**5. Discussion**

This chapter discusses application of the AHP method in two different organisational settings based on two case studies.

First, AHP is applicable as an evaluation technique that eases the decision maker's task of choosing the most efficient maintenance policy. Diverse management practices can be implemented by manufacturing organisations in order to improve organisational performance by continuous improvement trough implementation of process changes [47,48]. Maintenance can be seen vital for sustainable performance of a production plant [49]. Sharma et al. [50] concluded that development, adoption and practice of new maintenance strategies had become crucial. Selecting a suitable maintenance policy is definitely one of the essential decision-making tasks in improving the cost-effectiveness of the production systems [3,14]. Recent studies [40] indicate that appropriate maintenance can extend the life of an asset and prevent costly breakdowns that may result in lost production. The maintenance function plays a critical role in a company's ability to compete on the basis of cost, quality and delivery performance [51,52]. It appears that aim of the maintenance function is to contribute towards a company's profit, clearly bringing the need for maintenance operations to be in harmony with corporate business objectives [53]. Further, the growing importance of maintenance regarding improving company's profitability and competitiveness [54,55], strengthens the need for selecting a proper maintenance policy [56]. Therefore, using the proposed AHP framework, the criteria for maintenance policy selection can be clearly recognised and the issue can be structured systematically. More importantly, it can effectively support the decision makers in the process of selecting the most appropriate maintenance policy.

Three main criteria for the maintenance policy selection were used in this study and are as follows: equipment- and process-related measures, financial measures as well as health and safety and environment measures. Furthermore, the following sub-criteria are considered to be the most important: OEE, maintenance savings, number of accidents and productivity and availability. The latter can be explained in the context of a production process which in the paper mill is running 24/7. Therefore, used criteria play an important role, especially from the perspective of accomplishing the production goals. Based on the selected criteria as well as on the decision makers' evaluations, the TQMain was selected as the most appropriate mainte‐ nance approach. Among others, the TQMain is focused on maintaining and improving continuously the technical and economic effectiveness of the process elements [9], which were indeed important criteria in our study.

To ensure that final solution is stable and robust, we additionally applied sensitivity analysis. With Expert Choice software, AHP enables sensitivity analysis of results which is very important in practical decision making [57].

Secondly, the AHP method was applied to identify the important of each of the factors that would impact the sustainability of the suggestion scheme. This analysis resulted in placing importance ranks among the five factors. These factors are arranged in the order of their importance as below:


As the consistency ratio resulted in < 0.1, the judgement for overall sustainability factors are

After the study and analysis of the reciprocal matrix and AHP calculations were done, it can

• Leadership and Work Environment is slightly more important than both—System Effec‐ tiveness (2) and System Capability (2), somewhat more important than Organisational

• System Capability is equally important to System Effectiveness (1) and slightly more important to both Organisational Encouragement (2) and System Barriers (2). However, it is

• System Effectiveness is equally important to both System Capability (1) and Organisational Environment (1) and slightly more important to System Barriers (2). However, it is slightly

• Organisational Encouragement is equally important to System Barriers (1) and System Effectiveness (1). However, it is less important than System Capability (1/2) and somewhat

• System Barriers is equally important to Organisational Encouragement (1). However, it is slightly less important to both System Capability (1/2) and system Effectiveness (1/2) and much

**Table 8** depicts the importance order for five sustainability factors based on the above interpretations. The Leadership and Work Environment is the more important factor when compared to the other four. The indicator System Capability stands at the next importance on rank 2, System Effectiveness at importance rank 3 and Organisational Encouragement at rank

This chapter discusses application of the AHP method in two different organisational settings

First, AHP is applicable as an evaluation technique that eases the decision maker's task of choosing the most efficient maintenance policy. Diverse management practices can be implemented by manufacturing organisations in order to improve organisational performance by continuous improvement trough implementation of process changes [47,48]. Maintenance can be seen vital for sustainable performance of a production plant [49]. Sharma et al. [50]

Environment (3) and much more important than System Barriers.

106 Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process - Decision Making for Strategic Decisions

slightly less important than Leadership and Work Environment (1/2).

less important to Leadership and Work Environment (1/2).

less important to Leadership and Work Environment (1/3).

less important to Leadership and Work Environment (1/5).

4 and System Barriers at rank 5.

**5. Discussion**

based on two case studies.

perfectly consistent.

be interpreted that:

**4. The overall factor importance**


The most important factor is placed at the centre and the least important factor is placed at the bottom of the list. Leadership and Work Environment is the first most important factor, System Capability is the next important factor followed by System Effectives that is placed at the next level. The Organisational Encouragement is placed at layer four and the last important factor is the System Barriers.

The success of the suggestion scheme is related to the management support, practices, commitment and their leadership [35,58]. Truly, senior management ought to demonstrate their faith in the scheme, promote and support it and encourage all managers to view it as a positive force for continuous improvement [59]. Typically, the management support is seen as crucial to the implementation of ideas. For example, while a person can be creative and generate new ideas on her/his own, the implementation of ideas typically depends upon the approval, support and resources of others, which essentially calls for different forms of management support. If employees make a lot of suggestions, then the opportunity for them to be translated into implementations is greater when there are higher levels of support. Without senior level management support the workers will not be motivated to turn in suggestions [60].

The management support is also very essential for the facilitation of communication mecha‐ nism within the organisation. Management, therefore, has a responsibility to satisfy this need for participation and create a culture which is supportive of employee involvement in the decisions that affect his or her work [61]. Thus, the leadership-employee relation is of top most importance that can help the creativity practice to grow in the organisation.

Secondly, the knowledge possessed by individual employees can only lead to a firm, compet‐ itive advantage if employees have the incentive and opportunity to share and utilize their individual knowledge in ways that benefit the organisation. Systems that capture the ideas and the capability of such system to evaluate them and provide necessary feedback and reward the employees for the suggestion are other core elements that are necessary once the top management and leadership support is obtained.

Thirdly, organisations need to nurture the system by establishing mechanisms such as team works to improve the employee participation and must ensure that the right expertise and supervision is provided to guide the employees to make their suggestions.

The benefits of the suggestions must be visible. Therefore, it is important that the suggestions result in desired outcomes so these benefits are accrued, and such systems can be sustained. Often there will be organisational impediments that may have a negative impact which are normally the barriers to creativity and this factor has least importance specially because if the systems are the result of the vision of the leadership and resources are allocated to the functioning of the system, organisation impediments have a little scope to cripple the sustain‐ ability of the suggestion system.

Each of the factors has a varied influence on the sustainability of the suggestion scheme and hence understanding the importance level identified by the AHP application of each of them would help the organisation to foster the factors accordingly for an improved performance and increase the effectiveness. Using AHP method, it is possible to identify the importance level of critical success factors and success barriers that have emerged in previous studies. Although the suggestion systems have been around for many decades, identifying the importance level of these factors helps to get a deeper understanding of sustainability of suggestion systems in organisations. Moreover, sustainability is not just a binary state of 'sustaining' or 'not sustaining'. Therefore, it is important to study the impacts of the inhibitors and barriers of suggestion systems on its sustainability.
