Performance evaluation in Public Administration: P-AHP and PROMETHEE a comparative analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23755/rm.v53i0.1618Keywords:
Multi-criteria methods, Parsimonious AHP, PROMETHEE I-II, Performance Evaluation, Public AdministrationAbstract
The performance evaluation is a crucial phase for each organization, and nowadays this is particularly relevant also for Public Administrations (PAs), where a high level of efficiency and effectiveness has a meaningful impact on citizens and companies. In this work we propose the adoption of Multi Criteria Decision Making approaches, in particular PROMETHEE I-II and Parsimonious AHP, for the performance evaluation of PA's services. The methods have been tested on a real PA in Southern Italy, and the results show their effectiveness as control and planning support tools.References
Francesca Abastante, Salvatore Corrente, Salvatore Greco, Alessio Ishizaka, and Isabella M Lami. Choice architecture for architecture choices: Evaluating social housing initiatives putting together a parsimonious ahp methodology and the choquet integral. Land Use Policy, 78:748–762, 2018.
Francesca Abastante, Salvatore Corrente, Salvatore Greco, Alessio Ishizaka, and Isabella M Lami. A new parsimonious ahp methodology: Assigning priorities to many objects by comparing pairwise few reference objects. Expert Systems with Applications, 127:109–120, 2019.
Jean-Pierre Brans and Yves De Smet. Promethee methods. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, pages 187–219, 2016.
Jean-Pierre Brans, Ph Vincke, and Bertrand Mareschal. How to select and how to rank projects: The promethee method. European journal of operational research, 24(2):228–238, 1986.
JP Brans. Mareschal (2005). promethee methods. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pages 163–195.
John Dawes. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? an experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International journal of market research, 50(1):61–104, 2008.
Amadou Diabagate, Abdellah Azmani, and Mohamed El Harzli. The choice of the best proposal in tendering with ahp method: case of procurement of it master plan’s realization. International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science (IJITCS), 7(12):1–11, 2015.
Mariagrazia Dotoli, Nicola Epicoco, and Marco Falagario. Multi-criteria decision making techniques for the management of public procurement tenders: A case study. Applied Soft Computing, 88:106064, 2020.
Gerarda Fattoruso and Gabriella Marcarelli. A multi-criteria approach for public tenders. electre iii and parsimonious ahp: a comparative study. Soft Computing, 26(21):11771–11781, 2022.
Gerarda Fattoruso, Paola Mancini, and Gabriella Marcarelli. The ahpsort ii to evaluate the high level instruction performances. Ratio Mathematica, 42:283, 2022.
Isabel C Gil Garcıa, Ana Fernandez-Guillamon, M Socorro GarcıaCascales, and Angel Molina-Garcıa. Multi-factorial methodology for wind power plant repowering optimization: A spanish case study. Energy Reports, 11:179–196, 2024.
Swati Goyal, Shivi Agarwal, Narinderjit Singh Sawaran Singh, Trilok Mathur, and Nirbhay Mathur. Analysis of hybrid mcdm methods for the performance assessment and ranking public transport sector: a case study. Sustainability, 14(22):15110, 2022.
Alessio Ishizaka and Philippe Nemery. Selecting the best statistical distribution with promethee and gaia. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61(4):958–969, 2011.
Daekook Kang, Krishnan Suvitha, Samayan Narayanamoorthy, Michael Sandra, and Dragan Pamucar. Evaluation of wave energy converters based on integrated electre approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 242:122793, 2024.
Marcin Kicinski and Katarzyna Solecka. Application of mcda/mcdm methods for an integrated urban public transportation system–case study, city of cracow. Archives of Transport, 46(2):71–84, 2018.
Ranjit Kumar. Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Research methodology, pages 1–528, 2018.
Ming-Shin Kuo and Gin-Shuh Liang. A soft computing method of performance evaluation with mcdm based on interval-valued fuzzy numbers. Applied Soft Computing, 12(1):476–485, 2012.
Wen-Hsiang Lai, Pao-Long Chang, and Ying-Chyi Chou. Fuzzy mcdm approach to r&d project evaluation in taiwan’s public sectors. In PICMET’08-2008 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology, pages 1523–1532. IEEE, 2008.
Barbara Loken, Phyllis Pirie, Karen A Virnig, Ronald L Hinkle, and Charles T Salmon. The use of 0-10 scales in telephone surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 29(3):353–362, 1987.
Gabriella Marcarelli and Massimo Squillante. A group-ahp-based approach for selecting the best public tender. Soft Computing, 24(18):13717–13724, 2020.
Bertrand Mareschal, Yves De Smet, and Philippe Nemery. Rank reversal in the promethee ii method: some new results. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, pages 959–963. IEEE, 2008.
Rocco Reina et al. Gestione del personale e cambiamento organizzativo nell’amministrazione pubblica. Rubbettino Editore, 2008.
Thomas L Saaty. Deriving the ahp 1-9 scale from first principles. Proceedings 6th ISAHP. Berna, Suiza, pages 397–402, 2001.
Thomas L Saaty. Decision-making with the ahp: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European journal of operational research, 145(1):85–91, 2003.
Thomas L Saaty. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1(1):83–98, 2008.
TL Saaty. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resources allocation. mcgraw-hill, new york. 1980.
Fiorella Pia Salvatore, Simone Fanelli, Gianluca Lanza, and Michele Milone. Public food procurement for italian schools: results from analytical and content analyses. British Food Journal, 123(8):2936–2951, 2021.
Roman Vavrek, Rastislav Kotulic, Peter Adamisin, Elena Sira, and Ivana Kravcakova Vozarova. Effectiveness of use of mcdm methods in the terms of local self-government. In Advances in Applied Economic Research: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Applied Economics (ICOAE), pages 279–288. Springer, 2017.
Philippe Vincke. Preference modelling: a survey and an experiment. In Operational research’81: Proceedings of the ninth IFORS International Conference on Operational Research. North Holland, 1981.
Hung-Yi Wu, Jui-Kuei Chen, I-Shuo Chen, and Hsin-Hui Zhuo. Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by a hybrid mcdm model. Measurement, 45(5):856–880, 2012.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The journal is committed to real and immediate open access for academic work. All of the journal articles are free to access immediately from the date of publication. There are no charge for readers to download articles and reviews for their own scholarly use. Benefits of open access for authors, include:
- Free access for all users worldwide
- Increased visibility and readership
- Rapid publication
- No spatial constraints
- Authors can share their research papers on their personal web-pages (i.e. ResearchGate, etc.)
Ratio Mathematica publishes open access articles under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License. The Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) allows users to copy, distribute and transmit an article, adapt the article and make commercial use of the article. The CC BY license permits commercial and non-commercial re-use of an open access article, as long as the author is properly attributed. Copyright on any research article published by Ratio Mathematica is retained by the author(s). Authors grant Ratio Mathematica a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
For further information visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. The following logo will appear in any paper that will be published from the volume number 31/2016 onwards.
