1. EXPERIENCE WITH THE APPLICATION OF ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS METHOD IN THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPETENCY PROFILE OF INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT Author: Ing. Monika Šujaková Supervisor: prof. Ing. Peter Sakál, CSc. Language supervisor: PaedDr. Dagmar Rusková, PhD.

2. Layout 1 Analysis of University Training for Strategic Managers of the 21 st Century 2 Application of AHP Method for Evaluation of UPIM Employees – Model 1 – EMS QUT (Evaluation model of Sustainability Quality of University Teacher) 3 Application of AHP Method for Evaluation of Teacher Competency Profile of UPIM – Model 2 – EMSUT (Evaluation Model for Selection of University Teacher) 2/15

3. 1 Analysis of University Training for Strategic Managers of the 21 st Century Changing of teacher status:  new model of university teacher as a professional;  teacher as a high-educated expert on education and teaching. Aims of thesis- Creation of two models: 1. Model 1 – Evaluation Model of Sustainability Quality of University Teacher. 2. Model 2 - Evaluation Model for Selection of University Teacher. Application of AHP method:  software Expert Choice. 3/15

4. 4/15 2 Application of AHP Method for Evaluation of UPIM Employees – Model 1 – EMS QUT (Evaluation Model of Sustainability Quality of University Teacher) Figure 1 The algorithm of application of AHP method (source: drawn by the authors)

5. The starting point for the application of AHP method is to create a hierarchical structure, where each element of the system is subject to one or more elements, except for the top element. Top element of hierarchical structure- goal of issue. Determination of objective decision-making: Aim: Evaluate the competency profile of employees of Institute of Industrial Engineering and Management. Alternatives of solution:  employees of Institute of Industrial Engineering and Management MTF STU;  sample of five employees. 5/15 2 Model 1 – EMS QUT

6. Proposal of criteria for evaluation of alternatives Profile consists of the main criteria and subcriteria. Criteria were selected on the basis:  consultation with experts in a given direction;  Pursuant information from: rating agencies; requirements of the European Parliament to teacher; requirements of Faculty; law on Education; other relevant resources. 6/15 Figure 2 Subcriteria of QualificationFigure 3 Subcriteria of Research 2 Model 1 – EMS QUT

7. 7/15 Figure 4 Subcriteria of Teaching Figure 5 Subcriteria of Cooperation 2 Model 1 – EMS QUT

8. Solving the issue by Expert Choice:  Determination and input of objective criteria and alternatives to the decision issue.  Assigning weight to individual criteria by pairwise comparison of criteria.  Evaluation of alternatives by paired comparisons for individual criteria.  Evaluation of the optimal alternative solution. 8/15 2 Model 1 – EMS QUT

9. Determination of the criteria weights:  criteria of first-level hierarchical structure;  the most important criteria: Cooperation;  the least important criteria: Qualification. 9/15 Figure 6 Analysis of consistency and assessing the significance criteria 2 Model 1 – EMS QUT

10. Evaluation of alternatives:  employees are named as P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5;  the most competent employee: P1;  the least competent employee: P4. 10/15 Figure 7 Result of the variants evaluation 2 Model 1 – EMS QUT

11. 3 Application of AHP Method for Evaluation of Teacher Competency Profile of UPIM – Model 2 – EMSUT (Evaluation Model for Selection of University Teacher)  the assessment model of candidates for a university teacher of job position; Determination of objective decision-making: Aim: Creation of competency profile of candidate to job position of teacher of Institute of Industrial Engineering and Management. Alternatives of solution:  employees of UPIM MTF STU;  contacting employees: questionnaire;  sample 6 random respondents. 11/15

12. 12 key criteria of model:  Knowledge of a foreign language;  Tolerance (multicultural thinking);  Ability to lead the people;  Ability to motivate people;  Empathy;  Critical thinking;  Ability of self-control;  Nature and natural intelligence;  Diligence;  Responsibility;  Knowledge of the taught subject;  Communication and rhetorical skills. 12/15 3 Model 2 – EMSUT

13. Determination of criteria weights:  the most important criteria: Responsibility;  the least important criteria: Knowledge of foreign language. 13/15 Figure 8 Analysis of consistency and assessing the significance criteria 3 Model 2 – EMSUT

14. Evaluation of alternatives:  using the pairwise comparison;  the most competent employee: P1;  the least competent employee: P3. 14/15 Figure 9 Result of the variants evaluation 3 Model 2 – EMSUT

15. Thank you for your attention monika.sujakova@stuba.sk