Performance Analysis of Hospital Managers Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS: Iranian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hospitals are complex organizations that require strong and effective management. The success of such organizations depends on the performance of managers. This study provides a comprehensive set of indicators to assess the performance of hospital managers in Iranian Ministry of Health owned hospitals. METHODS: This research was a cross-sectional study. First, reviewing the literature and using experts' viewpoints and convening a panel of experts, the dimensions of performance have been selected and came in the form of a performance model. Then, using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), the chosen dimensions were weighted. Finally, based on the weighted performance dimensions, a questionnaire was designed and after confirming the reliability and validity, through a census, 407 senior and middle managers from 10 hospitals in Yazd, Iran completed it and performance of CEOs in these hospitals was evaluated using the Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS). RESULTS: To measure the performance of hospital managers, a performance assessment model consisted of 19 sub-dimensions in 5 main dimensions (Functional, Professional, Organizational, Individual and Human) was developed. The functional area had the most weight and the individual area had the least weight, as well. The hospital managers had different performance levels in each category and sub-dimensions. In terms of overall performance, the hospital managers C and H had the best and the worst performance, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of appropriate dimensions for performance, prioritizing them and evaluating the performance of hospital managers using appropriate techniques, can play an effective role in the selection of qualified managers, identifying strengths and weaknesses in performance and continuous improvement of them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".