Academic journal article Economics, Management and Financial Markets

Multi-Criteria Decision Making Selection Model for Railway Companies

Academic journal article Economics, Management and Financial Markets

Multi-Criteria Decision Making Selection Model for Railway Companies

Article excerpt

1. Introduction

The traditional approach to multi-attribute decision making involves quantitative concepts such as probabilities, utilities, scores and weights. The qualitative methods deal with descriptive values expressed by ordinal symbols or words (Bohanec et al, 1992).

Regarding selection criteria for the managers in the Constanta Regional Railways Operations Center for Maintenance and Repair (CRROCMR), we have observed that: the evaluation of human resources selection process is inappropriate, being done globally, not on categories of employees and railway staff selection methodology is outdated and does not take into account the new demands ofHRMin rail transport.

For the managers' evaluation process for selection we used the DEXi software tool.

We mention the fact that the DEXi expert system was first time used in Romania by Silviu Mihai Tita to assess Public Research Institutions and the original DEXi model was created by Katerina Taskova and Jozef Stefan.

The good graphics and reporting capabilities of the DEXi program allow easy explanation and understanding of the multi-criteria model and of the decision rules (Taskova et al, 2007).

Constanta Regional Railways Operations Center for Maintenance and Repair (CRROCMR) is part of the Romanian Railways Infrastructure (RRI), public company.

Regarding the CRROCMR, which was the subject of this present research work, the identified issue was the decision-making of selection for the most appropriate manager who must have the qualities required to participate to a specialized scientific event. In this respect, the Regional Manager together with the Traffic Division head decided to select the manager from the organizational structure of the Division, in order to choose the best placed manager from the point of view of professional and managerial performance evaluation process in 2011.

The logical schema of the scientific research on decision-making process for appropriate selection of railway managers based on multi-criteria model and with DEXi expert system program support is shown in Figure 1.

The shortlist of candidates included heads of departments and services subordinate to the Traffic Division, with responsibilities in the organization, management, and traffic control on the railway infrastructure, as well as with high experience in the field. The six managers selected for the decision to choose the best alternative manager, were rail technology engineers like specialty and results: Head of Infrastructure Access Control Department (IAC), Head of Infrastructure Access Regulations Department (IAR), Head of Traffic Service Department (TS), Head of Traffic Control Department, Constanta branch (TC), Head of Constanta Railway Station (RS) and Movement District Auditor (MDA).

Given the manner of choosing the most appropriate manager, determined by the Regional Manager with the Traffic Division head, we initiated desk research by collecting and structuring information from reports and records of the Traffic Division. In this respect, the professional performance evaluation forms of the Traffic Division employees, completed annually by the immediate superior, have been studied. This form is processed with the model (Pitariu, 2006) and applied to all employees, regardless the position held. The form includes evaluation criteria, numerically scaled and with quantified scores, and total score value allows the ranking of each employee, in terms of professional performance. It is necessary to mention the fact that the authors disagree with a uniform assessment of the staff, their option being a particular evaluation on personnel categories or at least differentiated for executives and leading personnel.

From the study and interpretation of evaluation forms results of the work of the six managers in 2011, it was not possible to differentiate them in order to identify the best candidate, since two of them achieved the same highest score, as follows: IAC 34 points, IAR 34 pts, TS 28 pts, TC 25 pts, RS 24 pts, MDA 20 pts. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.