Bangkok Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Business & Management (ICBM) 2007.

Transcription

1 I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o l l o q u i u m o n B u s i n e s s & M a n a g e m e n t Bangkok 007 Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Business & Management (ICBM) th-nd November 007, the Bangkok Palace Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand. Edited by Mark W. Neal, Ph.D., Frederick University, Cyprus. Colin J. Jones, Ph.D. Sultan Qaboos University, Oman. Sponsored by: Balamand University, Tripoli, Lebanon. Suan Dusit Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand. All copyrights are retained by the authors of the papers and abstracts. ISBN

2 Personnel Performance Appraisal Using the MADM0F Models in Group M. Anisseh J.Dodangeh - UE&CRC Corp. - Islamic Azad University - Manisseh@yahoo.com - Jdodangeh@yahoo.com KeyWords: MADM, Performance evaluation, Feedback 60 Degree Abstract The personnel and managers evaluation is brought up under title of merit or performance appraisal specifying in theory and action among other effective tools for human resources management. With the right use of these tools not only the organization s aims and duties, but also the real profit of personnel and society will be gained. In this paper the performance appraisal is seen as an element of group decision making and therefore, the personnel are evaluated from different points of view, (Boss, Colleagues (Co-worker), Inferior, employee him / herself, customer and etc ). And keeping in mind the attributes weights, and relative importance of auditors evaluations, the MADM models have been used for personnel ranking. The forgoing methods have been used in SABA organization and the results and data from one of department have been evaluated from different points of view. -Multiple Attribute Decision Making

3 - Introduction In the process of decision making, time and human relations are two important topics leading the organization forward.[] Decision making is the most important and basic function of the organization manager in all the organizational levels. The organization destiny depends on the managers decision, every action on the part of manager is in fact a decision making.[] Managers may be confused by a variety of information gained by their deputies in the process of decision making. Therefore, they need a kind of consultation for study and the diagnosis of different situations. In fact we may be mystified by usual daily conceptual processes in the complex circumstances encompassing different viewpoints and ideas. Whenever there are different views regarding a problem, a study should be done to find out whether our thought and understanding leads to a real solution. Thus, we need a frame work to enable us to think simply regarding complicated situations, MCDMF and specify MADM gives us the opportunity to do so and help us to make proper decisions in more complicated situations. - Multiple attribute decision making These models are used to select one alternative among existing alternatives. Generally speaking, MADM is defined as making special decisions (preferable) such as evaluation, priorities, or a selection among existing alternatives which sometimes coincides conflicting attributes. [] There are different types of MADM which share the following qualities,: - Alternatives - Multiple attributes - Dimensionless units 4- Attributes weight 5- Attributes quality MADM models are divided in two general subdivisions: - Compensatory models: In these models, one negative attribute is compensated with its conflicting attribute. [] The model includes: ELECTRE, MDS, MRS, TOPSIS, SAW, LINEAR ASSIGNMENT and etc - Non compensatory models: Models in which no attribute is compensated by its conflicting attribute. [] The model includes: DOMINANCE, LEXICOGRAPH, ELIMINATION, PERMUTATION and etc. - Attribute and assessors group weights - Multiple Criteria Decision Making

4 Every MADM problem has some attributes that should be recognize in problem by decision maker in due courses. All MADM methods require information that should be gained based on relative importance of the attribute. This information usually has serial or main scale. Attribute weights can be allocated to criteria directly by decision maker group or by scientific methods. These weights specify relative importance of every attribute. Usually groups are classified based on their different levels in social status, knowledge and work experience. So every factors in special subject that cause increase or decrease of idea weight should be considered. In this regard allocating different weight to person s opinions regarding to their knowledge and experience in relation with that subject seems necessary. 4 Dimensionless At multiple attribute decision making groups by distance scale for qualitative attribute and relative scale for quantitative attribute is used, For dimensionless r ij (for every j attribute) Oqlidos conversion (for decision maker p) is used as follows:[4] rij( p) = m i= rij( p) ( rij( p) ) m=i,., n =j,., k=p,., Alternative Attribute Decision maker ( formula) 5- Composition of opinions by G matrix One of the important points at personnel performance appraisal in group is the amount of their correct view. On this regard every one s idea may have especial importance. In these cases the group matrix compilations are calculated as follows: g ij N = π ( r p= ij So: W p = N ) w p N ( formula) P i =,.,m Alternative j =,., n w The element relative to person Attribute Importance of decision maker idea

