...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Expert Systems with Application >Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location
【24h】

Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location

机译：两种多标准决策分析（MCDA）模型的开发，测试和比较：以医疗基础设施位置为例

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

When planning a new development, location decisions have always been a major issue. This paper examines and compares two modelling methods used to inform a healthcare infrastructure location decision. Two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models were developed to support the optimisation of this decision-making process, within a National Health Service (NHS) organisation, in the UK. The proposed model structure is based on seven criteria (environment and safety, size, total cost, accessibility, design, risks and population profile) and 28 sub-criteria. First, Evidential Reasoning (ER) was used to solve the model, then, the processes and results were compared with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AMP). It was established that using ER or AHP led to the same solutions. However, the scores between the alternatives were significantly different; which impacted the stakeholders' decision-making. As the processes differ according to the model selected, ER or AHP, it is relevant to establish the practical and managerial implications for selecting one model or the other and providing evidence of which models best fit this specific environment. To achieve an optimum operational decision it is argued, in this study, that the most transparent and robust framework is achieved by merging ER process with the pair-wise comparison, an element of AMP. This paper makes a defined contribution by developing and examining the use of MCDA models, to rationalise new healthcare infrastructure location, with the proposed model to be used for future decision. Moreover, very few studies comparing different MCDA techniques were found, this study results enable practitioners to consider even further the modelling characteristics to ensure the development of a reliable framework, even if this means applying a hybrid approach. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
机译：在规划新开发项目时，位置决策一直是主要问题。本文研究并比较了两种用于告知医疗基础设施位置决策的建模方法。在英国国家卫生服务（NHS）组织中，开发了两个多标准决策分析（MCDA）模型来支持此决策过程的优化。拟议的模型结构基于七个标准（环境和安全，规模，总成本，可及性，设计，风险和人口概况）和28个子标准。首先，使用证据推理（ER）进行模型求解，然后将过程和结果与层次分析过程（AMP）进行比较。已确定使用ER或AHP可以得出相同的解决方案。然而，替代方案之间的得分差异显着。这影响了利益相关者的决策。由于过程根据所选择的模型（ER或AHP）的不同而不同，因此有必要建立选择一个模型或其他模型的实践和管理意义，并提供哪种模型最适合此特定环境的证据。为了获得最佳的运营决策，在本研究中，我们认为，通过将ER过程与AMP的成对比较相结合，可以实现最透明和最可靠的框架。本文通过开发和检查MCDA模型，合理化新的医疗保健基础设施位置以及提出的模型用于未来决策，做出了明确的贡献。此外，很少有研究比较不同的MCDA技术，该研究结果使从业人员甚至可以进一步考虑建模特性，以确保开发可靠的框架，即使这意味着采用混合方法也是如此。 （C）2015作者。由Elsevier Ltd.发布

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号