Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

Analysis of balanced scorecard-based SERVQUAL criteria based on hesitant T

decision-making approaches
Hasan Dinçera, Serhat Yüksela, Luis Martínezb,
⁎

a
İstanbul Medipol University, Turkey
b
Universidad de Jaén, Spain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The measurement of quality of services has an important influence in the companies’ competence, being even
Multi-criteria decision making more relevant in the banking sector because of the high competition to keep and attract customers. Due to this
SERVQUAL fact, this paper proposes a balanced scorecard based SERVQUAL to rank competitors in the banking sector. The
Hesitant fuzzy sets analysis will deal with hesitant fuzzy information that models the hesitancy of the experts involved. This analysis
DEMATEL
will be applied for weighting criteria and dimensions, ranking alternatives and different results that will define
VIKOR
the Turkish banking sector. Its main goal is to show that banks should be more willing to help and support their
customers to increase the quality of their services. Therefor the analysis aims at showing which is the most
relevant factor in the balanced scorecard based-SERVQUAL dimensions according to the correlation coefficient?
It also aims at providing a clear view about what type of actions should take banks to be closer to the customers.
Additionally, it will be identified which is the importance of the different dimensions of the approach?
Eventually the main conclusions obtained from the analysis will be detailed regarding the quality services of-
fered by banks in Turkey and different recommendations will be elicited to increase the banks performance in
service quality according to the criteria and dimensions emphasized in this study.

1. Introduction This method was introduced by Parasuraman, Zeithalm and Berry in

There is an increase in the level of competition in almost all sectors
due to the globalization. Due to this fact, companies must take different
type of actions to increase their competitive powers (Yüksel, 2017).
Increasing the quality of product/service is crucial for the companies to
make difference in comparison with their rivals because increasing
quality can fulfil customers’ expectations. In other words, customers are
much more satisfied when they are experiencing high quality in the
products and services, and prefer companies providing such a type of
products.
The measurement of the service and product quality plays a key role
in this process. An effective measurement helps companies to identify
the ways to increase quality of the product and service. However,
measurement of service quality is not an easy process because many
different conditions should be considered to reach an effective mea-
surement. Therefore, a set of criteria should be defined with respect to
the measurement of the service and product quality (Stefano, Casarotto
Filho, Barichello, & Sohn, 2015)
Among other methods, SERVQUAL is a wide-spread and reliable
approach used in many different sectors to evaluate the service quality.
1988 and used to measure service quality. Its main purpose is to
benchmark service performance of the companies with customer ex-
pectations. Within this framework, there are 5 main factors to reach this
objective (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988):
1. With respect to the factor tangibles, physical facilities and the per-
sonnel of the companies are considered.
2. For the factor of reliability, the accuracy of the promised service is
analyzed.
3. The factor empathy refers to the paying attention to the customers.
4. The factor of assurance assesses customers’ confidence.
5. Responsiveness gives an idea about the willingness of the companies
to help the customers.
Banking sector is also an example in which this methodology is
frequently preferred (Ali & Raza, 2017; Bose & Gupta, 2013; Charles &
Kumar, 2014; Zavareh et al., 2012). Because of the hard competition in
the banking sector, customer satisfaction is a crucial issue to increase
banks’ competitiveness and they should increase the quality of the
services. Within this context, service quality should be measured

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hdincer@medipol.edu.tr (H. Dinçer), serhatyuksel@medipol.edu.tr (S. Yüksel), martin@ujaen.es (L. Martínez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.03.026
Received 18 September 2018; Received in revised form 19 February 2019; Accepted 12 March 2019
Available online 13 March 2019
0360-8352/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Dinçer, et al.
periodically with an effective methodology. Therefore, SERVQUAL
approach is an ideal method for banking sector (Ali & Raza, 2017).
Moreover, use of multi-criteria decision making could ease to
evaluate the determinants of SERVQUAL for the complex problems
defined under the fuzzy environment. Additionally, the hesitant fuzzy
sets are known as a novel tool of collecting the expert preferences in the
subset between 0 and 1 (Rodríguez, Martínez, Herrera, & Torra, 2016).
Thus, it is possible to measure the complex problems under the hesi-
tancy more accurately. However, the hybrid approach by combining the
different methods such as DEMATEL and VIKOR for the decision
making process could be increase the robustness of the analysis. Ac-
cordingly, The DEMATEL method provides more comprehensive results
than the hierarchical approach to measure the impact and relation
among the factors and weight them (Dinçer, Hacıoğlu, & Yüksel, 2017).
The VIKOR method is frequently used for ranking the alternatives in the
field of social sciences such as finance (Dincer & Hacioglu, 2015),
country performance (Dinçer, Yüksel, & Martínez, 2019) and strategic
selection (Zhang & Wei, 2013).
Taking advantage of this approach, this paper aims at analyzing
balanced scorecard-based SERVQUAL criteria in Turkish banking
sector. To do so, a framework with 4 dimensions and 8 criteria are
selected based on balanced scorecard perspectives. After that, it is ne-
cessary to establish which criteria must be included in which dimen-
sions the correlation among criteria and dimensions are computed. In
this process, fuzzy preferences are provided from the experts and they
are jointed into hesitant fuzzy sets as the modelling of the experts’
group hesitancy. Hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL approach is then considered
to weight the dimensions and criteria. Finally, hesitant fuzzy VIKOR
methodology is used to rank Turkish deposit banks which can be traded
in İstanbul Stock Exchange.
This analysis will show which dimensions and criteria are more
important to increase service quality in the banking sector. Therefore,
necessary recommendations can be presented to the banks for this
purpose. The novelties of this study consist of defining the criteria of
SERVQUAL using the correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets and
analyzing the banking sector with the balanced scorecard-based cus-
tomer expectations criteria of SERVQUAL multidimensionally. In ad-
dition to them, proposing a modified hesitant fuzzy decision-making
approach combining DEMATEL and VIKOR also increases the origin-
ality of this study.
This paper is organized as follows: After the Introduction Section,
similar studies in the literature are explained in the Literature Review
Section. With the help of this review, the missing area in the literature
can be underlined. In the third section, a brief background about
hesitant fuzzy sets, correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets, hesi-
tant fuzzy DEMATEL and hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS, is provided. Moreover,
the Section 4 describes our proposal and applies it to Turkish banking
sector including recommendations according to the analysis results.
Finally, Section 5 concludes our paper.
2. Literature review
It has been pointed out previously that SERVQUAL is the preferred
methodology in many different studies in the literature:
i. For example, Basfirinci and Mitra (2015), Jeeradist,
Thawesaengskulthai, and Sangsuwan (2016) and Rezaei, Kothadiya,
Tavasszy, and Kroesen (2018) used this methodology to evaluate
the service quality in airline industry.
ii. Galeeva (2016), Yeo and Li (2014) and Yousapronpaiboon (2014)
preferred this approach in order to find the ways to improve service
quality in education systems.
iii. Beheshtinia and Farzaneh Azad (2017), Stefano et al. (2015) and
Ukpabi, Olaleye, Mogaji, and Karjaluoto (2018) aimed to measure
the service quality in hotel industry.
2
Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12
In addition to these studies, it can also be seen that the service
quality in the banking sector is analyzed in some studies. Most of them
focused on the relationship between service quality and customer sa-
tisfaction. As an example, Zameer, Tara, Kausar, and Mohsin (2015)
made a study to analyze this relationship in Pakistan. With the help of
the survey methodology, it is concluded that there is a positive re-
lationship between these variables. Parallel to this study, Al-Hawari
(2015), Khan and Fasih (2014) and Yilmaz, Ari, and Gürbüz (2018) also
reached the similar conclusion by using the same methodology.
Moreover, Kayeser Fatima and Abdur Razzaque (2014) also aimed
to determine the effect of service quality on customer satisfaction in the
banking sector. Within this framework, 212 different banks were
evaluated by using structural equation model. As a result of this ana-
lysis, it is defined that service quality leads to higher customer sa-
tisfaction in the banking sector. Additionally, Choudhury (2014) un-
derlined the same conclusion by considering regression analysis.
Furthermore, Ali and Raza (2017) and Janahi and Al Mubarak (2017)
determined that there is a strong relationship between service quality
and customer satisfaction for the Islamic banks.
Some studies also aimed to identify which factors in service quality
have a higher effect on customer satisfaction. For instance,
Valmohammadi and Beladpas (2014) determined that “communica-
tion” is the most important issue of the service quality in order to
provide customer satisfaction. Moreover, Al-Alak (2014) underlined the
factor of “employee behavior”, Mittal, Gera, and Batra (2015) stated the
importance of “physical conditions of the banks”, George and Kumar
(2014) emphasized the “efficiency of the internet banking” for the
banking sector to have higher customer satisfaction.
Furthermore, Arcand, PromTep, Brun, and Rajaobelina (2017)
aimed to analyze which factors have a higher influence on customer
satisfaction on the banking sector of Canada. By making analysis with
survey methodology, it is identified that providing “customer trust” is
the key issue to increase the loyalty and satisfaction. Also, Kant and
Jaiswal (2017) concluded that the dimension of the “responsiveness”
has the highest influence on customer satisfaction. Cepeda-Carrión,
Leal-Millán, Ortega-Gutierrez, and Leal-Rodriguez (2015) emphasized
the importance of “learning and growth” to increase customer sa-
tisfaction whereas Amin (2016) underlined the factor of “efficiency of
the bank website” for this purpose. Additionally, Bandyopadhyay
(2015) identified which elements of Kano method have higher effect on
customer satisfaction. Kaura, Durga Prasad, and Sharma (2015) also
made similar studies for Indian banking sector.
Other studies researched the effect of the service quality on cus-
tomer satisfaction by considering different types of the banks. As an
example, Paul, Mittal, and Srivastav (2016) focused on this topic for
Indian banking sector and concluded that service quality has higher
impact on customer satisfaction for private banks in comparison with
the state banks. However, Ray (2017) identified that service quality in
internet banking is more significant for foreign banks. In addition to
them, Agrawal, Mittal, and Gupta (2016) determined that there is no
difference in the quality of e-banking services among state, private and
foreign banks. Similar to this study, Rezapour and Peykani (2017)
emphasized the same situation for Iranian banking sector.
While considering previous studies in the literature, it is easy to see
that SERVQUAL methodology is preferred in many different industries
among them the banking sector. It is also remarkable that different
methodologies are considered in these studies, such as survey, regres-
sion and structural equation model. In the multi-criteria decision
making models, while there are several kinds of novel modified deci-
sion making approach in the selection problems such as green supplier
selection (Wang, Wei, & Yu, 2018), banking (Dincer & Hacioglu, 2013;
Dinçer & Yüksel, 2018a; Dincer, 2018), engineering projects (Wu,
Wang, Wei, & Wei, 2018), teaching (Gao, Wei, & Huang, 2018), re-
source planning (Wei, Gao, & Wei, 2018), finance (Dinçer & Yüksel,
2018b; Dinçer, Yüksel, & Şenel, 2018; Dincer, Hacioglu, Tatoglu, &
H. Dinçer, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12

Delen, 2016), and technology (Wei & Lu, 2018), there is still a need for
new studies that focus on service quality in banking sector with an
original methodology of fuzzy-based decision making approach.
Therefore, it is thought that a new study, which analyzes SERVQUAL
criteria with hesitant fuzzy information, can make a significant con-
tribution to the related studies.
3. Background
This section presents a brief review about the tools and the methods
that will be used in the service quality of the banking sector that we will
introduce in Section 4.
3.1. Hesitant fuzzy sets
making approach using the multi-hesitant fuzzy sets. Ranjbar, Effati,
and Kamyad (2018) analyze triangular operators in hesitant fuzzy sets.
3.2. Correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets
Correlation coefficients analyze the relationship between different
variables in case of the uncertain information. Several studies are ap-
plied by considering the correlation measures with HFSs (Liao, Xu, &
Zeng, 2015; Meng & Chen, 2015). Accordingly, the correlation coeffi-
cient of HFS represents the relationship between elements of hesitant
fuzzy evaluations (Yang, Xu, & Liao, 2017). In this case, X = {x1, x2, ...xn}
represents discrete universe of discourse. On the other side, A and B
give information about the different HFSs on X. This situation is de-
monstrated as following.

A = { x i , hA (xn ) x i X , i = 1, 2, ...,n} and B

Torra and Narukawa (2009) initially provide an extended approach
to the fuzzy sets. In this circumstance, the membership function is taken = { x i , hB (x n) x i X , i = 1, 2, ...,n} (9)
into the consideration. As a result, a set of values can be generated, and
In this equation, hesitant fuzzy element (HFE) of E is called as
they are called as hesitant fuzzy sets (HFS). Hesitant modelling makes
h = hE (x ) . Moreover, hE (x ) is the set of all HFEs of E. It takes the value
the evaluations easy to structure the expert scores in case of a doubt
between 0 and 1 for a particular x X (Rodríguez, Martínez, Torra, Xu,
(Rodriguez, Martinez, & Herrera, 2012; Xia & Xu, 2011). To show
& Herrera, 2014). The values of a HFE are generally in a disorder and
reasonable results under the hesitation, a preference set is applied. This
they are constructed in the decreasing order for the convenience. For a
subset can take values between 0 and 1. The fuzzy systems under the
HFE h, let : (1, 2, ...,n) (1, 2, ...,n) be a permutation and it satisfies
modelling hesitation is illustrated as follows:
that h (i) h (i + 1) (1, 2, , n) , i = 1, 2, , n 1, and h (j) be the jth
M = { µ1 , , µN } (1) largest value in h. If l (hA (x i )) < l (hB (x i )) then hA (x i ) should be extended.
In this situation, the minimum value is added and this situation goes on
In Eq. (1), there are N different membership functions and M refers when it has the same length as hB (xi ) , where l (hA (x i )) and l (hB (xi ))
to the set of them. define the number of values in hA (x i ) and hB (xi ) respectively. Correla-
hM (x ) = µ M {µ (x )} (2) tion coefficients of HFSs are formulized as (Chen, Xu, & Xia, 2013; Xu &
Xia, 2011; Ye, 2014).
h (x ) = minh (x ) andh+ (x ) = maxh (x ) (3)
In Eq. (2), hesitant fuzzy set is demonstrated by h. On the other side, Step 1: The correlation of the set A is defined as
h and 1 h+ are the functions that conform the intuitionistic fuzzy set n li
1
defined by the HFS. The membership function is given as: CHFS (A, A) = hA2 (j ) (x i )
i=1
li j=1 (10)
hc (x ) = h (x ) {1 } (4)
In the following equations, h1 and h2 refer to two hesitant fuzzy sets. Step 2: The correlation between A and B is
The union and intersection of them are represented
n li
1
(h1 h2 )(x ) = {h (h1 (x ) h2 (x ))|h max(h1 , h 2 ))}, or (5) CHFS (A, B ) = hA (j ) (x i ) hB (j ) (x i )
i=1
li j=1 (11)
(h1 h2 )(x ) = (h1 (x ) h2 (x ))+ for = max(h1 , h2 ) (6)
Step 3: The correlation coefficient between A and B is examined
(h1 h2 )(x ) = {h (h1 (x ) h2 (x ))|h max(h1+, h 2+))}, or (7)
CHFS (A, B )
(h1 h2 )(x ) = (h1 (x ) h2 (x )) for = min(h1+, h2+) (8) HFS (A, B ) =
CHFS (A, A) CHFS (B, B )
The previous original definition of an HFS, Eq. (2), was completed
by Xu and Xia (2011) by including the following mathematical formal =
n
i=1 ( 1
li
li
j =1
hA (j ) (xi ) hB (j ) (x i ) )
representation: n
i=1 ( 1
li
li
j=1
hA2 (j) (x i ) ) n
i=1 ( 1
li
li
j=1
hB2 (j ) (x i ) ) (12)
E = { x , hE : x X },
The correlation coefficient satisfies the conditions of
being hE a set of values in [0,1] showing the possible membership de- 0 B ) 1, HFS (A, B )= HFS (B, A) , HFS (A, B ) = 1, ifA = B .
HFS (A ,
gree of x X in the set E. For sake of clarity h = hE (x) and so called Limited studies are found in the literature related to the correlation
hesitant fuzzy element. coefficients of HFS in the complex decision-making problems such as
There are several extensions of the hesitant fuzzy sets in the recent adapting the dual hesitant fuzzy sets (Arora & Garg, 2018; Tyagi, 2015;
literature (Rodríguez, Labella, & Martínez, 2016; Rodríguez, Martínez, Ye, 2014), combining with the MCDM (Liao, Xu, & Zeng, 2015; Liao,
et al., 2016). Dual hesitant fuzzy sets are used in the process of group Xu, Zeng, & Merigó, 2015; Sun, Guan, Yi, & Zhou, 2018), and using the
decision making to define the preferences (Ren, Xu, & Wang, 2017). feature selection algorithm (Ebrahimpour & Eftekhari, 2018). In this
The interval-valued hesitant fuzzy sets are also introduced for classi- study, it is aimed to find the correlated criteria of each dimension by
fying factors and alternatives (Asan, Kadaifci, Bozdag, Soyer, & considering the correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets. For this
Serdarasan, 2018; Gitinavard, Mousavi, & Vahdani, 2017). On the other purpose, the values of correlation coefficients for the criteria with re-
side, the generalized hesitant fuzzy sets are specialized for the similarity spect to the dimensions are computed and the greater values than the
measure and decision support system (Ngan, 2017; Qian, Wang, & Feng, threshold value that is the averaged values of the matrix are selected for
2013). However, Pérez-Fernández et al. (2015) propose the finite in- the criteria of each dimension. Accordingly, the subset between 0 and 1
terval-valued hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Peng, Wang, Wang, for the correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets are considered to
Yang, and Chen (2015) introduce an extended multicriteria decision select the best criteria defining the dimensions, instead of clarifying the

3
H. Dinçer, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12

positive and negative correlation coefficients of the factors. The nega- T = [tij ]n × n , i, j = 1, 2, ,n (19)
tive and positive impacts of each factor and their weights are measured
n
by using hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL. The details of the methods are
r= tij = (ri )n× 1 = (r1, , ri, , rn)
provided in the following section.
j =1 n×1 (20)
3.3. Hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL n '

y= tij =(yj )1' × n = (y1 , , yi , , yn )

DEMATEL refers to the “decision making trial and evaluation la- i=1 1×n (21)
boratory”. This approach is considered to examine the causal re-
The HF-DEMATEL has been already applied to several applications
lationship between different factors under the complex environment.
but still there is a wide range of promising applications for this ap-
The hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL approach has an increasing effect on the
proach (Asan et al., 2018; Gitinavard et al., 2017).
flexibility when there is uncertainty (Kuo, 2011). The details of this
methodology can be analyzed in five different steps.
3.4. Hesitant fuzzy VIKOR
Step 1: The relationship among the dimension is estimated. In this
VIKOR refers to the “Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno
process, a subset, which takes value between 0 and 1, is considered.
Resenje” and is used for the complex systems and identifies the solution
In other words, decision makers use the values between 0 and 1 to
that is the closest to the ideal one (Fu, Chu, Chao, Lee, & Liao, 2010; Ju
measure the degree of the influence.
& Wang, 2013; Shaverdi, Akbari, & Tafti, 2011; Yücenur & Demirel,
Step 2: “The collective hesitant fuzzy initial direct-relation fuzzy
2012). The method is used for selecting the alternatives in terms of the
matrix” (Z ) is calculated. In this step, firstly, the direct relation
defined factors. Final process of the decision-making problem is em-
matrix is developed. In this process, decision makers’ evaluations
ployed by defining compromise solutions (Opricovic & Tzeng, 2007;
are taken into the consideration. After that, this matrix is created
Opricovic, 2011). The hesitant fuzzy VIKOR is an extended method
according the evaluation results. The details are demonstrated on
based on hesitant fuzzy sets (Zhang & Wei, 2013), (see below):
Eq. (13).

0 Z12 Z1n Step 1: Collect the scores of the decision makers for each alternative
Z21 0 Z2n by using the values between 0 and 1. By the evaluations of the al-
Z= ternatives, the decision matrix under hesitancy is presented as:

Zn1 Zn2 0 (13)

The average fuzzy scores of l experts’ opinions are used in order to
get the initial direct-relation matrix by using Eq. (14).
1 2 3 l
k Zij + Zij + Zij + Zij
Zij = , k = (1, 2, , l)
l (14) (22)

Step 3: Direct effect matrix is normalized and it is given on Eq. (15).

where A1, A2, …, Am refer to the possible alternatives. Moreover, C1, C2,
x11 x12 x1n …, Cn demonstrate the criteria and hij means the rating of alternative
x21 x22 x2n Ai. Furthermore, the aggregated ratings hij of alternatives and the de-
x = cision matrix are determined using the evaluations provided by k de-
cision makers with Eq. (23).
x n1 xn2 xnn (15) n
1
hij = hije , i = 1, 2, 3, …, m
where k (23)
e=1
n
z ij
x ij = and r = max1 i n z ij Step 2: Calculate the best and worst values. The best value h+ and
r (16)
j=1 worst value h for all criterion are computed. This situation is de-
monstrated on Eq. (24)
Step 4 is related to the generation of the total influence matrix (T).
hJ+ = max hij , and hj = min hij ,
Identity matrix is shown by I and lim N h = [0]n × n . i i (24)
h
T=N+ N2 + N2 + +N h = N (I + N + N 2+ + N h 1)(I A+ = {h1+, , hn+} (25)
N )(I N) 1
(17) where
T = N (I N h )(I N) 1 = N (I N) 1, when lim N h = [0]n× n h+j = m h
i = 1 ij = 1j hij, , mj hmj max { 1j, , mj} j = 1, 2, ,n (26)
h

(18) A = {h1 , , hn } (27)

Step 5 contains the calculation of the influential network relation where

map. Within this framework, the sum of each row and column is hj = m h = , mj hmj min { 1j, ,
i = 1 ij 1j hij, mj} j = 1, 2, ,n (28)
generated by the following equations. In these equations, the sum of
all vector rows r = (r1, , ri, , rn) is represented by vector r. In ad-
Step 3: Compute mean group utility and maximal regret as
dition, the sum of all vector columns y = (y1, , yi , , yn ) is indicated
by vector y. Also, (ri yi ) refers to the degree of causality. It shows n (|hj+ hij |)
Si = wj
that criterion i has an influence on other criteria in case of positive i=1 (|hj+ hj |) (29)
value. Otherwise, the opposite situation is occurred.

4
H. Dinçer, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12

(|hj+ hij |) alternatives A(1) , A(2) … , A(M ) are stated as the solutions when the first
Ri = max wj + condition cannot be met.
j (|hj hj |) (30)
There are few but successful studies on the extended method of
where wj are the weights. VIKOR based on hesitant fuzzy sets. Ren et al. (2017) use the dual
hesitant fuzzy VIKOR. Dong, Yuan, and Wan (2017) consider the ex-
Step 4: Compute the value of Qi . The value is identified for final tended VIKOR method with the linguistic hesitant fuzzy information.
ranking by Eq. (31) Liao and Xu (2015) study on the Cosine-distance-based HFL-VIKOR
method.
Qi = v (Si S ) (S S ) + (1 v )(Ri R ) (R R) (31)

where S = min Si , S = max Si , R = min Ri , R = max Ri . In addition to
i i i i
them, the weight of the strategy for maximum group utility is given as
v. Moreover, “1 − v” is the weight of the individual regret. Within this
framework, v is assumed to be equal to 0.5.
Step 5: Sort the values of S, R and Q in decreasing order for the
alternatives. Two conditions must be satisfied for this aspect:
Condition 1: Acceptable Advantage is:
Q (A(2) ) Q (A(1) ) 1 (j 1)
where A(2) is the second-best alternative.
Condition 2: A(1) must also be the best ranked and this solution is
stable for each decision-making process (consensus, maximum group
utility or veto). If either condition 1 or 2 cannot be satisfied, the solu-
tions depend on the situations. For example, if condition 2 is not sa-
tisfied, A(1) and A(2) are accepted as the solutions. On the other side,
4. Balanced scorecard based-SERVQUAL for banking sector
In this section, firstly, the empirical design of the study is explained.
Within this context, three different phases of the analysis are explained.
Afterwards, the necessary information about the application the pre-
vious designed approach on Turkish banking sector is provided. For this
purpose, an analysis results is developed for sake of clarity and to fa-
cilitate the performance of the approach.
4.1. Empirical design
(32)
The analysis in this study has 3 different phases. The empirical
design of the study is depicted on Fig. 1.
As it can be seen from Fig. 1, firstly, the problem for banking sector
is defined in which the dimensions and criteria are defined (Arcand
et al., 2017; Jeeradist et al., 2016; Kant & Jaiswal, 2017; Mittal et al.,
2015). Experts evaluate then these dimensions and criteria for deposit

Fig. 1. The flowchart of proposed model.

5
H. Dinçer, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12

Table 1
Proposed Balanced scorecard based-SERVQUAL dimensions for banking sector.
Perspectives Dimensions Supported literature

Finance (P1)
Customer (P2)
Internal Process (P3)
Learning and Growth (P4)
Physical Conditions (D1) (Amin, 2016; Bandyopadhyay, 2015; Basfirinci & Mitra, 2015; Dinçer, Yüksel, & Martínez, 2019; Galeeva, 2016;
Jeeradist et al., 2016; Mittal et al., 2015)
Reliability (D2) (Arcand et al., 2017; George & Kumar, 2014; Rezaei et al., 2018; Stefano et al., 2015; Yousapronpaiboon, 2014)
Responsiveness (D3) (Al-Alak, 2014; Kant & Jaiswal, 2017; Ukpabi et al., 2018; Zameer et al., 2015)
Costs and Earnings (D4) (Al-Alak, 2014; Al-Hawari, 2015; Beheshtinia & Farzaneh Azad, 2017; Cepeda-Carrión et al., 2015; Kayeser Fatima &
Abdur Razzaque, 2014; Khan & Fasih, 2014)

banks in Turkey which can be traded on Istanbul Stock Exchange. In the
first phase of the analysis, the criteria are recognized. Within this fra-
mework, correlation coefficient is calculated between the criteria and
dimensions. As a result of this calculation, the criteria for each di-
mension can be selected.
In the literature, there are limited studies by considering the
DEMATEL and VIKOR method under the hesitancy. Wu, Liu, and Wang
(2017) use the hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL to determine the inter-
relationship among the customer requirements and their weights and
VIKOR method under the hesitancy is applied for ranking the en-
gineering characteristics for quality function deployment. Ren et al.
(2017) present the dual hesitant fuzzy sets-based approach to the
VIKOR for the cooperative partner selection. Yang, Pang, Shi, and Wang
(2018) provide a comparative method using VIKOR and TOPSIS with
the linguistic hesitant intuitionistic fuzzy elements. Han, Sun, Xie, and
Che (2018) apply the hesitant fuzzy linguistic group DEMATEL with the
multi-granular evaluations. In this study, the criteria and dimensions
are initially weighted. Within this scope, firstly, evaluations of each
decision maker are obtained individually for the dimensions and cri-
teria. Next, collective opinions of decision makers are constructed for
hesitant fuzzy initial direct relation matrix. By considering this eva-
luation, the weights of these criteria and dimensions are identified by
considering hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Consequently, the local
and global weights of the factors can be calculated. In the last phase of
the analysis, it is aimed to rank the deposit banks regarding SERVQUAL
performance. For this purpose, expert opinions are collected, and the
collective hesitant fuzzy decision matrix is constructed. Consequently,
the performance of these deposit banks is ranked by using hesitant
fuzzy VIKOR method. Within this framework, experts do not provide
hesitant fuzzy sets, we prefer to collect their fuzzy preferences and
provide the collective hesitant fuzzy sets.
First of all, the dimensions and criteria are selected by evaluating
the similar studies. With the help of this analysis, 4 different SERVQ-
UAL dimensions are identified by considering the perspectives of ba-
lanced scorecard approach that are given in Table 1.
In Table 1, four different dimensions are used for SERVQUAL.
Physical conditions play a significant role in order to satisfy the
expectations of the customers. In other words, the banks, which give
importance to the physical conditions of their branches and general
building, can be more successful to achieve customer satisfaction. An-
other point for this situation is that when banks can increase the re-
liability, it will be much easier to satisfy their customers. In addition to
them, when banks can respond any requests of the customers effec-
tively, customer satisfaction can be provided. The final point in this
aspect is that if customers can perform their operations with lower cost,
they become satisfied. Table 2 gives information about the criteria of
the customer expectations regarding the quality of banking services.
From Table 2, eight different criteria are defined related to the
customer expectations for banking service quality. Firstly, it is obvious
that being closed to the customers makes them more satisfied. More-
over, with the help of effective information technology, banks can
provide better quality services to their customers. Therefore, banks can
be more successful to satisfy the expectations of the customers. Fur-
thermore, when customers can use the products or services easily, it
contributes to the customer satisfaction. In addition to them, having
effective customer support makes the customers more satisfied. It can
also be said that banks should provide products or services which are
convenient to the expectations of the customers. Additionally, if banks
can provide competitive costs to the customers, it can be easily said that
these banks will be preferred by the customers. Finally, if the banks can
increase their efficiency, it can be much easier for them to have cus-
tomer satisfaction.
4.2. An application on Turkish banking sector
Here, the application of the previous model is developed on the
Turkish banking sector and an analysis of its results provided. The
proposed model is applied in three different phases to rank the per-
formance of balanced scorecard-based SERVQUAL criteria in Turkish
banking sector:
1. Phase 1: it identifies the criteria for dimensions with the help of
correlation coefficients. Tables 3–6 represent the results of the first
phase.

Table 2
Proposed Criteria of customer expectations for banking service quality.
Criteria Supported literature

Being close to the customers (C1) (George & Kumar, 2014; Stefano et al., 2015; Valmohammadi & Beladpas, 2014; Yousapronpaiboon, 2014)
IT systems quality (C2) (Cepeda-Carrión et al., 2015; George & Kumar, 2014; Kayeser Fatima & Abdur Razzaque, 2014)
User-friendly products/services (C3) (Al-Alak, 2014; Dinçer, Yüksel, Korsakienė, Raišienė, & Bilan, 2019; Kant & Jaiswal, 2017; Paul et al., 2016; Stefano et al.,
2015; Yousapronpaiboon, 2014; Zameer et al., 2015)
Physical Security (C4) (Amin, 2016; Bandyopadhyay, 2015; Basfirinci & Mitra, 2015; Galeeva, 2016; Jeeradist et al., 2016; Mittal et al., 2015)
Customer support (C5) (Al-Alak, 2014; Arcand et al., 2017; George & Kumar, 2014; Stefano et al., 2015)
Conformity of products and services to the market (Agrawal et al., 2016; Arcand et al., 2017; Dinçer, Yüksel, Korsakienė et al., 2019; Ray, 2017; Stefano et al., 2015)
demand (C6)
Lower costs (C7) (Basfirinci & Mitra, 2015; Galeeva, 2016; Jeeradist et al., 2016; Rezapour & Peykani, 2017)
Efficiency (C8) (Amin, 2016; Bandyopadhyay, 2015; Kaura et al., 2015)

6
H. Dinçer, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12

Table 3
Hesitant fuzzy decision matrix for the dimensions.
Dimensions/balanced scorecard perspectives Finance (P1) Customer (P2) Internal process (P3) Learning and growth (P4)

Physical conditions (D1) {0.6, 0.7, 0.8} {0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6}
Reliability (D2) {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9} {0.2, 0.3, 0.4} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7}
Responsiveness (D3) {0.2, 0.3, 0.4} {0.4, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8} {0.5, 0.6, 0.8} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7}
Costs and earnings (D4) {0.7, 0.8, 0.9} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.9} {0.1, 0.2, 0.4} {0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5}

Table 4
Hesitant fuzzy decision matrix for the criteria.
Criteria/balanced scorecard perspectives Finance (P1) Customer (P2) Internal process (P3) Learning and growth (P4)

Being close to the customers (C1) {0.2, 0.3, 0.4} {0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9} {0.2, 0.3, 0.5} {0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5}
IT systems quality (C2) {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8} {0.7, 0.8, 0.9} {0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9}
User-friendly products/services (C3) {0.2, 0.3, 0.4} {0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9} {0.2, 0.3, 0.4} {0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9}
Physical Security (C4) {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.2, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0.1, 0.2, 0.3} {0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5}
Customer support (C5) {0.3, 0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9} {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8}
Conformity of products and services to the market demand (C6) {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9} {0.2, 0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.9}
Lower costs (C7) {0.7, 0.8, 0.9} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8} {0.1, 0.2, 0.4} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7}
Efficiency (C8) {0.6, 0.7, 0.8} {0.4, 0.6, 0.7, 0.9} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8}

Table 5
Correlation coefficient values for the set of criteria and dimensions (mean value:0.939).
Dimensions/criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

Physical conditions (D1) 0.943 0.935 0.891 0.962 0.958 0.966 0.941 0.992
Reliability (D2) 0.977 0.925 0.983 0.976 0.995 0.988 0.929 0.945
Responsiveness (D3) 0.942 0.991 0.935 0.914 0.959 0.935 0.843 0.948
Costs and earnings (D4) 0.896 0.805 0.841 0.965 0.912 0.946 0.982 0.942

Table 6 Table 8
Proposed criteria based on the correlation coefficiencies for the dimensions. The crisp direct-influence matrix for the dimensions.
SERVQUAL dimensions Recognized criteria Dimensions D1 D2 D3 D4

Physical conditions (D1) Being close to the customers (C1) D1 0.000 0.400 0.600 0.475
Physical security (C4) D2 0.575 0.000 0.475 0.525
Customer support (C5) D3 0.600 0.925 0.000 0.525
Conformity of products and services to the market D4 0.475 0.600 0.525 0.000
demand (C6)
Lower costs (C7)
Efficiency (C8) Table 9
Reliability (D2) Being close to the customers (C1) The normalized direct-influence matrix for the dimensions.
User-friendly products/services (C3) Dimensions D1 D2 D3 D4
Physical security (C4)
Customer support (C5) D1 0.000 0.195 0.293 0.232
Conformity of products and services to the market D2 0.280 0.000 0.232 0.256
demand (C6) D3 0.293 0.451 0.000 0.256
Efficiency (C8) D4 0.232 0.293 0.256 0.000
Responsiveness (D3) Being close to the customers (C1)
IT systems quality (C2)
Customer support (C5) Table 10
Efficiency (C8) The total-relation fuzzy matrix for the dimensions.
Costs and earnings (D4) Physical security (C4)
Dimensions D1 D2 D3 D4
Conformity of products and services to the market
demand (C6) D1 0.856 1.130 1.059 0.991
Lower costs (C7) D2 1.107 0.994 1.051 1.036
Efficiency (C8) D3 1.323 1.548 1.061 1.231
D4 1.093 1.242 1.081 0.848

Table 7
The collective hesitant fuzzy direct-influence matrix for SERVQUAL dimen- Table 11
sions. The impact-relationship degrees and weights of the dimensions.
Dimensions D1 D2 D3 D4
Dimensions def def def def def def Weights
Di Ri Di + Ri Di Ri
D1 {0} {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.4, 0.5}
D2 {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} D1 4.036 4.379 8.415 −0.343 0.238
D3 {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0} {0.5, 0.6} D2 4.189 4.914 9.103 −0.725 0.258
D4 D3 5.163 4.252 9.416 0.911 0.267
{0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0}
D4 4.264 4.106 8.370 0.158 0.237

7
H. Dinçer, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12

Table 12
The collective hesitant fuzzy direct-influence matrix for the criteria of dimension 1.
Criteria C1 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

C1 {0} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6}
C4 {0.4, 0.5} {0} {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6}
C5 {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7}
C6 {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0} {0.6} {0.6, 0.7}
C7 {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0} {0.5, 0.6}
C8 {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0}

Table 13 Table 18
The crisp direct-influence matrix for the criteria of dimension 1. The impact-relationship degrees and weights for the criteria of dimension 2.
Criteria C1 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Criteria def def def def def def Weights
Di Ri Di + Ri Di Ri

C1 0.000 0.600 0.550 0.500 0.450 0.550

C1 15.974 15.692 31.666 0.282 0.168
C4 0.475 0.000 0.525 0.450 0.425 0.475
C3 15.698 15.831 31.529 −0.132 0.167
C5 0.575 0.600 0.000 0.525 0.575 0.625
C4 15.207 16.580 31.786 −1.373 0.168
C6 0.600 0.625 0.550 0.000 0.600 0.625
C5 16.564 15.702 32.267 0.862 0.171
C7 0.600 0.550 0.500 0.475 0.000 0.525
C6 16.319 15.330 31.650 0.989 0.168
C8 0.475 0.525 0.500 0.475 0.525 0.000
C8 14.685 15.312 29.997 −0.628 0.159

Table 14
Table 19
The normalized direct-influence matrix for the criteria of dimension 1.
The collective hesitant fuzzy direct-influence matrix for the criteria of dimen-
Criteria C1 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 sion 3.

C1 0.000 0.200 0.183 0.167 0.150 0.183 Criteria C1 C2 C5 C8

C4 0.158 0.000 0.175 0.150 0.142 0.158
C1 {0} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5} {0.5, 0.6}
C5 0.192 0.200 0.000 0.175 0.192 0.208
C6 0.200 0.208 0.183 0.000 0.200 0.208 C2 {0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5}
C7 0.200 0.183 0.167 0.158 0.000 0.175 C5 {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0} {0.5, 0.6}
C8 0.158 0.175 0.167 0.158 0.175 0.000 C8 {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0}

Table 15 Table 20
The total-relation fuzzy matrix for the criteria of dimension 1. The impact-relationship degrees and weights for the criteria of dimension 3.

Criteria C1 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Criteria def def def def def def Weights

Di Ri Di + Ri Di Ri

C1 1.213 1.450 1.335 1.245 1.287 1.398 C1 18.710 17.798 36.508 0.912 0.251
C4 1.235 1.161 1.217 1.128 1.171 1.262 C2 17.806 19.160 36.966 −1.354 0.254
C5 1.470 1.551 1.273 1.338 1.409 1.514 C5 18.944 17.340 36.284 1.605 0.249
C6 1.515 1.598 1.466 1.224 1.451 1.554 C8 17.324 18.486 35.810 −1.162 0.246
C7 1.380 1.437 1.323 1.239 1.156 1.392
C8 1.293 1.371 1.267 1.187 1.251 1.184

2. Phase 2: In addition, Table 7–23 define the outcomes of the second

phase for the integrated model.
Table 16 3. Phase 3: Finally, Table 24–25 illustrate the ranking results of
The impact-relationship degrees and weights for the criteria of dimension 1. Turkish banks with respect to the third phase of this model.
Criteria def def def def def def Weights
Di Ri Di + Ri Di Ri

C1 7.929 8.107 16.036 −0.179 0.167 4.2.1. Identifying criteria for dimensions
C4 7.176 8.567 15.743 −1.392 0.164 In the first phase of the analysis process, criteria are identified for
C5 8.555 7.882 16.437 0.674 0.171 the dimensions. Within this framework, correlation coefficient between
C6 8.808 7.362 16.170 1.446 0.169 the criteria and dimensions is calculated. Expert opinions for dimen-
C7 7.927 7.724 15.651 0.202 0.163
sions and criteria are given in Tables 3 and 4.
C8 7.552 8.304 15.856 −0.752 0.165
By considering these experts’ opinions, correlation coefficient values
are calculated for dimensions and criteria. These calculations are made

Table 17
The collective hesitant fuzzy direct-influence matrix for the criteria of dimension 2.
Criteria C1 C3 C4 C5 C6 C8

C1 {0} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6}
C3 {0.5} {0} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6}
C4 {0.4, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0} {0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5}
C5 {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6} {0} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6}
C6 {0.5, 0.6} {0.5} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0} {0.5, 0.6}
C8 {0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0}

8
H. Dinçer, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12

Table 21 Table 25
The collective hesitant fuzzy direct-influence matrix for the criteria of dimen- Ranking results of banks.
sion 4.
Si Ri Qi Ranking
Criteria C4 C6 C7 C8
S1 0.676 0.060 0.954 9
C4 {0} {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} S2 0.716 0.061 1.000 10
C6 {0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} P1 0.322 0.034 0.363 5
C7 {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0} {0.5, 0.6} P2 0.668 0.056 0.905 8
C8 P3 0.259 0.027 0.237 4
{0.4, 0.5} {0.5} {0.5} {0}
P4 0.241 0.026 0.203 3
F1 0.401 0.040 0.492 6
F2 0.235 0.025 0.187 2
Table 22 F3 0.531 0.056 0.791 7
The impact-relationship degrees and weights for the criteria of dimension 4. F4 0.115 0.017 0.000 1

Criteria def def def def def def Weights

Di Ri Di + Ri Di Ri
by using Eqs. (10), (11) and (12). These values are demonstrated in
C4 7.982 8.497 16.479 −0.515 0.246
Table 5.
C6 8.293 8.292 16.585 0.001 0.248
C7 9.124 7.991 17.115 1.133 0.255 In Table 5, the values, which are greater than the mean value of
C8 8.101 8.720 16.821 −0.618 0.251 0.939, are highlighted. It means that these criteria are effective on this
dimension. For example, C1, C4, C5, C6, C7 and C8 are significant with
respect to the dimension of physical conditions (D1). Table 6 sum-
Table 23 marizes the significant criteria regarding their dimensions.
Local and global weights of the balanced scorecard-based SERVQUAL factors.
Dimensions Local Criteria Local Global
weights weights weights 4.2.2. Weighting criteria and dimensions
After identifying the criteria with the help of correlation coeffi-
Physical conditions (D1) 0.238 C1 0.167 0.040
cients, the weights of the criteria and dimensions are calculated with
C4 0.164 0.039
C5 0.171 0.041
the help of hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL approach. With respect to the
C6 0.169 0.040 weighting the dimensions, first of all, hesitant fuzzy direct influence
C7 0.163 0.039 matrix and the crisp direct-influence matrix are calculated. For this
C8 0.165 0.039 purpose, the equations of (13) and (14) are taken into the considera-
Reliability (D2) 0.258 C1 0.168 0.043 tion. Tables 7 and 8 give information about these matrixes.
C3 0.167 0.043 In addition to the hesitant fuzzy direct influence matrix and the
C4 0.168 0.043
crisp direct-influence matrix, the normalized direct influence matrix is
C5 0.171 0.044
C6 0.168 0.043 generated with the help of Eqs. (15) and (16). Table 9 explains this
C8 0.159 0.041 matrix.
Responsiveness (D3) 0.267 C1 0.251 0.067
On the other side, the total relation matrix has been created with
C2 0.254 0.068 Eqs. (17) and (18). Additionally, this matrix is given in Table 10.
C5 0.249 0.066 Moreover, the dimensions’ weights and impact relationship degrees
C8 0.246 0.066 are calculated by using the formulas (19), (20) and (21). The details are
Costs and earnings (D4) 0.237 C4 0.246 0.058 given in Table 11.
C6 0.248 0.059 Impact-relationship degrees are calculated with the help of Eqs. (20)
C7 0.255 0.061
and (21). By looking at these values, the most important dimension is
C8 0.251 0.060
responsiveness (D3). On the other side, it is also identified that cost and

Table 24
Fuzzy decision matrix for the banks in terms of hesitant fuzzy sets.
Alternatives/criteria S1 S2 P1 P2 P3 P4 F1 F2 F3 F4

C1 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C4 {0.6, 0.7} {0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7}
C5 {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C6 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C7 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C8 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C1 {0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C3 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C4 {0.6, 0.7} {0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7}
C5 {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C6 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C8 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C1 {0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.3, 0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C2 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6} {0.5} {0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C5 {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C8 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C4 {0.6, 0.7} {0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7}
C6 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7} {0.6, 0.7} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6, 0.7} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C7 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}
C8 {0.4, 0.5} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.5, 0.6} {0.6} {0.4, 0.5} {0.6, 0.7}

9
H. Dinçer, et al.
earnings (D4) is the least important dimension. In addition to them, it is
determined that the dimension of reliability (D2) is the most influenced
factor while the dimension of responsiveness (D3) is the most influen-
cing factor according to the values of Di
def def
Ri . In addition, the cri-
teria are also weighted according to the dimensions they are included.
Within this context, only the calculation of the weights for the criteria
of the first dimension (D1) is detailed. On the other side, the calcula-
tions for the criteria of other dimensions are summarized. Tables 12, 13,
14, 15 and 16 give information about the calculation of the weights for
the criteria of dimension 1. For this purpose, first of al, the collective
hesitant fuzzy direct-influence matrix is created which is detailed in
Table 12.
Additionally, Table 13 gives information about the crisp direct-in-
fluence matrix.
Furthermore, the normalized direct-influence matrix is detailed in
Table 14.
On the other side, the total-relation fuzzy matrix is demonstrated in
Table 15.
In addition to them, Table 16 shows the impact-relationship degrees
and weights for the criteria of dimension 1.
Table 16 indicates that customer support (C5) and conformity of
products and services to the market demand (C6) are the most im-
portant criteria for physical condition (D1) dimension. On the other
side, the criterion of lower costs (C7) has the lowest importance. Ad-
ditionally, Tables 17 and 18 give information about the calculation of
the weights for the dimension of reliability (D2).
By looking at the values in Table 18, customer support (C5) has the
highest importance whereas efficiency (C8) has the least importance for
the dimension of reliability (D2). On the other side, Tables 19 and 20
explain the details of the calculation of the weights of the criteria for
responsiveness (D3).
According to the values stated in Table 20, it is defined that in-
formation technology infrastructure (C2) is the most significant cri-
terion for the dimension of the responsiveness (D3). Nonetheless, it is
also identified that efficiency (C8) is the least important criterion for
the same dimension. Finally, the details of the calculation for the cri-
teria of dimension 4 are demonstrated in Table 21 and 22.
Table 22 gives information that the criterion of competitive costs
(C7) has the highest importance. Moreover, physical security (C4) has
the least significance for costs and earnings (D4) dimension. The details
are given in Table 23.
While looking at the global weights in Table 23, information tech-
nology infrastructure (C2) is the most important criterion. This means
that the banks should make investment to improve their technological
infrastructure in order to fulfil the expectations of the customers. Owing
to this aspect, it can be possible for them to have competitive power in
comparison with their rivals. In addition to this issue, it is also de-
termined that closeness to the customers (C1) has the second highest
value. This gives information that banks should take necessary actions,
such as developing customer profile, conducting a customer satisfaction
survey or providing feedback in order to be closer to the customers.
With the help of these actions, they can increase the satisfaction of the
customers so that they can be more preferred banks.
4.2.3. Ranking and analysis of the Turkish banking sector
In addition to the defining the weights of the dimensions and cri-
teria, in the third phase of the analysis, Turkish deposit banks are
ranked with the help of hesitant fuzzy VIKOR. Within this scope, the
banks, which can be traded on İstanbul Stock Exchange, are considered.
For this purpose, first of all, fuzzy decision matrix for the banks re-
garding hesitant fuzzy sets is created. The details of this matrix are
shown in Table 24.
In addition, Table 25 gives information about the ranking results of
the banks. This calculation can be made with the help of Eqs. (25), (26)
and (27).
10
Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12
By looking at the values given in Table 25, it can be understood that
the foreign banks can best meet the customer expectations regarding
the service quality because the foreign banks (F4 and F2) are on the first
ranks in comparison with other types of the banks. Another important
point on this table is that state banks (S1 and S2) are on the last places.
This situation gives information that state banks in Turkey are not so
successful to satisfy customer expectations as for service quality.
Therefore, it can be said that these banks should take necessary actions
in order to increase their performance in service quality. Otherwise, it
will be very difficult for these banks to compete with others without
providing customer satisfaction. This condition may have negative in-
fluence on the financial performance of the state banks in Turkey.
5. Conclusions and future works
SERVQUAL is the methodology that measures the service quality of
the companies. The main motivation behind this approach is to
benchmark service performance of the companies with customer ex-
pectations. Within this framework, it focuses on different factors of the
companies, such as physical facilities, personnel quality, the accuracy of
the services and confidence of the customers. It is a very confidential
approach that it is preferred in many different industries like airline,
education and tourism in order to measure the quality of the services.
With the help of this analysis, the companies can get a chance to in-
crease their service quality and this situation has a contributing effect of
their profitability.
This study aims to analyze balanced scorecard-based SERVQUAL
criteria in Turkish banking sector. For this purpose, firstly, four di-
mensions and eight criteria are selected according to the balanced
scorecard perspectives. In the first phase of the analysis, correlation
coefficient values are used in order to recognize criteria. As a result of
this analysis, it is understood that which criteria should be included in
different dimensions. With the help of this issue, the criteria can be
classified into different dimensions.
After identifying the criteria with the help of correlation coeffi-
ciencies, the criteria and the dimensions are weighted with hesitant
fuzzy DEMATEL. The findings show that the most important dimension
is responsiveness (D3) whereas cost and earnings (D4) is the least im-
portant dimension. By looking at these results, it can be said that banks
should be more willing to help their customers so as to increase the
quality of the services. Parallel to this result, in the literature, Kant and
Jaiswal (2017) also emphasized the similar issue in their studies.
Furthermore, the weights of the criteria are also estimated this ap-
proach. By looking at the global weights, it is understood that in-
formation technology infrastructure (C2) is the most important cri-
terion. It gives information that the banks should make investment to
improve their technological infrastructure to satisfy the expectations of
the customers. In addition to this issue, it is also determined that clo-
seness to the customers (C1) has the second highest value. It shows that
banks should take necessary actions to be closer to the customers.
Developing customer profile, conducting a customer satisfaction survey
or providing feedback may be the examples for this issue. George and
Kumar (2014) and Valmohammadi and Beladpas (2014) reached the
same conclusion in their studies.
On the other side, Turkish deposit banks, which are traded on
İstanbul Stock Exchange, are ranked with respect to the service quality
by considering hesitant fuzzy VIKOR method. According to these re-
sults, it can be identified that the foreign banks can best meet the
customer expectations with respect to the service quality. In addition to
this result, it is also concluded that state banks have the lowest per-
formance regarding service quality. Hence, it is strongly recommended
that state banks should take necessary actions in order to increase their
performance in service quality.
In this study, balanced scorecard-based SERVQUAL criteria for
Turkish banking sector are evaluated. Thus, by focusing on a significant
topic, it is aimed to make contribution to the literature. On the other
H. Dinçer, et al.
side, some other analyses for this subject can be conducted in the future
studies. For example, a new study that covers the banking sectors of the
emerging economies can provide very beneficial results. In addition to
this situation, new and original methodology can also be taken into the
consideration in the future studies, such as integrated type 2 fuzzy
logic.
Acknowledgments
This work is partially supported by the Spanish National research
project, TIN2015-66524-P and ERDF.
References
Agrawal, S., Mittal, M., & Gupta, R. (2016). Service quality in public and private sector
banks of india. International Journal on Customer Relations, 4(1), 34–43.
Al-Alak, B. A. (2014). Impact of marketing activities on relationship quality in the
Malaysian banking sector. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(3), 347–356.
Al-Hawari, M. A. (2015). How the personality of retail bank customers interferes with the
relationship between service quality and loyalty. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 33(1), 41–57.
Ali, M., & Raza, S. A. (2017). Service quality perception and customer satisfaction in
Islamic banks of Pakistan: The modified SERVQUAL model. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 28(5–6), 559–577.
Amin, M. (2016). Internet banking service quality and its implication on e-customer sa-
tisfaction and e-customer loyalty. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(3),
280–306.
Arcand, M., PromTep, S., Brun, I., & Rajaobelina, L. (2017). Mobile banking service
quality and customer relationships. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(7),
1068–1089.
Arora, R., & Garg, H. (2018). A robust correlation coefficient measure of dual hesitant
fuzzy soft sets and their application in decision making. Engineering Applications of
Artificial Intelligence, 72, 80–92.
Asan, U., Kadaifci, C., Bozdag, E., Soyer, A., & Serdarasan, S. (2018). A new approach to
DEMATEL based on interval-valued hesitant fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing, 66,
34–49.
Bandyopadhyay, N. (2015). Classification of service quality attributes using Kano’s
model: A study in the context of the Indian banking sector. International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 33(4), 457–470.
Basfirinci, C., & Mitra, A. (2015). A cross cultural investigation of airlines service quality
through integration of Servqual and the Kano model. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 42, 239–248.
Beheshtinia, M. A., & Farzaneh Azad, M. (2017). A fuzzy QFD approach using SERVQUAL
and Kano models under budget constraint for hotel services. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 1–23.
Bose, S., & Gupta, N. (2013). Customer perception of services based on the SERVQUAL
dimensions: A study of Indian commercial banks. Services Marketing Quarterly, 34(1),
49–66.
Cepeda-Carrión, I., Leal-Millán, A. G., Ortega-Gutierrez, J., & Leal-Rodriguez, A. L.
(2015). Linking unlearning with service quality through learning processes in the
Spanish banking industry. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1450–1457.
Charles, V., & Kumar, M. (2014). Satisficing data envelopment analysis: An application to
SERVQUAL efficiency. Measurement, 51, 71–80.
Chen, N., Xu, Z., & Xia, M. (2013). Correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets and their
applications to clustering analysis. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(4), 2197–2211.
Choudhury, K. (2014). Service quality and word of mouth: A study of the banking sector.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 32(7), 612–627.
Dincer, H. (2018). HHI-based evaluation of the European banking sector using an in-
tegrated fuzzy approach. Kybernetes.
Dincer, H., & Hacioglu, U. (2013). Performance evaluation with fuzzy VIKOR and AHP
method based on customer satisfaction in Turkish banking sector. Kybernetes, 42(7),
1072–1085.
Dincer, H., & Hacioglu, U. (2015). A comparative performance evaluation on bipolar risks
in emerging capital markets using fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS and VIKOR approaches.
Engineering Economics, 26(2), 118–129.
Dincer, H., Hacioglu, U., Tatoglu, E., & Delen, D. (2016). A fuzzy-hybrid analytic model to
assess investors' perceptions for industry selection. Decision Support Systems, 86,
24–34.
Dinçer, H., Hacıoğlu, Ü., & Yüksel, S. (2017). Balanced scorecard based performance
measurement of European airlines using a hybrid multicriteria decision making ap-
proach under the fuzzy environment. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 17–33.
Dinçer, H., & Yüksel, S. (2018b). Financial sector-based analysis of the G20 economies
using the integrated decision-making approach with DEMATEL and TOPSIS. Emerging
trends in banking and finance (pp. 210–223). Cham: Springer.
Dinçer, H., & Yüksel, S. (2018a). Comparative evaluation of BSC-based new service de-
velopment competencies in Turkish banking sector with the integrated fuzzy hybrid
MCDM using content analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20(8),
2497–2516.
Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., Korsakienė, R., Raišienė, A. G., & Bilan, Y. (2019). IT2 hybrid
decision-making approach to performance measurement of internationalized firms in
the baltic states. Sustainability, 11(1), 296.
11
Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12
Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., & Martínez, L. (2019). Balanced scorecard-based analysis about
European energy investment policies: A hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision-making ap-
proach with quality function deployment. Expert Systems with Applications, 115,
152–171.
Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., & Şenel, S. (2018). Analyzing the global risks for the financial crisis
after the great depression using comparative hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision-making
models: policy recommendations for sustainable economic growth. Sustainability,
10(9), 3126.
Dong, J. Y., Yuan, F. F., & Wan, S. P. (2017). Extended VIKOR method for multiple criteria
decision-making with linguistic hesitant fuzzy information. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 112, 305–319.
Ebrahimpour, M. K., & Eftekhari, M. (2018). Distributed feature selection: A hesitant
fuzzy correlation concept for microarray high-dimensional datasets. Chemometrics
and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 173, 51–64.
Fu, H. P., Chu, K. K., Chao, P., Lee, H. H., & Liao, Y. C. (2010). Using fuzzy AHP and
VIKOR for benchmarking analysis in the hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal,
31(14), 2373–2389.
Galeeva, R. B. (2016). SERVQUAL application and adaptation for educational service
quality assessments in Russian higher education. Quality Assurance in Education,
24(3), 329–348.
Gao, H., Wei, G. W., & Huang, Y. H. (2018). Dual hesitant bipolar fuzzy Hamacher
prioritized aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. IEEE Access,
6, 11508–11522.
George, A., & Kumar, G. G. (2014). Impact of service quality dimensions in internet
banking on customer satisfaction. Decision, 41(1), 73–85.
Gitinavard, H., Mousavi, S. M., & Vahdani, B. (2017). Soft computing based on hier-
archical evaluation approach and criteria interdependencies for energy decision-
making problems: A case study. Energy, 118, 556–577.
Han, W., Sun, Y., Xie, H., & Che, Z. (2018). Hesitant fuzzy linguistic group DEMATEL
method with multi-granular evaluation scales. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems,
20(7), 2187–2201.
Janahi, M. A., & Al Mubarak, M. M. S. (2017). The impact of customer service quality on
customer satisfaction in Islamic banking. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 8(4), 595–604.
Jeeradist, T., Thawesaengskulthai, N., & Sangsuwan, T. (2016). Using TRIZ to enhance
passengers' perceptions of an airline's image through service quality and safety.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 53, 131–139.
Ju, Y., & Wang, A. (2013). Extension of VIKOR method for multi-criteria group decision
making problem with linguistic information. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37,
3112–3125.
Kant, R., & Jaiswal, D. (2017). The impact of perceived service quality dimensions on
customer satisfaction: An empirical study on public sector banks in India.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(3), 411–430.
Kaura, V., Durga Prasad, C. S., & Sharma, S. (2015). Service quality, service convenience,
price and fairness, customer loyalty, and the mediating role of customer satisfaction.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(4), 404–422.
Kayeser Fatima, J., & Abdur Razzaque, M. (2014). Service quality and satisfaction in the
banking sector. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 31(4),
367–379.
Khan, M. M., & Fasih, M. (2014). Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction and
customer loyalty: Evidence from banking sector. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and
Social Sciences, 8(2), 331.
Kuo, M. S. (2011). Optimal location selection for an international distribution center by
using a new hybrid method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7208–7221.
Liao, H., & Xu, Z. (2015). Approaches to manage hesitant fuzzy linguistic information
based on the cosine distance and similarity measures for HFLTSs and their application
in qualitative decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(12), 5328–5336.
Liao, H., Xu, Z., & Zeng, X. J. (2015). Novel correlation coefficients between hesitant
fuzzy sets and their application in decision making. Knowledge-Based Systems, 82,
115–127.
Liao, H., Xu, Z., Zeng, X. J., & Merigó, J. M. (2015). Qualitative decision making with
correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 76, 127–138.
Meng, F., & Chen, X. (2015). Correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets and their
application based on fuzzy measures. Cognitive Computation, 7(4), 445–463.
Mittal, S., Gera, R., & Batra, D. K. (2015). An evaluation of an integrated perspective of
perceived service quality for retail banking services in India. International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 33(3), 330–350.
Ngan, S. C. (2017). A unified representation of intuitionistic fuzzy sets, hesitant fuzzy sets
and generalized hesitant fuzzy sets based on their u-maps. Expert Systems with
Applications, 69, 257–276.
Opricovic, S. (2011). Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning.
Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 12983–12990.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with out-
ranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178, 514–529.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: A multiple-item scale
for measuring consumer perc. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 64(1), 12.
Paul, J., Mittal, A., & Srivastav, G. (2016). Impact of service quality on customer sa-
tisfaction in private and public sector banks. International Journal of Bank Marketing,
34(5), 606–622.
Peng, J. J., Wang, J. Q., Wang, J., Yang, L. J., & Chen, X. H. (2015). An extension of
ELECTRE to multi-criteria decision-making problems with multi-hesitant fuzzy sets.
Information Sciences, 307, 113–126.
Pérez-Fernández, R., Alonso, P., Bustince, H., Díaz, I., Jurio, A., & Montes, S. (2015).
Ordering finitely generated sets and finite interval-valued hesitant fuzzy sets.
Information Sciences, 325, 375–392.
Qian, G., Wang, H., & Feng, X. (2013). Generalized hesitant fuzzy sets and their
H. Dinçer, et al.
application in decision support system. Knowledge-Based Systems, 37, 357–365.
Ranjbar, M., Effati, S., & Kamyad, A. V. (2018). T-operators in hesitant fuzzy sets and
their applications to fuzzy rule-based classifier. Applied Soft Computing, 62, 423–440.
Ray, N. (2017). Expectation and perception of internet banking service quality of select
indian private and public sector banks: A comparative case study. In Online banking
security measures and data protection (pp. 58–68): IGI Global.
Ren, Z., Xu, Z., & Wang, H. (2017). Dual hesitant fuzzy VIKOR method for multi-criteria
group decision making based on fuzzy measure and new comparison method.
Information Sciences, 388, 1–16.
Rezaei, J., Kothadiya, O., Tavasszy, L., & Kroesen, M. (2018). Quality assessment of
airline baggage handling systems using SERVQUAL and BWM. Tourism Management,
66, 85–93.
Rezapour, M., & Peykani, M. H. (2017). Compare customer satisfaction with the quality of
E-banking services among state, private and altered banks in Isfahan. International
Review of Management and Marketing, 7(2), 237–243.
Rodríguez, R. M., Labella, A., & Martínez, L. (2016). An overview on fuzzy modelling of
complex linguistic preferences in decision making. International Journal of
Computational Intelligence Systems, 9(sup1), 81–94.
Rodriguez, R. M., Martinez, L., & Herrera, F. (2012). Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for
decision making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 20(1), 109–119.
Rodríguez, R. M., Martínez, L., Herrera, F., & Torra, V. (2016). A review of hesitant fuzzy
sets: Quantitative and qualitative extensions. Fuzzy logic in Its 50th year (pp. 109–
128). Cham: Springer.
Rodríguez, R. M., Martínez, L., Torra, V., Xu, Z. S., & Herrera, F. (2014). Hesitant fuzzy
sets: State of the art and future directions. International Journal of Intelligent Systems,
29(6), 495–524.
Shaverdi, M., Akbari, M., & Tafti, S. F. (2011). Combining fuzzy MCDM with BSC ap-
proach in performance evaluation of Iranian private banking sector. Advances in
Fuzzy Systems, 12, 1–12.
Stefano, N. M., Casarotto Filho, N., Barichello, R., & Sohn, A. P. (2015). A fuzzy
SERVQUAL based method for evaluated of service quality in the hotel industry.
Procedia CIRP, 30, 433–438.
Sun, G., Guan, X., Yi, X., & Zhou, Z. (2018). An innovative TOPSIS approach based on
hesitant fuzzy correlation coefficient and its applications. Applied Soft Computing, 68,
249–267.
Torra, V., & Narukawa, Y. (2009). On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. Paper presented at
the IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, 2009. FUZZ-IEEE 2009.
Tyagi, S. K. (2015). Correlation coefficient of dual hesitant fuzzy sets and its applications.
Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39(22), 7082–7092.
Ukpabi, D., Olaleye, S., Mogaji, E., & Karjaluoto, H. (2018). Insights into online reviews of
hotel service attributes: A cross-national study of selected countries in Africa.
Information and communication technologies in tourism 2018 (pp. 243–256). Cham:
Springer.
Valmohammadi, C., & Beladpas, M. (2014). Customer relationship management and
service quality, a survey within the banking sector. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 46(2), 77–83.
12
Computers & Industrial Engineering 131 (2019) 1–12
Wang, J., Wei, G., & Yu, W. (2018). Models for green supplier selection with some 2-tuple
linguistic Neutrosophic number Bonferroni mean operators. Symmetry, 10(5), 131.
Wei, G., Gao, H., & Wei, Y. (2018). Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy Heronian mean operators
in multiple attribute decision making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems.
Wei, G., & Lu, M. (2018). Pythagorean fuzzy power aggregation operators in multiple
attribute decision making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 33(1), 169–186.
Wu, S. M., Liu, H. C., & Wang, L. E. (2017). Hesitant fuzzy integrated MCDM approach for
quality function deployment: A case study in electric vehicle. International Journal of
Production Research, 55(15), 4436–4449.
Wu, S., Wang, J., Wei, G., & Wei, Y. (2018). Research on construction engineering project
risk assessment with some 2-tuple linguistic Neutrosophic Hamy mean operators.
Sustainability, 10(5), 1536.
Xia, M., & Xu, Z. (2011). Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making.
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 52(3), 395–407.
Xu, Z., & Xia, M. (2011). On distance and correlation measures of hesitant fuzzy in-
formation. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 26(5), 410–425.
Yang, W., Pang, Y., Shi, J., & Wang, C. (2018). Linguistic hesitant intuitionistic fuzzy
decision-making method based on VIKOR. Neural Computing and Applications, 29(7),
613–626.
Yang, X., Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2017). Correlation coefficients of hesitant multiplicative sets
and their applications in decision making and clustering analysis. Applied Soft
Computing, 61, 935–946.
Ye, J. (2014). Correlation coefficient of dual hesitant fuzzy sets and its application to
multiple attribute decision making. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(2), 659–666.
Yeo, R. K., & Li, J. (2014). Beyond SERVQUAL: The competitive forces of higher edu-
cation in Singapore. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1–2), 95–123.
Yilmaz, V., Ari, E., & Gürbüz, H. (2018). Investigating the relationship between service
quality dimensions, customer satisfaction and loyalty in Turkish banking sector: An
application of structural equation model. International Journal of Bank Marketing,
36(3), 423–440.
Yousapronpaiboon, K. (2014). SERVQUAL: Measuring higher education service quality in
Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1088–1095.
Yücenur, G. Y., & Demirel, N.Ç. (2012). Group decision making process for insurance
company selection problem with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment.
Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 3702–3707.
Yüksel, S. (2017). Determinants of the credit risk in developing countries after economic
crisis: A case of Turkish banking sector. Global financial crisis and its ramifications on
capital markets (pp. 401–415). Cham: Springer.
Zameer, H., Tara, A., Kausar, U., & Mohsin, A. (2015). Impact of service quality, corporate
image and customer satisfaction towards customers’ perceived value in the banking
sector in Pakistan. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(4), 442–456.
Zavareh, F. B., Ariff, M. S. M., Jusoh, A., Zakuan, N., Bahari, A. Z., & Ashourian, M.
(2012). E-service quality dimensions and their effects on e-customer satisfaction in
internet banking services. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 441–445.
Zhang, N., & Wei, G. (2013). Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem
based on hesitant fuzzy set. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(7), 4938–4947.