Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Air Transport Management

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

An integrated SWOT based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS methodology for
digital transformation strategy analysis in airline industry
Gülçin Büyüközkan a, *, Celal Alpay Havle a, b, Orhan Feyzioğlu a
a
Industrial Engineering Department, Galatasaray University, 34349, Ortaköy, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Faculty of Aviation and Aeronautical Science, Department of Professional Flight, Özyeğin University, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Driven by business strategies, digital transformation (DT) facilitates dramatic change in air passenger behavior.
Airline industry This study aims to determine and analyze different DT strategies (DTSs) with the help of an integrated SWOT-
Digital transformation based fuzzy AHP-MARCOS methodology that is proposed for the first time in the literature for this purpose.
SWOT Analysis
This methodology is validated with a case study concerning the airline industry in Turkey. The weights of the
Fuzzy AHP
Fuzzy MARCOS
SWOT factors are determined with the fuzzy AHP method. The fuzzy MARCOS approach is used to select the
most suitable DTS. The most appropriate strategy is obtained as “focusing on differentiated digital customer
experience and service quality by the adaptation of business models to DT to provide benefits”.

1. Introduction
Rapid advances in technology are transforming businesses globally.
Digital transformation (DT) is both overwhelming and inevitable in a
highly competitive market that shifts towards a digital ecosystem. This
digitalized ecosystem is based on digital customer experience, person­
alization, interaction with digital channels and platforms, customer
experience, and willingness to respond. This is true even for those that
are born digitally (Forbes Insight, 2017). Emerging technologies have
influenced both people and companies, and this transformation has
become the new norm, further fueled by wider internet access and the
use of mobile devices. Digital experience has become a focus more than
ever for the business world, as well as the people. This is also true for the
airline industry, which has become a global playground for the DT
(Büyüközkan et al., 2020a, b; Büyüközkan et al., 2021a). Air trans­
portation not only provides both employment and earnings but also acts
as the backbone for mobility and supply chains. In the past, the focus for
airlines used to be operational efficiency, competitive margins, regula­
tory compliance, and environmental footprint. This is changing.
Nowadays, digital technologies and the DT offer far more opportunities
to create new value and deliver differentiated customer experience and
loyalty, which are critical goals for airlines (Accenture, 2016). DT can be
operationalized in terms of enhanced connectivity, evolving airline
distribution, robots, digital twins, artificial intelligence (WNS, 2020),
smart automation, digital trust, agile and flexible workforce, and digital
platforms, all of which are disruptive technologies for the airline in­
dustry (Accenture, 2016). New passenger trends are based on the
increased usage of multiple devices, social media platforms, and online
channels used for searching, booking, ticketing, and tracking, thus of­
fering advantages, such as cost efficiency, enhanced customer experi­
ence and time savings. New digital ecosystems also imply new threats to
businesses, forcing organizations to review their business models and to
convert DT into a competitive advantage to be sustainable and
profitable.
Digital innovation must be well managed by airline companies. The
use of DT improves management capabilities in terms of inventory,
dynamic pricing, sales channels, marketing, and business areas. Not the
technology but the strategy drives the DT (Kane et al., 2015). Therefore,
airline companies should be capable of analyzing their internal and
external environments well and implement the right strategies at the
right time in the right place. This is only possible with a holistic strategy
(Borgogna et al., 2016). From this point of view, DT strategies (DTSs) are
determined using a SWOT analysis in this study. A case study is con­
ducted in the Turkish airline industry to validate the DTSs.
SWOT analysis is one of the strategic management tools that was
explained by Albert Humphrey in 1960. It helps to reveal different
strategies for decision-makers and practitioners. However, SWOT anal­
ysis can be insufficient in determining the importance degrees of the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gbuyukozkan@gsu.edu.tr, gulcin.buyukozkan@gmail.com (G. Büyüközkan), celal.alpay.havle@gmail.com (C.A. Havle), ofeyzioglu@gsu.edu.tr
(O. Feyzioğlu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102142
Received 20 July 2020; Received in revised form 16 August 2021; Accepted 7 September 2021
Available online 21 September 2021
0969-6997/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Büyüközkan et al.
Fig. 1. A SWOT matrix and the strategies that can be revealed (Ghazinory et al., 2011).
SWOT criteria and possible alternative strategies. Multi-Criteria Deci­
sion-Making (MCDM) methods can be helpful to eliminate such an in­
adequacy (Büyüközkan et al., 2021b). MCDM is a powerful and widely
used tool to evaluate many conflicting criteria for decision problems at
hand. For this reason, MCDM methods are integrated with SWOT anal­
ysis in this study. The AHP technique (Saaty, 1980), which is one of the
popular MCDM methods for solving decision-making problems con­
cerning the airline industry (Mardani et al., 2015) is used to determine
the weights and importance degrees of the SWOT criteria. Following
that, a recently proposed MCDM technique, Measurement of Alterna­
tives and Ranking according to the Compromise Solution (MARCOS)
(Stević et al., 2020), is utilized for determining the importance degrees
of the revealed DTSs and for selecting the most appropriate DTS.
Real-life problems are complex and decision-making during
problem-solving includes human perception and uncertainty. Hence, the
proposed SWOT-based AHP-MARCOS methodology is expanded to a
fuzzy environment by using fuzzy sets (Zadeh, 1965) to eliminate
inherent uncertainties of human judgment. Results are compared with
fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR methods to validate the proposed inte­
grated SWOT-based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS methodology.
The study contributes to the state of the art by proposing a novel
integrated SWOT-based fuzzy AHP - fuzzy MARCOS method for the first
time to the best of our knowledge, and investigating its advantages on a
case study in the Turkey aviation industry. The study also defines new
appropriate DTSs with the help of a SWOT analysis for airline companies
in Turkey.
The study includes the following sections: Section 2 explains SWOT
analysis and the proposed methodology. Section 3 illustrates the
research methodology. Section 4 explains the application of the pro­
posed methodology. Managerial implications are given in Section 5 and
finally, the study is concluded in Section 6.
2. SWOT analysis and proposed integrated methodology
This section first explains the SWOT analysis, its components, and its
use in the literature. Following that, the proposed methodology is
presented.
2.1. SWOT analysis and its usage
There are different strategic management tools such as bench­
marking, balanced scorecards, and SWOT analysis to analyze different
strategic cases. SWOT is an acronym to represent Strengths (S), Weak­
nesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T) dimensions. While its
academic origin is uncertain, the SWOT analysis first appeared in the
2
Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142
literature in the 1960s. This starting point is parallel to the strategy
concept used in the field of business management. SWOT analysis is a
simple but powerful tool to evaluate the internal and external environ­
ment of an organization (Thompson et al., 2015; Khan, 2018) as a
strategic planning framework for companies to make strategic decisions.
It enables companies to analyze their current situation and provides
answers to the questions about where and how they want to be in the
future. SWOT analysis is used in the strategic management process. It is
based on a matrix concerning internal and external factors. Internal
factors consist of strengths and weaknesses, while external factors
include opportunities and threats. Different strategies can be developed
based on these factors. The main structure of a SWOT matrix is given in
Fig. 1. This matrix helps to see the capabilities or deficiencies of an or­
ganization while considering the market opportunities and threats for
the future. Each SWOT dimension consists of different factors.
Furthermore, A SWOT matrix may contain different strategies con­
cerning its dimensions and factors. Strategies related to SWOT di­
mensions are given in Fig. 1.
SWOT analysis has been widely used in the literature, by practi­
tioners in business life and academics for different purposes (Ghazinory
et al., 2011). Some of the advantages of SWOT analysis are given as
follows (Gürel and Tat, 2017):
• It provides a road map that allows navigating from general to
specific,
• It allows focusing on the positive and negative aspects of the external
and internal environments of the organization,
• It helps reveal opportunities to take the advantages and eliminate or
manage threats by understanding weaknesses,
• It prepares the basis for strategic decisions and supports group
discussion,
• It is useable in different industries, organizations, countries or gov­
ernments at different levels such as individual, national, organiza­
tional, and international levels.
SWOT analysis has also some limitations. A main limitation is the
quantification of each element in the decision-making processes and the
determination of the most influential factor to the strategies (Büyüköz­
kan et al., 2021b). Prioritization and ambiguity of the elements are not
considered (Khan, 2018). Hence, analytical techniques such as MCDM
methods can be utilized to quantify the SWOT analysis. The ambiguity of
elements in decision-making processes should be taken into consider­
ation. This can be achieved by extending MCDM methods to fuzzy en­
vironments. A literature survey has been conducted to show the
applicability of SWOT analysis with fuzzy MCDM methods in the
G. Büyüközkan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

Table 1
Some of the studies using SWOT analysis with different fuzzy MCDM methods in the last ten years.
Source Aim of the study Application area Utilized method(s)

Ekmekçioglu et al. (2011)
Jeyaraj et al. (2012)
Sevkli et al. (2012)
Arshadikhamseh and Fazayeli
(2013)
Forghani and Izadi (2013)
Hatami-Marbini et al. (2013)
Demirtas et al. (2014)
Esmaeili et al. (2014)
Arabzad et al. (2015)
Shakeri et al. (2015)
Ramkumar et al. (2016)
Tavakoli et al. (2016)
Khaba and Bhar (2017)
Ervural et al. (2018)
Khan (2018)
Büyüközkan and Ilıcak (2019)
Karimi et al. (2019)
Khatir and Akbarzadeh (2019)
Kramar et al. (2019)
Solangi et al. (2019)
Xu and Dong (2019)
Anser et al. (2020)
Papapostolou et al. (2020)
Wang et al. (2020)
Gholizadeh et al. (2021)
Site selection Energy industry Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS
Strategy selection Textile industry Fuzzy ANP
Strategy selection Airline industry Fuzzy ANP
Strategy selection Medication and drug Fuzzy ANP
distribution
Contractor selection Energy industry Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy TOPSIS
Growth strategy selection Manufacturing Fuzzy CRM
Project management methodology Banking industry Fuzzy AHP
selection
Strategy selection Oil industry Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS
Supplier selection and order Energy industry Fuzzy TOPSIS
allocation
Private sector selection Water treatment AHP, Fuzzy ELECTRE
Risk assessment Supply chain Modified Fuzzy ANP
Strategy developing Consulting engineers Fuzzy DEMATEL
Factor quantification Coal mining industry Fuzzy DEMATEL
Strategy selection Energy industry ANP, Fuzzy TOPSIS
Strategy selection Natural gas industry Modified fuzzy goal programming
Strategy selection Social media Multi preference relation
Strategy selection Ceramic and tile industry Fuzzy ANP, Grey Relation Analysis
Strategy selection Science and technology Fuzzy ANP, Fuzzy DEMATEL, Fuzzy TOPSIS
Strategy selection Urban mobility Fuzzy AHP
Strategy selection Energy industry AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS
Strategy selection Coal to chemical industry Fuzzy ANP, Fuzzy DEMATEL, Fuzzy SAW, Fuzzy TOPSIS, Fuzzy VIKOR,
Fuzzy Vector Projection
Project assessment Renewable energy AHP, Fuzzy VIKOR
National strategic plan Renewable energy sources AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS
determination
Renewable resource selection Energy industry Fuzzy AHP
Strategy determination Natural resources Fuzzy AHP

