Selection of Teaching Faculty in Pharmacy/Engineering Institutes by Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): A Procedure Proposed

Background: The process for choosing the right talent to further the institution's objectives is known as faculty selection. In a pharmacy or engineering college, choosing teaching personnel is quite important. The best-qualified candidates for teaching faculty members in pharmacy/ engineering institutions are chosen in this study using an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Materials and Methods: AHP analysis is done based on six primary criteria as Ph.D./M. Tech (P/M), Teaching Experience (TE), Industry Experience (IE), Research Publications (RP), Paper Reviewed/ Board Member (PR/BM) and Technical Courses (TC) in the first round and three secondary criteria as an Oral Presentation (OP), Student Feedback (SF) and Interview Performance (IP) in the second round. Results: First, create a weight matrix and a normalized weight matrix using the first round's six basic criteria (P/M, TE, IE, RP, PR/BM, and TC) and the second round's three subsidiary criteria (OP, SF, and IP). The decision makers' conclusions are consistent, as shown by the Consistency ratio (CR), which is less than 0.10. In both the first round and the second round, applicant 3 gets the highest weighted score when compared to applicant 6. Thus, candidate 3 is chosen as the most suitable teaching faculty member in the final AHP judgment. Conclusion: In comparison to the initial criteria, the following criteria are more significant when choosing teaching faculty members. Due to the selection of faculty members of colleges and universities in this article, the subsequent round has a larger weighting than the first.


INTRODUCTION
Staffing management plays a significant role in hiring new members who have appropriate skills or talent to fulfill organizational needs.It is very difficult to select the most appropriate applicants.To choose the best job candidate in corporate America, organisations use several evaluation techniques, including interviews, ability testing, personality tests, and work experience. 1 Similar to that, choosing tenure-track faculty members is essential for academic institutions to achieve the objectives of higher education.Abuizam and Lucas describe the selection procedure for a tenure-track faculty position. 2To do so, make a search committee for conducting the selection process.After conducting interviews, the interviewer recommends the best applicant for the tenure-track teaching faculty post to the department head, the school's dean, and/or other higher-level individuals for the next round of interviews.

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Thomas L. Saaty created the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). 3Almost all decision-making programs, including those in the public and private sectors of business, industry, healthcare, and education, have already used AHP. 4 The AHP is one of the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods that is gaining popularity with academics and researchers due to its simplicity of use and value in resolving complicated issues. 3,5,6he AHP technique has also been applied to choices for hiring, promoting military personnel, and admitting students.According to research, Ford Motor created goals for enhancing customer satisfaction criteria in 1999 by employing AHP. 7Many studies have utilized AHP in many industries and have shown it to be Sharma, et al.: AHP for Faculty Selection effective in selecting vendors and providers, 8 cranes for building sites, 9 and tenure track academic positions. 2Additionally, this approach has been used to solve engineering difficulties in sectors including combined manufacturing, 10 adaptable production systems, 11 design of layouts, 12 as well as additional engineering issues. 13In this study, an AHP-based selection process for tenure-track teaching faculty members at pharmacy/engineering institutes will be suggested.
An AHP is employed in this study to choose teaching staff for pharmacy and engineering institutes.The major goal of this study is to choose the pharmacy/engineering institutes' teaching faculty members that are the most suitable.An imaginary organization claims that X has been thought to help explain.The selection of most appropriate applicant is based on six criterias as P/M, TE, IE, RP, PR/BM and TC in this study.Table 1a illustrates the applicant's criteria.

Technique and Process
This study describes the proposed procedure for the selection of most appropriate applicants in the considered hypothetical engineering institute by using AHP.The procedure has total 7 steps in two rounds.The first round has 3 steps as follows- Step-1: A hierarchy is an arrangement of items (goal, criteria, aplicants, etc.). 8Figure 1 illustrates the hierarchy used for selecting the most appropriate applicants for the post of teaching faculty members in an engineering institute.
Step-2: In the second step, criteria are compared by calculating their weight matrix in this study.Additionally, every single criterion is subjected to a pairwise comparison.. AHP is used to rank the importance of each objective.The alternatives are applicants.The number of comparisons are n(n-1)/2 in AHP.In this study, n is the number of applicants, i.e. 6, therefore the number of comparisons 6(6-1)/2=15 are needed to compute the priorities.The decision makers have suggested relative weights for various criteria, P/M, TE, IE, RP, PR/BM, and TC as well as for applicants as shown in Table 1b in this study.The scale of relative importance in quantitative analysis is as followes, 1-similarity index, 3-weak relative importance of each, 5-crucial importance, 7-definite importance, 9-absolute importance, and 2, 4, 6, 8-between the two neighbouring judgements, middle values. 3,14he decision makers are two senior professors and one from Industry in this study.This weight matrix must be normalised in   Step-3: This phase involves combining the decision makers' evaluations of each candidate with their general priorities.After calculating the weights of each applicant on each criterion, these weights should be combined with the weight of individuals each criterion as P/M, TE, IE, RP, PR/BM and TC as shown in Table 3a.The result shows that applicant 1 (A1), applicant 3 (A3) and applicant 6 (A6) have the highest weighted score as compared to the remaining three applicants.

