A Novel Hybrid Approach for Prioritizing Investment Initiatives to Achieve Financial Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions Using MEREC-G and RATMI
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What is the ranking of the KAU’s financial sustainability plan initiatives based on a set of quantitative and qualitative criteria with different weights?
- What are the potential alternatives that the KAU’s investment administrator has to consider for generating quick income by the year 2025?
- How can the decision makers and planners at KAU obtain revenues by implementing at least one initiative in each of the eight KPA1 pillars of the financial sustainability plan?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Financial Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)
2.2. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Tools and Applications
3. The Proposed Novel Approach
3.1. Phase 1: Identifying Financial Resources
3.2. Phase 2: Determining the Alternatives and Their Criteria
3.3. Phase 3: Constructing the Decision Matrix
3.4. Phase 4: Calculating the Criteria Weights
3.5. Phase 5: Ranking the Initiatives (Alternatives)
- is a set of criteria that should be maximized.
- is a set of criteria that should be minimized.
- is a weight of criterion that is calculated in phase 4. The sum of the weights must equal one: .
- k: denotes the total number of criteria that should be maximized.
- h: denotes the total number of criteria that should be minimized.
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- is a value from 0 to 1. Here, = 0.5.
4. Application and Results
4.1. Identifying Financial Resources
4.2. Determining the Alternatives and Their Criteria
- Target income (C1): This criterion refers to the expected target profit that KAU desires for the initiative by the end of 2025.
- Venture capital (C2): This criterion refers to the amount of money KAU needs to spend before launching the initiative. It includes, for example, marketing costs, equipment, research expenses, etc.
- Degree of the required approval and procedures (C3): This criterion indicates the number of required approvals and the steps to implement the initiative. For example, official approval either from KAU sectors or other stakeholders such as the Ministry of Education.
- Harmonization of present regulations (C4): This criterion refers to the compliance level of the initiative with the current university statutes and regulations.
- Availability of human resources (C5): This means the availability and accessibility level of required staff for the intuitive. This includes the type and number of personnel (skilled, trained faculty or admin members).
- Technical and infrastructure capacity (C6): This means the availability level of the necessary technical and infrastructure requirements or the intuitive, such as the type, number, and capacity of the systems, platforms, networks, devices, data centers, etc.
- Material and equipment availability (C7): This criterion refers to the degree to which the suppliers can provide the material and equipment needed for the initiative reliably and conveniently.
- Time to start the initiative (C8): This criterion refers to the required preparation time for the initiative to be officially launched.
- Risk management (C9): This criterion means the level of threats or risks for the initiative, such as financial uncertainty, legal liabilities, and circumstances that could prohibit the initiative from being carried out.
4.3. Constructing the Decision Matrix
4.4. Calculating the Criteria Weights
4.5. Ranking the Initiatives (Alternatives)
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Restrictions and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- HESI: Higher Education Sustainability Initiative. Assessments of Higher Education’s Progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/HEI%20assessment%20for%20the%20SDGs%20-%20Volume%202%20HEIs1.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2023).
- Bauer, M.; Rieckmann, M.; Niedlich, S.; Bormann, I. Sustainability governance at higher education institutions: Equipped to transform? Front. Sustain. 2021, 2, 640458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afriyie, A.O. Financial sustainability factors of higher education institutions: A predictive model. Int. J. Educ. Learn. Dev. 2015, 2, 17–38. [Google Scholar]
- Lucianelli, G.; Citro, F. Financial Conditions and Financial Sustainability in Higher Education: A Literature Review. In Financial Sustainability in Public Administration; Rodríguez Bolívar, M., Ed.; Springer Nature; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 23–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omazic, A.; Zunk, B.M. Semi-systematic literature review on sustainability and sustainable development in higher education institutions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binagwaho, A.; Bonciani Nader, H.; Brown Burkins, M.; Davies, A.; Hessen, D.O.; Mbow, C.; McCowan, T.; Parr, A.; Ramakrishna, S.; Salmi, J.; et al. Knowledge-Driven Actions: Transforming Higher Education for Global Sustainability: Independent Expert Group on the Universities and the 2030 Agenda; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Žalėnienė, I.; Pereira, P. Higher education for sustainability: A global perspective. Geogr. Sustain. 2021, 2, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abubakar, I.R.; Aina, Y.A.; Alshuwaikhat, H.M. Sustainable development at Saudi Arabian universities: An overview of institutional frameworks. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vision2030. Saudi Vision Official Website. 2022. Available online: https://www.vision2030.gov.sa (accessed on 17 January 2023).
