PRIORITIZING THE INTERNAL AUDIT UNIVERSE IN A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY: AN INTEGRATED AHP–TOPSIS APPROACH

Year 2025, Volume: 21 Issue: 1, 28 - 33, 30.07.2025

Yusuf Cakiroglu Hüseyin Selçuk Kılıç , Zeynep Tuğçe Kalender , Nur Beser

Abstract

Purpose- The purpose of this study is to determine which units should be primarily applied to the internal audit universe in the pharmaceutical company where the application is carried out, with the support of the top management and using analytical decision-making methods.
Methodology- In the study, AHP and TOPSIS, which are MCDM methods, were used together. In the first stage, the criteria affecting the internal audit were weighted with the AHP method; then, the sub-units of the company were evaluated concerning the results of the TOPSIS method.
Findings- As a result of the analyses, the most critical factors affecting the internal audit universe were determined. These findings reveal the basic elements that should be taken into consideration in the internal audit process and contribute to a more systematic structure of corporate audit practices. In addition, it has been shown that a more efficient and target-oriented internal audit process can be carried out with limited human resources with the application of the TOPSIS method. This approach supports the effective use of resources and organizational stability in audit processes.
Conclusion- Based upon the analysis and findings, it may be concluded that objectively weighted criteria with AHP and prioritization with TOPSIS allowed the pharmaceutical company to direct limited audit resources to the highest risk units. The resulting model not only increases stability and efficiency in the existing organizational structure but also provides a transparent, repeatable, and defensible internal audit framework for companies of different sectors and sizes.

Keywords

Audit universe , multi attribute decision making , TOPSIS , AHP

References

• Bota-Avram, C., & Popa, I. (2011). Evolution of internal auditing in Romania: A critical analysis. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 8 (4), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2011.10
• Hwang, C.L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Vol. 186, Springer Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
• The Institute of Internal Auditors (2020). Developing a Risk-based Internal Audit Plan. Available at: www.globaliia.org/standards-guidance
• Mumpower, J. L., Phillips, L. D., Renn, O., & Uppuluri, V. R. R. (2012). Expert judgment and expert systems, Vol. 35, Springer Science & Business.
• Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi‐criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics Information Management, 16(6), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576050310503367
• Kahraman, C., Onar, S. C., & Oztaysi, B. (2015). Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: A literature review. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 8(4), 637–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2015.1046325
• Ortakarpuz, M., Allahverdi, M., & Ceran, M. B. (2018). Internal control and internal audit universe, conceptual framework and general review. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328096550
• Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.
• Saaty, T. L., & Sodenkamp, M. (2008). Making decisions in hierarchical and network systems. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, 1(1), 24–79. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJADS.2008.017952
• Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028