Ανάπτυξη Ολοκληρωµένου Προτύπου Ανάδειξης Στελεχών

∆ιοίκησης µε την Προσέγγιση της Αναλυτικής Ιεράρχησης

(A.H.P.)

∆ρ. Ιωάννης ∆. Μπουρής

Καθηγητής

ΤΕΙ-Αθήνας Σχολή ∆ιοίκησης και Οικονοµίας

Τµήµα ∆ιοίκησης Επιχειρήσεων
Αγ. Σπυρίδωνα, 122 10 Αιγάλεω
e-mail : jbouris@teiath.gr

ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ

Έναυσµα για τη συγγραφή αυτού του άρθρου αποτέλεσε η πρόσφατη προκήρυξη

εκλογών για την ανάδειξη µελών του συµβουλίου του Ιδρύµατος ( ΑΕΙ πανεπιστηµιακού ή
τεχνολογικού τοµέα).
Στην προβληµατική της επιλογής υποψηφίων για την ανάδειξη µελών και προέδρου
Συµβουλίου Ιδρύµατος εντάσσεται η σχεδίαση και ανάπτυξη προτύπου µε βάση την
Αναλυτική Ιεραρχική ∆ιαδικασία το οποίο εξασφαλίζει την αξιοπιστία, την εγκυρότητα, την
συγκρισιµότητα, την αντικειµενικότητα στη λήψη αποφάσεων. Περιορίζει τον πατερναλισµό
του πελατειακού συστήµατος και οδηγεί στην αναβάθµιση της ποιότητας του συµβουλίου
του ιδρύµατος .
Το άρθρο εστιάζεται σε δύο βασικούς στόχους. Ο πρώτος µέσω βιβλιογραφικής
επισκόπησης, περιγράφει και αναλύει την Αναλυτική Ιεραρχική ∆ιαδικασία (A.H.P.) που
οδηγεί στο δεύτερο στόχο, την εφαρµογή της A.H.P στον τοµέα της επιλογής στελεχών
διοίκησης και τη µέτρηση απόδοσης.
Η Αναλυτική Ιεραρχική ∆ιαδικασία (Analytical Hierarchy Process) για τις επιδιώξεις της
εργασίας αυτής , αποτελεί µια ευέλικτη βηµατική διαδικασία (stepwise process)
κλιµάκωσης στόχων, κριτηρίων και εναλλακτικών που καταλήγει στην επιλογή της
αποτελεσµατικότερης και αποδοτικότερης στρατηγικής από πλευράς κόστους οφέλους.
Οι όποιες αποφάσεις προκύψουν από την εφαρµογή της AHP θα πρέπει να αντισταθµίζουν
το ηθικό µε το δίκαιο και την αποτελεσµατικότητα του συστήµατος
(Λέξεις κλειδιά: Ταξινοµική Ψήφος, Αναλυτική Ιεραρχική ∆ιαδικασία, Πολυκριτηριακή
Λήψη Αποφάσεων, Αξιολόγηση Απόδοσης)

-Σελ 1-
 Developing an Integrated Model on Distinguishing Candidates
for the Board of Trustee through A.H.P. Methodology

Dr. John Bouris

Professor

Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Athens

School of business and economics
Department of Business Administration

Abstract

The triggered question for writing this article was the recent call elections for the Board of
Trustees at the tertiary education Institutions. The candidates selection process for their
election to the Board of Trustees, responsible for the mission implementation and fiscal
policies has become complex and critical.
The selection process must be unbiased from any paternalism effects and must lead to an
improved quality of the board of Trustees.
The article has two primary goals. The first consisted of a briefly review the Analytical
Hierarchy Process (A.H.P.) which led to the second goal, an A.H.P. application in the area of
Manpower Selection and Performance Measurement. The Analytical Hierarchy Process
(A.H. P.) for the pursuits of this work, is a flexible stepwise procedure with hierarchical
structure objectives, criteria and alternatives which are leading to the selection of the most
effective and efficient strategy in the lieu of cost-benefit analysis.
The two goals imply that Human Resource Decisions based on A.H.P. have significant
human consequences and should embrace a moral balance between equity and effectiveness.

