Volume 11, Issue 4 (12-2017)
payavard 2017, 11(4): 380-390 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Safarani S, Khatami Firouzabadi S M A, Ahangar A. Supplier Selection for Serum and Syringe Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods ELECTRE1, TOPSIS and Compared Them with VIKOR
. payavard 2017; 11 (4) :380-390
URL: http://payavard.tums.ac.ir/article-1-6320-en.html
URL: http://payavard.tums.ac.ir/article-1-6320-en.html
1- Ph.D. Student in Health Care Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Industrial Management Department, School of Management & Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’I University, Tehran, Iran ,a.khatami@atu.ac.ir
3- Ph.D. Student in Health Economics, School of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Industrial Management Department, School of Management & Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’I University, Tehran, Iran ,
3- Ph.D. Student in Health Economics, School of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (4360 Views)
Background and Aim: Medical facilities management can have a significant impact on reducing costs and increase the quality of services. Therefore, it is essential that the selection of equipment in an objective manner that they will be classified according to their importance, so the aim of this article is to choose the most appropriate of supplier based on multi-criteria decision-making methods.
Materials and Methods: This study was a mixed method. To collect the data, we used documents and interview. The participants consist of top managers, users and experts in medical devices that are in hospital. We used the snowball sampling.
Results: It can be seen that as the method (ELECTERE1), the priority order is D>C>A=B And the method( TOPSIS) is the same, the priority order is D>B>A>C And at in the last way (VIKOR) is A>B>D>C And as we see in the first and second methods most cases are the same except B and C. in the third technique A changed place and become the first rank and, B and C has the same rank.
Conclusion: we were observed that prioritize the options in all of the similarities to each other and yet in some cases differ, in short, no option is in all of the same place, and it seems to make a final decision should use several other methods as a way to help and emphasis our results.
Materials and Methods: This study was a mixed method. To collect the data, we used documents and interview. The participants consist of top managers, users and experts in medical devices that are in hospital. We used the snowball sampling.
Results: It can be seen that as the method (ELECTERE1), the priority order is D>C>A=B And the method( TOPSIS) is the same, the priority order is D>B>A>C And at in the last way (VIKOR) is A>B>D>C And as we see in the first and second methods most cases are the same except B and C. in the third technique A changed place and become the first rank and, B and C has the same rank.
Conclusion: we were observed that prioritize the options in all of the similarities to each other and yet in some cases differ, in short, no option is in all of the same place, and it seems to make a final decision should use several other methods as a way to help and emphasis our results.
Keywords: Prioritize, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
