Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 39923998

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Performance measurement model for Turkish aviation rms using the rough-AHP
and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment
Emel Kzlkaya Aydogan
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords:
Rough set
AHP
Fuzzy TOPSIS
Performance measurement
Decision making

a b s t r a c t
In todays organizations, performance measurement comes more to the foreground with the advancement in the high technology. So as to manage this power, which is an important element of the organizations, it is needed to have a performance measurement system. Increased level of competition in the
business environment and higher customer requirements forced industry to establish a new philosophy
to measure its performance beyond the existing nancial and non-nancial based performance indicators. In this paper, a conceptual performance measurement framework that takes into account company-level factors is presented for a real world application problem. In order to use the conceptual
framework for measuring performance, a methodology that takes into account both quantitative and
qualitative factors and the interrelations between them should be utilized. For this reason, an integrated
approach of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) improved by rough sets theory (Rough-AHP) and fuzzy TOPSIS method is proposed to obtain nal ranking.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Performance measurement has a big role to achieve organizational effectiveness and it is one of the most important processes
in management literature as accurate performance measurement
is critical for judging the success or failure of a rm. For this reason,
the performance indicators must be carefully identied. Performance measurement focuses on whether a given goal of a work
has achieved its objectives, expressed as measurable performance
standards. Performance evaluations typically examine a broader
range of information on a performance program and its context
than is feasible to monitor on an ongoing basis.
In todays organizations there are a lot of performance measurement methods utilized. But these methods have to be integrated
with organizations strategic objectives (London & Beatty, 2006).
Generally some organizations have measured their performance
in some ways; through nancial performance and to evaluate the
nancial performance, the nancial ratios (protability, liquidity,
solveny, etc.) of the rms that can be used. Also non-nancial indicators play an important role in performance measurement.
Because, human become more and more important in todays complex global competition environment. Traditional performance
measurement processes, based on cost accounting information,
provide little support for organizations on their quality journey, because they do not map all process performance improvements. In a
successful total quality organization, performance will be measured
Tel.: +90 3524374901x32481.
E-mail address: ekaydogan@erciyes.edu.tr
0957-4174/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.060

by all content which takes role in the process. As stated by Kao and
Hung (2007), the incorporation of non-nancial performance indicators, such as the capability of manufacturing and human resource
management, provides a clearer and more relevant picture of performance. For non-measurement scale, (management style, leadership, work environment, etc). Laitinen (2002) argued that the
measurement of non-nancial indicators is therefore essential for
high technology rms to adapt to todays drastically competitive
and global business environment, as accurate and appropriate
information on the companies business strategies.
One of the methods proposed for performance measurement is
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) which is one of the multi-criteria
decision making methods (Gibney & Shang, 2007). AHP method is
widely used to solve many complicated decision making problems.
However, in recent years, in many of the studies, scientists have
utilized Fuzzy TOPSIS integrated with AHP to get the best result
in fuzzy environment.
While AHP is strongly connected to human judgment and pairwise comparisons in AHP may cause evaluators assessment bias
which makes the comparison judgment matrix inconsistent, and
to solve evaluation bias problem in AHP, Rough-AHP shall be used
as the method. In our study, we have used Rough-AHP and Fuzzy
TOPSIS after witnessing the bright results of former studies. And,
more fascinating, there is no method, or integrated method, in
the literature until now.
In this study, four Turkish aviation rms are selected and we
determined the total process in cooperation with the corporation
to evaluate their performance indicators and their weights in total
score, so we interviewed with the rms and corporations senior

E.K. Aydogan / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 39923998

management ofcers. We arranged the results in terms of given

perspective by the rm. Expectations from a performance measurement scale include particularly low risk, high quality, awless
output, reliability, delivery on time etc. To develop our performance measurement model, we rst identied various dimensions
of business performance and the corresponding indicators, both
nancial and non-nancial, that are used to evaluate those rms
under aforementioned expectations. These identied ve important dimensions of performance are Risk, Quality, Effectiveness,
Efciency, and Occupational satisfaction.
Consequently, we are going to present our study in the frame of
ve sections. In Section 2, we are going to state the analytic hierarchy process improved by rough set theory (Rough-AHP). Then, Section 3 will be about Fuzzy TOPSIS followed by Section 4 that is on
denitions and characteristics of performance measurement, represented as A new methodology for performance measurement
which is a combination of Rough AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS. Conclusion and suggestions are remarked in Section 5.