(Keywords : Transferable Vote , Analytical Hierarchy Process, Multi criteria Decision

Making Analysis, Performance Evaluation)

-Σελ 2-
 1. Introduction

Since the days of technological rationality [Taylor f. (1911)], time-motions studies

[F.B. GILBRETH], Fayol's fourteen (14) Principles of Management dogma [Fayol H.
(1930)], the Analytic Hierarchy Process [T.L. Saaty (1980)] is a powerful tool for dealing
with complex multi-criteria decision-making problems, and can help to establish decision
models that account for both qualitative and quantitative components.
The AHP model that is utilized for the purpose of this paper, it helps us to analyze and
to organize the critical aspects of a problem ( e.g. vice president selection among of
prominent candidates) into a hierarchy structure: Goal Objectives Alternatives
By reducing complex decisions to a series of simple comparisons, rankings, and by then
synthesizing the results, the AHP not only helps us to arrive at the best decision, but also
provides a clear rationale for the choices made (Chin et al. 1999).
More specifically analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been used in the Human
Resource Management ( e.g. employment planning, selection, rewards, evaluation, career
development) to decision making that involves structuring multiple choice criteria into
hierarchy, assessing the relative importance of these criteria, comparing alternatives for each
criterion and determining an overall alternatives ranking.
2. The model

In applied the AHP model in human resource evaluation process, we have divided the
procedure in the following six steps:
1. Defining Objective
2. Developing the hierarchy structure in criteria, sub-criteria, alternatives germane to
the selection of the Vice President.
3. Making a pair wise comparison of elements ( e.g. criteria, alternatives)
4. Identifying the relative importance of each element of the hierarchy, by calculating
weights and consistency ratio
5. Evaluating alternatives
6. Ranking alternatives with respect to Goal

-Σελ 3-
 3. The procedure

3.1. Defining Objective and developing the hierarchy structure in criteria, sub-criteria,
alternatives germane to the selection of the Vice President

-Σελ 4-
PERSONAL PROFILE = fi ( KNOW-HOW, PROBLEM SOLVING. ACCOUNTABILITY)

BEHAVIORAL QUALITIES= fi ( LEADERSHIP. NEGOTIATING, REPRESENTING, COMMUNICATING)

ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITIES= fi (PLANNING, INVESTIGATING, EVALUATING. STAFFING)

-Σελ 5-
 3.2. Making a pair wise comparison of elements ( e.g. criteria, alternatives)
3.2.1. Utilizing the Saaty Scale, to describe the preference between model elements ( e.g.
between two criteria and between two alternatives

Table 2 : Saaty Scale

Intensity of
Definition Explanation
Importance
The evidence against one (i) over the other (j)
9-1 Absolutely more important
is of the highest possible validity.
Experience and judgment very strongly
7-1 Very much less important against one (i) over the other (j) . Its
importance is demonstrated in practice.
Experience and judgment strongly against
5-1 Much less important
one (i) over the other (j) .
Candidate i has weak importance over j
3-1 Somewhat less important
Candidate i is equally considerable as j
1 Equal importance
Experience and judgment slightly favor one over
3 Somewhat more important
the other.
Experience and judgment strongly favor one over
5 Much more important
the other.
Experience and judgement very strongly favor
7 Very much more important one over the other. Its importance is demonstrated
in practice.
The evidence favoring one over the other is of the
9 Absolutely more important.
highest possible validity.
2,4,6,8 or
Intermediate values When compromise is needed
2-1,4-1,6-1,8-1

-Σελ 6-
3.2.2. Input generic questionnaire for pair wise comparisons

Table 1 :Comparing the relative importance

of alternatives ( e.g. candidates) with respect to
criterion #1 (e.g Personal Profile)

