Assessment and ranking directors of the FARS Province municipality using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach and 360 degree model

1.684 470


Abstract. Assessment is one of important and influential tools in management to achieve information required for decision making about performance of employees working in an organization. With applying this tool appropriately, not only organization’s missions and targets become effective, but also 30 degree method is one of methods which are being employed to assess personnel. In this method, individual is assessed in viewpoint of people who are working with and also through self-assessment. In this paper, due to sensitivity of assessing directors of FARS Province municipality, some of mentioned directors have been assessed using 360 degree model. Criteria used in assessment have been obtained by competency model of directors in municipality. Criteria’s weights were determined via fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Since, each of evaluator groups (self-assessment, subordinate, manager, and coworker) are not the same, their weights also have been determined using AHP. Then a network is being established for each of directors and fuzzy decision matrix is being formed. Eventually, directors have been ranked using fuzzy TOPSIS. In aforementioned steps due to ambiguity in decision space and inaccuracy of opinions, fuzzy logic in a form of lingual-fuzzy variables have been used.


Ranking, Director Assessment, 360 Degree Assessment, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process, Fuzzy TOPSIS

Full Text:



A, Akın. (2003), 4.Kamu Kalite Sempozyumu 360 Derece Geri Besleme Çalıstay Dökümanları.. KalDer Ankara: ODTÜ Kültür ve Kongre Merkezi,1-19.

Ayag, Z., & Ozdemir, R. G. (2006). A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 17, 179–190.

Aytaç, A. (2003). 360 Derece Performans Değerlendirme, Bilim ve Aydınlığın Işığında Eğitim Dergisi. Yıl: 4, sayı: 41

Bingöl, D. (2006), İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, 6. Baskı, İstanbul: Arıkan Yayınevi Connoly, T. ve J. S. Deutsch (1980), “Performance Measurement: Some Conceptual Issues”, Evaluation and Program Planning, 3: 35-43.

Bhattarai, S., & Yadav, S. R. (2009). AHP application in banking: unfolding utility in a situation of financial crisis. In Proceedings of Tenth International Symposium on Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP 2009), University of Pittsburgh, USA. Retrieved from

11_Bhattarai_and_Shivjee_Roy_Yadav_REV_FIN.pdf [6] Bichler, M. 2000. “An experimental analysis of multi-attribute auctions”, Decision Support Systems (29:3), pp. 249-268.

Chan, F. S., & Kumar, N. (2007). Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 35, 417–431.

Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95, 649–655.

Chen, C.-T. 2000. “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems (114:1), pp. 1-9.

Hwang, C. L., and Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications, Springer-Verlag (Berlin and New York). [11] Kuo, M.-S., Tzeng, G.-H., and Huang, W.-C. 2007. “Group decision-making based on concepts of ideal and anti-ideal points in a fuzzy environment”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling (45:3-4), pp. 324-339.

Ludeman, K. (2000). How To Conduct Self Directed 360. Training & Development, 54 (7), 44-47.

Papanicolas, I., C. P. Smith, E. Mossıalos (2008), “Principles of Performance Measurement”, Euro Observer-The Health Policy Bulletin of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 10 (1): 1-4.

Tang, Y. C., & Beynon, M. J. (2009). Group decision-making within capital investment: A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process approach with developments. International Journal of Operational Research, 4, 75-96

Wang, Y. J. (2008). Applying FMCDM to evaluate financial performance of domestic airlines in Taiwan. Expert Systems With Applications, 34, 1837–1845.