Istanbul Technical University Graduate School

ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY ⋆ GRADUATE SCHOOL
INTERNAL AUDIT DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK

USING SPHERICAL FUZZY ELECTRE
Ph.D. THESIS
Akın MENEKŞE
Department of Management
Management Programme
JANUARY 2022
ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY ⋆ GRADUATE SCHOOL

Ph.D. THESIS
Akın MENEKŞE
(403182002)
Department of Management
Management Programme
Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. Hatice CAMGÖZ AKDAĞ
JANUARY 2022
İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ ⋆ LİSANSÜSTÜ EĞİTİM ENSTİTÜSÜ
KÜRESEL BULANIK ELECTRE TABANLI

İÇ DENETİM KARAR DESTEK ÇERÇEVESİ
DOKTORA TEZİ
Akın MENEKŞE
(403182002)
İşletme Anabilim Dalı
İşletme Doktora Programı
Tez Danışmanı: Prof. Dr. Hatice CAMGÖZ AKDAĞ
OCAK 2022
Akın MENEKŞE, a Ph.D. student of ITU Graduate School student ID 403182002,
successfully defended the thesis entitled “INTERNAL AUDIT DECISION SUPPORT
FRAMEWORK USING SPHERICAL FUZZY ELECTRE”, which he prepared af-
ter fulfilling the requirements specified in the associated legislations, before the jury
whose signatures are below.
Thesis Advisor : Prof. Dr. Hatice CAMGÖZ AKDAĞ ........................

Istanbul Technical University
Jury Members : Prof. Dr. Selim ZAİM ........................

Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University
Prof. Dr. Başar ÖZTAYŞİ ........................

Prof. Dr. Cengiz KAHRAMAN ........................

Asst. Prof. Dr. Fuat KOSANOĞLU ........................

Yalova University
Date of Submission : 17 January 2022

Date of Defense : 26 January 2022
v
vi
To Nurseren MENEKŞE and Mehmet MENEKŞE,
vii
viii
FOREWORD
Several people assisted me in various ways while I was working on my Ph.D. thesis.
First and foremost, I’d want to thank my Ph.D. advisor, Prof. Dr. Hatice CAMGÖZ
AKDAĞ from the bottom of my heart, for her unwavering support, excitement,
willpower, and vast knowledge. She helped me with my research and article writing,
as well as this thesis. Without her assistance, finishing my thesis would have been
extremely tough. I will always try my best to put her lessons into practice, not
only at school but in my daily life as well. For his tremendous contributions to
my thesis, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Başar ÖZTAYŞİ, who is one of the
greatest professors you can see at Istanbul Technical University, with his knowledge,
experience, intelligence, and academics. I’d want to convey my appreciation to Prof.
Dr. Selim ZAİM, who mentors us all with his vast academic and life experience and
generously offers his insights and expertise to us. I’d also want to express my gratitude
to my lovely mother Nurseren MENEKŞE and father Mehmet MENEKŞE, who have
supported me throughout my life. Without their encouragement, favor, and support, I
would not have gotten this far. In addition, I’d want to thank my beloved sister Aslı for
her support, motivation, and most importantly, unconditional love.
And my friend Büşra, thank you for everything. I’m looking forward to embarking on
new adventures with you.
January 2022 Akın MENEKŞE

(Civil Engineer, M.Sc.)
ix
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD.............................................................................................................. ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... xi
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. xiii
SYMBOLS ................................................................................................................. xv
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. xvii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. xix
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. xxi
ÖZET ........................................................................................................................xxv
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Internal Audit...................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Internal audit and agency theory................................................................. 1
1.2 Decision-Making and Fuzzy Set Theory............................................................ 3
1.3 Motivation and Purpose of Thesis ...................................................................... 6
1.4 Outline of Thesis ................................................................................................ 9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................... 11
2.1 Related Works around Internal Audit............................................................... 11
2.2 Spherical Fuzzy Set Applications..................................................................... 13
2.3 ELECTRE Applications ................................................................................... 15
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 19
3.1 Classical ELECTRE ......................................................................................... 22
3.2 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy Sets................................................................. 23
3.3 Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy Sets............................................................... 25
3.4 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE (First Approach) .......................... 28
3.5 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE (Second Approach)...................... 32
3.6 Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE (Third Approach)....................... 35
4. APPLICATION..................................................................................................... 39
4.1 Problem Definition ........................................................................................... 39
4.2 Criteria.............................................................................................................. 39
4.3 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE Solution (First Approach)............ 41
4.4 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE Solution (Second Approach) ....... 44
4.5 Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE Solution (Third Approach) ........ 45
4.6 Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................................... 52
4.7 Comparative Analysis....................................................................................... 56
5. DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................................. 61
5.1 Discussions ....................................................................................................... 61
5.2 Theoretical Implications................................................................................... 68
5.3 Practical Implications ....................................................................................... 68
xi
6. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 71
6.1 Summary........................................................................................................... 71
6.2 Future Research Recommendations ................................................................. 74
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 77
CURRICULUM VITAE ........................................................................................... 95
xii
ABBREVIATIONS
AHP : Analytic Hierarchy Process

ANP : Analytic Network Process
COBIT : Control Objectives for Information Technologies
COPRAS : COmplex PRoportional Assessment
COSO : Committee of Sponsoring Organizations
CoCoSo : Combined Compromise Solution
DEMATEL : Decision MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
EDAS : Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution
ELECTRE : Elimination Et Choix Taduisant la REalite
IV : Interval-valued
IF : Intuitionistic fuzzy
MARCOS : Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking According to
Compromise Solution
MCDM : Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making
NS : Neutrosophic set
PFS : Pythagorean fuzzy set
SV : Single-valued
SF : Spherical fuzzy
SWARA : Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis
TOPSIS : Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution
VIKOR : VIšekriterijumsko KOmpromisno rangiranje Resenje
WASPAS : Weighted Aggregated Sum Product ASsessment
xiii
xiv
SYMBOLS
A˜S , B˜S : Single-valued spherical fuzzy set

λ : A scalar number
fS , α
A e : Interval-valued spherical fuzzy set
˜
S(AS ) : Score function for single-valued spherical fuzzy sets
S(αe) : Score function for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets
GMw˜ : Geometric mean operator for single-valued spherical fuzzy sets
AM ˜w : Arithmetic mean operator for single-valued spherical fuzzy sets
]w
GM : Geometric mean operator for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets
AM
gw : Arithmetic mean operator for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets
D(A˜S , B˜S ) : Normalized Euclidean distance between two single-valued
spherical fuzzy sets
f1 , α
D(α f2 ) : Normalized Euclidean distance between two interval-valued
spherical fuzzy sets
Ckl , Dkl : Total concordance and discordance sets
C1kl : Strong concordance set
C2kl : Moderate concordance set
C3kl : Weak concordance set
D1kl : Strong discordance set
D2kl : Moderate discordance set
D3kl : Weak discordance set
G, H, R : Concordance, discordance and global matrices
g, h, r : Concordance, discordance and global indices
wj : Normalized crisp weight of jth criterion
w∗j : Crisp weight of jth criterion
A,C : Alternative and criterion
m, n : Number of alternatives and number of criteria
AEM˜ : Spherical fuzzy alternative evaluation matrix
]
AEM : Interval-valued spherical fuzzy alternative evaluation matrix
AS : Appraisal score
wC1 , wC2 , wC3 : Weights of strong, moderate and weak concordance sets
wD∗ : Weight of strong, moderate or weak discordance set
a, c, e : Lower, degree of membership, non-membership and
hesitancy degrees for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets
b, d, f : Upper degrees of membership, non-membership and
hesitancy degrees for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets
µA˜S : Membership degree for a single-valued spherical fuzzy set
νA˜S : Non-membership degree for a single-valued spherical fuzzy set
πA˜S : Hesitancy degrees for a single-valued spherical fuzzy set
tx : Ranking of the xth MCDM model
ρik : Pearson correlation coefficient
xv
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 : Linguistic terms and their corresponding single-valued spherical

fuzzy numbers....................................................................................... 29
Table 3.2 : Linguistic terms and their corresponding interval-valued spherical
fuzzy numbers....................................................................................... 36
Table 4.1 : Linguistic evaluations of alternatives................................................... 41
Table 4.2 : Single-valued spherical fuzzy alternative evaluation matrix. .............. 42
Table 4.3 : Linguistic evaluations of criteria.......................................................... 42
Table 4.4 : Single-valued spherical fuzzy criterion weight matrix. ....................... 43
Table 4.5 : Single-valued spherical fuzzy decision matrix. ................................... 43
Table 4.6 : Strong concordance set (First approach).............................................. 44
Table 4.7 : Moderate concordance set (First approach)......................................... 44
Table 4.8 : Weak concordance set (First approach). .............................................. 44
Table 4.9 : Strong discordance set (First approach)............................................... 45
Table 4.10 : Moderate discordance set (First approach). ......................................... 45
Table 4.11 : Weak discordance set (First approach). ............................................... 45
Table 4.12 : Concordance matrix (First approach). ................................................. 46
Table 4.13 : Discordance matrix (First approach). .................................................. 46
Table 4.14 : Global matrix (First approach)............................................................. 46
Table 4.15 : Appraisal scores of alternatives (First approach)................................. 46
Table 4.16 : Total concordance set (Second approach)............................................ 47
Table 4.17 : Total discordance set (Second approach)............................................. 47
Table 4.18 : Concordance matrix (Second approach).............................................. 47
Table 4.19 : Discordance matrix (Second approach). .............................................. 47
Table 4.20 : Global matrix (Second approach). ....................................................... 47
Table 4.21 : Appraisal scores of alternatives (Second approach). ........................... 47
Table 4.22 : Interval-valued spherical fuzzy alternative evaluation matrix. ............ 48
Table 4.23 : Interval-valued spherical fuzzy criterion weight matrix. ..................... 50
Table 4.24 : Interval-valued spherical fuzzy decision matrix. ................................. 51
Table 4.25 : Total concordance set (Third approach)............................................... 57
Table 4.26 : Total discordance set (Third approach)................................................ 57
Table 4.27 : Concordance matrix (Third approach)................................................. 57
Table 4.28 : Discordance matrix (Third approach).................................................. 57
Table 4.29 : Global matrix (Third approach). .......................................................... 57
Table 4.30 : Appraisal scores of alternatives (Third approach). .............................. 57
Table 4.31 : Appraisal scores of the alternatives for different MCDM approches. . 58
Table 4.32 : Statistical comparison of the ranks obtained from comparative
analysis.................................................................................................. 58
xvii
xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1 : Geometrical representations of type 1 and 2 intuitionistic fuzzy

