Analysis of knowledge performance of G7 countries: An application with the COCOSO method

Abstract

In this research, the knowledge performance of the G7 countries was measured by the COCOSO method over the values of the latest and up-to-date Global Konwledge Index (GKI) components of the 2020 year. In the study, the harmony between the performance values determined within the scope of GKI and COCOSO methods and some multi-criteria decision making methods (MCDM:, EDAS, TOPSIS, and GIA) were determined. According to the findings, it has been determined that the countries with higher information performance average values are the USA and the England. In this context, it has been concluded that the countries of Japan, Canada, Germany, Italy and France, which are below the average value, should give the necessary importance to the components of the Global Knowledge Index in order to harmonize with other G7 group countries in terms of knowledge performance. According to another finding, it was observed that the GKI and COCOSO methods were in consistence with each other and with other MCDM methods.

Keywords

• knowledge
• global knowledge index
• COCOSO

G7 ülkelerinin bilgi performanslarının analizi: COCOSO yöntemi ile bir uygulama

Öz

Bu araştırmada, G7 ülkelerinin en son ve güncel olan 2020 yılı Küresel Bilgi Endeksi (GKI) bileşenlerine ait değerler üzerinden ülkelerin bilgi performansları COCOSO yöntemi ile ölçülmüştür. Araştırmada ayrıca GKI ve COCOSO yöntemi kapsamında tespit edilen performans değerleri ile bazı çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri (ÇKKV: EDAS, TOPSIS ve GİA) ile tespit edilen ülkelerin bilgi performans değerleri arasındaki uyum durumu belirlenmiştir. Bulgulara göre, bilgi performans ortalama değerinin üstünde olan ülkelerin ABD ve İngiltere olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda ortalama değerin altında kalan Japonya, Kanada, Almanya, İtalya ve Fransa ülkelerinin diğer G7 grubu ülkeleri ile bilgi performansı açısından uyum sağlaması için Küresel Bilgi Endeksi bileşenlerine gerekli önemi vermeleri gerektiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Diğer bir bulguya göre, GKI ve COCOSO yöntemlerinin birbirleri ve diğer ÇKKV yöntemleri ile uyum içinde olduğu gözlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilgi
• küresel bilgi endeksi
• COCOSO

References

1. ABU, R., REED, M., & JARDINE, T. (2019). Using Two-Eyed Seeing to Bridge Western Science and Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Understand Long-Term Change in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 1-20.
2. ADIGÜZEL, A. (2011). Bilgi Okuryazarlığı Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17, 15-28.
3. ALAM, M., PARVEEN, R., KHAN, I. R., & HAMDARD, J. (2020). Role of Information Technology in Covid-19 Prevention. International Journal of Business Education and Management Studies, 5(1), 65-78.
4. ALSAYED, A., & BILGRAMI, A. (2017). Information Technology and Information Technology and Culture: Problems and Remedies. International Journal of Latest Research in Science and Technology, 6(1), 22-27.
5. ANAMERİÇ, H. (2005). Bilgi Merkezlerinin Yönetiminde Bilgi Sistemlerinin Rolü. Bilgi Dünyas›, 6(1), 15-35.
6. BAGAL, D. K., GIRI, A., PATTANAIK, A. K., JEET, S., BARUA, A., & PANDA, S. N. (2021). Optimization of Characteristics in Resistance Spot Welding for Dissimilar Materials Utilizing Advanced Hybrid Taguchi Method Coupled CoCoSo EDAS and WASPAS Method. Darussalam: AIJR Publisher.
7. BARUA, A., JEET, S., BAGAL, D., SATAPATHY, P., & AGRAWAL, P. (2019). Evaluation of Mechanical Behavior of Hybrid Natural Fiber Reinforced Nano Sic Particles Composite using Hybrid Taguchi-Cocoso Method. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(10), 3341-3344.
8. BASTALICH, W. (2010). Knowledge Economy and Research Innovation. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 845–857.

9. BHATT, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 68-75.
10. BISWAS, S. (2020). Measuring Performance of Healthcare Supply Chains in India: A Comparative Analysis of Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 162-189.
11. BRADY, F. (2021). Training Peer Teachers to Teach First Year Graduate Level Information. The Journal of Academic Librarianship(47), 1-12.
12. BRATIANU, C., STANESCU, D., & MOCANU, R. (2021). Exploring the Knowledge Management Impact on Business Education. Sustainability, 13, 1-16.
13. BUCKLAND, M. K. (1991, June). Information as Thing. Journal Of The American Society For Information Science, 42(5), 351-360.
14. CHATTERJEE, S., MOODY, G., LOWRY, P. B., CHAKRABORTY, S., & HARDIN, A. (2020). The Nonlinear Influence of Harmonious Information Technology Affordance on Organizational Innovation. Information Systems Journal , 1-9.
15. COUDHARY, V., & MISHRA, A. (2021). Analyzing the Critical Success Enablers of Industry 4.0 Using Hybrid-Fuzzy AHP-COCOSO Method. Journal of Industrial Integration, 6(22), 1-22.
16. DAUTH, C., KRUPPE, T., & STEPHAN, G. (2018). Zur Qualifizierungsoffensive "Wissen und Sicherheit für den Wandel" des Bundesministeriums für Arbeit und Soziales. Ausgewählte Beratungsergebnisse des Instituts für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung(6), 1-11.
17. DAVENPORT, T. H., & PRUSAK, L. (2001). Working Knowledege How Organizastions Manege What They Know. Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America: Harward Business School Press.
18. DEMIRHAN, D. (2002). İşletmelerde Stratejik Bilgi Sistemleri Yönetimi ve Rekabet Üstünlüğünün Eldev Edilmesindeki Rolü. Ege Akademik Bakış, 2(2), 117-124.
19. DESOUZA, K. (2006). Knowledge Security: An Interesting Research Space. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 3(1), 1-7.
20. DI VAIO, A., PALLADINO, R., PEZZI, A., & KALISZ, D. (2021). The role of digital innovation in knowledge management systems: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Business Research, 123, 220-231.
21. DOZ, Y., SANTOS, J., & WILLIAMSON, P. (2001). From Global to Metanational How Companies Win in the Knowledge Economy. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing.
22. DURNA, U., & DEMİREL, Y. (2008). Bilgi Yönetiminde Bilgiyi Anlamak. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 129-156.
23. DURNALI, M., & LİMON, İ. (2020). Bilgi Yönetimi Eğilimi Ölçeğinin Türkiye Kültürüne Uyarlanması:Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 28(1), 95-106.
24. ECER, F. (2020). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
25. ECER, F., & PAMUCAR, D. (2020). Sustainable Supplier Selection: A Novel Integrated Fuzzy Best Worst Method (F-BWM) and Fuzzy CoCoSo with Bonferroni (CoCoSo’B) Multi-Criteria Model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 1-18.
26. ETZKOWITZ, H., RANGA, M., & DZISAH, J. (2012). Whither the university? The Novum Trivium and the Transition from Industrial to Knowledge Society. Social Science Information, 51(2), s. 143–164.
27. EZER, M., & KIRAL, E. (2018). Türkiye’de Bilgi Toplumunun Gelişimi: Kişisel İnternet Kullanım Amaçları Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 27(1), 207-222.
28. FOKOU, P., & FOKOUO, R. (2020). Exploring the Indigenous Knowledge Systems to Respond to Coronavirus Infection 2019 in Cameroon. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 20(37), 1-27.
29. GREEN, A. (2005). Models of Lifelong Learning and the ‘Knowledge Society’. Compare, 36(3), 307-325.
30. GÜNER, O. (2020). Bilgi Toplumu Göstergeleri Bağlamında Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleri ve Türkiye’ye Dair Bir Değerlendirme. İşletme Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi(2), 121-143.
31. HADAD, S. (2017). Knowledge Economy: Characteristics and Dimensions. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 203-225.
32. HARIHARAN, M. R., & KHENEJA, M. (2003). E-Knowledge Management Framework for Goverment Organizations. Information System Management, 38-48.
33. HOCK-DOEPGEN, M., CLAUSS, T., KRAUS, S., & CHENG, C.-F. (2021). Knowledge Management Capabilities and Organizational Risk-taking for Business Model Innovation in SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 130, 683–697.
34. HÖHNE, T. (2004). Pädagogik der Wissensgesellschaft. Bielefel: Transcript Verlag.
35. INGRAM, J. (2018). Agricultural Transition: Niche and Regime Knowledge Systems' Boundary Dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 26, 117–135.
36. IŞIK, N., & KILINÇ, E. C. (2013). Bilgi Ekonomisi ve İktisadi Büyüme: OECD Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi(26), 21-54.
37. JALALI, M., LANDMAN, A., & GORDON, W. (2021). Telemedicine, Privacy, and Information Security in the Age of COVID-19. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(3), 671–672.
38. JONES-JANG, S., MORTENSEN, T., & LIU, J. (2019). Does Media Literacy Help Identification of Fake News? Information Literacy Helps, but Other Literacies Don’t. American Behavioral Scientist, 1-18.
39. KAYA, Ş., ŞİMŞEK, G., & OKUL, T. (2020). Lisans Düzeyinde Turizm Eğitimi Alan Öğrencilerin Girişimcilik Eğilimi ve Bilgi Teknolojileri Yeterliliği İlişkisi: Aydın Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Örneği. Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies, 8(1), 257-277.
