Performance

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT
TECHNIQUE FOR ORGANIZATIONS
By
Ayman Mostafa Mohamed Abd AL-khalek

B.Sc. Industrial Engineering
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Engineering at Fayoum University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
PRODUCTION ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, FAYOUM UNIVESITY

FAYOUM, EGYPT
2014

By
B.Sc. Industrial Engineering
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
Under the Supervision of

Prof. Dr. Hazim Aly Attia
Dr. Mohammed Fahmy Aly
Professor of Mathematical,
Mathematical and Physics
Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Fayoum University
Assistant professor, Industrial

Engineering Department, Faculty
of Engineering, Fayoum
University

FAYOUM, EGYPT
2014

By
B.S.c Industrial Engineering
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
Approved by the
Examining Committee :
Prof. Dr. Hazim Aly Attia, Chairman
Prof. Dr. Attia Hussein Gomaa, Member
Prof. Dr. Mostafa Abdeen , Member

FAYOUM, EGYPT
2014
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.....
Vii
LIST OF TABLES... Viii

ABBREVIATIONS.
LIST OF SYMBOLS........... Xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..... Xiv
ABSTRACT.....
Xv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PROPLEM STATEMENT

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Literature Survey...
1.2.1 Balanced Scorecard Background....
1.2.2 Balanced Scorecard Application....
1.2.2.1Profit Organizations Industrial Sectors.....
1.2.2.2 Public and Non-Profit Organizations.......
1.2.3 Integration of Prioritization Technique Process and Balanced Scorecard.
1.2.4 Developing the Balanced Scorecard ......
11
1.2.5 Survey Summary.....
13
1.3 Statement of The Problem.........
14
1.4 Research Motivation..
14
1.5 Research Objectives...............
15
1.6 Thesis Structure.
16
CHAPTER 2: PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT USING BALANCED

SCORECARD
2.1 Introduction............
18
2.2 Balanced Scorecard........
19
2.2.1 Performance Measurement.............
19
2.2.2 The Original BSC...........

2.2.3 Definition of the BSC.
20
21
2.2.4 The Benefits of BSC...
23
2.2.5 Potential Limitations of the BSC Concept..................
24
2.3 The Components of BSC...
27
2.3.1 The Vision Statements........
27
iii
2.3.2 The Mission Statements......
28
2.3.3 Objectives and Measures
28
2.3.4 Strategic Perspectives.....
30
2.3.5 Strategy Maps.
32
2.4 Performance Drivers..
33
2.5 Measures and Key Performance Indicators...
33
CHAPTER 3: SELECTING BALANCED SCORECARD WEIGHTING

TOOL
3.1 Introduction...
34
3.2 Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Overview..
34
3.3 Classification of MCDM Methods....
35
3.4 MADM Methods...
36
3.4.1 The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)..
38
3.4.2 The Entropy Method..
40
3.4.3 The Fuzzy Geometric Mean Method (GMM)....
40
3.4.4 The Simple Additive Weighting Method (SAW)...................
41
3.4.5 The VIKOR Method...
42
3.4.6 The TOPSIS Method..
44
3.5 Analysis of MCDM Methods for Potentials of Design quality
46
CHAPTER 4: PROPOSED AND VERIFIED THE PRIORITIZATION

MODEL
4.1 Introduction...
49
4.2 Combination Methods...
49
4.2.1 Proposed GMM-TOPSIS Integrated Approach
50
4.3 Evaluation Criteria
54
4.4 Case 1 Selecting Reservoir Storage.........
54
4.5 Case 2 Compares between Different Prioritization Methods...........................
57
4.6 Real Life Application
59
4.6.1 Case 1 Selecting Wheelchair Design ........
59
4.6.2 Case 2 Selecting Material for Design of a Flywheel ................
69
CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT BALANCED SCORECARD

INTEGRATED MODEL
5.1 Introduction...
iv
72
5.2 BSC Development.....
73
5.2.1 Why We Develop The New Perspective "Management Commitment".
73
5.2.2 The New Perspective "Management Commitment"...
73
5.3 Model Preparation..
78
5.3.1 Selecting The Implementation Team Work....................
78
5.3.2 Clarify Vision and Mission.
79
5.3.3 The Internal and External Assessments..................
80
5.3.4 Identify Strategic Objectives..
80
5.3.5 Defining The Performance Measures.
81
5.3.6 Modeling Chains of Cause and Effect (Strategy Map)..
82
5.3.7 Balanced Scorecard Weights..
83
5.3.8 Developing Strategic Programs for Achieving Objectives....
85
5.3.9 Setting Milestones and Targets for The Measures.
86
5.3.10 Evaluation of The Completed Scorecard Done....
86
5.4 Project Time Plan..
86
CHAPTER 6: APPLYING THE BALANCED SCORECARD TO

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
6.1 Introduction
88
6.2 Implementation The BSC- Fuzzy (GMM)-TOPSIS Model..
88
6.2.1 Selecting The Implementation Team Work
88
6.2.2 Faculty (A) Strategic Planning...
90
6.2.3 The Internal and External Assessment (SWOT) Analysis..
91
6.2.4 Identify Strategic Objectives..
93
6.2.5 Identify Balanced Scorecard Perspectives, Objectives and Performance

Measures (Indicators) .
94
6.2.6 Strategic Map.
97
6.2.7 Computing The Importance of Perspectives.
97
6.2.8 Developing Strategic Programs for Achieving Objectives...
102
6.2.9 Comparison Between Performance of Faculty of Engineering (A) and (B).
104
6.2.10 Evaluation of The Completed Scorecard Done...
109
6.3 Recommendations for Faculty of Engineering (A) .
109
CHAPTER 7: SAMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Introduction..
v
110
7.2 Summary 110

7.3 Conclusion. 112
REFERENCES... 114
APPENDICES 122
Appendix A lists the proposed prioritization model MATLAB codes 122
Appendix B lists the questionnaires which used in the practical case study. . 124
Appendix C the published papers of this thesis... 126
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1: The BSC Framework....
23
Fig. 2.2: The Components of a BSC ..............
27
Fig. 3.1: A Typical Decision Matrix...
38
Fig. 3.2: Ideal and Compromise Solutions..........
43
Fig. 4.1: Schematic Diagram for The Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS Integrated
Approach................
53
Fig. 4.2: Value of ED for Different Methods.
57
Fig. 4.3: Compression Between Different Priority Methods.
58
Fig. 4.4: A Hierarchy Model for The Selection of Design Concept..
60
Fig. 4.5: Compression Between Different Priority Methods.
66
Fig. 4.6: Comparative Ranking of Wheelchair Design Alternative...
67
Fig. 4.7: Comparative Ranking of Materials..
71
Fig.5.1: Four Perspectives of a Balanced Scorecard..
77
Fig.5.2: Five Perspectives of a Balanced Scorecard..
78
Fig.5.3: The Developed Balanced Scorecard Model.
81
Fig. 6.1: Comparative Ranking of Different Participants' Responses...
90
Fig. 6.2: Faculty (A) Strategic Map ..
97
Fig.6.3: The Weights / Ranking of The Perspectives, Objectives, and

Performance Indicators.......
101
Fig. 6.4: Perspectives Weighs....
102
Fig. 6.5: Strategic Objectives Weights...
102
Fig. 6.6: Differences between The Performance Financial Perspective of

Faculties of Engineering (A) and (B) ....
106
Fig. 6.7: The Differences between The Performance of Faculties of

Engineering (A) and (B) in Dealing with Customer Perspective .
107
Fig. 6.8: The Differences between The Performance of Internal Process

Perspective of Faculties of Engineering (A) and The Milestone (B)
107
Fig. 6.9: The Differences between Learning and Growth Perspective

Performance of Faculties of Engineering (A) and The Milestone (B) .
108
Fig. 6.10: The difference between management performance of faculty of

engineering of (A) University and milestone (B)..
vii
108
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Summary of The Literature Survey.....
13
Table 3.1: Prerequisites of MCDA Techniques..
36
Table 3.2: Scale for Pair-Wise Comparisons...
37
Table 3.3: Random Index of Analytic Hierarchy Process...
39
Table 3.4: The Pair-wise Comparison of Linguistic Variables Using Fuzzy

Numbers
41
Table 3.5: Analysis of MCDM Methods for Potentials of Design Quality.
46

numbers.................
51
Table 4.2: Compression Matrices for Reservoir Storage Allocation Problem.
55
Table 4.3: Priority Vectors for Criteria.
55
Table 4.4: Priority Vector for Alternatives Using Differant Methods.
56
Table 4.5: Value of Euclidean Distance for Differant Methods..............
56
Table 4.6: Priority Vectors Obtained by Different Priority Methods...
58
Table 4.7: Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient between MCDM Method.
59
Table 4.8: Construct a Pair-wise Comparison Matrix..
62
Table 4.9: Synthesizing the Pair wise Comparison..
62
Table 4.10: The Weights Optained from Fuzzy (GMM) of Main Criteria.
62
Table 4.11: represent priority vectors for criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives.
63
Table 4.12: Overall Weight Vector for The Alternatives with Respect to The
Criteria......
63
Table 4.13:Normalized Decision Matrix......
64
Table 4.14: The Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix..............
64
Table 4.15: Ideal and Negative Ideal Solutions....
64
Table 4.16: The Separation from The ideal Alternative...
65
Table 4.17: The Separation from The Negative Ideal Alternative..
65
Table 4.18: Result of Selection
65
Table 4.19: Compression between Different Weighting Method..
66
Table 4.20: The Weights Generated from the AHP............
66
Table 4.21: Comparison between Different Ranking Methods in Deferent

Scenario....
67
Table 4.22: Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient Between MCDM

Methods
68
viii
Table 4.23: Compression between Different Ranking Methods with Minimum

Change of Weights That can Change The Ranking of Alternatives.
68
Table 4.24: Candidate Materials for A Flywheel..
70
Table 4.25: Cumparing between Defferent Ranking Method..
70
Table 4.26: Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient between MCDM

methods.
71

Mumbers...........
83
Table 6.1: Sample Characteristics.........
89
Table 6.2: Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient between Respondents

Answer......
89
Table 6.3: Faculty (A) Balanced Scorecard Perspectives.
95
Table 6.4: Construct a Pair-wise Comparison Matrix......
98
Table 6.5: Synthesizing the Pair-wise Comparison......
98
Table 6.6: The Weights Optained from Fuzzy (GMM) of Main Criteria
98
Table 6.7: Normalized Decision Matrix.......
99
Table 6.8: The Weighted Normalized Decision Matri.....
99
Table 6.9: Ideal and Negative Ideal Solutions..
99
Table 6.10: The Separation from The Ideal Alternative...
100
Table 6.11: The Separation from The Negative Ideal Alternative
100
Table 6.12: Result of Ranking......
103
Table 6.13: The Action Plan to Achieve The Organizations Objectives
104
Table 6.14: The Performance of Both Faculties of Engineering (A) and The
Milestone (B)....
ix
104
ABBREVIATIONS
ABC
Activity-Based Costing
AHP
Analytic Hierarchy Process
ANP
Analytic Network Process
BCBC
British Columbia Buildings Corporation
Cost
CCMA
Correlation Coefficient Maximization Approach
CEO
Chief Executive Officer
CI
Consistency Index
COM
Cost of Material
CMP
Cost of Manufacturing Process
CR
Consistency Ratio
CT
Customer
DC
Design Concept
DEA
Data Envelopment Analysis
DEMATEL
Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
Ergonomic
ED
Euclidean Distance
EFQM
The European Foundation for Quality management
ERP
Enterprise Resource Planning
ETD
Easy To Dismantle
ETR
Easy To Repair
ETS
Easy To Storage
ETT
Easy To Transfer
ETU
Easy To Use
EVM
Eigen Value Method
FAHP
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
FL
Financial
FPM
Fuzzy Programming Method
FPPM
Fuzzy Preference Programming Method
FUNARBE
Africa- Brazil Agriculture Innovation Marketplace
GMM
Geometric Mean Method
GRA
Grey Relational Analysis
HBR
Human Capital Readiness
IP
Internal Process
ISO/IEC
International Organization for Standardization and the

International Electro Technical Commission.
IT
Information Technology
KIC
Fracture Toughness
KPI
Key Performance Indicator
L&G
Learning and Growth
LLB
Large Local Bank
LW
Light Weight
Maintenance
MADM
Multi-Criteria Decision Making
MC
Management Commitment
MCDA
Multi Criteria Decision Analysis
MCDM
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
xi
MODM
Multi Objective Decision Making
NSE
No Sharp Edge
Performance
PPM
Part Per Million
R&D
Research and Development
RI
Random Consistency Index
ROA
Return On Assets
ROCE
Return On Capital Employed
ROE
Return On Equity
ROI
Return On Investment
SBU
Strategic Business Unit
Safety
SAW
Simple Additive Weighting
SCM
Supply Chain Management
SF
Strong Framework
SPP
Strategic Planning Process
ST
Stability
SWOT
Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats Analysis
TD
Total Deviation
TOPSIS
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to

Ideal Solution
TQM
Total Quality Management
USA
United State of America
UWSENE
United Way of South Eastern New England
xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A1
Alternative 1
A2
Alternative 2
aij
Comparing objective i with objective j
a11
Judgment ratio of objective 1 with respected to objective 1
a1n
Judgment ratio of objective 1 with respected to objective n
an1
Judgment ratio of objective n with respected to objective 1
ann
Judgment ratio of objective n with respected to objective n
c1
Criterion 1
c2
Criterion 2
C*
Closeness to the ideal solution
fj
Criterion function
fc
Compromise solution
f*
Closest solution
Lower limit
Medium limit
NV
Normalized Vector
rij
Normalized preferred ratings of the ith alternative
Si
Maximum group utility
S*
Separation for ideal solution
S-
Separation for negative ideal solution
Upper limit
Ui
Utility of the ith alternative
W1
Weight of criterion 1
W2
Weight of criterion 2
xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Primarily, I dedicate this dissertation to ALLAH by whose grace all things are
possible. Without his constant presence, I would not have been able to complete
this thesis.
My parents have always supported my desire to seek further knowledge, and
gave me the means to do so. I would like to thank them for their love and support
over the years.
I am very lucky to have my thesis done under the supervision of Professor
Hazem Aly Attia for his guidance, patience, and continual support.
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Mohammed Fahmy, for his commitment
to helping me, his leadership, and for being such an inspiration.
Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Attia Hussein Gomaa and Prof. Dr. Mostafa Abdeen
for there time and efforts on examining the present work.
To my good friend, Hagag Maher, thank you for being at my side throughout the
years of this work. We were a great team. I will not forget that.
Last but not the least; I would like to express my deep appreciation for those who
helped me throughout my way to finish my thesis. Without their great assistance,
encouragement and follow up, this work would not have been achieved.
xiv
ABSTRACT
Researches confirm that strategic planning is essential for the improvement of

business performance in both small and large organizations. Organizations
around the globe follow similar tactics, namely to attempt to execute a strategy to
differentiate themselves from their competitors. A popular instrument used to
support the strategic management process in organizations is the Balanced
Scorecard (BSC).
The BSC is a popular performance-management framework strongly associated
with managing the implementation of strategic plans. There is a difference
between known performance-management programs and the BSC. The BSC is a
full and multi-perspective approach to achieving long-term, sustained growth and
viewed more as a strategy-formation system than a pure measurement system.
Constructing the first BSC of an organization is accomplished by a systematic
process that builds consensus and clarity about how to translate the mission and
strategy of the organization into performance objectives, measures, targets and
initiatives in four balanced perspectives: Financial, Customer, Internal Processes,
and Employee Learning and Growth. The aim of the scorecard building and
implementation process is to cascade strategy down to the operational level
where real value is added. This process is also called "Strategic Alignment".
The arguments presented in this dissertation are based on a combination of
general literature research on performance management, the BSC and the
development, strategic implementation and management of the BSC. The BSC is
a good management tool which developing vision and mission statements and
strategies, but has some points need to be developed such as weights of
perspectives,
cause-effect
relationships,
implementation,
time-dimension,
communication within an organization, feedback about the organizations

strategy and management commitment.
The first objective of this thesis is to develop the BSC technique. In the scope of
the current study, the integrated Fuzzy (GMM) - TOPSIS model is proposed to
xv
estimate BSC indicators weights. The new proposed model is modeled and
analyzed using MATLAB.
The new prioritization model solves the main problem of BSC technique with
high accuracy. Verification of the proposed Fuzzy (GMM) - TOPSIS model is
performed in several cases.
The second objective of this thesis adds new perspective to treat limitation in
balanced scorecard implementation. The concept of management commitment is
the degree of members' recognition of organizational goals and values that they
are willing to work extraordinarily hard to help the organization complete its
goals. The origin BSC, perspective "management commitment" and prioritization
technique Fuzzy (GMM) - TOPSIS are the new integrated BSC model.
The third objective of this thesis establishes the development of BSC within an
organization and applies practical research. The proposed BSC model is applied
in Faculty of engineering (A) and results of the performance are found out. The
results show that, the balanced scorecard is a successful and acceptable tool for
organizations performance measurement and excellent tool to translate
organizations strategies to measurable objectives. Results of proposed Fuzzy
(GMM) - TOPSIS prioritization model are compared with other reported
research works in the literature. Sensitivity analysis for the model provides the
smallest ED among other model which means more accurate results of priority.
The results from Fuzzy (GMM)-TOPSIS model found out that management
perspective has the first priority which means that it is the most important
component of the five balanced scorecard perspectives of the faculty
performance. The most significant advantage of the use of the balanced scorecard
is that it provides a wider development of metrics that are closely connected to
the strategic goals of organization (here faculty of engineering).
xvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND PROPLEM STATEMENT
1.1 Introduction
Organizations have always found it difficult to balance pressing operational
concerns with long term strategic priorities. The tension is crucial: World-class
processes won't prompt to success without the right strategic direction, and the
best strategy in the world will get nowhere without strong operations to execute
it. Considering the importance of strategic planning in organizations and
producing the competitive advantage in them and actually, now a day the
organization is moving in a competitive, and complex environment and there is a
transaction among them. The senior managers and all those looking for
comprehensive picture of present situation of the company a clear understanding
of present situation of the company and a clear understanding of its future image
need some information more than just Standards in financial operation to assess
the strategic operation and long term view of the company and also to achieve
operational strategies. [1]
Miscellaneous types of tools are offered for this process, Balanced Scorecard is a
proper tool for evaluating and designing of operational strategies. This tool was
introduced by Kaplan and Norton in 1992, for the first time. BSC is a conceptual
frame work and its function is to translate strategic objectives of a company into
a set of operational attributes. These indices are usually selected from four
financial, customer, internal processes and
learning and development
perspectives. Many attributes were used for the advancement of the company in
the direction of its perspective. Some other attributes are used for evaluation of
company development in accessing to long-term objectives. Furthermore, BSC
helps the managers to identify the lagging and leading attributes in their company
[2].
The traditional BSC contains four categories (i.e., financial, customer, internal
business processes, and organizational learning and growth activities), Kaplan
and Norton [3]. This study added a new perspective to treat limitation in
balanced
scorecard
implementation.
This
perspective
is
management
commitment. Management commitment leads to the organization commitment

and that leads to degree of members recognition of organizational goals and
values that they are willing to work extraordinarily hard to help the organization
complete its goals.
The weights of balanced scorecard perspectives change according to growth
stage of organization. Therefore, this study needs to set weights for balanced
scorecard perspectives and measures performance which reflect organization
importance degree of the different perspectives. The organization redistributes
weights in BSC as well as total performance. There are many different theories
and methods can use to estimate BSC weights. Multi criteria decision analysis
(MCDA) for structuring decision problem and evaluating alternatives provides a
rich collection of methods Malczewski [4]. To achieve the best possible result
from a more effective performance, this study compared between them and
proposed a new integrative model Fuzzy (GMM)-TOPSIS. This mathematical
model combines strong characteristics of two method Fuzzy (GMM) and
TOPSIS. The new proposed model is modeled and analyzed using MATLAB
version R2008a. Also this model is verified by using Euclidean Distance and
approximation method. The results of this verification are given small Euclidean
Distance and high accuracy. So, this study used the mathematical model to
develop the weighting of Balanced Scorecard perspectives. Also, this study
developed Balanced Scorecard model to increase the effectiveness and addresses
some of the flaws in the previous Models. The proposed model integrates BSC
and optimizing Fuzzy (GMM) and TOPSIS method. This model contains ten
steps for establish balanced scorecard in the organization. The objective of the
present work is to describe a framework to develop balanced scorecard model
step by step.
1.2 Literature Survey

1.2.1 Balanced Scorecard Background
The concept of balanced scorecard (BSC) is regarded as a possible effective
performance measurement system and it is used for assisting organizations in
actualizing their strategies [5]. Strategies are described as plans specifically
designed to attain organization goals. According to Bernard, the balanced
scorecard is a strategic performance management framework that allows
organizations to manage and measure the delivery of their strategy [6]. The BSC
is further described by Kaplan & Norton as an important tool of strategy
management which links strategic planning and budget [7]. Budget enables a
basis of comparison through which performance is assessed. The balanced
scorecard as a tool deals with having strategic plans to achieve a set of goals.
This agrees with the position of Kaplan & Norton, Bernard and Der-Jang & HsuFeng thus are emphasizing the importance of having strategic plans to enhance
the effective use of the balanced scorecard in appraising performance and
possible attainment of progressive profit growth. Empirical studies indicate that
companies
using
the
balanced
scorecard
could
effectively
enhance
accomplishment of strategic goals and performance; this was affirmed by DerJang & Hsu-Feng. Kaplan & Norton in their research explained the development
process of the BSC in order to ensure attainment of organization goal using
banks and insurance industries. The BSC is a tool that links strategies to
organization goals. According to Ali-Rahimi, balanced scorecard provides a
mechanism to align the activities and processes of different groups with long
term goals of the organization [8]. He combined the EFQM and BSC models to
improve the performance of the organization. Bernard in his studies found out
that only one of third of large companies uses the BSC but about one of fifth has
adopted the latest version of the BSC which makes use of Strategy Maps. To
attain this, strategic plans are made by the organization such that the roles of
employees are clearly stated in line with expected performance goals. Strategy
according to Horngreen is making a specification of how the organization can
match its capabilities with available opportunities in the marketplace to achieve

its objectives [9].
The increasing use of BSCs is changing the way top managers run their
companies. When envisioning a firms future development, they no longer focus
chiefly on monetary success indicators in the financial area. Instead, BSC is
designed to complement financial measures of past performance with their
measures of the drivers of future performance [10]. Increasing use of BSC
framework in many recent researches and various management fields like
automotive industry [11], Gas Company [12], SCM [13], and R&D [14] have
several reasons. First, compared with traditional measurement systems that only
include financial measures, the BSC is designed to improve managers decision
making by guiding their attention to a broader vision of the companys
operations. Second, as a holistic performance measurement system, the BSC
provides causal links connecting the multiple classes of non-financial measures
drivers of the performance and the financial measures (final outcome). As
such, it clearly shows the links by which specific improvements in the drivers are
expected to lead to desired outcomes according to the strategy. Third, the BSC
can be used as a strategic management system [15].
1.2.2 Balanced Scorecard Applications

Balanced scorecard can be used into two types of organizations, for profit
(industrial) organizations and non- profit organization (e.g. public sector,
educational institutions, healthcare organizations, etc.). Performance indicators
and measures are depending on the nature of the organization. The following
sections display types of these organizations and the related indicators and
measures as mentioned in literature survey.
1.2.2.1 Profit organizations Industrial Sectors
The following sections shows the common industrial indicators as mentioned in

literature survey. The indicators are classified depending on BSC four
perspectives. Financial indicators are an important issue because reflect the
performance in simple numbers. Financial indicators for industrial organization
4
includes discounted cash flow, increased financial profitability, increase profits,

revenue growth, return on investment (ROI),return on equity (ROE), export
growth. Customer Indicators are depending on the type of customers desired and
the value that the organization provides to them. The purpose of the customer
perspective is to focus on the target customers. A common customer indicator
includes customer acquisition, customer loyalty, customer lead time (on-time
delivery), customer satisfaction index, customer complains, delivery satisfaction,
increased market share, improved positioning against competitors, target market
share, percent of sales from new customers, customer retention, price relative to
competition and brand recognition. Internal processes indicators are identifying
and measuring the critical internal processes in which the organization must
excel. Internal processes indicators as team / supplier satisfaction, cycle time,
increased design productivity, employee retention, employee turnover, employee
acquisition, employee satisfaction, employee productivity, average workforce
age, education, training, inventory turnover. Learning and Growth Indicators
includes, number of initiatives per worker, rate of new product introduction per
quarter, propriety position, platform for growth, team member trained in,
employee suggestions implemented, efficiency of employees qualified for key
jobs, including information systems, training hours, job satisfaction, training and
skill, knowledge sharing.
Many researchers employed balanced scorecard model of Kaplan and Norton in
several applications to evaluate organizations performance such as Chwan-Yi
and Lin attempted to develop an integrated framework by merging the concepts
of the BSC and the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) [16]. An auto company
and a commercial bank were selected as targets for empirical investigations. The
study revealed that the synergy of the BSC and the DEA translates the
appropriate performance indices into managerial implications. Zhang and Li
believe that performance management is an important aspect of banking business
management [17]. In their study they proposed the BSC as a tool to improve the
performance of commercial banks in China. The authors proposed a mechanism
and a strategy for application along with the limitations of the BSC. Ahmed et al.
5
conducted a study in which they surveyed a sample of 27 banks in Pakistan to

identify the measures that are used by the sample banks to evaluate their
performance according to the four perspectives of the BSC [18]. The purpose of
the study was to investigate the BSC's implementation in terms of
implementation levels, perspectives, challenges and impediments, etc. The author
reported that the BSC was still used as a measurement instrument and not as a
management tool in the organizations studied. Al Sawalqa et al. analyzed the
implementation state of the balanced scorecard among industrial companies in
Jordan [19]. The authors surveyed 168 companies to obtain an insight on the
level of BSC implementation. The study showed that 35.1% of the surveyed
companies applied BSC, while 30% were considering or implementing the BSC
approach. Sabah M. Al-Najjar et. al. developed Balanced Scorecard to evaluate
the performance of a Large Local Bank (LLB) in Iraq [20].
1.2.2.2 Public and Non-Profit Organizations
Non-profit organizations usually take their mission based on reducing their costs,
improving quality and doing their works more efficiently, hence the greatest
difference between businesses and non-profit organizations is in their missions
Kettunen [21]. Therefore when using the BSC in the field of nonprofit
organizations and public sector, the financial perspective ought to have a inferior
role. Apart from the banking sector, many researchers were impressed by the
BSC. Greiling performed an explorative empirical study on a sample of 20 nonprofit organizations in the social services sector in Germany [22]. In a study
conducted by Kollberg and Elg, the authors attempted to identify the major
characteristics of the BSC application in health care organizations in Sweden
[23]. Sunisa Atiwithayaporn and Wanchai Rivepiboon developed a model
consisting of the well-known standard procedure; ISO/IEC12207, and the
Balanced Scorecard to fulfill missing dimensions for software projects [24].
Balanced Scorecard in Higher Education

Higher-education plays a vital role in countries economic growth and shaping
the future of the nation. Nowadays educational institutions are experiencing
challenges such as rapid growth of information technology, globalization,
increased competition and resource constraints. The successful realization of
these institutions on the educational services market play a necessary role in
attainment their defined goals, therefore focus and hence the performance
assessment of higher education institutions become essential. So strategic
planning and performance tracking has got great importance for such institutions.
Although some studies have addressed the application of the BSC in the field of
education, but in general there is a lack of academic research related to this issue
[25]. Chang and Chow [26] stated that rather than focusing on financial
measures, higher education has historically focused on academic measures.
Dilanthi and Baldry [27] used BSC to measure the performance of the
educational institutions. The study stresses on the relationship between
performance measurement and performance quality under the model of BSC.
Karathanos and Karathanos [25] performed a study aimed at showing the
performance indicators of the first three winners of the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award. The study concentrated on the need for alignment of
performance measures with vision, mission and strategic goals. Chen, Yang and
Shiau have used the BSC to create a system for evaluating the performance of the
Chin Nmin Institute of Technology in Taiwan [28].
In another study conducted by Umashankar and Dutta [29], BSC was used to
measure the efficiency of the management at Indian universities. The study found
that the BSC could enable these universities to identify and correct significant
deviations and design appropriate strategies. Nayeri, Mashhadi and Mohajeri [30]
developed the BSC model in order to assess the strategic environment of higher
education in the field of business in Iran. Raghunadhan [31] assessed the
institutes of higher education which is funded by the government of India, and
used the BCS to compare institutes surveyed. The results indicated that the
7
concepts of strategic management are applied in these institutes. Beard [32]

argued that the BSC is suitable for use in higher education, and he has shown
many successful applications of the BSC in this area. Also, Umayal and Suganthi
[33] presented a model for measuring performance of an educational institution
based on BSC approach. Measurement criteria were also suggested to assess the
performance according to the four perspectives of the BSC. In addition, Yu,
Hamid, Ijab and Soo [34] discussed the appropriateness of adopting electronic
BSC to measure the quality of performance for academic staff in higher
education. The research showed that the electronic BSC is appropriate and
effective for this purpose. A lot of researchers like Munteanu et al [35], Adcroft
et al.[36], Mourad et al.[37], Mazzarol [38], Durkin et al.[39] emphasized on the
requirement of higher education organizations for collecting data based on
students expectations. Dhara Jha and Vijay [40] used BSC as a tool to manage
the education academics. Seth. A. and Oyugi [41] studied the relationship
between the balanced scorecard and organizational performance of higher
learning in Kenya as a means of improving organizational performance. Josua
Tarigan and very recently Deborah Christine [42] studied the relationship
between non-financial performance and financial performance using balanced
scorecard in higher education in Indonesia universities. Mohammad H
Yarmohammadian et. al. [43] developed An Integrated strategic quality model
and BSC applied on Iranian higher education system. Teresa et. al. studied the
validation of a Balanced Scorecard (BSC) model and a Strategic Map for the
University by studying the relationships of efficiency between its dimensions
[44]. This work determines factors of the performance in this type of institution.
These factors are: the participation of teaching staff in innovation activities; the
number of doctorate-level staff; the academic subjects and credits in the Virtual
Campus; and the scores in the surveys of student satisfaction. Amene and Farhad
[45] discussed performance evaluation in higher education institutes with the use
of combinative model AHP and BSC.
Although many higher education institutions are trying to do stakeholders
expectations, there is still a need to pay more attention to quality of teaching and
8
educational programs. These again perspectives, objectives and indicates at the

requirement to reconsider at the ways institutions of higher learning are to be
managed. One of the most successful performance measurements which have
been widely implemented by various organizations during the previous years is
Balanced Scorecard. Although these indicators are inter-connected to reach to
organizational vision and mission, still BSC fails to provide any relationship
between the importance of each of these perspectives, objectives and indicators.
Therefore, this work tried to fill this gap by studying and prioritizing the
perspectives, objectives, and performance indicators of balanced scorecard model
implemented in faculty of engineering by using Fuzzy (GMM)-TOPSIS model.
1.2.3 Integration of Prioritization Technique Process and Balanced

Scorecard
Multi-Attribute Decision Making is the most well known branch of decision
making. It is a branch of a general class of Operations Research (OR) models
which deal with decision problems under the presence of a number of decision
criteria. This super class of models is very often called multi-criteria decision
making (or MCDM). According to many authors MCDM is divided into MultiObjective Decision Making (or MODM) and Multi-Attribute Decision Making
(or MADM). MODM studies decision problems in which the decision space is
continuous. A typical example is mathematical programming problems with
multiple objective functions. The first reference to this problem, also known as
the "vector-maximum" problem, is attributed to (Kuhn and Tucker). On the other
hand, MADM concentrates on problems with discrete decision spaces. In these
problems the set of decision alternatives has been predetermined. Although
MADM methods may be widely diverse, many of them have certain aspects in
common [46].
In the previous literatures regarding the application of MADM, Hao-Chen Huang
proposed an integrated approach for the balanced scorecard tool and knowledgebased system using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method [47]. Bobillo et
al. provided a fuzzy expert system for balanced scorecard system which covers
9
the general body of BSC and deals with the all perspectives [48]. Hossein
Yavarian et. al. proposed an integrated approach for the balanced scorecard
(BSC) and Data envelopment analysis DEA [49]. Reza Abbasi et. al. suggests
that an interested balanced scorecard tool using the AHP -TOPSIS technique for
weighting and ranking the alternatives[50]. Saeid Saeida Ardekani et. al. studied
Performance evaluation of Ceramic and Tile Industry by using
Balanced
scorecard (BSC) interested with Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP), Fuzzy
VIKOR [51]. Javad Dodangeh et. al. demonstrated a model for selection and
ranking of strategic plans in Balanced Scorecard using Topsis method and Goal
Programming model [1]. Javad Jassbi et. al. discussed A Fuzzy DEMATEL
framework for modeling cause and effect relationships of strategy map in
balanced scorecard [52]. Gwo-Donq Wu et. al adopted an integrated approach for
balanced scorecard and Fuzzy hierarchy, analytic network process (ANP) for
new product development projects selection[53]. Mehrzad Navabakhsh et. al.
used integrated model of balanced scorecard and analytic hierarchy process
AHP- SAW to evaluate appraise Iran- agency insurance companies [54].
As it was stated in the previous section, there are many MADM methods
available in the literature. Each method has its own characteristics. There are
many ways can classify MADM methods. One way is to classify them according
to the type of the data they use. That is, we have deterministic, stochastic, or
fuzzy MADM methods. However, there may be situations which involve
combinations of all the above (such as stochastic and fuzzy data) data types.
Another way of classifying MADM methods is according to the number of
decision makers involved in the decision process. Hence, we have single decision
maker MADM methods and group decision making MADM. In this study we
concentrate our attention on single decision maker deterministic MADM
methods. Finally, it should be stated here that there are many other alternative
ways for classifying MADM methods. However, the previous ones are the most
widely used approaches in the MADM literature. To achieve the best possible
result from a more effective performance, this study compared between them and
selected a suitable method to measure the weights.
10
1.2.4 Developing the Balanced Scorecard

The future of an organization depends on how it implements its own strategies
and the success of strategy implementation is dependent on how the
organization's objective is integration to every individual's goal exercise. This
concept requires understanding of business process and the key performance
indicators in different domains where the business operates. Balanced scorecard
is a tool to execute the strategy framed by an organization. The original sequence
of the BSC perspectives is not fixed; it can be adjusted according to individual
case studies or industry culture characteristics Chen et al. [28]. Kaplan and
Norton [7] stated that the general architecture of the BSC can be modified in
order to best fit the nature of the organization, especially if it operates in the
public or non-profit sectors. They have indicated that the organizational mission
of governmental and non-profit organizations is not reflected only by financial
measurement; rather the mission of government or non-profit organization should
be placed at top of the BSC in measuring whether such an organization has been
successful. The organizational mission is followed by the customer, internal
process, learning and growth, and financial perspectives because Kaplan
recommended placing the customer/constituent perspective at the top of
perspectives
hierarchy
for
non-profit
organizations.
Regarding
the
implementation of the BSC for non-profit organizations, the United Way of

Southeastern New England (UWSENE) was the first non-profit organization to
introduce the BSC according to Kaplan and Norton, [7]. According to Wilson et
al. [55], the financial perspective was changed to the shareholder perspective and
the customer perspective remained at the same level in the balanced scorecard
established by the Canada National Department of British Columbia Buildings
Corporation (BCBC). In another case, the BSC was applied as a performance
management tool for FUNARBE by Gomes and Liddle [56]. FUNARBE is a
300-employee strong organization located on the edge of the Federal University
of Viosa Campus.
Nopadol [57], and Panagiotis [58] discussed the limitations of balanced scorecard
that focused in assumption of cause-effect relationships across the four major
11
perspectives is problematic and the design techniques are poor in illustrating the
dynamics of a system (absence of feedback loops).The present work will take
this draw back into consideration as will be shown later.
The frame work of balanced scorecard is divided into four perspectives Finance,
Customer, Internal Processing, Learning and Growth. This study developed a
new
perspective
"management
commitment"
which
will
support
the
implementation of balanced scorecard billers and provide direction to achieve the

organization's goals and objectives.
In this regard, while the traditional BSC contains four categories (i.e., financial,
customer, internal business processes, and organizational learning and growth
activities), Kaplan and Norton intended for the number of categories in the BSC
to be discretionary, stating that, depending on industry circumstances and a
business units strategy, one or more additional perspectives may be added.
Further, Maltz et al. advocate using a fifth category to highlight one or more
specific strategic imperatives beyond the four traditional BSC categories [59].
For example, Maltz et al. report that Best Foods added a people development
perspective to its traditional balanced scorecard to highlight the strategic
importance of human resource management. Epstein and Wisner discuss using a
fifth BSC perspective to implement sustainability as a strategic objective [60].
According to Epstein and Wisner, adding a fifth perspective for sustainability
will emphasize the strategic importance of sustainability outcomes to managers
and employees of the organization, helping them to focus on meeting the
sustainability objectives of the organization that are communicated through the
BSC measures[61]. Steven E. Kaplan and Priscilla S. Wisner report The
Judgmental Effects of Management Communications and a Fifth Balanced
Scorecard Category on Performance Evaluation discuss using a fifth BSC
perspective " Management Communications" to examining managements choice
when a specific nontraditional strategic objective is present [62].
While academicians have recommended that firms use additional BSC categories
to highlight nontraditional strategic imperatives, and some organizations have
12
expanded their BSCs to incorporate additional perspectives, the contention that

attention to performance measures about the nontraditional strategic imperative
will be enhanced by presenting these performance measures in an additional BSC
category has not been examined.
This study builds upon the works of Epstein Steven E. Kaplan and Priscilla S.
Wisner and creates a set of performance measures related to the specific strategic
objective. This study proposes the impact of the level of management
commitments on performance evaluations when specific strategic performance
measures are integrated across four BSC categories.
1.2.5 Survey Summary

