Prioritization of Revenue Management Factors: A Synthetic Extent Analysis Approach

Abstract

Amaç: Bu makale, konaklama sektöründe getiri yönetimi uygulamalarının başarı faktörlerini ortaya çıkarmak için yeni bir yaklaşım sunmaktadır. Çalışmada, başarılı bir getiri yönetimi uygulamasına olumlu katkı verecek içerikler belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Getiri yönetimi uygulayıcılarının deneyimlerinden faydalanılarak elde edilen ampirik verilerin analizinden sonra bulanık sentetik değerlendirme prosedürü uygulanmıştır. Bu çalışma birçok farklı sektörde (konaklama sektörü) kullanılabilecek fonksiyonel karşılaştırma analizinin (getiri yönetimi) bir örneği olarak araştırmacı ve uygulamacıların ilgisini çekebilir.Tasarım/Metodoloji/Yaklaşım: Çalışmada geçen başarı faktörleri ile ilgili olarak getiri yönetimi uygulamacılarının deneyimleri ve yargıları subjektiftir. Buradan hareketle, çalışmada uygulanan bulanık sentetik analizi ile başarı faktörlerinin daha mantıksal bir önceliklendirilmesi sağlanmaya çalışılmıştır. Araştırma Sınırlamaları/Etkileri: Önceliklendirme prosedürü ile bulanık kavramların uygulanması, bulanık dil değişkenlerinin belirlenmesi ve bunların bulanık ölçekte dönüşümünü gerektirmektedir. Genelde bulanık teknikleri uygulama adımları çok kriterli karşılaştırma teknikleri (AHP) için uygulanması zordur. Özgünlük/Değer: Bu çalışma konaklama endüstrisinde başarılı getiri yönetimi uygulamaları için etkili olan faktörlerin önceliklendirmesi için sentetik kapsam analizinin kullanımını ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte, çalışma, mevcut uygulamalara bir bakış açısı sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Bulanık önceliklendirme, sentetik kapsam analizi, getiri yönetimi, konaklama endüstrisi

Prioritization of Revenue Management Factors: A Synthetic Extent Analysis Approach

Abstract

Purpose: This paper presents a novel approach for revealing the success factors of revenue management practices in hospitality industry. Our study aims to point out the favorably contributing ‘ingredients’ of a successful revenue management application. We investigate what revenue managers have learned from their past experience by using real empirical data and fuzzy synthetic evaluation procedure. Researchers and practitioners may regard this work as a functional benchmark analyzing a function (revenue management) which is widely used in those companies belongs to a particular industry (hospitality industry)Design/methodology/approach: Revenue managers’ judgments about the underlying success factors are highly subjective and qualitative in nature. In order to capture this imprecision, we employed the fuzzy synthetic extent analysis and provided with a sensible prioritization of the success factors. Research limitations/implications: Employing fuzzy concepts within a prioritization procedure requires constructing a fuzzy linguistic variable set and as-signing a fuzzy conversion scale to it. Usually the implementation steps in fuzzy techniques are more cumbersome when compared to the conventional multi attribute techniques (i.e. conventional AHP). Originality/value: This paper discusses the prioritization of effective factors that concede to a successful revenue management application in hospitality industry with a synthetic extent analysis approach. This paper provides with a ‘snapshot’ of the current practice in the area and serves for researchers and practitioners.

Keywords

• Fuzzy prioritization, synthetic extent analysis, revenue management, hospitality industry