- Vision2030. Fiscal Sustainability Program. 2022. Available online: https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/v2030/vrps/fsp/ (accessed on 17 January 2023).
- Vision2030. Privatization Program. 2022. Available online: https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/v2030/vrps/privatization/ (accessed on 17 January 2023).
- Ahmed, M. Higher Education in KSA: Changing Demand in Line with Vision 2030. 2022. Available online: https://www.colliers.com/en-ae/research/overview-of-higher-education-market-in-ksa (accessed on 25 April 2023).
- Alshuwaikhat, H.M.; Adenle, Y.A.; Saghir, B. Sustainability assessment of higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2016, 8, 750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- University’s Regulation. The Law of Universities Rendered by the Royal Decree No. M/27 Dated 02/03/1441H, First Edition. 2022. Available online: https://units.imamu.edu.sa/colleges/en/LanguageAndTranslation/FilesLibrary/Documents/Universities%20Regulation.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2023).
- Albeshir, S.G. A Comparative study between the new and old university laws in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Res. 2022, 10, 148–157. [Google Scholar]
- King Abdulaziz University. Available online: https://www.kau.edu.sa/Home.aspx?lng=en (accessed on 10 May 2023).
- Al-Filali, I.Y.; Abdulaal, R.M.; Melaibari, A.A. A Novel Green Ocean Strategy for Financial Sustainability (GOSFS) in Higher Education Institutions: King Abdulaziz University as a Case Study. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdogan, S.A.; Šaparauskas, J.; Turskis, Z. A multi-criteria decision-making model to choose the best option for sustainable construction management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobrovolskienė, N.; Pozniak, A.; Tvaronavičienė, M. Assessment of the sustainability of a real estate project using multi-criteria decision making. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montenegro de Lima, C.R.; Coelho Soares, T.; Andrade de Lima, M.; Oliveira Veras, M.; de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O. Sustainability funding in higher education: A literature-based review. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 441–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sazonov, S.P.; Kharlamova, E.E.; Chekhovskaya, I.A.; Polyanskaya, E.A. Evaluating financial sustainability of higher education institutions. Asian Soc. Sci. 2015, 11, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, S.; Chapman, M.; Parker, J. Achieving Financial Sustainability in Higher Education. 2018. Available online: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/uk/pdf/2018/10/achieving-financial-sustainability-in-higher-education.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Alshubiri, F.N. Analysis of financial sustainability indicators of higher education institutions on foreign direct investment: Empirical evidence in OECD countries. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2021, 22, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuzmina, J. Financial Sustainability of Higher Education Institutions. Soc. Integr. Educ. Proc. Int. Sci. Conf. 2021, 6, 324–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndlovu, I. Factors that Affect University Financial Sustainability: A Case Study of a Private University in Zimbabwe. East Afr. J. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2020, 1, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almagtome, A.; Shaker, A.; Al-Fatlawi, Q.; Bekheet, H. The integration between financial sustainability and accountability in higher education institutions: An exploratory case study. Integration 2019, 8, 202–221. [Google Scholar]
- Nik Ahmad, N.N.; Ismail, S.; Siraj, S.A. Financial sustainability of Malaysian public universities: Officers’ perceptions. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2019, 33, 317–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, M.H.; Muturi, W. Factors affecting financial performance of income generating units among universities in Puntland State of Somalia: The case Puntland State University (PSU). Int. J. Econ. Commer. Manag. 2017, 5, 287–318. [Google Scholar]
- Mahmud, A.; Nuryatin, A.; Susilowati, N. Income Generating Activity in Higher Education: A Case Study of a Public University in Indonesia. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2022, 11, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakhiyya, Z.; Rata, E. From ‘priceless’ to ‘priced’: The value of knowledge in higher education. Glob. Soc. Educ. 2019, 17, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alstete, J.W. Revenue Generation, Higher Education Institutions. In The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 2489–2495. [Google Scholar]
- Mahmud, A.; Susilowati, N.; Anisykurlillah, I.; Sari, P.N. Increasing income generation: The role of staff participation and awareness. Int. J. Financ. Stud. 2023, 11, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.; Gao, L. Financing university sustainability initiatives in China: Actors and processes. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2021, 22, 44–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azhar, N.A.; Radzi, N.A.; Wan Ahmad, W.S.H.M. Multi-criteria decision making: A systematic review. Recent Adv. Electr. Electron. Eng. Former. Recent Pat. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2021, 14, 779–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H.; Madanchian, M. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts. Encyclopedia 2023, 3, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robert, M.X.; Yongwen, W. Which objective weight method is better: PCA or entropy? Sci. J. Res. Rev. 2022, 3, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, M.; Pant, M. A review of selected weighing methods in MCDM with a case study. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2021, 12, 126–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odu, G.O. Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making technique. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2019, 23, 1449–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukhametzyanov, I. Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2021, 4, 76–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Antucheviciene, J. Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry 2021, 13, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beed, R.S.; Sarkar, S.; Roy, A. Hierarchical Bayesian approach for improving weights for solving multi-objective route optimization problem. Int. J. Inf. Technol. 2021, 13, 1331–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishnan, A.R.; Kasim, M.M.; Hamid, R.; Ghazali, M.F. A modified CRITIC method to estimate the objective weights of decision criteria. Symmetry 2021, 13, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, J.; Wenshuo, Z. The optimization of objective weighting method based on relative importance. In Proceedings of the 2020 5th International Conference on Mechanical, Control and Computer Engineering (ICMCCE), Harbin, China, 25–27 December 2020; pp. 1234–1237. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, K.H. Integrating Subjective–Objective Weights Consideration and a Combined Compromise Solution Method for Handling Supplier Selection Issues. Systems 2023, 11, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paramanik, A.R.; Sarkar, S.; Sarkar, B. OSWMI: An objective-subjective weighted method for minimizing inconsistency in multi-criteria decision making. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 169, 108138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şahin, M. A comprehensive analysis of weighting and multi-criteria methods in the context of sustainable energy. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 18, 1591–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adalı, E.A.; Işık, A.T. CRITIC and MAUT methods for the contract manufacturer selection problem. Eur. J. Multidiscip. Stud. 2017, 2, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayan, B.; Abacıoğlu, S.; Basilio, M.P. A Comprehensive Review of the Novel Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Information 2023, 14, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keleş, N. Measuring performances through multiplicative functions by modifying the MEREC method: MEREC-G and MEREC-H. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Oper. Manag. 2023. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pala, O. A new objective weighting method based on robustness of ranking with standard deviation and correlation: The ROCOSD method. Inf. Sci. 2023, 636, 118930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaya, I.; Çolak, M.; Terzi, F. A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019, 24, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaidan, A.A.; Zaidan, B.B.; Hussain, M.; Haiqi, A.; Kiah, M.M.; Abdulnabi, M. Multi-criteria analysis for OS-EMR software selection problem: A comparative study. Decis. Support Syst. 2015, 78, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akram, M.; Garg, H.; Zahid, K. Extensions of ELECTRE-I and TOPSIS methods for group decision-making under complex Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2020, 17, 147–164. [Google Scholar]
- Jayant, A.; Sharma, J. A comprehensive literature review of MCDM techniques ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, VIKOR and TOPSIS applications in business competitive environment. Int. J. Curr. Res. 2018, 10, 65461–65477. [Google Scholar]
- Sari, F.; Kandemir, İ.; Ceylan, D.A.; Gül, A. Using AHP and PROMETHEE multi-criteria decision making methods to define suitable apiary locations. J. Apic. Res. 2020, 59, 546–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Lin, Y.; Wang, Z. An integrated BWM-CRITIC approach based on neutrosophic set for sustainable supply chain finance risk evaluation. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inf. Control 2022, 18, 1736–1754. [Google Scholar]
- Kabassi, K. Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, D.A.A.; Yusof, Y.; Na’im Ku Khalif, K.M. A view of MCDM application in education. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1988, 012063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makki, A.A.; Alqahtani, A.Y.; Abdulaal, R.M.S.; Madbouly, A.I. A novel strategic approach to evaluating higher education quality standards in university colleges using multi-criteria decision-making. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdulaal, R.; Bafail, O.A. Two New Approaches (RAMS-RATMI) in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Tactics. J. Math. 2022, 2022, 6725318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavlov, O.V.; Katsamakas, E. COVID-19 and financial sustainability of academic institutions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbass, K.; Begum, H.; Alam, A.F.; Awang, A.H.; Abdelsalam, M.K.; Egdair, I.M.M.; Wahid, R. Fresh insight through a Keynesian theory approach to investigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baltaru, R.D.; Manac, R.D.; Ivan, M.D. Do rankings affect universities’ financial sustainability?–financial vulnerability to rankings and elite status as a positional good. Stud. High. Educ. 2022, 47, 2323–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Štilić, A.; Puška, A. Integrating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods with Sustainable Engineering: A Comprehensive Review of Current Practices. Eng 2023, 4, 1536–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pillar Code | Financial Resources | Initiative Code | Initiatives |
---|---|---|---|
L | Learning & Education | L1 | Paid distance education |
L2 | Paid parallel education programs | ||
L3 | Paid quality graduate and postgraduate programs | ||
R | Research & Development | R1 | New research products |
R2 | Investing in preclinical drug trials | ||
C | Community Development | C1 | Community courses and diploma |
C2 | Contracts with government agencies | ||
C3 | Graduate training and qualification programs | ||
D | Digital Facilities & Infrastructure | D1 | Investment in the commercial land on Abdullah Sulayman Street |
D2 | Investment in a multi-story parking structure | ||
D3 | Digital advertising and billboards investment initiative | ||
D4 | Investment in KAU’s sports facilities | ||
D5 | Renting sites to provide fast food services | ||
