A fuzzy model for competency-based employee

evaluation and selection

Adem Golec
a,
*
, Esra Kahya
b
a
Erciyes University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Industrial Engineering, 38039, Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey
b
Erciyes University, Kayseri Vocational College, 38039, Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey
Received 24 January 2006; accepted 20 November 2006
Available online 4 January 2007
Abstract
The employee evaluation and selection system is an important problem that can signicantly aect the future compet-
itiveness and the performance of an organization. This paper presents a comprehensive hierarchical structure for selecting
and evaluating a right employee. The structure can systematically build the goals of employee selection to carry out the
business goals and strategies of an organization, identify the suitable factor and measure indicators, and set up a consistent
evaluation standard for facilitating a decision process. The process of matching an employee with a certain job is per-
formed through a competency-based fuzzy model. An example demonstrates the feasibility of the presented framework.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Employee selection; Linguistic variables; Membership function; Competency; Fuzzy-rule base
1. Introduction
Many organizations frequently spend considerable resources making an eort to engage employees who are
well suited to the positions that should be lled. Engaging employees may be subjected to the trial time, but
there are often substantial costs associated with the engaging, training, and ring of poor or disappointing
employees, and those costs increase the longer it takes to realize that an employee is inadequate. Therefore,
painstaking decisions given at the beginning about whom to engage can be fairly signicant (Baron & Kreps,
1999). For this reason, the team of the decision-making is constituted more than one person to evaluate and
select an eective employee. Generally, the operating manager should have more to say about the evaluation
and selection decision than their human resource specialist.
The organizations have an important problem in the engaging and retention of personnel resources.
Increased global competition, corporate mergers and rationalizations, and industry restructuring mean that
organizations cannot aord the luxury of poor employee selection. Because an organizations success depends
on it having the right people in the right jobs at the right time, the organizations strategic business objectives
0360-8352/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cie.2006.11.004
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 352 437 49 37x32476; fax: +90 352 437 57 84.
E-mail address: ademgolec@erciyes.edu.tr (A. Golec).
Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161
www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw
and culture should determine the people selected. In other words, the choice of selection factor should be con-
sistent with the organizations strategic direction and culture. Employee selection strategies, when aligned with
the organizations business strategies, make a positive contribution to organizational performance (Stone,
2002).
In this process, to be successful, the employee characteristics which are believed as a necessary for opera-
tional performance on the job should be stated clearly in the job requirement. Principally, the employee eval-
uation and selection factors comprise from the characteristics of existing employees who have operated well in
the positions to be lled. However, if the list of characteristics needed is too extended, it may not be possible to
select anyone. With no list of factor, the incorrect diagnoses are likely to be selected.
One of the most eective evaluation ways to facilitate the selection is through the competency-based
employee selection process. This type of selection is based on the idea that every position requires the job
incumbent to possess certain competencies in order to perform at his or her highest level. Competencies are
capability, ability or attribute that escorts to success in a particular position. Within an organization context,
it includes the knowledge, skills and attributes that identify the excellent performance in a specic work
process.
Fuzziness seems to pervade most human perception and thinking processes. It is the argument of this study,
therefore, that the theory of fuzzy sets is highly suitable to the tasks of employee evaluation and decision-mak-
ing. Fuzzy logic gives the means by which judgments that characterize our method of reasoning can be for-
mulized without choosing to an articial process of making these judgments exact. The aim of this study is
to utilize the theory of fuzzy sets to demonstrate the applicability of fuzzy logic for expressing the inherent
imprecision in the way that people think and make decisions about the employee evaluation and selection
process.
This paper proposes an approach to minimizing subjective judgment in the eective employee evaluation
and selection in the existence of the multi-factor competency-based measures in a hierarchical structure.
The proposed fuzzy methodology stems from the fact that a method that integrates competency important
with employee performance data currently exist for evaluating employee from strategic or tactical
perspective.
2. Background
The traditional employee evaluation and selection process uses an experimental and statistical techniques
approach. In the experimental approach, decision-makers select upon their understanding of the job speci-
cations and the individuals who have been successful in the preliminary selection. Job specications include
skill requirements, endeavor, dependability, and work environments. The process generally has individual
biases and stereotypes. The statistical techniques approach supports the engaging decision through the
arrangement of test scores and the measure of accomplishment for the candidate (Nankervis, Compton, &
McCarthy, 1993). According to Bowen, Gilliland, and Folger (1999), the employees allegiance to the organi-
zation is dependent on the employees behavior in the engaging process. If the employees are reasonably treat-
ed during the selection phase, they should be more committed to the organization.
The contemporary employee evaluation and selection is a complex decision-making process that has a
capability that places the right employees in the right jobs at the right time. This process has a multi-hierar-
chical structure that solves the challenging task of a decision-making process. The Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) usually uses the multi-hierarchical structure. The AHP is a process that is based on the theory of con-
structing hierarchies, setting priorities, and reasonable consistency (Saaty, 1995).
The AHP is a powerful and exible decision-making process to assist people set priorities and make the best
decision when both qualitative and quantitative aspects of a decision need to be considered. By reducing com-
plex decisions to a series of pairwise comparisons, then synthesizing the results, AHP not only helps decision-
makers arrive at the best decision, but also provides a clear rationale for the decision. Designed to reect the
way people actually think, AHP continues to be the most highly regarded and widely used decision-making
theory.
The AHP approach and its extensions have been used for solving many problems in the research of Yur-
dakul (2002), Liu and Shih (2005), Scholl, Manthey, Helm, and Steiner (2005), Bozdag, Kahraman, and Ruan
144 A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161
(2003), Ong, Sun, and Nee (2003), Kahraman, Ruan, and Dogan (2003) and the other many studies. Lai
(1995) describes the employee selection process as a multi-objective decision-making problem. Iwamura
and Lin (1998) explain that the employee selection process requires the accomplishment and aggregation of
dierent factors. Labib, Williams, and OConnor (1998) suggest an employee selection process that uses the
AHP and has four stages.
The other contemporary methods in the employee evaluation and selection are articial intelligence
techniques that are the fuzzy sets and neural networks. Lazarevic (2001) presents a two-level employee
selection fuzzy model to minimize subjective judgment in the process of distinguishing between an appro-
