Advertisement

Identifying and Prioritizing Human Capital Measurement Indicators for Personnel Selection Using Fuzzy MADM

  • Remica Aggarwal
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 258)

Abstract

Human capital constitutes an important and essential asset in any organization. Identifying and evaluating various human capital indicators or assessors is a multi-attribute decision making problem (MADM) which includes both qualitative and quantitative factors and therefore an appropriate MADM technique is required for proper evaluation and assessment of these factors or attributes. This study aims at defining a methodology based on Delphi method as well as Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is proposed to prioritize various human capital indicators associated with the five main attributes i.e. Talent, Integration, enabling a performance-based culture/climate, capability and leadership. The findings showed that in context with the case problem, Employees satisfaction with advancement opportunities, Internal relationship index, Employee skills, Creating results by using knowledge, Percentage of employees with access to appropriate training and development opportunities are the most important indicators for the HC in an Indian organization.

Keywords

Human capital measurement indicators Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process Fuzzy sets Delphi technique 

References

  1. 1.
    Bontis, N.: Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Manag. Decis. 36, 63–76 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bontis, N., Keow, W., Richardson, S.: Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries. J. Intellect. Cap. 1, 85–100 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bozbura, F.T.: Measurement and application of intellectual capitalin Turkey. Learn. Organ. 2, 357–367 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bozbura, F.T., Beskese, A., Kahraman, C.: Prioritization of human capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst. Appl. 32, 1100–1112 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellman, R., Zadeh, L.: Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manage. Sci. 17, 141–164 (1970)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zimmermann, H.J.: Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective functions. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1, 45–55 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoon, K.P., Hwang, C.L.: Multiple attribute decision making:an introduction. In: Sage University Paper Series on Quantative Applications in the Social Sciences, Thousand Oaks (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saaty, T.L.: The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Laarhoven, P.J.M., Pedrycz, W.: A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 11, 229–241 (1983)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chan, F.T.S., Jiang, B., Tang, N.K.H.: The development of intelligent decision support tools to aid the design of flexible manufacturing systems. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 65, 73–84 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., Ulukan, Z.: Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist. Inf. Manage. 16, 382–394 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng, J.Z., Chen, P.T., Yu, H.C.: Establishing a MAN access strategy for future broadband service: a fuzzy MCDM analysis of SONETH/SDH and Gigabit Ethernet. Technovation 25, 557–567 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ravasizadeh, E., Reza, M., Ghadim, K., Jalal, H.: Identifying and evaluate E-supply chain risks using fuzzy MADM. Am. J. Sci. Res. 40, 134–159 (2011) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abeysekera, I., Guthrie, J.: Human capital reporting in a developing nation. Br. Acc. Rev. 36, 251–268 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klir, G., Yuan, B.: Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic—theory and application. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hsieh, T.Y., Lu, S.T., Tzeng, G.H.: Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. Int. J. Project Manage. 22, 573–584 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Becker, B.E., Huselid M.A., Ulrich,D.: The HR Scorecard, pp.235–250. Harvard Business Scholl Press, Boston (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementBirla Institute of Technology and SciencePilaniIndia

Personalised recommendations