International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, 2(6) June 2013, Pages: 310-317

TI Journals

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences

ISSN
2306-7276

www.tijournals.com

Surveying on Different Models of Strategic

Human Resource Planning and Ranking of them
Based on VIKOR and AHP Methodology
Meysam Molavi 1, Mohammad Reza Sadeghi *2, Seyed Abbas Moradi Shirazi 3
1

M.S. Candidate of Industrial Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

M.S. of Public Administration, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3
M.S. Candidate of Public Administration, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2

AR TIC LE INF O

AB STR AC T

Keywords:

Nowadays ranking is an important matter for any company. The aim of this study is Identifying
and prioritizing Strategic Human Resource Planning (SHRP) model. By reviewing the literature,
six models of SHRP identified. Paired comparisons questionnaire was used for collecting data and
analyzed by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I
Kompromisno Resenje) methods. Finally the best model was extracted. Findings indicate that
executive approach of SHRP model is more appropriate than other models. This model is identified
by analyzing the spatial conditions and HR current status as well as analyzing the aims and
strategies of the institute, opportunities, threats, weakness and strengths.

Strategic Human Resource Planning

Ranking
AHP
VIKOR

201x Int. j. econ. manag. soc. sci. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

1.

Introduction

HR strategic management emerged in end-1970s and early-1980s when HR was impacted by strategic management. Before that, HR
management researches had holistic views and all tasks of human resources including selection, training, and service compensation and so
on were studied collectively. After a while and under the impact of strategic management, each task found a strategic position and each one
was discussed as a strategy separately (Macmahan, et al, 1998, pp. 193-214). In this line, Hax and Majluf (1996) say that such issues have
caused that managers pay attention to HR strategically since it allows organizations and their affiliated entities to create a long term
competitive advantage against rivals. Today, HR strategic status is highly important not only due to consider their roles in organizational
strategy implementation but also due to the fact that they can convert into a sustainable source of competitive advantage (Wang, 2008). In
HR strategic management, coordination between organizational strategy in one hand and various HR systems, on the other hand, are
emphasized. In fact, HR strategy is a link between organizational strategy and HR operation and converts organizational direction
mentioned in its strategy to objective manuals (Baird & Meshulam, 1988). HR strategies are the pattern of decisions on policies and
activities by HR used by managers. Such policies emerge in different periods and different shapes by considering organizational policies.
By studying intensive global transformations, one can observe HR strategy remarkable growth and change within past 25 years (Sayadi &
Beheshtifar, 2011). Although in HR strategic management, such management is given a partner role to determine the path in strategic
processes, HR strategies mean paths that organizational HR management should pass to achieve its own goals (Abtahi and Hassanpour,
2007). Concerning the importance of existing human resources in organizations, it is concluded that for better management of such
resources, it is necessary to pose strategic management in big rganizations. Strategic management allows the organization to act in creative
and innovative methods and does not act proactively (David, 2005). Since HR planning in System Group Company had no strategic
approach and was faced with difficulties and weaknesses such short term plans, research group decided to study current conditions and
pave the ground to achieve a proper HR strategic management planning model by which senior managers of the company can identify
suitable indicators and achieve the superior model proportionate to their company through AHP and VIKOR techniques.
So, in this paper we present an approach for selecting the best strategic human resources planning (SHRP). AHP and VIKOR methods are
used together in this study. AHP is utilized for determining the weights of the criteria. Then ranking of the models is determined by the help
of VIKOR method.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the second section the literature review and SHRP models are explained. In the third
section AHP and VIKOR methodology are explained. In the fourth section, application and calculation are presented. And finally in section
five, results of the application are presented.

* Corresponding author.
Email address: Rsadeqi@ut.ac.ir

Surveying on Different Models of Strategic Human Resource Planning and Ranking of them Based on VIKOR

311

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 2(6) June 2013

2.

