Volume 1 , Issue 2 , PP: 93-101, 2020 | Cite this article as | XML | Html | PDF | Full Length Article
N. Metawa 1 , Luka Bowanga 2
This study provides a means for institutions and administrations to develop plans while taking into consideration the strategic linkages. Making strategic decisions on their programming may benefit institutions and governments when relevant material is examined and talks with higher education specialists are held (HE). To handle disagreement and different criteria, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models are utilized. The most effective solution was evaluated using the new multi-criteria technique known as MABAC (Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison). Following the computation of the criterion weights, the MABAC is used to rank the options. The recommended approach may be used by institutions as well as central planners (usually the government) in higher education policy.
Intelligent Education , MABAC , Strategy , MCDM , Sustainability , Universities
[1] R. Trilokekar and A. El Masri, ―Canada’s international education strategy: Implications of a new policy
landscape for synergy between government policy and institutional strategy,‖ Higher Education Policy,
vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 539–563, 2016.
[2] J.-K. Chen and I.-S. Chen, ―Using a novel conjunctive MCDM approach based on DEMATEL, fuzzy
ANP, and TOPSIS as an innovation support system for Taiwanese higher education,‖ Expert Systems
with Applications, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 1981–1990, 2010.
[3] S. Hashemkhani Zolfani and A. Safaei Ghadikolaei, ―Application of MCDM methods in short-term
planning for private universities based on balanced scorecard: a case study from Iran,‖ International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 250–266, 2012.
[4] A. Labib, M. Read, C. Gladstone-Millar, R. Tonge, and D. Smith, ―Formulation of higher education
institutional strategy using operational research approaches,‖ Studies in Higher Education, vol. 39, no. 5,
pp. 885–904, 2014.
[5] A. Özdemir and F. Tüysüz, ―An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy ANP based balanced scorecard
approach: application in Turkish higher education institutions.,‖ Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic & Soft
Computing, vol. 28, 2017.
[6] H.-Y. Wu, J.-K. Chen, I.-S. Chen, and H.-H. Zhuo, ―Ranking universities based on performance
evaluation by a hybrid MCDM model,‖ Measurement, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 856–880, 2012.
[7] M. Shayganmehr and G. A. Montazer, ―An extended model for assessing E-services of Iranian
Universities websites using Mixed MCDM method,‖ Education and Information Technologies, vol. 25,
no. 5, pp. 3723–3757, 2020.
[8] M. Kabak and M. Dağdeviren, ―A hybrid MCDM approach to assess the sustainability of students’
preferences for university selection,‖ Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 20,
no. 3, pp. 391–418, 2014.
[9] M. Kiani, M. Bagheri, A. Ebrahimi, and M. Alimohammadlou, ―A model for prioritizing outsourceable
activities in universities through an integrated fuzzy-MCDM method,‖ International Journal of
Construction Management, pp. 1–17, 2019.
[10] C. Kahraman, A. Suder, and S. Cebi, ―Fuzzy multi-criteria and multi-experts evaluation of government
investments in higher education: the case of Turkey,‖ Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 549–569, 2013.
[11] M. A. Nisar, ―Higher education governance and performance based funding as an ecology of games,‖
Higher Education, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 289–302, 2015.
[12] S. Slaughter, ―Notional higher education policies in a global economy,‖ Universities and globalization:
Critical perspectives, pp. 45–70, 1998.
[13] L. T. Jonathan, ―Quality assurance and evaluation in African universities: developing a sustainable
quality culture in a challenging environment: international perspectives,‖ South African Journal of
Higher Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 45–49, 2000.
[14] Y. Reiko, ―University reform in the post-massification era in Japan: analysis of government education
policy for the 21st century,‖ Higher Education Policy, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 277–291, 2001.
[15] J. S. Levin, ―Public policy, community colleges, and the path to globalization,‖ Higher Education, vol.
42, no. 2, pp. 237–262, 2001.
[16] S. Hurtado and A. Ruiz Alvarado, ―Realizing the potential of Hispanic-serving institutions: Multiple
dimensions of institutional diversity for advancing Hispanic higher education,‖ 2012.
[17] G. Gibbs, T. Habeshaw, and M. Yorke, ―Institutional learning and teaching strategies in English higher
education,‖ Higher Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 351–372, 2000.
[18] N. C. of I. into H. E. (Great Britain), Higher education in the learning society: Report of the National
Committee. The Committee, 1997.
[19] R. M. Van der Rijst, G. J. Visser-Wijnveen, N. Verloop, and J. H. Van Driel, ―Undergraduate science
coursework: Teachers’ goal statements and how students experience research,‖ Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 178–190, 2013.
[20] J. Robertson and G. Blackler, ―Students’ experiences of learning in a research environment,‖ Higher
Education Research & Development, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 215–229, 2006.
[21] M. Healey and A. Jenkins, Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Higher Education Academy
York, 2009.
[22] Y. Hu, R. Van Der Rijst, K. Van Veen, and N. Verloop, ―The role of research in teaching: A comparison
of teachers from research universities and those from universities of applied sciences,‖ Higher Education
Policy, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 535–554, 2015.
[23] P. Westnes, S. Hatakenaka, M. Gjelsvik, and R. K. Lester, ―The role of universities in strengthening
local capabilities for innovation—A comparative case study,‖ Higher Education Policy, vol. 22, no. 4,
pp. 483–503, 2009.
[24] L. A. Moncayo–Martínez, A. Ramírez–Nafarrate, and M. G. Hernández–Balderrama, ―Evaluation of
public HEI on teaching, research, and knowledge dissemination by Data Envelopment Analysis,‖ Socio-
Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 69, p. 100718, 2020.
[25] J. B. Powers, ―Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university
technology transfer,‖ The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 26–50, 2003.
[26] D. D. Wang, ―Performance-based resource allocation for higher education institutions in China,‖ Socio-
Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 65, pp. 66–75, 2019.
[27] E. Rasmussen, Ø. Moen, and M. Gulbrandsen, ―Initiatives to promote commercialization of university
knowledge,‖ Technovation, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 518–533, 2006.
[28] B. Carlsson and A.-C. Fridh, ―Technology transfer in United States universities,‖ Journal of
Evolutionary Economics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 199–232, 2002.
[29] D. Pamučar and G. Ćirović, ―The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using
Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC),‖ Expert systems with
applications, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 3016–3028, 2015.
[30] X. Peng and J. Dai, ―Hesitant fuzzy soft decision making methods based on WASPAS, MABAC and
COPRAS with combined weights,‖ Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 1313–
1325, 2017.