Professional Documents
Culture Documents
185
Paired comparisons
In order to survey the opinions of experts by questionnaire prepared, experts do comparisons between
criteria and sub-criteria of decision-making and set their scores towards each other. This comparison is based
on the 9 quantity table. Preference for an option or factor compared to the factoritself is equal to one.
In this study, using the software Expert Choice, all comments of decision makers in the matrix
comparison is used, in this case for group decision making we have used geometric mean for comparison
matrix elements. The opinion or decision makers are taken into account it group calculations when
inconsistency of views of any decision maker is less than /1, these measures have been calculated by the
software and the incompatibility rate criteria is /05. Table 1 shows the matrix of pairwise comparison of criteria.
Table 1. Matrix relativepreference forgeneralstandards
According to the chart2, the incompatibility rate of total criteria was /05 and measures of labor
productivity, quality of management, product quality and technological characteristics have the highest relative
weight which shows the importance of these measures in the cost efficiency.
Calculating the incompatibility rate of sub-criteria of human labor and their related weight
Based on the chart 3, incompatibility rate of sub-criteria of human labor is /08 and the index of nondiscrimination and justice organization, motivation of staff consciousness, courage and enthusiasm of experts
have the highest weight.
Calculating the incompatibility rate of sub-criteria of Quality management and their related weight
According to chart 4 incompatibility rate of sub-criteria of Quality management is less than 0/06 and
index of monitoring and supervision of operations, implementation of SPC, critical flaws in the product and
additional costs due to irregularities, have the highest weight.
Calculating the incompatibility rate of sub-criteria of technology characteristics and their related weight
According to chart 5 incompatibility rate of sub-criteria of technology characteristics is 0/02 then and
index of technology consistent with need to produce the highest weight.
187
The final weight of options and the incompatibility rate hierarchical structure
According to chart 7, incompatibility rate of whole structure is /07 and SH option has the priority to
make decisions in efficiency of costs. One of the main criteria to decide on this research is using the results of
this graph.
chart7. The incompatibility rate of final options and their relative weight
640million rials
790million rials
250million rials
1680million rials
CONCLUSION
Productivity of quality costs specialty internal failure costs for manufacturing firms must be a priority. In
this study, those factors involved in improving the costs of quality were designed by the hierarchy in 4 criteria
along with the sub-criteria. The results show that the efficiency of human resources, quality of management,
product quality and technological features has an important role in improving costs. Also the selection of the
right product makes a significant impact in this area, so that by using hierarchical techniques and solutions in
various stages of quality costs a total of 1680 million riyals saving is achieved in the first half of the year. It is
obvious that the continuation of the company's quality cost efficiency depends on the proper enforcement and
compliance of criteria and sub criteria of proposed measures. Managers also need to have a special look at
costs of quality.
REFERENCES
Ali Delbari, AlirezaDavoodi, 2012, application (AHP) in the rating assessment indicators tourist attractions, Journal of Oper ations Research
and its Applications, Volume IX, Issue II, summer, page 57-79.
Amin Rezapour, 1999, to evaluate and measure the cost of quality, master's thesis, University of Science and Technology, Fall.
Fereydun Verdi Nejad, 2010, reviews the strategies of differentiation and leas t cost and their impact on organizational structure, site Verdi
race.
Hassan Ghodsi Poor, 2006, Frayndthlyl hierarchical, Tehran: Amir Kabir University.
Maryam Ostadzadeh, 2008, factors contributing to the increase or decrease in labor productivity, site R ahkarmdyryt,
September.www.mgtsolution
Mehdi Dadashi, 2014, cost of quality failure costs Bruni, industry news website, Feb Page 3-1.
MJ Asgharpour, 2000, multi-criteria decision-making, Eighth Edition, Tehran University Press.
Mohamad Mehdi Mostafavi, 2011, Factors ergonomic work environment on the implementation of a quality management system, site
management solution, Nov. Www.mgtsolution.com
MohamadRoshan, 2013, cost management in competitive conditions, why and how, Forums, page 4, June.
Mohammad Yousufi, 2012, costing, quality, Blog Latest News, July http://magazine.faraed.com.
MR Mehrgan, 2014, advanced operational research, Pnjm.thran print publications of academic publishing.
Saeed Ketabi, Ansari , 2005, choosing the right marketing mix using AHP, the Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, University
of Isfahan, Issue I, Page 92-79.
SarmadSaeedi S, Ali Reza Mamaghani, 2011, identifying and ranking the key factors Jdyddrgrvh product MvsrdrtvshSaipa with the
approach of AHP, Journal of Industrial Management, Issue 20, Spring, pages 167 to 194.
Talebnia G., Ali Khozein, M Dankub, 2012, priority review Mvsrdrpyadh factors of implementation of activity-based costing system using
hierarchical process, accounting and auditing Research, Volume 4, Number 13 Page 95-78.
189