priate and inappropriate employee for a job position. In this study, the model consists of an AHP of three
levels. The rst level is the preliminary selection and the main decision factors are supposed as fuzzy lin-
guistic variables to revise multi-objective models of decision-making. The values of the variables are cal-
culated as expected values of the fuzzy variables. The second level comprises the selection process of a
nal candidate for a job position. The employee is evaluated according to her/his own expectations treated
by a probabilisticpossibilistic method. The third level considers the utility of engaging the appropriate
employee.
Many research using the fuzzy sets and logic for the employee evaluation and selection process are present-
ed in the contemporary literature such as Laing and Wang (1992), Cannavacciuolo, Capaldo, Ventre, and Zol-
lo (1994), Yaakob and Kawata (1999), etc. Many real-world problems including employee selection have been
solved with the fuzzy sets and logic for the last twenty ve years. In situations more to do with fuzziness than
randomness, it is suitable to deal with vagueness and ambiguity by fuzzy set theory.
Drigas, Kouremenos, Vrettaros, and Kouremenos (2004) present an expert system using Neuro-Fuzzy tech-
niques that investigate a corporate database of unemployed and enterprises prole data for evaluation of the
unemployed at certain job position. This study uses a Sugeno type Neuro-Fuzzy inferences system for match-
ing an unemployed with a job position.
As seen in existing studies, there are two problems: decision-making hierarchy for evaluation and selection
and methodology to be used. The AHP proposes a decision-making hierarchy in structuring the factors, sub-
factors and measure indicators according to the organizations goals. But, because the AHP uses the crisp
numbers, it is insucient to minimize subjective judgment. Additionally, fuzzy AHP process is developed
to minimize subjectivity. Yet, this method suciently does not solve subjectivity because of the fuzzy numbers.
The other method of solving these problems could be fuzzy modeling which uses a hierarchical structure.
The fuzzy models can be presented in the form of a rule-base and consist of three blocks: input, processing,
and output. In the fuzzy rule-base modeling, the results are aected from the type of the membership function
and the experts knowledge.
In our methodology, we construct a hierarchical structure and use a fuzzy model that has two levels: eval-
uation and selection. The lower level evaluates the employee according to measure indicators of the factors
using a heuristic algorithm. The top level selects the employee using the fuzzy rule-base approach based on
the factors representing organizations goals.
3. Methodology for selecting a suitable employee
To understandably show the proposed employee evaluation and selection framework, a procedure regard-
ing stage-by-stage unication is rst presented:
Stage 1. Form an evaluation and selection hierarchy for having the right people in the right jobs.
Stage 2. Establish a heuristic algorithm based on the use of fuzzy linguistic variables to characterize the com-
petency of available employees to satisfy a common set of an organization goal.
Stage 3. Develop a fuzzy rule-base system based on the competency factors to determine and select the best
employee according to his/her score.
Stage 4. Discuss the results and make the nal decision to select the employee.
Fig. 1 illustrates a owchart for the employee evaluation and selection procedure. The details of each stage
are explained in the following sections.
A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161 145
3.1. The rst stage: an evaluation and selection hierarchy
Organizations with workers who were carefully and objectively selected will be successful in todays
global world. Of that, employee selection has an eect on the organization directly. If a selection program
is to be successful, the employee characteristics necessary for eective performance on the job should be
specied at the unit level. Only then can those selecting from the employees do so with any reasonable
chance of hiring employee who will perform well? Vague descriptions such as Get me a good man
(or woman) dont help much, for each employee has strengths and weaknesses. One may be long on edu-
cation but short on experiences; another is creative but not ecient at detailed work. Selection techniques
sometimes can detect the characteristics desired in an employee, provided they have been specied. The
requirements should come from the job specications developed as part of the job analysis process
(William, 1978).
Stage 1:
Form an evaluation and
selection hierarchy
No
Yes
Stage 2:
Establish a heuristic algorithm
based on the use of
fuzzy linguistic variables
Stage 3:
Develop a fuzzy rule-base system
based on the competency factors
Stage 4:
Discuss the results and
make the final decision
Determine the organization's strategic business goals and culture
Identify the competency-based factors for the employee to be selected to
accomplish the business goals
Identify the meause indicators of every factor
Evaluate the employee by the heuristic algorithm
Determine the fuzzy factor scores for every employee
Establish evaluation and selection hierarchy
Validitable to the
employee evaluation and
selection hierarchy?
Form the fuzzy rule-base model for the employee to be selected
Form the heuristic algorithm for the employee to be evaluated
Evaluate the employee by the fuzzy rule-base
Determine the employee scores
Sort the employee scores
Select the employee having the largest score
Fig. 1. Employee evaluation and selection process.
146 A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161
The process for forming evaluation and selection hierarchy includes such steps as:
Step 1.1. Determine the organizations strategic goals
Before beginning to even think about what the employee selection system should look like, think about
what it is after: Improved performance? Reduced training time? Reduced turnover/absenteeism? Enhanced
ease of supervision? Dierent goals will lead to dierent decisions regarding the system need.
Step 1.2. Identify the competency-based factors for evaluation and selection
For each goal, analyze what employee characteristics relate to that goal. Communication skills, personal
traits and self-motivation, interpersonal skills and ability to sell self and ideas, decision-making ability, tech-
nical knowledge base skills, career development aspiration and management skills are considered as selection
factors. Those factors should be related with the job.
Step 1.3. Discover the measure indicators of every factor
As regards all of above factors (characteristics), employees can be assessed by observing during interviews.
Therefore, we should determine indicators concerning those factors to measure whether the employee will be a
good t with the job. In the evaluation of employees for a certain specialized work, specialized evaluation may
be applied. Each factor identied requires a corresponding practical and reliable means of employee measure-
ment. We use the indicators to measure employee with each factor. For each factor, we determine dierent
indicators (Fig. 2).
Step 1.4. Establish evaluation and selection hierarchy
Establishing the hierarchy involves organizing the factors and indicators so that the interviewer can
describe in detail what an organization wants to achieve, and then incorporate the hierarchy appropriately
into decision model. In the rst level, the decision-maker should dene the system scope by organization
culture, business attribute, and the goals of the organization. Before constructing a detailed hierarchy frame-
work, it is necessary to ensure that the strategic objective scope is appropriate for the job characteristics. We
use a top-down decomposition method to establish the hierarchy of the employee evaluation and selection
system. In top-down decomposition method, the decision-makers discuss What do you mean by that
upper-level objective? The answer reveals the lower-level objectives, which explain the meanings of the upper
objectives.
Step 1.5. Validity of the employee evaluation and selection hierarchy
The interview may be the only mean which is employed for evaluation, or it may form one stage in a
sequence of eliminating impediment. These can include health checks, school information, references, etc.
On the other hand, some interviewers will confess to no such human weak point. They maintain that
