Expert Systems

with Applications
Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112
www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Prioritization of human capital measurement indicators

using fuzzy AHP
F. Tunç Bozbura a, Ahmet Beskese a,*
, Cengiz Kahraman b

a
Bahcesehir University, Department of Industrial Engineering, 34538, Bahcesehir, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Istanbul Technical University, Department of Industrial Engineering, 34367, Macka, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

People in an organization constitute an important and essential asset which tremendously contributes to development and growth of
that company by the help of their collective attitudes, skills and abilities. This is why the human capital (HC) can be considered the most
important sub-dimension of the intellectual capital. Since you cannot manage what you cannot control, and you cannot control what you
do not measure, the measurement of HC is a very important issue. This study aims at defining a methodology to improve the quality of
prioritization of HC measurement indicators under fuzziness. To do so, a methodology based on the extent fuzzy analytic hierarchy pro-
cess (AHP) is proposed. Within the model, five main attributes; talent, strategical integration, cultural relevance, knowledge manage-
ment, and leadership; their sub-attributes, and 20 indicators are defined. The proposed model can be used for any country. However,
the results obtained in the numerical example reflect the situation of HC in Turkey, since the experts are asked to make their evaluations
considering the cultural characteristics of Turkey. The results of the study indicate that ‘‘creating results by using knowledge’’, ‘‘employ-
ees’ skills index’’, ‘‘sharing and reporting knowledge’’, and ‘‘succession rate of training programs’’ are the four most important measure-
ment indicators for the HC in Turkey.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Human capital; Measurement indicators; Fuzzy sets; AHP; Prioritization

1. Introduction processes (Danish Trade and Industry Development Coun-

Many of the differences often exist between the market
and book values of companies can be explained by intellec-
tual capital (IC) assets not recognized in company balance-
sheets (Brennan & Connell, 2000). IC can be thought of as
the knowledge-based equity of a company (International
Federation of Accountants, 1998). It is the pursuit of effec-
tive use of knowledge (the finished product) as opposed to
information (the raw material) (Bontis, 1998) and includes
assets relating to employee knowledge and expertise, cus-
tomer confidence in the company and its products, brands,
franchises, information systems, administrative procedures,
patents, trademarks and the efficiency of company business
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 212 669 6523; fax: +90 212 669 4398.
E-mail address: beskese@bahcesehir.edu.tr (A. Beskese).
cil, 1997).
Intangible assets used to be defined very narrowly, not
including assets such as human resources, customer loyalty,
company reputation. However, these elements of intellec-
tual capital, if managed properly, have huge potential for
creating value which many companies feel can no longer
be ignored (Brennan & Connell, 2000). Today, IC is widely
recognized as the critical source of true and sustainable
competitive advantage (Marr, Schiuma, & Neely, 2002).
Carlucci, Marr, and Schiuma (2004) shows that the man-
agement of IC directly impacts business performance.
Knowledge is the basis of IC and is therefore at the heart
of organizational capabilities. The need to continuously
generate and grow this knowledge base has never been
greater (Marr, 2004). Successfully utilizing that knowledge
contributes to the progress of society (Seetharaman, Low,
& Saravanan, 2004).

