2013
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-35467-0_23
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Building a Global Performance Indicator to Evaluate Academic Activity Using Fuzzy Measures

Abstract: The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other studies convert quantitative impacts into values linearly and therefore presuppose that a unit of impact has always the same value, which is a strong assumption (in other words, problems on the interpretation of commensurate scales -see section 3.1) (Bottero et al, 2013;Cardin et al, 2013). Other studies weight EC based only on the notion of importance (Labreuche C. et al, 2005;Brosig, 2012) with no reference to impact ranges -in fact, this has been described as the most common critical mistake in decision analysis (Keeney, 1992).…”
Section: Modelling Interdependent Ecmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Other studies convert quantitative impacts into values linearly and therefore presuppose that a unit of impact has always the same value, which is a strong assumption (in other words, problems on the interpretation of commensurate scales -see section 3.1) (Bottero et al, 2013;Cardin et al, 2013). Other studies weight EC based only on the notion of importance (Labreuche C. et al, 2005;Brosig, 2012) with no reference to impact ranges -in fact, this has been described as the most common critical mistake in decision analysis (Keeney, 1992).…”
Section: Modelling Interdependent Ecmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies have applied these CI operators in many evaluation contexts such as to: (i) evaluate supplier's performance (Clivillé et al, 2006;Berrah et al, 2007;Feyzioglu et al, 2010), employees' performance (Gürbüz, 2010) and action plans in an organization in industrial contexts Merad et al, 2013); (ii) assess academic performance of faculty members in the education sector (Cardin et al, 2013); (iii) evaluate classical swine fever control strategies in the animal health literature (Brosig, 2012), (iv) evaluate a new waste incinerator plant location in the environment context (Bottero et al, 2013); and (iv) more recently, in the risk management context, to build a value-and riskbased performance measurement and management system .…”
Section: Modelling Interdependent Ecmentioning
confidence: 99%