Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Background on Faculty Evaluation
Methodological Framework
Discussion
References
All Topics
Mathematics
Applied Mathematics

A multicriteria decision analysis model for faculty evaluation

Profile image of Carlos CostaCarlos Costa

2012

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OMEGA.2011.08.006
visibility

…

description

13 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

In the context of increasing demands for social and financial accountability of universities, the required implementation of transparent faculty evaluation systems constitutes a challenge and an opportunity for universities strategically aligning the activity of academic staff with the university goals. However, despite growing interest in the performance appraisal of faculty, only a few reported studies propose models that cover the

Related papers

Evaluation Using Multicriteria Value Measurement
Carlos A Bana e Costa

2014

The institutional and legal setting where universities operate has undergone major transformations in recent years. There is a global trend towards increasing social and financial accountability of universities and a general demand for higher transparency and responsibility in decisions related to academic staff performance appraisal. Bringing faculty evaluation systems in line with these changes became a priority in many countries. For example, in Portugal, all universities are presently working on regulations defining the evaluation systems to be applied to all academic staff. The implementation of a faculty evaluation system constitutes a challenge and an opportunity for strategically aligning the activity of the academic staff with the university goals. However, despite a growing interest on performance

View PDFchevron_right
A Useful University Departmental Evaluation System
James McLean

1987

A university departmental merit evaluation plan and lessons learned from implementing the plan are discussed. The faculty evaluation plan was based on four principles: broad-based faculty and administrative support; informing faculty of expectations of them before the evaluation; providing a description of the primary decision-making and data-gathering roles played by students, faculty, and administration; and providing feedback and resources to assist faculty to enhance their performance and achieve their career goals. The evaluation plan includes independent ratings of faculty in four areas: teaching, research, service (external to the university), and academic citizenship (internal university service). Each of these areas has specific criteria for three possible ratings: basic merit, superior merit, and exceptional merit. Each faculty member participates in weighing the categories each year. After the third year of use of the plan, there have been modifications in the rating scales, but the basic system remains unchanged. The specific rating scales for each category is appended, along with the reporting form used by faculty. (Author/SW)

View PDFchevron_right
Exploring The Reliability, Validity, And Utility Of A Higher Education Faculty Review Process
Kelly Bradley

Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 2010

Institutions of learning face significant calls for accountability, leading to an increased interest in measuring faculty performance. The purpose of this research is to describe and analyze the process of faculty evaluation in a college of education at a southeastern university. The process is outlined with attention given to the reliability, validity, and utility through documenting strengths and weaknesses. Included is a detailed review of the instruments utilized in the process. Suggestions for improvements and modifications are central to the outcomes, including plans for aligning the process with relevant research. The degree to which the faculty review process is deemed credible, professional, and relevant may serve as an indicator of the link between theory and practice. Potential ramifications of a weak or bias system, as faculty promotion and tenure are intertwined with this process, are of utmost importance. Legal issues, including challenges, rise to the forefront. T...

View PDFchevron_right
Comments on the Faculty Evaluation Process for the College of Education at Valdosta State University
Bill Huitt

As we discuss making changes in the student evaluation of college faculty I believe it is important to critically review relevant literature pertaining to this topic. The fact that multiple sources of data are used in the evaluation process is certainly supported by most researchers in this field (see Seldon & Angelo, 1994) and is to be commended. However, the following comments pertain to the instrument used by students to evaluate faculty as this is an important component of the faculty evaluation process. These comments focus on four critical issues: 1) Using data for formative versus summative purposes; 2) Validity of student ratings; 3) Criterion-versus norm-related standards; and 4) Does "one size" fit all. The first issue regards the use of data for formative and/or summative purposes. As reported by Gordon (1998) there is unanimity on the view that teaching is complex and multidimensional. The major issue for evaluation purposes is how to investigate and report on ...

