Innovative and Entrepreneurial University Analysis by CRITIC Based MARCOS Method

Öz

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the innovation and entrepreneurship performances of universities in 2020. Methodology: Criterion weights are calculated with the CRITIC method and the university performances is ranked by the MARCOS method. Findings: The most important criterion is determined as the intellectual property pool criterion. Middle East Technical University, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University and Istanbul Technical University have been identified as leading universities. Practical Implications: By addressing the innovation and entrepreneurship weaknesses of universities, improvement suggestions can be developed. Originality: It is the first study in innovation/entrepreneurship field with the MARCOS method based on the new evaluation methodology of TÜBİTAK.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Innovative University
• Entrepreneurial University
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making
• CRITIC
• MARCOS.

CRITIC Temelli MARCOS Yöntemi ile Yenilikçi ve Girişimci Üniversite Analizi

Öz

Amaç: Çalışmada ülkemizdeki üniversitelerin 2020 yılı yenilikçilik ve girişimcilik performanslarının değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Değerlendirme sürecinde kriter ağırlıkları CRITIC yöntemiyle hesaplanmış, üniversitelerin performans düzeyi sıralaması ise MARCOS yöntemiyle elde edilmiştir. Bulgular: En önemli kriterin fikri mülkiyet havuzu kriteri olduğu saptanmıştır. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent Üniversitesi ve İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi yenilikçilik ve girişimcilik açısından önde gelen üniversiteler olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç ve Öneriler: Yenilikçilik ve girişimcilik anlamında eksiklikleri saptanan üniversitelerin zayıf yönleri ele alınarak iyileştirme önerileri geliştirilebilir. Özgün Değer: TÜBİTAK 2020 yılı yeni değerlendirme metodolojisini esas alarak MARCOS yöntemi ile yenilikçilik/girişimcilik alanında yapılan ilk çalışma olması nedeniyle literatüre katkı sağlanacağı ümit edilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yenilikçi Üniversite
• Girişimci Üniversite
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• CRITIC
• MARCOS.

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, S., Bingöl, S. ve Wakeel, S. (2020), “A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method for Robot Selection in Flexible Manufacturing System”, Middle East Journal of Science, 6(2), 68-77.
2. Anokhin, S. ve Schulze, W. S. (2009), “Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Corruption”, Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 465-476.
3. Aytaç, Ö. ve İlhan, S. (2007), “Girişimcilik ve Girişimci Kültür: Sosyolojik Bir Perspektif”, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (18), 101-120.
4. Badi, I. ve Pamucar, D. (2020), “Supplier Selection for Steelmaking Company by Using Combined Grey-MARCOS Methods”, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 37-48.
5. Belke, M. (2020), “CRITIC ve MAIRCA Yöntemleriyle G7 Ülkelerinin Makroekonomik Performansının Değerlendirilmesi”, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19 (Temmuz 2020 (Özel Ek)), 120-139.
6. Biswas, S. (2020), “Measuring Performance of Healthcare Supply Chains in India: A Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods”, Decision Making:Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 162-189.
7. Bukhari, E., Dabic, M., Shifrer, D., Daim, T. ve Meissner, D. (2021), “Entrepreneurial University: The Relationship Between Smart Specialization Innovation Strategies and University-region Collaboration”, Technology in Society, 65, 101560.
8. Chattopadhyay, R., Chakraborty, S. ve Chakraborty, S. (2020), “An Integrated D-MARCOS Method for Supplier Selection in an Iron and Steel Industry”, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 49-69.

