Performance Evaluation of Indian Technical Institutions Using PROMETHEE-GAIA Approach

It has now become an important issue to evaluate the performance of technical institu- tions to develop better research and enrich the existing teaching processes. The results of such per- formance appraisal would serve as a reference point for decisions to choose a particular institution, hire manpower, and provide financial support for the betterment of students and underperforming institutions. The performance of institutions responsible for promotion of technical education in a vast country, like India also needs to be assessed for its journey to share a major role in global economy. In this paper, an integrated approach combining PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation) and GAIA (Geometrical Analysis for Interac- tive Aid) methods is applied for evaluating the performance of 20 National Institutes of Technol- ogy (NITs) in India with respect to nine pivotal criteria. It is observed that NIT, Tiruchirappalli and NIT, Warangal are the two best performers based on the last five years data. On the other hand, NIT, Patna takes the last position in the ranking list of 20 NITs suggesting allocation of more resources for its efficient management and subsequent development. Placement of the graduated students from those NITs is found to be the most important criterion.

[1]  Karel Skokan.  Technological and Economic Development of Economy , 2011 .

[2]  C. Kao,et al.  Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study , 2008 .

[3]  N. Avkiran.  INVESTIGATING TECHNICAL AND SCALE EFFICIENCIES OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES THROUGH DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS , 2001 .

[4]  Guanmin Li,et al.  Output Efficiency Evaluation of University Human Resource Based on DEA , 2011 .

[5]  I-Shuo Chen,et al.  Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by a hybrid MCDM model , 2012 .

[6]  Abel Moreno,et al.  Assessing academic department efficiency at a public university , 2002 .

[7]  Andrew C. Worthington,et al.  Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003 , 2008 .

[8]  P. Vincke,et al.  Note-A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making , 1985 .

[9]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS: THE PROMETHEE METHOD , 1986 .

[10]  Günter Fandel,et al.  On the performance of universities in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany: Government's redistribution of funds judged using DEA efficiency measures , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[11]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[12]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods , 2014 .

[13]  Jyrki Wallenius,et al.  Value efficiency analysis of academic research , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  Alessio Ishizaka,et al.  A Web-based decision support system with ELECTRE III for a personalised ranking of British universities , 2010, Decis. Support Syst..

[15]  Manik Chandra Das,et al.  A framework to measure relative performance of Indian technical institutions using integrated fuzzy AHP and COPRAS methodology , 2012 .

[16]  Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani,et al.  Performance evaluation of private universities based on balanced scorecard: empirical study based on Iran , 2013 .

[17]  Chuen Tse Kuah,et al.  Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis , 2011, WCIT.

[18]  Bertrand Mareschal,et al.  The PROMCALC & GAIA decision support system for multicriteria decision aid , 1994, Decis. Support Syst..

[19]  Reza Baradaran Kazemzadeh,et al.  PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Antreas D. Athanassopoulos,et al.  Assessing the Comparative Efficiency of Higher Education Institutions in the UK by the Means of Data Envelopment Analysis , 1997 .

[21]  Valentinas Podvezko,et al.  DEPENDENCE OF MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION RESULT ON CHOICE OF PREFERENCE FUNCTIONS AND THEIR PARAMETERS , 2010 .

[22]  Gerhard Reichmann,et al.  University library benchmarking: An international comparison using DEA , 2006 .

[23]  Ana Lúcia Miranda Lopes,et al.  Data envelopment analysis - DEA and fuzzy sets to assess the performance of academic departments: a case study at Federal University of Santa Catarina - UFSC , 2002 .

[24]  I-Shuo Chen,et al.  Using a novel conjunctive MCDM approach based on DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP, and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for Taiwanese higher education , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[25]  M. Abbott,et al.  The efficiency of Australian universities: a data envelopment analysis , 2003 .

[26]  Jill Johnes,et al.  Research Funding and Performance in U.K. University Departments of Economics: A Frontier Analysis. , 1995 .

[27]  Debasish Datta,et al.  The Relative Efficiencies of Canadian Universities: A DEA Perspective , 1998 .

[28]  Shyh-Hwang Lee,et al.  Using fuzzy AHP to develop intellectual capital evaluation model for assessing their performance contribution in a university , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[29]  Competing in a Globalising World: International Ranking of South African Universities , 2010 .

[30]  Shiv Prasad Yadav,et al.  Relative performance of academic departments using DEA with sensitivity analysis. , 2009, Evaluation and program planning.

[31]  Emmanuel Thanassoulis,et al.  Evaluating cost efficiency in central administrative services in UK universities , 2006 .

[32]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[33]  Salah R. Agha,et al.  Assessment of academic departments efficiency using data envelopment analysis , 2011 .

[34]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  A field-standardized application of DEA to national-scale research assessment of universities , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[35]  Jill Johnes.  Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education: An application of data envelopment analysis to economics graduates from UK Universities 1993 , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[36]  Jill Johnes,et al.  Performance assessment in higher education in Britain , 1996 .

[37]  K. Field,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of British universities: a multi‐period data envelopment analysis , 2004 .

[38]  E. Zavadskas,et al.  Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview , 2011 .