RANKING THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE CHOICE OF CROWDFUNDING WEB SITES WITH ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

Abstract

Crowdfunding platforms determine different strategies to attract more backers and fundraiser. Although the product itself is a project in crowdfunding projects, it can be said that the platform is as important as the project. This study aims to rank the factors affecting the choice of crowdfunding web sites with analytic hierarchy process. For this purpose, four dimensions (tangibles, reliability, assurance, integration of communication) and ten criteria (usability, design, navigability, standardization, reputation, relevancy, authority, privacy, FAQ’s and help, inclusion of special services) were included in the analysis. 11 people knowledgeable about crowdfunding were reached to ask pairwise comparisons. For this purpose, a survey was created. Surveys were sent and collected via email. The data used in the study were collected from three different groups: academics, backers, and a fundraiser. AHP results revealed that most important dimension was reliability. Moreover, according to the calculated general weights, the most important criterion is privacy, while the least important criterion is design.

Keywords

• analytic hierarchy process
• crowdfunding
• reward-based crowdfunding
• crowdfunding web sites

ANALİTİK HİYERARŞİ SÜRECİ İLE KİTLE FİNANSMANI WEB SİTELERİNİN SEÇİMİNİ ETKİLEYEN FAKTÖRLERİN SIRALANMASI

Abstract

Kitle fonlaması platformları, daha fazla destekçiyi ve bağış toplayıcıyı çekmek için farklı stratejiler belirlemektedir. Kitlesel fonlama projelerinde ürünün kendisi bir proje olsa da proje kadar platformun da önemli olduğu söylenebilir. Bu çalışma, kitle fonlaması web sitelerinin seçimini etkileyen faktörleri analitik hiyerarşi süreci ile sıralamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla, dört boyut (maddi varlıklar, güvenilirlik, güvence, iletişimin entegrasyonu) ve on kriter (kullanılabilirlik, tasarım, gezilebilirlik, standardizasyon, itibar, alaka düzeyi, yetki, gizlilik, SSS ve yardım, özel hizmetlerin dahil edilmesi) analize dahil edilmiştir. Kitle fonlaması konusunda bilgili 11 kişiye ulaşılarak ikili karşılaştırmalar yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla bir anket oluşturulmuştur. Anketler e-posta yoluyla gönderilmiş ve toplanmıştır. Çalışmada kullanılan veriler üç farklı gruptan toplanmıştır: akademisyenler, destekçiler ve bağış toplama. AHS sonuçları, en önemli boyutun güvenilirlik olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca hesaplanan genel ağırlıklara göre en önemli kriter gizlilik, en az önemli kriter ise tasarımdır.

Keywords

• analitik hiyerarşi süreci
• kitle fonlaması
• ödül-temelli kitle fonlaması
• kitle fonlaması web siteleri

References

1. Alkahtani, M., Khalid, Q. S., Jalees, M., Omair, M., Hussain, G., & Pruncu, C. I. (2021). E-agricultural supply chain management coupled with blockchain effect and cooperative strategies. Sustainability, 13 (2), 816.
2. Baki, R. (2020). Evaluating hotel websites through the use of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
3. Baloh, P. & Trkman, P. (2003). Influence of internet and information technology on work and human resource management. Informing Science, 6, 498-505.
4. Barnes, S. & Vidgen, R. (2000). WebQual: an exploration of website quality. ECIS 2000 proceedings, 74.
5. Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T. & Schwienbacher, A. (2010). Crowdfunding: An industrial organization perspective. In Prepared for the workshop Digital Business Models: Understanding Strategies’, held in Paris on June (pp. 25-26).
6. Belleflamme, P., Omrani, N. & Peitz, M. (2015). The economics of crowdfunding platforms. Information Economics and Policy, 33, 11-28.
7. Benmoussa, K., Laaziri, M., Khoulji, S., Kerkeb, M. L. & El Yamami, A. (2019). AHP-based approach for evaluating ergonomic criteria. Procedia Manufacturing, 32, 856-863.
8. Bilsel, R. U., Büyüközkan, G. & Ruan, D. (2006). A fuzzy preference‐ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital web sites. International journal of intelligent systems, 21 (11), 1181-1197.

9. Büyüközkan, G. & Çifçi, G. (2012). A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Expert systems with applications, 39 (3), 2341-2354.
10. Buyukozkan, G., & Göçer, F. (2016). Evaluation Of Government Websites Using Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. In Uncertainty Modelling in Knowledge Engineering and Decision Making: Proceedings of the 12th International FLINS Conference (pp. 930-935).
11. Büyüközkan, G. & Güleryüz, S. (2016). Lojistik firma web sitelerinin performanslarinin çok kriterli değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 31 (4), 889-902.
12. Carvajal, M., García-Avilés, J. A. & González, J. L. (2012). Crowdfunding and non-profit media: The emergence of new models for public interest journalism. Journalism practice, 6 (5-6), 638-647.
13. Chou, W. C. & Cheng, Y. P. (2012). A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating website quality of professional accounting firms. Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (3), 2783-2793.
14. Cumming, D. J., Johan, S. A. & Zhang, Y. (2019). The role of due diligence in crowdfunding platforms. Journal of Banking & Finance, 108, 105661.
15. Dragulanescu, N. G. (2002). Website quality evaluations: Criteria and tools. The international information & library review, 34 (3), 247-254.
16. Franek, J. & Kresta, A. (2014). Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP. Procedia economics and finance, 12, 164-173.
17. Gamble, J. R., Brennan, M. & McAdam, R. (2017). A rewarding experience? Exploring how crowdfunding is affecting music industry business models. Journal of business research, 70, 25-36.
18. Grigoroudis, E., Litos, C., Moustakis, V. A., Politis, Y. & Tsironis, L. (2008). The assessment of user-perceived web quality: Application of a satisfaction benchmarking approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 187 (3), 1346-1357.
19. Hsu, T. H., Hung, L. C. & Tang, J. W. (2012). A hybrid ANP evaluation model for electronic service quality. Applied Soft Computing, 12 (1), 72-81.
20. Ip, C., Law, R. & Lee, H. A. (2012). The evaluation of hotel website functionality by fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29 (3), 263-278.
21. Kapoun, J. (1998). Teaching undergrads WEB evaluation. College and Research Libraries News, 59 (7), 522-523.
22. Kaya, T. & Kahraman, C. (2011). A fuzzy approach to e-banking website quality assessment based on an integrated AHP-ELECTRE method. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17 (2), 313-334.
23. Kropivšek, J., Grošelj, P., Oblak, L. & Jošt, M. (2021). A comprehensive evaluation model for wood companies websites based on the AHP/R-TOPSIS Method. Forests, 12 (6), 706.
24. Lee, Y. & Kozar, K. A. (2006). Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success: An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Decision support systems, 42 (3), 1383-1401.
25. Lin, H. F. (2010). An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Computers & Education, 54 (4), 877-888.
26. Liu, C. & Arnett, K. P. (2000). Exploring the factors associated with Web site success in the context of electronic commerce. Information & management, 38 (1), 23-33.
27. Markaki, O. I., Charilas, D. E. & Askounis, D. (2010). Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the quality of e-government web sites. In 2010 Developments in E-systems Engineering (pp. 219-224). IEEE.
28. Melón, M. G., Beltran, P. A. & Cruz, M. C. G. (2008). An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study. Omega, 36 (5), 754-765.
29. Mich, L., Franch, M. & Gaio, L. (2003). Evaluating and designing web site quality. IEEE MultiMedia, 10 (1), 34-43.
30. Moustakis, V., Litos, C., Dalivigas, A. & Tsironis, L. (2004, November). Website Quality Assessment Criteria. In ICIQ (pp. 59-73).
31. Nagpal, R., Mehrotra, D., Bhatia, P. K. & Sharma, A. (2015). Rank university websites using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach on usability. International journal of information engineering and electronic business, 7 (1), 29.
32. Özkan, B., Özceylan, E., Kabak, M. & Dağdeviren, M. (2020). Evaluating the websites of academic departments through SEO criteria: a hesitant fuzzy linguistic MCDM approach. Artificial intelligence review, 53 (2), 875-905.
33. Palmer, J. W. (2002). Web site usability, design, and performance metrics. Information systems research, 13 (2), 151-167.
34. Pitchay, A. A., Asmy, M., Thaker, H. B. M. T. & Amin, M. F. B. (2019). Determining the relative importance of quality factors for crowdfunding platforms. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 11 (3), 368-388.
35. Ramanayaka, K. H., Chen, X. & Shi, B. (2018). UNSCALE: A fuzzy-based multi-criteria usability evaluation framework for measuring and evaluating library websites. IETE Technical Review.
36. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15 (3), 234-281.
37. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York.
38. Saaty, T. L. (1989). Group decision making and the AHP. In The analytic hierarchy process (pp. 59-67). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
39. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48 (1), 9-26.
40. Saaty, T. L. (2001). Fundamentals of the analytic hierarchy process. In The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making (pp. 15-35). Springer, Dordrecht.
41. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1 (1), 83-98.
42. Shahin, A., Khazaei Pool, J. & Poormostafa, M. (2014). Evaluating and ranking hotels offering e-service by integrated approach of Webqual and fuzzy AHP. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 15 (1), 84-104.
43. Sharma, K. & Dubey, S. K. (2020). Ranking of E-Commerce Sites in India Using Decision-Making Approach. In Micro-Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering (pp. 387-394). Springer, Singapore.
44. Singh, A. & Prasher, A. (2019). Measuring healthcare service quality from patients’ perspective: using Fuzzy AHP application. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30 (3-4), 284-300.
45. Sipahi, S. & Timor, M. (2010). The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications. Management decision.
46. Tsai, W. H., Chou, W. C. & Lai, C. W. (2010). An effective evaluation model and improvement analysis for national park websites: A case study of Taiwan. Tourism Management, 31 (6), 936-952.
47. Tsikriktsis, N. (2002). Does culture influence web site quality expectations? An empirical study. Journal of service research, 5 (2), 101-112.
48. Tzeng, G. H. & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. CRC press.
49. Yeap, J. A., Ignatius, J. & Ramayah, T. (2014). Determining consumers’ most preferred eWOM platform for movie reviews: A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 250-258.
50. Yıldırım, B. F., & Önder, E. (2015). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri. Bursa: Dora Basım-Yayın Dağıtım.
51. Zhou, T., Lu, Y. & Wang, B. (2009). The relative importance of website design quality and service quality in determining consumers’ online repurchase behavior. Information Systems Management, 26 (4), 327-337.