Table 1.1 shows a summary for the literature survey and previous work related to this
study.
Table 1.1: Summary of the literature survey
Paper Purpose
Profit
No.
Implementing BSC model

in deferent fields.
Non-profit
Application
Automotive industry
Information Technology
SCM
R&D of Energy
Commercial Bank
Commercial Banks
Performance Evaluating of
Electronic dep.
Commercial Bank
social services
Health Care Services
ISO/IEC12207 software
projects
Introducing new model to

develop BSC performance
evaluation.
Integrating a new model for

evaluation of BSC weights
Developing a new
perspective for BSC
Tool
Educational
AHP-BSC
Fuzzy-BSC
DEA-BSC
AHP-TOPSIS-BSC
Fuzzy(AHP-VIKOR)-BSC)
Fuzzy-DEMATEL-BSC
Fuzzy-ANP-BSC
AHP-SAW-BSC
Add new perspective
13
References
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,
43, 44, 45
47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54
55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,

61, 62
1.3 Statement of The Problem

Despite many stories of successful implementations of the Balanced Scorecard in
large
companies,
based
on
their
experience
of
Balanced
Scorecard
implementations in many organizations, there are points to develop. They are as

following:
1) Each perspective has equal weight, but this is not what happens in
reality. Some measures may be more important and have greater
impact compared to others. Weighting the measures among each other
is critical on decision-making.
2) The assumption of cause-effect relationships across the four major
perspectives is problematic.
3) The time-dimension is neglected in the model of BSC.
4) The
underlying
factor
behind
these
failures
is
ineffective
communication within an organization. This means that; not everyone

in the organization understands the concept and thus may even oppose
it. The Balanced Scorecard is not a one-time project. It is a continual
process. It translates strategy to operational terms, aligns the
organization to strategy, and makes strategy everyones everyday job.
All of these elements must be fully supported by senior management
and the executive leadership is clearly required.
1.4 Research Motivation

Managers need instrument about many aspects of their environment and
performance to monitor the journey toward excellent future outcomes. The
balanced scorecard provides managers with the instrumentation they need to
navigate to future competitive success. Today, organizations are competing in
complex environment so that an accurate understanding of their goals and the
method for attaining those goals is vital.
Weights of the BSC perspectives are an important issue. This is because weights
reflect the importance of a perspective related to other perspectives. Many
researchers focus on integrating with weighting method as data envelopment
14
analysis (DEA), AHP, ANP, Fuzzy theory, with BSC model to evaluating
projects performance as shown in previous section. Although a good amount of
research work to develop BSC model, and prioritizing the perspectives of BSC
by using different MCDM methods, there is still a need to employ a new simple
model and sensitive and systematic mathematical approach to guide the decision
maker in taking an appropriate decision.
The methodological approaches in the numerous case studies of BSC
implementation projects vary significantly in the sequence, content and number
of implementation steps and phases. These approaches are applicable to
particular companies and market segments rather than attempting to provide
generalized knowledge. For example Letza [63] uses a six step approach
methodology for implementing the BSC, Ahn [64] uses a six phases approach to
implement a BSC, and Brewer [65] proposes a four step value dynamics
framework for translating strategy into measures. Lohman et al. [66] Proposes a
nine step approach for BSC implementation and Alexandros et al. [67] uses a six
phases approach along to main axis to implement BSC.
Depending on these the previous studies, this work proposes ten steps integrated
model for evaluation of organizations performance. Integrated model uses BSC
as strategic management system to measure and analyze the organization
performance. BSC perspectives and its indicator weights estimated and
optimized using the proposed Fuzzy (GMM) - TOPSIS prioritization model.
1.5 Research Objectives

The target of this work is to provide comprehensive vision to develop an
integrated BSC model for the best implementation. New perspective was added
to treat limitation in balanced scorecard implementation.
The new model
integrates BSC, as a performance evaluation technique, and prioritization

technique Fuzzy (GMM)-TOPSIS to estimate the BSC weights. The new BSC
model and optimizing prioritization technique are used to optimize ranking
method of the alternative.
15
1.6 Thesis Structure

This thesis is organized in seven chapters and three appendixes. Chapter 1
present's introduction of balanced scorecard, shows the literature survey, and the
integration of BSC with MCDM method. This chapter describes also, the scope
and importance of this work.
Chapter 2 reviews the definition of the BSC as one of these performance
measurement frameworks, as well as the importance and benefit of the BSC in
SBUs.
Chapter 3 presents the methods of multiple criteria decision making which
prioritizing the balanced scorecard weights and analysis these methods to select
the the most suitable method to measure the weights.
Chapter 4 this chapter proposes an integrated decision-making approach based on
fuzzy linguistic variables and geometric mean method integrated with TOPSIS
framework. This chapter provides four numerical examples to illustrate and
verify the potential applications of the proposed models. The illustration shows
the advantages of the model presented and verifies the effectiveness of the model
with previous work.
Chapter 5 describes a framework to develop balanced scorecard model step by
step. The Balanced Scorecard perspectives are developed by using new
perspective. This model contains ten steps for establish balanced scorecard in the
organization. The proposed model integrates the origin BSC, perspective
"management commitment" and prioritization technique Fuzzy (GMM)TOPSIS. This model attempts to remedy limitation in balanced scorecard
implementation.
Chapter 6 proposes the application of the BSC model in non financial Faculty of
engineering (A).
Chapter 7 focuses on summary and conclusions as well as a critical evaluation of
the research.
Appendix A lists the proposed prioritization model MATLAB codes.
16
Appendix B lists the questionnaires which used in the practical case study.
Appendix C the published papers of this thesis.
17
CHAPTER 2
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT USING BALANCED
SCORECARD
2.1
Introduction
An organization is driven by strategy plan and strategic objectives. A strategic

planning process is the management tool to achieve these strategic objectives. It
helps an organization to identify and create opportunities to meet the needs of its
various stakeholders by exploiting the current or potential capabilities of the
organization. The value provided to stakeholders is specified by the vision and
mission statements of an organization, and the success of an organization is
measured by the value it delivers to stakeholders. In an environment of
increasing complexity, unprecedented change, unpredictable technology,
uncertainty, and non-availability of relevant data, it is a challenge to develop and
implement a successful strategy Pandey [68]. Managers all agree that strategic
planning forms a most important part of their work and that they invest a
considerable amount of time in formal strategic-planning processes. A wellexecuted strategy will differentiate a company from its competitors in the market,
which will lead to increased market share and increased stakeholder value, which
is the main goal of any organization. However, strategies provide little benefit to
an organization unless there is an integrated system to decide upon, implement
and measure the success of these strategies. This field of business management is
loosely known as performance management. The effectiveness and efficiency,
with which an organization carries out tasks in the process of providing products
or services, can be related to the performance of that organization Kennerley &
Neely [69].
Performance measures can thus be applied to control and improve these
organizational processes Neely, Mills, Platts, Richards & Gregory [70].
Performance measurement is a recurring activity that for it to be meaningful has to be benchmarked and compared over time. Organizations use performance
18
information as a point of reference for improvement. This information can be

based on performance from a previous time-period or on the performance of
competitors in the industry. The fundamental reasons are formulated as "If an
element is understood, it can be measured. If it can be measured, it can be
controlled. If it can be controlled, it can be improved".
A combination of organizational measures is referred to as a performancemeasurement framework. A performance-measurement framework should be
representative of the whole organization, with different types of measures,
managed in a coordinated manner. This chapter reviews the definition of the BSC
as one of these performance measurement frameworks, as well as the importance
and benefit of the BSC in SBUs.
2.2
BALANCED SCORECARD
2.2.1 Performance Measurement

Performance measurement is a fundamental building block of Total Quality
Management (TQM) and a total quality organization. Historically, organizations
have always measured performance in some way by means of financial
performance, be it success through profit or failure through liquidation. However,
traditional performance measures, based on cost-accounting information, provide
little to support organizations on their quality journey since they do not map
process performance and improvements seen by the customer as well as by the
results delivered to the other stakeholders, such as the shareholders.
Performance measurement plays an important role in:
identifying and tracking progress against organizational goals;
identifying opportunities for improvement; and
comparing performance against both internal and external standards
Yet the ultimate aim of implementing a performance-measurement system is to
improve the performance of the organization so that it may better serve its
customers,
employees,
owners and
stakeholders
[71]. If performance
measurement is executed properly, the correct data generated will inform the user
19
of the information what the status of the business is; how it is faring; and where it
is going. A performance-measurement system enables an enterprise to plan,
measure, and control its performance according to a pre-defined strategy. In
short, it enables a business to achieve the desired results and to create
shareholder value. An example of a multi-perspective, performance-management
tool used in organizations is the BSC that offers four perspectives on measure
performance.
2.2.2 The Original BSC

The BSC dates back to 1988, when KPMG designed a performance-evaluation
system for APPLE. Later, in 1990, the Nolan Norton Institute sponsored a
research project entitled 'Evaluation of future organization performance', led by
Professor Robert Kaplan of Harvard University as a representative of academia,
and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Nolan Norton, David Norton, as a
representative of industry to evaluate the performance of 12 companies. The
project was completed in December 1990 and published in the Harvard Business
Review in 1992. Kaplan and Norton mentioned the concept of the BSC, which
applies an overall management system covering four perspectives to help
managers acquire complete information very quickly, and learn the status of their
business. The BSC is a total management system for translating strategy into
action. Its core value is achieving the vision and strategy of the company [72].
The first BSC in the world was created and implemented by Analog Device Inc.
(ADI), USA. It developed a result of the strategic planning process (SPP) of the
company and its quality improvement initiatives. Arthur Schneiderman of
Analog Devices Inc. invited Robert Kaplan to create an activity-based costing
project for its company. Kaplan learned that Schneiderman had created an
innovative system for measuring the rate of improvement of the company's
TQM. He wished to learn more about it and decided to write a case study about
this innovative system. He also came to know about the corporate scorecard that
Analog Device Inc. was using to evaluate the overall performance and rate of
improvement of the company. The corporate scorecard included traditional
20
financial measures, measures on customer performance, internal processes; and

new product development. This scorecard evolved to what came to be known as
the BSC.
Kaplan noticed that the multi-purpose scorecard that Schneiderman had put in
place was far more useful to strategic measurement. It was decided to test it in 12
companies. Executives experimented with and improved the BSC by developing
the four perspectives during 1990. Between 1990 and 1996, Kaplan and Norton
created a more advanced BSC and published The Balanced Scorecard in 1996
[72].
2.2.3 Definition of The BSC

Kaplan and Norton first introduced the BSC in 1990 through a one-year study of
12 companies. The BSC was developed as a strategic management tool that
provides the manager with a clear and concise picture of the business's health and
progress in reaching the goals of the business. Kaplan and Norton introduced this
conceptual framework for designing, evaluating and measuring multiple factors
that drive the performance of a company. The balance is seen as that between
long- and short-term objectives, financial and non-financial measures, lagging
and leading indicators, and external and internal performance perspectives.
Managers do not have to rely on short-term financial measures as the sole
indicators of the performance of the company. Kaplan and Norton concluded that
financial measures alone were not sufficient to measure performance. Other
factors in the new economy, such as competence and knowledge, customer focus
and operational efficiency and innovation were missing from traditional financial
reporting. The BSC has the capability of integrating long-range strategic plans
with short-term measurable objectives, thereby uniting a company's planning and
budgeting processes during operations of its fiscal year [73].
The BSC indicates that a company should be viewed from four perspectives, as
set out in the BSC framework in Figure 2.1 namely:
The learning and growth perspective;
The internal business-process perspective;
21
The perspective of the customer; and

The financial perspective.
In Figure 2.1 below it is clear that the vision and strategy of the business are
placed in the middle of the scorecard to emphasize the importance thereof. When
implementing the BSC, the focus should always involve the vision and strategy
of the business. The four perspectives are used to allocate the stated measures
and drivers of success for each of the business goals. The focus in the
development of the BSC is to identify the measures of critical success factors of
the business. In a BSC, there are lagging indicators and leading indicators. The
financial indicators are lagging indicators, which represent the past and what has
been accomplished whereas the non-financial indicators such as goal attainment
are leading indicators and are crucial to the strategy of the business. The nonfinancial indicators focus on the future and learning new knowledge and skills.
Staff learning and personal growth are of high importance to any organization as
it strengthens the ability of the business to manage change.
Good measures, if meaningful to the person using it, can provide feedback for
management control. They further communicate the business strategy to all
levels in the firm. A good BSC tells the story of a business strategy. Therefore it
can be said that it provides the framework, goals and measures against which a
performance-management program is undertaken [2].
22
Fig. 2.1: The BSC Framework [3]
2.2.4 The Benefits of BSC

The concept and logic behind the BSC are not new. What is new, is its easy-tounderstand design and more formalized process of performance management and
linking strategy to performance measures and outcomes [68]. Many companies
are motivated to implement the BSC as it assists the organization in the following
ways:
The BSC focus. As the BSC focuses on long-term strategic outcomes and not
only on short-term operational results, it promotes growth. Pursuing a growth
strategy with business excellence requires non-financial initiatives. By using the
BSC, a company is able to articulate a strategy and to communicate it down to all
levels of an organization.
The BSC performance. Individual and collective results are tracked against
targets to correct and improve matters.
Companies use the BSC to provide focus. When measures are aligned to a few
critical strategies, the BSC is used to provide focus on what is important to the
company. Businesses use the BSC to understand their target customers and their
requirements. Companies also acknowledge the need to focus on and invest in
23
intellectual capital and intangible assets as these will carry a competitive

advantage in the future.
A company uses the BSC to align its goals. When one measures what is truly
important to success, the measures are linked to and used to support one another.
Alignment occurs across the organization. The BSC enables employees to
understand strategy, and to link their strategic objectives to their day-to-day
operations.
Companies need clarity regarding their objectives or goals. The BSC indicates
how the company should respond to such issues.
The BSC demonstrates where accountability lies. Individuals are assigned to be
owners of metrics to provide clear accountability for results [73].
According to the Balanced Scorecard Institute [74], the benefits of employing
the BSC for strategic planning and management are as follows:
It allows for organizational alignment to build collective and individual
accountability from the vision of the company to the desktop of
individuals.
Following the BSC offers improved communication and transparency.
Management can build employee buy-in and offer incentives for desired
behavior. Performance information provides a basis for executives and
other staff to be evaluated fairly against company standards, and for
incentives to be linked to performance.
Management can set strategic priorities by prioritizing employees'
projects. The BSC offers a disciplined way to translate the strategic intent
of an organization into actionable programs, products and services.
Finally, it offers data-driven decision-making that underscores measuring
what matters most to the company, and allows management to focus on
results. Performance data better inform decision-making, and helps
management to focus their attention on the most important aspects to
measure.
24
2.2.5 Potential Limitations of The BSC Concept

The section above demonstrates the benefits gained by using the BSC. However,
according to many research, there are a number of potential limitation in different
stages of implementation of BSC which BSCs may be fail, namely the following:
The assumption of cause-effect relationships across the four major
perspectives is problematic. More often the relationships among the
performance variables are ambivalent (e.g. the relation between customer
satisfaction and financial success), statistical (covariance, but no causal
relationships),
purely logical
(e.g.
relationships developed
from
neoclassical reasoning) or simply not existing.

The assumption of hierarchical relationships among the four major
perspectives is questioned. For example might management development
lead to increased profits, but sufficient profits are needed to finance
management development. Consequentially, instead interdependent rather
than unidirectional relationships among the measurement variables are
suggested [75].
Measures are equally weighted All the measures in balanced scorecard are
given the same weighting. This is not what happens in reality. Some
measures may be more important and have greater impact compared to
others. Weighting the measures among each other is critical on decisionmaking.
Design techniques used for the development of a balanced scorecard are
rather poor in illustrating the dynamics of a system (absence of feedback
loops) two of the most usual design techniques used for the development
of the balanced scorecard are the bubble diagram and the generic value
chain model . Recently Kaplan and Norton [9] introduced a new model;
the strategy maps. However, as it has been observed, these models lack
the ability of representing feedback loops. This is not very suitable for
communicating strategy as well as exploring the interrelationships among
measures and in turn objectives. Ignoring the feedback loops (two-way
25
cause and effect) at the design stage of a performance measurement

system will lead to a non-effective representation of the organization and
the dynamics that are involved. Introducing new measures in this way
restricts the possibility to identify the consequences that might be raised in
the whole system [76].
The time-dimension is neglected in the BSC due to the assumption of
hierarchical cause-effect relationships. The original approach is often
considered static instead of dynamic and as such unsuitable for strategic
management.
Failure of revision. Having a high-performance BSC that is out of date can
take the organization in the wrong direction. When the environment
changes, strategy needs to be revised. Performance measures need to be
realigned as failure to do this will result in the strategy being focused on
one or more aspects, and the employees being guided to focus on others.
Failure of commitment. Lack of commitment can occur at any point of the
process.
The implementation of balanced scorecard in many organizations identifies some
limitation also. This limitation as:
It is not easy to implement this tool because it involves a lot of
subjectivity.
The tool is much more complex compared to the other tools.
Lack of senior management commitment.
Too few individuals involved.
Keeping the scorecard at the top.
Overly long development process.
Treating the Balanced Scorecard as a one-time measurement project.
Treating the Balanced Scorecard as a systems project.
Hiring inexperience consultants.
26
Introducing the Balanced Scorecard only for compensation.

The measures that need to be taken is contingent upon the kind of
environment, industry and the business the organization is in.
The tool has tried to fill up the void that exists in most management
systems that is the lack of a systematic process to implement and obtain
feedback about the organizations strategy. However, a lot of refinement is
still required, so that it becomes understandable to every stakeholder
associated with the organization and removing subjectivity to a large
extent [57].
2.3
The Components of BSC
The BSC as per Kaplan and Norton [3] is made up of four perspectives; these
four perspectives are driven by the company vision and mission. This ensures
that the measures and goals in each perspective lead the company to its ultimate
vision. Figure 2.2 illustrates the relationship between the various components of
the BSC. These will be discussed in detail.
VISION
Mission
Customer
Financial
Internal process
Learning and growth
Fig. 2.2: The Components of a BSC
2.3.1 The Vision Statements

A vision is the desired future state or aspiration of an organization [71]. The
purpose of the vision statement is to express what the organization would like to
accomplish and/or where it would like to be in the future. A vision statement
should be brief, inspire, and challenge, describe an ideal condition, appeal to all
27
stakeholders, and provide direction for the future state of the organization. The
organization should scan the future and define its role in it. Once the vision
becomes clear, the organization can work toward achieving it by developing the
strategic plan [76]. Kaplan & Norton [3] agree that a shared ultimate goal or
strategy that has gained consensus and translates the direction in which the
organization wishes to head, is the starting point whence a BSC can be created.
2.3.2
The Mission Statements
Every organization has a mission, a purpose, a reason for being. Often the
mission is the reason why the organization first came into being to meet a need
identified before. A solid mission statement should accurately state why an
organization exists, and what it hopes to achieve in the future. It articulates the
essential nature, values and actions taken in an organization.
A mission statement defines the reason for existence of an organization. It
embodies its philosophies, goals and ambitions. Any organization that attempts
to operate without a mission statement runs the risk of drifting without having the
ability to verify that it is on its intended course. A clear business mission contains
the purpose of the organization; its values, strategy, and scope; and its standards
and behaviors [76].
2.3.3 Objectives and Measures

The BSC is usually constructed by starting at the top and stating its vision,
mission, and strategy. Equally important, however, is the bottom-up strategic
learning that results from using the BSC. The objectives and measures that are
chosen, tell the story of the company's strategy and, over time, the analysis of
results will provide the company with a gauge of the effectiveness of the
company's implementation of these aspects [77]. Between the strategy of the
company, which defines the activities and choices the company makes to
separate itself as an organization, and the performance measures the company
selects to gauge its overall effectiveness, the company requires a set of
performance objectives that describe what it must do well to execute its strategy.
Objective statements are concise statements that describe the specific actions.
28
These must be well performed if the company is to successfully implement the

strategy that it has selected for the specific performance measures that it will use
to determine its progress toward overall goals or objectives.
The best way to create performance objectives is to examine each perspective in
the BSC in the form of a question, for example:
Financial perspective: Which financial steps are necessary to ensure the
execution of the strategy?
Customer perspective: Who are the targeted customers, and what is the
value proposition of the company in serving them?
Internal perspective: At which processes must the company excel to
satisfy its customers and shareholders?
Employee learning and growth perspective: Which capabilities and tools
do our employees require to help them execute the strategy?
When the company develops its performance objectives, it helps to start each
with an action verb. In this regard, [77], states the following:
Objectives should motivate action, but they do not necessarily need to be
quantitative in nature. Providing specific numerical representations of success is
the domain of the performance measure, not the objective. One has to bear in
mind that the BSC is about translation - translating the strategy into objectives,
and then determining the best measure to track achievement of that objective.
Performance measures are the tools that the company uses to determine whether
it is meeting its objectives and moving toward the successful implementation of
its strategy. Measures can be described as quantifiable standards used to evaluate
and communicate performance against expected results. Measures communicate
value creation in ways that even the speeches of the most charismatic CEOs
never can. These measures function as a tool to drive desired action, provide all
employees with direction in how they can help to contribute to the overall goals
of the organization, and supply management with a tool in determining overall
progress toward strategic goals. Measures are critically important for the BSC,
but generating them is not as simple as it may appear [77].
29
2.3.4 Strategic Perspectives

The BSC comprises four perspectives that Kaplan and Norton [3] believe are
generic to all companies. These perspectives are the financial perspective, the
customer perspective, the business-process perspective, and the innovation
learning and growth perspective. In the following section, each one of these
perspectives will be discussed in more detail.
The Financial Perspective
The financial perspective, as reflected in financial measures, is the most

traditional and still most commonly used measurement tool. Financial measures
are valuable in conveying the readily measurable economic consequences of
action already taken. Financial measures are typically focused on profitabilityrelated measures, the basis on which shareholders, in turn, typically gauge the
success of their investments, such as return on capital, return on equity, return on
sales, etc. [2]. These measures are necessary for any organization trying to
measure its performance.
Financial objectives represent the long-term goals of the organization's business
strategy. Kaplan and Norton [3] identified three stages in a business strategy,
namely the growth stage, the sustainability stage, and the harvest stage. There are
three themes that drive the business strategy, namely:
Revenue and growth mix: This mix includes new products, new
applications, new customers and markets, new relationships, and new
pricing strategy.
Cost/reduction/productivity improvement: This includes increasing
revenue productivity, the reduction of unit costs, improving channel mix,
and reducing operating expense; and
Asset utilization/investment strategy: These include the cash cycle, and
improving asset utilization.
According to Kaplan and Norton, the question to ask, is how the company should
appear to its shareholders to succeed financially. The financial perspective can be
30
viewed as the focus of the BSC it is almost as though the other three perspectives
are in essence answerable to the financial perspective.
Customer Perspective
In today's competitive markets, the key emphasis for most executives will be on
the customer. According to Mackay, many organizations have taken up the
challenge of focusing on customer satisfaction, identifying customer needs and
re-engineering their business capabilities from the customer interface. The
customer perspective defines how the organization differentiates itself from
competitors to attract, retain, and deepen relationships with targeted customers.
The value of the customer perspective is crucial because it helps an organization
connect its internal processes to improved outcomes with its customers [7]. The
customer perspective is at the core of any business and is crucial to long term
improvement of company performance. The customer-based virtuous circle,
whereby investment in employee training leads to improved service quality;
which in turn results in higher customer satisfaction leading to increased
customer loyalty, which boosts revenues and margins.
The customer perspective typically includes several core or general measures
derived from the desired successful outcomes of a well-formulated and
implemented strategy. These core measures may include overall indicators such
as customer satisfaction, customer complaints, customers lost/won, sales from
new products, and on-time delivery [2]. Measures related to customers include
results from customer surveys, sales from repeat customers, and customer
profitability. The customer perspective is a core of any business strategy which
describes the unique mix of product, price, service, relationship, and image that a
company offers [7].
Internal Business-Process Perspective
Internal business process measures relate specifically to the operational processes

of the business unit. Measurements based on this perspective will indicate to the
managers how well their business is running, and whether its products and
services conform to customer requirements. The internal process measures are
31
typically based on the objective of most efficiently and effectively producing

products or services that meet customer needs. The objectives and measures in
this perspective of the BSC focus on the operational aspects of the activities of an
organization are non-financial measures - such as quality, timelines, and output
volumes - are commonly used for monitoring operational processes.
Learning and Growth Perspective
In a knowledge-worker organization, people are the main resource. Learning and

growth measures represent the employees as part of the four pillars used to
measure performance with the BSC framework. The innovation and learning
perspective is all about developing the capabilities and processes needed for the
future. This innovation process can be measured in a variety of ways. These may
include the speed of transactions, or the number of people involved in a
particular transaction, etc. Again, the choice depends on what is critical for the
success of each particular business [3].
Acknowledging that performance measures relating to learning and growth are
the most difficult to select, Kaplan and Norton suggest measures of employee
capabilities, information systems capabilities, and employee motivation and
empowerment as examples. This is a performance measurement system with a
dashboard of a series of measures, which provides management with information
about operations of many different processes, describing both what has happened
and what is (expected) happening.
2.3.5 Strategy Maps

It soon became natural to describe the causal relationships between strategic
objectives. For example, a simple causal chain of strategic objectives would be:
employees better trained in quality management tools reduce process cycle times
and process defects; the improved processes lead to shorter customer lead times,
improved on-time delivery, and fewer defects experienced by customers; the
quality improvements experienced by customers lead to higher satisfaction,
retention, and spending, which drives, ultimately, higher revenues and margins.
All the objectives are linked in cause-and-effect relationships, starting with
32
employees, continuing through processes and customers, and culminating in

higher financial performance.
The idea of causal linkages among Balanced Scorecard objectives and measures
led to the creation of a strategy map, articulated in an Human Capital Readiness
(HBR) article and several books (Kaplan & Norton). Today, all BSC projects
build a strategy map of strategic objectives first and only afterwards select
metrics for each objective [3].
2.4
Performance Drivers
A good balanced scorecard should have a mix of outcomes measures and

performance drivers. Outcome measures without performance drivers do not
communicate how the outcomes are to be achieved. They also do not provide an
early indication about whether the strategy is being implemented successfully.
Conversely, performance drivers such as cycle times and part per million (PPM)
defect rates without outcome measures may enable the business unit to achieve
short term operational improvements, but will fail to reveal whether the
operational improvements have been translated into expanded business with
existing and new customers, and, eventually, to enhanced financial performance
[3].
2.5
Measures and Key Performance Indicators
Performance measures quantitatively tell us something important about our

products, service, and the processes that produce them. In BSC the perspectives
and objectives was defined, then to evaluate each objective, the measures metrics
will be defined and calculated. So, once a strategy map and strategic objectives
are identified, strategic performance metrics or KPIs can be used to track
performance. The specific measures should be derived from an organization's
strategy.
33
CHAPTER 3
BALANCED SCORECARD WEIGHTING TOOL
3.1 Introduction
Balanced Scorecard has measures performance of an organization to link
objectives by its strategic goals. The organizations in different carrier and
different stage of growth have own different important KPIs. So, the important of
KPIs will different from stage to stage and organization to another. Therefore,
estimating weights for balanced scorecard perspectives and measures
performance which reflect organization importance degree of the different
perspectives is required. The organization redistributes weights in BSC as well as
total performance. There are many different theories and methods can use to
estimate BSC weights. Each method has its own basic concept, aim, advantages
and disadvantages. Which one is chosen by management or decision makers for
assessing performance depends on the status and type of the organization. To
achieve the best possible result from a more effective performance, this study
compares between them and chooses a suitable method to measure the weights.
3.2 Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Overview

Decision-making process involves a series of identifying the problems,
constructing the preferences, evaluating the alternatives, and determining the best
alternative. Generally speaking, three kinds of formal analysis can be employed
to perform the decision making problems:
Normative analysis- focuses on the problems that how decision makers
should ideally do.
Descriptive analysis- is concerned with the problems that what decision
makers actually do.
Prescriptive analysis- considers the methods that how decision makers
ought to do to improve their decisions.
34
We limit our topic to the normative analysis and the prescriptive analysis, since
the descriptive analysis (or called behavior decision research) is especially
highlighted by the fields of psychology, marketing, and consumer research. On
the other hand, the normative analysis and the prescriptive analysis are the
concentration in the fields of decision science, economics, and operations
research (OR).
Decision making is extremely intuitive while considering the single criterion
problems, since we only need to choose the alternative with the highest
preference rating. However, when decision makers evaluate the alternatives with
the multiple criteria, many problems, such as weights of criteria, preference
dependence, and conflicts among criteria, seem to complicate the decision
problems and should be overcome by more sophisticate methods [78].
Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) refers to making decisions in the
presence of multiple, usually conflicting criteria. There are two groups within the
MCDM, multi attribute decision making (MADM) which deals with selection
problems and, multi objective decision making (MODM) which deals with
design problems [79].
MODM studies decision problems in which the decision space is continuous. A
typical example is mathematical programming problems with multiple objective
functions. The first reference of this problem is, also known as the "vectormaximum" problem. On the other hand, MADM concentrates on problems with
discrete decision spaces. In these problems the set of decision alternatives has
been predetermined.
3.3 Classification of MCDM Methods

There are many MADM methods available, each method has its own
characteristics, and none of them is considered the best for all kinds of decision
making situations. There are no better or worse techniques, only techniques that
fit better to a certain situation or not. Nevertheless, different methods, when
applied to the same problem using similar data, often produce differing results.
35
The main question is, therefore, how to choose the appropriate methodology in
decision making. Table 3.1 lists specific operational requirements for a MADM
technique [80].
Table 3.1: Prerequisites of MCDA Techniques [80]
Prerequisites of MCDA techniques
Weights elicitation
Justification
To provide preference information between
the evaluation criteria
Critical threshold values, veto
To operation the assimilative capacity of the
environmental, economic, resource, and social
base
Comparability
To perform an integrated comparison between
the different actions
Qualitative
and
quantitative To handle the mixed information
information
Rigidity
To give robust results
Group decision-making
To include a diverse audience of stakeholders
Graphical representation
To render the outcome understandable
Ease of use
To familiarize the Decision Makers (DMs)
with the decision-making process
Sensitivity analysis
To enhance the transparency of the procedure
Variety of alternatives
To incorporate all possible courses of action
Large number of evaluation criteria
To embrace all different aspects
Consensus seeking procedures
To reach up a global compromise
Incorporation of intangible aspects
To be capable of taking into account hidden
dimensions of the problem
Hierarchy of scale
To decrease the ambiguities and provide for
explicit consistency
Concrete meaning for parameters used
To improve the reliability of the process
Learning dimension
To acknowledge and accept new information
revealed during the evolution of the procedure
Temporal aspects
To consider the emergency of the situation
and clarify long- and short-term concerns
3.4 MADM Method

The AHP, Entropy, Fuzzy (GMM), VIKOR, SAW and TOPSIS methods are
used mostly in practice today and are described in later sections. Usually,
MADM methods have two same steps to determine the criteria weights. These
steps are:
36
Structuring The Hierarchy

Each MADM problem is associated with multiple attributes. Attributes are also
referred to "goals" or "decision criteria". Attributes represent the different
dimensions from which the alternatives can be viewed. In cases in which the
number of attributes is large, attributes may be arranged in a hierarchical manner.
That is, some attributes may be major attributes. Each major attribute may be
associated with several sub-attributes. Similarly, each sub-attribute may be
associated with several sub-subs- attributes and so on. Although some MADM
methods may explicitly consider each of the hierarchical structure in the
attributes of a problem, as single level of attributes.
Matrix Format
The MADM methods assign the weights of attributes according to the
importance of each attribute. To determine the attributes' weight, a team of
experts formed pair wise comparison matrices for evaluating the attributes. Each
expert of the team makes an individual evaluation. Pair wise begins with
comparing the relative importance of two selected items. The decision makers
have to compare each element by using relative scale of pair wise comparison as
shown in Table 3.2. This information is summarized in Figure 3.1.
Table 3.2: Scale for Pair-wise Comparisons
Relative
intensity
1
3
Definition
Similar importance (SI)
Moderate importance (MI)
Intense importance (II)
Demonstrated importance (DI)
Extreme importance (EI)
2,4,6,8
Intermediate values
Explanation
Two requirements are of equal value
Experience slightly favors one requirement
over another
Experience strongly favors one requirement
over another.
A requirement is strongly favored and its
dominance is demonstrated in practice.
The evidence favoring one over another is
of the highest possible order of affirmation.
When compromise is needed
37
Fig. 3.1: A Typical Decision Matrix.
After these steps, each method has individual mathematical equation to compute
the weights as following:
3.4.1 The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured technique for organizing
and analyzing complex decisions. Based on mathematics and psychology, it was
developed by Thomas L. Saaty and has been extensively studied and refined
since then. It has particular application in group decision making, and is used
around the world in a wide variety of decision situations, in fields such as
government, business, industry, healthcare, and education[81].
From the information of the pair wise comparison, we can form the judgment
comparison reciprocal matrix as follows:
(3.1)
To calculate the vectors of priorities, the average of normalized column (ANC)

method is used. ANC is to divide the elements of each column by the sum of the
column and then add the element in each resulting row and divide this sum by the
number of elements in the row (n).as shown in eq. 3.2:
(3.2)
38
The final operation called consistency verification, which is regarded as one of

the most advantages of the AHP, is incorporated in order to measure the degree of
consistency among the pair wise comparisons by computing the consistency
ratio. The consistency is determined by the consistency ratio (CR). Consistency
ratio (CR) is the ratio of consistency index (CI) to random index (RI) for the
same order matrices. To calculate the consistency ratio (CR), there are three steps
to be implemented as follows:
Firstly, Calculate the Eigen value ( max)
To calculate the Eigen value ( max), multiply on the right matrix of judgments
by the priority vector, obtaining a new vector.
Secondly, Calculate the Consistency Index (CI).
The CI can be calculated using the eq.3. 3.
(3.3)
Finally, Calculate the Consistency Ratio (CR).