they can tell as soon as the candidate has walked through the door of the interview room, whether
the person is suitable or not. Such interviewers, with implicit trust in their own judgment, tend to sup-
pose that their own highly personalized methods are the right answer to their problems. For them, the
sophistication of testing is wasted on an exercise as simple as summing up another persons character and
abilities.
Correct evaluation is therefore of crucial importance and correct evaluation must mean that both par-
ties to the evaluation decision, interviewer and interviewee, are satised, in all circumstances, the right
decisions has been made. The candidate who has been subjected to a sequence of tests, however thorough-
ly validated, will not necessarily feel this if he/she have never had a chance to talk to a member of the
organization.
Similarly, the interviewer who has never met the candidate cannot be sure that the approved ingredients
detected by the tests do really go to make up an acceptable whole whose appearance and impact on others
match his/her test scores and whose tenacity and motivation augur well for success in the job.
The above ve steps are hierarchically showed in Fig. 2.
3.2. The second stage: a heuristic algorithm
To obtain an objective evaluation of the factors involved in decision-making, we suggested that the human
expert and operation manager should discuss the evaluation process. This process is realized step-by-step in
discussing importance of indicators, measuring of employee, and evaluating to make sure that the changes
in the organization goals were presented. This process includes such steps as:
A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161 147
Step 2.1. Represent the measure indicators of the factors
The rst step in making employee evaluation is to represent the competency-based measure indicators that
are realized to lead to success or failure in the job. The key measure indicators are symbolized for each com-
petency factors as:
F
i
ff
i
m
i
g;i 1; 2; . . . ; I; the number of factors
m
i
1; 2; . . . ; N
i
; the number of measure indicators: 1
Step 2.2. Determine the importance of the indicators
In the process of the accomplishment of an employee selection strategy, priorities must be assigned by the
organization to measure indicators for its goals. Utilizing the methodology proposed in this study, these
Communications Self motivation Interpersonal skills Decision making Knowledge / Skill Career development Management
Listening Job motivation Sensitivity Analysis Career ambition
Work standards Leadership Judgment
Initiative Tenacity Decisiveness Delegation
Oral presentation Energy Oral fact finding Control
Rapport building
Vigilance
Integrity
Ability to learn Staff leadership
Negotiation
Adaptability
Independence
Resilience Risk taking
Poor Fair Average
Good Superior
Employee 1 Employee 2 Employee 3 . . . Employee 10
Level 5:
Employees
Level 3:
Measure
indicators
Level 1:
Goal
Level 2:
Factors
Level 4:
Linguistic
evaluation
Competency-based employee selection for improving performance, reducing training time, reducing turnover / absenteeism and enhancing ease of supervision
Self-development
orientation
Technical /
professional / self -
development
Planning and
organizing
Development of
subordinates
Oral
communication
Technical /
professional
proficiency
Technical /
professional
knowledge
Machine
operations
meeting a certain
Professional /
technical interest
Attention to detail
Sales ability /
persuasiveness
Behavioral
flexibility
Tolerance for
stress
Administrative
orientation
Management
identification
Supervisor
identification
Range of interests
Controlled
demeanor
Controlled
decision making
Financial
analytical ability
Extra-
organizational
awareness
Recognition of
safety needs
Innovation
(creativity)
Process operation
Written
communication
Organizational
sensitivity
Extra-
organizational
sensitivity
Fig. 2. The hierarchy of employee evaluation and selection.
148 A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161
priorities will be determined linguistically by selecting values of the variable X. The linguistic important set for
measure indicators for an organizations goal is:
Y fy
1
; y
2
; y
3
; y
4
; y
5
g
fUnimportant; Less important; Important; More important; Most importantg: 2
The membership function of each fuzzy linguistic variable for the importance is presented in Fig. 3.
As seen in Table 1, according to the organization goal, each indicator is rated using membership functions
in Fig. 3.
Step 2.3. Measure of employees competency
The linguistic evaluation set for each measure indicator for an employee is
X fx
1
; x
2
; x
3
; x
4
; x
5
g fPoor; Fair; Average; Good; Superiorg: 3
The membership function of each fuzzy linguistic variable for the evaluation is presented Fig. 4.
By interviewing operations manager and human expert with employees, direct observation, it is established
a linguistic assessment of the competency of each employee for each factor to satisfy a common set of strategic
interest to the organization goals, and to select the best employee from those available employees. For each
factor, the measure tables are given in Table 2.
Step 2.4. Determine the employees
The set of all employees evaluated is
E fe
j
g; j 1; 2; . . . ; J; J 10 the number of employee: 4
Step 2.5. Form a relation between the indicators important and measure
For employee e
j
, the evaluation of measure indicator f
i
m
i
of factor F
i
is a fuzzy relation equation which is
used in heuristic algorithm for relating the two linguistic variables Y and X. For example, if the measure indi-
cator f
i
m
i
of factor F
i
is more important to an organizations goal and a particular employee e
j
exhibits an aver-
age competency to enable achievement of that goal, then fuzzy relational equation below holds (Mickey &
Parsaei, 1991)
y
i
m
i
r
i
m
i
k
x
k
5
where y
i
m
i
is a value of importance of a measure indicator m
i
for factor i, x
k
is a value of competency of an
enabling employee k, r
i
m
i
k
is a linguistic evaluation of the extent to which a measure indicator m
i
for factor
i can be accomplished if enabling employeek is selected for an organization, is a fuzzy maxmin composition
operator dened in terms of the set-theoretic notation and membership function such that the membership
function of r
i
m
i
k
x
k
is expressed by the following formula:
Fig. 3. Membership functions for important of the measure indicators.
A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161 149
Table 1
Linguistic evaluation of importance of the measure indicators for each factor
Communications Self-motivation Interpersonal skills Decision making Knowledge/skill Career development Management
Measure indicators Linguistic
evaluation
Measure indicators Linguistic
evaluation
Measure indicators Linguistic
evaluation
Measure indicators Linguistic
evaluation
Measure
indicators
Linguistic
evaluation
Measure indicators Linguistic
evaluation
Measure indicators Linguistic
evaluation
Listening MRI Job motivation MRI Sensitivity LI Analysis I Technical/
professional
prociency
I Career ambition LI Planning and
organizing
LI
Oral
communication
UI Work standards MRI Leadership MRI Judgment MSI Technical/
professional
knowledge
MRI Self-development
orientation
UI
Initiative I Tenacity UI Decisiveness MRI Delegation MSI
Oral
presentation
LI Energy MSI Sales ability/
persuasiveness
LI Oral fact nding UI Machine
operations
meeting a
certain
standard
MSI Control MRI
Written
communication
Attention to detail UI Rapport building MSI Financial analytical
ability
LI Technical
professional/self-
development
MSI Development of
subordinates
I
Vigilance LI Behavioral
exibility
I Extra-organizational
awareness
MSI Process
operation
I
Integrity UI
Ability to learn I Sta leadership I Recognition
of safety needs
MRI
Negotiation UI
Range of interests MRI Adapt ability MRI Innovation
(creativity)
LI
Controlled
demeanor
LI Independence MSI
Resilience LI Risk taking UI
Tolerance for
stress
MSI Organizational
sensitivity
I
Administrative
orientation
I Extra-organizational
sensitivity
LI
Management
identication
MRI Controlled
decision making
UI
Supervisor
identication
UI
Professional/
technical interest
MSI
MSI, most important; MRI, more important; I, important; LI, less important; UI, unimportant.
1
5
0
A
.
G
o
l
e
c
,
E
.
K
a
h
y
a
/
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
&
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
5
2
(
2
0
0
7
)
1
4
3

