1 / 14

Problem

MCDA Summer School 2010 Case Study -Student selection for last year of Industrial Engineering at Politecnico di Roma. Nicolas Albarello, Akram Dehnokhalaji, Sanna Hanhikoski, Lounes Mohamed Mammeri, Mathieu Rivallain, Céline Verly. Problem.

manjit
Download Presentation

Problem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. MCDA Summer School 2010Case Study -Student selection for last year of Industrial Engineering at Politecnico di Roma Nicolas Albarello, Akram Dehnokhalaji, Sanna Hanhikoski, Lounes Mohamed Mammeri, Mathieu Rivallain, Céline Verly

  2. Problem • n applicants for the Industrial Engineering major (2009 n=71, 2010 n=51) • Selection of best students (max 50) • 50 students in 2009, 36 in 2010 • Dividing students in 4 Paths • A homogeneous distribution (gender, quality, also in Paths) • Ensure transparent and fair selection Case Study - Student Selection

  3. Criteria • Grades • 3rd and 4th year • Rescaled to 1-5 • Motivation • Maturity/Personality • Professional Project • Knowledge of IE From interview, numbers 1-5 Case Study - Student Selection

  4. Post analysis of the 2009 selection • In 2009 data, one main inconsistency : • Gender seems to be taken into account in the selection • An additive value model (without sex) is not able to solve this inconsistency Case Study - Student Selection

  5. Preference model inference (1/2) • Monte-Carlo approach • Random weights in weighted sum + optimal selection threshold • Many models but always 1 inconsistency (the one previously presented) • Analysis of inferred models • Jobs are a quite important criteria • Sex is not an important criteria (considering individuals) • DMs give more weight to interviews results (in average) Presentation title – file name

  6. Preference model inference (2/2) • Dominance-based Rough Sets Approach • With sex: A set of 10 rules (sometimes discriminatory) permit to fully describe the decision • Without sex: A set of 8 rules permit to describe the decision at 96,7% Sex should not be taken as a student value criteria but as a collective value criteria (at the Major/Paths level) Presentation title – file name

  7. Approach • Step 0 • Analyse the current applicants • Step 1 • Pre-selection of students with RPM (Robust Portfolio Modelling) • Step 2 • Ranking the pre-selected students with PROMETHEE • Selecting the required number of students • Step 3 • Assigning students to different paths Case Study - Student Selection

  8. Approach - Step 1 • Selecting a portfolio of m students out of n applicants (in 2009 m=50, n=69) • Criteria equally weighted • Number of women between 7 and 10 • Results • Several non-dominated portfolios • 8 students red → eliminated in this phase • Green and yellow students to next step Case Study - Student Selection

  9. Approach - Step 1 Case Study - Student Selection

  10. Approach - Step 2 • Use of PROMETHEE to rank the selected students from RPM • Equal weights • Usual functions for interview criteria • Linear function for grades (q=1, p=2) • m first students selected Case Study - Student Selection

  11. Stochastic method for Paths formation • Random attribution of students to Paths • Evaluation of an objective function (weighted sum) • Minimize the normalized ECART in number of students/value/sex ratio between Paths • Maximize the overall satisfaction of the group (sum of students satisfaction) • Alternative : evolutionary algorithm (better) Path allocation results in 2009 Presentation title – file name

  12. Results- Selection 2009 • 49 students selected with our approach were really selected in 2009 • Exception: Difina really selected, our approach would select Quagliata instead Case Study - Student Selection

  13. Results – Selection 2010 Case Study - Student Selection

  14. Conclusions • Transparent and fair approach • The homogenity of gender taken into account • Students’ wishes taken into account as much as possible Case Study - Student Selection

More Related