Application of fuzzy AHP approach to selection of organizational structure with consideration to contextual dimensions

• Authors: Alireza Aslani , Feryal Aslani
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The literature of organizational structure design is relatively rich along with conceptual and complex patterns. This complexity arising from the number of elements and numerous relations in addition to the nature of variables. Thereby, the lack of operational decision-making models is felt to propose adequate structural designs in practice. In this article, the researchers employ a fuzzy multi attribute decision making model (FMADM) to select the most suitable organizational structure based on expert’s judgments and by deploying contextual dimensions of the organization. Since the organizational changes especially in the structural levels are along with resistances among involved staffs, the implementation of this model is a supportive tool in addition to help the managers to make a qualified decision and change.

Keywords

EN

Organizational Structure Designing; Business Process Reengineering; Development Management; Integration; Fuzzy AHP

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Organizacija
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 45
• Issue: 5
• Pages: 246-254

Dates

published

2012-10-01

received

accepted

online

2012-10-31

Contributors

author

Alireza Aslani

• University of Vaasa, Faculty of Technology, Industrial Management Department, 65101, Vaasa, Finland and Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, 5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburg, PA 15213, USA

author

Feryal Aslani

• University of Tehran, Faculty of Management, Information Technology Management Department, Tehran, Iran

References

• Adler, R.W. (2011). Performance management and organizational strategy: How to design systems that meet the needs of confrontation strategy firms, The British Accounting Review, 43(4), 251-263, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2011.08.004[Crossref]
• Al-Mashari, M. & Zairi, M. (1999). BPR implementation process: an analysis of key success and failure factors, Business Process Management Journal, 5(1), 87-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637159910249108[Crossref]
• Aslani, A., Naaranoja, M. & Zakeri, B. (2012a). The prime criteria for private sector participation in renewable energy investment in the Middle East (case study: Iran). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(4), 1977-1987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.12.015[WoS][Crossref]
• Aslani, A., Helo, P. & Naaranoja, M. (2012b). Development of creativity in concurrent engineering teams, American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 2(3), 77-84, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2012.23010[Crossref]
• Azar, A. (2008). Fuzzy Management Science [in Persian]. Tehran: IMPSC.
• Bafandeh, A. (2009). Developing a fuzzy expert system in order to design the organizational structure [in Persian], Beyond the Management, 9(2), 103-128.
• Bennett, R. & Savani, S. (2004). Managing conflict between marketing and other functions within charitable organizations, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 180 - 200, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1437730410521840[Crossref]
• Cernancky, M., Makula, M. & Benuskova, L. (2007). Organization of the state space of a simple recurrent network before and after training on recursive linguistic structures, Neural Networks, 20(2), 236-244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2006.01.020[WoS][Crossref]
• Chang, D.Y. (1996). Theory and methodology: applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2[Crossref]
• Chou, T.C. & Cheng, S.C. (2006). Design and implementation of a semantic image classification and retrieval of organizational memory information systems using analytical hierarchy process, Omega, 34(2), 125-134, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.08.004[Crossref]
• Daft, R.L. (2009). Organization Theory and Design (Tenth Edition). US: South-Western Cengage Learning.
• Damjanovic, V. (2010). Semantic reengineering of business processes, Information Systems, 35(4), 496-504, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2009.06.003[WoS][Crossref]
• Dessler, G. (2007). Human Resource Management (11th Edition). US: Prentice Hall.
• DuBrin, A.J. (2006). Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior (4th editions). US: South-Western College Pub.
• Grover, V., Jeong, S.R., Kettinger, W.J & Teng, T.C. (1995). The implementation of business process re-engineering, Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1), 109 - 144.
• Hall, J.M. & Johnson, M.E. (2009). When Should Process Be Art, Not Science, Harvard Business Review, Retrieved July 20, 2012, from <http://www.virginia.edu/sciartproject/docs/WhenShouldaProcessBeArt.pdf>
• Hatch, M.J. & Cunliffe, Al. (2006). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives(2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hwang, C.L. & Yoon, K (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision-Making; Methods and Applications- a State of the Art Survey, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
• Ishizaka, A. & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336-14345, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143[Crossref]
• Ketchen, D.J. & Hult, T.M. (2007). Toward greater integration of insights from organization theory and supply chain management, Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 455-458, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.001[Crossref]
• Mintzberg, H. (2007). Mintzberg on Management. New York: The Free Press.
• Momeni, M. (2007). New Topics in the Operations Research [in Persian]. Tehran: University of Tehran.
• Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London: SAGE.
• Robbins, S.P. (2006). Organization Theory: Structure, Design and Application. USA: Pearson Academic.
• Sarmad, Z. (2009). The Research Method in Behavioral Science [in Persian]. Tehran: Aghah.
• Saaty, T.L. & Peniwati K. (2007). Group Decision Making: Drawing out and Reconciling Differences. Pennsylvania: RWS Publications.
• Sethi, R. & Nicholson, C.Y. (2001). Structural and contextual correlates of charged behavior in product development teams, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(3), 154-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1830154[Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10051-012-0025-1