40. KELEŞ, B., & OVA, G. (2020). Gıda Tedarik Zinciri Yönetiminde Bilgi Teknolojileri Kullanımı. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 137-143.
41. KILIÇ, B., YALÇIN, N., & KILIÇ, E. (2021). Hukuk Bürolarinda Bilgi Güvenliğinin Arttırılmasında Model Önerileri. TBB Dergisi(152), 335-365.
42. KURBANOĞLU, S. (2010). Bilgi Okuryazarlığı: Kavramsal Bir Analiz. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 24(4), 723-747.
43. MACKEY, T., & JACOBSON, T. E. (2011). Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy. College & Research Libraries, 72(1), 62-76.
44. MARTIN, A., & RADER, H. (2004). Information and IT Literacy. Library Review(53), 465-466.
45. MISHRA, A. R., RANI P., KRISHANKUMAR, R., ZAVADSKAS, E. K., CAVALLARO, F., & RAVICHANDRAN, K. S. (2021). A Hesitant Fuzzy Combined Compromise Solution Framework-Based on Discrimination Measure for Ranking Sustainable Third-Party Reverse Logistic Providers. Sustainability, 13, 1-24.
46. NAVEED, M. A. (2021). Information Literacy Self-efficacy of Scientists. Information Research 26(1), 26(1), 1-23.
47. OLIMPO, G. (2010). Società della Conoscenza, Educazione, Tecnologia. TD-Tecnologie Didattiche. 50, 4-16.
48. ÖZER, G., CİĞERİM, E., & GÖK, M. Ş. (2020). Entelektüel Sermaye ve Bilgi Yönetimi Stratejilerinin Firma Performansına Etkisi. BMIJ, 8(5), 4611-4645.
49. PENG, X., ZHANG, X., & LUO, Z. (2020). Pythagorean Fuzzy MCDM Method Based on CoCoSo and CRITIC with Score Function for 5G Industry Evaluation. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53, 3813–3847.
50. PETERS, M. A. (2003). Classical Political Economy and the Role of Universities in the New Knowledge Economy. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1(2), 153-168.
51. POWELL, W., & SNELLMAN, K. (2004). The Knowledge Economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol, 30, 199–220.
52. SHOKRI-GHASABEH, M., & CHILESHE, N. (2014). Knowledge Management Barriers to Capturing Lessons Learned from Australian Construction Contractors Perspective. Construction Innovation, 14(1), 108-134.
53. TALAN, T., & AKTÜRK, C. (2021). Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Dijital Okuryazarlık ve Bilgi Güvenliği Farkındalığı Seviyelerinin İncelenmesi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(1), 158-180.
54. TANG, Z., MILLER, A., ZHOU, Z., & WARKENTIN, M. (2021). Does Government Social Media Promote Users’ Information Security Behavior towards COVID-19 Scams? Cultivation Effects and Protective Motivations. Government Information Quarterly, 38, 1-11.
55. TENGÖ, M., BRONDIZIO, E., ELMQVIST, T., MALMER, P., & SPIERENBURG, M. (2014). Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. AMBIO, 43, 579-591.
56. TİMOR, M., & YÜZBAŞİ KÜNÇ, G. (2021). Ekonomik Gelişmişliği Etkileyen Bilgi Ekonomisi Değişkenlerinin Veri Madenciliği ile Belirlenmesi. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2021, 8(1), 1-18.
57. TORKAYESH, A. E., PAMUCAR, D., ECER, F., & CHATTERJEE, P. (2021). An integrated BWM-LBWA-CoCoSo Framework for Evaluation of Healthcare Sectors in Eastern Europe. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences , 1-12.
58. UBISİ, N. R., KOLANISI, U., & JIRI, O. (2019). Comparative Review of Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Modern Climate Science. Journal of Conflict and Social Transformation, 8(2), 53-73.
59. UGLI, K. A. (2020). The Role and Role of Digital Economy and Information Technology in the Agricultural Sector. International Journal on Integrated Education, 3(2), 42-44.
60. UNDP, & MBRF. (2017). Global Knowledge Index. Dubai: Al Ghurair Printing and Publishing.
61. UNDP, & MBRF. (2018). Global Knowledge Index. Dubai: Al Ghurair Printing and Publishing.
62. UNDP, & MBRF. (2019). Global Knowledge Index. Dubai: Al Ghurair Printing and Publishing.
63. UNDP, & MBRF. (2020). Global Knowledge Index. Dubai: Al Ghurair Printing and Publishing.
64. WAHAB, S., BAHAR, N., & RADZİ, N. (2021). An Inquiry on Knowledge Management in Third-Party Logistics Companies. Int. J. Business Innovation and Research, 24(1), 124-146.
65. WU, Y., TAYI, G. K., FENG, G., & FUNG, R. (2021). Managing Information Security Outsourcing in a Dynamic Cooperation Environment. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(3), 827-850.
66. YAZDANI, M., ZARATE, P., ZAVADSKAS, E., & TURSKIS, Z. (2018). A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) Method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems. Management Decision, 1-19.
67. YE, Q., MA, J., & BA; , H. (2020). Using Information Technology to Manage the COVID-19 Pandemic: Development of a Technical Framework Based on Practical Experience in China. JMIR Med Inform 2020, 8(6), 1-9.
68. ZOLFANI, S. H., CHATTERJEE, P., & YAZDANI, M. (2019). A Structured Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection Using A Combined BWM-COCOSO Model. International Scientific Conference CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN BUSINESS, MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS ENGINEERING’2019. Vilnius: Vilnius Tech, 797-804.