An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study
In this paper a procedure to evaluate proposals for Educational Innovation Projects is proposed. This methodology should help the Institute of Educational Sciences of the Politechnical University of Valencia to choose the best Educational Project, the final aim being to provide the Administration with a stringent evaluation methodology, since the current evaluation methodology was found to be neither sufficiently objective nor systematic. Since in the definition and evaluation of these Educational Projects diverse stakeholders are involved, the process has been approached as a MCDA carried out by a group of experts. Although a whole methodology is proposed, the paper has been focused on the weight assignment of the different criteria chosen by the experts. The experts have been asked to act in two different ways: in face-to-face meetings in which a consensus or compromise had to be reached, and meetings at distance where the experts have given their individual judgements, which have been next combined using the geometric mean with the software EC 2000 [Expert Choice 2000 Team. Pittsburgh: Expert Choice, Inc.; 2001]. This procedure has allowed the authors to analyse the possible scenarios that the IES board team might come up against in the future. The main difference between the two ways of work is the dimension of physical space or the distance between the members of the evaluating team. This distance has a significant effect on the way team members relate to each other.
Volume (Year): 36 (2008)
Issue (Month): 5 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mustafa, A. & Goh, M., 1996. "Multi-criterion models for higher education administration," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 167-178, April.
- Politis, Y. & Siskos, Y., 2004. "Multicriteria methodology for the evaluation of a Greek engineering department," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 223-240, July.
- Katrin Borcherding & Thomas Eppel & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1991. "Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(12), pages 1603-1619, December.
- Mareschal, Bertrand, 1988.
"Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid,"
European Journal of Operational Research,
Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 54-64, January.
- Bertrand Mareschal, 1988. "Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9317, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Forgionne, Guisseppi A. & Kohli, Rajiv & Jennings, Darniet, 2002. "An AHP analysis of quality in AI and DSS journals," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 171-183, June.
- Davey, Anne & Olson, David & Wallenius, Jyrki, 1994. "The process of multiattribute decision making: A case study of selecting applicants for a Ph.D. program," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 469-484, February.
- Baltes, Boris B. & Dickson, Marcus W. & Sherman, Michael P. & Bauer, Cara C. & LaGanke, Jacqueline S., 2002. "Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 156-179, January.
- Gerardine DeSanctis & R. Brent Gallupe, 1987. "A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 589-609, May.
- Caballero, R. & Galache, T. & Gomez, T. & Molina, J. & Torrico, A., 2001. "Efficient assignment of financial resources within a university system. Study of the University of Malaga," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 298-309, January. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:36:y:2008:i:5:p:754-765. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.