A Study of Applying Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process

on Management Talent Evaluation Model

Liang-Chih Huang I, Peitsang Wu Bih-Shiaw Jaw, Yen-Hui Wu

Department of Industrial Engineering and
Management, I-Shou University
Kaohsiung County, Taiwan, 840, R.O.C.
‘
Ihuang@isu.edu.tw wu0isu.edu.tw2
Institute of Human Resource Management
National Sun Yat-Sen University
Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 804, R.O.C.
yhwu5 l00sinamail.com

2. Research Method
Abstract
2.1 Method of management talent evaluation
This study is to construct a new managerial talent
In the real world, management talent evaluation is
evaluation model for the assessors in IC packaging
composed of many factors and affected by each factors
industry in Taiwan. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy
interactively at the same time. Therefore, it is
Process (FAHP) method involved in evaluation to be
necessary for management talent evaluation to take
able to obtain the information with more systematic
account of the effect by all factors. It fits the theory of
and efficient ways to assist the related managerial
Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method (MCDM).
competency activities. Techniques of the Borda
Among the methods of MCDM, the theory of Analytic
function, FAHP method, fuzzy Delphi method and
Hierarchy Process (AHP) is so easy to learn that it’s
questionnaire survey were used in the study. Finally,
widely adapted for different purposes.
an empirical study was conducted to examine the
FAHP of management talent evaluation model
This research is based on AHP method. In order to
effectively to promote quality of decision making and
form the effective and rational hierarchy, we organized
can be referenced for further managerial talent related
related articles and summed up the common main
activities.
factors. Besides, the opinions of managers in high-
tech industry are collected as well. By combining both
Keywords: Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP),
sides of opinions, preliminary management talent
Fuzzy Theory, Managerial Talent,
indicators were gotten with 8 main indicators and 74
Multi-criteria Decision Making sub-indicators.
1. Introduction
First questionnaire was made based on those indicators.
Nowadays, the role played by manager is becoming
Then, in order to reduce the complexity of
more and more important for determining whether
management talent hierarchy, the opinions of
enterprises could survive in today’s speeding and managers were collected by questionnaire. Borda
changing environment or not. In fact, enterprises and
function was conducted to calculate the importance of
academy have known the how important the manager
each indicator. Then we slash the hierarchy to 8 main
is and been studying related fields for couple decades. indicators and 39 sub-indicators, the final hierarchy.
The field of management talent is one of the hottest
areas, being considered to be able to predict and to
2.2 Borda function
enhance managers’ ability.
Borda function is used to weight indicators so that
remarkable indicators can be picked up and not
To evaluate management talent more precisely, remarkable ones can be slashed to tiny the hierarchy.
enterprises and academic institute have found out
AHP method is not suggested to use under the
several methods to make it more rational and objective.
situation that the number of indicators, belonging the
However, in order to reduce the bias influenced by
same pre-indicator, is over 7. In that case, the
people, we decide to adapt the Fuzzy Analytic
accumulation will be very complicated.
Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method, mathematical and
more systematic way, .to establish a new evaluation
model for management talent.