Denition 2. Conditional entropy H(QjP) which knowledge

Q(UjIND(Q) = {Y1, Y2, . . . , Ym}) is relative to knowledge P(UjIND(P) =
{X1, X2, . . . , Xn}) is dened as

HQ jP 

n
X

pX i

i1

m
X

pY j jX i log pY j jX i ;

j1

where p(YjjXi) is conditional probability, i = 1, 2, . . . , n, j = 1, 2, . . . , m.

Denition 3. Suppose that decision table S = (U, R, V, f), R = C [ D,
subsets C and D are the condition attribute set and the decision
attribute set, respectively, attribute subset A  C. The attribute signicance SGF(a, A, D) of attribute a 2 CnA is dened as

SGFa; A; D HDjA  HDjA [ fag:

Given attribute subset A, the greater the value of SGF(a, A, D), the
more important attribute a is for decision D.

3. Fuzzy TOPSIS

2. Analytic hierarchy process improved by rough set theory

(Rough-AHP)
AHP was rst introduced by Saatty (1980) and used in different
decision-making processes. This method is a comprehensive
framework that is designed to cope with the rational and the irrational when we make multi-objective and multi-criterion with or
without certainty for any number of alternatives. The basic
assumption of AHP is that it can be used in functional independence of an upper part or cluster of the hierarchy from all its lower
parts and the criteria in each level (Meade & Sarkis, 1999). The AHP
method is based on three principles: structure of the hierarchy, the
matrix of pairwise comparison ratios and the method for calculating weights. In the literature, AHP has been widely used in solving
many complicated decision-making problems (Albayrak & Erensal,
2004; Chan & Kumar, 2007; Dagdeviren, 2008; Xia & Wu, 2007;
Yurdakul, 2004). But, AHP is strongly connected to human judgment and pairwise comparisons in AHP may cause evaluators
assessment bias which situation makes the comparison judgment
matrix inconsistent. In this paper the concept of attribute signicance in rough sets theory is used (Guoyin, 2001) to solve evaluation bias problem in AHP. Conditional entropy and attribute
signicance concepts in rough sets theory are used in AHP to improve the judgment consistency. In the following, some important
denitions that will be used are given (Guoyin, 2001).
Formally, a data table is the 4-tuple S = (U, R, V, f) where U is a nite set of objects (universe); R = C [ D is a set of attributes, subsets
C and D are the condition attribute set and the decision attribute
set, respectively; Vr is domain of the attribute r, V = Ur2RVr and
f : U  R ! V is a total function such that f(x, r) 2 Vr for each
r 2 R, x 2 U, called information function.
To every non-empty subset B of attributes R(B # R) is associated an indiscernibility relation on U, denoted by IND(B):

INDB fx; yjx; y 2 U  U; 8b 2 Bbx byg:

3993

Clearly, the indiscernibility relation dened is an equivalence relation (reexive, symmetric and transitive). The family of all the
equivalence classes of the relation IND(B) is denoted by UjIND(B).