The CR can be calculated using the eq. 3.4.
(3.4)
Selecting the appropriate value of random index (RI) table 3.3 is according to the
matrix size.
Table 3.3: Random Index of Analytic Hierarchy Process
:
Size of
matrix (n)
Random
index (RI)
10
11
12
0.58
0.9
1.12
1.24
1.32
1.41
1.45
1.49
1.51
1.59
39
3.4.2 The Entropy Method

The Entropy idea has played an important role and has been a concept within
physics and social sciences. In particular, entropy has widely been used in
information theory as a measure of uncertainty of a discrete probability density
function as follows [82]:
The pair wise comparison can be formed same as the previous one. Let a set of
alternatives Ai (i = 1,2,3,. . , N) be evaluated according to Xj criteria (j= 1,2,3, .
.,M). Let Xij be the outcome of the ith alternative with respect to the jth criterion
and an element of the Decision Matrix A. Let Pij be determined by eq.3.5 as
follows:
(3.5)
Where pi is a probability of the ith outcome; the entropy of attribute (criterion) j,

Ej for N alternatives can be expressed by eq.3.6 as follows:
.
(3.6)
Where the term [-1/ln(N)] provides the condition 0 < Ej < 1 to be fulfilled. The
weight of criteria Xj, Wj can be determined by eq. 3.7 as following:
(3.7)
3.4.3 The Fuzzy Geometric Mean Method F(GMM)

Fuzzy set theory , which was introduced by Zadeh to deal with problems in
which a source of vagueness is involved, has been utilized for incorporating
imprecise data into the decision framework. The geometric mean method was
first employed by Buckley to extend the AHP to consider the situation of using
the linguistic variables. A fuzzy set can be defined mathematically by a
membership function (x), which assigns each element x in the universe of
40
discourse X a real number in MADM problem and M alternatives as a geometric

system with M points in the N dimensions space. [83]
The pair wise comparison can be formed by using linguistic variables of fuzzy
numbers Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: The Pair-wise Comparison of Linguistic Variables Using Fuzzy Numbers
Intensity of fuzzy
scale
~
1
~
3
~
5
~
7
~
9
~~~~
2, 4 ,6 ,8
Definition of linguistic
variables
Intermediate values
Fuzzy
number
(L,M,U)
(L,M,U)
(L,M,U)
(L,M,U)
(L,M,U)
(L,M,U)
User define
=
=
=
=
=
=
(
(
(
(
(
(
,1,
,3,
,5,
,7,
,9,
, ,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Where: L is the lower limit, M is the medium limit, U is the upper limit.
Then, the geometric mean method for finding the final fuzzy weights of each
criterion can be formulated by eq. 3.8, 3.9 as follows:
,
Wi = ri * (r1+r2++rn)-1
(3.8)
Where
ri = (ai1* ai2*.ain)1/n
(3.9)
After determining the weights for lower, median and upper comparison matrices,
the weighting average is computed to get the final weights.
3.4.4 Simple Additive Weighting Method

The simple additive weighting method (SAW) can be considered the most
institutive and easy way to deal with the MCDM problems, due to the linear
additive function can represent the preferences of decision makers. Churchman
and Ackoff firstly utilized the SAW method to cope with portfolio selection
problem. SAW method is probably the best known and widely used method for
MADM [84].
Because of the simplicity, the SAW is the most popular method in the MADM
41
problems and the best alternative can be derived by the following eq.3.10, 3.11:
A* = {Ui (x) : maxu i (x)}
(3.10)
Ui (x) =
(3.11)
and
Wjrij(x)
Where
Ui (x) : the utility of the ith alternative.
wj : the weights of the jth criterion.
and
rij(x) is the normalized preferred ratings of the ith alternative with respect to the
jth criterion.
In addition, the normalized preferred ratings rij(x) of the ith alternative with
respect to the jth criterion can be defined by:
For benefit criteria, rij(x) = xij/xj*, where xj* =max xij , 0 rij(x) 1
For cost criteria, rij(x) = 1/xij / 1/xj* = min xij / xij
where xij is the normalized preferred ratings of the ith alternative with respect to
the jth criterion.
3.4.5 VIKOR Method

The VIKOR method was developed for multicriteria optimization of complex
systems. It determines the compromise ranking list, the compromise solution, and
the weight stability intervals for preference stability of the compromise solution
obtained with the initial (given) weights. This method focuses on ranking and
selecting from a set of alternatives in the presence of conflicting criteria. It
introduces the multicriteria ranking index based on the particular measure of
closeness to the ideal solution.
42
Assuming that each alternative is evaluated according to each criterion function,

the compromise ranking could be performed by comparing the measure of
closeness to the ideal alternative. The multicriteria measure for compromise
ranking is developed from the Lp-metric used as an aggregating function in a
compromise programming method. The various J alternatives are denoted as a1,
a2, a 3,.. aj. For alternative aj, the rating of the ith aspect is denoted by fij, i.e. fij is
the value of ith criterion function for the alternative aj; n is the number of criteria.
Development of the VIKOR method started with the following eq. 3.12 form Lpmetric:
Lpij = {
[ wi (fi* - fij)/(fi*-fj-)]P}1/p , 1 p , j = 1,2,, J
(3. 12)
Within the VIKOR method L1,j (as Sj in Eq. 3.12.) and L,j (as Sj in Eq. 3.12.) are
used to formulate ranking measure. The solution obtained by minj Sj is a
maximum group utility (majority rule), and the solution obtained by minj Sj is a
minimum individual regret of the opponent.
The compromise solution Fc is a feasible solution that is the closest to the ideal
F*, and compromise means an agreement established by mutual concessions, as
is illustrated in Figure 3.2 by:
f1 = f1* - f1c and f2 = f2* - f2c.
Fig. 3.2: Ideal and Compromise Solutions [85]

The compromise ranking algorithm VIKOR has the following steps:
(a) Determine that best fi* and the worst fi- values of all criterion functions by eq.
3.13 , i=1,2,..,n. If the ith function represents a benefit then:

43
fj*= max fij , fi- = min fij
(3.13)
(b) Compute the values Sj and Rj, j=1,2,., J by the following eq.3.14, 3.15.
Sj =
wi (fi* - fij)/(fi*-fj-)
Rj = max [
(3.14)
wi (fi* - fij)/(fi*-fj-)]
(3.15)
(c) where wi are the weights of criteria, expressing their relative importance.
(d) Computer the value QJ , j= 1,2,, J by the following eq.3.16.
Qj = v (Sj S*)/(S- S*) + (1 v)(Rj R*) /(R- R*)
(3.16)
Where
S * = min Sj , S- = max S j
R* = min Rj , R- = max Rj
and v is introduced as weight of the strategy of the majority of criteria (or

the maximum group utility), here v =0.5.
(e) Rank the alternatives, sorting by the values S, R, and Q, in decreasing order.
The results are three ranking lists.
The best alternative, ranked by Q, is the one with the minimum value of Q. The
main ranking result is the compromise ranking list of alternatives, and the
compromise solution with the advantage rate [85].
3.4.6 TOPSIS Method

The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
method is one of the well known ranking methods for MCDM. TOPSIS is firstly
proposed by Hwang and Yoon. This technique based on the concept that rank
alternatives, which has the shortest distance from the ideal (Best) solution and the
longest distance from the ideal (worst) solution[86].
44
Steps of TOPSIS
Step 1: Construct normalized decision matrix. This step transforms various

attribute dimensions into non-dimensional attributes, which allows comparisons
across criteria.
Normalize scores or data by eq. 3.17 as follows:
rij = xij/ (a2ij) for i = 1, , m; j = 1, , n
(3.17)
Step 2: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix. Assume we have a

set of weights for each criteria wj for j = 1,n.
Multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated weight
as following eq. 3.18. An element of the new matrix is:
vij = wj rij
(3.18)
Step 3: Determine the ideal and negative ideal solutions.

Ideal solution is determined by eq. 3.19.
A* = { v1*, , vn*}, where
vj*={ max (vij) if j J ; min (vij) if j J' }
(3.19)
Negative ideal solution is determined by eq. 3.20.

A' = { v1', ,vn' }, where
v' = { min (vij) if j J ; max (vij) if j J' }
(3.20)
Step 4: Calculate the separation measures for each alternative. The separation
from the ideal alternative is:
S i* =
(vij vj*)2 ]
i = 1, , m
(3.21)
Similarly, the separation from the negative ideal alternative is:

Si' = [
(vij vj' )2 ]
i = 1, , m
(3.22)
Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution Ci*

Ci*= Si' / (Si* +Si' ) ,
Ci* 1
45
(3.23)
3.5 Analysis of MCDM Methods for Potentials of Design Quality

AHP
Entropy
Fuzzy(GMM)
SAW
TOPSIS
VIKOR
Decision Making
Individual and
group
Individual and Group
Individual and Group
Group
Group
Group
Methodology
Creating
hierarchical
structure
And pair wise
comparison
matrices
Creating network
structure and
Pair wise comparison
matrices
Creating matrix structure and

comparing pairs of
alternatives to form an
outranking relation
Creating matrix structure

and
calculating a global (total)
score for each alternative
by adding contributions of
alternative with respect to
each attribute
Creating matrix
structure and calculating
distance to positive and
negative ideal point
Areas of Usage
To support decision
making for
complexity
To support decision
making for
complexity
To support decision making

for complexity
To support decision
making for complexity
To support decision
making for
complexity
easy to adapt
not easy to adapt
easy to adapt
easy to adapt
not easy to adapt
Creating matrix
structure and
comparing pairs
of alternatives to
form an
outranking
relation
To support
decision
making for
complexity
not easy to adapt
need
No need
No need
No need
No need
No need
Weighting System
Pair Wise
comparison
Pair Wise comparison
Using (GMM)
Method.
No specific
Method.
No specific method.
Linear or
Vector normalization
No specific
method.
Criteria Evaluation
Tangible and
intangible
criteria
Tangible and
intangible
criteria
Tangible and intangible

criteria

criteria

criteria
Tangible and
intangible
Criteria
Simplest and clearest

method. low requirements
on time.
A scalar value that

account for both the best
and worst alternatives
simultaneously.
A simple computation
process that can be
easily programmed into
a spreadsheet. High
Sensitivity analysis
High Sensitivity
analysis.
Flexibility of the
software package
Adaptability/Flexibility
Consistency
Measurement
Advantages
Easy to use;
scalable; hierarchy
structure can easily
adjust to fit
many sized
problems; not data
intensive.
Disadvantages
Problems can lead

to inconsistencies
between judgment
and ranking
criteria; rank
reversal.
Use quantitative and

qualitative data
Modeling decision
making preference
weights as trade offs
weights as importance
coefficients.
Several pair wise

comparison questions.
Complex survey
process for non-expert
participants.
Ease to use. A simple

computation process. Solve
inconsistencies problems.
Using fuzzy information
46
Can not stand alone. Can

not calculate sub
evaluation. Can not trace
the performance changes by
the time, can give
unreliable results
Have complex steps
Not Ease to use.

Don't use way to
Structure the
problem
From the previous table can be illustrated that:

1- All of the MADM methods can solve the problem of multi criteria
decision making by determine weighting and ranking the alternatives.
2- Some of these methods used Individual as AHP, Entropy and Fuzzy.
Another methods used in Group as SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR.
3- MADM methods used to evaluate Tangible and intangible criteria.
4- AHP and Fuzzy methods depend on analyze the problem in hierarchy
structure.
5- These methods progress from simplicity to complexity as following
respectively:
For individual methods Fuzzy (FMM), AHP and Entropy
For groped method SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR.
6. Some of these methods used pair wise comparison matrix to determine
weights of criteria such as AHP and Fuzzy. Other methods used Linear or
Vector normalization methods to determine ranking of criteria such as
SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR.
7. AHP method can't solve the problem of multi criteria decision making
which has inconsistencies ratio between judgment criteria.

8. Fuzzy and Entropy methods can solve the problem of multi criteria
decision making which has inconsistencies ratio between judgment criteria

and also have obscure data.
9. SAW is simple and doesn't require complex computer but estimates
revealed don't always reflect the real situation, result obtained may not be
logical.
10. TOPSIS method is more difficult than SAW but it more sensitive the
SAW and VIKOR.

11. VIKOR method is the most difficult method but it also sensitive method.
47
From this analysis Fuzzy (GMM) and TOPSIS methods have a lot of positive
points. Therefore, this research proposes the integration of the Fuzzy (GMM)
and TOPSIS methods in an attempt to obtain a mixture of strong characteristics.
48
CHAPTER 4
PROPOSED AND VERIFIED THE PRIORITIZATION
MODEL
4.1 Introduction
The third chapter studied the group of MADM methods that calculate weights
and ranking the alternatives in terms of advantages and disadvantages. This
chapter proposes an integrated decision-making approach based on fuzzy
linguistic variables and geometric mean method integrated with TOPSIS
(technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution) framework. This
model will help manager to estimate the perspectives of balanced scorecard
weights and rank its indicators. Arranging the alternatives is depending on
detremine the weights so that, accuracy in calculating weights is recommended.
This chapter comparing the methods, in which weights are calculated, using
euclidean distance of each method separately. Thus, examining the methods,
which are ranking the alternatives, using Approximation method. This
Approximation method studies the sensitivity analysis of ranking methods
according to the changes occuring in the weights. The results of these
comparisons are verifying the proposal of the integration of the Fuzzy (GMM)
and TOPSIS methods.
This chapter provides four numerical examples to illustrate and verify the
potential applications of the proposed models. The illustration shows the
advantages of the model presented and verifies the effectiveness of the model
with previous work.
4.2 Combination Methods

Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods deal with the process of
making decisions in the presence of multiple criteria. Decision-makers are
required to choose among quantifiable or non-quantifiable and multiple criteria.
49
The objectives are usually conflicting and therefore, the solution is highly
dependent on the preferences of the decision-maker and must be a compromise.
Each method has strong and weakness characteristics, so future techniques
integrated methods to get better characteristics. Therefore, this research proposes
the integration of the Fuzzy (GMM) and TOPSIS methods in an attempt to obtain
a mixture of strong characteristics.
4.2.1 Proposed GMM-TOPSIS Integrated Approach

This study proposed new integrated approach model composed of Fuzzy(GMM)
and TOPSIS methods consist of three basic stages: the first stage data gathering
to Structure the hierarchy stage two deals with GMM computation where stage
three in values determination of the final ranking.[87]
The First Stage: Structuring The Hierarchy
This is the first stage; a problem is decomposed into a hierarchical structure that
consists of an objective (i.e., overall goal of the decision making), the general
criteria which impact the goal directly, sub-criteria (objectives), sub-sub-criteria
(measures) etc.
The Second Stage: Computing The Weights
In this stage, to determine the criteria weights, a team of experts formed pair wise
comparison matrices for evaluating the criteria. Each expert of the team has
individual evaluation. Computing the geometric mean of the values obtained
from individual evaluations, a final pair wise comparison matrix on which there
is a consensus is found. The weights of the critical success factors are calculated
based on this final comparison matrix as shown in the next Table 4.1 and
equations.
50
Table 4.1: The Pair-wise Comparison of Linguistic Variables Using Fuzzy Numbers
Intensity of fuzzy
scale
~
1
Definition of linguistic
variables
Fuzzy
number
(L,M,U)
= ( ,1,)
~
3
(L,M,U)
= ( ,3,)
~
5
~
7
~
9
(L,M,U)
= ( ,5,)
(L,M,U)
= ( ,7,)
(L,M,U)
= ( ,9,)
Intermediate values
(L,M,U)
= ( , , )
~~~~
2, 4 ,6 ,8
User define
Next, from the information of the pair wise comparison, we can form the fuzzy
positive reciprocal matrix as follows eq.4.1:
a11 a1 j ain

A ai1 aij ain

an1 anj ann
(4.1)
criterion can be formulated as follows eq. 4.2, 4.3:
Wi = ri * (r1+r2++rn)-1,
(4.2)
(4.3)
Where
The Third Stage : Determining The Final Ranking
In the last stage, calculated weights of the factors are approved by decision
making team. Ranking firms are determined by using TOPSIS method in the
third stage. TOPSIS method is one of the well known ranking methods for
MCDM. TOPSIS is firstly proposed by Hwang and Yoon. This technique based
on the concept that rank alternatives, which has the shortest distance from the
ideal (Best) solution and the longest distance from the ideal (worst) solution.
51
Steps of TOPSIS
across criteria.
Normalize scores or data as following eq. 4.4:
(4.4)
Step 2: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix. Assume we have a set of
weights for each criteria wj for j = 1,n.
Multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated weight by eq.
4.5. An element of the new matrix is:
vij = wj rij
(4.5)
Step 3: Determine the ideal and negative ideal solutions by eq. 4.6.
Ideal solution.
A* = { v1*, , vn*}, where
vj*={ max (vij ) if j J ; min (vij ) if j J' }
(4.6)
Determine the Negative ideal solution by eq. 4.7.

A' = { v1', ,vn' }, where
(4.7)
Step 4: Calculate the separation measures for each alternative by eq. 4.8. The
separation from the ideal alternative is:
Si * = [
(vij vj*)2 ]
i = 1, , m
(4.8)
Similarly, by eq. 4.9 the separation from the negative ideal alternative is:
S'i = [ (vij vj' )2 ]
i = 1, , m
(4.9)
Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution Ci* by eq. 4.10
Ci*= S'i / (Si* +S'i ) ,
Ci* 1
(4.10)
Schematic diagram of the proposed model for best design is provided in Figure 4.1.
52
Set up goal
Make criteria
Structure the hierarchy

1) Structure the hierarchy
No
Assess whether the
hierarchy is arranged
properly or not
Yes
Build comparison matrix
Separate the three matrices

2) Fuzzy(GMM)computation
Calculate weights for each matrix
Calculate the average of weights
calculate normalized ratings
calculate weighted normalized ratings

3) The final ranking
Positive and negative ideal point
separation from the PIS and the NIS
The similarities to the PIS
End
Fig 4.1: Schematic Diagram for the Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS Integrated Approach [87]
53
4.3 Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria are the tool needed to measure the performance of each
prioritization methods. These criteria will compare and determine the best
method among all the prioritization methods. In this study, Euclidean Distance
(ED) and Approximation method is applied. For each particular comparison
matrix in the hierarchy evaluation with aid of an error criteria ED will be
performed. More precisely, the most appropriate method for each matrix can be
selected by performing the multi criteria analysis of derived priority vectors
across minimizing criteria ED.
Euclidean Distance (ED)
Euclidean Distance ED is used to estimate the overall distance between all the
judgment elements in the comparison matrix and associated ratios of the
priorities from the derived vector weight. The best method is determined by the
least ED value. The ED is measured in the following eq. 4.11:
ED= (
( aij - wi/wj) 2)1/2
I,j =1,2,..n.
(4.11)
Approximation Method
The approximation method is used to calculate the minimum change of weights
(changes= 0.001 in this thesis) that can change the ranking of alternatives by
using different ranking methods.
4.4 Case 1: Selecting Reservoir Storage

In this example, a case has been conducted based on data that are taken from
Bojans study [88]. The selected case is reservoir storage allocation problem. The
analyzed problem is allocating the surface water reservoir storage to multiple
uses. A global economical goal is defined as the most profitable use of reservoir,
and six purposes are considered as decision alternatives: electric power
generation (A1); irrigation (A2); flood protection (A3); water supply (A4);
tourism and recreation (A5); and river traffic (A6). Alternatives are evaluated
across five economical criteria of different metrics: gain in national income (C1);
earning foreign exchange (C2); improvement of the balance of payment (C3);
54
import substitution (self-sufficiency) (C4); and gain in regional income (C5). P1

is the matrix where criteria are compared by importance with respect to the goal,
and matrices containing judgments of alternatives with respect to criteria C1,
C2,., C5 are referred to as P2,., P6, respectively as shown in Table 4.2
Table 4.2: Compression Matrices for Reservoir Storage Allocation Problem .
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
Criteria (P1)
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
1
2
5
3
2
1/2 1
7
3
3
1/5 1/7 1 1/4 1/5
1/3 1/3 4
1
3
1/2 1/3 5 1/3 1
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
National Income(P2)
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
1
5
3
6
7
5
1/5 1 1/7 1/2 2
2
1/3 7
1
7
3
4
1/6 2 1/7 1 1/2 1
1/7 1/2 1/3 2
1
2
1/5 1/2 1/4 1 1/2 1
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
Foreign Exchange(P3)
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
1
4
6
7
2
2
1/4 1
2
2
1 1/3
1/6 1/2 1
2 1/6 1
1/7 1/2 1/2 1 1/5 1/7
1/2 1
6
5
1
1
1/2 3
1
7
1
1
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
Balance of Payment (P4)

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
1
3
7
6
3
4
1/3 1
5
2
3 1/2
1/7 1/5 1 1/4 1/7 1/3
1/6 1/2 4
1 1/2 2
1/3 1/3 7
2
1
2
1/4 2
3 1/2 1/2 1
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
Import Substitution (P5)

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
1
3
9
7
4
1/3 1
3
6
2
1/9 1/3 1 1/2 1/4
1/7 1/6 2
1 1/6
1/4 1/2 4
6
1
1/3 3
5
6
2
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
Regional Income (P6)

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
1 1/5 1/3 1/6 1/3 1
5
1
2 1/5 2
4
3 1/2 1
1
2
3
6
5
1
1
1
7
3 1/2 1/2 1
1
5
1 1/4 1/4 1/7 1/5 1
A6
3
1/3
1/5
1/6
1/2
1
Table 4.3: Priority Vectors for Criteria

Priority Vectors
Criteria
AN
EV
WLS LLS
FPP
C1
0.352 0.358 0.411 0.356 0.391
C2
0.3
0.306 0.291 0.313 0.283
C3
0.043 0.041 0.047 0.042 0.065
C4
0.172 0.171 0.14 0.166 0.152
C5
0.133 0.123 0.111 0.122 0.109
F(GMM)* Our proposed model
LGP
0.356
0.356
0.051
0.119
0.119
E
0.112
0.307
0.1
0.297
0.184
F(GMM)*
0.343
0.317
0.043
0.168
0.126
Table 4.4: Priority Vector for Alternatives Using Differant Methods

55
AN method
AN
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
A1
0.432
0.364
0.403
0.413
0.048
A2
0.082
0.108
0.178
0.151
0.223
EV
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
A1
0.44
0.365
0.409
0.416
0.046
A2
0.077
0.11
0.18
0.15
0.209
WLS
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C1
0.498
0.394
0.403
0.413
0.048
C2
0.06
0.099
0.16
0.131
0.126
E
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
A1
0.130
0.141
0.136
0.139
0.107
A2
0.180
0.195
0.197
0.204
0.396
A3
0.281
0.079
0.034
0.036
0.192
A4
0.066
0.04
0.107
0.043
0.325
LLS method
A5
0.081
0.206
0.159
0.129
0.166
A6
0.057
0.203
0.119
0.228
0.045
LLS
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
A1
0.448
0.384
0.432
0.423
0.053
A2
0.073
0.108
0.167
0.147
0.212
A5
0.078
0.211
0.153
0.125
0.162
A6
0.054
0.197
0.12
0.233
0.043
FPP
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
A1
0.453
0.389
0.442
0.423
0.17
A2
0.121
0.117
0.184
0.165
0.188
C5
0.075
0.205
0.132
0.117
0.177
C6
0.077
0.203
0.112
0.202
0.051
LGP
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
A1
0.504
0.391
0.462
0.461
0.056
A2
0.101
0.098
0.154
0.154
0.337
A5
0.178
0.163
0.211
0.182
0.136
A6
0.076
0.145
0.153
0.259
0.116
FGMM
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
A1
0.444
0.382
0.426
0.42
0.054
A2
0.072
0.108
0.165
0.141
0.206
EV method
A3
0.286
0.078
0.032
0.036
0.187
A4
0.065
0.04
0.106
0.04
0.352
C4
0.057
0.043
0.087
0.039
0.369
A4
0.165
0.128
0.230
0.116
0.123
A3
0.201
0.078
0.063
0.059
0.16
A4
0.05
0.067
0.095
0.045
0.279
A3
0.216
0.065
0.038
0.051
0.169
A4
0.054
0.056
0.077
0.066
0.236
A6
0.056
0.192
0.108
0.231
0.049
A5
0.086
0.194
0.104
0.132
0.146
A6
0.088
0.156
0.112
0.176
0.056
A5
0.072
0.195
0.154
0.115
0.169
A6
0.054
0.195
0.115
0.154
0.034
FGMM method
A3
0.281
0.077
0.035
0.038
0.191
A4
0.063
0.044
0.107
0.039
0.327
Table 4.5: Value of Euclidean Distance for Differant Methods.

Method
A5
0.079
0.204
0.154
0.125
0.167
LGP method
E method
A3
0.271
0.227
0.072
0.099
0.122
A4
0.063
0.041
0.106
0.039
0.326
FPP method
WLS method
C3
0.233
0.056
0.04
0.046
0.22
A3
0.282
0.071
0.034
0.036
0.193
P1
P2
P3
P4
ED
AN
4.583 6.209
5.305
6.797
EV
4.961 6.255
5.359
7.382
WLS
5.508 6.937
5.204
7.114
LLS
4.813 6.119
5.289
7.327
FPP
5.440 8.027
6.904
7.318
LGP
4.550 8.227
5.607
7.005
E
8.573 13.298 12.991 10.146
F(GMM)* 4.504 5.907
5.350
6.930
56
P5
P6
6.107
6.451
7.054
6.627
6.634
7.643
13.705
6.270
4.786
5.055
5.331
4.642
8.740
8.162
11.11
4.590
A5
A6
0.079 0.059
0.199 0.19
0.154 0.113
0.131 0.23
0.171 0.049
Value of Comulative ED fordifferent methods
Comulative ED
69.823
41.194
43.063
33.551
Fuzzy
(GMM)
TOPSIS
Entropy
LGP
37.148
37.63
35.463
33.787
LLS
WLS
EV
AN
FPP
Different Methods
Fig 4.2: Value of ED for different methods
The results of this case, reservoir storage allocation problem Figures 4.2 shows
that, Fuzzy (GMM), AN (AHP) prioritization methods produce the smaller or
close to zero the value of ED respictivily (as comparing criteria i.e. P1, P2 and
P6). Entropy weighting method produce the highest value.
4.5 Case 2: Compares between Different Prioritization Methods

In this example, a pair wise comparison matrix has been conducted based on data
that are taken from Ying-Ming Wang et al. [89]. This example compares between
different prioritization methods in terms of Euclidean distance (ED) as
comparing criteria as shown in Figure 4.3. The results obtained from the YingMings study and the result using Fuzzy (GMM), are list in Table 4.6.
A pair-wise comparison matrix
1
1/4
1/3
1
1/3
1/4
4
1
1/7
1/3
5
1
3
7
1
5
5
6
1
3
1/5
1
1
3
57
3
1/5
1/5
1
1
1/3
4
1
1/6
1/3
3
1
Table 4.6: Priority Vectors Obtained by Different Priority Methods .

Priority Method
EVM
WLSM
Priorities (priorities or weights vector)

W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
0.3208 0.1395 0.0348 0.1285 0.2374 0.1391
0.4150 0.0936 0.0348 0.1123 0.2190 0.1253
LLSM
GLSM
0.3160 0.1391 0.0360 0.1251 0.2360 0.1477

0.3407 0.1205 0.0575 0.1495 0.2013 0.1305
GEM
0.3746 0.1722 0.0275 0.1252 0.2254 0.0751
FPM
CCMA
0.3492 0.1438 0.0528 0.1232 0.1917 0.1392

0.2768 0.1695 0.0295 0.1555 0.2072 0.1615
DEAHP
0.1875 0.1875 0.0625 0.1875 0.1875 0.1875
LP-GFW
0.4042 0.2130 0.0466 0.1793 0.3827 0.2056
F(GMM)*
0.3114 0.1396 0.0367 0.1272 0.2362 0.1487
Compression between different priority methods

ED
13.13
11.73
9.47
9.24
9.28
9.37
9.28
9.31
9.36
9.86
9.05
8.79
Fig 4.3: Compression between Different Priority Methods
It is shown that, AHP method gives the lowest value of ED, but can not be relied
upon in higher consistency (CR= 0.229). Fuzzy (GMM) prioritization model in
case of high inconsistent matrices produces the second smaller or close to zero
the value of ED as comparing criteria (i.e. Fuzzy model is the best solution).
When compare between Fuzzy (GMM) with different prioritization methods, and
with new approach as integrated model of data envelopment analysis and AHP
(DEAHP), and correlation coefficient maximization approach (CCMA).
58
Agreement of MADM methods can be measured by the Spearman rank

correlation which calculates the sums of the squares of the deviations between
the different rankings. Table 4.7 represents Spearmans rank correlation
coefficient between mentioned approaches. Fuzzy (TOPSIS)
shows high
Agreement with other methods.

Table 4.7: Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient Between MCDM Methods .
WLS
M
0.314
GLS
M
.085
.771
GEM FPM
EVM
.771
WLSM
.771
GLSM
.314
GEM
FPM
CCMA
LPGFW
CCM
A
1
.314
.085
.771
1
1
.314
.085
.771
DEAH
P
.529
.755
.226
.226
.529
LPGFW
1
.314
.085
.771
1
.529
F(GMM)*
.60
.828
.371
.942
.60
.30
.6
4.6 Real Life Application

In the previous section verification of the model is presented. In this section two
real life applications will be cited to demonstrate the applicability, simplicity and
accuracy of the integrated model. These two applications have already been
solved by the past researches and different ranking of the alternatives have been
obtained. The first case is cited by H. Ariff, et. al. [90]. This case is about the
selection of the best design concept for chair wheel transfer product. The second
case is addressed by Ali Jahan et. al.[91] which is the selection of the most
suitable material for the design of a flywheel.
4.6.1 Case 1: Selecting Wheelchair Design

This proposed model is applied to a real problem in the industry. Inaccurate
decision during the design stage can cause the product to be redesign or
remanufactured. A study has been conducted based on data that are taken from
case study used by H. Ariff, M. Sapuan, N. Ismail and Y. Nukman [90]. This
study is about wheelchair transfer problems. There are seven wheelchair design
concepts of wheelchairs.. The main criteria affecting the development of
59
wheelchair design are classified into five aspects; performance (P), safety (S),
cost (C), ergonomic (E) and maintenance (M).
There are five sub-criteria
affecting the wheelchair performance: easy to transfer (ETT), easy to use (ETU),
easy to storage (ETS), lightweight (LW) and strong framework (SF). Stability
(ST) and no sharp edge (NSE) are sub-criteria that affect in terms of safety.
While cost of material (CM) and cost of manufacturing process (CMP), easy to
repair (ETR) and easy to dismantle (ETD), are sub-criteria affecting in terms of
cost and maintenance respectively, show (Figure 3). This example is divided into
three sections. Section one presented stages of the Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS
model. Section two presented a comparison between results obtained with AHP
and Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS model by using Euclidean distance. Section three
compares between three different ranking methods SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR
in terms of methods sensitivity of changing the weights. In this case, three
scenarios are used equal weight, weight from AHP and GMM weight.
Section 1
The First Stage is: Structuring the Hierarchy.
In this section, a hierarchy model for structuring design concept decisions is

introduced. A four level hierarchy decision process displayed in Figure 4.5 is
described below:
Selection of the best wheelchair conceptual design
ETT
ST
Goal level 1
Criteria
level 2
ETR
CM
ETU
CMP
NST
ETD
SupCriteria
level 3
ETS
LW
SF
DC-1
DC-2
DC-3
DC-4
DC-5
DC-6
DC-7
Alternatives level
Fig 4.4: A Hierarchy Model for the Selection of Design Concept

60
Initially, the objective or the overall goal of the decision is presented at the top
level of the hierarchy. Specifically, the overall goal of this application is to
select the most suitable wheelchair conceptual design. The second level
represents the main criteria affecting the development of wheelchair design. The
main criteria can be classified into five aspects: performance (P), safety (S), cost
(C), ergonomic (E) and maintenance (M).The sub-criteria is represented at the
third level of the hierarchy. There are five sub-criteria affecting the wheelchair
performance: easy to transfer (ETT), easy to use (ETU), easy to storage (ETS),
lightweight (LW) and strong framework (SF). Stability (ST) and no sharp edge
(NSE) are sub-criteria that affect in terms of safety. While cost of material (CM)
and cost of manufacturing process (CMP), easy to repair (ETR) and easy to
dismantle (ETD), are sub-criteria affecting in terms of cost and maintenance
respectively. Finally, at the lowest level of the hierarchy, the design concept
(DC) alternatives of the wheelchair development are identified.
The Second Stage is Computing The Weights by Fuzzy (GMM)
Step 1: Pair wise comparison matrix
The pair-wise comparisons generate a matrix of relative rankings for each level
of the hierarchy. The number of matrices depends on the number elements at
each level. The order of the matrix at each level depends on the number of
elements at the lower level that it links to Pair-wise comparison begins with
comparing the relative importance of two selected items. There are n (n 1)
judgments required to develop the set of matrices in this step. The decision
makers have to compare or judge each element by using the relative scale pair
wise comparison as shown in Table 4.1. The judgments are decided based on the
decision makers or users experience and knowledge. The scale used for
comparisons in Fuzzy (GMM) enables the decision maker to incorporate
experience and knowledge intuitively. To do pair wise comparison, for instance
as shown in Table 4.8, if performance (P) is strongly more important or essential
over cost (C), then a = 5. Reciprocals are automatically assigned to each pairwise comparison.
61
Table 4.8: Construct a Pair-wise Comparison Matrix

Goal
Performance (P)
Safety (S)
Cost (C)
Ergonomic (E)
Maintenance (M)
P
S
C
E
M
[1,1,1]
[2,3,4]
[4,a,6]
[2,3,4]
[4,5,6]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1,1,1]
[2,3,4]
[1,1,1]
[2,3,4]
[1/6,1/5,1/4] [1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1,1,1]
[1/4,1/3,1/2] [2,3,4]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1,1,1]
[2,3,4]
[1,1,1]
[2,3,4]
[1/6,1/5,1/4] [1/4,1/3,1/2] [1/4,1/3,1/2] [1/4,1/3,1/2] [1,1,1]
Step2: Separation
In this step, three matrices (Lower, Medium, and Upper) are separated from the
original matrix. The priority is calculated for each matrix separately.
Step3: Synthesizing the Pair wise Comparison
Normalized vector is computed according to eq.(4.3), where aij the element with i
raw and j column. To calculate the vectors of priorities, sum the each element in
the normalizing column. Then, divide the elements of each column by the sum of
the column as shown in eq. (4.2). The result is priority vector as shown in table
4.9. This process is done on all three matrices (Lower, Medium, and Upper).
Table 4.9: Synthesizing The Pair wise Comparison
Goal
(P)
(S)
(C)
(E)
(M)
P
S
C
1
2
4
1/4 1
2
1/6 1/4 1
1/4 1
2
1/6 1/4 1/4
sum
E
2
1
1/4
1
1/4
M
4
2
2
2
1
2.297
1
0.461
1
0.304
5.062
Priority
0.453
0.197
0.091
0.197
0.060
Step4: Calculate the final weights:

After calculate the priority victor for the three matrices (Lower, Medium, Upper)
then calculate the average of each element in row of priority victor in three
matrices as shown in table 4.10.
Table 4.10: The Weights Optained from Fuzzy (GMM) of Main Criteria:
Weights
w1
w2
w3
w4
w5
1
0.453
0.197
0.091
0.197
0.060
2
0.461
0.194
0.090
0.194
0.058
62
3
0.453
0.192
0.096
0.192
0.063
Average
0.456
0.195
0.092
0.195
0.061
This proces is repeated for all levels of hierarchy structure (criteria, sub-criteria
and alternatives).
The priority vectors for criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives are represented in
table 4.11. The overall priority vector can be obtained by multiplying the priority
vector for the design alternatives by the vector of priority of the sub-criteria as
shown in table 4.12.
Table 4.11: Represent Priority Vectors for Criteria, Sub-Criteria and Alternatives.
0.451
ETT
0.265
ETU
0.456
P
0.060
ETS
0.175
0.104
0.140
0.126
0.323
0.080
0.051
0.215
0.081
0.145
0.044
0.201
0.162
0.152
0.093
0.074
0.066
0.070
0.420
0.074
0.204
criteria
Sub-criteria
Alternatives
DC-1
DC-2
DC-3
DC-4
DC-5
DC-6
DC-7
0.140
LW
0.170
0.290
0.140
0.127
0.050
0.167
0.056
0.082
SF
GOAL
0.195
S
0.750 0.261
ST
NSE
0.0928
C
0.750 0.261
CM
CMP
0.195
E
1
E
0.061
M
0.750 0.261
ETR
ETD
0.112
0.061
0.118
0.061
0.311
0.084
0.253
0.144
0.055
0.092
0.062
0.269
0.147
0.230
0.126
0.229
0.126
0.229
0.051
0.169
0.072
0.120
0.066
0.120
0.050
0.322
0.100
0.223
0.262
0.191
0.144
0.093
0.045
0.098
0.068
0.189
0.058
0.174
0.055
0.174
0.174
0.174
0.124
0.227
0.124
0.227
0.047
0.182
0.070
0.195
0.316
0.125
0.101
0.034
0.165
0.065
Table 4.12: Overall Weight Vector for The Alternatives With Respect to The Criteria
ETT
ETU
ETS
LW
SF
ST
NSE
CM
CMP
ETR
ETD
0.206
0.121
0.027
0.064
0.038
0.146
0.051
0.070
0.024
0.195
0.046
0.016
Third stage : Ranking Alternatives by Using TOPSIS Method

Step 1: Construct Normalized Decision Matrix
This step transforms various attribute dimensions into non-dimensional
attributes, by using the eq. (4.4). To calculate the normalizing decision matrix,
squaring each element of the matrix of alternatives. Then, sum the squaring
elements in each column. After that, calculate the root for the sum in each
column. Divide the elements in alternatives matrix of each column by the root in
each column and the resulted normalized matrix stated in table 4.13.
63
Table 4.13: Normalized Decision Matrix.

