Prioritization of criteria for evaluating the accountability process of Civil Social Organizations using the Multicriteria model

This article presents qualitative research, with a case study approach, to prioritize and standardize the criteria used by technicians from the Secretariat of State for Justice and Citizenship of the Federal District (SEJUS/DF) in the process of evaluating accountability. The objective is to improve the consistency and coherence of the conclusions derived from the report evaluation process. To do so, first, the AS-IS process was modeled to provide a better understanding of the process. Second, the Current Reality Tree was applied to identify process risks. Finally, the Hierarchical Analytical Process method was used to develop the Multicriteria theory with Group Decision and the Bayesian theory to rationalize the consistency indices of the experts’ judgments. The results showed that the social impact was considered irrelevant by the specialists, even though it is the most important criterion for the performance of Civil Society organizations. This result highlights the need for further investigation to understand why social impact is not considered as important as it should be in the accountability assessment process. This study contributes to the development of a more standardized and coherent accountability assessment process for (SEJUS/DF), while demonstrating the usefulness of Bayesian Theory to rationalize consistency indices with reviewers.