An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for

Academic Staff Selection

Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh and Turan Erman Erkan
Department of Industrial Engineering, Atlm University, P.O. Box 06836,

Incek, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract
There are various methods regarding staff selection in different elds. Thanks to the increasing im-
provements in the eld of education, universities around the world tend to demand high -quality
and professional academic staff. Staff selection is a multi-criteria decision-making processes, and of
strategic importance for most universities. This study deals with actual application of academic of staff
selection using the opinion of experts to be applied into a model of group decision - making called the
Fuzzy ELECTRE (Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la REaite) method. There are ten qualitative criteria
for selecting the best candidate amongst ve prospective applications.
C
2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: Academic Staff Selection, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM), Fuzzy ELECTRE,
Human Resources.
1. INTRODUCTION
Staff recruitment is one of the primary steps in the
process of universities human resources and educa-
tion management. In the wake of an increase in the
number of universities in Turkey, the need for recruit-
ing academic staff has become inevitable. As a result,
in the light of such demand the performance of staff,
including research techniques, up-to-date knowledge,
and language skills play an important role in nding a
job successfully. As for their own share, the universities
will not be able to keep their competitive advantages
without the ability to recruit the right individuals in
various departments.
In recent years, the attention paid by researchers to
the topic of skilled employee recruitment has increased
considerably (Billsberry, 2007), (Breaugh, Macan &
Correspondence to: Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh (Babek
Erdebilli), Department of Industrial Engineering, Atlm
University, P.O. Box 06836. Phone: 90-312-586 83 11, Fax:
90-312-586 80 91; e-mail address: babekd@atilim.edu.tr
Received: 7 January 2011; revised 1 February 2011; accepted 4
February 2011
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hfm
DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20301
Grambow, 2008). As globalization intensies, human
capital becomes a critical element for the success of
rms (Kiessling & Harvey, 2005). In addition, success-
ful recruitment is also crucial for a nations economic
growth due to the shortage in qualies labor force in
many countries (Becker, 1995).
Recruitment activities are processes aimed at sin-
gling out applicants with the required qualications,
and keeping them interested in the organization so
that they will accept a job offer when it is extended.
Substantial research has been conducted on recruit-
ment due to its critical role in bringing human capital
into organizations (Barber, 1998).
In the literature, the techniques applied in staff se-
lection, assessment, andevaluationinclude writtenand
oral exams (Arvey & Campion, 1982). Although eval-
uating applicants by means of written and oral exams
is essential for a company when employing the staff
required, it is not sufcient all by itself. In this pro-
cess, rst of all, the criteria or factors - that are to
be the basis of assessment and evaluations have to be
specied. Whats more, the weights of these criteria
need to be determined, for each criterion possesses a
different degree of importance - or weight - in staff
assessment and evaluation. Therefore, unsatisfactory
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 00 (0) 19 (2012) c 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1
An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Academic Staff Selection Rouyendegh and Erkan
subjective selection may occur with conventional
assessment and evaluation tools, such as written or
oral exams, and tests which are not based upon any
certain criteria and/or weights.
The fuzzy linguistic models allow the translation of
verbal expressions intonumerical ones, thereby dealing
quantitatively with imprecision in the expression of
the importance of each criterion. There are a number
of multi-criteria methods used for this purpose and
based on fuzzy relations. The fuzzy set theory has been
proposed by Liang & Wang (1992), Miller & Feinzing
(1993), Liang & Wang (1994), Karsak (2001), Capaldo
&Zollo(2001), Canos &Liern(2008), andBoran, Genc
& Akay (2011) to address the issue of staff selection.
In addition, the fuzzy analytical approach has been
appliedby Mikhailov (2002) tothe problemof selecting
partnerships. Jessop (2004) has applied the minimally-
based weight method in staff selection. Chen & Cheng
(2005) have proposed a Fuzzy Group Decision Support
System(FGDSS) based on the metric distance method,
in order to solve the IS (Information System) problem
instaff selection(G ung or, Serhadlo glu&Kesen, 2009).
The Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) is a
modeling and methodological tool for dealing with
complex engineering problems. In this eld, the Multi-
Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) approach is the
most well-known branch of the decision-making pro-
cess and also a part of a general class of models for
operations research that deal with decision problems
under the presence of a number of decision criteria.
The MADM approach requires that the selection be
made among the decision alternatives described by
their attributes. The problems concerning MADM are
assumed to have a pre-determined, limited number of
decisionalternatives, and solving theminvolves sorting
and ranking.
The ELECTRE method for choosing the best ac-
tion(s) from a given set of actions was devised in 1965,
and later referred to as ELECTRE I (Electre One). The
acronym ELECTRE stands for ELimination Et Choix
Traduisant la REaliteor (ELimination and Choice Ex-
pressing the Reality), (Benayoun & Billsberry, 1966),
Roy (1985) initialy cited for commercial reasons. This
approach has evolved into a number of variants. To-
day, the used applied versions are known as ELEC-
TRE II (Roy & Bertier 1973) and ELECTRE III (Roy
1978). ELECTREis a popular approachtoMCDM, and
has been widely used in the literature (Vincke, 1992;
Roy, 1996; Belton & Stewart, 2002; Almeida, 2007;
Papadopoulos & Karagiannidisa, 2008; Wang &
Triantaphyllou, 2008).
This paper is divided into four main sections. The
next section provides materials and methods, mainly
the fuzzy sets and the ELECTRE method. The fuzzy
ELECTRE method is introduced in section 3. How
the proposed model is used in an actual example is
explained in section 4. Finally, the conclusions are pro-
vided in the nal section.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Number
Zadeh (1965) introduced the Fuzzy Set Theory to deal
withthe uncertainty due toimprecisionandvagueness.
A major contribution of this theory is its capability of
representing vague data; it also allows mathematical
operators and programming to be applied to the fuzzy
domain. A fuzzy set is a class of objects with a contin-
uum of grades of membership. Such a set is character-
ized by a membership (characteristic) function, which
assigns to each object a grade of membership rang-
ing between zero and one (Kahraman, Ruan & Do gan,
2003).
A tilde will be placed above a symbol if the sym-
bol represents a fuzzy set. A triangular fuzzy number
(TFN)

