A framework to measure relative performance of Indian technical institutions using integrated fuzzy AHP and COPRAS methodology

Socio-Economic Planning Sciences

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 230-241

  Das, Manik Chandra ^a   Sarkar, Bijan ^b   Ray, Siddhartha ^c  

^a MCKV INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING   (India)

^b JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY   (India)

^c HERITAGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (India)

Author keywords

COPRAS; Fuzzy AHP; Performance evaluation; Ranking

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; FUZZY MATHEMATICS; GLOBALIZATION; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; KNOWLEDGE; LIBERALIZATION; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; STAKEHOLDER;

INDIA;

EID: 84863820338     PISSN: 00380121     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2011.12.001     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Abbott M., Doucouliagos C. The efficiency of Australian universities: a data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review 2003, 22:89-97.
2. Abramo G., Cicero T., D'Angelo C.A. A field-standardized application of DEA to national-scale research assessment of universities. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(4):618-628.
3. Ahmadi A., Bazargan A., Beigi F.H. Relationship between organizational characteristics and implementation of internal evaluation in universities educational departments, case: University of Tehran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2011, 15:221-228.
4. Annual report. Department of School Education and Literacy & Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India; 2007-2008.
5. Athanassopoulos A., Shale E. Assessing the comparative efficiency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics 1997, 5:17-134.
6. Avkiran N.K. Investigating technical and scale efficiency of Australian Universities through data envelopment analysis. Socio Economic Planning Sciences 2001, 35:57-80.
7. Bana e Costa C.A., Oliveira M.D. A multicriteria decision analysis model for faculty evaluation. Omega 2012, 40(4):424-436.
8. Barros C.P. Performance measurement in tax of.ces with a stochastic frontier model. Journal of Economic Studies 2005, 32(6):497-510.
9. Biswas G., Chopra K.L., Jha C.S., Singh D.V. Profile of engineering education in India: status, concerns and recommendations 2010, Narosa Publishing House Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.
10. Brans J.P. L'ingénièrie de la décision; Elaboration d'instruments d'aide à la décision. La méthode PROMETHEE. L'aide à la décision: nature, instruments et perspectives d'Avenir 1982, 183-213. Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec, Canada. R. Nadeau, M. Landry (Eds.).
11. Brauers W.K.M. Optimization method for a stakeholder society. A revolution in economic thinking by multiobjective optimization 2004, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
12. Casu B., Thanassoulis E. Evaluating cost efficiency in central administrative services in UK universities. Omega 2006, 34:417-426.
13. Chang D.Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operations Research 1996, 95:649-655.
14. Chan F.T.S., Kumar N., Tiwari M.K., Lau H.C.W., Choy K.L. Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. International Journal of Production Research 2007, 46:3825-3857.
15. Charnes A., Cooper W.W., Rhodes E.L. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 1978, 2:429-444.
16. Chatterjee P., Athawale V.M., Chakraborty S. Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Materials and Design 2011, 32:851-860.
17. Chen C.T., Lin C.T., Huang S.F. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics 2006, 102:289-301.
18. Coelli T. Assessing the performance of Australian universities using data envelopment analysis. Mimeo 1996, Center for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, University of New England.
19. Daĝdeviren M., Yüksel I. Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Information Science 2008, 178:1717-1733.
20. Ding J.F., Liang G.S. Using fuzzy MCDM to select partners of strategic alliances for liner shipping. Information Sciences 2005, 173:197-225.
21. Fandel G. On the performance of universities in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany: Government's redistribution of funds judged using DEA efficiency measures. European Journal of Operational Research 2007, 176:521-533.
22. Flegg A.T., Allen D.O., Field K., Thurlow T.W. Measuring the efficiency and productivity of British universities: an application of DEA and the Malmquist approach. Education Economics 2004, 12:231-249.
23. Glass J.C., McKillop D.G., Hyndman N. Efficiency in the provision of university teaching and research: an empirical analysis of UK universities. Journal of Applied Econometrics 1995, 10(1):61-72.
24. Glass J.C., McKillop D.G., Hyndman N. The achievement of scale efficiency in UK universities: a multiple-input multiple-output analysis. Education Economics 1995, 3:249-263.
25. Hashimoto K., Cohn E. Economies of scale and scope in Japanese private universities. Education Economics 1997, 5(2):107-115.
26. Hwang C.L., Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications 1981, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
27. IIT fee structure. Data obtained through the Internet: Available from: [accessed 15/2/2011]. http://www.indiaedu.com/.
