Search

To remain in the current competitive world as a manufacturingcompany, it is vital to use Advanced Manufacturing Systems (AMSs).AMS selection is now considered a strategic decision fororganizations, due to the effects it has on their future activities. Theprocess of decision-making involves some complexities which are notonly caused by the varied quantitative and qualitative factors involved,but also due to the conflictions between these factors, and the diverseviews of stakeholders. Thus, In order to choose AMS type, it isnecessary to take into account both the effective factors and thestakeholders' viewpoints; and finally, the most suitable system shouldbe recognized by the management, considering the limitations of thecompany’s resources. To date, different approaches have beendeveloped for AMS evaluation and selection, with their ownadvantages and disadvantages - some of them ignoring the qualitativefactors and others being time consuming, for instance. This papercombines the AHP method with zero-one goal programmingtechnique, enabling decision - makers to encompass diverse views ofstakeholders, and at the same time assess the conflicting factors. Theproposed method has been applied to a real world situation to furtherprove that this combined method can prepare more key information todecision-makers than the rest of the available technology-evaluatingmethods.

This research was done in the second half of 1387 in Iran to appraisal influencing factors on auditor's judgment and determining the materiality degree on misstatement detection of financial statements. After theoretically study, quantitative and qualitative factors recognized and sort in 28 factors at 2 equal groups and in 350, 300 questionnaires send for internal and external auditors that 131 external auditors and 59 internal auditors answered them. Perception of Iranian internal and external auditors appraisal to efficiency each factors using statistical tests and specify that auditors perception's to quantitative and qualitative factors are the same, but they have not the same cognition. Results of this research show that by not existing general difference in perception of auditors to efficiency factors, auditors sort them to different configuration. As external auditors appraisal 8 quantitative factors and 5 qualitative factors to the most effective factors and against internal auditors recognize 6 quantitative factors and only 1 qualitative factor to the most effective factors. Also Results of this research show that external auditors think that qualitative factors are more effective and internal auditors think that quantitative factors are more effective.