D6 | Allocation of the auxiliary facilities | ||
H | Healthcare Services | H1 | Allocation of medical diagnostic and treatment services |
H2 | Privatizing the university hospital into a private hospital of 300 beds | ||
H3 | Allocation of 150 clinics in the dental hospital | ||
H4 | Jeddah knowledge medical village project | ||
H5 | Strategic medical partnerships | ||
S | Strategic Mega Projects | S1 | Polymer membranes manufacturing and approval for water desalination |
S2 | Production of activated carbon and non-activated carbon micro- and nanoparticles | ||
S3 | Establishing a UAV services company | ||
S4 | Establishing a Saudi IOT company | ||
S5 | Integrated Research and Services Center for investigational new drugs | ||
S6 | A Company to manufacture ultrasound imaging equipment | ||
S7 | Prototyping Company | ||
S8 | Technology valley | ||
P | Human Capital | P1 | Part-time employment to prepare students for the labor market |
P2 | Establishment of the KAU Expert Company | ||
E | Endowments & Donations | E1 | Five new endowments |
E2 | Scientific endowment | ||
E3 | Qur’an endowment | ||
E4 | Strategic mega project endowment |
Step 4.2 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Max. | Min. | Min. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Min. | Min. | |||||||||||||||||||||
L1 | 0.0000 | 0.3214 | 0.7500 | 0.2500 | 1.0000 | 0.2500 | 0.3333 | 0.7500 | 1.0000 | ||||||||||||||||||||
L2 | 0.0000 | 0.1607 | 1.0000 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.2500 | 0.2500 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | ||||||||||||||||||||
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | ||||||||||||||||||||
E3 | 0.0000 | 0.0071 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.3333 | 0.3333 | 0.5000 | 0.2500 | ||||||||||||||||||||
E4 | 0.0000 | 0.0143 | 0.7500 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 0.3333 | 0.2500 | 1.0000 | 0.7500 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Step 4.3 | Step 4.4 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | |||||||||||||||||||
Max. | Min. | Min. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Min. | Min. | |||||||||||||||||||||
S1 | 0.0158 | L1 | 0.4977 | 0.0109 | 0.0098 | 0.0112 | 0.0094 | 0.0112 | 0.0108 | 0.0098 | 0.0094 | ||||||||||||||||||
S2 | 0.0140 | L2 | 0.3979 | 0.0103 | 0.0082 | 0.0090 | 0.0090 | 0.0098 | 0.0098 | 0.0090 | 0.0090 | ||||||||||||||||||
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | ||||||||||||||||||
S32 | 0.0132 | E3 | 0.2436 | 0.0143 | 0.0084 | 0.0084 | 0.0084 | 0.0088 | 0.0088 | 0.0084 | 0.0092 | ||||||||||||||||||
S33 | 0.0164 | E4 | 0.3373 | 0.0166 | 0.0101 | 0.0107 | 0.0107 | 0.0112 | 0.0116 | 0.0098 | 0.0101 | ||||||||||||||||||
Step 4.5 | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y4 | Y5 | Y6 | Y7 | Y8 | Y9 | Total | |||||||||||||||||||
8.8757 | 0.9622 | 0.5247 | 0.3583 | 0.3836 | 0.3904 | 0.3051 | 0.5272 | 0.4781 | 12.8052 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Step 4.6 | w1 | w2 | w3 | w4 | w5 | w6 | w7 | w8 | w9 | ||||||||||||||||||||
0.6931 | 0.0751 | 0.0410 | 0.0280 | 0.0300 | 0.0305 | 0.0238 | 0.0412 | 0.0373 |
Step 5.2 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
Max. | Min. | Min. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Min. | Min. | |
L1 | 1.0000 | 0.0222 | 0.3333 | 1.0000 | 0.5000 | 1.0000 | 0.7500 | 0.3333 | 0.2500 |
L2 | 0.5000 | 0.0444 | 0.2500 | 0.5000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
E3 | 0.0167 | 1.0000 | 0.5000 | 0.5000 | 1.0000 | 0.7500 | 0.7500 | 0.5000 | 1.0000 |
E4 | 0.0333 | 0.5000 | 0.3333 | 0.5000 | 1.0000 | 0.7500 | 1.0000 | 0.2500 | 0.3333 |
Step 5.3 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
Max. | Min. | Min. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Min. | Min. | |
L1 | 0.6931 | 0.0017 | 0.0137 | 0.0280 | 0.0150 | 0.0305 | 0.0179 | 0.0137 | 0.0093 |
L2 | 0.3466 | 0.0033 | 0.0102 | 0.0140 | 0.0300 | 0.0305 | 0.0238 | 0.0206 | 0.0187 |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
E3 | 0.0116 | 0.0751 | 0.0205 | 0.0140 | 0.0300 | 0.0229 | 0.0179 | 0.0206 | 0.0373 |
E4 | 0.0231 | 0.0376 | 0.0137 | 0.0140 | 0.0300 | 0.0229 | 0.0238 | 0.0103 | 0.0124 |