(C)zOOlIEEE.
0-7803-7078-3/0V$l0.00 Page: 1484
 2.3 Fuzzy AHP method
Step 1: Create the hierarchy layers
According to the problem characteristics, to
decompose by each attribute, build up the
hierarchy structure, the 0th layer represents the
ultimate goal, the 1st layer represents the
importance decision factors that affect the
intimate goal, the 2nd layer represents the
important sub factors of the 1st layer, the last
layer represents the alternate choices of the
policy.
Step 2: Create Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison Matrix
According to the layer structure built by step 1,
convert the decision importance factors into the
semantic format used to design polling
questionnaires. Convert the results of the
questionnaire into fizzy pairwise comparison
matrix by using Satty’s 9 scales [Satty, 19801.
Step 3: Group combination (unification, integration)
After creating the fuzzy pairwise comparison
matrix, we integrate the expert’s pairwise
comparison matrix for each factor using
geometric mean method suggested by Buckley
[Buckley, 19851.
@ZU2
@...@izVN)
Trigonometric Fuzzy Number :
: The ith to thejth factor pair comparison
value by the Expert N ;
N : Total number of experts 0
Step 4: Build up the Fuzzy Positive Reciprocal matrix
Follow step 3, we may obtain the final
calculated fuzzy numbers for each layer, and
establish the Fuzzy Positive Reciprocal Matrix.
Step 5: Calculate the key factors Fuzzy weights
In this paper, we used the method suggested by
Buckley Fuzzy AHP model. And the formula is
defined below:
(C)U101IEEE.
0-7803-7078-3/0u$l0.00
Step 6: Hierarchy layer sequencing
The final step, we sequence the layers and link
them together, and calculate the fuzzy weight
values for the altemative policy.
j=l
fii : The altemative policy fuzzy weight
-
w,
values;
: Fuzzy weight value for the decision key
-q, factor :
: performance score for the selective
altemative policy Aito the decision key
factor 4.
0
Step 7: Fuzzy ordering
Use the fuzzy number from step 6, select the
best policy by ranking these fuzzy policies.
In FAHP questionnaire, samples are forced to decide
the relative tendency between two factors. Therefore,
by analyzing the data, we can get the relative
importance, weighting parameters, among the
indicators which belong to the management talent
hierarchy. With these parameters, an evaluation model
for management talent can be established.
3. Model and Result Analysis
3.1 Model description
In order to make use of FAHP method to examine
management talent, the research is made up by three
main segments, construction of management talent
hierarchy, forming the weighting system of
management talent, and evaluation model of
management talent.
In the phase of “construction of management talent
hierarchy”, articles, related management talent,
competency, skills etc.. .were organized and dozens
management talent factors were summed up; then
interview with the managers in high-tech related area
and got their opinions towards management talent.
After summing up both sides, the preliminary shape of
management talent hierarchy was formed. Then Borda
b c t i o n was adapted to tiny whole management talent
hierarchy. At last, 8 main factors and 39 sub-factors
were left.
Following up, in order to get the weighting parameters
of each indicator, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
(FAHP) method was used. Targeting the managers in
high-tech industry, 330 questionnaires were issued and
Page: 1485
 got 120 effective responses. With the help of FAHP,
weighting parameter was gotten.
New evaluation model was obtained by the
combination between the weighting parameters and
evaluation result on each indicator. In the beginning of
this model, questionnaire was issued first to get
evaluation result. Then by the synthetic evaluation
between each weighting parameter and fuzzy
evaluation result on each indicator, a fuzzy evaluation
result can be gotten. And we can rank the management
talent of candidates by this way.
Finally, an empirical study was conducted to prove its
practicality. Three managers were asked to make
judgment toward three employees of company K. By
using the weighting parameters that were gotten by
previous FAHP method, three employees were
undertaken the examination to rank. By reflecting the
results to supervisors of examinees, the practicality of
this evaluation model for management talent can be
judged.
3.2 Research flow chart
In order to conduct the study smoothly, the research
procedure was implemented as Figure 1.
33 Result
The result of the study was shown in Table 1.
4. Conclusion
(a) Constructing the management competency
assessment weighting system.
By using the concept of Fuwy Analytic Hiemchy
Process (FAHP),it’s not only easier to survey the
related indicators with more systematic way; but to
leam the weighting parameter among whole
indicators that can’t be done with normal way
except its mathematic theory.
With the help of weighting parameter, it’s able to
rank all factors with a scientific base, not just
someone’s instinct or experience that easily being
af€ected by environment. Besides that, the scale of
indicators shows a clear direction toward the
activities that are designed to improve management
talents. This is not only meaningful but also
practical for decision makers. It is more possible
for them to be able to put the effort in the right
place.
(C)2001IEEE.
0-7803-7@78-3/0l/$l0.00
(b) FAHP method is good for ranking
The FAHP of Management Talent Evaluation
Model, developing with mathematical theory, can
reflect even the detail of each sub-indicator with
number. For decision makers, they not only know
the entire result but also the competitive of
individual indicator. It is helpful for improving the
quality of decision-making.
(c) Empirical examination
An empirical study was conducted to examine the
above model. After finishing the process,
evaluation report was examined by top executives
of the company. They strongly agreed with this
analytical result of the main evaluative indicators
and sub-indicators. They consider this evaluation
model as having good capacity in valuation and
being able to offer better quality of information to
support decision-making.
5. Acknowledgement
This research is partially supported by the National
Science Council of Republic of China under contract
number NSC 89-2416-H-214-027-SSS. Her support
has been appreciated. Besides, the K company, which
provides the opportunity to do the empirical
examination for management talent evaluation model
is also appreciated.
6. References
Buckley, J.J. (1985), Fuzzy Hierarchical
Analysis, Fuvv Sets and Svstems, n233-247.
Chen, S.J. & Hwang, C.L. (1992), Fuzzy
Multiple Attribute Decision Making Method and
Application, A State-of-the-Art Survev, New
York Spring-Verlag.
Fagan, E.R.(1984), Competence in Educational
Practice: A Rhetorical Perspective. In E.C. Short
(Ed.), ComDetence: Inauires in to its Meaning
and Acauisition in Educational Settings. Lanham:
University Press of America.
Ghiselli, E.(1971), Exuloration in Managerial
-
Talent, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hay, J. (1990), Managerial Competence or
Managerial Characteristics?Mananement
Education and Development, 2l(5), 305-315.
Huang, L.C., Chang, P.T., & Lin, H.J. (1997),
The F u z y Managerial Talent Assessment Model:
A Pilot Study, Pan-Pacific Manapement Review,
-1(1), 71-83.
Page: 1486
 Laarhoven, P.J.M. & Pedrycz, W. (1 983), A
Fuzzy Extension of Saaty's Priority Theory,
Fuzzv Sets and Systems, l-l(3), 229-241.
Lombardo, M. & Eichinger, B. (1997), HR Role
in Building Competitive Edgeleaders, Human
Resource Management, 36( 1), 141- 146.
Macy, G.J. (1994), The Selection of General
Managers: Some Potential Problems and
Suggestions, Journal of General Management,
-
12(3), 76-87.
[IO] Nordhaung, 0. (1 993), Human Capital in
Organizations: Competence, Training and
Learning. Norway: Scandinavian University
Press.
[ 1I] Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analvtic Hierarchy
Process, New York: McGraw-Hill.
[I21 Yau, W. S. L. & Sculli, D.(1990), Managerial
Traits and Skills, The Journal of Management
Development, 9(6),32-40.