DC-1
DC-2
DC-3
DC-4
DC-5
DC-6
DC-7
ETT
0.401
0.238
0.321
0.289
0.741
0.183
0.117
ETU
0.528
0.199
0.356
0.108
0.494
0.398
0.374
ETS
0.187
0.149
0.133
0.141
0.845
0.149
0.411
LW
0.398
0.679
0.328
0.297
0.117
0.391
0.131
SF
0.249
0.136
0.263
0.136
0.692
0.187
0.563
ST
0.337
0.129
0.215
0.145
0.629
0.344
0.538
NSE
0.468
0.144
0.431
0.136
0.431
0.431
0.431
CM
0.303
0.551
0.303
0.551
0.123
0.406
0.173
CMP
0.297
0.544
0.297
0.544
0.113
0.436
0.168
E
0.269
0.148
0.269
0.112
0.722
0.224
0.500
ETR
0.675
0.492
0.371
0.240
0.116
0.252
0.175
ETD
0.440
0.713
0.282
0.228
0.077
0.372
0.147
Step 2: Construct the Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix by Using eq. (4.5).
In this step multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by its
associated weight in table 11 as shown in table 4.14
Table 4.14: The Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix
DC-1
DC-2
DC-3
DC-4
DC-5
DC-6
DC-7
ETT
ETU
ETS
LW
SF
ST
NSE
CM
CMP
ETR
ETD
0.082
0.049
0.066
0.059
0.152
0.037
0.024
0.063
0.024
0.043
0.013
0.059
0.048
0.045
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.022
0.004
0.011
0.025
0.043
0.021
0.019
0.007
0.025
0.008
0.009
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.026
0.007
0.021
0.049
0.018
0.031
0.021
0.091
0.050
0.078
0.023
0.007
0.022
0.006
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.021
0.038
0.021
0.038
0.008
0.028
0.012
0.007
0.013
0.007
0.013
0.002
0.010
0.004
0.052
0.028
0.052
0.021
0.140
0.043
0.097
0.031
0.022
0.017
0.011
0.005
0.011
0.008
0.007
0.011
0.004
0.003
0.001
0.006
0.002
Step 3: Determine the Ideal and Negative Ideal Solutions.

Ideal solution is calculated by using the eq. (4.6). It is the maximum of
performance and safety and minimum in cost. Negative ideal solution is
calculated by using the eq. (4.7) and it is reverse to the Ideal solution. The ideal
and negative ideal solution is presented in table 4.15.
Table 4.15: Ideal and Negative Ideal Solutions
V+
0.152
0.063
0.022
0.043
0.026
0.091
0.023
0.008
0.002
0.140
0.031
0.011
V'
0.024
0.013
0.003
0.007
0.005
0.018
0.006
0.038
0.013
0.021
0.005
0.001
Step 4: Calculate the Separation Measures for Each Alternative.

The separation from the ideal alternative is calculated by eq. (4.8). In this stage,
each element in Colum in the weighted normalized decision matrix is subtracted
from each element in column of ideal solution as show in table 4.16. After that,
sum each element in the row of separation matrix. Calculate the root of the sum
64
for each element in matrix to find the final separation. The separation from the
negative ideal alternative can be calculated as the separation from the ideal
alternative by eq. (9) as show in table 4.17.
Table 4.16: The Separation from the Ideal Alternative
ETT ETU
ETS
DC-1
4.9
0.0
0.3
DC-2 10.7
1.6
0.4
DC-3
7.5
0.4
0.4
DC-4
8.7
2.6
0.4
DC-5
0.0
0.0
0.0
DC-6 13.2
0.2
0.4
DC-7 16.5
0.4
0.1
Each element in the matrix * 10-3
LW
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.6
1.3
0.3
1.2
SF
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
ST
1.8
5.3
3.7
5.0
0.0
1.7
0.2
NSE
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
CM
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
CMP
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
E
7.8
12.5
7.8
14.1
0.0
9.4
1.9
ETR
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.5
ETD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
CMP
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.3
0.1
1.0
E
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
2.6
0.1
1.0
ETR
2.2
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
ETD
0.9
2.8
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
Table 4.17: The Separation from the Negative Ideal Alternative

ETT ETU
ETS
DC-1
0. 6
1.2
0.0
DC-2
0. 1
0.1
0.0
DC-3
0. 3
0.4
0.0
DC-4
0. 2
0.0
0.0
DC-5 2.27
1.0
3.5
DC-6
0.0
0.6
0.0
DC-7
0.0
0.5
0.5
LW
0.5
2.2
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
SF
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
1.3
ST
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.7
0.3
1.2
NSE
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
CM
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.3
0.1
1.0
Step 5: The relative closeness to the ideal solution is calculated by using the eq. (4.10).
In this step each element in row of separation from the negative ideal alternative divides
by the sum of separation ideal and negative ideal alternative. Then, the final ranking is
presented in table 4.18.
Table 4.18: Result of Selection
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS

DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
65
AHP
DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-6
DC-3
DC-2
DC-4
Section 2: Comparison between priority methods

In this section are presented a comparison between the results of priority vector by
Fuzzy (GMM) and AHP as shown in table 4.19. The results of this compression are
presented in Figure 4.5.
Table 4.19: Compression Between Different Weighting Method
Criteria
AHP
FGMM
E
P
0.456
0.456
0.1779
S
0.191
0.195
0.2675
C
0.099
0.092
0.2079
E
0.191
0.195
0.2675
M
0.061
0.061
0.0793
6.7903
8
6
4
2
0
3.38
3.32
AHP
Fuzzy (GMM) - TOPSIS
AHP
Enrtopy
Enrtopy
Fig 4.5 Compression Between Different Priority Methods
The results of this case shows that, FGMM produce the smaller value of ED.
Section 3: Comparison between Ranking Methods
This section is a comparison between three different ranking methods SAW,

TOPSIS and VIKOR in terms of methods sensitivity of changing the weights.
Three scenarios are used for assigning importance (weight) to attributes.
Scenario a) Assume that equal weights are assigned to attributes which implies
their equal importance to the decision maker.
Scenario b) use the weights generated from the AHP as shown in table 4.20.
Table 4.20: The Weights Generated from the AHP
ETT
ETU
ETS
LW
SF
ST
NSE
CM
CMP
ETR
ETD
0.189
0.114
0.026
0.058
0.069
0.143
0.048
0.074
0.025
0.191
0.047
0.016
Scenario c) Use the weights generated from the Fuzzy GMM as shown in table
4.12. The results of scenario (a),(b),(c) are presented in table 4.21.
66
Table 4.21: Comparison between Different Ranking Methods in Deferent Scenario

Ranke
SAW
DC-5
DC-1
DC-2
DC-6
DC-7
DC-3
DC-4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Equal Weights
TOPSIS
VIKOR
DC-5
DC-1
DC-1
DC-5
DC-7
DC-6
DC-2
DC-7
DC-3
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
DC-4
SAW
DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-6
DC-3
DC-2
DC-4
Weights by AHP
TOPSIS
VIKOR
DC-5
DC-5
DC-7
DC-1
DC-1
DC-3
DC-3
DC-7
DC-6
DC-6
DC-2
DC-2
DC-4
DC-4
Weights by Fuzzy (GMM)

SAW TOPSIS VIKOR
DC-5
DC-5
DC-5
DC-1
DC-1
DC-1
DC-7
DC-7
DC-3
DC-6
DC-3
DC-7
DC-3
DC-6
DC-6
DC-2
DC-2
DC-2
DC-4
DC-4
DC-4
Table 4.21, while ranking other alternatives, the SAW and VIKOR methods
produce more similar ranks across different scenarios than the TOPSIS method.
Because the TOPSIS method has high sensitivity to the changes in methods for
assigning weights to criteria, it's frequently used as a benchmarking method.
For the wheelchair selection problem, all of the SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR
methods in each scenario give the top rank to the same alternative (DC-5)except
the VIKOR in scenario "a". Figure 4.6 shows there are small variations in the
Alternatives
rankings obtained using SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR methods.

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
Fuzzy VIKOR
4
Rnking
Fuzzy TOPSIS
AHP VIKOR
AHP TOPSIS
AHP SAW
E VIKOR
E TOPSIS
E SAW
Fuzzy SAW
Fig. 4.6. Comparative Ranking of Wheelchair Design Alternative
Table 5.22 represents Spearmans rank correlation coefficient between

mentioned approaches. High rank correlation between Fuzzy TOPSIS and Fuzzy
SAW (0.678), Fuzzy TOPSIS and (equal) TOPSIS (0.535) and Fuzzy TOPSIS
and AHP VIKOR (.428) .
67
Table 4.22 Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient between MCDM Methods .
E SAW
E TOPSIS
E VIKOR
AHP SAW
AHP TOPSIS
AHP VIKOR
Fuzzy SAW
Fuzzy TOPSIS
Equal
SOPSIS
-.178
Equal
VIKOR
-.178
-.32
AHP
SAW
.2
.428
.392
AHP
TOPSIS
.142
-.75
-.25
-.60
AHP
VIKOR
.928
-.178
.107
.535
0
Fuzzy
SAW
.25
.428
.392
1
-.60
.535
Fuzzy
TOPSIS
.357
.535
-.035
.678
-.285
.428
.678
Fuzzy
VIKOR
.928
-.178
.107
.535
0
1
.535
.428
This study uses an approximation method to calculate the minimum change of

weights (changes= 0.001 in this study) that can change the ranking of alternatives by
using different ranking methods TOPSIS, SAW, and VIKOR. The results for this
study is presented in table 4.23
Table 4.23: Compression between Different Ranking Methods With Minimum Change
of Weights That can Change The Ranking of Alternatives
TOPSIS
.Weights (W)
.206
.121
W changes
.210
.121
Results before changing (W)
0.814683
0.438619
0.427345
0.321119
0.269081
0.217484
0.171268
SAW
.Weights (W)
.206
.121
W changes
.203
.121
0.813289
0.59916
0.525928
0.477828
0.4732433
0.41713
0.339316
VIKOR
.Weights (W)
.206
.121
W changes
.206
.111
0.00
0.502833
0.604242
0.739321
0.768263
0.859454
0.961268
.027
.031
.064
.038
.060
.042
ranking
DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
.027
.030
.064 .038
.067 .041
ranking
DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-6
DC-3
DC-2
DC-4
.027
.037
.064 .038
.054 .048
ranking
DC-5
DC-1
DC-3
DC-7
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
68
Changes= .003
.146
.051
.07
.024
.142
.051
.07
.024
Results after changing (W)
0.824263
0.434748
0.434599
0.318824
0.269222
0.209023
0.167655
Changes= .004
.146
.051
.07
.024
.149
.051
.07
.024
0.820028
0.599075
0.527373
0.473117
0.472852
0.410121
0.33575
Changes= .01
.146
.051
.07
.024
.156
.051
.08
.034
0.00
0.234395
0.510857
0.604738
0.781943
0.850231
0.930921
.195
.199
.046
.050
ranking
.016
.012
.046
.043
ranking
.016
.013
.046
.036
ranking
.016
.006
DC-5
DC-7
DC-1
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-1
.195
.198
DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
.195
.185
DC-5
DC-7
DC-1
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
The last table explains how changes of weights contribute to the change of raking
and also, shows that the TOPSIS method is more sensitive than others which
changes its alternative's ranking by smallest change in weights of attributes.
4.6.2 Case 2: Selecting material for design of a Flywheel

This example has been conducted based on data that are taken from Ali Jahan et.
al.[91]. This sace deals with the selection of the most suitable material for design
of a flywheel which is a device to store kinetic energy as used in automobiles,
urban subway trains, mass transit buses, wind-power generators, etc. The most
important requirements in a flywheel design are to store the maximum amount
of kinetic energy per unit mass and to ensure against premature failure due to
fatigue or brittle fracture. The following characteristics are required for flywheel:
(1) performance index of rlimit/q (where, rlimit is the fatigue limit of the material
and q is the material density). This signifies that the higher the value of rlimit/q,
the lower the weight of the material for a given fatigue strength and
consequently, the kinetic energy per unit mass of the flywheel will be higher. (2)
Fracture toughness (KIC) of the material will be the performance measure for
failure due to brittle fracture. (3) The fragmentability of the flywheel material is
an essential property from the safety point of view. If the flywheel breaks into
small pieces at final failure, the hazard will be much reduced. (4) Price per unit
mass. Among these four criteria, the beneficial attributes are fatigue limit,
fracture toughness and fragmentability where higher values are desirable, and
price/mass is a non-beneficial attribute where smaller value is always preferable.
For more clarification in this example proposed method illustrated step by step.
The problem which consists of ten alternative materials and four material
selection criteria are shown in Table 4.24. According to Entropy method, [113]
the weights of the considered criteria are as follow: Wa = 0.4, Wb = 0.3, Wc =
0.2 and Wd = 0.1.
69
Table 4.24: Candidate Materials for a Flywheel

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Material
Fatigue (+)
100
49
78
108
70
165
440
242
616
500
300M
2024T3
7050T73561
Ti6AL4V
E glass epoxy FRP
S glass epoxy FRP
Carbon epoxy FRP
Kevlar 29 epoxy FRP
Kevlar 29 epoxy FRP
Boron epoxy FRP
Toughness (+)
8
13
12
26
10
25
22
28
34
23
Fragment ability (+)

3
3
3
3
9
9
7
7
7
5
Price (-)
4200
2100
2100
10500
2735
4095
35470
11000
25000
3150000
The result of ranking materials for different methods are shown in table 4.25. It is
shown that all methods ranke material number 9 (Kevlar 49-epoxy FRP ) is the
first which has the highest value (.93104). material number 7 (Carbon epoxy
FRP) has the second value (.6884), thus we put 7 in rank 2 of columnaas the
same ranking of column "c" and "d" where column "b" rank material number 8
(Kevlar 29 epoxy FRP) in the second and column "e" rank material number 10
(Boron epoxy FRP).In the same way the material 2 (2024T3) has the lowest
value (.2835) in column a which agree with the ranking of column "d" and "e"
where column "b" rank material number 10 (Boron epoxy FRP) in the last one
and column "c" rank material number 1 (300M) also in the last one .
Thable 4.25: Cumparing Between Defferent Ranking Method .
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a
Topsis
9
7
10
8
6
4
5
1
3
2
b
Jee and kang
9
8
6
7
1
4
3
5
2
10
c
ELECTER
9
7
6
8
10
4
5
3
2
1
d
VIKOR
9
7
10
8
6
4
5
3
1
2
e
L. assignment
9
10
7
8
6
4
1
3
5
2
For the flywheel material selection problem, all of the TOPSIS, Jee and Kang,
ELECTER, VIKOR and the linear assignment methods give the top rank to the
same material (Kevlar 49epoxy FRP). Figure 4.7 shows there are small
variations in the rankings obtained using Jee and Kang, ELECTER, VIKOR and
linear assignment methods.
70
12
10
8
Material
6
4
2
0
1
10
ranking
Linear assignment
Jee and kang
VIKOR
Topsis
ELECTER
Fig. 4.7. Comparative Ranking of Materials
Agreement of MADM methods can be measured by the Spearman rank

correlation which calculates the sums of the squares of the deviations between
the different rankings. Table 4.26 represents Spearmans rank correlation
coefficient between mentioned approaches. High rank correlation between
TOPSIS and VIKOR (0.95), TOPSIS and linear assignment (.74) and TOPSIS
and ELECTER (0.76).
Table 4.26: Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient Between MCDM Methods .
ELECTER VIKOR
Jee and Kang
-0.042
0.296
ELECTER
.793
VIKOR
L. assignment
71
L. assignment Topsis
0.321
.224
.864
.769
.696
.951
.745
CHAPTER 5
IMPROVEMENT BALANCED SCORECARD INTEGRATED
MODEL
5.1 Introduction
The balanced scorecard is a strategic planning and management system that is
used extensively in business industry, government and nonprofit organizations
worldwide to align business activities to the vision and strategy of the
organization, improve internal and external communications, and monitor
organization performance against strategic goals. This chapter describes a
framework to develop balanced scorecard model step by step. The Balanced
Scorecard perspectives are developed by using new perspective. This model
contains ten steps for establish balanced scorecard in the organization. The
proposed model integrates the origin BSC, perspective "management
commitment" and prioritization technique Fuzzy (GMM) - TOPSIS. This model
attempts to overcome the limitation in balanced scorecard implementation.
The balanced scorecard model helps everyone in an organization understand and
work towards a shared vision. A completed scorecard system aligns the
organizations picture of the future (shared vision), with business strategy,
desired employee behavior and day-to-day operations. Strategic performance
measures are used to better inform decision-making and show progress toward
desired results. The organization can then focus on the most important things that
are needed to achieve its vision and satisfy customers, stakeholders, and
employees. Other benefits include measuring what matters, identifying more
efficient processes focused on customer needs, improving prioritization of
initiatives, improving internal and external communications, improving
alignment of strategy and day-to-day operations and linking budgeting and cost
control processes to strategy.
72
5.2 BSC Development

The development of the Balanced Scorecard starts with developing the points of
weakness to become strength. In this section, the Balanced Scorecard
perspectives are developed by using new perspective. Also the linking multiple
scorecard measures to strategy is developed by developing cause and effect
relationship. The origin BSC, perspective "management commitment" and
prioritization technique Fuzzy (GMM) - TOPSIS are the new integrated BSC
model.
5.2.1 Why We Develop the New Perspective "Management Commitment"

Management commitment is vital item for successfully organization. There are
many reasons, which emphasize the importance of the management commitment.
Some of these reasons are:
To achieve any improvement in the organization you must have support of
organization's management.
No other factor has so much of an impact on an organization than how
well it is led on both a strategic and operational basis.
Strategic management includes defining the structures and internal
environment that motivates personnel to achieve the overall vision,
mission of an organization and its strategy and systems .
Organization's management design framework for communication,
authority and responsibility.
Organization's management provides adequate resources to develop,
implement, maintain, and improve organization's system .
5.2.2 The New Perspective "Management Commitment"

Management in all business and organizational activities is the act of getting
people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available
resources efficiently and effectively. The concept of organization commitment is
the degree of members' recognition of organizational goals and values that they
are willing to work extraordinarily hard to help the organization complete its
73
goals. Management comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading or

directing, and controlling an organization (a group of one or more people or
entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing this goal. Resourcing
encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial
resources, technological resources and natural resources. Every organization
seeks to be more effective and achieve better results; a careful business strategy
is developed to achieve this. However, successful execution of the strategy
occurs when structure, roles, capability, leadership, people management systems
and organizational culture change are all aligned to the strategy. Strategic
management has lot of tools to achieve its vision, mission, and strategy. Its
appropriate begins with the subject of leadership.
Leadership
Leader is another obvious point concerns performance. Look at any great team or
organization and you invariably see great leadership. So if you want to create a
high performance organization, you must have strong leadership. Leadership is
one of those fundamental building blocks that drive everything else. The
potential of the individual and the organization ultimately boils down to
leadership.
Leadership is about generating movements and currents within the organization.
Leaders produce change through the processes of establishing direction through
vision and strategy, aligning people whose cooperation is needed to achieve the
vision, and motivating and inspiring them to overcome the barriers to change.
Organization Structure
Organizing, the process of structuring human and physical resources in order to

accomplish organizational objectives, involves dividing tasks into jobs,
specifying the appropriate department for each job, determining the optimum
number of jobs in each department, and delegating authority within and among
departments. One of the most critical challenges facing lodging managers today
is the development of a responsive organizational structure that is committed to
quality.
74
The framework of jobs and departments that make up any organization must be
directed toward achieving the organizations objectives. In other words, the
structure of a lodging business must be consistent with its strategy.
Managers give structure to the organizations through job specialization,
organization, and establishment of patterns of authority and span of control.
One of the major roles of management is to ensure that an organization is
designed to carry out its mission, goals, and strategies. Understanding leadership
requires a fundamental understanding of organizations and the design factors that
must be considered.
The design of an organization is the formal framework for communication and
authority, and is determined by three major components:
Complexity. Is the number of different entities (for example, job titles, reporting
levels, functional departments, and physical work locations) that will exist in the
organization.
Formalization. How much the organization will rely on standard guidelines and
procedures to instruct employee activities.
Centralization. Whether decision making authority is located primarily at upper
management levels or is delegated to lower levels.
Organization Culture
Organizational culture is a system of shared values and beliefs about whats

important and appropriate in an organization; it also includes people
communicate, interrelate, and make decisions and relationships internally and
externally. Every organization's values are supposed to be unique and are widely
shared and reflected in daily practice, relevant to the company purpose and
strategy.
Culture is a function of the value, norms, and assumptions shared by members of
the organization. It can, therefore, be shaped by communicating what standers of
behavior are expected and ensuring that policies, procedures, promotion, and
day-to-day decisions are appropriately aligned.
75
Its important for organizations of different size and level to create the kind of
environment or culture where the positive managerial patterns of listening,
coaching, guiding, involving and problem-solving are actively encouraged and
reinforced. This is where the policy of the Human Resources department is
critical as it reflects and reinforces organizational values and culture.
Organizational culture is important because it promotes healthy competition in
the work place and it also brings all the employees to the same level.
Furthermore, the work culture facilitates the unison of employees who come
from different backgrounds.
Motivation
The setting of goals is important to guide the company and employees toward
defined objectives. Motivation plays a critical role in achieving goals and
business objectives and is equally as important for organizations that work in a
team-based environment or in a workplace comprised of workers who work
independently. There are many reasons why motivation is important. One of the
reasons is because it makes employees to work hard thus leading to high
productivity and improved work quality in organizations and companies.
Financial gain is also another reason why motivation is important.
Empowerment
One of the core components of the management is that of having everyone in the
organization involved in managing and improving quality of the processes for
which they are responsible. This might be done as part of day to day operations
as a member of a natural work team or a self directed team, or in becoming part
of a group that is going to take on a special process design or improvement
project. Regardless of the way it occurs, it involves giving employees greater
responsibility and authority, and is commonly labeled empowerment.
Empowerment is based on the belief that employees have the ability to take on
more responsibility and authority than has traditionally been given them, and that
heightened productivity and a better quality of work life will result. Different
76
words and phrases are used to define empowerment, but must are variations on a
theme: to provide employees with the means for making influential decisions.
Juran define empowerment as" conferring the right to make decisions and take
action.
Linking Balanced Scorecard Perspectives
The cause and effect relationships are the main element in balanced scorecard.
The previous strategy set hypotheses cause and effect relationships between its
perspectives. These relationships between cause and effect can be expressed by a
sequence of if then statements. This relation pointed out by Kaplan and Norton
as shown in Figure 5.1.
Financial
Customer
Vision
and
mission
Internal process
Learning & Growth
Fig.5.1 Four Perspectives of a Balanced Scorecard [3]
That the direction of the relationships from (financial - customer, internal process
- financial, internal process - learning & growth and learning & growth - internal
process) are illogical. Usually shareholder spends on learning & growth and
internal processes to deliver high quality products or services to meet the
customer requirements. Customer loyalty can be achieved when getting high
quality product or services repeatedly and that returns profit on the organization.
With the addition of the new perspective, "management commitment" we
propose that its role should be central for managing the various aspects of the
vision and mission. These reasons make us think about changing relationships
between the perspectives of the balanced cards as shown in Figure 5.2.
77
Financial
Management
Vision
&
mission
Internal process
Learning & growth
Commitment
Customer
Fig. 5.2: Five Perspectives of a Balanced Scorecard
5.3
Model Preparation
The proposed BSC- Fuzzy (GMM)-TOPSIS general model is developed in ten

steps (Figure 5.3). These steps are discussed in the following sections.
5.3.1 Selecting the Implementation Team Work

The project team that will be responsible for the design and successful
implementation of the BSC should be assembled. The typical structure of the
project team involves a steering committee, a team of experts (Financial, HR and
IT experts), a Quality Assurance team and the main project team [57].
The first step is to introduce the balanced scorecard plan and concept to key
leadership within the management team.
The goal of this presentation is to:
The identification of the scope and budget, and the drafting of a detailed
project plan including critical milestones and alternative contingency
scenarios.
78
Convey the importance of a new project system for the staff as far as its
ability to increase job fulfillment, empowerment and minimize resistance
to change.
Communicate that these metrics will be developed collectively and are not
to punish individuals but rather to improve the effectiveness of their work
and develop communication mechanisms with the employees so that they
can track and understand the progress and the inherent benefits of the
project.
The proposed implementation action steps.
The proposed timeline of the project.
This action is crucial, since it has been empirically proven that the active
involvement of employees in the design of a performance measurement system
will lead to a significantly larger performance increase, compared to an
introduction of an identical system whereby employees do not participate (telland-sell) in the deployment process. For this reason, at the beginning of the BSC
project, interviews must be scheduled and questionnaires could be distributed to
selected employees from all hierarchical levels, in order to assess change
readiness, establish buy in for the imperative to change and clarify the role of
each employee along with the personal and corporate level benefits from the
implementation of this strategic management tool [44].
5.3.2 Clarify Vision and Mission

After a better understanding of the special needs of the organization has been
achieved, the first task for designing the BSC is the assessment and
understanding of the mission, the vision and the overall strategy of the
organization [57].
The vision statement is a word picture of what the project ultimately intends to
become 5, 10, or 15 years in the future. While mission statements are often
abstract, the vision statement should contain as concrete a picture of the desired
end state as possible in order to provide a basis for development strategies [4].
79
5.3.3 The Internal and External Assessments

A SWOT analysis is a tool used to collect stakeholder input and objectively
examine the organizations operating advantages and barriers to effectiveness.
What makes this tool so powerful is that it can help an organization identify
internal operating strengths and external opportunities that are easy to pursue.
Likewise, by understanding its weaknesses an organization identifies what
processes could be improved and is made aware of possible external threats,
giving that organization an opportunity to manage or eliminate them. Taking an
objective look at advantages and potential barriers the organization realistically
faces is the start of developing a strategy that focuses on strengths, minimizes
weaknesses, and takes the greatest possible advantage of opportunities available
[92].
5.3.4 Identify Strategic Objectives

After the SWOT analysis and vision and mission are complete, look for key
strategic ideas that appear to fit in one large category of similar ideas (e.g.,
provide high-quality ministry support, plan to work more effectively, and
streamline and automate work tasks) that might span multiple categories. These
strategic ideas are valuable input to the next step of creating a strategy map using
SWOT analysis input to examine the organization from the four Balanced
Scorecard perspectives. Not only does the SWOT analysis provide valuable
information about the organizations operations, but it also gives the strategic
planning team valuable information that may leverage resolution of other
organizational issues [93].
The questions should be aimed at:
Where are we now?
Where do we want to go?
And, how are we going to get there?
The principle of keeping it simple should guide the identification of strategic
objectives that should commence from the financial and proceed to performance
80
drivers in the other perspectives, whilst ensuring a cause and effect relation
between them. The selection of the 1015 most appropriate strategic objectives
can be achieved in a project team workshop by ranking each strategic objective
on categories.
(1) Selecting the

implementation
team work
(2) Clarify vision

and mission
(10) Revaluation of
the completed
scorecard done
(3)The internal and

external assessments
(9) Setting milestones

and targets for the
measures
BSC
Model
(4) Identify strategic
objectives
(8) Developing
strategic programs for
achieving objectives
(7) Balanced
Scorecard Weights
(5) Defining the

performance
measures
(6) Modeling chains

of cause and effect
(Strategy Map)
Figure 5.3: The Developed Balanced Scorecard Model
5.3.5 Defining the Performance Measures

The strategy map designed in the previous phase is the starting point for selecting
the BSC performance measures, which will be used in order to quantify the
81
attainment of the strategic objectives. A practical approach to selecting the

performance measures is to first create a pool of possible measures that represent
each strategic objective to a satisfactory degree.
These measures can originate from three possible sources:
existing performance measures which are familiar and commonly
understood by employees, and which also integrate existing performance
measurement efforts,
case studies of similar implementations, which have proved to be a
valuable source of information in many projects, and
new measures proposed by the project team, using methods for creative
thinking and idea generation such as brainstorming, alternatives from
fixed points, etc.
The process of selecting the measures should be simple whilst incorporating all
value adding information for the organization [2].
5.3.6 Modeling Chains of Cause and Effect (Strategy Map)

The relations of the strategies are given in the strategy map, which consists of a
graphical representation of the strategic objectives categorized according to the
theme and perspective they represent, along with the cause and effect links
between business performance drivers and outcomes in the different performance
perspectives. The design of the strategy map is perhaps the most critical endeavor
in the whole project, since the selection of only a few strategic objectives is
likely to lead to disagreements between the project team members from different
departments who may have different goals and agendas. Also the subjectivity in
establishing the correlation between possible strategic objectives may lead to
controversy [94].
There are various techniques to avoid these clashes. From our experience the
most effective is voting and selecting the highest-ranking objectives, combined
with the strong project leadership. Finally, due to the significance of this phase,
the management committee must accept and be committed to the results of the
82
strategy mapping, and thereupon, the findings of this phase must also be
presented and explained to selected stakeholders [57].
5.3.7 Balanced Scorecard Weights

