Evaluation of the Appointment of Independent Board Members in Entrepreneur Support with Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods

Öz

State authorities provide support to enterprises in various fields in order to promote economic development and employment in the country. The process of providing support consists of the application of enterprises with certain qualifications to public institutions, preliminary examination by the relevant institution, evaluation of the application by a board of independent members according to certain criteria and monitoring the use of the support. The success of the evaluation process significantly depends on the selection of independent board members using scientific methods and the right way. In this study, the appointment process of independent board members who will take part in the evaluation of entrepreneurial support is discussed within the framework of multi-criteria decision-making methods. By using objective and subjective weighting methods, the criteria for appointing independent evaluators and panelists in similar international institutions and academic studies are evaluated. The evaluation results were combined with the Copeland method to obtain a final ranking of criteria to be considered in appointing independent evaluators. Among the 15 criteria, the three most important criteria were determined as “Expertise”, “Experience” and “Academic Knowledge” respectively. Using the determined criteria and importance weights, 85 academicians were evaluated according to objective and subjective data. This comprehensive study aims to look at the appointment of independent evaluators from an analytical perspective.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Independent Assessor Appointment
• Criteria Weighting
• Copeland Method

Girişimci Desteğinde Bağımsız Kurul Üyesi Atanmasının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleriyle Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Devlet otoriteleri ülkede ekonomik kalkınmayı ve istihdamı teşvik amacıyla işletmelere çeşitli alanlarda destek sağlamaktadır. Destek sağlama süreci belirli nitelikteki işletmelerin kamu kurumlarına başvurusu, ilgili kurumca ön inceleme, bağımsız üyelerinden oluşan bir kurul tarafından belirli kriterlere göre başvurunun değerlendirilmesi ve desteğin kullanımının takibinden oluşmaktadır. Değerlendirme sürecinin başarısı bağımsız kurul üyelerinin bilimsel yöntemlerle ve doğru şekilde seçilmesine önemli ölçüde bağlıdır. Bu çalışmada, girişimci desteğinin değerlendirilmesinde görev alacak bağımsız kurul üyelerinin atama süreci, çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri çerçevesinde ele alınmaktadır. Objektif ve subjektif ağırlık belirleme yöntemleriyle uluslararası benzer kurumlarda ve akademik çalışmalarda yer alan bağımsız değerlendirici ve panelist atama kriterleri değerlendirilmiştir. Değerlendirme sonuçları Copeland yöntemi ile birleştirilerek bağımsız değerlendirici atanmasında dikkate alınacak nihai bir kriter sıralaması elde edilmiştir. 15 kriter içerisinde en önemli üç kriter sırasıyla “Uzmanlık”, “Tecrübe” ve “Akademik Bilgiler” olarak tespit edilmiştir. Tespit edilen kriter ve önem ağırlıkları kullanılarak 85 akademisyen objektif ve subjektif verilere göre değerlendirilmiştir. Bu kapsamlı çalışma, bağımsız değerlendirici atama konusuna analitik bir perspektiften bakmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bağımsız Değerlendirici Atama
• Kriter Ağırlıklandırma
• Copeland Yöntemi

Kaynakça

1. ALTINTAŞ, F. F. (2023). A Novel Approach To Measuring Criterion Weights In Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Cubic Effect-Based Measurement (CEBM). Nicel Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 151-195. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.51541/nicel.1349382
2. Altıntaş, F. F. (2024). Analysis of the ocean and marine health performances of 18 countries in the G20 countries: An application using the CEBM-based TOPSIS method. Ege Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences (EgeJFAS)/Su Ürünleri Dergisi, 41(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.41.3.01
3. Alural, B. (2019). KOSGEB kobigel – kobi gelişim destek programı: Bursa ili özelinde bir değerlendirme. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Erişim adresi: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2606864469?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromop enview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses
4. Amin, M. M. ve Dwitayanti, Y. (2023). Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution and Copeland Score for The Selection of Practical Lecturers. In 2023 International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Informations System (ICIMCIS), 102-107, Jakarta Selatan, Endonezya. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMCIS 60089.2023.10349074
5. Arman, K. ve Kundakcı, N. (2023). YENİ BÜTÜNLEŞİK FUCOM-WEDBA YAKLAŞIMI İLE BİR İŞLETME İÇİN BULUT HİZMET SAĞLAYICISI SEÇİMİ. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (56), 281-295. doi: https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1212975
6. Arslan, R. ve Bircan, H. (2020). Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleriyle elde edilen sonuçların Copeland yöntemiyle birleştirilmesi ve karşılaştırılması. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 27(1), 109-127.
7. Asian Development Bank, Guidelines on The Use of Consultants by Asian Development Bank and Its Borrowers. Erişim adresi: Guidelines on the Use of Consultants by Asian Development Bank and Its Borrowers. (Erişim Tarihi: 26.05.2024).
8. Atçı, S. H. ve Atalay, K. D. (2022). Web sitesi tasarım aşamasındaki kriterlerin önem derecelerinin GB-FUCOM ile belirlenmesi. Journal of Turkish Operations Management (JTOM), 6(1). Erişim adresi: https://research.ebsco.com/c/zocrj4/viewer/pdf/smnfrcha6n

9. Aykan, E., Aksoylu, S. ve Sönmez, E. (2013). Effects of support programs on corporate strategies of small and medium-sized enterprises. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 938-946. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.567
10. Bagheri, F., Buscaldi, D., & Reforgiato Recupero, D. (2025). Leveraging knowledge graphs and LLMs for contentbased reviewer assignment. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 1-29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844- 025-01004-9
11. Biswas, S., Bandyopadhyay, G. ve Mukhopadhyaya, J. N. (2022). A multi-criteria based analytic framework for exploring the impact of Covid-19 on firm performance in emerging market. Decision Analytics Journal, 5, 100143. doi: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772662222000741 Bouanane, K., Medakene, A. N., Benbelghit, A., & Belhaouari, S. B. (2024). FairColor: An efficient algorithm for the balanced and fair reviewer assignment problem. Information Processing & Management, 61(6), 103865. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103865
12. Božanić, D., Jurišić, D. ve Erkić, D. (2020). LBWA–Z-MAIRCA model supporting decision making in the army. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(2), 87-110. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.31181/oresta2003087b
13. Božanić, D., Pamucar, D., Badi, I. ve Tešić, D. (2023). A decision support tool for oil spill response strategy selection: application of LBWA and Z MABAC methods. Opsearch, 60(1), 24-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12597-022-00605-0
14. Cagliero, L., Garza, P., Pasini, A. ve Baralis, E. (2018). Additional reviewer assignment by means of weighted association rules. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 9(1), 329-341. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TETC.2018.2861214
15. Çakır, E. (2017). Kriter ağırlıklarının SWARA–Copeland yöntemi ile belirlenmesi: Bir üretim işletmesinde uygulama. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(1), 42-56. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.30803/adusobed.309069
16. Demir, G. ve Bircan, H. (2020). Kriter ağirliklandirma yöntemlerinden bwm ve fucom yöntemlerinin karşilaştirilmasi ve bir uygulama. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2), 170-185. doi: https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.616766
17. Djekic, I., Lorenzo, J. M., Munekata, P. E., Gagaoua, M. ve Tomasevic, I. (2021). Review on characteristics of trained sensory panels in food science. Journal of Texture Studies, 52(4), 501-509. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ jtxs.12616
18. Duan, Z., Tan, S., Zhao, S., Wang, Q., Chen, J. ve Zhang, Y. (2019). Reviewer assignment based on sentence pair modeling. Neurocomputing, 366, 97-108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.06.074
19. Esmer, Y. ve Özdaşlı, K. (2023). Bilimsel araştırmalarda etik: Kavramlar ve ilkeler. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 13(3), 397 – 409. doi: https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1291201
20. Feizi, F., Karbalaei-Ramezanali, A. A. ve Farhadi, S. (2021). FUCOM-MOORA and FUCOM-MOOSRA: new MCDM-based knowledge-driven procedures for mineral potential mapping in greenfields. SN Applied Sciences, 3, 1-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04342-9
21. Geyik, S. K., Satman, M. H. ve Kalyoncu, G. (2022). G20 Ülkelerinin Covid-19 Pandemisi ile Mücadele Performanslarının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Değerlendirilmesi. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, (37), 27-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1161945
22. Gligorić, Z., Gligorić, M., Miljanović, I., Lutovac, S. ve Milutinović, A. (2023). Assessing Criteria Weights by the Symmetry Point of Criterion (Novel SPC Method)--Application in the Efficiency Evaluation of the Mineral Deposit Multi-Criteria Partitioning Algorithm. CMES-Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 136(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2023.025021
23. Guillén-Mena, V., Quesada-Molina, F., Astudillo-Cordero, S., Lema, M. ve Ortiz-Fernández, J. (2023). Lessons learned from a study based on the AHP method for the assessment of sustainability in neighborhoods. MethodsX, 11, 102440. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102440
24. Güler, P. (2017). Türkiye’de kobi’ lere sağlanan finansal destek programları ve KOSGEB destekleri. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Erişim adresi: https://acikerisim.ticaret.edu.tr/server/api/core/bitstreams/e1fccd81-4a65-4c18-b6eed47a651e7e8f/ content Hoang, D. T., Nguyen, N. T., Collins, B. ve Hwang, D. (2021). Decision support system for solving reviewer assignment problem. Cybernetics and Systems, 52 (5): 379 - 397.
25. International Development Research Centre. Erişim adresi: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/server/api/ %20core/bitstreams/3587fa9e-cb59-4b37-aae2-69cbd0101294/content. (Erişim Tarihi:21.05.2024). Irish Research Council. Guide For Assessors 2024. Erişim adresi: https://research.ie/assets/uploads/2024/01/ Guide-for-Assessors_COALESCE_2024-2.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi:26.05.2024).
26. Ishag, M. I. M., Park, K. H., Lee, J. Y. ve Ryu, K. H. (2019). A pattern-based academic reviewer recommendation combining author-paper and diversity metrics. IEEE Access, 7, 16460-16475. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2019.2894680
27. Jakovljevic, V., Zizovic, M., Pamucar, D., Stević, Ž. ve Albijanic, M. (2021). Evaluation of human resources in transportation companies using multi-criteria model for ranking alternatives by defining relations between ideal and anti-ideal alternative (RADERIA). Mathematics, 9(9), 976. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/math9090976
28. Janprasert, B., Lawthong, N. ve Ngudgratoke, S. (2020). Examining and controlling rater severity and leniency effects on alignment evaluation between science items and science learning indicators using many-facets Rasch modeling. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 41(3), 592-597. Erişim adresi: https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index. php/kjss/article/view/247652/168156
29. Jin, J., Niu, B., Ji, P. ve Geng, Q. (2020). An integer linear programming model of reviewer assignment with research interest considerations. Annals of Operations Research, 291, 409-433. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s 10479-018-2919-7
30. Jokić, Ž., Božanić, D. ve Pamučar, D. (2021). Selection of fire position of mortar units using LBWA and Fuzzy MABAC model. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 4(1), 115-135. doi: https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta20401156j
31. Kat, B. (2021). An algorithm and a decision support system for the panelist assignment problem: The case of TUBITAK. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 36(1), 69-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.631071
32. Kılıçarslan, A. (2023). Yenilenebilir enerji sektörü şirketlerinin finansal performans analizi: Borsa İstanbul’da bir uygulama. Kastamonu üniversitesi iktisadi ve idari bilimler fakültesi dergisi, 25(1), 232-253. doi: 10.21180/iibfdkastamonu.1191441
33. Koçak, S., İç, Y. T., Atalay, K. D., Sert, M. ve Dengiz, B. (2021). The development of a reviewer selection method: a multi-level hesitant fuzzy VIKOR and TOPSIS approaches. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 1-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-03466-5