M is shown in Figure 1. A TFN is denoted sim-
ply as (l/m,m/u) or (l,m,u). The parameters l, mand u
(l m u),respectively, denote the smallest possible
value, the most promising value, and the largest possi-
ble value that describe a fuzzy event. The membership
function of triangular fuzzy numbers is as follows:
Each TFN has linear representations on its left and
right side, such that its membership function can be
dened as:
(
x

M
) =
_

_
0, x < l,
(x l)/(ml), l x m,
(u x)/(u m), m x u,
0, x > u.
[1]
1.0
M
l(y)
M
r(y)
0.0
l m u
Figure 1 A triangular Fuzzy Number

M.
2 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Rouyendegh and Erkan An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Academic Staff Selection
A fuzzy number can always be given by its corre-
sponding left and right representation of each degree
of membership as in the following:

M = (M
l(y)
, M
r(y)
= (l +(ml)y, u +(mu)y),
y [0, 1] [2]
where l(y) and r(y) denote the left side representation
and the right side representation of a fuzzy number,
respectively. Many ranking methods for fuzzy numbers
have been developed in the literature. These methods
may provide different ranking result, and most of them
are tedious ingraphic manipulationrequiring complex
mathematical calculation (Kahraman, Ruan & Ethem
2002).
While there are various operations on triangular
fuzzy numbers, only the important operations used
in this study are illustrated. If we dene two positive
triangular fuzzy numbers (l1, m1, u1) and (l2, m2, u2),
then
(l1, m1, u1) +(l2, m2, u2)
= (l1 +l2, m1 +m2, u1 +u2), [3]
(l1, m1, u1)

(l2, m2, u2)

= (l1

l2, m1 +m2, u1

u2), [4]
(l1, m1, u1) +k
= (l1

km1

k, u1

k), wherek > 0. [5]

