Today, the university plays an important role in establishing a relationship between industry and academia by training a specialized workforce. Due to the important role of the university in the development of a country, evaluating the performance of the faculty or research centers of universities is one of the vital issues in the quality management of universities. In this paper, a performance evaluation method is presented for three faculty of a university located in Istanbul, Turkey (the name of university is kept in confidential due to the request of the university’s expert). The proposed method is based on the combination of Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). First, BSC and AHP are integrated, and then the strategies and measures are introduced for each perspective of BSC. Then, by implementing the TOPSIS method, a comprehensive performance evaluation approach was proposed and discussed with the university management. The proposed methodology was validated by a real case study based on the judgments of students and verified by sensitivity analysis. Finally, several managerial insights, conclusions, and suggestions for future studies are presented.
How to Cite
university performance evaluation, BSC, AHP, TOPSIS
Al-Zwyalif, I. M. (2012). The possibility of implementing balanced scorecard in Jordanian private universities. International Business Research, 5(11), 113. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n11p113
Alani, F. S., Khan, M. F. R., & Manuel, D. F. (2018). University performance evaluation and strategic mapping using balanced scorecard (BSC): Case study–Sohar University, Oman. International Journal of Educational Management. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-05-2017-0107
Aly, M., Attia, H., & Mohammed, A. M. (2014). Prioritizing faculty of engineering education performance by using AHP-TOPSIS and Balanced Scorecard Approach. International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology, 3(1), 11-23. D
Anuforo, P. U., Ayoup, H., Mustapha, U. A., & Abubakar, A. H. (2019). The Implementation of Balance Scorecard and its impact on performance: Case of Universiti Utara Malaysia. International Journal of Accounting & Finance Review, 4(1), 1-16. Doi: https://doi.org/10.46281/ijafr.v4i1.226
Aslam, H. D. (2011). Performance evaluation of teachers in universities: Contemporary issues and challenges. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 1(2), 11-11.
Azar, A., Olfat, L., Khosravani, F., & Jalali, R. (2011). A BSC method for supplier selection strategy using TOPSIS and VIKOR: A case study of part maker industry. Management Science Letters, 1(4), 559-568. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2011.05.005
Ban, A. I., Ban, O. I., Bogdan, V., Popa, D. C. S., & Tuse, D. (2020). Performance evaluation model of Romanian manufacturing listed companies by fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1-29. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.12367
Beard, D. F. (2009). Successful applications of the balanced scorecard in higher education. Journal of Education for Business, 84(5), 275-282. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3200/joeb.84.5.275-282
Bentes, A. V., Carneiro, J., da Silva, J. F., & Kimura, H. (2012). Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP. Journal of Business Research, 65(12), 1790-1799. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.039
Bhutia, P. W., & Phipon, R. (2012). Application of AHP and TOPSIS method for supplier selection problem. IOSR Journal of Engineering, 2(10), 43-50. Doi: https://doi.org/10.9790/3021-021034350
Chatterjee, P., & Stević, Ž. (2019). A two-phase fuzzy AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS model for supplier evaluation in manufacturing environment. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(1), 72-90.
Chen, S. H., Yang, C. C., & Shiau, J. Y. (2006). The application of balanced scorecard in the performance evaluation of higher education. The TQM magazine. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780610647892
Chou, Y.-C., Yen, H.-Y., Dang, V. T., & Sun, C.-C. (2019). Assessing the human resource in science and technology for Asian countries: Application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Symmetry, 11(2), 251. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020251
Cugini, A., & Michelon, G. (2007). Performance evaluation in research departments: from the Balanced Scorecard to the Strategy Map. Paper presented at the 4th conference on performance measurement and management control, Measuring and rewarding performance, Nice France September.
Doh, B. T. S. (2015). Evaluating the strategic objectives of Cameroonian higher education: An application of the Balanced Scorecard. Doctoral dissertation. Research Unit for the Sociology of Education.
Ertuğrul, İ., & Karakaşoğlu, N. (2008). Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 39(7-8), 783-795. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-1249-8
Ertuğrul, İ., & Karakaşoğlu, N. (2009). Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1), 702-715. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.10.014
Fallah Shams Lialestanei, M., Raji, R., & Khajeh Poor, K. P. (2013). Performance evaluation by using hybrid method: BSC, TOPSIS and AHP. Industrial Management Journal, 5(1), 81-100.
