University Innovation Ability Evaluzation Based on AHP-Topsis Method

Abstract:

This paper aims to develop a framework that evaluates the university innovation ability. It has divided the whole framework into three stages. The first stage is to construct index system to the university innovation ability. The second stage is Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) based innovation ability evaluation. The third stage is Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). The proposed framework can assist the university presidents to comprehend the present strengths and weaknesses of their university. They can identify good practices from others and can benchmark them for improving their innovation ability. This framework also facilitates the decision makers to better understand the complex relationships of the relevant innovation ability factors in decision-making.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volumes 556-562)
• Pages: 6653-6659
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.556-562.6653
• Online since: May 2014
• Authors: Jing Hua Song, Shuang Feng, Yan An Wang*
• Keywords: AHP, Index System, Innovation Ability, TOPSIS

References

[1] T.L. Saaty, A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 59–62. (1977).

[2] T.L. Saaty, Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operations Research, 74(3), 426–447. (1994).

DOI: 10.1016/0377-2217(94)90222-4

[3] T.L. Saaty: Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the AHP (2nd ed. ). (Pittsburgh: RWS Publications 2000).

[4] R.F. Dyer and E.H. Forman, Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Support Systems, 8(2), 99–124. (1992).

DOI: 10.1016/0167-9236(92)90003-8

[5] P.T. Harker and L.G. Vargas, Reply to Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process by J.S. Dyer. Management Science, 36 (3), 269–273. (1990).

DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.36.3.269

[6] J.S. Dyer, Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 36(3), 249–258. (1990).

[7] J.S. Dyer, A clarification of Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 36 (3), 274–275. (1990).

DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.36.3.274

[8] T.L. Saaty, An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process by J.S. Dyer. Management Science, 36(3), 259–268. (1990).

DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.36.3.259

[9] S.H. Zanakis, A. Solomon, N. Wishart and S. Dublish, Multi-attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 507–529. (1998).

DOI: 10.1016/s0377-2217(97)00147-1

[10] E. Triantaphyllou and C.T. Lin, Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision making methods. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 14(4), 281–310. (1996).

DOI: 10.1016/0888-613x(95)00119-2

[11] C. Paxkan and M.L. Wu, On the equivalence of operational performance measurement and multiple attribute decision making. International Journal of Production Research, 35 (11), 2963–2988. (1997).

DOI: 10.1080/002075497194246

[12] H.S. Shih, Incremental analysis for MCDM with an application to group TOPSIS, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 186, p.720–734. (2008).

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.02.012

[13] H.S. Shih, H.J. Shyur and E.S. Lee, An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 45, p.801–813. (2007).

DOI: 10.1016/j.mcm.2006.03.023

[14] T. Gokhan, S. Mehmet, S. Mehmet and Z. Selim, Analyzing business competition by using fuzzy TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications. Vol. 38, No. 4, p.3396–3406. (2011).

DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.125

[15] M.C. Lin and C.C. Wang, Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process, Computers in Industry, Vol. 59, p.17–31. (2008).

DOI: 10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.013

[16] C. Kahraman, O. Engin, O. Kabak and I. Kaya, Information systems outsourcing decisions using a group decision-making approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 22, No. 6, p.832–841. (2009).

DOI: 10.1016/j.engappai.2008.10.009

[17] A. Anjali and S.C. Satyaveer, A hybrid approach integrating Affinity Diagram, AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for sustainable city logistics planning. Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 36, No. 2, p.573–584. (2012).

DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2011.07.033

[18] A. Awasthi, S.S. Chauhan and S.K. Goyal, A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 126, Nol. 2, p.370–378. (2010).

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.029

[19] B. Gülçin and C. Gizem, A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Systems with Applications. Vol. 39, pp.3000-3011. (2012).

DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.162