Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 283, Issue 1–2, pp 471–496 | Cite as

Fit between humanitarian professionals and project requirements: hybrid group decision procedure to reduce uncertainty in decision-making

  • Abderrahmen MediouniEmail author
  • Nicolas Zufferey
  • Nachiappan Subramanian
  • Naoufel Cheikhrouhou
S.I.: Applications of OR in Disaster Relief Operations

Abstract

Choosing the right professional that has to meet indeterminate requirements is a critical aspect in humanitarian development and implementation projects. This paper proposes a hybrid evaluation methodology for some non-governmental organizations enabling them to select the most competent expert who can properly and adequately develop and implement humanitarian projects. This methodology accommodates various stakeholders’ perspectives in satisfying the unique requirements of humanitarian projects that are capable of handling a range of uncertain issues from both stakeholders and project requirements. The criteria weights are calculated using a two-step multi-criteria decision-making method: (1) fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for the evaluation of the decision maker weights coupled with (2) technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution to rank the alternatives which provide the ability to take into account both quantitative and qualitative evaluations. Sensitivity analysis have been developed and discussed by means of a real case of expert selection problem for a non-profit organisation. The results show that the approach allows a decrease in the uncertainty associated with decision-making, which proves that the approach provides robust solutions in terms of sensitivity analysis.

Keywords

Expert selection Humanitarian projects Multi-criteria decision-making Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process TOPSIS 

