Examination of mobile phone features in Turkey using SIWEC and RAWEC methods

Öz

Mobile phones are used extensively in Turkey as well as around the world. The preferences of people about mobile phones, which have become a device that can meet almost all the needs of people, have become important. In these times when communication is rapidly advancing, mobile phone preferences have gained great importance. In this context, the study will focus on mobile phone features. This study aims to analyze and evaluate the features of mobile phones in Turkey using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. In the study, the criteria affecting the performance of mobile phones (e.g. camera quality, battery life, processor speed, price, storage capacity, etc.) are weighted using SIWEC (simple weight calculation) method. Then, based on these weighted criteria, the performance ranking of the mobile phones was obtained with the RAWEC (Ranking Alternatives with Weights of Criterion) method. This method makes it easier to identify the best cell phone options to suit users' needs and preferences. In addition to 11 technical features, the price feature is also included in the study. Simple Weight Calculation (SIWEC) and Ranking Alternatives with Criterion Weights (RAWEC) methods were used to determine which features come to the forefront when people make a choice and which brand/model they prefer. While the price feature came to the forefront in the results obtained with the SIWEC method, it was determined that the Samsung s23 fe model ranked first in the ranking made with the RAWEC method.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mobile phones
• multi-criteria decision making
• SIWEC
• RAWEC

Türkiye’de cep telefonları özelliklerinin SIWEC ve RAWEC yöntemleri ile incelenmesi

Öz

Cep telefonları Dünya genelinde olduğu gibi Türkiye’de de yoğun bir şekilde kullanılmaktadır. İnsanların neredeyse tüm ihtiyaçlarını karşılayabilen bir alet haline gelen cep telefonları ile ilgili kişilerin tercihleri önemli bir hal almıştır. İletişimin hızla ilerlediği bu zamanlarda cep telefonu tercihleri büyük önem kazanmıştır. Bu bağlamda çalışmada cep telefonu özelliklerine odaklanılacaktır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki cep telefonu özelliklerinin çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yöntemleri kullanılarak analiz edilmesini ve değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada, cep telefonlarının performansını etkileyen kriterler (örneğin, kamera kalitesi, pil ömrü, işlemci hızı, fiyat, depolama kapasitesi gibi) SIWEC (simple weight calculation) yöntemi ile ağırlıklandırılmıştır. Ardından, bu ağırlıklandırılmış kriterler temel alınarak, cep telefonlarının performans sıralaması RAWEC (Ranking Alternatives with Weights of Criterion) yöntemi ile elde edilmiştir. Bu yöntem, kullanıcıların ihtiyaçlarına ve tercihlerine uygun en iyi cep telefonu seçeneklerini belirlemeyi kolaylaştırmaktadır. Çalışmada 11 teknik özelliğin yanı sıra fiyat özelliği de çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Kişilerin seçim yaparken hangi özelliklerin ön plana çıktığını belirlemek ve hangi markayı/modeli tercih ettiğini ortaya koyabilmek için ÇKKV yöntemlerinden Basit Ağırlık Hesaplaması (SIWEC) ve Kriter Ağırlıkları ile Alternatifleri Sıralama (RAWEC) yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. SIWEC yöntemi elde edilen sonuçlarda fiyat özelliği ön plana çıkarken, RAWEC yöntemi ile yapılan sıralamada Samsung s23 fe modeli ilk sırayı aldığı belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cep telefonu
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• SIWEC
• RAWEC

Kaynakça

1. Ali, J., ve Ghildiyal, A. K. (2023). Socio-economic characteristics, mobile phone ownership and banking behaviour of individuals as determinants of digital financial inclusion in India. International Journal of Social Economics, 50(10), 1375-1392.
2. Bilim Genç, 18 Aralık 2024 tarihinde https://bilimgenc.tubitak.gov.tr/makale/telefonun-icadi adresinden erişim sağlandı.
3. Biggs, A., Johnston, S., ve Russell, D. (2024). Leadership and communication: how to assess executive skills. Journal of Business Strategy, 45(3), 199-205.
4. Burleson, B. R., ve Samter, W. (1990). Effects of cognitive complexity on the perceived importance of communication skills in friends. Communication Research, 17(2), 165-182.
5. Chakraborty, J., Mukherjee, S., ve Sahoo, L. (2023). Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-index multi-criteria decision-making for smart phone selection using similarity measures in a fuzzy environment. J. Ind Intell, 1(1), 1-7.
6. Chang, Y. F., Chen, C. S., ve Zhou, H. (2009). Smart phone for mobile commerce. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 31(4), 740-747.
7. Doloi, H. (2009). Relational partnerships: The importance of communication, trust and confidence and joint risk management in achieving project success. Construction Management and Economics, 27(11), 1099-1109.
8. Economides, A. A., ve Grousopoulou, A. (2009). Students’ thoughts about the importance and costs of their mobile devices’ features and services. Telematics and Informatics, 26(1), 57-84.

