چکیده:
Objective: In this study, a bank loan allocation is examined in-depth with one of the methods derived from emancipatory operational research, and by conducting in-depth interviews with experts in this field, identifies the views and contradictions between them. Methods: In order to deeply review with a critical approach, this process of perceiving and reflecting the (hidden) views of stakeholders using 12 border questions in the form of 2 "Is" states in terms of facts and what is now and "ought to be" state. It explores the concept of values and what should ideally exist. Results: According to the findings, the banking decision-makers' approach should be turning to create shared value, changes in the obsolete banking statute seem necessary, and the central bank system should be working independently. Furthermore, unconventional powers of government and governance have caused injustice in the allocation of loans, and despite the existence of multiple grievance systems, the response to the complaints is too slow. Besides, some sub-systems also have significant weaknesses: credit rating, management evaluation system, the authority of provincial and regional managers, the customer evaluation system, the allocation of credit, and scientific and technological support teams. Conclusion: This study's results provide suggestions arising from the exploration and understanding of stakeholder boundary judgments (initial judgments about the system and an overview of it) to redesign and implement critical changes in Iran's bank loan allocation system
خلاصه ماشینی:
Analysis of Stakeholder Boundary Judgments in Bank Loan Allocation Mahmood Dehghan Niri * * Corresponding Author, Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
Conclusion: The results of this research provide suggestions stemming from the exploration and understanding of stakeholder boundary judgments (initial judgments about the system and a general look at it) in order to redesign and implement key changes in the allocation of bank credits and facilities in Iran.
Therefore, considering the importance of this issue in the difficult economic conditions resulting from today's sanctions, as well as the diversity and scope of experts involved, this article uses the Critical System Heuristics (CSH) method to confront conflicting views and reach a common insight to organize and manage more effectively and efficiently.
In this study, in order to improve the allocation of banking facilities and credits, CSH is used to identify the existing conflicts in the views, perspectives, and expectations of stakeholders, and corrective proposals are presented.
Finally, it seems that analyzing the bank credit allocation system using critical approaches from the perspective of influencers and those affected by the system can pave the way for addressing existing deep-rooted deficiencies, including distributive justice of facilities, non-performing loans, and so on.
Research Methodology The present research is applied in terms of purpose and, considering the selected methodology, is one of the descriptive studies that has been implemented based on the CSH method, given the description of multiple and conflicting views regarding the allocation of bank credits in Iran.
(
, 
, 
)