Literature review

Human resource is the main capital of any organization and it should make necessary measurements on human resource to implement its
mission and to achieve the aims and executing it strategies (Gholipour, 2011). The fact that employees are the main role in acquiring
competitive advantage has caused that the creation of HR strategic management.
HR strategic management is a process that its result is to devise HR strategies. Terms like HR strategic management and HR strategy
are often used interchangeably albeit one can differentiate them. HR strategic management defines organizational purposes and plans on
how to meet business goals through employees and it is based on three pre-hypotheses: firstly, human capital is the main source of
competitive advantage, secondly, they are employees that implement strategic plans and thirdly, a systematic approach should be taken to
determine the purpose of the organization and the way to achieve. HR strategic management is a process which utilizes various aspects on
HR strategy development that are coordinated vertically to business strategy and horizontally to each other. On the other hand, HR
strategies, however, concentrate on organizational plan concerning the needs which should be met and the needs that should be changes.
HR strategies determine that organization plans to do what kind of initiatives on the performances and policies on HR management and
how they should be integrated with organizational strategy and also with each other (Armstrong, 2008).
Hence, by analyzing strategic aims and investigating internal and external environment of the organization and considering the limitations
and facilities of HR strategic goals, the strategy of meeting such aims will be determine (Walker, 1992). In this line, in 1998 a research was
conducted in Machine Manufacturing Factory in Arak (Iran). The author provided a pattern for HR strategic planning so that by studying
the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, proper strategies were predicted and then different strategies were prioritized by
SPACE and QSPM matrices (Nimruz, 1998). In another research in 1999 conducted at Electrical Machine Industries, the author provided
proposed strategies for HR strategic management by using SPACE and SWOT matrices and, finally, prioritized the most suitable strategies
by FUZZY TOPSIS technique (Vasei, 1999). In 2008, a model on HR strategic planning was represented in Tehran Municipality, borough
13 in which the most important affecting factors on HR strategic planning were determined through a questionnaire and brainstorming
(Shahrabi Farahani, 2008). In 2008, Akhavan and Pezeshkan provided a framework on HR strategies that emphasized on knowledge aspect.
In the meantime, Abtahi and Hassanpour studied and clarified the role of HR strategies in employees contribution and concluded that if
organizations are looking for employees contribution and rising the productivity, they should design and implement their HR strategy in
line with more contribution by their staff (Abtahi & Hassanpour, 2007). In their study, Abtahi & Hassanpour (2009) devised HR strategies
for an organization and used SWOT and PEST analytical methods. In a research conducted by Karimi Dastjerdi et al in 2010, various HR
strategic planning models were studied and prioritized in Amol Steel Mill and finally, executive approach of SHRP model was selected
as the best HR strategic planning model. They used GAHP, TOPSIS and ELECTRE techniques.
In 2006, Brian Becker and Mark Huselid identified key challenges of Brian Becker and Mark Huselid and represented several new paths for
training human resources and exercising Brian Becker and Mark Huselid (Becker & Huselid, 2006). In 1998, Grundy in his paper titled
Human Resource Management: A strategic Approach, introduced human resources as a key method to acquire competitive advantage and
to increase the quality of services and goods (Grundy, Tony, 1998). Tavari et al (2008), used MADM technique to prioritize affecting
factors on HR productivity to categorize the factors. Also, they used mixed methods to integrate different results achieved by MADM.
Likewise, Arbel (1990) used AHP technique for banking strategic Planning (Arbel, 1990).
2.1 Reviewing SHRP models
1. Content Executive approach of strategic human resource planning (Executive approach of SHRP) model
Based on this model, HR strategic planning process starts with receiving and analyzing organizational strategic aims and studying
organizational internal ambience carefully and strategies to achieve the aims will be elucidated by considering limitations and facilities of
HR strategic goals the elements of executive approach of SHRP includes: (1) environmental factors analysis (to determine opportunities
and threats by considering geographical, legal, social and cultural and labor market conditions); (2) recognizing and analyzing aims and
strategy of the institute; (3) analyzing existing human resources (to determine weaknesses and strengths of human resources by considering
age and life conditions, the level of skills, efficiency, performance, existing potentialities, the status of employees, employees capabilities,
organizational mental climate, organizational structure, working life quality and personnel costs); (4) strategic aims analysis (based on
demanded HR prediction); (5) determining HR strategies (Mirsepasi, 2002).
2. Rosemary Harrison Model
For strategic plan in this model, one should see various factors. In this regard, one should consider seven main steps including (1) HR
strategic management definition (in terms of HR activities cycle and HR strategic management principles), (2) developing a strategic
method to develop human resources (a process model and official analysis model), (3) determining HR management mission (strategy
definition, values and environmental factors), (4) respect to culture, structure and HR management, (5) setting HR management aims (in
terms of HR activities cycle and HR strategic management principles), (6) an integrative attitude toward HR strategic management
(including integrating HR strategy with organizational strategy and HR processes), (7) an decision on when do we need HR strategic
management? (Harrison, 1993)
3. Maby & Salaman Model
This model consists of three layers: (1) institutes strategy, (2) structure, personnel and culture of the institute, and (3) HR return. These
layers are in a competitive ambience and rose as open attitude model. Its dynamism is due to the relation created by it among different
segments which involve the managers of different divisions. Furthermore, affecting factors on employees behaviors are also studied. The
key components of the model include strategy, culture, structure, HR return, personnel and environment of the institute (Maby & Salaman,
1995).