Hwang and Yoon (1981) developed the TOPSIS method which is

a technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution
from a nite set of points. The main rule is that the best alternative
would be the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution
and the furthest distance from the negative ideal solution. There
have been lots of studies on the TOPSIS method in the literature related with solution of multi criteria decision making problems
(Deng, Yeh, & Willis, 2000; Jee & Kang, 2000; Parkan & Wu,
1999; Wang, Liu, & Zhang, 2005). In the traditional formulation
of the TOPSIS method, personal judgments are represented with
crisp values. But in real life, measurement by using crisp values
is not always possible. For this reason, the fuzzy TOPSIS method
is very suitable for solving real life application problems under a
fuzzy environment (Chen, 2000; Chu, 2002; Chu & Lin, 2002,
2003; Dagdeviren, Yavuz, & Kln, 2008; Ertugrul & Karakasoglu,
2007; nt & Soner, 2007; nt, Kara, & Isk, 2009; Wang & Chang,
2007; Zeydan & olpan, 2009). There have been plenty of studies
related with the fuzzy theory in the literature (Buckley, 1985;
Kaufmann & Gupta, 1985; Zadeh, 1965, 1975; Zimmermann,
1991). Therefore, this theory will not be mentioned here again in
detail.
~ b ; b ; b be two trian~ a1 ; a2 ; a3 and b
Denition 4. Let a
1
2
3
gular fuzzy numbers then the vertex method is dened to calculate
the distance between them

~
~; b
da

r
i
1h
a1  b1 2 a2  b2 2 a3  b3 2 :
3

Denition 5. Considering the different importance values of each

criterion, the weighted normalized fuzzy-decision matrix is constructed as.

e v~ ij  ;
V
nj

i 1; 2; . . . n; j 1; 2; . . . ; J;

where

~ ij W i .
~ ij X
v
 A set of performance ratings of Aj, (j = 1, 2, . . . , J) with respect to
~ ~
criteria Ci, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) called X
xij ; i 1; 2; . . . ; n; j
1; 2; . . . ; J.
 A set of importance weights of each criterion Wi (i = 1, 2, . . . , n).

where p(Xi) = jXij/jUj and p(Xi) denotes the probability of Xi when P

is on the partition X fX 1 ; X 2 ; . . . ; X n g of universe U, i = 1, 2, . . . , n.

Fuzzy TOPSIS steps can be outlined as follows (nt et al.,

2009):

Denition 1. Entropy H(P) of knowledge P (attributes set) is

dened as

Hp 

n
X

pX i log pX i ;

i1

3994

E.K. Aydogan / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 39923998

Step 1: Choose the linguistic ratings ~

xij ; i 1; 2; . . . ; n; j
1; 2; . . . ; J for alternatives with respect to criteria. The
fuzzy linguistic rating ~
xij preserves the property that
the ranges of normalized triangular fuzzy numbers belong
to [0, 1]; thus, there is no need for normalization.
Step 2: Calculate the weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix.
~ ij calculated by Eq. (6).
The weighted normalized value v
Step 3: Identify positive-ideal (A*) and negative ideal (A) solutions. The fuzzy positive-ideal solution (FPIS, A*) and the
fuzzy negative-ideal solution (FNIS, A) are shown in the
following equations:

 



;
A v~ 1 ; v~ 2 ; . . . ; v~ i
max v ij ji 2 I0  min v ij ji 2 I00
j

i 1; 2; . . . ; n; j 1; 2; . . . ; J;


A v~ 1 ; v~ 2 ; . . . ; v~ i


 

min v ij ji 2 I0  max v ij jj 2 I00
;
j

i 1; 2; . . . ; n; j 1; 2; . . . ; J;

where I0 is associated with benet criteria and I00 is associated with

cost criteria.
Step 4: Calculate the distance of each alternative from A* and
A using the following equations:

Dj

n
X

d v~ ij ; v~ i
j 1; 2; . . . ; J;

j1

Dj

n
X

d v~ ij ; v~ i
j 1; 2; . . . ; J:

10

j1

Step 5: Calculate similarities to ideal solution

CC j

DJ
;
Dj Dj

j 1; 2; . . . ; J:

11

Step 6: Rank preference order choose an alternative with maximum CC j or rank alternatives according to CC j in descending order.
4. A new methodology for performance measurement
Performance measurement has received great attention from
the researchers over the last few decades (Bassioni, Price, & Hassan,
2004; Kagioglu, Cooper, & Aouad, 2001). Globalization and the
increasing competition in the business environment created a need
for measuring performance and determining critical success
factors.
Performance measurement can also be dened as the process of
quantifying the efciency and effectiveness of an action (Amaratunga
& Baldry, 2000). Therefore, performance measurement is the process of determining how successful the organizations or individuals have been in attaining their objectives and in implementing
their strategies (Evangelidizs, 1992).
There are many denitions related to performance measurement. The changes of the denitions especially emanate from
complexities of the globalized world conditions. In a simple environment, performance measurement was not hard to perform successfully. However, at present, where there are many factors and
unexpected changes take place incessantly, it is very hard to
perform.
Bourne, Franco, and Wilkes (2003) stated performance measurement as the process of assessing progress toward achieving
pre-determined goals. It is typically conducted by program or
agency management. In US Government Accountability Ofce
Glossary (Kingsbury, 2005), performance measurement and evaluation are comprehensively explained. It is stated that performance