The weighting of the balanced scorecard perspectives are a critical step in
performance measurement system in growth stage of business life cycle. In this
study FGMM- TOPSIS method is used as prioritization tool to determine BSC
weights.
The First Stage: Structuring The Hierarchy
This is the first stage; a problem is decomposed into a hierarchical structure that
consists of an objective (i.e., overall goal of the decision making), the general
criteria which impact the goal directly, sub-criteria (objectives), sub-sub-criteria
(measures) etc.
The Second Stage: Computing The Weights
In this stage, to determine the criteria weights, a team of experts formed pair wise
comparison matrices for evaluating the criteria. Each expert of the team has
individual evaluation. Computing the geometric mean of the values obtained
from individual evaluations, a final pair wise comparison matrix on which there
is a consensus is found. The weights of the critical success factors are calculated
based on this final comparison matrix as shown in the next Table 5.1 and
equations.
Table 5.1. The Pair-wise Comparison of Linguistic Variables Using Fuzzy Numbers
Intensity of fuzzy scale
~
1
Definition of linguistic variables
Fuzzy number
(L,M,U)
User define
= ( ,1, )
~
3
~
5
~
7
~
9
~~~~
2, 4 ,6 ,8
(L,M,U)
= ( ,3, )
(L,M,U)
= ( ,5, )
(L,M,U)
= ( ,7, )
(L,M,U)
= ( ,9, )
Intermediate values
(L,M,U)
= ( , , )
83
Next, from the information of the pair wise comparison, we can form the fuzzy
positive reciprocal matrix as follows:
a11 a1 j ain
A ai1 aij ain
an1 anj ann
(5.1)
criterion can be formulated as follows eq.5.2, 5.3:
Wi = ri * (r1+r2++rn)-1,
(5.2)
(5.3)
Where
The Third Stage : Determining The Final Ranking
In the last stage, calculated weights of the factors are approved by decision
making team. Ranking firms are determined by using TOPSIS method in the
third stage. TOPSIS method is one of the well known ranking methods for
MCDM. TOPSIS is firstly proposed by Hwang and Yoon. This technique based
on the concept that rank alternatives, which has the shortest distance from the
ideal (Best) solution and the longest distance from the ideal (worst) solution.
Steps of TOPSIS
across criteria.
Normalize scores or data as follows eq. 5.4:
(5.4)
Step 2: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix. Assume we have a

set of weights for each criteria wj for j = 1, n.
84
Multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated weight
by eq. 5.5 an element of the new matrix is:
vij = wj rij
(5.5)
Step 3: Determine the Ideal and Negative Ideal Solutions by eq. 5.6.
Ideal solution
A* = { v1*, , vn*}, where
vj*={ max (vij) if j J ; min (vij ) if j J' }
(5.6)
Determine the Negative Ideal Solution by eq. 5.7.

A' = { v1', ,vn' }, where
v' = { min (vij ) if j J ; max (vij) if j J' }
(5.7)
Step 4: Calculate the Separation Measures for Each Alternative by eq. 5.8. The
separation from the ideal alternative is:
Si * = [
(vij vj*)2 ]
i = 1, , m
(5.8)
Similarly, Calculate the separation from the negative ideal alternative by eq. 5.9 is:
S'i = [
(vij vj' )2 ]
i = 1, , m
(5.9)
Step 5: Calculate the Relative Closeness to the Ideal Solution Ci* eq. 5.10
Ci*= S'i / (Si* +S'i ) ,
Ci* 1
(5.10)
5.3.8 Developing Strategic Programs for Achieving Objectives

In this step Balanced Scorecard development workshop, strategic programs were
determined in order to attain time table of the targets. With a view to encourage
creative participation in the process, the team members were first given the task
of individually determining possible strategic programs. In this step the
performance team analyses the gaps between the existing, performance
management processes and proposes changes. At least one program was to be set
for each strategic goal of the BSC perspectives [95].
85
5.3.9 Setting Milestones and Targets for the Measures

This step of the process set the desired target and several milestones for each of
the previously determined measures. The target should describe the final goal
level to be achieved at the end of the strategic planning rhythm, and from this,
stage values (milestones) for the individual years were derived. Since the
analysis of a considerable amount of data was necessary for a sound estimation
of the values, this was done by the BSC-team members [95].
5.3.10 Revaluation of the Completed Scorecard Done

In the final step, the project team should also develop a plan for the periodic reevaluation of the appropriateness of the strategic objectives, the performance
measures and their assumed links (cause and effect relations between presumed
driving factors and expected results). A small-scale re-evaluation and fine-tuning
can be performed quarterly or semiannually, with a large-scale re-evaluation
taking place yearly or whenever there is a significant shift in the organization's
strategy. It has been established that companies alter approximately a third of the
selected measures within the first year of BSC implementation, mainly due to the
BSC learning process. From the second year, approximately a fourth of the
measures change every year mainly due to shifts in strategy, environmental
factors and new measurement needs [57].
5.4 Project Time Plan

A typical scorecard rollout project can last for 16 weeks. Obviously, not all of
this time is taken up with scorecard activities. The schedule is largely determined
by senior executives' availability for interviews, workshops, and subgroup
meetings. If people are available, on demand to the project the time schedule can
be compressed. An advantages of doing time between scheduled events
interviews, executive workshops, and subgroup meetings to contemplate and
reflect on the evolving structure of the balanced scorecard and the strategy, the
information system, and, most important, the management processes that it will
signify.
86
The consultant's involvement is heavy at the front end of this timetable, up to

about the end of week 6 when the first executive workshop is held. In the second
half of the client, the senior executive team should be taking more responsibility
for development of the scorecard. The architect then, shifts and facilitates role,
helping schedule the subgroup in the conduct of these meetings.
This schedule assumes that the business unit has already formulated its strategy
and has market and customer research available that can inform decision on
market segment and the value propositions to be delivered to customers in
targeted market segments. If the business unit must do a strategy analysis of its
industry so that it can make fundamental choices about marker, product, and
technology strategies, or if it must conduct more detailed market research, the
schedule will be extended by the amount of time required for these tasks.
At the completion of the project schedule, the senior and top middle managers of
the business unit should have obtained clarity and consensus on the translation of
the strategy into specific objectives and measures for the all perspective, agreed
on a rollout plan to implement the scorecard, including, perhaps, new systems
and responsibilities for capturing and reporting data for the scorecard, and have a
broad understanding of the management processes that will be changed as a
result of having scorecard measures at the heart of the organization's
management systems [64].
87
CHAPTER 6
APPLYING THE BALANCED SCORECARD TO FACULTY
OF ENGINEERING
6.1 Introduction
Higher education institutes are facing new challenges in order to improve the
quality of education. There is a pressure for restructuring and reforming higher
education in order to provide quality education and bring up graduates who
become fruitful members of their societies. In higher education as in business
there are acceptable conventions of measuring excellence. As a result, the
implementation of Balanced Scorecard in higher education has been a target of
interest in recent years. However, rather than emphasizing on financial
performance, higher education has emphasized on academic measures in its
Balanced Scorecard.
The proposed BSC model is applied in Faculty of engineering (A). Faculty of
Engineering (A) has five scientific departments, namely:
- Department of Civil Engineering
- Department of Mathematics and Physics Engineering, a division not enrolls
students
- Department of Electrical Engineering
- Department of Architecture
- Department of Industrial Engineering
The Faculty (A) has nearly 182 faculty members and their assistants who teach
for about 2500 students.
6.2 Implementation the BSC- Fuzzy (GMM)-TOPSIS Model

6.2.1 Selecting the Implementation Team Work
The balanced scorecard system is a part of the comprehensive quality system. So,
I joined with team of quality assurance and accreditation units. The team held
88
several meetings to raise the awareness of quality and actions that should be
implemented to achieve steps toward accreditation. The required data has been
obtained with the help of this team and also through randomly questionnaire.
Data of the unity of quality and accreditation were analyzed. In addition, 110
copies of a questionnaire were distributed among which 86 copies of
questionnaire were returned (return rate of 78.18%). Table 6.1 shows the
characteristics of the study sample society. As part of the verification of the
questionnaire, expert's person reviewed it and acknowledged its validity for
display devoted to measure. In order to test the reliability of the questionnaire,
Cronbachs Alpha was found to be 0.727, which indicated that the questionnaire
has high internal reliability.
Table 6.1: Sample Characteristics
Factor
Position Professor
Assistant Professor
Lecturer
Stuff
Researcher
Graduate
Student
Frequency Percentage
7
8.14%
8
9.30%
12
13.95%
10
11.62%
6
6.97%
13
15.11%
30
34.88%
Agreement of participants' responses can be measured by the Spearman rank

correlation which calculates the sums of the squares of the deviations among the
different rankings. Table 6.2 represents Spearmans rank correlation coefficient
among mentioned approaches. Figure 6.1 shows the variations in the rankings
obtained by different responses.
Table 6.2: Spearmans Rank Correlation Coefficient between Respondents Answer
Factor
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Lecturer
Stuff
Researcher
Graduate
Student
Professor Assistant
Professor
0.4
Lecturer Stuff Researcher Graduate Student

0.2
0.4
89
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.52
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.7
.07
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.73
0.1
-0.1
Comparative ranking of different participants' responses

6
5
Ranking
5
4
0
F
IP
L&G
MC
Alternatives
Student
Graduate
Researcher
Stuff
Lecturer
Assistant Professor
Professor
Fig. 6.1: Comparative Ranking of Different Participants' Responses
6.2.2 Faculty (A) Strategic Planning

Vision
Faculty of engineering (A) is applying the national quality standards in the areas
of education, scientific research and community service and development
environment.
Mission
Faculty of engineering (A)
is a public characterized graduate with the
knowledge, skills, good behavior, and the ability to think creatively and continue
learning so that they can compete in the local labor market and the Arab world
and face the challenges of the twenty-second oven. Quality characteristic of each
activities Faculty of engineering, and is keen Faculty to maximize its role in
serving and development environment and actively participate in projects,
programs and plans for economic development and social, a locomotive for
development and enlightenment the local community through educational
programs, research and service centers in the university.
90
Values
The higher values from which the faculty of Engineering (A) following are:
Leadership (Aleightcar, creativity and excellence)
Quality (continuous improvement with professionalism and proficiency)
Ethics
Collective Action
Loyalty
6.2.3 The Internal and External Assessment (SWOT) Analysis

After the Faculty vision, values and mission created; the SWOT analysis
identifies the strength and weakness of the Faculty in internal environment
and opportunities and threats in external environment. The Faculty employ
the strength, opportunities and analysis of vision, mission to identify and
achieve its strategic goals.
Strengths
A large number of faculty members trained and qualified academically.
A large proportion of the faculty members of the young.
A large number of faculty members in different disciplines.
There is sophisticated Internet at the Faculty.
Management system developed at the Faculty of parameters for student
services.
Conference Halls on the latest model in the Faculty.
There are training programs to improve the performance of faculty
members.
Largest University City in the Republic.
There are sophisticated computer labs at the Faculty.
Weaknesses
Large numbers of students for faculty members at most colleges.
Limited number of existing departments.
Inadequate classroom.
91
There are no Well-equipped laboratories.

Lack of audio and visual means.
Lack of libraries and information systems.
Inadequate return and sources of cash to spend on scientific research.
Inadequate support to a team-oriented work physically to attend scientific
conferences.
Many non-academics workers need to be trained.
Limited support colleges.
University Conditions.
Lack of expertise and foreign faculty members.
Weak link industry.
Weak internal quality control system in Faculty.
Non-completion of the organizational structure.
Weakness in the mechanics of motivation.
Weakness in empowerment.
Strategic plan not found
Opportunities
Prevailing policy toward changing the laws and regulations of the
universities to become more independent and able to make decision.
The development and growth of the communities that need to experience
faculty.
Establish a link received with national and international organizations in
order to develop opportunities for cooperation and exchange of graduates.
Faculty participation in many development projects.
Establish strong relationships with national companies to increase efforts
to obtain financial support.
Administrative efforts to impact on improving the efficiency of students.
State plan in the development of higher education and the application of
the plans lay out to improve the level of education.
92
Threats
The country's sluggish evolution reflects the absence of partial budget
support.
The uncertainty of future annual budgets leads to poor long-term planning.
The limited budget of the University reflects a kind of difficulties in
spending colleges.
Lack of competitive advantage that will help the Faculty to compete with
other universities.
Migration of faculty members to private universities because of the
financial incentive they receive unlike public universities.
6.2.4 Identify Strategic Objectives

-
Complete the organizational structure.
Establishment strategic plan
Development mechanics of motivation.
Development mechanics of empowerment
The development of the institutional capacity of the faculty.
Raise the efficiency of faculty and graduates.
Contribute to the development of integrated community.
Development the finance capacity
Establishment internal quality control system in Faculty to continuous

evaluation.
Make a sophisticated model for engineering education linked to specific

industries serving the surrounding environment and keep pace with global
trends.
Use engineering methods and techniques in the use of computer Science

and its applications in the industry.
To create a model for cooperation between the educational institution and

the production sites.
Preparation courses for continuing education and training for engineers in

the areas of specialty faculty.
93
Graduate directing towards solving practical problems facing the industry
State support scheme in the establishment of industrial zones surrounding

area also will conduct applied research, studies and testing and counseling.
Rehabilitation of faculty to apply for accreditation by the national

authority for quality Assurance and Accreditation in three years through
the development of institutional capacity and educational effectiveness of
the faculty.
Work on the development and continuous improvement of the quality of

the educational process and research faculty in the light of local standards,
regional and global.
Provide quality educational service after studying the needs of the local
market, regional and global levels of graduates.
Faculty of Engineering (A) Strategic Plan Observations

According the information collecting from the faculty by the team work and
top managers, the faculty does not have integrated strategic plan. The faculty
has good vision and mission statement which reflects purpose of the faculty and
its core values.
Faculty strategic goals lack the most important characteristics of the strategic
goals i.e. SMATR property. These make objectives are difficult to measure.
No clear strategies and policies is defined. Because the faculty strategic
objectives not SMART, the action plans are not specified and documented.
Internal benchmarking or external benchmarking is not defined clearly in the
faculty strategic plan.
6.2.5 Identify Balanced Scorecard Perspectives, Objectives and

Performance Measures (Indicators)
In this phase, BSC perspectives and the performance indicators are defined, and
strategic map is constructed. The selected BSC objectives help to achieve faculty
strategic goals and objectives. BSC objectives used here listed below for-nonprofit organization perspectives as mentioned in table 6.3.
94
Table 6.3: Faculty (A) Balanced Scorecard Perspectives

BSC
Perspectives
Objectives
Indicator
A5
Budget allocated annually.

Annual revenue from tuition fees compared with the
budget allocated annually.
The value of contracts with industry annually pound
compared with the budget allocated annually.
Annual revenue from foreign donations with the budget
allocated annually.
The value of external grants for the allocated budget.
A6
Cost of salaries for the budget annually.
B1
Ratio of Students satisfaction grade.
B2
Universitys position in national and international

rankings.
B3
The number of contracts with industry annually.
B4
Number of complaints made annually.
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
Ratio of staff to academic staff

Ratio of academic staff to students
Ratio of academic staff satisfaction of education level.
Ratio of students' satisfaction of education level.
Number of classrooms to the number of students.
Number of laps for faculty.
Ratio of students Satisfaction of teaching aids.
Ratio of things that need to be learned after graduation.
Number of books in library
Time cycle for up-to-dating the library.
Ratio of students Satisfaction of library service.
Time cycle for up-to-dating the computer and IT
equipments (teaching aids) of the faculty.
Number of research for an introduction to the
development environment.
Ratio of projects that involved the overall development
of the environment.
Number of certification labs which served the
environment.
Ratio of Academic staffs satisfaction grade.
Number of training courses, which was attended by
members of the faculty.
Number of international conferences, which was
attended by members of the faculty.
Average no. of papers by academic staff annually. .
Ratio of international agreements for the exchange of
graduates.
A1
A2
A3
Financial
(FL)
Customer
(CT)
Development
the finance
Capacity
Customer
satisfaction
Customer
retention
Customer
acquisition
Reduce
customer
complaints
Quality
educational
service.
Internal
process (IP)
A4
C12
Contribute to
the
development
of integrated
community.
C13
C14
C15
D1
Learning
and growth
(LRG)
Raise the
efficiency of
faculty.
D2
D3
D4
Work on
development
D5
95
educational
process.
D6
Faculty accreditation
Ratio of faculty members who attended training

sessions.
Ratio of faculty members who have participated in
D8
international conferences.
Ratio of practical projects, which was attended by
D9 members of the faculty in the development of society
and the development environment.
Ratio of projects of environmental development which
D10 students in master and PhD degree programs involved
in.
Ratio of effectiveness of the organization
E1
communication process.
Ratio of leadership emphasizing on time table to
E2
achieve the project objectives.
Ratio of leadership ensuring the availability of
E3
resource.
Ratio of leadership conducting the review and take
E4
effective actions.
E5 Having organization structure
D7
Preparation
courses for
continuing
Education and
training.
Leadership
Management
commitment
(MC)
`
Complete the
organizational
structure.
Development
motivation
mechanics.
Development
culture
Development
empowerment
mechanics
E6
Ratio of effectiveness of organization structure
E7
Having motivation policy
E8
Ratio of stuff motivated annually
E9
Ratio of work as a team to achieve necessary

competence
E10
Measuring the behavior changes according to training
96
6.2.6 Strategic Map

The following chart (Figure 6.2) shows the cause and effect relationship
(Strategic map) Faculty of engineering (A) case study.
Increase tuition
Financial
(FL)
Customer
(CT)
Internal
process (IP)
Learning and
growth (L&G)
Management
commitment
(MC)
Increase
external grants
fees
Increase Budget
Increase contracts
with industry
Increase Students
'satisfaction
Improve
university image
Increase
academic stuff
Increase customer
satisfaction
Increase
teaching aids
Increase papers
research
Increase training courses

Increase attended
international conferences
Leadership
Increase of practical
projects
Culture Development
Increase
Empowerment
Increase
environmental
research
Motivation
Organizational
structure.
Fig. 6.2: Faculty (A) Strategic Map
6.2.7 Computing the Importance of Perspectives

Step1: Pair wise comparison matrix
Pair-wise comparison matrix begins with comparing the relative importance of
two selected items as shown in table 6.4.
97
Table 6.4: Construct a Pair-wise Comparison Matrix

Goal
Financial (FL)
Customer (CT)
Internal process(IP)
Learning and growth(L&G)
Management commitment (MC)
FL
[1,1,1]
[2,3,4]
[4,5,6]
[4,5,6]
[8,9,9]
CT
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1,1,1]
[1,1,1]
[1,2,3]
[3,4,5]
IP
[1/6,1/5,1/4]
[1,1,1]
[1,1,1]
[6,7,8]
[2,3,4]
L& G
[1/6,1/5,1/4]
[1/3,1/2,1]
[1/8.1/7,1/6]
[1,1,1]
[1,2,3]
MC
[1/9,1/9,1/8]
[1/5,1/4,1/3]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1/3,1/2,1]
[1,1,1]
Step2: Separations
Three matrices (Lower, Medium, and Upper) are separated from the original
matrix. The priority is calculated for each matrix separately.
Step3: Synthesizing the Pair wise Comparison
Normalized vector is computed according to eq. (4.3), where aij the element with
I raw and j column. To calculate the vectors of priorities, sum the each element in
the normalizing column. Then, divide the elements of each column by the sum of
the column as shown in eq. (4.2). The result is priority vector as shown in table
6.5. This process is done on all three matrices (Lower, Medium, and Upper).
Table 6.5: Synthesizing the Pair wise Comparison
Goal
FL
CT
IP
L&G
MC
FL
1
2
4
4
8
CT
1/4
1
1
1
3
IP
1/6
1
1
6
2
sum
L& G
1/6
1/3
1/8
1
1
MC
1/9
1/5
1/4
1/3
1
NV
0.2385
0.6683
0.6597
1.5156
2.1689
5.2512
Priority
0.0454
0.1272
0.12563
0.2886
0.41303
Step 4: Calculate the Final Weights:

After calculate the priority victor for the three matrices (Lower, Medium, and
Upper) then calculate the average of each element in row of priority victor in
three matrices as shown in table 6.6.
Table 6.6: The Weights Optained from Fuzzy (GMM) of Main Criteria:
Weights
w1
w2
w3
w4
w5
1
0.045
0.127
0.126
0.289
0.419
2
0.039
0.120
0.110
0.298
.4302
3
0.038
0.124
0.102
0.318
0.414
98
Average weights
.0414
0.124
0.112
0.302
0.4194
Step 6: Construct Normalized Decision Matrix to Rank the Perspectives

This step transforms various attribute dimensions into non-dimensional
attributes, by using the eq. (4.4). To calculate the normalizing decision matrix,
squaring each element of the matrix of alternatives. Then, sum the squaring
elements in each column. After that, calculate the root for the sum in each
column. Divide the elements in alternatives matrix of each column by the root in
each column and the resulted normalized matrix stated in table 6.7.
Table 6.7: Normalized Decision Matrix.
Goal
FL
CT
IP
L&G
MC
FL
0.100
0.199
0.398
0.398
0.796
CT
0.072
0.288
0.288
0.288
0.864
IP
0.026
0.154
0.154
0.926
0.309
L& G
0.114
0.227
0.085
0.681
0.681
MC
0.100
0.181
0.226
0.301
0.903
Step 7: Construct the Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix by Using eq. (4.5).
In this step multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by its
associated average weight in table 6.5 as shown in table 6.8.
Table 6.8: The Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix
Goal
FL
CT
IP
L&G
MC
FL
0.004
0.008
0.016
0.016
0.033
CT
0.009
0.036
0.036
0.036
0.107
IP
0.003
0.017
0.017
0.104
0.035
L& G
0.034
0.069
0.026
0.206
0.206
MC
0.042
0.076
0.095
0.126
0.378
Step 8: Determine the Ideal and Negative Ideal Solutions.

Ideal solution is calculated by using the eq. (4.6). Negative ideal solution is
calculated by using the eq. (4.7). The ideal and negative ideal solution is
presented in table 6.9.
Table 6.9: Ideal and Negative Ideal Solutions
v+
v-
0.033
0.004
0.107
0.009
0.104
0.003
0.206
0.026
0.378
0.042
Step 9: Calculate the separation measures for each alternative.

The separation from the ideal alternative is calculated by eq. (4.8). In this stage,
each element in Colum in the weighted normalized decision matrix is subtracted
from each element in column of ideal solution as show in table 6.10. After that,
99
sum each element in the row of separate on matrix. Calculate the root of the sum
for each element in matrix to find the final separation. The separation from the
negative ideal alternative can be calculated as the separation from the ideal
alternative by eq. (4.9) as show in table 6.11.
Table 6.10: The Separation from the Ideal Alternative
Goal
FL
CT
IP
L&G
MC
FL
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
CT
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.000
IP
0.010
0.007
0.007
0.000
0.005
L& G
0.029
0.019
0.032
0.000
0.000
MC
0.113
0.092
0.081
0.064
0.000
Table 6.11: The Separation from the Negative Ideal Alternative

Goal
FL
CT
IP
L&G
MC
FL
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
CT
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.010
IP
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.001
L& G
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.032
0.032
MC
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.007
0.113
Step 10: The relative closeness to the ideal solution is calculated by using the
eq.(4.10). In this step each element in row of separation from the negative ideal
alternative divides by the sum of separation ideal and negative ideal alternative.
Then, the final ranking is presented in table 6.12.
Table 6.12: Result of Ranking
Perspective
Rank
FL
5
CT
3
IP
4
L& G
2
MC
1
This proces is repeated for all stratgic objectives and all indecators .[96]
The Balances Scorecard Weighting Results
The results of this research show that "Management Commitment" is the most
important perspective of educational balanced scorecard in faculty of engineering
(A) in the first level. It is noted from table 6.12 that the most important
perspective after management is learning and growth and the least important is
finance. When going to the second level the result show that " Motivation
development"," education development", "customer satisfaction",
"Quality
education service" and "Financial development" are considered as the most

important objectives of educational balanced scorecard in faculty of engineering
100
101
B4 (.085)
Complains Reduction
(CR) (.085)/(4)
B3 (.129)
Customer Acquisition
(CA) (.129)/(2)
B2 (.224)
Reliability Retention (RR)

(.224)/(3)
B1 (.559)
Customer Satisfaction
(CS) (.559)/(1)
Customer (CT)
(.124)/ (3)
D8 (.119)/(2)
D9 (.559)/(1)
D10 (.264)/(4)
C10 (.044)/(10)
C11 (.069)/(5)
C12 (.105)/(3)
D6 (.257)/(2)
D5 (.743)/(1)
D4 (.16)/(4)
D3 (.45)/(1)
D2 (.27)/(2)
D1 (.1)/(3)
Faculty
Efficiency (FE)
D7 (.0563)/(3)
Educational
Development (ED)
Continuing
Education (CE)
C15 (.319)/(2)
C14 (.567)/(1)
C13 (.113)/(3)
Community
Development (CD)
Learning and growth

(L&G) (.303)(2)
C9 (.039)/(11)
C8 (.085)/(4)
C7 (.029)/(12)
C6 (.136)/(1)
C5 (.095)/(9)
C4 (.074)/(7)
C3 (.145)/(2)
C2 (.095)/(6)
C1 (.083)/(8)
Education
Quality (EQ)
Internal process
(IP) (.112)/ (4)
Fig.6.3: The Weights / Ranking of the Perspectives, Objectives, and Performance Indicators
A6 (.064)/(5)
A5 (.095)/(6)
A4 (.068)/(4)
A3 (.284)/(2)
A2 (.086)/(3)
A1 (.401)/ (1)
Financial Development
(DF) (.41)/(1)
Financial (FL)
(.041)/ (5)
Mission
Vision
E8 (.249)/(2)
E7 (.741)/ (1)
Motivation Developing
(MD)(.321)/(1)
E6 (.5)
E5 (.5)
Organization Structure (OS)

(.129)/(5)
E9 (.193)
Culture Developing
(CD)(.152)/(4)
E4 (.25)
E3 (.25)
E2 (.25)
E1 (.25)
E10 (.129)
Empowerment
Developing (ED) (.193)/(3)
Leadership (L)
(.204)/(2)
Commitments /Management
(MC) (.419) /(1)
(A). Figure 6.3 shows the rankings of the perspectives, objectives, and
performance indicators.
Weight Chart
Weight chart makes the exact weight for perspectives and strategic objectives in
the entire System apparent (Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5).
Prespectives Weights
0.4194
0.302
0.124
0.112
CT
IP
0.0414
FL
L&G
MC
Fig. 6.4: Perspectives Weights
Strategic Objectives Weights

0.75
0.559
0.524
0.41
0.224
0.129
0.085
DF
FL
CS
RR
CA
CT
CR
0.321
0.301
0.25
0.2040.193
0.1510.129
0.173
EQ
CD
FE
IP
ED
CE
OS
L&G
Fig. 6.5: Strategic Objectives Weight
102
CD
MC
ED
6.2.8 Developing Strategic Programs for Achieving Objectives

In this step, the team make action plan to achieve the organizations objectives as
shown in table 6.13. This action plan identifies the action, time, and responsible
to achieve the objective as shown bellow.
Table 6.13: The Action Plan to Achieve the Organizations Objectives as
No.
Objectives
Development
the finance
Capacity 20 %
at the end of
2017
Contribute to the
development of
integrated
community
within 10% in
2015
Applied the
planned
maintenance for
IT system at the
end of 2014
Increasing the
scientific
research within
20% in 2016
Adoption
scientific journal
of the Faculty
Suggestions
Preparing the plan
of projects that
need to achieve
next years
Review the plan in
university meeting
to get the budget
Accreditation more
Laboratory
The announcement
of the accredited
laboratories
Creating practical
solution for
industrial
companies
Time
Responsible
Six
months
The administrator of
faculty meeting
Six
months
Dean of faculty
One year
especial units
One year
especial units
Two years
Faculty members of
Graduation Project
teams
Increasing the
projects which
developing the
environment
One year
environment
developing
Review the IT
system once per
month
One year
IT system
Six month
Faculty members
One year
Academic members
One year
Faculty members
One year
Dean of faculty
Increasing the
scientific research
with successive
position
directed towards
patents and
international
awards
Reward innovative
research
Accreditation
scientific journal
of the Faculty
103
Status
during the 2015

Adoption the
motivation
policy at the end
of 2014
Preparing a Plan
to accreditation
the faculty
during 2017
Adoption the
motivation policy
Awareness
Applied system
Review the system
Preparing to
accreditation
One year
Six month
One year
One year
Six month
Faculty members
Quality assurance
and accreditation
team
6.2.9 Comparison between Performance of Faculty of Engineering (A)

and (B)
The next table 6.14 shows the Comparison between the performances of Faculty
of Engineering (B) as milestone and Faculty of Engineering (A).
Table 6.14: The Performance of Both Faculties of Engineering (A) and the
Milestone (B)
Faculty (B)
6563518
1086000
Faculty (A)
1584671
625000
5083000
2310000
1116400
1360000
1215000
9538110
86%
1
463000
7632000
71%
13
163
21
1/6
1/9
87%
46
40
1/2
1/14
60%
93%
65
46
90%
15%
75%
37
15
80%
30%
35945
Once per year
5680
Once per year
Indicator
Annual revenue from tuition fees compared with the
The value of contracts with industry annually pound
compared with the budget allocated annually.
Annual revenue from foreign donations with the
Universitys position in national and international
rankings.
Ratio of academic staff satisfaction of education
level.
Ratio of things that need to be learned after
graduation.
104
90%
Run to failure
76%
Run to failure
100
50
40%
26%
65%
15
60%
15
115
20%
60
11%
81%
55%
59%
32%
52%
33%
30%
10%
77%
59%
90%
75%
98%
95%
93%
90%
Centralization
80%
30%
80%
Centralization
80%
16%
60%

Time cycle for up-to-dating the computer and IT
equipments (teaching aids) of the faculty.
Number of research for an introduction to the
development environment.
Ratio of projects that involved the overall
development of the environment.
Number of certification labs which served the
environment.
Ratio of Academic staffs satisfaction grade .
Number of training courses, which was attended by
Number of international conferences, which was
attended by members of the faculty.
Ratio of international agreements for the exchange
of graduates.
Ratio of faculty members who attended training
sessions.
Ratio of practical projects, which was attended by
members of the faculty in the development of
society and the development environment.
Ratio of projects of environmental development
which students in master and PhD degree programs
involved in.
Ratio of effectiveness of the organization
communication process.
Ratio of leadership emphasizing on time table to
achieve the project objectives.
Ratio of leadership ensuring the availability of
resource.
Ratio of leadership conducting the review and take
effective actions.
Having organization structure
Ratio of effectiveness of organization structure?
Ratio of work as a team to achieve necessary
competence
Measuring the behavior changes according to
training
105
Performance Chart
Performance chart is an easy to understand column graph that shows the
performance for the whole system as shown in:
Figure 6.6 illustrates the differences between financial performance of faculties
of engineering (A) and (B). The variance is clear in column (A1) budget
allocated annually and (A3) value of contracts with industry.
Financial prespective
Fayoum
1A
2A
3A
Cairo
4A
5A
6A
Fig. 6.6: Differences between the Performance Financial Perspective of Faculties of

Engineering (A) and (B)
The following Figure 6.7 shows the differences between the performance of
Faculties of Engineering (A) and (B) in dealing with customer perspective. The
Figure 6.7 illustrates the ability of faculty (B) to acquire customers, it is
considered a guide to the rest of the indicators customer satisfaction and knowing
the proper handling of their problems.
106
Customer
Cairo
B
1B
Fayoum
A
2B
3B
4B
Fig. 6.7: The Differences between the Performance of Faculties of Engineering (A) and
(B) in Dealing with Customer Perspective
The following Figure 6.8 presents the comparison between the performances of
the internal processes in faculties of engineering (A) and milestone (B). The
difference in the intensity of the number of labs in the faculty of engineering (B)
is more than the faculty of engineering (A).
Internal Process
Cairo
B
1C
2C
3C
4C
5C
6C
Fayoum
A
7C
8C
9C
10C
11C
12C
Fig. 6.8: The Differences between the Performance of Internal Process Perspective of
Faculties of Engineering (A) and the Milestone (B).
107
The following Figure 6.9 presents the comparison between the performances of
the learning and growth perspective in faculty of engineering (A) and milestone
(B). The differences is clear in the large number of the researches carried out by
the faculty of engineering (B), increasing the percentage of faculty members who
are trained and increasing the practical projects carried out by the faculty.
Learning and Growth

B
Cairo
1D
2D
3D
4D
A
Fayoum
5D
6D
7D
8D
9D
10D
Fig. 6.9: The Differences between Learning and Growth Perspective Performance of
Faculties of Engineering (A) and the Milestone (B).
Figure 6.10 illustrates the differences between management perspective

performance of faculties of engineering (A) and (B). The Figure 6.10 presents
that a communication process, a commitment to timing, and work as team are
more efficient in the Faculty of Engineering (B) than Faculty of Engineering (A).
Management
Cairo
B
1E
2E
3E
4E
Fayoum
A
5E
6E
7E
8E
9E
10E
Fig. 6.10: The differences Between Management Perspective Performance of Faculty

of Engineering (A) and The Milestone (B).
108
6.2.10 Evaluation of the Completed Scorecard Done

In the final step, the project team should also develop a plan for the periodic reevaluation of the appropriateness of the strategic objectives, the performance
measures and their assumed links (cause and effect relations between presumed
driving factors and expected results).
6.3 Recommendations for Faculty of Engineering (A)

The results of faculty performance show several of weaknesses points. The
faculty management should propose effective strategy and action plans to avoid
these points. Therefore this study recommends the following:
Paying attention to the overall long-term strategy in the same degree of
interest with the ability and efficiency in the management of the affairs of
the faculty short-term.
The faculty management should propose strategies, based on strategic
objectives in SMART way.
The faculty management must build its strategy based on studying the
internal and external environment (SWOT analysis).
The quality assurance and accreditation unit must create strategic plan to
provide a strategic plan for the adoption of the faculty.
The faculty management must establish motivation system to motivate

everyone to work extraordinarily hard to help the faculty complete its
goals.
The faculty management must support young leader to think about

prospects of engineering solution and challenges of the times.
The faculty management must think about providing financial support
through self-reliance.
The faculty members should direct their research work towards solving
the problems of realism and patents and international awards.
109
CHAPTER 7
SAMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Introduction
In the previous chapters, balanced scorecard is discussed circumstantially.
Chapter 1 presented the literature review. Chapter 2 discussed balanced scorecard
benefits and limitations. Chapter 3 compared between MADM methods. Chapter
4 proposed integration Fuzzy (GMM) - TOPSIS model to assign the balanced
scorecard perspective's weights and verified this model by various cases. Chapter
5 presented the new balanced scorecard model which combining of origin BSC,
new perspective "management commitment" and prioritization technique Fuzzy
(GMM) - TOPSIS. Chapter 6 discussed the results of the practical study. This
chapter focuses on summary and conclusions as well as a critical evaluation of
the research.
7.2 Summary
The balanced scorecard makes organizational strategy tangible which makes a
strategy more easily understood by employees, and enables the strategy to
become visible knowledge through organizational communication. The balanced
scorecard also can be a catalyst for sharing strategy with organization. It clarifies
each employee's responsibility, and contributes to integrating the corporate
culture with the strategy.
The strategy that is described well by the balanced scorecard, urges an
organization to create the capability that an organization wants to have or
improve. What the organization wants becomes explicit in the four perspectives
model. The process to connect the capability with the strategy necessary
generates communication between top management and employees. Well
attracted strategy in the strategy map and the scorecard enable people easily to
understand why, what, and how to have such capabilities.
110
The literature review illustrated that there are opportunities to develop balanced
scorecard. These opportunities are to develop the weights of perspectives, causeeffect relationships, implementation, time-dimension, communication within an
organization, feedback about the organizations strategy and management
commitment.
Different MADM methods are used to develop balanced scorecard and
prioritizing its perspectives. In the scope of the study, the integrated Fuzzy
(GMM) - TOPSIS model is proposed to estimate BSC indicator's weights. This
model is verified by comparing the results with other reported research works.
Sensitivity analyses for the model provide the smallest ED among other model
which means more accurate results of priority.
The traditional BSC contains four perspectives (i.e., financial, customer, internal
business processes, and organizational learning and growth activities), this thesis
added new perspective "management commitment" to develop and support the
balanced scorecard implementation process. The concept of management
commitment is the degree of members' recognition of organizational goals and
values that they are willing to work extraordinarily hard to help the organization
complete its goals. The origin BSC, perspective "management commitment" and
prioritization technique Fuzzy (GMM)- TOPSIS are the new integrated BSC
model. The new balanced scorecard model is combining of origin BSC, new
perspective "management commitment" and prioritization technique Fuzzy
(GMM) - TOPSIS. This model contains ten steps for establishing balanced
scorecard in the organization.
Higher-education plays a vital role in countries economic growth and shaping
the future of the nation. This thesis implemented the new model of balanced
scorecard in the Faculty of engineering (A). This model provides a perfect
framework to determine the importance of each of these perspectives, objectives
and indicators. The conclusions of the results are stated in the next section.
The management by utilizing the balanced scorecard encourages an organization
to internalize strategic ways of thinking as a normative mantel model. The
111
balanced scorecard expects an organization to improve the probability of success

repeatedly examining strategic hypotheses connected by cause and effect
relationships. This process that the balanced scorecard proposes can enhance a
strategic mindset repeatedly rotating the management cycle, included strategic
formulation, deployment, monitoring and evaluation.
In order to penetrate the strategy and implementation of the strategy, an
organization should not depend on the individual learning capability of each
employee. An organization has to make various internal management systems
align with the strategy, for example: the performance evaluation system
appreciates and rewards employees how execute the strategy and work to obtain
the learning behavior.
7.3 Conclusion
The implementation of the BSCs involves several challenges in embedding the
information systems and the culture that help receive, process, and analyze
performance information, and to implement action plans in time to respond to
unexpected turns of events. A BSC requires time and effort to "get it right",
commitment to implement it, and perseverance to ensure that it is used and
updated.
The following conclusions may be drawn from this research:
-
Balanced scorecard is a successful and acceptable tool for organizations

performance measurement for profit and non-profit organizations.
Balanced scorecard is an excellent tool to translate organizations strategies
to measurable objectives.
Equal weights balanced scorecards do not reflect the real performance of

the organization. Equal weights BSC dont take into account the
properties and priorities of organization life-cycle (growth, sustain, or
harvest). The priorities of each stage are quite different.
The proposed Fuzzy (GMM)- TOPSIS prioritization model in general

gives acceptable and more accurate results (minimum total deviation
value) in most cases used in this work to verify the model.
112
TOPSIS framework provides a perfect way to rank the candidate

alternatives according to a decision matrix, while fuzzy-GMM is effective
in conducting preliminary analysis of uncertainty in decision matrix.
Fuzzy (GMM) is used for computing weight which is an advanced step for
TOPSIS to finding the final rank, fast, precise and easy.
Sensitivity analysis for the model provide that it has the smallest ED
among other models and its sensitivity to change in alternative weighs is
the best between all other (VIKOR, SAW) which means more accurate
result of priority.
The weights calculated by Fuzzy (GMM) TOPSIS prioritize the

importance of the BSC evaluation criteria for faculty of engineering
performance with respect to the relative weights of the criteria, it not only
reveals the ranking order of the faculty performance, but it also pinpoints
the gaps to better achieve faculty goal by using the MCDM analytical
methods.
The proposed model which integrates the BSC with Fuzzy (GMM)
TOPSIS method shows to be a feasible and effective assessment model for
faculty of engineering performance evaluation and it could be extended to
other faculties as well, or digging deeply to assesses faculty department
also.
The results from Fuzzy (GMM)-TOPSIS model found out that

management perspective has the first priority which means that it is the
most important component of the five balanced scorecard perspectives of
the faculty performance.
The most significant advantage of the use of the balanced scorecard is that
it provides a wider development of metrics that are closely connected to
the strategic goals of institution (here faculty of engineering).
- Organizing an appropriate set of metrics through an academic scorecard

provides a useful way to conceptualize and display the overall education
and financial performance of certain units with the organization.
113
REFERENCES
[1] Javad Dodangeh, Rosnah Bt Mohd Yusuff, Javad Jassbi," Using Topsis Method
with Goal Programming for Best selection of Strategic Plans in BSC Model ", Journal
of American Science , Vol.6, No.3, 2010.
[2] Kaplan, R. and D. Norton," The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that drive
performance ", Harvard Business Review, Vol.70, No.1, pp71-79, 1992.
[3] Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P., "Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic
Management System", Harvard Business Review, Vol.74, No.1, pp.74-85, 1996a.
[4] Malczewski J. , " GIS-based Multi Criteria Decision Analysis", International Journal
of Geographical Information Science, Vol.20, No.7, pp. 703726, 2006 .
[5] Der-JangChi & Hsu-Feng Hung, "Is the balanced score card really helpful for
improving performance? Evidence from software companies in China and Taiwan",
African Journal of Business Management, Vol.5, No., pp.224-239, 2011.
[6] Bernard Marr," Balanced score card explained, examples, templates and case
studies KPI library", International Journal of Electronic Business Management ,Vol.1,
No.2, pp. 21- 35, 2011.
[7] Kaplan R. & Norton D., "The strategy focused organization." New York Harvard
business school press, 2001.
[8] Ali-Rahimi M.," Joint application of balanced scorecard and excellence model using
TQFM, SWOT and MADM tools", Arabian Journal of Business Management and
Review, Vol.2, No.5, pp. 1-7, 2013.
[9] Horngreen C. T., "A Managerial Emphasis, Pearson Education ", International of
Prentice Hall, Cost accounting, Vol.8, No.6, 2009.
[10] Abbas Asosheh, Soroosh Nalchigar, Mona Jamporazmey," Information technology
project evaluation: An integrated data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard
approach", Expert Systems with Applications , Vol.37 , No.5, pp.59315938, 2010.
[11] Nurul Fadly Habidin," Balanced scorecard strategy in automotive industry",
LASSIB Forum, Vol.30, No.6, 2012.
[12] Amir Manian, Asie Omidian," Performance Evaluating of IT Department Using a
Modified Fuzzy TOPSIS and BSC Methodology (Case study: Tehran Province Gas
Company)", Journal of Management Research, Vol.3, No.2, pp.899-1941, 2011.
[13] Ing-Long Wu, Ching-Hui Chang," Using the balanced scorecard in assessing the
performance of e-SCM diffusion: A multi-stage perspective", Decision Support
Systems, Vol.52, No.5, pp.474485, 2012.
[14] Deok Joo Lee, Sung-Joon Park, Kyung-Taek Kim," A Development of Key
Performance Indicators for the Public R&D of Energy Technology using Balanced
Scorecard Approach", Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and
Computer Science (WCECS), Vol. 1, No.2 ,pp. 23-25, 2013.
114
[15] Bhagwat, R., & Sharma, M. K.," Performance measurement of supply chain
management: A balanced scorecard approach", Computers and Industrial Engineering,
Vol.53, No.5, pp.4362, 2007.
[16] Chwan Yi, C., Lin, B. ,"An Integration of Balanced Scorecards and Data
Envelopment Analysis for Firms Benchmarking Management.", Total Quality
Management, Vol.11, No.20, pp.1153-1172, 2009.
[17] Zhang, Y., Li, L.," Balanced Scorecard of Commercial Bank in Performance
Management System ", International Symposium on Web Information Systems and
Applications (WISA), Vol.22, No.24, pp.206-209, 2009.
[18] Ahmed, Z., Bowra, Z., Ahmad, I., Nawaz, M., & Khan, M. ," Performance
Measures Used by the Commercial Banks in Pakistan within the Four Perspectives of
Balanced Scorecard", Journal of Money, Investment and Banking, Vol.21, No.5 pp.1220, 2011.
[19] Al Sawalqa, F., Holloway, D., & Alam, M.," Balanced Scorecard Implementation
in Jordan: An Initial Analysis", International Journal of Electronic Business
[20] Sabah M. Al-Najjar, Khawla H. Kalaf," Designing a Balanced Scorecard to
Measure a Bank's Performance: A Case Study", International Journal of Business
Administration, Vol.3, No.4, pp.4-9, 2012.
[21] Kettunen, J.," Strategies for the cooperation of educational institutions and
companies in mechanical engineering", International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 20, No.1, pp.19-28, 2006.
[22] Greiling, D., "Balanced Scorecard Implementation in German non-profit
Organizations", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 6, No.59, pp.534-554, 2010.
[23] Kollberg, B., & Elg, M., "The Practice of the Balanced Scorecard in Health Care
Services", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 5,
No.60, pp.427-445, 2010.
[24] Sunisa Atiwithayaporn, Wanchai Rivepiboon," A Development of the
Effectiveness Evaluation Model for Agile Software Development using the Balanced
Scorecard", Proceedings of the International Multi Conference of Engineers and
Computer Scientists, Vol.1, No. 2, pp.13 - 15, 2013.
[25] Karathanos, D., Karathanos, P.," Applying the balanced scorecard to education",
Journal of Education for Business, Vol.80, No.4, pp. 222-230, 2005.
[26] Chang, O.H. and Chow, C.W., " The balanced scorecard: a potential tool for
supporting change and continuous improvement in accounting education", Journal
Accounting Education, Vol.14 No.3, pp.395-412, 1999.
115
[27] Amaratunga, D., and Baldry, D.," Assessment of facilities management

performance in higher education properties Facilities", Journal of Education for
Business, Vol.18, No.7/8, pp. 293-301, 2000.
[28] Chen, S. H., Yang, C. C., & Shiau, J. Y.," The application of balanced scorecard in
the performance evaluation of higher education", The TQM Magazine, Vol.18, No. 2,
2006.
[29] Umashankar, V., & Dutta, K.," Balanced scorecards in managing higher education
institutions", An Indian perspective. International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol.21, No.1, pp.54-67, 2007.
[30] Nayeri, M. D., Mashhadi, M. M., & Mohajeri, K. ," Universities strategic
evaluation using balanced scorecard", International Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.2,
No.4,pp.231-236, 2007.
[31] Raghunadhan, T.," Strategy: A pedagogy for efficient, accountable and socially
responsive higher education", Global Business and Management Research: An
International Journal, Vol.1, No.1, pp.36-49, 2009.
[32] Beard, D. F.," Successful applications of the balanced scorecard in higher
education", Journal of Education for Business, Vol.84, No.5, pp.275-282, 2009.
[33] Umayal, K. P. L., Suganthi, L.," A strategic framework for managing higher
educational institutions", Advances in Management, Vol.3, No.10, pp.15-21, 2010.
[34] Yu, M. L., Hamid, S., Ijab, M. T., & Pei, S. H. ," The e-balanced scorecard (eBSC) for measuring academic staff performance excellence", The International Journal
of Higher Education and Educational Planning, Vol.57, No.6, pp. 813-828, 2009.
[35] Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Boblca, C., & Anton, O. , " An analysis of customer
satisfaction in a higher education context", International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 23, No.2, pp. 124 - 140, 2010.
[36] Adcroft, A., Teckman, J., & Willis, R., " Is higher education in the UK becoming
more competitive?", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23, No.6,
pp.578 588, 2010.
[37] Mourad, M., Ennew, C., & Kortam, W., "Brand equity in higher education",
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol.29, No.4, pp.403- 420, 2012.
[38] Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G.," Revisiting the Global Market for Higher Education",
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol.24, No.5, pp.153 161, 2012.
[39] Durkin, M., McKenna, S., & Cummins, D.," Emotional connections in higher
education and marketing", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol.26
No.2, pp.153 -161, 2012.
[40] Dhara Jha, and Vijay Kumar Gupta," Balanced Scorecard: A Strategic
Management and Control Tool: Does it Only Deal with Strategy?, A Perspective from
Management Students", International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services &
Management Research, Vol.2, No.1,pp. 2277- 3622, 2013.
116
[41] Seth A. and Oyugi L. A," Influence of Balanced scorecard on Organizational

Performance in Institutions of higher Learning in Kenya., A Case Study of University
of Nairobi", International Journal of Education and Research,Vol.1, No.8,2013.
[42] Josua Tarigan and Deborah Christine Widjaj," The Relationship between NonFinancial Performance and Financial Performance Using Balanced Scorecard
Framework: A Research in Education Context", Journal of Economics, Business and
Management, Vol. 2, No.1, 2014.
[43] Mohammad H Yarmohammadian, Maryam Fooladvand, Somayeh Shahtalebi,
Ahmad Ali Foroughi Abari, and Badri Shahtalebi," An Integrated Strategic Quality
Model (ISQM) for Non-governmental Universities: Integration between Strategic
Planning and BSC applied Iranian higher education system", Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, Vol.4, No.12, 2013.
[44] Teresa Garca Valderrama, Vanesa Rodrguez Cornejo, Daniel Revuelta Bordoy,"
Balanced Scorecard and Efficiency: Design and Empirical Validation of a Strategic
Map in the University by Means of DEA", American Journal of Operations Research,
Vol.3, ISSN 30-52, 2013.
[45] Amene Kiarazm, and Farhad Koohkan," Performance Evaluation in Higher
Education Institutes with the Use of Combinative Model AHP and BSC", Journal of
Basic and Applied Scientific Research, Vol.3, No.4, 2013.
[46] Orestis Schinas., "Examining the use and application of Multi-Criteria Decision
Making Techniques in Safety Assessment", Transport Science and Technology,
Goulias, Elsevier, Vol.3, No.5, pp.77 82, 2008.
[47] Hao-Chen Huang, " Designing a knowledge-based system for strategic planning: A
balanced scorecard perspective", Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No.2, pp.
209218, 2009.
[48] Bobillo, F., Delgado, M., & Gmez-Rom, J., "A semantic fuzzy expert system for
fuzzy balanced scorecard", Expert Systems with Application, Vol.36, No.2, pp. 423
433, 2009.
[49] Hossein Yavarian, Seyyed Asghar. Ebnerasoul," Performance Evaluation of
Organizations: An Integrated Data Envelopment Analysis and Balanced Scorecard
Approach", Industrial journal of business and management, Vol. 4, No.4, pp.12-23,
2009.
[50] Reza Abbasi, Fatemeh Tayebi, Eshagh Emami Nasirmahalle, " Performance
Evaluation of Social Security Branches by using BSC and MADM techniques",
International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, Vol.6, No.5, pp.572577, 2013.
[51] Saeid Saeida Ardekani, Ali Morovati Sharifabadi, Maryam Jalaly, Mahmoud
Eghbali Zarch," Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Using FAHP-FVIKOR
Approach Based on Balanced Scorecard (BSC): A Case of Yazd's Ceramic and Tile
117
Industry", Iranian Journal of Management Studies (IJMS), Vol.6, No.2, pp.81-104,

2013.
[52] Javad Jassbi, Farshid Mohamadnejad , Hossein Nasrollahzad ," A Fuzzy
DEMATEL framework for modeling cause and effect relationships of strategy map",
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.26, No.5, pp. 23-43, 1010.
[53] Gwo-Donq Wu, Sen-Kuei Liao, Chih-Hung Chiu, Kuei-Lun Chang, " New Product
Development Projects Selection for Taiwanese Century-old Businesses", Life Science
Journal Vol.10, No.3, 2013.
[54] Mehrzad Navabakhsh, Majid Nili, Hamid Geramizadeh Naeeni," Application of
MCDM techniques to appraise Iran- agency insurance companies in Isfahan province
using balanced scorecard (BSC)", Advances in Environmental Biology, Vol.7, No.8
pp.1855-1860, 2013.
[55] Wilson, C., Hagarty, D., Gauthier, J., "Result Using the Balanced Scorecard in the
Public Sector", Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol.6, No.1, pp. 53-63, 2003.
[56] Ricardo Correa Gomes, and Joyce Liddle," The Balanced Scorecard as a
Performance Management Tool for Third Sector Organizations: the Case of the Arthur
Bernardes Foundation, Brazil", Vol.6, No.4, pp. 354-366, 2009.
[57] Nopadol R.," Why the Balanced Scorecard Fails in SMEs: A case Study",
International Journal of Business and Management, Vol.6, No.11, 2011.
[58] Panagiotis C., Michael G., George V.," A Proactive Balanced Scorecard ",
International Journal of Information Management, Vol.31, pp. 460-468, 2011.
[59] E. Triantaphyllou, B. Shu, S. Nieto Sanchez, and T. Ray," Multi-Criteria Decision
Making: An Operations Research Approach", Vol.15, pp.175-186, 1998.
[60] Maltz, A. C., A. J. Shenhar, and R. Reilly, " Beyond the balanced scorecard:
Refining the search for organizational success measures", Long Range Planning, Vol.
36, pp.187204, 2003.
[61] Epstein, M. J., and P. S. Wisner, "Using a balanced scorecard to implement
sustainability", Environmental Quality Management, Vol.11, pp. 110, 2001.
[62] Steven E. Kaplan, Priscilla S. Wisner," The Judgmental Effects of Management
Communications and a Fifth Balanced Scorecard Category on Performance Evaluation",
American Accounting Association Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 3756, 2009.
[63] Letza, S.R., "The Design and Implementation of the Balanced Business Scorecard:
An Analysis of Three Companies in Practice", Business Process Re-engineering,
Management Journal, Vol.2, No.3, pp.54-76, 1996.
[64] Ahn, H., "Applying the Balanced Scorecard Concept: An Experience Report",
Long Range Planning, Vol.34, No.4, pp.441-461, 2001.
[65] Brewer, P., "Putting Strategy into the Balanced Scorecard", Strategic Finance
Journal, Vol.83, No.7, pp.44-52, 2002.
118
[66] Lohman, C., Fortuin, L. and Wouters, M., "Designing a Performance Measurement
System: A Case Study", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.156, No.2,
pp.267-286, 2004.
[67] Alexandros, P., George, I., Gregory P. and Soderquist, K., "An Integrated
Methodology for Putting the Balanced Scorecard into Action", European Management
Journal, Vol.23, No.2, pp.214-227, 2005.
[68] Pandey, I.M.," Balanced Scorecard: Myth and reality", Journal for Decision
Makers, Vol.30, No.1, pp.51-64, 2005.
[69] Kennerley, M. & Neely, A.," A Framework of the Factors Affecting Evolution of
Performance Measurement System", International Journal of Operations and Production
[70] Neely, A., Gregory, M. & Platts, K. ," Performance measurement system design: A
literature review and research agenda", International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol.25, No.12, pp. 12-28, 2005.
[71] Johnson, J.J.," Balanced scorecard for state-owned enterprises", Philippines: Asian
Development Bank, Vol.2, No.1 pp. 6068, 2007.
[72] Hwang, H.N., RAU, H. ," Design and planning of the balanced scorecard: A case
study", Journal of Human System Management, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 2-8, 2007.
[73] Gumbus, A. & Lussier, R.N.," Entrepreneurs use a Balanced Scorecard to translate
strategy into performance measures", Journal of Small Business Management, Vol.44,
No.3, pp.407-408, 2006.
[74] Anthens, G.H., "Balanced Scorecard. In: Computerworld Balanced Scorecard
Institute. Vol.37, No.7, pp.26- 34, 2009.
[75] Noell, Chr. and Lund, M.," The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) for Danish Farms
Vague Framework or Functional Instrument?" vol.11, No.95 pp.101- 109, 2010.
[76] Russell T.westcott," The Certified Manager of Quality Organizational Excellence
handbook'', 2006.
[77] Niven, P.R.," Balanced Scorecard. Step-by-step: Maximizing performance and
maintaining results", New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Vol.4, No.6, 2002.
[78] Gwo-Hshiung, Tzeng and Jih-Jeng Huang," New Frontiers of Multiple Attribute
Decision Making", kainan university, 2007.
[79] Basar oztaysi, Irem UCal, "Comparing MADM Techniques for Use in Performance
Measurement", Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy
Process 2009.
[80] Heracles Polatidisdias a. Haralambopoulos, Giussepe Munda, Ron Vreeker,"
Selecting an Appropriate Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Technique for Renewable
Energy Planning", Vol.1, No.1, pp. 81-193, 2006.
119
[81] Meysam Borajee, Siamak Haji Yakchali," Using the AHP-ELECTRE III integrated
method in a competitive profile matrix", Vol.11, No.2, pp. 86-93, 2011.
[82] Milan Janic, Aura Reggiani, "An Application of the Multiple Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) Analysis to the Selection of a New Hub Airport", Vol.2, No.2,
pp.113, 2002.
[83] Rafael De Santiago, Javier Estrada, " Geometric Mean Maximization: Expected,
Observed, and Simulated Performance", 2011.
[84] Alireza Afshari, Majid Mojahed and Rosnah Mohd Yusuff, " Simple Additive
Weighting approach to PersonnelSelection problem, Vol.1, No.5, pp.24- 38, 2010.
[85] Opricovic, S., and Tzeng, G-H., "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A
comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS", European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 156, pp. 445455, 2004.
[86] Mansour Momeni, Mohammed Reza Fathi, Mohammed Karimi Zarchi and Sirous
Azizollohi," Fuzzy TOPSIS based approach to maintenance strategy selection: case
study", Vol.3, No.2, pp.699-706, 2011.
[87] Mohammed F. Aly , Hazem A. Attia and Ayman M. Mohammed, " Integrated
Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS Model for Best Design Concept and Material Selection
Process", Vol.2, No.11, pp.2319-8753, 2013.
[88] Bojan Srdjevic, "Combining Different Prioritization Methods in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process Synthesis", Al Sevier, Computers and Operations Research, Vol.32,
No.7, pp.1897-1919, 2005.
[89] Ying-Ming, W., Celik P. and Ying L., " A Linear Programming Method for
Generating the Most Favorable Weights from a Pair-Wise Comparison Matrix" ,
Computers and Operations Research", Vol.35, No.12, pp.3918-3930, 2008.
[90] Hambali Ariff, Mohd. Sapuan Salit, Napsiah Ismail& Y. Nukman, "Use of
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Selecting The Best Design Concept", Journal
Technology, Vol.49, pp. 118, 2008.
[91] Ali Jahan, Md Yusof Ismail, Faizal Mustapha, Salit Mohd Sapuan," Material
selection based on ordinal data", Vol. 31, pp.31803187, 2010.
[92] Ashu Sharma, "Implementing Balance Scorecard for Performance Measurement",
Faculty, The Icfai Business School, Jaipur, India Vol.15, No.3, 2009.
[93] Kwang, M., Young W., Seung, H., Jae, H. and Kyoung, S., "A Study on
Development of Balanced Scorecard for Management Evaluation Using Multiple
Attribute Decision Making", Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol.3,
No.3, pp.268-272, 2010.
[94] Yee-Ching and Lilian Chanan, " An Analytic Hierarchy Framework for Evaluating
Balanced Scorecards of Healthcare Organizations", Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, Vol.23, No.2, pp.85-104, 2009.
120
[95] Amy, H.I., Lee, Wen-C., Chen and Ching-Jan, C.,"A Fuzzy AHP and BSC
Approach for Evaluating Performance of IT Department in the Manufacturing Industry
in Taiwan", Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.34, No.1, pp.96-107, 2008.
[96] Mohammed F. Aly , Hazem A. Attia and Ayman M. Mohammed, " Establish the
Balanced Scorecard and Prioritizing the Performance Indicators by Using GMMTOPSIS Approach in Faculty of Engineering ", international conference in prospects of
Engineering Solutions and challenges of the times, Faculty of engineering Fayoum
university, 2013.
121
APPENDICES
Appendix A: MATLAB Code for Fuzzy (GMM)-TOPSIS Model
Fuzzy (GMM) Code
%% GMM
Clc
a=input(' Input Judgment matrix = ')
[n1 n2]=size(a)
for i1=1:n1
for i2=1:n2
if a(i1,i2)>1
b(i1,i2)=a(i1,i2)+1;
c(i1,i2)=a(i1,i2)-1;
elseif a(i1,i2)==1
b(i1,i2)=1;
c(i1,i2)=1;
else
b(i1,i2)=1/a(i1,i2)-1;
c(i1,i2)=1/a(i1,i2)+1;
b(i1,i2)=1/b(i1,i2);
c(i1,i2)=1/c(i1,i2);
end
end
end
a1=prod(a')
a3=a1.^(1/n1)
a4=sum(a3)
w1=a3./a4
b1=prod(b')
b3=b1.^(1/n1)
b4=sum(b3)
w2=b3./b4
c1=prod(c')
c3=c1.^(1/n1)
c4=sum(c3)
w3=c3./c4
w=[w1' w2' w3' ]
w= Average(w')
122
TOPSIS Code
%% TOPSIS
Clc
clear all
w=input('weight=')
a=input('matrix a=')
% w=[.1 .4 .3 .2]
% a=[7 9 9 8; 8 7 8 7;9 6 8 9;6 7 8 6]
a1=a.^2
a_sum=sum(a1)
root_sum=sqrt(a_sum)
for i1=1:length(a)
for i2=1:length(a)
a2(i1,i2)=a(i1,i2)/root_sum(i2)
end
end
end
for i1=1:length(a)
for i2=1:length(a)
a3(i1,i2)=a2(i1,i2)*w(i2)
end
end
end
a44=max(a3(:,[1:length(a)-1]))
a444=min(a3(:,length(a)))
a4=[a44 a444]
a55=min(a3(:,[1:length(a)-1]))
a555=max(a3(:,length(a)))
a5=[a55 a555]
for i1=1:length(a)
for i2=1:length(a)
s(i1,i2)=(a3(i1,i2)-a4(i2))^2
end
end
s1=sum(s)
s2=sqrt(s1)
123
Appendix B: lists the questionnaires which used in the practical

case study.
........................................... : ....................................................
:
-
-
-
-
-
)( : .
)/( : .
) ( : ) - -
( .
) ( : ) - -
- - - (
)( : ) - -
- - - - - -
- - - (.

) . (

) (
) (
) (

/
/
/
/
- )(
) / (
- )(
) (
- )(
) (
- )(
)(
-)/(
) (
-) /(
) (
-) /(
) (
-) (
) (
-) (
)(
-) (
)(
Appendix C the published papers of this thesis
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Vol. 2, Issue 11, November 2013
Integrated Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS

Model for Best Design Concept and
Material Selection Process
Mohammed F. Aly a*, Hazem A. Attia b and Ayman M. Mohammed c
Associate Professor, Dept. of Industrial Engineering Fayoum University, Fayoum, 63514, Egypt a
Professor, Dept. of Mathematical and Physical Engineering,Fayoum University, Fayoum, 63514, Egypt b
Master student, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt c
* Corresponding author.
Abstract: Design concept is an important wealth-creating activity in companies and infrastructure.
However, the process of designing is very complex. Besides, the information required during the
conceptual stage is incomplete, imprecise, and fuzzy. Selection of proper materials for a diverse
mechanism is one of the hardest tasks in the design and product improvements in various industrial
applications. A systematic and efficient approach towards conceptual design and material selection is
necessary in order to select the best alternative for a given engineering application. The selection of an
optimal design of product and material selection for an engineering design from among many alternatives
on the basis of many attributes is a multiple criteria decision making (MADM) problem. This paper
proposes an integrated decision-making approach based on fuzzy linguistic variables and geometric mean
method integrated with TOPSIS (technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution)
framework. The model will help designers and engineers to reach a consensus on design and materials
selection for a specific application. Verification of the model is demonstrated with two example problems
from the literature and results are compared with other models. Two real life problems are cited in order
to demonstrate and validate the effectiveness and flexibility of the model.
Keywords: Design concept, Material selection, Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Geometric
Main Method (GMM), technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS).
I. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW
I.I. INTRODUCTION
Conceptual design of mechanical system is the first and key stage of a product lifecycle. Because every
stage of product design follows the process of design-evaluation-redesign, the selection and evaluation of
the feasible scheme is of great importance. However, the process of designing is very complex and not
well understood, and the information managed during the conceptual stage is incomplete, imprecise, and
vague. Within this stage, several design solutions have to be generated, correctly evaluated and selected.
Therefore, how to select the "best" design concept from a set of concept variants is a multiple criteria
decision making problem (MCDM) as presented by Chen and Fodor [1,2]. Design engineers need to
consider not only the required functionality, but also other life-cycle criteria (e.g., manufacturability,
reliability, assembability, maintainability, etc.) of a product. Each alternative of design concept has each
of the product criteria to meet the required performance. Designers have to take into account all the
criteria and their relative weights (relative importance levels) for the expected performance of each
alternative.
I.II. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
According to Ashby et al. [3] achieving the match with design requirements involves four fundamental
steps. (1) A way for translating design necessities into a requirement for material and process. (2) A
method for screening out those that cannot meet the specification, leaving a subset of the original menu.
(3) A method for ranking the surviving materials and process, identifying those that have the best
potential. (4) An approach of searching for supporting information about the top-ranked candidates,
giving as much background information about their strengths, weaknesses, history of use and future
potential as possible. The authors also pointed that; implementing multi -materials in product design leads
to higher product performance in terms of functionality, manufacturability, costs and aesthetics.
Multi-material selection is considered as one of the design strategies implemented to attain product
efficiency according to Wang [4]. Each product is different, and therefore several products may require
numerous functions that could not be satisfied by utilizing a single material. A design that incorporates
multi-material selection is a feasible alternative in order to achieve the functional requirements of a
product. Novita S., et. al. [5],Presents a MCDM for material selection during the conceptual design phase
and applied on an automotive body assembly. J.C. Albi ana, C. Vila [6] draw up a framework proposal
for integrated material and process selection in product design. Fuzzy multicriteria decision making
(MCDM) approach is proposed to select the best prototype product by Hao-Tien Liu [7]. Kuo- Chen
Hung et. al. [8] presents a fuzzy integrated approach to assess the performance of design concepts. A new
integrated design concept evaluation approach based on vague sets is presented by Xiuli Geng et. al.
[9].Hambali Ariff et. al. [10], presents the methodology of selecting design concepts using analytical
hierarchy process.
I.III. MATERIAL SELECTION
An ever increasing variety of materials is available today, with each having its own characteristics,
applications, advantages, and limitations. When selecting materials for engineering designs, a clear
understanding of the functional requirements for each individual component is required and various
important criteria or attributes need to be considered. Material selection attribute is defined as an attribute
that influences the selection of a material for a given application. These attributes include: physical
properties, electrical properties, magnetic properties, mechanical properties, chemical properties,
manufacturing properties (machinability, formability, weld ability, cast ability, heat treatability, etc.),
material cost, product shape, material impact on environment, performance characteristics, availability,
fashion, market trends, cultural aspects, aesthetics, recycling, target group, etc.
The selection of an optimal material for an engineering design from among two or more alternative
materials on the basis of two or more attributes is a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem.
The selection decisions are complex, as material selection is more challenging today. There is a need for
simple, systematic, and logical methods or mathematical tools to guide decision makers in considering a
number of selection attributes and their interrelations. The objective of any material selection procedure is
to identify appropriate selection attributes, and obtain the most appropriate combination of attributes in
conjunction with the real requirement. Thus, efforts need to be extended to identify those attributes that
influence material selection for a given engineering design to eliminate unsuitable alternatives, and to
select the most appropriate alternative using simple and logical methods, [3].
Chiner [11] proposed five steps for material selection: definition of design, analysis of material
properties, screening of candidate materials, evaluation and decision for optimal solution, and verification
tests. Farag [12] on his handbook for material selection described the different stages of design and the
related activities of the material selection. Farag defined three stages of selection: namely initial
screening, developing and comparing alternatives, and selecting the optimum solution. Moreover, Van
Kesteren et al. [13] suggested basic materials selection activities as follow: formulating material criteria,
making a set of candidate materials, comparing candidate materials and choosing candidate material.
I.IV. MATERIAL SELECTION MODELS
The objectives of performance, cost and environmental sensitivity drive engineering design, and are
generally limited by materials. Selection of the materials that best meet the requirements of the design and
give maximum performance and minimum cost is the goal of optimum product design as Buggy
approach[14]. However, some conflicting situations are generally observed between these objectives and
criteria (i.e. young modulus/cost, or toughness/hardness) and there is a necessity to decide which property
is more important than others. Using simple and logical methods, the criteria that influence material
selection for a given engineering application must be identified to eliminate unsuitable alternatives and to
select the most appropriate one according to Chatterjee and Edwards [15,16].
In order to solve the material selection issue of engineering components and to increase the efficiency in
design process, many materials selection methods have been developed such as Ashby approach [17,18],
TOPSIS (Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution) [19,20,21,22,23], VIKOR,
which means Multi-criteria Optimization and Compromise Solution) [24-27], ELECTRE stands for:
(ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalit ) which means (ELimination and Choice Expressing the
REality), [28-30], PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation)
[15], COPRAS (complex proportional assessment) [31,32] and COPRAS-G [33] , graph theory and
matrix approach [34], preference selection index (PSI) method [35] and linear assignment method [36].
A variety of quantitative selection methods have been developed to analyse the material selection process,
thus a systematic evaluation for these methods is performed by A. Jahan, et. Al. [37]. The study seeks to
address the following questions: (1): What is the contribution of the literature in the field of screening and
choosing the materials?, (2) What are the methodologies, systems, tools for material selection of
engineering components?. (3) Which approaches were prevalently applied?. (4) Is there any inadequacy
of the approaches?. Interested reader could find many methods and analysis in this study.
TOPSIS method takes attention of many researchers in the field of material selection. Sharma et al. [38]
proposed an expert system based on (TOPSIS) for aid in material selection process. Jee and Kang [22]
introduced hybrid of Entropy and TOPSIS as tool in computer aided engineering (CAE) to help design
engineers for material selection. As an example, the procedure of optimal material selection for a
flywheel has been developed in their work. Milani [24] applied Entropy and TOPSIS in gear material
selection and studied on effect of normalization norms on ranking of materials. Shanian and Savadogo
[19] showed application of TOPSIS as a MADM method for solving the material selection problem of
metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. Since the Entropy method for deciding the
relative importance of attributes does not give scope to designers preferences, in
their study a revised Entropy method was used for calculation of relative importance of each
criterion. They also compared ordinary TOPSIS method to a modified version and showed efficiency of
proposed method. Huang et al. [39] used the possible solutions search algorithm (PSSA) to pre-select the
materials to obtain the feasible solutions, and applied TOPSIS method to acquire the optimal solution.
Rao and Davim [23] offered a decision-making framework model for material selections using a
combined multiple attribute decision-making method. The procedure was based on a combined TOPSIS
and AHP method. According to A. Jahan, et. al. [37], the most popular approach adopted in the literature
of material evaluation and selection are TOPSIS, ELECTRE and AHP have been the most popular state
of the art methods in material choosing. Chart method, Computer-aided materials selection and
knowledge-based systems are the most prevalent approach in material screening. Fuzzy methods
prevalently have been used either individually or with other methods such as Genetic Algorithm [40],
Neural Nnetworks [41], KBS [42], improved compromise ranking method [28], Graph theory [34] and
Fuzzy rating [43].
Critical analyze to the MCDM approaches and try is cited by A. Jahan, et. Al. [36]. The authors list many
advantages and drawbacks for screening material methods. Instead of analyzing every single approach in
material choosing methods, the main focus of the authors are due to TOPSIS, ELECTRE and AHP, which
are the three most popular selection approaches after 2005.
They listed the following drawbacks for these main models:
Although ELECTRE methods have good output, they have a number of limitations: As the
number of alternatives increases, the amount of calculations increases quite rapidly and
computational procedures are quite elaborate.
ELECTRE only determine the rank of each material and do not give numerical value for better
understanding of differences between alternatives.
AHP is a powerful and flexible decision making procedure to help one set priorities and make
the best decision when both tangible and non-tangible aspects of a decision need to be
considered, but it only can compare a very limited number of decision alternatives, which is
usually not more than 15. When there are hundreds or thousands of option to be compared, the
pair wise comparison manner provided by the traditional AHP is obviously infeasible.
TOPSIS is a good choice for material selection because of following reasons:
It is useful for qualitative and quantitative data.
It is relatively easy and fast, with a systematic process.
The output can be a preferential ranking of the candidate materials
With a numerical value that provides a better understanding of differences and similarities
among alternatives.
This is especially useful when dealing with a large number of alternatives and criteria; the
methods are completely suitable for linking with computer databases dealing with material
selection.
However, there are two major drawbacks for TOPSIS method. The first drawback is the operation of
normalized decision matrix in which the normalized scale for each criterion is usually derived a narrow
gap among the performed measures. That is, a narrow gap in the TOPSIS method is not good for ranking
and cannot reflect the true dominance of alternatives. Another drawback is that we never considered the
risk assessment for a decision maker in the TOPSIS method. According to risk propensity, it has been
commonly observed that decision makers differ in that willingness to overestimate the probability of a
gain or a loss, the risk attitudes for a decision maker is usually categorized as risk-seeking, risk-neutral,
and risk-averse. Without considering risk propensity, the subjective propensity associated with different
decision maker preference cannot be determined, Ruey-Chyn [44]
I.V. WORK OBJECTIVES
Although a good amount of research work has already been carried out by the past researchers on design
concept and materials selection applications using different MCDM methods, there is still a need to
employ a simple and systematic mathematical approach to guide the decision maker in taking an
appropriate product and material decisions for a specific engineering application. Although several
techniques have been combined or integrated with the classical TOPSIS, many other techniques have not
been investigated. These techniques make the classical TOPSIS more representative and workable in
handling practical and theoretical problems by providing necessary analysis for original data.
This paper aims to: 1) explodes the possibility to propose an integrated decision-making approach based
on fuzzy linguistic variables and geometric mean method integrated with TOPSIS framework which can
support product development and material selection process under uncertain environments. 2) Apple this
model after verification to a real life problem of design concept evaluation and other for material
selection process.
This paper is divided into six sections. The initial section is the introduction. Section two proposes Fuzzy
(GMM) TOPSIS integrated approach in detail. Section three introduces evaluation criteria. Section four
presents verification examples and section five represent real life applications for practical cases study,
where section six present conclusions about the results.
II. PROPOSED FUZZY (GMM) -TOPSIS INTEGRATED APPROACH
The proposed model integrated approach composed of Fuzzy (GMM) and TOPSIS methods consist of
three basic stages. The first stage data gathering to structure the hierarchy, stage two deals with Fuzzy
computation where the third stage is values determination of the final ranking using TOPSIS method.
II.I. THE FIRST STAGE: STRUCTURING THE HIERARCHY
This is the first stage; a problem is decomposed into a hierarchical structure that consists of an objective
(i.e., overall goal of the decision making), the general criteria which impact the goal directly, sub-criteria
(objectives), sub-subcriteria (measures) etc.
II.II. THE SECOND STAGE: COMPUTING THE WEIGHTS
In this stage, to determine the criteria weights, a team of experts formed pair wise comparison matrices
for evaluating the criteria. Each expert of the team established individual evaluation. Computing the
geometric mean of the values obtained from individual evaluations, a final pair wise comparison matrix
on which there is a consensus is found. The weights of the critical success factors are calculated based on
this final comparison matrixes according to Fuzzy linguistic variables shown in table1and equations.[45]
Table 1. The pair wise comparison of linguistic variables using fuzzy numbers
~
1
~
3
~
5
~
7
~
9
~~~~
2, 4 ,6 ,8

