Performance Appraisal System Using Multifactorial Evaluation Model
Performance Appraisal System Using Multifactorial Evaluation Model
Performance Appraisal System Using Multifactorial Evaluation Model
231
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 53 2009
reliable and valid results for the management of an following section will described the performance appraisal
organization. model of the company.
232
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 53 2009
highly in a particular subcriteria. The verbal grade for the scale The verbal grades used for the appraisal are:
is shown in Table I: e1 = Very High,
e2 = High,
TABLE I e3 = Moderate,
VERBAL GRADES AND SCALE FOR EACH ASPECT
e4 = Low, and
VERBAL GRADES SCALE e5 = Very Low
Very high 9 or 10 Therefore, E = {e1, e2, e3, e4, e5}.
High 7 or 8
Moderate 5 or 6 For a staff’s performance in terms of working output, the
Low 3 or 4 single-factor evaluation for each aspect has been determined
Very Low 1 or 2 by the executives in the Administration Section of the
company. As an example, the weightage of the “Quantity of
Working Output” factor f1 are, 10% for Very High, 40% for
V. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM High, 30% for Moderate, 10% for Low, and 10% for Very
The proposed application of Muiltifactorial Evaluation Low, thus, the single-factor evaluation vector R1(u) is:
Model in the performance appraisal system is a combination R1(u) = {0.1, 0.4, 0.3, 0.1, 0.1}
of four multifactorial evaluation models. In the same way, the single-factor evaluation vectors for f2,
f3, and f4 which have been gained are as shown as below:-
R2(u) = {0.2, 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, 0.0}
R3(u) = {0.5, 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, 0.0}
R4(u) = {0.2, 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, 0.0}
As a result, by referring to the single-factor evaluations
vectors stated above, the following evaluation matrix can be
built:-
233
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 53 2009
They are calculated through the following steps as shown aspect of Personal Quality, and the aspect of Informal
below whereby ^ represent the operations min and v represent Event(s) and Contribution(s), respectively. Following this, the
the operation max. verbal grades and weighting for each aspect as shown in Table
II is being referred when calculating a staff’s overall average
d1 = (w1 ^ r11) v (w2 ^ r21) v (w3 ^ r31) v (w4 ^ r41) ratings:-
= (0.2 ^ 0.1) v (0.3 ^ 0.2) v (0.3 ^ 0.5) v (0.2 ^ 0.2)
The staff’s overall average rating (AR) is:-
= 0.1 v 0.2 v 0.3 v 0.2
AR = (Aspect 1 * 50) + (Aspect 2 * 25) + (Aspect 3 * 20) +
= 0.3
(Aspect 4 * 5)
d2 = (w1 ^ r12) v (w2 ^ r22) v (w3 ^ r32) v (w4 ^ r42) Based on Table II, the analyzed staff’s performance in terms
= (0.2 ^ 0.4) v (0.3 ^ 0.5) v (0.3 ^ 0.3) v (0.2 ^ 0.5) of working output obtained a rating of “Very High”. As a
= 0.2 v 0.3 v 0.3 v 0.2 result, 1.0 would be the weighting for Aspect 1. Meanwhile,
= 0.3 according to what have been computed by using the
multifactorial evaluation model, the staff has been rated as
d3 = (w1 ^ r13) v (w2 ^ r23) v (w3 ^ r33) v (w4 ^ r43) “Moderate” or the weighting of 0.6 in terms of Knowledge
= (0.2 ^ 0.3) v (0.3 ^ 0.2) v (0.3 ^ 0.1) v (0.2 ^ 0.2) and Skill. As for the aspect of Personal Quality, the staff’s
= 0.2 v 0.2 v 0.1 v 0.2 performance is “Excellent” or the weighting of 1.0 would be
= 0.2 selected. As for the Informal Event(s) and Contribution(s), the
staff has gained an “Active” performance or the weighting of
d4 = (w1 ^ r14) v (w2 ^ r24) v (w3 ^ r34) v (w4 ^ r44) 0.8 for this aspect. Thus, the rating and weighting for each
= (0.2 ^ 0.1) v (0.3 ^ 0.1) v (0.3 ^ 0.1) v (0.2 ^ 0.1) aspect is as summarized below:-
= 0.1 v 0.1 v 0.1 v 0.1
TABLE III
= 0.1 SUMMARIZED RATING AND WEIGHTAGE OF THE 4 ASPECTS
Aspect Rating Weighting
d5 = (w1 ^ r15) v (w2 ^ r25) v (w3 ^ r35) v (w4 ^ r45) Aspect 1 Very High 1.0
= (0.2 ^ 0.1) v (0.3 ^ 0.0) v (0.3 ^ 0.0) v (0.2 ^ 0.0) Aspect 2 Moderate 0.6
= 0.1 v 0.0 v 0.0 v 0.0 Aspect 3 Excellent 1.0
= 0.1 Aspect 4 Active 0.8
Since the largest components of D(u) are d1 = 0.3, and d2 = Therefore, the staff’s overall average rating (AR) is:-
0.3 at the same time. Referring to the verbal grades, E = {Very AR = (1.0 * 50) + (0.6 * 25) + (1.0 * 20) + (0.8 * 5)
High, High, Moderate, Low, very Low}, the analyzed staff’s = 89
performance in terms of working output obtained a rating
somewhere between “Very High” and “High”. However, by As a result, according to the calculation above and by
applying the principle of the biggest subjection degree as referring to Table IV below, the staff would be categorized in
mentioned by Guifeng, G. et. al. [12], the staff’s performance the “High Performer(s)” group.
in terms of working output is “Very High”.
TABLE IV
TABLE II BENCHMARK / STANDARD USED IN DETERMINING STAFF’S PERFORMANCE
VERBAL GRADES AND WEIGHTING FOR EACH ASPECT Overall Average
Group Remarks
Aspect Weighting for Each Ratings
Verbal Grades
Aspect • Entitled for “Best
Very High 1.0 Service Award”.
High 0.8 High • An incentive of RM
Aspect 1 Above 80%
Moderate 0.6 Performer(s) 1000.
Low 0.4 • A certificate of
Very Low 0.2 appreciation.
Excellent 1.0 Less than 80% • Advised to improve
Average
Good 0.8 but more than 50 their performance in the
Performer(s)
Aspect 2 and 3 Moderate 0.6 % coming year.
Weak 0.4 • Disciplinary action
Very Weak 0.2 might be taken towards
Very Active 1.0 the staff.
Low
Active 0.8 Less than 50% • Should constantly report
Performer(s)
Aspect 4 Moderately Active 0.6 his / her work progress
Less Active 0.4 to his / her assessors in a
Not Active 0.2 stated period.
234
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 53 2009
V. CONCLUSION
In this study, we intended to give an illustrative example
that encourages the application of one of the fuzzy set theory
in the multi-criteria performance appraisal system. Following
this, we have developed a performance appraisal system
utilizing the performance appraisal criteria from an
Information and Communication Technology based company
in Malaysia. This system uses multifactorial evaluation model
in assisting high-level management, particularly in the
aforementioned company, to appraise their employees.
Utilizing the concept of using four multifactorial evaluation
model in the performance appraisal system could ease the
changes need to be made in this system whenever it is
necessary. This model follows a systematic step in
determining a staff’s performance, and therefore, it creates a
system of appraisal which is able to consistently produce
reliable and valid results for the appraisal process. In order to
allow other companies to use this system, the aspect to be
evaluated and the weightage for each of these aspects need to
be define in the system before hand.
REFERENCES
[1] Moon, C., Lee, J., Jeong, C., Lee, J., Park, S. and Lim, S. (2007), “An
Implementation Case for the Performance Appraisal and Promotion
Ranking”, in IEEE International Conference on System, Man and
Cybernetics, 2007.
[2] Adnan, S. and Minwir, A. (1998), “Fuzzy Logic Modeling for
Performance Appraisal Systems – A Framework for Empirical
Evaluation”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 323-
328.
[3] Khairul, A. R and Qiang, S. (2006), “Data-Driven Fuzzy Rule
Generation and Its Application for Student Academic Performance
Evaluation”, Applied Intelligence, Vol. 25, Issue. 3. p. 305-319.
[4] Ab. Aziz Yusof. (2003), Performance Appraisal Issues, Challenges &
Prospects, Pearson.
[5] Dessler, G. (2000), Human Resource Management (8th Edition), New
Jersey, Pearson Education, Inc.
[6] Terrence, H. M. and Joyce, M. (2004), Performance Appraisals, ABA
Labor and Employment Law Section, Equal Employment Opportunity
Committee.
[7] Vicky, G. (2002), Performance Appraisals, Loss Control Services, Texas
Association of Counties.
[8] Jing, R.C, Cheng, C. H. and Chen, L. S. (2007), “A Fuzzy-Based
Military Officer Performance Appraisal System”, Applied Soft
Computing, Vol. 7, Issue. 3, p. 936-945.
[9] Mehmed, K. (2003), Data Mining Concepts, Models, Methods, and
Algorithms, Wiley-Interscience.
[10] Tutmez, B., Kahraman, S. and Gunaydin, O. (2006), “Multifactorial
Fuzzy Approach to the Sawability Classification of Building Stones”,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol.21, Issue 8, p. 1672-1679.
[11] Emma, B. and Bryman, A. (2003), Business Research Methods. US:
Oxford University Press.
[12] Guifeng, G., Luo, Y. and Yan, B. (2006), “Fuzzy Evaluation System of
Traffic Safety in Highway Tunnel”
http://lib.hpu.edu.cn/comp_meeting/PROGRESS%20IN%20SAFETY%
20SCIENCE%20AND%20TECHNOLOGY%20VOL.V1/1989.doc
[Accessed on 23th December 2008]
235