-

Öz

Statistical software is commonly used in the statistical lessons at universities. The developments and enhancement in statistical software in recent years has considerably eased statistics education in these institutions. The purpose of this study is to develop an evaluation model considering the quantitative and qualitative criteria for statistical software selection in an outsourcing user of these programs variety fields, especially in education. An integrated model is proposed by combining Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Grey Relation Analysis (GRA) into a single evaluation model. The model is illustrated with a case study of a team of five people including academics and software developers well versed in the use and development of such software to demonstrate the effectiveness of this integrated method. AHP has been applied to determining weight of criteria and GRA has been performed for determining the most appropriate statistical software. The results indicate that when analysis characteristics are the main criteria with the highest priority, financial and vendor firm characteristics are the main criteria with the lowest priorities. Also according to GRA results, the most appropriate statistical software is SPSS and Statgraph is in last rank with a low level of significance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Statistics education, statistical software, analytic hierarchy process, grey relation analysis.

A Multi Criteria Approach For Statistical Software Selection in Education

Öz

İstatistiksel yazılımlar, üniversitelerdeki istatistik derslerinde sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Son yıllarda istatistik yazılımlarının iyileştirilerek geliştirilmesi, bu kurumlarda verilen istatistik eğitimini de büyük ölçüde kolaylaştırmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, eğitim başta olmak üzere çok çeşitli alanlarda kullanılan istatistiksel yazılımların seçimi için nicel ve nitel kriterlerin bir arada değerlendirildiği bir model geliştirmektir. Çalışmada Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHS) ve Gri İlişkisel Analizin (GİA) birlikte kullanımıyla bütünleşik bir model önerisinde bulunulmuştur. Söz konusu modelin etkililiğini ortaya koyabilmek için, gerek kullanıcı gerekse programcı olarak uzman olan akademisyenler ve programcılardan oluşan beş kişilik bir ekiple bir örnek olay uygulaması yapılmıştır. Kriterlerin ağırlıklarını belirlemek için AHS, en uygun istatistiksel yazılım seçimini gerçekleştirmek için ise GİA kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, en yüksek önceliğe sahip olan ana kriterin analiz özellikleri, en düşük önceliklere sahip olan ana kriterlerin ise finansal özellikler ile satıcı firma özellikleri olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Aynı zamanda GİA sonuçlarına göre SPSS en uygun istatistiksel yazılım olarak belirlenirken, Statgraph en düşük önem derecesine sahip yazılım olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İstatistik eğitimi, istatistiksel yazılım, analitik hiyerarşi süreci, gri ilişkisel analiz.

Kaynakça

1. Altman, M. & Mcdonald, M. (2001). Choosing reliable statistical software, PS: Political Sci. Politics, 43 (3), 681–687. Altuzarra, A., Maria, J., Jimenez, M. & Salvador, M. (2007). A Bayesian priorization procedure for AHP-group decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 182 (1), 367-382.
2. Ayağ, Z. ve Özdemir, R.G. (2007). An intelligent approach to ERP software selection through fuzzy ANP, International Journal of Production Research, 45 (10), 2169-2194.
3. Başlıgil, H. (2005). Bulanık AHP ile yazılım seçimi, Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 3, 27–33.
4. Chang, C.W., Wu, C.R., Lin, C.T. & Chen, H.C. (2007). An application of AHP and sensitivity analysis for selecting the best slicing machines, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 52 (3), 296–307.
5. Chou, T.Y., Lin, W.T., Lin, C.Y., Chou, W.C. & Huang, P.H. (2004). Application of the PROMETHEE technique to determine depression outlet location and flow direction in DEM, Journal of Hydrology, 287, 49–61.
6. Çörekçioğlu, M. ve Güngör, A. (2005). ERP yazılımı seçiminde Analitik Hiyerarşi Sürecinin kullanımı, 4. Üretim Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, 8–10 Ekim, Konya, 2-4.
7. Deng, J. (1989). Introduction to Grey System Theory, The Journal of Grey System, 1 (1), 1-24.
8. Dielman, T. (2002). The numerical accuracy of statistical calculations in Excel 2000 and Minitab version, Journal of Business and Management, 8 (2), 199–207.

