PROJECT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF TURKISH UNIVERSITIES BY LOPCOW-CRADIS METHODS

Abstract

The encouraging regulations put forward by the countries in the fields of science and technology make quite positive contributions to the efforts of the relevant stakeholders. The effort to benefit from these financial supports, which has a motivational role for scientists and industrial organizations focusing on research and development activities, has become a competitive issue and performance indicator today. In this study, the performance of 200 state and foundation universities operating in Turkiye is examined in terms of project submission and execution capacities within the scope of Research Support Programs Directorate (ARDEB). In order to weight the evaluation criteria, the LOgarithmic Percentage Change-driven Objective Weighting (LOPCOW) method was used and the criterion "Number of Project Submissions" is determined as the prominent one. The performance order of the universities is determined by the Compromise Ranking of Alternatives from Distance to Ideal Solution (CRADIS) method where Middle East Technical University, Ege University, Istanbul Technical University, Hacettepe University, Ankara University, Istanbul University, Koç University, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, İzmir Technology Institute and Erciyes University are determined in the first ten order. It has also been determined that especially the universities established in recent are far from a competitive position.

Keywords

• TÜBİTAK
• ARDEB
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making
• LOPCOW
• CRADIS

References

1. Alabay, E., Can, B. H., Kandemir, A. B. & Güney, K. (2018). An Analysis of the Curious Little Child Magazine Published by TÜBİTAK in Terms of Values, Journal of Values Education, 16(35): 7-26. https://ded.dem.org.tr/tr/makale/tubitak-tarafindan-yayinlanan-merakli-minik-cocuk-dergisinin-degerleracisindan- incelenmesi.
2. Alakaş, H. M., Yazıcı, E., Ebiri, U., Kızılay, B. A., & Oruç, O. (2024). Havya setlerin seçimi için karşılaştırmalı çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımı. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 8(1), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.56554/jtom.1260377.
3. Biswas, S., Bandyopadhyay, G. & Mukhopadhyaya, J. N. (2022). A Multi-Criteria Based Analytic Framework for Exploring the Impact of Covid-19 on Firm Performance in Emerging Market, Decision Analytics Journal, 5: 100143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100143.
4. Biswas, S., Datta, D. & Kar, S. (2023). Energy Efficiency and Environmental Sustainability: A Multi-Criteria Based Comparison of BRICS and G7 Countries, Emerging Technology and Management Trends in Environment and Sustainability: 107. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003356233.
5. Božanić, D., Pamucar, D., Badi, I. & Tešić, D. (2022). A Decision Support Tool for Oil Spill Response Strategy Selection: Application of LBWA and Z MABAC Methods, OPSEARCH, 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-022- 00605-0.
6. Cheng, R., Fan, J., Wu, M., & Seiti, H. (2024). A large-scale multi-attribute group decision-making method with R-numbers and its application to hydrogen fuel cell logistics path selection. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 10(4), 5213–5260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-024-01437-9.
7. Chowdhury, S. R., Chatterjee, S., & Chakraborty, S. (2024). Optimization of grinding processes using multicriteria decision making methods in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. OPSEARCH, 61(2), 709–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-024-00741-9.
8. Das, A., Chaudhuri, T., Sinha, S., Biswas, S., & Guha, B. (2023). Selection of Appropriate Portfolio Optimization Strategy. Theoretical and Applied Computational Intelligence, 1, 58–81. https://doi.org/10.31181/taci1120237.

9. Dhruva, S., Krishankumar, R., Zavadskas, E. K., Ravichandran, K. S., & Gandomi, A. H. (2024). Selection of Suitable Cloud Vendors for Health Centre: A Personalized Decision Framework with Fermatean Fuzzy Set, LOPCOW, and CoCoSo. Informatica, 35(1), 65–98. https://doi.org/10.15388/23-INFOR537.
10. Dua, T. V. (2023). Combination of Symmetry Point of Criterion, Compromise Ranking of Alternatives from Distance to Ideal Solution and Collaborative Unbiased Rank List Integration Methods for Woodworking Machinery Selection for Small Business in Vietnam, EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, 2: 83-96. https://doi.org/doi.10.21303/2461-4262.2023.002763.
11. Ecer, F., Küçükönder, H., Kayapınar Kaya, S. & Faruk Görçün, Ö. (2023). Sustainability Performance Analysis of Micro-Mobility Solutions in Urban Transportation with a Novel IVFNN-Delphi-LOPCOW-Cocoso Framework, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 172: 103667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103667.
12. Ecer, F. & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI Multi‐Criteria Sustainability Performance Assessment Methodology: An Application in Developing Country Banking Sector, Omega, 112: 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690.
13. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications: A state-of-theart survey. Springer-Verlag. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
14. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z. & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of Objective Weights Using a New Method Based on the Removal Effects of Criteria (MEREC), Symmetry, 13(4): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525.
15. Konur, K. B. & Yazıcı, A. (2022). Evaluation of 4006 TUBITAK Science Fairs in Terms of Science Teachers, Education Quarterly Reviews, 5(3): 180-194. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.31014/aior.1993.05.03.537.
16. Krishankumar, R., Dhruva, S., Ravichandran, K. S., & Kar, S. (2024). Selection of a viable blockchain service provider for data management within the internet of medical things: An MCDM approach to Indian healthcare. Information Sciences, 657, 119890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.119890.
17. Krishankumar, R., & Ecer, F. (2023). Selection of IoT service provider for sustainable transport using q-rung orthopair fuzzy CRADIS and unknown weights. Applied Soft Computing, 132, 109870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109870.
18. Li, X., Wang, K., Liu, L., Xin, J., Yang, H. & Gao, C. (2011). Application of the Entropy Weight and TOPSIS Method in Safety Evaluation of Coal Mines, ISMSSE2011, 26: 2085-2091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2410.
19. Lukić, R. (2023). Research of the economic positioning of the Western Balkan countries using the LOPCOW and EDAS methods. Journal of Engineering Management and Competitiveness, 13, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.5937/JEMC2302106L.
20. Mukhametzyanov, I. & Pamucar, D. (2018). A Sensitivity Analysis in MCDM Problems: A Statistical Approach, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1802050m.
21. Nila, B., & Roy, J. (2023). A new hybrid MCDM framework for third-party logistics provider selection under sustainability perspectives. Expert Systems with Applications, 234, 121009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121009.
22. Pamucar, D., Zizovic, M., Biswas, S. & Božanić, D. (2021). A New Logarithm Methodology of Additive Weights (LMAW) For Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: Application in Logistics, Facta Universitatis Series Mechanical Engineering, 19(3): 361-380. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210214031P.
23. Pilav, S. & Orhan, S. (2020). Examination of TÜBİTAK Children's Books for the Ages 6 - 12 in Terms of Values Education, Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 18(33): 434-453. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.759891.
24. Puška, A., Štilić, A., Božanić, D., Đurić, A., & Marinkovic, D. (2023). Selection of EVs as Tourist and Logistic Means of Transportation in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Nature Protected Areas Using Z-Number and Rough Set Modeling. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2023(1), 5977551. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5977551.
25. Puška, A., Božanić, D., Mastilo, Z. & Pamučar, D. (2023). Extension of MEREC-CRADIS Methods with Double Normalization-Case Study Selection of Electric Cars, Soft Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08054- 7.
26. Puška, A., Stević, Ž. & Pamučar, D. (2022). Evaluation and Selection of Healthcare Waste Incinerators Using Extended Sustainability Criteria and Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(9): 11195-11225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01902-2.
27. Rong, Y., Yu, L., Liu, Y., Simic, V., & Garg, H. (2023). The FMEA model based on LOPCOW-ARAS methods with interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy information for risk assessment of R&D projects in industrial robot offline programming systems. Computational and Applied Mathematics, 43(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-023- 02532-2.
28. Setiawansyah, S., & Sulistiyawati, A. (2024). Penerapan Metode Logarithmic Percentage Change-Driven Objective Weighting dan Multi-Attribute Utility Theory dalam Penerimaan Guru Bahasa Inggris. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology Information, 2(2), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.58602/jaiti.v2i2.119.
29. Simic, V., Dabic-Miletic, S., Tirkolaee, E. B., Stević, Ž., Ala, A., & Amirteimoori, A. (2023). Neutrosophic LOPCOW-ARAS model for prioritizing industry 4.0-based material handling technologies in smart and sustainable warehouse management systems. Applied Soft Computing, 143, 110400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110400.
30. Starčević, V., Petrović, V., Mirović, I., Tanasić, L. Ž., Stević, Ž. & Đurović Todorović, J. (2022). A Novel Integrated PCA-DEA-IMF SWARA-CRADIS Model for Evaluating the Impact of FDI on the Sustainability of the Economic System, Sustainability, 14(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013587.
31. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231.
32. TÜBİTAK (2023). Retrieved from https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/destekler/akademik/ulusal-destekprogramlari/ icerik-akademik-destek-istatistikleri, (Access: 03.05.2023). TÜBİTAK (2024). Retrieved from https://tubitak.gov.tr/sites/default/files/ardeb_kitapcigi.pdf, (Access: 29.08.2024). Decree on the Amendment of Certain Articles of the Law on the Establishment of the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey, 1993, Substance 1. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/21693.pdf. Law on Some Regulations Regarding the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, 1963, Substance 1. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.278.pdf.
33. URAP (2023). Retrieved from https://newtr.urapcenter.org, (Access: 03.05.2023). Wang, W., Wang, Y., Fan, S., Han, X., Wu, Q., & Pamucar, D. (2023). A complex spherical fuzzy CRADIS method based Fine-Kinney framework for occupational risk evaluation in natural gas pipeline construction. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 220, 111246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.111246.
34. Xu, M., Bai, C., Shi, L., Puška, A., Štilić, A., & Stević, Ž. (2023). Assessment of Mountain Tourism Sustainability Using Integrated Fuzzy MCDM Model. Sustainability, 15(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914358.
35. Yazdani, M., Zaraté, P., Zavadskas, E. K. & Turskis, Z. (2018). A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) Method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems, Management Decision, 57(9): Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458.
36. Zavadskas, E. K. & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2): 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036.
37. Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). A New Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method in Multicriteria Decision‐Making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10.