Advertisement

Performance Ranking of Development and Investment Banks: ANP Application

  • Sedat KarataşEmail author
  • İlyas Akhisar
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

Traditionally, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytic Network Process (ANP) methods used for Multi-criteria decision making problems. Hierarchical definitions are not enough when relations between the components of multi-criteria decision-making problems are not one-sided rather mutual, Both AHP and ANP based on mutual comparison. ANP is the general form of AHP and considers the interactions and feedbacks between the components which are not directly related rather than creating a network that makes it possible to able to eliminating the levels which are in the hierarchical structure. In this study, ANP model based on the main criteria which are capital adequacy, asset quality, liquidity, profitability and income - expenditure and related 13 criteria which is known sub-criteria of development and investment banks. The framework investigates financial performances of 6 privately-owned development and investment banks by using Analytic Network Process based on experts’ opinions and related literature for the period 2011–2015 in Turkey.

Keywords

ANP Decision-making Development and investment banks Performance ranking 

References

  1. Akkoç, S., & Vatansever, K. (2013). Fuzzy performance evaluation with AHP and Topsis methods: Evidence from Turkish banking sector after the global financial crisis. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 6(11), 53–74.Google Scholar
  2. Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2002). Moving from Performance Measurement to Performance Management. Facilities, 20(5/6), 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anik, Z. (2007). Nesne Yönelimli Yazılım Dillerinin Analitik Hiyerarşi ve Analitik Network Prosesi ile Karşılaştırılması ve Değerlendirilmesi, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.Google Scholar
  4. Bayazit, O. (2002). A new methodology in multiple criteria decision-making systems: Analytical network process and an application. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 57(1), 15–34.Google Scholar
  5. Evangelidizs, K. (1992). Performance measured is performance gained. The Treasurer, February, pp. 45–47.Google Scholar
  6. Islam, S., Kabir, G., & Yesmin, T. (2013). Integrating analytic hierarchy process with TOPSIS method for performance appraisal of commercial banks under fuzzy environment. Studies in System Science, 4, 57–70.Google Scholar
  7. Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., & Aouad, G. (2001). Performance management in construction: A conceptual framework. Construction Management and Economics, 19(1), 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2000). Strategy focused organisations. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. Karsak, S., Sozer, S. E., & Emre Alptekin, S. (2002). Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 44(1), 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Meade, L. M., & Sarkis, J. (1999). Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile manufacturing processes – An analytical network approach. International Journal of Production Research, 37, 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Niemira, M. P., & Saaty, T. L. (2004). An analytical network process model for financial-crisis forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting, 20, 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Partovi, F. Y., & Corredoira, R. A. (2002). Quality function deployment for the good of soccer. European Journal of Operational Research, 137(3), 642–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Secme, Y., Bayrak, A., & Kahraman, C. (2009). Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS. Expert System with Application, 36, 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Susuz, Z. (2005). Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi’ne Dayalı Optimum Tedarikçi Seçim Modeli, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Adana.Google Scholar
  16. Talluri, S., & Sarkis, J. (2002). A model for performance monitoring of suppliers. International Journal of Production Research, 40(16), 4257–4269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Toloie-Eshlaghy, A., Ghafelehbashi, S., & Alaghebandha, M. (2011). An investigation and ranking public and commercial Islamic Banks using dimension of service quality (SERVQUAL) based on TOPSIS fuzzy technique. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 5(61), 3031–3049.Google Scholar
  18. Yurdakul, M. (2003). Measuring long-term performance of a manufacturing firm using the analytical network process (ANP) approach. International Journal of Production Research, 41(11), 2501–2529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Insurance Supervisory Board, Undersecratariat TreasuryAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesKocaeli UniversityİzmitTurkey

Personalised recommendations