Meysam Molavi et al.

312

Int ernational Journal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Soci al Sci ences , 2(6) June 2013

4. James Walker Model

This process is divided into three segments: (1) strategy of the institute: internal and external environment, discussions on changes in the
institute, mission and vision to values, goals and strategies of the institute; (2) strategic path: it studies discussions on human resources and
HR strategy; (3) implementing HR management: it addresses to HR plan and activities and evaluating the results (Walker, 1992).
5. Jeffrey Mello model
It is similar to executive approach of SHRP. In this model, HR strategic management starts by receiving and analyzing organizational
strategic goals and studying internal and external environment of the organization. Strategies to achieve the aims are set by considering HR
strategic limitations and goals. External factors are: competition, governance laws, technology, labor market and economic tendencies.
Internal factors include: organizational culture, organizational structure, policies, employees skills and past strategy (Shahrabi Farahani,
2008).
6. Allan Bandt & Stephen Haines Model
It emphasizes on achieving a competitive advantage through HR development in organizations. Organizational policies and perspectives are
defined based on short and long term HR aims and are executed for all employees. According to this model, one can divide HR strategic
planning into two parts: (1) employees strategic plan which is a comprehensive plan in organization to develop the business related to
employees strategies; (2) HR single strategic plan which is an operational and strategic plan for human resources as a business unit with
usually a three year orientation. This part is more focused on HR performance. In this model, intra organizational affecting factors
include: organizational strategy, organizational values, leadership competencies, employees outlook, business three year plans, labor and
budget plans, customer value, employees personal success and organizational technical competencies. Likewise, the expectation of
stakeholders is the only factor outside the organization (Bandt & Haines, 2007).
Finally, in their study, Karimi Dastjerdi et al (2010) selected 6 indicators namely Quality of Work Life, Organization Structure,
Organization Strategy, Employees Performance, Human Resource Costs and Human Resource Management Goals as the measures to
evaluate models used in present study.

3.

Research Methodology

In this section, some essentials of the AHP and VIKOR are briefly described as follows:
3.1 AHP
Saaty (2000) has evolved the AHP which can enable decision makers to represent the interaction of multiple factors in complex situations.
The process requires the decision makers to develop a hierarchical structure for the factors which are explicit in the given problem and to
provide judgments about the relative importance of each of these factors, specify a preference for each decision alternative with respect to
each factor. It provides a prioritized ranking order indicating the overall preference for each of the decision alternatives. An advantage of
the AHP over Other multi-criteria decision making methods is that AHP is designed to incorporate tangible as well as non-tangible factors
especially where the subjective judgments of different individuals constitute an important part of the decision process.
The main procedure of AHP using radical root method is as follows:
Step 1: Determine the objective and the evaluation factors. Develop a hierarchical structure with a goal or objective at the top level, the
factors at the second level, and the alternatives at the third level.
Step 2: Find out the relative importance of different factors with respect to the goal or objective:
o

