gujarat technological university ahmedabad july 2017 · 2017-12-21 · a thesis submitted to...

A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of Universities

based on Multi Criterion Approach Using Analytical

Hierarchy Process

A Thesis submitted to Gujarat Technological University

For the Award of

Doctor of Philosophy

In

Management

By

SHAM HORMUSJI SACHINWALA

Enrolment No.: 119997392031

Under supervision of

Dr. Pravin Himmatlal Bhathawala

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

AHMEDABAD

July 2017

i

A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of Universities

based on Multi Criterion Approach Using Analytical

Hierarchy Process

A Thesis submitted to Gujarat Technological University

For the Award of

Doctor of Philosophy

In

Management

By

SHAM HORMUSJI SACHINWALA

Enrolment No.: 119997392031

Under supervision of

Dr. Pravin Himmatlal Bhathawala


AHMEDABAD

July 2017

ii

© SHAM HORMUSJI SACHINWALA

iii

DECLARATION

I declare that the thesis entitled “A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of

Universities based on Multi Criterion Approach Using Analytical Hierarchy Process”

submitted by me for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is the record of research work

carried out by me during the period September 2011 to April 2017 under the supervision of

Dr. Pravin Himmatlal Bhathawala and this has not formed the basis for the award of any

degree, diploma, associate ship, fellowship, titles in this or any other University or other

institution of higher learning.

I further declare that the material obtained from other sources has been duly acknowledged

in the thesis. I shall be solely responsible for any plagiarism or other irregularities, if

noticed in the thesis.

Signature of the Research Scholar: …………………………… Date: ….………………

Name of Research Scholar: Sham Hormusji Sachinwala

Place: Surat

iv

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the work incorporated in the thesis “A Study on Evaluation and

Comparison of Universities based on Multi Criterion Approach Using Analytical

Hierarchy Process” submitted by Shri Sham Hormusji Sachinwala was carried out by the

candidate under my supervision/guidance. To the best of my knowledge:

i. the candidate has not submitted the same research work to any other institution for

any degree/diploma, associate ship, Fellowship or other similar titles

ii. the thesis submitted is a record of original research work done by the Research

Scholar during the period of study under my supervision, and

iii. the thesis represents independent research work on the part of the Research

Scholar.

Signature of Supervisor: ……………………………… Date: ………………

Name of Supervisor: Dr. Pravin Himmatlal Bhathawala

Place: Surat

v

Originality Report Certificate

It is certified that PhD Thesis titled “A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of


by Sham Hormusji Sachinwala has been examined by us. We undertake the following:

a. Thesis has significant new work / knowledge as compared already published or is

under consideration to be published elsewhere. No sentence, equation, diagram, table,

paragraph or section has been copied verbatim from previous work unless it is placed

under quotation marks and duly referenced.

b. The work presented is original and own work of the author (i.e. there is no plagiarism).

No ideas, processes, results or words of others have been presented as Author own

work.

c. There is no fabrication of data or results which have been compiled / analyzed.

d. There is no falsification by manipulating research materials, equipment or processes, or

changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented

in the research record.

e. The thesis has been checked using Turnitin (copy of originality report attached) and

found within limits as per GTU Plagiarism Policy and instructions issued from time to

time (i.e. permitted similarity index <=25%).

Signature of the Research Scholar: …………………………… Date: …………...………


Place: Surat

Signature of Supervisor: ……………………………… Date: …………………


Place: Surat

A Study on Evaluation and Comparison ofUniversities based on Multi CriterionApproach Using Analytical HierarchyProcess by S S Agrawal NAVSARI

From Group 31 (GCSR)

Processed on 08-Jul-2017 10:48 ISTID: 613040403Word Count: 46012

Similarity IndexInternet Sources: 0%Publications: 0%Student Papers: 0%

Similarity by Source

Turnitin Originality Report

sources:

There are no matching sources for this report.

paper text:A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of Universities based on Multi Criterion Approach Using AnalyticalHierarchy Process A Thesis submitted to Gujarat Technological University For the Award of Doctor ofPhilosophy In Management By SHAM HORMUSJI SACHINWALA Enrolment No.: 119997392031 Undersupervision of Dr. Pravin Himmatlal Bhathawala GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AHMEDABADJuly 2017 A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of Universities based on Multi Criterion Approach UsingAnalytical Hierarchy Process A Thesis submitted to Gujarat Technological University For the Award ofDoctor of Philosophy In Management By SHAM HORMUSJI SACHINWALA Enrolment No.: 119997392031Under supervision of Dr. Pravin Himmatlal Bhathawala GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITYAHMEDABAD July 2017 i Annexure II © SHAM HORMUSJI SACHINWALA ii Annexure III DECLARATION Ideclare that the thesis entitled “A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of Universities based on MultiCriterion Approach Using Analytical Hierarchy Process” submitted by me for the degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy is the record of research work carried out by me during the period September 2011 to April 2017under the supervision of Dr. Pravin Himmatlal Bhathawala and this has not formed the basis for the award ofany degree, diploma, associate ship, fellowship, titles in this or any other University or other institution ofhigher learning. I further declare that the material obtained from other sources has been duly acknowledgedin the thesis. I shall be solely responsible for any plagiarism or other irregularities, if noticed in the thesis.Signature of the Research Scholar: …………………………… Date: ….……………… Name of ResearchScholar: Sham Hormusji Sachinwala Place: Surat iii Annexure – IV CERTIFICATE I certify that the workincorporated in the thesis “A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of Universities based on Multi CriterionApproach Using Analytical Hierarchy Process” submitted by Shri Sham Hormusji Sachinwala was carried outby the candidate under my supervision/guidance. To the best of my knowledge: i. the candidate has notsubmitted the same research work to any other institution for any degree/diploma, associate ship,Fellowship or other similar titles ii. the thesis submitted is a record of original research work done by theResearch Scholar during the period of study under my supervision, and iii. the thesis represents independentresearch work on the part of the Research Scholar. Signature of Supervisor: ………………………………Date: ……………… Name of Supervisor: Dr. Pravin Himmatlal Bhathawala Place: Surat iv Annexure – VOriginality Report Certificate It is certified that PhD Thesis titled “A Study on Evaluation and Comparison ofUniversities based on Multi Criterion Approach Using Analytical Hierarchy Process” by Sham HormusjiSachinwala has been examined by us. We undertake the following: a. Thesis has significant new work /knowledge as compared already published or is under consideration to be published elsewhere. Nosentence, equation, diagram, table, paragraph or section has been copied verbatim from previous workunless it is placed under quotation marks and duly referenced. b. The work presented is original and ownwork of the author (i.e. there is no plagiarism). No ideas, processes, results or words of others have been

Turnitin Originality Report https://www.turnitin.com/newreport_printview.asp?eq=1&eb=1&esm...

1 of 81 7/8/17, 10:52 AM

vii

PhD THESIS Non-Exclusive License to


In consideration of being a PhD Research Scholar at GTU and in the interests of the

facilitation of research at GTU and elsewhere, I, Sham Hormusji Sachinwala

having Enrollment No. 119997392031 hereby grant a non-exclusive, royalty free and

perpetual license to GTU on the following terms:

a) GTU is permitted to archive, reproduce and distribute my thesis, in whole or in part,

and/or my abstract, in whole or in part ( referred to collectively as the “Work”)

anywhere in the world, for non-commercial purposes, in all forms of media;

b) GTU is permitted to authorize, sub-lease, sub-contract or procure any of the acts

mentioned in paragraph (a);

c) GTU is authorized to submit the Work at any National / International Library, under

the authority of their “Thesis Non-Exclusive License”;

d) The Universal Copyright Notice (©) shall appear on all copies made under the

authority of this license;

e) I undertake to submit my thesis, through my University, to any Library and Archives.

Any abstract submitted with the thesis will be considered to form part of the thesis.

f) I represent that my thesis is my original work, does not infringe any rights of others,

including privacy rights, and that I have the right to make the grant conferred by this

non-exclusive license.

g) If third party copyrighted material was included in my thesis for which, under the terms

of the Copyright Act, written permission from the copyright owners is required, I have

obtained such permission from the copyright owners to do the acts mentioned in

paragraph (a) above for the full term of copyright protection.

viii

h) I retain copyright ownership and moral rights in my thesis, and may deal with the

copyright in my thesis, in any way consistent with rights granted by me to my

University in this non-exclusive license.

i) I further promise to inform any person to whom I may hereafter assign or license my

copyright in my thesis of the rights granted by me to my University in this non-

exclusive license.

j) I am aware of and agree to accept the conditions and regulations of PhD including all

policy matters related to authorship and plagiarism.

Signature of the Research Scholar:


Date: Place: Surat

Signature of Supervisor:


Date: Place: Surat

Seal:

ix

Thesis Approval Form

The viva-voce of the PhD Thesis submitted by Shri Sham Hormusji Sachinwala

(Enrolment No. 119997392031) entitled “A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of


was conducted on ……………………………………. At Gujarat Technological

University.

(Please tick any one of the following option)

The performance of the candidate was satisfactory. We recommend that he be awarded

the PhD degree.

Any further modifications in research work recommended by the panel after 3 months

from the date of first viva-voce upon request of the Supervisor or request of

Independent Research Scholar after which viva-voce can be re-conducted by the same

panel again.

(Briefly specify the modifications suggested by the panel)

The performance of the candidate was unsatisfactory. We recommend that he should

not be awarded the PhD degree.

(The panel must give justifications for rejecting the research work)

------------------------------------------------------ Name and Signature of Supervisor with Seal

------------------------------------------------------- 1) (External Examiner 1) Name and Signature



x

ABSTRACT

Universities Rankings are carried out worldwide by different bodies like Times Higher

Education (THE) World University Ranking, Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) Ranking,

Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), etc. The criteria of evaluation and

weights of different criteria are different. Also the ranking system may not be suited to

Indian Universities as the parameters and weights are non-universal and non-uniform. This

call for a need to have an indigenous model to be developed based on local stake holder’s

parameters and localized views. This will help in evaluation and comparison of Indian

Universities and Higher Learning Institutes and selection of the same.

The study focuses on preferences and viewpoints of four sets of stake holders, viz.

students, faculties, university administrators and prospective employers. Further, the sub

criteria to judge a university from viewpoint of different stakeholders are mapped.

The preferences of the stakeholders obtained from the primary survey through

questionnaires then are formulated as an Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem

(AHP).Analytical Hierarchy Process is a Multi Criteria Decision making model developed

by Thomas Saaty. AHP attempts to simplify a complex decision making problem by using

pair wise comparison of criteria’s using Saaty’s Scale.

The outcome of the study will be an AHP Model with ranked order criteria which reflects

the preferences or feelings of local stake holders for evaluation of higher learning

institutes. The study also shows the homogeneity and consensus percentage of the group.

Higher consensus shows that the model is applicable universally for local evaluation of

institutes.

This will benefit the students, faculties, employers and the universities administrator to

select the higher learning institute based on the local choices available to them. Also it will

serve as a local or regional ranking of universities from a set of universities.

xi

Acknowledgement

Completion of PhD thesis is yet another stepping stone in my constant pursuit for learning.

At this important juncture I would like to thank and acknowledge all those who have been

instrumental in making of my doctoral research and thesis.

First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Pravin Bhathawala for his

valuable guidance throughout the research and for his wisdom and patience for giving me

freedom to ponder and implement my own ideas. I would also thank my co-supervisor Dr.

Polona Tominc, Professor, University of Maribor for giving prompt and positive feedback

from time to time.

I would be failing in my duty if I do not thank the mentors of the core course in research

methodology, Dr. P G K Murthy, Dr. Chinnam Reddy and others.

I deeply express my gratitude to my Doctoral Progress Committee Members, Dr. Manish

Sidhpuria and Dr. Vinod Patel, Professors, DBIM Surat for critical review of my

progress and offering continuous support. Also a big thank you to Dr. Renuka Garg,

HOD, DBIM, Surat who was kind enough to extend permission and support for conduct of

my open seminar at premises of DBIM, Surat. I am also sincerely thankful to the faculties

of DBIM, Surat and to my MBA students Jay Vashi and Brijesh Rathod to participate in

my seminar.

I am grateful to Mr. Chintan Pathak, Cyber Crime Lawyer and Mr. Kevin Jariwala,

Graphics Designer, to take out their valuable time and their active participation in the open

seminar.

I would also like to thank Dr. Rajesh Khajuria, Director, CKSV Institute of Management,

Vadodara for always appreciating my work at various public forum giving me a

motivational thrust every time.

I would also like to thank knowledgeable experts at Research Review Week, Dr.

D.M.Pestonjee, Dr. Sarla Actutan, Dr. Satendra Kumar, Dr. Nilay Yajnik and others

who gave precious inputs to make the research valuable.

xii

I also thank the Secretary and Trustees, Agrawal Education Foundation, Navsari, for

providing support and unobstructed path for completing my research.

Thanks to the agile GTU PhD Admin staff for their good cooperation and prompt replies

to any of our queries. Thanks to Mrs. Shital Padhiyar, my PhD Batch co-scholar for

being a constant motivator, and helping hand.

Last but not the least my heartfelt gratitude to my loving and considerate wife Kuma and

my genius son Harvesp. Without their inner strength and light I would never had

completed my research. They were a constant source of inspiration and support to me.

I am grateful to Goddess Saraswati, to bestow blessings on me and to charter a path for

me as a true and constant lifelong learner.

xiii

Table of Contents List of Abbreviation ........................................................................................................................ xxi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xxiii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xxiv

List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................... xxviii

CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background: ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Motivation of research: ..................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Higher Education in India .................................................................................................. 2

1.3.1 Market Size ................................................................................................................ 2

1.3.2 Investment ................................................................................................................ 2

1.3.3 Current Status of Universities in India ....................................................................... 2

1.3.4 Total No. of Universities in the Country as on 22.02.2017 ........................................ 3

1.3.5 Institutes of National Importance.............................................................................. 4

1.3.6 Structure of Higher Education in India....................................................................... 5

1.3.7 Regulatory framework of Higher Education in India .................................................. 5

1.3.8 Accreditation Bodies in India ..................................................................................... 7

1.4 Recent Reforms proposed by NITI Aayog .......................................................................... 8

1.5 SWOT Analysis of Higher Education Sector of India ........................................................ 10

1.6 Ranking of Universities & HEIs:........................................................................................ 11

1.6.1 Ranking objectives and purpose: ............................................................................. 11

1.6.2 Prominent ranking bodies of world universities ...................................................... 11

1.6.3 Ranking Criteria used by popular ranking bodies .................................................... 11

1.6.4 Indian Ranking System (NIRF) .................................................................................. 13

1.6.5 UGC Classification of Universities ............................................................................ 15

1.6.6 Pros of College Ranking Systems ............................................................................. 16

1.7 Analytic Hierarchy Process .............................................................................................. 17

1.7.1 Theory behind AHP .................................................................................................. 18

1.7.2 Use of AHP ............................................................................................................... 19

1.7.3 Consensus measure for group decision making in AHP ........................................... 19

1.8 Original contribution by the thesis: ................................................................................. 19

xiv

1.9 Presentation of the Study ................................................................................................ 20

CHAPTER 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 21

2 Literature review ..................................................................................................................... 21

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 21

2.2 Literature related to University Evaluation & Ranking .................................................... 21

2.3 Literature related to AHP and its application in complex decision making ..................... 36

2.4 Literature related to Consensus measures in group decision .......................................... 37

2.5 Gaps identified ................................................................................................................ 39

CHAPTER 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 40

3 Research Methodology ........................................................................................................... 40

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 40

3.2 Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 40

3.3 Significance of Study ....................................................................................................... 40

3.4 Definition of Problem: ..................................................................................................... 41

3.5 Objectives of the study: ................................................................................................... 42

3.6 Scope of Work: ................................................................................................................ 42

3.7 Research Design .............................................................................................................. 42

3.7.1 Universe .................................................................................................................. 43

3.7.2 Sample Size .............................................................................................................. 43

3.7.3 Sampling Techniques ............................................................................................... 43

3.7.4 Sources of Data........................................................................................................ 43

3.8 Data Collection Tool ........................................................................................................ 44

3.8.1 Structure of the questionnaire ................................................................................ 44

3.9 Mathematical Tools ......................................................................................................... 45

3.10 Analytical Software.......................................................................................................... 46

3.11 Reliability & Validity ........................................................................................................ 46

3.12 Flow of Research ............................................................................................................. 48

CHAPTER 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 49

4 Data Presentation &Analysis ................................................................................................... 49

4.1 Subjects for the study ...................................................................................................... 49

4.2 Goal for the study (Top level Hierarchy) .......................................................................... 50

4.3 Main Criteria (Second Level Hierarchy) ........................................................................... 50

4.4 Sub-criteria (Third Level of Hierarchy) ............................................................................. 50

4.4.1 Type of University & No. of affiliated Colleges ........................................................ 50

xv

4.4.2 Campus Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 51

4.4.3 Admission Policy ...................................................................................................... 51

4.4.4 Prior Results & Placements of students ................................................................... 51

4.4.5 Number of Patents registered ................................................................................. 52

4.4.6 Number of Ph. D & M. Phil Produced ...................................................................... 52

4.4.7 Tie up with Foreign University ................................................................................. 53

4.4.8 National / Global Accreditation ............................................................................... 53

4.4.9 Historical Scholarly Ranking ..................................................................................... 53

4.4.10 UGC / Private / International Funding ..................................................................... 53

4.4.11 Availability of Major Academic Programs ................................................................ 53

4.4.12 All round & activity based learning through live projects ........................................ 53

4.4.13 Course curriculum & quality of program ................................................................. 54

4.4.14 ICT enabled university ............................................................................................. 54

4.4.15 No. of International Faculties .................................................................................. 54

4.4.16 No. of International Students .................................................................................. 54

4.4.17 Faculty to student ratio ........................................................................................... 55

4.4.18 Qualifications & Experience of faculty ..................................................................... 55

4.4.19 Papers published by faculties .................................................................................. 55

4.4.20 Honors, Awards & Prizes received by faculties ........................................................ 55

4.4.21 Nearness from Home............................................................................................... 55

4.4.22 Cost of education (fees) ........................................................................................... 56

4.4.23 Religious Consideration ........................................................................................... 56

4.4.24 Availability of Scholarship ........................................................................................ 56

4.4.25 Ease of obtaining loans ............................................................................................ 57

4.4.26 Recommended by Past Teachers, friends & relatives .............................................. 57

4.4.27 Separate activity center ........................................................................................... 57

4.4.28 National & International Recognition of faculty ...................................................... 57

4.4.29 Growth & Research opportunities for faculties ....................................................... 57

4.4.30 Number of Faculty Development Programs conducted .......................................... 58

4.4.31 Consultation to Industry & collaborative research .................................................. 58

4.4.32 Salary Structure ....................................................................................................... 58

4.4.33 Employability of passed out students ...................................................................... 58

4.4.34 Communication Skills of students............................................................................ 58

4.4.35 Ethics & Value system and Business Etiquette of students ..................................... 58

xvi

4.4.36 Availability of Hostel ................................................................................................ 58

4.5 Problem Structuring & Criteria Grouping ........................................................................ 59

4.6 Number of pairwise comparisons for different stakeholders .......................................... 63

4.6.1 Summary of pairwise comparisons for sub criteria for different stakeholder ......... 63

4.7 Analysis of Student Respondents .................................................................................... 64

4.7.1 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for University / Institute related main

criteria for all students’ respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses) ................. 64

4.7.2 Normalization and priority matrix of University related criteria for students ......... 65

4.7.3 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Faculty related main criteria for all

students’ respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses) ....................................... 66

4.7.4 Normalization and priority matrix of Faculty related criteria for students .............. 67

4.7.5 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Convenience related main criteria for

all students’ respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses) ................................... 68

4.7.6 Normalization and priority matrix of Convenience related criteria for students ..... 69

4.7.7 Consistency Ratio for University / Institute Related Criteria for students ............... 70

4.7.8 Consistency Ratio for Faculty Related Criteria for students..................................... 71

4.7.9 Consistency Ratio for Convenience Related Criteria for students ........................... 72

4.7.10 Calculation of Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for all

student’s respondents for Type of University / Institute criteria ............................................ 73

4.7.11 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for university /

institute related criteria. ......................................................................................................... 75

4.7.12 Calculation of Shannon Entropy, Equitability, and Simpson & Hill Numbers for all

students’ respondents for Faculty related criteria .................................................................. 76

4.7.13 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for Faculty

related criteria. ........................................................................................................................ 78


students’ respondents for Convenience related criteria ......................................................... 79

4.7.15 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for Convenience

related criteria......................................................................................................................... 81

4.8 Analysis of Faculty Respondents ..................................................................................... 82

4.8.1 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Job Security related main criteria for

all Faculty respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses) ...................................... 82

4.8.2 Normalization and priority matrix of Job Security Related criteria for faculty ........ 82

4.8.3 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Job Progression & Growth related

main criteria for all Faculty respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses) ........... 83

4.8.4 Normalization and priority matrix of Job Progression & Growth Related criteria for

faculty 84

xvii

4.8.5 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Recognition related main criteria for

all Faculty respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses) ...................................... 85

4.8.6 Normalization and priority matrix of Recognition Related criteria for faculty ......... 86

4.8.7 Consistency Ratio for Job Security Related Criteria for Faculties ............................. 87

4.8.8 Consistency Ratio for Job Progression & Growth Related Criteria for Faculties ...... 88

4.8.9 Consistency Ratio for Recognition Related Criteria for Faculties ............................. 89


Faculty respondents for Job Security related criteria .............................................................. 90

4.8.11 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for Job Security



Faculty respondents for Progression & Growth related criteria .............................................. 92

4.8.13 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for Progression &

Growth related criteria............................................................................................................ 93


Faculty respondents for Recognition related criteria .............................................................. 94

4.8.15 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for Recognition


4.9 Analysis of Industry Respondents .................................................................................... 96

4.9.1 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Employability of students related

main criteria for all Industry respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses) .......... 96

4.9.2 Normalization and priority matrix of Employability of Students Related criteria for

Industry 97

4.9.3 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Collaborative Research related main

criteria for all Industry respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses) .................. 98

4.9.4 Normalization and priority matrix of Collaborative Research Related criteria for

Industries ................................................................................................................................ 99

4.9.5 Consistency Ratio for Employability of Students Related Criteria for Industry ...... 100

4.9.6 Consistency Ratio for Collaborative Research Related Criteria for Industry .......... 101


Industry respondents for Employability of Students related criteria .................................... 102

4.9.8 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Industry respondents for Employability

of Students related criteria ................................................................................................... 102


Industry respondents for Collaborative Research related criteria ......................................... 104

4.9.10 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Industry respondents for Collaborative

Research related criteria ....................................................................................................... 104

4.10 Analysis of Administrator / HOD / Principals ................................................................. 106

xviii

4.10.1 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Quality of Education related main

criteria for all Admin respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses) ................... 106

4.10.2 Normalization and priority matrix of Quality of Education Related criteria for

Administrators....................................................................................................................... 107

4.10.3 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Research Output related main


4.10.4 Normalization and priority matrix of Research Output Related criteria for

Administrators....................................................................................................................... 109

4.10.5 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Size & Infrastructure related main


4.10.6 Normalization and priority matrix of Size & Infrastructure Related criteria for

Administrators....................................................................................................................... 110

4.10.7 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Quality of Faculty related main


4.10.8 Normalization and priority matrix of Quality of Faculty Related criteria for

Administrators....................................................................................................................... 112

4.10.9 Consistency Ratio for Quality of Education Related Criteria for Administrators.... 113

4.10.10 Consistency Ratio for Research Output Related Criteria for Administrators ..... 114

4.10.11 Consistency Ratio for Size & Infrastructure Related Criteria for Administrators

115

4.10.12 Consistency Ratio for Quality of Faculty Related Criteria for Administrators .... 116


Admin respondents for Quality of Education related criteria ............................................... 117

4.10.14 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Quality of

Education related criteria ...................................................................................................... 117


Admin respondents for Research Output related criteria ..................................................... 118

4.10.16 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Research

Output related criteria .......................................................................................................... 118


Admin respondents for Size & Infrastructure related criteria ............................................... 119

4.10.18 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Size &

Infrastructure related criteria................................................................................................ 119


Admin respondents for Quality of Faculty related criteria .................................................... 120


Faculty related criteria .......................................................................................................... 120

CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................................... 121

xix

5 Findings ................................................................................................................................. 121

5.1 Sub Criteria Ranks for Students ..................................................................................... 121

5.1.1 Students Ranks for University / Institute related criteria ...................................... 121

5.1.2 Students Ranks for Faculty related criteria ............................................................ 122

5.1.3 Students Ranks for Convenience related criteria ................................................... 123

5.1.4 Students Ranks for main criteria ........................................................................... 124

5.1.5 Global Weight for all Criteria for Students ............................................................ 125

5.1.6 Weights and Ranks of student’s criteria ................................................................ 126

5.2 Sub Criteria Ranks for Faculties ..................................................................................... 127

5.2.1 Faculty Ranks for Job Security related criteria ....................................................... 127

5.2.2 Faculty Ranks for Job Progression & Growth related criteria ................................ 128

5.2.3 Faculty Ranks for Recognition related criteria ....................................................... 129

5.2.4 Faculties Ranks for main criteria ............................................................................ 130

5.2.5 Global Weight for all Criteria for Faculties............................................................. 131

5.2.6 Weights and Ranks of faculty’s criteria .................................................................. 132

5.3 Sub Criteria Ranks for Industries ................................................................................... 133

5.3.1 Industry Ranks for Employability of Student related criteria ................................. 133

5.3.2 Industry Ranks for Collaborative Research related criteria ................................... 134

5.3.3 Ranks for Industries main criteria .......................................................................... 135

5.3.4 Global Weight for all Criteria for Industries ........................................................... 136

5.3.5 Weights and Ranks of Industry’s criteria ............................................................... 136

5.4 Sub Criteria Ranks for Administrators ........................................................................... 138

5.4.1 Administrator’s Ranks for Quality of Education related criteria ............................ 138

5.4.2 Administrator’s Ranks for Research Output related criteria .................................. 139

5.4.3 Administrator’s Ranks for Size & Infrastructure related criteria ............................ 140

5.4.4 Administrator’s Ranks for Size & Infrastructure related criteria ............................ 141

5.4.5 Ranks for Administrator’s main criteria ................................................................. 142

5.4.6 Global Weight for all Criteria for Administrators ................................................... 143

5.4.7 Weights and Ranks of Administrator’s criteria ...................................................... 144

5.5 Findings on Consistency, Diversity, Equitability and AHP Consensus ............................ 146

CHAPTER 6 .................................................................................................................................... 147

6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 147

6.1 Evaluation of Institute by a stake holder ....................................................................... 147

6.1.1 Illustrative example of evaluation and comparison of institutes ........................... 147

xx

6.2 Achievements with respect to objectives ...................................................................... 153

6.3 Original Contribution Made by the Thesis ..................................................................... 154

6.4 Further scope of research: ............................................................................................ 155

References .................................................................................................................................... 156

Papers Published ........................................................................................................................... 160

Appendix - I ................................................................................................................................... 161

Appendix - II .................................................................................................................................. 170

Appendix - III ................................................................................................................................. 181

Appendix - IV ................................................................................................................................. 190

xxi

List of Abbreviation

AGUR Aggregated Global University Ranking

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

AIC Atal Incubation Centres

AICTE All India Council of Technical Education

AIIMS All India Institute of Medical Sciences

AIJ Aggregation of Individual Judgments

AIM Atal Innovation Mission

AIU Association of Indian Universities

ANP Analytical Network Process

ARWU Academic Ranking of World Universities

ATL Atal Tinkering Labs

BCI Bar Council of India

BSC Balanced Score Card

BSR Basic Science Research

CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate

CI Consistency Index

CR Consistency Ratio

CSIR Council for Scientific & Industrial Research

CTC Cost To Company

DBT Department of Biotechnology

DCI Dental Council of India

DEA Data Envelopment Analysis

DIPP Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion

DST Department of Science & Technology

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

EVAMIX Evaluation of Mixed Data

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

GIS Geographic Information System

HEEACT Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan

HEERA Higher Education Empowerment Regulation Agency

HEFA Higher Education Financing Agency

HEI Higher Education Institute

HOD Head Of Department

ICAR Indian Council for Agriculture Research

ICT Information & Communications Technology

IES Indian Education Sector

IFS Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets

IIT Indian Institutes of Technology

xxii

INC Indian Nursing Council

INI Institute of National Importance

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

KPI Key Performance Indicators

M. Phil. Master of Philosophy

MAUT Multi Attribute Utility Theory

MCA Master of Computer Applications

MCDM Multi Criteria Decision Making

MCI Medical Council of India

MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development

NAAC National Assessment and Accreditation Council

NBA National Board of Accreditation

NET National Eligibility Test

NIRF National Institutional Ranking Framework

NIT National Institutes of Technology

NITI National Institution for Transforming India

NMC National Medical Commission

NRI Non Resident Indian

OBC Other Backward Class

PCA Principal Component Analysis

Ph. D Doctor of Philosophy

PROMETHEE Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations

QFD Quality Function Deployment

QS Quacquarelli Symonds

R & D Research & Development

RI Random Consistency Index

SAW Simple Additive Weighting

SC Schedule Caste

SET State Eligibility Test

SJTU Shanghai Jiao Tong University

SLET State Level Eligibility Test

SPA Schools of Planning and Architecture

ST Schedule Tribe

STTP Short Term Training Program

SUR Sustainability University Ranking

SWOT Strength Weakness Opportunities & Threats

THES Times Higher Education Supplement

TOPSIS Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution

UGC University Grants Commission

VIKOR ViseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (Serbian)

WCI World Class Institutions

xxiii

List of Figures

Figure 1- Proportion of Types of Universities in India ....................................................................... 3

Figure 2- Number of Institutions of National Importance ................................................................. 4

Figure 3- Structure of Higher Education in India ............................................................................... 5

Figure 4- Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in India ........................................................ 8

Figure 5- Info-Graphic: Reasons for proposed merger of UGC & AICTE ............................................ 9

Figure 6- SWOT for Higher Education Sector in India ...................................................................... 10

Figure 7- Indicators and Weights for THES - QS............................................................................... 12

Figure 8 Format for the questionnaire for pair wise comparison .................................................... 45

Figure 9 - Flow of Research ............................................................................................................. 48

Figure 10 - Countries with most doctoral graduates ....................................................................... 52

Figure 11- AHP Problem Structure for Students .............................................................................. 59

Figure 12- AHP Problem Structure for Faculties .............................................................................. 60

Figure 13- AHP Problem Structure for Industries / Employers ........................................................ 61

Figure 14- AHP Problem Structure for Administrators .................................................................... 62

Figure 15- Structure of Pairwise Comparison .................................................................................. 63

Figure 16- Percentage weight of University / Institute related factors for students ..................... 122

Figure 17- Percentage weight of Faculty related factors for students .......................................... 123

Figure 18- Percentage weight of Convenience related factors for students ................................. 124

Figure 19- Percentage weight of main factors for students .......................................................... 124

Figure 20- Percentage Weights of Student’s Criteria .................................................................... 127

Figure 21- Percentage Weights of Job Security related criteria for faculties................................. 128

Figure 22- Percentage Weights of Job Progression & Growth related criteria for faculties .......... 129

Figure 23- Percentage Weights of Recognition related criteria for faculties ................................. 130

Figure 24- Percentage weight of main factors for Faculties .......................................................... 130

Figure 25 - Weight of All Faculty criteria ....................................................................................... 133

Figure 26- Weight of Employability of students Related Criteria for Industries ............................ 134

Figure 27- Weight of Collaborative Research Related Criteria for Industries ................................ 135

Figure 28- Weights of Main Criteria for Industries ........................................................................ 135

Figure 29- Weight of all criteria for Industries .............................................................................. 137

Figure 30- Percentage Weights of Quality of Education related criteria for administrators ......... 139

Figure 31- Percentage Weights of Research Output related criteria for administrators ............... 140

Figure 32- Percentage Weights of Size and Infrastructure related criteria for administrators ... .. 141

Figure 33- Percentage Weights of Quality of faculty related criteria for administrators ............... 142

Figure 34- Percentage Weights of Main criteria for administrators .............................................. 143

Figure 35- Percentage weights of all Administrator’s criteria ....................................................... 145

xxiv

List of Tables

Table 1- Total Number and types of Universities in India ................................................................. 3

Table 2- Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in India .......................................................... 5

Table 3- Criteria, Indicators and Weights for ARWU ....................................................................... 12

Table 4- Criteria, Indicators and Weights for HEEACT ..................................................................... 13

Table 5- Criteria, Indicators and Weights for Webometrics ............................................................ 13

Table 6- Criteria, Indicators and Weights for NIRF .......................................................................... 15

Table 7- Scale for Pairwise Comparison for AHP by Saaty ............................................................... 17

Table 8- Gradation scale for qualitative comparison of alternatives ............................................... 44

Table 9 Criteria, Sub Criteria and number of pair wise comparison for different stakeholders ...... 45

Table 10 Saaty’s Random Index (RI) Table for criteria from 1 to up to 15 ....................................... 47

Table 11- Stakeholders, Streams and Number of Respondents ...................................................... 49

Table 12- Number of pairwise comparisons for different stakeholders and their criteria .............. 63

Table 13- Pairwise Comparison of University / Institute related criteria for students .................... 64

Table 14- Normalization and priority matrix of University / Institute related criteria for students 65

Table 15- Pairwise comparison of Faculty Related Sub criteria for Student .................................... 66

Table 16- Normalization and priority matrix of Faculty related criteria for students ...................... 67

Table 17- Pairwise comparison of Convenience Related Sub criteria for Student ........................... 68

Table 18 - Normalization and priority matrix of Convenience related criteria for students ............ 69

Table 19- Consistency Ratio for University / Institute related Criteria for students ........................ 70

Table 20 - Consistency Ratio for Faculty related Criteria for students ............................................ 71

Table 21- Consistency Ratio for Convenience related Criteria for students .................................... 72

Table 22 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for University / Institute related

criteria for student’s respondents ................................................................................................... 73

Table 23- Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for university /

institute related criteria. ................................................................................................................. 75

Table 24 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Faculty related criteria for

student’s respondents .................................................................................................................... 76

Table 25 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for Faculty related

criteria. ............................................................................................................................................ 78

Table 26 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Convenience related criteria

for student’s respondents ............................................................................................................... 79

Table 27- Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for Convenience

related criteria ................................................................................................................................ 81

Table 28 - Pairwise comparison of Job Security Related Criteria for faculty ................................... 82

Table 29- Normalization & Priority Matrix for Job Security Factors for faculty ............................... 82

Table 30- Pairwise comparison of Job Progression & Growth Related Criteria for faculty .............. 83

Table 31- Normalization& Priority Matrix for Job Progression & Growth Related Criteria for faculty

........................................................................................................................................................ 84

Table 32- Pairwise comparison Matrix for Recognition Related Criteria for faculty ........................ 85

xxv

Table 33- Normalization and priority matrix of Recognition Related criteria for faculty ................ 86

Table 34 - Consistency Ratio for Job Security Related Criteria for Faculties .................................... 87

Table 35 - Consistency Ratio for Job Progression & Growth related Criteria for Faculties .............. 88

Table 36 - Consistency Ratio for Recognition related Criteria for Faculties .................................... 89

Table 37- Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Job Security related criteria

for Faculty respondents .................................................................................................................. 90

Table 38- Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for Job Security related

criteria ............................................................................................................................................. 91

Table 39 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Progression & Growth

related criteria for Faculty respondents .......................................................................................... 92

Table 40- Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for Progression &

Growth related criteria ................................................................................................................... 93

Table 41 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Recognition related criteria

for Faculty respondents .................................................................................................................. 94

Table 42 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for Recognition related

criteria ............................................................................................................................................. 95

Table 43- Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Employability of students related main

criteria for all Industry respondents ................................................................................................ 96

Table 44 - Normalization& Priority Matrix for Employability of Students Related Criteria for

Industry ........................................................................................................................................... 97

Table 45 - Pairwise comparison for Collaborative research Related Criteria for Industries ............ 98

Table 46 - Normalization & Priority Matrix for Collaborative Research Related Criteria for Industry

........................................................................................................................................................ 99

Table 47- Consistency Ratio for Employability of Students related Criteria for Industries ............ 100

Table 48 - Consistency Ratio for Collaborative Research related Criteria for Industries ............... 101

Table 49 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Employability of Students

related criteria for Industry respondents ...................................................................................... 102

Table 50 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Industry respondents for Employability of

Students related criteria ............................................................................................................... 102

Table 51 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Collaborative Research

related criteria for Industry respondents ...................................................................................... 104

Table 52 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Industry respondents for Collaborative

Research related criteria ............................................................................................................... 104

Table 53 - Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Quality of Education related main criteria for all Admin

respondents .................................................................................................................................. 106

Table 54 - Normalization& Priority Matrix for Quality of Education Related Criteria for

Administrators .............................................................................................................................. 107

Table 55- Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Research Output related main criteria for all Admin

respondents .................................................................................................................................. 108

Table 56 - Normalization and priority matrix of Research Output Related criteria for

Administrators .............................................................................................................................. 109

Table 57- Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Size & Infrastructure related main criteria for all Admin

respondents .................................................................................................................................. 110

Table 58 - Normalization and priority matrix of Size & Infrastructure Related criteria for

Administrators .............................................................................................................................. 110

xxvi

Table 59 - Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Quality of Faculty related main criteria for all Admin

respondents .................................................................................................................................. 111

Table 60 - Normalization and priority matrix of Quality of Faculty Related criteria for

Administrators .............................................................................................................................. 112

Table 61 - Consistency Ratio for Quality of Education related Criteria for Administrators ........... 113

Table 62 - Consistency Ratio for Research Output related Criteria for Administrators ................. 114

Table 63 - Consistency ratio for Size & Infrastructure related factors for administrators ............. 115

Table 64 - Consistency Ratio for Quality of Faculty related Criteria for Administrators ................ 116

Table 65 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Quality of Education related

criteria for Admin respondents ..................................................................................................... 117

Table 66 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Quality of Education

related criteria .............................................................................................................................. 117

Table 67 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Research Output related


Table 68 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Research Output


Table 69 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Size & Infrastructure related


Table 70 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Size & Infrastructure


Table 71 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Quality of Faculty related


Table 72 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Quality of Faculty


Table 73 - Weight and Rank of University / Institute Related Criteria for students ...................... 121

Table 74 - Weight & Ranks of Faculty Related Criteria for students .............................................. 122

Table 75 - Weight & Ranks of Convenience relatedCriteria for students ....................................... 123

Table 76 - Weight and rank of main criteria for students ............................................................. 124

Table 77 - Global Weight for Students Criteria.............................................................................. 125

Table 78- Weights and Ranks of Student's Criteria ....................................................................... 126

Table 79 - Weight and Rank of Job Security Related Criteria for Faculties .................................... 127

Table 80 - Weight and Rank of Job Progression & Growth Related Criteria for Faculties ............. 128

Table 81 - Weight and Rank of Recognition Related Criteria for Faculties .................................... 129

Table 82 - Weight and rank of main criteria for Faculties ............................................................. 130

Table 83 - Global Weight for Main Criteria for faculties ................................................................ 131

Table 84 - Weights and Ranks of faculty’s criteria ......................................................................... 132

Table 85 - Weight and Rank of Employability of students Related Criteria for Industries ............. 133

Table 86 - Weight and Rank of Collaborative Research Related Criteria for Industries ................. 134

Table 87 - Weight and rank of main criteria for Industries............................................................ 135

Table 88 - Global Weight for Main Criteria for Industries ............................................................. 136

Table 89 - Weights and Ranks of Industry’s criteria ...................................................................... 136

Table 90 - Weight and Rank of Quality of Education Related Criteria for Administrators ............. 138

Table 91 - Weight and Rank of Research Output Related Criteria for Administrators .................. 139

Table 92 - Weight and Rank of Size & Infrastructure Related Criteria for Administrators............. 140

Table 93 - Weight and Rank of quality of faculty Related Criteria for Administrators................... 141

xxvii

Table 94 - Weight and rank of main criteria for Administrators .................................................... 142

Table 95 - Global Weight for all Criteria for Administrators .......................................................... 143

Table 96 - Weights and Ranks of Administrator’s criteria ............................................................. 144

Table 97 - Consistency Ratio, Diversity & Consensus of different stakeholders ............................ 146

Table 98 - Weights and Rank of Student's Criteria ........................................................................ 148

Table 99 - Pairwise comparison and priorities of all 24 criteria of Students for all the three

institutes ....................................................................................................................................... 148

Table 100 - Comparative Scores of the three institutes for evaluation by student ....................... 152

Table 101- Achievements of the Researcher with respect to objectives ....................................... 153

Table 102- Differentiating Factors between Ranking Bodies and Proposed Model ...................... 154

xxviii

List of Appendices

Appendix – I: Questionnaire for Students

Appendix – II: Questionnaire for Faculties

Appendix – III: Questionnaire for Industry

Appendix – IV: Questionnaire for Administrators

Introduction

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1 Introduction

1.1 Background:

Universities Rankings are carried out worldwide by different bodies but the criteria’s of

evaluation and weights given are different. Ranking of institutions in higher education is an

ordered list created by combination and evaluation of various factors. Ranking worldwide

is conducted by magazines, newspapers, websites, government and academics. Various

kinds of rankings are available, namely ranking an entire institution or university, or

ranking of a specific program or stream or department of academia. Also ranking is done

for a specific country or for worldwide institutions. Ranking criteria considered by ranking

bodies are quality of teaching, quality of research & research excellence, infrastructure,

faculty to student ratio, collaboration with industries and industry linkage, employability of

students, internationalization, awards and prizes, historical reputation and many more. The

expanding diversity in rating methodologies and accompanying criticisms of each indicate

the lack of consensus in the field. Also the ranking system may not be suited to Indian

Universities as the parameters and weights are non-universal and non-uniform. This call

for a need to have an indigenous model developed based on stake holders parameters and

localized views.

1.2 Motivation of research:

1) Higher education is complex, costly and important, and it always attracts many

attentions of politicians, employers, teaching faculties, potential students as well as their

families. They need quantified evidences about “quality and performance”.

2) Very few National Institutes / Universities appear in the ranking list provided by

International Ranking Bodies. Thus the average Indian student has very less choice to

evaluate before seeking admission.

3) Mainly the selection of an institute or university by the mass is influenced by relatives

and friends and objectivity is missing.

Introduction

2

4) Other stake holders who are the Faculties, employers, funding partners, university

administrators and policy makers are also confronted with the screening out decisions

1.3 Higher Education in India

Higher Education is a rising sector in India. India holds a key position in the global

education industry. As of date the country has 789 universities1 and more than 36000

higher education Institutes and colleges.

After the United States, India has emerged to become the second largest market for e-

learning or distance education. The distance education market in India is expected to grow

at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of around 34 per cent2 during 2013-14 to

2017-18. Moreover, the aim of the government to raise its current gross enrolment ratio to

30 per cent by 2020 will also boost the growth of the distance education in India.

1.3.1 Market Size

Higher education system in India has undergone rapid expansion. Currently, India’s higher

education system is the largest in the world enrolling over 70 million students while in less

than two decades, India has managed to create additional capacity for over 40 million

students. At present, higher education sector witnesses spending of over Rs 46,200 crore

(US$ 6.93 billion), and it is expected to grow at an average annual rate of over 18 per cent

to reach Rs 232,500 crore (US$ 34.87 billion) in next 10 years.3

1.3.2 Investment

The total amount of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) inflow into the education sector in

India stood at US$ 1,383.62 million from April 2000 to December 2016, according to data

released by Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP).

1.3.3 Current Status of Universities in India

The universities in India can be classified in various categories like Central Universities,

State Universities, Deemed Universities, Private Universities, Agricultural universities,

National Institutes of Importance and Open Universities. These universities in India can

play a very important role not only in the sustenance of a just and vibrant society but also

1 UGC Report as of 22/02/2017 2 Report ‘Booming Distance Education Market Outlook 2018’, by Business Consultancy Services firm RNCOS 3 https://www.ibef.org/industry/education-sector-india.aspx

Introduction

3

in the continuation of its rich democratic tradition. In fact a few universities in India are

playing an excellent job of producing enlightened citizens for the nation.

But with the growth of the economy, the Indian Universities and other institutes of higher

education have faced with a new challenge. This is to provide qualified and skilled

professionals to the burgeoning industries and corporate houses. As India is already very

large in terms of population, the need of the hour is transform the unproductive human

resources to productive human capital. This again calls for making quality and relevant

higher education accessible to a large section of the population and huge investment in the

education sector.

1.3.4 Total No. of Universities in the Country as on 22.02.2017

Table 1- Total Number and types of Universities in India

Universities Total No. Percentage

State Universities 359 45.50%

Deemed to be Universities 123 15.59%

Central Universities 47 5.96%

Private Universities 260 32.95%

Total 789 100.00%

(Source: UGC)

Figure 1- Proportion of Types of Universities in India

State Universities45%

Deemed to be Universities

16%

Central Universities

6%

Private Universities

33%

Percentage of Types of Universities in India(As on February 2017)

Introduction

4

1.3.5 Institutes of National Importance

Institute of National Importance (INI) is a status that may be conferred to a premier public

higher education institution in India by an act of parliament, an institution which "serves as

a pivotal player in developing highly skilled personnel within the specified region of the

country/state4

There are at present 74 Institutes5 of National Importance comprising of Indian Institutes

of Technology (IITs), National Institutes of Technology (NITs), and All India Institute of

Medical Sciences (AIIMS, School of Planning & Architecture, and many others.