View PDFchevron_right
Building a consistent system for faculty appraisal using Data Envelopment Analysis
Amar Oukil

2021

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) appears more than just an instrument of measurement. DEA models can be seen as a mathematical structure for democratic voicing within decisional contexts. Such an important aspect of DEA is enhanced through the performance evaluation of a group of professors in a virtual Business college. We show that the outcomes of the analysis can be very useful to support decision processes at many levels. There are three categories of professors: Assistant professors, Associate professors, and Full professors. The evaluation process of these professors is investigated through two different cases. The first case handles each category of professors as a separate sample representing an independent population. The results show that the mean efficiency scores fall between 0.85 and 0.93 for all professors no matters their category. In spite of enabling more fairness, such an approach suffers from its exclusive character, which is contrary to the democratic spirit of DE...

View PDFchevron_right
Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system
alvin matienzo

2004

View PDFchevron_right
A holistic framework for the assessment of faculty
Dr. Pooja Tripathi

International Journal of Business Information Systems, 2011

In this article, we analysed and discussed a novel approach to competency modelling of the faculty explicitly aligned with strategic institutional needs and oriented to long term future success. In this paper, we have tried to propose a holistic model for the performance assessment of faculty, by studying the practical approach to assess the faculty and integrated it with the overall competency management and teaching learning process for the individual faculty and the institution as a whole. Further research lies in the integration of the whole concept with the expert system approach in decision making.

View PDFchevron_right
Faculty Performance Evaluation System of State Universities and Colleges in the Philippine Eastern Visayas Region
Donald Patimo

JISAE: Journal of Indonesian Student Assessment and Evaluation, 2020

The main concern of this study was the assessment of the faculty performance evaluation system of State Universities and Colleges in the Philippine Eastern Visayas Region. Specifically, the study sought answers to research questions on how the faculty performance is evaluated with regards to evaluation procedures, instruments, and criteria and what is the present and desired faculty performance evaluation system considering the standards on utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. In search of answers to the abovementioned research questions, the researcher made use of the descriptive-assessment research design. The respondents of this study were administrators, faculty members, and students from the main campuses of State Universities and Colleges in Philippine Eastern Visayas Region. As result, the researcher found out that the most common evaluation procedure used were administrative observation in the class and the administration of appraisal instrument. Rating scales were...

View PDFchevron_right
Assessment and Decision-Making in Universities: Analytics of the Administration-Staff Compromises
Oleg Avrunin

2021

Various processes in academic organizations include the decision points where selecting people through their assessment and ranking is performed, and the impact of wrong or right choices can be very high. How do we simultaneously ensure that these selection decisions are well balanced, fair, and unbiased by satisfying the key stakeholders’ wishes? How much and what kinds of evidence must be used to make them? How can both the evidence and the procedures be made transparent and unambitious for everyone? In this paper, we suggest a set of so-called deep evidence-based analytics, which is applied on top of the collective awareness platform (portal for managing higher education processes). The deep evidence, in addition to the facts about the individual academic achievements of personnel, includes the evidence about individual rewards. However, what is more important is that such evidence also includes explicit individual value systems (formalized personal preferences in the self-assess...

View PDFchevron_right
Developing Transparent And Dialogic Systems For Faculty Performance Assessment And Evaluation In A College Of Agricultural, Consumer And Environmental Sciences
Kirby Barrick

Journal of Agricultural Education, 2004

Interviews were conducted with the seven department heads in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to obtain descriptions of the current systems of faculty assessment and evaluation. These confirmed that seven distinct systems to collect, evaluate and report information were in use. Faculty in ACES were surveyed to identify how they believe their performance in teaching, research, outreach/extension and service should be measured. Faculty indicated that multiple measures in each category of activity provide useful information. The survey also asked faculty how their performance should be documented, how decisions should be made and how results should be reported. The faculty indicate clear preferences for each of these processes. The interviews and survey are initial steps towards making faculty performance assessment and evaluation systems in the College of ACES more dialogic and transparent.