Intermediate values
Fuzzy number
(L,M,U)
(L,M,U)
(L,M,U)
(L,M,U)
(L,M,U)
(L,M,U)
User define
= ( ,1, )
= ( ,3, )
= ( ,5, )
= ( ,7, )
= ( ,9, )
= ( , , )
The corresponding membership function can be depicted as shown in Figure 1.
SI
MI
II
DI
EI
Scale
Fig 1. The membership function () of linguistic variables

Next, from the information of the pair wise comparison, we can form the fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix
as follows:
Then, the geometric mean method for finding the final fuzzy weights of each criterion can be formulated
as
follows:
as follows:
a11 a1 j ain

A ai1 aij ain

an1 anj a nn
Where aij
a ji 1 and aij wi
wj
(1)
as follows:
Wi=ri *(r1+ r2 + . rn)-1,
(2)
where
ri=(ai1*ai2**ain )1/n.
(3)
After determining the weights for lower, median and upper comparison matrices, the weighting average
is computed to get the final weights.[46]
II.III.
THE THIRD STAGE :DETERMINING THE FINAL RANKING
In the last stage, calculated weights of the factors are approved by decision making team. Ranking firms
are determined by using TOPSIS method in the This stage. In TOPSIS technique based on the concept
that rank alternatives, which has the shortest distance from the ideal (Best) solution and the longest
distance from the ideal (worst) solution.[47]
Steps of TOPSIS
Step 1: Construct normalized decision matrix. This step transforms various attribute dimensions into nondimensional attributes, which allows comparisons across criteria.
Normalize scores or data as follows:
a2ij) for i = 1, , m; j = 1, , n
rij =xij/ (
(4)
Step 2: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix. Assume we have a set of weights for each
criteria wj for j = 1,n. Multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated weight.
An element of the new matrix is:
V ij = wj.rij= 1,2,3,.,
j= 1,2,.
(5)

Ideal solution.
A* = { v1*, , vn*}, where
vj*={ max (vij) if j J ; min (vij) if j J' }
(6)
Negative ideal solution.

A' = { v1', ,vn' }, where
(7)
Step 4: Calculate the separation measures for each alternative. The separation from the ideal alternative
is:
Si *= [
(Vij Vj )2 ] 1/2
i = 1, , m
(8)

S'i= [
(Vij Vj ) 2 ] 1/2
i = 1, , m
(9)
Step 5: the relative closeness of the alternative Ci* can be defined as

Ci*= S'i / (Si* +S'i ) ,
Ci* 1
(10)
Step 6: Select an alternative with maximum Ci* or alternative in the descending order based on the value
of Ci*.
Schematic diagram of the proposed model for best design is provided in Figure 2.
Set up goal
Make criteria
Structure the hierarchy

1) Structure the hierarchy
No
Assess whether the

hierarchy is arranged
properly or not
Yes
Buildcomparison matrix
Separate the three matrices

2)Fuzzy(GMM)computation
Calculate weights for each matrix
Calculate the average of weights
calculate normalized ratings
calculate weighted normalized ratings
3) The final ranking
Positive and negative ideal point
separation from the PIS and the NIS
the similarities to the PIS
End
Fig 2.Schematic diagram for the Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS integrated approach
III.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Evaluation criteria are the tool needed to measure the performance of each prioritization methods. These
criteria will compare and determine the best method among all the prioritization methods. In this study,
Euclidean Distance (ED) and Approximation method is applied. For each particular comparison matrix in
the hierarchy evaluation with aid of an error criteria ED will be performed. More precisely, the most
appropriate method for each matrix can be selected by performing the multi criteria analysis of derived
priority vectors across minimizing criteria ED.
III.I.
EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE (ED)
ED is used to estimate the overall distance between all the judgment elements in the comparison matrix
and associated ratios of the priorities from the derived vector weight. The best method is determined by
the least ED value. The ED is measured in the following way:
ED= (
III.II.
( aij - wi/wj) 2)1/2 i, j =1,2,..n.
(11)
APPROXIMATION METHOD
The approximation method is used to calculate the minimum change of weights (changes= 0.001 in this
paper) that can change the ranking of alternatives by using different ranking methods.
I.
VERIFICATION
Two decision problems are selected to illustrate the concept.

IV.I.
EXAMPLE 1
In this example, a pair wise comparison matrix has been conducted based on data that are taken from
Ying-Ming Wang et al. [48].This example compares between different prioritization methods in terms of
Euclidean distance (ED) as comparing criteria as shown in Figure 3. The results obtained from the YingMings study and the result using Fuzzy (GMM), are list in Table 2.
Apair wise comparison matrix

1
1/4
1/3
1
1/3
1/4
4
1
1/7
1/3
5
1
3
7
1
5
5
6
1
3
1/5
1
1
3
3
1/5
1/5
1
1
1/3
4
1
1/6
1/3
3
1
Table 2: Priority vectors obtained by different priority methods .