9. Clark, B. R. (1998), “The Entrepreneurial University: Demand and Response”, Tertiary Education and Management, 4(1), 5-16.
10. Crumpton, M. A. (2012), “Innovation and Entrepreneurship”, The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 25(3), 98 – 101.
11. Đalić, I., Stević, Ž., Erceg, Ž., Macura, P. ve Terzić, S. (2020), “Selection of a Distribution Channel Using the Integrated FUCOM-MARCOS Model”, Faculty of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship, (3-4), 80-96.
12. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G. ve Papayannakis, L. (1995), “Determining Objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: The CRITIC Method”, Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
13. Er, F. ve Yıldız, E. (2018), “Türkiye Girişimci ve Yenilikçi Üniversite Endeksi 2016 ve 2017 Sonuçlarının ORESTE ve Faktör Analizi ile İncelenmesi”, Alphanumeric Journal, 6(2), 293-310.
14. Etzkowitz, H. ve Klofsten, M. (2005), “The Innovating Region: Toward a Theory of Knowledge‐based Regional Development”, R&D Management, 35(3), 243-255.
15. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. ve Terra, B. R. C. (2000), “The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm”, Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330.
16. Guerrero, M. ve Urbano, D. (2012), “The Development of an Entrepreneurial University”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43-74.
17. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M. ve Mian, S. (2016), “Entrepreneurial Universities: Emerging Models in the New Social and Economic Landscape”, Small Business Economics, 47(3), 551-563.
18. Hannon, P. D. (2013), “Why is the Entrepreneurial University Important?”, Journal of Innovation Management, 1(2), 10-17.
19. Işık, Ö. (2019), “Türkiye’de Hayat Dışı Sigorta Sektörünün Finansal Performansının CRITIC Tabanlı TOPSIS ve MULTIMOORA Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi”, Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(1), 542-562.
20. İraz, R. (2005), “İşletmelerde Bilgi Yönetiminin Yenilik ve Rekabet Gücü Üzerindeki Etkileri”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 243-258.
21. Karagöz, Ö. S., Kocakoç, İ. D. ve Birecikli, Ş. Ü. (2020), “Girişimcilik ve Yenilikçilik Faaliyetleri Odağında Türkiye’deki Üniversitelerin Etkinlik Analizi”, İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 35(4), 713-723.
22. Klofsten, M., Fayolle, A., Guerrero, M., Mian, S., Urbano, D. ve Wright, M. (2019), “The Entrepreneurial University as Driver for Economic Growth and Social Change-Key Strategic Challenges”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 149-158.
23. Klofsten, M. ve Jones-Evans, D. (2000), “Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe–The Case of Sweden and Ireland”, Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299-309.
24. Kirby, D. A. (2002), Entrepreneurship, Mcgraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
25. Liaw, C. F., Hsu, W. C. J. ve Lo, H. W. (2020), “A Hybrid MCDM Model to Evaluate and Classify Outsourcing Providers in Manufacturing”, Symmetry, 12(12), 1962.
26. Madenoğlu, F. S. (2020), “Dengeli Puan Kart-AHP-MARCOS Yöntemlerine Dayalı Tedarikçi Seçimi”, Economics Business and Organization Research, 2(2), 99-120.
27. Mazdeh, M. M., Razavi, S. M., Hesamamiri, R., Zahedi, M. R. ve Elahi, B. (2013), “An Empirical Investigation of Entrepreneurship Intensity in Iranian State Universities”, Higher Education, 65(2), 207-226
28. Minouei, A. ve Rozan, M. Z. (2018), “University Entrepreneurship Center Identity Factors Prioritization Using TOPSIS Method”, Int. J. Eng. Technol, 7(3), 1325-1331.
29. Nguyen, T. K. L., Le, H. N., Ngo, V. H. ve Hoang, B. A. (2020), “CRITIC Method and Grey System Theory in the Study of Global Electric Cars”, World Electric Vehicle Journal, 11(4), 79.
30. Opriovic, S. ve Tzeng, G.H. (2004), “Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS”, European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455.
31. Ömürbek, N. ve Karataş, T. (2018), “Girişimci ve Yenilikçi Üniversitelerin Performanslarının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri ile Değerlendirilmesi, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(24), 176-198.
32. Pamucar, D., Iordache, M., Deveci, M., Schitea, D. ve Iordache, I. (2020), “A New Hybrid Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Methodology Model for Prioritizing the Alternatives of the Hydrogen Bus Development: A Case Study From Romania”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 1-22.
33. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’este, P., ... ve Sobrero, M. (2013), “Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University–Industry Relations”, Research policy, 42(2), 423-442.
34. Pickernell, D., Ishizaka, A., Huang, S. ve Senyard, J. (2019), “Entrepreneurial University Strategies in the UK Context: Towards a Research Agenda”, Management Decision, 57(12), 3426-3446.
35. Raad, N. G. ve Shirazi, M. A. (2020), “A Project Portfolio Selection Framework for Transforming Iranian Universities into Entrepreneurial Institutions”, Journal of Industry-University Collaboration, 2(1), 2-21.
36. Samadi-Miarkolaei, H. ve Samadi-Miarkolaei, H. (2018), “The Ranking and Comparison of Mazandaran Province Universities in the Field of Academic Entrepreneurship”, Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 18, 487-495.
37. Shane, S. ve Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research”, Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
38. Stević, Ž. ve Brković, N. (2020), “A Novel Integrated FUCOM-MARCOS Model for Evaluation of Human Resources in a Transport Company”, Logistics, 4(1), 4.
39. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A. ve 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.
40. Stević, Ž., Tanackov, I. ve Subotić, M. (2020), “Evaluation of Road Sections in Order Assessment of Traffic Risk: Integrated FUCOM-MARCOS Model”, 1st International Conference on Challenges and New Solutions in Industrial Engineering and Management and Accounting, 1-14, http://www.confima.ir/.
41. Tuş, A. ve Adalı, E. A. (2019), “The New Combination with CRITIC and WASPAS Methods for the Time and Attendance Software Selection Problem”, Opsearch, 56(2), 528-538.
42. Ulutaş, A., Karabasevic, D., Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., Nguyen, P. T. ve Karaköy, Ç. (2020), “Development of a Novel Integrated CCSD-ITARA-MARCOS Decision-Making Approach for Stackers Selection in a Logistics System”, Mathematics, 8(10), 1672.
43. Wu, H. W., Zhen, J. ve Zhang, J. (2020), “Urban Rail Transit Operation Safety Evaluation Based on an Improved CRITIC Method and Cloud Model”, Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management, 16, 100206.
44. Yamamoto, G. T. (2020), “Girişimci Yenilikçi Üniversite”, Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 44-48.
45. Yıldırım, B. F. Y. ve Yıldırım, S. K. (2020), “Yenilikçi ve Girişimci Üniversite Endeksi Verilerinin 2012-2017 Dönem Aralığında ARAS-G Yöntemi ile Değerlendirilmesi”, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 9(2), 166-187.
46. Zandi, I. ve Pahlavani, P. (2021), “Spatial Modeling and Prioritization of Potential Areas for Determining Location of Hospitals by a GIS Based Multi-Criteria Decision Making Analyses: A Case Study: The 5th Region of the Tehran”, Town and Country Planning. doi: 10.22059/jtcp.2021.313899.670175.