Total views : 188

A Model for Faculty Evaluation in Higher Education Ecuadorian through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis


  • School of Computer Science, Department of Systems Engineering, Quevedo State Technical University, Km 1.5 Santo Domingo de los Tsachilas – 120501, Quevedo – Los Rios – Ecuador
  • Department of Electrical Engineering, Quevedo State Technical University, Km 1.5 Santo Domingo de los Tsachilas – 120501, Quevedo – Los Rios – Ecuador


Objectives: To obtain a model based in Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) for the teacher ranking of an Ecuadorian University. Methods/Analysis: The model is adjusted to both governmental and institutional regulations; secondly we analyze the quality requirements of control state institutions and finally, in order structuring the problem through trees of hierarchical objectives according informant type and the modeling of preferences is necessary to get good utility functions; for that use attributes defined by the same university and state control institutions for the higher education with qualitative and quantitative scales. Findings: We obtain the evaluation model for the university professor supported by the concept of multiple criteria such as administrative management, research, teaching and community engagement, the qualitative/quantitative attributes are transformed by the definition of utility functions at intervals between 0 and 1; the established functions come from evaluation models established by the control institutions and the modeling of preferences. In addition, hierarchical target trees are defined for informants such as students, teachers, authorities and peers. Application/Improvement: The Quevedo State Technical University has obtained a model of support decision making for the classification of teachers. This could be implemented through software.


Decision Analysis, Education Ecuadorian, Faculty Evaluation, MCDM, Teaching Quality

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 176)


  • Gibb A. Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development. towards the buildingof a strategic framework. Annals of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2012 Feb; 3(1):1–21. Crossref
  • Gibb A, Haskins G. The university of the future, an entrepreneurial stakeholder learning organization? Handbookon the Entrepreneurial University. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014. p. 25–63. Crossref
  • CEAACES. Modelo para la Evaluacion de las Carreras Presenciales y Semi-presenciales de las Universidades y Escuelas Politécnicas del Ecuador; 2013. p. 1–5.
  • Bazler J, Graybill L, Vansickle M, Seiverd K. United States next generation science standards : Impact on education and useable guide. Research in Higher Education Journal.2015 May; 28:78–90.
  • Simunic M, Pilepic L, Radic MN. Multidimensional analysis model of using information technologies and information systems in higher education. Research in Higher Education Journal. 2015 May; 28:127–38.
  • Honovich D. Quality assurance and the patient. Texas Hospitals. 1982 Oct; 38(5):27. PMid:10257725.
  • Bolívar A. Evaluacion de la Practica Docente. Una Revision desde Espa-a. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluacion Educativa. 2008 Oct; 1(2):56–74.
  • Huber TM. Faculty evaluation and the development of academic careers. Wiley Subscription Services. Wiley Periodicals Inc. 2002 Oct; 114:73–84.
  • Hyle AE. Faculty evaluation. A prickly pair. Higher Education. 1999 Oct; 38(3):351–71. Crossref
  • Arreola RA. Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system, a guide to designing, building and operating largescale faculty evaluation systems. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Anker Publishing Company; 2007.
  • Xu L, Yang J. Introduction to Multi-Criteria Decision Making and the evidential reasoning approach. Manchester School of Management. 2001 May; 106:1–21.
  • Dashti Z, Pedram MM, Shanbehzadeh J. A Multi-Criteria Decision Making based method for ranking sequential patterns. Proceeding International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists; Hong Kong. 2010. p. 1–6.
  • Alanazi HO, Abdullah AH, Larbani M. Dynamic weighted sum multi-criteria decision making: Mathematical model.International Journal of Mathematics and Statistics Invention. 2013 Dec; 1(2):16–8.
  • Olejnik R. Small enterprise’s computer network design using basic MCDM methods. Journal of Information, Control and Management Systems. 2014 May; 12(1):57–64.
  • Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process.International Journal of Services Sciences. 2008 Jan; 1(1):83–98. Crossref
  • Bana CA, Corte J De, Vansnick J. MACBETH. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making.2012 Mar; 11(2):359–87. Crossref
  • Dooley AE, Smeaton DC, Sheath GW, Ledgard SF.Application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the New Zealand agricultural industry. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 2009 Apr; 16(1/2):39–53. Crossref
  • Gallopin GC. Indicators and their use, information for decision-making. Moldan B, Billharz S and Matravers R, editors. A report on the project on sustainability indicators of sustainable development. Chinchester: John Wiley and Sons; 1997. p. 13–27.
  • Fishburn PC. Utility theory for decision making. Research Analysis Corporation. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1970. p. 1–246.
  • Belton V, Stewart T. Multicriteria decision analysis. An integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers. United Kingdom. 2002; 41(4):679–88. PMCid: PMC1692935.
  • Jimenez A, Insua RS, Mateos A. A generic multi-attribute analysis system. Computers and Operations Research. 2006 Apr; 33(4):1081–11. Crossref


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.