Priority Method
EVM
WLSM
LLSM
GLSM
GEM
FPM
CCMA
DEAHP
LP-GFW
Fuzzy (GMM) TOPSIS
Priorities (priorities or weights vector)

W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
0.3208 0.1395 0.0348 0.1285 0.2374
0.4150 0.0936 0.0348 0.1123 0.2190
0.3160 0.1391 0.0360 0.1251 0.2360
0.3407 0.1205 0.0575 0.1495 0.2013
0.3746 0.1722 0.0275 0.1252 0.2254
0.3492 0.1438 0.0528 0.1232 0.1917
0.2768 0.1695 0.0295 0.1555 0.2072
0.1875 0.1875 0.0625 0.1875 0.1875
0.4042 0.2130 0.0466 0.1793 0.3827
0.3114 0.1396 0.0367 0.1272 0.2362
W6
0.1391
0.1253
0.1477
0.1305
0.0751
0.1392
0.1615
0.1875
0.2056
0.1487
Compression between different priority methods

15
10
5
ED
13.13
9.47 11.73 9.24 9.28
9.28 9.37 9.31 9.36 9.05
Fig 3. Compression between different priority methods

It is shown that, AHP method gives the lowest value of ED, but can not be relied upon in higher
consistency. Fuzzy (GMM) prioritization model in case of high inconsistent matrices produces the second
smaller or close to zero the value of ED as comparing criteria (i.e. Fuzzy model is the best solution).
When compare between Fuzzy (GMM) with different prioritization methods, and with new approach as
integrated model of data envelopment analysis and AHP (DEAHP), and correlation coefficient
maximization approach (CCMA).
Agreement of MADM methods can be measured by the Spearman rank correlation which calculates the
sums of the squares of the deviations between the different rankings. Table 3 represents Spearmans rank
correlation coefficient between mentioned approaches. Fuzzy (TOPSIS) shows high Agreement with
other methods.
Table 3 Spearmans rank correlation coefficient between MCDM methods .
EVM
WLSM
GLSM
GEM
FPM
CCMA
LP-GFW
WLSM
0.314
GLSM
.085
.771
GEM
.771
.771
.314
FPM
1
.314
.085
.771
CCMA
1
.314
.085
.771
1
DEAHP
.529
.755
.226
.226
.529
LP-GFW
1
.314
.085
.771
1
.529
FUZZY (TOPSIS)
.60
.828
.371
.942
.60
.30
.6
IV.II
Example 2:
In this example, a case has been conducted based on data that are taken from Bojans study [49]. The
selected case is reservoir storage allocation problem. The analyzed problem is allocating the surface water
reservoir storage to multiple uses. A global economical goal is defined as the most profitable use of
reservoir, and six purposes are considered as decision alternatives: electric power generation (A1);
irrigation (A2); flood protection (A3); water supply (A4); tourism and recreation (A5); and river traffic
(A6). Alternatives are evaluated across five economical criteria of different metrics: gain in national
income (C1); earning foreign exchange (C2); improvement of the balance of payment (C3); import
substitution (self-sufficiency) (C4); and gain in regional income (C5). P1 is the matrix where criteria are
compared by importance with respect to the goal, and matrices containing judgments of alternatives with
respect to criteria C1, C2,., C5 are referred to as P2,., P6, respectively as shown in Table 4. The
priority vectors for criteria is presented in table 5 and the Value of ED for all methods are presented in
table 6 and comulative ED presented in Figure 4.
Table 4: Compression matrices for reservoir storage allocation problem .
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A1
1
1/2
1/5
1/3
1/2
Criteria (P1)
A2 A3
A4
2
5
3
1
7
3
1/7
1
1/4
1/3
4
1
1/3
5
1/3
National Income(P2)
A2 A3 A4 A5
5
3
6
7
1 1/7 1/2
2
7
1
7
3
2 1/7
1 1/2
1/2 1/3
2
1
1/2 1/4
1 1/2
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A1
1
1/5
1/3
1/6
1/7
1/5
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
Foreign Exchange(P3)
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
1
4
6
7
2
1/4
1
2
2
1
1/6 1/2
1
2 1/6
1/7 1/2 1/2 1 1/5
1/2
1
6
5
1
1/2
3
1
7
1
A5
2
3
1/5
3
1
A6
5
2
4
1
2
1
A6
2
1/3
1
1/7
1
1
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
Balance of Payment (P4)

A1 A2 A3
A4
A5
A6
1
1/3
1/7
1/6
1/3
1/4
4
1/2
1/3
2
2
1
3
1
1/5
1/2
1/3
2
7
5
1
4
7
3
6
2
1/4
1
2
1/2
3
3
1/7
1/2
1
1/2
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A1
1
1/3
1/9
1/7
1/4
1/3
Import Substitution (P5)

A2
A3
A4
A5
3
9
7
4
1
3
6
2
1/3
1
1/2 1/4
1/6
2
1
1/6
1/2
4
6
1
3
5
6
2
A6
3
1/3
1/5
1/6
1/2
1
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A1
1
5
3
6
3
1
Regional Income (P6)

A2
A3
A4
A5
1/5 1/3 1/6 1/3
1
2
1/5
2
1/2
1
1
2
5
1
1
1
1/2 1/2
1
1
1/4 1/4 1/7 1/5
A6
1
4
3
7
5
1
Table 5: Priority vectors for criteria

Priority Vectors
AN
0.352
0.3
0.043
0.172
0.133
Criteria
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
EV
0.358
0.306
0.041
0.171
0.123
WLS
0.411
0.291
0.047
0.14
0.111
LLS
0.356
0.313
0.042
0.166
0.122
FPP
0.391
0.283
0.065
0.152
0.109
LGP
0.356
0.356
0.051
0.119
0.119
Entropy
0.112
0.307
0.1
0.297
0.184
Fuzzy (GMM)
0.343
0.317
0.043
0.168
0.126
Table 5: Value of ED for all methods.

P1
P2
P3
4.583
4.961
5.508
4.813
5.440
4.550
8.573
4.504
6.209
6.255
6.937
6.119
8.027
8.227
13.298
5.907
5.305
5.359
5.204
5.289
6.904
5.607
12.991
5.350
Method
P4
P5
P6
6.797
7.382
7.114
7.327
7.318
7.005
10.146
6.930
6.107
6.451
7.054
6.627
6.634
7.643
13.705
6.270
4.786
5.055
5.331
4.642
8.740
8.162
11.11
4.590
TD
AN
EV
WLS
LLS
FPP
LGP
Entropy
Fuzzy (GMM) TOPSIS
Comulative ED
Value of ComulativeED fordifferent methods

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
69.823
33.551
Fuzzy Entropy
(GMM)
TOPSIS
41.194
43.063
LGP
FPP
37.148
37.63
35.463
33.787
LLS
WLS
EV
AN
Different Methods
Fig 4. Value of ED for different methods

The results of this case, reservoir storage allocation problem (Figure 4) shows that, Fuzzy (GMM), AN
(AHP) prioritization methods produce the smaller or close to zero the value of ED respictivily (as
comparing criteria i.e. P1, P2 and P6). Entropy weighting method produce the highest value.
II.
Cases Study
In the previous section verification of the model is presented. In this section two real life applications will
be cited to demonstrate the applicability, simplicity and accuracy of the integrated model. These two
applications have already been solved by the past researches and different ranking of the alternatives have
been obtained. The first case is cited by H. Ariff, et. al. [10]. This case is about the selection of the best
design concept for chair wheel transfer product. The second case is addressed by Ali Jahan et. al.[50]
which is the selection of the most suitable material for the design of a flywheel.
V.I
Problem1:
This proposed model is applied to a real problem in the industry. Inaccurate decision during the design
stage can cause the product to be redesign or remanufactured. A study has been conducted based on data
that are taken from case study used by H. Ariff, M. Sapuan, N. Ismail and Y. Nukman.[10]. This study is
about wheelchair transfer problems. There are seven wheelchair design concepts of wheelchairs.. The
main criteria affecting the development of wheelchair design are classified into five aspects; performance
(P), safety (S), cost (C), ergonomic (E) and maintenance (M). There are five sub-criteria affecting the
wheelchair performance: easy to transfer (ETT), easy to use (ETU), easy to storage (ETS), lightweight
(LW) and strong framework (SF). Stability (ST) and no sharp edge (NSE) are sub-criteria that affect in
terms of safety. While cost of material (CM) and cost of manufacturing process (CMP), easy to repair
(ETR) and easy to dismantle (ETD), are sub-criteria affecting in terms of cost and maintenance
respectively, show (Figure 3). This example is divided into three sections. Section one presented stages of
the Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS model. Section two presented comparison between results obtained by AHP
and Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS model by using Euclidean distance. Section three compares between three
different ranking methods SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR in terms of methods sensitivity of changing the
weights. In this case, three scenarios are used equal weight, weight from AHP and GMM weight..
Section 1
The first stage is Structuring the hierarchy.
In this section, a hierarchy model for structuring design concept decisions is introduced. A four level
hierarchy decision process displayed in Figure 5 is described below:
Selection of the best wheelchair conceptual design
ETT
ETU
CM
NST
CMP
Criteria
ST
Goal level 1
level 2
ETR
SupCriteria
level 3
ETD
ETS
LW
SF
DC-1
DC-2
DC-3
DC-4
DC-5
DC-6
DC-7
Alternatives level
Fig 5. A hierarchy model for the selection of design concept

Initially, the objective or the overall goal of the decision is presented at the top level of the hierarchy.
Specifically, the overall goal of this application is to select the most suitable wheelchair conceptual
design. The second level represents the main criteria affecting the development of wheelchair design.
The main criteria can be classified into five aspects: performance (P), safety (S), cost (C), ergonomic (E)
and maintenance (M).The sub-criteria is represented at the third level of the hierarchy. There are five subcriteria affecting the wheelchair performance: easy to transfer (ETT), easy to use (ETU), easy to storage
(ETS), lightweight (LW) and strong framework (SF). Stability (ST) and no sharp edge (NSE) are subcriteria that affect in terms of safety. While cost of material (CM) and cost of manufacturing process
(CMP), easy to repair (ETR) and easy to dismantle (ETD), are sub-criteria affecting in terms of cost and
maintenance respectively. Finally, at the lowest level of the hierarchy, the design concept (DC)
alternatives of the wheelchair development are identified.
The second stage is computing the weights by Fuzzy (GMM)

The pair-wise comparisons generate a matrix of relative rankings for each level of the hierarchy. The
number of matrices depends on the number elements at each level. The order of the matrix at each level
depends on the number of elements at the lower level that it links to.
Pair-wise comparison begins with comparing the relative importance of two selected items. There are n
(n 1) judgments required to develop the set of matrices in this step. The decision makers have to
compare or judge each element by using the relative scale pair wise comparison as shown in Table 1. The
judgments are decided based on the decision makers or users experience and knowledge. The scale used
for comparisons in Fuzzy (GMM) enables the decision maker to incorporate experience and knowledge
intuitively. To do pair wise comparison, for instance as shown in Table 7, if performance (P) is strongly
more important or essential over cost (C), then a = 5. Reciprocals are automatically assigned to each pairwise comparison.
Table 7:Construct a Pair-wise Comparison Matrix
Goal
Performance (P)
Safety (S)
Cost (C)
Ergonomic (E)
Maintenance (M)
P
[1,1,1]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1/6,1/5,1/4]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1/6,1/5,1/4]
S
[2,3,4]
[1,1,1]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1,1,1]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
C
[4,a,6]
[2,3,4]
[1,1,1]
[2,3,4]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
E
[2,3,4]
[1,1,1]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1,1,1]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
M
[4,5,6]
[2,3,4]
[2,3,4]
[2,3,4]
[1,1,1]
Step 2 : Separation
In this step, three matrices (Lower, Medium, Upper) are separated from the original matrix. The priority
is calculated for each matrix separately.
Step 3 : Synthesizing the Pair wise Comparison
Normalized vector is computed according to eq.(3), where aij the element with I raw and j column. To
calculate the vectors of priorities, sum the each element in the normalizing column. Then, divide the
elements of each column by the sum of the column as shown in eq. (2). The result is priority vector as
shown in table 8. This process is done on all three matrices (Lower, Medium, and Upper).
Table 8: Synthesizing the Pair wise Comparison
Goal
(P)
(S)
(C)
(E)
(M)
sum
P
1
1/4
1/6
1/4
1/6
S
2
1
1/4
1
1/4
C
4
2
1
2
1/4
E
2
1
1/4
1
1/4
M
4
2
2
2
1
2.297
1
0.461
1
0.304
5.062
Priority
0.453
0.197
0.091
0.197
0.060
Step 4 : Calculate the final weights:

After calculate the priority victor for the three matrices (Lower, Medium, Upper) then calculate the
average of each element in row of priority victor in three matrices as shown in table 9.
Table 9: The weights obtained from Fuzzy (GMM) of main criteria:
Weights
w1
w2
w3
w4
w5
1
0.453
0.197
0.091
0.197
0.060
2
0.461
0.194
0.090
0.194
0.058
3
0.453
0.192
0.096
0.192
0.063
Average
0.456
0.195
0.092
0.195
0.061
These processes are repeated for all levels of hierarchy structure (criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives).
The priority vectors for criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives are represented in table 10. The overall
priority vector can be obtained by multiplying the priority vector for the design alternatives by the vector
of priority of the sub-criteria as shown in table 11.
Table 10: represent priority vectors for criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives.
0.45
ETT
0.456
P
0.26 0.06
ETU ETS
0.14
LW
0.17
0.10
0.14
0.12
0.32
0.08
0.05
0.21
0.08
0.14
0.04
0.20
0.16
0.15
0.17
0.29
0.14
0.12
0.05
0.16
0.05
criteria
Sub-criteria
Alternatives
DC-1
DC-2
DC-3
DC-4
DC-5
DC-6
DC-7
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.42
0.07
0.20
0.08
SF
GOAL
0.195
S
0.75 0.26
ST
NSE
0.0928
C
0.75 0.26
CM CMP
0.195
E
1
E
0.061
M
0.75 0.26
ETR ETD
0.11
0.06
0.11
0.06
0.31
0.08
0.25
0.14
0.05
0.09
0.06
0.26
0.14
0.23
0.12
0.22
0.12
0.22
0.05
0.16
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.12
0.05
0.32
0.10
0.22
0.26
0.19
0.14
0.09
0.04
0.09
0.06
0.18
0.05
0.17
0.05
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.12
0.22
0.12
0.22
0.04
0.18
0.07
0.19
0.31
0.12
0.10
0.03
0.16
0.06
Table 11: Overall weight vector for the alternatives with respect to the criteria
ETT
0.206
ETU
0.121
ETS
0.027
LW
0.064
SF
0.038
ST
0.146
NSE
0.051
CM
0.070
CMP
0.024
E
0.195
ETR
0.046
ETD
0.016
Third stage: ranking alternatives by using TOPSIS method

Step 1: Construct normalized decision matrix
This step transforms various attribute dimensions into non-dimensional attributes, by using the eq. (4). To
calculate the normalizing decision matrix, squaring each element of the matrix of alternatives. Then, sum
the squaring elements in each column. After that, calculate the root for the sum in each column. Divide
the elements in alternatives matrix of each column by the root in each column and the resulted normalized
matrix stated in table12.
Table 12: Normalized decision matrix.
DC-1
DC-2
DC-3
DC-4
DC-5
DC-6
DC-7
ETT
0.40
0.23
0.32
0.28
0.74
0.18
0.11
ETU
0.52
0.19
0.35
0.10
0.49
0.39
0.37
ETS
0.18
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.84
0.14
0.41
LW
0.39
0.67
0.32
0.29
0.11
0.39
0.13
SF
0.24
0.13
0.26
0.13
0.69
0.18
0.56
ST
0.33
0.12
0.21
0.14
0.62
0.34
0.53
NSE
0.46
0.14
0.43
0.13
0.43
0.43
0.43
CM
0.30
0.55
0.30
0.55
0.12
0.40
0.17
CMP
0.29
0.54
0.29
0.54
0.11
0.43
0.16
E
0.26
0.14
0.26
0.11
0.72
0.22
0.50
ETR
0.67
0.49
0.37
0.24
0.11
0.25
0.17
ETD
0.44
0.71
0.28
0.22
0.07
0.37
0.14
Step 2: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix by using eq. (5). In this step multiply each
column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated weight in table 11 as shown in table 13.
Table 13: The weighted normalized decision matrix
DC-1
DC-2
DC-3
DC-4
DC-5
DC-6
DC-7
ETT
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.15
0.03
0.02
ETU
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.04
ETS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.01
LW
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
SF
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
ST
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.09
0.05
0.07
NSE
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
CM
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.01
CMP
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
E
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.14
0.04
0.09
ETR
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
ETD
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Ideal solution is calculated by using the eq. (6). It is the maximum of performance and safety and
minimum in cost. Negative ideal solution is calculated by using the eq. (7) and it is reverse to the Ideal
solution. The ideal and negative ideal solution are presented in table 14.
Table 14: Ideal and negative ideal solutions
V+
V'
0.15
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.14
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.00

The separation from the ideal alternative is calculated by eq. (8). In this stage, each element in Colum in
the weighted normalized decision matrix is subtracted from each element in column of ideal solution as
show in table 15. After that, sum each element in the row of separation matrix. Calculate the root of the
sum for each element in matrix to find the final separation. The separation from the negative ideal
alternative can calculated as the separation from the ideal alternative by eq. (9) as show in table 16.
Table 15: The separation from the ideal alternative

ETT ETU ETS LW
DC-1 4.9
0.0
0.3
0.3
DC-2 10.7 1.6
0.4
0.0
DC-3 7.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
DC-4 8.7
2.6
0.4
0.6
DC-5 0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
DC-6 13.2 0.2
0.4
0.3
DC-7 16.5 0.4
0.1
1.2
SF
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
ST
1.8
5.3
3.7
5.0
0.0
1.7
0.2
NSE
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
CM
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
CMP
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
E
7.8
12.5
7.8
14.1
0.0
9.4
1.9
ETR
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.5
ETD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
Table 16: The separation from the negative ideal alternative..

ETT ETU ETS LW
DC-1 0. 6 1.2
0.0
0.5
DC-2 0. 1 0.1
0.0
2.2
DC-3 0. 3 0.4
0.0
0.3
DC-4 0. 2 0.0
0.0
0.2
DC-5 2.27 1.0
3.5
0.0
DC-6 0.0
0.6
0.0
0.5
DC-7 0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
SF
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
1.3
ST
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.7
0.3
1.2
NSE
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
CM
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.3
0.1
1.0
CMP
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.3
0.1
1.0
E
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
2.6
0.1
1.0
ETR
2.2
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
ETD
0.9
2.8
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
Step 5: The relative closeness to the ideal solution is calculated by using the eq.(10). In this step each
element in row of separation from the negative ideal alternative divides by the sum of separation ideal and
negative ideal alternative. Then, the final ranking is presented in table17.
Table 17: Result of selection
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS

DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
AHP
DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-6
DC-3
DC-2
DC-4
Section 2:Comparison between priority methods

In this section are presented a comparison between the results of priority vector by Fuzzy (GMM) and
AHP as shown in table 18. The results of this compression are presented in Figure 6.
Table18: Compression between different weighting method
Criteria
AHP
Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS
Entropy
P
0.456
0.456
S
0.191
0.195
C
0.099
0.092
E
0.191
0.195
M
0.061
0.061
0.1779
0.2675
0.2079
0.2675
0.0793
6.7903
8
6
4
2
0
3.38
3.32
AHP
AHP
Enrtopy
Enrtopy
Fig 6: Compression between different priority methods

The results of this case, shows that, Fuzzy (GMM)- TOPSIS produce the smaller value of ED.
Section 3: Comparison between ranking methods
This section is a comparison between three different ranking methods SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR in
terms of methods sensitivity of changing the weights. Three scenarios are used for assigning importance
(weight) to attributes.
Scenario a) Assume that equal weights are assigned to attributes which implies their equal importance to
the decision maker.
Scenario b) use the weights generated from the AHP as shown in table 19.
Table 19: The weights generated from the AHP
ETT
0.189
ETU
0.114
ETS
0.026
LW
0.058
SF
0.069
ST
0.143
NSE
0.048
CM
0.074
CMP
0.025
E
0.191
ETR
0.047
ETD
0.016
Scenario c) Scenario c) Use the weights generated from the Fuzzy (GMM) as shown in table 11.The
results of scenario (a),(b),(c) are presented in table 20.
Table 20: Comparing between deferent ranking methods in deferent scenario
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Equal Weights
SAW TOPSIS
DC-5 DC-5
DC-1 DC-1
DC-2 DC-7
DC-6 DC-2
DC-7 DC-3
DC-3 DC-6
DC-4 DC-4
VIKOR
DC-1
DC-5
DC-6
DC-7
DC-3
DC-2
DC-4
Weights by AHP
SAW TOPSIS
DC-5 DC-5
DC-1 DC-7
DC-7 DC-1
DC-6 DC-3
DC-3 DC-6
DC-2 DC-2
DC-4 DC-4
VIKOR
DC-5
DC-1
DC-3
DC-7
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
Weights by Fuzzy (GMM)

SAW TOPSIS VIKOR
DC-5 DC-5
DC-5
DC-1 DC-1
DC-1
DC-7 DC-7
DC-3
DC-6 DC-3
DC-7
DC-3 DC-6
DC-6
DC-2 DC-2
DC-2
DC-4 DC-4
DC-4
Table20, while ranking other alternatives, the SAW and VIKOR methods produce more similar ranks
across different scenarios than the TOPSIS method. Because the TOPSIS method has high sensitivity to
the changes in methods for assigning weights to criteria, it's frequently used as a benchmarking method.
For the wheelchair selection problem, all of the SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR methods in each scenario
give the top rank to the same alternative (DC-5)except the VIKOR in scenario "a". Figure 7 shows there
are small variations in the rankings obtained using SAW, TOPSIS and VIKOR methods.
Alternatives
6
4
2
0
1
Fuzzy VIKOR
AHP VIKOR
E VIKOR
4
Rnking
Fuzzy TOPSIS
AHP TOPSIS
E TOPSIS
Fuzzy SAW
AHP SAW
E SAW
Fig. 7. Comparative ranking of wheelchair design alternative
Table 21 represents Spearmans rank correlation coefficient between mentioned approaches. High rank
correlation between Fuzzy TOPSIS and Fuzzy SAW (0.678), Fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP VIKOR (.428) and
Fuzzy TOPSIS and (equal) TOPSIS (0.535) .
Table 21 Spearmans rank correlation coefficient between MCDM methods .
E SAW
E TOPSIS
E VIKOR
AHP SAW
AHP TOPSIS
AHP VIKOR
Fuzzy SAW
Fuzzy TOPSIS
Equal
SOPSIS
-.178
Equal
VIKOR
-.178
-.32
AHP
SAW
.2
.428
.392
AHP
TOPSIS
.142
-.75
-.25
-.60
AHP
VIKOR
.928
-.178
.107
.535
0
Fuzzy
SAW
.25
.428
.392
1
-.60
.535
Fuzzy
TOPSIS
.357
.535
-.035
.678
-.285
.428
.678
Fuzzy
VIKOR
.928
-.178
.107
.535
0
1
.535
.428
This study uses an approximation method to calculate the minimum change of weights (changes= 0.001
in this study) that can change the ranking of alternatives by using different ranking methods TOPSIS,
SAW, and VIKOR. The results for this study is presented in table 22.
Table 22: Compression between different ranking methods with minimum change of weights that can
change the ranking of alternatives.
TOPSIS
.Weights (W) .206
.121
W changes
.210
.121
.027 .064
.031 .060
ranking
.814683
.438619
.427345
.321119
.269081
.217484
.171268
SAW
.Weights (W) .206
.121
W changes
.203
.121
DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
.813289
.59916
.525928
.477828
.4732433
.41713
.339316
VIKOR
.Weights (W) .206
.121
W changes
.206
.111
DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-6
DC-3
DC-2
DC-4
0
.502833
.604242
.739321
.768263
.859454
.961268
DC-5
DC-1
DC-3
DC-7
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
.027 .064
.030 .067
ranking
.027 .064
.037 .054
ranking
.038
.042
.038
.041
.038
.048
Changes= .003
.146 .051 .07
.024
.142 .051 .07
.024
Results after changing
(W)
.824263
.434748
.434599
.318824
.269222
.209023
.167655
Changes= .004
.146 .051 .07
.024
.149 .051 .07
.024
(W)
.820028
.599075
.527373
.473117
.472852
.410121
.33575
Changes= .01
.146 .051 .07 .024
.156 .051 .08 .034
(W)
0
.234395
.510857
.604738
.781943
.850231
.930921
.195 .046
.199 .050
ranking
.016
.012
DC-5
DC-7
DC-1
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-1
.195 .046
.198 .043
ranking
.016
.013
DC-5
DC-1
DC-7
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
.195 .046
.185 .036
ranking
.016
.006
DC-5
DC-7
DC-1
DC-3
DC-6
DC-2
DC-4
The last table explains how changes of weights contribute to the change of raking and also, shows
that the TOPSIS method is more sensitive than others which changes its alternative's ranking by
smallest change in weights of attributes.
V.II.
Problem2:
This example has been conducted based on data that are taken from Ali Jahan et. al.[50]. This sace deals
with the selection of the most suitable material for design of a flywheel which is a device to store kinetic
energy as used in automobiles, urban subway trains, mass transit buses, wind-power generators, etc. The
most important requirements in a flywheel design are to store the maximum amount of kinetic energy per
unit mass and to ensure against premature failure due to fatigue or brittle fracture. The following
characteristics are required for flywheel: (1) performance index of rlimit/q (where, rlimit is the fatigue
limit of the material and q is the material density). This signifies that the higher the value of rlimit/q, the
lower the weight of the material for a given fatigue strength and consequently, the kinetic energy per unit
mass of the flywheel will be higher. (2) Fracture toughness (KIC) of the material will be the performance
measure for failure due to brittle fracture. (3) The fragmentability of the flywheel material is an essential
property from the safety point of view. If the flywheel breaks into small pieces at final failure, the hazard
will be much reduced. (4) Price per unit mass. Among these four criteria, the beneficial attributes are
fatigue limit, fracture toughness and fragmentability where higher values are desirable, and price/mass is
a non-beneficial attribute where smaller value is always preferable. For more clarification in this example
proposed method illustrated step by step.
The problem which consists of ten alternative materials and four material selection criteria are shown in
Table 23. According to entropy method, [51] the weights of the considered criteria are as follow: wa =
0.4, wb = 0.3, wc = 0.2 and wd = 0.1.
Table23: Candidate materials for a flywheel
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Material
300M
2024T3
7050T73561
Ti6AL4V
E glass epoxy FRP
S glass epoxy FRP
Carbon epoxy FRP
Kevlar 29 epoxy FRP
Kevlar 29 epoxy FRP
Boron epoxy FRP
Fatigue (+)
100
49
78
108
70
165
440
242
616
500
Toughness (+)
8
13
12
26
10
25
22
28
34
23
Fragment ability (+)

3
3
3
3
9
9
7
7
7
5
Price (-)
4200
2100
2100
10500
2735
4095
35470
11000
25000
3150000
The result of ranking materials for different methods are shown in table 24. It is shown that all methods
ranke material number 9 (Kevlar 49-epoxy FRP ) is the first which has the highest value (.93104).
material number 7 (Carbon epoxy FRP) has the second value (.6884), thus we put 7 in rank 2 of
columnaas the same ranking of column "c" and "d" where column "b" rank material number 8 (Kevlar
29 epoxy FRP) in the second and column "e" rank material number 10 (Boron epoxy FRP).In the same
way the material 2 (2024T3) has the lowest value (.2835) in column a which agree with the ranking of
column "d" and "e" where column "b" rank material number 10 (Boron epoxy FRP) in the last one and
column "c" rank material number 1 (300M) also in the last one .
Table 24: Cumparing between defferent ranking method .
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOPSIS
9
7
10
8
6
4
5
1
3
2
Jee and kang

9
8
6
7
1
4
3
5
2
10
ELECTER
9
7
6
8
10
4
5
3
2
1
VIKOR
9
7
10
8
6
4
5
3
1
2
Linear assignment
9
10
7
8
6
4
1
3
5
2
For the flywheel material selection problem, all of the TOPSIS, Jee and Kang, ELECTER, VIKOR and
the linear assignment methods give the top rank to the same material (Kevlar 49epoxy FRP). Figure8
shows there are small variations in the rankings obtained using Jee and Kang, ELECTER, VIKOR and
linear assignment methods.
12
10
Ranking
8
6
4
2
0
1
10
Material
Linear assignment
VIKOR
Jee and kang
Topsis
ELECTER
Fig. 8. Comparative ranking of materials

Agreement of MADM methods can be measured by the Spearman rank correlation which calculates the
sums of the squares of the deviations between the different rankings. Table 25 represents Spearmans
rank correlation coefficient between mentioned approaches. High rank correlation between TOPSIS and
VIKOR (0.95), TOPSIS and linear assignment (.74) and TOPSIS and ELECTER (0.76) .
Table 25: Spearmans rank correlation coefficient between MCDM methods (Example 1).
Jee and Kang

ELECTER
VIKOR
L. assignment
I.
ELECTER
-0.042
VIKOR
0.296
.793
L. assignment
0.321
.864
.696
Topsis
.224
.769
.951
.745
Conclusion
In this paper, Fuzzy (GMM) -TOPSIS compound decision making methods have been used in proposed
approach.This method proposed to deal with both qualitative and quantitative criteria and select the
suitable design.The following conclusions could be summarized as follows:
1-TOPSIS framework provides a perfect way to rank the candidate alternatives according to a decision
matrix, while fuzzy-GMM is effective in conducting preliminary analysis of uncertainty in decision
matrix.
2-GMM is used for computing weight which is an advanced step for TOPSIS to finding the final rank,
fast, precise and easy.
3-From the numerical illustration for design concept evaluation of the wheelchair problem the analysis
reveals that the design concept-5 is the most appropriate for further development because it has the
highest value among the other design concepts. Application of Fuzzy-GMM TOPSIS model for selecting
conceptual design at conceptual design stage can improve quality of product and shorten product
development process.
4-Sensitivity analysis for the model provide that it has the smallest TD among other model and its
sensitivity to change in alternative weighs is the best between all other (VIKOR, SAW) which mean more
accurate result of priority.
5-The two cited examples demonstrate the potentiality, applicability and simplicity solving design
concept and material selection decision-making problems and that the model is quite simple to implement
involving a large reduction of mathematics as compared to the other conventional material selection
methods.
6-The results derived using both this model show an excellent correlation with those obtained by the past
researchers which specifically prove the global applicability of this method while solving such type of
complex design or material selection problems.
References
[1] Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L., "Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making:Methods and applications", Lecture notes in economics
and mathematical systems. New York: Springer, 1992.
[2] Fodor, J., & Roubens, M.," Fuzzy preference modeling and multicriteria decision support", Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1994.
[3] Ashby MF, Brchet Y, Cebon D., "Selection strategies for materials and processes" Adv. Eng. Mater. , Vol.4(6), pp. 32734,
2004.
[4] Cui X, Wang S, Hu SJ., "A method for optimal design of automotive body assembly using multi-material construction", Mater
Des. , Vol. 29(2), pp. 381387, 2008.
[5] Novita Sakundarini, ZahariTaha , SalwaHanim Abdul-Rashid , Raja Ariffin Raja Ghazila, " Optimal multi-material selection for
lightweight design of automotive body assembly incorporating recyclability", Materials and Design Vol.50, pp. 846857, 2013.
[6] J.C. Albiana,
C. Vila, "A framework for concurrent material and process selection during conceptual product design stages",
Materials and Design,Vol.41,pp. 433446, 2012.
[7] Hao-Tien Liu, "Product design and selection using fuzzy QFD and fuzzy MCDM approaches", Applied Mathematical
Modelling, Vol. 35,pp. 482496, 2011.
[8] Kuo-Chen Hung, Peter Julian , Terence Chien , Warren Tsu-huei Jin,"A decision support system for engineering design basedon
an enhanced fuzzy MCDM approach", Expert Systems with Applications,Vol. 37, pp 202213, 2010.
[9] Xiuli Geng, Xuening Chu, Zaifang Zhang "A new integrated design concept evaluation approach based on vague sets, "Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 37, pp. 66296638, 2010.
[10] Hambali Ariff, Mohd. Sapuan Salit, Napsiah Ismail& Y. Nukman " Use of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Selecting
The Best Design Concept", Journal Technology ,Vol.49 A Dis., pp. 118, 2008.
[11] Chiner M., "Planning of expert systems for materials selection", Mater Des. Vol. 9, pp.195203, 1988.
[12] Farag M.," Quantitative methods of materials selection", In: Kutz M, editor. Handbook of materials selection,2002.
[13] Van Kesteren IEH, Kandachar PV, Stappers PJ. "Activities in selecting materials by product designers", In: Proceedings of the
international conference on advanced design and manufacture, Harbin, China, 2006.
[14] Thakker A, Jarvis J, Buggy M, Sahed A., " A novel approach to materials selection strategy; case study: wave energy extraction
impulse turbine blade", Mater Des., Vol. 29, No.19, pp 7380, 2008.
[15] Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S., "Material selection using preferential ranking methods", Mater Des., Vol.35, No.3, pp. 8493,
2012.
[16] Edwards KL.," Materials influence on design: a decade of development", Mater Des., Vol.32, No.10, pp. 7380, 2011.
[17] Prashant Reddy G, Gupta N.," Material selection for microelectronic heat sinks: an application of the Ashby approach", Mater
Des., Vol.31, No.1, pp 137, 2010.
[18] Rashedi A, Sridhar I, Tseng KJ.," Multi-objective material selection for wind turbine blade and tower: Ashbys approach",
Mater Des , Vol.37, No.5, pp 2132, 2012.
[19] Shanian A, Savadogo O.," TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for material selection of metallic bipolar plates
for polymer electrolyte fuel cell", J Power Sources; Vol.159, No.10, pp.95104, 2006.
[20] Gupta N. " Material selection for thin-film solar cells using multiple attribute decision making approach" Mater Des.; Vol. 32,
No.16, pp. 6771, 2011.
[21] Dagdeviren M, Yavuz S, Klnc N.," Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment",
Expert Syst Appl; Vol.36, No.81, pp. 4351, 2009.
[22] Jee D-H, Kang K-J.," A method for optimal material selection aided with decision making theory",Mater,Vol.21, pp.199206,
Des 2000.
[23] Rao RV, Davim JP.," A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decisionmaking method", Int J AdvManuf Technol; Vol.35, No.7, pp.5160,2008.
[24] Milani AS, Shanian A, Madoliat R, NemesJA.,"The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making
methods: a case study in gear materialSelection", Struct Multidisc Optim, Vol.29,No.31, pp.28, 2005.
[25] Jahan A, Mustapha F, Ismail MY, Sapuan SM, Bahraminasab M. A.," Comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection",
Mater. Des.,Vol. 32 No.12, pp.1521, 2011.
[26] Jeya Girubha R, Vinodh S. ,"Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis for material selection of an
automotive component" Mater Des., Vol.3, No. 74, pp. 7886, 2012.
[27] Ali Jahan , K.L. Edwards, " VIKOR method for material selection problems with interval numbers and target-based criteria"
Materials and Design,Vol. 47, pp.759765, 2013.
[28] Rao RV. ,"A decision making methodology for material selection using an improved compromise ranking method", Mater
Des., Vol.29, No.19, pp. 4954, 2008.
[29] Shanian A, Savadogo O.,"A material selection model based on the concept of multiple attribute decision making", Mater. Des.,
Vol.27, No.3, pp.2937, 2006.
[30] Shanian A, Savadogo O. "A non-compensatory compromised solution for material selection of bipolar plates for polymer
electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) using ELECTRE IV" ElectrochimActa,Vol.51, No.53, pp.715,2006 .
[31] Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S. "Selection of materials using compromise ranking and outranking methods" Mater
Des., Vol. 30, No. 40, pp.4353, 2009.
[32] Chatterjee P, Athawale VM, Chakraborty S." Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of
mixed data methods", Mater Des. , Vol.32, No.8, pp.5160, 2011.
[33] Maity SR, Chatterjee P, Chakraborty S.," Cutting tool material selection using grey complex proportional assessment method",
Mater Des.,Vol.36, No.37, pp.28, 2012.
[34] Rao RV. "A material selection model using graph theory and matrix approach" Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol.431, No. 2, pp. 4855,
2006.
[35] Maniya K, Bhatt MG.,"A selection of material using a novel type decision making method: preference selection index method"
Mater.Des.,Vol.31, No.178, pp.59, 2010.
[36] Jahan A, Ismail MY, Mustapha F, Sapuan SM.," Material selection based on ordinal data" Mater Des., Vol.31, No.318, pp. 0
7, 2010.
[37] A. Jahan , M.Y. Ismail , S.M. Sapuan , F. Mustapha "Material screening and choosing methods A review", Materials and
Design, Vol. 31, pp. 696705, 2010.
[38] Sharma PK, Aggarwal A, Gupta R, Suryanarayan D. "Expert system for aid in material selection process", In:IEEE
international engineering management conference Delhi, India. IEEE, pp. 2731, 1993.
[39] Huang H, Liu G, Liu Z, Pan J. "Multi-objective decision-making of materials selection in green design" Jixie Gongcheng
Xuebao/Chin J Mech Eng, Vol. 42:pp. 131136, 2006.
[40] Jarupan L, Kamarthi SV, Gupta SM. ,"Application of combinatorial approach in packaging material selection In:Gupta SM,
editor. Proceedings of SPIE", the international society for optical engineering. Philadelphia, PA, pp. 207 223, 2004.[41] Shi P.
"Neural network approach to material selection for injection moldedParts" Harbin Gongye Daxue Xuebao/J Harbin InstTechnol:37,
2005 .
[42] Zha XF., "A web-based advisory system for process and material selection in concurrent product design for a manufacturing
environment", Int J AdvManuf Technol, Vol. 25, pp. 233243, 2005.
[43] Thurston DL, Carnahan JV. , "Fuzzy ratings and utility analysis in preliminary
design evaluation of multiple attributes" J Mech Des Trans ASME, Vol. 114: PP. 648658, 1992.
[44] Ruey-Chyn, Tsaur "Decision risk analysis for an interval TOPSIS method" Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 218,
pp. 42954304, 2011.
[45] Buckley, J. J., "Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems " New York: McGraw-Hill, Vol. 17, No (3), ISSN: 233247, 1985.
[46] Zadeh, L. A.," Fuzzy sets. Information and Control" New York: McGraw-Hill, Vol. 8, No (2), ISSN: 338-353, 1965.
[47] Mansour Momeni, Mohammed Reza Fathi, Mohammed Karimi Zarchi and Sirous Azizollohi , " Fuzzy TOPSIS based
approach to maintenance strategy selection: case study" Middle East Journal of Operational Research, vol. 3, pp 699-706, 2011.
[48] Ying-Ming, W., Celik P. and Ying L., A Linear Programming Method for Generating the Most Favorable Weights from a
Pair-Wise Comparison Matrix, Computers and Operations Research", Vol.35, No.12, pp.3918-3930, 2008.
[49] Bojan Srdjevic, Combining Different Prioritization Methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process Synthesis Al Sevier,
Computers and Operations Research, Vol.32, No.7, pp.1897-1919, 2005.
[50] Ali Jahan, Md Yusof Ismail, Faizal Mustapha, Salit Mohd Sapuan," Material selection based on ordinal data",
31,pp.31803187,2010.
Vol.
International Conference in Prospects of Engineering Solution and