There are total of 23 IITs out of which 16 are old and remaining newly approved. There are

31 NITs at present. The numbers of AIIMS are 8 in the country. 3 Schools of Planning and

Architecture (SPAs) are located in India.

(Source: Self Compiled)

Figure 2- Number of Institutions of National Importance

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Institutes_of_National_Importance 5 http://mhrd.gov.in/institutions-national-importance

23

31

8

3

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

IIT NIT AIIMS SPA Others

Number of Institution of National Importance in India

Introduction

5

1.3.6 Structure of Higher Education in India

The higher education sector in India can be classified as shown in the figure below.

Figure 3- Structure of Higher Education in India

(Source: Report “Indian Higher Education Sector Opportunities aplenty, growth unlimited” by Deloitte)

1.3.7 Regulatory framework of Higher Education in India

Table 2- Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in India

Higher

Education Technical Education

Professional Education

Consists of Universities

/Colleges /Polytechnics

Engineering / Management /

MCA / Pharmacy / Architecture

Law / Medical Dental / Nursing

Central Regulators

MHRD / UGC MHRD / AICTE BCI / MCI / DCI / INC

Key Regulations

UGC Act, 1956/ UGC Private

Univ regulations

AICTE Act, 1987/ AICTE Regulations/

Approval Handbook

Respective Acts & Regulations

State Regulators

Dept. of Higher Education/ State level

committees

Dept. of Technical Education/ State level

committees

Respective State Dept./ State level

committees

Key Regulations

Private University Act/

Rules and Regulations

Notifications/ Guidelines / Orders

Notifications/ Guidelines / Orders

Accreditation Agencies

(Non Mandatory)

National Assessment and

Accreditation Council

National Board of Accreditation

Respective regulatory bodies

Introduction

6

University Grants Commission of India (UGC)

The University Grants Commission of India is a body of the central government that

provides support to the government-recognized universities and colleges with funds. The

University Grants Commission of India or UGC provides recognition to the universities in

India. The office of UGC is headquartered in New Delhi. The southern regional office is

located in Hyderabad. UGC also conducts the NET exams. This examination is for the

recruitment of teachers in colleges and universities.

All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)

The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is a body that is involved in the

systematic planning and organized development of the technical education system in the

country. Presently there is a total of 1,346 engineering colleges all over India that have

been approved by the All India Council of Technical Education. The headquarters of

AICTE is in Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi.

Medical Council of India (MCI)

The Medical Council of India (MCI) is a statutory body for establishing uniform and high

standards of medical education in India. The Council grants recognition of medical

qualifications, gives accreditation to medical schools, grants registration to medical

practitioners, and monitors medical practice in India.

Dental Council of India (DCI)

The Dental Council of India is constituted by an act of parliament ‘The Dentists Act 1948’

(XVI of 1948) with a view to regulate the dental education, dental profession and dental

ethics thereto-which came into existence in March, 1949. The Council is composed of 6

constituencies representing Central Government, State Government, Universities, Dental

Colleges, Medical Council of India and the Private Practitioners of Dentistry.6

Indian Nursing Council

The Indian Nursing Council is a national regulatory body for nurses and nurse education in

India. It is an autonomous body under the Government of India, Ministry of Health &

6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_Council_of_India

Introduction

7

Family Welfare, constituted by the Central Government under section 3(1) of the Indian

Nursing Council Act, 1947 of Indian parliament.7

Bar Council of India (BCI)

The Bar Council of India is a statutory body established under the section 4 of advocates

Act 1961 that regulates the legal practice and legal education in India. Its members are

elected from amongst the lawyers in India and as such represents the Indian bar. It

prescribes standards of professional conduct, etiquettes and exercises disciplinary

jurisdiction over the bar. It also sets standards for legal education and grants recognition to

Universities whose degree in law will serve as a qualification for students to enroll

themselves as advocates upon graduation8

Association of Indian Universities

The Association of Indian Universities (AIU) is an organization that is located in Delhi.

The organization is involved in the evaluation of courses, standard and syllabus and acts as

liaison between the universities of India and the government.

1.3.8 Accreditation Bodies in India

National Assessment and Accreditation Council

The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is a body that offers

recognition to universities. The NAAC is an autonomous body that is funded by the

University Grants Commission of Government of India, Bangalore.

The National Board of Accreditation (NBA)

The National Board of Accreditation, India was initially established by AICTE (All India

Council of Technical Education) under section 10(u) of AICTE act, in the year 1994, for

periodic evaluations of technical institutions & programmes basis according to specified

norms and standards as recommended by AICTE council.

NBA in its present form came into existence as an autonomous body with effect from

7th January 2010, with the objective of Assurance of Quality and Relevance of Education,

especially of the programmes in professional and technical disciplines, i.e., Engineering

7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Nursing_Council 8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Council_of_India

Introduction

8

and Technology, Management, Architecture, Pharmacy and Hospitality, through the

mechanism of accreditation of programs offered by technical institutions.

NBA has introduced a new process, parameters and criteria for accreditation. These are

in line with the best international practices and oriented to assess the outcomes of the

programme.9

Figure 4- Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in India

(Source: https://www.ibef.org/uploads/industry/education_18082015_1.png)

1.4 Recent Reforms proposed by NITI Aayog

The recently formed NITI (National Institution for Transforming India) Aayog which

replaced the earlier Planning Commission has suggested various reforms for higher

education sector in India.

The Aayog has proposed the following reforms

1) Formation of National Medical Commission (NMC): A committee chaired by Vice

Chairman, NITI Aayog recommended scrapping of the Medical Council of India and

suggested a new body for regulating medical education. The draft legislation for the

proposed National Medical Commission has been submitted to the Government for

further necessary action.

2) Proposed Merger of UGC and AICTE: Higher Education Empowerment Regulation

Agency (HEERA) will be formed with the merger of the UGC and the AICTE, the two

regulators for the education sector. HEERA will eliminate overlaps in jurisdiction and

remove irrelevant regulatory provisions. The following info-graphic displays why a

single body is proposed.

9 http://www.nbaind.org/

Introduction

9

Figure 5- Info-Graphic: Reasons for proposed merger of UGC & AICTE

Source: http://img.etimg.com/photo/59008399/singlebody350.jpg.

3) Another challenge taken up is to develop 20 world class institutions (WCI) and to

establish Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) with a preliminary capital base

of Rs. 1,000 crore. Under this plan, 10 public and 10 private institutions in India were

planned to be given academic and financial autonomy under a regulatory architecture

to transform them into world class.

4) Atal Innovation Mission: The Government has set up Atal Innovation Mission (AIM)

in NITI Aayog with a view to strengthen the country’s innovation and

entrepreneurship ecosystem by creating institutions and programs that spur innovation

in schools, colleges, and entrepreneurs in general. In 2016-17, the following major

schemes were rolled out:

Introduction

10

a) Atal Tinkering Labs (ATLs): To foster creativity and scientific temper in students,

AIM is helping to establish 500 ATLs in schools across India, where students can

design and make small prototypes to solve challenges they see around them, using

rapid prototyping technologies that have emerged in recent years.

b) Atal Incubation Centres (AICs): AIM will provide financial support of Rs.10 crore

and capacity building for setting AICs across India, which will help startups

expand quicker and enable innovation-entrepreneurship, in core sectors such as

manufacturing, transport, energy, education, agriculture, water and sanitation, etc.

5) Accreditation to be made mandatory for every formal education institution. NAAC to

register and monitor accreditation authorities.

6) Setting up Foreign Universities’ campuses in India which will be absolutely beneficial

in transforming the face of education in the country as the students would not have to

migrate to foreign countries in search of quality education

1.5 SWOT Analysis of Higher Education Sector of India

Figure 6- SWOT for Higher Education Sector in India

(Source: Consolidated Working Group report for XII Five Year Plan on Higher Education, Administration,

Deloitte Analysis)

Introduction

11

1.6 Ranking of Universities & HEIs:

1.6.1 Ranking objectives and purpose:

Ranking of Universities and HEIs are done worldwide by various magazines, newspaper,

government and other ranking agencies. The ranking of Universities and HEI will differ by

The type of body that is doing the ranking

The goals and the target group for which the ranking is carried out which may be

o Information to prospective stakeholders - students, faculties, etc.

o For Global Positioning

o For higher education community like researchers, faculties

o As a base for accreditation.

By the factors and evaluation criteria used by the ranking body.

So ranking varies because of the objectives, the target group, and what they measure, how

they measure and the scope of measurement, whether national or global.

1.6.2 Prominent ranking bodies of world universities

1) The Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings (THES-QS)

2) Academic Ranking of World Universities by SJTU (ARWU)

3) Top 100 Global Universities by Newsweek

4) Webometrics: World Universities’ Ranking on the Web by Cybermetrics Lab

5) G-Factor International University Rankings by Google Search

6) Professional Ranking of World Universities by MINES Paris Tech

7) Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities by HEEACT

8) Global University Ranking by Wuhan University, China

1.6.3 Ranking Criteria used by popular ranking bodies

The factors considered for ranking by various ranking bodies are

1) Indicators and weights for ARWU

Introduction

12

Table 3- Criteria, Indicators and Weights for ARWU

Criteria Indicator Code Weight

Quality of Education Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes

and Fields Medals Alumni 10%

Quality of Faculty

Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes

and Fields Medals Award 20%

Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject

categories HiCi 20%

Research Output Papers published in Nature and Science* N&S 20%

Papers indexed in Science Citation Index-

expanded and Social Science Citation Index PUB 20%

Per Capita Performance Per capita academic performance of an

institution PCP 10%

Total 100%

(Source: http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2015.html)

2) Indicators and weights for THES – QS

Figure 7- Indicators and Weights for THES - QS

(Source: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/the-world-university-rankings-2016-

2017-methodology-small.jpg)

Introduction

13

3) Indicators and weights for HEEACT

Table 4- Criteria, Indicators and Weights for HEEACT

Criteria Indicator Weight

Research

Productivity

No of Articles in last 11 years 10%

No. of articles in current year 15%

Research Impact No. of citations in last 11 years 15%

No. of citations in last 2 years 10%

Average No. of citations in last 11 years 10%

Research Excellence H-index of last 2 years 10%

No. of highly cited papers 15%

No. of papers in high impact journals in current year 15%

Total 100%

(Source:http://nturanking.lis.ntu.edu.tw/BackgroundMethodology/Methodology-enus.aspx)

4) Indicators and weights of Webometrics

Table 5- Criteria, Indicators and Weights for Webometrics

Criteria Indicator Weight

Visibility

(external links)

The total number of unique external links received (in‐links)

by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search,

Live Search and Exalead 50%

Size (Web pages) Number of pages recovered from four engines:

Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead 20%

Rich Files

After evaluation of their relevance to academic and

publication activities and considering the volume of the

different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe

Acrobat (.pdf), Adobe PostScript (.ps), Microsoft Word (.doc)

and Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt). These data were extracted

using Google, Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead

15%

Scholars

Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations

for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar

database represent papers, reports and other academic items 15%

(Source: www.webometrics.info)

1.6.4 Indian Ranking System (NIRF)

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) was approved by the MHRD

and launched by Minister of Human Resource Development on 29th September 2015.

This framework outlines a methodology to rank institutions across the country. The

methodology draws from the overall recommendations broad understanding arrived at

by a Core Committee set up by MHRD, to identify the broad parameters for ranking

various universities and institutions. The parameters broadly cover “Teaching,

Introduction

14

Learning and Resources,” “Research and Professional Practices,” “Graduation

Outcomes,” “Outreach and Inclusivity,” and “Perception”.10

India Rankings – 2016 based on this framework were released on 4th April 2016.

For India Rankings – 2017, the main ranking parameters remain the same. However,

there are a few significant changes in a few sub-parameters.

1) Criteria used by National Institutional Ranking Framework, Ministry of HRD, India

a. Teaching, Learning & Resources: Student Strength including Doctoral

Students, Faculty-student ratio with emphasis on permanent faculty,

Combined metric for Faculty with PhD (or equivalent) and Experience,

Total Budget and Its Utilization

b. Research and Professional Practice: Combined metric for Publications,

Combined metric for Quality of Publications, IPR and Patents: Filed,

Published, Granted and Licensed, Footprint of Projects and Professional

Practice and Executive Development Programs.

c. Graduation Outcomes: Combined % for Placement, Higher Studies, and

Entrepreneurship Metric for University Examinations, Median Salary,

Metric for Graduating Students Admitted Into Top Universities ,Metric for

Number of Ph.D. Students Graduated

d. Outreach and Inclusivity: Percent Students from other states/countries

(Region Diversity), Percentage of Women, Economically and Socially

Challenged Students, Facilities for Physically Challenged Students.

e. Perception: Peer Perception: Employers and Research Investors, Peer

Perception: Academics, Public Perception, Competitiveness.

10 (Overview of NIRF) - https://www.nirfindia.org/About

Introduction

15

2) The criteria weights of NIRF are as follows

Table 6- Criteria, Indicators and Weights for NIRF

Parameters Indicators Marks

Total

Marks

Weight

Teaching,

Learning

& Resources

(TLR)

A) Student Strength including Doctoral

Students(SS) 20

100 0.3

B) Faculty-student ratio with emphasis on

permanent

faculty (FSR) 30

C) Combined metric for Faculty with PhD (or

equivalent)

and Experience (FQE) 20

D) Financial Resources and their Utilization (FRU) 30

Research and

Professional

Practice (RP)

A) Combined metric for Publications (PU) 30

100 0.3

B) Combined metric for Quality of Publications

(QP) 40

C) IPR and Patents: Filed, Published, Granted and

Licensed (IPR) 15

D) Footprint of Projects, Professional Practice and

Executive Development Programs (FPPP) 15

Graduate

Outcome

(GO)

A) Combined metric for Placement, Higher Studies,

and Entrepreneurship (GPHE) 40

100 0.2

B) Metric for University Examinations(GUE) 15

C) Median Salary(GMS) 20

D) Metric for Graduating Students Admitted Into

Top Universities (GTOP) 15

E) Metric for Number of Ph.D. Students Graduated

(GPHD) 10

Outreach and

Inclusivity

(OI)

A) Percent Students from other states/countries

(Region Diversity RD) 30

100 0.1 B) Percentage of Women (Women Diversity WD) 25

C) Economically and Socially Challenged Students

(ESCS) 25

D) Facilities for Physically Challenged Students

(PCS) 20

Perception

(PR)

A) Peer Perception: Employers and Research

Investors (PREMP) 25

100 0.1 B) Peer Perception: Academic Peers(PRACD) 25

C) Public Perception (PRPUB) 25

D) Competitiveness (PRCMP) 25

(Source:https://www.nirfindia.org/Docs/Ranking_Methodology_And_Metrics_2017.pdf)

1.6.5 UGC Classification of Universities

Category I University

According to UGC, a Category I University is "if it has been accredited by NAAC with

score of 3.5 or above or if it has achieved a ranking in the top 50 institutions of the NIRF

ranking in the category of universities for 2 years continuously."

Introduction

16

Category II University

Category II University is "if it has been accredited by NAAC with score between 3.01 and

3.49 or if it has achieved a ranking from 51 to 100 in the NIRF ranking in the category of

universities for 2 years continuously."

Category III University

Category III University is if it does not come either under the Category I or Category II as

mentioned above and the new regulation mandates that only those candidates would be

eligible for enrolling to PhD course into Category-III institutions who have qualified the

NET, SET or SLET examinations.

1.6.6 Pros of College Ranking Systems

1.6.6.1 Pros of Ranking System

Though Ranking may differ from one Ranking body to another there are certain usefulness

of ranks.

1) Ranking gives list of top colleges that allows the students to identify colleges based

on quality of programs, faculties and career opportunities available.

2) Ranking creates motivation among the universities to improve and create a positive

change because of the competition.

1.6.6.2 Cons of College Ranking Systems

While college rankings can be helpful, the following points should be kept in mind:

1) Subjectivity and bias cannot be completely removed from college rankings. Also

there are numbers of varying factors for an institute that it is almost impossible to

rank colleges accurately and consistently.

2) The ranking methodologies, the criteria, the indicators and weight are different for

different ranking bodies which create a difference in rank of a particular institution

and add to the confusion of the students.

3) The percentage of students enrolled / admitted is also one of the main criterions for

ranking. But it does not mean that higher enrollment means that the institute is

better.

4) It will be more meaningful for a student to select an institute based on individual

preference, suitability & fit, where the institute rank may be less meaningful.

Introduction

17

Regardless of college ranking, students should feel more comfortable at their

institute to ensure a great learning experience..

1.7 Analytic Hierarchy Process

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the most popular Multi Criteria Decision

Making (MCDM) methodology developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the year 1980. It is a

structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions, based on

mathematics and psychology.

To make a decision in an organized way to generate priorities we need to decompose the

decision into the following steps.

1) Define the problem and determine the kind of knowledge sought.

2) Structure the decision hierarchy from the top with the goal of the decision, then the

objectives from a broad perspective, through the intermediate levels (criteria on

which subsequent elements depend) to the lowest level (which usually is a set of

the alternatives).

3) Construct a set of pairwise comparison matrices. Each element in an upper level is

used to compare the elements in the level immediately below with respect to it.

4) Use the priorities obtained from the comparisons to weigh the priorities in the level

immediately below. Do this for every element. Then for each element in the level

below add its weighed values and obtain its overall or global priority. Continue this

process of weighing and adding until the final priorities of the alternatives in the

bottom most level are obtained.

To make a pair wise comparison of the criteria the scale developed by Saaty is used. The

scale is depicted in the table below.

Table 7- Scale for Pairwise Comparison for AHP by Saaty

Intensity

of importance

Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance Two factors contribute equally to the objective.

3 Somewhat more

important

Experience and judgment slightly favor one

over the other.

5 Much more important Experience and judgment strongly favor one

over the other.

7 Very much more

important

Experience and judgment very strongly favor

one over the other. Its importance is

demonstrated in practice.

9 Absolutely more The evidence favoring one over the other is of

Introduction

18

important the highest possible validity.

2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values When compromise is needed.

The basic assumption is that if Criteria A is absolutely more important than criteria B and

is rated at 9, then B must be absolutely less important than A and is valued at 1/9.

These pair wise comparisons are carried out for all factors to be considered.

Further step is to calculate the relative weights, importance, or value, of the factors, which

are relevant to the problem in question which is technically called an eigenvector). The

final stage is to calculate a Consistency Ratio (CR) to measure how consistent the

judgments have been relative to large samples of purely random judgments. If the CR is

much in excess of 0.1 the judgments are untrustworthy because they are too close for

comfort to randomness and the exercise is valueless or must be repeated. It is easy to make

a minimum number of judgments after which the rest can be calculated to enforce a

perhaps unrealistically perfect consistency.

1.7.1 Theory behind AHP

Consider n elements to be compared, C1 … Cn and denote the relative weight (or priority or

significance) of Ci with respect to Cj by aij and form a square matrix A=(aij) of order n

with the constraints that aij = 1/aji, for i ≠ j, and aii = 1, all i. Such a matrix is said to be a

reciprocal matrix. The weights are consistent if they are transitive, that is a ik = aijajk for all

i, j, and k. Such a matrix might exist if the aij are calculated from exactly measured data.

Then find a vector ω of order n such that Aω = λω . For such a matrix, ω is said to be an

eigenvector (of order n) and λ is an eigenvalue. For a consistent matrix, λ = n. For matrices

involving human judgment, the condition aik = aijajk does not hold as human judgments are

inconsistent to a greater or lesser degree. In such a case the ω vector satisfies the equation

Aω= λmaxω and λmax ≥ n. The difference, if any, between λmax and n is an indication of

the inconsistency of the judgments. If λmax = n then the judgements have turned out to be

consistent. Finally, a Consistency Index can be calculated from (λmax‐n)/(n‐1). That needs

to be assessed against judgments made completely at random and Saaty has calculated

large samples of random matrices of increasing order and the Consistency Indices of those

matrices. A true Consistency Ratio is calculated by dividing the Consistency Index for the

set of judgments by the Index for the corresponding random matrix. Saaty suggests that if

that ratio exceeds 0.1 the set of judgments may be too inconsistent to be reliable. In

Introduction

19

practice, CRs of more than 0.1 sometimes have to be accepted. If CR equals 0 then that

means that the judgments are perfectly consistent.11

1.7.2 Use of AHP

AHP has wide and diverse application from evaluation and selection of vendors, projects,

ERP systems, transportation media, warehouses, land use suitability, higher education

institutes, etc. where multiple criteria, objective as well as subjective, are to be evaluated.

Moreover AHP is also used in conjunction with other methods such as Technique for

Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Quality Function

Deployment (QFD, Evaluation of Mixed Data (EVAMIX), and Geographic Information

System (GIS) and so on so take the synergy of multiple methods.

1.7.3 Consensus measure for group decision making in AHP

For measuring the consensus amongst the respondents (Gospel 2013) gave a measure

called AHP consensus. The measure has roots in various diversity indices like Shannon α,

β and ϒ entropy, Simpson Index, Gini-Simpson index, Mc Arthur Consensus and Hill

numbers.

The above indices are extensively used for measuring ecological bio diversity and

abundance. A diversity index is a quantitative measure that reflects how many different

types (such as species) there are in a dataset (a community), and simultaneously takes into

account how evenly the basic entities (such as individuals) are distributed among those

types.12

1.8 Original contribution by the thesis:

The original contribution made by the study is manifested by creation of a relative

evaluation and comparison model for students, faculty, employers and administrators to

evaluate the higher learning institutes which they have in their consideration set. The

model will supplement the absolute ranking of institutes rated by ranking bodies. This

provides the stake holders a framework to arrive at a systematic and logical decision in

selecting the education institute of their choice.

11 AHP - International Hellenic University 12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_index

Introduction

20

1.9 Presentation of the Study

The thesis is bifurcated into six chapters namely:

1. Chapter 1: Introduction provides an introduction on the background and

motivation for the research, a brief account of the higher education sector of India,

the various ranking bodies, their methodologies and criteria, indicators and weights

for ranking education institutes, the pros and cons of ranking. Also described is the

brief of the Analytic Hierarchy Process which is used to construct a local relative

evaluation model for HEIs.

2. Chapter 2: Literature Review focuses on past literature on ranking and evaluation

methodologies for higher education, AHP and the application of AHP as a multi

criteria decision making tool and literature related to measuring consensus in group

decision making.

3. Chapter 3: Research Methodology specifies the problem statement, significance

of the study, definition of the problem, objectives and scope of the study, the

research design used, the data collection tools and type of data, the sample size, the

mathematical and analytical tools, and the software used to model the problem.

4. Chapter 4: Data Presentation and Analysis elaborates the analysis of pairwise

comparison, the calculation of priorities, calculation of consistency index and

consistency ratio as well as arriving at AHP consensus for all the stakeholders

namely Students, Faculties, Employers and Administrators.

5. Chapter 5: Findings In this the major findings like weights and ranks of main

criteria, the global weights and rank of all criteria, the consistency ratio, Shannon

entropies, Simpson Index, Gini-Simpson Index, Hill Numbers, Mc Arthur

Consensus and AHP consensus for all the stake holders were depicted, which forms

the basis of evaluation of HEI by the stakeholders.

6. Chapter 6: Conclusion In this chapter the researcher concludes about the usage of

the findings in evaluation and comparison of university / HEI by an illustrative

example, the achievement of the study with respect to the objectives and finally the

difference between the ranking methodology used by ranking bodies and the

proposed model. Also mentioned is the scope for further research.

Literature Review

21

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

2 Literature review

2.1 Introduction

For the study three sets of literature sourced from scholarly articles and research papers

from various journals and websites were considered for review. The first set consisted of

past studies related to university ranking and different methods tried out by the authors to

evaluate universities and higher education institutes from various perspectives. The second

set of literature was probed for use of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a multi

criteria decision making tool for making decisions under various situations of business and

social sciences. Lastly in the third set of literature, studies related to use of diversity

indices and its use to measure the diversity richness as well as the degree of consensus

among highly diverse set of population (heterogeneous population).

Through literature review insights into evaluation and ranking criteria and methodologies

used by different ranking bodies and scholars as well as their views on the same was

developed. Also it provided the base to explore the use of AHP as a tool to evaluate and

compare higher education institutes. The use of diversity and consensus indices gave the

similarity of thought process amongst different respondents from heterogeneous

background.

2.2 Literature related to University Evaluation & Ranking

(Stewart & Carpenter-Hubin, 2001) in their study used balanced score card (Kaplan &

Norton, 1996) for assessment of performance of higher education institute.

Most colleges and universities have a mission or vision statement in place that sets out in

very broad terms the goals of the institution. It is within the context of these goals that an

institution must decide what it will benchmark and what performance it will measure, a

process that Kaplan and Norton (1996) describe as “translating the vision.”

(Feng, Lu, & Bi, 2004) developed a better tool for the assessment of the management

performance of research and development (R&D) activities in research-oriented

Literature Review

22

universities, a combination of analysis hierarchical process (AHP) and data envelopment

analysis (DEA) is was used for the assessment of the efficiency of R&D management

activities in universities.

(Drewes & Micheal, 2006) studied set of micro data on university applications to examine

the role played by institutional attributes in choices made by graduating high school

students between the 17 universities in the Province of Ontario, Canada. They estimated a

rank-ordered Logit model that uses all information contained in each applicant’s ranking of

institutions.

Applicants preferred universities that are closer to their homes, spend more on scholarships

and teaching, and offer higher levels of non-academic student services. Smaller class sizes

are preferred by female applicants but not by males. High levels of research activity

discourage applications.

(Grewal, Dearden, & Lilien, 2006) states that with university rankings gaining both in

popularity and influence, university administrators develop strategies to improve their

rankings and pay close attention to the impact of those strategies in the increasingly

competitive educational arena. To provide insight into the nature of competition and

guidance for the competitors, the authors developed a model of competition for university

rankings that admits localized competition and stickiness of rankings. To address localized

competition, they developed an adjacent category logit model that characterizes the log

odds unit(i.e., logit) as the ratio of the probability of two adjacent ranks; to address

stickiness, the model includes lagged rank as an independent variable. Calibration of the

model was done with data from US News from 1999-2006 which shows persistence in

ranking and identifies important interactions among university attributes and persistence in

ranking. The model also outperforms a number of competing models and provides some

counter-intuitive implications. The results support the adjacent category logit formulation,

showing that on an average with greater than 90%probability a university’s rank will be

within four units of its rank the previous year. The model can be used to provide (lagged)

rank-specific elasticity of ranks with respect to changes in university characteristics,

thereby offering input about the likely effect of changes in a university’s strategy on its

rank.

(Steiner, 2006) used The Principal Component Analysis- PCA, a multivariate procedure in

which a set of correlated variables is transformed into a set of uncorrelated variables

Literature Review

23

(called Principal Components) that are ordered by reducing variability (Murtag and Heck,

1987) for world universities ranking.

(Gokhale, 2007) The AHP process has been used in the thesis for University Strategy

Planning. The selection of an appropriate strategy is critical for a university’s success, and

each university needs to capitalize on its own specialties and competencies for a

competitive advantage. Strategy creation and planning in universities is generally a

collective effort which relies on consensus. It is a complex process involving the setting of

objectives and goals to achieve the strategic vision, and an analysis tool for evaluating and

comparing different options and prioritizing objectives and goals is required. A high

deductive capacity is necessary for aggregating the different trade-offs while prioritizing,

which is challenging for a human mind. The thesis demonstrates the use of the Analytical

Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a structured approach to such decision making, which allows

trade-offs to be considered in a systematic manner. The process has been used to get

feedback from the Strategic Planning Committee and from the Committee of Department

Chairs about the University of Missouri-Rolla’s Strategic Plan. The research demonstrates

the use of AHP as a decision making tool for ranking the Strategic Plan’s objectives and

goals. It also illustrates the suitability of AHP for use in group settings where individual

judgments can be aggregated. This research shows that AHP is a useful group decision

making tool which uses simple human judgments, but still keeps a check on the

inconsistencies in that judgment

(Lukman, Krajnc, & Glavič, 2008) demonstrated the application of AHP to rank the 35 top

universities from the ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) and Times

ranking tables for developing a new ranking table from sustainability point of view. This

paper introduces a model, which would enable a comparison between universities

regarding economic, social and environmental performances. The purpose is to provide

simplified information about the qualities of the universities regarding sustainable

development issues. This model enables a quick detection of the weaknesses, advantages

and improvement options for universities. Indicators' weights were determined with an

analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Results of the AHP have shown that the most important

are research oriented indicators, followed by social and environmental ones. The model has

been tested on a sample of 35 top universities from the ARWU (Academic Ranking of

World Universities) and Times ranking tables. As a result, a new ranking table has been

designed, where more sustainable universities are placed in the higher positions. In

Literature Review

24

addition, correlations have been carried out between indicators and ranking tables. Only a

medium correlation exists between the ARWU and a Sustainability University Ranking

(SUR) table. Regarding the indicators, a high correlation between h-indices and highly

cited researchers exists, while there is an insignificant correlation between a low student to

staff ratio and the graduation rate.

(Mukherji & Rustagi, 2008) conducted a study on 243 students and 38 faculty members at

a business school on critical issues regarding student evaluations of teaching and identifies

several significant differences between their perceptions. The responses suggest that, while

students give higher evaluations for non-teaching characteristics, such as the instructor’s

personality and prior motivation. The student’s value most are teaching effectiveness and

degree of learning. Further, challenging and average-difficulty courses are evaluated higher

than easy courses, and average or above-average workloads are valued more than below-

average workloads. Finally, students give higher evaluations for earning a fair grade, but

not for earning a higher grade than they deserve. The greatest agreement among faculty

was that students give higher evaluations where they like the instructor’s personality and

the greatest disagreement among them was whether evaluations are higher where students

earn a higher grade than they deserve, an item that students also disagreed most about.

(Salmi, 2009) in his book “The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities” for

the World Bank elaborates on what it takes to be a world class university. It is not just self-

declaration by the elite and Ivy League institutions but the process involves a subjective

qualification rather than based on reputation. In an attempt to propose a more manageable

definition of world-class universities, this report makes the case that the superior results of

these institutions (highly sought graduates, leading-edge research, and technology transfer)

can essentially be attributed to three complementary sets of factors at play in top

universities: (a) a high concentration of talent (faculty and students), (b) abundant

resources to offer a rich learning environment and to conduct advanced research, and (c)

favorable governance features that encourage strategic vision, innovation, and flexibility

and that enable institutions to make decisions and to manage resources without being

encumbered by bureaucracy. Also the book suggest various dimensions for nurturing world

class universities like role of government for establishing favorable policy environment

and direct public initiative and support, second dimension is to upgrade existing

universities rather than building new institutions from scratch like what was followed by

China. This requires a change in governance structure and arrangements. Also another

Literature Review

25

alternative is merging of existing institutions, the results being formation of stronger

institutions able to capitalize on new synergies that their combined human and financial

resources may generate. Another way to have world class universities is to create new

institutions by private sector. Cumbersome governance structures and bureaucratic

management practices prevent traditional universities from being innovative, creating new

institutions maybe the best approach by private sector.

(Mirkazemi, Hemmatinesgad, Gholizadeh, & Ramazanian, 2009) used Analytic Hierarchy

Process for performance evaluation of sports offices of universities. This study has

identified seven criteria, namely: budget, the human resources, facilities, income,

equipment, operational activities and education and research activities, with 33

alternatives, and the weight and importance of each by expert`s judgment, with the goal of

identifying and determining the superior criteria for assessing physical education

departments at universities. The results showed that alternatives such as, the ratio of

students participating in extracurricular activities to the total number of students at

university, in time and complete access to sport spaces and the university sport current

budget, having the highest degrees of importance 0.395, 0.174 and 0.167, respectively, and

the number of unskilled labor (man and woman) with the lowest degree of importance of

0.01.

(Pagell, 2009) synthesized current international and national policies and accountability

initiatives with the history of research rankings and the use of bibliometrics to produce 21st

century university research rankings.

It explains key Bibliometrics measures and how they current ranking systems apply them.

It highlights the commonalities and differences in rankings over time. The bibliometrics

for research assessment and what they measures were Publications which measures the

Number of Articles, Number of Pages and Quality of Journals, second metric was Citations

which is measured in terms of Number per article, Number per faculty, Number per

University & Quality of Journal, The third metric is H-Index which measures the number

of papers with citation numbers higher or equal to the number of citations. The last metric

considered was Journal Quality which is measured by the Journal Impact Factor.

The growth of research from Asian universities shows positive sign for the gradual rise of

Asian universities in the top lists at the same time that the best from the past remain the

best of today.

Literature Review

26

(García & Palomares, 2009) found considerable variability of University position

according to the type of institution doing the ranking, the target group and the indicators

considered for classification by ranking bodies. This was because of cultural and structural

differences among universities systems. So an attempt was made to develop a new and

innovative system to compare HEIs by considering University Mission and strategies.

Fuzzy Cluster Analysis was used on a sample of 47 Spanish universities. K-means

clustering analysis obtains three cluster composed by 11 (teaching), 20(research) and 16

(knowledge transfer) universities each one, respectively. By the fuzzy cluster analysis

some universities were reclassified in an alternative cluster where the degree of belonging

has the second highest score where Teaching and research missions are complementary,

Research and knowledge transfer are complementary and Teaching and knowledge transfer

are substitutes.

They conclude that not all universities plan their strategy in the same way, the consensus

about which indicators are most appropriate to evaluate according to the strategy and

evaluation should take into account the differences among university strategies like

improvement of resources, to promoting quality in university processes, to allow

establishment of comparison and health of the system.

(Royendegh & Erol, 2009) Proposed in this study is a hybrid model for supporting the

performance of a department within Amir Kabir University in Iran. The proposal is a two-

stage model designed to fully rank the organizational departments where each faculty has

multiple inputs and outputs. First, the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) separately

formulates each pair of units. In the second stage, the pair-wise evaluation matrix

generated in the first stage is utilized to fully rank the units via the Analytical Network

Process (ANP). Both the DEA and the ANP have limitations. Nevertheless, one hybrid

model combines the best techniques of the two models. The DEAANP hybrid algorithm

ranking does not replace the DEA classification model; rather, it extends the analysis by

providing full ranking in the DEA context for all departments, whether they are efficient or

inefficient.

(Ismail, 2010) stated that university rankings have gained a considerable importance not

only among the academia but also amongst students, parents, industry and businesses.

Common stakeholders, the students and their parents, may not be aware of the intricacies

of ranking processes and elements / criteria of rankings but they are definitely keen to

Literature Review

27

know the position of the University of their Interest in the ranking lists. University

management and faculty are the most concerned stakeholders of rankings. The students are

also directly affected by the university rankings, although the impact on them may not be

always positive. The paper reviews the interests and concerns of the stakeholders of higher

education institutions and describes various quantitative / qualitative criteria used to

determine the rankings. It was observed that some of the criteria used by different agencies

may be common in nature. The ranking agencies ask the competing institutions for

provision of data or use their web domains for the comparison. The process involves

various surveys besides using statistics and rankings are conducted on national, regional

and global levels for institutions, departments, schools or specific academic programs. The

paper describes the benefits derived by the stakeholders from these rankings along with the

criticism drawn by the processes and the criteria employed by different ranking agencies. It

is opined that although university rankings are considered inherently controversial for not

being absolutely objective and definitive, they are still used as reference to assist in making

certain crucial decisions. Finally the paper concludes that Rankings are inherently

controversial and no ranking is entirely objective and definitive. The controversy is based

on the fact that absolute quality of an educational institution cannot be measured by

numerical indicators only. In every performance evaluation approach, there are some issues

critical for reliability and success that need to be addressed and prospective students should

not use this data as the sole guide for choosing a university, but they should look for

additional information before making a selection of institution.

(Fereydoon, 2010) Studied the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for universities

performance and developed a conceptual framework for evaluating the performance of

universities according to these KPIs. Combination of descriptive and deductive research

methods were used to identify 151 indicators and 3 conceptual evaluation frameworks. The

subjects of the research were managers and faculty members of Islamic Azad University of

Iran. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and factor analysis was used. By using rotated

component matrix, 10 factors out of 15 were confirmed in the first conceptual framework.

The first 10 factors includes accommodation, research and scientific journals, processes,

ICT, social and cultural services, faculty members, students, university staff excluding

faculty members, and financial affairs were used and in the second framework 9 factors

were identified which includes Area and facilities, ICT, Communications, graduates, social

Literature Review

28

and cultural services, periodicals and journals publications, non-faculty member

employees, student affairs, financial affairs and processes, faculty members were used.

(Rodica, Dan, & Rodica, 2010) highlighted that higher education institution should enjoy

the acceptance, involvement and support of the community, to which, in return, delivers

expected benefits, i.e., trust building and providing inspiration. A sustainable university

should become a brand that speaks by itself. It does not beg for support, rather proves itself

important to society and invites support. The sustainable university is the higher education

institution that, by responsibly and honestly assuming the duty to perform its mission as

efficiently as possible, for an indefinite period, is a contributor to society’s sustainable

development.

(Toma, Cuza, & Popa, 2010) Scientific research is part of any university mission, at least

of big universities, as it represents the complementary element required by the learning

process. A learning process based on engendering knowledge is much more valuable and

competitive than a learning process which is reduced to a mere transfer of knowledge from

the teacher to the students. The important universities consider that “the development of

scientific research as a fundamental competence is essential for survival in a more and

more competitive environment on global level and that is why, research should be part of

the university mission”.

This study aims to highlight how important it is for the university members to be aware of

the evaluation criteria for the research projects they undertake. For this purpose, the

authors have interviewed a number of 55 persons, project managers and team members in

the projects from the “Research for Excellency” program and the National Plan of

Research, Development and Innovation PN II 2007 – 2013.

Out of the evaluation criteria for research, the most important ones were considered to be

the scientific quality of the project and the quality of the human resources involved in the

project.

(Lee, Lou, Shih, & Tseng, 2011) This study uses the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to

quantify important knowledge management behaviors and to analyze the weight scores of

elementary school students’ behaviors in knowledge transfer, sharing, and creation. Based

on the analysis of Expert Choice and tests for validity and reliability, this study identified

the weight scores of four important knowledge transfer behaviors, namely storing related

Literature Review

29

articles, Clicking on published articles, Downloading attachments, Clicking on topic links.

Three knowledge sharing behaviors includes providing reports, recommending other’s

articles, defining tags and four knowledge creation behaviors includes creating new

articles, Uploading learning files, attaching file links, replying to other’s articles. The

behaviors “storing related articles,” “providing reports,” and “replying to others’ articles”

obtained the highest scores, which were used as the criteria to evaluate the knowledge

management platform of the network.

(Weller, Hooley, & Moore, 2011) focused on whether and how staff and students’

experiences on campus differ because of their religion or belief. The study examines the

experiences of staff and students with a religion or belief in higher education through four

themes developed through an examination of previous research and ongoing work with

institutions, unions, student-led religion or belief organizations, and other stakeholders.

The four themes considered are Participation & Access, Accommodating religious

observance, Discrimination & Harassment, and Good relations.

(Jianu & Dumitru, 2011) The paper addresses whether Universities ranking offer a good

perspective when it comes to choosing a university as a student or as a professor or

researcher. Analysis of well-known university rankings is done to address the above

problem of choice of a university. Also the authors proposed an alternative to university

ranking by developing Intellectual Capital Evaluation Models. While critically analyzing

the university rankings it was found that the main short coming of university ranking was

to generalize a lot of indicators which are relative. The relativity derives from the reference

system used and the evaluation models. Different systems and different models (therefore

different indicators) lead to different results. It is therefore a mistake to generalize these

rankings (Jianu and Bratianu, 2007). Second point is problems with gathering of data.

Some of them are provided by the university and checking the correctness of the data

would be nearly impossible. In other cases, the same type of data is gathered from many

sources. When the user of these rankings are unaware about the methodology used for

ranking, the proposed Intellectual Capital Evaluation Model removes this short coming.

Disclosing IC information to the external stakeholders addresses other concerns in

universities: improving transparency and reducing isolation from the external world

(Sanchez et. al, 2006). Besides external reporting to stakeholders, another important usage

of IC models is internal management improvement. The study addresses the IC Report

structure according to 63rd Regulation of the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and

Literature Review

30

Culture on Intellectual Capital Reports by Austrian Ministry for Education. The report has

five sections namely, Scope of application, Intellectual capital sub divided into Human,

Structural and Relational Capital, The core processes comprising of education and

continuing education, The output and impact of core processes, and summary and

prospects. Thus the authors conclude that Intellectual capital evaluation models are a step

forward, since they do provide an image of the university, but they leave the final decision

on who is better or worth investing in to the reader, not to the rankings makers.

(Masron, Ahmad, & Rahim, 2012) Measured the impact of Key Intangible Performance

(KIP) on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of academic staff of universities. Usually the

KPIs for academic staff are teaching, supervision, research, publications and consultation.

While KPIs are crucial to justify academic performance, another aspect of performance are

intangible performance parameters, if neglected will have negative impact. The KIPs were

divided into two areas namely, Contribution to University and Contribution to Community.

The eight KIPs under contribution to University were, carrying out work according to

vision and mission of university, Good working relationship with fellow academic staff,

accepting perspectives of others, leadership quality in professional standing, research,

teaching & scholarship, High level of interpersonal, negotiation and networking skills at

national & international levels, a good track record for instituting a positive change,

production of research that generates positive publicity and reputation for the university.

The factors for Contribution to Community were production of research that directly or

indirectly benefits the society at large and direct involvement in the social activities of the

locality by virtue of academic knowledge. Ranking of above KIPs were done on Likert

scale and the data of 372 academic staff of US universities was subjected to both

parametric (Pearson) and non-parametric (Kendall’s tau-b and Spearman’s Rho) tests. The

result of all the three tests showed significant positive association between KPI and KIP.

Finally to study the impact of KIP on KPI multiple regression analysis with KPI as

dependent and all KIP as independent variables were performed which demonstrated that

KIP has a robust positive and significant effect on KPI.

(Hassan, 2012) in his study summarizes important steps required to improve university

rankings year after year. His paper presents proven recommendations / procedures for

university rankling improvement. The recommended model takes into consideration five

improvement areas and their desirable characteristics. The five areas are University

website, University Management, University Regulations, Teaching Staff and the Students.

Literature Review

31

The university Website should be designed by professionals, should have large data size,

should be frequently updated, should show publications, and sub domains, should have

relevant links and should have high security. The university management should be

Experienced, Knowledgeable, should have research and teaching background, should have

vision and targets, should be able to attract funds and capable to develop university

regulations. The university regulations should encourage research, should have high

standards of staff promotions, should have no compromises for students or staff, and

should have links with known universities and industries. The teaching staff should have

high caliber for teaching and research, should understand university regulations, should

involve them in regular high quality research, should have vision, should be able to work

in groups, should have international partners and should participate in high quality

conferences. The students should be above average, should be able to adapt themselves to

university environment, learn research thinking, and should undertake good projects and

high quality thesis should be able to publish papers.

(Roman & Emerlinda, 2012) in their study first traces the history of university rankings

from the US News and World Report, the earliest, to the Times Higher Education rankings,

the latest. Also the study questions the validity of such rankings, citing weaknesses in their

methodologies and the fact that data can be manipulated. Nevertheless, the author accedes

that university rankings are here to stay. In the study also it is questioned if Philippine

higher education institutions are ready to be ranked. It contends that since the criteria used

by rankers depend much on big financial resources, Philippine HEIs are already at a dis

advantage. In addition, there remain inefficiencies in higher education that cause the

deterioration of the quality of higher education, among which are the high number of HEIs

in Philippine, oversubscribed programs that result in an oversupply of graduates in certain

disciplines, and the ten-year preparation for college is inadequate because Philippine basic

education is two years short of the universal standard, high school graduates go to

universities with inadequate preparation.

(Iqbal, Khan, & Senin, 2012) in their paper had discussed the importance of University –

Industry Technological linkage as an essential and dynamic factor in social and economic

development of all facets of life. The process of evaluation of University – Industry

research collaboration has generated attention among researchers of universities and

industry due to its feasibility, determination and technological value. To generate

Literature Review

32

evaluation metrics firstly generation of high impact constraints which come in way of

collaborative research like education and training, interface with industry, culture

difference, conflict of IP rights, Lab facilities, funds and financial matters, trust between

university & industry, time constraints and many more were considered. Secondly,

Generation of High impact Evaluation parameters like knowledge sharing, ownership of IP

rights, cultural development, Internship in curricula of study, cooperative R & D, financial

support, research autonomy, Joint venture, etc. were considered. Thirdly Generation of

High Impact Success factors like number of projects, number of technical staff per project,

number of research papers, workshop, seminars, consultancy, promotion of entrepreneurial

culture and more are important. Lastly Generation of High Impact Tangible Outcomes like

published research papers, masters and doctorate thesis, patents and licenses,

commercialized products, national and international projects and tangible research were

considered. From these four major robust set of variables the evaluation metrics was

developed consisting of eight measures namely Joint Venture, Knowledge Sharing,

Cooperative R & D agreement, Cultural Development, financial support, communication,

Patents & Licenses and masters and doctorate thesis.

(Kuzmanovic, Savic, Popovic, & Martic, 2012) Students’ evaluations of teaching are

increasingly used by universities to evaluate teaching performance. These evaluations are

controversial mainly due to fact that students value various aspects of excellent teaching

differently. In this paper the authors have proposed a new approach to student evaluation

of university teaching based on data from conjoint analysis. Conjoint analysis is a

multivariate technique used to analyze the structure of individuals' preference. The

approach accounts for different importance students attach to various aspects of teaching. It

also accounts explicitly for heterogeneity arising from student preferences, and

incorporates it to form comprehensive teaching evaluation score. The first part of the study

involves the use of conjoint analysis in order to determine the students' preferences toward

specific aspect of teaching, as well as importance of those aspects. It also determines

whether and to what extent the population is heterogeneous. Accordingly, the groups of

students with similar preferences are identified. The second part of the study includes the

conventional evaluation of teachers by students. Using the Likert scale students evaluate

each teacher by each of the specified aspects. For this a list of criteria and their level were

used in the study. The criteria were Clear and Understandable presentations,

Methodological and systematic approach, Tempo of lectures, Preparedness for a lecture,

Literature Review

33

the accuracy of arrival to the lecture, encouraging students to participate in class,

Informing students about their work, considering student’s comments and answering

questions, and availability through individual teacher-student meeting or by e-mail were

subjected to the students. After the data on preferences and ratings are obtained, they are

summarized in order to formulate the comprehensive evaluation of the teachers' efficiency.

(Zahorodniy, Pylypenko, & Tyvonchuk, 2014) The article is devoted to university

rankings: the problems of their development, the real results of their use based on the role

they fulfil in modern society. The university rankings classification according to the level

of coverage of universities (international global, international regional, national, intra-

university rankings), the target groups of users (rankings for applicants, for employers, for

investors and financial donors, for society, general rankings), the methodology of

compiling (rankings based on objective indicators, on peer reviews, mixed rankings) is

developed. It is emphasized that the objectivity of university ranking depends largely on its

methodology that above all covers its philosophy and methods of preparing. Philosophy of

university ranking reflects its main idea, the purpose and the objectives of compiling,

target audience, and the principles of formation. The methods of preparing comprise

evaluation indicators, methods of their weighting (weight ratio), methods of surveys and

experts selection, data sources for indicators assessment, verification of ranking results,

ways and means of their publication, etc.

(Moskovkin, Golikov, Peresypkin, & Serkina, 2015) The paper presents a methodology for

calculating the aggregate global university ranking (Aggregated Global University

Ranking, or AGUR), which consists of an automated presentation of the comparable lists

of names for different universities from particular global university rankings (using

Machine Learning and Mining Data algorithms) and a simple procedure of aggregating

particular global university rankings (summing up the university ranking positions from

different particular rankings and their subsequent ranking). The second procedure makes it

possible to bring lists of universities from particular rankings, which are non-identical by

length, to one size. The paper includes a sample AGUR for six particular global university

rankings as of 2013, as well as cross-correlation matrices and intersection matrices for

AGUR for 2011-2013, all created by means of using the Python-based software.

(Baccini, Banfi, Nicolao, & Galimberti, 2015) Initially the authors describes that one of the

best known university ranking is the Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings

Literature Review

34

(QS - Ranking). QS is a ranking published annually since 2004 by Quacquarelli Symonds.

QS provides a ranking based on a score calculated by weighting six different indicators:

the scores obtained in an academic reputation survey (40%) and in an employer reputation

survey (10%), the student to faculty ratio (20%), the citations per faculty according to

Scopus data (20%); the international student ratio (5%) and, finally, the international

faculty ratio (5%). The 2015 edition, published in October 2015, introduced major

methodological innovations and, as a consequence, many universities worldwide

underwent major changes of their scores and ranks.

The authors interviewed Ben Sowter, head of division of intelligence unit of Quacquarelli

Symonds, responsible for the operational management of all major QS research projects

including the QS World University Rankings. The interview consisted of 16 questions

mainly focused on the ranking methodology. The questions include How to justify the

adoption of high weight of 40% to Academic reputation and 10% to Employer reputation,

information about the sample design, the number of responses and the rate of responses to

the various parts of the two surveys, and finally about precautions taken against

universities manipulating the surveys, How does QS check the validity of data about

students, international students, and faculty sent from universities?, Why the raw data are

not published to enhance transparency both of ranking calculations and data declared by

universities?, do you consider international students a good criteria of excellence?, Have

consideration for doing anything about the growing trend towards multiple affiliation and

the buying of secondary affiliations? and many more such questions.

(Sorz, Wallner, Seidler, & Fieder, 2015) investigated how reliable are the university

rankings given by ranking bodies especially for universities with lower ranking positions,

that often show inconclusive year-to-year fluctuations in their rank, and if these rankings

are thus a suitable basis for management purposes. For this public available data from the

web pages of the THE and the ARWU ranking were used to analyze the dynamics of

change in score and ranking position from year to year, and possible causes for

inconsistent fluctuations in the rankings were investigated by the means of regression

analyses. It was observed that the fluctuations in the THE do not correspond to actual

university performance and ranking results are thus of limited conclusiveness for the

university management of universities below a rank of 50. While the ARWU ranking

seems more robust against inconsistent fluctuations, its year to year changes in the scores

are very small, so essential changes from year to year could not be expected. Furthermore,

Literature Review

35

year-to-year results do not correspond in THES- and ARWU-Rankings for universities

below rank 50. Neither the THES nor the ARWU offer great value as a tool for university

management in their current forms for universities ranked below 50.

(Mursidi & Soeharto, 2016) in their study used Rasch Model for evaluating the level of

Quality Assurance of Higher Education Institutions. The evaluation instrument used for

higher educational institution consisted of five aspects, namely tangibles, reliability,

responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. The analysis was used for analyzing student

satisfaction toward service of higher educational institution to evaluate quality assurance.

The study concluded that once a HEI acquires a poor reputation it takes a considerable

time to change it. Moreover the HEIs who have constantly pursued higher quality quickly

acquire their position as institutes of National Importance. Management of quality of

institution can be acquired like any other skills as a tool to have a turnaround strategy for

converting poor reputation to better one.

(Aithal & Kumar, 2016) focused on the fact the outcome of any learning in HEI by the

student is whether the student has acquired the requisite skills and knowledge and whether

the student is able to demonstrate it in real life situations after completion of the course.

Achieving learning outcomes needs specific experiences to be provided to the students and

evaluation of their attainment. They emphasized that any programme without stated

learning objectives and outcomes that are not evaluated or assessed gets neglected in

implementation. Hence all the stated learning outcomes must be part of the evaluation

protocol of the programme. Student assessment provides an indication of the areas where

learning has happened and where it has to be improved upon. The research analyzed the

strategies followed by Srinivas Institute of Management Studies, Mangalore for student

performance. Issues like the clearly stated learning outcomes of the college and the details

on how the students and staff are made aware of these, institutional efforts to monitor and

communicate the progress and performance of students throughout the duration of the

course/programme, and the analysis of the students results/achievements to see the

differences if any, patterns of achievement across the programme /courses offered,

structure of the teaching, learning and assessment strategies of the institution to facilitate

the achievement of the intended learning outcomes, and the measures/initiatives taken up

by the institution to enhance the social and economic relevance of the courses offered are

discussed. The institutions effort to collect and analyze data on student learning outcomes

and use it for planning and overcoming barriers of learning, institution and individual

Literature Review

36

teachers use assessment/evaluation as an indicator for evaluating student performance,

achievement of learning objectives and planning, and other relevant information regarding

teaching-learning and evaluation are also discussed.

2.3 Literature related to AHP and its application in complex decision

making

(Forman & Selly, Decision By Objectives (How to convince others that you are right),

2001) in their book on decision making by objectives have elaborated on AHP as a tool for

multi criteria decision making. They built up on importance of scientific decision making

process also highlighted the major mistakes committed by decision makers while making

crucial decisions. AHP was discussed in detail as a compensatory decision methodology

because alternatives that are deficient with respect to one or more objectives can

compensate by their performance with respect to other objectives. AHP breaks down the

problem into goals, criteria and sub criteria thus making a hierarchy. Pairwise comparison

is done by taking two criteria at a time to make the process manageable and simple. AHP is

based on three axioms namely decomposition, comparative judgments and hierarchic

composition or synthesis of priorities. The decomposition principle is applied to structure a

complex problem into a hierarchy of clusters, sub-clusters, sub-sub clusters and so on. The

principle of comparative judgments is applied to construct pairwise comparisons of all

combinations of elements in a cluster with respect to the parent of the cluster. These

pairwise comparisons are used to derive ‘local’ priorities of the elements in a cluster with

respect to their parent. The principle of hierarchic composition or synthesis is applied to

multiply the local priorities of elements in a cluster by the ‘global’ priority of the parent

element, producing global priorities throughout the hierarchy and then adding the global

priorities for the lowest level elements. Also mentioned were reasons of inconsistency like

manual error, lack of information, lack of concentration, inadequate model structure, a low

consistency may be necessary but nor sufficient for decision making. Also mentioned was

Expert Choice Software to aid the decision making by AHP.

(Alanbay, 2005) described a multi attribute ERP selection decision model based on the

AHP methodology. The goal is selection of the ERP where three main criteria namely

Technology related, User Related and Vendor related were taken. Under these three criteria

a total of 15 sub criteria were identified. After pairwise comparison the global priorities for

Literature Review

37

all these 15 criteria were calculated. The global priorities were then used to compare two

ERPs under consideration.

(Xue-zhen, 2007) used AHP methodology along with Balanced score Card for vendor

selection. In global supply chain management, enterprises try to select a suitable vendor

and cooperate over a long period of time. The attributes and weights may change in time

axis under the changeable business environments. Traditional multiple attributes decision

making methods are hard to solve the long-term performance measurement problems. In

this paper a dynamic approach based on AHP and Balanced Score Card (BSC) for vendor

selection problems. The analytic hierarchy is structure by the 4 major frameworks

including customers, finance, internal business processes, and learning and growth.

(Abdullah, Jaffar, & Taib, 2009) researched that in conventional AHP methodology which

involves human subjective evaluation may introduce vagueness that necessitates the use of

decision making under uncertainty. They explored the theory of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets

(IFS) which is well suited to deal with vagueness. So in the study they applied the concept

of IFS to AHP and developed a new AHP method called IF-AHP as a method to handle

vagueness in decision making.

2.4 Literature related to Consensus measures in group decision

(Forman & Peniwati, Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic

Hierarchy Process, 1998) The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used in group settings

where group members either engage in discussion to achieve a consensus or express their

own preferences. Individual judgments can be aggregated in different ways. Two of the

methods that have been found to be most useful are the aggregation of individual

judgments (AIJ) and the aggregation of individual priorities (AIP). The paper proposed

that the choice of method depends on whether the group is assumed to act together as a

unit or as separate individuals and explain why AIJ is appropriate for the former while AIP

is appropriate for the latter. The authors addresses the relationships between the choice of

method, the applicability of the Pareto principle, and the use of arithmetic or geometric

means in aggregation. Finally, discussion on Ramanathan and Ganesh’s method to derive

priorities for individual decision-makers that can be used when aggregate group

preferences of individuals whose judgments are not all equally weighted was carried out.

(ALTUZARRA, MORENO-JIMÉNEZ, & SALVADOR, 2005) In AHP methodology

where multiple respondents participate in the pairwise comparison process, it is a Group

Literature Review

38

Decision where the individuals act jointly by looking for a common decision. There are

two ways to analyze a group decision problem in the classical literature on AHP

(Ramanatham and Ganesh, 1994; Forman and Peniwati, 1998): (i) Aggregation of

Individual Judgments where a new pairwise comparison matrix for the group is constructed

aggregating the individual judgments by means of consensus, voting or statistical

procedures such as, for instance, the weighted geometric mean. From this matrix, the

priority vector is then calculated following any of the existing prioritization procedures. (ii)

Aggregation of Individual Priorities where the individual priorities are aggregated in order

to obtain the priority of the group, with the usual aggregation procedure being the weighted

geometric mean. The paper uses Bayesian methodology for the semiautomatic search for

consensus building in AHP group decision making has been introduced. The procedure

consists of two steps. In the first step, the existing individual discrepancies are analyzed by

using a Bayesian approach based on the multiplicative log-normal errors traditionally used

in the stochastic AHP. Using the information obtained, some procedures are proposed to

search for consensus between the actors involved in the decision making process. Some of

them are based on the modifications of the more divergent individual judgments; others

determine semiautomatic consensus paths by using the negotiation attitude of the decision

makers.

(Stirn & Grošelj, 2013) revised the existing methods for aggregating the individual

comparison matrices into a group comparison matrix. A method for aggregation, called

WGMDEA, was proposed for application in the case study. WGMDEA method, preserves

reciprocity. Its advantage is that it uses a linear program. Further, interval group matrices

in group AHP aggregated from individual comparison matrices were introduced. Also the

method MEDINT was presented and a new method ADEXTREME was suggested. The

results obtained by WGMDEA, MEDINT and ADEXTREME methods were compared.

(Goepel, 2013) investigated the necessity to analyze individual judgments, and find a

measure of consensus for the aggregated group result. He used Shannon entropy and its

partitioning in two independent components (alpha and beta diversity) to derive a new

AHP consensus indicator. Originating from information theory, the concept of Shannon

entropy is well established in biology for the measurement of biodiversity. Instead of

relative abundance of species in different habitats, the researcher analyzed the priority

distribution of criteria among different decision makers. The proposed AHP consensus can

be interpreted as low consensus which is below 65%, moderate consensus from 65% to

Literature Review

39

75% and high consensus above 75%. Values below 50% indicate that there is practically

no consensus within the group and a high diversity of judgments. Values in the 80% – 90%

range indicate a high overlap of priorities and excellent agreement of judgments from the

group members. The beauty of the proposed AHP consensus indicator based on Shannon

entropy is the possibility to analyze further, and to find out, whether there are sub-groups

(cluster) of participants with high consensus among themself, but with low consensus to

other sub-groups. This can be done using the concept of alpha and beta diversity.

2.5 Gaps identified

1. There is no universal model to evaluate and rank universities and HEIs.

2. The ranking and methods suggested are “One Size Fits all” i.e. the criteria as well

as the ranking are common for all the stake holders, namely students, faculties,

employers and administrators of HEIs. It does not take into consideration separate

criteria for different stake holders.

3. There is no relative model of evaluation and selection which can be used by any

stake holders from the university / HEI of their choice set. The ranking does not

give an opportunity to decide on selection of the best out of best or best out of

worst. Usually all the ranking is a fixed ordered list of participating institutes and

non-participating or low end institutes does not appear.

This creates a need to develop a local evaluation model based on different criteria and

weights for different stakeholders who can evaluate a university / HEI from their own

consideration or choice set of institution.

Research Methodology

40

CHAPTER 3


3 Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

Multi criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is a branch of Operations Research which

explicitly deals with multiple conflicting criteria in decision making. Due to vast number

of criteria the decision making process becomes complex.

There are several MCDM methods namely Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Goal

Programming (GP), Technique for the Order of Prioritization by Similarity to Ideal

Solution (TOPSIS), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Analytic Network Process (ANP),

Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), Preference Ranking Organization METHod for

Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE), ViseKriterijumska Optimizacija I

Kompromisno Resenje, (VIKOR) (Serbian) that means: Multicriteria Optimization and

Compromise Solution, Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and many more.

Analytical Hierarchy Process is widely used in Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM).

So in the study AHP was used as a MCDM tool. The process takes into consideration the

Goal, which here is “To Evaluate & Compare Universities”, followed by main criteria and

sub-criteria falling under main criteria, which makes the complete hierarchy. Pair wise

comparison of criteria is done by individuals. To arrive at a group decision output, AHP

uses two methods, namely, Weighted Average Method and Geometric Mean Method. The

current study used Geometric Mean Method to arrive at Group priorities. Also the author

used AHP consensus from Shannon entropies.

3.2 Problem Statement

“A Study on Evaluation and Comparison of Universities based on Multi Criterion

Approach Using Analytical Hierarchy Process.”

3.3 Significance of Study

The evaluation of universities and institutes of higher learning has been the topic of

recurrent discussions in the scenario of multiple streams and institutes to choose from.

These evaluations manifests in the form of rankings. Indian Education Sector (IES) is by


41

far the largest capitalized space in India with (3.7% of GDP; at global average).In India,

National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), a methodology adopted by the Ministry

of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, to rank all

institutions of higher education in India has been developed. The Framework was approved

by the MHRD and launched by Minister of Human Resource Development on 29

September 2015. Several world ranking bodies publishes the ranking data on world

universities.

The world is full of informed choices, also too many choices and too much information.

Objective comparison and comparison model for students, faculty, employers and

administrators to evaluate the higher learning institutes which they have in their

consideration set. The model will supplement universities on global scale are sought by

students, academic faculty members, employers and Heads of higher education institutes.

The original contribution made by the study is manifested by creation of a relative

evaluation and comparison model for students, faculty, employers and administrators to

evaluate the higher learning institutes which they have in their consideration set. The

model will supplement the absolute ranking of institutes rated by ranking bodies. This

provides the stake holders a framework to arrive at a systematic and logical decision in

selecting the education institute of their choice.

3.4 Definition of Problem:

The doctoral work addresses the following problems.

1) Are the World Higher Education Rankings published by various ranking bodies

suited to Indian Universities and HEIs and are they relevant to local stakeholders

like students, faculties and employers?

2) Does the ranking criteria of world ranking bodies’ matches with the local

preferences of the stakeholders and what is the usefulness of the same?

3) Can we develop a relative evaluation and comparison model for Higher Education

Institutions based on the preferences of students, faculties, employers and

university administrators, which can be used to select a particular institute from the

choice set instead of absolute ranks?

The study systematically takes each aspects of the problem to suggest the solution.


42

3.5 Objectives of the study:

1) To study the ranking criteria and methodology used by various ranking bodies for

universities and higher learning institutes.

2) To find out the preferences and priorities of different stake holders about their criteria

to judge and select the universities or Higher Education Institutions.

3) To develop a model based on Analytical Hierarchy Process to evaluate and compare

universities or higher education institutes based on the criteria which the stake holders

have found relevant and from within their choice set.

4) To measure the diversity, homogeneity & consensus of the responses from multiple

respondents from heterogeneous streams.

3.6 Scope of Work:

1) The word ‘Universities’ is used synonymously with Higher Education Institutions.

Thus Universities means Universities and subsets of Universities.

2) Analytical Hierarchy Process, a popular Multi Criteria Decision Making

methodology developed by Thomas Saaty is used for prioritization and evaluation

of criteria of stakeholders.

3) The study is limited to four stake holders, namely students, faculties, employers

and institute administrators and their preferences.

4) The validity of the responses was checked by Saaty’s consistency ratio.

5) The study uses Shannon diversity indices to work out the homogeneity and the

consensus percentage amongst multiple respondents for the final weights.

3.7 Research Design

Action Research Design is used for the study. Initially an exploratory stance is adopted

where understanding of the problem is developed and a comprehensive understanding of

the problem of ranking and evaluation of universities is done with their pros and cons. In

the next stage, plans (“Action Plan”) are made to form an intervention strategy. This is a

collaborative and adaptive research design that lends itself to use in work or community

situations. Design focuses on pragmatic and solution-driven research outcomes rather than

testing theories. The interventional strategy is to develop a valid implementation solution

to the problem by using mathematical modeling using the base as AHP, to arrive at a

completely new relative approach to evaluate, compare and rank higher education institutes

amongst a choice set of a stake holder.


43

3.7.1 Universe

The universe consists of all the stakeholders connected with universities and higher

education institutes.

The stakeholders are

1) Students seeking or pursuing higher education.

2) The faculty members.

3) The administrators of HEIs consisting of Deans, Directors, HODs and Principals.

4) The employers from industries and other organizations who recruits the students.

5) The Regulatory bodies for higher education like UGC, AICTE, MCI and others.

6) The Ministry of HRD and education who frames the education policy.

7) The rating and ranking bodies for HEIs.

3.7.2 Sample Size

For the purpose of the study only four set of stakeholders from the universe were taken into

consideration namely, Students, Faculty Members, Administrators and Employers. The

regulatory bodies, policy makers and ranking bodies were excluded keeping into

consideration the non-accessibility and complexities of the study.

A total of 190 samples were collected from different stakeholders. The distribution

consisted of 109 students, 50 teaching faculties, 25 business organizations and 5

administrators.

3.7.3 Sampling Techniques

Non Probability Purposive sampling method was adopted taking into consideration the

type of study where representation of all the four stakeholders is to be taken into

consideration. Maximum variation/heterogeneous purposive sampling type were used to

provide a diverse range of cases. For different set of stake holders, the heterogeneity was

induced by taking sample units from various streams of education like Commerce,

Management, Computer Science, Engineering and Medical & Health Sciences. This was to

know the feelings, perception and judgment about the HEIs across varied streams and also

to identify whether any consensus exists between the stakeholders from different streams.

3.7.4 Sources of Data

In the study, both primary as well as secondary data was used.


44

Secondary Data: In the exploratory stage of the research, secondary data on various

global and local ranking bodies, their ranking methodologies, their ranking criteria and sub

criteria, the weights assigned to various criteria, the pros and cons of different ranking

systems were gathered from websites of ranking bodies as well as literature on expert

opinions on ranking systems. Also literature related to different approaches to evaluate and

rank HEIs were gathered from online journals and conference proceedings.

Primary Data: Primary data was collected by the researcher through four sets of

questionnaires designed for four stakeholders.

3.8 Data Collection Tool

Four sets of questionnaire were designed for four stakeholders.

For each stakeholders the questionnaire was divided into sections consisting of main

criteria applicable to that stakeholder. Under each section pairwise comparisons of sub

criteria were enlisted.

3.8.1 Structure of the questionnaire

Each sub criteria under main criteria is to be compared with each other in pairs as

per the AHP scale given by T. L. Saaty.

For a Particular Main Criteria having “m” sub criteria, the number of Questions to

be included will be (m2-m)/2. For e.g. for 4 sub criteria number of pair wise

comparison questions will be = (42-4)/2=6.

The AHP scale for pairwise comparison is as shown below

Table 8- Gradation scale for qualitative comparison of alternatives

Intensity of

importance Definition Explanation

1 Equal Importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective

2 Weak or slight

3 Moderate importance

Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity

over another

4 Moderate plus

5 Strong importance

Experience and judgment strongly favor one

activity over another

6 Strong plus

7

Very strong or

demonstrated importance

An activity is favored very strongly over

another; its dominance demonstrated in practice

8 Very, very strong

9 Extreme importance

The evidence favoring one activity over another

is of the highest possible order of affirmation


45

Reciprocals

of above

If activity i has one of the above

non-zero numbers assigned to it

when compared with activity j, then

j has the reciprocal value when

compared with i

A reasonable assumption

The format used in the questionnaire is depicted below

Figure 8 Format for the questionnaire for pair wise comparison

Table 9 Criteria, Sub Criteria and number of pair wise comparison for different stakeholders

Sr. No.

Questionnaire

for

Stakeholder

Main Criteria

No. of

Sub

Criteria

No. of

Pair wise

Comparisons

Questions

(m2 - m) / 2

1 Students

Institute 11 55

Faculty 8 28

Convenience 10 45

2 Faculty

Job Security 3 3

Job Progression & Growth 12 66

Recognition 14 91

3 Industry

/ Employers

Employability of Students 8 28

Collaborative Research 13 78

4

Administrators

/ Principals

/ HODs

Quality of Education 11 55

Research Output 8 28

Size, reach & Infrastructure 4 6

Quality of faculty 12 66

3.9 Mathematical Tools

The following Mathematical & Analytical tools were used

Analytic Hierarchy Model for criteria comparisons.

Individual AHP Comparison Matrices.

Consolidated Group Matrix by using Geometric Mean of individual ratings

Normalization of Group Matrix

Finding the Eigen Vector for priorities

Consistency Ratio and Consistency Indices for checking the validity of responses


46

Shannon diversity measures (α – entropy, β – entropy & γ – entropy) and Mac Arthur

Homogeneity (M) were used to work out the AHP consensus

3.10 Analytical Software

The entire modeling of AHP, including Data entry from questionnaire to individual

comparison matrices, calculation of consolidated group comparisons by using Geometric

mean, Consistency Ratio and consistency Index, Shannon entropies, Mac Arthur

Homogeneity and AHP consensus was carried out using MS Excel.

3.11 Reliability & Validity

Reliability is another term for consistency. A test is valid if it measures what it is supposed

to measure.

In the research reliability is tested using Saaty’s Consistency ratio (CR).

The Saaty’s method dealt with consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix. A consistent

matrix mean e.g. if the decision maker says a criterion x is equal important to another

criterion y (so the comparison matrix will contain value of axy = 1= ayx), and the criterion y

is absolutely more important as an criterion w (ayw = 9; awy = 1/9); then the criterion x

should also be absolutely more important than the criterion w (axw = 9; awx = 1/9).

Unfortunately, the decision maker is often not able to express consistent preferences in

case of several criteria. Then, the Saaty’s method measures the inconsistency of the

pairwise comparison matrix and set a consistency threshold which should not be exceeded.

In ideal case the comparison matrix (A) is fully consistent, the rank (A) = 1 and λ = n (n =

number of criteria). In this case, the following equation is valid: A × x = n × x (where x is

the eigenvector of A)

The vector x represent the weights we are looking for. In the non-consistent case (which is

more common) the comparison matrix A may be considered as a perturbation of the

previous consistent case. When the entries aij changes only slightly, then the Eigenvalues

change in a similar fashion. Moreover, the maximum Eigen value (λmax) is closely greater

to n while the remaining (possible) Eigenvalues are close to zero. Thus is order to find

weights we are looking for the eigenvector which corresponds to the maximum Eigen

value (λmax).


47

In order to obtain weights from calculated eigenvector the values have to be normalized by

formula 𝑤𝑗 =𝑤𝑗

∑ 𝑤��

(The weights have to sum up to 1.)

The consistency index (CI) is calculated as following

𝐶𝐼 =λmax − n

n − 1

Then, the consistence ratio (CR) is calculated as the ratio of consistency index and random

consistency index (RI). The RI is the random index representing the consistency of a

randomly generated pairwise comparison matrix. It is derived as average random

consistency index calculated from a sample of 500 of randomly generated matrices based

on the AHP scale

𝐶𝑅(𝐴) =𝐶𝐼(𝐴)

𝑅𝐼(𝑛)

If CR(A) ≤ 0.1, the pairwise comparison matrix is considered to be consistent enough. In

the case CR(A) ≥ 0.1, the comparison matrix should be improved.. The value of RI

depends on the number criteria being compared.

Table 10 Saaty’s Random Index (RI) Table for criteria from 1 to up to 15

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59

Klaus D. Goepel, (2013) proposed an AHP group consensus indicator to quantify the

consensus of the group, i.e. to have an estimate of the agreement on the out coming

priorities between participants. This indicator ranges from 0% to 100%. Zero percent

corresponds to no consensus at all, 100% to full consensus. This indicator is derived from

the concept of diversity based on Shannon alpha and beta entropy. It is a measure

of homogeneity of priorities between the participants and can also be interpreted as

a measure of overlap between priorities of the group members.

Group consensus can be categorized in the three categories low, moderate and high, as

follows:

low consensus: below 65%


48

moderate consensus: 65% to 75%

high consensus: above 75%

Values below 50% indicate that there is practically no consensus within the group and a

high diversity of judgments. Values in the 80% – 90% range indicate a high overlap of

priorities and excellent agreement of judgments from the group members.

All consistency ratios are well below 10% which according to Saaty’s Methodology shows

that the responses were genuine and not random. Thus consistency or reliability is

established. Also the AHP consensus for all criteria is above 70% which shows a very high

degree of agreement amongst the responses from multiple respondents from various

heterogeneous streams. This confirms the validity of the questionnaire.

3.12 Flow of Research

Figure 9 - Flow of Research

Data Presentation & Analysis

49

CHAPTER 4


4 Data Presentation &Analysis

4.1 Subjects for the study

Four set of stakeholders were used for the study

1) Students pursuing higher education in HEIs.

2) Teaching faculties in HEIs.

3) Industries / Employers who recruit / provide jobs to the students on completion of

their course.

4) Administrators – The Directors / Principals / HODs of HEIs

The table shows the bifurcation of types of stakeholders and their streams.

Table 11- Stakeholders, Streams and Number of Respondents

Sr. No. Stakeholders Streams No. of

Respondents

1 Students

Business Management (Bachelor's)

109

Business Management (Master's)

Commerce

Engineering & Technology

Physiotherapy

Medicine (MBBS)

2 Faculty

Management

50 Computer Science


Commerce

3

Administrators

(Directors /

Principals /

HODs)

Commerce

5

Law

Computer Science


Physiotherapy

4 Industries

Education Management

25

Software & IT

Cyber Security & Cyber law

Office Furniture & Equipment

Handicrafts

Trading

Textiles

Financial Consultancy

Insurance

Heavy Engineering

Total 189


50

4.2 Goal for the study (Top level Hierarchy)

To evaluate and compare universities & HEIs for choice set

4.3 Main Criteria (Second Level Hierarchy)

Main criteria’s for students

University / Institute Related

Faculty Related

Convenience Related

Main Criteria’s for Faculties

Job Security Related

Job Progression & Growth Related

Recognition Related

Main Criteria’s for Industries

Employability of Students Related

Collaborative Research Related

Main criteria's for University / HEI administrators

Quality of Education Related

Research Output Related

Size, Reach & Infrastructure Related

Quality of Faculties & Staff Related

4.4 Sub-criteria (Third Level of Hierarchy)

A total of 36 sub criteria were identified under various main criteria for different stake

holders which are described as under

4.4.1 Type of University & No. of affiliated Colleges

The university / HEI can be Central, State, Private, Open, Specialized or a national level

institute. The number of colleges affiliated with the university or the no. of colleges /

streams running under a HEI campus.


51

4.4.2 Campus Infrastructure

The physical infrastructure provided by the HEIs which includes classrooms with audio

video teaching aids, library and reading room, workshops, conference room, auditorium,

indoor and outdoor sports facilities, common rooms for students, clean and hygienic

drinking water, clean wash rooms, mess, canteen or cafeteria, hostel facility, transportation

facility, reprography facility, computer and IT infrastructure like computer labs, Local

Area Network, High speed internet and Wi-Fi, appropriate licensed or open source

operating systems and application software’s, computer security like antivirus and

firewalls.

4.4.3 Admission Policy

According to World Bank Report13 the admission policy should include the enrollment of

as many applicants as they can responsibly teach accept only those students who possess

the knowledge and ability to fully benefit from their studies, selectivity should ensure that

enrollment growth is related to instructional capacity, and if, selection criteria have good

predictive validity, that opportunities for further studies will be allocated to those who are

most likely to benefit academically. Students perform best when they follow courses of

study that match their abilities and interests.

Thus admission policy should include the eligibility criteria and qualifications, the details

of qualifying entrance exams, the categories of seats reserved for open, SC, ST, OBC,

Physically Challenged, the quota for state, other states, NRIs and Management Quota, the

age limits, the admission procedure and stages, the verification of qualifications, the study

load (minimum attendance required), provisional and final enrollment, refusals and

exclusions.

4.4.4 Prior Results & Placements of students

The academic performance of the students measured in terms of past examination results,

subject wise as well as overall percentage of students who have passed, the number of

students securing distinction, first class, second class and pass class, the rank of HEI based

on examination results amongst all affiliated colleges, the number of students who have

secured top position in university, number of students who have secured a gold medal and

number of students who have topped a particular subject in the HEI or university.

13(Higher Education: Issues and Options for Reforms, 1993)


52

The placement statistics will include the number of students opted for placement, the

number of companies / organizations who came for campus placements, the number of

students successfully selected by the companies, the minimum, average and highest CTC

offered, the posts or designations offered, the number of students who opted and

successfully started their own venture or business.

4.4.5 Number of Patents registered

Patent filing is a measure of spread of science and technology in a country. Patents also

provide monopoly rights to the inventor. The number of patents registered by and granted

to HEIs shows the innovation capability of the faculties and students. Patents also show

the readiness and contribute for Make in India.

4.4.6 Number of Ph. D & M. Phil Produced

The number of Ph. D and M. Phil scholars is indication of Universities / HEI rigor and

orientation towards research work. The quality of research and the field of research are also

important. Mostly research areas are in Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics (STEM). It also indicates the intellectual resources of university / HEI to

guide the scholars.

Figure 10 - Countries with most doctoral graduates


53

4.4.7 Tie up with Foreign University

It includes international experience program like exchange of students for summer

internship or doctoral research or collaborative research.

4.4.8 National / Global Accreditation

This sub criterion indicates the accreditation status of a university or HEI from National

Assessment & Accreditation Council (NAAC) for formal courses and National Board of

Accreditation for Technical and Professional courses.

4.4.9 Historical Scholarly Ranking

Scholarly rank or academic rank defines the level of academic staff at the HEI. It may be

ranging from lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor to professors.

4.4.10 UGC / Private / International Funding

Creation of knowledge through research, and dissemination of a better understanding

through teaching, is the primary objectives of a University. Government of India through

the University Grants Commission provides grant to support Basic Science Research

(including Medical and Engineering) at three levels to faculties, Startup research Grant,

Mid-career Award and BSR Faculty Fellowship. Besides UGC, funding of research is also

done by Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) Department of Science &

Technology (DST), Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Indian Council for Agriculture

Research (ICAR) and more. Grants received by faculties of HEI are an indicator of quality

research proposals and research capability.

4.4.11 Availability of Major Academic Programs

This sub criterion shows the number of diverse streams and courses which are offered by a

university or HEI. This increases the choice set of all the stakeholders to pursue their goals.

It also gives an opportunity for multi-disciplinary projects and research.

4.4.12 All round & activity based learning through live projects

This is an indicator of the level of Industry – Academia infiltration and relationship a HEI

has with the industries to promote a platform for the students and the faculty members to

interact and work on live Industry Defined Projects. Better understanding of the

requirement of the industries as well as identification of proper potential candidates by the

industry will benefit both the HEIs and Industries.


54

4.4.13 Course curriculum & quality of program

This indicates the breadth and depth of course curriculums. It is also indicative of the

dynamicity of the syllabus whether it adjusts itself and is responsive to the changing

methods and technologies. Whether the syllabus has remained static for number of years

and is out of sync or has been frequently revised is also taken into account. The quality of

the program manifests itself from whether the students are able to apply the learning into

real life situations and can analyze a problem or a situation with context to what they have

learned in local as well as global perspective.

4.4.14 ICT enabled university

This sub criterion evaluates the level of penetration of IT and communication technologies

in a HEI or university. Well-designed informative and updated web site, maximum use of

online application processing of academic related matters, online payment of fees,

dissemination of news, circulars, examination results are the bare essentials. Also use of

Learning Management Systems, Faculty’s Blogs, Social Media Page and You Tube

Channel of the HEI, Digitization of examination papers and online evaluation of the same

are some of the desirable aspects.

4.4.15 No. of International Faculties

According to NITI Aayog, Government of India has plans for developing world class

institutions (WCIs). There are some very big benefits in hiring international faculty, whom

the WCIs ought to define as those with PhDs from abroad, typically from the top 100-200

universities in the world and/or with teaching and research experience at the same

institutions. In purely technical terms, anyone who has trained abroad or taught abroad

should count as ‘international’ faculty.14

Advantages of international faculties are rigorous PhD programs, increased research

productivity, weight age in world university rankings, increased research collaboration and

increased benefits for students.

4.4.16 No. of International Students

HEIs and universities, tries to attract top-tier students from around the world for various

reasons. First reason is to have the best and brightest students studying their campus from

all around the world, second reason is the fees received from international student is a boon

14 Article titled “What Does it Mean to have an ‘International Faculty’ at Indian Universities?” in The Wire by Prof. Pushkar dated 17/08/2016.


55

to cash starved or non-grant in aid campuses as fees charged is usually at a higher multiple

than local students and lastly it also increases the ranking of the institution.

4.4.17 Faculty to student ratio

Universities and HEIs with more teaching faculty per student have a good chance of

creating an engaged and interactive teaching environment. According to THES ranking of

2017, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research ranks 3rd with faculty to student ratio of 2.2

and Indian Institute of Science stands at 82dn rank with faculty to student ratio of 8.2.

4.4.18 Qualifications & Experience of faculty

Minimum norms for faculty qualification and experience for different cadre are specified

by regulatory bodies. However many HEIs may exceed these norms. Highly qualified and

experienced faculty is an indicator of better learning experience and quality of teaching and

research for the students.

4.4.19 Papers published by faculties

The number of high quality, high impact and multiple scope papers published by the

faculty in reputed academic and practitioners’ journals will testify the quality of research

and learning of any HEIs and will attract various research grants from the government,

corporate houses and reputed foundations.

4.4.20 Honors, Awards & Prizes received by faculties

The most coveted award is the Nobel Prize. Also India Science Award from Government

of India, Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science & Technology, Om Prakash Bhasin

Award, Infosys Prize awarded by Infosys Foundations, and many more indicated the

highest honor for the contribution to science, engineering and technology. From student’s

point of view it means being mentored by the best faculties and for faculties point of view

it means that the institute provides enormous growth opportunities.

4.4.21 Nearness from Home

This is also one of the important sub criterions for the student belonging to the lower and

middle class who cannot afford to move outside their home town to stay in hostel. Also

daily commuting long distances for attending the classes will increase the transportation

costs as well as consumes lot of productive time of the students.


56

4.4.22 Cost of education (fees)

The rising cost of education is also a prime concern for students and parents. AICTE Vice-

Chairman MP Punia raised his concerns over the high cost of higher education in India

wherein the investments made are so high students are not able to recover them their his

entire life, even after qualifying as professionals.15

With the advent of Private Universities & HEI, the cost of education has grown. Compared

to SFIs the Government or GIA colleges are very few in numbers. 65% of the parents

spend over a half of their yearly income on their child education. Also elite institutions

require higher level of funding to support research, which increases the cost of education.

Highly subsidized quality higher education, with admissions based strictly on merit,

continues to be a great hope for upward socio-economic mobility. This public demand has

also ensured that there is consensus across the political spectrum on the need for setting up

new IITs, IIMs, AIIMSs, NITs, etc. On the other hand, as the number of such institutions

increases, the budgetary requirements for supporting them will prove to be a challenge.16

4.4.23 Religious Consideration

By religious consideration the sub criteria evaluates a HEI / University based on the

experience of students and staff about accommodation of religious observance,

participation and access to all or to only followers of a particular belief or religion,

discrimination and harassment based on religion and belief and Good relations towards a

particular religion or sect.

4.4.24 Availability of Scholarship

Scholarship is an absolute necessity for students belonging to the weaker sections of the

society, who are unable to pursue their education for some reason or the other. Scholarship

provides incentive as well as encouragement for students, who are talented, but do not have

the means to study further. The varieties of scholarships available are merit-based, need-

based, student-specific, career-specific and college-specific.

While evaluating a HEI a student will always consider which are the different types of

scholarships available in a particular HEI.

15 “Cost of Higher education not sustainable” article in The Hindu – Business Line dated March 26, 2017. 16“Higher Price for Education” by M Balakrishnan , PankajJalote, The Indian Express, Published: April 13, 2016 12:01 am


57

4.4.25 Ease of obtaining loans

Funding of high cost of education is done by many through education loans. Many

Universities and HEI have a separate loan assistance cell to enable students at the time of

admission to obtain loans from banks. The HEIs or University also has tie ups with banks

for this purpose. HEIs and Universities having Banks and loan desks within the campus

make it easier for the students to go through the loan procurement process.

4.4.26 Recommended by Past Teachers, friends & relatives

Recommendation of a particular HEI / University by past teachers, friends and relative

even though subjective provides a powerful positive signal to alter the decision on

selection of an institute by prospective students. Recommendations confirm and reinforce

whatever is learnt about a HEI / University through various media. Good positive

recommendations about the teaching quality, infrastructure, administrative support,

placements, definitely affect the evaluation and selection of a HEI.

4.4.27 Separate activity center

One of the important criteria for evaluation is activity centers run by HEIs and universities.

Activity centers may include Research cell / Lab, Centre of Excellence, Entrepreneurship

Development Center, Incubators, Technical and Management Consultancy Cell, Coaching

Centre for Public Examination Preparation, Active Alumni Association, Industry Institute

Interaction Cell, Computerized Language Lab, Continuous Education programs, 24x7

Library, Online access to various journals and many more.

4.4.28 National & International Recognition of faculty

HEIs and Universities can also be evaluated by the number of faculties who have been

conferred with various national level fellowship and awards for their excellence and

achievements.

4.4.29 Growth & Research opportunities for faculties

Management should charter path to upgrade their faculties. This includes granting them

with resources and leave for doing M. Phil or Ph.D. The HEI should encourage

participation of their faculties in various seminars, conferences and STTPs. HEI should

also host conferences, seminar & STTPs.


58

4.4.30 Number of Faculty Development Programs conducted

FDP provides faculties to upgrade themselves. This not only will benefit the faculties but

indirectly it benefits the students also.

4.4.31 Consultation to Industry & collaborative research

Consultancy to Industry increases the visibility of a HEI in business and industry circle.

The reputation and credibility of the institute increases as well as it will be an additional

source of income for the institute.

4.4.32 Salary Structure

This remuneration to the faculty is criterion important to the faculty. The salary may vary

from institution to institution.

4.4.33 Employability of passed out students

The readiness of the passed out students to take up the assignments in the industries

without further inputs from industries shows the job ready status of the candidates. It has

been noticed that even after passing out the degree, they do not meet up to the industry

expectation. HEIs should focus on practical aspects from the very beginning creates

employable youths. Finishing school run by several HEIs also helps to groom candidates

better

4.4.34 Communication Skills of students

Students fluent in multi lingual communication as well as technical communication well

versed in nonverbal communication, good at convincing others scores well with industries.

4.4.35 Ethics & Value system and Business Etiquette of students

Industries and businesses also insist that the candidate irrespective of their academic

performance should have proper value system of their own, should be congenial and

considerate with others, and should have good integrity, mannerism and professional

ethics.

4.4.36 Availability of Hostel

This criteria is important to students who want to migrate from their home town to seek

higher education.


59

4.5 Problem Structuring & Criteria Grouping

The problem of evaluating a HEI / University was structured as a multi-level hierarchy tree

structure for different stakeholders as per AHP methodology. For this the top most level

for all stakeholders is to evaluate and compare HEIs / Universities from their choice set.

The second level hierarchy consists of main criteria for particular stakeholders. The third

level of hierarchy consists of sub criteria under a particular main criterion. The sub criteria

under a main criterion will be a subset of the above 36 criteria.

Figure 11- AHP Problem Structure for Students


60

Figure 12- AHP Problem Structure for Faculties


61

Figure 13- AHP Problem Structure for Industries / Employers


62

Figure 14- AHP Problem Structure for Administrators


63

4.6 Number of pairwise comparisons for different stakeholders

As per the AHP methodology, under each stakeholder, pairwise comparison of sub criteria

was done by all the respondents falling under a particular main criterion.

The no. of pairwise comparison to be made is given by the formula

𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑛 =𝑛(𝑛 − 1)

2=

𝑛2 − 𝑛

2

Where n = total no. of criteria

The rule of comparison is

1) If row criteria are more important than column criteria, then the rating will be from

1 to 9 scale of Saaty.

2) If column criteria are more important than row criteria, then rating will be for ½ to

1/9 (reciprocal) scales.