1
6
1
Table 2
Linguistic evaluation of the competency of each employee for factor indicators
Factor (i) Employees
Indicators (m
j
) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Communication
Listening F G P P A G G A S G
Oral communication P P P G P F F A S S
Oral presentation P F A A S S F F P S
Written communication F S F G P P P A A G
Self-motivation
Job motivation F A F F S F P A A A
Work standards F G P G F A F F G S
Initiative A A F A P G A F A G
Energy P A P S S F G F F S
Attention to detail F P F F G A P F S G
Vigilance A F F F A G G A F G
Integrity P F F F P A F F G A
Ability to learn F P F P F F A A P G
Range of interests P A A G S A S F A G
Controlled demeanor A G A P S F P A S S
Tolerance for stress P P F G A G G F F S
Administrative orientation A P P S A F P A A S
Management identication P A F F F P A A G G
Supervisor identication A F A P G S F A P G
Professional/technical interest F G P G S A G F S S
Interpersonal skill
Sensitivity P A A G S A F A F S
Leadership A P A P G F P F P G
Tenacity F A P A P S A A S S
Sales ability/persuasiveness A G A G S P F A G G
Rapport building F A F F F S A F A S
Behavioral exibility F F A G G A S A P S
Sta leadership A S F P A A P F G G
Negotiation F G A S G P G S S S
Adaptability A A P A A S S A P S
Independence P F A F S S P F G S
Resilience P S F A S A F A S S
Decision making
Analysis A P F G F F F A P S
Judgment P A F S G S P A S S
Decisiveness P S P G S A F F F G
(continued on next page)
Fig. 4. Membership functions for the employees competency.
A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161 151
l
ry
u
y
; u
x
_
u
x
l
r
u
y
; u
x
^ l
x
u
x
6
for each u
y
, and ^ is the minimum, _ is the maximum.
In the methodology described in this study, the linguistic evaluations of x
i
are appointed by the interviewer
and the linguistic evaluations of y
i
are appointed by organizations goals. Because the only natural way of for-
malizing fuzzy logic for truth values in the unit interval [0, 1] is by using Lukasiewiczs implication operator or
some isomorphic of it, we used Lukasiewiczs fuzzy implication relation operator for obtaining the member-
ship function values of fuzzy relation r
i
m
i
k
dened on the Cartesian product space Y X. The following equa-
tion is expressed as
r
i
m
i
k
y
i
m
i

T
Hx
k
7
where y
i
m
i

T
is the transpose of y
i
m
i
, H is a compositional operator dened such that the elements of its mem-
bership function are as follows:
l
y
i
m
i

T
Hx
k

^1; 1 l
y
i
m
i
u
y
l
x
T
k
u
x
:
To construct a relationship in between each indicators measure and importance, we solve Eq. (7) using mem-
bership function contained in Figs. 3 and 4 of the fuzzy linguistic variables values Y and X. For example, from
Table 2 we see that listening indicator, or indicator f
1
1
, is assessed as Fair for the employee 1 in its competency
to impact the organization goal. Indicator f
1
1
has been judged to be a more important indicator in the employee
engaging strategy of the organization. This relationship between indicators important and assessment is ex-
pressed by the fuzzy relation r
1
11
, which is illustrated below (see Eq. (5)):
Table 2 (continued)
Factor (i) Employees
Indicators (m
j
) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Oral fact nding F F F P P A A A P S
Financial analytical ability P P A A A G S F F G
Extra-organizational awareness P G A F S P G A A S
Recognition of safety needs F G P S F F G F S A
Innovation (creativity) F F A A P S A A A G
Risk taking A S F G G P S A G S
Organizational sensitivity F A A F A A S A P S
Extra-organizational sensitivity P F P S G G F A A G
Controlled decision making A P A P P S G A S S
Knowledge/skill indicators
Technical/professional prociency P A A A F A P A F G
Technical/professional knowledge F S P S A S S A S S
Machine operations meeting a certain standard P F A S P P A F A S
Process operation P P F P F G F A P G
Career development
Career ambition P P A F A G F A F S
Self-development orientation P F P G P P A A P S
Technical/professional/self-development F A A F S S A G G S
Management
Planning and organizing P S A F G G G A G S
Delegation F F F G S S A A A G
Control P P A P A F S F G S
Development of subordinates A A F F P A F F S S
P, poor; F, fair; A, average; G, good; S, superior.
152 A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161
r
1
11

0:00
0:50
1:00
1:00
0:50
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
H 0:00 0:01 0:04 0:09 0:16 0:25 0:36 0:49 0:64 0:81 1:00

1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
0:50 0:51 0:54 0:59 0:66 0:75 0:86 0:99 1:00 1:00 1:00
0:00 0:01 0:04 0:09 0:16 0:25 0:36 0:49 0:64 0:81 1:00
0:00 0:01 0:04 0:09 0:16 0:25 0:36 0:49 0:64 0:81 1:00
0:50 0:51 0:54 0:59 0:66 0:75 0:86 0:99 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
for x
4
= fair and y
2
= more important.
In a similar way, the fuzzy relations representing the 40, 150, 110, 120, 40, 30, and 40 entries for each factor,
respectively in Table 2 are calculated to complete this step.
Step 2.6. Form the intersection of the m
i
= 1, 2, . . . , N
i
binary fuzzy relations
The fuzzy relations calculated for each measure indicators of the employee e
j
are intersected as a fuzzy rela-
tion R
i
j
\
N
i
m
i
r
i
m
i
k
having a matrix given by:
l
R
i
j
u
y
; u
x
^
r
i
m
i
k
l
r
u
y
; u
x

Min
u
y
;u
x
l
r
u
y
; u
x
: 8
For example, the intersection R
i
j
of the fuzzy relations associated with j = 1 across the 4 measure indicators of
the communication factor (i = 1):
A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161 153
R
1
1

1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:00 1:00
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:50 1:00
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:50 0:67
0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:40 0:30 0:20 0:10 0:00
1:00 0:90 0:80 0:70 0:60 0:50 0:40 0:30 0:20 0:10 0:00
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
Step 2.7. Determine the importance of the factors
Each factor F
i
is emphasized as the most important for organization goals. The value of the linguistic var-
iable was selected from Fig. 3:
l
y
u
y
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:50 1:00
Step 2.8. Calculate the fuzzy value of the factor
For each I factor and J employee, we solve the R
i
j
relation matrix with the emphasized factor using Eq. (5).
The result represents the input of the employee e
j
for the factor F
i
and these results calculated for each employ-
ee are used as the inputs of the factor in the third stage.
l
T
x

1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00
0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:00 1:00
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:50 1:00
0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:50 0:67
0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:40 0:30 0:20 0:10 0:00
1:00 0:90 0:80 0:70 0:60 0:50 0:40 0:30 0:20 0:10 0:00
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
H
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:50
1:00
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5

0:00
0:50
1:00
1:00
0:50
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
So,
l
x

u
x
0:00 0:50 1:00 1:00 0:50 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00
for employee 1 (j = 1). For each factor of 10 employees, fuzzy values which are inputs of the next stage are
illustrated in Table 3.
3.3. The third stage: fuzzy rule-base
In this stage, we developed a Fuzzy Rule-Base (FRB) system based on the competency factors to select the
best employee. FRB which has a crucial ability of the human mind to focus on decision-relevant information
and to formulize human-like decisions based on imprecise data is based on given facts and a set of fuzzy if-
then rules that contain all the knowledge that is used to make decisions. Our way of conceptualizing FRB is as
the application of expert knowledge to decision making. To model the system by a hierarchical way like in
154 A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161
Table 3
Input vectors of every employee in terms of the factors
EN FN Universe of discourse
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
1 1 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 1.00 1.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.51 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 1.00 1.00
2 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00
3 0.36 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.40 0.40
4 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.64
5 0.20 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.36 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 1 0.64 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.64 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.51 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 1 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00
2 0.50 0.50 0.64 0.64 0.30 0.20 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3 0.36 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.00
4 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.64 0.64 1.00 1.00
5 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00
6 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00
5 1 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.50 0.50 0.36 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
3 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.36 0.36 0.64 0.64 1.00 1.00
4 0.00 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
5 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00
7 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.33 1.00 1.00
6 1 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.00
2 0.36 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00
3 0.00 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00
4 1.00 1.00 0.36 0.36 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.17 0.33 1.00 1.00
5 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.36 0.36
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.90 0.33 1.00 1.00
7 1 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00
2 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.36 0.36 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.36
3 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.29 0.36 0.36
4 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.51 0.40 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50
5 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.36 0.36
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.17 0.36 0.36
8 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(continued on next page)
A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161 155
Fig. 2, the following fundamental steps must be applied to the system. For detailed information, see the thor-
ough review by Turksen (1999).
Step 3.1. Choose of the system state variables
Since the system has a hierarchical structure, its state variables are simply dened. We constitute the system
factor blocks such as communication, self-motivation, interpersonal skills, decision-making, knowledge/skill,
career development, and management. For example, we may simply have a system block for employee eval-
uation such as Fig. 5.
Step 3.2. Dene the linguistic variables
In the fuzzy logic, linguistic variables are not exactly measurable and may be categorized into any one of
the linguistic variables, hence linguistic variable can also be called fuzzy variable, and the are modeled by fuzzy
sets. Fuzzy sets form the basis upon which fuzzy logic is built. A fuzzy linguistic variable can have any number
of fuzzy terms dened over its universe of discourse as the graphs in Fig. 4. In the employee evaluation con-
text, all of factors are linguistic variables and each linguistic variable has ve linguistic values (states). For
example, x
1
variable in Fig. 4 has poor (A
1
), fair (A
2
), average (A
3
), good (A
4
), and superior (A
5
). The other
variables have also the same linguistic values in the dierent letters.
Communications (x
1
)
Self motivation (x
2
)
Interpersonal skills (x
3
)
Decision making (x
4
) Employee competency score (y )
Knowledge / Skill (x
5
)
Career development (x
6
)
Management (x
7
)
Competency-based
employee selection
system
Fig. 5. Competency-based employee selection system.
Table 3 (continued)
EN FN Universe of discourse
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
4 0.00 0.01 0.51 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.64 0.64
2 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.36 0.36 0.64 0.64 1.00 1.00
3 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00
4 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
5 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.36 0.36
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.51 0.20 0.20
10 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 1.00 1.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.51 0.51 1.00 1.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.51 0.51 1.00 1.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 1.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.51
EN, employee number; FN, factor number.
156 A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161
Step 3.3. Construct the membership function
In the fuzzy set theory, an element has a degree of membership in a fuzzy set. The grade of membership of
an element in the set is represented by the membership function. The membership values of an element vary in
[0, 1]. As elements can belong to a set in a certain degree, these elements can also belong to the other set. Fuzzy
set allows the partial membership of the elements. Transition between membership and non-membership is
gradual. Membership function maps the variation of the value of the linguistic variables into dierent linguis-
tic classes. The membership function for a given linguistic variable in our FRB modeling is done using simple
geometric forms having slopes trapezoidal in Fig. 4. Trapezoidal form represents the most condence level of
the decision-makers. It means they feel the most condence about the belongings of the values to poor, fair,
average, good and superior linguistic values for their judgment.
Step 3.4. Derivate of the set of if-then rules
Since expert knowledge is imprecise in nature, it is usually the case that the knowledge base is a collection of
rules. For employee evaluation system, the result usually needs to be obtained through reasoning by the rules,
which involves a complex process. In the fuzzy rules, the fuzziness of the antecedents and/or consequents in
the rules is fuzzy proportion. The antecedent of a rule and a fact is matched by the user. The mechanism of
FRB is extended the traditional modus ponens rule which states that from the propositional. Some rules build-
ing for the employee selection system are listed in Table 4.
These rules assume the form:
R
1
: If x
1
is A
5
and x
2
is B
2
and x
3
is C
3
and x
4
is D
5
and x
5
is E
3
and x
6
is F
3
and x
7
is G
3
then y is H
4
9
where A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are linguistic values dened by fuzzy sets on universe of discourse U. Before
we employ fuzzy if-then rules to model and analyze the employee evaluation system, rst we have to formulate
what is meant by the expression
R
i
: A
i
and B
i
and C
i
and D
i
and E
i
and F
i
and G
i
! H
i
; i 1; 2; . . . ; n
or
l
R
i
l
A
i
and B
i
and C
i
and D
i
and E
i
and F
i
and G
i
!H
i

x
1
; x
2
; x
3
; x
4
; x
5
; x
6
; x
7
; y
l
A
i
x
1
and l
B
i
x
2
and l
C
i
x
3
and l
D
i
x
4
and l
E
i
x
5
and l
F
i
x
6
and l
G
i
x
7

! l
H
i
y 10
where (A
i
and B
i
and C
i
and D
i
and E
i
and F
i
and G
i
) is a fuzzy set A
i
B
i
C
i
D
i
E
i
F
i
G
i
in X
1
X
2
X
3
X
4
X
5
X
6
X
7
. R
i
:(A
i
and B
i
and C
i
and D
i
and E
i
and F
i
and G
i
) ! H
i
is a fuzzy
implication relation in X
1
X
2
X
3
X
4
X
5
X
6
X
7
Y and ! implies a fuzzy implication function.
Step 3.5. Choose of the inference mechanism
Fuzzy inference system refers to the internal mechanism for producing output values for a given value
through fuzzy rules. In the process, rule implication evaluates individual rule over fuzzied grades and
generates an output grade, then the aggregation does two things, rst it truncates the consequent fuzzy
set according to the grade obtained and the second it does the union of all the fuzzy set. For the infer-
ence mechanism, we use maxmin composition that is Mamdanis method, because maxmin composition
operator has a very interesting physical analogy. The inference system comprises several chains placed
together in a parallel fashion. In the system, each chain involves a number of chain links. If we were
to take one of the chains out of the system, place it in a tensile test machine, and apply a large tensile
force on the chain. We would nd that the chain would break at its weakest link. Hence, the minimum
strength of all the links in the chain governs the strength of the overall chain. If we were to place the
entire chain system in a tensile device and apply a tensile force on the chain system, we would nd that
the chain system would continue to carry increasing loads until the last chain in the system broke. That
is, weaker chains would break with an increasing load until the strongest chain was left alone, and even-
tually it would break; in other words, the maximum strength of all the chains in the system would govern
the overall strength of the chain system. Each chain in the system is analogues to the min operation in
the maxmin composition, and the overall chain system strength is analogues to the max operation in the
maxmin composition.
A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161 157
Table 4
Some rules for employee selection system
Rule No. Antecedents Consequent
Communications
(x
1
)
Self-motivation
(x
2
)
Interpersonal skills
(x
3
)
Decision making
(x
4
)
Knowledge/skill
(x
5
)
Career
development (x
6
)
Management
(x
7
)
Employee
performance (y)
1 A
1
B
1
C
1
D
1
E
1
F
3
G
2
H
1
2 A
1
B
1
C
1
D
1
E
2
F
2
G
2
H
1
3 A
4
B
2
C
2
D
4
E
4
F
1
G
1
H
2
4 A
2
B
2
C
2
D
4
E
5
F
1
G
1
H
2
5 A
4
B
1
C
1
D
5
E
4
F
1
G
5
H
3
6 A
4
B
1
C
4
D
4
E
2
F
2
G
3
H
3
7 A
5
B
5
C
3
D
5
E
1
F
4
G
4
H
4
8 A
5
B
5
C
3
D
5
E
2
F
3
G
4
H
4
9 A
5
B
5
C
5
D
5
E
5
F
5
G
2
H
5
10 A
5
B
5
C
5
D
5
E
4
F
5
G
3
H
5
: : : : : : : : :
1
5
8
A
.
G
o
l
e
c
,
E
.
K
a
h
y
a
/
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
&
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
5
2
(
2
0
0
7
)
1
4
3

1
6
1
If the fuzzy inputs of the rule in (9) are A
0
, B
0
, C
0
, D
0
, E
0
, F
0
, G
0
, the inference result H
0
i
is obtained as
H
0
i
A
0
; B
0
; C
0
; D
0
; E
0
; F
0
; G
0
A
i
and B
i
and C
i
and D
i
and E
i
and F
i
and G
i
! H
i

l
H
0
i
l
A
0 ; l
B
0 ; l
C
0 ; l
D
0 ; l
E
0 ; l
F
0 ; l
G
0 l
A
i
B
i
C
i
D
i
E
i
F
i
G
i
! l
H
i

l
A
0 ; l
B
0 ; l
C
0 ; l
D
0 ; l
E
0 ; l
F
0 ; l
G
0 minl
A
i
; l
B
i
; l
C
i
; l
D
i
; l
E
i
; l
F
i
; l
G
i
! l
H
i

11
l
A
0 ; l
B
0 ; l
C
0 ; l
D
0 ; l
E
0 ; l
F
0 ; l
G
0 min l
A
i
! l
H
i
; l
B
i
! l
H
i
; ; l
G
i
! l
H
i

:
Hence we have
H
0
i
A
0
A
i
! H
i
\ B
0
B
i
! H
i
\ \ G
0
G
i
! H
i

A
0
R
1
i
\ B
0
R
2
i
\ \ G
0
R
7
i

H
1
i
\ H
2
i
\ \ H
7
i
:
The result H
0
is an union (aggregation) of result H
0
i
from individual rules. That is,
H
0
[
n
i1
H
0
i
or l
H
0 y _
n
i1
l
H
0
i
: 12
The result H
0
is a fuzzy set. We obtain a deterministic selection score using a defuzzication method which will
be discussed in the next step.
Step 3.6. Defuzzify the output
In this step, fuzzy outputs are converted back to real world crisp output values in a defuzzication pro-
cess. One of the most commonly used defuzzication techniques is center of area. More specically, this
technique calculates the center of the area of the combined membership function as follows (Turksen &
Tian, 1991):
y

