KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

Bağlantıdan dijital rekabete: Hibrit çok kriterli karar verme çerçevesi kullanarak Avrupa ülkelerinde bit performansının karşılaştırmalı değerlendirmesi

From Connectivity to digital competitiveness: Comparative assessment of ICT performance in European countries using a hybrid MCDM framework

Kübra Topcuoğlu Onat(ÇAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8702-9954
Emre Kadir Özekenci(ÇAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6669-0006
Sayfa
1–21
Yayın Tarihi
2026-10-21
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular, BİT sektörünün brüt katma değerdeki payının dijital rekabet gücünü değerlendirmede en önemli faktör olduğunu, hane halkı internet erişiminin ise en az önemli faktör olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu araştırma, temel Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri (BİT) ölçütlerini kullanarak Avrupa ülkelerinin dijital rekabet gücü yeteneklerini incelemek için hibrit bir karar verme çerçevesi önermektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bulgular, BİT sektörünün brüt katma değerdeki payının dijital rekabet gücünü değerlendirmede en önemli faktör olduğunu, hane halkı internet erişiminin ise en az önemli faktör olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Genel olarak, İrlanda, Danimarka ve Hollanda en yüksek dijital rekabet gücüne sahipken, Yunanistan, Bulgaristan ve Romanya en düşük seviyededir.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Dijital rekabet gücü · BİT · Avrupa

Özet

Bu araştırma, temel Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri (BİT) ölçütlerini kullanarak Avrupa ülkelerinin dijital rekabet gücü yeteneklerini incelemek için hibrit bir karar verme çerçevesi önermektedir. Mevcut çalışma, RANCOM, LODECI, RAWEC, SPOTIS, CORASO ve Borda Sayım yöntemlerini entegre eden yeni birçok kriterli karar verme (MCDM) modeli sunmaktadır. BİT performans göstergeleri, Eurostat tarafından yayınlanan Dijital Ekonomi ve Toplum istatistiklerinden elde edilmiştir. Kriter ağırlıklarını belirlemek için çalışma hem öznel (RANCOM) hem de nesnel (LODECI) yöntemler kullanırken, alternatifleri sıralamak için RAWEC, SPOTIS, CORASO ve Borda Sayım dahil olmak üzere çeşitli yöntemler uygulanmıştır. Kriterler, kapsamlı bir literatür taraması ve uzman görüşleri yoluyla belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, BİT sektörünün brüt katma değerdeki payının dijital rekabet gücünü değerlendirmede en önemli faktör olduğunu, hane halkı internet erişiminin ise en az önemli faktör olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Genel olarak, İrlanda, Danimarka ve Hollanda en yüksek dijital rekabet gücüne sahipken, Yunanistan, Bulgaristan ve Romanya en düşük seviyededir.

Abstract

This research proposes a hybrid decision-making framework to investigate the digital competitiveness capabilities of European countries by utilizing essential Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) metrics. The current study presents a novel multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model that integrates the RANCOM, LODECI, RAWEC, SPOTIS, CORASO, and Borda Count methods. The performance indicators for ICT are derived from the Digital Economy and Society statistics published by Eurostat. To establish criteria weights, the study employs both subjective (RANCOM) and objective (LODECI) methods, while various methods, including RAWEC, SPOTIS, CORASO, and Borda Count, are applied to rank alternatives. The criteria were established through a comprehensive literature review and expert insights. The findings reveal that the ICT sector's share of gross value added is the most important factor in assessing digital competitiveness, while household internet access is the least important. Overall, Ireland, Denmark, and the Netherlands have the highest digital competitiveness, while Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania have the lowest.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Onat, K. T., Özekenci, E. K. (2026). Bağlantıdan dijital rekabete: Hibrit çok kriterli karar verme çerçevesi kullanarak Avrupa ülkelerinde bit performansının karşılaştırmalı değerlendirmesi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1921151

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (66)

  1. Ali, T., Chiu, Y. R., Aghaloo, K., Nahian, A. J., & Ma, H. (2020). Prioritizing the existing power generation technologies in Bangladesh’s clean energy scheme using a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 267, 121901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121901
  2. Amiri, M., Hashemi-Tabatabaei, M., Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Antucheviciene, J., Šaparauskas, J., & Keramatpanah, M. (2023). Evaluation of digital banking implementation indicators and models in the context of industry 4.0: a fuzzy group MCDM approach. Axioms, 12(6), 516. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms12060516
  3. Aristovnik, A. (2012). The Impact of ICT on Educational Performance and its Efficiency in Selected EU and OECD Countries: A Non-Parametric Analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(3), 144-152. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2187482
  4. Arsić, S., & Gajić, M. (2021). Industry 4.0: Assessing the level of advanced digital technologies in the EU countries using integrated Entropy-TOPSIS methods. In International Scientific Conference “UNITECH 2021.
  5. Avramova, T., Peneva, T., & Ivanov, A. (2025). Overview of Existing Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods Used in Industrial Environments. Technologies, 13(10), 444. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies13100444
  6. Badi, Ibrahim & Bouraima, Mouhamed. (2026). An Integrated Fuzzy SIWEC-RAWEC Approach for Assessing the Challenges and Solutions for Sustainable Development in Developing Countries. Journal of Soft Computing and Decision Analytics. 4. 32-46. 10.31181/jscda41202679.
  7. Bagherian, A., Gershon, M., Kumar, S., & Mishra, M. K. (2024). Analyzing the relationship between digitalization
  8. and energy sustainability: a comprehensive ISM-MICMAC and DEMATEL approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 236, 121193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121193
  9. Balo, F., Ulutaş, A., Arı, İ., Das, D. K., & Stević, Ž. (2025). Simulation-Based Hybrid Analysis of Eco-Friendly Wall Coatings Using LODECI, MAXC and DEPART Methods for Energy-Efficient Buildings. Buildings, 16(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16010019
  10. Bitarafan, M., Hosseini, K. A., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Ziari, K. (2025). Evaluating earthquake resilience in urban areas: A novel fuzzy RANCOM approach: M. Bitarafan et al. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025-06393-z
  11. Boikova, T., Zeverte-Rivza, S., Rivza, P., & Rivza, B. (2021). The determinants and effects of competitiveness: the role of digitalization in the European economies. Sustainability, 13(21), 11689. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111689
  12. Bosna, J., Puška, A., & Darko, B. (2026). Integrated Fuzzy SiWeC-CORASO Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Construction Industry. Decision Making Advances, 4(1), 12-28. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma412026157
  13. Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2021). Assessing the level of digital maturity of enterprises in the Central and Eastern European countries using the MCDM and Shannon’s entropy methods. Plos one, 16(7), e0253965. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253965
  14. Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2022a). Digitalization of small and medium-sized enterprises and economic growth: Evidence for the EU-27 countries. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(2), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020067
  15. Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2022b). The level of digitization of small, medium and large enterprises in the central and eastern European countries and its relationship with economic parameters. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030113
  16. Çilek, A., & Şeyranlıoğlu, O. (2025). Measuring the financial performance of reinsurance companies in Türkiye with LODECI, CRADIS and AROMAN MCDM methods. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 7(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.54821/uiecd.1587675
  17. Deepu, T. S., & Ravi, V. (2021). Supply chain digitalization: An integrated MCDM approach for inter- organizational information systems selection in an electronic supply chain. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 1(2), 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2021.100038
  18. Dezert, J., Tchamova, A., Han, D., & Tacnet, J. M. (2020, July). The SPOTIS rank reversal free method for multi- criteria decision-making support. In 2020 IEEE 23rd international conference on information fusion (FUSION) (pp. 1-8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/FUSION45008.2020.9190347
  19. Du, Z. Y., & Wang, Q. (2024). Digital infrastructure and innovation: digital divide or digital dividend?. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), 100542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100542
  20. Elattar, T. A., & ELWakil, M. (2026). Integrating MCDM Approaches into Modern Quality Control: A Review of Methods, Challenges, and Industry 4.0 Synergies. Benha Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 3(1), 86-113. DOI: 10.21608/bjest.2026.439455.1005
  21. European Commission. (2021). State of the Union: Commission proposes a Path to the Digital Decade to deliver the EU's digital transformation by 2030. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_4630 (12.05.2026).
  22. European Commission. (2025). Europe's Digital Decade. Available at: https://digital- strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/europes-digital-decade (14.05.2026).
  23. European Union. (2025). 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade. Available at: https://transition-pathways.europa.eu/retail/policy/2030-digital-compass-european-way-digital- decade?utm_source=chatgpt.com (13.05.2026).
  24. Eurostat. (2025). Digital economy and society database. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser (02.03.2026).
  25. Grinberga-Zalite, G., & Hernik, J. (2019). Digital performance indicators in the EU. Research for Rural Development, 2, 183-188. https://doi.org/10.22616/rrd.25.2019.067
  26. Ighravwea, D. E., & Babatundeb, M. O. (2017). Selection of a mini-grid business model for developing countries using CRITIC-TOPSIS with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. growth. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2018.1.004
  27. Ivanová, E., & Grmanová, E. (2023). Digital transformation and ICT sector performance in EU countries. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 21(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.21(1).2023.05
  28. Joshi, M. P. (2025). Prioritization of barriers to digitization for circular systems using analytical hierarchy process. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci.(IJITCS), 17(3), 61-71. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7340-233X
  29. Kanmaz, A. K., & Ertuğrul, İ. (2026). Tarımsal amaçlı kooperatiflerin il bazında sıralanması: LODECI-RAWEC yaklaşımı. Business Economics and Management Research Journal, 9(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.58308/bemarej.1853111
  30. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/sor31202633
  31. Kumar, P., & Garg, M. (2026). A novel hybrid MCDM approach for evaluating digital technologies for sustainability transition in the banking industry. IIM Ranchi Journal of Management Studies, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/IRJMS-03-2025-0045
  32. Kumar, R. (2025). A comprehensive review of MCDM methods, applications, and emerging trends. Decision Making Advances, 3(1), 185-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/dma31202569
  33. Lythreatis, S., Singh, S. K., & El-Kassar, A. N. (2022). The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technological forecasting and social change, 175, 121359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121359
  34. Mahmoudi, A., Sadeghi, M., & Deng, X. (2025). Performance measurement of construction suppliers under localization, agility, and digitalization criteria: Fuzzy Ordinal Priority Approach: A. Mahmoudi et al. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(9), 21961-21986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02301-x
  35. Maravić, A., Pajić, V., & Andrejić, M. (2025). Evaluation of Digital Technologies in Food Logistics: MCDM Approach from the Perspective of Logistics Providers. Logistics, 10(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics10010006
  36. Maretto, L., Faccio, M. ve Battini, D. (2022). A multi-criteria decision-making model based on fuzzy logic and AHP for the selection of digital technologies. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(2), 319–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.04.213
  37. Medić, N., Marjanović, U., Prester, J., Palčič, I., & Lalić, B. (2018). Evaluation of advanced digital technologies in manufacturing companies: Hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach. In Proceedings of the 25th EurOMA conference (pp. 1-10). Budimpešta:. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326040450_Evaluation_of_advanced_digital_technologies_in_ manufacturing_companies_Hybrid_fuzzy_MCDM_approach
  38. Mian, S. H., & Al-Ahmari, A. (2017). Comparative analysis of different digitization systems and selection of best alternative. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 30, 2039-2067.
  39. Mutambik, I. (2025). Assessing critical success factors for supply chain 4.0 implementation using a hybrid MCDM framework. Systems, 13(6), 489. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13060489
  40. Özekenci, E. K. (2023). Assessing the logistics market performance of developing countries by SWARA-CRITIC based CoCoSo methods. LogForum, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2023.857
  41. Pala, O. (2024). Assessment of the social progress on European Union by logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance. Expert Systems with Applications, 238, 121846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121846
  42. Pamucar, D., Deveci, M., Gokasar, I., & Popovic, M. (2022). Fuzzy Hamacher WASPAS decision-making model for advantage prioritization of sustainable supply chain of electric ferry implementation in public transportation. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(5), 7138-7177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01742-0
  43. Peng, Z., & Dan, T. (2023). Digital dividend or digital divide? Digital economy and urban-rural income inequality in China. Telecommunications Policy, 47(9), 102616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102616
  44. Petkovski, I., & Vranić, P. (2026). Evaluation of Digital Development Indexes Using MEREC and Hybrid MCDM Methods. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 50(1), 17-43. https://doi.org/10.31341/jios.50.1.2
  45. Preda, A. M., Crişan, D. A., Stănică, J. L., & Samuel, A. N. A. (2019). Innovation and ICT development: an analysis for the EU-28 Member States. Journal of Information Systems & Operations Management, 13(2), 154-163. http://www.rebe.rau.ro/RePEc/rau/jisomg/WI19/JISOM-WI19-A11.pdf
  46. Puška, A., 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- SI 2024), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.30765/er.2653
  47. Puška, A., Štilić, A., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., & Nedeljković, M. (2024a). Introducing a Novel multi-criteria Ranking of Alternatives with Weights of Criterion (RAWEC) model. MethodsX, 12, 102628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102628
  48. Radjenovic, Z. (2023). eHEALTH DIGITAL SETUP BENEFITS DURING COVID-19: MCDM PERSPECTIVE. Challenges of Tourism and Business Logistics in the 21st Century, 6(1), 126-135. https://doi.org/10.46763/YFNTS2361124r
  49. Raihan, M. M., Subroto, S., Chowdhury, N., Koch, K., Ruttan, E., & Turin, T. C. (2025). Dimensions and barriers for digital (in) equity and digital divide: a systematic integrative review. Digital Transformation and Society, 4(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTS-04-2024-0054
  50. Razavian, S. B., Ghasemi, P., Fayyaz, M., Yazdani, H., Afroozi, M. A., & Malakoot, R. A. (2026). IoT-Driven Digital Twin Systems in Sustainable Urban Development: Analysing Barriers using Interval-Valued Fermatean Fuzzy MCDM. Results in Engineering, 109139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2026.109139
  51. Reilly, B. (2002). Social choice in the south seas: Electoral innovation and the Borda count in the pacific island countries. International Political Science Review, 23(4), 355-372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512102023004002
  52. Sahoo, S. K., Goswami, S. S., & Halder, R. (2024). Supplier selection in the age of industry 4.0: a review on MCDM applications and trends. Decision making advances, 2(1), 32-47. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma21202420
  53. Santos Torres, Pablo & Gomes, Carlos Francisco & Santos, Marcos. (2024). Selection of unmanned aerial vehicle systems for border monitoring using the MPSI-SPOTIS method. Journal of Defense Analytics and Logistics. 8. DOI:10.1108/JDAL-12-2023-0016
  54. Shekhovtsov, A., Paradowski, B., Więckowski, J., Kizielewicz, B., & Sałabun, W. (2022, December). Extension of the SPOTIS method for the rank reversal free decision-making under fuzzy environment. In 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) (pp. 5595-5600). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/CDC51059.2022.9992833
  55. Singh, J., & Sharan, A. (2015). Relevance feedback based query expansion model using Borda count and semantic similarity approach. Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2015(1), 568197. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/568197Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
  56. Sofrankova, B., Sira, E., Horvathova, J., & Mokrisova, M. (2025). Digital skills and digital transformation performance in the EU-27: A DESI-based nonparametric and panel data study. Economies, 13(11), 315. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies13110315
  57. Stojanović, A., Mashovic, A. ve Kasumović, M. (2024). Position of southeast European countries in the digitalization of manufacturing processes within SMEs: A comparative analysis using EDAS and entropy weighting methodology. Journal of Organizations, Technology and Entrepreneurship, 2(3), 187-197. https://doi.org/10.56578/jote020305
  58. Tatar, V. (2025). Assessment of Ergonomic Risk Factors for Sustainable Agricultural Practices Based on Picture Fuzzy Lodeci-Artasi Approach. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(3), 1891-1920. https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.1737223
  59. Trung, N. Q., & Thanh, N. V. (2022). Evaluation of digital marketing technologies with fuzzy linguistic MCDM methods. Axioms, 11(5), 230. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11050230
  60. Vlahović, O., Stanovcic, T., Perovic, D., Manojlovic, M., & Radjenovic, Z. (2024). Multi-criteria decision making in travel and tourism digitalization: web-based perspective. ENTRENOVA-ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Journal, 10(1), 255-269. https://doi.org/10.54820/entrenova-2024-0021
  61. Więckowski, J., Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., & Sałabun, W. (2023a). RANCOM: A novel approach to identifying criteria relevance based on inaccuracy expert judgments. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 122, 106114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106114
  62. Więckowski, J., Wątróbski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2024b). Inaccuracies in expert judgment: Comparative analysis of RANCOM and AHP methods in housing location selection problem. IEEE Access, 12, 142083-142100. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3443451
  63. Więckowski, Jakub & Wątróbski, Jarosław & Shkurina, Anna & Sałabun, Wojciech. (2024a). Adaptive multi- criteria decision making for electric vehicles: a hybrid approach based on RANCOM and ESP-SPOTIS. Artificial Intelligence Review. DOI:10.1007/s10462-024-10901-4
  64. Yılmaz, B. (2025). Determining the digitalization levels of leading countries in logistics performance index: An application with CRITIC-TOPSIS approach. Verimlilik Dergisi, 59(2), 433-452. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1541480
  65. Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and economic development of economy, 17(2), 397-427. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291
  66. Zhao, H., Wang, Y. ve Guo, S. (2023). A hybrid MCDM model combining Fuzzy-Delphi, AEW, BWM, and MARCOS for digital economy development comprehensive evaluation of 31 provincial level regions in China. PLoS ONE, 18(4), e0283655. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283655