An approach to give grade for each departments of a university based on their performances

Barre latérale de l'article

Raissi2011b (English)
Publié-e : nov. 11, 2015
DOI : https://doi.org/10.37870/joqie.v5i6BIS.113
Mots-clés :
Multiple-attribute decision-making (MADM), Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP), Efficient department selection method, Quality of education

Contenu principal de l'article

Sadigh Raissi
Islamic Azad University

Résumé

Decide on the most efficient department could help university managers to conduct their decision in a proper manner especially in their resource allocation programs, encouraging decision support systems, quality metrics and so on. Different decision maker may use different information bases, unlike relative weights to their criteria and also different uncertainty levels in their expressions. They could utilize many quantitative or qualitative methods based on their knowledge and experiences. There is no unique and commonly accepted procedure to accomplish such decision properly. This paper tends to advise a systematic approach to handle such management problems. Through this paper readers will be familiar with a simple theory and easy of use method called Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the way to compare different departments in a given university based on their commonly experts expression and a sample hierarchy structure for the such desired cases. This method called Fuzzy AHP and abbreviated FAHP later. In order of more warning to the prescribed efficient method, we avoided to deliver detail arithmetical calculations.

Renseignements sur l'article

Comment citer
Raissi, S. (2015). An approach to give grade for each departments of a university based on their performances. La Revue De La Qualité En Education, 5(6BIS), 7. https://doi.org/10.37870/joqie.v5i6BIS.113
Numéro
Vol. 5 No. 6BIS (2015): Quality in Education: Models, Approaches and Methods
Rubrique
Articles
Licence Creative Commons

Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Références

[1]- Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[2]- Chen S.J. and Hwang, C.L. (1992). Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer Verlage, Berlin.
[3]- Amy H.I. Lee et al. (2006). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating the performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan, Expert Systems with Applications, article on press.
[4]- Basak, I. and Saaty, T.L. (1993), Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process, Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 17, 233-247.
[5]- Basak, I. (1997). Rank-based statistical procedures in analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, 101, 39-50.
[6]- Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338"“353.
[7]- Tsaur, S. H., Tzeng, G. H., & Wang, K. C. (1997). Evaluating tourist risks from fuzzy perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 796"“812.
[8]- Tsaur, S. H., Chang, T. Y., & Yen, C. H. (2002). The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management, 23, 107"“115.
[9]- Gupta, M. M., Saridis, G. N., & Gaines, B. R. (1977). Fuzzy automata and decision processes. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
[10]- Liang, G. S., & Wang, M. J. (1994). Personnel selection using fuzzy MCDM algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research, 78, 22"“33.
[11]- Leung, L.C. and Cao, D. (2000). On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operation Research, Vol. 124.
[12]- Saaty, T. L. (1994). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces, 24(6),
19"“43.
[13]- Van Laarhoven, P. J. M. and Pedrycs, W. (1993). A Fuzzy extension of Saatyes priority theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 11.
[14]- Buckley, J.J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 17.
[15]- Csutora, R., & Buckley, J. J. (2001). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: the Lambda-Max method. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 120, 181"“195.
[16]- Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114, 1"“9.