Performance evaluation and importance–performance analysis of universities based on the BSC-AHP in fuzzy environment

Authors

  • Sara Talebzadeh Department of Management, Kermanchah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
  • Elmira Alvandi Behineh Department of Business Administration, University of the Cumberlands, Kentucky, USA. https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7428-3082
  • Marjan Masoomifard Department of Educational Sciences, Payam Noor University (PNU), P.O.Box 19395-4697, Tehran, Iran
  • Munes Taheri Department of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Imam Khomeini Memorial Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran.
  • Shayegan Shakeri Nasab Lead Product Manager, Tailorbird Inc, Princeton, NJ; MBA Candidate, Saint Peter’s University, Jersey City, NJ, MS in Civil Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14571/brajets.v18.n2.487-503

Keywords:

Higher education, Performance evaluation, Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Balanced scorecard

Abstract

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) framework, encompassing the Financial, Customer, Internal Process, and Learning and Growth perspectives, serves as a vital approach for evaluating strategic performance in educational institutions. However, research addressing uncertainties in decision-making within this context remains sparse. This study seeks to bridge this gap by integrating the fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) with the BSC to effectively quantify the weights of various criteria and sub-criteria relevant to university performance assessment. Through a comprehensive literature review and consultations with experts, key performance indicators specific to higher education institutions were identified. The research further analyzes the relative significance of these indicators across the BSC perspectives and assesses the current performance standing of selected universities. Additionally, an importance-performance analysis and radar chart visualization are employed as business intelligence tools to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the institutions, highlighting opportunities for potential enhancements.

References

Agarwal, J., Askarian, S., Bucks, G., & Murphy, T. (2022, August). State of evaluating the effectiveness of teaching development programs for students in engineering. In 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

Al-Filali, I. Y., Abdulaal, R. M., Alawi, S. M., & Makki, A. A. (2024). Modification of strategic planning tools for planning financial sustainability in‎ higher education institutions. Journal of Engineering Research, 12(1), 192-203.

Alharafsheh, M., Harahsheh, A., Lehyeh, S. A., & Alrawashedh, N. (2021). The impact of entrepreneurs characteristics of private jordanian universities leaders on strategic performance: The mediating role of strategic planning. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 10(1), 299-309.

Alipour, N., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Sangari, M. S., & Vandchali, H. R. (2022). Lean, agile, resilient, and green human resource management: the impact on organizational innovation and organizational performance. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(55), 82812-82826.

Azadeh, A., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Hatami-Shirkouhi, L., & Ansarinejad, A. (2011). A unique fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: computer simulation approach for productive operators’ assignment in cellular manufacturing systems with uncertainty and vagueness. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 56, 329-343.

Azadeh, A., Shirkouhi, S. N., & Rezaie, K. (2010). A robust decision-making methodology for evaluation and selection of simulation software package. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 47, 381-393.

Azimi Asmaroud, S. (2022). Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Categorical Reasoning and Knowledge Transfer on Definition Tasks With Two Dimensional Figures. Theses and Dissertations. 1588. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/1588

Banker, R., Datar, S. (1989). Sensitivity, precision and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research, 27, 21–39.

Bugrov, V., Sitnicki, M. W., & Serbin, O. (2021). Strategic management of creative industries: A case study of university information institutions. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(2), 453.

Camilleri, M. A. (2021). Using the balanced scorecard as a performance management tool in higher education. Management in Education, 35(1), 10-21.

Chen, S-H., Wang, H-H., Yang, K-J., (2009) Establishment and application of performance measure indicators for universities. The TQM Magazine, 21(3), 220-235.

Chinta, R., Kebritchi, M., & Ellias, J. (2016). A conceptual framework for evaluating higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 989-1002.

Darvishinia, N. (2023). AI in Education: Cracking the Code Through Challenges: A Content Analysis of one of the recent Issues of Educational Technology and Society (ET&S) Journal. Partners Universal International Innovation Journal, 1(4), 61-71.

De Jesus Alvares Mendes Junior, I., & Alves, M. D. C. (2023). The balanced scorecard in the education sector: A literature review. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2160120.