The structure of comparison matrix is shown in the figure below

Figure 15- Structure of Pairwise Comparison

4.6.1 Summary of pairwise comparisons for sub criteria for different stakeholder

Table 12- Number of pairwise comparisons for different stakeholders and their criteria

Stakeholder Main Criteria No of

Sub criteria

No. of pairwise

comparison

Students

University Related 11 55

Faculty Related 8 28

Convenience Related 10 45

Faculty

Job Security Related 3 3

Job progression Related 12 66

Recognition Related 14 91

Administrators

(Directors /

Principals /

HODs)

Quality of Education 11 55

Research Output 8 28

Size & Infrastructure 4 6

Quality of Faculty 12 66

Industries Employability of Students 8 28

Collaborative Research 13 78

Sub Criteria 1 Sub Criteria 2 Sub Criteria 3 Sub Criteria 4 .. .. Sub Criteria n

Sub Criteria 1 1

Sub Criteria 2 1

Sub Criteria 3 1

Sub Criteria 4 1

.. 1

.. 1

Sub criteria n 1

Rating given by respondents (Green Cells)

Reciprocals of the rating above diagonal (yellow cells)


64

4.7 Analysis of Student Respondents

4.7.1 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for University / Institute related

main criteria for all students’ respondents (Geometric Means of individual

responses)

Un

iver

sity

Rel

ated

Fac

tors

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

& N

o

of

Aff

ilia

ted

Co

lleg

es

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Pri

or

Res

ults

&

Pla

cem

ent

of

stud

ents

Nat

ion

al /

Glo

bal

Acc

redi

tati

on

All

ro

und

educ

atio

n a

nd

acti

vit

y b

ased

lear

nin

g

ICT

En

able

d

Un

iver

sity

Co

st o

f

educ

atio

n

Rel

igio

us

Co

nsi

dera

tio

n

Rec

om

men

dati

on

by p

ast

teac

her

s,

frie

nds

, re

lati

ves

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y

of

pas

sed

out

stud

ents

Sep

arat

e

Act

ivit

y

Cen

tre

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

& N

o

of

Aff

ilia

ted

Co

lleg

es

1.0

000

1.8

806

0.2

180

0.3

631

0.1

940

0.3

615

0.5

848

1.9

599

0.3

584

0.2

685

0.4

832

Cam

pus

In

fras

truc

ture

0.5

317

1.0

000

0.2

450

0.4

861

0.2

280

0.3

411

0.4

728

1.6

875

0.4

310

0.2

779

0.4

494

Pri

or

Res

ults

& P

lace

men

t

of

stud

ents

4.5

868

4.0

820

1.0

000

2.5

544

0.8

909

1.8

399

1.5

790

3.9

504

1.7

367

0.8

791

2.5

631

Nat

ion

al /

Glo

bal

Acc

redi

tati

on

2.7

544

2.0

573

0.3

915

1.0

000

0.4

761

0.7

916

0.7

298

2.7

138

0.8

243

0.4

603

0.9

086

All

ro

und

educ

atio

n a

nd

acti

vit

y b

ased

lea

rnin

g5.1

547

4.3

853

1.1

225

2.1

004

1.0

000

1.6

553

1.4

372

3.8

398

1.9

178

0.8

579

2.6

755

ICT

En

able

d U

niv

ersi

ty2.7

661

2.9

320

0.5

435

1.2

632

0.6

041

1.0

000

1.1

812

3.0

550

0.8

907

0.5

888

1.5

715

Co

st o

f ed

ucat

ion

1.7

099

2.1

151

0.6

333

1.3

703

0.6

958

0.8

466

1.0

000

2.4

115

0.9

213

0.5

635

1.0

061

Rel

igio

us C

on

side

rati

on

0.5

102

0.5

926

0.2

531

0.3

685

0.2

604

0.3

273

0.4

147

1.0

000

0.3

470

0.2

379

0.3

327

Rec

om

men

dati

on

by

pas

t

teac

her

s, f

rien

ds,

rela

tiv

es2.7

902

2.3

202

0.5

758

1.2

132

0.5

214

1.1

227

1.0

855

2.8

819

1.0

000

0.5

275

1.1

857

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y o

f p

asse

d o

ut

stud

ents

3.7

247

3.5

982

1.1

375

2.1

727

1.1

656

1.6

984

1.7

746

4.2

033

1.8

957

1.0

000

1.7

830

Sep

arat

e A

ctiv

ity

Cen

tre

2.0

697

2.2

251

0.3

902

1.1

006

0.3

738

0.6

363

0.9

940

3.0

061

0.8

434

0.5

608

1.0

000

Su

m2

7.5

98

42

7.1

88

56

.51

04

13

.99

23

6.4

10

11

0.6

20

71

1.2

53

53

0.7

09

21

1.1

66

26

.22

23

13

.95

87

Table

13-

Pair

wis

e C

om

pa

riso

n o

f U

niv

ersi

ty /

Inst

itute

rel

ate

d c

rite

ria f

or

studen

ts


65

4.7.2 Normalization and priority matrix of University related criteria for students

Un

iver

sity

Rel

ated

Fac

tors

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

& N

o o

f

Aff

ilia

ted

Co

lleg

es

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Pri

or

Res

ults

& P

lace

men

t

of

stud

ents

Nat

ion

al /

Glo

bal

Acc

redi

tati

on

All

ro

und

educ

atio

n

and

acti

vit

y

base

d

lear

nin

g

ICT

En

able

d

Un

iver

sity

Co

st o

f

educ

atio

n

Rel

igio

us

Co

nsi

dera

tio

n

Rec

om

men

dati

on

by p

ast

teac

her

s,

frie

nds

, re

lati

ves

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y

of

pas

sed

out

stud

ents

Sep

arat

e

Act

ivit

y

Cen

tre

Pri

ori

ties

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

& N

o

of

Aff

ilia

ted

Co

lleg

es

0.0

362

0.0

692

0.0

335

0.0

259

0.0

303

0.0

340

0.0

520

0.0

638

0.0

321

0.0

431

0.0

346

0.0

413

Cam

pus

In

fras

truc

ture

0.0

193

0.0

368

0.0

376

0.0

347

0.0

356

0.0

321

0.0

420

0.0

550

0.0

386

0.0

447

0.0

322

0.0

371

Pri

or

Res

ults

& P

lace

men

t

of

stud

ents

0.1

662

0.1

501

0.1

536

0.1

826

0.1

390

0.1

732

0.1

403

0.1

286

0.1

555

0.1

413

0.1

836

0.1

558

Nat

ion

al /

Glo

bal

Acc

redi

tati

on

0.0

998

0.0

757

0.0

601

0.0

715

0.0

743

0.0

745

0.0

648

0.0

884

0.0

738

0.0

740

0.0

651

0.0

747

All

ro

und

educ

atio

n a

nd

acti

vit

y b

ased

lea

rnin

g0.1

868

0.1

613

0.1

724

0.1

501

0.1

560

0.1

559

0.1

277

0.1

250

0.1

718

0.1

379

0.1

917

0.1

579

ICT

En

able

d U

niv

ersi

ty

0.1

002

0.1

078

0.0

835

0.0

903

0.0

942

0.0

942

0.1

050

0.0

995

0.0

798

0.0

946

0.1

126

0.0

965

Co

st o

f ed

ucat

ion

0.0

620

0.0

778

0.0

973

0.0

979

0.1

085

0.0

797

0.0

889

0.0

785

0.0

825

0.0

906

0.0

721

0.0

851

Rel

igio

us C

on

side

rati

on

0.0

185

0.0

218

0.0

389

0.0

263

0.0

406

0.0

308

0.0

368

0.0

326

0.0

311

0.0

382

0.0

238

0.0

309

Rec

om

men

dati

on

by

pas

t

teac

her

s, f

rien

ds,

rela

tiv

es0.1

011

0.0

853

0.0

884

0.0

867

0.0

813

0.1

057

0.0

965

0.0

938

0.0

896

0.0

848

0.0

849

0.0

907

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y o

f p

asse

d

out

stu

den

ts0.1

350

0.1

323

0.1

747

0.1

553

0.1

818

0.1

599

0.1

577

0.1

369

0.1

698

0.1

607

0.1

277

0.1

538

Sep

arat

e A

ctiv

ity

Cen

tre

0.0

750

0.0

818

0.0

599

0.0

787

0.0

583

0.0

599

0.0

883

0.0

979

0.0

755

0.0

901

0.0

716

0.0

761

Sum

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

Tab

le 1

4-

Norm

ali

zati

on a

nd p

riori

ty m

atr

ix o

f U

niv

ersi

ty /

Inst

itute

rel

ate

d c

rite

ria f

or

studen

ts


66

4.7.3 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Faculty related main criteria

for all students’ respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses)

Fac

ulty

Rel

ated

Pri

or

Res

ults

&

Pla

cem

ent

of

stud

ents

Num

ber

of

Inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s

Qua

lifi

cati

on

& E

xp

erie

nce

of

facu

ltie

s

Fac

ulty

to

stud

ent

rati

o

Ho

no

rs /

Aw

ards

rece

ived

by

facu

ltie

s

Pap

ers

pub

lish

ed b

y

facu

ltie

s

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

ran

kin

g

Nat

ion

al &

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Rec

ogn

itio

n o

f

facu

ltie

s

Pri

or

Res

ults

& P

lace

men

t

of

stud

ents

1.0

000

2.0

720

0.4

172

0.9

239

1.8

328

1.2

401

1.4

746

1.3

450

Num

ber

of

Inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s0.4

826

1.0

000

0.2

872

0.4

553

0.6

887

0.6

822

0.6

073

0.4

935

Qua

lifi

cati

on

& E

xp

erie

nce

of

facu

ltie

s2.3

970

3.4

819

1.0

000

2.6

567

3.2

388

2.7

943

2.8

681

1.8

701

Fac

ulty

to

stu

den

t ra

tio

1.0

824

2.1

961

0.3

764

1.0

000

1.4

373

1.2

643

1.7

453

0.9

145

Ho

no

rs /

Aw

ards

rec

eiv

ed b

y

facu

ltie

s0.5

456

1.4

519

0.3

088

0.6

958

1.0

000

1.0

152

0.9

652

0.7

951

Pap

ers

pub

lish

ed b

y f

acul

ties

0.8

064

1.4

659

0.3

579

0.7

909

0.9

851

1.0

000

1.2

831

0.9

371

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

ran

kin

g0.6

782

1.6

467

0.3

487

0.5

730

1.0

361

0.7

794

1.0

000

0.6

915

Nat

ion

al &

In

tern

atio

nal

Rec

ogn

itio

n o

f fa

cult

ies

0.7

435

2.0

265

0.5

347

1.0

935

1.2

577

1.0

671

1.4

460

1.0

000

Su

m7

.73

57

15

.34

09

3.6

30

88

.18

90

11

.47

64

9.8

42

51

1.3

89

68

.04

69

Table

15-

Pair

wis

e co

mpa

riso

n o

f F

acu

lty

Rel

ate

d S

ub c

rite

ria f

or

Stu

den

t


67

4.7.4 Normalization and priority matrix of Faculty related criteria for students

Fac

ulty

Rel

ated

P

rio

r R

esul

ts

&

Pla

cem

ent

of

stud

ents

Num

ber

of

Inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s

Qua

lifi

cati

on

& E

xp

erie

nce

of

facu

ltie

s

Fac

ulty

to

stud

ent

rati

o

Ho

no

rs /

Aw

ards

rece

ived

by

facu

ltie

s

Pap

ers

pub

lish

ed b

y

facu

ltie

s

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

ran

kin

g

Nat

ion

al &

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Rec

ogn

itio

n

of

facu

ltie

s

Pri

ori

ties

Pri

or

Res

ults

& P

lace

men

t

of

stud

ents

0.1

293

0.1

351

0.1

149

0.1

128

0.1

597

0.1

260

0.1

295

0.1

671

0.1

343

Num

ber

of

Inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s0.0

624

0.0

652

0.0

791

0.0

556

0.0

600

0.0

693

0.0

533

0.0

613

0.0

633

Qua

lifi

cati

on

&

Ex

per

ien

ce o

f fa

cult

ies

0.3

099

0.2

270

0.2

754

0.3

244

0.2

822

0.2

839

0.2

518

0.2

324

0.2

734

Fac

ulty

to

stu

den

t ra

tio

0.1

399

0.1

432

0.1

037

0.1

221

0.1

252

0.1

285

0.1

532

0.1

136

0.1

287

Ho

no

rs /

Aw

ards

rec

eiv

ed

by f

acul

ties

0.0

705

0.0

946

0.0

850

0.0

850

0.0

871

0.1

031

0.0

847

0.0

988

0.0

886

Pap

ers

pub

lish

ed b

y

facu

ltie

s0.1

042

0.0

956

0.0

986

0.0

966

0.0

858

0.1

016

0.1

127

0.1

165

0.1

014

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

ran

kin

g0.0

877

0.1

073

0.0

960

0.0

700

0.0

903

0.0

792

0.0

878

0.0

859

0.0

880

Nat

ion

al &

In

tern

atio

nal

Rec

ogn

itio

n o

f fa

cult

ies

0.0

961

0.1

321

0.1

473

0.1

335

0.1

096

0.1

084

0.1

270

0.1

243

0.1

223

Su

m1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

Table

16-

Norm

ali

zati

on a

nd p

riori

ty m

atr

ix o

f F

acu

lty

rela

ted c

rite

ria f

or

studen

ts


68

4.7.5 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Convenience related main

criteria for all students’ respondents (Geometric Means of individual

responses)

Co

nv

enie

nce

rel

ated

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

& N

o

of

Aff

ilia

ted

Co

lleg

es

Adm

issi

on

Po

licy

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f

maj

or

cour

se

ICT

En

able

d

Un

iver

sity

Nea

rnes

s to

ho

me

Co

st o

f

educ

atio

n

(fee

s)

Eas

e o

f

obt

ain

ing

loan

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f

sch

ola

rsh

ip

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f

Ho

stel

fac

ilit

y

Sep

arat

e

Act

ivit

y C

entr

e

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

& N

o

of

Aff

ilia

ted

Co

lleg

es

1.0

000

1.2

137

0.4

780

0.4

645

0.7

900

0.4

991

0.7

226

0.4

122

0.6

059

0.8

579

Adm

issi

on

Po

licy

0.8

239

1.0

000

0.4

447

0.4

533

0.6

983

0.4

646

0.6

270

0.3

780

0.5

565

0.8

097

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f m

ajo

r co

urse

2.0

919

2.2

489

1.0

000

0.8

807

1.2

833

0.7

471

0.9

308

0.6

612

0.9

901

1.2

243

ICT

En

able

d U

niv

ersi

ty2.1

526

2.2

061

1.1

355

1.0

000

1.1

520

0.6

568

1.1

608

0.7

032

1.1

191

1.2

348

Nea

rnes

s to

ho

me

1.2

658

1.4

321

0.7

792

0.8

680

1.0

000

0.7

329

0.8

986

0.5

885

1.1

467

1.0

202

Co

st o

f ed

ucat

ion

(fe

es)

2.0

036

2.1

522

1.3

386

1.5

226

1.3

645

1.0

000

1.2

870

0.8

033

1.1

911

1.9

579

Eas

e o

f o

btai

nin

g lo

an1.3

839

1.5

950

1.0

743

0.8

615

1.1

128

0.7

770

1.0

000

0.5

021

0.9

465

1.1

688

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f sc

ho

lars

hip

2.4

262

2.6

454

1.5

124

1.4

220

1.6

993

1.2

449

1.9

918

1.0

000

2.1

298

1.8

404

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f H

ost

el

faci

lity

1.6

504

1.7

970

1.0

100

0.8

935

0.8

721

0.8

396

1.0

565

0.4

695

1.0

000

1.4

872

Sep

arat

e A

ctiv

ity

Cen

tre

1.1

656

1.2

350

0.8

168

0.8

098

0.9

802

0.5

107

0.8

556

0.5

433

0.6

724

1.0

000

Su

m1

5.9

64

11

7.5

25

59

.58

96

9.1

76

11

0.9

52

57

.47

26

10

.53

07

6.0

61

31

0.3

58

21

2.6

01

2

Table

17-

Pair

wis

e co

mpa

riso

n o

f C

onve

nie

nce

Rel

ate

d S

ub c

rite

ria f

or

Stu

den

t


69

4.7.6 Normalization and priority matrix of Convenience related criteria for students

Co

nv

enie

nce

rel

ated

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

& N

o o

f

Aff

ilia

ted

Co

lleg

es

Adm

issi

on

Po

licy

Av

aila

bili

ty

of

maj

or

cour

se

ICT

En

able

d

Un

iver

sity

Nea

rnes

s to

ho

me

Co

st o

f

educ

atio

n

(fee

s)

Eas

e o

f

obt

ain

ing

loan

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f

sch

ola

rsh

ip

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f

Ho

stel

fac

ilit

y

Sep

arat

e

Act

ivit

y C

entr

e

Pri

ori

ties

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

& N

o

of

Aff

ilia

ted

Co

lleg

es

0.0

626

0.0

693

0.0

498

0.0

506

0.0

721

0.0

668

0.0

686

0.0

680

0.0

585

0.0

681

0.0

634

Adm

issi

on

Po

licy

0.0

516

0.0

571

0.0

464

0.0

494

0.0

638

0.0

622

0.0

595

0.0

624

0.0

537

0.0

643

0.0

570

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f m

ajo

r

cour

se0.1

310

0.1

283

0.1

043

0.0

960

0.1

172

0.1

000

0.0

884

0.1

091

0.0

956

0.0

972

0.1

067

ICT

En

able

d U

niv

ersi

ty

0.1

348

0.1

259

0.1

184

0.1

090

0.1

052

0.0

879

0.1

102

0.1

160

0.1

080

0.0

980

0.1

113

Nea

rnes

s to

ho

me

0.0

793

0.0

817

0.0

813

0.0

946

0.0

913

0.0

981

0.0

853

0.0

971

0.1

107

0.0

810

0.0

900

Co

st o

f ed

ucat

ion

(fe

es)

0.1

255

0.1

228

0.1

396

0.1

659

0.1

246

0.1

338

0.1

222

0.1

325

0.1

150

0.1

554

0.1

337

Eas

e o

f o

btai

nin

g lo

an

0.0

867

0.0

910

0.1

120

0.0

939

0.1

016

0.1

040

0.0

950

0.0

828

0.0

914

0.0

928

0.0

951

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f sc

ho

lars

hip

0.1

520

0.1

509

0.1

577

0.1

550

0.1

551

0.1

666

0.1

891

0.1

650

0.2

056

0.1

461

0.1

643

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f H

ost

el

faci

lity

0.1

034

0.1

025

0.1

053

0.0

974

0.0

796

0.1

124

0.1

003

0.0

775

0.0

965

0.1

180

0.0

993

Sep

arat

e A

ctiv

ity

Cen

tre

0.0

730

0.0

705

0.0

852

0.0

883

0.0

895

0.0

683

0.0

812

0.0

896

0.0

649

0.0

794

0.0

790

Su

m1

.00

00

1.0

00

01

.00

00

1.0

00

01

.00

00

1.0

00

01

.00

00

1.0

00

01

.00

00

1.0

00

01

.00

00

Table

18 -

Norm

ali

zati

on a

nd p

riori

ty m

atr

ix o

f C

onve

nie

nce

rel

ate

d c

rite

ria f

or

studen

ts


70

4.7.7 Consistency Ratio for University / Institute Related Criteria for students

The consistency Ratio is 1.08% which is less than 10%. So the responses are valid.

Un

ive

rsit

y R

ela

ted

Facto

r M

atr

ix (

A)

We

igh

ts (

B)

Ax

BA

xB

/ B

1.0

000

1.8

806

0.2

180

0.3

631

0.1

940

0.3

615

0.5

848

1.9

599

0.3

584

0.2

685

0.4

832

0.0

413

0.4

586

11.0

9302

0.5

317

1.0

000

0.2

450

0.4

861

0.2

280

0.3

411

0.4

728

1.6

875

0.4

310

0.2

779

0.4

494

0.0

371

0.4

109

11.0

6386

4.5

868

4.0

820

1.0

000

2.5

544

0.8

909

1.8

399

1.5

790

3.9

504

1.7

367

0.8

791

2.5

631

0.1

558

1.7

503

11.2

3221

2.7

544

2.0

573

0.3

915

1.0

000

0.4

761

0.7

916

0.7

298

2.7

138

0.8

243

0.4

603

0.9

086

0.0

747

0.8

382

11.2

1644

5.1

547

4.3

853

1.1

225

2.1

004

1.0

000

1.6

553

1.4

372

3.8

398

1.9

178

0.8

579

2.6

755

0.1

579

1.7

759

11.2

4924

2.7

661

2.9

320

0.5

435

1.2

632

0.6

041

1.0

000

1.1

812

3.0

550

0.8

907

0.5

888

1.5

715

0.0

965

1.0

800

11.1

8994

1.7

099

2.1

151

0.6

333

1.3

703

0.6

958

0.8

466

1.0

000

2.4

115

0.9

213

0.5

635

1.0

061

0.0

851

0.9

482

11.1

4654

0.5

102

0.5

926

0.2

531

0.3

685

0.2

604

0.3

273

0.4

147

1.0

000

0.3

470

0.2

379

0.3

327

0.0

309

0.3

423

11.0

9146

2.7

902

2.3

202

0.5

758

1.2

132

0.5

214

1.1

227

1.0

855

2.8

819

1.0

000

0.5

275

1.1

857

0.0

907

1.0

160

11.1

958

3.7

247

3.5

982

1.1

375

2.1

727

1.1

656

1.6

984

1.7

746

4.2

033

1.8

957

1.0

000

1.7

830

0.1

538

1.7

174

11.1

6608

2.0

697

2.2

251

0.3

902

1.1

006

0.3

738

0.6

363

0.9

940

3.0

061

0.8

434

0.5

608

1.0

000

0.0

761

0.8

479

11.1

4112

Lam

bd

a m

ax

11

.16

23

CI

0.0

16

23

CR

1.0

8%

Table

19-

Consi

sten

cy R

ati

o f

or

Univ

ersi

ty /

Inst

itute

rel

ate

d C

rite

ria f

or

studen

ts


71

4.7.8 Consistency Ratio for Faculty Related Criteria for students


Facu

lty R

ela

ted

Facto

r M

atr

ix (

A)

We

igh

ts (

B)

Ax

BA

xB

/ B

1.0

000

2.0

720

0.4

172

0.9

239

1.8

328

1.2

401

1.4

746

1.3

450

0.1

343

1.0

808

8.0

482

0.4

826

1.0

000

0.2

872

0.4

553

0.6

887

0.6

822

0.6

073

0.4

935

0.0

633

0.5

092

8.0

473

2.3

970

3.4

819

1.0

000

2.6

567

3.2

388

2.7

943

2.8

681

1.8

701

0.2

734

2.2

091

8.0

809

1.0

824

2.1

961

0.3

764

1.0

000

1.4

373

1.2

643

1.7

453

0.9

145

0.1

287

1.0

370

8.0

588

0.5

456

1.4

519

0.3

088

0.6

958

1.0

000

1.0

152

0.9

652

0.7

951

0.0

886

0.7

129

8.0

437

0.8

064

1.4

659

0.3

579

0.7

909

0.9

851

1.0

000

1.2

831

0.9

371

0.1

014

0.8

169

8.0

537

0.6

782

1.6

467

0.3

487

0.5

730

1.0

361

0.7

794

1.0

000

0.6

915

0.0

880

0.7

078

8.0

407

0.7

435

2.0

265

0.5

347

1.0

935

1.2

577

1.0

671

1.4

460

1.0

000

0.1

223

0.9

842

8.0

491

Lam

bd

a m

ax

8.0

52

8

CI

0.0

07

5

CR

0.5

3%

Table

20

- C

onsi

sten

cy R

ati

o f

or

Facu

lty

rela

ted C

rite

ria f

or

studen

ts


72

4.7.9 Consistency Ratio for Convenience Related Criteria for students


Co

nv

en

ien

ce

Re

late

d F

acto

rs M

atr

ix (

A)

We

igh

ts (

B)

Ax

BA

xB

/ B

1.0

000

1.2

137

0.4

780

0.4

645

0.7

900

0.4

991

0.7

226

0.4

122

0.6

059

0.8

579

0.0

634

0.6

376

10.0

499

0.8

239

1.0

000

0.4

447

0.4

533

0.6

983

0.4

646

0.6

270

0.3

780

0.5

565

0.8

097

0.0

570

0.5

732

10.0

514

2.0

919

2.2

489

1.0

000

0.8

807

1.2

833

0.7

471

0.9

308

0.6

612

0.9

901

1.2

243

0.1

067

1.0

734

10.0

600

2.1

526

2.2

061

1.1

355

1.0

000

1.1

520

0.6

568

1.1

608

0.7

032

1.1

191

1.2

348

0.1

113

1.1

211

10.0

682

1.2

658

1.4

321

0.7

792

0.8

680

1.0

000

0.7

329

0.8

986

0.5

885

1.1

467

1.0

202

0.0

900

0.9

064

10.0

678

2.0

036

2.1

522

1.3

386

1.5

226

1.3

645

1.0

000

1.2

870

0.8

033

1.1

911

1.9

579

0.1

337

1.3

461

10.0

657

1.3

839

1.5

950

1.0

743

0.8

615

1.1

128

0.7

770

1.0

000

0.5

021

0.9

465

1.1

688

0.0

951

0.9

573

10.0

653

2.4

262

2.6

454

1.5

124

1.4

220

1.6

993

1.2

449

1.9

918

1.0

000

2.1

298

1.8

404

0.1

643

1.6

546

10.0

697

1.6

504

1.7

970

1.0

100

0.8

935

0.8

721

0.8

396

1.0

565

0.4

695

1.0

000

1.4

872

0.0

993

0.9

996

10.0

675

1.1

656

1.2

350

0.8

168

0.8

098

0.9

802

0.5

107

0.8

556

0.5

433

0.6

724

1.0

000

0.0

790

0.7

947

10.0

602

Lam

bd

a m

ax

10

.06

26

CI

0.0

06

95

CR

0.4

7%

Table

21-

Consi

sten

cy R

ati

o f

or

Conve

nie

nce

rel

ate

d C

rite

ria f

or

studen

ts


73

4.7.10 Calculation of Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for all

student’s respondents for Type of University / Institute criteria

Table 22 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for University / Institute related criteria

for student’s respondents

Sample No Shannon Equi- Simpson Gini- Hill Numbers

α-Entropy tability Dominance Simpson 1D 2D

Student-1 1 2.2209 93% 0.1202 88.0% 9.22 8.32

Student-2 2 2.1596 90% 0.1351 86.5% 8.67 7.40

Student-3 3 2.2344 93% 0.1167 88.3% 9.34 8.57

Student-4 4 2.2100 92% 0.1225 87.7% 9.12 8.16

Student-5 5 2.1745 91% 0.1333 86.7% 8.80 7.50

Student-6 6 2.1354 89% 0.1345 86.5% 8.46 7.43

Student-7 7 2.1923 91% 0.1262 87.4% 8.96 7.92

Student-8 8 2.1935 91% 0.1305 87.0% 8.97 7.66

Student-9 9 2.2089 92% 0.1257 87.4% 9.11 7.96

Student-10 10 2.2025 92% 0.1277 87.2% 9.05 7.83

Student-11 11 2.0097 84% 0.1678 83.2% 7.46 5.96

Student-12 12 2.2128 92% 0.1206 87.9% 9.14 8.29

Student-13 13 2.1828 91% 0.1318 86.8% 8.87 7.59

Student-14 14 2.1679 90% 0.1314 86.9% 8.74 7.61

Student-15 15 2.2708 95% 0.1148 88.5% 9.69 8.71

Student-16 16 2.2153 92% 0.1247 87.5% 9.16 8.02

Student-17 17 2.2567 94% 0.1169 88.3% 9.55 8.55

Student-18 18 2.2196 93% 0.1206 87.9% 9.20 8.29

Student-19 19 2.0837 87% 0.1419 85.8% 8.03 7.05

Student-20 20 2.1056 88% 0.1435 85.7% 8.21 6.97

Student-21 21 2.1264 89% 0.1363 86.4% 8.38 7.34

Student-22 22 2.2299 93% 0.1214 87.9% 9.30 8.24

Student-23 23 2.2193 93% 0.1220 87.8% 9.20 8.20

Student-24 24 2.1718 91% 0.1353 86.5% 8.77 7.39

Student-25 25 2.3014 96% 0.1080 89.2% 9.99 9.26

Student-26 26 2.1130 88% 0.1400 86.0% 8.27 7.14

Student-27 27 2.2378 93% 0.1179 88.2% 9.37 8.48

Student-28 28 2.1747 91% 0.1272 87.3% 8.80 7.86

Student-29 29 2.1641 90% 0.1283 87.2% 8.71 7.79

Student-30 30 2.0762 87% 0.1555 84.4% 7.97 6.43

Student-31 31 2.1310 89% 0.1367 86.3% 8.42 7.31

Student-32 32 2.1597 90% 0.1345 86.6% 8.67 7.44

Student-33 33 2.1464 90% 0.1338 86.6% 8.55 7.48

Student-34 34 2.1904 91% 0.1336 86.6% 8.94 7.48

Student-35 35 2.2297 93% 0.1209 87.9% 9.30 8.27

Student-36 36 2.1327 89% 0.1424 85.8% 8.44 7.02

Student-37 37 2.0776 87% 0.1480 85.2% 7.99 6.76

Student-38 38 2.1624 90% 0.1369 86.3% 8.69 7.31

Student-39 39 2.2825 95% 0.1113 88.9% 9.80 8.99

Student-40 40 2.2800 95% 0.1097 89.0% 9.78 9.12

Student-41 41 2.1553 90% 0.1359 86.4% 8.63 7.36

Student-42 42 2.1219 88% 0.1373 86.3% 8.35 7.28

Student-43 43 2.1856 91% 0.1340 86.6% 8.90 7.46

Student-44 44 2.1428 89% 0.1431 85.7% 8.52 6.99

Student-45 45 2.2399 93% 0.1173 88.3% 9.39 8.52

Student-46 46 2.1146 88% 0.1489 85.1% 8.29 6.72


74

Student-47 47 2.2655 94% 0.1121 88.8% 9.64 8.92

Student-48 48 2.2897 95% 0.1082 89.2% 9.87 9.24

Student-49 49 2.2736 95% 0.1128 88.7% 9.71 8.87

Student-50 50 2.1264 89% 0.1383 86.2% 8.39 7.23

Student-51 51 2.2067 92% 0.1231 87.7% 9.09 8.12

Student-52 52 2.2959 96% 0.1096 89.0% 9.93 9.13

Student-53 53 2.2617 94% 0.1180 88.2% 9.60 8.47

Student-54 54 2.2507 94% 0.1189 88.1% 9.49 8.41

Student-55 55 2.2904 96% 0.1066 89.3% 9.88 9.38

Student-56 56 2.2023 92% 0.1226 87.7% 9.05 8.15

Student-57 57 2.1477 90% 0.1357 86.4% 8.57 7.37

Student-58 58 2.1763 91% 0.1379 86.2% 8.81 7.25

Student-59 59 2.3137 96% 0.1051 89.5% 10.11 9.52

Student-60 60 2.1846 91% 0.1256 87.4% 8.89 7.96

Student-61 61 2.1033 88% 0.1456 85.4% 8.19 6.87

Student-62 62 2.1997 92% 0.1269 87.3% 9.02 7.88

Student-63 63 2.0472 85% 0.1553 84.5% 7.75 6.44

Student-64 64 2.0442 85% 0.1639 83.6% 7.72 6.10

Student-65 65 2.2579 94% 0.1131 88.7% 9.56 8.84

Student-66 66 2.1729 91% 0.1279 87.2% 8.78 7.82

Student-67 67 2.0825 87% 0.1460 85.4% 8.02 6.85

Student-68 68 2.1505 90% 0.1308 86.9% 8.59 7.64

Student-69 69 2.0687 86% 0.1528 84.7% 7.91 6.54

Student-70 70 2.1675 90% 0.1255 87.4% 8.74 7.97

Student-71 71 2.3499 98% 0.0996 90.0% 10.48 10.04

Student-72 72 2.3718 99% 0.0956 90.4% 10.72 10.46

Student-73 73 2.0346 85% 0.1563 84.4% 7.65 6.40

Student-74 74 2.2258 93% 0.1180 88.2% 9.26 8.47

Student-75 75 2.2223 93% 0.1212 87.9% 9.23 8.25

Student-76 76 2.1098 88% 0.1412 85.9% 8.25 7.08

Student-77 77 2.1801 91% 0.1291 87.1% 8.85 7.75

Student-78 78 1.9985 83% 0.1906 80.9% 7.38 5.25

Student-79 79 2.3059 96% 0.1065 89.3% 10.03 9.39

Student-80 80 2.3623 99% 0.0973 90.3% 10.62 10.27

Student-81 81 2.2616 94% 0.1135 88.6% 9.60 8.81

Student-82 82 2.3473 98% 0.0991 90.1% 10.46 10.10

Student-83 83 2.2408 93% 0.1258 87.4% 9.40 7.95

Student-84 84 2.0296 85% 0.1799 82.0% 7.61 5.56

Student-85 85 2.2555 94% 0.1151 88.5% 9.54 8.69

Student-86 86 2.2149 92% 0.1194 88.1% 9.16 8.38

Student-87 87 2.2403 93% 0.1210 87.9% 9.40 8.26

Student-88 88 2.0696 86% 0.1571 84.3% 7.92 6.36

Student-89 89 2.1501 90% 0.1321 86.8% 8.59 7.57

Student-90 90 2.1837 91% 0.1299 87.0% 8.88 7.70

Student-91 91 2.2004 92% 0.1241 87.6% 9.03 8.06

Student-92 92 2.0796 87% 0.1520 84.8% 8.00 6.58

Student-93 93 2.1771 91% 0.1272 87.3% 8.82 7.86

Student-94 94 2.1729 91% 0.1353 86.5% 8.78 7.39

Student-95 95 2.1591 90% 0.1355 86.5% 8.66 7.38

Student-96 96 2.1309 89% 0.1368 86.3% 8.42 7.31

Student-97 97 2.2532 94% 0.1129 88.7% 9.52 8.86

Student-98 98 2.2392 93% 0.1138 88.6% 9.39 8.79

Student-99 99 2.1316 89% 0.1372 86.3% 8.43 7.29

Student-100 100 2.2488 94% 0.1119 88.8% 9.48 8.94


75

Student-101 101 2.2209 93% 0.1176 88.2% 9.22 8.50

Student-102 102 2.3110 96% 0.1053 89.5% 10.08 9.49

Student-103 103 2.2519 94% 0.1174 88.3% 9.51 8.51

Student-104 104 2.0953 87% 0.1508 84.9% 8.13 6.63

Student-105 105 2.1530 90% 0.1369 86.3% 8.61 7.31

Student-106 106 2.0862 87% 0.1486 85.1% 8.05 6.73

Student-107 107 2.2202 93% 0.1226 87.7% 9.21 8.16

Student-108 108 2.3100 96% 0.1061 89.4% 10.07 9.42

Student-109 109 2.1611 90% 0.1302 87.0% 8.68 7.68

4.7.11 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for

university / institute related criteria.

Table 23- Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for university / institute related

criteria.

Input Data

No of Classes 11

No of Students 109

Diversity (Shannon - ln) 1D

-Diversity 2.189 8.923

-Diversity 2.317 10.142


Homogeneity Measures

MacArthur M 0.8798

rel. Homogeneity 1S 87.9%

AHP consensus S* 73.5%

The AHP consensus among diverse students from different streams for University /

Institute related criteria was found to be 73.5% which is an indicator of moderately

high degree of agreement of all students on these criteria.


76

4.7.12 Calculation of Shannon Entropy, Equitability, and Simpson & Hill Numbers

for all students’ respondents for Faculty related criteria

Table 24 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Faculty related criteria for student’s

respondents



Student-1 1 1.9527 94% 0.1546 84.5% 7.05 6.47

Student-2 2 1.9660 95% 0.1508 84.9% 7.14 6.63

Student-3 3 1.7105 82% 0.2383 76.2% 5.53 4.20

Student-4 4 1.6311 78% 0.2678 73.2% 5.11 3.73

Student-5 5 1.9028 92% 0.1689 83.1% 6.70 5.92

Student-6 6 1.7551 84% 0.2182 78.2% 5.78 4.58

Student-7 7 1.8493 89% 0.1880 81.2% 6.36 5.32

Student-8 8 1.9665 95% 0.1542 84.6% 7.15 6.48

Student-9 9 1.9293 93% 0.1572 84.3% 6.88 6.36

Student-10 10 1.8585 89% 0.1854 81.5% 6.41 5.39

Student-11 11 1.7772 85% 0.1965 80.3% 5.91 5.09

Student-12 12 1.8400 88% 0.1961 80.4% 6.30 5.10

Student-13 13 1.9098 92% 0.1683 83.2% 6.75 5.94

Student-14 14 1.9474 94% 0.1524 84.8% 7.01 6.56

Student-15 15 1.9615 94% 0.1563 84.4% 7.11 6.40

Student-16 16 1.7928 86% 0.1995 80.1% 6.01 5.01

Student-17 17 2.0366 98% 0.1350 86.5% 7.66 7.41

Student-18 18 1.7852 86% 0.1981 80.2% 5.96 5.05

Student-19 19 1.9636 94% 0.1526 84.7% 7.12 6.55

Student-20 20 1.6661 80% 0.2621 73.8% 5.29 3.82

Student-21 21 1.9931 96% 0.1439 85.6% 7.34 6.95

Student-22 22 1.8787 90% 0.1719 82.8% 6.54 5.82

Student-23 23 1.8585 89% 0.1787 82.1% 6.41 5.59

Student-24 24 1.8657 90% 0.1818 81.8% 6.46 5.50

Student-25 25 1.8097 87% 0.1932 80.7% 6.11 5.18

Student-26 26 2.0711 100% 0.1273 87.3% 7.93 7.86

Student-27 27 1.9678 95% 0.1556 84.4% 7.16 6.43

Student-28 28 1.6726 80% 0.2536 74.6% 5.33 3.94

Student-29 29 1.9389 93% 0.1595 84.1% 6.95 6.27

Student-30 30 1.7926 86% 0.1980 80.2% 6.01 5.05

Student-31 31 1.9780 95% 0.1509 84.9% 7.23 6.63

Student-32 32 1.9846 95% 0.1467 85.3% 7.28 6.81

Student-33 33 1.8169 87% 0.1994 80.1% 6.15 5.01

Student-34 34 1.8173 87% 0.1795 82.1% 6.16 5.57

Student-35 35 1.7735 85% 0.2091 79.1% 5.89 4.78

Student-36 36 1.9572 94% 0.1552 84.5% 7.08 6.44

Student-37 37 1.9830 95% 0.1467 85.3% 7.26 6.82

Student-38 38 1.9418 93% 0.1631 83.7% 6.97 6.13

Student-39 39 1.9372 93% 0.1589 84.1% 6.94 6.29

Student-40 40 1.9721 95% 0.1514 84.9% 7.19 6.60

Student-41 41 1.9220 92% 0.1735 82.7% 6.83 5.76

Student-42 42 1.8163 87% 0.1986 80.1% 6.15 5.04

Student-43 43 1.8265 88% 0.1881 81.2% 6.21 5.32

Student-44 44 1.8906 91% 0.1759 82.4% 6.62 5.69

Student-45 45 1.9641 94% 0.1530 84.7% 7.13 6.54

Student-46 46 1.7109 82% 0.2391 76.1% 5.53 4.18


77

Student-47 47 1.7404 84% 0.2157 78.4% 5.70 4.64

Student-48 48 1.9677 95% 0.1531 84.7% 7.15 6.53

Student-49 49 1.8065 87% 0.2002 80.0% 6.09 5.00

Student-50 50 1.8491 89% 0.1948 80.5% 6.35 5.13

Student-51 51 1.5995 77% 0.2574 74.3% 4.95 3.88

Student-52 52 2.0059 96% 0.1449 85.5% 7.43 6.90

Student-53 53 2.0009 96% 0.1451 85.5% 7.40 6.89

Student-54 54 1.9758 95% 0.1531 84.7% 7.21 6.53

Student-55 55 2.0613 99% 0.1293 87.1% 7.86 7.73

Student-56 56 1.7991 87% 0.1996 80.0% 6.04 5.01

Student-57 57 1.9493 94% 0.1489 85.1% 7.02 6.71

Student-58 58 1.8086 87% 0.1920 80.8% 6.10 5.21

Student-59 59 1.9083 92% 0.1686 83.1% 6.74 5.93

Student-60 60 1.7225 83% 0.2232 77.7% 5.60 4.48

Student-61 61 1.7232 83% 0.2271 77.3% 5.60 4.40

Student-62 62 1.8472 89% 0.1793 82.1% 6.34 5.58

Student-63 63 1.7290 83% 0.2272 77.3% 5.63 4.40

Student-64 64 1.7064 82% 0.2294 77.1% 5.51 4.36

Student-65 65 1.9928 96% 0.1481 85.2% 7.34 6.75

Student-66 66 1.9683 95% 0.1570 84.3% 7.16 6.37

Student-67 67 1.7556 84% 0.2068 79.3% 5.79 4.84

Student-68 68 1.9626 94% 0.1482 85.2% 7.12 6.75

Student-69 69 1.9452 94% 0.1598 84.0% 7.00 6.26

Student-70 70 1.8793 90% 0.1753 82.5% 6.55 5.71

Student-71 71 1.9726 95% 0.1476 85.2% 7.19 6.78

Student-72 72 1.9739 95% 0.1493 85.1% 7.20 6.70

Student-73 73 1.9957 96% 0.1459 85.4% 7.36 6.86

Student-74 74 1.8656 90% 0.1758 82.4% 6.46 5.69

Student-75 75 1.6999 82% 0.2375 76.3% 5.47 4.21

Student-76 76 1.7560 84% 0.2293 77.1% 5.79 4.36

Student-77 77 1.9934 96% 0.1452 85.5% 7.34 6.89

Student-78 78 1.7016 82% 0.2290 77.1% 5.48 4.37

Student-79 79 1.9772 95% 0.1518 84.8% 7.22 6.59

Student-80 80 2.0358 98% 0.1361 86.4% 7.66 7.35

Student-81 81 1.8092 87% 0.1987 80.1% 6.11 5.03

Student-82 82 1.9536 94% 0.1579 84.2% 7.05 6.33

Student-83 83 2.0009 96% 0.1445 85.6% 7.40 6.92

Student-84 84 1.7989 87% 0.1984 80.2% 6.04 5.04

Student-85 85 1.9186 92% 0.1695 83.1% 6.81 5.90

Student-86 86 1.7859 86% 0.1942 80.6% 5.96 5.15

Student-87 87 1.9300 93% 0.1537 84.6% 6.89 6.51

Student-88 88 1.8952 91% 0.1657 83.4% 6.65 6.03

Student-89 89 1.8565 89% 0.1775 82.3% 6.40 5.63

Student-90 90 1.9825 95% 0.1496 85.0% 7.26 6.69

Student-91 91 2.0179 97% 0.1409 85.9% 7.52 7.10

Student-92 92 1.7918 86% 0.2088 79.1% 6.00 4.79

Student-93 93 2.0627 99% 0.1297 87.0% 7.87 7.71

Student-94 94 1.7587 85% 0.2188 78.1% 5.81 4.57

Student-95 95 1.7348 83% 0.2250 77.5% 5.67 4.44

Student-96 96 1.7807 86% 0.2088 79.1% 5.93 4.79

Student-97 97 1.8897 91% 0.1749 82.5% 6.62 5.72

Student-98 98 1.8255 88% 0.1822 81.8% 6.21 5.49

Student-99 99 1.7747 85% 0.2150 78.5% 5.90 4.65

Student-100 100 1.9533 94% 0.1556 84.4% 7.05 6.43


78

Student-101 101 1.8971 91% 0.1715 82.9% 6.67 5.83

Student-102 102 1.8592 89% 0.1746 82.5% 6.42 5.73

Student-103 103 1.9108 92% 0.1661 83.4% 6.76 6.02

Student-104 104 1.8270 88% 0.1901 81.0% 6.22 5.26

Student-105 105 1.7988 87% 0.2061 79.4% 6.04 4.85

Student-106 106 1.5901 76% 0.3105 69.0% 4.90 3.22

Student-107 107 1.8973 91% 0.1731 82.7% 6.67 5.78

Student-108 108 1.9991 96% 0.1472 85.3% 7.38 6.79

Student-109 109 1.8650 90% 0.1692 83.1% 6.46 5.91

4.7.13 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for Faculty

related criteria.

Table 25 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for Faculty related criteria.

Input Data

No of Classes 8

No of Samples 109






MacArthur M 0.8663



The AHP consensus among diverse students from different streams for Faculty

related criteria was found to be 73.9% which is an indicator of moderately high

degree of agreement of all students on these criteria.


79


for all students’ respondents for Convenience related criteria

Table 26 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Convenience related criteria for

student’s respondents



Student-1 1 2.1712 94% 0.1271 87.3% 8.77 7.87

Student-2 2 2.1823 95% 0.1260 87.4% 8.87 7.94

Student-3 3 2.1142 92% 0.1340 86.6% 8.28 7.46

Student-4 4 2.1628 94% 0.1280 87.2% 8.70 7.81

Student-5 5 2.1571 94% 0.1264 87.4% 8.65 7.91

Student-6 6 2.0524 89% 0.1511 84.9% 7.79 6.62

Student-7 7 2.1176 92% 0.1373 86.3% 8.31 7.28

Student-8 8 2.2089 96% 0.1193 88.1% 9.11 8.38

Student-9 9 2.1386 93% 0.1297 87.0% 8.49 7.71

Student-10 10 2.0706 90% 0.1520 84.8% 7.93 6.58

Student-11 11 1.9190 83% 0.1862 81.4% 6.81 5.37

Student-12 12 2.1980 95% 0.1175 88.3% 9.01 8.51

Student-13 13 2.1228 92% 0.1362 86.4% 8.35 7.34

Student-14 14 2.0318 88% 0.1617 83.8% 7.63 6.18

Student-15 15 2.1956 95% 0.1223 87.8% 8.99 8.17

Student-16 16 2.0664 90% 0.1430 85.7% 7.90 6.99

Student-17 17 2.2688 99% 0.1068 89.3% 9.67 9.36

Student-18 18 2.1059 91% 0.1374 86.3% 8.21 7.28

Student-19 19 2.0429 89% 0.1557 84.4% 7.71 6.42

Student-20 20 1.9486 85% 0.1970 80.3% 7.02 5.08

Student-21 21 1.9904 86% 0.1600 84.0% 7.32 6.25

Student-22 22 2.0285 88% 0.1646 83.5% 7.60 6.07

Student-23 23 2.1975 95% 0.1206 87.9% 9.00 8.30

Student-24 24 2.0887 91% 0.1479 85.2% 8.07 6.76

Student-25 25 2.1045 91% 0.1425 85.8% 8.20 7.02

Student-26 26 2.2050 96% 0.1215 87.8% 9.07 8.23

Student-27 27 2.1582 94% 0.1289 87.1% 8.66 7.76

Student-28 28 1.9510 85% 0.1816 81.8% 7.04 5.51

Student-29 29 2.2077 96% 0.1179 88.2% 9.09 8.49

Student-30 30 2.0907 91% 0.1375 86.2% 8.09 7.27

Student-31 31 2.1123 92% 0.1343 86.6% 8.27 7.45

Student-32 32 2.2024 96% 0.1192 88.1% 9.05 8.39

Student-33 33 1.9978 87% 0.1597 84.0% 7.37 6.26

Student-34 34 2.0512 89% 0.1563 84.4% 7.78 6.40

Student-35 35 2.0289 88% 0.1672 83.3% 7.61 5.98

Student-36 36 2.1493 93% 0.1325 86.7% 8.58 7.55

Student-37 37 2.1517 93% 0.1288 87.1% 8.60 7.76

Student-38 38 2.0123 87% 0.1659 83.4% 7.48 6.03

Student-39 39 2.0777 90% 0.1490 85.1% 7.99 6.71

Student-40 40 2.2207 96% 0.1170 88.3% 9.21 8.54

Student-41 41 2.0782 90% 0.1463 85.4% 7.99 6.84

Student-42 42 2.0331 88% 0.1549 84.5% 7.64 6.45

Student-43 43 2.2309 97% 0.1142 88.6% 9.31 8.75

Student-44 44 1.9931 87% 0.1665 83.4% 7.34 6.01

Student-45 45 2.1245 92% 0.1326 86.7% 8.37 7.54

Student-46 46 2.1111 92% 0.1350 86.5% 8.26 7.41


80

Student-47 47 2.0828 90% 0.1406 85.9% 8.03 7.11

Student-48 48 1.9713 86% 0.1828 81.7% 7.18 5.47

Student-49 49 2.1700 94% 0.1273 87.3% 8.76 7.85

Student-50 50 2.1250 92% 0.1361 86.4% 8.37 7.35

Student-51 51 2.0112 87% 0.1504 85.0% 7.47 6.65

Student-52 52 2.2464 98% 0.1113 88.9% 9.45 8.98

Student-53 53 2.1804 95% 0.1283 87.2% 8.85 7.79

Student-54 54 1.8328 80% 0.2085 79.1% 6.25 4.80

Student-55 55 2.2930 100% 0.1018 89.8% 9.91 9.82

Student-56 56 2.1198 92% 0.1331 86.7% 8.33 7.51

Student-57 57 2.1333 93% 0.1263 87.4% 8.44 7.92

Student-58 58 2.1715 94% 0.1215 87.8% 8.77 8.23

Student-59 59 2.0618 90% 0.1433 85.7% 7.86 6.98

Student-60 60 2.2324 97% 0.1135 88.6% 9.32 8.81

Student-61 61 2.0519 89% 0.1524 84.8% 7.78 6.56

Student-62 62 2.0596 89% 0.1546 84.5% 7.84 6.47

Student-63 63 2.1670 94% 0.1225 87.8% 8.73 8.16

Student-64 64 2.0348 88% 0.1541 84.6% 7.65 6.49

Student-65 65 2.2785 99% 0.1050 89.5% 9.76 9.52

Student-66 66 2.1427 93% 0.1331 86.7% 8.52 7.51

Student-67 67 2.0327 88% 0.1589 84.1% 7.63 6.29

Student-68 68 2.2826 99% 0.1041 89.6% 9.80 9.61

Student-69 69 1.9608 85% 0.1774 82.3% 7.10 5.64

Student-70 70 2.0116 87% 0.1550 84.5% 7.48 6.45

Student-71 71 2.2306 97% 0.1132 88.7% 9.31 8.83

Student-72 72 2.2668 98% 0.1075 89.3% 9.65 9.30

Student-73 73 2.0016 87% 0.1664 83.4% 7.40 6.01

Student-74 74 1.8447 80% 0.2171 78.3% 6.33 4.61

Student-75 75 2.1184 92% 0.1339 86.6% 8.32 7.47

Student-76 76 2.1246 92% 0.1289 87.1% 8.37 7.76

Student-77 77 2.1355 93% 0.1267 87.3% 8.46 7.89

Student-78 78 1.8732 81% 0.1967 80.3% 6.51 5.08

Student-79 79 2.1453 93% 0.1327 86.7% 8.54 7.54

Student-80 80 2.0879 91% 0.1523 84.8% 8.07 6.57

Student-81 81 2.1904 95% 0.1213 87.9% 8.94 8.24

Student-82 82 2.2779 99% 0.1058 89.4% 9.76 9.45

Student-83 83 2.2773 99% 0.1059 89.4% 9.75 9.44

Student-84 84 2.0226 88% 0.1651 83.5% 7.56 6.06

Student-85 85 2.2034 96% 0.1181 88.2% 9.06 8.46

Student-86 86 2.1982 95% 0.1201 88.0% 9.01 8.32

Student-87 87 2.0483 89% 0.1520 84.8% 7.75 6.58

Student-88 88 2.0055 87% 0.1584 84.2% 7.43 6.31

Student-89 89 2.0979 91% 0.1418 85.8% 8.15 7.05

Student-90 90 2.0214 88% 0.1622 83.8% 7.55 6.17

Student-91 91 2.0995 91% 0.1442 85.6% 8.16 6.93

Student-92 92 1.9763 86% 0.1711 82.9% 7.22 5.84

Student-93 93 2.0954 91% 0.1395 86.0% 8.13 7.17

Student-94 94 2.2027 96% 0.1184 88.2% 9.05 8.44

Student-95 95 2.1991 96% 0.1194 88.1% 9.02 8.38

Student-96 96 2.0394 89% 0.1561 84.4% 7.69 6.40

Student-97 97 2.2850 99% 0.1036 89.6% 9.83 9.65

Student-98 98 1.9710 86% 0.1665 83.3% 7.18 6.00

Student-99 99 2.0599 89% 0.1528 84.7% 7.85 6.54

Student-100 100 2.2862 99% 0.1032 89.7% 9.84 9.69


81

Student-101 101 2.1996 96% 0.1187 88.1% 9.02 8.42

Student-102 102 2.1722 94% 0.1189 88.1% 8.78 8.41

Student-103 103 2.1359 93% 0.1363 86.4% 8.46 7.33

Student-104 104 2.1810 95% 0.1225 87.8% 8.85 8.16

Student-105 105 2.1625 94% 0.1300 87.0% 8.69 7.69

Student-106 106 2.0495 89% 0.1431 85.7% 7.76 6.99

Student-107 107 2.0708 90% 0.1423 85.8% 7.93 7.03

Student-108 108 2.0472 89% 0.1696 83.0% 7.75 5.90

Student-109 109 1.9667 85% 0.1735 82.7% 7.15 5.76

4.7.15 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for

Convenience related criteria

Table 27- Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among student’s respondents for Convenience related criteria

Input Data

No of Classes 10

No of Samples 109






MacArthur M 0.8467



The AHP consensus among diverse students from different streams for Convenience

related criteria was found to be 67.5% which is an indicator of moderate degree of

agreement of all students on these criteria.


82

4.8 Analysis of Faculty Respondents

4.8.1 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Job Security related main

criteria for all Faculty respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses)

Table 28 - Pairwise comparison of Job Security Related Criteria for faculty

Job Security

Related

Type of

University

Availability

of Major

Courses

National &

International

Recognition

Type of

University 1.0000 0.7374 0.3247

Availability

of Major

Courses 1.3560 1.0000 0.6311

National &

International

Recognition 3.0797 1.5846 1.0000

Sum 5.4358 3.3220 1.9558

4.8.2 Normalization and priority matrix of Job Security Related criteria for faculty

Table 29- Normalization & Priority Matrix for Job Security Factors for faculty

Job Security

Related

Type of

University

Availability

of Major

Courses

National &

International

Recognition

Priority

Type of

University 0.1840 0.2220 0.1660 0.1907 Availability

of Major

Courses 0.2495 0.3010 0.3227 0.2911

National &

International

Recognition 0.5666 0.4770 0.5113 0.5183

Sum 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000


83

4.8.3 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Job Progression & Growth

related main criteria for all Faculty respondents (Geometric Means of

individual responses)

Job

pro

gres

sio

n

and

Gro

wth

Rel

ated

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Tie

up w

ith

fore

ign

Un

iver

siti

es

UG

C /

Pri

vat

e

/ In

tern

atio

nal

Fun

din

g

Num

ber

of

inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s

No

. o

f P

aten

ts

Reg

iste

red

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

& P

hD

s

pro

duce

d

No

. o

f F

acul

ty

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pro

gram

s

Co

ndu

cted

Gro

wth

&

Res

earc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

pro

vid

ed

Pap

ers

pub

lish

ed b

y

facu

ltie

s

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

atio

n I

nde

x

Nat

ion

al &

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Rec

ogn

itio

n

Sala

ry

stru

ctur

e

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uctu

re1.0

000

0.3

568

0.2

546

0.6

797

0.6

149

0.1

609

0.1

887

0.1

485

0.1

771

0.8

386

0.2

818

0.2

041

Tie

up w

ith

fore

ign

Un

iver

siti

es

2.8

026

1.0

000

1.0

402

1.0

437

0.4

537

0.4

433

0.1

659

0.2

101

0.2

168

0.4

280

0.3

917

0.2

266

UG

C /

Pri

vat

e /

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Fun

din

g

3.9

281

0.9

614

1.0

000

1.2

078

1.3

332

0.2

442

0.2

295

0.1

536

0.2

082

1.1

354

0.4

768

0.2

469

Num

ber

of

inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s

1.4

713

0.9

581

0.8

280

1.0

000

0.7

766

0.2

579

0.2

178

0.2

176

0.4

037

0.4

258

0.3

639

0.2

231

No

. o

f P

aten

ts

Reg

iste

red

1.6

264

2.2

039

0.7

501

1.2

877

1.0

000

0.1

965

0.3

215

0.1

772

0.2

929

0.9

190

0.5

592

0.1

649

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

&

Ph

Ds

pro

duce

d6.2

149

2.2

560

4.0

953

3.8

772

5.0

891

1.0

000

0.3

324

0.2

383

0.5

030

0.6

223

0.7

633

1.1

170

No

. o

f F

acul

ty

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pro

gram

s

5.3

003

6.0

282

4.3

567

4.5

919

3.1

101

3.0

087

1.0

000

0.3

289

1.5

332

2.9

066

1.3

065

0.8

862

Gro

wth

&

Res

earc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

6.7

318

4.7

589

6.5

103

4.5

954

5.6

421

4.1

959

3.0

408

1.0

000

2.5

807

3.6

016

2.0

004

1.4

065

Pap

ers

pub

lish

ed

by f

acul

ties

5.6

455

4.6

126

4.8

035

2.4

768

3.4

147

1.9

882

0.6

522

0.3

875

1.0

000

3.6

685

0.7

404

0.5

549

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

1.1

925

2.3

365

0.8

808

2.3

485

1.0

881

1.6

069

0.3

441

0.2

777

0.2

726

1.0

000

0.5

491

0.3

110

Nat

ion

al &

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Rec

ogn

itio

n

3.5

481

2.5

529

2.0

972

2.7

477

1.7

884

1.3

101

0.7

654

0.4

999

1.3

507

1.8

211

1.0

000

0.4

920

Sala

ry s

truc

ture

4.8

999

4.4

133

4.0

501

4.4

832

6.0

658

0.8

953

1.1

284

0.7

110

1.8

021

3.2

157

2.0

327

1.0

000

Sum

44.3

615

32.4

386

30.6

667

30.3

395

30.3

766

15.3

078

8.3

867

4.3

503

10.3

409

20.5

827

10.4

659

6.8

331

Tab

le 3

0-

Pair

wis

e co

mpa

riso

n o

f Jo

b P

rogre

ssio

n &

Gro

wth

Rel

ate

d C

rite

ria f

or

facu

lty


84

4.8.4 Normalization and priority matrix of Job Progression & Growth Related

criteria for faculty

Job

pro

gre

ssio

n

an

d G

row

th

Rela

ted

Cam

pus

Infr

ast

ructu

re

Tie

up

wit

h

fore

ign

Un

ivers

itie

s

UG

C /

Pri

vate

/ In

tern

ati

on

al

Fun

din

g

Num

ber

of

inte

rnati

on

al

facult

ies

No

. o

f

Pate

nts

Regis

tere

d

No

. o

f

M.P

hil

s &

Ph

Ds

pro

duced

No

. o

f F

acult

y

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

Pro

gra

ms

Co

nducte

d

Gro

wth

&

Rese

arc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

pro

vid

ed

Pap

ers

publi

shed b

y

facult

ies

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

ati

on

Index

Nati

on

al

&

Inte

rnati

on

al

Reco

gn

itio

n

Sala

ry

stru

ctu

reP

rio

rity

Cam

pus

Infr

ast

ructu

re0.0

225

0.0

110

0.0

083

0.0

224

0.0

202

0.0

105

0.0

225

0.0

341

0.0

171

0.0

407

0.0

269

0.0

299

0.0

222

Tie

up

wit

h

fore

ign

Un

ivers

itie

s

0.0

632

0.0

308

0.0

339

0.0

344

0.0

149

0.0

290

0.0

198

0.0

483

0.0

210

0.0

208

0.0

374

0.0

332

0.0

322

UG

C /

Pri

vate

/ Inte

rnati

on

al

Fun

din

g

0.0

885

0.0

296

0.0

326

0.0

398

0.0

439

0.0

160

0.0

274

0.0

353

0.0

201

0.0

552

0.0

456

0.0

361

0.0

392

Num

ber

of

inte

rnati

on

al

facult

ies

0.0

332

0.0

295

0.0

270

0.0

330

0.0

256

0.0

168

0.0

260

0.0

500

0.0

390

0.0

207

0.0

348

0.0

326

0.0

307

No

. o

f

Pate

nts

Regis

tere

d

0.0

367

0.0

679

0.0

245

0.0

424

0.0

329

0.0

128

0.0

383

0.0

407

0.0

283

0.0

447

0.0

534

0.0

241

0.0

372

No

. o

f

M.P

hil

s &

Ph

Ds

pro

duced

0.1

401

0.0

695

0.1

335

0.1

278

0.1

675

0.0

653

0.0

396

0.0

548

0.0

486

0.0

302

0.0

729

0.1

635

0.0

928

No

. o

f

Facult

y

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

Pro

gra

ms

Co

nducte

d

0.1

195

0.1

858

0.1

421

0.1

514

0.1

024

0.1

965

0.1

192

0.0

756

0.1

483

0.1

412

0.1

248

0.1

297

0.1

364

Gro

wth

&

Rese

arc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

pro

vid

ed

0.1

517

0.1

467

0.2

123

0.1

515

0.1

857

0.2

741

0.3

626

0.2

299

0.2

496

0.1

750

0.1

911

0.2

058

0.2

113

Pap

ers

publi

shed b

y

facult

ies

0.1

273

0.1

422

0.1

566

0.0

816

0.1

124

0.1

299

0.0

778

0.0

891

0.0

967

0.1

782

0.0

707

0.0

812

0.1

120

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

ati

on

Index

0.0

269

0.0

720

0.0

287

0.0

774

0.0

358

0.1

050

0.0

410

0.0

638

0.0

264

0.0

486

0.0

525

0.0

455

0.0

520

Nati

on

al

&

Inte

rnati

on

al

Reco

gn

itio

n

0.0

800

0.0

787

0.0

684

0.0

906

0.0

589

0.0

856

0.0

913

0.1

149

0.1

306

0.0

885

0.0

955

0.0

720

0.0

879

Sala

ry

stru

ctu

re0.1

105

0.1

361

0.1

321

0.1

478

0.1

997

0.0

585

0.1

345

0.1

634

0.1

743

0.1

562

0.1

942

0.1

463

0.1

461

Sum

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

Tab

le 3

1-

Norm

ali

zati

on

& P

riori

ty M

atr

ix f

or

Job P

rogre

ssio

n &

Gro

wth

Rel

ate

d C

rite

ria f

or

facu

lty


85

4.8.5 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Recognition related main

criteria for all Faculty respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses)

Rec

ogn

itio

n

Rel

ated

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

&

Num

ber

of

affi

liat

ed

coll

eges

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Tie

up

wit

h

fore

ign

Un

iver

siti

es

Nat

ion

al /

Glo

bal

Acc

redit

atio

n

No

. o

f

inte

rnat

ion

al

studen

ts

No

. o

f P

aten

ts

Reg

iste

red

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

& P

hD

s

pro

duce

d

Gro

wth

&

Res

earc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

pro

vid

ed

Ho

no

rs,

Aw

ards,

Pri

zes

rece

ived

by

facu

ltie

s

Pap

er

publi

shed

by

facu

ltie

s

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

atio

n I

ndex

Nat

ion

al &

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Rec

ogn

itio

n

Co

nsu

ltat

ion

pro

vid

ed t

o

Indust

ries

&

Co

llab

ora

tiv

e

Res

earc

h

Rec

om

men

dat

ion

s

by

pas

t te

ach

ers,

frie

nds,

rel

ativ

es

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

&

Num

ber

of

affi

liat

ed c

oll

eges

1.0

000

2.1

793

0.9

274

0.6

372

2.2

610

0.7

526

0.3

025

0.2

112

0.3

253

0.4

546

0.9

091

0.5

631

0.2

682

0.4

593

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uct

ure

0.4

589

1.0

000

0.7

645

0.4

770

1.0

781

0.9

009

0.2

614

0.1

632

0.2

824

0.3

319

0.5

327

0.4

249

0.3

674

0.9

437

Tie

up

wit

h

fore

ign

Un

iver

siti

es

1.0

783

1.3

080

1.0

000

0.4

284

1.0

318

0.8

464

0.2

058

0.1

933

0.3

327

0.3

906

0.7

206

0.3

103

0.1

953

0.8

037

Nat

ion

al /

Glo

bal

Acc

redit

atio

n1.5

694

2.0

965

2.3

345

1.0

000

2.8

659

1.4

059

0.6

737

0.5

449

0.5

998

0.8

748

0.9

044

1.0

577

0.6

203

1.0

637

No

. o

f

inte

rnat

ion

al

studen

ts

0.4

423

0.9

276

0.9

692

0.3

489

1.0

000

0.6

482

0.3

057

0.1

916

0.2

046

0.2

247

0.3

511

0.2

026

0.1

883

0.6

932

No

. o

f P

aten

ts

Reg

iste

red

1.3

287

1.1

100

1.1

815

0.7

113

1.5

426

1.0

000

0.3

711

0.1

985

0.3

411

0.3

612

0.9

178

0.3

228

0.3

287

0.8

963

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

&

Ph

Ds

pro

duce

d3.3

059

3.8

254

4.8

600

1.4

843

3.2

711

2.6

943

1.0

000

0.3

277

0.7

830

1.1

068

1.8

469

0.7

784

0.7

558

2.0

562

Gro

wth

&

Res

earc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

pro

vid

ed

4.7

354

6.1

274

5.1

728

1.8

352

5.2

203

5.0

377

3.0

520

1.0

000

1.4

870

1.6

785

2.9

561

2.3

951

0.9

759

4.4

174

Ho

no

rs,

Aw

ards,

Pri

zes

rece

ived

by

fac

ult

ies

3.0

740

3.5

405

3.0

055

1.6

672

4.8

886

2.9

314

1.2

771

0.6

725

1.0

000

1.0

338

1.7

833

0.9

245

0.3

309

2.0

701

Pap

er p

ubli

shed

by

fac

ult

ies

2.1

995

3.0

130

2.5

600

1.1

431

4.4

513

2.7

685

0.9

035

0.5

958

0.9

673

1.0

000

2.1

402

0.4

827

0.2

280

1.2

337

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

atio

n I

ndex

1.1

000

1.8

772

1.3

877

1.1

057

2.8

485

1.0

895

0.5

415

0.3

383

0.5

607

0.4

672

1.0

000

0.4

098

0.2

992

0.9

990

Nat

ion

al &

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Rec

ogn

itio

n

1.7

760

2.3

535

3.2

231

0.9

454

4.9

353

3.0

983

1.2

847

0.4

175

1.0

816

2.0

717

2.4

403

1.0

000

1.0

606

2.1

757

Co

nsu

ltat

ion

pro

vid

ed t

o

Indust

ries

&

Co

llab

ora

tiv

e

Res

earc

h

3.7

279

2.7

217

5.1

195

1.6

122

5.3

116

3.0

418

1.3

231

1.0

247

3.0

220

4.3

853

3.3

419

0.9

428

1.0

000

3.9

652

Rec

om

men

dat

ion

s by

pas

t

teac

her

s, f

rien

ds,

rela

tiv

es

2.1

770

1.0

596

1.2

442

0.9

401

1.4

426

1.1

157

0.4

863

0.2

264

0.4

831

0.8

106

1.0

010

0.4

596

0.2

522

1.0

000

Sum

27.9

733

33.1

397

33.7

499

14.3

360

42.1

486

27.3

314

11.9

883

6.1

054

11.4

707

15.1

917

20.8

455

10.2

743

6.8

710

22.7

773

Table

32-

Pair

wis

e co

mpa

riso

n M

atr

ix f

or

Rec

ognit

ion R

elate

d C

rite

ria f

or

facu

lty


86

4.8.6 Normalization and priority matrix of Recognition Related criteria for faculty

Reco

gn

itio

n

Rela

ted

Ty

pe o

f

Un

ivers

ity

&

Num

ber

of

aff

ilia

ted

co

lleges

Cam

pus

Infr

ast

ructu

re

Tie

up

wit

h

fore

ign

Un

ivers

itie

s

Nati

on

al

/

Glo

bal

Accre

dit

ati

on

No

. o

f

inte

rnati

on

al

studen

ts

No

. o

f

Pate

nts

Regis

tere

d

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

& P

hD

s

pro

duced

Gro

wth

&

Rese

arc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

pro

vid

ed

Ho

no

rs,

Aw

ard

s,

Pri

zes

receiv

ed b

y

facult

ies

Pap

er

publi

shed b

y

facult

ies

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

ati

on

In

dex

Nati

on

al

&

Inte

rnati

on

al

Reco

gn

itio

n

Co

nsu

ltati

on

pro

vid

ed t

o

Indust

ries

&

Co

llabo

rati

ve

Rese

arc

h

Reco

mm

en

dati

on

s by

past

teach

ers

,

frie

nds,

rela

tiv

es

Pri

ori

ty

Ty

pe o

f

Un

ivers

ity

&

Num

ber

of

aff

ilia

ted

co

lleges

0.0

357

0.0

658

0.0

275

0.0

444

0.0

536

0.0

275

0.0

252

0.0

346

0.0

284

0.0

299

0.0

436

0.0

548

0.0

390

0.0

202

0.0

379

Cam

pus

Infr

ast

ructu

re0.0

164

0.0

302

0.0

227

0.0

333

0.0

256

0.0

330

0.0

218

0.0

267

0.0

246

0.0

218

0.0

256

0.0

414

0.0

535

0.0

414

0.0

298

Tie

up

wit

h

fore

ign

Un

ivers

itie

s

0.0

385

0.0

395

0.0

296

0.0

299

0.0

245

0.0

310

0.0

172

0.0

317

0.0

290

0.0

257

0.0

346

0.0

302

0.0

284

0.0

353

0.0

304

Nati

on

al

/

Glo

bal

Accre

dit

ati

on

0.0

561

0.0

633

0.0

692

0.0

698

0.0

680

0.0

514

0.0

562

0.0

892

0.0

523

0.0

576

0.0

434

0.1

029

0.0

903

0.0

467

0.0

655

No

. o

f

inte

rnati

on

al

studen

ts

0.0

158

0.0

280

0.0

287

0.0

243

0.0

237

0.0

237

0.0

255

0.0

314

0.0

178

0.0

148

0.0

168

0.0

197

0.0

274

0.0

304

0.0

234

No

. o

f

Pate

nts

Regis

tere

d

0.0

475

0.0

335

0.0

350

0.0

496

0.0

366

0.0

366

0.0

310

0.0

325

0.0

297

0.0

238

0.0

440

0.0

314

0.0

478

0.0

394

0.0

370

No

. o

f

M.P

hil

s &

Ph

Ds

pro

duced

0.1

182

0.1

154

0.1

440

0.1

035

0.0

776

0.0

986

0.0

834

0.0

537

0.0

683

0.0

729

0.0

886

0.0

758

0.1

100

0.0

903

0.0

929

Gro

wth

&

Rese

arc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

pro

vid

ed

0.1

693

0.1

849

0.1

533

0.1

280

0.1

239

0.1

843

0.2

546

0.1

638

0.1

296

0.1

105

0.1

418

0.2

331

0.1

420

0.1

939

0.1

652

Ho

no

rs,

Aw

ard

s,

Pri

zes

receiv

ed b

y

facult

ies

0.1

099

0.1

068

0.0

891

0.1

163

0.1

160

0.1

073

0.1

065

0.1

101

0.0

872

0.0

681

0.0

856

0.0

900

0.0

482

0.0

909

0.0

951

Pap

er

publi

shed b

y

facult

ies

0.0

786

0.0

909

0.0

759

0.0

797

0.1

056

0.1

013

0.0

754

0.0

976

0.0

843

0.0

658

0.1

027

0.0

470

0.0

332

0.0

542

0.0

780

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

ati

on

Index

0.0

393

0.0

566

0.0

411

0.0

771

0.0

676

0.0

399

0.0

452

0.0

554

0.0

489

0.0

308

0.0

480

0.0

399

0.0

436

0.0

439

0.0

484

Nati

on

al

&

Inte

rnati

on

al

Reco

gn

itio

n

0.0

635

0.0

710

0.0

955

0.0

659

0.1

171

0.1

134

0.1

072

0.0

684

0.0

943

0.1

364

0.1

171

0.0

973

0.1

544

0.0

955

0.0

998

Co

nsu

ltati

on

pro

vid

ed t

o

Indust

ries

&

Co

llabo

rati

ve

Rese

arc

h

0.1

333

0.0

821

0.1

517

0.1

125

0.1

260

0.1

113

0.1

104

0.1

678

0.2

635

0.2

887

0.1

603

0.0

918

0.1

455

0.1

741

0.1

513

Reco

mm

en

da

tio

ns

by

past

teach

ers

,

frie

nds,

rela

tiv

es

0.0

778

0.0

320

0.0

369

0.0

656

0.0

342

0.0

408

0.0

406

0.0

371

0.0

421

0.0

534

0.0

480

0.0

447

0.0

367

0.0

439

0.0

453

Sum

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

1.0

000

Ta

ble

33-

No

rma

liza

tio

n a

nd p

rio

rity

ma

trix

of

Rec

og

nit

ion

Rel

ate

d c

rite

ria

fo

r fa

cult

y


87

4.8.7 Consistency Ratio for Job Security Related Criteria for Faculties

Table 34 - Consistency Ratio for Job Security Related Criteria for Faculties

Job Security Related (A) Weight

(B) A x B A x B / B

1.0000 0.7374 0.3247 0.1907 0.5736 3.0084

1.3560 1.0000 0.6311 0.2911 0.8767 3.0121

3.0797 1.5846 1.0000 0.5183 1.5667 3.0228

Lambda max 3.0144

CI 0.0072

CR 1.24%



88

4.8.8 Consistency Ratio for Job Progression & Growth Related Criteria for

Faculties


Job

Pro

gre

ssio

n &

Gro

wth

Re

late

d F

acto

r M

atri

x (A

)W

eig

ht

(B)

A x

BA

x B

/ B

1.00

000.

3568

0.25

460.

6797

0.61

490.

1609

0.18

870.

1485

0.17

710.

8386

0.28

180.

2041

0.02

220.

2775

12.5

034

2.80

261.

0000

1.04

021.

0437

0.45

370.

4433

0.16

590.

2101

0.21

680.

4280

0.39

170.

2266

0.03

220.

4063

12.6

105

3.92

810.

9614

1.00

001.

2078

1.33

320.

2442

0.22

950.

1536

0.20

821.

1354

0.47

680.

2469

0.03

920.

4908

12.5

274

1.47

130.

9581

0.82

801.

0000

0.77

660.

2579

0.21

780.

2176

0.40

370.

4258

0.36

390.

2231

0.03

070.

3871

12.6

159

1.62

642.

2039

0.75

011.

2877

1.00

000.

1965

0.32

150.

1772

0.29

290.

9190

0.55

920.

1649

0.03

720.

4666

12.5

294

6.21

492.

2560

4.09

533.

8772

5.08

911.

0000

0.33

240.

2383

0.50

300.

6223

0.76

331.

1170

0.09

281.

1870

12.7

919

5.30

036.

0282

4.35

674.

5919

3.11

013.

0087

1.00

000.

3289

1.53

322.

9066

1.30

650.

8862

0.13

641.

7914

13.1

358

6.73

184.

7589

6.51

034.

5954

5.64

214.

1959

3.04

081.

0000

2.58

073.

6016

2.00

041.

4065

0.21

132.

7818

13.1

630

5.64

554.

6126

4.80

352.

4768

3.41

471.

9882

0.65

220.

3875

1.00

003.

6685

0.74

040.

5549

0.11

201.

4694

13.1

218

1.19

252.

3365

0.88

082.

3485

1.08

811.

6069

0.34

410.

2777

0.27

261.

0000

0.54

910.

3110

0.05

200.

6797

13.0

805

3.54

812.

5529

2.09

722.

7477

1.78

841.

3101

0.76

540.

4999

1.35

071.

8211

1.00

000.

4920

0.08

791.

1313

12.8

696

4.89

994.

4133

4.05

014.

4832

6.06

580.

8953

1.12

840.

7110

1.80

213.

2157

2.03

271.

0000

0.14

611.

8540

12.6

873

Lam

bd

a m

ax12

.803

0

CI

0.07

300

CR

4.93

%

Table

35 -

Consi

sten

cy R

ati

o f

or

Job P

rogre

ssio

n &

Gro

wth

rel

ate

d C

rite

ria f

or

Facu

ltie

s


89

4.8.9 Consistency Ratio for Recognition Related Criteria for Faculties


Reco

gnit

ion

rela

ted

fact

or m

atri

x (A

)W

eigh

t (B)

A x

BA

x B

/ B

1.00

002.

1793

0.92

740.

6372

2.26

100.

7526

0.30

250.

2112

0.32

530.

4546

0.90

910.

5631

0.26

820.

4593

0.03

790.

5446

14.3

764

0.45

891.

0000

0.76

450.

4770

1.07

810.

9009

0.26

140.

1632

0.28

240.

3319

0.53

270.

4249

0.36

740.

9437

0.02

980.

4308

14.4

328

1.07

831.

3080

1.00

000.

4284

1.03

180.

8464

0.20

580.

1933

0.33

270.

3906

0.72

060.

3103

0.19

530.

8037

0.03

040.

4387

14.4

527

1.56

942.

0965

2.33

451.

0000

2.86

591.

4059

0.67

370.

5449

0.59

980.

8748

0.90

441.

0577

0.62

031.

0637

0.06

550.

9468

14.4

652

0.44

230.

9276

0.96

920.

3489

1.00

000.

6482

0.30

570.

1916

0.20

460.

2247

0.35

110.

2026

0.18

830.

6932

0.02

340.

3382

14.4

287

1.32

871.

1100

1.18

150.

7113

1.54

261.

0000

0.37

110.

1985

0.34

110.

3612

0.91

780.

3228

0.32

870.

8963

0.03

700.

5339

14.4

177

3.30

593.

8254

4.86

001.

4843

3.27

112.

6943

1.00

000.

3277

0.78

301.

1068

1.84

690.

7784

0.75

582.

0562

0.09

291.

3429

14.4

596

4.73

546.

1274

5.17

281.

8352

5.22

035.

0377

3.05

201.

0000

1.48

701.

6785

2.95

612.

3951

0.97

594.

4174

0.16

522.

3990

14.5

206

3.07

403.

5405

3.00

551.

6672

4.88

862.

9314

1.27

710.

6725

1.00

001.

0338

1.78

330.

9245

0.33

092.

0701

0.09

511.

3734

14.4

376

2.19

953.

0130

2.56

001.

1431

4.45

132.

7685

0.90

350.

5958

0.96

731.

0000

2.14

020.

4827

0.22

801.

2337

0.07

801.

1271

14.4

476

1.10

001.

8772

1.38

771.

1057

2.84

851.

0895

0.54

150.

3383

0.56

070.

4672

1.00

000.

4098

0.29

920.

9990

0.04

840.

6951

14.3

704

1.77

602.

3535

3.22

310.

9454

4.93

533.

0983

1.28

470.

4175

1.08

162.

0717

2.44

031.

0000

1.06

062.

1757

0.09

981.

4573

14.6

053

3.72

792.

7217

5.11

951.

6122

5.31

163.

0418

1.32

311.

0247

3.02

204.

3853

3.34

190.

9428

1.00

003.

9652

0.15

132.

2289

14.7

267

2.17

701.

0596

1.24

420.

9401

1.44

261.

1157

0.48

630.

2264

0.48

310.

8106

1.00

100.

4596

0.25

221.

0000

0.04

530.

6580

14.5

353

Lam

bda

max

14.4

769

CI0.

0367

CR2.

34%

Ta

ble

36 -

Co

nsi

sten

cy R

ati

o f

or

Rec

og

nit

ion

rel

ate

d C

rite

ria

fo

r F

acu

ltie

s


90


for all Faculty respondents for Job Security related criteria

Table 37- Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Job Security related criteria for

Faculty respondents



Faculty-1 1 1.0903 99% 0.3389 66.1% 2.98 2.95

Faculty-2 2 0.7316 67% 0.5756 42.4% 2.08 1.74

Faculty-3 3 0.8301 76% 0.5146 48.5% 2.29 1.94

Faculty-4 4 0.8105 74% 0.5278 47.2% 2.25 1.89

Faculty-5 5 0.9671 88% 0.4076 59.2% 2.63 2.45

Faculty-6 6 0.9160 83% 0.4566 54.3% 2.50 2.19

Faculty-7 7 0.7733 70% 0.5431 45.7% 2.17 1.84

Faculty-8 8 0.7703 70% 0.5549 44.5% 2.16 1.80

Faculty-9 9 0.8186 75% 0.5110 48.9% 2.27 1.96

Faculty-10 10 1.0903 99% 0.3389 66.1% 2.98 2.95

Faculty-11 11 1.0397 95% 0.3750 62.5% 2.83 2.67

Faculty-12 12 0.7639 70% 0.5511 44.9% 2.15 1.81

Faculty-13 13 0.7207 66% 0.5939 40.6% 2.06 1.68

Faculty-14 14 0.7937 72% 0.5274 47.3% 2.21 1.90

Faculty-15 15 0.8196 75% 0.5005 50.0% 2.27 2.00

Faculty-16 16 0.7639 70% 0.5511 44.9% 2.15 1.81

Faculty-17 17 0.8105 74% 0.5278 47.2% 2.25 1.89

Faculty-18 18 0.7639 70% 0.5511 44.9% 2.15 1.81

Faculty-19 19 0.8105 74% 0.5278 47.2% 2.25 1.89

Faculty-20 20 0.8301 76% 0.5146 48.5% 2.29 1.94

Faculty-21 21 0.8105 74% 0.5278 47.2% 2.25 1.89

Faculty-22 22 0.8301 76% 0.5146 48.5% 2.29 1.94

Faculty-23 23 0.8760 80% 0.4876 51.2% 2.40 2.05

Faculty-24 24 0.8332 76% 0.4994 50.1% 2.30 2.00

Faculty-25 25 0.9160 83% 0.4566 54.3% 2.50 2.19

Faculty-26 26 0.9306 85% 0.4282 57.2% 2.54 2.34

Faculty-27 27 0.8301 76% 0.5146 48.5% 2.29 1.94

Faculty-28 28 1.0590 96% 0.3597 64.0% 2.88 2.78

Faculty-29 29 0.8870 81% 0.4742 52.6% 2.43 2.11

Faculty-30 30 0.8877 81% 0.4730 52.7% 2.43 2.11

Faculty-31 31 0.9479 86% 0.4280 57.2% 2.58 2.34

Faculty-32 32 1.0903 99% 0.3389 66.1% 2.98 2.95

Faculty-33 33 1.0903 99% 0.3389 66.1% 2.98 2.95

Faculty-34 34 1.0397 95% 0.3750 62.5% 2.83 2.67

Faculty-35 35 1.0903 99% 0.3389 66.1% 2.98 2.95

Faculty-36 36 0.7703 70% 0.5549 44.5% 2.16 1.80

Faculty-37 37 1.0903 99% 0.3389 66.1% 2.98 2.95

Faculty-38 38 0.7844 71% 0.5538 44.6% 2.19 1.81

Faculty-39 39 0.8250 75% 0.5116 48.8% 2.28 1.95

Faculty-40 40 0.7703 70% 0.5549 44.5% 2.16 1.80

Faculty-41 41 0.7431 68% 0.5884 41.2% 2.10 1.70

Faculty-42 42 0.8105 74% 0.5278 47.2% 2.25 1.89

Faculty-43 43 0.9671 88% 0.4076 59.2% 2.63 2.45

Faculty-44 44 0.9226 84% 0.4442 55.6% 2.52 2.25

Faculty-45 45 0.9640 88% 0.4210 57.9% 2.62 2.38

Faculty-46 46 1.0402 95% 0.3698 63.0% 2.83 2.70


91

Faculty-47 47 0.9749 89% 0.4114 58.9% 2.65 2.43

Faculty-48 48 0.9757 89% 0.4124 58.8% 2.65 2.43

Faculty-49 49 0.9348 85% 0.4215 57.9% 2.55 2.37

Faculty-50 50 0.9671 88% 0.4076 59.2% 2.63 2.45

4.8.11 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for Job

Security related criteria

Table 38- Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for Job Security related criteria

Input Data

No of Classes 3

No of Samples 50






MacArthur M 0.8611



The AHP consensus among diverse faculties from different streams for Job Security

related criteria was found to be 78.2% which is an indicator of high degree of

agreement of all faculties on these criteria.


92


for all Faculty respondents for Progression & Growth related criteria

Table 39 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Progression & Growth related

criteria for Faculty respondents



Faculty-1 1 2.3822 96% 0.1017 89.8% 10.83 9.84

Faculty-2 2 2.1409 86% 0.1442 85.6% 8.51 6.93

Faculty-3 3 2.2019 89% 0.1403 86.0% 9.04 7.13

Faculty-4 4 2.2368 90% 0.1220 87.8% 9.36 8.19

Faculty-5 5 2.2603 91% 0.1173 88.3% 9.59 8.52

Faculty-6 6 2.1757 88% 0.1398 86.0% 8.81 7.15

Faculty-7 7 2.0900 84% 0.1771 82.3% 8.09 5.65

Faculty-8 8 2.0929 84% 0.1602 84.0% 8.11 6.24

Faculty-9 9 2.1469 86% 0.1476 85.2% 8.56 6.77

Faculty-10 10 2.3822 96% 0.1017 89.8% 10.83 9.84

Faculty-11 11 2.2565 91% 0.1189 88.1% 9.55 8.41

Faculty-12 12 2.1930 88% 0.1350 86.5% 8.96 7.41

Faculty-13 13 2.1956 88% 0.1348 86.5% 8.99 7.42

Faculty-14 14 2.2389 90% 0.1217 87.8% 9.38 8.22

Faculty-15 15 2.1930 88% 0.1350 86.5% 8.96 7.41

Faculty-16 16 2.1870 88% 0.1360 86.4% 8.91 7.35

Faculty-17 17 2.2375 90% 0.1219 87.8% 9.37 8.21

Faculty-18 18 2.1952 88% 0.1346 86.5% 8.98 7.43

Faculty-19 19 2.2326 90% 0.1227 87.7% 9.32 8.15

Faculty-20 20 2.2019 89% 0.1403 86.0% 9.04 7.13

Faculty-21 21 2.2399 90% 0.1216 87.8% 9.39 8.23

Faculty-22 22 2.2101 89% 0.1389 86.1% 9.12 7.20

Faculty-23 23 2.1853 88% 0.1389 86.1% 8.89 7.20

Faculty-24 24 2.1786 88% 0.1390 86.1% 8.83 7.20

Faculty-25 25 2.1881 88% 0.1359 86.4% 8.92 7.36

Faculty-26 26 2.1757 88% 0.1398 86.0% 8.81 7.15

Faculty-27 27 2.2019 89% 0.1403 86.0% 9.04 7.13

Faculty-28 28 2.3868 96% 0.1006 89.9% 10.88 9.94

Faculty-29 29 2.3832 96% 0.1014 89.9% 10.84 9.86

Faculty-30 30 2.3784 96% 0.1021 89.8% 10.79 9.80

Faculty-31 31 2.3808 96% 0.1020 89.8% 10.81 9.81

Faculty-32 32 2.3822 96% 0.1017 89.8% 10.83 9.84

Faculty-33 33 2.3869 96% 0.1002 90.0% 10.88 9.98

Faculty-34 34 2.2565 91% 0.1189 88.1% 9.55 8.41

Faculty-35 35 2.3822 96% 0.1017 89.8% 10.83 9.84

Faculty-36 36 2.0929 84% 0.1602 84.0% 8.11 6.24

Faculty-37 37 2.3897 96% 0.1004 90.0% 10.91 9.96

Faculty-38 38 2.1070 85% 0.1571 84.3% 8.22 6.36

Faculty-39 39 2.1036 85% 0.1591 84.1% 8.20 6.29

Faculty-40 40 2.1045 85% 0.1586 84.1% 8.20 6.30

Faculty-41 41 2.1036 85% 0.1576 84.2% 8.20 6.35

Faculty-42 42 2.1142 85% 0.1555 84.5% 8.28 6.43

Faculty-43 43 2.2603 91% 0.1173 88.3% 9.59 8.52

Faculty-44 44 2.2565 91% 0.1189 88.1% 9.55 8.41

Faculty-45 45 2.2565 91% 0.1189 88.1% 9.55 8.41

Faculty-46 46 2.2603 91% 0.1173 88.3% 9.59 8.52


93

Faculty-47 47 2.2565 91% 0.1189 88.1% 9.55 8.41

Faculty-48 48 2.2694 91% 0.1170 88.3% 9.67 8.55

Faculty-49 49 2.2881 92% 0.1146 88.5% 9.86 8.72

Faculty-50 50 2.2747 92% 0.1146 88.5% 9.73 8.72

4.8.13 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for

Progression & Growth related criteria

Table 40- Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for Progression & Growth related

criteria

Input Data

No of Classes 12

No of Samples 50



-Diversity 2.339 10.369



MacArthur M 0.9004



The AHP consensus among diverse faculties from different streams for Progression

and Growth related criteria was found to be 76.7% which is an indicator of high

degree of agreement of all faculties on these criteria.