measures may address the type or level of activities conducted, the

direct products and services delivered by a program, or the results
of those products and services. The denition is found well to explain its attributes. Performance measurement focuses on the programs achievement to satisfy the pre-determined objectives.
Performance evaluations may investigate the factors in the program that may contribute to its achievement and also illustrate
relations between all important events like inputs, outputs, value
added and non-value added activities.
There are many types of measurements as well as various tools
and measurements to determine how well it performs. Gamble,
Strickland, and Thompson (2007) provide a comprehensive method for measuring performance of organizations. He argued that a
companys performance depends on the strategic plan. Some of
the measurements include basic nancial ratios such as protability ratios, growth ratios, nancial leverage ratios etc. Because of
qualitative factors such as human resource management, customer
satisfaction and innovativeness are hard to measure and the
weight of these factors is very important in todays business environment, these factors must be taken into consideration in the
model. The traditional performance measurement system in the
business environment is losing its application in todays fast
changing environment. Organizations are trying to re-shape into
more at hierarchies. As a result of this, performance measurement
will be harder with increasing complexity of organizational hierarchies with multi-functional attributes.
Development of performance measures can be complex. Useful,
workable measures must balance a variety of characteristics that
are difcult to achieve simultaneously. Geerken (2008) remarked
important characteristics of good performance measures as:
Goal-focused; the measure must be an indicator of the achievement
of an organization goal. The goal should be accepted as important
by citizens and public ofcials outside your organization. Feasible;
the measure must be possible to implement. The organization
must have the subject matter expertise, time, personnel, technical
capability, and access to the information necessary to implement
the measure. Inexpensive, implementation of the measure must
be relatively inexpensive, or it will compete for resources needed
to accomplish your organizations goals. Understandable; the measure must be clear and simple enough to be successfully communicated to, and understood by non-experts. Accurate; the measure
must accurately capture the events or condition it is supposed to
be an indicator of. Valid; The measure must be designed to minimize bias, error, and distortion. Project Linked; Causal links must
be established between the project and the measures of organizational
goal achievement.
The proposed model for the performance measurement of
Turkish aviation rms, composed of Rough AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS
methods, consists of three main steps: (1) dene the criteria for
performance measurement; (2) calculate the weights of criteria
with rough AHP and (3) evaluate the alternatives with fuzzy
TOPSIS and determinate the nal rank. Schematic diagram of the
proposed model for performance measurement is shown in Fig. 1.
4.1. Dene the criteria for performance measurement of Turkish
aviation rms
There are a number of rms providing Turkish Aviation Industries requirements. They also serve rms in different business
elds. We selected four aviation rms which are under a corporation, to evaluate their performance indicators and their weights in
total score, so we interviewed with the rms and corporations senior management cadre. Expectations from a performance measurement scale include particularly low risk, high quality,
awless product, reliability, delivery on time. To develop our
performance measurement model, we rst identied various

3995

E.K. Aydogan / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 39923998

the third combination in the third row describes that the rm disapproved if the risk is high, even if quality and effectiveness are
high, efciency, and occupational satisfaction are medium.
For the decision table of Table 1, we can get criteria signicances of risk, quality, effectiveness, efciency, and occupational
satisfaction by the following process:

U n INDfa; b; c; d; eg ff1g; f2g; f3g; f4g; f5g; f6g; f7g; f8g; f9g;
f10g; f11g; f12g; . . . f13g; f14g; f15g; f16g;
f17g; f18g; f19g; f20g; f21g; f22g; f23g; f24gg;

