A new method for strategic decision-making in higher education

Using the appropriate methodology for strategic decision-making in higher education is crucial to make effective decisions. In this paper, the analytic network process (ANP), one of the most suitable decision-making methods in terms of higher education issues, is presented and evaluated from the position of the user. After recognising some characteristics of the ANP that can be improved, the main objective of this research was to develop a new method based on the characteristics of the ANP and social network analysis (SNA). The research methodology used in this paper is the design science research process (DSRP), which is often used to design new artefacts, such as models, methods and methodologies. The main phases of this approach include problem identification, objectives of a solution, design and development, demonstration of the artefact, evaluation and dissemination. By using the DSRP, a new decision-making method is designed and proposed. The new method has two components that are based on the ANP and SNA. The first component is related to determining the importance of criteria with respect to the goal of decision-making. The second component is related to modelling influences/dependencies between criteria, and identifying criteria that strongly influence others, as well as criteria that others depend on. A measure that describes how strong a particular criterion is in terms of influences/dependencies is based on the centrality degree, one of the most fundamental centrality measures. In this paper, the new method, which was evaluated on several cases, is demonstrated with example of evaluating scientists, and a comparison of the new method’s results and the ANP method’s results is presented.

[1]  Peter Maassen,et al.  Strategic decision making in higher education , 1990 .

[2]  Blaženka Divjak,et al.  Challenges of Strategic Decision-Making within Higher Education and Evaluation of the Strategic Decisions , 2016 .

[3]  Rohit Gupta,et al.  Interpretive Structural Modeling of Functional Objectives (Criteria's) of Assembly Line Balancing Problem , 2013 .

[4]  S. Chatterjee,et al.  Design Science Research in Information Systems , 2010 .

[5]  Ratapol Wudhikarn,et al.  An efficient resource allocation in strategic management using a novel hybrid method , 2016 .

[6]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Problem Structuring and Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2010, Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis.

[7]  Nina Begicevic,et al.  Structuring e-learning multi-criteria decision making problems , 2017, 2017 40th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO).

[8]  Nikola Kadoić,et al.  Decision making with the analytic network process , 2017 .

[9]  Jerzy Michnik,et al.  Weighted Influence Non-linear Gauge System (WINGS) - An analysis method for the systems of interrelated components , 2013, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Ravi Shankar,et al.  Modeling the barriers of service adoption in rural Indian telecom using integrated ISM-ANP , 2016 .

[11]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's analytic hierarchy process , 1987 .

[12]  Shamsuddin Ahmed,et al.  Expanded DEMATEL for Determining Cause and Effect Group in Bidirectional Relations , 2014, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[13]  Graham K. Rand,et al.  Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences , 1983 .

[14]  Blaženka Divjak,et al.  Strategic Decision Making Cycle in Higher Education: Case Study of E-Learning. , 2015 .

[15]  Kadija Perreault.  Book reviewResearch Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods ApproachesResearch Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, John W. Creswell, third ed., Sage Publications (2009), 260pp., Price: £ 25.59, ISBN: 9781412965576 , 2011 .

[16]  Miguel Ortega-Mier,et al.  Application of the DEMATEL Method to Identify Relations among Barriers between Green Products and Consumers , 2014 .

[17]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making with dependence and feedback : the analytic network process : the organization and prioritization of complexity , 1996 .

[18]  John Skvoretz,et al.  Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths , 2010, Soc. Networks.

[19]  Nikola Kadoić,et al.  E-learning decision making: methods and methodologies , 2016 .

[20]  Nikhil Dev,et al.  Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) approach: An Overview , 2013 .

[21]  A. Awasthi,et al.  AHP-Based Approach for Location Planning of Pedestrian Zones: Application in Montreal, Canada , 2013 .

[22]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  DECISION MAKING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS , 2008 .

[23]  Nikola Kadoić,et al.  Effective strategic decision making on open and distance education issues , 2017 .

[24]  Shi Yin,et al.  Application of DEMATEL, ISM, and ANP for key success factor (KSF) complexity analysis in R&D alliance , 2012 .

[25]  Tuure Tuunanen,et al.  Design Science Research Process: A Model for Producing and Presenting Information Systems Research , 2020, ArXiv.

[26]  Nina Begicevic,et al.  Prioritization of e-learning forms: a multicriteria methodology , 2007, Central Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[27]  K. Perreault,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2011 .

[28]  S. Deshmukh,et al.  Vendor Selection Using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) , 1994 .

[29]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Research in Information Systems , 2010 .

[30]  S. Snelgrove,et al.  Medication Monitoring for People with Dementia in Care Homes: The Feasibility and Clinical Impact of Nurse-Led Monitoring , 2014, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[31]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[32]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks , 2013 .