28. Johnes J., Johnes G. Research funding and performance in UK university departments of economics: a frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review 1995, 14(3):301-314.
29. Johnes J. Performance assessment in higher education in Britain. European Journal of Operational Research 1996, 89:18-33.
30. Johnes J. Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education: an application of data envelopment analysis to economics graduates from UK Universities 1993. European Journal of Operational Research 2006, 174:443-456.
31. Kahraman C., Beskese A., Ruan D. Measuring flexibility of computer integrated manufacturing systems using fuzzy cash flow analysis. Information Sciences 2004, 168:77-94.
32. Kaklauskas A., Zavadskas E.K., Trinkunas V. A multiple criteria decision support on-line system for construction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 2007, 20:163-175.
33. Kaklauskas A., Zavadskas E.K., Raslanas S., Ginevicius R., Komka A., Malinauskas P. Selection of low-e windows in retrofit of public buildings by applying multiple criteria method COPRAS: a Lithuanian case. Energy Buildings 2006, 38:454-462.
34. Kao C., Hung H.T. Efficiency analysis of university departments: an empirical study. Omega 2008, 36:653-664.
35. Korhonen P., Tainio R., Wallenius J. Value efficiency analysis of academic research. European Journal of Operational Research 2001, 130:121-132.
36. Kuah C.T., Wong K.Y. Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis. Procedia Computer Science 2011, 3:499-506.
37. Kulak O., Kahraman C. Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process. Information Sciences 2005, 170:191-210.
38. Lee S.K., Mogi G., Kim J.W. Decision support for prioritizing energy technologies against high oil prices: a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2009, 22:915-920.
39. Lee S.-H. Using fuzzy AHP to develop intellectual capital evaluation model for assessing their performance contribution in a university. Expert Systems with Applications 2010, 37(7):4941-4947.
40. Li G. Output efficiency evaluation of university human resource based on DEA. Procedia Engineering 2011, 15:4707-4711.
41. Madden G., Savage S., Kemp S. Measuring public sector efficiency: a study of economic departments at Australian universities. Education Economics 1997, 5(2):153-168.
42. McMillan M.L., Datta D. The relative efficiency of Canadian universities. Canadian Public Policy 1998, 24:485-511.
43. McMillan M.L., Debasish D. The relative efficiencies of Canadian universities: a DEA perspective 1997, Research paper no. 97-4, Department of Economics, Universityof Alberta.
44. Nicholls M.G., Cargill B.J. Establishing best practice university research funding strategies using mixed-mode modelling. Omega 2011, 39(2):214-225.
45. Önüt S., Soner S. Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Management 2008, 28:1552-1559.
46. Portela M.C.A.S., Thanassoulis E. Decomposing school and school-type efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research 2001, 132:357-373.
47. Pouris A., Pouris A. Competing in a globalising world: international ranking of South African universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2010, 2(2):515-520.
48. Reichmann G., Reichmann M.S. University library benchmarking: an international comparison using DEA. International Journal of Production Economics 2006, 100:131-147.
49. Roy B. Classement et choix en presence de points de vue multiples (la methode ELECTRE) R.I.R.O 8; 1968. p. 57-75.
50. Saaty T.L. The analytic hierarchy process 1980, McGraw-Hill, New York. 1st ed.
51. Simon J., Simon C., Arias A. Changes in productivity of Spanish university libraries. Omega 2011, 39(5):578-588.
52. Tyagi P., Yadav S.P., Singh S.P. Relative performance of academic departments using DEA with sensitivity analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning 2009, 32:168-177.
53. Wang T.C., Chang T.H. Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 2007, 33:870-880.
54. Worthington A., Lee B.I. Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian Universities, 1998-2003. Economics of Education Review 2008, 27:285-298.
55. Xiaomei H. Research on the performance evaluation of University Library in Tianjin. Energy Procedia 2011, 5:1148-1152.
56. Xu Z.S., Chen J. An interactive method for fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making. Information Sciences 2007, 177:248-263.
57. Zadeh L.A. Fuzzy sets. Information Control 1965, 8:338-353.
58. Zavadskas E.K., Kaklauskas A., Turskis Z., TamoŠaitien J. Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying attributes values determined at intervals. J Civil Eng Manage 2008, 14:85-93.
59. Zavadskas E.K., Turskis Z., TamoŠaitienė J., Marina V. Multicriteria selection of project managers by applying grey criteria. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Baltic Journal of Sustainability 2008, 14:462-477.
60. Zavadskas E.K., Kaklauskas A., Turskis Z. Tamošaitien Multi-attribute decision making model by applying grey numbers. Informatica 2009, 20:305-320.
61. Zavadskas E.K., Kaklauskas A., Peldschus F., Turskis Z. Multi-attribute assessment of road design solutions by using the COPRAS method. Baltic Journal of Road Bridge Engineering 2008, 2:195-203.
62. Zimmerman H.J. Fuzzy sets theory and its applications 1996, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.