Construct a pair-wise comparison matrix using a scale of relative importance. The judgments are entered using the fundamental
scale of the AHP (Saaty, 2000) as given in Table 1. Assuming N factors, the pairwise comparison of factor i with factor j yields a
square matrix A1NN where aij denotes the relative importance of factor I with respect to factor j. In the matrix, aij = 1 when i = j
and aji = 1/aij
Find the relative normalized weight (Wi) of each factor by calculating the geometric mean of ith row and normalizing the
geometric means of rows in the comparison matrix.

Table 1. Relative importance of factors

Relative importance (aij )

Description

Equal importance of i and j

Moderate importance of i over j

Strong importance of i over j

Very strong importance of i over j

Absolute importance of i over j

2,4,6,8

Intermediate values

Surveying on Different Models of Strategic Human Resource Planning and Ranking of them Based on VIKOR

313

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 2(6) June 2013

GMi =
and
Wi =
o
o
o
o
o

(1)
(2)

Calculate matrix A3 and A4 such that A3 = A1 A2 and A4 = A3/A2

where A2 = [W1 ,W2 ,Wi , . . . ,WN]T
Find out the maximum eigen value max which is the average of matrix A4 .
Calculate the consistency index, CI = (maxN) / (N 1). The smaller the value of CI, the smaller is the deviation from the
consistency.
Obtain the random index (RI) for the number of factors used in decision making. Table 2 helps the users for this purpose (Saaty,
2000).
Calculate the consistency ratio, CR = CI / RI. Usually, a CR of 0.1 or less is considered as acceptable as it reflects an informed
judgment which could be attributed to the knowledge of the analyst about the problem under study.

Step 3: The next step is to compare the candidate alternatives pairwise with respect to how much better (more dominant) in satisfying
each of the factors. It is nothing but ascertaining how well each candidate alternative serves each factor. If there are M numbers of
candidate alternatives, then there will be N number of MM matrices of judgments since there are N factors. Construct pairwise comparison
matrices using a scale of relative importance. The judgments are entered using the fundamental scale N of the AHP (Saaty, 2000).The steps
are same as that suggested under Step 2. In the AHP model, both the relative and absolute modes of comparison can be performed. The
relative mode can be used when users have prior knowledge of the factors for different alternatives to be used, or when quantitative data of
the factors for different alternatives to be evaluated is not available. The absolute mode is used when data of the factors for different
alternatives to be evaluated are readily available. In the absolute mode CI is always equal to 0 and complete consistency exists, since the
exact values are used in the comparison matrices.

Table 2.Random index

Number of factors

RI

0.00

0.00

0.58

0.90

1.12

1.24

1.32

1.41

1.45

Step 4: The next step is to obtain the composite weights for the alternatives by multiplying the relative normalized weight (Wi) of each
factor (obtained in Step 2) with its corresponding normalized weight value for each alternative (obtained in Step 3) and making summation
over all the factors for each alternative.

3.2 VIKOR
3.2.1 Introduction to VIKOR
The VIKOR method is a compromise MADM method, developed by Opricovic and Tzeng (Opricovic, 1998; Opricovic & Tzeng, 2002)
started from the form of Lp-metric:
/

+ ; = 1,2, .

The VIKOR method can provide a maximum group utility for the majority and a minimum of an individual regret for the
opponent (Opricovic, 1998; Opricovic & Tzeng, 2002; Opricovic & Tzeng, 2004).

Meysam Molavi et al.

