Search results for: organization’s productivity

Authors: Murat Arıbaş, Uğur Özcan

Abstract:

Due to the increasing number of universities and academics, the fund of the universities for research activities and grants/supports given by government institutions have increased number and quality of academic research projects. Although every academic research project has a specific purpose and importance, limited resources (money, time, manpower etc.) require choosing the best ones from all (Amiri, 2010). It is a pretty hard process to compare and determine which project is better such that the projects serve different purposes. In addition, the evaluation process has become complicated since there are more than one evaluator and multiple criteria for the evaluation (Dodangeh, Mojahed and Yusuff, 2009). Mehrez and Sinuany-Stern (1983) determined project selection problem as a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem. If a decision problem involves multiple criteria and objectives, it is called as a Multi Attribute Decision Making problem (Ömürbek & Kınay, 2013). There are many MCDM methods in the literature for the solution of such problems. These methods are AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), ANP (Analytic Network Process), TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation), UTADIS (Utilities Additives Discriminantes), ELECTRE (Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite), MAUT (Multiattribute Utility Theory), GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) etc. Teach method has some advantages compared with others (Ömürbek, Blacksmith & Akalın, 2013). Hence, to decide which MCDM method will be used for solution of the problem, factors like the nature of the problem, types of choices, measurement scales, type of uncertainty, dependency among the attributes, expectations of decision maker, and quantity and quality of the data should be considered (Tavana & Hatami-Marbini, 2011). By this study, it is aimed to develop a systematic decision process for the grant support applications that are expected to be evaluated according to their scientific adequacy by multiple evaluators under certain criteria. In this context, project evaluation process applied by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) the leading institutions in our country, was investigated. Firstly in the study, criteria that will be used on the project evaluation were decided. The main criteria were selected among TÜBİTAK evaluation criteria. These criteria were originality of project, methodology, project management/team and research opportunities and extensive impact of project. Moreover, for each main criteria, 2-4 sub criteria were defined, hence it was decided to evaluate projects over 13 sub-criterion in total. Due to superiority of determination criteria weights AHP method and provided opportunity ranking great number of alternatives TOPSIS method, they are used together. AHP method, developed by Saaty (1977), is based on selection by pairwise comparisons. Because of its simple structure and being easy to understand, AHP is the very popular method in the literature for determining criteria weights in MCDM problems. Besides, the TOPSIS method developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) as a MCDM technique is an alternative to ELECTRE method and it is used in many areas. In the method, distance from each decision point to ideal and to negative ideal solution point was calculated by using Euclidian Distance Approach. In the study, main criteria and sub-criteria were compared on their own merits by using questionnaires that were developed based on an importance scale by four relative groups of people (i.e. TUBITAK specialists, TUBITAK managers, academics and individuals from business world ) After these pairwise comparisons, weight of the each main criteria and sub-criteria were calculated by using AHP method. Then these calculated criteria’ weights used as an input in TOPSİS method, a sample consisting 200 projects were ranked on their own merits. This new system supported to opportunity to get views of the people that take part of project process including preparation, evaluation and implementation on the evaluation of academic research projects. Moreover, instead of using four main criteria in equal weight to evaluate projects, by using weighted 13 sub-criteria and decision point’s distance from the ideal solution, systematic decision making process was developed. By this evaluation process, new approach was created to determine importance of academic research projects.

Keywords: Academic projects, Ahp method, Research projects evaluation, Topsis method.

Procedia PDF Downloads 594

Authors: Stephen Verderber

Abstract:

The World Health Organization (WHO) calls for research and development on ecologically sustainable, resilient structures capable of effectively responding to disaster events globally, in response to climate change, politically based diasporas, earthquakes, and other adverse events upending the rhythms of everyday life globally. By 2050, nearly 80% of the world’s population will reside in coastal zones, and this, coupled with the increasingly dire impacts of climate change, constitute a recipe for further chaos and disruption, and in light of these events, architects have yet to rise up to meet the challenge. In the arena of healthcare, rapidly deployable clinics and field hospitals can provide immediate assistance in medically underserved disaster strike zones. Transportable facilities offer multiple advantages over conventional, fixed-site hospitals, as lightweight, comparatively unencumbered alternatives. These attributes have been proven repeatedly in 20th century vehicular and tent-based structures deployed in frontline combat theaters and in prior natural disasters. Prefab transportable clinics and trauma centers recently responded adroitly to medical emergencies in the aftermath of the Haitian (2010) and Ecuadorian (2016) earthquakes, and in North American post-hurricane relief efforts (2017) while architects continue to be castigated by their engineer colleagues as chronically poor first responders. Architecturally based portable structures for healthcare currently include Redeployable Health Centers (RHCs), Redeployable Trauma Centers (RTCs), and Permanent Modular Installations (PMIs). Five tectonic variants within this typology have recently been operationalized in the field: 1. Vehicular-based Nomadics: Prefab modules installed on a truck chassis with interior compartments dropped in prior to final assembly. Alternately, a two-component apparatus is preferred, with a truck cab pulling a modular medical unit, with independent transiting component; 2. Tent and Pneumatic Systems: Tent/yurt precursors and inflatable systems lightweight and responsive to topographically challenging terrain and diverse climates; 3. Containerized Systems: The standard modular intermodal-shipping container affords structural strength, resiliency in difficult transiting conditions, and can be densely close-packed and these can be custom-built or hold flat-pack systems; 4. Flat-Packs and Pop-Up Systems: These kit-of-part assemblies are shipped in standardized or specially-designed ISO containers; and 5. Hybrid Systems: These consist of composite facilities representing a synthesis of mobile vehicular components and/or tent or shipping containers, fused with conventional or pneumatically activated tent systems. Hybrids are advantageous in many installation contexts from an aesthetic, fabrication, and transiting perspective. Advantages/disadvantages of various modular systems are comparatively examined, followed by presentation of a compendium of 80 evidence (research)-based planning and design considerations addressing site/context, transiting and commissioning, triage, decontamination/intake, diagnostic and treatment, facility tectonics, and administration/total environment. The benefits of offsite pre-manufactured fabrication are examined, as is anticipated growth in international demand for transportable healthcare facilities to meet the challenges posed by accelerating global climate change and global conflicts. This investigation into rapid response facilities for pre and post-disaster zones is drawn from a recent book by the author, the first on architecture on this topic (Innovations in Transportable Healthcare Architecture).

Keywords: disaster mitigation, rapid response healthcare architecture, offsite prefabrication

Procedia PDF Downloads 121

Authors: Rebeca V. Tholen, Elaine Bundy

Abstract:

Background: Liver transplantation (LT) is considered the only curative treatment for end-stage liver disease Background: Liver transplantation (LT) is considered the only curative treatment for end-stage liver disease (ESLD). The effects of alcoholism can cause irreversible liver damage, cirrhosis and subsequent liver failure. Alcohol relapse after transplant occurs in 20-50% of patients and increases the risk for recurrent cirrhosis, organ rejection, and graft failure. Alcohol relapse after transplant has been identified as a problem among liver transplant recipients at a large urban academic transplant center in the United States. Transplantation will reverse the complications of ESLD, but it does not treat underlying alcoholism or reduce the risk of relapse after transplant. The purpose of this quality improvement project is to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a High-Risk Alcoholism Relapse (HRAR) Scale to screen and identify patients at high-risk for alcohol relapse after receiving an LT. Methods: The HRAR Scale is a predictive tool designed to determine the severity of alcoholism and risk of relapse after transplant. The scale consists of three variables identified as having the highest predictive power for early relapse including, daily number of drinks, history of previous inpatient treatment for alcoholism, and the number of years of heavy drinking. All adult liver transplant recipients at a large urban transplant center were screened with the HRAR Scale prior to hospital discharge. A zero to two ordinal score is ranked for each variable, and the total score ranges from zero to six. High-risk scores are between three to six. Results: Descriptive statistics revealed 25 patients were newly transplanted and discharged from the hospital during an 8-week period. 40% of patients (n=10) were identified as being high-risk for relapse and 60% low-risk (n=15). The daily number of drinks were determined by alcohol content (1 drink = 15g of ethanol) and number of drinks per day. 60% of patients reported drinking 9-17 drinks per day, and 40% reported ≤ 9 drinks. 50% of high-risk patients reported drinking ≥ 25 years, 40% for 11-25 years, and 10% ≤ 11 years. For number of inpatient treatments for alcoholism, 50% received inpatient treatment one time, 20% ≥ 1, and 30% reported never receiving inpatient treatment. Findings reveal the importance and value of a validated screening tool as a more efficient method than other screening methods alone. Integration of a structured clinical tool will help guide the drinking history portion of the psychosocial assessment. Targeted interventions can be implemented for all high-risk patients. Conclusions: Our findings validate the effectiveness of utilizing the HRAR scale to screen and identify patients who are a high-risk for alcohol relapse post-LT. Recommendations to help maintain post-transplant sobriety include starting a transplant support group within the organization for all high-risk patients. (ESLD). The effects of alcoholism can cause irreversible liver damage, cirrhosis and subsequent liver failure. Alcohol relapse after transplant occurs in 20-50% of patients, and increases the risk for recurrent cirrhosis, organ rejection, and graft failure. Alcohol relapse after transplant has been identified as a problem among liver transplant recipients at a large urban academic transplant center in the United States. Transplantation will reverse the complications of ESLD, but it does not treat underlying alcoholism or reduce the risk of relapse after transplant. The purpose of this quality improvement project is to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a High-Risk Alcoholism Relapse (HRAR) Scale to screen and identify patients at high-risk for alcohol relapse after receiving a LT. Methods: The HRAR Scale is a predictive tool designed to determine severity of alcoholism and risk of relapse after transplant. The scale consists of three variables identified as having the highest predictive power for early relapse including, daily number of drinks, history of previous inpatient treatment for alcoholism, and the number of years of heavy drinking. All adult liver transplant recipients at a large urban transplant center were screened with the HRAR Scale prior to hospital discharge. A zero to two ordinal score is ranked for each variable, and the total score ranges from zero to six. High-risk scores are between three to six. Results: Descriptive statistics revealed 25 patients were newly transplanted and discharged from the hospital during an 8-week period. 40% of patients (n=10) were identified as being high-risk for relapse and 60% low-risk (n=15). The daily number of drinks were determined by alcohol content (1 drink = 15g of ethanol) and number of drinks per day. 60% of patients reported drinking 9-17 drinks per day, and 40% reported ≤ 9 drinks. 50% of high-risk patients reported drinking ≥ 25 years, 40% for 11-25 years, and 10% ≤ 11 years. For number of inpatient treatments for alcoholism, 50% received inpatient treatment one time, 20% ≥ 1, and 30% reported never receiving inpatient treatment. Findings reveal the importance and value of a validated screening tool as a more efficient method than other screening methods alone. Integration of a structured clinical tool will help guide the drinking history portion of the psychosocial assessment. Targeted interventions can be implemented for all high-risk patients. Conclusions: Our findings validate the effectiveness of utilizing the HRAR scale to screen and identify patients who are a high-risk for alcohol relapse post-LT. Recommendations to help maintain post-transplant sobriety include starting a transplant support group within the organization for all high-risk patients.

Keywords: alcoholism, liver transplant, quality improvement, substance abuse

Procedia PDF Downloads 119