2.2. Steps of ELECTRE Method
The ELECTRE (ELiminiation Et Traduisant la REalite)
method was originated by Roy in the late 1960s. This
method is based on the study of outranking relations
using concordance and discordance indexes to analyze
such relation among the alternatives. The concordance
and discordance indexes can be viewed as measure-
ments of dissatisfaction that a decisionmaker uses in
choosing one alternative over the other.
Suppose an MCDM problem has m alternatives
(A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
m
) and n decision criteria/attributes
(C
1
, C
2
, . . . , C
n
). Each alternative is evaluated with
respect to the n criteria/attributes. All the values/rating
assigned to the alternatives with respect to each crite-
rion form a decision matrix denoted byX = (x
ij
)
mn
.
Let W = (w
1
, w
2
, . . . , w
n
) be the relative weight
vector of the criteria, satisfying

n
j=1
w
j
= 1. Then,
the ELECTRE method can be summarized as follows
(Yoon & Hwang, 1995).
Normalise the decision matrix X = (x
ij
)
mn
by
calculating, which represents the normalised crite-
ria/attributes value/rating.
r
ij
=
1
/
x
x
ij
_

m
i=1
1
x
2
ij
For the minimisation objective,
[6]
where i = 1, 2, . . . , m and j = 1, 2, . . . , n
r
ij
=
x
j
_

m
i=1
x
2
ij
For the maximisation objective, [7]
where i = 1, 2, . . . , m and j = 1, 2, . . . , n
Calculate the weighted normalised decision matrix
V = (v
ij
)
mn
v
ij
= r
ij
.w
ij
, [8]
wherei = 1, 2, . . . , m and j = 1, 2, . . . , n,
Where W
j
is the relative weight of the jth criterion or
attribute, and
n

j=1
W
j
= 1 [9]
Determine the concordance and discordance sets.
For each pair of alternative A
p
and A
q
(p, q =
1, 2, . . . , m and, p = q), the set of criteria is divided
into two distinct subsets. If the alternative A
p
is pre-
ferred over alternative A
q
for all the criteria, then con-
cordance set is composed. This can be written as:
C(p, q) = {j|v
pj
> v
qj
} [10]
Where V
pj
is the weighted normalised rating of the
alternative Ap with respect to the jth criterion. In other
words, C(p, q) is the collection of attributes where A
p
is better than, or equal, to A
q
.
The complement of C(p, q), the discordance set,
contains all the criteria for which A
p
is worse than A
q
.
This can be written as
D(p, q) = {j|v
pj
< v
qj
}, [11]
Calculate the concordance and discordance indexes.
The concordance index of C(p, q) is dened as
C
pq
=

W
j

, [12]
where j

are the attributes contained in the concor-

dance set C(p, q). The discordance index D(p, q) rep-
resents the degree of disagreement in (A
p
A
q
), and
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 3
An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Academic Staff Selection Rouyendegh and Erkan
can be dened as
Dpq =

j
+ |
pj
+ v
qj
+|

j
|v
pj
v
qj
|
, [13]
Where j
+
are the attributes contained in the discor-
dance set D(p, q) and v
ij
is the weighted normalised
evaluation of the alternative i on criterion j.
Outranking the relationships, this method the de-
nes that A
p
outranks A
q
when C
pq


C and D
pq

D, where

C and

D are the averages of C
pq
and D
pq
,
respectively.
3. THE FUZZY ELECTRE METHOD
The basic steps of the fuzzy ELECTRE proposed be
Sevkli (2010) can be described in the following way.
Step 1. In the rst step, a panel of decision- mak-
ers (DMs) knowledgeable in the eld of staff selec-
tion is established. The group has k decision- makers
(i.e, D
1
, D
2
, . . . , D
k
) responsible for the ranking (y
jk
)
of each criterion (i.e. C
1
, C
2
, . . . , C
n
)in an increasing
order. Then, the aggregated fuzzy importance weight
for each criterion can be described as fuzzy trian-
gular numbers w
j
= (l
j
, m
j
, u
j
) for K = 1, 2, . . . , k
and j = 1, 2, . . . , n. The aggregated fuzzy importance
weight can be determined as follows:
l
j
= min{y
jk
}
k
m
j
=
1
k
k

k=1
y
jk,
u
j
= max{y
jk
}
k
[14]
Then, the aggregated fuzzy importance weight for each
criterion is normalised as:
w
j
= (w
j1
, w
j2
, w
j3
),
Where
w
j1
=
1
/l
j

n
j=1
1
/l
j
w
j2
=
1
/m
j

n
j=1
1
/m
j
w
j3
=
1
_
u
j

n
j=1
1
_
u
j
[15]
Then the normalised aggregated fuzzy importance
weight matrix is constructed as