References

1. Buckley, J.J. (1985) “Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17:233-247.
2. Boender, C.G.E., Degrann, J.G. and Lootsma, F.A. (1986) “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis with Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison”Fuzzy Sets and Systems 29:133-143.
3. Cakir, O., Canbolat, M. (2008) “A Web-Based Decision Support System For Multi-Criteria İnventory Classification Using fuzzy AHP Methodology” Expert System with Application, 35:1367-1378.
4. Cebeci, U., Kahraman, C. (2002) “Measuring Customer Satisfaction of Catering Service Companies Using Fuzzy AHP: The Case of Turkey” Proceedings of the International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Soft Computational Intelligence in Management and Industrial Engineering, May 29-31, Istanbul.
5. Chan, F.T.S., Chan, M.H. and Tang N.K.H. (2000) “Evaluation Methodologies for Technology Selection” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 107:330-337.
6. Chang, D.Y. (1996) “Applications of The Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP” European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3):649-655.
7. Cheng, C.H., Mon, D.L. (1994) “Evaluating Weapon System by Analytical Hierarchy Process Based on Fuzzy Scales”Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 63:1-10.
8. Cheng, C.H., Yang, K.L. and Hwang, C.L. (1999) “Evaluating Attack Helicopters By AHP Based on Linguistic Variable Weight” European Journal of Operational Research, 116(2):423-443.

9. Griffin, R. K. (1995) “A Categorization Scheme for Critical Success Factors of Lodging Yield Management Systems” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3/4):325-338.
10. Hansen, C. N., Eringa, K. (1998) “Critical Success Factors in Yield Management: A Development and Analysis” Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4:229-244.
11. Hu, Q., Wei, Y. and Xia, Y. (2009) “Revenue Management for a Supply Chain with Two Streams of Customers” European Journal of Operational Research, 200(2):582-598.
12. Kaufmann, A., Gupta, M.M. (1991) Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic: Theory and Applications, New York,Van Nostrand Reinhold.
13. Kwong, C.K., Bai, H. (2002) “A fuzzy AHP Approach to the Determination of Importance Weights of Customer Requirements in Quality Function Deployment” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13:367-377.
14. Lee, M., Pham, H. and Zhang, X. (1999) “A Methodology for Priority Setting with Application to Software Development Process” European Journal of Operational Research,118(2):375-389.
15. Leung, L.C., Cao, D. (2000) “On Consistency and Ranking of Alternatives in Fuzzy AHP” European Journal of Operational Research, 124(1):102-113.
16. Lindenmeier, J., Tscheulin, D. K. (2008) “The effects of Inventory Control and Denied Boarding on Customer Satisfaction: The Case of Capacity-Based Airline Revenue Management” Tourism Management, 29:32-43.
17. Luciani, S. (1999) “Implementing Yield management in small and Medium Sized Hotels: An Investigation of Obstacles and Success Factors in Florence Hotels” Hospitality Management, 18:129-142.
18. Mikhailov, L. (2003) “Deriving Priorities From Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison Judgments” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134:365-385.
19. Mitra, S. (2007) “Revenue Management for Remanufactured Products” Omega, 35(5):553-562.
20. Modarres, M., Sharifyazdi, M. (2009) “Revenue Management Apporach to Stochastic Capacity Allocation Problem” European Journal of Operational Research, 192:442-459.
21. Saaty, T.L. (1977) “Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structure” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3):234-281.
22. Saaty, T.L. (1980) Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York, McGraw-Hill.
23. Topaloglu, H. (2008) “On the Asymptotic Optimality of the Randomized Linear Program for Network Revenue Management” European Journal of Operational Research, 197(3):884-896.
24. Upchurch, R. S., Ellis, T. and Seo, J. (2002) “Revenue Management Underpinnings: An Exploratory Review” Hospitality Management, 21:67-83.
25. Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S. (2006) “Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications” European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1):1-29.
26. Van Laarhoven, P.J.M. & Pedrycz, W. (1983) “A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty’s Priority Theory” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11:229-241.
27. Weck, M., Klocke, F., Shell, H. and Renauver, E. (1997) “Evaluating Alternative Production Cycles Using The Extended Fuzzy AHP Method” European Journal of Operational Research, 100(2):351-366.
28. Xu, R. (2000) “Fuzzy Least Squares Priority Method in the Analytic Hierarchy Process” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 112:359-404.
29. Zahedi, F. (1996) “The Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Survey of the Method and Its Applications” Interfacesi 16(4):96-108.
30. Zadeh, L.A. (1975) “The Concept of Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning” Information Sciences, 8(3): 199-249.