Eason, K., Gaskins, W., Guy, B., Martin, S., & Askarian, S. (2023). We Lose the Game Before We Start to Play: How Black Women Make Meaning of Their Experiences in Engineering Education. Journal of Black Excellence in Engineering, Science, & Technology, 1, 1-21.

Enache, M. J., Spac, C. T., & Capatina, A. (2021). Tracking Key Performance Indicators within Educational Institutions: The Balanced Scorecard Approach. Annals of the University Dunarea de Jos of Galati: Fascicle: I, Economics & Applied Informatics, 27(1).

Fathi, S., Bahrami, J., Momeni, S., Seyedrezaei, M., & Javidi Sabbaghian, R. (2025). A Multi-Criteria Framework for Water Resource Management: Combining WEAP and TOPSIS for Optimal Solutions. Advances in Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, 2(1), 79-91. https://doi.org/10.22034/acees.2025.484672.1011

Garrido-Moreno, A., Martín-Rojas, R., & García-Morales, V. J. (2024). The key role of innovation and organizational resilience in improving business performance: A mixed-methods approach. International Journal of Information Management, 77, 102777.

Izadian, N., Sanaei, F., Sadeghi, S., Khorsand, M. S., & Shakerinasab, N. (2024). Market reactions to capital increases: Insights from asset revaluation in pharmaceutical companies on the stock exchange, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 23(02), 2486–2497. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.23.2.2487

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Karizaki, M. S., Gnesdilow, D., Puntambekar, S., & Passonneau, R. J. (2024, July). How Well Can You Articulate that Idea? Insights from Automated Formative Assessment. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 225-233). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64299-9_16

Keramati, A., Samadi, H., & Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. (2013). Managing risk in information technology outsourcing: an approach for analysing and prioritising using fuzzy analytical network process. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 12(2), 210-242.

Kiriri, P. N. (2022). Management of performance in higher education institutions: The application of the balanced scorecard (BSC). European Journal of Education, 5(1), 141-154.

Laarhoven, P.I.M., Pedrycz, W. (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11, 229-241.

Lin, S. W., & Lo, H. W. (2023). An FMEA model for risk assessment of university sustainability: using a combined ITARA with TOPSIS-AL approach based neutrosophic sets. Annals of Operations Research, 1-27.

Liou, T. S., & Wang, M. J. (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 50(3), 247–255.

Makki, A. A., Alqahtani, A. Y., Abdulaal, R. M., & Madbouly, A. I. (2023). A novel strategic approach to evaluating higher education quality standards in University Colleges using multi-criteria decision-making. Education Sciences, 13(6), 577.

Martilla, J.A., James, J.C. (1977) Importance-performance analysis, Journal of Marketing, 41, 77-79.

Nasiri, S., Shahabi, S., Shafiesabet, A., Talebbeidokhti, M., & Behineh, E. A. Cybersecurity in Action: Unraveling the Effects of Individual, Social, and Organizational Determinants. Tehnički glasnik, 20(2),1-10, https://doi.org/10.31803/tg-20240627004731

Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Ansarinejad, A., Miri-Nargesi, S. S., Dalfard, V. M., & Rezaie, K. (2011). Information systems outsourcing decisions under fuzzy group decision making approach. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10(06), 989-1022.

Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Miri-Nargesi, S., & Ansarinejad, A. (2017). A fuzzy decision making methodology based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS with a case study for information systems outsourcing decisions. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32(6), 3921-3943.

Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Mousakhani, S., Tavakoli, M., Dalvand, M. R., Šaparauskas, J., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2020). Importance-performance analysis based balanced scorecard for performance evaluation in higher education institutions: an integrated fuzzy approach. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(3), 647-678.

Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Tavakoli, M., Govindan, K., & Mousakhani, S. (2023). A hybrid approach using Z-number DEA model and Artificial Neural Network for Resilient supplier Selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 222, 119746.

Niven, P.R. (2002) Balanced scorecard step by step, Wiley, New York, NY.

Oliveira, C., Oliveira, A., Fijałkowska, J., & Silva, R. (2021). Implementation of balanced scorecard: Case study of a Portuguese higher education institution. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 26(1), 169-188.

Palaniappan, U., Suganthi, L., & Shagirbasha, S. (2021). Building a yardstick–a benchmark framework for assessing higher education management institutions. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(8), 2382-2406.