5 6- Performance appraisal Algorithm Decision making models for improving or solving a problem need to propose alternatives (solutions or scenarios) and decision making attributes. These attributes and alternatives in most cases should be distinguished by judge of experts at the beginning and before making decision. [5] It is clear when the managements don t have the ability of assigning the attributes weights and importance of assessment group opinions (decision making weights), they can use SMARAT[6]or AHP[] for attributes weights and decision making weights assigning among experts. 6-) Topsis Method This method has presented in 98 by Howang and Yoon. In this method m alternative is assess n attribute and we can consider every problem as geometrical system consist of m point in n dimensional space. This technique has established based on this concept that selected alternative should have the least distance with positive idea solution ( the best possible state) and the most distance with negative idea solution ( the worst possible state).[5] So regarding to group matrix G m n (matrix term has gained from formula) the input title for dimensionless matrix V= G m n. W n n and the continuance of above algorithm method, alternative will classify based on assessor group. 6-) Linear Assignment method In this method per alternatives priority at every per attributes is used to achieve Zero One Programming model and through solution of this model all alternatives will be ranked.[] So regarding to ranking every alternatives at every attributes based on group matrix G m n and the continuance of above algorithm method, alternatives will be classified based on assessor group. 6-)Electre method This method has established based on outranking concept and the results of this method should have based on repertory ranking. In this method A A alternative p p q 4

6 and q have not prefer to each other but decision maker has accepted prefer of A q to A q.[6] So regarding to group matrix G m n the input title for dimensionless matrix and the continuance of above algorithm method, alternative will classify based on assessor group. 7- Case study This study has been done in IRAN ENERGY EFFICIENCY ORGANIZATION, active in energy consumption optimization in Iran. P, P, P, P4 and P5 alternatives are allocated to 5 managers. Score given by each assessor has been converted to dimension matrix, using formula. Qualitative and quantitative attributes have been extracted using Delphi method considering the work conditions for per deputy by experts. The assessor group weight and attribute weights have been computed by Smart model. Every individual has been assessed by four different assessors. (Boss, Colleagues (Co-worker), Inferior, employee him / herself). 7-) Group matrix G Formula considers the value of group assessor viewpoint and yields the group matrix G. Gm n X X X X4 X5 X P P P P P TABLE 7-) Topis method The alternatives priority are achieved by group matrix G (Table ) and by the use of Topsis model, the relative closeness to an optimal positive and negative solution is achieved, so the alternative will be ranked. cl cl cl cl4 cl5 Cli TABLE 7-) Linear Assignment method Step : We rank alternatives by using group matrix G (Table ) based on per attributes. 5

7 X X X X4 X5 X P P P P4 4 P TABLE Step : Alternatives are ranked by using (Table ) and the Linear Assignment algorithm and the solution of Zero One Programming. 7-4) Electre method P>>P4>>P>>P>>P5 Step : Using attribute weights vector and group matrix G (Table ), dimensionless matrix is achieved. Dimensionless matrix V= G m n. W n n V X X X X4 X5 X P P P P P TABLE4 Step : Using (Table 4) and the continuation of algorithm model, relative preference of alternatives are achieved. P>>P P>>P4 P5 8- Conclusion In view of the fact that the personnel evaluation is one of the most important and complicated aspects of human resources management. In the presented model personnel are evaluated from different points of view and evaluation s mistakes is minimized. 6

8 So, the attributes and their weights and the assessor group view weights are achieved by scientific method for different levels (Managers, Personnel, Experts, and Supervisors). We used Topsis, Electre and Linear Assignment models. The results of one of these assessments (006) are presented here. Alternatives P P P P4 P5 Performance Appraisal 006(Out of 0) Performance Appraisal Topsis Performance Appraisal Topsis 4 5 Performance Appraisal Electre 4 5 Performance Appraisal Linear Assignment TABLE5 As it could be seen, the scores of performance appraisal 006, for all alternatives are nearly the same expect one, but when we use decision making models especially Topsis model, the performance appraisal different between the personnel is rather high; the achieved gains could be considered as the proof of exactness and efficiency of decision making models in personnel performance appraisal. Taking into consideration the attribute weights and the relative importance of views of assessors group weights the results of the model are probably more acceptable and valid. 7

9 Reference: [] Stoner, J.A.F et al., Management, 6 th ed., London, Prentice Hall, 995 [] Najafbigey. R, Organization and Management, Islamic Azad University Publication, 004 [] Azar.A, Applied Decision Making, Negah Danesh Publication, 00 [4] Asgharpour.M.J, Multiple Group Decision Making, Tehran University Publication, 00 [5] C.L.Hwang & K.P.Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making and Introduction, London, Sage Publication, 995 [6] Asgharpour.M.J, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Tehran University Publication, 00 8