Application of AHP–TOPSIS methods in technopark selection of technology companies: Turkish case

References

• Albahari, A., G. Catalano, and P. Landoni. 2013. “Evaluation of National Science Park Systems: A Theoretical Framework and Its Application to the Italian and Spanish Systems.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 25 (5): 599–614. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.785508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Maliki, A., G. Owen, and D. Bruce. 2012. “Combining Ahp and Topsis Approaches to Support Site Selection for A Lead Pollution Study.” Doctoral dissertation, IACSIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ayağ, Z., and R. G. Özdemir. 2006. “A Fuzzy AHP Approach to Evaluating Machine Tool Alternatives.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 17 (2): 179–190. doi:10.1007/s10845-005-6635-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, H. Y., and S. Y. Chen. 2011. “Applying Analytic Hierarchy Process-Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (AHP-TOPSIS) Model to Evaluate Individual Investment Performance of Retirement Planning Policy.” African Journal of Business Management 5 (24): 10044–10053.
   Google Scholar
• Çiçek, T., M. S. Yıldız, and İ. Durak. 2020. “The Selection of the Most Suitable Supplier in Sustainable Supply Chain with AHP, TOPSIS and ELECTRE Methods.” Eurasian Academy of Sciences Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics & Emprical Economic Journal 16: 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Collan, M., M. Fedrizzi, and P. Luukka. 2013. “A Multi-Expert System for Ranking Patents: An Approach Based on Fuzzy Pay-off Distributions and A TOPSIS–AHP Framework.” Expert Systems with Applications 40 (12): 4749–4759. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.02.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corsi, C. 1997. “Science and Innovation as Strategic Tools for Industrial and Economic Growth.” In Innovation and Technology – Strategies and Policies, 149–156. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-585-29606-7_10.
   Google Scholar
• Cristóbal, J. R. S. 2012. “Contractor Selection Using Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 138 (6): 751–758. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dettwiler, P., P. Lindelöf, and H. Löfsten. 2006. “Utility of Location: A Comparative Survey Between Small new Technology-Based Firms Located on and off Science Parks – Implications for Facilities Management.” Technovation 26 (4): 506–517. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.05.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eleren, A., and M. Karagül. 2008. “1986-2006 Türkiye Ekonomisinin Performans Değerlendirmesi.” Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İİBF Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi 15 (1): 1–14. doi:10.18657/yonveek.544487.
   Google Scholar
• Eraslan, İ. H., C. Aydemir, M. Bayat, and A. Ataseven. 2018.“The Strategic Role of Science nd Technology Parks (STPs) on Regional Competitiveness: Suggestions for Turkish Aerospace and Defense (A&D) Industry.” Düzce Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 8 (2): 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Estrella, F. J., S. Cevik Onar, R. M. Rodríguez, B. Oztaysi, L. Martinez, and C. Kahraman. 2017. “Selecting Firms in University Technoparks: A Hesitant Linguistic Fuzzy TOPSIS Model for Heterogeneous Contexts.” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 33 (2): 1155–1172. doi:10.3233/JIFS-16727.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukugawa, N. 2006. “Science Parks in Japan and Their Value-added Contributions to New Technology-based Firms.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 24 (2): 381–400. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gergin, R. E., and B. Baki. 2015. “Türkiye'deki Bölgelerin Lojistik Performanslarinin Bütünlestirilmis AHS ve TOPSIS Yöntemiyle Degerlendirilmesi.” Business and Economics Research Journal 6 (4): 115.
   Google Scholar
• Harmancı, M., and M. O. Önen. 1999. Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Teknopark ve Teknokent Uygulamaları, Türkiye Kalkınma Bankası A.Ş. Araştırma Müdürlüğü, GA/99-2-4 , Mart, Ankara.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, A. G. 2007. “Technology Parks and Regional Economic Growth in China.” Research Policy 36 (1): 76–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishizaka, A., and P. Nemery. 2013. “A Multi-Criteria Group Decision Framework for Partner Grouping When Sharing Facilities.” Group Decision and Negotiation 22 (4): 773–799. doi:10.1007/s10726-012-9292-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karsak, E. E. 2002. “Distance-based Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Evaluating Flexible Manufacturing System Alternatives.” International Journal of Production Research 40 (13): 3167–3181. doi:10.1080/00207540210146062.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keleş, M. K., and M. Z. Tunca. 2015. “Hiyerarşik Electre Yönteminin Teknokent Seçiminde Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Çalışma.” Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 20 (1): 199–223. doi:10.25294/auiibfd.492745.
   Google Scholar
• Koh, F. C., W. T. Koh, and F. T. Tschang. 2005. “An Analytical Framework for Science Parks and Technology Districts with an Application To Singapore.” Journal of Business Venturing 20 (2): 217–239. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kou, G., and C. Lin. 2014. “A Cosine Maximization Method for The Priority Vector Derivation İn AHP.” European Journal of Operational Research 235: 225–232. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.10.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, Y. J., T. Y. Liu, and C. L. Hwang. 1994. “Topsis for MODM.” European Journal of Operational Research 76 (3): 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90282-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Z. C., and C. B. Yang. 1996. “Evaluation of Machine Selection by the AHP Method.” Journal of Materials Processing Technology 57 (3–4): 253–258. doi:10.1016/0924-0136(95)02076-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malairaja, C., and G. Zawdie. 2008. “Science Parks and University–Industry Collaboration in Malaysia.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20: 727–739. doi:10.1080/09537320802426432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mhenni, H., A. Ben Youssef, N. Elaheebocus, and L. Ragni. 2013. “Are Technoparks High Tech Fantasies: Lessons from The Tunisian Experience.” European Review of Industrial Economics and Policy 5: 1–15. http://revel.unice.fr/eriep/.
   Google Scholar
• Mokhtari, S. M., H. Alinejad-Rokny, and H. Jalalifar. 2014. “Selection of the Best Well Control System by Using Fuzzy Multiple-attribute Decision-making Methods.” Journal of Applied Statistics 41 (5): 1105–1121. doi:10.1080/02664763.2013.862218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monck, C. S. P., R. B. Porter, P. Quintas, D. Storey, and P. Wynarczyk. 1988. Science Parks and the Growth of High-Technology Firms. London: Croom Helm.
   Google Scholar
• Olcay, G. A., and M. Bulu. 2016. “Technoparks and Technology Transfer Offices as Drivers of an Innovation Economy: Lessons from Istanbul's Innovation Spaces.” Journal of Urban Technology 23 (1): 71–93. doi:10.1080/10630732.2015.1090195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radosevic, S., and M. Myrzakhmet. 2009. “Between Vision and Reality: Promoting Innovation Through Technoparks in an Emerging Economy.” Technovation 29 (10): 645–656. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramadhan, H. R., and H. I. Wahab. 1999. “The Use of an Analytical Hierarchy Process in Pavement Maintenance Priority Ranking.” Journal of Quality in Mainterance Engineering 1 (5): 25–39.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L., and M. S. Ozdemir. 2003. “Why the Magic Number Seven Plus or Minus Two?” Mathematical and Computer Modelling 38 (3–4): 233–244. doi:10.1016/s0895-7177(03)90083-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, L. T., and T. L. ve Tran. 2007. “On the Invalidity of Fuzzifying Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46: 962–975. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwab, K. 2011. The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 544 p.
   Google Scholar
• Siegel, D. S., P. Westhead, and M. Wright. 2003. “Science Parks and The Performance of New Technology Based Firms: A Review of Recent UK Evidence and an Agenda for Future Research.” Small Business Economics 20 (2): 177–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyagi, M., P. Kumar, and D. Kumar. 2014. “A Hybrid Approach Using AHP-TOPSIS for Analyzing e-SCM Performance.” Procedia Engineering 97: 2195–2203. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.463.
   Google Scholar
• Tzeng, G. H., and J. J. Huang. 2011. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications. United States of America: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. 69–71.
   Google Scholar
• Vedovello, C. 2000. “Science Parks and University-Industry Links: A Comparative Analysis Between A British and A Portuguese Experience.” International Journal of Services Technology and Management 1 (4): 358–374. doi:10.1504/ijstm.2000.001585.
   Google Scholar
• Wei, J. 2010. “TOPSIS Method for Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Incomplete Weight Information in Linguistic Setting.” Journal of Convergence Information Technology 5 (10): 181–187. doi:10.4156/jcit.vol5.issue10.23.
   Google Scholar
• Wind, Y., and T. L. Saaty. 1980. “Marketing Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Management Science 26 (7): 641–658. doi:10.1287/mnsc.26.7.641.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yılmaz, E., and T. Aslan. 2017. “Evaluation of Performance of Tourism Industry Companies Listed in Istanbul Stock Exchange (BIST) by TOPSIS Methodology.” EMAJ: Emerging Markets Journal 7 (2): 8–18. doi:10.5195/emaj.2017.136.
   Google Scholar
• Yurdakul, M., and Y. T. Ic. 2005. “Development of a Performance Measurement Model for Manufacturing Companies Using the AHP and TOPSIS Approaches.” International Journal of Production Research 43 (21): 4609–4641. doi:10.1080/00207540500161746.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar