Multicriteria Approach to Prioritize Strategic Goals: Case of a Public University

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 198 - 223, 29.12.2025

Sarra Daimi , Yetkin Çınar

Öz

This research aims to enhance the strategic planning process in public organizations, more specifically universities by suggesting two prioritization approaches using Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods, considering the case of Ankara University (AU), a Turkish public university. Performing an independent analysis of goals, the first approach involves an application of AHP to get the goals’ importance weights, which in turn are used as the input of a three-scenario based TOPSIS application along with the goals’ anticipated costs. The second approach follows an influence-based perspective to highlight the degree of interdependence of university goals and the need for a balanced solution to strategic planning. DEMATEL is thence employed to further explore the causal relationships between these goals. Then, the influence weights are incorporated along with AHP importance weights and the anticipated costs as the input of another TOPSIS application. Although the first approach generates significant insights to decision makers (DMs) as it prioritizes strategic goals based on their importance to AU and their budgets, the second approach provides a deeper analysis and an advanced prioritization model. DMs can therefore select the approach that works best for them in terms of needs and data. This study can help AU and similar institutions prioritize their strategic goals, efficiently allocate resources, and enhance their overall strategic performance. The study also demonstrates the effectiveness of MCDM methods in strategic planning and provides valuable insights for future research in this area.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Strategic planning , AHP , TOPSIS , DEMATEL , criteria importance , influence

Stratejik Hedeflerin Önceliklendirilmesine Yönelik Çok Kriterli Yaklaşım: Bir Devlet Üniversitesi Örneği

Öz

Bu araştırma, kamu kurumlarında ve özellikle üniversitelerde stratejik planlama sürecini geliştirmeyi amaçlamakta olup, Ankara Üniversitesi (AÜ) örneği üzerinden Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemleri kullanılarak iki önceliklendirme yaklaşımı önermektedir. İlk yaklaşımda, hedeflerin bağımsız analizi gerçekleştirilmekte ve Hiyerarşi Analizi Süreci (AHP) uygulanarak hedeflerin önem ağırlıkları elde edilmektedir. Bu ağırlıklar, hedeflerin tahmini maliyetleriyle birlikte üç senaryoya dayalı bir TOPSIS uygulamasına girdi olarak kullanılmaktadır. İkinci yaklaşım ise, üniversite hedeflerinin karşılıklı bağımlılık düzeyini ve stratejik planlama için dengeli bir çözümün gerekliliğini vurgulayan etki temelli bir bakış açısını benimsemektedir. Bu doğrultuda, DEMATEL yöntemi kullanılarak hedefler arasındaki nedensel ilişkiler derinlemesine incelenmektedir. Ardından, etki ağırlıkları AHP’den elde edilen önem ağırlıkları ve tahmini maliyetlerle birlikte başka bir TOPSIS uygulamasına entegre edilmektedir. İlk yaklaşım, stratejik hedefleri Ankara Üniversitesi açısından önem dereceleri ve bütçeleri temelinde önceliklendirerek karar vericilere (KV’ler) anlamlı içgörüler sunarken; ikinci yaklaşım, daha kapsamlı bir analiz ve gelişmiş bir önceliklendirme modeli sağlamaktadır. Böylelikle KV’ler, ihtiyaçlarına ve mevcut veriye en uygun yaklaşımı tercih edebilmektedir. Bu çalışma, AÜ ve benzeri kurumların stratejik hedeflerini önceliklendirmelerine, kaynaklarını etkin biçimde tahsis etmelerine ve genel stratejik performanslarını artırmalarına katkı sağlayabilir. Ayrıca, ÇKKV yöntemlerinin stratejik planlamadaki etkinliğini ortaya koymakta ve bu alandaki gelecek araştırmalar için değerli içgörüler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Stratejik planlama , AHP , TOPSIS , DEMATEL , kriter önemi , etki düzeyi

Kaynakça

• Abdalkrim, G. M. (2013). The impact of strategic planning activities on private sector organizations performance in Sudan: an Empirical research. International Journal of Business and Manage-ment, 8(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n10p134
• Acuña-Carvajal, F., Pinto-Tarazona, L., López-Ospina, H., Barros-Castro, R., Quezada, L., & Pala-cio, K. (2019). An integrated method to plan, structure and validate a business strategy using fuzzy DEMATEL and the balanced scorecard. Expert Systems With Applications, 122, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.01.030
• Arnwine, D. L. (2002). Effective Governance: the roles and responsibilities of board members. Pro-ceedings - Baylor University. Medical Center, 15(1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2002.11927809
• Betty, K., & Nkechi, I. E. (2023). Strategic Planning and Organizational Performance in Non-Profit Organizations in Rwanda: A Case of World Vision, Kigali, Rwanda. Journal of Strategic Management, 7(2), 90–110. https://doi.org/10.53819/81018102t3081
• Bhatti, M. I., Awan, H. M., & Razaq, Z. (2013). The key performance indicators (KPIs) and their impact on overall organizational performance. Quality and Quantity, 48(6), 3127–3143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9945-y
• Bhole, G. P. (2018). Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and its applications. Inter-national Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 6(5), 899–915. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2018.5145
• Bird, S. M., David, C. S., Farewell, V. T., Harvey, G., Holt, T., & Smith, P. (2004). Performance in-dicators: Good, Bad, and ugly. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series a. Statistics in Society/Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series a, Statistics in Society, 168(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985x.2004.00333.x
• Bjerke, M. B., & Renger, R. (2017). Being smart about writing SMART objectives. Evaluation and Program Planning, 61, 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.12.009
• Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Bryson, J. M., Edwards, L. H., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2017). Getting strategic about strategic planning research. Public Management Review, 20(3), 317–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1285111
• Canco, I., Kruja, D., & Iancu, T. (2021). AHP, A Reliable Method for Quality Decision making: A Case study in business. Sustainability, 13(24), 13932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413932
• Çeli̇K, M. T., & Arslankaya, S. (2023). Analysis of quality control criteria in an business with the fuzzy DEMATEL method: Glass business example. Maǧallaẗ Al-abḥāṯ Al-handasiyyaẗ, 11(2), 100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2023.100039
• Cheng, E. W., & Li, H. (2001). Information priority‐setting for better resource allocation using ana-lytic hierarchy process (AHP). Information Management & Computer Security, 9(2), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/09685220110388827
• Chen, W., Li, W., Shao, L., Zhang, T., & Wang, X. (2023). Large-scale group-hierarchical DE-MATEL method for complex systems. PLoS ONE, 18(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288326
• Das, K., & Kumar, R. (2023). Assessment of electric Two-Wheeler ecosystem using novel Pareto optimality and TOPSIS methods for an ideal design solution. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 14(8), 215. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj14080215
• De Marinis, P., & Sali, G. (2020). Participatory analytic hierarchy process for resource allocation in agricultural development projects. Evaluation and Program Planning, 80, 101793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101793
• Demir, G., & Arslan, R. (2022). Sensitivity analysis in Multi-Criterion Decision-Making Problems. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 24(3), 1025–1056. https://doi.org/10.26745/ahbvuibfd.1103531
• del‐Rey‐Chamorro, F. M., Roy, R., Van Wegen, B., & Steele, A. (2003). A framework to create key performance indicators for knowledge management solutions. Journal of Knowledge Man-agement, 7(2), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310477289
• Dodangeh, J., Yusuff, R. B. M., & Jassbi, J. (2010). Using Topsis Method with Goal Programming for Best Selection of Strategic Plans in BSC Model. Journal of American Science, 6(3). http://www.jofamericanscience.org/journals/am-sci/am0603/18_2138_JAS_am0603_136_142.pdf
• Du, Y., & Li, X. (2021). Hierarchical DEMATEL method for complex systems. Expert Systems With Applications, 167, 113871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113871
• Elshafei, G., Katunský, D., Zeleňáková, M., & Negm, A. (2022). Opportunities for using analytical hierarchy process in green building optimization. Energies, 15(12), 4490. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124490
• Eshlaghy, A. T., & Homayonfar, M. (2011). MCDM Methodologies and Applications: A Literature Review from 1999 to 2009. Research Journal of Internatıonal Studies, 21.
• Franěk, J., & Kresta, A. (2014). Judgment Scales and Consistency Measure in AHP. Procedia Eco-nomics and Finance, 12, 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(14)00332-3
• Frow, N., Marginson, D., & Ogden, S. (2010). “Continuous” budgeting: Reconciling budget flexibil-ity with budgetary control. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.10.003
• Hunt, C. (2011). National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030: Report of the Strategy Group. De-partment of Education and Skills. http://hdl.handle.net/10147/120285
• Hwang, C., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer.
• Kaloutsa, M., Kabassi, K., & Martinis, A. (2025). Evaluating the sustainable Development Goals in higher education institutions using Multi-Criteria Decision Making/Analysis: calculating the weights of criteria with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Sustainability Science Practice and Policy, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2025.2475592
• Kao, F., Huang, S., & Lo, H. (2022). A Rough-Fermatean DEMATEL Approach for Sustainable De-velopment evaluation for the manufacturing industry. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 24(7), 3244–3264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-022-01334-8
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001a). The strategy-focused organization: How Balanced Score-card Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Business Press.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001b). Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2001.15.1.87
• Kianypoor, H., Malekjahan, A. N., & Kashan, A. H. (2024). An MCDM Approach for Prioritization of Faculties and Disciplines in Educational Institutions: A real Case study. In Intelligent Sys-tems for Smart Cities (pp. 459–481). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6984-5_29
• Kotler, P., & Murphy, P. E. (1981). Strategic planning for higher education. Journal of Higher Edu-cation/˜the œJournal of Higher Education, 52(5), 470–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1981.11778119
• Li, H., D"ietl, H., & Li, J. (2021). Identifying key factors influencing sustainable element in healthcare waste management using the interval-valued fuzzy DEMATEL method. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 23(5), 1777–1790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01233-4
• Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M. H., Anderson, G. D., & Carden, F. (1999). Enhancing organizational per-formance : a toolbox for self-assessment. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB13025854
• Mahmudova, S., & Jabrailova, Z. (2020). Development of an algorithm using the AHP method for selecting software according to its functionality. Soft Computing, 24(11), 8495–8502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04902-y
• Mabayo, V. I. F. (2024). Framework for Budget Proposal Prioritization for Strategic Resource Allo-cation in Universities. In Promoting multidisciplinary studies on emerging trends and innova-tions in education and sustainable development (Vol. 1). Agricultural University Publishing House.
• McCaffery, P. (2013). The Higher Education Manager’s handbook: Effective Leadership and Man-agement in Universities and Colleges. Routledge.
• Mohamad, D., Afandi, N. S., & Kamis, N. H. (2015). Strategic planning decision making using fuzzy SWOT-TOPSIS with reliability factor. AIP Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4932465
• Mtau, T. T., & Rahul, N. A. (2024). Optimizing Business Performance through KPI Alignment: A Comprehensive Analysis of Key Performance Indicators and Strategic Objectives. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 14(01), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2024.141003
• Nartisa, I., Putans, R., & Muravska, T. (2012). Strategic Planning and Management in Public and Private Sector Organizations in Europe: Comparative Analysis and Opportunities for Im-provement. European Integration Studies. http://www.eis.ktu.lt/index.php/EIS/article/download/1538/1596
• Nasab, H. H., & Milani, A. S. (2012). An improvement of quantitative strategic planning matrix us-ing multiple criteria decision making and fuzzy numbers. Applied Soft Computing, 12(8), 2246–2253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.03.010
• Nazim, M., Mohammad, C. W., & Sadiq, M. (2022). A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to software requirements selection. Alexandria Engineering Journal /Alexandria Engineering Journal, 61(12), 10851–10870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.04.005
• Özdemir, A., Özalp, U., & Akkaya, R. (2021). Prioritizing MoNE 2019-2023 Strategic Goals and Objectives with Analytical Hierarchy Process and Analysis of Relationship between Affect-ing-Affected Strategic Goals with DEMATEL Method. Hacettepe University Journal of Edu-cation, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.16986/huje.2021067518
• Phillips, L. D., & Costa, C. a. B. E. (2007). Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allo-cation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Annals of Operation Research, 154(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0183-3
• Powell, B. A., Gilleland, D. S., & Pearson, L. C. (2012). Expenditures, Efficiency, and Effectiveness in U.S. Undergraduate Higher Education: a National Benchmark model. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(1), 102–127. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2012.0005
• Quezada, L. E., López-Ospina, H., Ortíz, C., Oddershede, A. M., Palominos, P., & Jofré, P. A. (2022). A DEMATEL-based method for prioritizing strategic projects using the perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard. International Journal of Production Economics, 249, 108518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108518
• Quezada, L. E., López-Ospina, H., Palominos, P., & Oddershede, A. M. (2018). Identifying causal relationships in strategy maps using ANP and DEMATEL. Computers & Industrial Engineer-ing, 118, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.02.020
• Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process : planning, priority setting, resource allocation. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA33072871
• Saaty, T. L. (1990). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation.
• Sahoo, S. K., & Goswami, S. S. (2023). A comprehensive review of multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Mak-ing Advances, 1(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma1120237
• Setiawan, I., & Purba, H. H. (2020). A Systematic Literature review of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) implementation. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 1(3), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.7777/jiemar.v1i3.79
• Si, S., You, X., Liu, H., & Zhang, P. (2018). DEMATEL Technique: A Systematic review of the State-of-the-Art Literature on Methodologies and applications. Mathematical Problems in En-gineering, 2018, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3696457
• Spanidis, P., Roumpos, C., & Pavloudakis, F. (2021). A Fuzzy-AHP methodology for planning the risk management of natural hazards in surface mining projects. Sustainability, 13(4), 2369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042369
• Stojčić, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Mardani, A. (2019). Application of MCDM Methods in Sustainability Engineering: A literature Review 2008–2018. Symmetry, 11(3), 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030350
• Vachnadze, R. (2016). Prioritization of Performance Measures Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v8i3.442
• Vavrek, R., Bečica, J., Papcunová, V., Gundová, P., & Mitríková, J. (2021). Number of financial in-dicators as a factor of Multi-Criteria Analysis via the TOPSIS technique: a municipal case study. Algorithms, 14(2), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/a14020064
• Victor, S., & Farooq, A. (2020). Balanced Scorecard Adaptation using AHP for the Corporate Healthcare Sector in India. International Journal of Management and Humanities, 4(12), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijmh.l1085.0841220
• Wang, W., Lin, Y., Lin, C., Chung, C., & Lee, M. (2012). DEMATEL-based model to improve the performance in a matrix organization. Expert Systems With Applications, 39(5), 4978–4986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.10.016
• Wu, H., Chen, J., Chen, I., & Zhuo, H. (2012). Ranking universities based on performance evalua-tion by a hybrid MCDM model. Measurement, 45(5), 856–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2012.02.009
• Zolfani, S. H., & Ghadikolaei, A. S. (2013). Performance Evaluation of Private Universities Based on Balanced Scorecard: Empirical Study Based on Iran. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(4), 695–714. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.665383
• Zyoud, S. H., & Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2017). A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Systems With Applications, 78, 158–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.016