9. Forman, E. & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 108 (1), 165–169.
10. Girginer, N. ve Kaygısız, Z. (2009). İstatistiksel yazılım seçiminde Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci ve 0-1 Hedef Programlama yöntemlerinin birlikte kullanımı, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (1), 211-2
11. Hsia, K.H. & Wu, J.H. (1997). A study on the data preprocessing in Grey Relational Analysis, Journal of Chinese Grey System, 1, 47–53.
12. Jalal, N. & Ray, J.P. (1999). Software selection for simulation in manufacturing: A review, Simulation Practice and Theory, 7 (1), 1-14.
13. Javalgi, R.G, Armacost, R.L. & Hosseini, J.C. (1989). Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for bank management: analysis of customer bank selection decisions, Journal of Business Research, 19 (1), 33-49.
14. Keeling, K.B. & Pavur, R.J. (2007). A comparative study of the reliability of nine statistical software packages, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51 (8), 3811-3831.
15. Kitchen, A. M., Dranchenberg, R. & Symnazik, J. (2003). Assessing the reliability of web-based statistical software, Computational Statistics, 18 (1), 107–122.
16. Koçak, A. (2003). Yazılım seçiminde Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi yaklaşımı ve bir uygulama, Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 3 (1), 67–77.
17. Kusters, U., Mccullough, B.D. & Bell, M. (2006). Forecasting software: Past, present and future, International Journal of Forecasting, 22, 599–615.
18. Lai, S.V, Trueblood, P.R. & Wong, K. B. (1999). Software selection: A case study of the AHP to the selection of a multimedia authoring system, Information and Management, 36, 221-232.
19. Lai, S.V, Wong, K. B. & Cheung, W. (2002). Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection, European Journal of Operational Research, 137 (1), 134-144.
20. Lee, M., Pham, H. & Zhang, X. (1999). A methodology for priority setting with application to software development process, European Journal of Operational Research, 118 (2), 375-389.
21. Lee, H. S., Shen, P. D. and Chih, W. L. (2004), A fuzzy multiple criteria decision making model for software selection, 2004 IEEE International Conference (1098-7584), 25-29 July, 3, 1709-1713.
22. Lipovetsky, S. (1996). The Synthetic Hierarchy Method: An optimizing approach to obtaining priorities in the AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 93 (3), 550-564.
23. Macharis C., Springael J., De Brucker K. & Verbeke A. (2004). PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 153 (2), 307–317.
24. Mulabeke, J.A.W. & Zheng, L. (2006). Analytic network process for software selection in product development: A case study, Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 23, 337-352.
25. Perera, H.S.C. & Costa, W.K.R. (2008). Analytic Hierarchy Process for selection of ERP software for manufacturing companies, The Journal of Business Perspective, 12 (4), 1-11.
26. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York.
27. Saaty, T.L. (1990). Eigenvector and logarithmic least squares, European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 156– 160.
28. Saaty, T.L. (1994). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the AHP. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A.
29. Saaty, T.L. (2000). Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
30. Santhanam, R. & Kyparisis, G.J. (1996). A decision model for interdependent information system project selection, European Journal of Operational Research, 89 (2), 380-399.
31. Tung, S.L. & Tang, S.L. (1998). A comparison of the Saaty's AHP and modified AHP for Right and left eigenvector inconsistency, European Journal of Operational Research, 106 (1), 123–128.
32. Wu, W.Y., Shih, H.A. & Chan, H.C. (2008). The Analytic Network Process for partner selection criteria in strategic alliances, Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (3), 4646–4653.
33. Wu, C.R., Lin, C.T. & Tsai, P.H. (2010). Evaluating business performance of wealth management banks, European Journal of Operational Research, 207 (2), 971-979.
34. Wei, C.C., Chien, C.F. & Wang, M.J. (2005). An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection, International Journal of Production Economics, 96, 47-62.
35. Yazgan, H.R., Boran, S. ve Göztepe, K. (2009). An ERP software selection process with using artificial neural network based on Analytic Network Process approach, Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (5), 9214–9222