Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to improve human performance: An application of multiple criteria decision making problem

In the global economy, the modern commercial and industrial organization needs to develop better methods of assessing the performance of the human resource than simply using performance measures such as efficiency or effectiveness. As organizations seek more aggressive ways to cut costs and to increase global competitiveness, the importance of establishing and sustaining high levels of employee performance increases. The main purpose of this paper is to solve the human performance improvement problem by employing Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. Decision makers (DMs) often deal with problems that involve multiple criteria. At given moments in time, companies will display characteristics that make certain factors; key factors in their competences. In this paper, we present a model, which illustrates the relations and importance between human performance improvement and the style of management. In using the AHP to model this problem, we developed a hierarchic structure to represent the problem of human performance management and made pairwise comparisons. In this paper, the AHP is suggested as a tool for implementing a multiple criteria performance improvement scheme. The AHP was used for the purpose of structuring and clarifying the relations and importance between human performance improvement and the style of management. The study found that in terms of company culture, participation, human capability, and attitudes the best management style in improving human performance is management by values.

[1]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[2]  H. Ta,et al.  A study of bank selection decisions in Singapore using the Analytical Hierarchy Process , 2000 .

[3]  S. Wood,et al.  CAN WE SPEAK OF A HIGH COMMITMENT MANAGEMENT ON THE SHOP FLOOR , 1995 .

[4]  Andrea Rangone,et al.  An analytical hierarchy process framework for comparing the overall performance of manufacturing departments , 1996 .

[5]  Robert W. Keidel Rethinking organizational design , 1994 .

[6]  C. Shalley,et al.  Effects of Goal Difficulty, Goal-Setting Method, and Expected External Evaluation on Intrinsic Motivation , 1987 .

[7]  Della Ruppert Management and Organizational Development , 1973 .

[8]  Stephen J. Carroll,et al.  Management by Objectives , 1973 .

[9]  Patrick T. Harker,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1989 .

[10]  P. Drucker Managing in a Time of Great Change , 1995 .

[11]  Adrian John Wilkinson,et al.  Managing Quality and Human Resources : A guide to Continuous Improvement , 1997 .

[12]  John L. Cotton,et al.  Employee Involvement: Methods for Improving Performance and Work Attitudes , 1993 .

[13]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications - A State-of-the-Art Survey , 1981, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.

[14]  George K. Y. Tseo,et al.  Employee Empowerment: Solution to a Burgeoning Crisis? , 1995 .

[15]  H. Vos Trade and Industry , 1946 .

[16]  Roger G. Schroeder,et al.  The Impact of Quality Management Practices on Performance and Competitive Advantage , 1995 .

[17]  E. Schein Organizational Culture and Leadership , 1991 .

[18]  Randy K. Chiu,et al.  Employee involvement in a total quality management programme: problems in Chinese firms in Hong Kong , 1999 .

[19]  Jeffrey B. Arthur,et al.  Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover , 1994 .

[20]  Jeff Hyman,et al.  Managing Employee Involvement and Participation , 1995 .

[21]  Hal W. Hendrick Perceptual accuracy of self and others and leadership status as functions of cognitive complexity. , 1990 .

[22]  Hal W. Hendrick,et al.  Differences in group problem-solving behavior and effectiveness as a function of abstractness. , 1979 .

[23]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and environment , 1967 .