Priority: Αlt1 Αlt 2 Αlt 3

To:
From:
Αlt1 1 β12 β13

Αlt2 (β21)-1 1 β23

Αlt3 (β31)-1 (β32)-1 1

3.2.2.1. Input questionnaire for alternatives pair wise comparisons with respect to criteria

Table 3 :Comparing the relative importance

of alternatives ( e.g. candidates) with respect to
criterion #1 (Personal Profile)

Priority:
To: TS T&D HR
From::
1 3 4
TS
1/3 1 2
T&D
¼ ½ 1
HR

Table 4 :Comparing the relative importance

of alternatives ( e.g. candidates) with respect to
criterion #2 ( behavioral qualities)

Priority:
To: TS T&D HR
From::
1 1/2 3
TS
2 1 8
T&D
1/3 1/8 1
HR

-Σελ 7-
 Table 5 :Comparing the relative importance
of alternatives ( e.g. candidates) with respect to
criterion #3 ( administrative abilities)

Priority:
To: TS T&D HR
From::
1 1/5 1/8
TS
5 1 1/3
T&D
8 3 1
HR

Where: ΤS = Technical Support mng’t

T&D = Training & Development mng’t
HR. = Personnel mng’t

3.2.2.2. Input questionnaire for criteria pair wise comparisons with respect to Goal

Table 6 : Criteria Pair Comparisons of their relative importance

with respect to Goal:
Vice President Selection

Priority: PP BQ AA
To:
From::
pp 1 1/3 1/4

BQ 3 1 1/2

AA 4 2 1

Where PP = Personal ( candidate) Profile

BQ = Behavioral Qualities
AA = Administrative Abilities

-Σελ 8-
3.3. Output :
i. Criteria weights (wi) and their relative significances with respect to Goal

Table 7 : Eigen values of criteria ( Wi) with respect to Goal : Vice President

Priority: PP BQ AA

To:
From::
pp 1,000 0,333 0,250
BQ 3,000 1,000 0,500
AA 4,000 2,000 1,000
Total 8,000 3,333 1,750

Eigen values of criteria Wi

PP BQ AA
pp 0,125 0,100 0,143 0,123
BQ 0,375 0,300 0,286 0,320
AA 0,500 0,600 0,571 0,557
Inconsistency=0,02

-Σελ 9-
ii. Alternatives evaluations (wi) and their relative significances with respect to each criterion
discretely

Table 8 : Eigen values of alternatives (eg candidates) with respect to criterion #1: PP

Priority:
TS T&D HR
To:
From::
TS 1,000 3,000 4,000
T&D 0,333 1,000 2,000
HR 0,250 0,500 1,000
Total 1,583 4,500 7,00

wi
Eigen values of alternatives with respect to criterion #1
TS T&D HR
TS 0,632 0,667 0,571 0,623
T&D 0,211 0,222 0,286 0,239
HR 0,158 0,111 0,143 0,137

Inconsistency=0,02

Table 9 : Eigen values of alternatives (eg candidates) with respect to criterion #2: BQ

Priority:
TS T&D HR
To:
From::
TS 1,000 0,500 3,000
T&D 2,000 1,000 8,000
HR 0,333 0,125 1,000
Total 3,333 1,625 12,000

Eigen values of alternatives with respect to criterion #2 Wi

TS T&D HR
TS 0,300 0,308 0,250 0,286
T&D 0,600 0,615 0,667 0,627
HR 0,100 0,077 0,083 0,087

Inconsistency=0,00877

-Σελ 10-
 Table 10 : Eigen values of alternatives (eg candidates) with respect to criterion #3: AA

Priority:
TS T&D HR
To:
From::
TS 1,000 0,200 0,125
T&D 5,000 1,000 0,333
HR 8,000 3,000 1,000
Total 14,00 4,200 1,458

