 1,2,..., n ) and the=ranks of all considered enterprises, determined by + usingthe method PROMETHEE II, are given in Table = 6.As shown in Table 7, the methods SAW and TOPSISyield actually the same preference order of enterprises.We can also see that the PROMETHEE method gives thesame ranks to the best and the worst enterprises as othermethods. The actual differences can be found between theranks in the middle of the preference order. However, thedifferences between the second- and the third-rankedenterprises calculated by the PROMETHEE method aremuch greater. Therefore, it yields more accurate resultscompared to SAW and TOPSIS methods.Now, we can compare the results obtained by multicriteriaevaluation methods SAW, TOPSIS and PROME-THEE II (see Table 7).Table 6. The relationships ( A j , Ak)of pairwise comparisonof construction enterprisesπ−1 2 3 4 F +1 − 0.534 0.174 0.085 0.7932 0.316 − 0.262 0.196 0.7753 0.127 0.495 − 0.086 0.7084 0.198 0.495 0.304 − 0.996F 0.641 1.524 0.740 0.367F 0.152 -0.750 -0.032 0.629Table 7. The results obtained in multicriteria evaluation ofusing the strategic potential of construction enterprisesMethodEnterprise1 2 3 4SAW 3 4 2 1TOPSIS 3 4 2 1PROMETHEE II 2 4 3 1411

ConclusionsThe market share of a construction enterprise reflectsits competitive ability. To retain and extend itsmarket share, a company should have the effective strategy.The development of this strategy is closely connectedto the determination of enterprise possibilities.The possibilities related to the production and managementactivities, associated with the manufacture of goodsand their selling in the market, may be referred to as thestrategic potential of an enterprise.Production capacity of an enterprise, depending onthe available equipment, manpower, etc., determines theamount of goods that an enterprise can manufacture. Theproblem of quantitative evaluation of management possibilitieshas not been thoroughly investigated. Since thesepossibilities are multifaceted, multicriteria methods arewell suited for their complex evaluation. The calculationsmade by applying the methods of the geometric mean,SAW and TOPSIS yielded diverse results. These estimateswere checked by the method PROMETHEE, allowing theresearchers to consider the value of any criterion describingthe research object, to choose a respective preferencefunction for it and to determine the parameters of thesefunctions, depending on the criteria values.ReferencesAnsoff, I. H. 1989. Corporate Strategy. Revised edition. Penguin,Harmondsworth.Behzadian, M.; Kazemzadeh, R. B.; Albadvi, A.; Aghdasi, M.2010. PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature reviewon methodologies and applications, European Journal ofOperational Research 200(1): 198–215.doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021Brans, J.-P.; Mareschal, B. 1992. PROMETHEE-V – MCDMproblems with segmentation constraints, INFOR 30(2):85–96.Brans, J.-P.; Mareschal, B. 1994. The PROMETHEE-GAIAdecision support system for multicriteria investigations,Investigation Operativa 4(2): 107–117.Brans, J.-P.; Mareschal, B. 1996. The PROMETHEE-VI procedure.How to differentiate hard from soft multicriteriaproblems, Journal of Decision Systems 4: 213–223.Brans, J.-P.; Mareschal, B. 2005. PROMETHEE methods,in‘Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the ArtSurveys’ Edited by J.Figueira, S.Greco, M.Ehrgott.Springer, Chapter 5:163–195.Dobson, P.; Starkey, K.; Richards, J. 2004. Strategic Management:Issues and Cases. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Ginevičius, R. 1998. Diversification of enterprise activities.Vilnius, Technika.Ginevičius, R. 2008. Normalization of quantities of variousdimensions, Journal of Business Economics and Management9(1): 79–86. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.79-86Ginevičius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2004a. Quantitative evaluation ofthe strategic potential of enterprises, Business: Theory andPractice 5(1): 3–9.Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2004b. Determination of weightinessof the hierarchically-structured organization accordingto its commercial activity. Foundations of civil andenvironmental engineering, 5: 21-33.Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2006a. Comprehensive evaluationof economic and social development of Lihuanian regionsbased on a structured set of criteria, in Proc. of the 4 th InternationalConference Citizens and Governance for SustainableDevelopment SIGCUD’2006, September 28-30,2006. Vilnius, Lithuania. Vilnius: Technika, 194–199.Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2006b. The uncertainty factor inmulticriteria analysis, in Proc. of the International Conferenceon Optimal Research „Simulation and Optimizationin Business and Industry“, May 17-20, 2006. Tallinn,136–140.Ginevicius, R.; Martinkute R.; Podvezko, V. 2006c. MulticriteriaDecisions in Capital Markets. WMSCI 2006: In Proc.of the 10th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cyberneticsand Informatics/ 12 th International Conference ofInformation Systems Analysis and Synthesis, Jul 16-19,2006. Orlando, Florida, Vol 1, Proceedings 36–39.Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko V. 2007a. The effect of complexevaluation the reliability of calculation results. In Proc. ofthe 4 th International Scientific Conference Business andManagement’2006. In The 14 th International ScientificConference Enterprise Management: Diagnosis, Strategy,Efficiency. Selected papers. October 5-6, 2006. Vilnius,Lithuania: 27-30.Ginevičius R.; Podvezko V. 2007b. The influence of complexevaluation methods on rating the alternative operations ofwall insulation, in Proc. of the 9 th International ConferenceModern building materials structures and techniques.Mai 16-18, 2007. Vilnius, Lithuania. Selected papers,vol.1, 248–251.Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2008a. Multicriteria evaluation ofLithuanian banks from the perspective of their reliabilityfor clients, Journal of Business Economics and Management9(4): 257–267.doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.257-267Ginevičius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2008b. Housing in the context ofeconomic and social development of Lithuanian regions,Int. J. Environment and Pollution 35(2/3/4): 309–330.Ginevičius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2009. Evaluating the changes ineconomic and social development of Lithuanian countiesby multiple criteria methods, Technological and EconomicDevelopment of Economy 15(3): 418–436.doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.418-436Ginevicius, R.; Martinkute, R.; Podvezko, V. 2006a. MulticriteriaDecisions in Capital Markets, in Proc. of the WMSCI2006: 10th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cyberneticsand Informatics, Proceedings 1: 36–40.Ginevičius, R.; Butkevičius, A.; Podvezko, V. 2006b. ComplexEvaluation of Economic Development of the Baltic Statesand Poland, Ekonomický Časopis 54(9): 918–930.Ginevičius, R.; Podvezko, V.; Bruzgė, Š. 2008a. Evaluating theEffect of State Aid to Business by Multicriteria Methods,Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(3):167–180. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.167-180Ginevičius, R.; Podvezko, V.; Raslanas, S. 2008b. Evaluatingthe Alternative Solutions of Wall Insulation by MulticriteriaMethods, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management14(4): 217–226. doi:10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.20Gorfinkel, V. Y.; Shvandar, V. A. 2000. Enterprise economics.Moscow, INITI−DANA (in Russian).412

Jain, S. C. 2000. Marketing Planning and Strategy, 6 th Ed.,South-Western College Publishing.Khripach, I. Y.; Susha, G. Z.; Onopriyenko, G. K. 2001. Enterpriseeconomics. Minsk, Econompress (in Russian).Maskeliūnaitė, L.; Sivilevičius, H.; Podvezko, V. 2009. Researchon the quality of passenger transportation by railway,Transport 24(2): 100–112.doi:10.3846/1648-4142.2009.24.100-112Mintzberg, H.; Ahlstrand, B.; Lampel, J. 1998. Strategy Safari.A Guided Tour through the Wilds of Strategic Management.New York: The Free Press.Podvezko, V. 2008. Comprehensive evaluation of complexquantities, Business: Theory and Practice 9(3): 160–168.doi:10.3846/1648-0627.2008.9.160-168Podvezko, V. 2009. Application of AHP technique, Journal ofBusiness Economics and Management 10(2): 181–189.doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.181-189Podvezko, V.; Podviezko, A. 2009. PROMETHEE I methodapplication for identification of the best alternative, Business:Theory and Practice 10(2): 84–92.doi:10.3846/1648-0627.2009.10.84-92Podvezko, V.; Podviezko, A. 2010. Dependence of multicriteriaevaluation result on choice of preference functionsand their parameters, Technological and Economic Developmentof Economy 16(1): 143–158.doi:10.3846/tede.2010.09Porter, M. 1998. Competitive Strategy: Technigues for AnalyzingIndustries and Competitors. New York: The FreePress.Raitskij, K. A. 2002. Enterprise economics. Moscow, TradeCorporation „Dashkov & C“ (in Russian).Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. M.Graw-Hill, New York.Saaty, T. L. 2005. The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic NetworkProcesses for the Measurement of Intangible Criteriaand for Decision-Making, in ‘Multiple Criteria DecisionAnalysis: State of the Art Surveys’. Edited by J.Figueira,S.Greco, M.Ehrgott. Springer, Chapter 9: 345–408.Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Banaitis, A.; Kvederytė, N.2004. Housing credit access model: the case for Lithuania,European Journal of Operation Research 155 (2): 335–352. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00091-2Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Peldschus, F.; Turskis, Z.2007. Multiattribute assessment of road design solutionsby applying COPRAS method. The Baltic Journal ofRoad and Bridge Engineering, 2 (4): 195-203.Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Turskis, Z.; Tamošaitienė, J.2008a. Selection of the effective dwelling house walls byapplying attributes values determined at intervals, Journalof Civil Engineering and Management 14(2): 85–93.doi:10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.3Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Tamošaitienė, J. Marina, V.2008b. Multicriteria Selection of Project Managers byApplying grey Criteria, Technological and Economic Developmentof Economy 14(4): 462–477.doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.462-477Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Turskis, Z.; Tamošaitienė, J.2009. Multi-attribute decision- making model by applyinggrey numbers, Informatica 20(2): 305–320.413