References

  1. Aggarwal, R. (2013). Selection of IT personnel through hybrid multi-attribute AHP-FLP approach. Resource document. International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering. http://www.dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files/0e4da456995a13d07c7076adf0def6fd.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2017.
  2. Alguliyev, R. M., Aliguliyev, R. M., & Mahmudova, R. S. (2015). Multicriteria personnel selection by the modified fuzzy VIKOR method. The Scientific World Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/612767.Google Scholar
  3. Altay, N., & Green, W. G. (2006). OR/MS research in disaster operations management. European Journal of Operational Research, 175(1), 475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amadei, B., & Sandekian, R. (2010). Model of integrating humanitarian development into engineering education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000009.Google Scholar
  5. Amadei, B., & Wallace, W. A. (2009). Engineering for humanitarian development. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2009.934940.Google Scholar
  6. Asghari, M., Nassiri, P., Monazzam, M. R., Golbabaei, F., Arabalibeik, H., Shamsipour, A., et al. (2017). Weighting Criteria and Prioritizing of Heat stress indices in surface mining using a Delphi Technique and Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Method. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40201-016-0264-9.
  7. Aziri, B., Zeqiri, I., & Ibraimi, S. (2014). Human resource management in contemporary business organizations: A literature review. Resource document. Journal of International Scientific Publications. https://www.scientific-publications.net/get/1000007/1409341598970482.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2017.
  8. Banomyong, R., Varadejsatitwong, P., & Oloruntoba, R. (2017). A systematic review of humanitarian operations, humanitarian logistics and humanitarian supply chain performance literature 2005 to 2016. Annals of Operations Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2549-5.
  9. Baykasoğlu, A., Gölcük, İ., & Akyol, D. E. (2017). A fuzzy multiple-attribute decision making model to evaluate new product pricing strategies. Annals of Operations Research, 251(1–2), 205–242.Google Scholar
  10. Benini, A., Conley, C., Dittemore, B., & Waksman, Z. (2009). Survivor needs or logistical convenience? Factors shaping decisions to deliver relief to earthquake-affected communities, Pakistan 2005–06. Disasters, 33(1), 110–131.Google Scholar
  11. Bierschenk, T., & de Sardan, J. P. O. (2003). Powers in the village: Rural Benin between democratisation and decentralisation. Africa, 73(2), 145–173.Google Scholar
  12. Billsberry, J. (2008). Experiencing recruitment and selection. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Boran, F. E., Genç, S., & Akay, D. (2011). Personnel selection based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 21(5), 493–503.Google Scholar
  14. Bose, G., & Chatterjee, N. (2016). Fuzzy hybrid MCDM approach for selection of wind turbine service technicians. Management Science Letters.  https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2015.12.004.
  15. Bozbura, F. T., Beskese, A., & Kahraman, C. (2007). Prioritization of human capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1100–1112.Google Scholar
  16. Bozdağ, C. E., Kahraman, C., & Ruan, D. (2003). Fuzzy group decision making for selection among computer integrated manufacturing systems. Computers in Industry, 51(1), 13–29.Google Scholar
  17. Breaugh, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Grambow, D. M. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and directions for future research. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 45–82). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Brent, A. C., Rogers, D. E., Ramabitsa-Siimane, T. S., & Rohwer, M. B. (2007). Application of the analytical hierarchy process to establish health care waste management systems that minimise infection risks in developing countries. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(1), 403–424.Google Scholar
  19. Büyükyazıcı, M., & Sucu, M. (2003). The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes. Resource document. Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. http://www.citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.532.4624&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed November 3, 2017.
  20. Canós, L., & Liern, V. (2008). Soft computing-based aggregation methods for human resource management. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3), 669–681.Google Scholar
  21. Capaldo, G., & Zollo, G. (2001). Applying fuzzy logic to personnel assessment: A case study. Omega, 29(6), 585–597.Google Scholar
  22. Caunhye, A. M., Nie, X., & Pokharel, S. (2012). Optimization models in emergency logistics: A literature review. Socio-economic planning sciences, 46(1), 4–13.Google Scholar
  23. Çetinkaya, C., Özceylan, E., Erbaş, M., & Kabak, M. (2016). GIS-based fuzzy MCDA approach for siting refugee camp: A case study for southeastern Turkey. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 18, 218–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chaghooshi, A., Arab, A., & Dehshiri, S. (2016). A fuzzy hybrid approach for project manager selection. Decision Science Letters.  https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2016.1.001.
  25. Chandran, B., Golden, B., & Wasil, E. (2005). Linear programming models for estimating weights in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers and Operations Research, 32(9), 2235–2254.Google Scholar
  26. Chang, D. Y. (1992). Extent analysis and synthetic decision. Optimization Techniques and Applications, 1(1), 352–355.Google Scholar
  27. Chen, L. S., & Cheng, C. H. (2005). Selecting IS personnel use fuzzy GDSS based on metric distance method. European Journal of Operational Research, 160(3), 803–820.Google Scholar
  28. Dadelo, S., Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E. K., & Dadeliene, R. (2012). Multiple criteria assessment of elite security personal on the basis of ARAS and expert methods. Resource document. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research. http://www.ecocyb.ase.ro/20124pdf/Edmund%20Zavadskas%20(T).pdf. Accessed November 4, 2017.
  29. Dağdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., & Kılınç, N. (2009). Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 8143–8151.Google Scholar
  30. Dursun, M., & Karsak, E. E. (2010). A fuzzy MCDM approach for personnel selection. Expert Systems with applications, 37(6), 4324–4330.Google Scholar
  31. Erdem, M. B. (2016). A fuzzy analytical hierarchy process application in personnel selection in IT companies: A case study in a spin-off company. Resource document. Acta Physica Polonica A. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mehmet_Erdem7/publication/307612884_A_Fuzzy_Analytical_Hierarchy_Process_Application_in_Personnel_Selection_in_IT_Companies_A_Case_4 Study_in_a_Spin-off_Company/links/57ceef9308ae83b374622fc9.pdf. Accessed November, 2017.
  32. Figueira, J., Mousseau, V., & Roy, B. (2005). ELECTRE methods. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, 78, 133–153.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Galindo, G., & Batta, R. (2013). Review of recent developments in OR/MS research in disaster operations management. European Journal of Operational Research, 230(2), 201–211.Google Scholar
  34. Goldschmidt, K. H., & Kumar, S. (2017). Reducing the cost of humanitarian operations through disaster preparation and preparedness. Annals of Operations Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2587-z.
  35. Golec, A., & Kahya, E. (2007). A fuzzy model for competency-based employee evaluation and selection. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 52(1), 143–161.Google Scholar
  36. Gralla, E., Goentzel, J., & Fine, C. (2014). Assessing trade-offs among multiple objectives for humanitarian aid delivery using expert preferences. Production and Operations Management, 23(6), 978–989.Google Scholar
  37. Güngör, Z., Serhadlıoğlu, G., & Kesen, S. E. (2009). A fuzzy AHP approach to personnel selection problem. Applied Soft Computing, 9(2), 641–646.Google Scholar
  38. Gutjahr, W. J., & Nolz, P. C. (2016). Multicriteria optimization in humanitarian aid. European Journal of Operational Research, 252(2), 351–366.Google Scholar
  39. Haghighi, M., Zowghi, M., & Ansari, M. (2012). A fuzzy multiple attribute decision making (MADM) approach for employee evaluation and selection process. American Journal of Scientific Research, 58, 75–84.Google Scholar
  40. Hosseini, S. A., de la Fuente, A., & Pons, O. (2016). Multi-criteria decision-making method for assessing the sustainability of post-disaster temporary housing units technologies: A case study in Bam, 2003. Sustainable Cities and Society, 20, 38–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huang, C. C., Chu, P. Y., & Chiang, Y. H. (2008). A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. Omega, 36(6), 1038–1052.Google Scholar
  42. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Işıklar, G., & Büyüközkan, G. (2007). Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 29(2), 265–274.Google Scholar
  44. Janic, M. (2003). Multicriteria evaluation of high-speed rail, transrapid maglev and air passenger transport in Europe. Transportation Planning and Technology, 26(6), 491–512.Google Scholar
  45. Kabak, M., Burmaoğlu, S., & Kazançoğlu, Y. (2012). A fuzzy hybrid MCDM approach for professional selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3516–3525.Google Scholar
  46. Kabir, G., & Akhtar Hasin, A. (2011). Evaluation of customer oriented success factors in mobile commerce using fuzzy AHP. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(2), 361–386.Google Scholar
  47. Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., & Dogan, I. (2003). Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection. Information Sciences, 157, 135–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(03)00183-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Karagiannidis, A., Papageorgiou, A., Perkoulidis, G., Sanida, G., & Samaras, P. (2010). A multi-criteria assessment of scenarios on thermal processing of infectious hospital wastes: A case study for Central Macedonia. Waste Management, 30(2), 251–262.Google Scholar
  49. Karsak, E. E. (2001). Personnel selection using a fuzzy MCDM approach based on ideal and anti-ideal solutions. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 507, 393–402.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56680-6_36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kauffman, A., & Gupta, M. M. (1991). Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic, theory and application. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  51. Kelemenis, A., & Askounis, D. (2010). A new TOPSIS-based multi-criteria approach to personnel selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 4999–5008.Google Scholar
  52. Kelemenis, A., Ergazakis, K., & Askounis, D. (2011). Support managers’ selection using an extension of fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2774–2782.Google Scholar
  53. Kiessling, T., & Harvey, M. (2005). Strategic global human resource management research in the twenty-first century: An endorsement of the mixed-method research methodology. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 22–45.Google Scholar
  54. Kirubakaran, B., & Ilangkumaran, M. (2016). Selection of optimum maintenance strategy based on FAHP integrated with GRA-TOPSIS. Annals of Operations Research, 245(1–2), 285–313.Google Scholar
  55. Koutra, G., Barbounaki, S., Kardaras, D., & Stalidis, G. (2017). A multicriteria model for personnel selection in maritime industry in Greece. Presented at 2017 IEEE 19th conference. Business informatics (CBI). IEEE.Google Scholar
  56. Kwong, C. K., & Tam, S. M. (2002). Case-based reasoning approach to concurrent design of low power transformers. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 128(1–3), 136–141.Google Scholar
  57. Liang, G. S., & Wang, M. J. J. (1992). Personnel placement in a fuzzy environment. Computers and Operations Research, 19(2), 107–121.Google Scholar
  58. Limayem, F., & Yannou, B. (2007). Selective assessment of judgmental inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons for group decision rating. Computers and Operations Research, 34(6), 1824–1841.Google Scholar
  59. Lin, H. T. (2010). Personnel selection using analytic network process and fuzzy data envelopment analysis approaches. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 59(4), 937–944.Google Scholar
  60. Liu, H. C., Qin, J. T., Mao, L. X., & Zhang, Z. Y. (2015). Personnel selection using interval 2-tuple linguistic VIKOR method. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 25(3), 370–384.Google Scholar
  61. Li, C., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., & Suzuki, K. (2009). Environmentally conscious design of chemical processes and products: Multi-optimization method. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 87(2), 233–243.Google Scholar
  62. Lu, C., You, J. X., Liu, H. C., & Li, P. (2016). Health-care waste treatment technology selection using the interval 2-tuple induced TOPSIS method. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(6), 562.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Milani, A. S., Shanian, A., Madoliat, R., & Nemes, J. A. (2005). The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: A case study in gear material selection. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 29(4), 312–318.Google Scholar
  64. Ölçer, A. I., & Odabaşi, A. Y. (2005). A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 166(1), 93–114.Google Scholar
  65. Oloruntoba, R., Hossain, G. F., & Wagner, B. (2016). Theory in humanitarian operations research. Annals of Operations Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2378-y.
  66. Özcan, T., Çelebi, N., & Esnaf, Ş. (2011). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9773–9779.Google Scholar
  67. Özdağoğlu, A., & Özdağoğlu, G. (2007). Comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP for the multi-criteria decision making processes with linguistic evaluations. Resource document. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi. http://acikerisim.ticaret.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11467/347/M00178.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2017.
  68. Peng, Y., & Yu, L. (2014). Multiple criteria decision making in emergency management. Computers and Operations Research, 42, 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2013.08.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Polychroniou, P. V., & Giannikos, I. (2009). A fuzzy multicriteria decision-making methodology for selection of human resources in a Greek private bank. Career Development International, 14(4), 372–387.Google Scholar
  70. Prasad, S., Woldt, J., Tata, J., & Altay, N. (2017). Application of project management to disaster resilience. Annals of Operations Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2679-9.
  71. Qin, X. S., Huang, G. H., Chakma, A., Nie, X. H., & Lin, Q. G. (2008). A MCDM-based expert system for climate-change impact assessment and adaptation planning: A case study for the Georgia Basin, Canada. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(3), 2164–2179.Google Scholar
  72. Rao, R. V., & Davim, J. P. (2008). A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35(7–8), 751–760.Google Scholar
  73. Rondinelli, D. A. (2013). Development projects as policy experiments: An adaptive approach to development administration. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  74. Rouyendegh, B. D., & Erkan, T. E. (2013). An application of the fuzzy ELECTRE method for academic staff selection. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 23(2), 107–115.Google Scholar
  75. Saaty, T. L., & Takizawa, M. (1986). Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 26(2), 229–237.Google Scholar
  76. Sadatrasool, M., Bozorgi-Amiri, A., & Yousefi-Babadi, A. (2016). Project manager selection based on project manager competency model: PCA-MCDM approach. Journal of Project Management.  https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2017.1.004.
  77. Sgarbossa, F., Peretti, U., Persona, A., & Tatham, P. (2015). Multi-criteria decision-making in the management of humanitarian operations. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 22(4), 413–441.Google Scholar
  78. Shih, H. S., Shyur, H. J., & Lee, E. S. (2007). An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45(7–8), 801–813.Google Scholar
  79. Smith, L. D., Nauss, R. M., Banis, R. J., & Beck, R. (2002). Staffing geographically distributed service facilities with itinerant personnel. Computers and Operations Research, 29(14), 2023–2041.Google Scholar
  80. Soner, S., Ayadi, O., & Cheikhrouhou, N. (2012). An extensive group decision methodology for alliance partner selection problem in collaborative networked organisations. International Journal of Applied Logistics.  https://doi.org/10.4018/jal.2012010101.Google Scholar
  81. Srdjevic, B., Medeiros, Y. D. P., & Faria, A. S. (2004). An objective multi-criteria evaluation of water management scenarios. Water Resources Management, 18(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
  82. Tavana, M. (2007). A threat-response multi-criteria funding model for homeland security grant programs. International Transactions in Operational Research, 14(4), 267–290.Google Scholar
  83. Tavares, L. V. (1994). The strategic development of human resources: the challenge of OR. International Transactions in Operational Research, 1(4), 463–477.Google Scholar
  84. Trivedi, A., & Singh, A. (2017a). A hybrid multi-objective decision model for emergency shelter location-relocation projects using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and goal programming approach. International Journal of Project Management, 35(5), 827–840.Google Scholar
  85. Trivedi, A., & Singh, A. (2017b). Prioritizing emergency shelter areas using hybrid multi-criteria decision approach: A case study. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 24(3–4), 133–145.Google Scholar
  86. Tsai, W. H., & Chou, W. C. (2009). Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: A novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 1444–1458.Google Scholar
  87. Vitoriano, B., Ortuño, M. T., Tirado, G., & Montero, J. (2011). A multi-criteria optimization model for humanitarian aid distribution. Journal of Global Optimization, 51(2), 189–208.Google Scholar
  88. Walker, P., & Russ, C. (2010). Professionalising the humanitarian sector: A scoping study. Somerville, MA: Tufts University.Google Scholar
  89. Wang, C., Jia, H., Zhang, Q., Zheng, Y., Yang, M., Yong, W., et al. (2017). Physiological and psychological selection for high-performance fighter pilot based on analytic hierarchy process. Presented at international conference on man-machine-environment system engineering. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  90. Xu, Z. (2009). An automatic approach to reaching consensus in multiple attribute group decision making. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 56(4), 1369–1374.Google Scholar
  91. Xu, Z. S., & Chen, J. (2007). An interactive method for fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making. Information Sciences, 177(1), 248–263.Google Scholar
  92. Xu, J., Yin, X., Chen, D., An, J., & Nie, G. (2016). Multi-criteria location model of earthquake evacuation shelters to aid in urban planning. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 20, 51–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.Google Scholar
  94. Zahedi, F. (1987). Qualitative programming for selection decisions. Computers and Operations Research, 14(5), 395–407.Google Scholar
  95. Zimmermann, H. J. (2011). Fuzzy set theory: And its applications. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geneva School of Economics and Management (GSEM)University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.School of Business Management and EconomicsUniversity of SussexBrightonUK
  3. 3.Geneva School of Business AdministrationUniversity of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO)GenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations