Microsoft Word - ETASR_V13_N4_pp11235-11241


Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 13, No. 4, 2023, 11235-11241 11235  
 

www.etasr.com Alshehri et al: The Efficacy of the Strategy Planning Process Criteria based on the Fuzzy Analytical … 

 

The Efficacy of the Strategy Planning Process 
Criteria based on the Fuzzy Analytical 
Hierarchy Process 

 

Reema Alshehri 

Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, College of Computer Science and 
Engineering, University of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 
ralshehri0289.stu@uj.edu.sa (corresponding author)  
 
Nahla Aljojo 

Information System and Information Technology Department, College of Computer Science and 
Engineering, University of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 
nmaljojo@uj.edu.sa  
 
Areej Alshutayri 

Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, College of Computer Science and 
Engineering, University of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 
aoalshutayri@uj.edu.sa  
 
Ahmed Alrashedi  

Human Resource Department, Business College, University of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 
akalrashde@uj.edu.sa 
 
Abdullah Alghoson 

Information System and Information Technology Department, College of Computer Science and 
Engineering, University of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 
alghoson@uj.edu.sa 
 
Azida Zainol 

Department of Software Engineering, College of Business, Technology and Engineering, Sheffield 
Hallam University, United Kingdom 
a.zainol@shu.ac.uk 

Received: 11 May 2023 | Revised: 27 May 2023 | Accepted: 1 June 2023 

Licensed under a CC-BY 4.0 license | Copyright (c) by the authors | DOI: https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.6034 

ABSTRACT 

This study investigated the strategic planning procedure used by the University of Jeddah to determine 

which of its efficacy criteria are the most significant for future development. A university's performance is 

founded on its ability to capitalize on its specialization and set of skills obtained through meticulous 

planning and development and involves setting goals using analysis tools to compare options and prioritize 

constructs. Evaluation approaches to strategic planning lack adaptability and durability. Thus, a high-level 

deductive instrument that aggregates trade-offs and prioritizes the most essential aspects is needed. This 

study used the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Procedure (FAHP) to examine whether the University of 

Jeddah's strategy formulation process improves strategy and planning. This study defined the objectives 

and criteria, established pairwise comparisons based on the owners of the strategic plan and the faculty 

and administration questionnaire responses, assigned weights to each criterion, verified their consistency, 

and ranked them in importance order. This study showed that FAHP can help groups make strategic 

planning decisions in universities. 



Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 13, No. 4, 2023, 11235-11241 11236  
 

www.etasr.com Alshehri et al: The Efficacy of the Strategy Planning Process Criteria based on the Fuzzy Analytical … 

 

Keywords-Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP); MCDM; university ranking; decision making; 

planning 

I. INTRODUCTION  

Universities want always to maximize the utilization of 
their specialties and competencies [1]. Multi-Criteria Decision-
Making (MCDM) is crucial in achieving a long-term 
competitive edge in staff selection [2]. The Fuzzy Analytical 
Hierarchy Process (FAHP) provides a more accurate definition 
of this type of process than the old AHP [3]. FAHP is widely 
used in education for evaluation [4-9]. Organizational decision-
making and problem-solving can benefit from consensus-based 
strategic planning. Like any approach, although it presents 
some challenges and restrictions on the time and effort required 
to solicit opinions from a wide range of interested parties, it can 
organize productive dialogue and ultimately establish 
consensus. Competing ideas and interests at play can slow 
down the decision-making and execution processes, as they can 
make it difficult to accommodate and reconcile divergent 
opinions when members' interests are at odds or when there is 
an imbalance of power. This can result in judgments that aren't 
as strong as they could be and that don't adequately address the 
requirements and goals of all parties. The five strategic 
objectives of the University of Jeddah are to improve the work 
and study conditions, provide an integrated learning journey 
based on excellence in teaching and research, empower 
distinctive individuals, improve the quality of its services and 
outputs, and confirm its leadership in many areas [10]. 
Measuring the effectiveness of the techniques used to help 
people make decisions is crucial [11], as it could allow the 
development of a structured model designed to assist decision-
makers and selected specialists in dealing with complex 
problems, achieving consensus, and making the best decisions 
possible [12]. A hierarchical organization of the components of 
the problem is needed to analyze them objectively [13-14]. 
FAHP is a modern analytical approach that employs a fuzzy 
number triangle to evaluate the values of criteria, making it an 
excellent method in MCDM that provides clear answers in 
paired matrices. FAHP has been used in a variety of decision-
making contexts due to its ability to classify the relative 
relevance of criteria that must be evaluated in stages [15-16]. 
Pairwise comparison scales are based on Triangular Fuzzy 
Numbers (TFN) [17-18], and FAHP consists of a set of three 
values, such as a1, a2, and a3, representing the smallest, the 
most promising, and the greatest values, respectively [16]. 

