Providing a combined model of fuzzy AHP and numerical taxonomy analysis for sport organizational ranking and performance appraisal

  • Mehdi SalimiEmail author
  • Mahboubeh Khodaparast
Original Article


The aim of present study was to provide a combined model of fuzzy AHP and numerical taxonomy analysis for sport organizational ranking and performance appraisal in which subjects were Esfahan youth and sports offices (Iran). In the first step, related indices with four balanced scorecard perspective were identified, and scientific resources, research background, professional comments, and finally confirmatory factor analysis were used. Finally, 41 indices were identified and classified in four-perspectives balance scorecard (BSC). After confirmation of final construct of the BSC, fuzzy analytical hierarchy process was used to identify the weight of indices in every four perspectives. Then, in Esfahan, 26 youth and sports offices were ranked using numerical taxonomy method. According to the results, youth and sports offices of Esfahan city, Najafabad, and Shahinshahr were in first to third places, respectively. Finally, in order to conduct performance appraisal and rank sports organizations, a model was provided through the previous path. The provided model not only could identify studied organizations situation in every executive area but also could make a framework for better management and efficient performance.


Performance appraisal Fuzzy AHP Numerical taxonomy Sports organizations 



  1. Abdelghany M, Abdel Monem M (2019) Balanced scorecard model for water utilities in Egypt. J Water Pract Technol 14(1):203–216Google Scholar
  2. Ansah RH, Sorooshian S, Bin Mustafa S (2015) Analytic hierarchy process decision making algorithm. Glob J Pure Appl Math 11(4):2403–2410Google Scholar
  3. Aureli S, Cardoni A, Del Baldo M, Lombardi R (2018) The balanced scorecard logic in the management control and reporting of small business company networks: a case study. J Account Manag Inf Syst 17(2):191–215Google Scholar
  4. Azadeh A, Heydarian D, Nemati K, Yazdanparast R (2018) Performance optimization of unique resilient human resource management system in a coal mine industry. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 9(5):1178–7797Google Scholar
  5. Bentes AV, Carneiro J, da Silva JF, Kimura H (2012) Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: integrating BSC and AHP. J Bus Res 65(12):1790–1799Google Scholar
  6. Chiesa V, Frattini F, Lazzarotti V, Manzini R (2008) Designing a performance measurement system for the research activities: a reference framework and an empirical study. J Eng Technol Manag 25(3):213–226Google Scholar
  7. Cho C, Lee S (2011) A study on process evaluation and selection model for business process management. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):6339–6350Google Scholar
  8. Dadfar S, Azimi N, Ahmadi H (2013) Functional evaluation of Mazandaran province cities using factor analysis. Numeri Taxon Clust Anal Armanshahr Archit Urban Dev 5(10):253–266Google Scholar
  9. Eydia A, Farughia H, Abdib F (2016) A hybrid method based on fuzzy AHP and VIKOR for the discrete time-cost-quality trade-off problem. J Optim Ind Eng 8(19):105–116Google Scholar
  10. Fekete M, Rozenberg I (2014) The practical model of employee performance evaluation. In: International conference human capital without borders: knowledge and learning for quality of life, Portoroz, Sloveia, pp 141–149Google Scholar
  11. Ghanbari SM, Rashidipanah M, Soltaninasanb R, Pournorouz Golroudbari M, Tavakoli A, Khorshidifard S, Attar M, Ghahramanpour A (2012) Approaches of performance evaluation in organizations. Interdiscip J Contemp Res Bus 4(8):620–625Google Scholar
  12. Gumus AT (2009) Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):4067–4074MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Gumus AT, Yayla AY, Çelik E, Yildiz A (2013) A combined fuzzy-AHP AND Fuzzy-GRA methodology for hydrogen energy storage method selection in Turkey. Energies 6(6):3017–3032Google Scholar
  14. Hajian A, Ahmadvand AM, Movahedi M (2014) The analytic model of the nature of intellect. J Res Hum Resour Manag 5(2):53–80Google Scholar
  15. Hariri N, Sarafpour S (2015) Introducing measurement indicators of Iranian special libraries within balanced scorecard approach. Q J Knowl Stud 7(27):31–42Google Scholar
  16. Hsieh TY, Lu ST, Tzeng GH (2004) Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders’ selection in public office buildings. Int J Proj Manag 22(7):573–584Google Scholar
  17. Iranzadeh S, Hosseinzadeh Nojehdeh S, Najafi Emami N (2017) The impact of the implication of balanced scorecard model (BSC) in performance of the post company. J Probl Perspect Manag 15(4):188–196Google Scholar
  18. Kavoosi M (2015) Determining and ranking export goal markets of Iran’s packaged saffron. J Saffron Agron Technol 3(1):43–48Google Scholar
  19. Khanmoradi S, Zardoshtian S, Abbasi H (2015) The performance assessment of youth and sports offices of based on the EFQM model in Kermanshah. Organ Behav Manag Sport Stud 2(7):69–78Google Scholar
  20. Kusumawardani RO, Agintiara M (2015) Application of fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method for decision making in human resource manager selection process. In: The third information systems international conference on procedia computer science, Surabaya, Indonesia, vol 72, pp 638–646Google Scholar
  21. Lashgari Z, Safari K (2014) Portfolio selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP). J Account Finance Econ 4(1):68–85Google Scholar