Criteria
Step-4: In the second round, decision maker's again check the eligibility of three qualified applicants having a higher weight score in the first round.study.Figure 2 illustrates the hierarchy model used for selecting the most appropriate applicants (second round).
Again the decision makers have suggested relative weights for various criteria, OP, SF, and IP as well as for applicants as shown in Table 3b in this study.Above mentioned scale of relative importance in quantitative analysis is used to make a decision. 3,14ep-5: In this step, again prepare the weight matrix and normalized weight matrix for various criteria as similar as prepared in the first round.Decision makers again used the scale of relative importance in quantitative analysis to prepare a weight matrix and normalized weight matrix for each criterion as shown in Table 4a.
Also, check the consistency of the judgments (Second round) by calculating the value of CR.The value of CR is 0.017, which is less than 0.

CONCLUSION
AHP is a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) tool.It has been used by many researchers for various purposes.This study is focused on the application of AHP to choose the most valuable applicants for the teaching faculty members in a pharmacy/ engineering institution.A pairwise comparison is developed and prepared weight matrix and normalized weight matrix of criteria as well as of applicants in both rounds.First of all, prepare the weight matrix and normalized weight matrix based on six primary criteria as P/M, TE, IE, RP, PR/BM, and TC in the first round and again based on three secondary criteria as OP, SF, and IP in the second round.The judgments of decision makers are consistent as checked by CR which is less than 0.10.Applicant 3 and Applicant 6 have the highest weighted score in this study.Applicant 3 has the highest weighted score as compared to Applicant 6 in the first round as well as in the second round.So the decision makers are the final authority to select applicant 3 applicant 6 or both if the institute requires it.Therefore the final decision using AHP is to select applicant 3 as the most appropriate teaching faculty member in this hypothetical engineering institution based on the higher weightage of the first as well as second rounds in this study.This paper concludes that the AHP methodology has the potential to use for the selection of teaching faculty members in engineering institutions to fulfill the strategic goals.AHP has become popular for the selection of faculty members within academic institutions.

Table 1a :
6HP for Faculty Selection order to generate weights by averaging six values for each of the six criteria.Table2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, and 2g illustrates the weight matrix and normalized weight matrix for given 6 primary criteria in the first round.Additionally, look at the consistency of decision-makers conclusions.First of all, calculate the value of λ max by adding the products of the SUM and the weight of each criterion.The deviation can be measured by this Consistency Index (CI).The formula used for this calculation is: CI=(λ max -n)/(n-1).The Random Consistency Index (RCI) for appropriate comparison is as N-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and RCI-0, 0.58, 0.90, 1.12, 1.24, 1.32, 1.41, 1.45, 1.51 respectively.6NowtheConsistencyRatio (CR) is then calculated as CR=CI/ RCI.The value of CR is deciding whether the judgments are consistent or not.The consistency of the assessments is excellent if the CR value is less than 0.10, and it indicates inconsistent judgments if the value is larger than 0.10.In this study, CR=0.05 for criteria, which is less than 0.10, Therefore judgments are consistent.Also, calculate the value of CR of other normalized weight matrices to check the consistency.To create weight matrices and normalized weight matrices of applications for each criterion, decision-makers utilize a comparable scale.The weight matrix and normalized weight matrix of each applicant for each primary criterion as P/M, TE, IE, RP, PR/BM, and TC are shown in Table3a.Now again check the consistency of judgements for all the applicants by calculating the value of CR.The value of CR of all the applicants for P/M, TE, IE, RP, PR/BM and TC are 0.048, 0.059, 0.052, 0.025, 0.030 and 0.018 respectively.Due to their lower than 0.10 levels, these values exhibit the highest level of consistency.

Table 2b : Weight matrix and normalized weight matrix for applicants.
Applicant 3 has the highest weight score, applicant 6 has the second most weight score and applicant 1 has the third highest weight score among all six applicants.Also, check the other criteria of these selected applicants.The other criteria are Oral Presentation (OP), Student Feedback (SF) and Interview Performance (IP) in the second round.These three criteria are used to finalize the most appropriate applicants in this For Ph.D/M.Tech.(P/M)

Table 2e : Weight matrix and normalized weight matrix for applicants. For Paper Reviewed/Board Member (PR/BM)
15, which means judgments are satisfactory and consistent according to Saaty 2006.15Verify each applicant's performance

Table 3b : Relative weight for criteria and applicants under OP, SF, and IP. Figure
2: Hierarchy used for selecting the most appropriate applicants (second round).

Table 4a : Weight matrix and normalized weight matrix for criteria.
select applicant 3 or applicant 6 or both if the institute requires all 6 applicants.Due to the larger weighting of the first and second rounds as previously mentioned, applicant 3 is chosen as the best suitable teaching faculty member in this fictitious engineering university utilizing AHP.