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
strategic planning process of the University of Jeddah by using 
FAHP to identify key factors that influence its effectiveness 
and help it to achieve its strategic goals. As a result, this study 
aimed to investigate the factors influencing the effectiveness of 
the University of Jeddah's strategic planning process, identify 
efficient tools for evaluating important criteria, and determine 
the most effective criteria. The FAHP was used to assign 
numerical values to the twelve e-learning roadblocks and 
establish an order of dominance [19]. The main contributions 
of this study are: 

 To set a research goal to evaluate the efficiency of 
laboratory construction in higher education institutions and 

use its characteristics and FAHP to create a system and 
model to do so. 

 To describe the key success factors of the criteria of the 
strategic planning process based on a fuzzy analytical 
hierarchy, considering the success of previous studies that 
used similar approaches [20]. Many previous studies also 
followed this footprint to establish their findings [21-32]. A 
cause-and-effect diagram was used to identify and organize 
the causes and sub-causes of poor performance in a hospital 
and create a hierarchy using information obtained from 
experts, staff, and patients in [34]. The FAHP method, 
which employs human cognition and judgment power based 
on knowledge and experience, was applied and used for 
decision-making to prioritize the major and sub-causes as 
potential improvement project topics. Due to limited 
resources, the priorities corresponding to each major cause 
and sub-cause can be used to decide on the improvement of 
projects and their order. 

II. METHODOLOGY 

A. Defining Criteria and Objectives 

The primary focus of this study was the application of a 
methodology that takes into account more than one criteria. 
This would make it much simpler to determine which of the 
significant effectiveness criteria have the greatest influence on 
achieving the University of Jeddah's process of making 
important decisions according to its strategic planning. The 
criteria used were the main criteria and the subcriteria 
determined by the Department of Strategic Planning and 
Realization of the Kingdom's Vision 2030 which are accessible 
through the website of the University of Jeddah. 

B. Selection of Experts and their Opinions  

This study conducted a survey using a questionnaire to 
obtain the feedback of faculty members, administrators, and 
officials of the University of Jeddah's strategic plan to carry out 
pairwise comparisons, finding out which aspects of the criteria 
and subcriteria are more important and how they differ from 
one another. The survey questionnaire was constructed using 
straight weights, such as Agree, Strongly Agree, Neutral, 
Disagree, and Strongly Disagree, and there were a total of 61 
responses. 

C. Triangular Fuzzy Numbers 

The opinions are presented as TFN to represent uncertainty 
or ambiguity [6], as it is more effective to describe. TFN comes 
in the format A~= (l, m, u) and is defined as low, medium, and 
high, as shown in (1) [32]. Table I shows the linguistic scale 
and the corresponding crisp value (1-9) for the fuzzy triangular 
scale. 

�� ��� =  �
	
��
� ,            1 ≤ � ≤ ��
	�
� ,           � ≤ � ≤ �0,                     otherwise  (1) 

 



Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 13, No. 4, 2023, 11235-11241 11237  
 

www.etasr.com Alshehri et al: The Efficacy of the Strategy Planning Process Criteria based on the Fuzzy Analytical … 

 

TABLE I.  LINGUISTIC TERMS AND THE CORRESPONDING 
TRIANGULAR FUZZY NUMBERS 

Scale

e 
Definition TFN 

1 Equally important (Eq. Imp.) (1,1,1)
) 3 Weakly important (W. Imp.) (2,3,4) 

5 Fairly important (F. Imp.) (4,5,6) 
7 Strongly important (S. Imp.) (6,7,8) 
9 Absolutely important (A. Imp.) (9,9,9) 
2 

The intermittent values between two adjacent 
scales 

(1,2,3) 
4 (3,4,5) 
6 (5,6,7) 
8 (7,8,9) 

 

D. Pairwise Comparison Matrix with Triangular Fuzzy 
Elements 

Equation (2) shows the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix, 
related to the data obtained using the FAHP linguistic variable 
scale given in Table II. 

�� =  �� !" #$×$ = &
�1,1,1� �'�(, ��(, ��(� ⋯ �'�$, ��$ , ��$��'(�, �(�, �(��      �1,1,1�          ⋯ �'($, �($ , �($ �⋮ ⋮ ⋮�'$�, �$�, �$�� �'$( , �$(, �$( � �1,1,1�

+    (2) 
where: 

�� !" # =  �'!" , �!" , �!" # = �� !" #
� =  , 1�"! , 1�"! , 1'"!- , ., / = 1, ⋯ 0; ≠ / 
TABLE II.  PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRIX FOR DECISION-MAKING CRITERIA 

Criteria C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 

C.1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,2,3 1,1,1 1,2,3 1,1,1 1,2,3 
C.2 1,1,1 1,1,1 1/3,1/2,1/1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 
C.3 1/3,1/2,1/1 1,2,3 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,2,3 1,1,1 1,2,3 
C.4 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 
C.5 1/3,1/2,1/1 1,1,1 1/3,1/2,1/1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 
C.6 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 
C.7 1/3,1/2,1/1 1,1,1 1/3,1/2,1/1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1 

 

E. Defuzzification of the Obtained Matrices 

The defuzzification of all matrix elements was performed to 
facilitate the determination of the consistency ratio for each 
pairwise comparison using [33]: 

345!67 = �8�9:9��;     (3) 
Table III shows the de-fuzzification of the matrix's 

elements. 

TABLE III.  DE-FUZZIFIED MATRIX DECISION-MAKING 
CRITERIA 

Criteria C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 

C.1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 
C.2 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 
C.3 0.5 2 1 1 2 1 2 
C.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
C.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 
C.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
C.7 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 

 

F. Checking the Consistency Ratio (CR) 

After estimating the importance of the criteria, the 
Consistency Ratio (CR) of the obtained matrix was checked 
using: 

<= = �>?@A
$��$
��      (4) <B = CDED     (5) 
where λmax is the maximum eigenvalue, N is the number of 
criteria, and RI is the average random index. A CR of 0.1 
(10%) was set to judge the stability of the opinions in the 
matrix. The lower the CR is than 0.1 shows more stability and 
noncontradiction, but when it crosses 0.1, the opinions should 
be rejected and returned to the questionnaire stage. 

TABLE IV.  RATIO INDEX 

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 
RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1-12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 

 

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

This study presented a significant criterion that was taken 
into account during the strategic planning process at the 
University of Jeddah. The seven primary criteria that should be 
included in the strategic plan for the University of Jeddah were 
determined, as well as their dimensions (sub-criteria), and the 
FAHP was used to determine the order in which the criteria 
should be ranked. Table V provides a summary of the weights 
of the criteria derived from pairwise comparisons and the 
rankings for the subcriteria that were considered. To calculate 
the general weight, for example, C1=0.167×0.185, where 0.185 
represents the weight of the main criteria and 0.167 is the local 
weight of the sub-criterion, the general weights of all listed 
criteria were determined and the results showed that C 1.1 was 
classified as the most important factor that affects the 
performance of the university's strategic planning process. 
Table VI shows a list of the criteria in priority order.  

This study established the objectives and criteria necessary 
to carry out the FAHP study, which is an effective method in 
MCDM because it gives clear results in pairwise matrices. 
FAHP uses TFN to evaluate the criteria values and make 
pairwise comparisons based on the questionnaire responses 
from the strategic plan's owners and the University of Jeddah 
faculty and administration. It is vital to define and assign 
weights to each criterion before determining whether or not 
they are consistent and placing them in the order of 
significance. Based on these findings, FAHP may prove to be 
an advantageous tool for the strategic planning needs of student 
organizations. 



Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 13, No. 4, 2023, 11235-11241 11238  
 

www.etasr.com Alshehri et al: The Efficacy of the Strategy Planning Process Criteria based on the Fuzzy Analytical … 

 

TABLE V.  DETERMINED GLOBAL RANKS OF THE CRITERIA. 

Main criteria Weight  Ranking Subcriteria Local weight of subcriteria Local rank Global weight of criteria Global rank 

C 1 0.185 1 

C 1.1 0.167 1 0.0308 1 
C 1.2 0.104 7 0.0192 26 
C 1.3 0.138 5 0.0256 8 
C 1.4 0.167 2 0.0308 2 
C 1.5 0.141 4 0.0260 6 
C 1.6 0.132 6 0.0244 13 
C 1.7 0.151 3 0.0279 3 

C 2 0.128 5 

C 2.1 0.142 3 0.0181 29 
C 2.2 0.142 4 0.0181 30 
C 2.3 0.156 1 0.0199 18 
C 2.4 0.142 5 0.0181 31 
C 2.5 0.144 2 0.0184 28 
C 2.6 0.131 7 0.0167 41 
C 2.7 0.142 6 0.0181 32 

C 3 0.174 2 

C 3.1 0.142 3 0.0247 9 
C 3.2 0.142 4 0.0247 10 
C 3.3 0.155 1 0.0269 4 
C 3.4 0.142 5 0.0247 11 
C 3.5 0.121 7 0.0210 15 
C 3.6 0.155 2 0.0269 5 
C 3.7 0.142 6 0.0247 12 

C 4 0.138 3 

C 4.1 0.142 3 0.0195 19 
C 4.2 0.155 1 0.0213 16 
C 4.3 0.142 4 0.0195 20 
C 4.4 0.121 7 0.0166 45 
C 4.5 0.155 2 0.0213 17 
C 4.6 0.142 5 0.0195 21 
C 4.7 0.142 6 0.0195 22 

C 5 0.119 6 

C 5.1 0.13 5 0.0154 47 
C 5.2 0.141 2 0.0167 42 
C 5.3 0.141 3 0.0167 43 
C 5.4 0.187 1 0.0222 14 
C 5.5 0.13 6 0.0154 48 
C 5.6 0.13 7 0.0154 49 
C 5.7 0.141 4 0.0167 44 

C 6 0.138 4 

C 6.1 0.187 1 0.0258 7 
C 6.2 0.13 5 0.0179 33 
C 6.3 0.141 2 0.0194 23 
C 6.4 0.13 6 0.0179 34 
C 6.5 0.13 7 0.0179 35 
C 6.6 0.141 3 0.0194 24 
C 6.7 0.141 4 0.0194 25 

C 7 0.119 7 

C 7.1 0.131 3 0.0155 46 
C 7.2 0.143 2 0.0170 36 
C 7.3 0.143 2 0.0170 37 
C 7.4 0.143 2 0.0170 38 
C 7.5 0.143 2 0.0170 39 
C 7.6 0.143 2 0.0170 40 
C 7.7 0.156 1 0.0185 27  

 
The implications of this study depend on the analysis of the 

criteria. The "Local weight of Sub-Criteria" and the "Global 
weight of Criteria" both investigate the actual circumstances. 
The weights indicate that the most important decision criterion 
is "Providing qualitative programs to keep ahead of local, 
regional, and worldwide developments", indicating the 
improvement of people's lives through the provision of college 
programs that have been verified for their quality level and 
meet the requirements of the labor market. It is also essential to 
establish a unique learning and research environment to 
maintain and improve the number of academics and scientists, 
although local gatherings, beneficial friendships, and common 
objectives and views are also components of essential 

concerns. Despite this, high-tech decision-support tools related 
to the rules of good governance are essential for a productive 
academic culture, in addition to encouraging the growth of new 
firms, young people, and creative endeavors. 

The predictions of strategic planning using FAHP are 
subjected to several biases, assumptions, limits, and problems. 
One of the most crucial is that the power of the study could be 
compromised due to insufficient sample size or lack of 
representation. A not representative sampling of the population 
being studied may introduce bias and lack of generalizability, 
as the criteria and options considered may potentially be 
subject to bias. FAHP is founded on the availability and quality 



Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 13, No. 4, 2023, 11235-11241 11239  
 

www.etasr.com Alshehri et al: The Efficacy of the Strategy Planning Process Criteria based on the Fuzzy Analytical … 

 

of data. Erroneous judgments and forecasts may be made based 
on incomplete, out-of-date, or unreliable data. Acquiring 
accurate and thorough data is a time-consuming and arduous 
process, and it can be difficult or controversial to put FAHP 
estimates and strategic objectives into action. Adoption of 
strategies could be hampered by the reluctance to change. 
Strategic planning may need to be adjusted as a result of 
stakeholders' openness to change, resource constraints, 
administrative hurdles, or unanticipated events. Strategic 
planning that incorporates a comprehensive FAHP analysis 

requires a substantial investment of resources and expertise, 
and the depth of the analysis can be constrained by available 
resources. It is essential to communicate limitations, as 
researchers can more realistically evaluate results and 
suggestions if they are aware of and take into account any 
biases, assumptions, and constraints. This study also pinpoints 
areas for further study and improvement within the strategic 
framework of the University of Jeddah and other higher 
education institutions. 

TABLE VI.  LIST OF CRITERIA IN PRIORITY ORDER 

Code Criteria Rank 

C 1.1 Providing qualitative programs to keep abreast of local, regional, and global updates 1 
C 1.4 Supporting job opportunities for university graduates by making fruitful partnerships with relevant authorities 2 
C 1.7 Activating field training and experiential learning activities in the work environment 3 
C 3.3 Enabling the students to train on practice community activities related to national issues 4 
C 3.6 Establishing training centers to provide advanced programs and courses for all segments of society 5 
C 1.5 Adopting and nurturing talented and outstanding people through specialized quality programs and services 6 
C 6.1 Develop programs to attract talented people and create the appropriate environment to develop their skills 7 
C 1.3 Continuous evaluation to measure the level of development of university program outputs 8 
C 3.1 Building diverse cooperation and partnership relationships with community institutions and business organizations 9 
C 3.2 Providing society with its needs with the qualified human resources commensurate with the future development of the professions 10 
C 3.4 Linking the university with productive institutions in a reciprocal social and developmental relationship 11 
C 3.7 Exchanging the dissemination of the fruitful participatory culture between the university and the community 12 
C 1.6 Designing specialized programs to qualify students with special needs  13 
C 5.4 Achieving credibility, transparency, and commitment to defined policies and stated promises 14 
C 3.5 Employing the university's possibilities for community development and parallel activities 15 
C 4.2 Upgrade the level of information security in the university's electronic work system 16 
C 4.5 Use of data and information effectively to predict crises and solve problems 17 
C 2.3 Directing scientific research and graduate programs toward areas that serve national issues 18 
C 4.1 Develop data and information management systems to serve workflow in all fields 19 
C 4.3 Establishing Information centers that contribute to decision-making and performing tasks effectively 20 
C 4.6 Provide programs and modern technologies that help in the provision and development of academic programs 21 
C 4.7 Integrating electronic services for all sectors of the university in all fields 22 
C 6.3 Sponsoring business incubators for small projects to motivate individuals and community development 23 
C 6.6 Building strategic partnerships that support innovation and creativity and provide pioneering programs for entrepreneurship 24 
C 6.7 Developing talents and creating creativity by creating an environment that incubates ideas and innovations 25 
C 1.2 Develop faculty members, curricula, and educational methods according to international standards  26 
C 7.7 Increasing financial returns and university revenues by providing opportunities to enroll in its paid academic programs 27 
C 2.5 Attracting researchers and scientists to produce and invest in advanced knowledge 28 
C 2.1 Supporting and motivating distinguished scientific research and regional and international publication 29 
C 2.2 Encouraging the formation of scientific teams and specialized research groups 30 
C 2.4 Establishing scientific and medical research centers that contribute to sustainable local development 31 
C 2.7 Employing the results of applied research in the flourishing of the Knowledge Economy 32 
C 6.2 Developing the capabilities of faculty members to discover the talents and abilities of students and ways to enhance them  33 
C 6.4 Supporting the creative abilities and skills of university employees according to international standards  34 
C 6.5 Providing an environment that enhances creativity and innovation in the technical industries and entrepreneurship 35 
C 7.2 Supporting projects and initiatives that contribute to the development of the university's resources  36 
C 7.3 legalization of public spending and reducing wastage to achieve fiscal balance  37 
C 7.4 Sustainability of university services by conducting periodic maintenance on its properties and facilities 38 
C 7.5 Involving the private sector in investing in the various sectors of the university 39 
C 7.6 Diversifying sources of self-financing by establishing scientific and medical endowments 40 

C 2.6 
Increasing investment in the field of scientific research by establishing effective partnerships with the government and private 
sectors 

41 

C 5.2 
Determining academic, administrative, and financial priorities and references according to regulations that ensure no conflict of 
interest 