literature, the results of which are given in Table 1. It shows that the
SWOT analysis is combined with different MCDM methods for a range of
decision-making problems in various application areas.
Most of the studies are based on case studies, indicating that SWOT
can be successfully applied in the case studies, also justifying the use of
SWOT analysis in this study. Table 1 reveals that most of the studies used
the AHP method for prioritizing SWOT factors and determining their
weights and recent studies employ the fuzzy AHP method combined
with SWOT analysis. The publications that apply SWOT analysis in
combination with MCDM also use a selection method. This is done with
methods such as fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy ELECTRE or fuzzy VIKOR. So
far this has not been the case for the newly proposed fuzzy MARCOS
method to the best of our knowledge. This justifies the use of the AHP
method for calculating the weights of the SWOT factors and the need for
a selection method. The following section illustrates the integrated
SWOT-based fuzzy AHP-fuzzy MARCOS approach. The applied methods
and their advantages are introduced next.
2.2. The proposed integrated SWOT based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy
MARCOS methodology
Airline companies need a well-designed decision-making process for
the evaluation and selection of the appropriate DTSs. The decision-
making processes that include the selection of the most appropriate
alternative and the decisions taken at the same time in the work-life
contain several criteria and shed light on the solution of many com­
plex problems (Lertprapai, 2013). Various MCDM methods developed
for decision-making processes in the literature have been utilized to
solve different problems concerning decision-making in various areas
(Ishizaka and Nemery, 2013). Moreover, MCDM methods are also
widely used in studies for the airline industry (Dožić, 2019).
2.2.1. The AHP method and its advantages
AHP is a highly preferred MCDM technique for studies in the airline
industry (Mardani et al., 2015). It provides a means of calculating
criteria weights based on the pairwise comparisons. The AHP method,
which has been used successfully in the solution of many
decision-making problems, has advantages in terms of ease of applica­
tion, repeatability, supporting group decision making, allowing the
analysis of the consistency of the results, and modeling complex prob­
lems in a hierarchical structure (Narasimhan, 1983). Besides, it is widely
used with fuzzy sets (Kahraman et al., 2015). Although the SWOT
analysis method is a powerful strategic decision-making tool, the AHP
method allows the quantification of the SWOT model by taking it in a
hierarchical structure (Oreski, 2012; Büyüközkan et al., 2021b). Hence,
the usage of the AHP method in this study is fully justified.
2.2.2. The MARCOS method and its advantages
Real-life problems contain many contradictory parameters and ap­
plications. MCDM methods are helpful for decision-makers (DMs) about
reaching a reconciliation or a compromise between all possible contra­
dicting parameters by considering different criteria or goals (Kumar
et al., 2018). Although there are many different MCDM methods in the
literature, it is difficult to determine the best or most suitable one for the
problem.
In this study, a newly proposed method, the Measurement of Alter­
natives and Ranking according to Compromise Solution (MARCOS),
proposed by Stević et al. (2020) is utilized, and it is integrated with the
AHP method. MARCOS maintains its stability even if the set of criteria
and alternatives is large. It considers ideal and anti-ideal solutions at
very earlier stages and provides the determination of utility degrees for
both of these solutions. It has an algorithm that does not get over­
whelmingly complicated as the number of criteria or alternatives in­
creases. The MARCOS method proposes a compromise solution that is
feasible, the closest to the ideal. Furthermore, it is flexible about the
analysis of the expert preferences without considering the type of scale.
Although the MARCOS method is fairly new, it has become widely
used in the literature in different industries for different purposes due to
its advantages and its usability with different MCDM techniques.
Furthermore, it is applicable with fuzzy sets and their extensions.
Recently, it is used to analyze traffic risks (Stanković et al., 2020) while
the human resources in a transport company are evaluated using the

3
G. Büyüközkan et al.
integrated FUCOM and MARCOS method (Stević and Brković, 2020).
Badi and Pamucar (2020) conducted a supplier selection process for a
steelmaking company using the Grey MARCOS method. It is used to
evaluate software or project management, measure and rank the alter­
natives (Puška et al., 2020). The selection of stackers in a logistics sys­
tem is conducted based on a novel integrated CCSD, ITARA and
MARCOS method (Ulutaş et al., 2020). More recently, Bakır and Atalık
(2021) evaluated the e-service quality by using a fuzzy MARCOS method
combined with fuzzy AHP in the airline industry. Renewable energy
resources are evaluated using the integrated AHP and MARCOS method
(Karaaslan et al., 2021). The performance of the steel industry is
analyzed using an integrated CRITIC and MARCOS methodology (Dwi­
vedi et al., 2021). IF MARCOS is used to identify the performance of
insurance companies in the healthcare industry related to COVID-19
(Ecer and Pamucar, 2021).
MARCOS has been successfully applied in many different areas by
considering the above-mentioned examples from the literature. This,
however, is not the case for DT, digital strategy and digitalization in the
literature. It has a very limited number of applications in the aviation
industry. The focus of this study is DTS for airline companies in the
aviation industry. The use of MARCOS for strategy selection emphasizes
the contributions and originality of this study.
Determining DTSs and choosing the most appropriate strategy is an
evaluation and selection process. Therefore, a selection method, such as
MARCOS, has to be used. MARCOS has quickly gathered recognition in
the literature thanks to the possibility of expanding it into a fuzzy,
intuitionistic fuzzy (IF) environment and combination with D numbers.
The proposed method can deal with uncertainty, does provide an op­
portunity for scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis (Ecer and
Pamucar, 2021). Compared to other selection methods such as TOPSIS,
MABAC, COPRAS and VIKOR, the proposed combined method generates
quite consistent results. Moreover, it provides a compromise solution
concerning ideal and non-ideal solutions, ensuring a satisfactory per­
formance in a fuzzy environment (Ecer and Pamucar, 2021).
2.2.3. The integrated methodology, and its advantages
The AHP method is utilized to determine the importance degrees and
weights of the SWOT factors. However, it also introduces a certain level
of subjectivity through expert (DM) preferences and evaluation of
Fig. 2. General framework of the proposed methodology.
4
Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142
alternatives. Furthermore, it fails to provide a rational ranking (Stević
et al., 2020). At this point, it may be appropriate to combine the
aforementioned power of AHP with another analytical technique to
select the most appropriate alternative. The Technique for Order Pref­
erence by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) (Hwang and Yoon, 1981)
would be one such method. It ranks alternatives based on distances from
positive and negative ideal solutions. However, these distances do not
consider the relative importance and are simply summed up (Stević
et al., 2020). MARCOS, in contrast, proposes a compromise solution
including conflicting criteria by considering not only the distances of
alternatives from the ideal solutions but also the relationships between
the alternatives and reference points. Another advantage of MARCOS is
its stability in dynamic conditions and robustness. For example,
removing the worst alternative from a ranked order does not change the
position of the alternatives in this order (Stević et al., 2020).
In the proposed method, AHP is deployed to obtain criteria weights
and MARCOS is utilized to evaluate the alternatives and select the best
alternative to benefit from their strengths. AHP provides easiness,
repeatability, consistency check and supports group decision making in
a hierarchical structure during the calculation of criteria weights while
MARCOS considers compromise solutions based on relative importance
with a flexible algorithm which does not become complicated even with
large numbers of criteria or alternatives.
The use of MARCOS in the literature is elaborated in the sections
above, indicating that it can be effectively used in combination with
AHP. However, the number of such studies is limited (Karaaslan et al.,
2021). In particular, the integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS is
not yet researched extensively (Bakır and Atalık, 2021). Combining
these methods with SWOT is a novelty that has not been studied in the
state of the art. The integrated methodology proposed in this study is a
SWOT-based methodology. Table 1 shows that distance-based MCDM
methods based on SWOT are widely used for strategy selection,
demonstrating that SWOT can be effectively supported with fuzzy
methods. To the best of our knowledge, however, no study in the liter­
ature suggests an integrated SWOT-based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS
methodology. In the literature, there are studies concerning digitaliza­
tion based on SWOT analysis. However, they are not about DT and do
not apply analytical techniques (González-Cancelas et al., 2020). Being a
new and untouched field, the DT so far has not been studied with this
G. Büyüközkan et al.
proposed method combination, contributing to the research in this area.
DT itself is a holistic management philosophy. Strategic management
is a necessity for sustainable growth, competitiveness and profitability.
In the DTS concept, they can be considered within an integrated man­
agement approach. There are various conflicting criteria in this man­
agement process. This should be supported with a proper decision-
making process. A digital ecosystem with high competition and com­
plex business models, such as the airline industry, is highly complex and
uncertain. Strategies for DT is vital for airline companies. The selection
process of the most appropriate DTS needs profession, reliability, and
consistency. It is expected to be flexible, repeatable, and able to save
time and cost for the airline industry. While being a useful approach, the
SWOT analysis needs to be combined with analytical methods to address
these expectations for DTS. The proposed method makes use of the
Fig. 3. The computational steps of the proposed methodology.
5
Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142
strengths of different techniques to generate feasible DTS solutions for
the airline industry.
The general framework and the flow of the proposed integrated
methodology are given in Fig. 2 for the overview. Its computational
steps are presented in the next section.
3. Proposed methodology
This section explains the computational steps of the integrated
SWOT-based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS methodology. This inte­
grated method is based on the computational steps of the fuzzy AHP
method adopted from Ayağ (2005), and the computational steps of the
recently proposed fuzzy MARCOS method by Stanković et al. (2020).
Detailed steps are illustrated in Fig. 3, which are as follows:
G. Büyüközkan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