314

Int ernational Journal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Soci al Sci ences , 2(6) June 2013

3.2.2 Working Steps of VIKOR Method

1) Calculate the normalized value
Assuming that there are m alternatives, and n attributes. The various I alternatives are denoted as xi. For alternative xj, the rating of the jth
aspect is denoted as xij, i.e. xij is the value of jth attribute. For the process of normalized value, when x ij is the original value of the ith
option and the jth dimension, the formula is as follows:
=

, = 1,2, , ; = 1,2, ,

2) Determine the best and worst values

For all the attribute functions the best value was

=

= min

(3)

and the worst value was

, that is, for attribute J=1-n, we get formulas (4) and (5)

, = 1,2, ,
, = 1,2, ,

(4)
(5)

Where the positive ideal solution for the jth criteria is,
is the negative ideal solution for the jth criteria. If one associates all , one
will have the optimal combination, which gets the highest scores, the same as .
3) Determine the weights of attributes
The weights of attribute should be calculated to express their relative importance.
4) Compute the distance of alternatives to ideal solution
This step is to calculate the distance from each alternative to the positive ideal solution and then get the sum to obtain the final value
according to formula (6) and (7).
=
= max

(
(

)/( )
)/( )

(6)
(7)

Where Si represents the distance rate of the ith alternative to the positive ideal solution (best combination), represents the distance rate of
the ith alternative to the negative ideal solution (worst combination). The excellence ranking will be based on
values and the worst
rankings will be based on values. In other words, , indicate
and of -metric respectively.
5) Calculate the VIKOR values for i=1,2, ,m, which are defined as:

=
+ (1 )

Where
= max , = min
the maximum group utility).

= max

= min ,

(8)

, and v is the weight of the strategy of the majority of criteria (or

[( )/( ] represents the distance rate from the positive ideal solution of the ith alternatives achievements In other words, the
majority agrees to use the rate of the ith. [( )/( ] represents the distance rate from the negative ideal solution of the ith
alternative; this means the majority disagree with the rate of the ith alternative. Thus, when the v is larger (> 0.5), the index of will tend
to majority agreement; when v is less (< 0.5), the index
will indicate majority negative attitude; in general, v = 0.5, i.e. compromise
attitude of evaluation experts.
6) Rank the alternatives by

4.

values According to the

values calculated by step (4), we can rank the alternatives and to make-decision.

Application

As mentioned in section 2, six indicators including Quality of Work Life (C1), Organization Structure (C2), Organization Strategy (C3),
Employees Performance (C4), Human Resource Costs (C5) and Human Resource Management Goals (C6) were selected as criteria to
evaluate different HR strategic management models. Below, a questionnaire with 7 pair comparison tables (1 table to compare criteria in
order to compute their weights and 6 tables to compare options with each other based on each index separately) were devised and
distributed among 10 faculty members as well as HR elites in order to compare each model based on all 6 criteria by considering the
selected priorities by HR managers and experts. Finally, 6 completed questionnaires were returned; it is sufficient based on Saatys paired
comparisons. Achieved data are used to rank HR strategic management models in AHP and VIKOR methods.
Decision makers from different backgrounds may define different weight vectors. We proposed a group decision based on AHP to improve
pair-wise comparison. Firstly each decision maker (Dp), individually carry out pairwise comparison by using Saatys 19 scale (Chen,
2004):

Surveying on Different Models of Strategic Human Resource Planning and Ranking of them Based on VIKOR

315

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 2(6) June 2013

1
2
D1= 3
4
5
6
1
2
D2= 3
4
5
6

1
2
D6= 3
4
5
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1/3 3 1/2 1/3
1/2 1
1/2 4 1/3 1/5

2
1
3 1/3 1/4
3
1/3 1/4 1/3 1 1/4 1/6
2
3
3
4 1 1/3
3
5
4
6 3
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
3
1/3 4 1/3 1/3
1/3 1
1/2 5 1/4 1/5

3
2
1
4 1/4 1/4

1/4 1/5 1/4 1 1/4 1/5

3
4
4
4 1 1/2
3
5
4
5 2
1
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
1/2 3 1 1/2
1
1
1/3 6 1/4 1/6

3
1
4 1/3 1/4
2
1/3
1/6
1/4
1
1/4
1/5

1
4
3
4 1 1/3
2
6
4
5 3
1

Then, a comprehensive pairwise comparison matrix is built as in Table 3.