Eigen values of alternatives with respect to criterion #3 wi

TS T&D HR
TS 0,071 0,048 0,086 0,068
T&D 0,357 0,238 0,229 0,275
HR 0,571 0,714 0,686 0,657

3.4. Synthesis : Evaluating Alternatives –the overall ranking

Table 11: Eigen values Synthesis

Eigen values of criteria with respect to Alternatives

Cross-tab:
TS T&D HR
Alts:
Criteria::
PP 0,623 0,239 0,137
BQ 0,286 0,627 0,087
AA 0,068 0,275 0,657

Eigen values of criteria with respect to Goal

PP BQ AA
0,123 0,320 0,557
wi

Αj = Σ (wi X ai j) = [41% 38% 21%]

-Σελ 11-
 CANDIDATES RANKING WITH RESPECT TO GOAL : VICE PRESIDENT SELECTION

Ranking CANDIDATES : EIGEN VALUES

1st HUMAN RESOURCE MNG’T 41%

2ND TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT MNG’T 38%

3RD TECHNICAL SUPPORT MNG’T 21%

HR

T&D

TS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-Σελ 12-
-Σελ 13-
5. Conclusions

In this study, we have sought to identify the most appropriate competitive strategy for
selecting among alternatives the most appropriate candidate for the position of vice
president.
By harnessing the AHP (multi criterion decision making) technique that combines both
qualitative and quantitative information, we proposed a hierarchical model for
competitive-strategy selection.
The model consists of one goal, three alternatives, and a hierarchy of two tiers criteria.
More specifically the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been utilized in the Human
Resource field, to decision making that involves structuring multiple choice criteria into
hierarchy, assessing the relative importance of these criteria, comparing alternatives for
each criterion and determining an overall ranking the alternatives.
The procedure we followed, it consists of three steps: a) Developing the hierarchy of
attributes germane to the selection of the IT vendor. b) Identifying the relative
importance of the attributes. and c) Scoring the alternatives’ relative performance on
each element of the hierarchy.
With the help of interactions through pair wise comparisons between criteria under each
alternative (candidate), the data reflects the reality in a better way.
The results of this study have also revealed one significant point : the AHP model we
utilized in the study is a "quasi self assessment" process.
Its effectiveness on the decision making issues is so high quality in evaluating and
selecting candidates, as it is high the Board of Directors’ "Gnothi Seauton (Greek) -
Know thyself " towards organization endogenous problems.
Future studies can incorporate more criteria and competitive strategies to expand and
refine the model. In addition, future studies can utilize the Analytical Network Process
(ANP)-model as it applies to “matching” candidates to job positions described in the
organization chart.

-Σελ 14-
Bibliographic Reference

Bouyssou, D., (1999) ‘Using DEA as a tool for MCDM’, Journal of the Operational Research Society,
vol 50, pp 974-978
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. et al. (1994) DEA: Theory, methodology and application , Kluwer Academic
publishers Nowell,MA
Egerwu,O.G., (1992) A total systems approach to R&D project evaluation, selection, and resource allocation
using the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgments, The University of Nebraska-
Lincoln.
Korsakiene, R., (2004) ‘Determining competitive advantage: the analytic hierarchy process’, Journal of
Business Economics and Management 5(4): 205–215.
Saaty,T.L.,(1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process., Pittsburgh,
PA: RWS Publications
Saaty,T.L.,(1980) The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill,New York
Saaty,T.L.,(1982a) Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a
Complex World , Lifetime Learning Publications,Atlanta Georgia
Saaty,T.L. & Ramanujam, V.,(1983) "An Objective Approach to Faculty promotion & Tenure by A.H.P."
Research in Higher Education , Vol. 18,No 3 pp 311-331
Saaty,T.L.,(1994) "How to make a decision: the analytical hierarchy process"
Interfaces, vol. 24, No. 6 pp19-43.
Saaty, T.L.,(2005) Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits,
Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T. L.,(2006) ‘Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes’,
European Journal of Operational Research, 168: 557–570

For the purpose of the article we have utilized the Expert Choice Software: Decision Support Software :
http:// expertchoice.com ( version. Expert Choice 11.1.3238)

-Σελ 15-