94


for all Faculty respondents for Recognition related criteria

Table 41 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Recognition related criteria for

Faculty respondents



Faculty-1 1 2.5131 95% 0.0887 91.1% 12.34 11.27

Faculty-2 2 2.4168 92% 0.1010 89.9% 11.21 9.90

Faculty-3 3 2.3785 90% 0.1119 88.8% 10.79 8.93

Faculty-4 4 2.3192 88% 0.1215 87.8% 10.17 8.23

Faculty-5 5 2.3951 91% 0.1108 88.9% 10.97 9.03

Faculty-6 6 2.4010 91% 0.1069 89.3% 11.03 9.35

Faculty-7 7 2.2628 86% 0.1370 86.3% 9.61 7.30

Faculty-8 8 2.3768 90% 0.1080 89.2% 10.77 9.26

Faculty-9 9 2.3887 91% 0.1100 89.0% 10.90 9.09

Faculty-10 10 2.5131 95% 0.0887 91.1% 12.34 11.27

Faculty-11 11 2.5056 95% 0.0897 91.0% 12.25 11.15

Faculty-12 12 2.2618 86% 0.1258 87.4% 9.60 7.95

Faculty-13 13 2.2447 85% 0.1282 87.2% 9.44 7.80

Faculty-14 14 2.3208 88% 0.1211 87.9% 10.18 8.26

Faculty-15 15 2.2650 86% 0.1260 87.4% 9.63 7.93

Faculty-16 16 2.2618 86% 0.1258 87.4% 9.60 7.95

Faculty-17 17 2.3282 88% 0.1201 88.0% 10.26 8.33

Faculty-18 18 2.2716 86% 0.1248 87.5% 9.69 8.01

Faculty-19 19 2.3320 88% 0.1195 88.1% 10.30 8.37

Faculty-20 20 2.4112 91% 0.1073 89.3% 11.15 9.32

Faculty-21 21 2.3209 88% 0.1211 87.9% 10.19 8.26

Faculty-22 22 2.3896 91% 0.1120 88.8% 10.91 8.93

Faculty-23 23 2.3835 90% 0.1110 88.9% 10.84 9.01

Faculty-24 24 2.3614 89% 0.1138 88.6% 10.61 8.79

Faculty-25 25 2.3997 91% 0.1096 89.0% 11.02 9.12

Faculty-26 26 2.4450 93% 0.1025 89.8% 11.53 9.76

Faculty-27 27 2.3740 90% 0.1129 88.7% 10.74 8.86

Faculty-28 28 2.5290 96% 0.0863 91.4% 12.54 11.59

Faculty-29 29 2.5310 96% 0.0875 91.2% 12.57 11.42

Faculty-30 30 2.5241 96% 0.0867 91.3% 12.48 11.54

Faculty-31 31 2.5249 96% 0.0886 91.1% 12.49 11.29

Faculty-32 32 2.5249 96% 0.0874 91.3% 12.49 11.44

Faculty-33 33 2.5147 95% 0.0882 91.2% 12.36 11.33

Faculty-34 34 2.4982 95% 0.0917 90.8% 12.16 10.91

Faculty-35 35 2.5169 95% 0.0878 91.2% 12.39 11.38

Faculty-36 36 2.4154 92% 0.1031 89.7% 11.19 9.70

Faculty-37 37 2.5120 95% 0.0889 91.1% 12.33 11.24

Faculty-38 38 2.3777 90% 0.1078 89.2% 10.78 9.28

Faculty-39 39 2.3788 90% 0.1074 89.3% 10.79 9.31

Faculty-40 40 2.3771 90% 0.1084 89.2% 10.77 9.23

Faculty-41 41 2.4421 93% 0.0996 90.0% 11.50 10.04

Faculty-42 42 2.4145 91% 0.1030 89.7% 11.18 9.71

Faculty-43 43 2.3969 91% 0.1092 89.1% 10.99 9.16

Faculty-44 44 2.4806 94% 0.0943 90.6% 11.95 10.60

Faculty-45 45 2.5041 95% 0.0890 91.1% 12.23 11.24

Faculty-46 46 2.3643 90% 0.1164 88.4% 10.64 8.59


95

Faculty-47 47 2.4910 94% 0.0925 90.8% 12.07 10.82

Faculty-48 48 2.5056 95% 0.0897 91.0% 12.25 11.15

Faculty-49 49 2.3877 90% 0.1134 88.7% 10.89 8.82

Faculty-50 50 2.3857 90% 0.1136 88.6% 10.87 8.80

4.8.15 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for

Recognition related criteria

Table 42 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Faculty respondents for Recognition related criteria

Input Data

No of Classes 14

No of Samples 50


-Diversity 2.409 11.120

-Diversity 2.530 12.549



MacArthur M 0.8862



The AHP consensus among diverse faculties from different streams for Recognition

related criteria was found to be 71.4% which is an indicator of moderately high

degree of agreement of all faculties on these criteria.


96

4.9 Analysis of Industry Respondents

4.9.1 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Employability of students

related main criteria for all Industry respondents (Geometric Means of

individual responses)

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y o

f St

uden

t

Rel

ated

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

&

No

. o

f af

fili

ated

co

lleg

es

Pri

or

Per

form

ance

&

Pla

cem

ents

of

Stud

ents

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f M

ajo

r

cour

ses

/ F

utur

e re

ady

pro

gram

s

Co

urse

Cur

ricu

lum

&

Qua

lity

of

pro

gram

s

All

ro

und

& A

ctiv

ity

base

d le

arn

ing

thro

ugh

liv

e p

roje

cts

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y o

f p

asse

d

out

stu

den

ts

Co

mm

unic

atio

n s

kil

ls o

f

stud

ents

Eth

ics,

Val

ue s

yst

em &

Eti

quet

tes

of

stud

ents

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

& N

o.

of

affi

liat

ed c

oll

eges

1.00

000.

2926

0.39

550.

2229

0.16

290.

1477

0.18

900.

1277

Pri

or

Per

form

ance

&

Pla

cem

ents

of

Stud

ents

3.41

711.

0000

1.29

711.

5526

0.41

920.

2745

0.35

250.

1703

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f M

ajo

r

cour

ses

/ F

utur

e re

ady

pro

gram

s2.

5282

0.77

091.

0000

0.92

330.

4369

0.39

140.

4078

0.16

56

Co

urse

Cur

ricu

lum

&

Qua

lity

of

pro

gram

s4.

4865

0.64

411.

0831

1.00

000.

2681

0.28

630.

3498

0.18

21

All

ro

und

& A

ctiv

ity

bas

ed

lear

nin

g th

roug

h l

ive

pro

ject

s6.

1392

2.38

572.

2887

3.72

991.

0000

0.90

301.

0899

0.23

82

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y o

f p

asse

d

out

stu

den

ts6.

7709

3.64

272.

5551

3.49

231.

1074

1.00

001.

4863

0.25

27

Co

mm

unic

atio

n s

kil

ls o

f

stud

ents

5.29

002.

8368

2.45

202.

8589

0.91

750.

6728

1.00

000.

1757

Eth

ics,

Val

ue s

yst

em &

Eti

quet

tes

of

stud

ents

7.83

215.

8731

6.04

045.

4910

4.19

793.

9568

5.69

061.

0000

Sum

37

.46

41

17

.44

58

17

.11

19

19

.27

10

8.5

09

87

.63

25

10

.56

60

2.3

12

3

Table

43-

Con

soli

da

ted P

air

wis

e C

om

pari

son M

atr

ix f

or

Em

plo

yabil

ity

of

studen

ts r

elate

d m

ain

cri

teri

a f

or

all

Indust

ry r

esponden

ts


97

4.9.2 Normalization and priority matrix of Employability of Students Related

criteria for Industry

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y o

f St

uden

t

Rel

ated

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

&

No

. o

f af

fili

ated

coll

eges

Pri

or

Per

form

ance

& P

lace

men

ts o

f

Stud

ents

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f

Maj

or

cour

ses

/

Fut

ure

read

y

pro

gram

s

Co

urse

Cur

ricu

lum

&

Qua

lity

of

pro

gram

s

All

ro

und

&

Act

ivit

y b

ased

lear

nin

g th

roug

h

liv

e p

roje

cts

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y o

f

pas

sed

out

stud

ents

Co

mm

unic

atio

n

skil

ls o

f st

uden

ts

Eth

ics,

Val

ue

syst

em &

Eti

quet

tes

of

stud

ents

Pri

ori

ties

Ty

pe

of

Un

iver

sity

& N

o.

of

affi

liat

ed c

oll

eges

0.0

267

0.0

168

0.0

231

0.0

116

0.0

191

0.0

194

0.0

179

0.0

552

0.0

237

Pri

or

Per

form

ance

&

Pla

cem

ents

of

Stud

ents

0.0

912

0.0

573

0.0

758

0.0

806

0.0

493

0.0

360

0.0

334

0.0

736

0.0

621

Av

aila

bili

ty o

f M

ajo

r co

urse

s

/ F

utur

e re

ady

pro

gram

s0.0

675

0.0

442

0.0

584

0.0

479

0.0

513

0.0

513

0.0

386

0.0

716

0.0

539

Co

urse

Cur

ricu

lum

& Q

uali

ty

of

pro

gram

s0.1

198

0.0

369

0.0

633

0.0

519

0.0

315

0.0

375

0.0

331

0.0

788

0.0

566

All

ro

und

& A

ctiv

ity

bas

ed

lear

nin

g th

roug

h l

ive

pro

ject

s0.1

639

0.1

367

0.1

337

0.1

936

0.1

175

0.1

183

0.1

032

0.1

030

0.1

337

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y o

f p

asse

d o

ut

stud

ents

0.1

807

0.2

088

0.1

493

0.1

812

0.1

301

0.1

310

0.1

407

0.1

093

0.1

539

Co

mm

unic

atio

n s

kil

ls o

f

stud

ents

0.1

412

0.1

626

0.1

433

0.1

484

0.1

078

0.0

881

0.0

946

0.0

760

0.1

203

Eth

ics,

Val

ue s

yst

em &

Eti

quet

tes

of

stud

ents

0.2

091

0.3

366

0.3

530

0.2

849

0.4

933

0.5

184

0.5

386

0.4

325

0.3

958

Sum

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

00

Table

44 -

Norm

ali

zati

on

& P

rio

rity

Matr

ix f

or

Em

plo

yabil

ity

of

Stu

den

ts R

elate

d C

rite

ria f

or

Indust

ry


98

4.9.3 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Collaborative Research related

main criteria for all Industry respondents (Geometric Means of individual

responses)

Col

labo

rati

ve

Res

earc

h

Rel

ated

Typ

e of

Uni

vers

ity

& N

o. o

f af

filia

ted

colle

ges

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Tie

up

wit

h fo

reig

n

univ

ersi

ties

Nat

iona

l & G

loba

l

accr

edit

atio

n

UG

C /

Pri

vate

/

Inte

rnat

iona

l fun

ding

All

roun

d ac

tivi

ty

base

d le

arni

ng

thro

ugh

live

proj

ects

No.

of

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Facu

ltie

s

No.

of

pate

nts

Reg

iste

red

No.

of

M.P

hils

&

PhD

Pro

duce

d

Qua

lific

atio

n &

Exp

erie

nce

of

facu

ltie

s

Hon

ors

/ Aw

ards

/

Pri

zes

rece

ived

by

facu

ltie

s

Nat

iona

l &

Inte

rnat

iona

l

reco

gnit

ion

of

facu

ltie

s

Con

sult

atio

n to

Indu

stri

es a

nd

colla

bora

tive

rese

arch

Typ

e of

Uni

vers

ity

& N

o.

of a

ffili

ated

col

lege

s1.

0000

0.26

280.

7537

0.26

461.

1664

0.19

550.

9502

0.21

960.

4360

0.18

610.

2276

0.15

100.

1274

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uctu

re

3.80

571.

0000

2.49

370.

9482

3.58

700.

3868

3.16

140.

4707

1.28

140.

2622

0.45

780.

2253

0.15

56

Tie

up

wit

h fo

reig

n

univ

ersi

ties

1.32

680.

4010

1.00

000.

4107

1.04

140.

3918

1.18

310.

3072

0.41

230.

2185

0.22

900.

1812

0.13

62

Nat

iona

l & G

loba

l

accr

edit

atio

n3.

7786

1.05

462.

4349

1.00

002.

7307

0.67

752.

4110

0.72

031.

4126

0.46

100.

6304

0.35

390.

1918

UG

C /

Pri

vate

/

Inte

rnat

iona

l fun

ding

0.85

740.

2788

0.96

030.

3662

1.00

000.

1680

1.13

010.

2958

0.39

780.

2130

0.20

440.

1815

0.14

24

All

roun

d ac

tivi

ty b

ased

lear

ning

thr

ough

live

proj

ects

5.11

552.

5851

2.55

261.

4760

5.95

121.

0000

4.02

660.

8829

1.89

840.

5955

0.88

460.

5373

0.25

92

No.

of

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Facu

ltie

s1.

0524

0.31

630.

8452

0.41

480.

8849

0.24

831.

0000

0.22

940.

2626

0.19

520.

2189

0.17

990.

1336

No.

of

pate

nts

Reg

iste

red

4.55

472.

1245

3.25

491.

3883

3.38

031.

1326

4.35

901.

0000

3.11

051.

1848

1.56

500.

7784

0.32

07

No.

of

M.P

hils

& P

hD

Pro

duce

d2.

2935

0.78

042.

4254

0.70

792.

5139

0.52

683.

8088

0.32

151.

0000

0.20

400.

2185

0.20

730.

1354

Qua

lific

atio

n &

Exp

erie

nce

of f

acul

ties

5.37

403.

8138

4.57

772.

1691

4.69

501.

6794

5.12

210.

8440

4.90

191.

0000

1.52

220.

4047

0.20

29

Hon

ors

/ Aw

ards

/ P

rize

s

rece

ived

by

facu

ltie

s4.

3930

2.18

424.

3660

1.58

624.

8924

1.13

044.

5680

0.63

904.

5769

0.65

691.

0000

0.20

590.

1722

Nat

iona

l & I

nter

nati

onal

reco

gnit

ion

of f

acul

ties

6.62

114.

4389

5.51

972.

8258

5.50

901.

8612

5.55

741.

2847

4.82

462.

4711

4.85

601.

0000

0.19

11

Con

sult

atio

n to

Ind

ustr

ies

and

colla

bora

tive

res

earc

h7.

8523

6.42

637.

3438

5.21

447.

0203

3.85

847.

4832

3.11

807.

3833

4.92

975.

8070

5.23

281.

0000

Sum

48.0

249

25.6

667

38.5

279

18.7

721

44.3

724

13.2

568

44.7

608

10.3

332

31.8

982

12.5

781

17.8

215

9.63

923.

1685

Table

45 -

Pair

wis

e co

mpari

son f

or

Coll

abora

tive

res

earc

h R

elate

d C

rite

ria f

or

Indust

ries


99

4.9.4 Normalization and priority matrix of Collaborative Research Related criteria

for Industries

Colla

bora

tive

Rese

arch

Rela

ted

Typ

e of

Uni

vers

ity

& N

o. o

f aff

iliat

ed

colle

ges

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Tie

up

with

fore

ign

univ

ersit

ies

Nat

iona

l & G

loba

l

accr

edita

tion

UGC

/ Pr

ivat

e /

Inte

rnat

iona

l fun

ding

All

roun

d ac

tivity

base

d le

arni

ng

thro

ugh

live

proj

ects

No.

of I

nter

natio

nal

Facu

lties

No.

of p

aten

ts

Regi

ster

ed

No.

of M

.Phi

ls &

PhD

Pro

duce

d

Qua

lific

atio

n &

Expe

rienc

e of

facu

lties

Hon

ors /

Awa

rds /

Priz

es re

ceiv

ed b

y

facu

lties

Nat

iona

l &

Inte

rnat

iona

l

reco

gniti

on o

f

facu

lties

Cons

ulta

tion

to

Indu

strie

s and

colla

bora

tive

rese

arch

Prio

ritie

s

Typ

e of

Uni

vers

ity &

No.

of

affil

iate

d co

llege

s0.

0208

0.01

020.

0196

0.01

410.

0263

0.01

470.

0212

0.02

120.

0137

0.01

480.

0128

0.01

570.

0402

0.01

87

Cam

pus I

nfra

stru

ctur

e

0.07

920.

0390

0.06

470.

0505

0.08

080.

0292

0.07

060.

0456

0.04

020.

0208

0.02

570.

0234

0.04

910.

0450

Tie

up

with

fore

ign

univ

ersit

ies

0.02

760.

0156

0.02

600.

0219

0.02

350.

0296

0.02

640.

0297

0.01

290.

0174

0.01

290.

0188

0.04

300.

0231

Nat

iona

l & G

loba

l

accr

edita

tion

0.07

870.

0411

0.06

320.

0533

0.06

150.

0511

0.05

390.

0697

0.04

430.

0367

0.03

540.

0367

0.06

050.

0506

UGC

/ Pr

ivat

e / I

nter

natio

nal

fund

ing

0.01

790.

0109

0.02

490.

0195

0.02

250.

0127

0.02

520.

0286

0.01

250.

0169

0.01

150.

0188

0.04

500.

0208

All

roun

d ac

tivity

bas

ed

lear

ning

thro

ugh

live

proj

ects

0.10

650.

1007

0.06

630.

0786

0.13

410.

0754

0.09

000.

0854

0.05

950.

0473

0.04

960.

0557

0.08

180.

0770

No.

of I

nter

natio

nal F

acul

ties

0.02

190.

0123

0.02

190.

0221

0.01

990.

0187

0.02

230.

0222

0.00

820.

0155

0.01

230.

0187

0.04

220.

0197

No.

of p

aten

ts R

egist

ered

0.09

480.

0828

0.08

450.

0740

0.07

620.

0854

0.09

740.

0968

0.09

750.

0942

0.08

780.

0808

0.10

120.

0882

No.

of M

.Phi

ls &

PhD

Prod

uced

0.04

780.

0304

0.06

300.

0377

0.05

670.

0397

0.08

510.

0311

0.03

130.

0162

0.01

230.

0215

0.04

270.

0390

Qua

lific

atio

n &

Exp

erie

nce

of fa

culti

es0.

1119

0.14

860.

1188

0.11

550.

1058

0.12

670.

1144

0.08

170.

1537

0.07

950.

0854

0.04

200.

0640

0.10

30

Hon

ors /

Awa

rds /

Priz

es

rece

ived

by

facu

lties

0.09

150.

0851

0.11

330.

0845

0.11

030.

0853

0.10

210.

0618

0.14

350.

0522

0.05

610.

0214

0.05

430.

0808

Nat

iona

l & In

tern

atio

nal

reco

gniti

on o

f fac

ultie

s0.

1379

0.17

290.

1433

0.15

050.

1242

0.14

040.

1242

0.12

430.

1512

0.19

650.

2725

0.10

370.

0603

0.14

70

Cons

ulta

tion

to In

dust

ries a

nd

colla

bora

tive

rese

arch

0.16

350.

2504

0.19

060.

2778

0.15

820.

2911

0.16

720.

3018

0.23

150.

3919

0.32

580.

5429

0.31

560.

2871

Sum

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

Table

46

- N

orm

ali

zati

on &

Pri

ori

ty M

atr

ix f

or

Coll

abora

tive

Res

earc

h R

elate

d C

rite

ria f

or

Indust

ry


100

4.9.5 Consistency Ratio for Employability of Students Related Criteria for Industry


We

igh

ts (

B)

A x

BA

x B

/ B

1.0

000

0.2

926

0.3

955

0.2

229

0.1

629

0.1

477

0.1

890

0.1

277

0.0

237

0.1

936

8.1

625

3.4

171

1.0

000

1.2

971

1.5

526

0.4

192

0.2

745

0.3

525

0.1

703

0.0

621

0.5

090

8.1

912

2.5

282

0.7

709

1.0

000

0.9

233

0.4

369

0.3

914

0.4

078

0.1

656

0.0

539

0.4

472

8.3

041

4.4

865

0.6

441

1.0

831

1.0

000

0.2

681

0.2

863

0.3

498

0.1

821

0.0

566

0.4

554

8.0

474

6.1

392

2.3

857

2.2

887

3.7

299

1.0

000

0.9

030

1.0

899

0.2

382

0.1

337

1.1

263

8.4

214

6.7

709

3.6

427

2.5

551

3.4

923

1.1

074

1.0

000

1.4

863

0.2

527

0.1

539

1.3

030

8.4

664

5.2

900

2.8

368

2.4

520

2.8

589

0.9

175

0.6

728

1.0

000

0.1

757

0.1

203

1.0

117

8.4

124

7.8

321

5.8

731

6.0

404

5.4

910

4.1

979

3.9

568

5.6

906

1.0

000

0.3

958

3.4

373

8.6

844

Lam

bd

a m

ax8

.33

62

CI

0.0

48

0

CR

3.4

1%

Emp

loya

bil

ity

of

Stu

de

nt

Re

late

d f

acto

rs M

atri

x (A

)

Tab

le 4

7-

Consi

sten

cy R

ati

o f

or

Em

plo

yabil

ity

of

Stu

den

ts r

elate

d C

rite

ria

for

Indust

ries


101

4.9.6 Consistency Ratio for Collaborative Research Related Criteria for Industry


Wei

ghts

(B)

A x B

A x B

/ B

1.00

000.

2628

0.75

370.

2646

1.16

640.

1955

0.95

020.

2196

0.43

600.

1861

0.22

760.

1510

0.12

740.

0187

0.25

2029

794

13.4

713

3.80

571.

0000

2.49

370.

9482

3.58

700.

3868

3.16

140.

4707

1.28

140.

2622

0.45

780.

2253

0.15

560.

0450

0.62

1638

273

13.8

248

1.32

680.

4010

1.00

000.

4107

1.04

140.

3918

1.18

310.

3072

0.41

230.

2185

0.22

900.

1812

0.13

620.

0231

0.31

1785

453

13.4

798

3.77

861.

0546

2.43

491.

0000

2.73

070.

6775

2.41

100.

7203

1.41

260.

4610

0.63

040.

3539

0.19

180.

0506

0.70

5542

722

13.9

405

0.85

740.

2788

0.96

030.

3662

1.00

000.

1680

1.13

010.

2958

0.39

780.

2130

0.20

440.

1815

0.14

240.

0208

0.27

2922

409

13.1

506

5.11

552.

5851

2.55

261.

4760

5.95

121.

0000

4.02

660.

8829

1.89

840.

5955

0.88

460.

5373

0.25

920.

0770

1.06

3676

217

13.8

053

1.05

240.

3163

0.84

520.

4148

0.88

490.

2483

1.00

000.

2294

0.26

260.

1952

0.21

890.

1799

0.13

360.

0197

0.26

4743

7713

.435

6

4.55

472.

1245

3.25

491.

3883

3.38

031.

1326

4.35

901.

0000

3.11

051.

1848

1.56

500.

7784

0.32

070.

0882

1.23

4077

053

13.9

907

2.29

350.

7804

2.42

540.

7079

2.51

390.

5268

3.80

880.

3215

1.00

000.

2040

0.21

850.

2073

0.13

540.

0390

0.51

3096

488

13.1

635

5.37

403.

8138

4.57

772.

1691

4.69

501.

6794

5.12

210.

8440

4.90

191.

0000

1.52

220.

4047

0.20

290.

1030

1.42

4719

549

13.8

306

4.39

302.

1842

4.36

601.

5862

4.89

241.

1304

4.56

800.

6390

4.57

690.

6569

1.00

000.

2059

0.17

220.

0808

1.10

3276

8213

.650

5

6.62

114.

4389

5.51

972.

8258

5.50

901.

8612

5.55

741.

2847

4.82

462.

4711

4.85

601.

0000

0.19

110.

1470

2.11

1656

839

14.3

649

7.85

236.

4263

7.34

385.

2144

7.02

033.

8584

7.48

323.

1180

7.38

334.

9297

5.80

705.

2328

1.00

000.

2871

4.05

6346

747

14.1

309

Lam

bda m

ax13

.710

7

CI0.

0592

CR3.

80%

Colla

bora

tive

Rese

arch

Rel

ated

Fact

ors M

atrix

(A)

Table

48 -

Consi

sten

cy R

ati

o f

or

Coll

abora

tive

Res

earc

h r

elate

d C

rite

ria f

or

Indust

ries


102


for all Industry respondents for Employability of Students related criteria

Table 49 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Employability of Students related

criteria for Industry respondents



Employer-1 1 1.8604 89% 0.1713 82.9% 6.43 5.84

Employer-2 2 1.8877 91% 0.1744 82.6% 6.60 5.73

Employer-3 3 1.6787 81% 0.2558 74.4% 5.36 3.91

Employer-4 4 1.7137 82% 0.2224 77.8% 5.55 4.50

Employer-5 5 1.7711 85% 0.2252 77.5% 5.88 4.44

Employer-6 6 1.7671 85% 0.2169 78.3% 5.85 4.61

Employer-7 7 1.8534 89% 0.1913 80.9% 6.38 5.23

Employer-8 8 1.8465 89% 0.1767 82.3% 6.34 5.66

Employer-9 9 1.8295 88% 0.1840 81.6% 6.23 5.43

Employer-10 10 1.7663 85% 0.2177 78.2% 5.85 4.59

Employer-11 11 1.7712 85% 0.2071 79.3% 5.88 4.83

Employer-12 12 1.8052 87% 0.1998 80.0% 6.08 5.01

Employer-13 13 1.7633 85% 0.2171 78.3% 5.83 4.61

Employer-14 14 1.7328 83% 0.2266 77.3% 5.66 4.41

Employer-15 15 1.7369 84% 0.2247 77.5% 5.68 4.45

Employer-16 16 1.7371 84% 0.2214 77.9% 5.68 4.52

Employer-17 17 1.7445 84% 0.2263 77.4% 5.72 4.42

Employer-18 18 1.6887 81% 0.2374 76.3% 5.41 4.21

Employer-19 19 1.7113 82% 0.2386 76.1% 5.54 4.19

Employer-20 20 1.8236 88% 0.1841 81.6% 6.19 5.43

Employer-21 21 1.7346 83% 0.2269 77.3% 5.67 4.41

Employer-22 22 1.6805 81% 0.2435 75.6% 5.37 4.11

Employer-23 23 1.7321 83% 0.2355 76.5% 5.65 4.25

Employer-24 24 1.7613 85% 0.2236 77.6% 5.82 4.47

Employer-25 25 1.7476 84% 0.2287 77.1% 5.74 4.37

4.9.8 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Industry respondents for

Employability of Students related criteria

Table 50 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Industry respondents for Employability of Students

related criteria

Input Data

No of Classes 8

No of Samples 25

Diversity (Shannon -

ln) 1D





103


MacArthur M 0.9348



The AHP consensus among diverse faculties from different streams for Employability

of Students related criteria was found to be 86.6% which is an indicator of Very High

degree of agreement of all industry on these criteria.


104


for all Industry respondents for Collaborative Research related criteria

Table 51 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Collaborative Research related

criteria for Industry respondents



Employer-1 1 2.2191 87% 0.1325 86.7% 9.20 7.55

Employer-2 2 2.3603 92% 0.1165 88.3% 10.59 8.58

Employer-3 3 2.3184 90% 0.1124 88.8% 10.16 8.90

Employer-4 4 2.2267 87% 0.1354 86.5% 9.27 7.39

Employer-5 5 2.2539 88% 0.1300 87.0% 9.53 7.69

Employer-6 6 2.3056 90% 0.1214 87.9% 10.03 8.24

Employer-7 7 2.2606 88% 0.1284 87.2% 9.59 7.79

Employer-8 8 2.3571 92% 0.1110 88.9% 10.56 9.01

Employer-9 9 2.3403 91% 0.1117 88.8% 10.38 8.96

Employer-10 10 2.2351 87% 0.1433 85.7% 9.35 6.98

Employer-11 11 2.2422 87% 0.1324 86.8% 9.41 7.55

Employer-12 12 2.2024 86% 0.1468 85.3% 9.05 6.81

Employer-13 13 2.2352 87% 0.1424 85.8% 9.35 7.02

Employer-14 14 2.1940 86% 0.1518 84.8% 8.97 6.59

Employer-15 15 2.2626 88% 0.1327 86.7% 9.61 7.54

Employer-16 16 2.2776 89% 0.1270 87.3% 9.75 7.87

Employer-17 17 2.2058 86% 0.1413 85.9% 9.08 7.08

Employer-18 18 2.2713 89% 0.1250 87.5% 9.69 8.00

Employer-19 19 2.2732 89% 0.1299 87.0% 9.71 7.70

Employer-20 20 2.2829 89% 0.1294 87.1% 9.80 7.73

Employer-21 21 2.2938 89% 0.1272 87.3% 9.91 7.86

Employer-22 22 2.2963 90% 0.1222 87.8% 9.94 8.18

Employer-23 23 2.2887 89% 0.1260 87.4% 9.86 7.93

Employer-24 24 2.2402 87% 0.1378 86.2% 9.39 7.26

Employer-25 25 2.2539 88% 0.1332 86.7% 9.53 7.51

4.9.10 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Industry respondents for

Collaborative Research related criteria

Table 52 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Industry respondents for Collaborative Research

related criteria

Input Data

No of Classes 13

No of Samples 25



-Diversity 2.310 10.070



105


MacArthur M 0.9592



The AHP consensus among diverse faculties from different streams for Collaborative

Research related criteria was found to be 89.7% which is an indicator of Very High

degree of agreement of all Industry respondents on these criteria.


106

4.10 Analysis of Administrator / HOD / Principals

4.10.1 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Quality of Education related

main criteria for all Admin respondents (Geometric Means of individual

responses)

Quali

ty o

f educati

on

Rela

ted

Pri

or

Resu

lts

& P

lacem

en

t

of

studen

ts

Tie

up

wit

h

fore

ign

un

ivers

itie

s

Nati

on

al

&

Glo

bal

Accre

dit

ati

on

Co

urs

es

Curr

iculu

m &

Quali

ty o

f

Pro

gra

ms

All

ro

un

d

educati

on

&

acti

vit

y

base

d

learn

ing

thro

ugh

pro

jects

No

. o

f

inte

rnati

on

al

facult

ies

No

. o

f

inte

rnati

on

al

studen

ts

No

. o

f F

acult

y

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

pro

gra

ms

co

nducte

d

Facult

y t

o

Stu

den

t ra

tio

Reco

mm

en

da

tio

n b

y p

ast

teach

ers

,

frie

nds

rela

tiv

es

Em

plo

yabil

ity

of

pass

ed o

ut

studen

ts

Pri

or

Resu

lts

& P

lacem

en

t

of

studen

ts1

.00

00

6.4

90

70

.41

97

0.2

88

10

.46

70

2.0

91

35

.37

35

0.4

59

20

.64

44

1.0

31

30

.32

64

Tie

up

wit

h f

ore

ign

un

ivers

itie

s0

.15

41

1.0

00

00

.67

76

0.2

68

20

.20

33

0.6

44

42

.54

45

0.4

91

10

.40

66

0.8

82

60

.30

81

Nati

on

al

& G

lobal

Accre

dit

ati

on

2.3

82

71

.47

58

1.0

00

00

.34

66

0.6

59

82

.16

89

2.1

68

90

.31

55

0.4

25

12

.02

78

0.5

86

6

Co

urs

es

Curr

iculu

m &

Quali

ty o

f P

rogra

ms

3.4

71

33

.72

79

2.8

85

41

.00

00

0.4

67

04

.16

94

6.4

70

30

.74

44

0.9

69

62

.53

65

0.4

36

6

All

ro

un

d e

ducati

on

&

acti

vit

y b

ase

d l

earn

ing

thro

ugh

pro

jects

2.1

41

14

.91

90

1.5

15

72

.14

11

1.0

00

07

.43

24

4.6

63

20

.80

27

1.1

84

72

.91

37

0.8

89

1

No

. o

f in

tern

ati

on

al

facult

ies

0.4

78

21

.55

18

0.4

61

10

.23

98

0.1

34

51

.00

00

2.1

11

80

.20

13

0.4

23

40

.41

22

0.2

88

1

No

. o

f in

tern

ati

on

al

studen

ts0

.18

61

0.3

93

00

.46

11

0.1

54

60

.21

44

0.4

73

51

.00

00

0.2

06

10

.19

52

0.2

00

50

.20

05

No

. o

f F

acult

y

Dev

elo

pm

en

t p

rogra

ms

co

nducte

d2

.17

79

2.0

36

23

.16

98

1.3

43

41

.24

57

4.9

67

34

.85

16

1.0

00

01

.05

15

3.0

21

90

.97

67

Facult

y t

o S

tuden

t ra

tio

1.5

51

82

.45

95

2.3

52

21

.03

13

0.8

44

12

.36

19

5.1

22

80

.95

10

1.0

00

04

.42

73

1.0

00

0

Reco

mm

en

dati

on

by

past

teach

ers

, fr

ien

ds

rela

tiv

es

0.9

69

61

.13

30

0.4

93

10

.39

42

0.3

43

22

.42

58

4.9

87

80

.33

09

0.2

25

91

.00

00

0.6

44

4

Em

plo

yabil

ity

o

f p

ass

ed

out

studen

ts3

.06

39

3.2

45

31

.70

48

2.2

90

21

.12

47

3.4

71

34

.98

78

1.0

23

81

.00

00

1.5

51

81

.00

00

Sum

17

.57

67

28

.43

22

15

.14

04

9.4

97

56

.70

39

31

.20

61

44

.28

21

6.5

26

17

.52

64

20

.00

57

6.6

56

5

Table

53 -

Pair

wis

e C

om

pari

son M

atr

ix f

or

Quali

ty o

f E

duca

tion r

elate

d m

ain

cri

teri

a f

or

all

Adm

in r

esponden

ts


107

4.10.2 Normalization and priority matrix of Quality of Education Related criteria for

Administrators

Qua

lity

of

educ

atio

n

Rel

ated

Pri

or

Res

ults

&

Pla

cem

ent

of

stud

ents

Tie

up

wit

h

fore

ign

univ

ersi

ties

Nat

ion

al &

Glo

bal

Acc

redi

tati

on

Co

urse

s

Cur

ricu

lum

&

Qua

lity

of

Pro

gram

s

All

ro

und

educ

atio

n &

acti

vit

y

base

d

lear

nin

g

thro

ugh

pro

ject

s

No

. o

f

inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s

No

. o

f

inte

rnat

ion

al

stud

ents

No

. o

f

Fac

ulty

Dev

elo

pm

en

t p

rogr

ams

con

duct

ed

Fac

ulty

to

Stud

ent

rati

o

Rec

om

men

d

atio

n b

y

pas

t

teac

her

s,

frie

nds

rela

tiv

es

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y

of

pas

sed

out

stud

ents

Pri

ori

ties

Pri

or

Res

ults

&

Pla

cem

ent

of

stud

ents

0.05

690.

2283

0.02

770.

0303

0.06

970.

0670

0.12

130.

0704

0.08

560.

0516

0.04

900.

0780

Tie

up

wit

h f

ore

ign

univ

ersi

ties

0.00

880.

0352

0.04

480.

0282

0.03

030.

0206

0.05

750.

0753

0.05

400.

0441

0.04

630.

0405

Nat

ion

al &

Glo

bal

Acc

redi

tati

on

0.13

560.

0519

0.06

600.

0365

0.09

840.

0695

0.04

900.

0483

0.05

650.

1014

0.08

810.

0728

Co

urse

s C

urri

culu

m &

Qua

lity

of

Pro

gram

s0.

1975

0.13

110.

1906

0.10

530.

0697

0.13

360.

1461

0.11

410.

1288

0.12

680.

0656

0.12

81

All

ro

und

educ

atio

n &

acti

vit

y b

ased

lea

rnin

g

thro

ugh

pro

ject

s0.

1218

0.17

300.

1001

0.22

540.

1492

0.23

820.

1053

0.12

300.

1574

0.14

560.

1336

0.15

21

No

. o

f in

tern

atio

nal

facu

ltie

s0.

0272

0.05

460.

0305

0.02

530.

0201

0.03

200.

0477

0.03

080.

0563

0.02

060.

0433

0.03

53

No

. o

f in

tern

atio

nal

stud

ents

0.01

060.

0138

0.03

050.

0163

0.03

200.

0152

0.02

260.

0316

0.02

590.

0100

0.03

010.

0217

No

. o

f F

acul

ty

Dev

elo

pm

ent

pro

gram

s

con

duct

ed0.

1239

0.07

160.

2094

0.14

140.

1858

0.15

920.

1096

0.15

320.

1397

0.15

110.

1467

0.14

47

Fac

ulty

to

Stu

den

t ra

tio

0.08

830.

0865

0.15

540.

1086

0.12

590.

0757

0.11

570.

1457

0.13

290.

2213

0.15

020.

1278

Rec

om

men

dati

on

by

pas

t te

ach

ers,

fri

ends

rela

tiv

es0.

0552

0.03

980.

0326

0.04

150.

0512

0.07

770.

1126

0.05

070.

0300

0.05

000.

0968

0.05

80

Em

plo

yab

ilit

y

of

pas

sed

out

stu

den

ts0.

1743

0.11

410.

1126

0.24

110.

1678

0.11

120.

1126

0.15

690.

1329

0.07

760.

1502

0.14

10

Sum

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

Table

54 -

Norm

ali

zati

on

& P

rio

rity

Matr

ix f

or

Quali

ty o

f E

duca

tion R

elate

d C

rite

ria f

or

Adm

inis

trato

rs


108

4.10.3 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Research Output related main

criteria for all Admin respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses)

Rese

arc

h O

utp

ut

Rela

ted

Cam

pus

Infr

ast

ructu

re

Tie

up

wit

h

fore

ign

Un

ivers

itie

s

UG

C /

Pri

vate

/

Inte

rnati

on

al

Fun

din

g

Num

ber

of

inte

rnati

on

al

facult

ies

No

. o

f

Pate

nts

Regis

tere

d

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

& P

hD

s

pro

duced

No

. o

f

Facult

y

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

Pro

gra

ms

Co

nducte

d

Gro

wth

&

Rese

arc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

pro

vid

ed

Cam

pus

Infr

ast

ructu

re1.

0000

0.28

811.

4758

0.34

770.

3385

0.15

410.

2335

0.22

33

Tie

up

wit

h f

ore

ign

Un

ivers

itie

s3.

4713

1.00

004.

4777

1.26

190.

7248

0.72

480.

7248

0.46

70

UG

C /

Pri

vate

/

Inte

rnati

on

al

Fun

din

g0.

6776

0.22

331.

0000

0.31

650.

2088

0.14

150.

1345

0.20

39

Num

ber

of

inte

rnati

on

al

facult

ies

2.87

630.

7924

3.15

981.

0000

0.42

510.

6598

0.65

980.

4251

No

. o

f P

ate

nts

Regis

tere

d2.

9542

1.37

974.

7894

2.35

221.

0000

0.69

880.

9696

1.02

71

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

& P

hD

s

pro

duced

6.49

071.

3797

7.06

811.

5157

1.43

101.

0000

0.67

760.

6598

No

. o

f F

acult

y

Dev

elo

pm

en

t P

rogra

ms

Co

nducte

d4.

2823

1.37

977.

4324

1.51

571.

0313

1.47

581.

0000

0.82

19

Gro

wth

& R

ese

arc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s p

rov

ided

4.47

772.

1411

4.90

362.

3522

0.97

361.

5157

1.21

671.

0000

Sum

26.2

300

8.58

4234

.306

710

.661

86.

1331

6.37

045.

6166

4.82

81

Table

55-

Pair

wis

e C

om

pa

riso

n M

atr

ix f

or

Res

earc

h O

utp

ut

rela

ted m

ain

cri

teri

a f

or

all

Adm

in r

esponden

ts


109

4.10.4 Normalization and priority matrix of Research Output Related criteria for

Administrators

Res

earc

h O

utp

ut R

elat

edC

amp

us

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Tie

up w

ith

fore

ign

Un

iver

siti

es

UG

C /

Pri

vat

e /

Inte

rnat

ion

al F

undi

ng

Num

ber

of

inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s

No

. o

f

Pat

ents

Reg

iste

red

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

&

Ph

Ds

pro

duce

d

No

. o

f F

acul

ty

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pro

gram

s

Co

ndu

cted

Gro

wth

&

Res

earc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

pro

vid

ed

Pri

ori

ties

Cam

pus

In

fras

truc

ture

0.03

810.

0336

0.04

300.

0326

0.05

520.

0242

0.04

160.

0463

0.03

93

Tie

up w

ith

fo

reig

n

Un

iver

siti

es0.

1323

0.11

650.

1305

0.11

840.

1182

0.11

380.

1290

0.09

670.

1194

UG

C /

Pri

vat

e /

Inte

rnat

ion

al F

undi

ng

0.02

580.

0260

0.02

910.

0297

0.03

400.

0222

0.02

400.

0422

0.02

91

Num

ber

of

inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s0.

1097

0.09

230.

0921

0.09

380.

0693

0.10

360.

1175

0.08

810.

0958

No

. o

f P

aten

ts R

egis

tere

d0.

1126

0.16

070.

1396

0.22

060.

1630

0.10

970.

1726

0.21

270.

1615

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

& P

hD

s

pro

duce

d0.

2475

0.16

070.

2060

0.14

220.

2333

0.15

700.

1206

0.13

660.

1755

No

. o

f F

acul

ty

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pro

gram

s

Co

ndu

cted

0.16

330.

1607

0.21

660.

1422

0.16

820.

2317

0.17

800.

1702

0.17

89

Gro

wth

& R

esea

rch

Op

po

rtun

itie

s p

rov

ided

0.17

070.

2494

0.14

290.

2206

0.15

880.

2379

0.21

660.

2071

0.20

05

Sum

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

00

Table

56 -

Norm

ali

zati

on a

nd p

riori

ty m

atr

ix o

f R

esea

rch O

utp

ut

Rel

ate

d c

rite

ria f

or

Adm

inis

trato

rs


110

4.10.5 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Size & Infrastructure related

main criteria for all Admin respondents (Geometric Means of individual

responses)

Table 57- Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Size & Infrastructure related main criteria for all Admin

respondents

Size & Infrastructure

Related

Campus

Infrastructure

Tie up with

foreign

Universities

UGC /

Private /

International

Funding

Number of

international

faculties

Campus Infrastructure 1.0000 0.7634 0.2385 0.1901

Tie up with foreign

Universities 1.3099 1.0000 0.5899 0.5296

UGC / Private /

International Funding 4.1930 1.6952 1.0000 0.6598

Number of international

faculties 5.2614 1.8882 1.5157 1.0000

Sum 11.7643 5.3468 3.3441 2.3794

4.10.6 Normalization and priority matrix of Size & Infrastructure Related criteria

for Administrators

Table 58 - Normalization and priority matrix of Size & Infrastructure Related criteria for Administrators

Size & Infrastructure Related

Campus Infrastructure

Tie up with foreign

Universities

UGC / Private /

International Funding

Number of international

faculties Priorities

Campus Infrastructure 0.0850 0.1428 0.0713 0.0799 0.0947

Tie up with foreign Universities 0.1113 0.1870 0.1764 0.2226 0.1743

UGC / Private / International Funding 0.3564 0.3171 0.2990 0.2773 0.3124

Number of international faculties 0.4472 0.3531 0.4533 0.4203 0.4185

Sum 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000


111

4.10.7 Consolidated Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Quality of Faculty related main

criteria for all Admin respondents (Geometric Means of individual responses)

Qua

lity

of

Fac

ulty

Rel

ated

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Tie

up w

ith

fore

ign

Un

iver

siti

es

UG

C /

Pri

vat

e /

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Fun

din

g

Num

ber

of

inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s

No

. o

f

Pat

ents

Reg

iste

red

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

& P

hD

s

pro

duce

d

No

. o

f

Fac

ulty

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pro

gram

s

Co

ndu

cted

Gro

wth

&

Res

earc

h

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

pro

vid

ed

Pap

ers

pub

lish

ed b

y

facu

ltie

s

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

atio

n I

nde

x

Nat

ion

al &

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Rec

ogn

itio

n

Sala

ry

stru

ctur

e

Cam

pus

In

fras

truc

ture

1.00

003.

4126

0.67

763.

3798

2.29

021.

5157

0.65

980.

3686

0.82

451.

5518

1.02

710.

4701

Tie

up w

ith

fo

reig

n

Un

iver

siti

es0.

2930

1.00

000.

1901

1.47

580.

7248

0.68

930.

3081

0.47

820.

3165

0.42

750.

2755

0.23

13

UG

C /

Pri

vat

e /

Inte

rnat

ion

al F

undi

ng

1.47

585.

2614

1.00

002.

6052

2.35

221.

5157

1.51

571.

5157

1.14

871.

0986

1.21

671.

5157

Num

ber

of

inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s0.

2959

0.67

760.

3839

1.00

000.

9767

0.23

130.

2183

0.22

420.

2242

0.22

960.

2242

0.22

42

No

. o

f P

aten

ts R

egis

tere

d0.

4366

1.37

970.

4251

1.02

381.

0000

0.65

980.

4251

0.43

660.

4471

2.35

221.

8384

0.67

76

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

& P

hD

s

pro

duce

d0.

6598

1.45

090.

6598

4.32

421.

5157

1.00

000.

3624

0.37

220.

5957

1.09

861.

0986

0.63

10

No

. o

f F

acul

ty

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pro

gram

s

Co

ndu

cted

1.51

573.

2453

0.65

984.

5803

2.35

222.

7595

1.00

001.

5157

1.51

571.

5157

1.51

571.

2167

Gro

wth

& R

esea

rch

Op

po

rtun

itie

s p

rov

ided

2.71

312.

0913

0.65

984.

4596

2.29

022.

6867

0.65

981.

0000

1.47

581.

5110

1.47

581.

5157

Pap

ers

pub

lish

ed b

y

facu

ltie

s1.

2129

3.15

980.

8706

4.45

962.

2369

1.67

880.

6598

0.67

761.

0000

1.09

861.

0986

1.21

67

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

atio

n I

nde

x0.

6444

2.33

890.

9103

4.35

580.

4251

0.91

030.

6598

0.66

180.

9103

1.00

000.

8219

1.18

47

Nat

ion

al &

In

tern

atio

nal

Rec

ogn

itio

n0.

9736

3.62

970.

8219

4.45

960.

5439

0.91

030.

6598

0.67

760.

9103

1.21

671.

0000

1.47

58

Sala

ry s

truc

ture

2.12

724.

3242

0.65

984.

4596

1.47

581.

5849

0.82

190.

6598

0.82

190.

8441

0.67

761.

0000

Sum

13.3

480

31.9

716

7.91

8440

.583

518

.183

616

.142

17.

9504

8.58

8110

.190

513

.944

312

.270

011

.359

5

Table

59 -

Pair

wis

e C

om

pari

son M

atr

ix f

or

Quali

ty o

f F

acu

lty

rela

ted m

ain

cri

teri

a f

or

all

Adm

in r

esponden

ts


112

4.10.8 Normalization and priority matrix of Quality of Faculty Related criteria for

Administrators

Qua

lity

of

Fac

ulty

Rel

ated

Cam

pus

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Tie

up w

ith

fore

ign

Un

iver

siti

es

UG

C /

Pri

vat

e

/ In

tern

atio

nal

Fun

din

g

Num

ber

of

inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s

No

. o

f

Pat

ents

Reg

iste

red

No

. o

f

M.P

hil

s &

Ph

Ds

pro

duce

d

No

. o

f

Fac

ulty

Dev

elo

pm

en

t P

rogr

ams

Co

ndu

cted

Gro

wth

&

Res

earc

h

Op

po

rtun

iti

es p

rov

ided

Pap

ers

pub

lish

ed b

y

facu

ltie

s

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

atio

n

Inde

x

Nat

ion

al &

Inte

rnat

ion

al

Rec

ogn

itio

n

Sala

ry

stru

ctur

eP

rio

riti

es

Cam

pus

In

fras

truc

ture

0.07

490.

1067

0.08

560.

0833

0.12

590.

0939

0.08

300.

0429

0.08

090.

1113

0.08

370.

0414

0.08

45

Tie

up w

ith

fo

reig

n

Un

iver

siti

es0.

0220

0.03

130.

0240

0.03

640.

0399

0.04

270.

0388

0.05

570.

0311

0.03

070.

0225

0.02

040.

0329

UG

C /

Pri

vat

e /

Inte

rnat

ion

al F

undi

ng

0.11

060.

1646

0.12

630.

0642

0.12

940.

0939

0.19

060.

1765

0.11

270.

0788

0.09

920.

1334

0.12

33

Num

ber

of

inte

rnat

ion

al

facu

ltie

s0.

0222

0.02

120.

0485

0.02

460.

0537

0.01

430.

0275

0.02

610.

0220

0.01

650.

0183

0.01

970.

0262

No

. o

f P

aten

ts R

egis

tere

d0.

0327

0.04

320.

0537

0.02

520.

0550

0.04

090.

0535

0.05

080.

0439

0.16

870.

1498

0.05

970.

0648

No

. o

f M

.Ph

ils

& P

hD

s

pro

duce

d0.

0494

0.04

540.

0833

0.10

660.

0834

0.06

190.

0456

0.04

330.

0585

0.07

880.

0895

0.05

550.

0668

No

. o

f F

acul

ty

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pro

gram

s

Co

ndu

cted

0.11

360.

1015

0.08

330.

1129

0.12

940.

1709

0.12

580.

1765

0.14

870.

1087

0.12

350.

1071

0.12

52

Gro

wth

& R

esea

rch

Op

po

rtun

itie

s p

rov

ided

0.20

330.

0654

0.08

330.

1099

0.12

590.

1664

0.08

300.

1164

0.14

480.

1084

0.12

030.

1334

0.12

17

Pap

ers

pub

lish

ed b

y

facu

ltie

s0.

0909

0.09

880.

1099

0.10

990.

1230

0.10

400.

0830

0.07

890.

0981

0.07

880.

0895

0.10

710.

0977

His

tori

cal

Sch

ola

rly

Ran

kin

g &

Cit

atio

n I

nde

x0.

0483

0.07

320.

1150

0.10

730.

0234

0.05

640.

0830

0.07

710.

0893

0.07

170.

0670

0.10

430.

0763

Nat

ion

al &

In

tern

atio

nal

Rec

ogn

itio

n0.

0729

0.11

350.

1038

0.10

990.

0299

0.05

640.

0830

0.07

890.

0893

0.08

730.

0815

0.12

990.

0864

Sala

ry s

truc

ture

0.15

940.

1353

0.08

330.

1099

0.08

120.

0982

0.10

340.

0768

0.08

070.

0605

0.05

520.

0880

0.09

43

Sum

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

001.

0000

1.00

00

Table

60 -

Norm

ali

zati

on a

nd p

riori

ty m

atr

ix o

f Q

uali

ty o

f F

acu

lty

Rel

ate

d c

rite

ria f

or

Adm

inis

tra

tors


113

4.10.9 Consistency Ratio for Quality of Education Related Criteria for

Administrators


Wei

ght (

B)A

x B

A x

B /

B

1.00

006.

4907

0.41

970.

2881

0.46

702.

0913

5.37

350.

4592

0.64

441.

0313

0.32

640.

0780

0.92

4111

.850

0

0.15

411.

0000

0.67

760.

2682

0.20

330.

6444

2.54

450.

4911

0.40

660.

8826

0.30

810.

0405

0.46

2711

.436

8

2.38

271.

4758

1.00

000.

3466

0.65

982.

1689

2.16

890.

3155

0.42

512.

0278

0.58

660.

0728

0.88

7012

.178

3

3.47

133.

7279

2.88

541.

0000

0.46

704.

1694

6.47

030.

7444

0.96

962.

5365

0.43

660.

1281

1.55

8712

.167

4

2.14

114.

9190

1.51

572.

1411

1.00

007.

4324

4.66

320.

8027

1.18

472.

9137

0.88

910.

1521

1.82

8212

.023

3

0.47

821.

5518

0.46

110.

2398

0.13

451.

0000

2.11

180.

2013

0.42

340.

4122

0.28

810.

0353

0.41

3711

.721

1

0.18

610.

3930

0.46

110.

1546

0.21

440.

4735

1.00

000.

2061

0.19

520.

2005

0.20

050.

0217

0.24

9511

.504

8

2.17

792.

0362

3.16

981.

3434

1.24

574.

9673

4.85

161.

0000

1.05

153.

0219

0.97

670.

1447

1.71

7311

.868

9

1.55

182.

4595

2.35

221.

0313

0.84

412.

3619

5.12

280.

9510

1.00

004.

4273

1.00

000.

1278

1.51

0111

.813

3

0.96

961.

1330

0.49

310.

3942

0.34

322.

4258

4.98

780.

3309

0.22

591.

0000

0.64

440.

0580

0.67

9511

.712

5

3.06

393.

2453

1.70

482.

2902

1.12

473.

4713

4.98

781.

0238

1.00

001.

5518

1.00

000.

1410

1.69

6512

.029

3

Lam

bda

max

11.8

460

CI0.

0846

CR5.

60%

Qua

lity

of e

duca

tion

rela

ted

fact

ors

Mat

rix

(A)

Table

61 -

Consi

sten

cy R

ati

o f

or

Quali

ty o

f E

duca

tion r

elate

d C

rite

ria f

or

Adm

inis

trato

rs


114

4.10.10 Consistency Ratio for Research Output Related Criteria for Administrators


We

igh

t(B

)A

x B

A x

B /

B

1.00

000.

2881

1.47

580.

3477

0.33

850.

1541

0.23

350.

2233

0.03

930.

3183

8.09

53

3.47

131.

0000

4.47

771.

2619

0.72

480.

7248

0.72

480.

4670

0.11

940.

9748

8.16

18

0.67

760.

2233

1.00

000.

3165

0.20

880.

1415

0.13

450.

2039

0.02

910.

2363

8.10

76

2.87

630.

7924

3.15

981.

0000

0.42

510.

6598

0.65

980.

4251

0.09

580.

7833

8.17

74

2.95

421.

3797

4.78

942.

3522

1.00

000.

6988

0.96

961.

0271

0.16

151.

3093

8.10

89

6.49

071.

3797

7.06

811.

5157

1.43

101.

0000

0.67

760.

6598

0.17

551.

4311

8.15

49

4.28

231.

3797

7.43

241.

5157

1.03

131.

4758

1.00

000.

8219

0.17

891.

4641

8.18

56

4.47

772.

1411

4.90

362.

3522

0.97

361.

5157

1.21

671.

0000

0.20

051.

6413

8.18

54

Lam

bd

a m

ax8.

1471

CI

0.02

10

CR

1.49

%

Re

sear

ch O

utp

ut

Re

late

d F

acto

rs M

atri

x (A

)

Table

62 -

Consi

sten

cy R

ati

o f

or

Res

earc

h O

utp

ut

rela

ted C

rite

ria f

or

Adm

inis

trato

rs


115

4.10.11Consistency Ratio for Size & Infrastructure Related Criteria for

Administrators

Table 63 - Consistency ratio for Size & Infrastructure related factors for administrators

Size & Infrastructure Related Factors Matrix (A) Weight (B) A x B A x B / B

1.0000 0.7634 0.2385 0.1901 0.0947 0.3819 4.0307

1.3099 1.0000 0.5899 0.5296 0.1743 0.7044 4.0403

4.1930 1.6952 1.0000 0.6598 0.3124 1.2813 4.1010

5.2614 1.8882 1.5157 1.0000 0.4185 1.7197 4.1095

Lambda max 4.0704

CI 0.0176

CR 1.96%



116

4.10.12Consistency Ratio for Quality of Faculty Related Criteria for Administrators


Wei

ght (

B)A

x B

A x

B / B

1.00

003.

4126

0.67

763.

3798

2.29

021.

5157

0.65

980.

3686

0.82

451.

5518

1.02

710.

4701

0.08

451.

0779

12.7

623

0.29

301.

0000

0.19

011.

4758

0.72

480.

6893

0.30

810.

4782

0.31

650.

4275

0.27

550.

2313

0.03

290.

4187

12.7

151

1.47

585.

2614

1.00

002.

6052

2.35

221.

5157

1.51

571.

5157

1.14

871.

0986

1.21

671.

5157

0.12

331.

5613

12.6

582

0.29

590.

6776

0.38

391.

0000

0.97

670.

2313

0.21

830.

2242

0.22

420.

2296

0.22

420.

2242

0.02

620.

3341

12.7

449

0.43

661.

3797

0.42

511.

0238

1.00

000.

6598

0.42

510.

4366

0.44

712.

3522

1.83

840.

6776

0.06

480.

8226

12.7

043

0.65

981.

4509

0.65

984.

3242

1.51

571.

0000

0.36

240.

3722

0.59

571.

0986

1.09

860.

6310

0.06

680.

8502

12.7

336

1.51

573.

2453

0.65

984.

5803

2.35

222.

7595

1.00

001.

5157

1.51

571.

5157

1.51

571.

2167

0.12

521.

5919

12.7

190

2.71

312.

0913

0.65

984.

4596

2.29

022.

6867

0.65

981.

0000

1.47

581.

5110

1.47

581.

5157

0.12

171.

5581

12.8

014

1.21

293.

1598

0.87

064.

4596

2.23

691.

6788

0.65

980.

6776

1.00

001.

0986

1.09

861.

2167

0.09

771.

2439

12.7

362

0.64

442.

3389

0.91

034.

3558

0.42

510.

9103

0.65

980.

6618

0.91

031.

0000

0.82

191.

1847

0.07

630.

9573

12.5

427

0.97

363.

6297

0.82

194.

4596

0.54

390.

9103

0.65

980.

6776

0.91

031.

2167

1.00

001.

4758

0.08

641.

0884

12.6

027

2.12

724.

3242

0.65

984.

4596

1.47

581.

5849

0.82

190.

6598

0.82

190.

8441

0.67

761.

0000

0.09

431.

2024

12.7

485

Lam

bda

max

12.7

057

CI0.

0642

CR4.

33%

Qua

lity

of F

acul

ty re

late

d Fa

ctor

s Mat

rix (A

)

Table

64 -

Consi

sten

cy R

ati

o f

or

Quali

ty o

f F

acu

lty

rela

ted C

rite

ria f

or

Adm

inis

trato

rs


117


for all Admin respondents for Quality of Education related criteria

Table 65 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Quality of Education related criteria

for Admin respondents



Admin-1 1 2.1118 88% 0.1386 86.1% 8.26 7.21

Admin-2 2 2.2641 94% 0.1118 88.8% 9.62 8.94

Admin-3 3 2.2984 96% 0.1093 89.1% 9.96 9.15

Admin-4 4 2.1145 88% 0.1517 84.8% 8.29 6.59

Admin-5 5 2.1727 91% 0.1304 87.0% 8.78 7.67


Education related criteria

Table 66 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Quality of Education related

criteria

Input Data

No of Classes 11

No of Samples 5






MacArthur M 0.9198



The AHP consensus among diverse faculties from different streams for Quality of

Education related criteria was found to be 75.0% which is an indicator of moderately

high degree of agreement of all administrators on these criteria.


118


for all Admin respondents for Research Output related criteria

Table 67 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Research Output related criteria for

Admin respondents



Admin-1 1 1.7996 87% 0.1882 81.2% 6.05 5.31

Admin-2 2 1.9246 93% 0.1640 83.6% 6.85 6.10

Admin-3 3 1.9865 96% 0.1451 85.5% 7.29 6.89

Admin-4 4 1.8890 91% 0.1610 83.9% 6.61 6.21

Admin-5 5 1.9092 92% 0.1605 84.0% 6.75 6.23

4.10.16 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Research

Output related criteria

Table 68 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Research Output related

criteria

Input Data

No of Classes 8

No of Samples 5






MacArthur M 0.9276



The AHP consensus among diverse faculties from different streams for Research

Output related criteria was found to be 80.3% which is an indicator of high degree of

agreement of all administrators on these criteria.


119


for all Admin respondents for Size & Infrastructure related criteria

Table 69 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Size & Infrastructure related criteria

for Admin respondents



Admin-1 1 1.0279 74% 0.4355 56.5% 2.80 2.30

Admin-2 2 1.2709 92% 0.3021 69.8% 3.56 3.31

Admin-3 3 1.3863 100% 0.2500 75.0% 4.00 4.00

Admin-4 4 1.2135 88% 0.3112 68.9% 3.37 3.21

Admin-5 5 1.2345 89% 0.3204 68.0% 3.44 3.12

4.10.18 Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Size &

Infrastructure related criteria

Table 70 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Size & Infrastructure related

criteria

Input Data

No of Classes 4

No of Samples 5






MacArthur M 0.9324



The AHP consensus among diverse faculties from different streams for Size &

Infrastructure related criteria was found to be 85.2% which is an indicator of high

degree of agreement of all administrators on these criteria.


120


for all Admin respondents for Quality of Faculty related criteria

Table 71 - Shannon Entropy, Equitability, Simpson & Hill Numbers for Quality of Faculty related criteria for

Admin respondents


tability Dominance Simpson 1D 2D

Admin-1 1 2.2348 90% 0.1291 87.1% 9.34 7.75

Admin-2 2 2.4377 98% 0.0902 91.0% 11.45 11.09

Admin-3 3 2.4405 98% 0.0909 90.9% 11.48 11.00

Admin-4 4 2.3699 95% 0.0993 90.1% 10.70 10.07

Admin-5 5 2.3450 94% 0.1022 89.8% 10.43 9.78


Faculty related criteria

Table 72 - Diversity & Homogeneity Measures among Admin respondents for Quality of Faculty related

criteria

Input Data

No of Classes 12

No of Samples 5


-Diversity 2.366 10.650

-Diversity 2.435 11.413



MacArthur M 0.9332



The AHP consensus among diverse faculties from different streams for Quality of

Faculty related criteria was found to be 78.3% which is an indicator of high degree of

agreement of all administrators on these criteria.

Findings

121

CHAPTER 5

Findings

5 Findings

5.1 Sub Criteria Ranks for Students

The following are the ranks of sub criteria obtained after normalization of the consolidated

pairwise comparisons matrices under the three main criteria for students. The ranks are in

descending order of the priorities (weights) of the criteria.

5.1.1 Students Ranks for University / Institute related criteria

Table 73 - Weight and Rank of University / Institute Related Criteria for students

University Related Factors Priorities Rank

All round education and activity based learning 15.786% 1

Prior Results & Placement of students 15.583% 2

Employability of passed out students 15.380% 3

ICT Enabled University 9.651% 4

Recommendation by past teachers, friends, relatives 9.075% 5

Cost of education 8.507% 6

Separate Activity Centre 7.611% 7

National / Global Accreditation 7.473% 8

Type of University & No of Affiliated Colleges 4.134% 9

Campus Infrastructure 3.714% 10

Religious Consideration 3.086% 11

Findings

122

Figure 16- Percentage weight of University / Institute related factors for students

5.1.2 Students Ranks for Faculty related criteria

Table 74 - Weight & Ranks of Faculty Related Criteria for students

Faculty Related Priorities Rank

Qualification & Experience of faculties 27.338% 1


Faculty to student ratio 12.868% 3

National & International Recognition of faculties 12.228% 4

Papers published by faculties 10.144% 5

Honors / Awards received by faculties 8.863% 6

Historical Scholarly ranking 8.803% 7

Number of International faculties 6.328% 8

0.00

%

2.00

%

4.00

%

6.00

%

8.00

%

10.0

0%

12.0

0%

14.0

0%

16.0

0%

18.0

0%

All round education and activity based learning

Prior Results & Placement of students

Employability of passed out students

ICT Enabled University

Recommendation by past teachers, friends,…

Cost of education

Separate Activity Centre

National / Global Accreditation

Type of University & No of Affiliated Colleges


Religious Consideration

(%)

Findings

123

Figure 17- Percentage weight of Faculty related factors for students

5.1.3 Students Ranks for Convenience related criteria

Table 75 - Weight & Ranks of Convenience related Criteria for students

Convenience related Priorities Rank

Availability of scholarship 16.432% 1

Cost of education (fees) 13.373% 2


Availability of major course 10.670% 4

Availability of Hostel facility 9.929% 5

Ease of obtaining loan 9.511% 6

Nearness to home 9.003% 7



Admission Policy 5.703% 10

0.00

%

5.00

%

10.0

0%

15.0

0%

20.0

0%

25.0

0%

30.0

0%

Qualification & Experience of faculties


Faculty to student ratio

National & International Recognition of faculties

Papers published by faculties

Honors / Awards received by faculties

Historical Scholarly ranking

Number of International faculties

Findings

124

Figure 18- Percentage weight of Convenience related factors for students

5.1.4 Students Ranks for main criteria

Table 76 - Weight and rank of main criteria for students

Main Criteria for Students Priority Rank

Faculty Related 54.92% 1

Convenience related 33.12% 2

University Related Factors 11.96% 3

Figure 19- Percentage weight of main factors for students

0.00

0%

2.00

0%

4.00

0%

6.00

0%

8.00

0%

10.0

00%

12.0

00%

14.0

00%

16.0

00%

18.0

00%

Availability of scholarship

Cost of education (fees)


Availability of major course

Availability of Hostel facility

Ease of obtaining loan

Nearness to home



Admission Policy

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%

Faculty Related

Convenience related

University Related Factors

Findings

125

5.1.5 Global Weight for all Criteria for Students

The global weights are obtained by product of Main Criteria weight with the sub criteria

weights.

Table 77 - Global Weight for Students Criteria

Main

Criteria

Local

Weights Sub Criteria

Local

Weights

Global

Weights

Univ

ersi

ty /

Inst

itute

Rel

ated

Fac

tors

0.1196

Type of University & No of Affiliated Colleges 0.0413 0.0049

Campus Infrastructure 0.0371 0.0044

Prior Results & Placement of students 0.1558 0.0186

National / Global Accreditation 0.0747 0.0089

All round education and activity based learning 0.1579 0.0189

ICT Enabled University 0.0965 0.0115

Cost of education 0.0851 0.0102

Religious Consideration 0.0309 0.0037

Recommendation by past teachers, friends, relatives 0.0907 0.0109

Employability of passed out students 0.1538 0.0184

Separate Activity Centre 0.0761 0.0091

Fac

ult

y R

elat

ed f

acto

rs

0.5492


Number of International faculties 0.0633 0.0348

Qualification & Experience of faculties 0.2734 0.1501

Faculty to student ratio 0.1287 0.0707

Honors / Awards received by faculties 0.0886 0.0487

Papers published by faculties 0.1014 0.0557

Historical Scholarly ranking 0.0880 0.0483

National & International Recognition of faculties 0.1223 0.0672

Conven

ience

Rel

ated

fac

tors

0.3312

Type of University & No of Affiliated Colleges 0.0634 0.0210

Admission Policy 0.0570 0.0189

Availability of major course 0.1067 0.0353

ICT Enabled University 0.1113 0.0369

Nearness to home 0.0900 0.0298

Cost of education (fees) 0.1337 0.0443

Ease of obtaining loan 0.0951 0.0315

Availability of scholarship 0.1643 0.0544

Availability of Hostel facility 0.0993 0.0329

Separate Activity Centre 0.0790 0.0262

Findings

126

5.1.6 Weights and Ranks of student’s criteria

Table 78- Weights and Ranks of Student's Criteria

Criteria for students Weights Rank

























Findings

127

Figure 20- Percentage Weights of Student’s Criteria

5.2 Sub Criteria Ranks for Faculties


pairwise comparisons matrices under the three main criteria for faculties. The ranks are in


5.2.1 Faculty Ranks for Job Security related criteria

Table 79 - Weight and Rank of Job Security Related Criteria for Faculties

Job Security Related Priority Rank

National & International Recognition 51.83% 1 Availability of Major Courses 29.11% 2 Type of University 19.07% 3

0.00

%

2.00

%

4.00

%

6.00

%

8.00

%

10.0

0%

12.0

0%

14.0

0%

16.0

0%



Faculty to student ratio



Availability of scholarship

Cost of education


Honors / Awards received by faculties

Historical Scholarly ranking

Availability of major course


Number of International faculties

Availability of Hostel facility

Ease of obtaining loan

Nearness to home


Admission Policy

All round education and activity based learning


Recommendation by past teachers, friends,…



Religious Consideration

Findings

128

Figure 21- Percentage Weights of Job Security related criteria for faculties

5.2.2 Faculty Ranks for Job Progression & Growth related criteria

Table 80 - Weight and Rank of Job Progression & Growth Related Criteria for Faculties

Job progression and Growth Related Priority Rank

Growth & Research Opportunities provided 21.13% 1

Salary structure 14.61% 2

No. of Faculty Development Programs Conducted 13.64% 3


No. of M. Phil & PhDs produced 9.28% 5

National & International Recognition 8.79% 6

Historical Scholarly Ranking & Citation Index 5.20% 7

UGC / Private / International Funding 3.92% 8

No. of Patents Registered 3.72% 9

Tie up with foreign Universities 3.22% 10

Number of international faculties 3.07% 11


0.00

%

10.0

0%

20.0

0%

30.0

0%

40.0

0%

50.0

0%

60.0

0%

National & International Recognition

Availability of Major Courses

Type of University

Findings

129

Figure 22- Percentage Weights of Job Progression & Growth related criteria for faculties

5.2.3 Faculty Ranks for Recognition related criteria

Table 81 - Weight and Rank of Recognition Related Criteria for Faculties

Recognition Related Priority Rank


Consultation provided to Industries & Collaborative Research 15.13% 2


Honors, Awards, Prizes received by faculties 9.51% 4


Paper published by faculties 7.80% 6



Recommendations by past teachers, friends, relatives 4.53% 9

Type of University & Number of affiliated colleges 3.79% 10



0.0

0%

5.0

0%

10

.00

%

15

.00

%

20

.00

%

25

.00

%

Growth & Research Opportunities provided

Salary structure

No. of Faculty Development Programs Conducted


No. of M.Phils & PhDs produced


Historical Scholarly Ranking & Citation Index

UGC / Private / International Funding

No. of Patents Registered

Tieup with foreign Universities

Number of international faculties


Findings

130


No. of international students 2.34% 14

Figure 23- Percentage Weights of Recognition Related criteria for faculties

5.2.4 Faculties Ranks for main criteria

Table 82 - Weight and rank of main criteria for Faculties

Main Criteria for faculties Priority Rank

Job Security Related 47.78% 1

Job progression and Growth Related 35.00% 2

Recognition Related 17.22% 3

Figure 24- Percentage weight of main factors for Faculties

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%


Consultation provided to Industries &…


Honors, Awards, Prizes received by faculties


Paper published by faculties



Recommendations by past teachers,…

Type of University & Number of affiliated…




No. of international students

0.00% 10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%

Job Security Related

Job progression and Growth Related

Recognition Related

Findings

131

5.2.5 Global Weight for all Criteria for Faculties


weights.

Table 83 - Global Weight for Main Criteria for faculties

Main Local Sub Local Global

Job

Security

Related

0.4778

Type of University 0.1907 0.0911

Availability of Major Courses 0.2911 0.1391

National & International Recognition 0.5183 0.2476

Job

progression

and Growth

Related

0.3500


Tie up with foreign Universities 0.0322 0.0113

UGC / Private / International Funding 0.0392 0.0137

Number of international faculties 0.0307 0.0107

No. of Patents Registered 0.0372 0.0130

No. of M. Phil & PhDs produced 0.0928 0.0325

No. of Faculty Development Programs Conducted 0.1364 0.0477

Growth & Research Opportunities provided 0.2113 0.0740


Historical Scholarly Ranking & Citation Index 0.0520 0.0182


Salary structure 0.1461 0.0511

Recognition

Related 0.1722

Type of University & Number of affiliated colleges 0.0379 0.0065



National / Global Accreditation 0.0655 0.0113

No. of international students 0.0234 0.0040




Honors, Awards, Prizes received by faculties 0.0951 0.0164

Paper published by faculties 0.0780 0.0134



Consultation provided to Industries & Collaborative

Research 0.1513 0.0261

Recommendations by past teachers, friends,

relatives 0.0453 0.0078

Findings

132

5.2.6 Weights and Ranks of faculty’s criteria

Table 84 - Weights and Ranks of faculty’s criteria

Criteria for faculties Weight Rank


Availability of Major Courses 13.91% 2


Type of University & No. of affiliated colleges 9.76% 4






Consultation provided to Industries & Collaborative Research 2.61% 10



Honors, Awards, Prizes received by faculties 1.64% 13





Recommendations by past teachers, friends, relatives 0.78% 18


Findings

133

Figure 25 - Weight of All Faculty criteria

5.3 Sub Criteria Ranks for Industries


pairwise comparisons matrices under the two main criteria for industries. The ranks are in


5.3.1 Industry Ranks for Employability of Student related criteria

Table 85 - Weight and Rank of Employability of students Related Criteria for Industries

Employability of Student Related Priorities Rank

Ethics, Value system & Etiquettes of students 39.58% 1


All round & Activity based learning through live projects 13.37% 3

Communication skills of students 12.03% 4

Prior Performance & Placements of Students 6.21% 5

Course Curriculum & Quality of programs 5.66% 6

Availability of Major courses / Future ready programs 5.39% 7


0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%


Availability of Major Courses


Type of University & No. of affiliated colleges


Salary structure




Consultation provided to Industries &…



Honors, Awards, Prizes received by faculties





Recommendations by past teachers, friends,…


Findings

134

Figure 26- Weight of Employability of students Related Criteria for Industries

5.3.2 Industry Ranks for Collaborative Research related criteria

Table 86 - Weight and Rank of Collaborative Research Related Criteria for Industries

Collaborative Research Related Priorities Rank Consultation to Industries and collaborative research 28.71% 1 National & International recognition of faculties 14.70% 2 Qualification & Experience of faculties 10.30% 3 No. of patents Registered 8.82% 4 Honors / Awards / Prizes received by faculties 8.08% 5 All round activity based learning through live projects 7.70% 6 National & Global accreditation 5.06% 7 Campus Infrastructure 4.50% 8 No. of M. Phil & PhD Produced 3.90% 9 Tie up with foreign universities 2.31% 10 UGC / Private / International funding 2.08% 11 No. of International Faculties 1.97% 12 Type of University & No. of affiliated colleges 1.87% 13

0.0

0%

5.0

0%

10

.00

%

15

.00

%

20

.00

%

25

.00

%

30

.00

%

35

.00

%

40

.00

%

45

.00

%

Ethics, Value system & Etiquettes of students


All round & Activity based learning through live projects

Communication skills of students

Prior Performance & Placements of Students

Course Curriculum & Quality of programs

Availability of Major courses / Future ready programs


Findings

135

Figure 27- Weight of Collaborative Research Related Criteria for Industries

5.3.3 Ranks for Industries main criteria

Table 87 - Weight and rank of main criteria for Industries

Main Criteria for Industries Priority Rank

Employability of Student 0.5 1

Collaborative Research 0.5 1

Figure 28- Weights of Main Criteria for Industries

0.00% 5.00% 10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%

Consultation to Industries and collaborative…

National & International recognition of faculties


No. of patents Registered

Honors / Awards / Prizes received by faculties

All round activity based learning through live…

National & Global accreditation


No. of M.Phils & PhD Produced

Tie up with foreign universities

UGC / Private / International funding

No. of International Faculties


0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%

Emloyability of Student

Collaborative Research

Findings

136

5.3.4 Global Weight for all Criteria for Industries


weights.

Table 88 - Global Weight for Main Criteria for Industries

Main

Criteria Weight

Sub

Criteria Weight

Global

Weight

Employability

of Student

Related

0.5

Type of University & No. of affiliated colleges 0.0237 0.0119

Prior Performance & Placements of Students 0.0621 0.0311

Availability of Major courses / Future ready

programs 0.0539 0.0269

Course Curriculum & Quality of programs 0.0566 0.0283

All round & Activity based learning through live

projects 0.1337 0.0669


Communication skills of students 0.1203 0.0601

Ethics, Value system & Etiquettes of students 0.3958 0.1979

Collaborative

Research

Related

0.5

Type of University & No. of affiliated colleges 0.0187 0.0094


Tie up with foreign universities 0.0231 0.0116

National & Global accreditation 0.0506 0.0253

UGC / Private / International funding 0.0208 0.0104

All round activity based learning through live

projects 0.0770 0.0385

No. of International Faculties 0.0197 0.0099

No. of patents Registered 0.0882 0.0441

No. of M. Phil & PhD Produced 0.0390 0.0195

Qualification & Experience of faculties 0.1030 0.0515

Honors / Awards / Prizes received by faculties 0.0808 0.0404

National & International recognition of faculties 0.1470 0.0735

Consultation to Industries and collaborative research 0.2871 0.1435

5.3.5 Weights and Ranks of Industry’s criteria

Table 89 - Weights and Ranks of Industry’s criteria

Criteria for Industries Priority Rank

Ethics, Value system & Etiquettes of students 19.79% 1

Consultation to Industries and collaborative research 14.35% 2

All round & Activity based learning through live projects 10.54% 3


National & International recognition of faculties 7.35% 5

Communication skills of students 6.01% 6


No. of patents Registered 4.41% 8

Findings

137

Honors / Awards / Prizes received by faculties 4.04% 9

Prior Performance & Placements of Students 3.11% 10

Course Curriculum & Quality of programs 2.83% 11

Availability of Major courses / Future ready programs 2.69% 12

National & Global accreditation 2.53% 13



No. of M. Phil & PhD Produced 1.95% 16

Tie up with foreign universities 1.16% 17

UGC / Private / International funding 1.04% 18

No. of International Faculties 0.99% 19

Figure 29- Weight of all criteria for Industries

.

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

Ethics, Value system & Etiquettes of students

Consultation to Industries and collaborative research

All round & Activity based learning through live…


National & International recognition of faculties

Communication skills of students


No. of patents Registered

Honors / Awards / Prizes received by faculties

Prior Performance & Placements of Students

Course Curriculum & Quality of programs

Availability of Major courses / Future ready…

National & Global accreditation



No. of M.Phils & PhD Produced


UGC / Private / International funding

No. of International Faculties

Findings

138

5.4 Sub Criteria Ranks for Administrators


pairwise comparisons matrices under the four main criteria for administrators. The ranks

are in descending order of the priorities (weights) of the criteria.

5.4.1 Administrator’s Ranks for Quality of Education related criteria

Table 90 - Weight and Rank of Quality of Education Related Criteria for Administrators

Quality of education Related Priorities Rank

All round education & activity based learning

through projects 15.21% 1

No. of Faculty Development programs conducted 14.47% 2


Courses Curriculum & Quality of Programs 12.81% 4

Faculty to Student ratio 12.78% 5


National & Global Accreditation 7.28% 7

Recommendation by past teachers, friends relatives 5.80% 8


No. of international faculties 3.53% 10


Findings

139

Figure 30- Percentage Weights of Quality of Education related criteria for administrators

5.4.2 Administrator’s Ranks for Research Output related criteria

Table 91 - Weight and Rank of Research Output Related Criteria for Administrators

Research Output Related Priorities Rank









0.00

%

2.00

%

4.00

%

6.00

%

8.00

%

10.0

0%

12.0

0%

14.0

0%

16.0

0%

All round education & activity based learning…

No. of Faculty Development programs conducted


Courses Curriculum & Quality of Programs

Faculty to Student ratio


National & Global Accreditation

Recommendation by past teachers, friends…


No. of international faculties


Findings

140

Figure 31- Percentage Weights of Research Output related criteria for administrators

5.4.3 Administrator’s Ranks for Size & Infrastructure related criteria

Table 92 - Weight and Rank of Size & Infrastructure Related Criteria for Administrators

Size & Infrastructure Related Priorities Rank





0.00

%

5.00

%

10.0

0%

15.0

0%

20.0

0%

25.0

0%









Findings

141

Figure 32- Percentage Weights of Size & Infrastructure related criteria for administrators

5.4.4 Administrator’s Ranks for Quality of Faculty Related criteria

Table 93 - Weight and Rank of Quality of Faculty Related Criteria for Administrators

Quality of Faculty Related Priorities Rank













0.00

%

5.00

%

10.0

0%

15.0

0%

20.0

0%

25.0

0%

30.0

0%

35.0

0%

40.0

0%

45.0

0%





Findings

142

Figure 33- Percentage Weights of Quality of Faculty Related criteria for administrators

5.4.5 Ranks for Administrator’s main criteria

Table 94 - Weight and rank of main criteria for Administrators

Main Criteria for Administrators Priorities Rank

Research Output Related 38.44% 1

Quality of Faculty Related 29.06% 2

Quality of education Related 22.81% 3

Size & Infrastructure Related 9.69% 4

0.00

%

2.00

%

4.00

%

6.00

%

8.00

%

10.0

0%

12.0

0%

14.0

0%





Salary structure








Findings

143

Figure 34- Percentage Weights of Main criteria for administrators

5.4.6 Global Weight for all Criteria for Administrators


weights.

Table 95 - Global Weight for all Criteria for Administrators

Main

Criteria

Local

Weights

Sub Criteria Local

Weights

Global

Weights

Quality of

education

Related

0.2281


Tie up with foreign universities 0.04046 0.00923

National & Global Accreditation 0.072837 0.016616

Courses Curriculum & Quality of Programs 0.128104 0.029224

All round education & activity based learning through

projects 0.152058 0.034688

No. of international faculties 0.035298 0.008052

No. of international students 0.021686 0.004947

No. of Faculty Development programs conducted 0.144692 0.033008

Faculty to Student ratio 0.127831 0.029161

Recommendation by past teachers, friends relatives 0.058016 0.013235


Research

Output Related 0.3844









Size & 0.0969 Campus Infrastructure 0.094743 0.009178

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%

Research Output Related

Quality of Faculty Related

Quality of education Related

Size & Infrastructure Related

Findings

144

Infrastructure Tie up with foreign Universities 0.174339 0.016889



Quality of

Faculty

Related

0.2906












Salary structure 0.094317 0.027411

5.4.7 Weights and Ranks of Administrator’s criteria

Table 96 - Weights and Ranks of Administrator’s criteria

Criteria for Administrators Priorities Rank

No. of Faculty Development programs conducted 13.81% 1


No. of international faculties 9.30% 3






All round education & activity based learning through projects 3.47% 9


Courses Curriculum & Quality of Programs 2.92% 11

Faculty to Student ratio 2.92% 12






National & Global Accreditation 1.66% 18

Recommendation by past teachers, friends relatives 1.32% 19


Findings

145

Figure 35- Percentage weights of all Administrator’s criteria

0.00

%

2.00

%

4.00

%

6.00

%

8.00

%

10.0

0%

12.0

0%

14.0

0%

16.0

0%

No. of Faculty Development programs conducted


No. of international faculties






All round education & activity based learning…


Courses Curriculum & Quality of Programs

Faculty to Student ratio


Salary structure




National & Global Accreditation

Recommendation by past teachers, friends…


Findings

146

5.5 Findings on Consistency, Diversity, Equitability and AHP

Consensus

Consistency was measured to check the validity of responses and AHP Consensus was

measured to see the degree of consensus among divergent participants.

The table below shows the summary finding for the same.

Table 97 - Consistency Ratio, Diversity & Consensus of different stakeholders

Stakeholder Main Criteria

Co

nsi

sten

cy

Ra

tio

Shannon Entropy Homogeneity Measures

α-D

iver

sity

β-D

iver

sity

ϒ-

Div

ersi

ty

Ma

cArt

hu

r

M

rel.

Ho

mo

gen

ei

ty

1S

AH

P

con

sen

sus

S*

Students

University Related 1.08% 2.1886 2.3167 0.1281 0.8798 87.87% 73.50%

Faculty Related 0.53% 1.8733 2.0168 0.1435 0.8663 86.50% 73.90%

Convenience Related 0.00% 2.1092 2.2755 0.1664 0.8467 84.53% 67.51%

Faculty

Job Security Related 1.24% 0.8915 1.0411 0.1496 0.8611 85.82% 78.21%

Job progression Related 4.93% 2.2339 2.3389 0.1050 0.9004 89.83% 76.71%

Recognition Related 2.34% 2.4088 2.5296 0.1208 0.8862 88.38% 71.40%

Administrators

(Directors / Principals /

HODs)

Quality of Education 5.60% 2.1923 2.2759 0.0836 0.9198 89.98% 75.02%

Research Output 1.49% 1.9018 1.9770 0.0752 0.9276 90.94% 80.34%

Size & Infrastructure 1.96% 1.2266 1.2966 0.0700 0.9324 91.55% 85.25%

Quality of Faculty 4.33% 2.3656 2.4348 0.0692 0.9332 91.65% 78.28%

Industries

Employability of Students 3.41% 1.7658 1.8332 0.0674 0.9348 93.21% 86.55%

Collaborative Research 3.80% 2.2679 2.3095 0.0416 0.9592 95.75% 89.72%

Consistency Ratio according to Saaty should be below 10%. Here as seen from the

table the consistency Ratio for all criteria for all stake holders are well below 10%.

This shows that the responses are highly consistent & valid and therefore the

priorities can be used for evaluation and comparison purpose for HEIs.

The AHP consensus shows the homogeneity of responses from diverse

respondents. The convenience related Criteria under students showed moderate

homogeneity. All other criteria showed high to very high degree of consensus

amongst respondents. This shows that the opinion and perception of different

stakeholders from different background and streams are almost matching.

Conclusions

147

CHAPTER 6

Conclusions

6 Conclusions

All the objectives are addressed and a framework for evaluation and comparison of

universities or higher learning institutes by different stakeholders is developed which the

stakeholders can use to compare universities under their consideration set. This framework

supplements the ranking given by the NIRF. It can be successfully used in selection of

higher learning institutes by the stake holders.

6.1 Evaluation of Institute by a stake holder

The methodology to evaluate and compare institutes from a consideration set is depicted

below by considering the global priorities as mentioned in the findings chapter.

Steps to evaluate

1) Pairwise comparison of all institutions under consideration for each and every

criterion for the particular stake holder.

2) Calculating the priorities (weights) of each institution for each criterion derived

from the pairwise comparison.

3) Calculating the criteria rating for the institutions by taking that product of weight of

those criteria for a particular institution and the global weight of those criteria.

4) Take summation of all criteria ratings calculated above for each institutes

5) The institute with the highest sum of the criteria rating is the best institute among

the consideration set.

6.1.1 Illustrative example of evaluation and comparison of institutes

For Illustration sake let us take that a student wants to evaluate and compare three

institutes of his / her choice set, namely Institute – A, Institute – B and Institute – C.

The total number of criteria for students, their weights and ranks obtained is reproduced

again from the findings chapter

Conclusions

148

Table 98 - Weights and Rank of Student's Criteria

Criteria for students Weights Rank

























There are 24 criteria for which pairwise comparison of the three institutes are to be done

and priorities to be calculated. The illustrative pairwise comparison and priorities of all 24

criteria is shown in the table below for all the three institutes.

Table 99 - Pairwise comparison and priorities of all 24 criteria of Students for all the three institutes

1) Qualification & Experience of Faculty

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties

Institute - A 1 9 9 0.767

Institute - B 1/9 1 5 0.174

Institute - C 1/9 1/5 1 0.059

2) Prior result & Placement of Students

.

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/7 1 1/3 0.085

Institute - C 1/4 3 1 0.213

Conclusions

149

3) Faculty to Student ratio

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/7 1 2 0.143

Institute - C 1/7 1/2 1 0.090

4) National & International Recognition of

faculties

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/7 1 1/2 0.103

Institute - C 1/3 2 1 0.216

5) Papers published by faculties

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/6 1 1 0.125

Institute - C 1/6 1 1 0.125

6) Availability of scholarship

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/5 1 1/2 0.111

Institute - C 1/7 2 1 0.158

7) Cost of education

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/4 1 1 0.167

Institute - C 1/4 1 1 0.167

8) ICT Enabled University

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties

1 9 7 0.790

Institute - B 1/9 1 1/2 0.077

Institute - C 1/7 2 1 0.133

9) Honors / Awards received by faculties

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/7 1 3 0.155

Institute - C 1/9 1/3 1 0.069

10) Historical Scholarly ranking

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/7 1 1/3 0.081

Institute - C 1/7 3 1 0.168

Conclusions

150

11) Availability of major course

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/8 1 1/2 0.083

Institute - C 1/7 2 1 0.137

12) Separate Activity Centre

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/4 1 1/4 0.110

Institute - C 1/2 4 1 0.346

13) Number of International faculties

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/8 1 1/5 0.065

Institute - C 1/7 5 1 0.197

14) Availability of Hostel facility

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/7 1 3 0.155

Institute - C 1/9 1/3 1 0.069

15) Ease of obtaining loan

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties

Institute - A 1 1/9 1/9 0.053

Institute - B 9 1 1 0.474

Institute - C 9 1 1 0.474

16) Nearness to home

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties

Institute - A 1 1/2 1/2 0.200



17) Type of University & No of Affiliated

Colleges

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties

Institute - A 1 1/7 1/5 0.081

Institute - B 7 1 1/3 0.332


18) Admission Policy

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/5 1 2 0.168

Institute - C 1/7 1/2 1 0.094

Conclusions

151

19) All round education and activity based

learning

Alternatives In

stit

ute

- A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties

Institute - A 1 1/7 1/3 0.108

Institute - B 7 1 1/3 0.359


20) Employability of passed out students

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/3 1 2 0.252

Institute - C 1/3 1/2 1 0.159

21) Recommendation by past teachers,

friends, relatives

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/5 1 1/3 0.104

Institute - C 1/4 3 1 0.231

22) National / Global Accreditation

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/3 1 1/5 0.120

Institute - C 1/5 5 1 0.282

23) Campus Infrastructure

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties




24) Religious Consideration

Alternatives

Inst

itu

te -

A

Inst

itu

te -

B

Inst

itu

te -

C

Pri

ori

ties


Institute - B 1/5 1 1/2 0.122

Institute - C 1/3 2 1 0.230

6.1.1.1 Calculation of Institutes Final Scores

The next step after pairwise comparison and priority calculation for each institutes for all

criteria, is to take product of global weights of criteria and priority of institutes for that

particular criteria and then take summation of all products for each institute.

This step is shown in the table mentioned below.

Conclusions

152

Table 100 - Comparative Scores of the three institutes for evaluation by student

Criteria for students

Global

Weights

(GW)

Institute -A Institute -B Institute -C

Score

Final

Rating

(Score x

GW)

Score

Final

Rating

(Score x

GW)

Score

Final

Rating

(Score x

GW)

Qualification & Experience of

faculties 15.01% 0.767 0.1151 0.174 0.0261 0.059 0.0089

Prior Results & Placement of

students 9.24% 0.701 0.0648 0.085 0.0079 0.213 0.0197

Faculty to student ratio 7.07% 0.767 0.0542 0.143 0.0101 0.090 0.0064

National & International

Recognition of faculties 6.72% 0.681 0.0458 0.103 0.0069 0.216 0.0145

Papers published by faculties 5.57% 0.750 0.0418 0.125 0.0070 0.125 0.0070

Availability of scholarship 5.49% 0.731 0.0401 0.111 0.0061 0.158 0.0087

Cost of education 5.49% 0.667 0.0366 0.167 0.0092 0.167 0.0092

ICT Enabled University 4.88% 0.790 0.0386 0.077 0.0038 0.133 0.0065

Honors / Awards received by

faculties 4.87% 0.777 0.0378 0.155 0.0075 0.069 0.0033

Historical Scholarly ranking 4.83% 0.751 0.0363 0.081 0.0039 0.168 0.0081

Availability of major course 3.57% 0.780 0.0278 0.083 0.0030 0.137 0.0049

Separate Activity Centre 3.56% 0.544 0.0194 0.110 0.0039 0.346 0.0123

Number of International

faculties 3.48% 0.738 0.0257 0.065 0.0023 0.197 0.0069

Availability of Hostel facility 3.32% 0.777 0.0258 0.155 0.0051 0.069 0.0023

Ease of obtaining loan 3.18% 0.053 0.0017 0.474 0.0151 0.474 0.0151

Nearness to home 2.68% 0.200 0.0054 0.400 0.0107 0.400 0.0107

Type of University & No of

Affiliated Colleges 2.62% 0.081 0.0021 0.332 0.0087 0.587 0.0154

Admission Policy 1.91% 0.738 0.0141 0.168 0.0032 0.094 0.0018

All round education and

activity based learning 1.89% 0.108 0.0020 0.359 0.0068 0.532 0.0101

Employability of passed out

students 1.84% 0.589 0.0108 0.252 0.0046 0.159 0.0029

Recommendation by past

teachers, friends, relatives 1.09% 0.665 0.0072 0.104 0.0011 0.231 0.0025

National / Global

Accreditation 0.89% 0.597 0.0053 0.120 0.0011 0.282 0.0025

Campus Infrastructure 0.44% 0.333 0.0015 0.333 0.0015 0.333 0.0015

Religious Consideration 0.37% 0.648 0.0024 0.122 0.0005 0.230 0.0009

Total Scores 0.6623 0.1559 0.1818

Idealized Priorities 1.0000 0.2354 0.2745

Conclusions

153

6.1.1.2 Comparison and Selection from alternative institutes

The overall priorities for the alternative institutes, given in the Total Scores row of Table

100 , are the sums across each column for the alternatives final rating which is obtained by

multiplying Global weight for sub-criteria and the alternative’s score for those criteria.