0957-4174/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2006.02.006
 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112
Bozbura and Beskese (2005) prefers a three-part defini-
tion of intellectual capital that includes human, relational,
and organizational components (see Fig. 1).
In this figure:
1. The Human Capital (HC) is the individual-level knowl-
edge that each employee possesses (Bontis, Keow, &
Richardson, 2000).
2. Organizational Capital is the sum of all assets that make
the creative ability of the organization possible (Bozb-
ura, 2004).
3. The Relational Capital is the sum of all assets that
arrange and manage the firms’ relations with the envi-
ronment. The relational capital contains the relations
with customers, shareholders, suppliers, rivals, the state,
governmental institutions and society (Bozbura, 2004).
The HC is the most important asset of the intellectual
capital, since it is the source of creativity in the organiza-
tion. Implicit knowledge assets of the employees in the
organization constitute one of the most crucial elements
that affect the work performance of the company. How-
ever, only the existence of implicit knowledge is not enough
for the performance of the organization. The aim is to
make the implicit knowledge of the employees an explicit
knowledge in every organizational level. In this way, it will
be possible to create an organizational value.
The human in a company enhances the operational
activity of tangible assets (tools and equipments) and
activates intangible assets (Fitz-enz, 2001). Increasing the
employees’ capabilities has a direct impact on the finan-
cial results of the company (Becker, Huselid, & Ulrich,
2001).
The selection of IC measurement indicators is a multi-
criteria decision problem that requires resolutions involved
with various stakeholders’ interests. There has been no
basis model for IC statements, nor bottom-line indicators
of the value of IC (Han & Han, 2004). In order to assist
management decision-making in selecting IC indicators
for measurement and disclosure, Han and Han (2004) sug-
gest a model that identifies the criteria reflecting decision
usefulness and expected risk factors. They proposed an
Fig. 1. Components of Intellectual Capital.
1101
AHP based decision model based on the analysis of the
conceptual framework of the qualitative characteristics of
financial information and an examination of information
quality of the information system.
In real word applications, precise data concerning mea-
surement indicators of HC are not available or very hard to
be extracted. In addition, decision-makers prefer natural
language expressions rather than sharp numerical values
in assessing HC parameters. So, HC is an inherently fuzzy
notion, which can be measured by the synthesis of its con-
stituents. Fuzzy logic offers a systematic base in dealing
with situations, which are ambiguous or not well defined
(Kahraman, Beskese, & Ruan, 2004). Indeed, the uncer-
tainty in expressions such as ‘‘low talent’’, ‘‘moderate abil-
ity of knowledge creation’’ or ‘‘high experience’’, which are
frequently encountered in the HC literature, is fuzziness.
In the literature, there is no fuzzy logic method aimed at
prioritizing any part of intellectual capital measurement
indicators. As a value-added to the literature on the topic,
this paper aims at providing practitioners with a fuzzy
point of view to the traditional HC analysis methods for
dealing quantitatively with imprecision or uncertainty
and at obtaining a fuzzy prioritization of HC measurement
indicators from this point of view that will close this gap
considerably.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents
some general knowledge about multi-attribute decision-
making techniques used for prioritization. Section 3
includes a summary of the basics of fuzzy sets and num-
bers. Section 4 overviews fuzzy AHP literature, and defines
the steps of the selected fuzzy AHP method (i.e., Chang’s
extent analysis, Chang, 1992, 1996) to be used in the pro-
posed model. Section 5 proposes a hierarchical model for
the prioritization of HC measurement indicators. Section
6 includes a real-life numerical application in Turkey.
Finally, Section 7 presents the conclusion.
2. Multi-attribute decision-making techniques used for
prioritization
Multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) techniques
have the advantage that they can assess a variety of options
1102 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112
according to a variety of criteria that have different units.
This is a very important advantage over traditional deci-
sion aiding methods where all criteria need to be converted
to the same unit. Another significant advantage of most
MADM techniques is that they have the capacity to ana-
lyze both quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria
together.
TOPSIS, outranking, and AHP are three of the most
frequently used MADM techniques. TOPSIS views a
MADM problem with m alternatives as a geometric system
with m points in the n-dimensional space. It was developed
by Hwang and Yoon (1981). The method is based on the
concept that the chosen alternative should have the short-
est distance from the positive-ideal solution and the longest
distance from the negative-ideal solution. TOPSIS defines
an index called similarity (or relative closeness) to the posi-
tive-ideal solution and the remoteness from the negative-
ideal solution. Then the method chooses an alternative
with the maximum similarity to the positive-ideal solution
(Yoon & Hwang, 1995).
The outranking decision aid methods compare all cou-
ples of actions. Instead of building complex utility func-
tions, they determine which actions are being preferred to
the others by systematically comparing them on each crite-
rion. The comparisons between the actions lead to numer-
ical results that show the concordance and/or the
discordance between the actions, and then allow to select
or to sort the actions that can be compared. In the litera-
ture, there are five different fuzzy outranking approaches:
Roy’s approach (1977), Takeda’s approach (1982), Siskos,
Lochard, and Lombard (1984), Brans, Mareshal, and
Vincke (1984), and Martel, D’avignon, and Couillard
(1986). The most well known outranking methods are
ELECTRE, ORESTE, and PROMETHEE.
AHP is the most popular method used in the literature.
This method, developed by Saaty (1980), divides a compli-
cated system under study into a hierarchical system of ele-
ments. Pair-wise comparisons are made of the elements of
each hierarchy by means of a nominal scale. Then, com-
parisons are quantified to establish a comparison matrix,
after which the eigenvector of the matrix is derived, signi-
fying the comparative weights among various elements of
a certain hierarchy. Finally, the eigenvalue is used to
assess the strength of the consistency ratio of the compar-
ative matrix and determine whether to accept the infor-
mation.
The fuzzy versions of all these techniques were devel-
oped to deal with situations, which are ambiguous or not
well defined. In this paper, fuzzy AHP will be preferred
in the prioritization of HC indicators since this method is
the only one using a hierarchical structure among goal,
attributes, sub-attributes, and alternatives. Usage of pair-
wise comparisons is another asset of this method that lets
the generation of more precise information about the pref-
erences of decision makers. By using pair-wise compari-
sons, judges are not required to explicitly define a
measurement scale for each attribute (Spires, 1991).
Fig. 2. A triangular fuzzy number.
3. Fuzzy sets and numbers
If sufficient objective data is available, probability the-
ory is commonly used in performing decision analysis.
Unfortunately, decision-makers rarely have enough infor-
mation to perform the decision analysis, since probabilities
can never be known with certainty and the decisions about
knowledge management are attributable to many uncertain
derivations. In this situation, decision-makers should rely
on experts’ knowledge in modeling intellectual capital
and its components. To deal quantitatively with impreci-
sion or uncertainty, fuzzy set theory is primarily concerned
with vagueness in human thoughts and perceptions (Besk-
ese, Kahraman, & Irani, 2004). The roots of fuzzy theory
go back to 1965 when Zadeh initiated the concept of Fuzzy
Logic (Zadeh, 1965).
In the literature, triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy num-
bers that are the special forms of LR-type fuzzy numbers
are usually used to capture the vagueness of the parameters
related to the topic. The arithmetic operations of these
types of fuzzy numbers can be found in (Zimmermann,
1994). In this paper, triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) will
be used to consider the fuzziness of the HC measurement
indicators. A TFN is designated as P~ ¼ ða; b; cÞ. It is graph-
ically depicted in Fig. 2 in which f1(Æ) is the left side, and
f2(Æ) is the right side representation of the TFN.
4. Fuzzy AHP
There are many fuzzy AHP methods proposed by vari-
ous authors. These methods are systematic approaches to
the alternative selection and justification problem by using
the concepts of fuzzy set theory and hierarchical structure
analysis. Decision-makers usually find that it is more con-
fident to give interval judgments than fixed value judg-
ments. This is because usually he/she is unable to explicit
about his/her preferences due to the fuzzy nature of the
comparison process.
The earliest work in fuzzy AHP appeared in (van Laa-
rhoven & Pedrycz, 1983), which compared fuzzy ratios
described by triangular membership functions. Buckley
(1985) determines fuzzy priorities of comparison ratios
whose membership functions are trapezoidal. Stam, Min-
ghe, and Haines (1996) explores how recently developed
 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112
artificial intelligence techniques can be used to determine or
approximate the preference ratings in AHP. They conclude
that the feed-forward neural network formulation appears
to be a powerful tool for analyzing discrete alternative mul-
ticriteria decision problems with imprecise or fuzzy ratio-
scale preference judgments. Chang (1996) introduces a
new approach for handling fuzzy AHP, with the use of tri-
angular fuzzy numbers for pairwise comparison scale of
fuzzy AHP, and the use of the extent analysis method for
the synthetic extent values of the pairwise comparisons.
Ching-Hsue (1997) proposes a new algorithm for evaluat-
ing naval tactical missile systems by the fuzzy analytical
hierarchy process based on grade value of membership
function. Weck, Klocke, Schell, and Rüenauver (1997) pre-
sents a method to evaluate different production cycle alter-
natives adding the mathematics of fuzzy logic to the
classical AHP. Any production cycle evaluated in this man-
ner yields a fuzzy set. The outcome of the analysis can
finally be defuzzified by forming the surface centre of grav-
ity of any fuzzy set, and the alternative production cycles
investigated can be ranked in order in terms of the main
objective set. Kahraman, Ulukan, and Tolga (1998) uses
a fuzzy objective and subjective method obtaining the
weights from AHP and make a fuzzy weighted evaluation.
Deng (1999) presents a fuzzy approach for tackling qualita-
tive multicriteria analysis problems in a simple and
straightforward manner. Lee, Pham, and Zhang (1999)
reviews the basic ideas behind the AHP. Based on these
ideas, they introduce the concept of comparison interval
and propose a methodology based on stochastic optimiza-
tion to achieve global consistency and to accommodate the
fuzzy nature of the comparison process. Cheng, Yang, and
Hwang (1999) proposes a new method for evaluating
weapon systems by analytical hierarchy process based on
linguistic variable weight. Zhu, Jing, and Chang (1999)
makes a discussion on extent analysis method and applica-
tions of fuzzy AHP. Chan, Chan, and Tang (2000) presents
a technology selection algorithm to quantify both tangible
and intangible benefits in fuzzy environment. They describe
an application of the theory of fuzzy sets to hierarchical
structural analysis and economic evaluations. By aggregat-
ing the hierarchy, the preferential weight of each alterna-
tive technology is found, which is called fuzzy
appropriate index. The fuzzy appropriate indices of differ-
ent technologies are then ranked and preferential ranking
orders of technologies are found. From the economic eval-
uation perspective, a fuzzy cash flow analysis is employed.
Chan, Jiang, and Tang (2000) reports an integrated
approach for the automatic design of FMS, which uses
simulation and multi-criteria decision-making techniques.
The design process consists of the construction and testing
of alternative designs using simulation methods. The selec-
tion of the most suitable design (based on AHP) is
employed to analyze the output from the FMS simulation
models. Intelligent tools (such as expert systems, fuzzy sys-
tems and neural networks) are developed for supporting
the FMS design process. Active X technique is used for
1103
the actual integration of the FMS automatic design process
and the intelligent decision support process. Leung and
Cao (2000) proposes a fuzzy consistency definition with
consideration of a tolerance deviation. Essentially, the
fuzzy ratios of relative importance, allowing certain toler-
ance deviation, are formulated as constraints on the mem-
bership values of the local priorities. The fuzzy local and
global weights are determined via the extension principle.
The alternatives are ranked on the basis of the global
weights by application of maximum–minimum set ranking
method. Kuo and Chen (2002) develops a decision support
system for locating a new convenience store. The first com-
ponent of the proposed system is the hierarchical structure
development for fuzzy analytic process. Cheng, Chen, and
Yu (2005) implements the fuzzy AHP method to help tele-
com carriers evaluate and plan their future broadband
Metropolitan Area Network access strategy. Kahraman,
Ruan, and Doğan (2003) presents four different fuzzy
multi-attribute group decision-making approaches includ-
ing fuzzy AHP on a facility location selection problem.
Bozdağ, Kahraman, and Ruan (2003) implements fuzzy
AHP to select best computer integrated manufacturing sys-
tem by taking into account both intangible and tangible
factors. Ong, Sun, and Nee (2003) introduces an AHP
method to assign weights to features to reflect their func-
tional importance of a design for manufacturability system.
Sheu (2004) presents a hybrid fuzzy-based method that
integrates fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy-MADM approaches for
identifying global logistics strategies and applies its model
to integrated circuit manufacturers in Taiwan. Kahraman,
Cebeci, and Ruan (2004) implements the fuzzy AHP to
compare catering firms via customer satisfaction. Kulak
and Kahraman (2005) compares the fuzzy AHP method
and the fuzzy multi-attribute axiomatic design approach.
Table 1 gives the comparison of the fuzzy AHP methods
in the literature, which have important differences in their
theoretical structures. The comparison includes the advan-
tages and disadvantages of each method. In this paper, the
authors prefer Chang’s extent analysis method (Chang,
1992, 1996) since the steps of this approach are relatively
easier than the other fuzzy AHP approaches and similar
to the conventional AHP.
In the following, the outlines of the extent analysis
method on fuzzy AHP are given:
Let X = {x1, x2, . . . ,xn} be an object set, and
U = {u1, u2, . . . ,um} be a goal set. According to Chang’s
extent analysis (Chang, 1992, 1996), each object is taken
and extent analysis for each goal, gi, is performed, respec-
tively. Therefore, m extent analysis values for each object
can be obtained, with the following signs:
M 1gi ; M 2gi ; . . . ; M mgi ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n ð1Þ
where all the M jgi ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; mÞ are triangular fuzzy
numbers (TFNs) whose parameters are a, b, and c. They
are the least possible value, the most possible value, and
the largest possible value, respectively. A TFN is repre-
sented as (a, b, c).
1104 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112

Table 1
The comparison of different fuzzy AHP methods Büyüközkan, Kahraman, and Ruan (2004)
Sources The main characteristics of the method
van Laarhoven • Direct extension of Saaty’s AHP method
and Pedrycz (1983) with triangular fuzzy numbers
• Lootsma’s logarithmic least square
method is used to derive fuzzy
weights and fuzzy performance scores
Buckley (1985) • Extension of Saaty’s AHP method
with trapezoidal fuzzy numbers
• Uses the geometric mean method
to derive fuzzy weights and
performance scores
Boender, de Grann, • Modifies van Laarhoven and
and Lootsma (1989) Pedrycz’s method
• Presents a more robust approach
to the normalization of the local priorities
Chang (1996) • Synthetical degree values
• Layer simple sequencing
• Composite total sequencing
Cheng (1996) • Builds fuzzy standards
• Represents performance scores by
membership functions
• Uses entropy concepts to
calculate aggregate weights
Advantages (A) and disadvantages (D)
(A) The opinions of multiple decision-makers can be modeled
in the reciprocal matrix
(D) There is not always a solution to the linear equations
(D) The computational requirement is tremendous, even for a small problem
(D) It allows only triangular fuzzy numbers to be used
(A) It is easy to extend to the fuzzy case
(A) It guarantees a unique solution to the reciprocal comparison matrix
(D) The computational requirement is tremendous
(A) The opinions of multiple decision-makers can be modeled
(D) The computational requirement is tremendous
(A) The computational requirement is relatively low
(A) It follows the steps of crisp AHP. It does not
involve additional operations
(D) It allows only triangular fuzzy numbers to be used
(A) The computational requirement is not tremendous
(D) Entropy is used when probability distribution is known
(D) The method is based on both probability and possibility measures

8
The steps of Chang’s extent analysis can be given as in < 1;
> if b2 P b1
the following: V ðM 2 P M 1 Þ ¼ hgtðM 1 \ M 2 Þ ¼ lM 2 ðdÞ ¼ 0; if a1 P c2
>
: a1 c2
Step 1. The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect ðb2 c2 Þðb1 a1 Þ
; otherwise
to the ith object is defined as
ð7Þ
" #1
Xm X n Xm
where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D
j j
Si ¼ M gi  M gi ð2Þ
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1
between lM 1 and lM 2 (see Fig. 3).
Pm To compare M1 and M2, we need both the values of
j
To obtain j¼i M gi ,
perform the fuzzy addition operation V(M1 P M2) and V(M2 P M1).
of m extent analysis values for a particular matrix such that Step 3. The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy num-
! ber to be greater than k convex fuzzy numbers Mi
Xm Xm X
m X
m
j
M gi ¼ aj ; bj ; cj ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n ð3Þ (i = 1, 2, . . . , k) can be defined by
j¼1 j¼1 j¼1 j¼1
hP P i1 V ðM P M 1 ; M 2 ; . . . ; M k Þ ¼ V ½ðM P M 1 Þ and
n m j
and to obtain i¼1 j¼1 M gi , perform the fuzzy addi- ðM P M 2 Þ and . . . and ðM P M k Þ
tion operation of M jgi ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; mÞ values such that ¼ min V ðM P M i Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . ; k. ð8Þ
!
X n Xm Xn X n X
n
j
M gi ¼ ai ; bi ; ci ð4Þ
i¼1 j¼1 i¼1 i¼1 i¼1

and then compute the inverse of the vector in Eq. (4) such
that
" #1  
Xn X m
1 1 1
j
M gi ¼ P n P
; n P
; n ð5Þ
i¼1 j¼1 i¼1 ci i¼1 bi i¼1 ai

Step 2. The degree of possibility of M2 = (a2, b2, c2) P

M1 = (a1, b1, c1) is defined as
V ðM 2 P M 1 Þ ¼ sup½minðlM 1 ðxÞ; lM 2 ðyÞÞ ð6Þ
yPx

and can be equivalently expressed as follows: Fig. 3. The intersection between M1 and M2.
 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112 1105

Table 2 The first main attribute, T, is one of the most important

Triangular fuzzy conversion scale dimension of the HC. Key talents of individuals in an
Linguistic scale Triangular Triangular fuzzy organization must be selected, assimilated and retained.
fuzzy scale reciprocal scale It is true that, successful companies make investments in
Just equal (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) their employees in order to increase their visions, capabil-
Equally important (1/2, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 2) ities and experiences for the global working environment
Weakly important (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1)
Strongly more important (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
(Ulrich, 1997). Therefore growing the talent pool, reaching
Very strongly more important (2, 5/2, 3) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) to a high potential development and reducing turnover are
Absolutely more important (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) very important for managing the HC. So the main attri-
bute T can be characterized by four sub-attributes: grow-
ing the talent pool (GTP); high potential development
Assume that (HPD); select, assimilate and retain key talent (SAR);
reduce turnover (RT). The second main attribute is SI.
d 0 ðAi Þ ¼ min V ðS i P S k Þ ð9Þ
It is characterized by three sub-attributes: organizational
For k = 1, 2, . . . , n; k 5 i. Then the weight vector is given strategy (OS); industry trends (IT); integrated HC technol-
by ogy infrastructure (ITI). The third main attribute is CR.
Culture of an organization must support building relation-
W 0 ¼ ðd 0 ðA1 Þ; d 0 ðA2 Þ; . . . ; d 0 ðAn ÞÞT ð10Þ
ships between employees and organizational mind set for
where Ai (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) are n elements. organizational health. Therefore CR has got two sub-attri-
Step 4. Via normalization, the normalized weight vec- butes: relationship building (RB), and coordination of HC
tors are systems to build organizational mind set (SM). The fourth
T main attribute is knowledge management (KM). Accord-
W ¼ ðdðA1 Þ; dðA2 Þ; . . . ; dðAn ÞÞ ð11Þ
ing to Choo and Bontis (2002), an organization generates
where W is a nonfuzzy number. value from what it knows through the organizational pro-
The triangular fuzzy conversion scale given in Table 2 is cesses of knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and
used in the evaluation model of this paper. knowledge utilization. Therefore knowledge management
has got three sub-attributes: knowledge creation (KC);
5. A hierarchical model for the prioritization of HC knowledge transfer (KT) and knowledge utilization
measurement indicators (KU). The last main attribute of the system is L. L is char-
acterized by two sub-attributes: organizational leadership
The HC is composed of a mixture of employees’ occupa- (OL), and social responsibility (SR). In Becker et al.
tional or general knowledge accumulation, the leadership (2001), 53 human resource efficiency measures are defined.
abilities, risk-taking and problem solving capabilities. It In another research Abeysekera and Guthrie (2004)
is really difficult, even impossible to define the HC in a def- defines HC with 25 indicators. Bontis et al. (2000) lists
inite framework. Therefore, it is also difficult to measure it. 20 indicators for HC. After the analysis of above men-
This paper aims at prioritizing HC measurement indica- tioned research, the authors define HC with 20 indicators
tors. Bontis (1998) describes HC as the firm’s collective as follows:
capability to extract the best solutions from the knowledge
of its individuals. According to Becker et al. (2001), there IND1: total HR investments/revenue;
are five main attributes to maximize HC in an organiza- IND2: absenteeism rate;
tion. These attributes are talent, integration, enabling a IND3: measures of cycle time for key HR processes;
performance-based culture/climate, capability and leader- IND4: percentage of employee development plans
ship. Talent and leadership are included into the model completed;
proposed in this study as two of the five main attributes. IND5: percentage of payroll spent on training;
The concept of ‘‘integration’’ is slightly changed and IND6: employees’ satisfaction index;
named as ‘‘strategical integration’’. The same thing applied IND7: employees’ cooperation rate in teams;
to ‘‘enabling a performance-based culture/climate’’ and it IND8: succession rate of training programs;
is renamed as ‘‘cultural relevance’’. For the last attribute, IND9: percentage of employees with access to appropri-
the authors prefer to use ‘‘knowledge management’’ ate training and development opportunities;
instead of ‘‘capabilities’’. As a result, the main attributes IND10: eagerness to source sharing;
are defined as below: IND11: creating results by using knowledge;
IND12: freely expressing the opinions;
1. Talent (T), IND13: employees’ performance rating;
2. Strategical Integration (SI), IND14: internal relationship index;
3. Cultural Relevance (CR), IND15: employees’ skills index;
4. Knowledge Management (KM), IND16: mean efficient experience year of managers;
5. Leadership (L). IND17: sharing and reporting knowledge;
1106 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112
Fig. 4. Hierarchical structure for prioritization of HC measurement indicators.
IND18: time needed to orient new employees;
IND19: time to fill an open position;
IND20: percentage of correct entries on HR informa-
tion systems.
Fig. 4 shows the hierarchical structure of the model.
6. A numerical application
A group of experts consisting of academics and profes-
sionals are asked to make pairwise comparisons for main
and sub-attributes mentioned in Section 5. A questionnaire
(see Appendix A) is provided to get the evaluations. The
overall results could be obtained by taking the geometric
mean of individual evaluations. However, since the group
of experts came up with a consensus by the help of the Del-
phi Method in this case, a single evaluation could be
obtained to represent the group’s opinion.
The values of fuzzy synthetic extents with respect to the
main attributes are calculated as below (see Eq. (2)):
S T ¼ ð4:30; 5:50; 6:83Þ  ð1=23:23; 1=29:40; 1=36:50Þ
¼ ð0:1180; 0:1871; 0:2940Þ
S SI ¼ ð3:40; 4:33; 5:67Þ  ð1=23:23; 1=29:40; 1=36:50Þ
¼ ð0:0932; 0:1473; 0:2441Þ
S CR ¼ ð2:63; 3:07; 3:83Þ  ð1=23:23; 1=29:40; 1=36:50Þ
¼ ð0:0722; 0:1043; 0:1650Þ
S KM ¼ ð7:50; 9:50; 11:50Þ  ð1=23:23; 1=29:40; 1=36:50Þ
¼ ð0:2055; 0:3231; 0:4950Þ
S L ¼ ð5:40; 7:00; 8:67Þ  ð1=23:23; 1=29:40; 1=36:50Þ
¼ ð0:1480; 0:2381; 0:3730Þ
The degrees of possibility are calculated as below (see Eq.
(7)):
V ðS T P S SI Þ ¼ 1; V ðS T 6 S SI Þ ¼ 0:7203
V ðS T P S CR Þ ¼ 1; V ðS T 6 S CR Þ ¼ 0:3630
V ðS T P S KM Þ ¼ 0:3942; V ðS T 6 S KM Þ ¼ 1
V ðS T P S L Þ ¼ 0:7411; V ðS T 6 S L Þ ¼ 1
V ðS SI P S CR Þ ¼ 1; V ðS SI 6 S CR Þ ¼ 0:6256
V ðS SI P S KM Þ ¼ 0:1800; V ðS SI 6 S KM Þ ¼ 1
V ðS SI P S L Þ ¼ 0:5142; V ðS SI 6 S L Þ ¼ 1
V ðS CR P S KM Þ ¼ 0; V ðS CR 6 S KM Þ ¼ 1
V ðS CR P S L Þ ¼ 0:1130; V ðS CR 6 S L Þ ¼ 1
V ðS KM P S L Þ ¼ 1; V ðS KM 6 S L Þ ¼ 0:6634
For each pairwise comparison, the minimum of the degrees
of possibility is found as below: (see Eq. (8))
MinV ðS T P S i Þ ¼ 0:3942
MinV ðS SI P S i Þ ¼ 0:1800
MinV ðS CR P S i Þ ¼ 0:0000
MinV ðS KM P S i Þ ¼ 1:0000
MinV ðS L P S i Þ ¼ 0:6634
These values yield the following weights vector:
W 0 ¼ ð0:3942; 0:1800; 0:0000; 1:0000; 0:6634ÞT
Via normalization, the importance weights (i.e., eigen-
values) of the main attributes are calculated as follows:
T
W ¼ ðdðTÞ; dðSIÞ; dðCRÞ; dðKMÞ; dðLÞÞ
¼ ð0:176; 0:080; 0:000; 0:447; 0:297Þ
In a similar way, the importance weights of the sub-attri-
butes with respect to T are calculated as follows:
T
W ¼ ðdðGTPÞ; dðHPDÞ; dðSARÞ; dðRTÞÞ
¼ ð0:191; 0:371; 0:438; 0:000Þ
The importance weights of the sub-attributes with respect
to SI are calculated as follows:
T
W ¼ ðdðOSÞ; dðITÞ; dðITIÞÞ ¼ ð0:506; 0:289; 0:206Þ
 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112 1107

The importance weights of the sub-attributes with respect
to CR are calculated as follows:
W ¼ ðdðRBÞ; dðSMÞÞT ¼ ð0:316; 0:684Þ
The importance weights of the sub-attributes with respect
to KM are calculated as follows:
W ¼ ðdðKCÞ; dðKTÞ; dðKUÞÞT ¼ ð0:568; 0:000; 0:432Þ
The importance weights of the sub-attributes with respect
to L are calculated as follows:
T scarce resources.
W ¼ ðdðOLÞ; dðSRÞÞ ¼ ð1:000; 0:000Þ
Table 3 shows all of the priority weights driven from the
calculations explained above.
Considering the results given in Table 3, the measure-
ment indicators are broken down into seven clusters. The
clusters and the measurement indicators within them are
given in a descending order of importance as below:
• Cluster 1 = {creating results by using knowledge}.
• Cluster 2 = {employees’ skills index}.
• Cluster 3 = {sharing and reporting knowledge; succes-
sion rate of training programs}.
• Cluster 4 = {percentage of employees with access to
appropriate training and development opportunities;
employees’ satisfaction index}.
• Cluster 5 = {freely expressing the opinions; employees’
performance rating; eagerness to source sharing; per-
centage of employee development plans completed;
mean efficient experience year of managers; employees’
cooperation rate in teams; internal relationship index}.
• Cluster 6 = {total HR investments/revenue}.
• Cluster 7 = {measures of cycle time for key HR process;
time needed to orient new employees; percentage of pay-
roll spent on training; percentage of correct entries on
HR information systems; time to fill an open position;
absenteeism rate}.
Adding any measurement indicator in a measurement
process requires additional time and money. The clustering
above may help managers to take the most important mea-
surement indicators into consideration especially in case of
7. Conclusion
HC is the most important sub-dimension of the intellec-
tual capital. To manage it successfully, its measurement
indicators must be defined and prioritized. Because of the
subjective and intangible nature of the attributes used in
the evaluation, AHP is the most appropriate method for
this problem. However, since the experts prefer natural lan-
guage expressions rather than sharp numerical values in
their assessments, the classical AHP may not yield with a
satisfactory result. This study proposes a fuzzy AHP frame-
work to weigh the HC measurement indicators. While fuzzy
AHP requires cumbersome computations, it is a more sys-
tematic method than the others, and it is more capable of
capturing a human’s appraisal of ambiguity when complex
multi-attribute decision-making problems are considered.
This is true because pairwise comparisons provide a flexible
and realistic way to accommodate real-life data.
The model proposed in this study consists of five main
attributes, their sub-attributes, and 20 indicators. This

Table 3
Priority weights of main and sub attributes, and measurement indicators
Indicators T S1 CR KM L Priority weights
0.170 0.080 0.000 0.447 0.207 of indicators

GTP HPD SAR RT OS IT ITI RB SM KC KT KU OL SR

0.191 0.371 0.433 0.000 0.506 0.289 0.206 0.315 0.684 0.568 0.000 0.432 1 0
1 0.047 0.055 0.053 0.047 0.049 0.096 0.124 0.018 0.035 0.000 0.005 0.023 0.045 0.026 0.033
2 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.029 0.007 0.026 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.002
3 0.057 0.057 0.052 0.012 0.072 0.081 0.091 0.008 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.005 0.024 0.019
4 0.077 0.075 0.071 0.074 0.054 0.067 0.048 0.030 0.043 0.051 0.050 0.059 0.048 0.047 0.056
5 0.023 0.060 0.028 0.032 0.026 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008
6 0.060 0.060 0.079 0.103 0.098 0.048 0.052 0.071 0.056 0.079 0.082 0.077 0.072 0.080 0.074
7 0.048 0.062 0.052 0.046 0.049 0.032 0.020 0.097 0.068 0.060 0.064 0.064 0.035 0.082 0.050
8 0.067 0.081 0.054 0.071 0.075 0.075 0.052 0.060 0.070 0.097 0.101 0.091 0.081 0.056 0.083
9 0.058 0.063 0.053 0.073 0.078 0.071 0.061 0.064 0.063 0.096 0.090 0.074 0.069 0.064 0.075
10 0.046 0.046 0.043 0.003 0.013 0.000 0.081 0.045 0.018 0.102 0.075 0.095 0.010 0.028 0.059
11 0.073 0.074 0.071 0.043 0.047 0.043 0.109 0.065 0.041 0.140 0.124 0.115 0.105 0.075 0.109
12 0.058 0.049 0.057 0.093 0.082 0.049 0.009 0.088 0.078 0.030 0.037 0.041 0.117 0.081 0.064
13 0.065 0.060 0.065 0.092 0.063 0.061 0.028 0.066 0.041 0.067 0.062 0.062 0.069 0.051 0.062
14 0.067 0.065 0.072 0.040 0.051 0.032 0.001 0.115 0.092 0.065 0.071 0.067 0.017 0.095 0.049
15 0.087 0.079 0.073 0.061 0.051 0.069 0.013 0.098 0.053 0.072 0.077 0.074 0.140 0.119 0.092
16 0.083 0.060 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.006 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.129 0.090 0.053
17 0.059 0.051 0.040 0.024 0.010 0.006 0.116 0.063 0.043 0.143 0.148 0.109 0.052 0.052 0.084
18 0.024 0.017 0.058 0.081 0.073 0.074 0.031 0.049 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.013
19 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.069 0.057 0.062 0.017 0.036 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007
20 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.010 0.038 0.011 0.138 0.000 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.008
1108 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112

model can be used for any country. However, the results
obtained in the numerical example reflect the situation of
HC in Turkey. The results of the study indicate that ‘‘cre-
ating results by using knowledge’’, ‘‘employees’ skills
index’’, ‘‘sharing and reporting knowledge’’, and ‘‘succes-
sion rate of training programs’’ are the four most impor-
tant measurement indicators for the HC in Turkey.
For further research, this model can be applied in other
countries and the differences in the priority sets can consti-
tute a basis for concluding the cultural effects. Also, other
fuzzy multi-attribute approaches such as fuzzy TOPSIS
and fuzzy outranking methods can be used for the prioriti-
zation of HC measurement indicators. The results obtained
can be compared with the one of this paper.

Appendix A

Questionnaire forms used to facilitate comparisons of main and sub-attributes.

Questionnaire

Read the following questions and put check marks on the pairwise comparison matrices. If an attribute on the left is
more important than the one matching on the right, put your check mark to the left of the importance ‘‘Equal’’ under
the importance level you prefer. If an attribute on the left is less important than the one matching on the right, put your
check mark to the right of the importance ‘Equal’ under the importance level you prefer.

QUESTIONS

With respect to the overall goal ‘‘prioritization of the human capital efficiency indicators’’

Q1. How important is talent (T) when it is compared with strategic integration (SI)?
Q2. How important is talent (T) when it is compared with cultural relevance (CR)?
Q3. How important is talent (T) when it is compared with knowledge management (KM)?
Q4. How important is talent (T) when it is compared with leadership (L)?
Q5. How important is strategic integration (SI) when it is compared with cultural relevance (CR)?
Q6. How important is strategic integration (SI) when it is compared with knowledge management (KM)?
Q7. How important is strategic integration (SI) when it is compared with leadership (L)?
Q8. How important is cultural relevance (CR) when it is compared with knowledge management (KM)?
Q9. How important is cultural relevance (CR) when it is compared with leadership (L)?
Q10. How important is knowledge management (KM) when it is compared with leadership (L)?
 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112 1109

With respect to the main attribute ‘‘talent (T)’’

Q11. How important is growing the talent pool (experience) (GTP) when it is compared with high potential development
(education) (HPD)?
Q12. How important is growing the talent pool (experience) (GTP) when it is compared with select, assimilate and retain
key talent (SAR)?
Q13. How important is growing the talent pool (experience) (GTP) when it is compared with reducing the turnover (RT)?
Q14. How important is high potential development (education) (HPD) when it is compared with select, assimilate and
retain key talent (SAR)?
Q15. How important is high potential development (education) (HPD) when it is compared with reducing the turnover
(RT)?
Q16. How important is select, assimilate and retain key talent (SAR) when it is compared with reducing the turnover
(RT)?

With respect to the main attribute ‘‘strategic integration (SI)’’

Q17. How important is organizational strategy (inside) (OS) when it is compared with industry trends (outside) (IT)?
Q18. How important is organizational strategy (inside) (OS) when it is compared with integrated human capital technol-
ogy infrastructure (ITI )?
Q19. How important is industry trends (outside) (IT) when it is compared with integrated human capital technology
infrastructure (ITI )?
1110 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112

With respect to the main attribute ‘‘cultural relevance (CR)’’

Q20. How important is relationship building (RB) when it is compared with selecting, designing and integrating the sys-
tems or practices to build organizational mind set, capability and organizational advantage (SM)?

With respect to the sub-attribute knowledge management (KM)

Q21. How important is knowledge creation (KC) when it is compared with knowledge sharing (KT)?
Q22. How important is knowledge creation (KC) when it is compared with knowledge integration (KU)?
Q23. How important is knowledge sharing (KS) when it is compared with knowledge integration (KU)?

With respect to the sub-attribute leadership (L)

Q24. How important is operational leadership (OL) when it is compared with social responsibility (SR)?
 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112
References
Abeysekera, I., & Guthrie, J. (2004). Human capital reporting in a
developing nation. The British Accounting Review, 36, 251–268.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR scorecard.
Massachusetts: Harvard Business Scholl Press, p. 235.
Beskese, A., Kahraman, C., & Irani, Z. (2004). Quantification of flexibility
in advanced manufacturing systems using fuzzy concept. International
Journal of Production Economics, 89, 45–56.
Boender, C. G. E., de Grann, J. G., & Lootsma, F. A. (1989). Multicriteria
decision analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 29, 133–143.
Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops
measures and models. Management Decision, 36, 63–76.
Bontis, N., Keow, W. C. C., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual capital
and business performance in Malaysian industries. Journal of Intellec-
tual Capital, 1, 85–100.
Bozbura, F. T. (2004). Measurement and application of intellectual capital
in Turkey. The Learning Organization, 2, 357–367.
Bozbura, F. T., & Beskese, A. (2005). Prioritization of organizational
capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP. In Proc. 11th
international fuzzy systems association world Congress, pp. 1756–
1760.
Bozdağ, C. E., Kahraman, C., & Ruan, D. (2003). Fuzzy group decision
making for selection among computer integrated manufacturing
systems. Computers in Industry, 51, 13–29.
Brans, J. P., Mareshal, B., & Vincke, P. (1984). PROMETHEE: a new
family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis. In Proc. of the
10th IFORS international conference on operational research, pp. 477–
490.
Brennan, N., & Connell, B. (2000). Intellectual capital: current issues and
policy implications. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1, 206–240.
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
17, 233–247.
Büyüközkan, G., Kahraman, C., & Ruan, D. (2004). A fuzzy multi-
criteria decision approach for software development strategy selection.
International Journal of General Systems, 33(April–June), 259–280.
Carlucci, D., Marr, B., & Schiuma, G. (2004). The knowledge value
chain—how intellectual capital impacts business performance. Inter-
national Journal of Technology Management, 27, 575–590.
Chan, F. T. S., Chan, M. H., & Tang, N. K. H. (2000). Evaluation
methodologies for technology selection. Journal of Materials Process-
ing Technology, 107, 330–337.
Chan, F. T. S., Jiang, B., & Tang, N. K. H. (2000). The development of
intelligent decision support tools to aid the design of flexible
manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Economics,
65, 73–84.
Chang, D.-Y. (1992). Extent analysis and synthetic decision, optimization
techniques and applications (Vol. 1). Singapore: World Scientific, pp.
352.
Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy
AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95, 649–655.
Cheng, C.-H. (1996). Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy
AHP based on the grade value of membership function. European
Journal of Operational Research, 96, 343–350.
Cheng, C.-H., Yang, K.-L., & Hwang, C.-L. (1999). Evaluating attack
helicopters by AHP based on linguistic variable weight. European
Journal of Operational Research, 116, 423–443.
Cheng, J. Z., Chen, P.-T., & Yu, H.-C. (2005). Establishing a MAN access
strategy for future broadband service: a fuzzy MCDM analysis of
SONETH/SDH and Gigabit Ethernet. Technovation, 25, 557–567.
Ching-Hsue, C. (1997). Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy
AHP based on the grade value of membership function. European
Journal of Operational Research, 96, 343–350.
Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (2002). The strategic management of intellectual
capital and organizational knowledge. New York: Oxford University
Press, pp. 748.
1111
Danish Trade and Industry Development Council (1997). Intellectual
capital accounts: reporting and managing intellectual CapDanish Trade
and Development Council. Copenhagen: Danish Trade and Develop-
ment Council.
Deng, H. (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison.
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21, 215–231.
Fitz-enz, J. (2001). The ROI of human capital. New York: American
Management Association, pp. 298.
Han, D., & Han, I. (2004). Prioritization and selection of intellectual
capital measurement indicators using analytic hierarchy process for the
mobile telecommunications industry. Expert Systems with Applica-
tions, 26, 519–527.
Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making
methods and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
International Federation of Accountants (1998). The measurement and
management of intellectual capital. New York: International Federa-
tion of Accountants (IFAC).
Kahraman, C., Beskese, A., & Ruan, D. (2004). Measuring flexibility of
computer integrated manufacturing systems using fuzzy cash flow
analysis. Information Systems, 168, 77–94.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ruan, D. (2004). Multi-attribute compar-
ison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: the case of
Turkey. International Journal of Production Economics, 87, 171–184.
Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., & Doğan, Y. (2003). Fuzzy group decision-
making for facility location selection. Information Sciences, 157,
135–153.
Kahraman, C., Ulukan, Z., & Tolga, E. (1998). A fuzzy weighted
evaluation method using objective and subjective measures. In Proc. of
international ICSC symposium on engineering of intelligent systems
(EIS’98), Vol. 1, pp. 57–63.
Kulak, O., & Kahraman, C. (2005). Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among
transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierar-
chy process. Information Sciences, 170, 191–210.
Kuo, Y., & Chen, L. (2002). Using the fuzzy synthetic decision approach
to assess the performance of university teachers in Taiwan. Interna-
tional Journal of Management, 19, 593–604.
Lee, M., Pham, H., & Zhang, X. (1999). A methodology for priority
setting with application to software development process. European
Journal of Operational Research, 118, 375–389.
Leung, L. C., & Cao, D. (2000). On consistency and ranking of
alternatives in fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research,
124, 102–113.
Marr, B. (2004). Measuring and benchmarking intellectual capital.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11, 559–570.
Marr, B., Schiuma, G., & Neely, A. (2002). Assessing strategic knowledge
assets in e-business. International Journal of Business Performance
Management, 4, 279–295.
Martel, J. M., D’avignon, G. R., & Couillard, J. (1986). A fuzzy
outranking relation in multi criteria decision-making. European
Journal of Operational Research, 25(May), 258–271.
Ong, S. K., Sun, M. J., & Nee, A. Y. C. (2003). A fuzzy set AHP-based
DFM tool for rotational parts. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 138, 223–230.
Roy, B. (1977). Partial preference analysis and decision-aid: the fuzzy
outranking relation concept. In D. E. Bell, R. L. Keeney, & H. Raiffa
(Eds.), Conflicting objectives in decisions (pp. 40–75). New York: Wiley.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority
setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seetharaman, A., Low, K. L. T., & Saravanan, A. S. (2004). Comparative
justification on intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5,
522–539.
Sheu, J.-B. (2004). A hybrid fuzzy-based approach for identifying global
logistics strategies. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 40(January), 39–61.
Siskos, J. L., Lochard, J., & Lombard, J. (1984). A multi-criteria decision
making methodology under fuzziness: application to the evaluation of
radiological protection in nuclear power plants. In H. J. Zimmermann
1112 F.T. Bozbura et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 1100–1112
(Ed.). TIMS/studies in the management sciences (Vol. 20, pp. 261–283).
North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Spires, E. E. (1991). Using the analytic hierarchy process to analyze multi-
attribute decisions. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 26, 345–
361.
Stam, A., Minghe, S., & Haines, M. (1996). Artificial neural network
representations for hierarchical preference structures. Computers &
Operations Research, 23, 1191–1201.
Takeda, E. (1982). Interactive identification of fuzzy outranking relations
in a multi-criteria decision problem. In M. M. Gupta & E. Sanchez
(Eds.), Fuzzy information and decision processes (pp. 301–307). North-
Holland.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions. Massachusetts: Harvard
Business Scholl Press.
van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of
Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11, 229–241.
Weck, M., Klocke, F., Schell, H., & Rüenauver, E. (1997). Evaluating
alternative production cycles using the extended fuzzy AHP method.
European Journal of Operational Research, 100, 351–366.
Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C.-L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making:
an introduction. sage university paper series on quantative applications in
the social sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995.
Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information Control, 8, 338–353.
Zhu, K.-J., Jing, Y., & Chang, D.-Y. (1999). A discussion on extent
analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP. European Journal of
Operational Research, 116, 450–456.
Zimmermann, H.-J. (1994). Fuzzy set theory—and its applications. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.