Evaluating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Levels in Visegrad Countries: A Performance Analysis Using MPSI-LOPCOW-BSS Framework

Öz

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are the keys to the competitiveness of both states and businesses. The rapid advancements and developments in technology and communication have led to the emergence of information and communication technologies. The policymaking authorities are making the proper arrangements for the maintenance and growth of the infrastructure for information and communication technologies. In this view, the study and assessment of the ICT levels of different countries become a fundamental issue. Therefore, this project is an in-depth study of the Visegrad countries ICT performance, which was analyzed using the selected list of criteria which included; ICT employment, ICT investment, ICT value-added, ICT goods exports, internet access, and home computer access. In this research, the MPSI and LOPCOW methods were applied to determine the weights of the criteria, which were then combined with an aggregation operator to derive the final criteria weights. Soon afterward, the countries' ICT levels were ranked by means of the BSS method. The study proposes an integrated MPSI-LOPCOW-BSS decision support system. As a result of the application, the criterion with the highest weight was found to be "ICT Investment." The country rankings are Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Information and Communication Technology
• Multi-Criteria Decision Methods
• Decision Support Systems
• Visegrad Countries

Visegrad Ülkelerinde Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri (ICT) Düzeylerinin Değerlendirilmesi: MPSI-LOPCOW-BSS Çerçevesini Kullanarak Performans Analizi

Öz

Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri (ICT), hem devletlerin hem de işletmelerin rekabetçiliği için anahtar konumundadır. Teknoloji ve iletişimdeki hızlı gelişmeler, bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin ortaya çıkmasına yol açmıştır. Politika yapıcı otoriteler, bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri altyapısının sürdürülebilirliği ve büyümesi için uygun düzenlemeleri yapmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, farklı ülkelerin ICT düzeylerinin incelenmesi ve değerlendirilmesi temel bir konu haline gelmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu proje Visegrad ülkelerinin ICT performansını derinlemesine incelemektedir. Analiz, ICT istihdamı, ICT yatırımı, ICT katma değeri, ICT mal ihracatı, internet erişimi ve ev bilgisayarı erişimi gibi belirlenen kriterler kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada, kriterlerin ağırlıklarını belirlemek için MPSI ve LOPCOW yöntemleri uygulanmış ve ardından nihai kriter ağırlıklarını elde etmek için bir toplama operatörü ile birleştirilmiştir. Daha sonra, ülkelerin ICT seviyeleri BSS yöntemi ile sıralanmıştır. Çalışma, entegre bir MPSI-LOPCOW-BSS karar destek sistemi önermektedir. Uygulama sonucunda en yüksek ağırlığa sahip kriterin "ICT Yatırımı" olduğu bulunmuştur. Ülke sıralamaları ise Çek Cumhuriyeti, Polonya, Macaristan ve Slovakya'dır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojisi
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri
• Karar Destek Sistemleri
• Visegrad Ülkeleri

Kaynakça

1. Akbulut, O. Y., & Aydın, Y. (2024). A hybrid multidimensional performance measurement model using the MSD-MPSI-RAWEC model for Turkish banks. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 11(3), 1157-1183. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1464469
2. Albiman, M. M., & Sulong, Z. (2017). The linear and non-linear impacts of ICT on economic growth, of disaggregate income groups within SSA region. Telecommunications Policy, 41(7-8), 555-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.07.007
3. Altıntaş, F. F. (2025). Analysis of food security performances of G7 countries: An application with LOPCOW-based DNMA method. ITU Journal of Food Science and Technology, 3(1), 27-42. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/4168546
4. Artan, S., Hayaloğlu, P., & Baltacı, N. (2014). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerindeki gelişmelerin iktisadi büyüme üzerindeki etkisi: Geçiş ekonomileri örneği. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 28(1), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.16951/iibd.40642
5. Bağcı, H. (2025). The importance of digital finance indicators and comparison of digital finance performance using Bulut Scoring System. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 10(1), 432-449. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/4337142
6. Bahnamiri, M. V., Khademabbasi, S., & Valinataj, M. (2015). A multi-criteria decision method using fuzzy TOPSIS technique for ranking countries based on ICT development index (IDI). International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 13(6), 3851-3869.
7. Batbaylı, Ş. (2024). Uluslararası ticarette bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri sektörünün rekabet gücü vet G-8 ülkeleri üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. Studies on Social Science Insights, 4(1), 27-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.53035/SOSSCI.76
8. Biswas, S., Bandyopadhyay, G., & Mukhopadhyaya, J. N. (2022). A multi-criteria framework for comparing dividend pay capabilities: Evidence from Indian FMCG and consumer durable sector. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 5(2), 140-175. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame0306102022b

