THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF MUNICIPALITIES WITH VIKOR: AN APPLICATION AMONG MUNICIPALITIES IN ISTANBUL

Abstract

Performance evaluation systems play an important role for the development of institutions. It has widely been used in the special sector for a long time but can be regarded as new for the public institutions as a result of the legal compulsories. Performance of each individual municipality is important. However, the performance of the other similar municipalities is a good indicator for obtaining a relative evaluation based on benchmarking. With this study, it is aimed to assess the performance of the municipalities with VIKOR multi-criteria decision making method where nearness to ideal solution is regarded. For this aim, an application is performed among the municipalities in İstanbul. For the proper performance indicators already in literature, the required steps of VIKOR method are executed for ranking the municipalities. Moreover, a comparison is performed with the studies using different decision making methods

Keywords

• Performance evaluation, local government, VIKOR, multi-criteria decision making

Kaynakça

1. Adler, Ralph W. (2011), “Performance management and organizational strategy: How to design systems that meet the needs of confrontation strategy firms”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 43, pp.251-263.
2. Aguinis, Herman, Joo, Harry, Gottfredson, Ryan K. (2011), “Why we hate performance management-And why we should love it”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54, pp.503-507
3. Alioğlu, Emre (2006), “Belediyelerde performans ölçümü için çok ölçütlü bulanık bir model önerisi”, Master thesis, İTÜ.
4. Black, Stewart, Senga Briggs and William Keogh (2001), “Service quality performance measurement in public/private sectors”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp.400-405.
5. Bruijn, Hans de (2002), “Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement”, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp.578-594.
6. Chen, Lisa Y. & Tien-Chin Wang (2009), “Optimizing Partners’ Choice in IS/IT
7. Outsourcing Process: The Strategic Decision of Fuzzy VIKOR”, International
8. Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 120, No. 1, pp.233-242.

9. Devi, Kavita (2011), “Extension of VIKOR method in intuitionistic fuzzy environment for robot selection”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, No. 11, pp.14163-14168.
10. Greiling, Dorothea (2005), “Performance measurement in the public sector: the German experience”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54, No.7, pp.551-567.
11. Kaya, Tolga & Cengiz Kahraman (2010), “Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR&AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul”, Energy, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.2517-2527.
12. Kılıç, Hüseyin Selçuk (2011), “A fuzzy AHP Based Performance Assessment System for the Strategic Plan of Turkish Municipalities”, International Journal of Business and Management Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.77-86.
13. Liou, James J. H., Chieh-Yuan Tsai, Rong-Ho Lin, Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng (2011), “A modified VIKOR multiple-criteria decision method for improving domestic airlines service quality”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.57-61.
14. Lixin, Dai, Liu Ying & Zhang Zhiguang (2008), “Selection of Logistics Service
15. Provider Based On Analytic Network Process and VIKOR Algorithm”, Networking,
16. Sensing and Control, ICNSC 2008- IEEE International Conference Proceedings, pp.1207- 1210.
17. Mimba, Ni Putu S.H., G. Jan van Helden and Sandra Tillema (2007), “Public sector performance measurement in developing countries, A literature review and research agenda”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.192- 208.
18. Opricovic, Serafim (1998), “Multi-Criteria Optimization of Civil Engineering
19. Systems”, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade.
20. Opricovic, Serafim & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng (2004), “Compromise Solution by
21. MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS”, European
22. Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 156, No. 2, pp.445-455.
23. Opricovic, Serafim & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng (2007), “Extended VIKOR Method in
24. Comparison with Other Outranking Methods”, European Journal of Operational
25. Research, Vol. 178, No. 2, pp.514-529.
26. Opricovic, Serafim (2011), “Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38, No. 10, pp.12983-12990.
27. Pollanen, Raili M. (2005), “Performance measurement in municipalities: Empirical evidence in Canadian context”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.4-24.
28. Rantanen, Hannu, Harri I. Kulmala, Antti Lönnqvist and Paula Kujansivu (2007), “Performance measurement systems in the Finnish public sector”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp.415-433.
29. Sotirakou, Tatiana and Mary Zeppou (2006), “Utilizing performance measurement to modernize the Greek public sector”, Management Decision, Vol. 44, No. 9, pp.1277- 1304.
30. Yalcin, Nese, Ali Bayrakdaroglu and Cengiz Kahraman (2012), “Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods for financial performance evaluation of Turkish manufacturing industries”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp.350-364.