Table 2 Table 4
Fuzzy scale (Saaty, 1989; Ayağ, 2005). Evaluation scale for alternatives (Stanković et al., 2020).
Intensity of Fuzzy Definition Membership Linguistic term Triangular fuzzy numbers
importance number function
Extremely poor (EP) (1, 1, 1)
1 1
̃ Equal importance (EI) (1, 1, 2) Very poor (VP) (1, 1, 3)
Poor (P) (1, 3, 3)
3 3
̃ Moderate importance (2, 3, 4)
Medium poor (MP) (3, 3, 5)
(MI)
Medium (M) (3, 5, 5)
5 5
̃ Strong importance (SI) (4, 5, 6)
Medium good (MG) (5, 5, 7)
7 7
̃ Very strong importance (6, 7, 8) Good (G) (5, 7, 7)
(VSI) Very good (VG) (7, 7, 9)
9 9
̃ Extremely more (8, 9, 10) Extremely good (EG) (7, 9, 9)
importance (EMI)

[ ]
Step 1. Construct the SWOT matrix, obtain the SWOT factors and 7α = [5 + 2α, 9 − 2α], ̃
̃ − 1
7α =
1
,
1
determine the DTSs. 9 − 2α 5 + 2α
Step 2. Construct a hierarchical structure concerning the goal and [ ]
SWOT factors. − 1 1 1
̃
9α = [7 + 2α, 11 − 2α], ̃
9α = , (5)
Step 3. Obtain the judgments of the DMs: DMs determine the pri­ 11 − 2α 7 + 2α
orities of the criteria using the linguistic terms given in Table 2. Prior­ Index of optimism (μ) is used to estimate the degree of satisfaction of
itization is based on a pairwise comparison of the criteria. A Fuzzy
A
̃ . A higher degree of optimism is obtained if μ has a larger value. The
comparison matrix A ̃ is constructed at this step using the triangular
defined index of optimism in Eq. (6) is a linear convex combination (Lee,
fuzzy numbers (TFN) in Table 2 A
̃ can be indicated as follows: 1995):
⎡ ⎤
1 a12 ⋯ ̃
̃ a1n aαij = μaαijl + (1 − μ)aαijl , ∀α ∈ [0, 1]
̃ (6)
⎢ ⎥
⎢̃a21 1 ⋯ ̃a2n ⎥
̃
A=⎢ ⎥ (1) To estimate the degree of optimism, the matrix A
̃ shown in Eq. (7) is
⎣⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦
an1 ̃
̃ an2 ⋯ 1 obtained after setting the value of μ when α is fixed in the order.
Calculation of the eigenvector is provided by fixing the μ value and
identifying the maximal eigenvalue.
where ̃
aij = 1, if i = j and ̃
aij = 1,
̃ 3,
̃ 5,
̃ 7, 9 or ̃
̃ ̃ ̃− 1 , 3
aij = 1 ̃− 1 , 5
̃− 1 7 ̃− 1
̃− 1 , 9
⎡ ⎤
where i ∕
= j.
⎢̃aα aα12
̃ aα1n ⎥
⋯ ̃
Step 4. Obtain the fuzzy eigenvalue ̃ λ is a fuzzy number solution to
λ. ̃ ⎢ 11
⎢̃
⎥
aα21 aα22
̃ aα2n ⎥
⋯ ̃
Eq. (2): ̃=⎢
A ⎢
⎥
⎥ (7)
⎢⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
̃x = ̃
à λ̃
x (2) ⎣̃aαn1 aαn2
̃ ⋯ ̃ α ⎦
ann

where ̃ λmax indicates the largest eigenvalue of A. ̃ Here, ̃ x denotes a non-

Step 5. Check consistency: The consistency ratio (C.R.) is calculated
zero n × 1 fuzzy vector including fuzzy number ̃ xi . A
̃̃x =̃ x is equivalent
λ̃ using Eq. (8).
to Eq. (3) to perform fuzzy additions and multiplications using the in­
terval arithmetic and α − cut. CR =
CI
(8)
[ α α α α] [ ] [ ] RI
ai1l x1l , ai1u x1u ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ aαinl xαnl , aαinu xαnu = λxilα , λxαiu (3)
where,
t
where A aij ], ̃x = (̃ x1 , …, ̃ xn ) and
̃ = [̃ α
λmax − n
[ ] CI = (9)
[ ] α [ ] n− 1
aαij = aαijl , aαiju , ̃xαij = xαil , xiuα , ̃
̃ λ = λαl , λαu (4)
Here, (RI) given in Table 3 indicates the randomness index, (CI)
shows the consistency index, and (n) represents the number of the
for all i,j,i = 1, 2,…,n, j = 1, 2, …, n and 0 < α ≤ 1. The α− cut is used to
criteria. Evaluations and judgments of the DMs are consistent when
incorporate the DMs’ or experts’ confidence over his/her preference.
(C.R. ≤ 0.1), otherwise, evaluations are inconsistent, and they must be
The lower and upper limits of the fuzzy number are defined with respect
revised.
to the α as in Eq. (5):
Step 6. Calculate the criteria weights: Fuzzy AHP weights are
[ ]
̃ − 1 1 1 calculated using α − cut values given in Eq. (5).
1α = [1, 3 − 2α], ̃
1α = ,
3 − 2α 1 Step 7. Get the judgments of the DMs to evaluate the alternatives:
Alternatives are evaluated concerning the evaluation criteria by the DMs
[ ]
̃ − 1 1 1 using Table 4. Following that, an initial fuzzy decision matrix consisting
3α = [1 + 2α, 5 − 2α], ̃
3α = ,
5 − 2α 1 + 2α of m alternatives and n criteria is constructed.
[ ] Step 8. Transform the linguistic terms into TFNs: Judgments of the
̃ − 1 1 1 DMs are transformed into TFNs using Table 4 to obtain the group de­
5α = [3 + 2α, 7 − 2α], ̃
5α = ,
7 − 2α 3 + 2α cision matrix.

Table 3
Randomness index (Saaty, 1977).
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59

6
G. Büyüközkan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

Step 9. Create an extended initial fuzzy matrix X: ̃ Fuzzy anti-ideal ( )

( −) ̃+ +l +m +u
A(AI)
̃ and fuzzy ideal A(ID)
̃ solutions are determined using Eqs. (11) ̃ = K i = ki , ki , ki
f K (20)
i
dfcrisp dfcrisp dfcrisp dfcrisp
and (12) to obtain an extended initial fuzzy matrix in Eq. (10) as follows:
̃ ̃2 ̃n ( ) ( )
ext. ⎡C1 C ⋯ C ⎤ T i i i
̃− ⊕ K
̃ i = ̃ti = tl , tm , tu = K
i
̃ + = k− l + k+l , k−
i i i i
m
+ ki+m , ki− u + ki+u (21)
̃
A(AI) ⎢X̃ ̃ ai2
X ⋯ ̃ ain ⎥
X ( )
̃1
⎢ ai1
⎢X̃ ̃ 12 ̃ 1n ⎥
⎥ ̃ = dl , dm , du
max̃ti = D (22)
A ⎢ 11 X ⋯ X ⎥ i
̃= A
X ̃2 ⎢X
⎢ ̃ 21 ̃ 22
X ⋯ X 2n ⎥
̃ ⎥ (10)
⋮ ⎢⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥ dl + 4dm + du
̃m
⎢
⎢X ̃ mn ⎥
⎥ dfcrisp = (23)
A ⎢ ̃ m1 ̃ m2
X ⋯ X ⎥ 6
̃
A(ID) ⎣X̃ id1 ̃ id2
X ⋯ X ⎦
̃idn
Here, K̃− , K
i
̃ + , f(K
i
̃ + ), f(K
i
̃ − ) should be defuzzified.
i
Step 14. Determine the utility functions of alternatives: Utility
̃
A(AI) xij ifj ∈ Bandmax̃
= miñ xij ifj ∈ C (11) functions f(Ki ) of alternatives are obtained through Eq. (24).
i i
Ki+ + Ki−
f (Ki ) = (24)
̃
A(ID) = max̃xij ifj ∈ Bandmiñ
xij ifj ∈ C (12) 1− f (Ki+ ) 1− f (Ki− )
i i 1+ f (Ki+ )
+ f (Ki− )
where A(AI)
̃ indicates the worst alternative, and A(ID)
̃ represents the Step 15. Rank the alternatives: The alternative with the highest
alternative with the best performance. Furthermore, B and C show the possible value of utility function is the most desirable alternative.
benefit and cost criteria, respectively. Here, C belongs to the minimi­
zation group of criteria while B belongs to the maximization group of 4. Application of the proposed methodology
criteria.
[ ]
Step 10. Normalize the X:̃ Normalized fuzzy matrix N ̃= ̃ nij is This section explains the DT and its effect on the airline industry.
m×n
Following that, the conducted case study is illustrated.
obtained using Eqs. (13) and (14).
( )
( ) xl xl xl
nij = nlij , nmij , nuij = idu , idm , idl ifj ∈ C
̃ (13) 4.1. Digital transformation in air transportation
xij xij xij

( ) The technology wave has been on the rise for some time and keeps
( ) xlij xijm xuij
nij = nlij , nmij , nuij =
̃ , , ifj ∈ B (14) gaining momentum. In the past decade, we have witnessed the escala­
xuid xuid xuid tion of significant advances in digital technologies (Westerman et al.,
2014). Nowadays, DT is on the agenda as a new trend in academic and
where (xlij , xm u l m u
ij , xij ) and (xid , xid , xid ) represent the elements of X.
̃ business environments (Verina and Titko, 2019). DT is based on
Step 11. Obtain the weighted fuzzy matrix V: Matrix V is obtained by
̃ ̃ emerging technologies but is more than technology. It represents a ho­
Eq. (15). listic change throughout enterprises and their operational models. Built
( ) ( ) upon technology elements, DT reconstructs service delivery, organiza­
vij = vlij , vmij , vuij = ̃
̃ ̃ j = nlij × ωlj , nmij × ωmj , nuij × ωuj
nij ⊗ ω (15) tional culture and relationship and value creation (Mergel et al., 2019).
It transforms business models, culture, employees, infrastructure,
[ ] operational processes, and customer experience for value creation,
where V vij
̃= ̃ ̃ j = (ωlj , ωm
and ω u
j , ωj ) represents the fuzzy weight of operational flexibility, competitive advantage, and enhanced
m×n
jth criterion. relationships.
Step 12. Calculate the utility degree K
̃ i of alternatives: Utility degree Despite its popularity, no clear definition has been made yet for DT.
of alternatives are calculated through Eqs. (16) and (17). It is the use of new digital technologies such as big data, social media,
mobile, cloud, and connectivity technologies to facilitate transactions,
̃ ( l m u) improve customer experience or create new business models (Kovynyov
̃ −i = Si = si , si , si
K (16)
̃
Sai suai smai slai and Mikut, 2018). DT is a strategy, a process, and a business model at the
same time. Driven by digital technologies, capabilities, strategies,
̃ ( l m u) business models and value chains, DT can be radical, complex, dynamic,
̃ + = Si = si , si , si
K (17)
i
̃
Sid suid smid slid continuous and disruptive (Morakanyane et al., 2017). It involves the
transformation of basic business operations and affects organizational
Si = (sli , sm
where ̃ u
i , si ) indicates the sum of the elements of the weighted
structures, management concepts, products, and processes from the
fuzzy matrix V and it is calculated using Eq. (18).
̃ ground (Matt et al., 2015). It leverages different technologies such as
communication, computing, connection, and information (Vial, 2019)
∑ to remodel how businesses work. It helps companies survive and ensure
n
̃
Si = ̃vij (18)
i=1 their sustainability and profitability in an increasingly digital ecosystem
and digitalizing markets. Technological developments have changed the
Step 13. Determine the utility functions for the ideal f(K ̃ + ) and anti-
i way people make purchases, interact with each other and their envi­
ideal f(K
̃ − ) solutions. Utility functions related to f(K
̃ + ) and f(K ̃ − ) are ronment. Daily routines of both people and companies have become
i i i
calculated via Eqs. (19) and (20). integrated through the increase of internet usage and social media
( ) platforms. Büyüközkan and Göçer (2018) stated in their study that the
( +) ̃−
K ki− l ki− m ki− u rate of access to the internet in a global manner is about 76% and social
̃
f Ki = i
= , , (19)
dfcrisp dfcrisp dfcrisp dfcrisp media is being used actively by half of this rate.
DT is not driven by the technology, but strategy (Kane et al., 2015;
Büyüközkan et al., 2021a). No matter who your customers are, a DTS is
essential to ensure that the right information is transmitted in real-time

7
G. Büyüközkan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

Table 5
Constructed SWOT matrix.
SWOT matrix (Internal & External Strengths (S) Weaknesses (W)
Factors) Collaboration, technology partnerships & innovation laboratories Improper business models for digital transformation (W1)
establishments (S1)
Development of information management strategies & mobile/web- Ineffective use of competent human resources (W2)
based initiatives (S2)
Technology innovation & existence of digital platforms and channels Insufficient cooperation between departments (W3)
(S3)
Value proposition (S4) Tardiness of decision-making mechanisms & competing with IT
priorities (W4)
Customer recognition & segmentation (S5) Inadequate customer empowerment for digital technologies (W5)
Opportunities (O) S1 strategy: Penetration of emerging technologies into company S3 strategy: Empowering customers for technology to increase
Emerging digital technologies, through technology partnerships to obtain agility and flexibility. S2 customer touchpoints and to obtain more passenger data. S4
greater agility & flexibility (O1) strategy: Adapting a learning digital assistant for the passengers using strategy: Focusing on differentiated digital customer experience and
Increased cyber-physical mobile and web-based initiatives, to meet the digital demands of the service quality by the adaptation of business models to digital
touchpoints & more passenger increased digital customers and thus to maintain the loyalty of the transformation to provide benefits.
data (O2) customers.
Interaction & collaboration with
customers via digital channels
(O3)
Increased number of digital
passengers (O4)
Differentiated customer experience
& service quality (O5)
Threats (T) S5 strategy: Complying with change in value perception through S7 strategy: To focus on adaptation to the changing perception of
Dependence on external mobile devices and digital platforms to eliminate disruptive power of value with sufficient digital products and services by accelerating
technologies for some areas (T1) digital transformation. S6 strategy: Profiling customers via digital decision making processes with effective human resources.
Cyber security & privacy concerns channels to provide personalized and customized digital products and S8 strategy: Determination of success and risk factors to create
(T2) services. digital business models that can resist the disruptive power of digital
Incorrect definition of digital transformation.
passengers (T3)
Change in value perception &
disruptive power of digital
transformation (T4)
New employment areas & human
resource needs brought by
technology (T5)

to DMs for sustained competitive advantages. The main question here is
what the road map is. Organizations want and need to focus on more
digitalization, but the path to digital strategy can be uncertain and
ambiguous. Questions arise about where to start and how to determine a
strategy (Esri, 2017). Hence, the determination and evaluation of DTSs
are key during the DTS selection process. DT has influenced many in­
dustrial areas all over the world, including the airline industry. Airline
companies closely follow DT trends to remain competitive in the ever
more digitalized ecosystem and market.
The number of global passengers is increasing day after day. The
increase in passenger traffic expected between 2015 and 2035 is
expressed as 4.8% worldwide. Today, more than a billion potential
passengers are waiting to receive service, and their number is increasing
day by day. But today’s passengers’ profiles are changing. More digital
passenger demands are observed following the emerging technologies
and growth of new travel technologies. In Europe, 90% of short-haul
passengers are using smartphones. Tablet usage is represented with
80% and the laptop has 46%. Furthermore, the growth of new travel
technologies in air transportation is declared as 15%. Today’s passen­
gers expect connectivity while onboard and they know what they want
(Streichfuss and Peschl, 2017).
There are many DT-related changes in the airline industry, which are
expected to deeply affect air passengers and the travel business until
2025. Radical changes in terms of technology investments, training,
collaboration and organizational structure will be necessary for the
airline companies to retain their competitive edge, service quality and
operational efficiency. Speed of technological developments, customer
segmentation, customer relationship management strategies, digital
trust, and digital platforms should be prioritized for competitive ad­
vantages (Alexander and Natarajan, 2017). In this study, air trans­
portation by the airline industry is focused. The conducted case study is
explained in the next section.
4.2. Case study
To comply with DT, the growth of technology in air transportation,
changing customer behavior, and digital demands of digital passengers,
airline companies need to perform internal and external environmental
analyzes correctly and determine a road map accordingly. Hence, in this
study, DTSs are focused on. A case study is conducted in the Turkish
airline industry to evaluate the DTSs and to select the most appropriate
DTS. A group of experts (DMs) is constructed to proceed with the
decision-making process. The first DM is a senior vice president of
corporate innovation and projects of an airline company. The second
DM is the founder of a company that provides software and hardware
products and services to the aviation industry. Finally, the third and
fourth DMs are two academics with sufficient knowledge about DT in the
airline industry. DMs are determined by considering their experiences,
information levels, academic backgrounds, the companies that they
work for, and their willingness to help. Further information cannot be
provided due to privacy concerns and confidentiality. The above
mentioned computational steps of the proposed methodology are
applied to the case study.
Step 1. Construction of the SWOT matrix, obtaining the SWOT fac­
tors and determination of the DTSs: A SWOT matrix is constructed to
determine the DTSs concerning the airline companies. Following that
the SWOT factors are obtained through a literature survey (Westerman
et al., 2011; Westerman et al., 2014; Bourne, 2015; Rogers, 2016; DGCA,
2019; Kaur and Bath, 2019; Büyüközkan et al., 2020b) and DMs’ opin­
ions. The constructed SWOT matrix is given in Table 5. The matrix
contains 20 SWOT factors related to the SWOT dimensions, as well as the
determined DTSs based on the literature survey and the opinions of the
DMs.
Step 2. Construction of the hierarchical structure: The constructed
hierarchical structure based on the goal and the SWOT matrix is given in

8
G. Büyüközkan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

Fig. 4. Constructed hierarchical model of SWOT matrix.

Table 6
Evaluation of SWOT dimensions concerning the Goal.
Dimensions Matrix in linguistic terms Matrix in fuzzy terms Weights

S W O T S W O T

S 1 VSI EI MI 1 [6, 8] [1,2] [2,4] 0.444

W 1 [1/8, 1/6] 1 [1/6, 1/4] [1/4,1/2] 0.061
O SI 1 MI [1/2, 1/1] [4,6] 1 [2,4] 0.343
T MI 1 [1/4, 1/2] [2,4] [1/4, 1/2] 1 0.151

(C.R. = 0.060).

Table 7
Evaluation of SWOT criteria concerning the Strengths.
Criteria Matrix in linguistic terms Matrix in fuzzy terms Local weights

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

S1 1 EI VSI MI 1 [1,2] [1/4, 1/2] [6, 8] [2,4] 0.223

S2 1 SI [1/2, 1/1] 1 [1/6, 1/4] [4,6] [1/2, 1/1] 0.122
S3 MI SI 1 EMI SI [2,4] [4,6] 1 [8,10] [4,6] 0.501
S4 1 [1/8, 1/6] [1/6, 1/4] [1/10, 1/8] 1 [1/6, 1/4] 0.032
S5 EI SI 1 [1/4, 1/2] [1,2] [1/6, 1/4] [4,6] 1 0.122

(C.R. = 0.074).

Fig. 4. determine the importance degree of the criteria using the linguistic
Step 3. Obtaining the judgments of the DMs: DMs determine the terms given in Table 2. Evaluation results are given in Tables 6–10.
priorities of the SWOT factors. A consensus process is carried out by a Step 4. Determination of the fuzzy terms: The lower and upper limits
group of experts. The DMs in this group applied pairwise comparisons to of the fuzzy numbers are defined concerning the α using Eq. (5).

9
G. Büyüközkan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

Table 8
Evaluation of SWOT criteria concerning the Weaknesses.
Criteria Matrix in linguistic terms Matrix in fuzzy terms Local weights

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5

W1 1 VSI VSI VSI VSI 1 [6, 8] [6, 8] [6, 8] [6, 8] 0.608

W2 1 EI EI SI [1/8, 1/6] 1 [1,2] [1,2] [4,6] 0.141
W3 1 EI MI [1/8, 1/6] [1/2, 1/1] 1 [1,2] [2,4] 0.111
W4 1 MI [1/8, 1/6] [1/2, 1/1] [1/2, 1/1] 1 [2,4] 0.097
W5 1 [1/8, 1/6] [1/6, 1/4] [1/4,1/2] [1/4,1/2] 1 0.043

(C.R. = 0.083).

Table 9
Evaluation of SWOT criteria concerning the Opportunities.
Criteria Matrix in linguistic terms Matrix in fuzzy terms Local weights

O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5

O1 1 EI 1 [1/6, 1/4] [1/4,1/2] [1,2] [1/4,1/2] 0.087

O2 SI 1 EI MI MI [4,6] 1 [1,2] [2,4] [2,4] 0.376
O3 MI 1 MI EI [2,4] [1/2, 1/1] 1 [2,4] [1,2] 0.257
O4 1 [1/2, 1/1] [1/4,1/2] [1/4,1/2] 1 [1/4,1/2] 0.085
O5 MI MI 1 [2,4] [1/4,1/2] [1/2, 1/1] [2,4] 1 0.195

(C.R. = 0.078).

Table 10
Evaluation of SWOT criteria concerning the Threats.
Criteria Matrix in linguistic terms Matrix in fuzzy terms Local weights

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

T1 1 1 [1/10, 1/8] [1/6, 1/4] [1/4,1/2] [1/2, 1/1] 0.045

T2 EMI 1 SI VSI VSI [8,10] 1 [4,6] [6, 8] [6, 8] 0.571
T3 SI 1 MI VSI [4,6] [1/6, 1/4] 1 [2,4] [6, 8] 0.227
T4 MI 1 MI [2,4] [1/8, 1/6] [1/4,1/2] 1 [2,4] 0.106
T5 EI 1 [1,2] [1/8, 1/6] [1/8, 1/6] [1/4,1/2] 1 0.051

(C.R. = 0.090).

Table 11
Results of fuzzy AHP method.
Dimensions Local weights Factors Local weights Global weights

S 0.444 S1 0.223 0.099

S2 0.122 0.054
S3 0.501 0.222
S4 0.032 0.014
S5 0.122 0.054
W 0.061 W1 0.608 0.037
W2 0.141 0.009
W3 0.111 0.007
W4 0.097 0.006
W5 0.043 0.003
O 0.343 O1 0.087 0.030
O2 0.376 0.129
O3 0.257 0.088
O4 0.085 0.029
O5 0.195 0.067
T 0.151 T1 0.045 0.007
T2 0.571 0.086
T3 0.227 0.034
T4 0.106 0.016
T5 0.051 0.008
Fig. 5. Weight distribution of the SWOT dimensions (based on the fuzzy
AHP weights).
Obtained fuzzy terms concerning the linguistic terms-based evaluations
of the criteria are introduced in Tables 6–10. factors given in Tables 6–10 are calculated based on the α − cut values
Step 5. Checking the consistency: The consistency check process is using the fuzzy AHP method. The results of the fuzzy AHP method are
applied using Eq. (8). Results of the consistency check are given in shown in Table 11. Furthermore, Fig. 5 is presented to show the distri­
Tables 6–10 below. All calculated C.R. values satisfy the condition of bution of the weights of the SWOT dimensions and Fig. 6 shows the
(C.R. ≤ 0.1). Hence, all evaluations obtained from the group of experts distribution of the weights of the SWOT factors based on their global
are consistent. There is no need for repeating the evaluation process. weights.
Step 6. Calculation of the criteria weights: The weights of the SWOT Step 7. Obtaining the judgments of the DMs to evaluate the

10
G. Büyüközkan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

Fig. 6. Weight distribution of the SWOT factors (based on the global weights).

Table 12
Evaluation of alternatives by the group of experts (DMs).
DTSs S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

S1 VP MG MG MG G M G G VG G EG EG EG EG G EG EG EG G M
S2 EG MG MG EG EG G EG G EG MG EG EG EG G EG M EG MG G M
S3 M MG MG G VG MG MG G VG VG EG EG EG VG G G VG G VG MG
S4 EG EG EG EG EG EG MG MG EG G EG EG EG G EG G EG VG G M
S5 G VG G G G G VG EG G VG VG EG VG VG EG VG EG VG G M
S6 EG VG VG EG EG G VG EG G G EG EG EG EG EG P EG EG EG M
S7 EG G G EG EG EG G EG EG G EG VG EG EG EG EG EG VG G G
S8 EG EG EG EG EG MG EG G G MG EG EG G EG G MG EG G EG MG

alternatives: The determined set of suitable alternatives (DTSs) given in Step 12. Computation of the utility degrees of the alternatives: The
Table 5 is used in this step. Alternative strategies are evaluated over the ̃ i ) of alternatives are calculated through Eqs. (16) and
utility degree (K
SWOT factors by the DMs using the linguistic terms given in Table 4. A (17). Following that ̃ Si values that indicate the sum of the elements of the
consensus process is applied during the evaluations. Evaluations of the
weighted fuzzy matrix are obtained using Eq. (18). Obtained K̃ i and ̃
Si
DMs concerning the alternatives are given in Table 12.
values are shown in Table 13.
Step 8. Transforming the linguistic terms into TFNs: Judgments of
the DMs are transformed into TFNs using Table 4 to obtain a group Step 13. Determination of the utility functions for the ideal f(K
̃+)
i
decision matrix. and anti-ideal f(K ̃ ) solutions: Utility functions related to f(K ̃ ) and
− +
i i
Step 9. Construction of the extended initial fuzzy matrix X: ̃ Fuzzy f(K
̃ − ) are calculated via Eqs. (19) and (20). Furthermore, T
i
̃ i values are
anti-ideal A(AI)
̃ and fuzzy ideal A(ID)
̃ solutions are obtained using Eqs. obtained using Eq. (21) and defuzzification of K ̃− , K
̃ + , f(K̃ + ), f(K
̃− )
i i i i
(11) and (12) to obtain an extended initial fuzzy matrix given in Eq. values are performed through Eq. (23). T ̃ i values are given in Table 13.
(10). Step 14. Utility functions f(Ki ) of alternatives are obtained through
Step 10. Normalization of the X: ̃ Extended initial fuzzy matrix is
Eq. (24). Results are given in Table 14.
normalized using Eqs. (13) and (14) based on cost and benefit criteria of Step 15. Ranking the alternatives: Alternatives are ranked based on
the proposed SWOT model. Here, S and O factors are benefit, and W and their utility function values. The ranked order of the alternatives is
T factors are cost criteria. shown in Table 14. The ranked order of the DTSs is obtained as
Step 11. Construction of the weighted fuzzy matrix V:
̃ The weighted S4 ≻ S8 ≻ S6 ≻ S7 ≻ S2 ≻ S5 ≻ S3 ≻ S1 .
fuzzy matrix Ṽ is obtained through Eq. (15). At this step, the global
weights of the SWOT factors given in Table 11 are used.

11
G. Büyüközkan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

Table 13
Obtained ̃
Si , K
̃ i (K
̃− , K
i
̃ + ) and T
i
̃ i values.

Si
̃ (sli , sm
i , si )
u
K
̃−
i
̃+
K i
T
̃i

Sai
̃ (0.554, 0.607, 0.765) −
ki
̃ (k−i l , k−i m , k−i u ) ̃+
ki i , ki , ki )
(k+l +m +u ̃ti (til , tim , tiu )

S1
̃ (0.597, 0.686, 0.825) −
k1
̃ (0.780, 1.129, 1.490) +
k1
̃ (0.597, 0.706, 1.083) ̃t1 (1.377, 1.836, 2.573)

S2
̃ (0.684, 0.809, 0.908) −
k2
̃ (0.895, 1.332, 1.640) +
k2
̃ (0.684, 0.833, 1.192) ̃t2 (1.579, 2.164, 2.833)

S3
̃ (0.626, 0.754, 0.846) −
k3
̃ (0.818, 1.241, 1.528) +
k3
̃ (0.626, 0.776, 1.110) ̃t3 (1.444, 2.018, 2.638)

S4
̃ (0.738, 0.923, 0.955) −
k4
̃ (0.965, 1.520, 1.725) +
k4
̃ (0.738, 0.950, 1.254) ̃t4 (1.703, 2.470, 2.979)

S5
̃ (0.659, 0.797, 0.878) −
k5
̃ (0.862, 1.312, 1.585) +
k5
̃ (0.659, 0.820, 1.152) ̃t5 (1.521, 2.133, 2.737)

S6
̃ (0.745, 0.860, 0.966) −
k6
̃ (0.974, 1.416, 1.745) +
k6
̃ (0.745, 0.886, 1.268) ̃t6 (1.720, 2.302, 3.013)

S7
̃ (0.680, 0.832, 0.895) −
k7
̃ (0.890, 1.370, 1.616) +
k7
̃ (0.680, 0.857, 1.174) ̃t7 (1.570, 2.227, 2.790)

S8
̃ (0.715, 0.898, 0.935) −
k8
̃ (0.934, 1.480, 1.688) +
k8
̃ (0.715, 0.925, 1.227) ̃t8 (1.649, 2.405, 2.915)

Sid
̃ (0.762, 0.971, 1.000)

proposition, brand value, awareness, and preferability of the airline

Table 14 company. This will reflect in the sustainability, competitiveness and
Results of fuzzy MARCOS method and ranked order of the DTSs. profitability of the airline company in the digital ecosystem. Fulfilling the
DTSs K−i K+
i
f(K−i ) f(K+
i )
f(Ki ) Order requirements of DT goes through a successful transformation process.
Airline companies can benefit from this process in terms of flexibility,
S1 1.131 0.751 0.309 0.466 0.430 8
agility, profitability, competitiveness, reputation, and sustainability, with
S2 1.310 0.868 0.358 0.540 0.597 5
S3 1.219 0.807 0.332 0.502 0.506 7 clear implications for the global economy and employment. Failing to
S4 1.461 0.965 0.398 0.602 0.765 1 address the disruptive power of DT can be long lasting and threatening.
S5 1.283 0.849 0.350 0.529 0.568 6 Airlines must determine their risks and be sensitive to what elements
S6 1.397 0.926 0.382 0.576 0.692 3
should be considered for successful DT. DT takes the customer to the
S7 1.331 0.880 0.363 0.548 0.618 4
S8 1.424 0.940 0.387 0.587 0.719 2
center of its focus. This can be best achieved by involving customers and
passengers in the DT processes, creating an interactive environment for
5. Managerial implications their processes and providing personalized and customized digital prod­
ucts and services in line with their behavioral models. This also
The results of the study show that the most important dimensions strengthens passenger loyalty and experience, brand value, awareness,
that the airline companies should focus on are strengths and opportu­ and preference for the airline company. Therefore, competitiveness,
nities concerning the DT. The distribution of the weights obtained profitability, and sustainability follow them.
through the fuzzy AHP method is shown in Figs. 5 and 6. They show that There are different fuzzy number extensions to model and solve
the internal (strengths and weaknesses) factors and external (opportu­ complex decision-making problems in the literature such as intuition­
nities and threats) factors have almost the same importance. The total istic fuzzy sets, hesitant fuzzy sets, spherical fuzzy sets or neutrosophic
percentage of strengths and weaknesses is 51% while the total per­ sets. These extensions aim to facilitate decision makers or experts to
centage of opportunities and threats is 49%. Table 11 and Fig. 5 show describe their evaluations in more detail (Kutlu Gündoğdu and Kahra­
that airline companies in Turkey should focus on technology innovation man, 2019). As the experts have more knowledge on a subject, the so­
and the existence of digital platforms and channels, cyber-physical lution of the problem shifts to the normal (ordinary or crisp) number
touchpoints, collaboration, technology partnerships, interaction, and sets. The more hesitancy and uncertainty the decision-making process
collaboration with customers using digital channels, cybersecurity and includes, the more complex fuzzy set extensions are needed. The lack of
privacy, differentiated customer experience and service quality. information or description concerning the judgments of the experts
The ranked order of the DTSs reveals that the three most important (DMs) can be supported by the properties of these fuzzy extensions. In
digital transformation strategies are S4, S8, and S6. These are “focusing this study, classical fuzzy sets are utilized to model and solve the
on differentiated digital customer experience and service quality by the decision-making problem. The built decision making model is not
adaptation of business models to digital transformation to provide difficult to interpret. Selected DMs had significant amount of informa­
benefits (WO2)”, “determination of success and risk factors to create tion about the studied problem. Crisp numbers were not enough repre­
digital business models that can resist the disruptive power of digital senting DMs’ assessments, but there were almost no hesitancy, no
transformation (WT2)” and “profiling customers via digital channels to incomplete information or need of intuition. Hence, the structure of the
provide personalized and customized digital products and services complex fuzzy extensions was not appropriate to the structure of the
(ST2)”, respectively. studied problem.
DT is a strategic management-based process. Airline companies must
adapt their business models to the transformation process for differenti­ Table 15
ated digital customer experience and service quality, which can act as Results of fuzzy TOPSIS method and the ranked order of the DTSs.
opportunities if managed correctly. Nowadays, digital customers make DTSs d*i d−i CCi Order
use of digital technologies to manage the digital markets and ecosystems.
S1 19.298 0.713 0.0356 8
They demand digital products and services via digital channels. Meeting
S2 19.200 0.808 0.0404 5
such demands has become vital more than ever. Digital platforms also act S3 19.259 0.749 0.0375 7
as places where customers share their thoughts about the products and S4 19.129 0.878 0.0439 1
services, with implications about company reputation. A good level of S5 19.223 0.785 0.0392 6
service quality that addresses the changing customer profile and expec­ S6 19.143 0.864 0.0432 2
S7 19.198 0.809 0.0404 4
tations will accordingly improve the reputation, improving the value
S8 19.151 0.856 0.0428 3

12
G. Büyüközkan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

5.1. Comparative analysis obtained as (d*i ) and (d−i ), respectively for each alternative. Closeness
coefficients (CCi ) concerning the alternatives are calculated using (d*i )
This section illustrates the comparative analysis that is conducted to and (d−i ) values. Finally, alternatives are ranked based on their (CCi )
validate the proposed methodology. This comparison of the results is values. The results of the fuzzy TOPSIS method are given in Table 15.
made against the fuzzy TOPSIS and the fuzzy VIKOR methods. The ranked order of the alternative DTSs is found as
Computational steps of fuzzy TOPSIS adopted from Chen (2000) are S4 ≻ S6 ≻ S8 ≻ S7 ≻ S2 ≻ S5 ≻ S3 ≻ S1 . Obtained results show that the
applied. Distances from positive and negative ideal solutions are order of 6 alternatives out of 8 alternatives are the same in both fuzzy
MARCOS and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Only the orders of S6 and S8 are
Table 16
different.
Results of fuzzy VIKOR method and the ranked order of the DTSs.
Following that, the computational steps of the fuzzy VIKOR method
DTSs Qi Order Ri Order Si Order adapted from Chen and Wang (2009) are applied. Distances from posi­
S1 − 0.609 7 0.116 8 0.140 8 tive and negative ideal solutions are obtained as (d*i ) and (d−i ), respec­
S2 − 0.043 8 0.074 6 − 0.010 4 tively for each alternative. Qi values are calculated based on group
S3 − 0.652 5 0.074 7 0.080 7 utility (Si ) and individual regret (Si ) values. Alternatives are ranked
S4 − 0.804 1 0.064 4 − 0.123 1
S5 − 0.642 6 0.049 2 0.051 6
based on their (Qi ) values. The results of the fuzzy VIKOR method are
S6 − 0.731 3 0.049 3 − 0.095 2 given in Table 16. The ranked order of the alternative DTSs is obtained
S7 − 0.674 4 0.064 5 0.009 5 as S4 ≻ S6 ≻ S8 ≻ S2 ≻ S7 ≻ S5 ≻ S3 ≻ S1 .
S8 − 0.764 2 0.041 1 − 0.077 3

Furthermore, the ranked order of the alternatives obtained from fuzzy TOPSIS,
fuzzy VIKOR, and fuzzy MARCOS methods are compared in Table 17 and Fig. 7. 5.2. Sensitivity analysis
The comparison results show that the observed differences are quite small, and
these differences do not limit the usefulness of the study. In this section, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate and
evaluate the influence of the weights of the SWOT factors in ranking the
Table 17 DTSs and the robustness of the results obtained from the proposed
Compared ranked orders of the DTSs. methodology. Different weights given in Table 18 concerning the SWOT
DTSs Fuzzy TOPSIS Fuzzy VIKOR Fuzzy MARCOS
dimensions in 10 different cases are applied.
The weights of the SWOT factors are based on the case weights that
CCi Qi F(K)
belong to the SWOT dimensions given in Table 19. These are calculated
S1 8 7 8 to conduct the sensitivity analysis. Following that, the fuzzy MARCOS
S2 5 8 5 method is applied to each case weights. The utility function F(K) values
S3 7 5 7
are updated based on these weights. The obtained utility function values
S4 1 1 1
S5 6 6 6 of the DTSs are given in Table 20. Ranked orders of the DTS alternatives
S6 2 3 3 are obtained based on the updated utility function values. Table 21 il­
S7 4 4 4 lustrates the new ranked orders of the DTSs in different cases.
S8 3 2 2 Here, “Base” indicates the initial results of the study. The distribution
of these ranked orders of the DTSs is given in Fig. 8a and Fig. 8b to give a

Table 18
Different weights of the SWOT dimensions in different cases.
SWOT Dimensions Base Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10

S 0.444 0.250 0.200 0.300 0.300 0.200 0.400 0.400 0.350 0.150 0.350
W 0.061 0.250 0.200 0.300 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.100 0.350 0.150 0.150
O 0.343 0.250 0.300 0.200 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.400 0.150 0.350 0.350
T 0.151 0.250 0.300 0.200 0.200 0.300 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.350 0.150

Table 19
The weights of the SWOT factors in different cases.
SWOT Factors Base Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10

S1 0.099 0.056 0.045 0.067 0.067 0.045 0.089 0.089 0.078 0.033 0.078
S2 0.054 0.031 0.024 0.037 0.037 0.024 0.049 0.049 0.043 0.018 0.043
S3 0.222 0.125 0.100 0.150 0.150 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.175 0.075 0.175
S4 0.014 0.008 0.006 0.010 0.010 0.006 0.013 0.013 0.011 0.005 0.011
S5 0.054 0.031 0.024 0.037 0.037 0.024 0.049 0.049 0.043 0.018 0.043
W1 0.037 0.152 0.122 0.182 0.122 0.182 0.243 0.061 0.213 0.091 0.091
W2 0.009 0.035 0.028 0.042 0.028 0.042 0.057 0.014 0.050 0.021 0.021
W3 0.007 0.028 0.022 0.033 0.022 0.033 0.044 0.011 0.039 0.017 0.017
W4 0.006 0.024 0.019 0.029 0.019 0.029 0.039 0.010 0.034 0.015 0.015
W5 0.003 0.011 0.009 0.013 0.009 0.013 0.017 0.004 0.015 0.006 0.006
O1 0.030 0.022 0.026 0.017 0.026 0.017 0.009 0.035 0.013 0.030 0.030
O2 0.129 0.094 0.113 0.075 0.113 0.075 0.038 0.150 0.056 0.132 0.132
O3 0.088 0.064 0.077 0.051 0.077 0.051 0.026 0.103 0.039 0.090 0.090
O4 0.029 0.021 0.025 0.017 0.025 0.017 0.008 0.034 0.013 0.030 0.030
O5 0.067 0.049 0.059 0.039 0.059 0.039 0.020 0.078 0.029 0.068 0.068
T1 0.007 0.011 0.013 0.009 0.009 0.013 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.016 0.007
T2 0.086 0.143 0.171 0.114 0.114 0.171 0.057 0.057 0.086 0.200 0.086
T3 0.034 0.057 0.068 0.045 0.045 0.068 0.023 0.023 0.034 0.079 0.034
T4 0.016 0.027 0.032 0.021 0.021 0.032 0.011 0.011 0.016 0.037 0.016
T5 0.008 0.013 0.015 0.010 0.010 0.015 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.018 0.008

13
G. Büyüközkan et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142

Table 20
The obtained utility function F(K) values of the DTSs.
DTSs Base Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10

S1 0.4298 0.5488 0.5671 0.5233 0.5172 0.5763 0.4735 0.4620 0.4982 0.5849 0.4883
S2 0.5969 0.6286 0.6523 0.5966 0.6199 0.6298 0.5345 0.6042 0.5652 0.6755 0.6117
S3 0.5064 0.6212 0.6438 0.5903 0.5852 0.6525 0.5305 0.5230 0.5601 0.6660 0.5526
S4 0.7645 0.7102 0.7046 0.7059 0.7275 0.6831 0.6976 0.7602 0.7018 0.6989 0.7441
S5 0.5682 0.5864 0.5981 0.5669 0.5825 0.5832 0.5285 0.5753 0.5476 0.6092 0.5787
S6 0.6920 0.6613 0.6641 0.6493 0.6748 0.6387 0.6254 0.7003 0.6373 0.6664 0.6877
S7 0.6177 0.5867 0.5975 0.5679 0.5972 0.5683 0.5310 0.6169 0.5493 0.6079 0.6071
S8 0.7194 0.7107 0.6877 0.7246 0.7116 0.7006 0.7538 0.7133 0.7390 0.6654 0.7124

Table 21
Updated ranked orders of the DTSs in different cases.
DTSs Base Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10

S1 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 8 8 8
S2 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 2 4
S3 7 5 5 5 6 3 6 7 5 4 7
S4 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1
S5 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 6
S6 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
S7 4 6 7 6 5 8 5 4 6 7 5
S8 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 5 2

Fig. 7. Compared ranked orders of the DTS alternatives (Alternative Ai represents ith DTS).

holistic perspective. The obtained results show that differences are quite
small, and do not limit the usefulness of the study. Furthermore,
“focusing on differentiated digital customer experience and service
quality by the adaptation of business models to digital transformation to
provide benefits” is the most appropriate DTS in most cases.
6. Conclusion and perspectives
This study focuses on DTSs for airline companies. DT is driven by
strategy, not technology, emphasizing the importance of analyzing the
internal and external environments of the airline companies and the

14
G. Büyüközkan et al.
Fig. 8. a. The comparison of the ranked orders of the DTSs in different cases (first 5 cases). b. Comparison of the ranked orders of the DTSs in different cases (rest of
the cases).
determination of DTSs. Airline companies should develop a roadmap in
the DT process. A new SWOT matrix is constructed in this study to
support this decision process. The SWOT matrix is based on a literature
survey as well as professional opinions of the DMs who are experts in this
field. The market and ecosystem in which airline companies do business
are highly competitive. The influence of DT in the airline industry is
already visible and the growth of digital passenger potential is
remarkable. The constructed SWOT matrix and introduced DTSs are
verified with a case study concerning the airline industry in Turkey. An
integrated SWOT-based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS methodology is
utilized for the selection of DTSs. The importance degree of the SWOT
factors and their weights are determined through the fuzzy AHP method.
Following that, the recently proposed fuzzy MARCOS method is adopted
for selecting the most appropriate DTS. Fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR
methods are utilized to validate the results of the fuzzy MARCOS
method. A sensitivity analysis is applied to evaluate the influence of the
weights of the SWOT factors on DTSs and to investigate the robustness of
the proposed methodology. The main contributions and originality of
the study can be emphasized as follows:
• The proposed study fills the gap in the literature by providing a
quantified SWOT analysis based on integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy
MARCOS methodology for DTS selection.
• DTSs were revealed for air transportation.
• A case study was carried out concerning the airline industry in
Turkey.
Besides its contributions, this study also has some limitations. The
study was constructed based on the assumption of independence be­
tween criteria. The ANP (Analytic Network Process) method can be
applied to analyze the relationship between criteria for future studies. In
addition, as a second perspective, the applied methodology can also be
expanded to more complex typologies and fuzzy extensions.
CRediT author contribution statement
• Gülçin Büyüközkan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources,
Investigation, Writing - review & editing, Project administration,
Funding acquisition. • Celal Alpay Havle: Conceptualization, Meth­
odology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft. •
15
Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142
Orhan Feyzioğlu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing
- review & editing, Funding acquisition.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude towards the
industrial experts. The authors acknowledge the Editor and the anony­
mous reviewers for their valuable comments that helped improve the
previous version of the paper. The authors also acknowledge Dr. H.
Yağmur Karabulut for his help in improving the linguistic quality of the
study. This work has been supported by the Scientific Research Projects
Commission of Galatasaray University, Turkey (19.402.006 and FOA-
2021-1059).
References
Accenture, 2016. Turbulence Ahead: Plotting a Course through Digital Disruption
Technology Vision for Airlines 2016, Accenture. https://www.accenture.com/t201
60601t043737z__w__/my-en/_acnmedia/pdf-17/accenture-airline-tech-vision-pov.
pdf.
Alexander, D., Natarajan, B., 2017. The Road to 2025. The Future of Air Travel: Eight
Disruptive Waves of Change. 2017. Cognizant. https://www.cognizant.com/white
papers/the-future-of-air-travel-eight-disruptive-waves-of-change-codex2566.pdf.
Anser, M.K., Mohsin, M., Abbas, Q., Chaudhry, I.S., 2020. Assessing the integration of
solar power projects: SWOT-based AHP–F-TOPSIS case study of Turkey. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Control Ser. 1–13.
Arabzad, S.M., Ghorbani, M., Razmi, J., Shirouyehzad, H., 2015. Employing fuzzy
TOPSIS and SWOT for supplier selection and order allocation problem. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 76 (5–8), 803–818.
Arshadikhamseh, A., Fazayeli, M., 2013. A fuzzy analytical network process for SWOT
analysis (Case study: drug distribution company). Techn. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 3 (18),
2317–2326.
Ayağ, Z., 2005. A fuzzy AHP-based simulation approach to concept evaluation in a NPD
environment. IIE Trans. 37 (9), 827–842.
Badi, I., Pamucar, D., 2020. Supplier selection for steelmaking company by using
combined Grey-MARCOS methods. Decis. Mak.: Appl. Manag. Eng. 3 (2), 37–48.
Bakır, M., Atalık, Ö., 2021. Application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS approach for
the evaluation of E-service quality in the airline industry. Decis. Mak.: Appl. Manag.
Eng. 4 (1), 127–152.
Borgogna, A., Stroh, S., Hilz, A., Agarwalla, A., Jakovljevic, I., 2016. Connecting with the
customers. How airlines must adapt their distribution business model. PwC, Strat.
Google. https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/m1/en/reports/connecting-with-the-c
ustomer.pdf.
Bourne, V., 2015. Building a Better Digital Experience. Tough Challenges, Better
Benefits, and Why it All matters. Whitepaper, CA Technologies. https://docs.broad
com.com/doc/building-a-better-digital-experience.
G. Büyüközkan et al.
Büyüközkan, G., Göçer, F., 2018. Digital Supply Chain: literature review and a proposed
framework for future research. Comput. Ind. 97, 157–177.
Büyüközkan, G., Ilıcak, Ö., 2019. Integrated SWOT analysis with multiple preference
relations. Kybernetes 48 (3), 451–470.
Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O., Havle, C.A., 2020a. Analysis of success factors in aviation
4.0 using integrated intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM methods. In: Kahraman, C., Cebi, S.,
Cevik Onar, S., Oztaysi, B., Tolga, A., Sari, I. (Eds.), Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques
in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making. INFUS 2019, Advances in Intelligent
Systems and Computing, vol. 1029. Springer, Cham.
Büyüközkan, G., Havle, C.A., Feyzioğlu, O., 2020b. A new digital service quality model
and its strategic analysis in aviation industry using interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy AHP. J. Air Transport. Manag. 86, 101817.
Büyüközkan, G., Havle, C.A., Feyzioğlu, O., 2021a. Digital competency evaluation of
low-cost airlines using an integrated IVIF AHP and IVIF VIKOR methodology. J. Air
Transport. Manag. 91, 101998.
Büyüközkan, G., Mukul, E., Kongar, E., 2021b. Health tourism strategy selection via
SWOT analysis and integrated hesitant fuzzy linguistic AHP-MABAC approach. Soc.
Econ. Plann. Sci. 74, 100929.
Chen, C.T., 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy
environment. Fuzzy Set Syst. 114 (1), 1–9.
Chen, L.Y., Wang, T.C., 2009. Optimizing partners’ choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects:
the strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 120 (1), 233–242.
Demirtas, N., Tuzkaya, U.R., Seker, S., 2014. Project management methodology selection
using SWOT-fuzzy AHP. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering. July,
London, UK, pp. 2–4.
DGCA, 2019. Directorate General of Civil Aviation Turkey, 2019 Activity Report.
February. http://web.shgm.gov.tr/documents/sivilhavacilik/files/pdf/kurumsal
/faaliyet/2019.pdf.
Dožić, S., 2019. Multi-criteria decision-making methods: application in the aviation
industry. J. Air Transport. Manag. 79, 101683.
Dwivedi, R., Prasad, K., Jha, P.K., Singh, S., 2021. An integrated CRITIC-MARCOS
technique for analysing the performance of steel industry. In: Data-Driven
Optimization of Manufacturing Processes. IGI Global, pp. 115–127.
Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., 2021. MARCOS technique under intuitionistic fuzzy environment
for determining the COVID-19 pandemic performance of insurance companies in
terms of healthcare services. Appl. Soft Comput. 104, 107199.
Ekmekçioglu, M., Can Kutlu, A., Kahraman, C., 2011. A fuzzy multi-criteria SWOT
analysis: an application to nuclear power plant site selection. Int. J. Comput. Intell.
Syst. 4 (4), 583–595.
Ervural, B.C., Zaim, S., Demirel, O.F., Aydin, Z., Delen, D., 2018. An ANP and fuzzy
TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 82, 1538–1550.
Esmaeili, A., Kahnali, R.A., Rostamzadeh, R., Zavadskas, E.K., Sepahvand, A., 2014. The
formulation of organizational strategies through integration of freeman model,
SWOT, and fuzzy MCDM methods: a case study of oil industry. Transform. Bus. Econ.
13 (3C), 602–627.
Esri, 2017. Making Sense of Digital Transformation. How Location Technology Drives
Business Growth. https://www.esri.com/content/dam/esrisites/en-us/media/pdf
/making-sense-of-digital-transformation/Making_Sense_of_Digital_Transformation_
x5.pdf.
Forghani, M.A., Izadi, L., 2013. Contractor selection based on Swot analysis with Vikor
and topsis methods in fuzzy environment. World Appl. Sci. J. 24 (4), 540–549.
Ghazinory, S., Abdi, M., Azadegan-Mehr, M., 2011. SWOT methodology: a state-of-the-
art review for the past, a framework for the future. Journal of business economics
and management. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 12 (1), 24–48.
Gholizadeh, M., Farzi, A., Masoomi, S., 2021. Solar desalination in Iran–a SWOT analysis
using fuzzy AHP. J. Environ. Soc. Sci. 6 (1), 3352–3359.
González-Cancelas, N., Molina Serrano, B., Soler-Flores, F., Camarero-Orive, A., 2020.
Using the iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSWOT methodology to know the scope of the
digitalization of the Spanish ports. Logistics 4 (3), 20.
Gürel, E., Tat, M., 2017. SWOT analysis: a theoretical review. J. Int. Soc. Res. 10 (51).
Hatami-Marbini, A., Tavana, M., Hajipour, V., Kangi, F., Kazemi, A., 2013. An extended
compromise ratio method for fuzzy group multi-attribute decision making with
SWOT analysis. Appl. Soft Comput. 13 (8), 3459–3472.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In:
Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 58–191.
Insight, Forbes, 2017. Digital transformation. Using data-driven insights for exceptional
customer engagement. Forbes Insights & Pitney Bowes. https://www.idc.com/pr
omo/dxjourney/RESOURCES/ATTACHMENTS/forbesdx.pdf.
Ishizaka, A., Nemery, P., 2013. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software.
John Wiley & Sons.
Jeyaraj, K.L., Muralidharn, C., Senthilvelan, T., Deshmukh, S.G., 2012. A hybrid business
strategy selection process for a textile company using SWOT and fuzzy ANP–A case
study. Int. J. Manag. 3 (2), 124–143.
Kahraman, C., Onar, S.C., Oztaysi, B., 2015. Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: a
literature review. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 8 (4), 637–666.
Kane, G.C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A.N., Kiron, D., Buckley, N., 2015. Strategy, Not
Technology, Drives Digital Transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review and
Deloitte University Press. July. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte
/fr/Documents/strategy/dup_strategy-not-technology-drives-digital-transformation.
pdf.
Karaaslan, A., Adar, T., Delice, E.K., 2021. Regional evaluation of renewable energy
sources in Turkey by new integrated AHP-MARCOS methodology: a real application.
Int. J. Sustain. Energy 1–23.
16
Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142
Karimi, M., Niknamfar, A.H., Niaki, S.T.A., 2019. An application of fuzzy-logic and grey-
relational ANP-based SWOT in the ceramic and tile industry. Knowl. Base Syst. 163,
581–594.
Kaur, H., Bath, A.K., 2019. Digital transformation strategies in different areas: a
literature review. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 8 (12). December. http://www.ijstr.org/
final-print/dec2019/Digital-Transformation-Strategies-In-Different-Areas-A-Review.
pdf.
Khaba, S., Bhar, C., 2017. Quantifying SWOT analysis for the Indian coal mining industry
using Fuzzy DEMATEL. Benchmark Int. J.
Khan, M.I., 2018. Evaluating the strategies of compressed natural gas industry using an
integrated SWOT and MCDM approach. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1035–1052.
Khatir, M.V., Akbarzadeh, Z., 2019. Elucidation of structural relationships of SWOT: a
mixed method approach based on FMADM for formulating science and technology
strategies. Technol. Soc. 56, 44–56.
Kovynyov, I., Mikut, R., 2018. Digital Transformation in Airport Ground Operations
arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09142. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.09142.pdf.
Kramar, U., Dragan, D., Topolšek, D., 2019. The holistic approach to urban mobility
planning with a modified focus group, SWOT, and fuzzy analytical hierarchical
process. Sustainability 11 (23), 6599.
Kumar, S., Kumar, S., Barman, A.G., 2018. Supplier selection using fuzzy TOPSIS multi
criteria model for a small-scale steel manufacturing unit. Procedia Comput. Sci. 133,
905–912.
Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., Kahraman, C., 2019. Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy
TOPSIS method. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 36 (1), 337–352.
Lee, A.R., 1995. Application of Modified Fuzzy AHP Method to Analyze Bolting Sequence
of Structural Joints.
Lertprapai, S., 2013. Multiple criteria decision-making method with applications. Int.
Math. Forum 8 (7), 347–355.
Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Khalifah, Z., Nor, K.M., 2015. Application of
multiple-criteria decision-making techniques and approaches to evaluating of service
quality: a systematic review of the literature. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 16 (5),
1034–1068.
Matt, C., Hess, T., Benlian, A., 2015. Digital transformation strategies. Bus. Informat.
Syst. Eng. 57 (5), 339–343.
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., Haug, N., 2019. Defining digital transformation: results from
expert interviews. Govern. Inf. Q. 36 (4), 101385.
Morakanyane, R., Grace, A.A., O’Reilly, P., 2017. Conceptualizing digital transformation
in business organizations: a systematic review of literature. Bled eConference in
June, p. 21. https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=bl
ed2017.
Narasimhan, R., 1983. An analytical approach to supplier selection. J. Purch. Mater.
Manag. 19 (4), 27–32.
Oreski, D., 2012. Strategy development by using SWOT-AHP. TEM J. 1 (4), 283–291.
Papapostolou, A., Karakosta, C., Apostolidis, G., Doukas, H., 2020. An AHP-SWOT-fuzzy
TOPSIS approach for achieving a cross-border RES cooperation. Sustainability 12
(7), 2886.
Puška, A., Stojanović, I., Maksimović, A., Osmanović, N., 2020. Evaluation software of
project management used measurement of alternatives and ranking according to
compromise solution (MARCOS) method. Operat. Res. Eng. Sci.: Theor. Appl. 3 (1),
89–102.
Ramkumar, M., Schoenherr, T., Jenamani, M., 2016. Risk assessment of outsourcing e-
procurement services: integrating SWOT analysis with a modified ANP-based fuzzy
inference system. Prod. Plann. Contr. 27 (14), 1171–1190.
Rogers, D.L., 2016. The Digital Transformation Playbook: Rethink Your Business for the
Digital Age. Columbia University Press.
Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math.
Psychol. 15 (3), 234–281.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T.L., 1989. Decision making, scaling, and number crunching. Decis. Sci. J. 20 (2),
404–409.
Sevkli, M., Oztekin, A., Uysal, O., Torlak, G., Turkyilmaz, A., Delen, D., 2012.
Development of a fuzzy ANP based SWOT analysis for the airline industry in Turkey.
Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (1), 14–24.
Shakeri, E., Dadpour, M., Abbasian Jahromi, H., 2015. The combination of fuzzy electre
and swot to select private sectors in partnership projects Case study of water
treatment project in Iran. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 13 (1), 55–67.
Solangi, Y.A., Tan, Q., Mirjat, N.H., Ali, S., 2019. Evaluating the strategies for sustainable
energy planning in Pakistan: an integrated SWOT-AHP and Fuzzy-TOPSIS approach.
J. Clean. Prod. 236, 117655.
Stanković, M., Stević, Ž., Das, D.K., Subotić, M., Pamučar, D., 2020. A new fuzzy
MARCOS method for road traffic risk analysis. Mathematics 8 (3), 457–474.
Stević, Ž., Brković, N., 2020. A novel integrated FUCOM-MARCOS model for evaluation
of human resources in a transport company. Logistics 4 (1), 4.
Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., Chatterjee, P., 2020. Sustainable supplier selection in
healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: measurement of alternatives and
ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Comput. Ind. Eng. 140,
106231.
Streichfuss, M., Peschl, K.-M., 2017. Spread your wings. In: Flight Connectivity Is a New
Opportunity for the Airline Business. Rolandberger. https://alumni.rolandberger.
com/pages/publications/2017/media/roland_berger_in-flight_connectivity.pdf.
Tavakoli, G.R., Manteghi, M., Akhavan, P., Akhondi, A.H., 2016. Developing effective
strategy using SWOT method and fuzzy dematel (case study: Isva Keyfiatpardaz
consulting engineers company). Int. J. Adv. Biotechnol. Res. 7, 1350.
Thompson, A., Strickland, A.J., Gamble, J., 2015. Crafting and Executing Strategy:
Concepts and Readings. McGraw-Hill Education.
G. Büyüközkan et al.
Ulutaş, A., Karabasevic, D., Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., Nguyen, P.T., Karaköy, Ç., 2020.
Development of a novel integrated CCSD-ITARA-MARCOS decision-making
approach for stackers selection in a logistics system. Mathematics 8 (10), 1672.
Verina, N., Titko, J., 2019. Digital transformation: conceptual framework. In:
International Scientific Conference “Contemporary Issues in Business, Management
and Economics Engineering. May. Article ID: cibmee.2019.073. https://www.res
earchgate.net/profile/Jelena_Titko/publication/333066242_Digital_transformation_
conceptual_framework/links/5d5e4f7892851c37637155c6/Digital-transformati
on-conceptual-framework.pdf.
Vial, G., 2019. Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda.
J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 28 (2), 118–144.
Wang, Y., Xu, L., Solangi, Y.A., 2020. Strategic renewable energy resources selection for
Pakistan: based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 52, 101861.
17
Journal of Air Transport Management 97 (2021) 102142
Westerman, G., Calméjane, C., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., McAfee, A., 2011. Digital
Transformation: A Roadmap for Billion-Dollar Organizations. MIT Center for Digital
Business and Capgemini Consulting. https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/upl
oads/2017/07/Digital_Transformation__A_Road-Map_for_Billion-Dollar_Organizati
ons.pdf.
Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., McAfee, A., 2014. Leading Digital: Turning Technology into
Business Transformation. Harvard Business Press.
WNS, 2020. Top 5 Trends Disrupting the Airline Industry. A WNS Perspective. https
://www.wns.com/Portals/0/FSx/Documents/Articles/PDFFiles/600/235/Article
_Top-5-Trends-Disrupting-the%20Airline-Industry_Feb-2020.pdf.
Xu, D., Dong, L., 2019. Strategic diagnosis of China’s modern coal-to-chemical industry
using an integrated SWOT-MCDM framework. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 21 (3),
517–532.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Contr. 8, 338–353.