View PDFchevron_right

References (54)

  1. Etzkowitz H. Research groups as 'quasi-firms': the invention of the entrepre- neurial university. Research Policy 2003;32:109-21.
  2. Coccia M. Measuring scientific performance of public research units for strategic change. Journal of Informetrics 2008:183-94.
  3. Huber MT. Faculty evaluation and the development of academic careers. New Directions for Institutional Research 2002;114:73-83.
  4. Murias P, Miguel JCd, Rodrı ´guez D. A composite indicator for university quality assesment: the case of Spanish higher education system. Social Indicators Research 2008;89:29-146.
  5. Agencia Nacional de Evaluacio ´n de la Calidad y Acreditacio ´n. Programa de Evaluacio ´n de Professorado para la Contratacio ´n: Principios y Orientaciones para la Aplicacio ´n de los Criterios de Evaluacio ´n. Agencia Nacional de Evaluacio ´n de la Calidad y Acreditacio ´n; 2007.
  6. Ministe ´rio da Ciência Tecnologia e Ensino Superior. Decreto-Lei no. 205/2009. Dia ´rio da Repu ´blica. 2009;1.% a se ´rie.
  7. Elmore HW. Toward objectivity in faculty evaluation. Academe 2008;94: 38-40.
  8. Lane J. Let's make science metrics more scientific. Nature 2010;464:488-9.
  9. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press; 1986.
  10. Kirkwood CW. Strategic decision making: multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets. Belmont, California: Duxbury Press; 1997.
  11. Arreola RA. Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: a guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation sys- tems, 3rd ed. Anker Publishing Company; 2007.
  12. National Academy of Engineering. Developing metrics for assessing engi- neering instruction: what gets measured is what gets improved: report from the steering committee for evaluating instructional scholarship in engineer- ing. The National Academies Press; 2009. p. 52.
  13. Mills M, Hyle AE. Faculty evaluation: a prickly pair. Higher Education. 1999;38:351-71.
  14. Adler NJ, Harzing AW. When knowledge wins: transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning and Education 2009;8:72-95.
  15. Grant J, Fogarty T. Faculty evaluation as a social dilemma: a game theoretic approach. Accounting Education 1998;7:225-48.
  16. Kao C, Pao H-L. An evaluation of research performance in management of 168 Taiwan universities. Scientometrics 2009;78:261-77.
  17. Turban E, Zhou D, Ma J. A group decision support approach to evaluating journals. Information & Management 2004;42:31-44.
  18. Campion WJ, Mason DV, Erdman H. How faculty evaluations are used in Texas Community Colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 2000;24:169-79.
  19. Desselle SP, Mattei TJ, Vanderveen RP. Identifying and weighting teaching and scholarship activities among faculty members. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2004;68:1-11.
  20. Donovan C. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 2007;34:555-63.
  21. Wolansky WD. A multiple approach to faculty evaluation. Education 2001; 97:81-96.
  22. Politis Y, Siskos Y. Multicriteria methodology for the evaluation of a Greek engineering department. European Journal of Operational Research 2004; 156:223-40.
  23. Gime ´nez VM, Martı ´nez JL. Cost efficiency in the university: a departmental evaluation model. Economics of Education Review 2006;25:543-53.
  24. Uzoka F-ME. A fuzzy-enhanced multicriteria decision analysis model for evaluating university academics' research output. Information Knowledge Systems Management 2008;7:273-99.
  25. Mustafa A, Goh M. Multi-criterion models for higher education administra- tion. OMEGA-The International Journal of Management Science 1996;24: 167-78.
  26. Keeney RL, See KE, von Winterfeldt D. Evaluating academic programs: with applications to U.S. graduate decision science programs. Operations Research 2006;54:813-28.
  27. Edwards W, Barron FH. SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1994;60:306-25.
  28. Keeney RL, Value-Focused Thinking A. Path to creative decisionmaking. Harvard University Press; 1992.
  29. Billaut J-C, Bouyssou D, Vincke P. Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view Scientometrics 2010;84:237-63.
  30. Phillips L. Decision conferencing. In: Edwards W, Miles RF, von Winterfeldt D, editors. Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 375-99.