Note that they sum to 1. These priorities may also be expressed in the ideal form by

dividing each priority by the largest one, 0.6623 for Institute-A, as given in Table 100. The

effect is to make this alternative the ideal one with the others getting their proportionate

value. One may then interpret the results to mean that Institute-B is about 23.54% as good

as Institute-A and Institute-C is 27.45% as good as Institute-A.

Thus a student can evaluate the three alternatives institutes, compare the idealized priorities

and finally select the best out of the three, in this illustration the best institute is Institute –

A, Followed by Institute – C.

6.2 Achievements with respect to objectives

All the objectives laid down for the research were met with as shown in the following

summary table

Table 101- Achievements of the Researcher with respect to objectives

Objectives Achievement

To study the ranking criteria and

methodology used by various ranking

bodies for universities and higher learning

institutes

World ranking body’s methodologies and

their criteria as well as National Institutional

Ranking Framework were studied.

To find out the preferences and priorities of

different stake holders about their criteria to

judge the universities or Higher Education

Institutions

Total of 3 main criteria for students, 3

main criteria for faculties, 2 main

criteria for industry & 4 main criteria for

administrators were identified.

A total of 36 sub-criteria were identified

to evaluate and compare higher

education institutes by four stake

holders, namely students, faculties,

employers & administrators of higher

education institutes.

Conclusions

154

To develop a model based on Analytical

Hierarchy Process to evaluate and compare

universities or higher education institutes

based on the criteria which the stake holders

have found relevant and from within their

choice set

Consolidated Matrices for all the main

criteria for all stake holders from

respondents pair wise comparison was

obtained by geometric mean.

Normalization of the matrix and

calculation of priority vector as well as

ranking of sub-criteria under main

criteria were done by using AHP.

Consistency Ratio for all the

consolidated matrices were calculated

which are below 10%, which indicates

that responses are genuine and not

randomly filled up.

Global (Composite) weights were

calculated for all 4 stakeholders.

To calculate the diversity, homogeneity &

consensus of the responses from multiple

respondents from heterogeneous streams

Homogeneity and consensus were above

70% for all stakeholders which show high

degree of agreement between multiple

respondents from heterogeneous streams.

6.3 Original Contribution Made by the Thesis

The original contribution made by the study is manifested as the differentiating factors

when comparison is made with objectives, criteria and methodology of ranking done by

various global as well as national ranking bodies versus the approach adopted in the study.

Table 102- Differentiating Factors between Ranking Bodies and Proposed Model

Sr. No. Differentiating

Factor

Ranking By Global & National

Bodies

Evaluation Model Proposed in the

Study

1 Objective Ranking of Universities /

Institutes

Evaluation and comparison of

Universities / Institutes from

individual’s consideration set.

2 Approach “One Size Fits All Approach”

The same ranks used by different

stakeholders like students,

faculties, & Industries

“Tailor Fit Approach”

Evaluation criteria and weights are

different for different stakeholders.

Conclusions

155

3 List of

Universities /

HEIs

Users have a fixed rigid list of

universities / HEIs and their ranks

who have participated in the

ranking process.

Instead of a rigid list of Universities /

HEIs the user can use the model to

evaluate the institutes from his or her

own choice set.

4 Nature of

Ranking

Scores.

Absolute vs.

Relative.

Absolute Scores based on criteria

and methodology adopted by

ranking bodies.

Relative evaluation scores based on

individual preference and judgment

from the consideration set of

institutes

5 Process –

Standardized

vs. Customized.

Standardized – the ranking is

done based on the information

collected from the participating

institutes in a standard format

Customized – Evaluation is done as

per the information collected by the

user about institutions of choice by

using the model.

6 Applicability /

Usability in

Indian Context

- Crème vs.

en masse

Very few Indian institutes

appearing in the ranking list. So

usability of ranks is only for the

crème students or stakeholders,

rendering the list of no use to

majority of the ordinary

stakeholders

Usable by all levels of stakeholders.

Gives an option to the user to

evaluate and rank the best out of best

or moderate or worst institutes.

6.4 Further scope of research:

More number of stakeholders may be introduced in the study. The new

stakeholders can be Regulatory bodies for education Institutes, Policy makers for

education.

References

156

References

Abdullah, L., Jaffar, S., & Taib, I. (2009). A New Analytic Hierarchy Process in Multi Attribute Group

Decision Making. International Journal of Soft Computing, 4(5), 208-214.

Aithal, D. P., & Kumar, P. M. (2016). STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING OUTCOMES IN

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research

and Modern Education, I(I).

Alanbay, O. (2005). ERP SELECTION USING EXPERT CHOICE SOFTWARE. International Society for

Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP). Honolulu, Hawaii.

ALTUZARRA, A., MORENO-JIMÉNEZ, J. M., & SALVADOR, M. (2005). SEARCHING FOR CONSENSUS

IN AHP-GROUP DECISION MAKING. A BAYESIAN PERSPECTIVE.

Baccini, A., Banfi, A., Nicolao, G. D., & Galimberti, P. (2015, October). University ranking

methodologies - An interview with Ben Sowter about the QuacquarelliSymonds World

University Ranking. A Journal on Research Policy & Evaluation, 1-8.

Delloite. (2012). Indian Higher Education Sector - Opportunities aplenty growth unlimited !

Delloite.

Dental Council of India. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_Council_of_India

Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development. (n.d.). Retrieved

from http://mhrd.gov.in/institutions-national-importance:

http://mhrd.gov.in/institutions-national-importance

Drewes, T., & Micheal, C. (2006). HOW DO STUDENTS CHOOSE A UNIVERSITY?: An Analysis of

Applications to Universities in Ontario, Canada.

Education Sector in India. (n.d.). Retrieved from India Brand Equity Foundation:

https://www.ibef.org/industry/education-sector-india.aspx

Feng, Lu, & Bi. (2004). An AHP/DEA method for measurement of the efficiency of R&D

management activities in universities. International Transactions in Operational Research,

11, 181-191.

Fereydoon, A. (2010). Qualitative Indicators for the evaluation of universities performance.

Conference of Social & Behavioral Science (pp. 5408-5411). Elsevier Ltd.

Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the

Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Jouranl of Operations research, 165-169.

References

157

Forman, E., & Selly, M. A. (2001). Decision By Objectives (How to convince others that you are

right).

Fowler, J. E. (2009). Lists and Learners - The Importance of University Rankings in International

Graduate Student Choice. University of Oslo.

García, A., & Palomares, D. (2009). A Proposal Methodology for Comparing Higher Education

Institutions. London: HEIR Conference.

Goepel, K. D. (2013). http://bpmsg.com/ahp-consensus/. Retrieved from A new Consensus

Indicator in Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process:

http://bpmsg.com/ahp-consensus/

Gokhale, M. (2007). USE OF ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS IN UNIVERSITY STRATEGY

PLANNING. UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA.

Grewal, R., Dearden, J. A., & Lilien, G. L. (2006, February 12). The University Rankings Game:

Modeling the Competition among Universities for Ranking.

Hassan, M. (2012). Middle East University Ranking Improvements Recommendations.

International Conference on Education and Management Innovation (pp. 331-334).

Singapore: IACSIT Press.

Institutes of National Importance. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Institutes_of_National_Importance

Iqbal, A. M., Khan, A. S., & Senin, A. A. (2012, April). Determination of High Impact Evaluation

Metrics for Evaluating the University - Industry Technological Linkage. International

Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 2(4), 111-122.

Ismail, M. (2010). RANKING OF UNIVERSITIES. National University of Sciences and Technology.

Jianu, I., & Dumitru, I. (2011, March 17). University rankings - a guide to choose a university?

Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29623/

Kuzmanovic, M., Savic, G., Popovic, M., & Martic, M. (2012). A New Approach to Evaluation of

University Teaching Considering Heterogeneity of Students' Preferences. INTERNATIONAL

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE. 64, pp. 401-411. Elsevier Ltd.

Lee, C.-P., Lou, S.-J., Shih, R.-C., & Tseng, K.-H. (2011, October). AN AHP-BASED WEIGHTED

ANALYSIS OF NETWORK KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PLATFORMS FOR ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL STUDENTS. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4),

52-59.

Lukman, R., Krajnc, D., & Glavič, P. (2008). How to rank universities from sustainability

perspective? University of Maribor, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering.

Masron, T. A., Ahmad, Z., & Rahim, N. B. (2012). Key Performance Indicators vs Key Intangible

Performance among Academic Staff: A case study of a public university in Malaysia.

References

158

International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 56, pp. 494-503.

Elsevier Ltd.

Mirkazemi, S. A., Hemmatinesgad, M. A., Gholizadeh, M. H., & Ramazanian, M. R. (2009).

APPLICATION OF THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS FOR THE PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION CRITERIA OF SPORT OFFICES IN UNIVERSITIES. Brazilian Journal of

Biomotricity, 3(4), 390-398.

Moskovkin, V. M., Golikov, N. A., Peresypkin, A. P., & Serkina, O. V. (2015, June 15). Aggregate

ranking of the world's leading universities. Webology, 12(1).

Mukherji, S., & Rustagi, N. (2008, September). Teaching Evaluations: Perceptions Of Students And

Faculty. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(9), 45-54.

Mursidi, A., & Soeharto. (2016, March). AN INTRODUCTION: EVALUATION OF QUALITY

ASSURANCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS USING RASCH MODEL. Journal of

Education, Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1-6.

Overview of NIRF. (n.d.). Retrieved from National Institutional Ranking Framework Ministry of

Human Resource development: https://www.nirfindia.org/About

Pagell, R. A. (2009). University Research Rankings : From Page Counting to Academic

Accountability. Research Collection Library Paper 1.

Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities 2016 - Methodology. (n.d.).

Retrieved from http://nturanking.lis.ntu.edu.tw/BackgroundMethodology/Methodology-

enus.aspx

Rodica, Ş., Dan, C., & Rodica, C. (2010, December). The Sustainable University. Review of

International Comparative Management, 11(5), 841-852.

Roman, & Emerlinda. (2012, March). University Rankings – Are Philippine HEIs Ready for them.

Education Quarterly, 70(1), pp. 4-13.

Royendegh, B. D., & Erol, S. (2009). A DEA – ANP hybrid Algorithm Approach to Evaluate a

University’s Performance. International Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences IJBAS, 9(10),

115-129.

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sciences,

1(1), 83-98.

Salmi, J. (2009). The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities. Washington DC: The

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.

Sherkat, D. E. (2007, February 6). Religion and Higher Education: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

SSRC.

Sorz, J., Wallner, B., Seidler, H., & Fieder, M. (2015). Inconsistent year-to-year fluctuations limit

the conclusiveness of global higher education rankings for university management. PeerJ

3:e1217; DOI 10.7717/peerj.1217.

References

159

Steiner, J. E. (2006). WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS – A PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS.

Stewart, A. C., & Carpenter-Hubin, J. (2001). The Balanced Scorecard - Beyond Reports and

Rankings. Ohio State University.

Stirn, L. Z., & Grošelj, P. (2013). ESTIMATING PRIORITIES IN GROUP AHP USING INTERVAL

COMPARISON MATRICES. 8, 143-159.

Toma, C. M., Cuza, A. I., & Popa, G. T. (2010). The importance of knowledge on the evaluation

criteria in university scientific research projects. Studies and Scientific Researches -

Economic Edition, 15, 514-519.

Weller, P., Hooley, T., & Moore, N. (2011). Religion and belief in higher education: the experiences

of staff and students. London: Equality Challenge Unit.

Xue-zhen, Z. (2007, February). A Dynamic Model for Vendor Selection. China-USA Business

Review,, 6(2).

Zahorodniy, A. G., Pylypenko, L. M., & Tyvonchuk, O. (2014). TENDENCIES IN DEVELOPING

UNIVERSITY RANKINGS AND THE WAYS OF IMPROVING THEM. Lviv Polytechnic National

University Institutional Repository.

Zahorodniy, Pylypenko, & Tyvonchuk. (2014). TENDENCIES IN DEVELOPING UNIVERSITY RANKINGS

AND THE WAYS OF IMPROVING THEM. Retrieved from Lviv Polytechnic National

University Institutional Repository http://ena.lp.edu.ua: http://ena.lp.edu.ua

Annexures

160

Papers Published

1) Sachinwala, S. H., Bhathawala P. H. (2012). Selection of Higher Educational

Institute by a Student by Using Analytical Hierarchy Process. Term Paper for

Gujarat Technological University.

2) Sachinwala, S. H., Solanki, M (August 2012). Selection of Infrastructure

Development Company for Municipal Projects using Analytical Hierarchy

Process. International Journal of Advances in Management, Technology &

Engineering Sciences, 1(11), 39-44. ISSN 2249 – 7455.

3) Sachinwala, S. H., Bhathawala P. H. (November 2014). Financial and

Technological Evaluation of Industrial Projects by using Analytical Hierarchy

Process and TOPSIS. Proceeding of National Conference on Finance by Auro

University, ISBN: 9788192818948.

4) Sachinwala, S. H., Padhiyar, S., & Bhathawala, P. H. (2015). Mapping of

Personal Social Responsibility Quotient of employees of an organization and

its linkage with CSR and Government Initiatives. Sankalpa, 5(Conference

Issue), 103-108. ISSN 2231 – 1904.

5) Sachinwala, S. H. (2016). Application of Diverse Digital Tools for development

of Minimum Spanning Tree Model Optimization for Network Decisions in

Business. National Conference on Emerging Trends In Global Business

Management., Department of Business and Industrial Management, V N South

Gujarat University.

Annexures

161

Appendix - I

Questionnaire for Students

I am Sham Sachinwala, pursuing my doctoral research on the topic "A study of comparison &

evaluation of Universities based on multi criterion approach using Analytical Hierarchy

Process.” The area of research is under Faculty of Management, Gujarat Technological

University. I am working under the supervision of Dr. Pravin H. Bhathawala, Gujarat

Technological University and Dr. Polona Tominc, University of Maribor. The topic is related to

modeling of complex decision making process, where large numbers of decision variables are

involved.

For the above study, your inputs are of utmost importance. You are kindly requested to spare

some of your valuable time to respond to the questions below.

Instruction for filling the Questionnaire

Mentioned below are the criteria’s, which as a student, you may consider to evaluate and

compare universities in which you want to enroll yourself.

You are given two criteria’s to evaluate in each question.

1. If you think that both the criteria are of equal importance, then tick mark in the middle

circle numbered 1.

2. If you think that Criteria 1 is more important than Criteria 2 then tick in the circles

towards criteria 1, as per the importance compared to criteria 2.

The rating of importance is as follows:

Annexures

162

Questions

A) University Related Factors:

Sr.

No.

Criteria 1 Rating Scale

More Important Equal More Important

Criteria 2

1 Type of

University &

No of Affiliated

Colleges

Campus

Infrastruct

ure

2 Type of

University &

No of Affiliated

Colleges

Prior

Results &

Placement

of students

3 Type of

University &

No of Affiliated

Colleges

National /

Global

Accreditati

on

4 Type of

University &

No of Affiliated

Colleges

All round

education

and

activity

based

learning

5 Type of

University &

No of Affiliated

Colleges

ICT

Enabled

University

6 Type of

University &

No of Affiliated

Colleges

Cost of

education

7 Type of

University &

No of Affiliated

Colleges

Religious

Considerat

ion

8 Type of

University &

No of Affiliated

Colleges

Recommen

dation by

past

teachers,

friends,

relatives

9 Type of

University &

No of Affiliated

Colleges

Employabi

lity of

passed out

students

10 Type of

University &

No of Affiliated

Colleges

Separate

activity

Centre

11 Campus

Infrastructure Prior

Results &

Placement

of students

12 Campus

Infrastructure

National /

Global

Accreditati

on

13 Campus

Infrastructure All round

education

and

activity

based

learning

Annexures

163

14 Campus

Infrastructure

ICT

Enabled

University

15 Campus

Infrastructure

Cost of

education

16 Campus

Infrastructure

Religious

Considerat

ion

17 Campus

Infrastructure Recommen

dation by

past

teachers,

friends,

relatives

18 Campus

Infrastructure Employabi

lity of

passed out

students

19 Campus

Infrastructure

Separate

activity

Centre

20 Prior Results &

Placement of

students

National /

Global

Accreditati

on

21 Prior Results &

Placement of

students

All round

education

and

activity

based

learning

22 Prior Results &

Placement of

students

ICT

Enabled

University

23 Prior Results &

Placement of

students

Cost of

education

24 Prior Results &

Placement of

students

Religious

Considerat

ion

25 Prior Results &

Placement of

students

Recommen

dation by

past

teachers,

friends,

relatives

26 Prior Results &

Placement of

students

Employabi

lity of

passed out

students

27 Prior Results &

Placement of

students

Separate

activity

Centre

28 National /

Global

Accreditation

All round

education

and

activity

based

learning

29 National /

Global

Accreditation

ICT

Enabled

University

Annexures

164

30 National /

Global

Accreditation

Cost of

education

31 National /

Global

Accreditation

Religious

Considerat

ion

32 National /

Global

Accreditation

Recommen

dation by

past

teachers,

friends,

relatives

33 National /

Global

Accreditation

Employabi

lity of

passed out

students

34 National /

Global

Accreditation

Separate

activity

Centre

35 All round

education and

activity based

learning

ICT

Enabled

University

36 All round

education and

activity based

learning

Cost of

education

37 All round

education and

activity based

learning

Religious

Considerat

ion

38 All round

education and

activity based

learning

Recommen

dation by

past

teachers,

friends,

relatives

39 All round

education and

activity based

learning

Employabi

lity of

passed out

students

40 All round

education and

activity based

learning

Separate

activity

Centre

41 ICT Enabled

University

Cost of

education

42 ICT Enabled

University

Religious

Considerat

ion

43 ICT Enabled

University Recommen

dation by

past

teachers,

friends,

relatives

44 ICT Enabled

University Employabi

lity of

passed out

students

Annexures

165

45 ICT Enabled

University

Separate

activity

Centre

46 Cost of

education

Religious

Considerat

ion

47 Cost of

education Recommen

dation by

past

teachers,

friends,

relatives

48 Cost of

education Employabi

lity of

passed out

students

49 Cost of

education

Separate

activity

Centre

50 Religious

Consideration Recommen

dation by

past

teachers,

friends,

relatives

51 Religious

Consideration Employabi

lity of

passed out

students

52 Religious

Consideration Separate

activity

Centre

53 Recommendatio

n by past

teachers,

friends,

relatives

Employabi

lity of

passed out

students

54 Recommendatio

n by past

teachers,

friends,

relatives

Separate

activity

Centre

55 Employability

of passed out

students

Separate

activity

Centre

B) Faculties Related Factors:

Sr.

No.



Criteria 2

1 Prior Results

& Placement

of students

Number of

International

faculties

2 Prior Results

& Placement

of students

Qualification

& Experience

of faculties

3 Prior Results

& Placement

of students

Faculty to

student ratio

4 Prior Results

& Placement

of students

Honors /

Awards

received by

faculties

Annexures

166

5 Prior Results

& Placement

of students

Papers

published by

faculties

6 Prior Results

& Placement

of students

Historical

Scholarly

ranking

7 Prior Results

& Placement

of students

National &

International

Recognition of

faculties

8 Number of

International

faculties

Qualification

& Experience

of faculties

9 Number of

International

faculties

Faculty to

student ratio

10 Number of

International

faculties

Honors /

Awards

received by

faculties

11 Number of

International

faculties

Papers

published by

faculties

12 Number of

International

faculties

Historical

Scholarly

ranking

13 Number of

International

faculties

National &

International

Recognition of

faculties

14 Qualification

&

Experience

of faculties

Faculty to

student ratio

15 Qualification

&

Experience

of faculties

Honors /

Awards

received by

faculties

16 Qualification

&

Experience

of faculties

Papers

published by

faculties

17 Qualification

&

Experience

of faculties

Historical

Scholarly

ranking

18 Qualification

&

Experience

of faculties

National &

International

Recognition of

faculties

19 Faculty to

student ratio Honors /

Awards

received by

faculties

20 Faculty to

student ratio Papers

published by

faculties

21 Faculty to

student ratio Historical

Scholarly

ranking

22 Faculty to

student ratio National &

International

Recognition of

faculties

Annexures

167

23 Honors /

Awards

received by

faculties

Papers

published by

faculties

24 Honors /

Awards

received by

faculties

Historical

Scholarly

ranking

25 Honors /

Awards

received by

faculties

National &

International

Recognition of

faculties

26 Papers

published by

faculties

Historical

Scholarly

ranking

27 Papers

published by

faculties

National &

International

Recognition of

faculties

28 Historical

Scholarly

ranking

National &

International

Recognition of

faculties

C) Convenience Related Factors:

Sr.

No.



Criteria 2

1 Type of

University &

No of

Affiliated

Colleges

Admission

Policy

2 Type of

University &

No of

Affiliated

Colleges

Availability of

major course

3 Type of

University &

No of

Affiliated

Colleges

ICT Enabled

University

4 Type of

University &

No of

Affiliated

Colleges

Nearness to

home

5 Type of

University &

No of

Affiliated

Colleges

Cost of

education

(fees)

6 Type of

University &

No of

Affiliated

Colleges

Ease of

obtaining loan

7 Type of

University &

No of

Affiliated

Availability of

scholarship

Annexures

168

Colleges

8 Type of

University &

No of

Affiliated

Colleges

Availability of

Hostel facility

9 Type of

University &

No of

Affiliated

Colleges

Separate

activity Centre

10 Admission

Policy Availability of

major course

11 Admission

Policy ICT Enabled

University

12 Admission

Policy Nearness to

home

13 Admission

Policy Cost of

education

(fees)

14 Admission

Policy Ease of

obtaining loan

15 Admission


scholarship

16 Admission


Hostel facility

17 Admission

Policy Separate

activity Centre

18 Availability

of major

course

ICT Enabled

University

19 Availability

of major

course

Nearness to

home

20 Availability

of major

course

Cost of

education

(fees)

21 Availability

of major

course

Ease of

obtaining loan

22 Availability

of major

course

Availability of

scholarship

23 Availability

of major

course

Availability of

Hostel facility

24 Availability

of major

course

Separate

activity Centre

25 ICT Enabled

University Nearness to

home

26 ICT Enabled

University Cost of

education

(fees)

27 ICT Enabled

University Ease of

obtaining loan

28 ICT Enabled

University Availability of

scholarship

29 ICT Enabled

University Availability of

Hostel facility

30 ICT Enabled

University Separate

activity Centre

31 Nearness to

home Cost of

education

(fees)

Annexures

169

32 Nearness to

home Ease of

obtaining loan

33 Nearness to

home Availability of

scholarship

34 Nearness to

home Availability of

Hostel facility

35 Nearness to

home Separate

activity Centre

36 Cost of

education

(fees)

Ease of

obtaining loan

37 Cost of

education

(fees)

Availability of

scholarship

38 Cost of

education

(fees)

Availability of

Hostel facility

39 Cost of

education

(fees)

Separate

activity Centre

40 Ease of

obtaining

loan

Availability of

scholarship

41 Ease of

obtaining

loan

Availability of

Hostel facility

42 Ease of

obtaining

loan

Separate

activity Centre

43 Availability

of

scholarship

Availability of

Hostel facility

44 Availability

of

scholarship

Separate

activity Centre

45 Availability

of Hostel

facility

Separate

activity Centre

Annexures

170

Appendix - II

Questionnaire for Faculties

I am Sham Sachinwala, pursuing my doctoral research on the topic "A study of

comparison and evaluation of Universities based on multi criterion approach using

Analytical Hierarchy Process. The area of research is under Faculty of Management,

Gujarat Technological University. I am working under the supervision of Dr. Pravin

H. Bhathawala, Gujarat Technological University and Dr. Polona Tominc, University

of Maribor. The topic is related to modeling of complex decision making process,

where large numbers of decision variables are involved.

For the above study, your inputs are of utmost importance. You are kindly requested

to spare some of your valuable time to respond to the questions below.


Mentioned below are the criteria’s, which as a faculty, you may consider to evaluate and

compare universities in which you want to work.



circle numbered 1.




Annexures

171

Questions

A) Job Security Related:

Sr.

No.



Criteria 2

1 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

Availability of

Major Courses

2 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

National &

International

recognition of

Faculties

3 Availability

of Major

Courses

National &

International

recognition of

Faculties

B) Job Progression & Growth Related:

Sr.

No.



Criteria 2

1 Campus

Infrastructure Tie up with

foreign

Universities

2 Campus

Infrastructure UGC /

Private /

International

Funding

3 Campus

Infrastructure Number of

international

faculties

4 Campus

Infrastructure No. of Patents

Registered

5 Campus

Infrastructure No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

produced

6 Campus

Infrastructure No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

7 Campus

Infrastructure Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

8 Campus

Infrastructure Papers

published by

faculties

9 Campus

Infrastructure Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

10 Campus

Infrastructure National &

International

Recognition

Annexures

172

11 Campus

Infrastructure Salary

structure

12 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

UGC /

Private /

International

Funding

13 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

Number of

international

faculties

14 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

No. of Patents

Registered

15 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

No. of M.Phil.

& PhDs

produced

16 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

17 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

18 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

Papers

published by

faculties

19 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

20 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

National &

International

Recognition

21 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

Salary

structure

22 UGC / Private

/

International

Funding

Number of

international

faculties

23 UGC / Private

/

International

Funding

No. of Patents

Registered

24 UGC / Private

/

International

Funding

No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

produced

25 UGC / Private

/

International

Funding

No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

26 UGC / Private

/

International

Funding

Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

27 UGC / Private

/

International

Funding

Papers

published by

faculties

28 UGC / Private

/

International

Funding

Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

Annexures

173

29 UGC / Private

/

International

Funding

National &

International

Recognition

30 UGC / Private

/

International

Funding

Salary

structure

31 Number of

international

faculties

No. of Patents

Registered

32 Number of

international

faculties

No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

produced

33 Number of

international

faculties

No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

34 Number of

international

faculties

Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

35 Number of

international

faculties

Papers

published by

faculties

36 Number of

international

faculties

Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

37 Number of

international

faculties

National &

International

Recognition

38 Number of

international

faculties

Salary

structure

39 No. of Patents

Registered No. of M.Phil.

& PhDs

produced

40 No. of Patents

Registered No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

41 No. of Patents

Registered Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

42 No. of Patents

Registered Papers

published by

faculties

43 No. of Patents

Registered Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

44 No. of Patents

Registered National &

International

Recognition

45 No. of Patents

Registered Salary

structure

46 No. of M.Phil.

& PhDs

produced

No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

Annexures

174

47 No. of M.Phil.

& PhDs

produced

Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

48 No. of M.Phil.

& PhDs

produced

Papers

published by

faculties

49 No. of M.Phil.

& PhDs

produced

Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

50 No. of M.Phil.

& PhDs

produced

National &

International

Recognition

51 No. of M.Phil.

& PhDs

produced

Salary

structure

52 No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

53 No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

Papers

published by

faculties

54 No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

55 No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

National &

International

Recognition

56 No. of Faculty

Development

Programs

Conducted

Salary

structure

57 Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

Papers

published by

faculties

58 Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

59 Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

National &

International

Recognition

60 Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

Salary

structure

61 Papers

published by

faculties

Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

62 Papers

published by

faculties

National &

International

Recognition

Annexures

175

63 Papers

published by

faculties

Salary

structure

64 Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

National &

International

Recognition

65 Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation

Index

Salary

structure

66 National &

International

Recognition

Salary

structure

C) Recognition Related:

Sr.

No

.



Criteria 2

1 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

Campus

Infrastructure

2 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

Tie up with foreign

Universities

3 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

National / Global

Accreditation

4 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

No. of international

students

5 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

No. of Patents

Registered

6 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced

7 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

Growth & Research

Opportunities

provided

8 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

Honors, Awards,

Prizes received by

faculties

Annexures

176

9 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

Paper published by

faculties

10 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

Historical Scholarly

Ranking & Citation

Index

11 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

National &

International

Recognition

12 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

13 Type of

University &

Number of

affiliated

colleges

Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

14 Campus

Infrastructure Tie up with foreign

Universities

15 Campus

Infrastructure National / Global

Accreditation

16 Campus

Infrastructure No. of international

students

17 Campus

Infrastructure No. of Patents

Registered

18 Campus

Infrastructure No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced

19 Campus

Infrastructure Growth & Research

Opportunities

provided

20 Campus

Infrastructure Honors, Awards,

Prizes received by

faculties

21 Campus

Infrastructure Paper published by

faculties

22 Campus

Infrastructure Historical Scholarly

Ranking & Citation

Index

23 Campus

Infrastructure National &

International

Recognition

24 Campus

Infrastructure Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

25 Campus

Infrastructure Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

26 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

National / Global

Accreditation

27 Tie up with

foreign

Universities


students

28 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

No. of Patents

Registered

Annexures

177

29 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced

30 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

Growth & Research

Opportunities

provided

31 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

Honors, Awards,

Prizes received by

faculties

32 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

Paper published by

faculties

33 Tie up with

foreign

Universities


Ranking & Citation

Index

34 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

National &

International

Recognition

35 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

36 Tie up with

foreign

Universities

Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

37 National /

Global

Accreditation


students

38 National /

Global

Accreditation

No. of Patents

Registered

39 National /

Global

Accreditation

No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced

40 National /

Global

Accreditation

Growth & Research

Opportunities

provided

41 National /

Global

Accreditation

Honors, Awards,

Prizes received by

faculties

42 National /

Global

Accreditation

Paper published by

faculties

43 National /

Global

Accreditation


Ranking & Citation

Index

44 National /

Global

Accreditation

National &

International

Recognition

45 National /

Global

Accreditation

Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

46 National /

Global

Accreditation

Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

47 No. of

international

students

No. of Patents

Registered

48 No. of

international

students

No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced

Annexures

178

49 No. of

international

students

Growth & Research

Opportunities

provided

50 No. of

international

students

Honors, Awards,

Prizes received by

faculties

51 No. of

international

students

Paper published by

faculties

52 No. of

international

students


Ranking & Citation

Index

53 No. of

international

students

National &

International

Recognition

54 No. of

international

students

Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

55 No. of

international

students

Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

56 No. of Patents

Registered No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced

57 No. of Patents

Registered Growth & Research

Opportunities

provided

58 No. of Patents

Registered Honors, Awards,

Prizes received by

faculties

59 No. of Patents

Registered Paper published by

faculties

60 No. of Patents

Registered Historical Scholarly

Ranking & Citation

Index

61 No. of Patents

Registered National &

International

Recognition

62 No. of Patents

Registered Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

63 No. of Patents

Registered Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

64 No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced Growth & Research

Opportunities

provided

65 No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced Honors, Awards,

Prizes received by

faculties

66 No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced Paper published by

faculties

67 No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced Historical Scholarly

Ranking & Citation

Index

68 No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced National &

International

Recognition

69 No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

Annexures

179

70 No. of M.Phil. &

PhDs produced Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

71 Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

Honors, Awards,

Prizes received by

faculties

72 Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

Paper published by

faculties

73 Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided


Ranking & Citation

Index

74 Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

National &

International

Recognition

75 Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

76 Growth &

Research

Opportunities

provided

Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

77 Honors,

Awards, Prizes

received by

faculties

Paper published by

faculties

78 Honors,

Awards, Prizes

received by

faculties


Ranking & Citation

Index

79 Honors,

Awards, Prizes

received by

faculties

National &

International

Recognition

80 Honors,

Awards, Prizes

received by

faculties

Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

81 Honors,

Awards, Prizes

received by

faculties

Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

82 Paper published

by faculties Historical Scholarly

Ranking & Citation

Index

83 Paper published

by faculties National &

International

Recognition

84 Paper published

by faculties Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

85 Paper published

by faculties Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

86 Historical

National &

Annexures

180

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation Index

International

Recognition

87 Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation Index

Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

88 Historical

Scholarly

Ranking &

Citation Index

Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives.

89 National &

International

Recognition

Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

90 National &

International

Recognition

Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

91 Consultation

provided to

Industries &

Collaborative

Research

Recommendations

by past teachers,

friends, relatives

Annexures

181

Appendix - III

Questionnaire for Industries

I am Sham Sachinwala, pursuing my doctoral research on the topic "A study of comparison and





modeling of complex decision making process, where large numbers of decision variables are

involved.




Mentioned below are the criteria’s, which as a employer, you may consider to evaluate and

compare universities in which you want to work.



circle numbered 1.




You Name:

Organization:

Annexures

182

A) Employability of Students Related:

Sr.

No.



Criteria 2

1 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

Prior

Performanc

e &

Placements

of students

2 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

Availability

of Major

courses /

Future

ready

programs

3 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

Course

Curriculum

& Quality

of program

4 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

All round &

Activity

based

learning

through live

projects

5 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

Employabili

ty of past

passed out

students

6 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

Communica

tion skills of

students

7 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

Ethics,

Value

system &

Etiquettes

of students

8 Prior

Performance

& Placements

of students

Availability

of Major

courses /

Future

ready

programs

9 Prior

Performance

& Placements

of students

Course

Curriculum

& Quality

of program

10 Prior

Performance

& Placements

of students

All round &

Activity

based

learning

through live

projects

11 Prior

Performance

& Placements

of students

Employabili

ty of past

passed out

students

12 Prior

Performance

& Placements

Communica

tion skills of

students

Annexures

183

of students

13 Prior

Performance

& Placements

of students

Ethics,

Value

system &

Etiquettes

of students

14 Availability of

Major courses

/ Future ready

programs

Course

Curriculum

& Quality

of program

15 Availability of

Major courses

/ Future ready

programs

All round &

Activity

based

learning

through live

projects

16 Availability of

Major courses

/ Future ready

programs

Employabili

ty of past

passed out

students

17 Availability of

Major courses

/ Future ready

programs

Communica

tion skills of

students

18 Availability of

Major courses

/ Future ready

programs

Ethics,

Value

system &

Etiquettes

of students

19 Course

Curriculum

& Quality of

program

All round &

Activity

based

learning

through live

projects

20 Course

Curriculum

& Quality of

program

Employabili

ty of past

passed out

students

21 Course

Curriculum

& Quality of

program

Communica

tion skills of

students

22 Course

Curriculum

& Quality of

program

Ethics,

Value

system &

Etiquettes

of students

23 All round &

Activity based

learning

through live

projects

Employabili

ty of past

passed out

students

24 All round &

Activity based

learning

through live

projects

Communica

tion skills of

students

25 All round &

Activity based

learning

Ethics,

Value

system &

Annexures

184

through live

projects

Etiquettes

of students

26 Employability

of past passed

out students

Communica

tion skills of

students

27 Employability

of past passed

out students

Ethics,

Value

system &

Etiquettes

of students

28 Communicati

on skills of

students

Ethics,

Value

system &

Etiquettes

of students

B) Collaborative Research Related:

Sr.

No

.



Criteria 2

1 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

Campus

Infrastructur

e

2 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

Tie up with

foreign

universities

3 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

National &

Global

Accreditation

4 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

UGC /

Private /

International

Funding

5 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

All round &

Activity

based

learning

through live

projects

6 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

No. of

International

Faculties

7 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

No. of

Patents

Registered

8 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

9 Type of

University &

Qualification

& Experience

Annexures

185

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

of Faculties

10 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

11 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

12 Type of

University &

No. of

affiliated

Colleges

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

13 Campus

Infrastructure

Tie up with

foreign

universities

14 Campus

Infrastructure

National &

Global

Accreditation

15 Campus

Infrastructure

UGC /

Private /

International

Funding

16 Campus

Infrastructure

All round &

Activity

based

learning

through live

projects

17 Campus

Infrastructure

No. of

International

Faculties

18 Campus

Infrastructure

No. of

Patents

Registered

19 Campus

Infrastructure

No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

20 Campus

Infrastructure

Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

21 Campus

Infrastructure

Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

22 Campus

Infrastructure

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

Annexures

186

23 Campus

Infrastructure

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

24 Tie up with

foreign

universities

National &

Global

Accreditation

25 Tie up with

foreign

universities

UGC /

Private /

International

Funding

26 Tie up with

foreign

universities

All round &

Activity

based

learning

through live

projects

27 Tie up with

foreign

universities

No. of

International

Faculties

28 Tie up with

foreign

universities

No. of

Patents

Registered

29 Tie up with

foreign

universities

No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

30 Tie up with

foreign

universities

Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

31 Tie up with

foreign

universities

Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

32 Tie up with

foreign

universities

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

33 Tie up with

foreign

universities

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

34 National &

Global

Accreditation

UGC /

Private /

International

Funding

35 National &

Global

Accreditation

All round &

Activity

based

learning

through live

projects

36 National &

Global

Accreditation

No. of

International

Faculties

37 National &

Global

Accreditation

No. of

Patents

Registered

38 National &

Global

Accreditation

No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

Annexures

187

39 National &

Global

Accreditation

Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

40 National &

Global

Accreditation

Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

41 National &

Global

Accreditation

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

42 National &

Global

Accreditation

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

43 UGC / Private

/ International

Funding

All round &

Activity

based

learning

through live

projects

44 UGC / Private

/ International

Funding

No. of

International

Faculties

45 UGC / Private

/ International

Funding

No. of

Patents

Registered

46 UGC / Private

/ International

Funding

No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

47 UGC / Private

/ International

Funding

Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

48 UGC / Private

/ International

Funding

Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

49 UGC / Private

/ International

Funding

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

50 UGC / Private

/ International

Funding

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

51 All round &

Activity based

learning

through live

projects

No. of

International

Faculties

52 All round &

Activity based

learning

through live

projects

No. of

Patents

Registered

53 All round &

Activity based

learning

through live

projects

No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

Annexures

188

54 All round &

Activity based

learning

through live

projects

Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

55 All round &

Activity based

learning

through live

projects

Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

56 All round &

Activity based

learning

through live

projects

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

57 All round &

Activity based

learning

through live

projects

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

58 No. of

International

Faculties

No. of

Patents

Registered

59 No. of

International

Faculties

No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

60 No. of

International

Faculties

Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

61 No. of

International

Faculties

Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

62 No. of

International

Faculties

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

63 No. of

International

Faculties

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

64 No. of Patents

Registered

No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

65 No. of Patents

Registered

Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

66 No. of Patents

Registered

Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

67 No. of Patents

Registered

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

68 No. of Patents

Registered

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

Annexures

189

69 No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

70 No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

71 No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

72 No. of

M.Phils. &

PhDs

Produced

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

73 Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

74 Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

75 Qualification

& Experience

of Faculties

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

76 Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

National &

International

recognition

of faculties

77 Honors /

Awards /

Prizes

received by

faculties

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

78 National &

International

recognition of

faculties

Consultation

to Industries

&

Collaborative

research

Annexures

190

Appendix - IV

Proposed Questionnaire for University Administrators

I am Sham Sachinwala, pursuing my doctoral research on the topic "A study of comparison &





modeling of complex decision making process, where large number of decision variables are

involved.




Mentioned below are the criteria’s, which as a university administrator, you may consider to

evaluate and compare universities in which you want to enroll yourself.



circle numbered 1.




Annexures

191

Questions

A) Quality of Education Related

Sr. No.

Criteria 1 Rating Scale More Important Equal More Important

Criteria 2

1 Prior Results & Placements

of students

Tie up with

foreign Universities


of students

National &

Global Accreditation


of students

Courses

Curriculum & Quality of Programs


of students

All round

education & activity based

learning through projects


of students

No. of

international faculties


of students

No. of

international students


of students

No. of faculty development

programs conducted


of students

Faculty to

student ratio


of students

Recommendat

ion by past teachers, friends, relatives


of students


students

11 Tie up with foreign

Universities

National &



Universities

Courses



All round education &

Annexures

192

Universities activity based learning through projects


Universities

No. of



Universities

No. of



Universities


programs conducted


Universities

Faculty to

student ratio


Universities

Recommendat



Universities


students

20 National & Global

Accreditation

Courses



Accreditation

All round




Accreditation

No. of



Accreditation

No. of



Accreditation


programs conducted


Accreditation

Faculty to

student ratio


Accreditation

Recommendat

ion by past teachers, friends,

Annexures

193

relatives


Accreditation


students

28 Courses Curriculum &

Quality of Programs

All round




Quality of Programs

No. of



Quality of Programs

No. of



Quality of Programs


programs conducted


Quality of Programs

Faculty to

student ratio


Quality of Programs

Recommendat



Quality of Programs


students

35 All round education &

activity based learning through projects

No. of




No. of



activity based learning through


programs conducted

Annexures

194

projects



Faculty to

student ratio



Recommendat





students

41 No. of international

faculties

No. of



faculties


programs conducted


faculties

Faculty to

student ratio


faculties

Recommendat



faculties


students


students


programs conducted


students

Faculty to

student ratio


students

Recommendat



students


students

Annexures

195

50 No. of faculty development

programs conducted

Faculty to

student ratio


programs conducted

Recommendat



programs conducted


students

53 Faculty to student ratio

Recommendation by past teachers, friends, relatives

54 Faculty to student ratio


students

55 Recommendation by past teachers, friends, relatives


students

B) Research Output Related

Sr. No.


Criteria 2


universities

UGC /

Private / International

funding


universities

No. of



universities

No. of

Patents registered


universities

No. of

M.Phils & PhDs

produced


universities

Honors / Awards /

Prizes received by

faculties

6 Tie up with

Papers

Annexures

196

foreign universities

published by faculties


universities


Ranking & Citation

Index

8 UGC / Private / International

funding

No. of



funding

No. of

Patents registered


funding

No. of

M.Phils & PhDs

produced


funding

Honors / Awards /

Prizes received by

faculties


funding

Papers



funding


Ranking & Citation

Index


faculties

No. of

Patents registered


faculties

No. of

M.Phils & PhDs

produced


faculties

Honors / Awards /

Prizes received by

faculties


faculties

Papers



faculties


Ranking & Citation

Index

19 No. of Patents registered

No. of M.Phils &

Annexures

197

PhDs produced


Honors / Awards /

Prizes received by

faculties


Papers published by

faculties



Ranking & Citation

Index

23 No. of M.Phils & PhDs

produced

Honors / Awards /

Prizes received by

faculties


produced

Papers



produced


Ranking & Citation

Index

26 Honors / Awards /

Prizes received by faculties

Papers





Ranking & Citation

Index

28 Papers published by

faculties


Ranking & Citation

Index

C) Size & Infrastructure Related:

Sr. No.


Criteria 2

1 Campus Infrastructure

Major courses /

Future ready courses

Annexures

198


ICT enabled University


Growth & Research

Opportunities available to

faculties

4 Major courses / Future

ready courses

ICT enabled University

5 Major courses / Future

ready courses

Growth & Research


faculties

6 ICT enabled University

Growth & Research


faculties

D) Quality of Faculties related:

Sr. No.


Criteria 2

1 Prior results & placements of

students

Tie up with

foreign universities


students

National &



students

No. of

International faculties


students

No. of Patents

registered


students

No. of M.Phils

& PhDs Produced


students


programs conducted


students

Qualifications & Experience

of faculties


students

Honors / Awards /


Annexures

199


students

Papers



students


Ranking & Citation Index


students

National &

International Recognition of

faculties


universities

National &



universities

No. of



universities

No. of Patents

registered


universities

No. of M.Phils

& PhDs Produced


universities


programs conducted


universities


of faculties


universities

Honors / Awards /



universities

Papers



universities




universities

National &


faculties


Accreditation

No. of



Accreditation

No. of Patents

registered

Annexures

200


Accreditation

No. of M.Phils

& PhDs Produced


Accreditation


programs conducted


Accreditation


of faculties


Accreditation

Honors / Awards /



Accreditation

Papers



Accreditation




Accreditation

National &


faculties

31 No. of International

faculties

No. of Patents

registered


faculties

No. of M.Phils

& PhDs Produced


faculties


programs conducted


faculties


of faculties


faculties

Honors / Awards /



faculties

Papers



faculties




faculties

National &


Annexures

201

faculties


No. of M.Phils & PhDs

Produced



programs conducted



of faculties


Honors / Awards /



Papers published by

faculties





National & International

Recognition of faculties


Produced


programs conducted


Produced


of faculties


Produced

Honors / Awards /



Produced

Papers



Produced




Produced

National &


faculties


programs conducted


of faculties

Annexures

202


programs conducted

Honors / Awards /



programs conducted

Papers



programs conducted




programs conducted

National &


faculties

57 National & International


Honors / Awards /




Papers








National &


faculties


Prizes received by

faculties

Papers



Prizes received by

faculties




Prizes received by

faculties

National &


faculties

64 Papers published by

faculties



65 Papers

National &

Annexures

203



faculties

66 Historical Scholarly


National &


faculties

gujarat technological university ahmedabad july 2017 · 2017-12-21 · a thesis submitted to...

Documents