Advertisement

Evaluation of Tourism Sector Based on the Internal Environment by Using a Fuzzy Approach

  • İhsan YükselEmail author
  • Metin Dağdeviren
  • Gülsüm Alicioğlu
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 896)

Abstract

Organizations have been trying to achieve their goals considering the internal and external environment conditions, parameters and variables. For this reason, the management activities have been performed by a strategic approach at the organizations. Different analyses have been made in the strategic management process first stage. Main reason of this is difficulties of the explanation completely and detailed of strategic analysis stage in the organization. Primary purpose of this study is to carry out the strategic analysis based on the internal environment. In this study strategic analysis was conducted on sectoral basis and by an integrated approach. Analysis unit of the study is Turkey tourism sector. Content of this study is limited by the internal environment of the Turkey tourism sector. Firstly in this study the vision’s components of Turkey tourism sector were determined by the content analysis. Then, the weights of the components were calculated. Weights of the internal environment factors that are strengths and weaknesses were determined according to the components of vision. In addition to these analyses the present state of each internal factors were evaluated by the scale that was consisted with fuzzy numbers. Finally the present level of each internal environment factor was calculated as separated and whole. In the result of the study tourism sector were evaluated by the strategic and integrated approach with fuzzy numbers.

Keywords

Fuzzy approach Turkey tourism sector Internal environment factors 

References

  1. 1.
    Misankova, M., Kocisova, K.: Strategic implementation as a part of strategic management. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 110, 861–870 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brews, P., Purohit, D.: Strategic planning in unstable environments. Long Range Plan. 40, 64–83 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duncan, W.J., Ginter, P.M., Swayne, L.E.: Competitive advantage and internal organizational assessment. Acad. Manag. Exec. 12(3), 6–15 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lynch, R.: Strategic Management. Pearson Education Limited, England (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pop, Z.C., Borza, A.: New perspectives on strategic management process. Ann. Fac. Econ. Univ. Oradea Fac. Econ. 1(1), 1573–1580 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dinçer, Ö.: Stratejik yönetim ve işletme politikası. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ülgen, H., Mirze, S.K.: İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim. Arıkan Yayınları, İstanbul (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Me, A.: Analysis of the impact of strategic management on the business performance of SMES in Nigeria. Acad. Strat. Manag. J. 17(1), 1–20 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brownlie, D.: Scanning the internal environment: impossible precept or neglected art? J. Mark. Manag. 4(3), 300–329 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glaister, K.W., Falshaw, R.: Strategic planning: still going strong? Long Range Plan. 32(1), 107–116 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yüksel, İ., Dağdeviren, M.: Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis-a case study for a textile firm. Inf. Sci. 177(6), 3364–3382 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gökdeniz, İ., Kartal, C., Kömürcü, K.: Strategic assessment based on 7S McKinsey model for a business by using analytic network process (ANP). Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 7(6), 342–353 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, C., Hsieh, P.-J.: A fuzzy decision support system for strategic portfolio management. Decis. Support Syst. 38, 383–398 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MCT): Tourism Strategy of Turkey-2023. T.R. Ministry of Culture and Tourism Publications Number: 3090, Ankara (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill International Book Company, New York City (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yüksel, M.: Evaluating the Effectiveness of the chemistry education by using the analytic hierarchy process. Int. Educ. Stud. 5(5), 79–91 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yüksel, M., Geban, Ö.: Evaluation of teacher performance according to the special area competencies of chemistry teachers. H. U. J. Educ. 30(1), 299–312 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications A State of the Art Survey. Springer, New York City (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shih, H.-S., Shyur, H.-J., Lee, E.S.: An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math. Comput. Model. 45, 801–813 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yüksel, İ. Dağdeviren, M., Kurt, M.: Aristo ve Bulanık Mantık Temelinde Üst Yönetim Stratejilerinin Değerlendirilmesi. In: 14 Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, pp. 340–345, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cheng, A.-C., Chen, C.-J., Chen, C.-Y.: A fuzzy multiple criteria comparison of technology forecasting methods for predicting the new materials development. Techonological Forecast. Soc. Chang. 75(1), 131–141 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dağdeviren, M.: Performans Değerlendirme Sürecinin Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemleri İle Bütünleşik Modellenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development (RTMD): Tenth Development Plan Specialization Commission Report. Publications Number: 2859, Ankara (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • İhsan Yüksel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Metin Dağdeviren
    • 2
  • Gülsüm Alicioğlu
    • 2
  1. 1.Kırıkkale UniversityKırıkkaleTurkey
  2. 2.Gazi UniversityMaltepeTurkey

Personalised recommendations