U n INDfDg ff2; 4; 8; 9; 11; 14; 15; 17; 19; 20; 21; 23g;
f1; 3; 5; 6; 7; 10; 12; 13; 16; 18; 22; 24gg
fD1 ; D2 g;
U n INDfb; c; d; eg ff4; 10g; f8; 12; 15g; f3; 20g; f2; 18g; f1; 14gg
fX 1 ; X 2 ; X 3 ; X 4 ; X 5 g;
PX 1 2=24;

pD1 n X 1 1=2;

pD2 n X 1 1=2;

PX 2 3=24;

pD1 n X 2 1=3;

pD2 n X 2 2=3;

PX 3 2=24;

pD1 n X 3 1=2;

pD2 n X 3 1=2;

PX 4 2=24;

pD1 n X 4 1=2;

pD2 n X 4 1=2;

PX 5 2=24;

pD1 n X 5 1=2;

pD2 n x5 1=2;

SGFa; fb; c; d; eg; fDg HfDg n fb; c; d; eg  HfDg n fa; b; c; d; eg



2 1
1 1
1
4
log log

24 2
2 2
2


3 1
1 2
2
0:135:

log log
24 4
3 3
3

Fig. 1. Proposed approach.

dimensions of business performance and the corresponding indicators, both nancial and non-nancial, that are used to evaluate
those rms under aforementioned expectations. These identied
ve important dimensions of performance are Risk, Quality, Effectiveness, Efciency, and Occupational satisfaction. We arranged the
hierarchy structure of the performance indicators with the rms
and the corporations senior management cadre (i.e. evaluation
cadre) and it is presented in Fig. 2
4.2. Calculate the weights of criteria
After forming the hierarchy of the problem, decision table is
built. In decision table (i.e. Table 1) rows indicate the distinct objects, and columns indicate the different attributes (i.e. performance indicators) considered. Initially decision column is empty.
The risk, quality, effectiveness, efciency, and occupational satisfaction criteria are rated using the 1, 2, 3 values. Only for the Risk
criteria 1 means low, 2 means medium and 3 means high whereas
these mean the contrary for other criteria; 1 high, 2 medium and 3
low. Secondly, we can make a table that lists different combinations of criteria rates before evaluation process. In Table 1, we list
24 different combinations. Then the table is given to evaluation
team to make a decision. The number 1 in decision column represents the Turkish aviation rm approves and the number 0
represents the Turkish aviation rm disapproves. For example,

We obtain the signicance of attribute a (i.e. risk criterion) is 0.135.

By the similar process, we also can get the signicance of attribute b
(i.e. quality criterion) is 0.100 and the signicance of attribute c (i.e.
effectiveness criterion) is 0.075 and the signicance of attribute d
(i.e. efciency criterion) is 0.035 and the signicance of attribute e
(i.e. occupational satisfaction) is 0.025, respectively.
If the preference values for alternative i and j are, respectively,
Wi and Wj, the preference of alternative i  j is equal to Wi/Wj.
Therefore, the pairwise comparison judgment matrix is

w1 =w1

6
6 w2 =w1
6
6 w3 =w1
6
6
4 w4 =w1
w5 =w1

w1 =w2

w1 =w3

w1 =w4

w2 =w2

w2 =w3

w2 =w4

w3 =w2

w3 =w3

w3 =w4

w4 =w2
w5 =w2

w4 =w3
w5 =w3

w4 =w4
w5 =w4

w1 =w5

7
w2 =w5 7
7
w3 =w5 7
7:
7
w4 =w5 5
w5 =w5

For risk, quality, effectiveness, efciency and occupational satisfaction criteria, the judgment matrix J is constructed according to criteria signicance as follows:

1:345 1:792 3:899 5:375

7
6
1
1:332 2:899 3:996 7
6 0:744
7
6
J6
1
2:176
3 7
7:
6 0:558 0:751
7
6
1
1:378 5
4 0:256 0:345 0:459
0:186 0:250

0:333 0:725

This matrix is then translated into the largest eigenvalue problem

and resulting priority weights of risk, quality, effectiveness, efciency, occupational satisfaction are found as 0.364, 0.271, 0.203,
0.093 and 0.068, respectively. The largest eigenvalue kmax is 5. The
consistency index CI is dened as

3996

E.K. Aydogan / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 39923998

Selection of the best System

Performance

Risk

Quality

Firm-1 (F1)

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Firm-2 (F2)

Firm-3 (F3)

Occupational
satisfaction

Firm-4 (F4)

Fig. 2. The hierarchy of the problem.