42 

C 5.3 
Improving the degree of satisfaction of the beneficiaries of the university services; Finding solutions to obstacles and procedural 
problems 

43 

C 5.7 Establishing effective oversight mechanisms for the university sectors to promote a culture of accountability and accounting 44 
C 4.4 Improving data and information analysis systems to invest in opportunities and interact with challenges 45 
C 7.1 Initialization appropriate opportunities for investment in the university's facilities and services 46 

C 5.1 
Restructuring of administrative systems and processes to raise the productivity of academic, administrative, and financial 
performance 

47 

C 5.5 Evaluate the performance of various practices according to global performance indicators updated periodically 48 
C 5.6 Distributing the university’s available resources to different sectors and activities according to specific criteria 49 



Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 13, No. 4, 2023, 11235-11241 11240  
 

www.etasr.com Alshehri et al: The Efficacy of the Strategy Planning Process Criteria based on the Fuzzy Analytical … 

 

Strategic planning by FAHP has its flaws, assumptions, 
restrictions, and problems. An essential problem is the small 
size and lack of representation of the sample. The capacity to 
generalize and avoid bias toward particular concepts or groups 
may be compromised by the lack of suitable size or 
representational sampling, as there is a potential for bias in the 
evaluation of criteria and options. FAHP relies on access to 
high-quality data. Conclusions and predictions based on 
inaccurate, out-of-date, or otherwise unreliable information 
should be treated with caution. It takes a lot of time and effort 
to collect reliable information that is useful for strategic 
planning. Furthermore, putting FAHP projections and long-
term plans into action could prove difficult or divisive. 
Adoption of a new strategy may be slowed by resistance to 
change. The adaptability of stakeholders, the scarcity of 
available resources, bureaucratic roadblocks, and unanticipated 
events are all factors that could affect strategic planning. A lack 
of resources could prevent an in-depth investigation. Limits 
should be communicated. Researchers can realistically assess 
the results and proposals of the study after being aware of these 
limitations, biases, and assumptions. Opportunities for further 
study and improvement are also highlighted, all within the 
context of the institution's strategic plan. 

In conclusion, it is essential to diversify programs, 
endowments, and educational offerings to ensure the continued 
viability of the program over the long run. It is also very crucial 
to have a high-quality updating program that promotes 
scientific research and publication both regionally and globally, 
to develop a variety of community and business connections, in 
addition to adding value to the workflow. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

This study used the FAHP method as a multicriteria tool for 
decision-making, given its ability to enable a systematic 
examination of trade-offs. As a result, it was able to identify 
the effective critical criteria that influence the performance of 
the university's strategic planning process, which is essential to 
its success. The study was applied to the University of Jeddah 
by establishing a pairwise comparison matrix based on the 
opinions of the faculty and administration members responsible 
for the strategic plan, to define goals and criteria, determine the 
weights of the criteria, check the consistency ratio, and arrange 
the criteria according to their priority. The University of Jeddah 
believes that FAHP is beneficial in facilitating the difficult 
choices that are necessary for the formulation of strategic 
initiatives. 

REFERENCES 

[1] M. Gokhale, "Use of analytical hierarchy process in university strategy 
planning," M.S. Thesis, Missouri University of Science and Technology, 
Rolla, MO, USA, 2007. 

[2] J. Heidary Dahooie, E. Beheshti Jazan Abadi, A. S. Vanaki, and H. R. 
Firoozfar, "Competency-based IT personnel selection using a hybrid 
SWARA and ARAS-G methodology," Human Factors and Ergonomics 
in Manufacturing & Service Industries, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 5–16, 2018, 
https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20713. 

[3] S. Kaganski, J. Majak, and K. Karjust, "Fuzzy AHP as a tool for 
prioritization of key performance indicators," Procedia CIRP, vol. 72, 
pp. 1227–1232, Jan. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.097. 

[4] Y. Liu, C. M. Eckert, and C. Earl, "A review of fuzzy AHP methods for 
decision-making with subjective judgements," Expert Systems with 

Applications, vol. 161, Dec. 2020, Art. no. 113738, https://doi.org/ 
10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738. 

[5] M. Jami Pour, M. Hosseinzadeh, M. Bagherzadeh Azar, and F. Taheri, 
"Developing a new framework for evaluating e-learning systems: 
integrating BSC and FAHP," Kybernetes, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1303–1324, 
Jan. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2017-0060. 