Farid, D., Nejati, M., & Mirfakhredini, H. (2008). Balanced Scorecard application inuniversities and higher education institutes: Implemntation guide in an Iranian context. Annals of the University of Bucarest, the Economic & Administrative Series, 2.
Gamal, A., & Soemantri, A. I. (2017). The effect of balanced scorecard on the private college performance (Case study at the University of WR Supratman Surabaya). Archives of Business Research, 5(5). Doi: https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.55.3093
Graham, G., Freeman, J., & Chen, T. (2015). Green supplier selection using an AHP-Entropy-TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(3), 327-340. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-04-2014-0142
Gumus, A. T. (2009). Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 4067-4074. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.03.013
Guru, S., & Mahalik, D. (2019). A comparative study on performance measurement of Indian public sector banks using AHP-TOPSIS and AHP-grey relational analysis. OPSEARCH, 56(4), 1213-1239. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-019-00411-1
Hájek, P., Stříteská, M., & Prokop, V. (2018). Integrating balanced scorecard and fuzzy TOPSIS for innovation performance evaluation. PACIS 2018 Proceedings.
Hwang, C.-L., Lai, Y.-J., & Liu, T.-Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers & operations research, 20(8), 889-899.
Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple attribute decision making (pp. 58-191): Springer. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-v
Ilyasin, M. (2017). Balanced Scorecard: A strategy for the quality improvement of Islamic higher education. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(2), 223-236. Doi: https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v17i2.703
Job, M. A. (2018). An efficient way of applying big data analytics in higher education sector for performance evaluation. International Journal of Computer Applications, 180(23), 25-32. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2018916434
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. California Management Review, 39(1), 53-79. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/41165876
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part 1. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87-104. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2001.15.1.87
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2015). Balanced Scorecard Success: The Kaplan-Norton Collection (4 Books): Harvard Business Review Press.
Lee, A. H., Chen, W.-C., & Chang, C.-J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 96-107. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.08.022
Majidi, S., Fallah Lajimi, H., & Safaei Ghadikolaei, A. (2021). The application of Data Envelopment Analysis in evaluating the performance of universities and higher education institutions: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 11, 53-80.
Manian, A., Fathi, M. R., Zarchi, M. K., & Omidian, A. (2011). Performance evaluating of IT department using a modified Fuzzy TOPSIS and BSC methodology (Case study: Tehran Province Gas Company). Journal of Management Research, 3(2), 1. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v3i2.640
Mizikaci, F. (2003). Quality systems and accredition in higher education: An overview of Turkish higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 95-106.Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320308160
Moradi, N., Malekmohammad, H., & Jamalzadeh, S. (2018). A model for performance evaluation of digital game industry using integrated AHP and BSC. Journal of Applied Research on Industrial Engineering, 5(2), 97-109.
Moradi, N., & Moradi, S. (2021). A method for project performance evaluation by combining the project golden triangle, BSC, AHP, and TOPSIS. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management, 8(1), 81-95.
Mu, E., Cooper, O., & Peasley, M. (2020). Best practices in analytic network process studies. Expert Systems with Applications, 159, 113536. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113536
Mu, E., & Nicola, C. B. (2019). Managing university rank and tenure decisions using a multi-criteria decision-making approach. International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 13(3), 297-320. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbsr.2019.100374
Mu, E., & Pereyra-Rojas, M. (2017). Understanding the analytic hierarchy process. In Practical Decision Making (pp. 7-22): Springer.Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33861-3_2
Navas, L. P., Montes, F., Abolghasem, S., Salas, R. J., Toloo, M., & Zarama, R. (2020). Colombian higher education institutions evaluation. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 71, 100801. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100801
Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Mousakhani, S., Tavakoli, M., Dalvand, M. R., Šaparauskas, J., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2020). Importance-performance analysis based balanced scorecard for performance evaluation in higher education institutions: an integrated fuzzy approach. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(3), 647-678. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.11940
Önder, E., Taş, N., & Hepsen, A. (2013). Performance evaluation of Turkish banks using analytical hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Journal of International Scientific Publication: Economy & Business, 7(Part 1), 470-503.
