A new method for strategic decision-making in higher education

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Attri R, Dev N, Sharma V (2013) Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: an overview. Res J Manag Sci 2(2):3–8. doi:10.1108/01443579410062086

    Google Scholar 

  2. Begičević N (2008) Višekriterijski modeli odlučivanja u strateškom plniranju uvođenja e-učenja. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Zagreb, Faculty of Organization and Informatics

  3. Begičević N, Divjak B, Hunjak T (2007) Prioritization of e-learning forms: a multicriteria methodology. CEJOR 15(4):405–419. doi:10.1007/s10100-007-0039-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Belton V, Stewart ST (2010) Problem structuring and MCDA, pp 209–239. Retrieved from http://www.education.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/224/People/Academic_Staff/Theodor/PSMCDAchapter.pdf

  5. Bhadani AK, Shankar R, Rao DV (2016) Modeling the barriers of service adoption in rural Indian telecom using integrated ISM-ANP. J Model Manag 11(1):2–25. doi:10.1108/JM2-09-2013-0041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, vol 3. doi:10.1016/j.math.2010.09.003

  7. Divjak B (2016) Challenges of strategic decision-making within higher education and evaluation of the strategic decisions. In Hunjak T, Kirinić V, Konecki M (eds) Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems, pp 41–46. University of Zagreb, Faculty of Organization and Informatics Varaždin. Retrieved from http://archive.ceciis.foi.hr/app/public/conferences/1/ceciis2016/papers/ECIS-2.pdf

  8. Divjak B, Begicevic N (2015) Strategic decision making cycle in higher education: case study of E-learning. In: International conference on E-learning 2015. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280711901

  9. Divjak B, Project Associates (2017) Webpage od the project development of a methodological framework for strategic decision-making in higher education—a case of open and distance learning (ODL) implementation. Retrieved January 7, 2017, from http://higherdecision.foi.hr/

  10. Falatoonitoosi E, Ahmed S, Sorooshian S (2014) Expanded DEMATEL for determining cause and effect group in bidirectional relations. Sci World J 2014:1–7. doi:10.1155/2014/103846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Harker PT, Vargas LG (1987) The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 33(11):1383–1403. doi:10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kadoić N, Ređep NB, Divjak B (2016) E-learning decision making: methods and methodologies. In: Re-imagining learning scenarios, vol CONFERENCE. European Distance and E-Learning Network, Budapest, Hungary, p 24

  13. Kadoić N, Ređep NB, Divjak B (2017a) Decision making with the analytic network process (SOR 2017). Bled, Ljubljana

  14. Kadoić N, Ređep NB, Divjak B (2017b) Structuring e-learning multi-criteria decision making problems. In Billjanović P (ed) Proceedings of 40th Jubilee International Convention, MIPRO 2017. Croatian Society for Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics, Opatija, Croatia, pp 811–817

  15. Kadoić N, Divjak B, Begičević RN (2017c) Effective strategic decision making on open and distance education issues. In: Volungeviciene A, Szűcs A (eds) Diversity matters!. European Distance and E-Learning Network, Jönköping, pp 224–234

    Google Scholar 

  16. Knoke D, Yang S (2008) Social network analysis (quantitative applications in the social sciences)

  17. Michnik J (2013) Weighted influence non-linear gauge system (WINGS)—a analysis method for the systems of interrelated components. Eur J Oper Res 228(3):536–544. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Opsahl T, Agneessens F, Skvoretz J (2010) Node centrality in weighted networks: generalizing degree and shortest paths. Soc Netw 32(3):245–251. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Gengler CE, Rossi M, Hui W, Virtanen V, Bragge J (2006) The design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST), pp 83–106

  20. Saaty TL (2001) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process: the organization and prioritization of complexity, 2nd edn. RWS Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98

    Google Scholar 

  22. Saaty TL, Cillo B (2008) A dictionary of complex decision using the analytic network process, the encyclicon, vol 2, 2nd edn. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  23. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2006) Decision making with the analytic network process: economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. Springer; Softcover reprint of hardcover 1st edn. 2006 edition, 28 December 2009

  24. Sayyadi G, Awasthi A (2013) AHP-based approach for location planning of pedestrian zones: application in Montreal. Can J Transp Eng 139(2):239–246. doi:10.1061/(Asce)Te.1943-5436.0000493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shao J, Taisch M, Ortega M, Elisa D (2014) Application of the DEMATEL method to identify relations among barriers between green products and consumers. In: 17th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production—ERSCP 2014, pp 1029–1040. Retrieved from https://conferences1.matheo.si/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=3&confId=0

  26. Sharma P, Thakar G, Gupta RC (2013) Interpretive structural modeling of functional objectives (criteria’s) of assembly line balancing problem. Int J Comput Appl 83(13):14–22

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shih-Hsi Y, Wang CC, Teng L-Y, Hsing YM (2012) Application of DEMATEL, ISM, and ANP for key success factor (KSF) complexity analysis in R&D alliance. Sci Res Essays 7(19):1872–1890. doi:10.5897/SRE11.2252

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sikavica P, Hernaus T, Ređep NB, Hunjak T (2014) Poslovno odlučivanje. Školska knjiga Zagreb

  29. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (2017) In: The concise encyclopedia of statistics. Springer, New York, pp 502–505. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-32833-1_379

  30. Vaishnavi V, Kuechler B (2004) Design science research in information systems overview of design science research. Ais. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wudhikarn R (2016) An efficient resource allocation in strategic management using a novel hybrid method. Manag Decis 54(7):1702–1731. doi:10.1108/MD-08-2015-0380

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper has been supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project, “Development of a methodological framework for strategic decision-making in higher education—a case of open and distance learning (ODL) implementation”. Project Number: IP-2014-09-7854. Details about the project can be found at the project website http://higherdecision.foi.hr/en.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikola Kadoić.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kadoić, N., Ređep, N.B. & Divjak, B. A new method for strategic decision-making in higher education. Cent Eur J Oper Res 26, 611–628 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-017-0497-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • ANP
  • SNA
  • Decision-making
  • Higher education