  31. Phillips L. Decision conferencing/facilitated workshops. In: Melnick EL, Ever- itt BS, editors. Encyclopedia of quantitative risk analysis and assessment. Wiley; 2008. p. 451-9.
  32. Schein EH. Process consultation revisited: building the helping relationship. MA: Addison Wesley Longman; 1998.
  33. Bana e Costa CA, Ensslin L, Correa EC, Vansnick J-C. Decision support systems in action: integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process. European Journal of Operational Research 1999;113:315-35.
  34. Phillips LD, Bana e Costa CA. Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision con- ferencing. Annals of Operations Research 2007;154:51-68.
  35. Phillips LD. A theory of requisite decision models. Acta Psychologica 1984;56: 29-48.
  36. Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer; 2001.
  37. Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick J-C, De Corte J-M. MACBETH (measuring attrac- tiveness by a categorical based evaluation technique). In: Cochran JJ, editor. Wiley encyclopedia in operational research and management science. New York: Wiley; 2011. p. 2945-50.
  38. Bana e Costa CA, De Corte J-M, Vansnick J-C. On the mathematical founda- tions of MACBETH. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M, editors. Multiple criteria decision analysis: the state of the art surveys. Springer; 2005. p. 409-42.
  39. Bana e Costa CA, Lourenc -o JC, Chagas MP, Bana e Costa JC. Development of reusable bid evaluation models for the Portuguese Electric Transmission Company. Decision Analysis 2008;5:22-42.
  40. Bana e Costa CA, De Corte J-M, Vansnick J-C. MACBETH. In: Department OR, editor. Working paper LSEOR 0356. London: London School of Economics of Political Science; 2003.
  41. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs New York. Wiley; 1976.
  42. Universidade Te ´cnica de Lisboa. Regulamento de Avaliac -ão de Desempenho dos Docentes do Instituto Superior Te ´cnico, 51. Dia ´rio da Repu ´blica; 2010.
  43. O ¨zt ürk M, Tsouki as A, Vincke P. Preference modelling. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M, editors. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys; 2005. p. 27-72.
  44. Bana e Costa CA, Oliveira RC. Assigning priorities for maintenance, repair and refurbishment in managing a municipal housing stock. European Journal of Operational Research 2002;138:380-91.
  45. Keeney RL. Developing objectives and attributes. In: Edwards W, Miles Jr. RF, von Winterfeldt D, editors. Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 104-28.
  46. Meredith JR, Steward MD, Lewis BR. Knowledge dissemination in operations management: published perceptions versus academic reality. OMEGA-The International Journal of Management Science 2011;39:435-46.
  47. Althouse BM, West JD, Bergstrom CT, Bergstrom T. Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009;60:27-34.
  48. Bana e Costa CA, Corrêa EC, De Corte J-M, Vansnick J-C. Facilitating bid evaluation in public call for tenders: a socio-technical approach. OMEGA- The International Journal of Management Science 2002;30:227-42.
  49. Drucker P. Management by results. Collins 1993.
  50. Salminen P, Korhonen P, Wallenius J. Testing the form of a decision-maker's multiattribute value function based on pairwise preference information. Journal of the Operational Research Society 1989;40:299-302.
  51. Meho LI, Sonnenwald DH. Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: a case study of Kurdish scholarship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 2000;51:123-38.
  52. Donohue JM, Fox JB. A multi-method evaluation of journals in the decision and management sciences by US academics. OMEGA-The International Journal of Management Science 2000;28:17-36.
  53. Belton V. Multi-criteria problem structuring and analysis in a value theory framework. In: Gal T, Stewart TJ, Hanne T, editors. Multicriteria decision making: advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory and applications. Springer; 1999. p. 12.1-12.32.
  54. Buede DM. Applied decision analysis: engineering science vs. clinical art. In: Proceedings of the international conference on cybernetics and society. Denver; 1979. p. 397-403.

