A SWOT-AHP application using fuzzy concept: E-Government in Turkey

Springer Optimization and Its Applications

Volumn 16, Issue , 2008, Pages 85-117

  Kahraman, Cengiz ^a   Demirel, Nihan Çetin ^b   Demirel, Tufan ^b   Ateş, Nüfer Yasin ^b  

^a ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b YILDIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; E government; Fuzzy outranking relation; Outranking; Pair wise comparison; Sensitivity analysis; Strategic planning; SWOT

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976517870     PISSN: 19316828     EISSN: 19316836     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-76813-7_4     Document Type: Chapter

References (22)

1. Akman, I., Yazici, A., and Arifölu, A., 2002, E-government: Turkey Profile, Proceedings of International European Conference on e-government, Oxford, U. K, pp. 27-39.
2. Akman, I., Yazici, A., Mishra, A., Arifölu, A., 2005, E-Government: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens, Government Information Quarterly, 22: 239-257.
3. Chang, D-Y., 1996, Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 95: 649-655.
4. Chang, D-Y., 1992, Extent analysis and synthetic decision, Optimization Techniques and Applications, 1, World Scientific, Singapore, 352.
5. Chen, Y. C., and Gant, J., 2001, Transforming local e-government services: the use of application service providers, Government Information Quarterly, 18: 343-355.
6. Gil-Garcia, J. R., and Pardo, T. A., 2005, E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations, Government Information Quarterly, 22: 187-216.
7. Gupta, M. P., and Jana, D., 2003, E-government evaluation: a framework and case study, Government Information Quarterly, 30: 365-387.
8. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., and Ruan, D., 2004, Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of TURKEY, International Journal of Production Economics, 87: 171-184.
9. Kaylor, C., Deshazo, R., and Van Eck, D., 2001, Gauging e-government: a report on implementing services among American cities, Government Information Quarterly, 18: 293-307.
10. Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., and Kajanus, M., 2000, Utilzing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis-a hybrid method and its application to a forecast-certification case, Forecast Policy and Economics, 1: 41-52.
11. Layne, K., and Lee, J., 2001, Developing fully functional E-government: a four stage model, Government Information Quarterly, 18: 122-136.
12. OECD, 2003, The e-government imperative: Main findings.
13. Vaidvay, O. S., and Kumar, S., 2006, Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications, European Journal of Operational Research, 169: 1-29.
14. Reddick, C. G., 2004, A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for U. S. cities, Government Information Quarterly, 21: 51-64.
15. Saaty, T. L., 1977, A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3): 234-281.
16. Saaty, T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
17. Saaty, T. L., 1993, The analytic hierarchy process: a 1993 overview, Central European Journal of Operation Research and Economics, 2(2): 119-137.
18. Saaty, T. L., and Vargas, L. G., 2001, Models, Methods, Concepts and Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
19. United Nations/and The American Society for Public Administration (MN/ASPA), 2002, Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective, UN/ASPA: New York.
20. Weihrich, H., 1982, The TOWS matrix-a tool for situation analysis, Long Range Planning, 15(2): 54-66.
21. Zadeh, L., 1965, Fuzzy sets, Information Control, 8: 338-353.
22. Zimmermann, H.-J., 1994, Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.