Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An MCDM Approach for Prioritization of Faculties and Disciplines in Educational Institutions: A Real Case Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intelligent Systems for Smart Cities (ICISA 2023)

Included in the following conference series:

  • 117 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Guo, S., & Zhao, H. (2017). Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 121, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roy, R. (Ed.). (2004). Strategic decision making: Applying the analytic hierarchy process. Springer.‏

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Spearman, C. (1987). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American journal of psychology, 100(3/4), 441–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kendall, J. M., & Berdahl, C. M. (1970). Two blackbody radiometers of high accuracy. Applied Optics, 9(5), 1082–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tang, H., Shi, Y., & Dong, P. (2019). Public blockchain evaluation using entropy and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 117, 204–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoon, K. (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38(3), 277–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang, Z., Yu, H., Chu, X., & Peng, Z. (2017). A goal programming-based model system for community energy plan. Energy, 134, 893–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yu, X., Zhang, S., Liao, X., & Qi, X. (2018). ELECTRE methods in prioritized MCDM environment. Information Sciences, 424, 301–316.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Sarrazin, R., De Smet, Y., & Rosenfeld, J. (2018). An extension of PROMETHEE to interval clustering. Omega, 80, 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3), 234–281.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is the analytic hierarchy process? (pp. 109–121). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: Decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. RWS publications.‏

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Herman, M. W., & Koczkodaj, W. W. (1996). A monte carlo study of parwise comparison. Information Processing Letters, 57(1), 25–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ishizaka, A., & Nguyen, N. H. (2013). Calibrated fuzzy AHP for current bank account selection. Expert systems with applications, 40(9), 3775–3783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Newell, W. H. (1994). Designing interdisciplinary courses. New directions for teaching and learning, 1994(58), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Power, P. (2000). Adolescents with mild and moderate mental retardation. Doctoral dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland.‏

    Google Scholar 

  31. Banks, D. N., & Stave, A. M. (1994). Promoting curriculum integration through example or practice what you preach: A case study.‏

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Hossein Kianypoor, Amirhossein Nosrati Malekjahan & Ali Husseinzadeh Kashan

Authors
  1. Hossein Kianypoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amirhossein Nosrati Malekjahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Husseinzadeh Kashan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Husseinzadeh Kashan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Dr. Vishwanath Karad MIT World Peace University, Pune, Maharashtra, India

    Anand J. Kulkarni

  2. Geneva School of Business Administration, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland HES-SO, Geneva, Switzerland

    Naoufel Cheikhrouhou

Appendix

Appendix

Table 14 A sample of the utilized questionnaire
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation