Abstract
Due to countries’ increasing and competitive progress worldwide, the role of research and investigations has become more crucial. They are considered the prerequisite for the mentioned progress and advancement. Nowadays, educational institutions like universities and colleges are one of the principal influential factors in scientifical and technological discoveries and inventions, which can directly lead to the countries’ flourishing. Therefore, the performance evaluation of these institutions, especially regarding the efficiency of the academic disciplines, is a key that researchers in the last year have frequently analyzed. This study aims to introduce a prioritizing scale for ranking evaluation factors in this scope. Also, as a case study, bachelor disciplines at the Yazd university in Iran are prioritized based on mentioned factors. To this end first 23 evaluation factors are determined through interviews with 37 academic professors, and key factors are distinguished; after that, the most important key factors are weighted and ranked using pairwise comparisons (PC) and the Analytic hierarchy process method (AHP). Finally, the values of 7 key factors are calculated for 48 determined majors, and their final ranking of majors and faculties is determined. The findings of this study showed that the employment ratio, alignment with the vision of Yazd province, and entrance exam score of incoming students are the most important key factors. Also, architectural engineering at the faculty of art and architecture, civil engineering, and computer engineering at the technical and engineering campus are the most important, with the best performance majors and faculties as the results of the analyzed case study. Managers can utilize these mentioned findings to improve the performance of the universities and overcome their weaknesses.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dey, B., Bairagi, B., Sarkar, B., & Sanyal, S. K. (2016). Warehouse location selection by fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodologies based on subjective and objective criteria. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 11(4), 262–278.
Guo, S., & Zhao, H. (2017). Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 121, 23–31.
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.
Roy, R. (Ed.). (2004). Strategic decision making: Applying the analytic hierarchy process. Springer.
Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of business economics and management, 11(2), 243–258.
Spearman, C. (1987). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American journal of psychology, 100(3/4), 441–471.
Kendall, J. M., & Berdahl, C. M. (1970). Two blackbody radiometers of high accuracy. Applied Optics, 9(5), 1082–1091.
Tang, H., Shi, Y., & Dong, P. (2019). Public blockchain evaluation using entropy and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 117, 204–210.
Yoon, K. (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38(3), 277–286.
Kang, D., & Park, Y. (2014). Based measurement of customer satisfaction in mobile service: Sentiment analysis and VIKOR approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(4), 1041–1050.
Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitiene, J. (2008). Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying attributes values determined at intervals. Journal of civil engineering and management, 14(2), 85–93.
Huang, Z., Yu, H., Chu, X., & Peng, Z. (2017). A goal programming-based model system for community energy plan. Energy, 134, 893–901.
Gitinavard, H., & Mousavi, S. M. (2015). Evaluating construction projects by a new group decision-making model based on intuitionistic fuzzy logic concepts. International Journal of Engineering, 28(9), 1312–1319.
Yu, X., Zhang, S., Liao, X., & Qi, X. (2018). ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment. Information Sciences, 424, 301–316.
Sarrazin, R., De Smet, Y., & Rosenfeld, J. (2018). An extension of PROMETHEE to interval clustering. Omega, 80, 12–21.
Lolli, F., Balugani, E., Ishizaka, A., Gamberini, R., Butturi, M. A., Marinello, S., & Rimini, B. (2019). On the elicitation of criteria weights in PROMETHEE-based ranking methods for a mobile application. Expert Systems with Applications, 120, 217–227.
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3), 234–281.
Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process? (pp. 109–121). Springer.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48(1), 9–26.
Chou, C. C. (2018). Application of ANP to the selection of shipping registry: The case of Taiwanese maritime industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 67, 89–97.
Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: Decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. RWS publications.
Wang, X., Wang, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). Distance-based multi-criteria group decision-making approach with probabilistic linguistic term sets. Expert Systems, 36(2), e12352.
Aboutorab, H., Saberi, M., Asadabadi, M. R., Hussain, O., & Chang, E. (2018). ZBWM: The Z-number extension of best worst method and its application for supplier development. Expert Systems with Applications, 107, 115–125.
Peng, H. G., Wang, X. K., Wang, T. L., & Wang, J. Q. (2019). Multi-criteria game model based on the pairwise comparisons of strategies with Z-numbers. Applied Soft Computing, 74, 451–465.
Hafezalkotob, A., & Hafezalkotob, A. (2017). A novel approach for combination of individual and group decisions based on fuzzy best-worst method. Applied Soft Computing, 59, 316–325.
Rezaei, J., Kothadiya, O., Tavasszy, L., & Kroesen, M. (2018). Quality assessment of airline baggage handling systems using SERVQUAL and BWM. Tourism Management, 66, 85–93.
Herman, M. W., & Koczkodaj, W. W. (1996). A monte carlo study of parwise comparison. Information Processing Letters, 57(1), 25–29.
Ishizaka, A., & Nguyen, N. H. (2013). Calibrated fuzzy AHP for current bank account selection. Expert systems with applications, 40(9), 3775–3783.
Newell, W. H. (1994). Designing interdisciplinary courses. New directions for teaching and learning, 1994(58), 35–51.
Power, P. (2000). Adolescents with mild and moderate mental retardation. Doctoral dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Banks, D. N., & Stave, A. M. (1994). Promoting curriculum integration through example or practice what you preach: A case study.
Benmoussa, N., Elyamami, A., Mansouri, K., Qbadou, M., & Illoussamen, E. (2019). A multi-criteria decision making approach for enhancing university accreditation process. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 9(1), 3726–3733.
Pourmorad, S., & Mohanty, A. (2022). Remote sensing studies. In Alluvial Fans in Southern Iran. Advances in Geographical and Environmental Sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-2045-5_7
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kianypoor, H., Nosrati Malekjahan, A., Kashan, A.H. (2024). An MCDM Approach for Prioritization of Faculties and Disciplines in Educational Institutions: A Real Case Study. In: Kulkarni, A.J., Cheikhrouhou, N. (eds) Intelligent Systems for Smart Cities. ICISA 2023. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6984-5_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6984-5_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-6983-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-6984-5
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)