Petrudi, S. H. H., Ghomi, H., & Mazaheriasad, M. (2022). An Integrated Fuzzy Delphi and Best Worst Method (BWM) for performance measurement in higher education. Decision Analytics Journal, 4, 100121.

Pietrzak, M. (2021). The application of a balanced scorecard in higher education institutions: A case study of wuls. Handbook of operations research and management science in higher education, 419-451.

Rezaei, P., Rezaie, K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Tajabadi, M. R. J. (2013). Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making analysis for evaluating and selecting the best location for construction of underground dam. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 10(7), 187-205.

Rezaie, K., Ramiyani, S. S., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Badizadeh, A. (2014). Evaluating performance of Iranian cement firms using an integrated fuzzy AHP–VIKOR method. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(21-22), 5033-5046.

Roshdieh, N. (2024). The Effect of Monetary Policy Uncertainty on Stock Market Uncertainty with NARDL Approach. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 15(10), 1-9.

Rošulj, D., & Petrović, D. (2020). Performance indicators and the possibility of application of balanced scorecard in higher education institutions. Megatrend revija, 17(1), 109-128.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sadeghi, S., & Niu, C. (2024). Augmenting Human Decision-Making in K-12 Education: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Assisting the Recruitment and Retention of Teachers of Color for Enhanced Diversity and Inclusivity. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-21.

Saremi, Y., Aghaei, M., Esfid, M. R., Hasangholipour, T., & Ansari, M. (2024). Providing Digital Marketing Model with Customer Participation Approach with intervening role of knowledge management. International Journal of Knowledge Processing Studies, 4(2), 148-167. https://doi.org/10.22034/kps.2023.410230.1154

Sauri, R. S., Usanto, S., Sucahyo, N., & Sopian, A. (2023). Implementation of The Balanced Scorecard Method in Determining Performance Measures in Higher Education Institutions (Case Study: ITB Swadharma). EduLine: Journal of Education and Learning Innovation, 3(3), 328-338.

Sharaf-Addin, H. H., & Fazel, H. (2021). Balanced scorecard development as a performance management system in Saudi Public Universities: a case study approach. Asia-Pacific journal of management research and innovation, 17(1-2), 57-70.

Tavana, M., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Farzaneh Kholghabad, H. (2021). An integrated quality and resilience engineering framework in healthcare with Z-number data envelopment analysis. Health care management science, 24, 768-785.

Wu, H-Y., Lin, Y-K., Chang, C-H. (2011) Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard. Evaluation and Program Planning 34: 37-50.

Wu, L., & Li, M. (2024) Application of Balanced Scorecard in Performance Evaluation of Educational Management. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9(1).

Wu, Y., Li, C. (2009) Research on performance evaluation of higher education based on the model of BSC-DRF-DEA. In proceedings of 16th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Beijing, China, 2009.

Yazdi, M. R. T., Mozaffari, M. M., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Asadzadeh, S. M. (2018). Integrated fuzzy DEA-ANFIS to measure the success effect of human resource spirituality. Cybernetics and Systems, 49(3), 151-169.

Downloads

Published

27-06-2025

How to Cite

Talebzadeh, S., Alvandi Behineh, E., Masoomifard, M., Taheri, M., & Shakeri Nasab, S. (2025). Performance evaluation and importance–performance analysis of universities based on the BSC-AHP in fuzzy environment . Cadernos De Educação Tecnologia E Sociedade, 18(2), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.14571/brajets.v18.n2.487-503

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 2 (2025)

Section

Article

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Sara Talebzadeh, Elmira Alvandi Behineh, Marjan Masoomifard, Munes Taheri, Shayegan Shakeri Nasab

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The BRAJETS follows the policy for Open Access Journals, provides immediate and free access to its content, following the principle that making scientific knowledge freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge and provides more international democratization of knowledge. Therefore, no fees apply, whether for submission, evaluation, publication, viewing or downloading of articles. In this sense, the authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms: A) The authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), allowing the sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this journal. B) Authors are authorized to distribute non-exclusively the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publish in the institutional and non-institutional repository, as well as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal. C) Authors are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg, online repositories or on their personal page), as well as to increase the impact and citation of the published work.