X
11
j1
y
i
l
H
0 y
j

( ),
X
11
j1
l
H
0 y
j

( )
: 13
The each of the above steps is modeled in Matlab Fuzzy Toolbox. The results of FRB method are given in
Table 5.
3.4. The fourth stage: Discuss the results and make the nal decision
The employee competency scores of each of membership functions computed in Step 3.6 are shown in Table
5. As shown in Table 5, we select employee 10 as the best employee to satisfy the operational performance
since he/she has the highest competency score.
Table 5
Employee competency score
Employee number Membership function Employee score (y
*
) Rank
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3130 10
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.5683 6
3 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3847 8
4 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3500 9
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.7500 3
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.33 0.7966 2
7 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.33 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.4629 7
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.5890 5
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.33 0.6500 4
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.8000 1
A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161 159
4. Conclusion and further work
In this study, a fuzzy model for competency-based employee evaluation and selection has been delineated
and implemented with an example. This approach signies a capable way by which to accommodate the
imprecision, qualitative factors inherent in attempting to validate employee selection at the strategic level in
an organization.
The proposed employee selection framework has the following advantages:
The hierarchical structure is consistent with organization goals and strategies. The decision makers can
recognize the relationships among dierent goals and evaluate their inuence by modeling them to the
hierarchical structure.
The decision-makers can decompose the compound employee selection problem into simpler and more
logical judgments of the factors.
The model is exible enough to integrate extra factors in the evaluation.
The model assesses corporate factors and guidance based on the organization goals. It cannot only reduce
costs during selection phase, but also diminish the conict and hidden costs in the implementation stage.
For the future research, Choquet integrals can be used instead of fuzzy model used in this work. The Cho-
quet integrals enable to do global evaluation with interaction degree among evaluation factors and indicators,
such as positive evaluation, negative evaluation, balanced evaluation and so on. Then, these methods
can be compared between each other.
Acknowledgement
The material for this study was extracted from a MBA dissertation Business Administration Evaluation of
Job Application Forms by the Help of Fuzzy Expert Systems in the Selection of Human Power, on which E.
Kahya carried out.
References
Baron, J. N., & Kreps, D. M. (1999). Strategic human resources: frame for general manager. New York: John Wiley.
Bowen, D., Gilliland, S. W., & Folger, R. (1999). HRM and service fairness: how being fair with employees spills over to customers.
Organizational Dynamics (Winter), 723.
Bozdag, C. E., Kahraman, C., & Ruan, D. (2003). Fuzzy group decision-making for selection among computer integrated manufacturing
systems. Computers in Industry, 51, 1329.
Cannavacciuolo, A., Capaldo, G., Ventre, A., & Zollo, G. (1994). Linking the fuzzy set theory to organizational routines: a study in
personnel evaluation in a large company. In R. Marks (Ed.), Fuzzy Logic and Applications (pp. 515520). IEEE Technical Activities
Board.
Drigas, A., Kouremenos, S., Vrettaros, S., & Kouremenos, J. D. (2004). An expert system for job matching of the unemployed. Expert
Systems with Applications, 26, 217224.
Iwamura, K., & Lin, B. (1998). Chance constrained integer programming models for capital budgeting environments. Journal of
Operational Research Society, 46, 854860.
Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., & Dogan, I. (2003). Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection. Information Sciences, 157,
135153.
Labib, A. W., Williams, G. B., & OConnor, R. F. (1998). An intelligent maintenance model (system): an application of the analytic
hierarchy process and a fuzzy rule-based controller. Journal of Operational Research Society, 49, 745757.
Lai, Y. J. (1995). IMOST: interactive multiple objective system technique. Journal of Operational Research Society, 46, 958976.
Laing, G., & Wang, M. (1992). Personnel placement in a fuzzy environment. Computers Operations Research, 19, 107121.
Lazarevic, S. P. (2001). Personnel selection fuzzy model. International Transactions in Operational Research, 8, 89105.
Liu, D.-R., & Shih, Y.-Y. (2005). Integrating AHP and data mining for product recommendation based on customer lifetime value.
Information and Management, 42(3), 387400.
Mickey, R. W., & Parsaei, H. R. (1991). A fuzzy linguistic approach to implementing a strategy for computer integrated manufacturing.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 42, 191204.
Nankervis, A. R., Compton, R. L., & McCarthy, T. E. (1993). Strategic human resource management. South Melbourne: Thomas Nelson.
Ong, S. K., Sun, M. J., & Nee, A. Y. C. (2003). A fuzzy set AHP-based DFM tool for rotational parts. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 138, 223230.
160 A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161
Saaty, T. L. (1995). The Analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Scholl, A., Manthey, L., Helm, R., & Steiner, M. (2005). Solving multi-attribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and
conjoint analysis: an empirical comparison. European Journal of Operational Research, 164(3), 760777.
Stone, R. S. (2002). Human resource management. Brisbane: John Wiley.
Turksen, I. B. (1999). Type I and type II fuzzy system modeling. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 106, 1134.
Turksen, I. B., & Tian, Y. (1991). A fuzzy expert system for a service centre of spare parts. Expert Systems with Applications, 5, 447464.
William, F. G. (1978). Personnel a diagnostic approach. USA: Business Publications.
Yaakob, S. B., & Kawata, S. (1999). Workers placement in an industrial environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 106, 289297.
Yurdakul, M. (2002). Measuring a manufacturing systems performance using Saatys system with feedback approach. Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, 13(1), 2534.
A. Golec, E. Kahya / Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2007) 143161 161