Related papers

Faculty evaluation using multicriteria value measurement
Amílcar Sernadas

2010

Despite a growing interest on performance appraisal of faculty, only a few reported studies propose models that cover the full range of academic activities and models at use are typically based on ad hoc scoring systems that lack theoretical soundness. This article approaches faculty evaluation from an innovative comprehensive perspective. Based on concepts and methods of multiple criteria value measurement, it proposes a new faculty evaluation model that addresses the whole range of academic activities and can be applied within and across distinct scientific areas, while respecting their specificities. This paper proposes a two-level hierarchical additive value model, with the areas of activity at the first level and the evaluation criteria at a second level. Each evaluation criterion integrates quantitative and qualitative components of an academic activity. To compute an overall value score for each faculty member, an optimization procedure is used to guarantee for each faculty member the maximum overall value score that can be attained with the interval weights defined and for her or his multicriteria area profile. The proposed model was designed, within the legal and institutional context of the Portuguese universities, to be used by Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), the engineering school of the Technical University of Lisbon.

View PDFchevron_right
Assessing faculty’s performance: war of the worlds?
Gabriella Keczer

2013

In the vast majority of Hungarian state universities individual performance is not assessed, according to a recently conducted survey including 11 institutions. Assessing individual performance in the academe is a controversial and delicate issue not only in Hungary, but also all over the world. More controversial and delicate than in the corporate world or even in the public services. Nonetheless, assessing individual performance has an enormous impact on motivation, engagement of the employees, institutional effectiveness and the output. In the first part of my paper I deal with the conceptual framework of individual performance assessment of the university faculty. I list those characteristics of higher education that make performance assessment a difficult and complex issue. These concerns must be taken into account when elaborating and introducing an assessment system at any Hungarian universities. However, these characteristics do not make individual performance assessment a 'mission impossible' at the universities, only a complex professional task. Individual performance assessment of the university faculty has been introduced and operated successfully in several countries of the world. In the second part of my paper I present some good practices pursued at foreign universities -they could be adapted to Hungarian state universities.

View PDFchevron_right
Managing university rank and tenure decisions using a multi-criteria decision-making approach
Enrique Mu

International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 2019

Faculty evaluation in academia is a serious concern for higher-education administrators. This study develops a model for rank and tenure (R&T) decisions using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. Literature review suggests most R&T evaluations are rather subjective in many institutions. A case method approach is used for the development of a model and demonstration of its use. The proposed evaluation model provides objectivity, transparency and customisation for R&T committee decisions in higher-education institutions.

View PDFchevron_right
A critical study about the faculty members' evaluation models
ali gharahzadeh

2020

Background: Evaluation has history and antiquity in higher education, and it is the functions of universities’ human resource management. In higher education, faculty members are one of the most important assets, and institutions’ success depends on favorable effectiveness of faculty members' performance. Therefore, the design and implementation of the evaluation process and ensuring their optimal performance are essential. Methods: This study was conducted using the methodology of critical review. Keywords were selected, and extensive and structured search of texts were conducted. 262 titles were retrieved. Then, according to purposive sampling, screening of texts was conducted in three stages: (A) Initial or title screening, (B) Secondary screening, (C) Tertiary screening. 41 articles were analyzed. Results: The results suggested that merit review system and mission-based system have been appropriate models for evaluating the faculty members at the universities of medical scie...

View PDFchevron_right
EFFICACY OF FACULTY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION
Journal ijmr.net.in(UGC Approved)

Faculties are the most valuable and dynamic assets of the educational organization. For the achievement of the strategic objective and sustained growth of the organization, there is the requirement of strong performance management system so that the competence of the employees cans be access. Performance Appraisal has been considered as the most significant an indispensable tool for an organization, because it provides information which is highly useful in making decisions regarding various personnel aspects such as promotion and merit increases. But it is a challenge for the organization to accessing the existing competence in the organization. This can be converted into organization success only with performance alignment and competence management. I have studied the system and procedure of performance management system of faculties of higher educational organization. The goal of this research is to assessing the performance appraisal system of the higher educational organization to identify its effectiveness and employee's satisfaction with existing appraisal system for the support of each individual of faculty member for assurance of quality and integrity. This study will reveal the importance of a well-managed performance management system and the benefits which one will derive from it.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Marketing
  • Higher Education
  • Performance Appraisal
  • Business and Management
  • Multicriteria Decision Analysis
  • Strategic Alignment
  • Evaluation Model

    • Cited by

    Unitary input DEA model to identify beef cattle production systems typologies
    Thiago de Carvalho