9. Bulut, T. (2024a). A new quantitative method proposal for evaluation of Turkish health system capacity: Bulut Scoring System (BSS). 6th International Black Sea Modern Scientific Research Congress, Trabzon, 23-25 August 2024 (Session III, Part 1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13871545
10. Bulut, T. (2024b). Bulut Scoring System. In Ş. Yücel, & R. Yücel (Eds.), Nicel karar yöntemleri alanında uluslararası araştırmalar-I (pp. 1-18). Eğitim Yayınevi. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13970751
11. Chen, C. L., Lin, Y. C., Chen, W. H., Chao, C. F., & Pandia, H. (2021). Role of government to enhance digital transformation in small service business. Sustainability, 13(3), 1028. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031028
12. Cheng, C. Y., Chien, M. S., & Lee, C. C. (2021). ICT diffusion, financial development, and economic growth: An international cross-country analysis. Economic Modelling, 94, 662-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.02.008
13. Demir, G. (2022). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojisinin G8 ülkelerindeki gelişiminin değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Business and Communication Studies, 1(2), 165-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/jobacs.67424
14. Dhruva, S., Krishankumar, R., Ravichandran, K. S., Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Gupta, P. (2025). Selection of waste treatment methods for food sources: An integrated decision model using q-rung fuzzy data, LOPCOW, and COPRAS techniques. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-025-03160-6
15. Dündar, S. (2024). Project performance analysis of Turkish universities by LOPCOW-CRADIS methods. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 8(2), 409-425. https://doi.org/10.56554/jtom.1336202
16. Ecemiş, O., & Coşkun, A. (2022). Türkiye’de bilişim teknolojileri kullanımının ÇKKV yöntemleriyle incelenmesi 2014-2021 dönemi. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (37), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1134753
17. Ecer, F., & Güneş, E. (2024). G7 ülkelerinin bilgi iletişim teknoloji düzeylerini belirleme: MEREC-CRITIC entegre ağırlıklı CoCoSo metodolojisi. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 11(1), 219-242. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1281607
18. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, (112), 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
19. Ersoy, N. (2022). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of ICT development in G7 countries. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(25), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2022.003
20. Ersoy, N., Özçalıcı, M., & Trung, D. D. (2025). A hybrid MCDM approach for SDGs assessment of EU countries. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 3(1), 164-186. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap31202637
21. Fernández-Portillo, A., Almodóvar-González, M., & Hernández-Mogollón, R. (2020). Impact of ICT development on economic growth. A study of OECD European union countries. Technology in Society, 63, 101420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101420
22. Gligorić, M., Gligorić, Z., Lutovac, S., Negovanović, M., & Langović, Z. (2022). Novel hybrid MPSI-MARA decision-making model for support system selection in an underground mine. Systems, 10(6), 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10060248
23. Goh, T. T., Yang, B., Yan, Y., & Liu, M. (2024). The complex influence of information communication technology (ICT) on students’ performance in Singapore: Evidence from 2018 PISA data. Computers in the Schools, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2024.2344022
24. Harris, I., Wang, Y., & Wang, H. (2015). ICT in multimodal transport and technological trends: Unleashing potential for the future. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 88-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.005
25. Heeks, R. (2010). Do information and communication technologies (ICTs) contribute to development?. Journal of International Development, 22(5), 625-640. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1716
26. Jin, S., & Cho, C. M. (2015). Is ICT a new essential for national economic growth in an information society?. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.04.007
27. Kara, K., Özyürek, H., & Yalçın, G. C. (2025). Evaluating ESG-based sustainability in software companies: A performance analysis using MPSI-OPLO-POCOD framework. Computer and Decision Making: An International Journal, 2, 570-598. https://doi.org/10.59543/comdem.v2i.13855
28. Karabasevic, D., Radanov, P., Stanujkic, D., Popovic, G., & Predic, B. (2021). Going green: Strategic evaluation of green ICT adoption in the textile industry by using bipolar fuzzy MULTIMOORA method. Industria Textila, 72(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.35530/IT.072.01.1841
29. Keleş, N. (2024). OECD ülkelerinde kullanılan bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleriyle karşılaştırılması. Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 10(2), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.30855/gjeb.2024.10.2.002
30. Klein, M. (2020). İşletmelerin dijital dönüşüm senaryoları-kavramsal bir model önerisi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(74), 997-1019. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.676984
31. Lal, K. (2007). Globalisation and the adoption of ICTs in Nigerian SMEs. Science, Technology and Society, 12(2), 217-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180701200203