1 Expert Questionnaire

1
Establishment Weighting
Parameter System for Evaluation on Each Indicator of
Management Talent Hierarchy
(By FAHP )

I Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation

c

Evaluation on
Management Talent

Figure 1 The procedure of the study

(C)zoOlIEEE.
0-7803-7078-3/0l/$10~00 Page: 1487
 Table 1 The result of the study
Indicator (%) Fuzzy weighting Ranking
Concept Skill
Analysis skill 20.6 (.006, .013, .027) 35
Understanding the external environment 14.9 (.005,.010, .023) 37
Objectivity 16.8 (:006, .001, .026) 34
Trend-forecasting skill 22.5 (.009, .019, .038) 26
Planning skill 25.2 (.Oil, .023, .047) 21
Interpersonal Skill
Understanding the meaning of other people 19.0 (.007, .016, .034) 28
Negotiation skill 23.3 (-010, .021, .042) 24
Listening skill 18.6 (.009, .018, .038) 27
Conversation skill 18.8 (.010, .020, .041) 25
Conflict management skill 20.3 (.012, .025, .051) 17
Leadership Skill
Create good group spirit and working atmosphere 16.8 (.Oll, .023, .051) 22
Understanding the ability, chcteristics, and needs of
21.3 (.016, .033, .067) 9
subordinates
Encourage employees 23.9 (-020, .042, .085) 4
Coaching skill 18.0 (.016, .034, .070) 8
Fair and subjective evaluation of employees’ performance 19.8 (.019, .039, .08l) 5
Administration Skill
Transfer conceptual idea into executive strategy 15.9 (.003, .008,.020) 39
Risk management 20.7 (.005,.012, .027) 36
Efficient management, use, and allocation resources 22.2 (.007, .015, .032) 31
Goal-setting skill 21.1 (.007, .015, .033) 30
Empowerment skill 19.9 (.007, .016, .035) 29
Professional Skill
Completely understanding the working processes 17.3 (.Oll, .024, .049) 20
Using professional tools to promote work efficiency 10.6 (.008,.014. .034) 33
Quality management 18.4 (.012, .025, .052) 18
Pressure management 20.5 (.013, .028, .057) 15
Time management 32.9 (.021, .045, .OS) 3
Personnel Characteristics
Courage and confidence to assume risks 14.5 (.010, .022, .046) 23
Responsibility-taking 21.5 (.016, .032, ,064) 11
Full of confidence 19.5 (.014, .029, .058) 14
Honesty 21.5 (.016, .032, .064) 10
Highly compressive strength in spirit 22.8 (.018, .035, .072) 7
Ability Characteristics
Good health condition 7.89 (.004, .010, .026) 38
Easy adaptation to environment 18.2 (.012, .024, .052) 19
Understanding hidher own advantages and defects 24.7 (.015, .032, .069) 12
Decisiveness 26.4 (.016, .035, .072) 6
Having working experiences from different department 22.6 (.014, .029, .063) 13
Motivation Characteristics
Gaining self-esteem from work 9.9 (.007, .015, .036) 32
Needs for self-actualization 17.1 (.013, .025, .053) 16
Looking for team growth 38.9 (.028, .059, .114) 1
Strong aggressiveness 32.9 (.023, .051, .098) 2

(C)U)ol IEEE.
0-7803-7078-3/0U$l0.00 Page: 1488