Boundary judgments analysis of the beneficiaries in banking loan allocation

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.

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.

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.

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.