9. Eğeci, İ. S., ve Gençöz, T. (2006). Factors associated with relationship satisfaction: Importance of communication skills. Contemporary family therapy, 28, 383-391.
10. Emara, N., ve Katz, R. (2024). Assessing the economic impact of mobile telecommunications in Egypt: a structural model approach. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, (ahead-of-print).
11. Epey, 20 Aralık 2024 tarihinde https://www.epey.com/akilli-telefonlar adresinden erişim sağlandı.
12. Genç, R. (2017). The importance of communication in sustainability & sustainable strategies. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 511-516.
13. Glasscock, N. F., ve Wogalter, M. S. (2006, October). Evaluating preferences for mobile phone features. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting ,50(12), 1259-1263
14. Han, S. H., Kim, K. J., Yun, M. H., Hong, S. W., ve Kim, J. (2004). Identifying mobile phone design features critical to user satisfaction. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 14(1), 15-29.
15. Haverila, M. (2011). Mobile phone feature preferences, customer satisfaction and repurchase intent among male users. Australasian Marketing Journal, 19(4), 238-246.
16. Işıklar, G., ve Büyüközkan, G. (2007). Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 29(2), 265-274.
17. Jalolov, T. S. (2024). The Importance of Informatıon Communıcatıon in Hıgher Educatıon. World of Scıence, 7(8), 14-19.
18. Lam, W. S., Lam, W. H., Liew, K. F., Bakar, M. A., ve Lai, C. P. (2023). Evaluation and selection of mobile phones using integrated AHP-TOPSIS model. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 33(2), 25-39.
19. Li, M., Tu, W., Tong, H., Cao, J., Zhong, C., Zhang, H., ... ve Li, Q. (2024). Quantifying the nighttime economy–housing separation from a human activity standpoint: A case study in Shenzhen, China. Cities, 148, 104894.
20. Ling, C., Hwang, W., ve Salvendy, G. (2006). Diversified users’ satisfaction with advanced mobile phone features. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5, 239-249.
21. Masalski, M. (2024). The hearing test app for android devices: distinctive features of pure-tone audiometry performed on mobile devices. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 151-163.
22. Mazaheri, M. A., Karbasi, M., ve Ehteshami, M. S. (2014). The use of mobile phone features among Students in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Health System Research, 10(2), 276-285.
23. Media Trend, 18 Aralık 2024 tarihinde https://mediatrend.mediamarkt.com.tr/akilli-telefon-tarihi adresinden erişim sağlandı.
24. Morreale, S. P., Osborn, M. M., ve Pearson, J. C. (2000). Why communication is important: A rationale for the centrality of the study of communication. Journal of the association for communication administration, 29(1), 1-25.
25. Olorvida, R. C., Bande, R. A., Ngalot, D., Lacaba, R., Codilla, J., Arcuino, L. A., ... ve Ocampo, L. (2023). Grey weighted influence non-linear gauge systems (WINGS) for evaluating consumption barriers of refurbished mobile phones for a circular economy. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 8, 100091.
26. Ortiz-Rodríguez, M., Telg, R. W., Irani, T., Roberts, T. G., ve Rhoades, E. (2005). College Students'perceptions Of Quality In Distance Educatıon The Importance of Communication. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 97-105.
27. Özkan, G. S., ve Çelik, H. (2018). Bilgi İletişim Teknolojileri ile Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye İçin Bir Uygulama. Uluslararası Ticaret ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 1-15.
28. Peñaherrera, J. B. R., Diaz, K. M. T., ve Marks, A. (2024). Fusion of Forensic Analysis of Mobile Devices: Integrating Multi-Criteria Decision Methods and Case Study Insights. Full Length Article, 16(2), 32-2.
29. Pillai, A., Nepal, S. K., Wang, W., Nemesure, M., Heinz, M., Price, G., ... ve Campbell, A. (2024). Investigating Generalizability of Speech-based Suicidal Ideation Detection Using Mobile Phones. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 7(4), 1-38.
30. Politi, M. C., ve Street, R. L. (2011). The importance of communication in collaborative decision making: facilitating shared mind and the management of uncertainty. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(4), 579-584.
31. Puška, A., Nedeljković, M., Božanić, D., Štilić, A., ve Muhsen, Y. R. (2024). Evaluation of agricultural drones based on the COmpromise Ranking from Alternative SOlutions (CORASO) methodology. Engineering Review: Međunarodni časopis namijenjen publiciranju originalnih istraživanja s aspekta analize konstrukcija, materijala i novih tehnologija u području strojarstva, brodogradnje, temeljnih tehničkih znanosti, elektrotehnike, računarstva i građevinarstva, 44(4-SI 2024), 77-90.
32. Puška, A., Nedeljković, M., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., ve Simić, V. (2024). Application of the new simple weight calculation (SIWEC) method in the case study in the sales channels of agricultural products. MethodsX, 13, 102930.
33. Puška, A., Štilić, A., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., ve Nedeljković, M. (2024). Introducing a Novel multi-criteria Ranking of Alternatives with Weights of Criterion (RAWEC) model. MethodsX, 12, 102628, 1-13.
34. Sata, M. (2013). Factors affecting consumer buying behavior of mobile phone devices. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(12), 103-112.
35. Thapliyal, K., Thapliyal, M., ve Thapliyal, D. (2024). Social media and health communication: A review of advantages, challenges, and best practices. Emerging Technologies for Health Literacy and Medical Practice, 364-384.
36. Tulsky, J. A. (2005). Beyond advance directives: importance of communication skills at the end of life. Jama, 294(3), 359-365.
37. Webtekno, 15 Aralık 2024 tarihinde https://www.webtekno.com/en-cok-satan-telefon-markalari-h123250.html adresinden erişim sağlandı.
38. Webtekno, 15 Ocak 2025 tarihinde https://www.webtekno.com/2024-en-cok-satan-telefon-markalari-h154490.html adresinden erişim sağlandı.
39. Webtekno, 15 Ocak 2025 tarihinde https://www.webtekno.com/turkiye-en-cok-satan-akilli-telefon-markalari-h143084.html adresinden erişim sağlandı.
40. Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Montero-Simo, M. J., ve Araque-Padilla, R. A. (2019). An integrated multi-attribute model for evaluation of sustainable mobile phone. Sustainability, 11(13), 3704.
41. Yildiz, A., ve Ergul, E. U. (2015). A two-phased multi-criteria decision-making approach for selecting the best smartphone. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 26(3), 194-215.