32. Macit, N. Ş. (2024). Avrupa ve Orta Asya ülkelerinde BİT gelişmişlik düzeyinin entegre MPSI-RAPS yöntemi ile ölçülmesi. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(29), 24-53. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2024.002
33. Merkevičius, J., & Yadav, R. (2019). Evaluation of ICT usages in virtual business by applying MCDM methods. 22nd Conference for Young Researchers "Science - Future of Lithuania. Economics and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 13-14 February 2019. https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/96143
34. Nasri, S. A., Safaie, N., Sarabi, A., Eghbali, A., & Barkhordari, G. (2022). Performance evaluation of ICT companies using hybrid MCDM method in Iran. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022(1), 5308343. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5308343
35. Nour, S. S. O. M. (2005). Science and technology development indicators in the Arab region: A comparative study of Arab Gulf and Mediterranean countries. Science, Technology and Society, 10(2), 249-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180501000204
36. Özkan, G. S., & Çelik, H. (2018). Bilgi iletişim teknolojileri ile ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye için bir uygulama. Uluslararası Ticaret ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.30711/utead.405474
37. Öztaş, T., & Öztaş, G. Z. (2024). Innovation performance analysis of G20 countries: A novel integrated LOPCOW-MAIRCA MCDM approach including the COVID-19 period. Verimlilik Dergisi, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1320794
38. Perego, A., Perotti, S., & Mangiaracina, R. (2011). ICT for logistics and freight transportation: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(5), 457-483. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031111138826
39. Samargandi, N., Al Mamun, M., Sohag, K., & Alandejani, M. (2019). Women at work in Saudi Arabia: Impact of ICT diffusion and financial development. Technology in Society, 59, 101187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101187
40. Setiawan, H., Istiyanto, J. E., Wardoyo, R., & Santoso, P. (2016). The group decision support system to evaluate the ICT project performance using the hybrid method of AHP, TOPSIS and Copeland score. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2016.070444
41. Setiawansyah, S., Fernando, Y., Wahyudi, A. D., Wibawa, Y. E., & Nuris, N. (2025). Improving decision accuracy through LOPCOW weighting and AROMAN methods in retail store location selection. Jurnal Ilmiah Informatika dan Ilmu Komputer (JIMA-ILKOM), 4(1), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.58602/jima-ilkom.v4i1.57
42. The Visegrad Group. (2025). About the Visegrad Group. Available at: https://www.visegradgroup.eu/home
43. Torkayesh, A. E., & Torkayesh, S. E. (2021). Evaluation of information and communication technology development in G7 countries: An integrated MCDM approach. Technology in Society, 66, 101670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101670
44. Torkayesh, A. E., Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., & Karamaşa, Ç. (2021). Comparative assessment of social sustainability performance: Integrated data-driven weighting system and CoCoSo model. Sustainable Cities and Society, 71, 102975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102975
45. Torres, P. S., Gomes, C. F. S., & Santos, M. D. (2024). Selection of unmanned aerial vehicle systems for border monitoring using the MPSI-SPOTIS method. Journal of Defense Analytics and Logistics, 8(1), 80-104. https://doi.org/10.1108/JDAL-12-2023-0016
46. Ulutaş, A., Balo, F., & Topal, A. (2023). Identifying the most efficient natural fibre for common commercial building insulation materials with an integrated PSI, MEREC, LOPCOW and MCRAT model. Polymers, 15(6), 1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15061500
47. Wang, Q., Hu, S., & Li, R. (2024). Could information and communication technology (ICT) reduce carbon emissions? The role of trade openness and financial development. Telecommunications Policy, 48(3), 102699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102699
48. Wittig Vianna, V., dos Santos, M., Francisco Simões Gomes, C., & Lauro, A. (2025). Application of the MPSI-CoCoSo method to rank OECD member countries towards the energy transition. Computational Economics, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-025-10963-8
49. Yakut, E. (2020). OECD ülkelerinin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri gelişmişliklerinin MOORA ve WASPAS yöntemiyle değerlendirilerek kullanılan yöntemlerin Copeland yöntemiyle karşılaştırılması. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(3), 1275-1294. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1205854
50. Yaprakli, S., & Saglam, T. (2010). Türkiye'de bilgi iletisim teknolojileri ve ekonomik büyüme: Ekonometrik bir analiz (1980-2008). Ege Akademik Bakis, 10(2), 575. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/558355
51. Yeşiltaş, S., & Erdem, T. (2021). Vişegrad grubu üzerine bir analiz: Oluşumu, işleyişi, etkileri ve sorunlar. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(40), 2961-2998. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.871140
52. Yılmaz, N. (2023). Financial performance analysis of multi-branch banks with integrated MPSI-MARA model: The case of Türkiye. Ekonomi ve Finansal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(2), 168-188. https://doi.org/10.56668/jefr.1384058