Özdemir, A., & Tüysüz, F. (2017). An Integrated Fuzzy DEMATEL and Fuzzy ANP based Balanced Scorecard approach: Application in Turkish higher education Institutions. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic & Soft Computing, 28.
Peris-Ortiz, M., García-Hurtado, D., & Devece, C. (2019). Influence of the balanced scorecard on the science and innovation performance of Latin American universities. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(4), 373-383. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1569488
Pramanik, D., Haldar, A., Mondal, S. C., Naskar, S. K., & Ray, A. (2017). Resilient supplier selection using AHP-TOPSIS-QFD under a fuzzy environment. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 12(1), 45-54. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2015.1101719
Ramasamy, N., Rajesh, R., Pugazhendhi, S., & Ganesh, K. (2016). Development of a hybrid BSC-AHP model for institutions in higher education. International Journal of Enterprise Network Management, 7(1), 13-26. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijenm.2016.075174
Ruggiero, J. (2004). Performance evaluation in education. In Handbook on data envelopment analysis (pp. 323-346): Springer.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
Seçme, N. Y., Bayrakdaroğlu, A., & Kahraman, C. (2009). Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11699-11709. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.013
Sehhat, S., Taheri, M., & Sadeh, D. H. (2015). Ranking of insurance companies in Iran using AHP and TOPSIS techniques. American Journal of Research Communication, 3(1), 51-60.
Shojaee, M., & Fallah, M. (2012). A hybrid TOPSIS-BSC method for strategic planning. Management Science Letters, 2(8), 2845-2850. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2012.09.029
Soummakie, B., & Wegener, M. (2021). A two-stage research performance assessment of Turkish higher education institutions using Data Envelopment Analysis and Beta Regression. Preprint.
Sundharam, V., Sharma, V., & Stephan Thangaiah, I. (2013). An integration of BSC and AHP for sustainable growth of manufacturing industries. International Journal of Business Excellence, 6(1), 77-92. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbex.2013.050577
Taylor, J., & Baines, C. (2012). Performance management in UK universities: implementing the Balanced Scorecard. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(2), 111-124. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2012.662737
Villegas, J. G., Castañeda, C., & Castañeda-Gómez, E. (2020). Planning and performance measurement in higher education: three case studies of operational research application. Revista Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia, 100, 97-112. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.redin.20210526
Vinodh, S., Prasanna, M., & Prakash, N. H. (2014). Integrated Fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS for selecting the best plastic recycling method: A case study. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(19-20), 4662-4672. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.03.007
Wu, H.-Y., Lin, Y.-K., & Chang, C.-H. (2011). Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(1), 37-50. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.06.001
Wu, Y., & Li, C. (2009). Research on performance evaluation of higher education based on the model of BSC-DRF-DEA. Paper presented at the 2009 16th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/icieem.2009.5344267
Yildiz, A., Ayyildiz, E., Taskin Gumus, A., & Ozkan, C. (2020). A modified balanced scorecard based hybrid pythagorean fuzzy AHP-topsis methodology for ATM site selection problem. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 19(02), 365-384.
Yılmaz, G., & Nuri İne, M. (2018). Assessment of sustainability performances of banks by TOPSIS method and balanced scorecard approach. International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science (IJBASS), 4(1).
Yousif, M. K., & Shaout, A. (2018). Fuzzy logic computational model for performance evaluation of Sudanese Universities and academic staff. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 30(1), 80-119. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.08.002
Yucesan, M., & Gul, M. (2020). Hospital service quality evaluation: an integrated model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Soft Computing, 24(5), 3237-3255.Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04084-2
Yudatama, U., & Sarno, R. (2016). Priority determination for higher education strategic planning using balanced scorecard, FAHP and TOPSIS (Case study: XYZ University). Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/105/1/012040
Zolfani, S. H., & Ghadikolaei, A. S. (2013). Performance evaluation of private universities based on balanced scorecard: empirical study based on Iran. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(4), 696-714. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.665383
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.