W = [ w
1
, w
2
, w
n
].
Step 2. A decision matrix is formed as:
X =
_
_
_
_
X
11
X
12
X
1n
X
21
X
22
X
21

X
m1
X
m2
X
mn
_

_
[16]
Step 3. After forming the decision matrix, normal-
isation is applied. The calculation is performed using
formulae [6] and [7]. Then, the normalised decision
matrix is obtained as
X =
_
_
_
_
r
11
r
12
r
1n
r
21
r
22
r
21

r
m1
r
m2
r
mn
_

_
[17]
Step 4. Considering the different weights of each
criterion, the weighted normalised decision matrix is
computed by multiplying the importance weight of the
evaluation criteria and the values in the normalised de-
cision matrix. The weighted normalised decision ma-
trix

V for each criterion is dened as

V = [ v
ij
]
mn
for i = 1, 2, . . . , m and
j = 1, 2, . . . , n, where v
ij
= r
ij
w
j
.
and
V
1
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
v
1
11
v
1
12
v
1
1n
v
1
21
v
1
22
v
1
2n

v
1
m1
v
1
m2
v
1
mn
_

_
,
V
2
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
v
2
11
v
2
12
v
2
1n
v
2
21
v
2
22
v
2
2n

v
2
m1
v
2
m2
v
2
mn
_

_
[18]
V
3
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
v
3
11
v
3
12
v
3
1n
v
3
21
v
3
22
v
3
2n

v
3
m1
v
3
m2
v
3
mn
_

_
.
4 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Rouyendegh and Erkan An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Academic Staff Selection
Here, v
ij
denote normalisedpositive triangular fuzzy
numbers.
Step 5. The concordance and discordance indexes
are calculated for different weightes of each criterion
(w
j1
, w
j2
, w
j3
). The concordance index C
pq
repre-
sents the degree of condence in pair-wise - judgments
(A
p
A
q
). The concordance index C
pq
for the pro-
posed model is dened as
C
1
pq
=

w
j1
, C
2
pq
=

w
j2,
, C
2
pq
=

w
j3
,
[19]
Where J

are the attributes contained in the concor-

dance set C(p, q).
Step 6. The discordance index, on the other hand,
measures the power of D(p, q). The discordance index
D(p, q), which represents the degree of disagreement
in (A
p
A
q
)
,
can be dened as
D
1
pq
=

j+

v
1
pj
+
v
1
qj
+

v
1
pj
v
1
qj

D
2
pq
=

j+

v
2
pj
+
v
2
qj
+

v
2
pj
v
2
qj

D
3
pq
=

j+

v
3
pj
+
v
3
qj
+

v
3
pj
v
3
qj

[20]
Where J
+
are the attribute contained in the discor-
dance set D(p, q)
,
and v
ij
is the weighted normalised
evaluation of the alternative i on the criterion j.
Step 7. The nal concordance and discordance in-
dexes are computed using the following formula:
C

pq
=
z
_
Z

z=1
C
z
pq
D

pq
=
z
_
Z

z=1
D
z
pq
Where, Z = 3. [21]
This formula canbe consideredas the defuzzication
procedure. The dominance relationship of the alterna-
tive A
p
over the alternative A
q
becomes stronger with a
larger nal concordance index C
pq
and a smaller nal
discordance indexD
pq
. The outranking relation is ob-
tained by applying the following equation procedure
to gain the kernel as the subset of the best alternatives:
If C(p, q)

C and D(p, q)

