Determination of major non-development criteria for Iranian particle board industry by applying analytic hierarchy process

Abstract

Development trend of Iranian particleboard industry is not satisfactory. Effective indicators in non-development of the industry were divided into five major groups, i.e. by economic, raw material and product, social, technical and man power, rules and regulation plus 23 subsections. After obtaining the two-by-two comparisons of the mentioned criteria and subsections from the experts in the industry, their weighting values were calculated using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) while group decision making were conducted using Expert Choice software. The results of this study showed that inconsistency ratio for all average comparison matrices are smaller than 0.1 and the overall inconsistency ratio is 0.02. Therefore, the judgments in current study have high consistency. Moreover, the results indicated that among 23 effective sub-criteria in non development of the industry, the following sub-criteria had the highest priority respectively: Lack of raw material, non-expert elements, lower production quality, changing of management, long decision making process and ancient technology. Feasible solutions have been suggested to develop of the industry.

Keywords

PARTICLEBOARD NON-DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA INCONSISTENCY RATIO AHP

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asghar Poor

M.J

. 1999. Multi-criteria decision making, Tehran University publication, Tehran- Iran, 398 p.

Azizi

., 2005,Decision making for raw materialprocurement in paper making factory’, Proceeding of 8th International symposium of the AHP, University of Hawaii, USA

Azizi

, Modarres

, Amiri

, Faezipour

, Doosthoseini

., 2003, ‘The group decision making to determine effective criteria for wood industry location (Case of study: Iran)’, International Journal of Inquiry, Vol. 1, No. 1, 63–96

Burdurlu

, Ejder

., 2003, Location choice for funiture industry firms by using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, G.U. Journal of Science, 16(2): 369–373

Chen

E. W.

, Li

, 2001, An approach to determine measures for business performance, Measuring Business Excellence, 3

Darabi

.1993, AHP-aided Decision Making, Sanaye Magazine. first year, No. 3, pp15–24.

FAO: Http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/collections?versio-n=ext&hasbulk=0&subset=forestry

Giresunlu

, Tanritanir

, Ozturk

T.A

., 1998, Using of AHP for location selection of MDF industries, Istanbul symposium 1998, 612–620

Memariani

and Azar

. 1995. AHP : A New Technique for Group Decision Making. Management Science. No. 28, pp 22–32.

10.

Memariani

, Kishore

, Naziri

. 1992. How to make decision in conflicting environment : Analytical Hierarchy Process. Udyog Pragati, January—June, pp32–35

11.

Saaty

T.L

. 1990, ‘Multi criteria decision making: the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority setting, Resource Allocation’, RWS publication, ISBN 0-9620317-2–0.

12.

Saaty

T.L

. 2000, Decision making for leaders, RWA Publications, Pittsburg,PA.

13.

Saaty

and Cho

., 2001, ‘The Decision by the US Congress on China's Trade Status: a Multicriteria analysis’, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35, 243–252, Elsevier ScienceLtd.

14.

Towfigh

. 1993. Multi-criteria Evaluation in anatomical planning, Abadi Journal, third year, No. 11, pp 40–43.

15.

Turoff

, Linstone

., 2002, The Delphi method, techniques and applications, NJIT publication, New Jersey Institute of Technology