Table 1
Decision table about risk, quality, effectiveness, efciency, and occupational
satisfaction.
U

Risk
(a)

Quality
(b)

Effectiveness
(c)

Efciency
(d)

Occupational
satisfaction (e)

Decision
(D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
1

1
2
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
2
2
3
1
2
1
3
3

3
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
3

2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
1
3

0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0

CI

kmax  n
;
n1

Table 2
Linguistic values and fuzzy numbers.
Linguistic values

Fuzzy numbers

Very low (VL)

Low (L)
Medium (M)
High (H)
Very high (VH)
Excellent (E)

(0, 0, 0.2)
(0, 0.2, 0.4)
(0.2, 0.4, 0.6)
(0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
(0.6, 0.8, 1)
(0.8, 1, 1)

~ ij are normalized positive

In relation to (Table 4) the elements v
triangular fuzzy numbers and their ranges are associated with the
closed interval [0, 1]. Thus, we can determine the fuzzy positiveideal solution (FPIS, A*) and the fuzzy negative-ideal solution
(FNIS, A) as i 1; 1; 1 and 
i 0; 0; 0 for benet criterion,
and i 0; 0; 0 and 
i 1; 1; 1 for cost criterion. All along
the study, risk criteria is dened as cost criteria, whereas quality,
effectiveness, efciency and occupational satisfaction are dened
as benet criteria. For the third phase, the distance of each alternative from D* and D can be calculated by using Eqs. (9) and (10).
The last phase elucidates the similarities to an ideal solution by
Eq. (11) (Yang and Hung, 2007). In order to illustrate steps 3 and
4 calculation, CCj calculation is used as an example as follows:

D1
12

where n is the rank of judgment matrix. According to the formula of

CI, we know that CI = 0 for matrix J. This result shows that pairwise
comparison matrix constructed by rough sets method possesses
complete consistency.
4.3. Evaluate the alternatives with fuzzy TOPSIS and determinate the
nal rank
During the decision procedure, the evaluation cadres were
asked to establish the decision matrix by comparing alternatives
under each of the criteria one by one. Fuzzy Evaluation Matrix
formed by the evaluation of alternative is shown in linguistic variables in Table 2. The fuzzy evaluation matrix constructed by linguistic variables is converted to triangular fuzzy numbers, which
are equivalent to linguistic variables, as seen in Table 3.
After the determination of fuzzy evaluation matrix the next action is to obtain a fuzzy weighted decision table. By using the criteria weights obtained from rough-AHP in this level, the Weighted
Evaluation Matrix is established with Eq. (6). The consequent fuzzy
weighted decision matrix is presented in Table 4.

D1

r
1
0  0:2182 0  0:2912 0  0:3642 
3
r
1
1  0:1632 1  0:2172 1  0:2712 

3
r
1
1  0:0812 1  0:1222 1  0:1622 

3
r
1
1  0:0192 1  0:0372 1  0:0562 

3
r
1
1  0:0542 1  0:0682 1  0:0682  3:860

3
r
1
1  0:2182 1  0:2912 1  0:3642 
3
r
1

0  0:1632 0  0:2172 0  0:2712 

3
r
1
0  0:0812 0  0:1222 0  0:1622 

3
r
1

0  0:0192 0  0:0372 0  0:0562 

3
r
1
0  0:0542 0  0:0682 0  0:0682  1:163

3997

E.K. Aydogan / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 39923998

Table 3
Fuzzy evaluation matrix for the alternative Turkish aviation rms.

A1
A2
A3
A4
Weight

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

(0.6, 0.8, 1)
(0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
(0.8, 1, 1)
(0.2, 0.4, 0.6)
0.364

(0.6, 0.8, 1)
(0.6, 0.8, 1)
(0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
(0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
0.271

(0.4, 0.6, 0.8)

(0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
(0.6, 0.8, 1)
(0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
0.203

(0.2, 0.4, 0.6)

(0.8, 1, 1)
(0, 0.2, 0.4)
(0.6, 0.8, 1)
0.093

(0.8, 1, 1)
(0.2, 0.4, 0.6)
(0, 0.2, 0.4)
(0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
0.068

Table 4
Weighted evaluation for the alternative Turkish aviation rms.

A1
A2
A3
A4
A*
A

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

(0.218, 0.291, 0.364)

(0.146, 0.218, 0.291)
(0.291, 0.364, 0.364)
(0.073, 0.146, 0.218)
1 0; 0; 0

1 1; 1; 1

(0.163, 0.217, 0.271)

(0.163, 0.217, 0.271)
(0.108, 0.163, 0.217)
(0.108, 0.163, 0.217)
2 1; 1; 1

2 0; 0; 0

(0.081, 0.122, 0.162)

(0.081, 0.122, 0.162)
(0.122, 0.162, 0.203)
(0.081, 0.122, 0.162)
3 1; 1; 1

3 0; 0; 0

(0.019, 0.037, 0.056)

(0.074, 0.093, 0.093)
(0.000, 0.019, 0.037)
(0.056, 0.074, 0.093)
4 1; 1; 1

4 0; 0; 0

(0.054, 0.068, 0.068)

(0.014, 0.027, 0.041)
(0.000, 0.014, 0.027)
(0.027, 0.041, 0.054)
5 1; 1; 1

5 0; 0; 0

Table 5
Rough AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS results.

References

Alternatives

Dj

D
j

CCj

A1
A2
A3
A4

3.860
3.776
3.986
3.760

1.163
1.248
1.037
1.269

0.232
0.248
0.206
0.252

CC j

Dj

Dj
1:163
0:232:

3:860 1:163
Dj

Similar calculations are done for the other alternatives and the results of fuzzy TOPSIS analyses are summarized in Table 5. Based
on CCj values, the ranking of the alternatives in descending order
are Turkish aviation rm 4, 2, 1, 3. These results indicate that Turkish aviation rm 4 has the best performance.
5. Conclusion and suggestions
Performance measurement is one of the important functions of
human resource management process. Performance measurement
is also an important application that constitute a sound organization structure. In this evaluation period, dening the performance
measurement criteria and weighting these criteria are important
decision making problems. For evaluating performance of the
Turkish aviation rm, rough-AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS are applied. Despite the fact that AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS have been utilized in
many places due to their easy-to-apply features and effectiveness
in multi-criteria decision making, there has not been any study
in the literature about the application and theory of combined
rough-AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. However, in rough-AHP, the qualitative judgment can be quantied to make more intuitionistic comparisons and reduce or eliminate assessment bias in pairwise
comparison process. And, this increases the effectiveness of our
method compared to others. The proposed method is important,
because it can be implemented to military structures and other
areas. In future researches, rough analytic network process
(rough-ANP) approach which takes into consideration the interactions between criteria will be used and the results will be compared in fuzzy environment. Furthermore, group decision making
system will be improved and will be integrated with mathematical
models.

