J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.

, 5(11)72-76, 2015 ISSN 2090-4304

Journal of Basic and Applied
© 2015, TextRoad Publication
Scientific Research
www.textroad.com

Selecting Best Employee of the Year Using Analytical Hierarchy Process

Nur Idalisa Norddin, Noraini Ahmad, Zanariah Mohd Yusof

Faculty of Computer Science and Mathematics, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Dungun, Terengganu, Malaysia

Received: July 18, 2015

Accepted: October 14, 2015

ABSTRACT

In the organization system, employee plays an important role in achieving the company goals. Motivating the
employee by giving them a reward such as bonus, vacation and promotion that can optimize the productivity of each
employee. In the selection of the best employee of the year, a model is developed by using Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) which uses both qualitative and quantitative decision making approaches. The developed model
contains 4 levels of hierarchy which starting with the goal, 4 criteria and 22 sub-criteria, and finally the employee.
The result is evaluated by using an excel spreadsheet,which shows the best employee of the year with the highest
priority value of quality of work.
KEYWORDS: Analytical Hierarchy Process, Best Employee.

INTRODUCTION

In the organizational context, an employee is an important asset for the organization to achieve their goal and
objectives. Employee performance appraisal is an important aspect of human resources management in order to
assess each employee’s contribution to the company. Performance is usuallydefined as the extent to which an
organizational member contributes to achieving the goals of the organization. Performance appraisal is defined as
“the process of identifying, evaluating and developing the work performance of the employee in the organization, so
that organizational goals and objectives are effectively achieved while, at the same time, benefiting employees in
terms of recognition, receiving feedback, and offering career guidance” [4]. Recognition from the company can
motivate the employee to being the best. It is a big challenge to create a system that helps the human resource
development in the industry to make their work easier without missing an opportunity to select a best
employee.There are many methods which available in the performance appraisal such as informal appraisals that
involve the assessment of an individual’s performance by their supervisor. In [5] develops the decision making and
evaluating system for employee recruitment by using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process.Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) is a powerful tool that widely used in evaluating and ranking complex decisionproblems,where it is a multi-
attribute decision making method which proposed by [7].This study will investigate the application of the AHP
model in seeking a best employee of the year.
There are some related criteria that most employers shall consider during the selection process. In
[6]categorized the criteria in6 main categories namely quality/quantity of work, planning, commitment, cooperation,
communication and external factors.In [8] studied the employee performance evaluation at PT. Kereta Api
Indonesiaby using expert choice software and categorizes the criteria in6 main categories such as integrity,
professional, orientation toward safety, innovation and innovation of service.
Since there are many criteria that must be considered during the selection process of best employee, then there
exists a problem to evaluate the employee. This problem can be solved by using Multi Criteria Decision Making
(MCDM). There have been many methods proposed to solve MCDM such as Weighted Sum Model [2], Analytical
Network Process (the generalized AHP) [7] and ELECTRE [1]. However, many comparison reviews have revealed
that AHP process a number of benefits over other multi-criteria decision making methods. This process involves
pair-wise comparisons. The decision maker starts by laying out the overall hierarchy of the decision. This hierarchy
reveals the factors to be considered as well as the various alternatives in the decision. Then, a number of pair-wise
comparisons are done which result in the determination of factor weights and factor evaluations

METHODOLOGY

The main purpose of this study is to propose a model for the best employee of the year by using AHP. Often,
the selection of the best employee is done by the top management of the company by using informal appraisals and

Corresponding Author: Nur Idalisa Norddin, Faculty of Computer Science and Mathematics, UniversitiTeknologi MARA,
Dungun, Terengganu, Malaysia. Email: nuridalisa@tganu.uitm.edu.my

72
 Norddin et al.,2015

making them facing difficulty in assessing and causing merely a subjective assessment. Therefore, this paper
proposed a model where all criteria are fairly evaluated in the selectionprocess.This model has two phases that is to
determine theweight of each criterion and to calculate the overallpriority/ranking of all employees.

Determine Weight of Each Criterion

The following 5 steps are required to determinethe weight of each criterion:

Step 1: Identify the criteria, sub-criteria and employees (tobe evaluated) for evaluation and put them into theAHP
hierarchy.
Step 2: Assign scores for each criterion.
Step 3: Construct a pair-wise comparison matrix.
Step 4: Normalize the pair-wise comparisonmatrix.
Step 5:Test for consistency.