Step 5.4 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
& | Max. | Min. | Min. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Min. | Min. |
Step 5.5 | |||||||||
Qmax | 0.4804 | … | … | 0.0008 | 0.0009 | 0.0009 | 0.0006 | -… | … |
Qmin | … | 0.0056 | 0.0017 | … | -… | … | … | 0.0017 | 0.0014 |
Step 5.6 | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 |
Max. | Min. | Min. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Max. | Min. | Min. | |
L1Umax | 0.4804 | … | … | 0.0008 | 0.0002 | 0.0009 | 0.0003 | 0.4804 | … |
L1Umin | … | 0.0000 | 0.0002 | … | … | … | … | 0.0002 | 0.0001 |
L2Umax | 0.1201 | … | … | 0.0002 | 0.0009 | 0.0009 | 0.0006 | 0.1201 | … |
L2Umin | … | 0.0000 | 0.0001 | … | … | … | … | 0.0004 | 0.0003 |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
E3Umax | 0.0001 | … | … | 0.0002 | 0.0009 | 0.0005 | 0.0003 | 0.0001 | … |
E3Umin | … | 0.0056 | 0.0004 | … | … | … | … | 0.0004 | 0.0014 |
E4Umax | 0.0005 | … | … | 0.0002 | 0.0009 | 0.0005 | 0.0006 | 0.0005 | … |
E4Umin | … | 0.0014 | 0.0002 | … | … | … | … | 0.0001 | 0.0002 |
Step 5.7 | Max. | Min. | Step 5.7a | Trace | Value | Rank | Step 5.7b | Perimeter | Rank |
Similarity | |||||||||
0.6954 | 0.1020 | ||||||||
L1 | 0.6948 | 0.0216 | L1 | 0.4854 | 1 | L1 | 0.9889 | 1 | |
L2 | 0.3503 | 0.0298 | L2 | 0.2466 | 2 | L2 | 0.5002 | 2 | |
… | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
E3 | 0.0455 | 0.0888 | E3 | 0.0407 | 16 | E3 | 0.1419 | 8 | |
E4 | 0.0521 | 0.0431 | E4 | 0.0407 | 17 | E4 | 0.0962 | 18 |
Step 5.8 | Financial Resource | Alternative Trace | Median Similarity | Majority Index | Rank |
0.0175 | 0.0405 | ||||
0.4854 | 0.9889 | ||||
L1 | Learning & Education | 0.4854 | 0.9889 | 1.0000 | 1 |
L2 | 0.2466 | 0.5002 | 0.4872 | 2 | |
L3 | 0.0790 | 0.1626 | 0.1301 | 7 | |
R1 | Research & Development | 0.0469 | 0.0989 | 0.0622 | 16 |
R2 | 0.2457 | 0.4987 | 0.4855 | 3 | |
C1 | Community Development | 0.0504 | 0.1120 | 0.0728 | 11 |
C2 | 0.0920 | 0.1871 | 0.1568 | 5 | |
C3 | 0.0401 | 0.1326 | 0.0726 | 12 | |
D1 | Digital Facilities & Infrastructure | 0.0847 | 0.1720 | 0.1412 | 6 |
D2 | 0.0435 | 0.1102 | 0.0645 | 15 | |
D3 | 0.0453 | 0.1198 | 0.0714 | 13 | |
D4 | 0.0404 | 0.0875 | 0.0492 | 19 | |
D5 | 0.0415 | 0.1073 | 0.0608 | 17 | |
D6 | 0.0356 | 0.0945 | 0.0478 | 20 | |
H1 | Healthcare Services | 0.0300 | 0.0673 | 0.0275 | 27 |
H2 | 0.0344 | 0.0711 | 0.0341 | 24 | |
H3 | 0.0345 | 0.0716 | 0.0345 | 23 | |
H4 | 0.0313 | 0.0652 | 0.0277 | 26 | |
H5 | 0.0504 | 0.1066 | 0.0700 | 14 | |
S1 | Strategic Mega Projects | 0.0324 | 0.0680 | 0.0303 | 25 |
S2 | 0.0253 | 0.0581 | 0.0175 | 29 | |
S3 | 0.0233 | 0.0520 | 0.0123 | 31 | |
S4 | 0.0349 | 0.0749 | 0.0366 | 22 | |
S5 | 0.0267 | 0.0580 | 0.0191 | 28 | |
S6 | 0.0248 | 0.0547 | 0.0153 | 30 | |
S7 | 0.0176 | 0.0414 | 0.0006 | 32 | |
S8 | 0.0175 | 0.0405 | 0.0000 | 33 | |
P1 | Human Capital | 0.0343 | 0.0867 | 0.0423 | 21 |
P2 | 0.0577 | 0.1206 | 0.0852 | 8 | |
E1 | Endowments & Donations | 0.0534 | 0.1107 | 0.0753 | 10 |
E2 | 0.1699 | 0.3474 | 0.3247 | 4 | |
E3 | 0.0407 | 0.1419 | 0.0782 | 9 | |
E4 | 0.0407 | 0.0962 | 0.0541 | 18 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Abdulaal, R.M.S.; Makki, A.A.; Al-Filali, I.Y. A Novel Hybrid Approach for Prioritizing Investment Initiatives to Achieve Financial Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions Using MEREC-G and RATMI. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12635. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612635
Abdulaal RMS, Makki AA, Al-Filali IY. A Novel Hybrid Approach for Prioritizing Investment Initiatives to Achieve Financial Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions Using MEREC-G and RATMI. Sustainability. 2023; 15(16):12635. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612635
Chicago/Turabian StyleAbdulaal, Reda M. S., Anas A. Makki, and Isam Y. Al-Filali. 2023. "A Novel Hybrid Approach for Prioritizing Investment Initiatives to Achieve Financial Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions Using MEREC-G and RATMI" Sustainability 15, no. 16: 12635. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612635