  22. Mahapatra B, Mukherjee K, Bhar C (2015) Performance measurement—a DEA-AHP based approach. J Adv Manag Sci 3(1):26–30Google Scholar
  23. Metaxas LN, Koulouriotis DE, Spartalis SH (2016) A multicriteria model on calculating the sustainable business excellence index of a firm with fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Benchmarking Int J 23(6):1522–1557Google Scholar
  24. Mirfakhreddini H, Peymanfar MH, Khatibi Oghada A, Alimohammadi H (2013) Performance assessment of sports organization with BSC-Topsis integrated model. J Sport Manag 5(16):77–96Google Scholar
  25. Moeini H (2014) Vendor selection via fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study. J Soc Sci Manag 1(1):61–69MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Mohammadi Torkamani H, Sharifian A, Rostamzadeh M (2012) Performance evaluation using the balanced score card (BSC): a case study of Azerbaijan Regional Electric Company. J Basic Appl Sci Res 2(4):3289–3293Google Scholar
  27. Momeni M, Jafari A (2015) Comparative study of applying methods of measuring development in regional studies: a case study of 15 regions in Isfahan. Mediterr J Soc Sci 6(1):363–370Google Scholar
  28. Noori B (2015) Strategic business unit ranking based on innovation performance: a case study of a steel manufacturing company. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 6(4):434–446Google Scholar
  29. Panchal D, Srivastava P (2019) Qualitative analysis of CNG dispensing system using fuzzy FMEA–GRA integrated approach. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 10(1):44–56Google Scholar
  30. Quesado P, Guzman BA, Rodrigues LL (2018) Advantages and contributions in the balanced scorecard implementation. J Intang Cap 14(1):186–201Google Scholar
  31. Rani DK, Sakthivel S (2015) Analytical hierarchy process—study on its applicability on web based environment. Int J Softw Eng Appl 9(4):37–46Google Scholar
  32. Rezania K, Mokhatabrafiei F, Shirouyehzad H (2013) Performance evaluation of sport association board of Isfahan province through DEA and a championship approach. Int J Data Envel Anal 1(4):227–246Google Scholar
  33. Salimi M, Soltan Hosseini M, Qasemi H, Torkiyan Valashani S (2011) Rating obstacles to professional ethics development in sports media. Commun Res 18(68):9–29Google Scholar
  34. Salimi M, Soltan Hosseini M, Naderian Jahromi M (2015) The evaluation of Iran’s sport marketing development obstacles. Sport Manag Stud 7(29):13–36Google Scholar
  35. Sbeity I, Dbouk M, Kobeissi H (2014) Combining the analytical hierarchy process and the genetic algorithm to solve the timetable problem. Int J Softw Eng Appl 5(4):39–50Google Scholar
  36. Shaout A, Yousif MK (2014) Performance evaluation—methods and techniques survey. Int J Comput Inf Technol 3(5):966–979Google Scholar
  37. Shokri M, Jahangoshai Rezaee M, Izadbakhsh H (2015) A unified performance evaluation model in competitive environment by combining of data envelopment analysis, balanced scorecard and game theory-case study: cement companies. J Ind Eng 49(1):45–54Google Scholar
  38. Singh N, Tyagi K (2017) Ranking of services for reliability estimation of SOA system using fuzzy multicriteria analysis with similarity-based approach. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8(1):317–326Google Scholar
  39. Singh J, Sharma SK, Srivastava R (2019) AHP-entropy based priority assessment of factors to reduce aviation fuel consumption. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 10(2):212–227Google Scholar
  40. Su CH, Hung YH, Tzeng GH (2011) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making theory with the balanced scorecard application in mobile industry. IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, Taipei, Taiwan.
  41. Sun CC (2010) A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):7745–7754Google Scholar
  42. Thananchayan K, Gooneratne Th (2018) Successful implementation of the balanced scorecard in a telecommunications firm: an institutional theory analysis. Int J Theory Pract 9(2):26–52Google Scholar
  43. Vafaie F (2007) Designing a mathematical model for MADM effectiveness scaling by DEA method in EFQM system, management-operation in research thesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tarbiat Modares University, Faculty of HumanitiesGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang Y, Xi C, Zhang S, Yu D, Zhang W, Li Y (2014) A combination of extended fuzzy AHP and fuzzy GRA for government E-tendering in hybrid fuzzy environment. Sci World J 2014:1–11Google Scholar
  45. Wang F, Shi Q, Hu ZW, Xia W (2016) Outcome-based contractors selection using the integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPISIS method. Int J Hybrid Inf Technol 9(4):83–92Google Scholar
  46. Wang H, Lu X, Du Y, Zhang Ch, Sadiq R, Deng Y (2017) Fault tree analysis based on TOPSIS and triangular fuzzy number. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8(4):2064–2070Google Scholar
  47. Yarmohammadian MH, Shahtalebi S, Fooladvand M, Shahtalebi B (2015) Providing a model for evaluating universities performance (a survey study of Islamic Azad University Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch). J Manag Syst 6(22):19–38Google Scholar
  48. Zand F, Sepahvand A, Sohrabi S (2013) Evaluation of education and cultural development in Lorestan province. Int Res J Appl Basic Sci 4(11):3444–3449Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Sport SciencesUniversity of IsfahanIsfahanIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Sport SciencesUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations