Introduction of AHP Satisfaction Index for workplace environments

Khamkanya, Thadsin; Heaney, George; McGreal, Stanley

doi:10.1108/14630011211261687

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the study, AHP was used as a method for determining the benchmarking partners. By applying AHP, it is easier to compare and illustrate the qualitative assessments of quantitative values [20]. In addition, the use of AHP in this study aims to determine the priority sequence of marketing communication alternatives and to determine the benchmarking partners, selected from the available alternative partners.…”

Section: Data Processing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selecting Benchmarking Partners Using Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach

Wulandari

Arfidh²,

Utama³

2024

IJIES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benchmarking is a method to improve performance and improve company competitiveness. This method has been commonly practiced by large companies and has recently been extended to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). However, the implementation between large and SMEs is very different. These differences are debated as an impact of company characteristics, specifically differences in the ability to develop and improve business. Typical SMEs face tough challenges to overcome their resource constraints. This limitation affects the decisions of SMEs in choosing their comparison partners. This research was conducted to fill the research gap regarding the use of the Benchmarking method and the AHP approach to SMEs, especially in determining Benchmark partners using the AHP approach. The use of benchmarking and AHP is illustrated by using SME objects that are engaged in the fashion sector, namely UKM Cotton.Go. The problem faced by UKM Cotton.Go is marketing communication that is not effective in creating sales so it needs to be determined benchmarking partner in making improvements to marketing communication. The use of AHP in determining benchmark partners helps SMEs to find out which benchmark partners have the best marketing communication performance.

show abstract

Section: Data Processing Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is a structured technique to organize and analyze complex decisions based on mathematics and psychology [19]. Using AHP to determine the benchmarking partners facilitates the evaluation and transformation of qualitative assessments to quantitative ones [20].…”

Section: Analytical Hierarchy Process (Ahp) In Benchmarkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting Benchmarking Partners Using Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach

Wulandari

Arfidh²,

Utama³

2024

IJIES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…AHP has been used extensively in real estate and construction management research in the recent years and is an accepted and rigorous methodology. It has been used in communicating investment risk as part of the valuation process (Adair and Hutchison, 2005; Hutchison et al , 2005; Gupta and Tiwari, 2016), assessing CBD building quality (Ho et al , 2005), hotel investment decision-making (Newell and Seabrook, 2006), selecting facility location (Yang and Lee, 2006; Opasanon and Lertsanti, 2013; Chadawada et al , 2015), asset allocation (Chen et al , 2011), technical innovation in construction (Hardie and Newell, 2011), evaluating city competitiveness (Singhal et al , 2013), developing a workplace satisfaction index (Khamkanya et al , 2012), brownfield risk communication and evaluation (Wu et al , 2017), sustainable residential property development (Green et al , 2018), property investment decision-making (Hutcheson and Newell, 2018), apartment buying decision-making (Obeidat et al , 2018), physical asset management (Al Marzooqi et al , 2019), housing choice (Li, 2009) and project performance in a public–private partnership framework (Swamy et al , 2018).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A real estate portfolio management risk assessment framework for nonlisted real estate funds in India

Gupta

Newell

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study provides an extensive risk assessment framework for nonlisted real estate funds' (NREFs) portfolio management in India across their life cycle; that is, the investment stage, the monitoring stage and the exit stage in an emerging market context. The study of risk across these three stages is a new addition to the literature and assumes importance in the context of real estate portfolio management for NREFs in the emerging markets (e.g. India), which are predominantly an opportunistic investment play.Design/methodology/approachThe risk assessment framework is built on the multiactor/multicriteria risk priorities, using analytical hierarchy process (AHP), obtained from 35 experts in four real estate fund management professional groups; namely, investors/fund managers, valuers, consultants and international developers.FindingsThe results demonstrate that the real estate portfolio management risk priorities change across the three life cycle stages of the fund. At the investment stage, specific risks are most critical; at the monitoring stage, it is important to concentrate on all three risks – specific, systematic and management risks; and at the exit stage, systematic risk plays a crucial role. Real estate portfolio management risk evaluation at the subfactor level shows that investee/partner and location selection needs to be critically evaluated at the time of the investment; project execution and quality of development must be monitored during the construction/monitoring period; and repatriation of the funds, currency volatility and exit risk (resale) are critical at the exit stage of the fund.Practical implicationsThe understanding of the real estate portfolio management risk transformation across the life cycle stages is crucial for NREF managers for risk minimization, transfer and mitigation strategy formulation in their real estate portfolios. Unlike previous research that evaluates investment risk, this study breaks the NREF's risks into the investment, monitoring and exit stages. The key risk factors for each stage depend on the NREF's real estate activities for that stage. These activities, in turn, give rise to a typical risk profile for that stage. The findings are crucial for the various stakeholders of real estate fund management and policymakers in an emerging market context; particularly India, one of the fastest growing major economies in the world.Originality/valueThis risk assessment framework for simultaneously assessing risk across the three life cycle stages of NREFs is a new addition to the literature.

show abstract

“…The difficulty regarding the measurement of office factors that have an impact on satisfaction and thus productivity was highlighted by Khamkanya et al (2012). They propose the introduction of a workplace environment index that is based on the rate of satisfaction of employees.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity drivers of knowledge workers in the central London office environment

Chadburn

Smith

Milan

2017

JCRE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the drivers that allow for enhanced personal productivity of knowledge-based workers in Central London focusing on the physical and social environment as well as worker’s individual preferences. Design/methodology/approach A closed-ended questionnaire was sent to employees of eight professional companies (Consultancy, Financial and Media Services) based in Central London. Of the 500 questionnaires sent, 213 were successfully completed and returned, representing a response rate of 42.6 per cent. Findings The findings from this trial study show that comfort, convenience, IT connectivity, good design and working to a specific time scale were strong drivers of personal productivity. Knowledge workers prefer a flexible range of office settings that enable both a stimulating open and connected work environment, knowledge sharing, collaboration, as well as quiet concentration locations, free of distractions and noise. It was also found that moves of knowledge workers into open-plan office space (and especially fee earners) is normally met with initial resistance. However, there is normally greater acceptance of open space after experiencing an actual move into open-plan, with benefits improving teamwork and communication being highlighted. The research also stresses that office design considerations need to be closer aligned with knowledge worker’s overall well-being and individual psychological needs. Research limitations/implications Limited to Central London offices and self-assessed evaluation of productivity drivers within the knowledge worker’s office environment. Practical implications Corporate real estate managers and office occupiers, designers and facilities managers can use the findings as part of their workplace strategy by providing a range of flexible workplaces that allow the knowledge worker a place for greater personal productivity through the provision of a well-designed collaborative office environment alongside private and quiet working spaces. Developers and landlords should also be aware of these requirements when taking their decisions. Originality/value This paper focuses specifically on the high-productivity knowledge-based work environment, demonstrating that there is a need to consider the collaborative physical and social environment and the individual preferences of knowledge workers to ensure enhanced personal productivity and well-being within the office. This can be achieved through the provision of a well-designed office space that allows for open, connected and comfortable work environments, as well as opportunities to use dedicated concentration spaces that are free of distraction. It was also shown that hot-desking was unanimously disliked by knowledge workers.

show abstract

Introduction of AHP Satisfaction Index for workplace environments

Cited by 15 publications

References 19 publications

Selecting Benchmarking Partners Using Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach

Selecting Benchmarking Partners Using Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach

A real estate portfolio management risk assessment framework for nonlisted real estate funds in India

Productivity drivers of knowledge workers in the central London office environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About