Step 1: Identify the Criteria, Sub-Criteria and Employees (to be Evaluated) for Evaluation and Put Them
Into theAHP Hierarchy
This model contains 4 levels of hierarchy starting with the goal (best employee of the year) followed by more
than 2 sub-criteria for each 4 major criteria. The full formsand necessary details of the criteria and sub-criteria
areprovided in Table 1.

Table 1: Description of criteria

Criteria Meaning Sub-Criteria
Quality of Work(QW) This is concerned about the employee is able to manage • Quantity (Qu)
multiple projects and produce an appropriate quantity of work. • Quality (Ql)
The work done is expected to maintain the high standards and • Punctuality (P)
regularly produces accurate work. Furthermore, the employee is • Work Effectiveness (WE)
responsible to complete work in a timely. • Up to Standard (US)
• Dedication (D)
• Systematic (S)
Personal Quality(PQ) In a company, individuals must be able to work harmoniously • Organize (Or)
with others such as staff, co-workers, peers and managers to • Discipline (Dc)
make a job done. The employee must be responds positively to • Competence (Ct)
instructions and procedures. The employee must also be willing • Teamwork/Cooperation (TC)
to share critical information with everyone involved in a project • Sense of Humor (SH)
and makes constructive suggestions. • Leader instruction (LI)
• Opinion/Ideas (OI)
• Well dressed (WD)
Knowledge and Skills(KS) This criterion evaluates how individuals demonstrate • Knowledge (K)
knowledge of techniques, skills, equipment, procedure and • Skill (SK)
materials. The employee must be able to exercise a professional • Policy Implementation (PI)
approach with others by using all appropriate tools of • Communication (CM)
communication. • Leadership (L)
External Factor(EF) The employee must be able to contribute job knowledge or • Contribution to Society (CS)
technical knowledge to the society. • Involvement of the Non-Organizational
Activity (IN)

Step 2: Assign Score for Each Criterion

The score for each criterion(t)in this study is basedon 1-9 preferences scale [9] (where 1 is theleast preferred
and 9 is the most preferred).For example, the evaluation for 5employees that have been done shortlisted by the
management are given as shown in Table 2:

Table 2: Evaluation for five employees for each criterion

73
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(11)72-76, 2015

Step 3: Construct Pair-Wise Comparison Matrix

Afterthe hierarchical structure of the problem and the score is finished, the next step is to use a pair-wise
comparison to evaluate itselements and determine the priority. The weightage of respective items in each level of the
[ ]
hierarchy is determined by developing the pair-wise comparison matrix, A = a ij which based on the score from
the entire selection process. The formula for pair-wise comparison between 2 criteria with score tiand tjis given by
the following equation [3]:

 ti − t j + 1 if t i ≥ t j

aij =  1 (1)
if otherwise
t j − ti + 1


The decision maker uses a 9 point scale to assess the priority score. The procedure focuses on two factors at a
time and their relation to each other with the scores 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9. The score 1 refers to equal importance, 3 refers
to slightly more importance, 5 refers to strong more importance, 7 refers to the very strong importance and 9 denotes
extremely more importance. The scores of 2, 4, 6 and 8 are intermediate scores between the two judgments. The
following is the pair-wise comparison matrix base on Quality of Work (Qu) for each employee:

Table 3: Pair-wise comparison matrix based on Qu

Qu E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
E1 1 1 2 3 2
E2 1 1 2 3 2
E3 0.5 0.5 1 2 1
E4 0.333333 0.333333 0.5 1 0.5
E5 0.5 0.5 1 2 1

Step 4: Normalize the Pair-Wise Comparison Matrix

Consequently, the pair-wise comparison matrix needs to be normalized in order to obtain the priority of the
criteria and also for consistency analysis. The weights or the priorities of the criteria are the average of each row.
Next, calculate the weights and priority of these sub-criteria and also the employeein the same manner.Therefore,
the normalized pair-wise matrix base on Quality of Work (Qu) for each employee as shown as follows:

Table 4: The normalized pair-wise matrix base on QU and the priority value
Qu E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 Priority
E1 0.3 0.3 0.307692 0.272727 0.307692 0.297622
E2 0.3 0.3 0.307692 0.272727 0.307692 0.297622
E3 0.15 0.15 0.153846 0.181818 0.153846 0.157902
E4 0.1 0.1 0.076923 0.090909 0.076923 0.088951
E5 0.15 0.15 0.153846 0.181818 0.153846 0.157902
Total 1 1 1 1 1 1

Step 5: Test for Consistency

The consistency test provides the validation and also a measurement of consistency among the pair-wise
comparison that have been done throughout the judgment process. Generally, the consistency ratio is set to be less
than 0.1.

Develop Overall Priority/Ranking of Employees

There are 4 levels of hierarchy in this selection model. Take one employee at a time and measure
his/herperformance intensity under each sub-criterion.Add the global priorities of the intensities for theemployee.
Repeat the process for all the employees.
Suppose that the weightage of sub-criterion QW are 0.119241543 (Qu), 0.228959276 (Ql), 0.065115277 (P),
0.119241543 (WE), 0.119242 (US), 0.228959 (D) and 0.119242 (S). Next, the priority vector of employee (E1) for
Quality of Work (QW) criterion is computed as follows:
Priority of QW for E1 = (weightage of Qu x priority Qu for E1) + (weightage of Ql x priority Ql for E1) +
(weightage of P x priority P for E1) + (weightage of WE x priority WE for E1) + (weightage of US x priority US for
E1) + (weightage of D x priority D for E1) + (weightage of S x priority S for E1) = 0.308164608 (2)

74
 Norddin et al.,2015

Table 5 shows a sample of priorities of criteria for each level with 5 employees. The overall priority/ranking
will be computed from the lowest level to the upper level in order to achieve the goal of selecting the best employee
of the year.

Table 5: Overall priority vectors

QW PQ KS EF
E1 0.308164608 0.257967762 0.16770955 0.25174486
E2 0.287338271 0.267944542 0.159660164 0.319990474
E3 0.127092058 0.284653285 0.315219005 0.253625466
E4 0.103675998 0.080363731 0.167451532 0.0873196
E5 0.173729064 0.10907068 0.189959748 0.0873196

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Priorities of employee from Table 5 are used to rank the employee of the final selection decision. An employee
with the highest priority value is the most preferred and assigned to rank 1, employee with the second highest
priority is assigned to rank 2 and so on. Therefore, in this particular case, candidate E1 who obtained the highest
priority value is the most preferred employee where employee E4 will be the least preferred employee. The ranking
of those employees is shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Ranking of employee

Employee Priority Ranking
E1 0.257556 1
E2 0.255075 2
E3 0.221011 3
E4 0.111896 5
E5 0.154461 4

From Table 6, the employees E1 and E2 have highest priority value for quality of work and external factor
respectively.Employee E3 has highest priority value for two criteria which are personal quality and knowledge and
skills. Even though the employee E3 has the highest priority for two criteria, employee E1 is rank 1 wherethe first
criteria which isthe quality of work contributes more on the value of the priority followed by personal quality,
knowledge and skills and external factors. To be precise in our case, the weightage is 0.432789, 0.239122, 0.239122
and 0.088967 for criterion QW, PQ, KS and EF respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this study, a model of the best employee for the year was developed based on AHP and the result is
computedby using an Excel Spreadsheet. By using the AHP methodology, employees can be ranked by considering
all required criteria. The ranking can assist the organization to select the best employee.

REFERENCES

1. Afshari, A.R., M. Mojahed, R.M. Yusuff, T.S. Hong and M.Y. Ismail, 2010. Personnel selection using
ELECTRE. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10 (23): 3068-3075.
2. Fishburn, P.C., 1967. Additive utilities with incomplete product set: Applications to priorities and sharings.
Operations Research, 15 (3): 537-542.
3. Norddin, N.I., K. Ibrahim and A. Aziz, 2012. Selecting new lecturer using the analytical hierarchy process
(AHP).In the Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Statistics in Science, Business and
Engineering, pp: 1-7.
4. Lansbury, R., 1988. Performance management: A process approach.Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
26 (2): 46-54.
5. Islam, R. and S.B.M. Rasad,2006. Employee performance evaluation by the AHP: Case study. Asia Pacific
Management Review, 11 (3):163-176.

75
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(11)72-76, 2015

6. Ablhamid, R.K., B. Santoso and M.A. Muslim, 2013. Decision making and evaluation system for employee
recruitment using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science,
2 (7): 24-31.
7. Thomas L. Saaty, 2001. Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. RWS
publications.
8. Widayati, Q., 2013. Employee performance evaluation using the AHP with expert choice software (Case study:
PT. kereta api Indonesia). In the Proceedings of the 2013 Technology, Education, and Science International
Conference, pp: 444-450.
9. Chang, Y.W., 2015. Employee performance appraisal in a logistics company. Open Journal of Social Sciences,
3(7): 47-50.

76