[6] R. Nagpal, D. Mehrotra, P. K. Bhatia, and A. Bhatia, "FAHP Approach 
to Rank Educational Websites on Usability," International Journal of 
Computing and Digital Systems, vol. 04, no. 04, 2015, 
https://doi.org/10.12785/IJCDS/040404. 

[7] A. Cebä and H. Karal, "An application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy 
process (FAHP) for evaluating students project," Educational Research 
and Reviews, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 120–132, Feb. 2017, https://doi.org/ 
10.5897/ERR2016.3065. 

[8] I.-S. Chen, J.-K. Chen, and F. F. Padró, "Critical quality indicators of 
higher education," Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 
vol. 28, no. 1–2, pp. 130–146, Jan. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 
14783363.2015.1050178. 

[9] N. T. Pham et al., "Research on Knowledge Management Models at 
Universities Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP)," 
Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 2, Jan. 2021, Art. no. 809, 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020809. 

[10] "About – University of Jeddah", https://about.uj.edu.sa/Default.aspx? 
Site_ID=31&Lng=en. 

[11] R. W. Saaty, "The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is 
used," Mathematical Modelling, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 161–176, Jan. 1987, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8. 

[12] Z. Shao, Md. E. Huq, B. Cai, O. Altan, and Y. Li, "Integrated remote 
sensing and GIS approach using Fuzzy-AHP to delineate and identify 
groundwater potential zones in semi-arid Shanxi Province, China," 
Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 134, Dec. 2020, Art. no. 
104868, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104868. 

[13] T. N. Le, H. M. V. Nguyen, T. A. Nguyen, T. T. Phung, and B. D. Phan, 
"Optimization of Load Ranking and Load Shedding in a Power System 
Using the Improved AHP Algorithm," Engineering, Technology & 
Applied Science Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 8512–8519, Jun. 2022, 
https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.4862. 

[14] A. Muhammad, A. Shaikh, Q. N. Naveed, and M. R. N. Qureshi, 
"Factors Affecting Academic Integrity in E-Learning of Saudi Arabian 
Universities. An Investigation Using Delphi and AHP," IEEE Access, 
vol. 8, pp. 16259–16268, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS. 
2020.2967499. 

[15] A. Saini and P. K. Yadav, "Distributed System and its Role in 
HealthCare System," International Journal of Computer Science and 
Mobile Computing, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 302–308, Apr. 2015. 

[16] V. G. Venkatesh, A. Zhang, E. Deakins, S. Luthra, and S. Mangla, "A 
fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach to supply partner selection in continuous 
aid humanitarian supply chains," Annals of Operations Research, vol. 
283, no. 1, pp. 1517–1550, Dec. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-
018-2981-1. 

[17] A. E. C. Mondragon, E. Mastrocinque, J.-F. Tsai, and P. J. Hogg, "An 
AHP and Fuzzy AHP Multifactor Decision Making Approach for 
Technology and Supplier Selection in the High-Functionality Textile 
Industry," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 68, no. 
4, pp. 1112–1125, Dec. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019. 
2923286. 

[18] K. Nag and M. Helal, "Multicriteria Inventory Classification of Diabetes 
Drugs Using a Comparison of AHP and Fuzzy AHP Models," in 2018 
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and 
Engineering Management (IEEM), Bangkok, Thailand, Sep. 2018, pp. 
1456–1460, https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2018.8607678. 

[19] R. Anggrainingsih, M. Z. Umam, and H. Setiadi, "Determining e-
learning success factor in higher education based on user perspective 
using Fuzzy AHP," in MATEC Web of Conferences - The 2nd 
International Conference on Engineering and Technology for 
Sustainable Development, Feb. 2018, vol. 154, Art. no. 03011, 
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201815403011. 



Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 13, No. 4, 2023, 11235-11241 11241  
 

www.etasr.com Alshehri et al: The Efficacy of the Strategy Planning Process Criteria based on the Fuzzy Analytical … 

 

[20] Q. N. Naveed, M. R. N. Qureshi, A. O. Alsayed, A. Muhammad, S. 
Sanober, and A. Shah, "Prioritizing barriers of E-Learning for effective 
teaching-learning using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP)," in 
2017 4th IEEE International Conference on Engineering Technologies 
and Applied Sciences (ICETAS), Salmabad, Bahrain, Aug. 2017, pp. 1–
8, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETAS.2017.8277855. 