Thus, computed weights are shown in table 4.
Finally, decision matrix is achieved as table 5. In fact, decision matrix is mn matrix where r ij element determines the value of i (Ai) based
on j (Xj) index.
By following VIKOR procedure steps and calculations, the ranking of strategies are gained. The results are shown in Table 6.
The final ranking of the SHRP are shown in Table 7. The decision makers priorities affected the ranking of the strategies. If there will be a
difference in the priority of the decision makers, the ranking may change. For this reason decision maker should know his priority properly
and then determine the weights of the criteria.

Table 3. Pair-wise comparison matrix

Integrative matrix for
indicators

Quality of
Work Life

Organization
Structure

Organization
Strategy

Employees
Performance

Human Resource
Costs

Human Resource
Management Goals

Quality of Work Life

2.3

0.357

2.675

0.443

0.337

Organization Structure

0.434

0.417

4.67

0.299

0.205

Organization Strategy

2.8

2.4

3.67

0.344

0.23

Employees Performance

0.373

0.214

0.272

0.242

0.169

Human Resource Costs

Human Resource
Management Goals

2.254

3.34

2.9

4.12

0.348

2.675

4.87

4.34

5.89

2.87

Table 4: Weights of indicators

Indicators

Quality of Work
Life

Organization
Structure

Organization
Strategy

Employees
Performance

Human Resource
Costs

Human Resource
Management Goals

Weights

0.110009662

0.086722032

0.150754

0.0415581

0.219436

0.39152

Meysam Molavi et al.

316

Int ernational Journal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Soci al Sci ences , 2(6) June 2013

Table 5: decision matrix to prioritize the models

Decision matrix

Quality of
Work Life

Organization
Structure

Organization
Strategy

Employees
Performance

Human Resource
Costs

Human Resource
Management Goals

Executive approach of
SHRP model

0.067

0.22

0.332

0.145

0.44

0.352

Rosemary Harrison
model

0.11

0.254

0.029

0.374

0.104

0.203

Maby & Salaman

model

0.174

0.067

0.13

0.075

0.183

0.051

James Walker model

0.073

0.034

0.061

0.09

0.073

0.189

Jeffrey Mello model

0.229

0.375

0.289

0.245

0.038

0.14

Allan Bandt and

Stephen Haines model

0.38

0.098

0.12

0.238

0.276

0.065

Table 6. Rankings of SHRP models according to Qi values

Strategies

Ei=e i

Fi=Max(ei)

Qi

Ranking

Executive approach of SHRP model

0.181257539

0.1100097

Rosemary Harrison model

0.653641154

0.1938089

0.5159714

Maby & Salaman model

0.824599212

0.39152

James Walker model

0.781279099

0.2120192

0.6475144

Jeffrey Mello model

0.587586591

0.275755

0.6101815

Allan Bandt and Stephen Haines model

0.65765757

0.3733098

0.8379105

Min

0.181257539

0.1100097

Max

0.824599212

0.39152

Table 7. Final ranking of SHRP models

5.

Strategies

Ranking

Executive approach of SHRP model

Rosemary Harrison model

Jeffrey Mello model

James Walker model

Allan Bandt and Stephen Haines model

Maby & Salaman model

Conclusion

In todays competitive environment identifying the best SHRP model for any company properly, is an important issue. In this study, we
investigated 6 models of SHRP and then ranked them and finally the best model was selected for company. In this study AHP and VIKOR
methods were used for ranking. AHP is utilized for determining the weights of the criteria and VIKOR method is used for determining the
ranking of the models. In the application section, ranking result of the SHRP models shows that Executive approach of SHRP model has
the most consistency with company in contrast to other models.
Present model is identified by using the analysis of environmental conditions and HR status quo as well as analyzing the aims and strategies
of the institute, opportunities, threats and weaknesses and strengths. Thus, HR strategies are set in different fields such as HR supply
planning, training and education, HR retaining, HR effective application planning and work relations.

Surveying on Different Models of Strategic Human Resource Planning and Ranking of them Based on VIKOR

317

Internat ional Jour nal of Economy, Mana ge ment and Social Sciences , 2(6) June 2013

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]

Abtahi, S. H., & Hassanpour, A. (2007). studying and clarifying the role of HR strategies in employees contribution. Azad Islamic University
Industrial Management Journal, Sanandaj Branch, 2(2), 4759.
Abtahi, S. H., & Hassanpour, A. (2009). devising HR strategies in employees contribution, Azad Islamic University Industrial Management Journal
(case study: a domestic spiritual organization). HR Management Researches, 1(3), 123.
Arbel, A., & Yair, E. O. (1990). An application of the AHP to bank strategic planning: The mergers and acquisitions process. European Journal of
Operational Research, 48(1), 27-37.
Armstrong, M. (2008). Strategic Human Resource Management: A Guide to Action. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Baird, L., & Meshulam, I. (1988). Managing two fits of strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 116-128.
Bandt, A., & Haines, S. (2007). HR strategic management, translated by Arabi, M. & Moosavi S., first edition. Tehran, Cultural Researches Office.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic Human Resources Management: Where Do We Go From Here?. Journal of Management, 32(6),
898-925.
Chen, H. (2004). A research based on fuzzy AHP for multi-criteria supplier selection in supply chain. Master thesis, National Taiwan University of
Science and Technology, Department of Industrial Management.
David, F. R. (2005). Strategic Management translated by Arabi & Parsian. Cultural Researches Office.
Gholipour, A. (2011). HR Management (concepts, theories and applications). Tehran, SAMT Publications.
Grundy, T. (1998), Human Resource Management: A Strategic Approach. Long Range Planning, 30(4), 474-475.
Harrison, R. (1993). Human Resource Management Issues & Strategies, Addison-Weasly.
Hax A., Majluf, N. (1996). The strategy concept and process, Prentice-Hall.
Karimi Dastjerdi, D., Saeedy, N, Ghasemi, R., & Abdullahi Kakrudi, B. (2010). studying and prioritizing different models of HR strategic
management in Amol Zob Fuladin Company. 7th International Conference on strategic management, Tehran Iran.
Mabey, C., Salaman, G. (1995), Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford.
Macmahan, G., Bell, P., & Meghnavirich, M. (1998). SHRM: Employment involvement diversity and international issues. Human resource
management review, 8(3).
Mirsepasi, N. (2002). HR management and labor relations. Tehran, Mir Publications.
Nimruz, A. (1998). HR strategic planning in Arak Machine Making Factory. M. A. thesis, Mazandaran Techniques and Sciences University.
Opricovic, S. (1998). Multi-criteria optimization of civil engineering systems, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2002). Multi-criteria planning of post earthquake sustainable reconstruction, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 17, 211220.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng. G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European Journal
of Operational Research, 156, 445-455.
Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
Sayadi, S., & Beheshtifar, M. (2011). HR strategies: from past to future. Management Age, 5(1819), 7073.
Shahrabi Farahani, A. (2008). HR strategic management in Tehran Municipality, borough 13, M. A. thesis. Azad Islamic University, Tehran Central
branch.
Tavari, M., Sukhkian, M. A., & Mirnejad, S. A. (2008). identifying and prioritizing affecting factors on manpower productivity by using MADM
techniques (a cloth manufacturing company in Yazd). Industrial Management Research Scientific Journal, 1, 7188.
Vasei, M. (1999). HR strategic management in Join Electrical Machine Industries. M. A. thesis, Iran Industry and Science University.
Walker, James, (1992), Human Resource Strategy, New York, McGraw-Hill.
Wang, D., & Shyu, C. ( 2008). Will the strategic fit between business and HRM strategy influence HRM effectiveness and organizational
performance?. International Journal of Manpower, 29.