D [22]
Where

C and

D are the averages of C
pq
and D
pq
,
respectively.
4. DETERMINING THE WEIGHTS OF
THE FACTORS IN THE STAFF
SELECTION MODEL
In 2009, using ten criteria, one university in Turkey se-
lectedthe best candidate amongve others, all of whom
had passed the initial examination. In this study, the
objective is to determine the most eligible individual
for a certain position. The decisive factors were clas-
sied into three main criteria; work factors, academic
factors, andindividual factors. These criteria are, again,
divided into various sub-criteria, namely:
Work factors:
C1 =GRE and Foreign language,
C2 =GPA - Bachelor degree,
C3 =Oral Presentation.
Academic factors:
C4 =Academic Experience,
C5 =Research Paper Writing,
C6 =Technical Information,
C7 =Team Work.
Individual factors:
C8 =Self Condence,
C9 =Compatibility,
C10 =Age.
The optimal staff selection chart appears in
Figure 2.
The weights of the criteria are calculated using a
comparisonmatrix. Meanwhile, data is calculatedfrom
ve experts decisions, shown in Table 1, and by calcu-
lating the normalised matrix, as Table 2, respectively.
After that, the concordance anddisconcordance sets are
separated as in Table 3. Finally, the result and determi-
nation of the priorities of the candidates are extracted
from Table 4 and Table 5.
Finally, the result score is always, the-bigger-the-
better. As visible in Table 5, candidate 2 has the highest
score due toits best choice. This is while candidate 5 has
the lowest score and is, therefore, position in the last
column. Other related results are also reected in same
Table 5. Obviously, the choice is candidate 2. Therefore,
the result is:
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 5
An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Academic Staff Selection Rouyendegh and Erkan
Work Factors Academic Factors
Age
Self Confidence
Compatibility
Research Paper
Writting
Team Work
Technical
Information
Academic
Experience
Best Candidate
GRE and Foreign
language
Oral Presentation
GPA (Bachelor
Degree)
Individual Factors
Figure 2 Staff Selection Chart.
Candidate 2 Candidate 3 Candidate 1 Can-
didate 4 Candidate 5.
We also Fuzzy ELECTRE method, and compared the
results with Fuzzy AHP method. Fuzzy AHP approach
and Fuzzy ELECTRE method propose the same candi-
date 2 as the best choice. They came fromdifferent the-
oretical backgrounds and relate differently to the disci-
pline of multi-criteria decision-making. Because data
needed for Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy ELECTRE method
approach are different, we do not necessarily expect to
TABLE 1. Determining the weights of criteria by comparison matrix (If X1 criteria is preferable over X2, we put p,
otherwise, X.)
Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 Weights
C1 P P P P P P P P P 0,272727
C2 X P P P P P P P P 0,136363
C3 X X P P P P P P P 0,090909
C4 X X X P P P P P P 0,081553
C5 X X X X P P P P P 0,101942
C6 X X X X X P P P P 0,058252
C7 X X X X X X P P P 0,058252
C8 X X X X X X X P P 0,074380
C9 X X X X X X X X P 0,066116
C10 X X X X X X X X X 0,059504
6 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Rouyendegh and Erkan An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Academic Staff Selection
TABLE 2. The normalised decision matrix
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
CA 1 0,049 0,098 0,055 0,049 0,015 0,001 0,001 0,029 0,027 0,004
CA 2 0,146 0,033 0,011 0,029 0,015 0,002 0,002 0,049 0,045 0,004
CA 3 0,016 0,011 0,004 0,010 0,015 0,035 0,035 0,010 0,003 0,011
CA 4 0,146 0,011 0,033 0,003 0,005 0,021 0,021 0,010 0,002 0,033
CA 5 0,049 0,033 0,033 0,029 0,077 0,021 0,021 0,010 0,003 0,033
TABLE 3. Stage of Concordance and Disconcordance sets
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C D
C
12
1 1 1 1 1 2,3,4,5,10 1,6,7,8,9
C
13
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,2,3,4,5,8,9 6,7,10
C
14
1 1 1 1 1 1 2,3,4,5,8,9 1,6,7,10
C
15
1 1 1 1 1 1 1,2,3,4,8,9 5,6,7,10
C
23
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,2,3,4,5,8,9 6,7,10
C
24
1 1 1 1 1 1 1,2,4,5,8,9 3,6,7,10
C
25
1 1 1 1 1 1,2,4,8,9 3,5,6,7,10
C
34
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,4,5,6,7,8,9 1,3,10