    Pesquisa Operacional, 2012

    The cow-calf beef production sector in Brazil has a wide variety of operating systems. This suggests the identification and the characterization of homogeneous regions of production, with consequent implementation of actions to achieve its sustainability. In this paper we attempted to measure the performance of 21 livestock modal production systems, in their cow-calf phase. We measured the performance of these systems, considering husbandry and production variables. The proposed approach is based on data envelopment analysis (DEA). We used unitary input DEA model, with apparent input orientation, together with the efficiency measurements generated by the inverted DEA frontier. We identified five modal production systems typologies, using the isoefficiency layers approach. The results showed that the knowledge and the processes management are the most important factors for improving the efficiency of beef cattle production systems.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support Systems for Future Urban Energy Retrofitting Scenarios
    Patrizia Lombardi

    2017

    Nowadays, there is an increasing concern about sustainable urban energy development taking into account national priorities of each city. Many cities have started to define future strategies and plans to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Urban energy scenarios involve the consideration of a wide range of conflicting criteria, both socio-economic and environmental ones. Moreover, decision-makers (DMs) require proper tools that can support their choices in a context of multiple stakeholders and a long-term perspective. In this context, Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support Systems (MC-SDSS) are often used in order to define and analyze urban scenarios since they support the comparison of different solutions, based on a combination of multiple factors. The main problem, in relation to urban energy retrofitting scenarios, is the lack of appropriate knowledge and evaluation criteria. The latter are crucial for delivering and assessing urban energy scenarios through...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Finding the numerical compensation in multiple criteria decision-making problems under fuzzy environment
    B.K. Mohanty

    International Journal of Systems Science, 2016

    In this paper, we have developed a methodology to derive the level of compensation numerically in multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems under fuzzy environment. The degree of compensation is dependent on the tranquility and anxiety level experienced by the decision-maker while taking the decision. Higher tranquility leads to the higher realisation of the compensation whereas the increased level of anxiety reduces the amount of compensation in the decision process. This work determines the level of tranquility (or anxiety) using the concept of fuzzy sets and its various level sets. The concepts of indexing of fuzzy numbers, the risk barriers and the tranquility level of the decision-maker are used to derive his/her risk prone or risk averse attitude of decision-maker in each criterion. The aggregation of the risk levels in each criterion gives us the amount of compensation in the entire MCDM problem. Inclusion of the compensation leads us to model the MCDM problem as binary integer programming problem (BIP). The solution to BIP gives us the compensatory decision to MCDM. The proposed methodology is illustrated through a numerical example.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Analysis of academic administrators’ attitudes: annual evaluations and factors that improve teaching
    Brian Cherry

    Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2017

    This article examines academic administrators' attitudes towards the academic evaluation process in the US and those factors that are utilised to improve teaching. We use path regressions to examine satisfaction with evaluation procedures, as well as the direct and indirect effects of these factors on perceptions of whether the evaluation process facilitates quality instruction. With increased pressure for accountability being placed on higher education, it is important to ensure that we are meeting both public and academic expectations. The evaluation process is an important tool to ensure the university's goals and values are articulated and that academics can be successful in their individual career paths. The problem is most research finds flaws with the current method of evaluation, and academics and academic administrators are sceptical about the process and results. We find there are environmental factors that influence academic administrators' perceptions of academic evaluations and the ability to improve classroom instruction.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Optimizing faculty talents through identifying entrepreneurial champions: an ELECTRE IV approach
    Sumaya Abbasi

    Management Decision, 2020

    PurposeThe rapid increase in higher education institutions (HEIs) can affect the provision of quality education especially when there are no clear integrated objectives to serve the overall HEI as well as the lack of management related to human resource needs. The quality of HEIs relies on the performance of their employees who are considered as one of the most important resources. Several studies demonstrated that the concept of talent management is not well defined for HEIs and considered it as a new study; however, researchers emphasized on its importance to improve the employees' performance and to achieve sustainable competitive advantages. The main aim of this paper is to propose a faculty equity framework for talent optimization in HEIs to help these institutions to recruit the right people, manage and motivate them to achieve their future goals and serve the best quality.Design/methodology/approachThe faculty equity framework criteria are derived from the standards of na...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved