A Model for Evaluation of Professional Organizations Using AHP ...

Uzoka and Seleka 21Level 1 –Goal Level 2-criteria Level 3 – VariablesPerformancemeasurementof ProfessionalProfessionalDevelopment (PFD)Finance and Budget(FNB)Codes and standards (CDS), position papers(PSP), Technical visits (TCV), Workshops andseminars (WSS), conferences (CFS), Researchand Publications (RPB), Mandatory ContinuingProfessional Development (MCP)Donations/Benevolence (DBV), ProfitableInvestments (PFI), Budget Performance (BGP),Revenue Generation (RGT)Organization Membership Jobs/IT placement (JIT), ProfessionalServices (MBS) Examination (PFE), Arbitrations (ARB),(PMPO)Membership Drive (MBD), Subscriptions (SBS).Human Resources Staff Recruitment (STR), Staff Training andManagement Development (STD), Staff Compensation(STC), Staff Motivation (STM), StaffPerformance Evaluation (SPE)Figure 1 – Hierarchy of Performance Measurement CriteriaMeasurement of preferences involves a pairwise comparison of decision variables, which areverbal statements about the strength of importance of a variable over another, representednumerically on an absolute scale. The comparison is done from the top level of the hierarchyto the bottom level in order to establish the overall priority index. If two varaiables are ofequal importance, the rating of the comparison is 1. If variable A is strongly more importantthan variable B, then the rating of the comparison (AB) could be 7. If A is weakly moreimportant, the rating is 3. The reciprocal of the ratings show the converse of the relativeimportance. To obtain a fair judgment of the comparisons, mean values of the comparisonratings made by the seventy two professionals were used in formulating the pairwisecomparison (PWC) matrix of the variables in levels 2 and 3 of Figure 1. The Pairwisecomparison (PWC) matrix for the level 2 criteria is shown in Table 3, while that of level 3variables (for professional development) is shown in Table 4.21