The 6th International Scientific Conference "Business and Management 2010". Selected Papers 2010
DOI: 10.3846/bm.2010.133
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating Lithuanian banks from the perspective of their reliability to customers by PROMETHEE method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, this is true for Lithuania in the field of finance. Lithuanian scientists pay some attention to the problem of evaluating domestic banks by MCDA methods (Brauers, Ginevicius, Podviezko, 2012;Zavadskas, Kaklauskas, Banaitis, Kvederyte, 2004;Ginevicius, Podvezko, 2008a;Ginevicius, Podvezko, Novotny, 2010;Ginevicius, Podvezko, Podviezko, 2012;Zvirblis, Buracas, 2010;Podviezko, Ginevicius, 2010;Stankeviciene, Mencaite, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, this is true for Lithuania in the field of finance. Lithuanian scientists pay some attention to the problem of evaluating domestic banks by MCDA methods (Brauers, Ginevicius, Podviezko, 2012;Zavadskas, Kaklauskas, Banaitis, Kvederyte, 2004;Ginevicius, Podvezko, 2008a;Ginevicius, Podvezko, Novotny, 2010;Ginevicius, Podvezko, Podviezko, 2012;Zvirblis, Buracas, 2010;Podviezko, Ginevicius, 2010;Stankeviciene, Mencaite, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of particular interest in these methods is the PROMETHEE (Preferential Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations) method, which many authors describe as more advanced, more sophisticated and logical than other multichronic methods (Brans, Mareschal 2005;Behzadian et al 2010;Kosmidou, Zopounidis 2008). As reported by Ginevičius et al (2010), the results of the evaluation depend on the preferential criteria and its parameters, as well as the decision-maker experience. The spectrum of their research interest was SR (Sum of Rank), SAW (Simple Additive Weighing), TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), COPRAS (COmplex PRoportional ASsessment) mentioned e.g.…”
Section: Banking Performance Assessment In the Cross-cutting Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While TOPSIS evaluates the overall distance of each alternative from the best and the worst variant (Opricovic, Tzeng 2004), the normalized values and weights of the evaluated alternatives into one value are mathematically integrated in the COPRAS method (Hwang, Yoon 1981;Ginevičius, Podvezko 2008, 2013Zavadskas et al 2008). Applying these methods by authors to Lithuanian banks (Ginevičius et al 2010) concluded that different Multi-Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) provide different results (differentiated bank rankings depending on the evaluation technique). To eliminate the separate negatives of multi-criteria methods, the authors applied a new, sophisticated PROMETHEE method, which demonstrated a greater differentiation of complex evaluation results and thus accuracy.…”
Section: Banking Performance Assessment In the Cross-cutting Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, all the criteria were examined and their values were transformed respectively. The multi-criteria evaluation methods may only be applied when normalized criteria values and weights are determined (Ginevičius et al 2010). was modified to the shape of all criteria maximizing, subtracting the criteria value of the options from the worst levels of minimizing criteria (Fiala et al 1994).…”
Section: Multi-criteria Evaluation Of Heating Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%