Albayrak, E., & Erensal, Y. C. (2004). Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to
improve human performance. An application of multiple criteria decision
making problem. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 15, 491503.
Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2000). Performance evaluation in facilities
management. In Proceedings of COBRA, Greenwich, UK.
Bassioni, H. A., Price, A. D. F., & Hassan, T. M. (2004). Performance measurement in
construction rms. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(2), 4250.
Bourne, M., Franco, M., & Wilkes, J. (2003). Corporate performance management.
Measuring Business Excellence, 7, 315.
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 233247.
Chan, F. T. S., & Kumar, N. (2007). Global supplier development considering risk
factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. OMEGA, 35, 417431.
Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy
environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114, 19.
Chu, T. C. (2002). Selecting plant location via a fuzzy TOPSIS approach. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 20, 859864.
Chu, T. C., & Lin, Y. C. (2002). Improved extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision
making under fuzzy environment. Journal of Information and Optimization
Sciences, 23, 273286.
Chu, T. C., & Lin, Y. C. A. (2003). Fuzzy TOPSIS method for robot selection. Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 21(4), 284290.
Dagdeviren, M. (2008). Decision making in equipment selection: An integrated
approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19,
397406.
Dagdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., & Kln, N. (2008). Weapon selection using the AHP and
TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 1.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.016.
Deng, H., Yeh, C., & Willis, R. J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modied
TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers and Operations Research, 27(10),
963973.
Ertugrul, I., & Karakasoglu, N. (2007). Performance evaluation of Turkish cement
rms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems
with Applications, 36(1), 702715.
Evangelidizs, K. (1992). Performance measured is performance gained. The
Treasurer, February, 4547.
Gamble, J., Strickland, A., & Thompson, A. (2007). Crafting & executing strategy. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Geerken, M. (2008). Performance measurement for justice information system projects.
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Texas State University. pp. 14.
Gibney, R., & Shang, J. (2007). Decision making in academia: A case of the dean
selection process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46, 10301040.
Guoyin, W. (2001). Theory and knowledge acquisition of rough sets. Xian: Xian Jiao
Tong University Publication [in Chinese].
Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making. Berlin: SpringerVerlag.
Jee, D., & Kang, K. (2000). A method for optimal material selection aided with
decision making theory. Materials and Design, 21(3), 199206.
Kagioglu, M., Cooper, R., & Aouad, G. (2001). Performance management in
construction: A conceptual framework. Construction Management and
Economics, 19(1), 8595.
Kao, C., & Hung, H. T. (2007). Management performance: An empirical study of the
manufacturing companies in Taiwan. Omega, 35(2), 152160.
Kaufmann, A., & Gupta, M. M. (1985). Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic: Theory and
applications. New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold.

3998

E.K. Aydogan / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 39923998

Kingsbury, N. R. (2005). Performance measurement and evaluation. US Government

Accountability Ofce Glossary.
Laitinen, E. A. (2002). Dynamic performance measurement system: Evidence from
small Finnish technology companies. Scandinavian Journal of Management,
18(1), 6599.
London, M., & Beatty, R. W. (2006). 360-degree feedback as competitive advantage.
Human Resource Management, 32(23), 353372.
Meade, L. M., & Sarkis, J. (1999). Analyzing organizational project alternatives for
agile manufacturing processes: An analytical network approach. International
Journal of Production Research, 37, 241261.
nt, S., Kara, S. S., & Isk, E. (2009). Long term supplier selection using a combined
fuzzy MCDM approach: A case study for a telecommunication company. Expert
Systems with Applications, 36, 38873895.
nt, S., & Soner, S. (2007). Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS
approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Management, 1. doi:10.1016/
j.wasman.2007.05.019.
Parkan, C., & Wu, M. (1999). Decision-making and performance measurement
models with applications to robot selection. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 36(3), 503523.
Saatty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wang, T. C., & Chang, T. H. (2007). Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial

training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 33,
870880.
Wang, J., Liu, S. Y., & Zhang, J. (2005). An extension of TOPSIS for fuzzy MCDM based on
vague set theory. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 14, 7384.
Xia, W., & Wu, Z. (2007). Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume
discount environments. Omega, 35, 494504.
Yang, T., & Hung, C. C. (2007). Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant
layout design problem. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 23,
126137.
Yurdakul, M. (2004). AHP as strategic decision making tool to justify machine tool
selection. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 146, 365376.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338353.
Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
approximate reasoning. Information Sciences, 8. pp. 199249(I), 301357(II).
Zeydan, M., & olpan, C. (2009). A new decision support system for performance
measurement using combined fuzzy TOPSIS/DEA approach. International Journal
of Production Research, 47(15), 43274349.
Zimmermann, H. J. (1991). Fuzzy set theory and its applications (2nd ed.). London:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.