World Applied Sciences Journal 16 (7): 961-970, 2012

ISSN 1818-4952
IDOSI Publications, 2012
Corresponding Author: Dr. Nader Bohlooli, Islamic Azad University, East Azarbayjan, Bonab Branch, Iran.
961
Study and Prioritizing Effective Factors on Human Resource
Productivity by Achieve Model and Topsis Method
Nader Bohlooli and Mahdi Haghi
Islamic Azad University, East Azarbayjan, Bonab Branch, Iran
Abstract: With over looking to the successful countries of world we can see this counties make necessary
worth to the human resource as the most important productivity factor. with contrast, this force with increasing
their productivity shear themselves in the revenue of the product. Down productivity in organization,
companies and etc happen with different reasons. Every reason has it's own solution for solving. Gradation of
productivity is all of the systematic efforts, structured for eliminating or reducing losses of material,
machine, human or incorrect balance between them. For gradation of productivity we must know effective
factors on productivity. Therefore in this essay after studying the theories about productivity we choose
ACHIEVE model which contain seven effective factors (Ability, Clarity, Help, Incentive, Evaluation, validity,
Environment) on human resource productivity as a essay pattern and then with indexing for each of dimensions
of mentioned model and with using of field method and promoting of questionnaire in the static society
(ITMCO) and analyze the result of studying by using TOPSIS method, specified that between the effective
factors, ability is the most important factor and evaluation is the less important factor. For testing theories we
use Spearman method. The result of Spearman method showed us that there is a meaningful correlation between
Ability, Clarity, Help, Incentive, Evaluation, validity, Environment with gradation of productivity. In the order
-preferencing effective factors on human resource productivity that getting with the TOPSIS method with the
ascending arrangement dimension: 1-Ability 2-Clarity 3-Validity 4- Incentive 5- Environment 6- Help 7-
Evaluation stand.
Key words:Productivity ACHIEVE Model TOPSIS Method Human resource Human resource
productivity
INTRODUCTION of moving towards organizational excellence performance
Two concept of "Efficiency" and "Effectiveness" With due observance to these two definitions,
have been referred in definitions of productivity and productivity is combination of both "Efficiency" and
productivity is combination of the two generally, with "Effectiveness".
regard to the definition of "Effectiveness" and In other words, organizational performance will be
"Efficiency" as main concepts in recognition of productive when activities turn "Efficient" and "Effective"
productivity, it can be said that "Effectiveness" has been and each of which solely can't indicate productivity
defined traditionally as materialization of objectives of an growth. Then, as for as productivity concept is
organization and "Efficiency" has been defined concerned, firstly, activity which is done, should be
traditionally as realization of objectives of an organization beneficial and accurate and secondly, such activity
and "Efficiency" has been defined as accurate and wise should be carried out in the best is possible in line with
use of resources. "Efficiency" is defined as comparison of materialization of objectives."Productivity" is the concept
degree of outputs thanks to the degree of input or degree which is used for showing proportion of output of an
of input in comparison with output with due observance individual unit and organization. The more productivity of
to the objectives predefined for system "Effectiveness" is an organization is increased, the less production cost will
defined as wise and logical use of resources with the aim be witnessed in that unit [1].
and appropriate organizational satisfaction level.
output
partial productivity
one input production factor
=
World Appl. Sci. J., 16 (7): 961-970, 2012
962
In fast-paced development of contemporary world of Effective Factors to Productivity
today, if we intend to increase productivity of our Importance and Necessity of Research: During the two
workplace organization, production should be last decade, creation importance and extend of
increased with less manpower and workforce, less productivity and total productivity management in the
capital, less time, less space and generally with fewer organizations was become important.
resources. More than any other factors, productivity Total productivity management, in the base of
of an organization strictly depends on knowledge, skills, strategic plan correct attention to increasing workers
capabilities, approaches, behavior and conduct of staff incentive improving of skills by good educational system,
and personnel. making good situation for innovation and rising workers
Basic Definition of Productivity: development units, using the new science in doing
Partial productivity: "productivity" defines the suitable methods for measuring, planning and
proportion between output and input of a system improving productivity in organization by using the
generally management system.
manager can define the problems and solve them by
Total factor productivity: in fact, this proportion according to the intense competitions in the global
indicates a value which shows employment of staff, markets, efforts for developing the bazaar and even stay
personnel and capital facilities of organization to raw in the present bazaar, the importance of attending to the
materials, parts and purchased services subtracted productivity especially human resource productivity
out of total value of outputs [2]. raised. Especially in the last years by entering the Chinese
Total productivity: unlike partial productivity, total and Indians tractors, ITMCO should make serious
productivity shows relation between output of measures for increasing the workers ability, optimum
system with all consumed resources for producing using from the present capacities and decreasing
that output [3]. the price of products.
talent in organization, increasing the research and
work, improving the quality of products effort for making
By using the total productivity in organizations, the
necessary information in the suitable time [4].
In the Iran Tractor manufacturing company,
Fig. 1:
A: Ability
C: Clarity
H: Help
I: Incentive
E: Evaluation
V: Validity
E: Environment
Gradation of human
resource productivity
World Appl. Sci. J., 16 (7): 961-970, 2012
963
Only in this way ITMCO can enter and active in the Rules validity is effective on the gradation of human
global bazaars. resource productivity.
Study's Theoretical Jamb: Study's theoretical jamb is the resource productivity.
sample that researcher opine based that about the There is meaningful difference among the
relation between factors that are important in the effective factors of gradation of human resource
creativity of problem. In the present study we use Hersi productivity.
and Goldsmith's model that is contain: 1- ability 2- clarity
3-help 4-inentive 5-evaluation 6- validity 7-environment. Research Analysis Model: According to the study's
In this study after determining the rule of these theoretical jamb, we show research analysis model
factors on increasing human resource productivity, the like this:
order of their will determine.
Description of this model is: method is application and from the method attitude is
P=F(A.C.H.I.E.V.E) collecting data. The first, from the library way for
P: Productivity collecting literate and research history, inside and outside
A: Ability of country. The second, by the field way by distributing
C: Clarity questionnaire among the Iran Tractor Manufacturing
H: Help company's human resource.
I: Incentive
E: Evaluation Sampling Method: In this research we selected 300
V: Validity workers from ITMCOM through the application of random
E: Environment sampling method.
Research hypothesis: For determining the number of sample from
Worker's ability is effective on the gradation of workers from the statistic society with significant
human resource productivity. level 95% and considered equal to 5% the number of
Job's clarity is effective on the gradation of human statistic sample will be 278 that we choose 300 workers for
resource productivity. more confidence.
Organization help is effective on the gradation of
human resource productivity. Collecting Information Equipment: We used
Worker's incentive is effective on the gradation of questionnaire and documents of ITMCO for gathering
human resource productivity. necessary information. The questionnaire contains
Worker's performance evaluation is effective on the personal qualification, information sources questions,
gradation of human resource productivity. five selection questions according to Likert spectrum.
Environment is effective on the gradation of human
Study's Method: From the goal attitude, the present study
descriptive traversal and from the two way we use for
the statistic society we use Morgan's table that for 1000
Fig. 2:
2
2
6
r 1
n(n 1)
s
D
=

World Appl. Sci. J., 16 (7): 961-970, 2012

964
Table 1
Very weak Weak Average Strong Very strong
1 2 3 4 5
Table 2:
Korenbakh Alpha coefficient Number of question
0.9265 28
Validity and Permanent of Questionnaire: For calculating
validity of this research we used symbolic validity.
For calculating permanent of questionnaire we used
Korenbakh Alpha coefficient and we obtain 0.9265 by
using SPSS software and this number shows our
questionnaire is very permanent.
Data Analysis Method: For analyzing data we use
descriptive statistics and indirect comprehensive
statistics. For this purpose we used SPSS software.
In descriptive statistics level we used statistic index
for analyze data. For measuring effective factors on
productivity we use Spearman test. At last we used
TOPSIS method for prioritizing effective factor.
We explain TOPSIS method as a algorithm during
we calculate it.
Spearman Ranking Correlation Coefficient: Spearman
ranking correlation coefficient is a kind of Peayerson
correlation and it is used for ranking scores. In other
words our variant data is classified. For calculating
Spearman ranking correlation coefficient we use this
formula [5].
r = Spearman ranking correlation coefficient
s
D = squer of difference between ranks
2
n= number of rank
In this research we use Spearman method for testing
our theories.
Test of Normality of Gathered Data: According to
up information because of the sig 0.05 we concluded
that our data is not normal and we should use non-
parametric method like Spearman for testing our
hypothesis.
Data Analysis
Testing Analysis: We test each of research theories by
using Spearman method and we specify the result of test
for each of theories.
BAHRVARY=productivity
TAVANAY=ability
VOZOH=clarity
ANGIZE=incentive
HEMAYAT=help
ARZYABI=evaluation
EATEBAR=validity
MOHET=environment
Hypothesis 1: The measure of Spearman correlation
coefficient (r = 0.639) and significant level sig=0.000
s
shows that with 95% confidence there is a significant
relation between worker's ability and productivity.
Hypothesis 2: The measure of Spearman correlation
coefficient (r = 0.747) and significant level sig=0.000
s
shows that with 95% confidence there is a significant
relation between job's clarity and productivity.
Hypothesis 3: The measure of Spearman correlation
coefficient (r = 0.812) and significant level sig=0.000
s
shows that with 95% confidence there is a significant
relation between worker's incentive and productivity.
Hypothesis 4: The measure of Spearman correlation
coefficient (r = 0.746) and significant level sig=0.000
s
shows that with 95% confidence there is a significant
relation between organization Help and productivity.
Hypothesis 5: The measure of Spearman correlation
coefficient (r = 0.744) and significant level sig=0.000
s
shows that with 95% confidence there is a significant
relation between worker's performance evaluation and
productivity.
Hypothesis 6: The measure of Spearman correlation
coefficient (r = 0.824) and significant level sig=0.000
s
shows that with 95% confidence there is a significant
relation between rules validity and productivity.
Hypothesis 7: The measure of Spearman correlation
coefficient (r = 0.853) and significant level sig=0.000
s
shows that with 95% confidence there is a significant
relation between environment and productivity.
TOPSIS Method: TOPSIS method was proposed by
Hwany and Yoon in 1981. This method is one of the best
multi-criteria decision-making models and is used
numerously. At this method, alternative m is evaluated by
indicator n.
World Appl. Sci. J., 16 (7): 961-970, 2012
965
Table 3: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
X1 X2 X3 X4
N 300 300 300 300
Normal Parameters Mean 4.38 4.40 3.27 4.07
a,b
Std. Deviation .710 .664 .912 .630
Most Extreme Absolote .307 .317 .252 .309
Differences Positive .205 .226 .248 .309
Negative -.307 -.317 -.252 -.291
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 5.323 5.486 4.359 5.349
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
a. Test distribution in Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Table 4: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
X5 X6 X7 X8
N 300 300 300 300
Normal Parameters Mean 3.85 3.97 4.00 3.97
a,b
Std. Deviation .899 .753 .754 .857
Most Extreme Absolote .257 .251 .250 .232
Differences Positive .193 .232 .233 .184
Negative -.257 -.251 -.250 -.232
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 4.449 4.347 4.330 4.021
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
a. Test distribution in Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Table 5: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
X9 X10 X11 X12
N 300 300 300 300
Normal Parameters Mean 3.25 3.40 3.75 3.75
a,b
Std. Deviation .889 1.022 .908 1.151
Most Extreme Absolote .227 .219 .225 .236
Differences Positive .227 .219 .179 .139
Negative -.223 -.181 -.225 -.236
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 3.939 3.793 3.900 4.087
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
a. Test distribution in Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Table 6: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
X13 X14 X15 X16
N 300 300 300 300
Normal Parameters Mean 3.87 3.75 3.68 3.47
a,b
Std. Deviation .905 1.076 .976 .807
Most Extreme Absolote .214 .227 .208 .262
Differences Positive .214 .224 .208 .202
Negative -.197 -.227 -.177 -.262
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 3.712 3.937 3.603 4.544
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
a. Test distribution in Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
World Appl. Sci. J., 16 (7): 961-970, 2012
966
Table 7: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
X17 X18 X19 X20
N 300 300 300 300
Normal Parameters Mean 4.05 3.77 3.58 3.63
a,b
Std. Deviation .992 .991 1.310 .932
Most Extreme Absolote .231 .210 .225 .220
Differences Positive .169 .164 .140 .185
Negative -.231 -.210 -.225 -.220
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 3.999 3.633 3.894 3.805
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
a. Test distribution in Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Table 8: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
X21 X22 X23 X24
N 300 300 300 300
Normal Parameters Mean 3.38 3.25 4.03 3.85
a,b
Std. Deviation .934 1.028 .914 1.048
Most Extreme Absolote .262 .246 .269 .257
Differences Positive .171 .246 .181 .143
Negative -.262 -.187 -.269 -.257
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 4.539 4.261 4.655 4.450
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
a. Test distribution in Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Table 9: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
X25 X26 X27 X28
N 300 300 300 300
Normal Parameters Mean 4.08 3.77 3.60 3.93
a,b
Std. Deviation .782 .762 1.115 1.197
Most Extreme Absolote .224 .320 .173 .263
Differences Positive .209 .246 .171 .187
Negative -.224 -.320 -.173 -.263
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 3.884 5.547 3.003 4.564
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
a. Test distribution in Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Table 10:
Correlation
TAVANAY BAHRVARY
Spearmans rho TAVANAY Correlation 1.000 .639**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 300
BAHRVARY Correlation .639** 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 300
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
World Appl. Sci. J., 16 (7): 961-970, 2012
967
Table 11:
Correlation
VOZOH BAHRVARY
Spearmans rho VOZOH Correlation 1.000 .747**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 300
BAHRVARY Correlation .747** 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 300
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
Table 12:
Correlation
ANGIZE BAHRVARY
Spearmans rho ANGIZE Correlation 1.000 .812**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 300
BAHRVARY Correlation .812** 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 300
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
Table 13:
Correlation
HEMAYAT BAHRVARY
Spearmans rho HEMAYAT Correlation 1.000 .746**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 300
BAHRVARY Correlation .746** 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 3000
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
Table 14:
Correlation
ARZYABI BAHRVARY
Spearmans rho ARZYABI Correlation 1.000 .744**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 300
BAHRVARY Correlation .744** 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 3000
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
Table 15:
Correlation
EATEBAR BAHRVARY
Spearmans rho EATEBAR Correlation 1.000 .824**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 300
BAHRVARY Correlation .824** 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 3000
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Productivity
A 3.99
A 3.93
A 3.64
A 3.68
A 3.61
A 3.70
A 3.68
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (
=
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (

ij
m 2
i=1 ij
n
r
ij
r
=

D
0.402
0.396
0.367
N 0.371
0.364
0.373
0.371
(
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(
(

ij
m
i=1 ij
P
r
ij
r
=

0.152
0.150
0.139
p 0.140
0.138
0.141
0.140
(
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(
(

J
1
E ( . );
m
ij ij
i
K p lnp j
=
=

1
In
K
m
=
j
n
j=1 j
w
d
dj
=

11 1
1
.
n
D n n
m mn
v v
V N W
v v

(
(
= =
(
(

0.402
0.396
0.367
0.371
0.364
0.373
0.371
v
(
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(
(

World Appl. Sci. J., 16 (7): 961-970, 2012
968
Table 16:
Correlation
MOHET BAHRVARY
Spearmans rho MOHET Correlation 1.000 .853**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 300
BAHRVARY Correlation .853** 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 300 3000
**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed).
Basis of this technique stands at the concept that Step 3: making w matrix by using anthropy technique:
multiple choice should enjoy less space with positive
ideal solution( best possible status) and the most space
with negative ideal solution( the worst possible way).
It has been assumed that fairness of any indicator will
be increased or decreased concertedly [6].
Prioritizing Effective Factors on Gradation of Human
Resource Productivity [7]
Step 1: making decision matrix
A1: ability
A2: clarity
A3: help
A4: incentive In the mentioned formula n shows the number of
A5: evaluation decision matrix columns.
A6: validity
A7: environment Step 4: making weight dimensionless matrix V by using W
Step 2: Making dimension matrix
Now by using this formula we can calculate E :
J
In this formula and m shows the number of
decision matrix rows.
For calculating w we have:
j
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
d 0
1
d 0.006
2
d 0.035
3
d 0.031
4
d 0.038
5
d 0.029
6
d 0.031
7
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
d 0.038
1
d 0.032
2
d 0.003
3
d 0.007
4
d 0
5
d 0.009
6
d 0.007
7

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
+ + +
ij 1 j n
(max V ; j J) {V ,..., V ,..., V } ideal solution A
+
= = =
ij 1 j n
negative ideal solution (min V; j J) {V ,...,V ,...,V } A

= = =
0.5
2
i
1
( )
n
ij j
j
d V V
+
=


+ =
`

)

0.5
2
i
1
( )
n
ij j
j
d V V

=


=
`

)

i
i
i i
d
cl
(d d )

+
+
=
+
i
0 1; i = 1,2,..., cl m +
1
1 A1 cl + =
2
0.84 A2 cl + =
3
0.078 A3 cl + =
4
0.18 A4 cl + =
5
0 A5 cl + =
6
0.237 A6 cl + =
7
0.18 A7 cl + =
World Appl. Sci. J., 16 (7): 961-970, 2012
969
Table 17:
X
1
Ej 0.987
dj = 1 Ej 0.013
wj 1
Table 18:
Step 5: specifying ideal solution and negative - ideal
solution:
A = {0.402}
+
A = {0.364}

Step 6: Obtaining space rate of each factor up to positive

and negative ideal:
Step 7: Obtaining relative determination of cl + as one
i
factor to ideal solution:
Step 8: priority factors rating
A1= ability
A2= clarity
A6 = validity
A4 = incentive
A7= environment
A3= help
A5= evaluation
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
According to information that we obtain by using
questionnaire, analyze them with Spearman method and
prioritizing factors by TOPSIS method, it is specified that
two factors( ability and clarity) is the most effective on
gradation of human resource productivity but
organization help, incentive, evaluation, rules validity
and environment are the factors that are less effective.
So it must be analyzed and these factors must be noticed
in ITMCO, so by proving these factors the productivity
can increase.
By attention to result of this research, ability
and clarity obtain the most effective factor on
gradation of productivity. So for making human
resource productive, ITMCO must carry on specialty
courses for workers, value the creativity of personnel, for
achieving the goals of organization. Firtilised the talent of
workers is also effective, also workers must be knowed
about the goals of organization so they can forward to
those goals.
Suggestions:
By attention to considerable effect of
worker's ability, we suggest that by using
analysis of job, the various ability of human
resource are recognized and organization can carry
on specialty courses for gradation of human ability.
By attention to considerable effect of job clarity on
gradation of human resource, we suggest by
documenting explanation of duty, identity certificate
of organization and by using information technology
for informing or prepare the information about the
jobs, can take action for gradation of human
productivity.
World Appl. Sci. J., 16 (7): 961-970, 2012
970
By attention to ACHIEVE model, other factors are 3. Hannula, M., 2006, Total productivity measurement
also effective on gradation but in our based on partial productivity ratios, International J.
statisticssociety this factors are less effective. So we Production Economics, 78(1): 57-67.
suggest to other researcher that they study these 4. Taheri, Shahnam, 1385. analyze productivity on
factors again and analyze the reason of little effect in organization.
this statistics society and in other statistic society. 5. Delavar Ali, 1387. Applicatant statistic, roshd
REFERENCES 6. Shih, H.S., H.J. Shyur and E.S. Lee, 2007. An
1. Boudreau, J.W., 1983. Effective of employee flows on making. Mathematical and computer Modelling,
utility analysis of human resource productivity 45(7-8): 801-803.
improvement programs, J. Applied Psychol., 7. Asgharpor, Mohammadjavad, 1389. Multi-criteria
68(3): 396-406. decision, Tehran university publisher.
2. Lam, P.L. and T. Lam, 2005. Total factor productivity
measures for Hong Kong telephone,
Telecommunications Policy, 29(1): 53-68.
publisher.
extension of TOPSIS for group decision
No. question Very strong Strong Average Weak Very weak
1 How much does effect related education on graduation of human resource productivity?
2 How much does effect work experience on graduation of human resource productivity?
3 Did general training which is held in the company is effective on graduation
of human resource productivity?
4 How much does effect job talent on graduation of human resource productivity?
5 Is knowing the work responsibility effective on graduation of human resource productivity?
6 How much does effect innovation and creativity of workers on graduation
of human resource productivity?
7 How much does effect the clarity of work on graduation of human resource productivity?
8 How much does effect being direct and job goal on graduation of human resource productivity?
9 How much does effect proportional jurisdiction with job responsibility on graduation
of human resource productivity?
10 How much does effect available equipment and facilities in organization on graduation
of human resource productivity?
11 How much does effect special training about work which was held in
organization on graduation of human resource productivity?
12 How much does effect comfort facilities that is made by company on graduation
of human resource productivity?
13 How much does effect using of competent manager on graduation
of human resource productivity?
14 How much does effect appreciation and help of manager from operation
of outstand workers on graduation of human resource productivity?
15 How much does effect job promotion on graduation of human resource productivity?
16 How much does effect information technology in organization on graduation
of human resource productivity?
17 How much does effect on time salary payment on graduation of human resource productivity?
18 How much does effect workers participation in decision on graduation
of human resource productivity?
19 How much does effect not biasing toward some employees on graduation
of human resource productivity?
20 How much does effect using workers opinion on determining company's goals
in each section on graduation of human resource productivity?
21 How much does effect establishing suitable connection with other units in
organization on graduation of human resource productivity?
22 How much does effect valuation system and continuous controlling
on graduation of human resource productivity?
23 How much does effect proportion of job with bodily situation on
graduation of human resource productivity?
24 How much does effect manager's information about advanced technology
in tractor manufacturing on graduation of human resource productivity?
25 How much does effect job knowledge on graduation of human resource productivity?
26 How much does effect manager decision match with company's strategy
on graduation of human resource productivity?
27 How much does effect exist connection method between workers and manager about
workers problems on graduation of human resource productivity?
28 How much does effect proportion between economic situation and workers
living condition on graduation of human resource productivity?