[21] J. Zhengzhou, Z. Yijian, and S. Lei, "The laboratory construction 
effectiveness evaluation of high-education institutions via the FAHP 
method and its application," in 2021 IEEE 2nd International Conference 
on Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things Engineering 
(ICBAIE), Mar. 2021, pp. 632–636, https://doi.org/10.1109/ 
ICBAIE52039.2021.9389929. 

[22] S. Abadi et al., "Implementation of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process on 
notebook selection," International Journal of Engineering & 
Technology, vol. 7, no. 2.27, Aug. 2018, Art. no. 238, 
https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.27.12047. 

[23] A. Mdallal and A. Hammad, "Application of Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy 
Process (FAHP) to Reduce Concrete Waste on Construction Sites," 
presented at the CSCE Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada, Jun. 
2019. 

[24] E. E. Haji, A. Azmani, and M. E. Harzli, "Using FAHP in the 
Educational and Vocational Guidance," International Journal of Modern 
Education and Computer Science, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 36–43, Defc 2018. 

[25] H. Taherdoost, "Decision Making Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process 
(AHP); A Step by Step Approach," International Journal of Economics 
and Management System, vol. 2, pp. 244–246, 2017. 

[26] H. I. Mohammed, Z. Majid, Y. B. Yamusa, M. F. M. Ariff, K. M. Idris, 
and N. Darwin, "Sanitary Landfill Siting Using GIS and AHP: A Case 
Study in Johor Bahru, Malaysia," Engineering, Technology & Applied 
Science Research, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 4100–4104, Jun. 2019, 
https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.2633. 

[27] L. T. H. Nhung, T. T. Phung, H. M. V. Nguyen, T. N. Le, T. A. Nguyen, 
and T. D. Vo, "Load Shedding in Microgrids with Dual Neural Networks 
and AHP Algorithm," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science 
Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 8090–8095, Feb. 2022, 
https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.4652. 

[28] S. Dožić, T. Lutovac, and M. Kalić, "Fuzzy AHP approach to passenger 
aircraft type selection," Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 68, 
pp. 165–175, May 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017. 
08.003. 

[29] A. Calabrese, R. Costa, N. Levialdi, and T. Menichini, "Integrating 
sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for 
the selection of relevant sustainability issues," Technological 
Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 139, pp. 155–168, Feb. 2019, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.005. 

[30] F. Elmahmoudi, O. E. K. Abra, A. Raihani, O. Serrar, and L. Bahatti, 
"Elaboration of a Wind Energy Potential Map in Morocco using GIS and 
Analytic Hierarchy Process," Engineering, Technology & Applied 
Science Research, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 6068–6075, Aug. 2020, 
https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.3692. 

[31] N. Kumar and R. Jha, "GIS-based Flood Risk Mapping: The Case Study 
of Kosi River Basin, Bihar, India," Engineering, Technology & Applied 
Science Research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 9830–9836, Feb. 2023, 
https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.5377. 

[32] K. Govindan, S. K. Mangla, and S. Luthra, "Prioritising indicators in 
improving supply chain performance using fuzzy AHP: insights from the 
case example of four Indian manufacturing companies," Production 
Planning & Control, vol. 28, no. 6–8, pp. 552–573, Jun. 2017, 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1309716. 

[33] F. T. Benaissa and B. Khalfallah, "Industrial Activity Land Suitability 
Assessment Using Delphi and AHP to Control Land Consumption¨: The 
Case Study of Bordj Bouarreridj, Algeria," Engineering, Technology & 
Applied Science Research, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 7738–7744, Oct. 2021, 
https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.4362. 

[34] A. Shaygan and Ö. M. Testik, "A fuzzy AHP-based methodology for 
project prioritization and selection," Soft Computing, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 
1309–1319, Feb. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2851-9. 

[35] R. S. Bharsakade, P. Acharya, L. Ganapathy, and M. K. Tiwari, "A lean 
approach to healthcare management using multi criteria decision 

making," OPSEARCH, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 610–635, Sep. 2021, 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-020-00490-5. 

[36] M. A. Akbar et al., "Prioritization Based Taxonomy of DevOps 
Challenges Using Fuzzy AHP Analysis," IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 
202487–202507, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3035880.