A FUZZY AHP BASED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN OF TURKISH MUNICIPALITIES

Abstract

Since performance assessment is vital for the management, it is important to develop a stable system for this process. That being the case, performance assessment system has been used for a long time in the private sector in Turkey. However, within the legal compulsories, it became an obligation for most of the municipalities satisfying the conditions. Performance program in the municipalities is regarded with the strategic plan which is the long term plan of a company. Performance program related with a strategic plan is the application program of the strategic plan throughout the years. In this paper, a fuzzy AHP based performance assessment system is developed for the municipalities in Turkey. First, the current performance assessment system in some of the municipalities in Istanbul is analyzed. Then, different from the current system, a new methodology including unit weighted performance score based on fuzzy AHP is developed for municipality performance score calculation. An example based on real life applications is utilized so as to validate the model

Keywords

• Decision making, fuzzy AHP, municipality strategic plan, performance assessment system

References

1. Black, Stewart, Senga Briggs and William Keogh (2001), “Service quality performance measurement in public/private sectors”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp.400-405.
2. Chang, Da-Yong (1992), “Extent analysis and synthetic decision, optimization techniques and applications”, World Scientific, Vol. 1, pp. 352.
3. Ghobadian, Abby (1994), “Performance measurement in local government
4. Concept and practice”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14, No.5, pp.35-51. Greatbanks, Richard and David Tapp (2007), “The impact of balanced scorecards in a public sector environment”, International Journal of Operations &
5. Production Management, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp.846-873. Greiling, Dorothea (2005), “Performance measurement in the public sector: the German experience”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54, No.7, pp.551-567.
6. Mimba, Ni Putu S.H., G. Jan van Helden and Sandra Tillema (2007), “Public sector performance measurement in developing countries, A literature review and research agenda”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.192-208.
7. Pollanen, Raili M. (2005), “Performance measurement in municipalities:
8. Empirical evidence in Canadian context”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.4-24. Rantanen, Hannu, Harri I. Kulmala, Antti Lönnqvist and Paula Kujansivu (2007),

9. “Performance measurement systems in the Finnish public sector”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.415-433. Saaty, Thomas L. (1980), The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation, New York: McGraw-Hill.
10. Sotirakou, Tatiana and Mary Zeppou (2006), “Utilizing performance measurement to modernize the Greek public sector”, Management Decision, Vol. , No. 9, pp.1277-1304.
11. Zadeh, Lotfali Askar (1965), “Fuzzy sets”, Information Control, Vol. 8, pp.338