34. Kosgeb, Erişim adresi: https://www.kosgeb.gov.tr/site/tr/genel/destekler/3/destekler. (Erişim Tarihi: 08.12.2023).
35. Latypova, V. (2023a). Decision-Making Support in Optimal Multicriteria Peer Reviewer Selection in Scientific Conference Organization. In 2023 5th International Conference on Control Systems, Mathematical Modeling, Automation and Energy Efficiency (SUMMA), 383-386, Lipetsk, Rusya Federasyonu. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1109/SUMMA60232.2023.10349642
36. Latypova, V. (2023b). Reviewer assignment decision support in an academic journal based on multicriteria assessment and text mining. In 2023 IX International Conference on Information Technology and Nanotechnology (ITNT), 1-4, Samara, Rusya Federasyonu. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ITNT57377.2023.10139187 Leyton-Brown, K., Nandwani, Y., Zarkoob, H., Cameron, C., Newman, N. ve Raghu, D. (2024). Matching papers and reviewers at large conferences. Artificial Intelligence, 331, 104119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.artint.2024.104119
37. Liu, X., Wang, X. ve Zhu, D. (2022). Reviewer recommendation method for scientific research proposals: a case for NSFC. Scientometrics, 127(6), 3343-3366. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04389-4 Mercan, T. ve Can, A. (2023). İşgören Seçiminde Etkili Olan Faktörlerin FUCOM Yöntemi ile Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Havayolu İşletmesinde Uygulama. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 14(40), 1311-1329. doi: https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1271318 Nguyen, J., Sánchez-Hernández, G., Agell, N., Rovira, X. ve Angulo, C. (2018). A decision support tool using Order Weighted Averaging for conference review assignment. Pattern Recognition Letters, 105, 114-120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2017.09.020
38. Özdağoğlu, A. ve Keleş, M. K. (2021). Dünyanın En İşlek Havalimanlarının Pıprecıa-E, Smart Ve Marcos Yöntemleri İle Değerlendirilmesi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (58), 333-352. doi: https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.856842
39. Özekenci, E. K. (2024). Personnel Selection Based on the LBWA, TOPSIS and GRA Methods: A Case Study on Foreign Trade Company. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(2), 646-665. doi: https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1411468 Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž. ve Sremac, S. (2018). A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in mcdm models: Full consistency method (fucom). Symmetry, 10(9), 393. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
40. Patil, A. H. ve Mahalle, P. N. (2021). Multi-label reviewer profile building and ranking based on expertise, recency, authority and h-index: vital module of reviewer paper assignment. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(6), 3026-3035. Erişim adresi: https://www.proquest.com/docview/ 2623922785?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., Mimović, P., Milovanovic, G., Karabasevic, D., Brzakovic, P. ve Brzakovic, A. (2021).
41. An integrated SWOT–extended PIPRECIA model for identifying key determinants of tourism development: The case of Serbia. doi: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.9271
42. Pradhan, T., Sahoo, S., Singh, U. ve Pal, S. (2021). A proactive decision support system for reviewer recommendation in academia. Expert Systems with Applications, 169, 114331. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eswa.2020.114331
43. Saari, D. G. ve Merlin, V. R. (1996). The copeland method: I.: Relationships and the dictionary. Economic theory, 8, 51-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01212012
44. Sintaro, S. ve Aldino, A. A. (2023). MCDM Using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory and PIPRECIA in Customer Loan Eligibility Recommendations. Journal of Informatics, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, 3(2), 212-220. doi: https://doi.org/10.47065/jieee.v3i2.1628
45. Soygüder, S. ve Geçer, E. (2023). Application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in supplier selection. Journal of Optimization and Decision Making, 2(2), 349-356. https://izlik.org/JA77AM53KN
46. Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Karabasevic, D., Smarandache, F. ve Turskis, Z. (2017). The use of the pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment method for determining the weights of criteria. Infinite Study.
47. Erişim adresi: https://ipe.ro/rjef/rjef4_17/rjef4_2017p116-133.pdf
48. 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. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics4010004
49. Taherdoost, H. ve Madanchian, M. (2023). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and concepts. Encyclopedia, 3(1), 77-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006
50. Tešić, D., Delibašić, B., Božanić, D., Lojić, R., Pamučar, D. ve Balassa, B. E. (2023). Application of the FUCOMFUZZY MAIRCA Model in Human Resource Management. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 20(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.12700/APH.20.3.2023.3.14
51. UK Research and Innovation, Erişim adresi: https://www.ukri.org/councils/epsrc/guidance-for-reviewers/%20 peer-review-panels/panel-member-selection-and-participant-roles/. (Erişim Tarihi: 31.01. 2024).
52. Uslu, G. ve Erdebilli, B. (2024). FUZZY FUCOM yöntemi kullanarak itfaiye istasyonu yer seçiminin incelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(4), 2373-2382. doi: https://doi.org/10.17341/ gazimmfd.1273322
53. Van Dua, T. (2023). Combination of symmetry point of criterion, compromise ranking of alternatives from distance to ideal solution and collaborative unbiased rank list integration methods for woodworking machinery selection for small business in Vietnam. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, (2), 83-96. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.21303/2461-4262.2023.002763
54. Vinogradova-Zinkevič, I. (2024). Centroidous Method for Determining Objective Weights. Mathematics, 12(14), 2269. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/math12142269
55. Yarlıkaş, S. ve Arslaner, C. (2019). SWARA ve COPELAND Yöntemleri ile Global Tedarik Zinciri Yönetimini Etkileyen Faktörlerin Önem Düzeylerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(4), 83-104. doi: https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.668624
56. Yue, M., Tian, K. ve Ma, T. (2017). An accurate and impartial expert assignment method for scientific project review. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2(4), 65-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0020
57. Žižović, M. ve Pamucar, D. (2019). New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(2), 126-137. doi: https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1902102z