Challenges of the Times, Faculty of engineering, Fayoum university ,
27-29 November 2013
Establish the Balanced Scorecard and Prioritizing

the Performance Indicators by Using GMMTOPSIS Approach in Faculty of Engineering
Mohammed F. Alya*, Hazem A. Attiab and Ayman M. Mohammed c
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514,

Egypt.
b
Dean of Faculty of Engineering, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt.
c
Researcher in master's degree
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mfahmy_aly@yahoo.com and mfa03@fayoum.edu.eg
Abstract
In todays world of global competition, providing quality service is a key for success, and many experts
concur that the most powerful competitive trend currently shaping marketing and business strategy is
service quality. Institutes of higher education are also focusing on ways to render high quality education
to their educators and have a better performance. Higher education institutes are facing new challenges in
order to improve the quality of education. There is a pressure for restructuring and reforming higher
education in order to provide quality education and bring up graduates who become fruitful members of
their societies. Therefore, these institutes are trying to recognize the dimensions of a quality education
and define strategies to reach their pre-defined standards and goals.
The first objective of this article is proposed a balanced scorecard as a performance evaluation model for
engineering educational systems. The second objective prioritizes performance indicators within
engineering education balanced scorecard using GMM- TOPSIS. This study will collect and arrange
suitable performance evaluation configurations and indices by literature reviews and interviews to
department heads in engineering educational systems.
1- Introduction and review

1-1Introduction
Quality in higher education is a complex and multifaceted concept and a single appropriate definition of
quality is lacking, Harvey and Green [1]. As a consequence, consensus concerning the best way to define
and measure service quality Clewes [2] does not as yet exist. Every stakeholder in higher education (e.g.,
students, government, professional bodies) has a particular view of quality dependent on their specific
needs. O'Neill and Palmer [3] define service quality in higher education as the difference between what a
student expects to receive and his/her perceptions of actual delivery. Guolla [4] shows that students'
perceived service quality is an antecedent to student satisfaction. Positive perceptions of service quality
can lead to student satisfaction and satisfied students may attract new students through word-of-mouth
communication and return themselves to the university to take further courses. Zeithaml et al. [5]
distinguish between three types of service expectations: 1) desired service, 2) adequate service, and 3)
predicted service. Customers have a desired level of service which they hope to receive comprising what
customers believe can be performed and what should be performed. Customers also have a minimum
level of acceptable service as they realize that service will not always reach the desired levels; this is the
adequate service level. Between these two service levels is a zone of tolerance that customers are willing
to accept. Finally, customers have a predicted level of service, which is the level of service they believe
the company will perform.
1-2 Balanced Scorecard in Public and Non-Profit Organizations

Non-profit organizations usually take their mission based on reducing their costs, improving quality and
doing their works more efficiently, hence the greatest difference between businesses and non-profit
organizations is in their missions Kettunen [6]. Therefore when using the BSC in the field of nonprofit
organizations and public sector, the financial perspective ought to have a inferior role. The original
sequence of the BSC perspectives is not fixed; it can be adjusted according to individual case studies or
industry culture characteristics (Chen et al. [7]. Kaplan and Norton [8], [9] stated that the general
architecture of the BSC can be modified in order to best fit the nature of the organization, especially if it
operates in the public or non-profit sectors. Kaplan and Norton [8] have indicated that the organizational
mission of governmental and non-profit organizations is not reflected only by financial measurement;
rather the mission of government or non-profit organization should be placed at top of the BSC in
measuring whether such an organization has been successful. The organizational mission is followed by
the customer, internal process, learning and growth, and financial perspectives because Kaplan [8]
recommended placing the customer/constituent perspective at the top of perspectives hierarchy for nonprofit organizations. Regarding the implementation of the BSC for non-profit organizations, the United
Way of Southeastern New England (UWSENE) was the first non-profit organization to introduce the
BSC according to Kaplan and Norton, [8]. According to Wilson et al. [10], the financial perspective was
changed to the shareholder perspective and the customer perspective remained at the same level in the
balanced scorecard established by the Canada National Department of British Columbia Buildings
Corporation (BCBC). In another case, the BSC was applied as a performance management tool for
FUNARBE by Gomes and Liddle[11]. FUNARBE is a 300-employee strong organization located on the
edge of the Federal University of Viosa Campus.
Nopadol [12], and panagiotis [13]discussed the limitations of balanced scorecard that focused in
assumption of cause-effect relationships across the four major perspectives is problematic and the design
techniques are poor in illustrating the dynamics of a system (absence of feedback loops).The present work
will take this draw back into consideration as will be shown later.
1-3 Balanced scorecard in higher education

Higher-education plays a vital role in countries economic growth and shaping the future of the nation.
Nowadays educational institutions are experiencing challenges such as rapid growth of information
technology, globalization, increased competition and resource constraints. The successful realization of
these institutions on the educational services market play a necessary role in attainment their defined
goals, therefore focus and hence the performance assessment of higher education institutions become
essential. So strategic planning and performance tracking has got great importance for such institutions.
Although some studies have addressed the application of the BSC in the field of education, but in general
there is a lack of academic research related to this issue [14]. Chang and Chow [15] stated that rather than
focusing on financial measures, higher education has historically focused on academic measures. Dilanthi
and Baldry [16] used BSC to measure the performance of the educational institutions. The study stresses
on the relationship between performance measurement and performance quality under the model of BSC.
According to Delker [17] in his paper developed BSC model for the California State University. Similarly
Cullen, Joyce, Hassall and Broadbent [18] developed the BSC model for the Mid Ranking UK University.
Karathanos and Karathanos [14] performed a study aimed at showing the performance indicators of the
firstthree winners of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award [7]. The study concentrated on the
need for alignment of performance measures with vision, mission and strategic goals. Chen, Yang and
Shiau (2006) have used the BSC to create a system for evaluating the performance of the Chin Nmin
Institute of Technology in Taiwan.
In another study conducted by Umashankar and Dutta [19], BSC was used to measure the efficiency of
the management at Indian universities. The study found that the BSC could enable these universities to
identify and correct significant deviations and design appropriate strategies. Nayeri, Mashhadi and
Mohajeri [20] developed the BSC model in order to assessthe strategic environment of higher education
in the field of business in Iran. Raghunadhan [21] assessed the institutes of higher education which is
funded by the government of India, and used the BCS to compare institutes surveyed. The results
indicated that the concepts of strategic management are applied in these institutes. Beard [22] argued that
the BSC is suitable for use in higher education, and he has shown many successful applications of the
BSC in this area. Also, Umayal and Suganthi [23] presented a model for measuring performance of an
educational institution based on BSC approach. Measurement criteria were also suggested to assess the
performance according to the four perspectives of the BSC. In addition, Yu, Hamid, Ijab and Soo [24]
discussed the appropriateness of adopting electronic BSC to measure the quality of performance for
academic staff in higher education. The research showed that the electronic BSC is appropriate and
effective for this purpose.A lot of researchers like Munteanu et al [25], Adcroft et al.[26], Mourad et
al.[27], Mazzarol [28], Durkin et al.[29] emphasized on the requirement of higher education
organizations for collecting data based on students expectations. Dhara Jha and Vijay [30] used BSC as a
tool to manage the education academics. Seth. A. and Oyugi L. A. [31] studied the relationship between
the balanced scorecard and organizational performance of higher learning in Kenya as a means of
improving organizational performance. Josua Tarigan and very recently Deborah Christine [32] studied
the relationship between non-financial performance and financial performance using balanced scorecard
in higher education in Indonesia universities .Mohammad H Yarmohammadian et. al. [33] developed An
Integrated strategic quality model and BSC applied on Iranian higher education system. Teresa et. al.
studied the validation of a Balanced Scorecard (BSC) model and a Strategic Map for the University by
studying the relationships of efficiency between its dimensions. This work determines factors of the
performance in this type of institution. These factors are: the participation of teaching staff in innovation
activities; the number of doctorate-level staff; the academic subjects and credits in the Virtual Campus;
and the scores in the surveys of student satisfaction. Amene and Farhad [34] discussed performance
evaluation in higher education institutes with the use of combinative model AHP and BSC.
1-4 Balanced scorecard in engineering faculty

Education system specially engineering education contributes a major role to develop the nation. In an
academic institution Teachers and Students are two main pillars and without these two an academic
organization can never be survived. Teachers are the most important assets of an educational organization
and good teachers provide the good quality education among the students. It means that teachers
performance evaluation has become one of the most important activities not only for the long run of an
organization but for the development of the society. So, many researchers evaluated the performance of
university, and some of them have measured the performance of the College of Engineering as follows:
Roy [35] applied Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to evaluate faculty performance in engineering education. Ramlal Porika and
Prashanthpataey [36] discussed various factors associated with educational institutions and industries
which help in bridging the gap between them i.e., meeting the industry requirements. The performance
indicators and their implications on learning in educational institutions, key performance areas and key
result areas have been illustrated for understanding the performance management in institutions.
1-5 Work Objectives

Although many higher education institutions are trying to do stakeholders expectations, there is still a
need to pay more attention to quality of teaching and educational programs. These again perspectives,
objectives and indicates at the requirement to reconsider at the ways institutions of higher learning are to
be managed. One of the most successful performance measurements which have been widely
implemented by various organizations during the previous years is Balanced Scorecard. Although these
indicators are inter-connected to reach to organizational vision and mission, still BSC fails to provide any
relationship between the importance of each of these perspectives, objectives and indicators. Therefore,
this paper tried to fill this gap by studying and prioritizing the perspectives, objectives, and performance
indicators of balanced scorecard model implemented in faculty of engineering by using Fuzzy(GMM)
TOPSIS model. This model provides a perfect framework to determine the importance of each of these
perspectives, objectives and indicators.
2- Balanced Scorecard in Faculty of Engineering

Balanced scorecard has been used to measure the performance of faculty of engineering. For this purpose,
educations criteria are chosen depending on SWOT analysis. The result of SWOT analysis is strategic
objectives. These strategic objectives classified related to BSC perspectives. The relationships between
strategic objectives (strategy map) have been drawn. Through such a strategy map, the cause-and-effect
linkage can be better described, and strategy can be more clearly defined to examine the validity of
examining strategy. A strategic map not only links with strategic targets, but also includes measurable
indicators of different perspectives. After determining the strategic objectives, the indicators which
measure performance faculty are chosen. The importance of these indicators are determined by using
Fuzzy(GMM) TOPSIS model Figure 1, shows the steps of this process of determining the importance of
perspectives, objectives and indicators where Figure 2, shows the strategy map of faculty of engineering
based on BSC approach.
Vision and
mission
SWOT analysis for

the faculty
Determine the strategic
objectives
Draw the strategic map
Select the appropriate indicators of the strategic
objectives of the faculty
Use the Fuzzy (GMM) TOPSIS model to determine the
importance of perspectives, objectives and indicators
Fig. 1: The steps of determining the importance of perspectives, objectives and indicators
Increase tuition
Financial
(FL)
Customer
(CT)
Internal
process (IP)
Learning and
growth (L&G)
Management
commitment
Increase
external grants
fees
Increase Budget
Increase contracts
with industry
Increase Students
'satisfaction
Improve
university image
Increase
academic stuff
Increase customer
satisfaction
Increase
teaching aids
Increase papers
research
Increase training courses

Increase attended
international conferences
Culture Development
Leadership
Increase
Empowerment
(MC)
Increase
environmental
research
Increase of practical
projects
Motivation
Organizational
structure.
Fig. 2: strategic map of engineering faculty

The BSC objectives help to achieve university strategic goals. Table 1 shows the objectives and
performance indicators which have been defined for the faculty of engineering of performance assessment
Table 1: The objectives and performance indicators for Faculty of Engineering.
BSC
Perspectives
Objectives
Indicator
A5

Annual revenue from tuition fees compared with the budget
allocated annually.
The value of contracts with industry annually pound compared
with the budget allocated annually.
Annual revenue from foreign donations with the budget
allocated annually.
A6
B1
B2
Universitys position in national and international rankings.
A1
A2
A3
Financial
(FL)
Customer
Development
the finance
Capacity
Customer
satisfaction
Customer
A4
(CT)
retention
Customer
acquisition
Reduce
customer
complaints
Quality
educational
service.
Internal
process (IP)
Contribute to
the
development
of integrated
community.
Raise the
efficiency of
faculty.
B3
B4
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12

Ratio of academic staff satisfaction of education level.
Ratio of things that need to be learned after graduation.
Time cycle for up-to-dating the computer and IT equipments
(teaching aids) of the faculty.
C13
Number of research for an introduction to the development

environment.
C14
C15
D1
D2
D3
D4
Learning and
growth
(LRG)
Work on
development
educational
process.
D5
D6
D7
Preparation
courses for
continuing
Education and
training.
D8

E5
Having organization structure
E6
Ratio of effectiveness of organization structure
E2
E3
Complete the
organizational
structure.
Ratio of faculty members who attended training sessions.
E4
E1
Management
commitment
(MC)
`
Ratio of practical projects, which was attended by members of

the faculty in the development of society and the development
environment.
Ratio of projects of environmental development which
students in master and PhD degree programs involved in.
Ratio of effectiveness of the organization communication
process.
Ratio of leadership emphasizing on time table to achieve the
project objectives.
Ratio of leadership ensuring the availability of resource.
Ratio of leadership conducting the review and take effective
actions.
D9
D10
Leadership
Ratio of projects that involved the overall development of the

environment.
Number of certification labs which served the environment.
Ratio of Academic staffs satisfaction grade.
Number of training courses, which was attended by members
of the faculty.
Number of international conferences, which was attended by
Ratio of international agreements for the exchange of
graduates.
Development
motivation
mechanics.
Development
culture
Development
empowerment
mechanics
E7
E8
E9
E10
Ratio of work as a team to achieve necessary competence
Measuring the behavior changes according to training
3- Proposed GMM-TOPSIS integrated approach

There are various models for prioritizing factors in research. This study proposed new integrated
approach model composed of Fuzzy(GMM) and TOPSIS methods consist of three basic stages: the first
stage data gathering to Structure the hierarchy stage two deals with GMM computation where stage three
in values determination of the final ranking.
3-1 The first stage: Structuring the hierarchy

This is the first stage; a problem is decomposed into a hierarchical structure that consists of an objective
(i.e., overall goal of the decision making), the general criteria which impact the goal directly, sub-criteria
(objectives), sub-sub-criteria (measures) etc.
3-2 The second stage: computing the weights

In this stage, to determine the criteria weights, a team of experts formed pair wise comparison matrices
for evaluating the criteria. Each expert of the team individual evaluation. Computing the geometric mean
of the values obtained from individual evaluations, a final pair wise comparison matrix on which there is
a consensus is found. The weights of the critical success factors are calculated based on this final
comparison matrix as shown in the next Table 2 and equations.
Table 2: The pair wise comparison of linguistic variables using fuzzy numbers
~
1
~
3
~
5
~
7
~
9
~~~~
2, 4, 6, 8

Fuzzy number
(L,M,U)
User define
= ( ,1, )
(L,M,U)
= ( ,3, )
(L,M,U)
= ( ,5, )
(L,M,U)
= ( ,7, )
(L,M,U)
= ( ,9, )
Intermediate values
(L,M,U)
= ( , , )
as follows:
a11 a1 j ain

A ai1 aij ain

an1 a nj ann
Here aij
(1)
w
a ji 1 and aij i .
wj
as follows:
w i ri
(r1 r2 rn )1 ,
(2)
ri (ai1
ai 2 ain )1/ n .
(3)
Where
After determining the weights for lower, median and upper comparison matrices, the weighting average
is computed to get the final weights. [35]
3-3 The third stage : determining the final ranking

In the last stage, calculated weights of the factors are approved by decision making team. Ranking firms
are determined by using TOPSIS method in the third stage. TOPSIS method is one of the well known
ranking methods for MCDM. TOPSIS is firstly proposedby Hwang and Yoon. This technique based on
the concept that rank alternatives, which has the shortest distance from the ideal (Best) solution and the
longest distance from the ideal (worst) solution.[36]
Steps of TOPSIS
Step 1: Construct normalized decision matrix. This step transforms various attribute dimensions into nondimensional attributes, which allows comparisons across criteria.
Normalize scores or data as follows:
rij = xij/ (a2 ij) for i = 1, , m; j = 1, , n
(4)
Step 2: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix. Assume we have a set of weights for each
criteria wj for j = 1,n.
Multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated weight. An element of the new
matrix is:
vij = wj rij
(5)

Ideal solution.
A* = { v1*, , vn *}, where
*
vj ={ max (vij) if j J ; min (vij) if j J' }
Negative ideal solution.
A' = { v1', ,vn ' }, where
(6)

(7)
Step 4: Calculate the separation measures for each alternative. The separation from the ideal alternative
is:
Si * = [
(vij vj*)2 ]
i = 1, , m
(8)

S'i = [ (vij vj' )2 ]
i = 1, , m
(9)
Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution Ci*

Ci*= S'i / (Si* +S'i ) ,
Ci* 1
(10)
4- Computing the importance of perspectives

Pair-wise comparison matrix which begins with comparing the relative importance of two selected items
as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Construct a Pair-wise Comparison Matrix
Goal
Financial (F)
Customer C
Internal process(IP)
Learning and growth(L&G)
Management commitment (MC)
F
[1,1,1]
[2,3,4]
[4,5,6]
[4,5,6]
[8,9,9]
C
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1,1,1]
[1,1,1]
[1,2,3]
[3,4,5]
IP
[1/6,1/5,1/4]
[1,1,1]
[1,1,1]
[6,7,8]
[2,3,4]
L& G
[1/6,1/5,1/4]
[1/3,1/2,1]
[1/8.1/7,1/6]
[1,1,1]
[1,2,3]
MC
[1/9,1/9,1/8]
[1/5,1/4,1/3]
[1/4,1/3,1/2]
[1/3,1/2,1]
[1,1,1]
Step 2: Separations
Three matrices (Lower, Medium, and Upper) are separated from the original matrix. The priority is
calculated for each matrix separately.
Step 3: Synthesizing the Pair wise Comparison

Normalized vector is computed according to eq. (3), where aij the element with i raw and j column. To
calculate the vectors of priorities, sum each element in the normalizing column. Then, divide the elements
of each column by the sum of the column as shown in eq. (2). The result is priority vector as shown in
table 4. This process is done on all three matrices (Lower, Medium, and Upper).
Table 4: Synthesizing the Pair wise Comparison
Goal
F
C
IP
L&G
MC
F
1
2
4
4
8
C
1/4
1
1
1
3
IP
1/6
1
1
6
2
sum
L& G
1/6
1/3
1/8
1
1
MC
1/9
1/5
1/4
1/3
1
0.2385
0.6683
0.6597
1.5156
2.1689
5.2512
Priority
0.0454
0.1272
0.12563
0.2886
0.41303
Step 4: Calculate the final weights:

After calculating priority victor for the three matrices (Lower, Medium, and Upper) then calculate the
average of each element in row of priority victor in three matrices as shown in table 5.
Table 5: The weights optained from Fuzzy (GMM) of main criteria:
Weights
w1
w2
w3
w4
w5
1
0.045
0.127
0.126
0.289
0.419
2
0.039
0.120
0.110
0.298
.4302
3
0.038
0.124
0.102
0.318
0.414
Average weights
.0414
0.124
0.112
0.302
0.4194
Step 6: Construct normalized decision matrix to rank the perspectives
This step transforms various attribute dimensions into non-dimensional attributes, by using eq. (4). To
calculate the normalizing decision matrix, square each element of the matrix of alternatives. Then, sum of
the squares of each element square in each column. After that, calculate the root for the sum in each
column. Divide the elements in alternatives matrix of each column by the root in each column and the
resulted normalized matrix stated in table 6.
Table 6: Normalized decision matrix.
Goal
F
C
IP
L&G
MC
F
0.100
0.199
0.398
0.398
0.796
C
0.072
0.288
0.288
0.288
0.864
IP
0.026
0.154
0.154
0.926
0.309
L& G
0.114
0.227
0.085
0.681
0.681
MC
0.100
0.181
0.226
0.301
0.903
Step 7: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix by using eq. (5). In this step multiply each
column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated average weight in table 5 as shown in table 7.
Table 7: The weighted normalized decision matrix
Goal
F
C
IP
L&G
MC
F
0.004
0.008
0.016
0.016
0.033
C
0.009
0.036
0.036
0.036
0.107
IP
0.003
0.017
0.017
0.104
0.035
L& G
0.034
0.069
0.026
0.206
0.206
MC
0.042
0.076
0.095
0.126
0.378

Ideal solution is calculated by using the eq. (6). Negative ideal solution is calculated by using the eq. (7).
The ideal and negative ideal solution is presented in table 8.
Table 8: Ideal and negative ideal solutions
v+
v-
0.033
0.004
0.107
0.009
0.104
0.003
0.206
0.026
0.378
0.042

The separation from the ideal alternative is calculated by eq. (8). In this stage, each element in Colum in
the weighted normalized decision matrix is subtracted from each element in column of ideal solution as
show in table 9. After that, sum each element in the row of separate on matrix. Calculate the root of the
sum for each element in matrix to find the final separation. In the same way can calculate the separation
from the negative ideal alternative by eq. (9) as show in table 10.
Table 9: The separation from the ideal alternative
Goal
F
C
IP
L&G
MC
F
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
C
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.000
IP
0.010
0.007
0.007
0.000
0.005
L& G
0.029
0.019
0.032
0.000
0.000
MC
0.113
0.092
0.081
0.064
0.000
Table 10: The separation from the negative ideal alternative.

Goal
F
C
IP
L&G
MC
F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
C
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.010
IP
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.001
L& G
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.032
0.032
MC
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.007
0.113
Step 10: The relative closeness to the ideal solution is calculated by using the eq.(10). In this step each
element in row of separation from the negative ideal alternative divides by the sum of separation ideal and
negative ideal alternative. Then, the final ranking is presented in table11.
Table 11: Result of ranking
Perspective
Rank
F
5
C
3
IP
4
L& G
2
MC
1
This proces is repeated for all stratgic objectives and all indecators. The result of the rank for all levels
(perspectives, objectives, and performance indicators) is shown in figure 3.
5-Results
The results of this research show that "Management" is the most important perspective of educational
balanced scorecard in faculty of engineering in the first level. It is noted from table 11 that the most
important perspective after management is learning and growth and the least important is finance. When
going to the second level the result show that " Motivation development"," education development",
"customer satisfaction", "Quality education service" and "Financial development" are considered as the
most important objectives of educational balanced scorecard in faculty of engineering. According to the
result of third level the "Budget allocated annually", "Number of laps found to factor required for each
department."," Number of projects that involved the overall development of the environment", " Number
of international conferences, which was attended by members of the faculty", " Number of international
agreements for the exchange of graduates", " Number of practical projects, which was attended by
members of the faculty in the development of society and the development environment", and " number
of person motivated bar moth" are considered as most important indicators of educational balanced
scorecard in faculty of engineering.

B4 (.085)
Complains Reduction
(CR) (.085)/(4)
B3 (.129)
Customer Acquisition
(CA) (.129)/(2)
B2 (.224)
Reliability Retention (RR)

(.224)/(3)
B1 (.559)
Customer Satisfaction
(CS) (.559)/(1)
Customer (CT)
(.124)/ (3)
D8 (.119)/(2)
D9 (.559)/(1)
D10 (.264)/(4)
C10 (.044)/(10)
C11 (.069)/(5)
C12 (.105)/(3)
D6 (.257)/(2)
D5 (.743)/(1)
D4 (.16)/(4)
D3 (.45)/(1)
D2 (.27)/(2)
D1 (.1)/(3)
Faculty Efficiency
(FE) (.173)/(3)
D7 (.0563)/(3)
Educational Development
(ED) (.301)/(1)
Continuing Education (CE)

(.524)/(2)
C15 (.319)/(2)
C14 (.567)/(1)
C13 (.113)/(3)
Community Development
(CD) (.25)/(2)
Learning and growth

(L&G) (.303)(2)
C9 (.039)/(11)
C8 (.085)/(4)
C7 (.029)/(12)
C6 (.136)/(1)
C5 (.095)/(9)
C4 (.074)/(7)
C3 (.145)/(2)
C2 (.095)/(6)
C1 (.083)/(8)
Education Quality
(EQ) (.75)/(1)
Internal process
(IP) (.112)/ (4)
Fig.3: The weights / ranking of the perspectives, objectives, and performance indicators
A6 (.064)/(5)
A5 (.095)/(6)
A4 (.068)/(4)
A3 (.284)/(2)
A2 (.086)/(3)
A1 (.401)/ (1)
Financial Development
(DF) (.41)/(1)
Financial (FL)
(.041)/ (5)
Mission
Vision
E8 (.249)/(2)
E7 (.741)/(1)
Motivation Developing
(MD)(.321)/(1)
E6 (.5)
E5 (.5)
Organization Structure
(OS) (.129)/(5)
E9 (.193)
Culture Developing
(CD)(.152)/(4)
E4 (.25)
E3 (.25)
E2 (.25)
E1 (.25)
E10 (.129)
Empowerment Developing
(ED) (.193)/(3)
Leadership (L)
(.204)/(2)
Commitments /Management
(MC) (.419) /(1)
6- Conclusion
The effectiveness of the higher education sector can be defined generally by, the degree to which the
goals and objectives specified in higher education policies, plans, projects and programs are achieved to
the satisfaction of the stakeholders. The ultimate objective of improving higher education effectiveness is
the overall improvement in specifically the nations human capital and generally, in national development
while making the most efficient use of resources. This study used the BSC as a strategic tool to evaluation
the faculty of engineering performance. Fuzzy (GMM) TOPSIS model is used to prioritize levels of all
BSC perspectives. The following conclusions could be drawing:
1- The weights calculated by Fuzzy (GMM) TOPSIS prioritize the importance of the BSC
evaluation criteria for faculty of engineering performance with respect to the relative weights of
the criteria, it not only revels the ranking order of the faculty performance but it also pinpoints
the gaps to better achieve faculty goal by using the MCDM analytical methods.
2- The proposed which integrate the BSC with MCDM method shows to be a feasible and effective
assessment model for faculty of engineering performance evaluation and it could be extended to
other faculties as well or digging deeply to assesses faculty department also.
3- The result from Fuzzy (GMM)-TOPSIS model found out that management perspective has the
first priority which means that it is the most important component of the five balanced scorecard
perspectives the faculty performance.
4- The most significant advantage of the use of the balanced scorecard is that it provide a wider
development of metrics that are closely connected to the strategic goals of institution (here
faculty of engineering).
5- Organizing an appropriate set of metrics through an academic scorecard provides a useful way to
conceptualize and display the overall education and financial performance of certain units with
the organization.
References
[1] Harvey L. and Green D., Defining quality, Assess Eval High Educ, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 934, 1993.
[2] Clewes, A student-centred conceptual model of service quality in higher education, Qual High Educ, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 6985,
2003.
[3] O'Neill,M.A.,Pamer, A., ImportancePerformance Analysis: A Useful Tool for Directing Continuous Quality Improvement in
Higher Education, Qual. Assur. Educ., Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 39-52, 2004.
[4] Guolla, M., Assessing the Teaching Quality to Student Satisfaction Relationship: Applied Customer Satisfaction Research in
the Classroom, J. Mark. Theory Pract., Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 87-97, 1999.
[5] Zeithaml, V. A, Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A., The Nature and Determinants of Customer Expectations of Services, J. Acad.
Mark. Sci., Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1-12, 1993.
[6] Kettunen, J.," Strategies for the cooperation of educational institutions and companies in mechanical engineering", International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 20, No.1, pp.19-28,2006.
[7] Chen, S. H., Yang, C. C., & Shiau, J. Y.," The application of balanced scorecard in the performance evaluation of higher
education", The TQM Magazine, Vol.18, No. 2, 2006.
[8] Kaplan Robert S. & Norton David P., The Strategy Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the
New Business Environment, Boston: Harvard Business school press 2001.
[9] Kaplan Robert S. & Norton David P.,"Strategy Maps", Harvard Business School Publishing Corp., Boston, MA. 2004.
[10] Wilson, C., Hagarty, D., Gauthier, J., Result Using the Balanced Scorecard in the Public Sector, Journal of Corporate Real
Estate, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 53-63, 2003.
[11] Ricardo Correa Gomes, and Joyce Liddle,"The Balanced Scorecard as a Performance Management Tool for Third Sector
Organizations: the Case of the Arthur Bernardes Foundation, Brazil", Vol. 6, No. 4, ISSN354-366 - 2009.
[12] Nopadol R.,"Why the Balanced Scorecard Fails in SMEs: A case Study", International Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 6, No.11, 2011.
[13] Panagiotis C., Michael G., George V.," A Proactive Balanced Scorecard ", International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 31, pp. 460-468,2011.
[14] Karathanos, D., & Karathanos, P.," Applying the balanced scorecard to education",Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 80,
No. 4, ISSN222-230, 2005.
[15]Chang, O.H. and Chow, C.W., The balanced scorecard: a potential tool for supporting change and continuous improvement in
accounting education, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 395-412, 1999.
[16] Amaratunga, D., and Baldry, D.," Assessment of facilities management performance in higher education properties Facilities",
Vol.18, No. 7/8, pp. 293-301, 2000.
[17] Delker, S. G. B.," Balanced scorecard: An instrument of change for facilities services", A Project Presented to the Faculty of
California State University, San Bernardino, 2003.
[18] Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., & Broadbent, M.," Quality in higher education: From monitoring to management", Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol.11 No.1, pp. 5-14, 2003.
[19]Umashankar, V., & Dutta, K.," Balanced scorecards in managing higher education institutions", An Indian perspective.
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol.21, No.1,pp.54-67, 2007.
[20] Nayeri, M. D., Mashhadi, M. M., & Mohajeri, K. ," Universities strategic evaluation using balanced scorecard", International
Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.2, No.4,pp.231-236, 2007.
[21] Raghunadhan, T. " Strategy: A pedagogy for efficient, accountable and socially responsive higher education", Global Business
and Management Research: An International Journal, Vol.1, No.1, pp.36-49, 2009.
[22] Beard, D. F.,"Successful applications of the balanced scorecard in higher education",Journal of Education for Business, Vol.84,
No.5,pp.275-282, 2009.
[23] Umayal, K. P. L., & Suganthi, L.," A strategic framework for managing higher educational institutions", Advances in
Management, Vol.3, No.10, pp.15-21,2010.
[24] Yu, M. L., Hamid, S., Ijab, M. T., & Pei, S. H. ," The e-balanced scorecard (e-BSC) for measuring academic staff performance
excellence", The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, Vol.57, No.6, pp. 813-828, 2009.
[25] Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Boblca, C., & Anton, O. "An analysis of customer satisfaction in a higher education context",
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23, No.2, pp. 124 140, 2010.
[26] Adcroft, A., Teckman, J., & Willis, R., "Is higher education in the UK becoming more competitive?", International Journal of
Public Sector Management, Vol. 23, No.6, pp.578 588, 2010.
[27] Mourad, M., Ennew, C., & Kortam, W., "Brand equity in higher education", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol.29, No. 4,
pp.403 420, 2012.
[28] Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G.,"Revisiting the Global Market for Higher Education", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 24, No.5, pp.153 161, 2012.
[29] Durkin, M., McKenna, S., &Cummins, D.,"Emotional connections in higher education marketing", International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol.26 No.2, pp. 153 161, 2012.
[30] Dhara Jha, and Vijay Kumar Gupta,"Balanced Scorecard: AStrategic Management and Control Tool: Does it Only Deal with
Strategy?, A Perspective from Management Students", International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management
Research, Vol.2, No. 1,pp. 2277- 3622, 2013.
[31] Seth A. and Oyugi L. A,"Influence of Balanced scorecard on Organizational Performance in Institutionsofhigher Learningin
Kenya., A Case Studyof University of Nairobi", International Journal of Education and Research,Vol.1, No.8,2013.
[32] Josua Tarigan and Deborah Christine Widjaj," The Relationship between Non-Financial Performance and Financial
Performance Using Balanced Scorecard Framework: A Research in Education Context", Journal of Economics, Business and
Management, Vol. 2, No.1, 2014.
[33] Mohammad H Yarmohammadian, Maryam Fooladvand, Somayeh Shahtalebi, Ahmad Ali Foroughi Abari, and Badri
Shahtalebi," An Integrated Strategic Quality Model (ISQM) for Non-governmental Universities: Integration between Strategic
Planning and BSC applied Iranian higher education system", Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Researchin Businesscopy
right, Vol.4, No.12, 2013.
[34] Teresa Garca Valderrama, Vanesa Rodrguez Cornejo, Daniel Revuelta Bordoy," Balanced Scorecard and Efficiency: Design
and Empirical Validation of a Strategic Map in the University by Means of DEA", American Journal of Operations Research, Vol.3,
ISSN 30-52, 2013.
[35] Amene Kiarazm, and Farhad Koohkan,"Performance Evaluation in Higher Education Institutes with the Use of Combinative
Model AHP and BSC", Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, Vol.3, No.4, 2013.
[36] Dr. B.C Roy,"Analytic Hierarchy Process & TOPSIS Method to Evaluate Faculty Performance in Engineering Education",
Dipendra Nath Ghosh et al Uniascit, Vol. 1 No.2, pp. 63-70, 2011.
[37] Ramlal Porika and Prashanthpataley,"Performance Appraisal of Faculty in Various Engineering Colleges Using A Conceptual
Model of Performance Appraisal System",Vol.1, No.1, pp.11-23, 2012.
[38]Buckley, J. J., "Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems " New York: McGraw-Hill, Vol. 17, No (3), ISSN: 233247, 1985.
[39] C. L. Hwang, K. Yoon," Multiple attribute decision making. Springer- verlag, Berlin" New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.

. .
:
.

.
.
.

. .
.
.

-:
, .

" " .

.

.
.
Fuzzy (GMM)- TOPSIS .
.
.

. .

. " "
Fuzzy (GMM)- TOPSIS .
.
)( .

. - TOPSIS
) Fuzzy(GMM .

.
.

) (.

Performance

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Performance

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT

TECHNIQUE FOR ORGANIZATIONS

Ayman Mostafa Mohamed Abd AL-khalek

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, FAYOUM UNIVESITY

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Under the Supervision of

Dr. Mohammed Fahmy Aly

Assistant professor, Industrial

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, FAYOUM UNIVESITY

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Prof. Dr. Attia Hussein Gomaa, Member

Prof. Dr. Mostafa Abdeen , Member

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, FAYOUM UNIVESITY

LIST OF TABLES... Viii

LIST OF SYMBOLS........... Xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PROPLEM STATEMENT

1.2 Literature Survey...

1.2.1 Balanced Scorecard Background....

1.2.2 Balanced Scorecard Application....

1.2.2.1Profit Organizations Industrial Sectors.....

1.2.2.2 Public and Non-Profit Organizations.......

1.2.3 Integration of Prioritization Technique Process and Balanced Scorecard.

1.2.4 Developing the Balanced Scorecard ......

1.2.5 Survey Summary.....

1.3 Statement of The Problem.........

1.4 Research Motivation..

1.5 Research Objectives...............

1.6 Thesis Structure.

CHAPTER 2: PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT USING BALANCED

2.2 Balanced Scorecard........

2.2.1 Performance Measurement.............

2.2.2 The Original BSC...........

2.2.4 The Benefits of BSC...

2.2.5 Potential Limitations of the BSC Concept..................

2.3 The Components of BSC...

2.3.1 The Vision Statements........

2.3.2 The Mission Statements......

2.3.3 Objectives and Measures

2.3.4 Strategic Perspectives.....

2.3.5 Strategy Maps.

2.4 Performance Drivers..

2.5 Measures and Key Performance Indicators...

CHAPTER 3: SELECTING BALANCED SCORECARD WEIGHTING

3.2 Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Overview..

3.3 Classification of MCDM Methods....

3.4 MADM Methods...

3.4.1 The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)..

3.4.2 The Entropy Method..

3.4.3 The Fuzzy Geometric Mean Method (GMM)....

3.4.4 The Simple Additive Weighting Method (SAW)...................

3.4.5 The VIKOR Method...

3.4.6 The TOPSIS Method..

3.5 Analysis of MCDM Methods for Potentials of Design quality

CHAPTER 4: PROPOSED AND VERIFIED THE PRIORITIZATION

4.2 Combination Methods...

4.2.1 Proposed GMM-TOPSIS Integrated Approach

4.3 Evaluation Criteria

4.4 Case 1 Selecting Reservoir Storage.........

4.5 Case 2 Compares between Different Prioritization Methods...........................

4.6 Real Life Application

4.6.1 Case 1 Selecting Wheelchair Design ........

4.6.2 Case 2 Selecting Material for Design of a Flywheel ................

CHAPTER 5: IMPROVEMENT BALANCED SCORECARD

5.2 BSC Development.....