SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Alphanumeric Journal / 2026 / Volume: 14 Issue: 1

An integrated FSIWEC–FCORASO approach for organizational model selection in university economic enterprises

Ali Katrancı(PAMUKKALE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7586-1169
Nilsen Kundakcı(PAMUKKALE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7283-320X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, the study contributes to the literature by representing one of the first applications that employs the integrated FSIWEC-FCORASO approach to evaluate organizational models for university social facility economic enterprises.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Universities often operate social facilities that provide public services while conducting commercial activities under the status of economic enterprises.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This dual character makes the determination of an appropriate organizational model for such enterprises a multidimensional and strategic decision problem.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, the study contributes to the literature by representing one of the first applications that employs the integrated FSIWEC-FCORASO approach to evaluate organizational models for university social facility economic enterprises.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Social facilities · Economic enterprise · Fuzzy logic

Abstract

Universities often operate social facilities that provide public services while conducting commercial activities under the status of economic enterprises. Due to this dual nature, these entities possess a hybrid managerial structure. This dual character makes the determination of an appropriate organizational model for such enterprises a multidimensional and strategic decision problem. This study focuses on identifying the most suitable organizational model for university social facility economic enterprises. To address the uncertainties and subjective evaluations involved in the decision-making process, a fuzzy logic–based multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach was adopted. In this framework, the fuzzy simple weight calculation (FSIWEC) method was used to determine the weights of the evaluation criteria, while the fuzzy combined compromise solution (FCORASO) method was applied to rank the alternative organizational models. Within the proposed integrated model, economic, managerial, and social criteria were considered simultaneously, and the alternative organizational structures were comparatively analyzed. The findings provide decision makers with a systematic decision-support tool that balances public interest, service quality, and financial sustainability objectives. In addition, the study contributes to the literature by representing one of the first applications that employs the integrated FSIWEC-FCORASO approach to evaluate organizational models for university social facility economic enterprises.

🔖

Cite This Article

Katrancı, A., Kundakcı, N. (2026). An integrated FSIWEC–FCORASO approach for organizational model selection in university economic enterprises. Alphanumeric Journal, Volume: 14 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.1930337

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (29)

  1. Akşehir, M. İ. (2016). Sosyal tesisler, iktisadi işletmeler ve tabi olduğu esas ve usuller. Denetişim, 11, 86–91. https://doi.org/https://izlik.org/JA42CZ45WH
  2. Bakır, M., & Atalık, Ö. (2021). Application of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy MARCOS Approach for the Evaluation of E-Service Quality in the Airline Industry. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2104127b
  3. Bouraima, M. B., & Badi, I. (2026). Evaluating the Strategies for Accessible Tourism in Cultural Heritage Sites: A Fuzzy SIWEC-RAWEC Methodology. Management Science Advances, 3(1), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.31181/msa31202634
  4. Cao, J., Spulbar, C., Eti, S., Horobet, A., Yüksel, S., & Dinçer, H. (2025). Innovative approaches to green digital twin technologies of sustainable smart cities using a novel hybrid decision-making system. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 10(1), 100651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100651
  5. Chen, V. Y., Lien, H.-P., Liu, C.-H., Liou, J. J., Tzeng, G.-H., & Yang, L.-S. (2011). Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best environment-watershed plan. Applied Soft Computing, 11(1), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2009.11.017
  6. Dereköy, F., Yaylalı, İ., Yüksel, S., Eti, S., & Dinçer, H. (2026). Integrating SIWEC and Koch snowflake fuzzy sets to prioritize trust factors in an artificial intelligence-based audit system. Future Technology, 5(1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.5.1.11
  7. El-Jaberi, I. K. A., Stojanović, I., Puška, A., Ljepava, N., & Prodanović, R. (2024). Selection of Renewable Energy Projects from the Investor's Point of View Based on the Fuzzy–Rough Approach and the Bonferroni Mean Operator. Sustainability, 16(22), 9929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229929
  8. Eti, S., Yüksel, S., Dinçer, H., Çırak, A. N., Deveci, M., & Kadry, S. (2025). Strategy building for renewable energy adoption in regionalized supply chains-based logistic systems using a hybrid fuzzy decision-making approach. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 20, 101479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2025.101479
  9. García-Alcaraz, J., Maldonado-Macías, A., Hernández-Arellano, J., Blanco-Fernández, J., Jiménez-Macías, E., & Sáenz-Díez Muro, J. (2016). Agricultural Tractor Selection: A Hybrid and Multi-Attribute Approach. Sustainability, 8(2), 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020157
  10. Gökalp, Y., Eti, S., Yüksel, S., & Dinçer, H. (2025). Towards Sustainable Healthcare: A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Framework for Green Hospital Investments. Computer and Decision Making: An International Journal, 2, 419–424. https://doi.org/10.59543/comdem.v2i.10969
  11. Katrancı, A., Kundakcı, N., & Arman, K. (2026). Fuzzy SIWEC and Fuzzy RAWEC Methods for Sustainable Waste Disposal Technology Selection. Spectrum of Operational Research, 3(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202633
  12. Kaya, Ö. (2025). Designing green and safe micro mobility routes: An advanced geo-analytic decision system based approach to sustainable urban infrastructure. Engineering Science and Technology, An International Journal, 64, 102027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2025.102027
  13. Kaya, Ö., & Kabakuş, N. (2025). A data-driven spatial decision framework for assessing the relationship between logistics activities and heavy vehicle accident risks. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 62, 101440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2025.101440
  14. Kou, G., Eti, S., Yüksel, S., Dinçer, H., Acar, M., Ergün, E., & Çetinkaya, H. (2026). Advancing financial innovation in energy poverty solutions: a koch snowflake-based fuzzy decision support system. Financial Innovation, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-025-00896-4
  15. Lukić, R. (2025). Application of Fuzzy SIWEC and Rough MABAC Methods in the Evaluation of Trade Performance Dynamics in Serbia. Management and Economic Review, 10(2), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.24818/mer/2025.02-11
  16. Nedeljković, Puška, et al. (2025). Evaluation of Criteria for Communication with Consumers of Agricultural Products. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 19(1), 713–720. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2025-0057
  17. Nedeljković, Vujić, et al. (2025). Decision support for the selection of table egg suppliers. Ekonomika Poljoprivrede, 72(4), 1409–1421. https://doi.org/10.59267/ekopolj25041409n
  18. Puška, Božanić, et al. (2025). Application of Fuzzy-Rough Methodology to the Selection of Electric Tractors for Small Farms in Semberija. Journal of Fuzzy Extension and Applications, Online First. https://doi.org/10.22105/jfea.2025.482890.1663
  19. Puška, Igić, et al. (2025). Application of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Approaches and Bonferroni Mean Operators in the Selection of Suppliers of Agricultural Equipment and Machinery for the Needs of the Agriculture 4.0 System. Mathematics, 13(14), 2268. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13142268
  20. Puška, A., Nedeljković, M., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., & Simić, V. (2024a). Application of the new simple weight calculation (SIWEC) method in the case study in the sales channels of agricultural products. Methodsx, 13, 102930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102930
  21. Puška, Bosna, et al. (2025). Evaluation of the Housing Aggregation Model for Young People in Urban Areas. Journal of Urban Development and Management, 4(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.56578/judm040105
  22. Puška, Adis, Nedeljković, M., Božanić, D., Štilić, A., & Muhsen, Y. R. (2024b). Evaluation of agricultural drones based on the COmpromise Ranking from Alternative SOlutions (CORASO) methodology. Engineering Review, 44(4), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.30765/er.2653
  23. Sahoo, B., & Debnath, B. K. (2026). An Integrated Fuzzy Group Decision-Making Approach for Optimal Hydroelectric Power Plant Site Selection in Support of Rural Development. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-025-00676-8
  24. Shapiro, A. F., & Koissi, M.-C. (2017). Fuzzy logic modifications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 75, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2017.05.003
  25. Soltani, A., & Imani, M. A. (2024). Overcoming implementation barriers to renewable energy in developing nations: A case study of Iran using MCDM techniques and monte carlo simulation. Results in Engineering, 24, 103213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.103213
  26. Tufan, D., & Ulutaş, A. (2026). Supplier Selection in the Food Sector: An Integrated Approach Using LODECI and CORASO Methods. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 3(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap31202631
  27. Ünveren, M. (2016). Kamu Kurum ve Kuruluşlarınca İşletilen Sosyal Tesislerin Kurumlar Vergisi ve Katma Değer Vergisi Mükellefiyetleri. Denetişim, 14, 86–91.
  28. Yalçın, G. C., Ballı, A., Kara, K., Işık, G., Simic, V., Pamucar, D., Polat, M., Aytekin, P., & Tekeli, E. S. (2026). Measuring promotional video performance through eye-tracking and cognitive evaluation: A Fermatean fuzzy decision analytics approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 170, 114114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2026.114114
  29. Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-x