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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Uzoka and Seleka 22Performance DecisionLevel 2ProfessionalDevelopment Finance and Budget Membership Services Human Resources ManagementDBVPFIBGPRGTSTR STD STC STM SPECDS PSD TCV WSS CFS RPB MCPLevel 3JIT PFE ARB MBD SBSFigure 2 – Hierarchical structure of evaluation variablesTable 3 – Level 2 PWC MatrixPFD FNB MBS HRMPFD 1 6 5 7FNB 1/6 1 ½ 3MBS 1/5 2 1 4HRM 1/7 1/3 ¼ 1Table 4 – PWC Matrix for ProfessionalDevelopment (Level 3)CDS PSP TCV WSS CFS RPB MCPCDS 1 5 9 ¼ 7 5 ¼PSP 1/5 1 8 1/3 3 2 ¼TCV 1/9 1/8 1 1/7 1/8 1/6 1/8WSS 4 3 7 1 3 3 ¼CFS 1/7 1/3 8 1/3 1 1/3 1/6RPB 1/5 ½ 6 1/3 3 1 1/6MCP 4 4 8 4 6 6 1Synthesis involves the computation of eigenvalues and the eigenvector. In synthesizing thejudgments, the values in each column of the PWC matrix are first added. Then each entry ineach column is divided by the total of the column to obtain the normalized matrix, whichpermits meaningful comparison among elements. Finally, adding the values in each row of thenormalized matrix and dividing the rows by the number of row entries gives the average over22
Page 1 and 2: International Review of Business Re
Page 3 and 4: Uzoka and Seleka 18input for collec
Page 5: Uzoka and Seleka 203. MethodologyTh
Page 9 and 10: Uzoka and Seleka 24n∑W i= λ R µ
Page 11 and 12: Uzoka and Seleka 26Applying equatio
Page 13 and 14: Uzoka and Seleka 28ReferencesBernol

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?