C
35
1 1 1 1 6,7,8,9 1,2,3,4,5,10
C
45
1 1 1 1 1 1,3,6,7,8,10 2,4,5,9
TABLE 4. Determination of the Alternatives
C
12
0 0
C
13
1 1
C
14
1 0
C
15
1 0
C
23
1 1
C
24
1 1
C
25
1 1
C
34
1 0
C
35
0 0
C
45
1 1
C
21
1 1
C
31
0 0
C
41
0 0
C
51
0 0
C
32
0 0
C
42
0 0
C
52
0 0
C
43
0 1
C
53
1 1
C
54
0 0
have same result for the same personnel selectionprob-
lem. But, in comparing the ranking derived by using
Fuzzy AHP method and Fuzzy ELECTRE method, the
best alternative is (candidate 2), and ranking of alter-
TABLE 5. Prioritizing Candidates
Candidates Weight
First Candidate 1,11981
Second Candidate 59,72175
Third Candidate 32,19688
Fourth Candidate 26,2574
Fifth Candidate 118,248
natives by each method is very close to each other. This
indicates that when the decision maker is consistent
with himself in determining the data of each method
independently, the ranking results will be necessarily
the same. In fact, it was conrmed the same results,
and second candidate was selected.
5. CONCLUSION
In this article, the role of intellectual values, and were
examined, the potential key boundary conditions for
the application of a multi-criteria recruitment frame-
work in an academic context revealed.
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 7
An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Academic Staff Selection Rouyendegh and Erkan
An MCDM is presented based on the fuzzy set the-
ory in order to select the best candidate. In order to
achieve consensus among the decision-makers, all pair-
wise comparisons were converted into triangular fuzzy
numbers to adjust the fuzzy rating and the fuzzy at-
tribute weight. The fuzzy set theory in the decision-
making process implies that this practice,yet, is not
absolute.
Academic staff selection is a process that also con-
tains uncertainties. This problem can be overcome by
using fuzzy numbers and linguistic variables to achieve
accuracy and consistency. In short, our analysis sug-
gests that recruitment within an academic environ-
ment is a complex issue, thus human resources can-
not be measured quantitatively using the traditional
decision-making tools such as crisp ELECTRE.
To overcome this deciency, fuzzy numbers, can be
applied to make accurate and consistence decisions by
reducing subjective assessment. The maincontribution
of this study lies in the application of a fuzzy approach
to the academic staff selection decision - making pro-
cesses, drawing on an actual case in human resources.
Using the appropriate MCDM tools, this study deals
with one of the most important subjects in the eld
of human resources managment, allowing for more
objective decisons. Fuzzy set theory is capable of deal-
ing with uncertainty. ELECTRE is one of the decision
making method based on pair wise comparison. The
advantages of the Fuzzy ELECTRE method for staff
selection problem, more research is called for within
the context of studying a more complex staff selec-
tion with multiple criteria as well as investigating other
MCDMto ndthe optimumstaff selectionsolution. In
this study, we tried to design a multi-criteria decision-
making model based on fuzzy set theory to select the
most adequate person. Unlike other decision methods,
this method can adaptively nd a suitable person for
the job.
As for future work, it is suggested that other multi-
criteria approaches - such as, the fuzzy analytic net-
work process andPROMETHEEoutranking methods -
be applied and compared in staff selection and recruit-
ment procedures.
References
Almeida, A. T. (2007). Multicriteria decision model for
outsourcing contracts selection based on utility func-
tionandELECTRE. Computers &Operations Research,
34 (12), 35693574.
Arvey, R. D., & Campion, J. E. (1982). The employment
Interview: A summary and review of recent research.
Staff Psychology, 35, 281322.
Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees. Thousand
Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.
Becker, G. S. (1995). Human capital and poverty allevia-
tion. World Bank, Human Resources Development and
Operations Policy.
Belton, V., Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision
nalysis. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
Benayoun, R., & Billsberry, J. (2007). Experiencing
recruitment and selection. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley &
Sons.
Breaugh, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Grambow, D. M.(2008).
Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and direc-
tions for future research. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K.
Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Or-
ganizational Psychology, NewYork: John Wiley &Sons,
23, 4582.
Boran, F. E., Genc, S., & Akay D. (2011) Personnel Selec-
tion Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing &Service Industries
DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20252.
Capaldo, G., & Zollo, G. (2001). Applying fuzzy logic to
staff assessment: a case study. Omega; the International
Journal of Management Science, 29, 585597.
Canos, L., & Liern, V. (2008). Soft computing-based ag-
gregation methods for human resource management.
European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3),
669681.
Chen, L. S., & Cheng, C. H. (2005). Selecting IS staff use
fuzzy GDSS based on metric distance method. Euro-
pean Journal of Operation Research, 160, 803820.
G ung or. Z., Serhadlo glu, G., & Kesen, S. E. (2009). A
Fuzzy AHPapproachtostaff selectionproblem. Applied
Soft Computing, 9, 641646.
Jessop, A. (2004). Minimally biased weight determina-
tion in staff. Journal of Operation Research, 153 433
444.
Kahraman, C ., Ruan., D. &Ethem, T. (2002). Capital bud-
geting techniques using discounted fuzzy versus prob-
abilistic cash ows. Information Sciences, 42, 5776.
Kahraman, C ., Ruan., D. &Do gan, I. (2003). Fuzzy group
decision-making for facility location selection. Infor-
mation Sciences, 157, 13515.
Karsak, E. E. (2001). Staff selecting using a fuzzy MCDM
approach based on ideal and anti-ideal solutions. Mul-
tiple Criteria Decision Making in the New Millennium,
Springer, Berlin.
Kiessling, T. S., & Harvey, M. S. (2005). Strategic global
human resource management research in the twenty-
rst century: An endorsement of the mixed-method
research methodology. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 16(1), 2245.
8 Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm
Rouyendegh and Erkan An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Academic Staff Selection
Liang, G., & Wang, M. (1992). Personnel placement in
a fuzzy environment. Computers Operations Research,
19, 107121.
Liang, S. L., & Wang, M. J. (1994). Personnel selection
using fuzzy MCDM algorithm. European Journal of
Operational Research, 78, 2233.
Mikhailov, L. (2002). Fuzzy analytical approach to part-
nership selection in formation of virtual enterprises.
Omega, 30, 393401.
Miller, G. M., Feinzing, S. L. (1993). Fuzzy sets and staff
selection: discussion and application, Journal of Occu-
pational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 163169.
Papadopoulos, A., & Karagiannidisa, A. (2008). Appli-
cation of the multi-criteria analysis method Electre III
for the optimisation of decentralised energy systems.
Omega, 36 (5), 766776.
Roy, B., & Bertier, P. (1973). La methode ELECTRE II:
une methode au media-planning. In: M.Ross, ed. Op-
erational research (1972). Amsterdam: North-Holland,
291302.
Roy, B. (1978). ELECTRE III: un algorithme de classe-
ments fonde sur une representationoue des preference
en presence de criteres multiples. Cahiers de CERO, 20
(1), 324.
Roy, B. (1985). Me thodologie multicrite re daide a la
de cision. Paris: Economica.
Roy, B., & Susman, B. (1966). ELECTRE: une me thode
pour guider le choix en pre sence de points de vue mul-
tiples. Note de travail 49, SEMA-METRAInternational,
Direction Scientique.
Sevkli, M. (2010). An appliction of fuzzy ELECTRE
method for supplier selection. Internetional
Journal of production Research, 48(12), 3393
3405.
Vincke, P. (1992). Multicriteria decision-aid. NewYork:
Wiley.
Wang, X., & Triantaphyllou, E. (2008). Ranking ir-
regularities when evaluating alternatives by using
some ELECTRE methods. Omega, 36 (1), 45
63.
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries DOI: 10.1002/hfm 9