A Hybrid Weighting Methodology for Performance Assessment in Turkish Municipalities

  • Hüseyin Selçuk Kılıç
  • Emre Çevikcan
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 300)


Performance assessment systems play an important role for controlling and improving a system. In case a robust performance assessment system is established, it will be easier and more trustable to make decisions. Although performance assessment systems have been applied in private sector for a long time, it can be regarded as new for the municipalities in Turkey. As a result of the legal compulsories, every municipality satisfying the conditions has to prepare a strategic plan and a performance program related with it. Performance assessment is carried out by considering the performance program of the municipalities. With this study, after the observations of performance assessment studies in some of the municipalities, a hybrid weighting methodology depending on ranking and fuzzy pairwise comparison is proposed. After giving the related literature about the performance assessment systems in municipalities, existing and proposed methodologies are explained and differences are indicated. For showing the applicability of the proposed model, a numerical example inspired by the real applications is developed and the proposed methodology is executed.


Decision making fuzzy AHP weighting performance assessment system 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bai, L., Liang, J., Dang, C., Caov, F.: A novel attribute weighting algorithm for clustering high-dimensional categorical data. Pattern Recognition 44(12), 2483–2861 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barron, F.H., Barrett, B.E.: Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Science 42, 1515–1525 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black, S., Briggs, S., Keogh, W.: Service quality performance measurement in public/private sectors. Managerial Auditing Journal 16(7), 400–405 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruijn, H.: Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. The International Journal of Public Sector Management 15(7), 578–594 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buckley, J.J.: Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Systems 17(1), 233–247 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chou, S., Chang, Y., Shen, C.: A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. European Journal of Operational Research 189(1), 132–145 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eckenrode, R.T.: Weighting multiple criteria. Management Science 12, 180–192 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghobadian, A.: Performance measurement in local government-Concept and practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 14(5), 35–51 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greatbanks, R., Tapp, D.: The impact of balanced scorecards in a public sector environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27(8), 846–873 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greiling, D.: Performance measurement in the public sector: The German experience. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 54(7), 551–567 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greiling, D.: Performance measurement: a remedy for increasing the efficiency of public services? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55(6), 448–465 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kirkwood, C., Sarin, R.: Ranking with partial information: a method and an application. Operations Research 33, 38–48 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malczewski, J.: GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mimba, N.P.S.H., Helden, G.J., Tillema, S.: Public sector performance measurement in developing countries, A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 3(3), 192–208 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Özşen, S., Güneş, S.: Attribute weighting via genetic algorithms for attribute weighted artificial immune system (AWAIS) and its application to heart disease and liver disorders problems. Expert Systems with Applications 36(1), 386–392 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pollanen, R.M.: Performance measurement in municipalities: Empirical evidence in Canadian context. International Journal of Public Sector Management 18(1), 4–24 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rantanen, H., Kulmala, H.I., Lönnqvist, A., Kujansivu, P.: Performance measurement systems in the Finnish public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management 20(5), 415–433 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sotirakou, T., Zeppou, M.: Utilizing performance measurement to modernize the Greek public sector. Management Decision 44(9), 1277–1304 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stillwell, W.G., Seaver, D.A., Edwards, W.: A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multi-attribute utility decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28, 62–77 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W.: Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang, J.-J., Jing, Y.-J., Zhang, C.-F., Zhao, J.-H.: Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, 2263–2278 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hüseyin Selçuk Kılıç
    • 1
  • Emre Çevikcan
    • 2
  1. 1.Industrial Engineering DepartmentMarmara UniversityKadıköyTurkey
  2. 2.Industrial Engineering DepartmentIstanbul Technical UniversityBeşiktaşTurkey

Personalised recommendations