sets, neutrosphic sets, picture fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy sets........ 5
Figure 3.1 : Structure of methodology: Common flowchart for the proposed
spherical fuzzy ELECTRE models. .................................................... 21
Figure 3.2 : Flowchart of the first approach. ......................................................... 29
Figure 3.3 : Flowchart of the second approach. .................................................... 33
Figure 3.4 : Flowchart of the third approach. ........................................................ 35
Figure 4.1 : COSO internal control framework [1]. .............................................. 40
Figure 4.2 : All-in-one sensitivity analysis results (First approach). .................... 53
Figure 4.3 : All-in-one sensitivity analysis results (Second approach). ................ 53
Figure 4.4 : All-in-one sensitivity analysis results (Third approach). ................... 53
Figure 4.5 : Decision-maker weight sensitivity analysis results (First approach). 55
Figure 4.6 : Decision-maker weight sensitivity analysis results (Second
approach)............................................................................................. 55
Figure 4.7 : Decision-maker weight sensitivity analysis results (Third approach).55
Figure 5.1 : Advantages and disadvantages of the proposed models. ................... 64
Figure 5.2 : A roadmap for the use of the proposed framework. .......................... 67
xix
xx
SUMMARY
Internal auditing is an independent assurance and consulting activity that improves the
operations of a firm. An internal audit helps the business achieve its objectives by
systematically and systematically reviewing and enhancing the effectiveness of risk
management, control, and governance systems. Internal auditing is done by internal
auditors who are hired by businesses.
The scope of internal audit in businesses can be quite broad, but the most fundamental
internal audit areas are governance, risk management, efficiency and effectiveness
of operations and asset protection, financial and management reporting reliability,
compliance with laws and regulations, and information technology. Internal audit is
becoming increasingly crucial in assisting firms in managing and responding to risks,
particularly in an age where markets and sectors rely largely on technology to succeed.
Internal auditors evaluate whether the established systems protect the organization’s
assets and data integrity and are working effectively to achieve the organization’s
goals or objectives. These audits can be paired with financial statement audits or other
kinds of internal auditing. Internal auditors focus on governance factors such as clearly
defined roles, authority, and duties; risk appetite alignment; effective communication;
values management; and accountability as part of corporate governance.
In the field of internal auditing, we are currently confronted with several
decision-making problems, and multi-criteria decision-making approaches can be
employed as a decision support tool for aiding the solution of these problems. Scholars
have been working on a variety of techniques to handle complicated and difficult
decision-making problems. These methods, which have wide applications in many
fields and are very popular, allow for the inclusion of multiple and complex criteria in
the problem, while they can offer rational solutions.
ELECTRE is an MCDM approach that compares alternatives in a pairwise manner
for each evaluation criterion. This method is based on outranking relationships, i.e.,
concordance and discordance sets for each criterion, and each alternative is scored
over these sets. In this method, the user can define the limits of concordance and
discordance degrees according to the problem.
Following Zadeh’s introduction of fuzzy logic [2], It’s been commonly employed in
decision-making problems to model the fuzziness in numerical or linguistic data and
human evaluations. Recently, many new extensions of fuzzy sets have been introduced
to the literature, such as Pythagorean fuzzy sets, neutrosophic fuzzy sets, and spherical
fuzzy sets. Spherical fuzzy sets have a three-dimensional spherical character and have
xxi
been developed for the purpose of modeling the linguistic expressions of experts in a
more comprehensive way. Essentially, spherical fuzzy sets are based on the theories
of neutrosophic and Pythagorean fuzzy sets, i.e., intuitionistic fuzzy sets of type two.
The concept of spherical fuzzy sets may also be thought of as an extension of picture
fuzzy sets, since the geometry of spherical fuzzy sets is derived by taking the squares
of each parameter of picture fuzzy sets.
In this way, spherical fuzzy sets allow users to define membership, non-membership,
and hesitancy degrees independently and in a wide area. On the other hand,
interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets provide users an interval type of domain rather
than a single point, allowing flexible modeling of membership, non-membership, and
hesitancy degrees, and this significantly increases the fuzziness carrying capacity of
the model.
Within the scope of the thesis, the ELECTRE method is strengthened with single and
interval-valued versions of spherical fuzzy sets, and uncertainty modeling capacity is
integrated into the models. The models developed in this context are presented as
decision support models for the internal audit field and are applied to an internal audit
planning problem. In this context, the units to be audited are prioritized by the internal
auditors over the components of the COSO international internal control framework
[1]. The three models developed within the scope of the framework are summarized
below.
The first method combines the classical ELECTRE method with single-valued
spherical fuzzy sets. In this method, while constructing concordance and discordance
sets, single-valued spherical fuzzy numbers are compared based on the comparison
of membership, non-membership, and hesitancy parameters of single-valued spherical
fuzzy numbers. In this approach, three types of outranking relations are constructed.
Strong concordance sets consist of greater or equal membership degrees in pairwise
comparison, and small non-membership and hesitancy degrees at the same time. On
the other hand, moderate concordance sets, are composed of those with a greater or
equal membership degree, a small non-membership degree, and a greater or equal
hesitancy degree. Finally, weak concordance sets are composed of those whose
membership and non-membership degrees are greater or equal at the same time.
Discordance sets are obtained with the same idea in a mutually exclusive, collectively
exhaustive manner with concordance sets. In this context, strong discordance sets
have the elements with a smaller membership degree and those with greater or equal
degrees of non-membership and hesitancy degrees. On the other hand, moderate
discordance sets are composed of those with lower membership degrees, greater or
equal non-membership degrees, and lower hesitancy at the same time. Finally, the
weak discordance sets are composed of those whose membership and non-membership
degrees are smaller at the same time.
The second model of the framework is created by again extending the ELECTRE
method with single-valued spherical fuzzy sets. Unlike the first approach, this model is
developed based on single types of concordance and discordance sets rather than three
separate sets of outranking relationships. The score and accuracy functions described
for single-valued spherical fuzzy sets are utilized to determine these sets. This strategy
appears to be pretty logical, given that the score and accuracy functions are already
used for ranking fuzzy numbers. The second model, obtained in this way, contains
fewer computation steps and, as a result, has a simpler structure than the first model.
xxii
Unlike the previous two models, the third model in the framework benefited from
spherical fuzzy sets with interval-valued characteristics. This feature allows the model
to quantify the verbal expressions of decision-makers in a wider range. As in the
second model, the proposed interval-valued spherical fuzzy ELECTRE is based on a
collective total concordance and discordance set.
In future studies, other researchers may focus on the following issues: The
methods used can be integrated with other fuzzy set extensions; other multi-criteria
decision-making procedures can benefit from different sorts of spherical fuzzy sets;
different methods can be hybridized to take advantage of each method; machine
learning algorithms can be integrated into decision support models to exploit existing
data; with the method called sentiment analysis or opinion mining, criterion set
selection can be made and thus a more comprehensive decision support model can
be created.
xxiii
xxiv
KÜRESEL BULANIK ELECTRE TABANLI
İÇ DENETİM KARAR DESTEK ÇERÇEVESİ
ÖZET
İç denetim, bir şirketin faaliyetlerine değer katan ve onları iyileştiren, nesnel, objektif
bir güvence ve danışmanlık faaliyetidir. İç denetim, risk yönetimi, kontrol ve
yönetişim sistemlerinin etkinliğini değerlendirmek ve geliştirmek için sistematik ve
disiplinli bir yöntem kullanarak kuruluşun hedeflerine ulaşmasına katkıda bulunur.
İç denetçiler olarak adlandırılan profesyoneller, kuruluşlar tarafından iç denetim
faaliyetini gerçekleştirmek için istihdam edilirler.
İşletmelerdeki iç denetimin kapsamı oldukça geniş olabilir ve bir kuruluşun yönetişim,
risk yönetimi, operasyonların verimliliği ve etkinliği ile varlıkların korunması, mali
ve yönetim raporlamasının güvenilirliği, yasalara ve düzenlemelere uygunluk ile
bilgi teknolojileri en temel iç denetim alanlarıdır. İç denetim, organizasyonların
faaliyetlerini başarılı bir şekilde sürdürebilmelerine, riskleri yönetebilmelerine
yardımcı olmada giderek daha önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. İç denetçiler mevcut
sistemlerin kuruluşun varlıklarını ve veri bütünlüğünü koruyup korumadığını ve
kuruluşun amaç veya hedeflerine ulaşmak için etkin bir şekilde çalışıp çalışmadığını
inceler. Bu incelemeler bir mali tablo denetimi veya başka bir tür denetim ile bağlantılı
olarak gerçekleştirilebilir. Kurumsal yönetişim çerçevesinde iç denetçiler, işletmelerin
açıkça tanımlanmış rol, yetki ve sorumluluklar, risk iştahı uyumu, etkili iletişim, en
tepedeki ton, değerler yönetimi ve hesap verebilirlik gibi bilgi unsurlarına odaklanırlar.
Günümüzde iç denetim faaliyetleri kapsamında çeşitli karar verme problemleri ile
karşı karşıya kalmaktayız ve çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri de karar destek
aracı olarak yaygın bir şekilde kullanılmaktadır. Bu yöntemler birçok alanda geniş
uygulamaları olan ve oldukça popüler yöntemler olup çoklu ve karmaşık yapıda
olan kriterlerin probleme dahil edilmesine olanak sağlarken rasyonel ve açıklanabilir
çözümler sunabilmektedirler.
ELECTRE, her bir değerlendirme kriteri için karar noktaları arasındaki ikili üstünlük
karşılaştırmalarına dayalı olarak alternatifleri karşılaştırma yöntemini kullanan çok
kriterli bir karar verme yöntemidir. Bu yöntem, öne geçme veya baskınlık ilişkisine
dayanan bir yöntem olup her bir ölçüt için uyum ve uyumsuzluk derecesi tayin edilerek
bu setler üzerinden her bir alternatife puan verilir. Yöntemin doğasında bulunan
uyumluluk ve uyumsuzluk sınırları karar verici tarafından belirlenmelidir.
Zadeh bulanık mantık teorisini [2] tanıttıktan sonra bulanık kümeler sayısal veya
dilsel verilerdeki bulanıklığı modellemek için karar verme problemlerinde ve insan
değerlendirmelerinde yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Son zamanlarda, Pisagor
xxv
bulanık kümeleri, nötrozofik bulanık kümeler ve küresel bulanık kümeler gibi bulanık
kümelerin birçok yeni uzantısı literatüre sunulmuştur. Küresel bulanık kümeler üç
boyutlu dairesel karaktere sahiptir ve uzmanlarının dilsel ifadelerini daha kapsayıcı
bir şekilde modelleme amacıyla geliştirilmiştir. Esasen küresel bulanık kümeler
sezgisel bulanık kümelerden türeyen nötrozofik ve Pisagor yani tip 2 sezgisel bulanık
kümelerinin teorilerine dayanmaktadır. Bu kümeler Pisagor bulanık kümelerinin
alan yaklaşımına ve nötrozofik kümelerin üç boyutlu yapıdaki kararsızlığı bağımsız
olarak modelleme özelliğini kullanmaktadır. Bu sayede küresel bulanık kümeler
kullanıcılarına üyelik, üyesizlik ve kararsızlık derecelerini bağımsız ve geniş bir alanda
tanımlanmasına imkan sağlamaktadır. Öte yandan aralık değerli küresel bulanık
kümeler ise kullanıcılara noktasal değil de aralıklı yapı sunarak üyelik, üyesizlik ve
kararsızlık derecelerinin esnek yapıda modellemesine imkan sağlar. Bu da modelin
bulanıklık taşıma kapasitesini önemli ölçüde artırmaktadır.
Tez bünyesinde tek ve aralık değerli küresel bulanık ELECTRE yöntemi iç denetim
planlama aşamasında karar destek aracı olarak uygulanmıştır. Bu kapsamda iç denetim
faaliyeti yürütülecek olan birimler iç denetçiler tarafından COSO uluslararası iç kontrol
çerçevesinin [1] beş bileşeni üzerinden önceliklendirilmiştir. Tez çalışmasında sunulan
karar destek çerçevesi bünyesinde sunulan modellerin karakteristik özellikleri aşağıda
sunulmuştur.
Çerçevedeki birinci modelde klasik ELECTRE yöntemi küresel bulanık kümelerin tek
değerli versiyonu ile birleştirilmiştir. Yöntem kapsamında uyumluluk ve uyumsuzluk
setleri oluşturulurken tek değerli küresel bulanık sayılar karşılaştırılmıştır. Kuvvetli
uyumluluk setlerine ikili karşılaştırmada üyelik derecesi büyük veya eşitken aynı
zamanda üyesizlik ve kararsızlık dereceleri ise küçük olanlar dahil edilmiştir. Orta
dereceli uyumluluk setleri ise yine üyelik derecesi büyük veya eşitken üyesizlik
derecesi küçük olup aynı zamanda kararsızlık derecesi büyük veya eşit olanlardan
oluşturulmuştur. Son olarak zayıf uyumluluk setleri ise üyelik ve üyesizlik dereceleri
aynı anda büyük veya eşit olanlardan teşkil edilmiştir. Uyumsuzluk setleri de
benzer mantıkla oluşturulmuştur. Bu kapsamda kuvvetli uyumsuzluk setlerine ikili
karşılaştırmada üyelik derecesi küçükken aynı zamanda üyesizlik ve kararsızlık
dereceleri ise büyük veya eşit olanlar dahil edilmiştir. Orta dereceli uyumsuzluk
setleri ise yine üyelik derecesi küçükken üyesizlik derecesi büyük veya eşit olup
aynı zamanda kararsızlık derecesi küçük olanlardan oluşturulmuştur. Son olarak zayıf
uyumluluk setleri ise üyelik ve üyesizlik dereceleri aynı anda küçük olanlardan teşkil
edilmiştir.
İkinci modelde yine aynı şekilde ELECTRE yöntemi üzerine tek değerli küresel
bulanık kümeler giydirilmek marifetiyle karar destek aracı geliştirilmiştir. Birinci
modelden farklı olarak bu modelde üç farklı uyumluluk ve uyumsuz seti yerine tek
tip uyumluluk ve uyumsuzluk setleri oluşturulmuştur. Bu setlerin belirlenmesi için tek
değerli küresel bulanık kümeler için öne sürülen skor ve kesinlik fonksiyonlarından
istifade edilmiştir. Skor ve kesinlik fonksyionlarının bulanık sayıların sıralanmasında
kullanıldığı göz önünde bulundurulursa bu yaklaşımın oldukça isabetli olduğu
görülmektedir. Geliştirilen ikinci modeldeki işlem hacmi çok daha az olduğu için
birinci modele göre daha pratiktir.
Çalışma kapsamında öne sürülen çerçevededki üçüncü model ise ilk iki modelden
farklı olarak aralık değerli bulanık setlerden istifade etmiştir. Bu özellik modele karar
vericilerin dilsel ifadelerini daha geniş bir aralıkta modelleme kabiliyeti kazandırmıştır.
xxvi
Bu doğrultuda ELECTRE yöntemi aralık değerli bulanık setlerle genişletilmiş ve
yine ikinci modelde olduğu gibi tek tip toplam uyumluluk ve uyumsuzluk setleri
oluşturulmuştur.
Gelecek çalışmalarda diğer araştırmacılar şu konulara odaklanabilir: Kullanılan
yöntemler diğer bulanık küme uzantıları ile entegre edilebilir; farklı tipteki küresel
bulanık kümeler diğer çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerine uygulanabilir; farklı
yöntemler hibritlenerek her bir yöntemin avantajından istifade edilebilir; mevcut
verilerden istifade edebilmek amacıyla makine öğrenmesi algoritmaları karar destek
modellerine entegre edilebilir; duygu analizi veya fikir madenciliği olarak adlandırılan
yöntem ile kriter seti seçimi yapılabilir ve böylelikle daha kapsamlı bir karar destek
modeli oluşturulabilir.
xxvii
xxviii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Internal Audit
Internal auditing is a type of independent assurance and consultation that helps a

company improve its operations. It uses a rigorous, disciplined approach to assist
a company to accomplish its goals by assessing and improving the efficacy of risk
management, control, and governance systems [3].
1.1.1 Internal audit and agency theory
The relationship between two parties, in which one is the principal and the other is
the agent operating for the shareholder, is explained by agency theory, also known as
principal-agent theory or principal-agency theory [4, 5]. Although the theory is mainly
influenced by its original foundation in economics, due to its non-specific nature, it
has been applied in many disciplines both theoretically and empirically in fields such
as finance, marketing, accounting, sociology, psychology, public administration, and
organization and management studies [6]. In public sector accountability research,
agency theory is applied [7], and it is closely tied to governance concerns such as
monitoring methods [8]. The separation of ownership and control, as well as variations
in risk attitudes between the agent and the principal, information asymmetry within the
company [9], and the lack of a sufficient monitoring system [4, 10], all contribute to
the agency problem.
The agency problem might be solved by a monitoring system that keeps the principal
aware of the agent’s behavior [11]. According to agency theory, the internal audit role
exists to supervise management’s actions and ensure management’s performance for
the benefit of the board of directors and shareholders [12]. Principals are unable to
judge if the agent’s activities are in the best interests of the firm since they do not have
access to all relevant information, hence monitoring methods such as an internal audit
function are used to mitigate the possibility of such a problem [13,14]. In other words,
1
when there is an agency problem, demand for audit services rises since audit serves as
a monitoring method for the agents. [15].
According to the literature, internal auditing has been suggested as a monitoring

technique for reducing agency expenses resulting from the separation of ownership
[16] and a high-quality audit can remove the information asymmetry between principal
and agent [17]. Internal auditing reduces the information gap between principals and
agents, and the greater the information gap, the greater the need for individuals to
function as monitors, and therefore the more internal auditors the organization will
recruit [14]. Furthermore, internal audit is intended to decrease agency contracting
problems, making the contracting process more reliable [18], and internal audit activity
is associated with an effective and adequate internal control system [19].
Recently, internal audit’s function has changed away from traditional accounting and
financial control structures toward a more corporate governance-oriented one, and so
have business environments, which nowadays heavily rely on information technology
(IT) [20]. IT governance is a subset of broader corporate governance, and it consists of
processes, relationships, and mechanisms for controlling, managing, and developing IT
strategy and corporate resources in the most effective way to achieve an organization’s
goals and objectives [21, 22]. It is critical for ensuring that public service delivery
meets organizational goals, with the decision-making process and monitoring system
aligned with company objectives and customer expectations [23]. However, managers
usually lack knowledge of these issues, and internal auditors play a role in reducing
information asymmetry and contributing to the assurance of established processes
within the organization through continuous monitoring activities.
On the other hand, internal audit planning is the first stage in the internal auditing
process, and it is the phase in which the internal audit’s purpose, scope, time, and
resources are set. An effective internal audit planning paves the way for the audit
operations to continue in a value-adding and protective structure. Furthermore, in
terms of both effective use of internal auditors and efficient use of economic resources,
strong internal audit planning and prioritizing of units to be examined are critical. As a
result, in today’s organizations with a diverse range of units, it’s critical to identify the
2
riskiest ones by comparing risk levels and directing internal audit effort to these units
for the company to get the most out of the internal audit.
1.2 Decision-Making and Fuzzy Set Theory
MCDM is a methodology that uses a systematic quantitative approach to help users

make decisions in situations with several criteria and alternatives [24]. The goal
of an MCDM model is to assist the decision-maker in employing a more formal,
reasonable, and effective decision process to examine all key objective and subjective
factors of the situation [25, 26]. In these models, all criteria are utilized to assess
each potential alternative, either quantitatively or qualitatively [27]. In the literature,
there are different MCDM approaches exist, each with its own set of features, levels
of sophistication, and application scope [28] including health [29, 30], energy [31, 32],
finance [33, 33] and military [34, 35] etc. Up to now, various MCDM models e.g.
TOPSIS [36], COPRAS [37], PROMETHEE [38], ELECTRE [39], VIKOR [40],
KEMIRA [41] have been proposed to effectively address decision-making problems
that have appeared in everyday life.
ELECTRE [39] is one of the most successful decision-making techniques based

on a pairwise evaluation of alternatives concerning a variety of criteria using an
outranking relation to provide an accurate and suitable set of alternatives as possible
by removing those that are outranked by others. ELECTRE technique has been
approved and employed in several industries such as material risk assessment [42],
waste management strategy selection [43], economic development promotion [44],
material selection [45], risk zoning decision support for mining sector [46], gas
emission reduction problem for energy sector [47], land-use suitability evaluation
[48], assessment of cropping systems for groundwater [49], environmental impact
evaluation [50], safety and health and safety assessment [51] and water distribution
problem [52].
Fuzzy set theory [2], which enables us to model the vagueness and imprecision of
real-life problems, has been used with an increasing interest in almost all fields of
science; and after Zadeh’s introduction of the theory, various extensions of fuzzy sets
with different characteristics started to appear, and the most prominent ones can be
summarized as follows: Type-1 intuitionistic fuzzy sets [53] allow membership and
3
non-membership degrees for the element of a fuzzy set without modeling hesitancy
degrees separately, which can be found since the total of all three degrees is equal
to one. Type-2 intuitionistic fuzzy sets [54] were later developed and provided an
increased area of membership and non-membership degrees in which their square
sum is less than or equal to one. neutrosophic sets [55] is an extended version of
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. In contrast to intuitionistic fuzzy sets, each element in a
neutrosophic set has a degree of truthiness, indeterminacy, and falsity, which may be
seen as membership, non-membership, and hesitation degrees. Hesitant fuzzy sets [56]
on the other hand, were developed to deal with situations where different membership
functions are considered possible. Picture fuzzy sets [57] are also considered an
extended version of intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Yes, abstain, no, and refusal types
of opinions of voters may be modeled as positive, neutral, negative, and refusal
membership degrees, respectively, in a picture fuzzy set methodology. And the q-rung
orthopair fuzzy sets [58] are more advantageous than intuitionistic fuzzy sets with
increased space for expressing their opinions about membership and non-membership
degrees. However, these sets also do not allow modeling the hesitancy degree
independently.
Spherical fuzzy sets [59] were recently developed by using the theory of Pythagorean
fuzzy sets, i.e., type 2 intuitionistic fuzzy sets and neutrosophic sets. The idea of
spherical fuzzy sets is also considered as an extension of picture fuzzy sets since when
the squares of each parameter of the picture fuzzy sets are taken, the geometry of
spherical fuzzy sets is obtained. In this study, for dealing with uncertainty, spherical
fuzzy sets are used. The main reason for this is that, in spherical fuzzy sets, the
vagueness is modeled in three-dimensional spherical geometry. The spherical structure
here referred to is not just the surface of the sphere, but the entire volume within it, and
thus any point in this unit sphere may give us the membership, non-membership, and
hesitancy degrees which can be assigned independently. Geometrical representations
of type 1 and type 2 intuitionistic fuzzy sets, neutrosophic sets, picture fuzzy sets and
spherical fuzzy sets are given in Figure 1.1.
Single-valued spherical fuzzy sets have been increasingly applied to several fields
including health [60], social science [61], energy [62, 63], economy [64], engineering
[65, 66], data mining [67], higher education [68], investment risk assessment
4
Figure 1.1 : Geometrical representations of type 1 and 2 intuitionistic fuzzy sets,
neutrosphic sets, picture fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy sets.
[69], leather industry [70], human resource management [71, 72], chemistry [73],
mathematics [74, 75], pattern recognition [76], project selection [77], public transport
business model [78], green supplier selection [79], waste disposal selection [80],
asteroid deflection technique evaluation [81], information technology governance
evaluation [82], electric vehicle charging station selection [83], wind power station
assessment [84], medical diagnosis [85], solar cell evaluation [86].
On the other hand, interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets [87] enable users to model the
linguistic assessments of decision-makers in an interval type of manner rather than
a single point, thus providing users a lot more space to deal with the fuzziness in
the nature of problems. In other words, the uncertainty, ambiguity, and vagueness
included in human judgments can be measured and addressed more comprehensively.
Interval-type fuzzy sets [87] are generally utilized when the user is not sure about
the membership, non-membership, and hesitancy degrees. Recently, spherical fuzzy
sets with interval-valued structure have started to appear in a variety of fields,
including quality management [88], agriculture [89] and automotive industry [90],
manufacturing facility [91], health [92], public transport [93], performance evaluation
[94] and finance [95].
5
1.3 Motivation and Purpose of Thesis
Today’s organizations have many and quite complex units, and performing internal
audit activities in all of these units is almost impossible. Therefore, it should be
ensured that the audit resources focus on the riskiest units. This thesis mainly focuses
on developing a decision support tool for internal audit operations, and for this purpose,
a novel spherical fuzzy ELECTRE framework is established. The primary motivations
for selecting ELECTRE as the backbone for the framework are listed as follows:
The information gained through real-world problems is generally associated with some
degree of imprecision, uncertainty, or ill-determination [96]. During the internal audit
planning stage, evaluating the internal control levels of the units is a challenging and
complex task. Internal auditors may not have precise and reliable information on
the evaluation criteria in this situation. The main feature of the ELECTRE is that
when modeling imperfect knowledge, indifference and preference thresholds may be
included, which is not available in other MCDM models. The ideas of outranking and
indifference, as well as preference thresholds, are unique to the ELECTRE approach
and not found in other solution methods [97]. Concordance and discordance indices
are calculated for each alternative pair. A greater concordance index value and a lower
discordance index value indicate that the hypothesis that one alternative is better than
the other is accepted. However, we can still choose threshold values to establish the
outranking relationship between the alternatives, which enables users an extensible
domain [98].
In addition, while prioritizing the units to be audited, internal auditors may not be able
to evaluate which units are better or worse under a certain criterion. Finally, since
there may be no time for in-depth analysis and field studies at the planning stage,
the available data may not be sufficient to allow the units to be compared. In this
context, the decision support model to be suggested is expected to provide flexibility
to decision-makers while comparing the alternatives, and ELECTRE has another
distinctive feature called incomparability. It should be distinguished from indifference,
which means there is not any definite evidence in favor of each alternative [99].
Moreover, especially in units with newly established internal control systems, some
internal control components may be prioritized while others may remain in the
6
background. For example, a unit may prioritize key issues such as integrity and
ethical values under the control environment component, but may not yet be mature
enough in matters such as identification and analysis of significant changes under the
risk assessment component. In such a scenario, the weaknesses of that unit in some
criteria may be compensated by its strengths in other criteria. ELECTRE differs from
many other MCDM techniques in that it is fundamentally non-compensatory. This
means that a bad score on one criterion cannot be compensated for by a high score on
another [99].
Another key advantage of ELECTRE over other methodologies is its capacity to

include qualitative data into the analysis without explicit quantification of criterion
evaluations [100]. Moreover, there may be a strong heterogeneity in the nature of the
scales of internal audit-related criteria, e.g. control environment, duration and number
of meetings, staff rate, technology, internal communication; and it is almost impossible
to define a unique common scale to substitute the original ones. And, ELECTRE is
suitable when faced with decision problems characterized by a heterogeneous criterion
structure [96].
A thorough literature review was conducted as part of the thesis, and the following
aspects were determined:
• It has been seen that there is a need for a comprehensive decision support model
that can be used by internal audit units in decision-making problems, which will
take into account the evaluations of multiple experts and the multi-criteria structure
of the problem, as well as enable modeling of the uncertainty of decision-makers.
• The ELECTRE method has not benefited from single or interval-valued spherical
fuzzy sets for addressing the vagueness.
• The outranking relations within ELECTRE methods are generally obtained by

traditional way, i.e., by comparing the parameters of the related fuzzy sets, and
sometimes it can be a pretty grueling and prolonged way. On the other hand, the
studies presenting alternative ways based on score functions either do not benefit
from the hesitancy degree or the accuracy function for constructing these relations.
7
• No previous research has addressed the problem of prioritizing the units of an
organization for internal audit planning.
• The uncertainty arising from the nature of internal audit-related problems may
significantly affect the results. However, most of the existing studies in the
literature either do not address the uncertainty and use crisp numbers or just use
two-dimensional fuzzy sets.
• Little has been done to develop sensitivity and comparative analyses around internal
audit-related MCDM studies.
The main motivation for this thesis is to fill the gaps discussed above by proposing
a novel decision support framework and applying it to an internal audit planning
problem. The main characteristics of the developed models are as follows:
• The traditional ELECTRE method is extended with single-valued spherical fuzzy

sets. For this purpose, outranking relations are constructed based on strong,
moderate, and weak concordance and discordance sets by comparing membership,
non-membership, and hesitancy degrees of single-valued spherical fuzzy sets.
• A more straightforward way is proposed in a single-valued spherical fuzzy

environment. Unlike traditional ELECTRE, outranking relations are developed
based on only one type of concordance, and discordance sets are obtained based
on the score and accuracy functions of single-valued spherical fuzzy sets.
• The same idea is used as in the second approach. However, interval-valued spherical
fuzzy sets are used for model development to further increase the fuzziness
modeling capacity of the model.
In summary, the goal of this thesis is to establish a decision-making framework that can
identify the most critical units within an organization. The proposed approach helps
the business make better use of its internal audit resources by helping with effective
internal audit planning. The models are tested on a specific problem, and the results are
compared. As a consequence, after extensive sensitivity, comparative, and statistical
auxiliary analyses, a holistic approach is suggested as a consequence. The revealed
8
holistic internal audit decision support framework is designed to allow users to select
the optimal model based on specific problem characteristics, allowing them to make
use of the model’s features that are most prone to the situation at hand.
1.4 Outline of Thesis
The following is the thesis’s structure: After an introduction, the thesis is organized
as follows: In the second chapter, a literature review is given. For this purpose, first,
decision-making models applied to internal audit-related problems are summarized,
then previous studies developed with single and interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets are
presented, and finally, related MCDM applications around ELECTRE are summarized.
The weak and strong points of previous studies are also discussed in this chapter.
The third chapter includes the mathematical foundations and detailed steps of the
proposed methodology. Within the chapter, the classical structure of ELECTRE,
which constitutes the backbone of the proposed model, is given, then mathematical
preliminaries of spherical fuzzy sets are provided. For this purpose, the definition,
basic arithmetic operations, and other necessary operations such as aggregation
and defuzzification operators of single and interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets are
presented. Finally, the proposed methodology is established by providing the
framework and step-by-step details for the three approaches.
In the fourth chapter, the application of the methodology is shown through an internal
audit planning problem. For this purpose, the units to be audited are prioritized based
on their internal control maturity levels. The COSO internal control framework [1] is
used for evaluating the alternatives. The selected problem is solved with three different
approaches, and after that, each numerical application is discussed through sensitivity
and comparative analyses.
In the fifth chapter, the structural foundations of the models are criticized, and the
weaknesses and strengths of each model are evaluated. Then, all models are evaluated
with a holistic approach and a recommendation is made for the model to be used within
the scope of the internal audit decision support system. This section also discusses the
study’s theoretical and practical consequences.
9
In the last chapter, the thesis finishes with a summary and recommendations for
additional research.
10
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Related Works around Internal Audit
Modern internal auditing is based on risk assessment, and risk-based internal auditing
can include subjective assessments of internal auditors, which have an impact on
audit results [101]. To date, fuzzy set theory has attracted very little attention from
the scholarly community working around internal auditing-related MCDM problems,
and it is seen that they are generally in a crisp-based structure. Sueyoshi et al.
[102] presented a decision-making model for a rental car company and prioritized
internal audit activity by using a DEA and AHP integrated model. Petridis et
al. [103] and Prasad [104] handled internal auditor selection problems and utilized
AHP-TOPSIS and SWARA-ARAS methods respectively. Ozturk et al. [105] and
Kuvat and Kılıç [106] handled audit firm selection problems and used TOPSIS and
AHP methods, respectively. Chen and Yang [107] applied AHP and DEMATEL
methods for establishing internal audit criteria and priority sequence. Karakaya [108]
also analyzed the duties of public internal auditors with the AHP method.
Moreover, Chen [109] investigated the key factors of internal control for procurement
circulation by utilizing DEMATEL and ANP techniques, and Goman and Koch
[110] proposed a composite index to aggregate various criteria estimates for audit
activity planning and showed the application with an illustrative MCDM problem
for ranking diverse control areas for an audit plan. Besides, Bouayad et al. [111]
presented an AHP for evaluating the ideal governance framework. Ahriz et al. [112]
evaluated projects in a higher education institution based on information technology
principles and suggested an AHP integrated TOPSIS model, and using a governance
framework as the foundation for their work, Apriliana et al [113] examined the risks
in information technology applications by establishing AHP and SAW methodologies.
The above-mentioned studies were developed in a crisp environment.
11
On the other hand, some researchers have benefited from fuzzy sets to a certain extent
while developing their MCDM models. In general, uncertainty, which is inherent
in the nature of internal audit-related problems, has generally been attempted to be
addressed with two-dimensional triangular fuzzy sets. Liu [114] evaluated the factors
that impact the implementation of internal control and used DEMATEL and ANP
methods for determining the importance of criteria and interrelation among them and
VIKOR approach for prioritizing the alternatives. The author used triangular fuzzy
sets only when determining the importance of criteria. Using a unified framework,
Shafiee et al. [115] evaluated the audit risk model’s affecting components based on
a combined framework by utilizing triangular fuzzy ANP and DEMATEL methods.
Wang et al. [116] used fuzzy AHP and multi-choice goal programming techniques for
selecting potential projects and allocating staff time during risk-based internal audit
planning, and Zhong and Deng [101] presented a TOPSIS and Choquet fuzzy integral
based audit risk assessment method by utilizing interval types of fuzzy sets to decrease
attribute weight subjectivity and ambiguity in the MCDM procedure.
In addition, Dinçer et al. [117] used hesitant fuzzy MCDM model for assessing the
corporate governance-based performance of banks, and Hu et al. [118] evaluated
strategies for cloud auditing by using DEMATEL, ANP, and VIKOR methods. Zhao
and Li [119] proposed an AHP based MCDM model to present a decision support
tool for a company to decide on the scope of internal audit outsourcing. Shiue et
al. [120] developed a hybrid group decision-making model based on DEMATEL and
ANP for assessing a continuous auditing system. Tian et al. [121] evaluated risks
of safety management audit by using an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS
technique. Chuanmo and Shiguo [122] used the AHP model to assess the effectiveness
of internal control and provided the basics of an internal control system. Melo et
al. [123] conducted a triangular fuzzy TOPSIS technique to analyze the internal audit
processes performed by companies. Mahdavi and Namazi [124] developed a TOPSIS
model for prioritizing the characteristics that determine auditing risk and Gaosong
and Leping [125] proposed an internal audit effectiveness evaluation index system for
higher education institutions and used a fuzzy AHP method in their study.
Furthermore, Priyantina and Sarno [126] evaluated the risk management maturity
index for governance by utilizing a triangular fuzzy AHP TOPSIS model. Mutiara
12
et al. [127] assessed the audit framework’s implementation by using the AHP
technique. Othman et al. [128] developed an AHP based decision support tool for
aiding the management of governance practices. Moreover, using two-dimensional
triangular fuzzy sets, Yudatama and Sarno [129] created an AHP TOPSIS model by
utilizing triangular fuzzy sets for evaluating the maturity index utilized in governance
implementation.
2.2 Spherical Fuzzy Set Applications
Since spherical fuzzy sets were introduced, they have begun to be used by many
researchers in the development of various decision-making methods. Gundogdu and
Kahraman [130] developed a spherical fuzzy AHP and presented basic arithmetic,
aggregation, and defuzzification operators and showed the applicability of their model
for selecting renewable energy locations. After that, spherical fuzzy AHP has been
utilized to solve a variety of issues, including a pricing framework for location-based
systems [131], process mining technology [132], food waste management [133], food
waste treatment option selection [134], laminate flooring criteria evaluation [135] and
supplier selection [136].
Gundogdu [137] developed MULTIMOORA with spherical fuzzy sets and illustrated
her model with a personnel selection problem. Sharaf [138] evaluated geothermal
energy systems with the spherical fuzzy PROMETHEE method, and later the same
author [139] used spherical fuzzy VIKOR to support a supplier selection problem. On
the other hand, Sarucan et al. [140] proposed a spherical fuzzy TOPSIS and handled a
physician selection, and Onar et al. [141] developed a spherical regret based MCDM
method and evaluated healthcare equipment stocks with their model.
Spherical sets have also been frequently used in hybrid fuzzy MCDM studies. Otay
and Atik [142] and Ayyildiz and Gumus [143] presented AHP WASPAS model for
oil station location selection problems, and Jaller and Otay [144] and Mathew et
al. [145] developed AHP TOPSIS for sustainable vehicle technology evaluation and
manufacturing system selection problems. Ashraf et al. [146] proposed a mathematical
model based on spherical fuzzy sets for managing pandemic transmission and
dissemination by using the TOPSIS COPRAS method.
13
In addition, Barukab et al. [147] presented a novel unit of distance measurement for
spherical fuzzy sets and applied a TOPSIS model for a robot selection problem. Yang
et al. [148] defined a new mean operator and used it for a pandemic-related antivirus
mask selection. Haque et al. [149] studied a new score and accuracy function for
spherical fuzzy sets and used them to assess the disease. Jin et al. [150] extended the
aggregation operators of spherical fuzzy numbers and illustrated them with a numerical
example of road project selection. Nguyen et al. [151] suggested a new hybrid
AHP WASPAS model in a spherical fuzzy environment and prioritized governmental
interventions against the pandemic, and Peng and Li [152] developed a spherical fuzzy
CoCoSo with a novel score function and applied it to an industrial problem. Kieu
et al. [153] on the other hand, combined AHP with CoCoSo models and used it to
select a distribution center location, and Olugu et al. [154] developed a spherical fuzzy
Delphi integrated TOPSIS model to be used in the oil and gas industry. Kovac et al.
[155] studied a spherical fuzzy MARCOS model for evaluating the concepts based on
unmanned aerial vehicles and Menekse et al. [156] established a new spherical fuzzy
ARAS model and evaluated the seismic vulnerability of higher education buildings.
The authors presented sensitivity and comparative analyses to show the usability and
advantages of their model.
Interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets provide more space for modeling the fuzziness
and attract the attention of many authors. Gundogdu and Kahraman [87] extended
TOPSIS method with interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets by presenting arithmetic
and aggregation operators. Later, Farrokhizadeh et al. [157] and Gul and Ak
[91] handled advertisement strategy selection and failure assessment for a marble
manufacturing factory by using interval-valued spherical fuzzy TOPSIS. Gundogdu
and Kahraman [92] and Duleba et al. [93] extended the AHP methodology
with interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets and evaluated problems related to public
transportation development and service performance of hospitals. Aydın and
Gundogdu [94] developed a MULTIMOORA method with interval-valued spherical
fuzzy sets and evaluated the performance of companies, and Hamal and Senvar [95]
used interval-valued spherical fuzzy AHP MULTIMOORA for ranking financial ratios.
Omerali and Kaya [158] used interval-valued spherical fuzzy COPRAS with an
application from product life cycle management. Aydoğdu and Gül [159] suggested
14
an interval-valued spherical fuzzy ARAS with some novel entropy propositions and
applied it to a printer selection problem. Ozgul et al. [160] proposed an interval-valued
spherical fuzzy DEMATEL for evaluation of universal health coverage competencies,
and for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets, Lathamaheswari et al. [161] devised
aggregation procedures and applied them to selecting the best station for scrutinizing
air quality.
Besides single and interval-valued forms, different forms of spherical sets have also
been developed by various scholars, some of which are as follows: Karaaslan and
Dawood [162] developed some arithmetic and geometric averaging operators for
complex T-spherical fuzzy sets and illustrated their work for pandemic related illness
diagnosis, and Ajay and Aldring [163] extended spherical fuzzy sets to complex
spherical fuzzy sets and suggested some novel aggregation operators. The authors
evaluated the performance of catering services with their method. On the other hand,
the same authors [164] extended spherical fuzzy sets to cubic spherical fuzzy sets and
devised a new similarity metric and an aggregation operator. The authors discussed
the fundamental concepts of cubic spherical fuzzy sets through a medical diagnosis
problem, and Farid and Donyatalab [165] suggested a new spherical fuzzy integrated
Eco-holonic structure to evaluate the uncertainty thoroughly, and they handled a
problem with a supply chain for aviation fuels to demonstrate their work.
2.3 ELECTRE Applications
ELECTRE [39] is one of the most used MCDM approaches, and it works by
comparing alternatives pairwise against criteria and calculating concordance and
discordance indices. The ELECTRE approach has been widely employed in various
decision-making situations in the literature, and a substantial amount of work on
various fuzzy ELECTRE models has been published. Noori et al. [166] proposed a
triangular fuzzy ELECTRE and obtained indifference, preference, and veto values for
ranking the alternatives, and Pereira et al. [167] used trapezoidal fuzzy sets and showed
an ELECTRE model based on indifferent, strict, and weak preferences. [168] proposed
an interval type-2 trapezoidal fuzzy ELECTRE based on a seven-scale linguistic term
and Ayyildiz et al. [168] used the same approach, however, the authors presented a
nine-scale linguistic term and a sensitivity analysis in their study. Moreover, Kumar et
15
al. [169] and Singh and Kaushik [170] worked for a triangular fuzzy ELECTRE with
different linguistic approaches, however, both authors have failed to address sensitivity
or comparison analysis to check the stability and validity of their models.
Previous research on fuzzy ELECTRE has not only been restricted to triangular
or trapezoidal fuzzy sets but also several MCDM models have been created with
extensions of ordinary fuzzy sets. Mishra et al. [171] developed an intuitionistic
fuzzy ELECTRE by using a divergence measure and Rouyendegh [172] constructed
intuitionistic fuzzy ELECTRE based on gradual outranking relations. On the other
hand, Kilic et al. [173] developed a hybrid model and obtained the criteria weights with
DEMATEL and prioritize the alternatives based on cardinal and ordinal evaluations by
using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. To deal with the uncertainty, Chen [174] and Hashemi
et al. [175] both employed interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and presented
ELECTRE models. Although both studies included comparison analysis, they suffered
from a lack of sensitivity analysis.
In addition, neutrosophic, hesitant, and Pythagorean fuzzy sets have also been
preferred by scholars for reinforcing ELECTRE in terms of uncertainty modeling
capacity. Tian et al. [176] established a single-valued neutrosophic ELECTRE and
to represent the underlying preference information, the authors created three layers of
concordance and discordance sets. Peng et al. [177] and Zhang et al. [178] proposed
multi-valued and probability multi-valued neutrosophic ELECTRE, and Karasan and
Kahraman [179] developed an interval-valued neutrosophic ELECTRE based on a
single type of outranking relation and analyzed their model through sensitivity and
comparative studies. Peng et al. [180] modeled the fuzziness with multi hesitant
fuzzy sets and constructed an ELECTRE based on strong dominant, weak dominant,
and indifferent relationships, and Akram et al. [181] and Chen [182] provided a
Pythagorean fuzzy ELECTRE by utilizing normalized Euclidean and Chebyshev and
Hamming distance measures respectively.
Various efforts have been made in the ELECTRE methods to implement outranking
relations.Tooranloo et al. [183] used neutrosophic sets and obtained outranking
relations by constructing strong, moderate, and weak concordance and discordance
sets. The authors made the pairwise comparisons based on the truth indeterminacy
and falsity membership degrees of each alternative. Akram et al. [184] formulated
16
an ELECTRE method by introducing the strong, mid-range, and weak concordance
and discordance sets in a Pythagorean fuzzy environment. For constructing
these outranking relations, the authors utilized membership, non-membership, and
indeterminacy degrees of the alternatives. However, in Pythagorean fuzzy sets,
the indeterminacy degree cannot be modeled independently and can only be found
from membership and non-membership degrees. Therefore, the contribution of the
indeterminacy degree to the outranking relations is quite questionable.
Furthermore, Cali and Balaban [185] developed intuitionistic fuzzy ELECTRE by

using pairwise comparison and outranking relation concepts of ELECTRE methods
and generated strong, midrange, and weak concordance and discordance sets to reflect
the preferences of decision-makers. The authors used membership, non-membership,
and hesitancy degrees of intuitionistic fuzzy sets to compare the alternatives in a
pairwise manner. Since the hesitancy membership is not determined independently
in intuitionistic fuzzy sets and is directly correlated with the other two parameters,
the effect of this value in the outranking equations is also partially absorbed. On the
other hand, Liao et al. [186] used hesitant fuzzy sets and developed a score deviation
and positive and ideal element-based ELECTRE methods. The authors established
strong, medium, and weak concordance and discordance sets, and utilized score value
and deviation degree for constructing these outranking relations. They evaluated the
alternatives with a high score value as better and those with a lower deviation degree
as having a more balanced and consistent performance value. In another study, Chu
and Le [187] proposed triangular fuzzy ELECTRE and developed single types of
concordance and discordance sets. The authors utilized a defuzzification operator and
obtained crisp values for comparing the alternatives. However, the accuracy function
was not considered in their study for cases where the score values of alternatives are
equal.
17
18
3. METHODOLOGY
The suggested spherical fuzzy ELECTRE model is given in this section using three
alternative approaches, and each one is described in detail in a step-by-step manner.
The first two models are provided in a single-valued spherical fuzzy environment,
while the third model is proposed in an interval-valued spherical fuzzy environment.
Various arithmetic operations on single and interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets were
used during the construction of these models.
Since there are more than one decision-maker and each one evaluates the alternatives
and criteria individually, all matrices should be collected to obtain one unique
collective matrix. For this purpose, spherical fuzzy geometric mean operators were
used. Alternatively, one can also use spherical fuzzy arithmetic mean operators for
combining these matrices. On the other hand, final forms of decision matrices were
obtained by integrating alternative evaluations and criterion weights, and spherical
fuzzy multiplication operators were used for this aim.
Based on the crisp forms of criterion weights, concordance indices were obtained. For
this purpose, defuzzification operators, i.e., score functions of spherical fuzzy sets,
were utilized. For calculating discordance indices, normalized Euclidean distance
was used. The reason for using normalized Euclidean distance is the absence of a
subtraction operator defined for single or interval-valued spherical fuzzy environments.
One can also use other forms of distance functions for this purpose.
The organization of this section is as follows: In Section 3.1, the ELECTRE model,
which is the backbone of the proposed models, is introduced and the steps of classical
ELECTRE are presented. In Section 3.2 the definition, basic arithmetic operations,
defuzzification operations, aggregation operations, and normalized Euclidean distance
for single-valued spherical fuzzy sets are given. The first and second models are built
by utilizing these operations. Section 3.3, on the other hand, presents the building
blocks of the third model. For this purpose, the definition, basic arithmetic operations,
defuzzification operations, aggregation operations, and normalized Euclidean distance
19
for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets are provided. Finally, Sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6
provide the details of the models, respectively, in a step-by-step manner. Before going
into the details, the flowchart of the methodology is given in Figure 3.1, so that the
reader can get an idea about the methodology.
20
Figure 3.1 : Structure of methodology: Common flowchart for the proposed spherical fuzzy ELECTRE models.
21
3.1 Classical ELECTRE
ELECTRE [188] is an MCDM method that evaluates relationships between

alternatives utilizing concordance and discordance-based outranking relations while
choosing one alternative over another. The steps of classical ELECTRE are as follows:
Let Ai be the alternatives for an MCDM problem as: Ai = {A1 , A2 , ...., Am }; C j be the
criteria set as: C j = {C1 ,C2 , ....,Cn } and let w j be the weight vector of all criteria as:
w j = {w1 , w2 , ...., wn } where w j ∈ [0, 1] and ∑nj=1 w j = 1.
Concordance and discordance sets are defined for each pair of alternatives Ak and Al
where k, l = 1, 2, . . . , m and k ̸= l.
Concordance set is defined as in equation 3.1.
C(k, l) = j | vk j ≥ vl j (3.1)
where vk j is the weighted normalized rating of Ak with respect to jth criterion. We can
say C(k, l) has the elements where Ak is better than or equal to Al .
Discordance set is the complement of concordance set and defined as in equation 3.2.
D(k, l) = j | vk j < vl j (3.2)
Discordance set contains the elements where Ak is worse than Al , i.e. discordance
set is composed of the attributes which Al is preferred to Ak . To create concordance
and discordance matrices, concordance and discordance indices are acquired. The
concordance index is obtained as in equation 3.3.
Ckl = ∑ wj (3.3)
j∈Ckl
where w j is the normalized weight of jth criterion and ∑nj=1 w j = 1
The discordance index is obtained as in equation 3.4. One can say that concordance
index is the evidence in favor of Ak outranking Al while the discordance index is the
evidence against Ak outranking Al .
∑ j∈Dkl {vk j − vl j }
Dkl = (3.4)
∑ j∈J {vk j − vl j }
22
where j ∈ Dkl are the attributes in discordance set. According to ELECTRE, Ak
outranks Al when Ckl ≥ C̄ and Dkl < D̄ where C̄ and D̄ are the averages of Ckl and
Dkl respectively.
3.2 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy Sets
Definition, basic operators, aggregation operator, normalized Euclidean distance [59],

and defuzzification operator [130] of spherical fuzzy sets are given below:
Definition 1. A spherical fuzzy set [59] A˜S of the universe of discourse ∪ is given in
equation 3.5.
n o
A˜S = u, µA˜S (u), νA˜S (u), πA˜S (u) | u ∈ ∪ (3.5)
where µA˜S (u): ∪ → [0, 1], νA˜S (u): ∪ → [0, 1], πA˜S (u): ∪ → [0, 1],
and the decision-maker’s hesitancy (πA˜S ) can be described independently from

membership (µA˜S ) and non-membership (νA˜S ) degrees, satisfying the below condition
given in equation 3.6.
0 ≤ µA2˜ (u) + νA2˜ (u) + πA2˜ (u) ≤ 1; ∀u ∈ ∪ (3.6)

S S S
where µA˜S , νA˜S , and πA˜S are the degrees of membership, non-membership, and
hesitancy of u to A˜S for each, respectively.
Equation 3.6 becomes as below for on the surface of the sphere,
µA2˜ (u) + νA2˜ (u) + πA2˜ (u) = 1; ∀u ∈ ∪ (3.7)

S S S
Definition 2. Addition, multiplication, multiplication by a scalar, and power of

spherical fuzzy sets are given as follows:
1. The addition of two spherical fuzzy sets [59] is given in equation 3.8.
n
A˜S ⊕ B˜S = (µA2˜ + µB2˜ − µA2˜ µB2˜ )1/2 , νA2˜ νB2˜ ,
S S S S S S
o (3.8)
((1 − µB2˜ )πA2˜ + (1 − µA2˜ )πB2˜ − πA2˜ πB2˜ )1/2
S S S S S S
2. Multiplication of two spherical fuzzy sets [59] is given in equation 3.9.

n
AS ⊗ BS = µ µB˜S , (νA2˜ + νB2˜ − νA2˜ νB2˜ )1/2 ,
˜ ˜
A˜S S S S S
o (3.9)
2 2 2 2 2 2 1/2
((1 − νB˜ )πA˜ + (1 − νA˜ )πB˜ − πA˜ πB˜ )
S S S S S S
23
3. Multiplication of a spherical fuzzy number by a scalar (λ > 0) [59] is given in
equation 3.10.
n
λ · A˜S = {(1 − (1 − µA2˜ )λ )1/2 , νAλ˜ ,
S S
o (3.10)
2 λ 2 2 λ 1/2
((1 − µA˜ ) − (1 − µA˜ − πA˜ ) )
S S S
4. λ th Power of A˜S ( λ > 0) for a spherical fuzzy number [59] is given in equation
3.11.
n
λ
A˜S = {µAλ˜ , (1 − (1 − νA2˜ )λ )1/2 ,
S S
o (3.11)
2 λ 2 2 λ 1/2
((1 − νA˜ ) − (1 − νA˜ − πA˜ ) )
S S S
Definition 3. The aggregation procedure is a function that is utilized when we need to

obtain a single value that represents a collection of different numbers. An aggregation
operator combines several pieces of data into a single value [189].
˜ w [59] is used for aggregating the matrices.

In this study, geometric mean operator GM
Geometric mean of single-valued spherical fuzzy numbers is given in equation 3.12.
˜ w (A˜S1 , ..., A˜Sn ) = A˜S1 w1 + A˜S2 w2 + ....+
GM
n n
wn w n
ASn = ∏ µA˜ j , [1 − ∏i=1 (1 − νA2˜ )w j ]1/2 ,
˜
i=1
Si Si (3.12)
n n o
[∏(1 − νA2˜ )w j − ∏(1 − νA2˜ − πA2˜ )w j ]1/2
Si Si Si
i=1 i=1
where w = (w1 , w2 , ..., wn ); w j ∈ [0, 1] and ∑ni=1 w j = 1.
˜ w for a single-valued spherical fuzzy set is given in equation 3.13.

Arithmetic mean AM
˜ w (A˜S1 , ..., A˜Sn ) = w1 A˜S1 + w2 A˜S2 + .... + wn A˜Sn =
AM
n
n
{[1 − ∏i=1 (1 − µA2˜ )wi ]1/2 , ∏ νAw˜i ,
Si
i=1
Si (3.13)
n n
[∏(1 − µA2˜ )wi − ∏(1 − µA2˜ − πA2˜ )wi ]1/2 }
Si Si Si
i=1 i=1
Definition 4. Fuzzification is the process of converting a crisp number to its proper

fuzzy version, and the inverse of this operation, that is transformation of a fuzzy
number to its crisp form, is called defuzzification [190]. On the other hand, score
function is a tool that is used for converting a fuzzy number into a single real number
[191]. Thus defuzzification operator and score function mean the same thing. Score
function [192] for a single-valued spherical fuzzy number is given in equation 3.14.
πA˜S πA˜S
S(A˜S ) = [(2µA˜S − )2 − (νA˜S − )2 ]| (3.14)
2 2
24
Definition 5. The normalized Euclidean distance is a distance metric that may be used
to calculate the differences between two items, sets, or other objects. It may be used
to calculate distances between fuzzy sets in fuzzy set theory, for example [193]. The
normalized Euclidean distance between two single-valued spherical fuzzy numbers
[59] is given in equation 3.15.
s
1 n
D(A˜S , B˜S ) = ∑ ((µA˜S − µB˜S )2 + (νA˜S − νB˜S )2 + (πA˜S − πB˜S )2) (3.15)
2n i=1
3.3 Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy Sets
Definition; addition, multiplication, multiplication by a scalar, power, aggregation

and defuzzification operators [87] for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets are given
as follows:
Definition 6. In equation 3.16, an interval-valued spherical fuzzy set A

fS of the universe
of discourse U is supplied. [87].

n o
fS = u, ([µ L (u), µ U (u)], [ν L (u), ν U (u)], [π L (u), π U (u)]) | u ∈ U
A (3.16)
A
f S
f AS A
f ASS A
f f S AS
where
L U L U
0 ≤ µAf (u) ≤ µf (u) ≤ 1; 0 ≤ νAf (u) ≤ νf (u) ≤ 1
S AS S AS
and
U
0 ≤ (µf (u))2 + (νf
U
(u))2 + (πf
U
(u))2 ≤ µf
U
(u) ≤ 1
AS AS AS AS
L (u), ν L (u), π L (u) are the lower degrees of membership, non-membership
where µf
AS f AS f AS
U (u), ν U (u), π U (u) are the upper degrees of
and hesitancy degrees, and µf f AS
f AS AS
membership, non-membership and hesitancy degrees respectively.
L (u) = µ U (u), ν L (u) = ν U (u) and π L (u) = π U (u); an
Note that, for the case, µf
AS
f f AS
f ASf f AS AS AS
interval-valued spherical fuzzy set A
fS reduces to a single-valued spherical fuzzy set
A˜S .
For convenience, an interval-valued spherical fuzzy set,
fS = ([µ L (u), µ U (u)], [ν L (u), ν U (u)], [π L (u), π U (u)])

A A
f S
f AS A
f f S A
f AS f S AS
is denoted by
e = [a, b], [c, d], [e, f ]
α
25
where a, c and e stand for the lower degrees of membership, non-membership
and hesitancy degrees, and b, d and f stand for the upper degrees of member-
ship, non-membership and hesitancy degrees respectively; [a, b] ⊂ [0.1], [c, d] ⊂
[0.1], [e, f ] ⊂ [0.1]; and (b2 + d 2 + f 2 ) < 1.
Definition 7. Interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets’ addition, multiplication,

multiplication by a scalar, and power [87] are given as follows:
1. Addition operation of two interval-valued spherical fuzzy number [87] is given in

equation 3.17.
n
f2 = [((a1 )2 + (a2 )2 − (a1 )2 (a2 )2 )1/2 ,
f1 ⊕ α
α
((b1 )2 + (b2 )2 − (b1 )2 (b2 )2 )1/2 ], [c1 c2 , d1 d2 ],

(3.17)
[((1 − (a2 )2 )(e1 )2 + (1 − (a1 )2 )(e2 )2 − (e1 )2 (e2 )2 )1/2 ,
o
((1 − (b2 )2 )( f1 )2 + (1 − (b1 )2 )( f2 )2 − ( f1 )2 ( f2 )2 )1/2 ]
2. Equation 3.18 gives the multiplication operation of two interval-valued spherical

fuzzy numbers.
n
f2 = [a1 a2 , b1 b2 ], [((c1 )2 + (c2 )2 − (c1 )2 (c2 )2 )1/2 ,
f1 ⊗ α
α
(d1 )2 + (d2 )2 − (d1 )2 (d2 )2 )1/2 )], [((1 − (c2 )2 )(e1 )2 +

(3.18)
((1 − (c1 )2 )(e2 )2 − (e1 )2 (e2 )2 )1/2 , ((1 − (d2 )2 )( f1 )2 +
o
2 2 2 2 1/2
((1 − (d1 ) )( f2 ) − ( f1 ) ( f2 ) ) ]
3. Multiplication by a scalar (λ > 0) for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets [87] is

n
λαe = [(1 − (1 − a2 )λ )1/2 , (1 − (1 − b2 )λ )1/2 ], cλ , d λ ]
[((1 − a2 )λ − (1 − a2 − e2 )λ )1/2 , (3.19)

o
((1 − b2 )λ − (1 − b2 − f 2 )λ )1/2 ]
4. λ th Power of α
e for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets is given in equation 3.20.
n
e λ = [aλ , bλ ][(1 − (1 − c2 )λ )1/2 , (1 − (1 − d 2 )λ )1/2 ],
α
[((1 − c2 )λ − (1 − c2 − e2 )λ )1/2 , (3.20)

o
2 λ 2 2 λ 1/2
((1 − d ) − (1 − d − f ) ) ]
26
Definition 8. Aggregation operator based on geometric mean for interval-valued
spherical fuzzy sets [87] is given in equation 3.21.
w
f1 w1 ⊗ α
f2 w2 ⊗ .... ⊗ α
n
]w (α
GM f1 , α
f2 , ..., α
fn ) = α fn =
n n n n
wj wj
[ ∏ a j , ∏ b j ], [(1 − ∏ (1 − c2j )w j )1/2 ,
j=1 j=1 j=1
n n
(1 − ∏ (1 − d 2j )w j )1/2 ][(∏(1 − c2j )w j −
j=1 i= j (3.21)
n n
∏(1 − c2j − e2j )w j )1/2, (∏(1 − d 2j )w j −
i= j i= j
n o
2 2 w j 1/2
∏(1 − d j − f j ) ) ]
i= j
Arithmetic mean operator for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets is given below:
wn
gw (α
AM f1 , α
f2 , ..., α f1 w1 ⊕ α
fn ) = α f2 w2 ⊕ .... ⊕ α
fn =
n n n
[(1 − ∏ (1 − a2j )w j )1/2 , (1 − ∏ (1 − b2j )w j )1/2 ],
j=1 j=1
n n n n n (3.22)
w w
[ ∏ c j j , ∏ d j j ], [(∏(1 − a2j )w j − ∏(1 − a2j − e2j )w j )1/2 , (∏(1 − b2j )w j −
j=1 j=1 i= j i= j i= j
n o
2 2 w j 1/2
∏(1 − b j − f j ) ) ]
i= j
Definition 9. Score function for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets [87] is given in
equation 3.23.
a2 + b2 − c2 − d 2 − ( 2e )2 − ( 2f )2
e) =
S(α (3.23)
2
Definition 10. The normalized Euclidean distance between two interval-valued

spherical fuzzy numbers [87, 194, 195] is given in equation 3.24.
1
f1 , α
D(α f2 ) = | (a1 )2 − (a2 )2 | + | (b1 )2 − (b2 )2 | +
4
| (c1 )2 − (c2 )2 | + | (d1 )2 − (d2 )2 | + (3.24)

| (e1 )2 − (e2 )2 | + | ( f1 )2 − ( f2 )2 |
ELECTRE method is based on the comparison of different alternatives in a pairwise

manner, and the alternatives can be compared by using the parameters of spherical
fuzzy sets as well as ranking methods such as score and accuracy functions. In
this section, the concept of spherical fuzzy set is combined with ELECTRE and a
new spherical fuzzy ELECTRE method is developed to solve MCDM problems in a
27
single-valued spherical fuzzy environment. The proposed methodology is presented in
three approaches as follow:
1. Single-valued spherical fuzzy ELECTRE: Three types of outranking relations,

namely strong, moderate and weak concordance and discordance sets are
constructed. Outranking relations are based on a comparison of membership,
non-membership and hesitancy degrees of pairwise alternatives.
2. Single-valued spherical fuzzy ELECTRE: A single type of outranking relation,

namely total concordance and discordance sets are constructed. Outranking
relations are directly obtained based on the comparison of score and accuracy values
of alternatives.
3. Interval-valued spherical fuzzy ELECTRE: Similar to second approach, a single

type of outranking relation, namely total concordance and discordance sets are
constructed, and outranking relations are constructed by comparing score and
accuracy values of alternatives. However, the whole model is developed in
an interval-valued spherical fuzzy environment and this enable us an increased
fuzziness modeling capacity than the second approach.
3.4 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE (First Approach)
The flowchart (3.2) and the details of the first approach is presented in a step-by-step
form as follows:
Step 1. An MCDM problem with a set of alternatives and the most related criteria is
defined. A unified criteria type is used by converting any cost criteria to benefit criteria.
Let Ai be the selected alternatives as: Ai = {A1 , A2 , ...., Am }; C j be the criteria set
as: C j = {C1 ,C2 , ....,Cn }, and let w j be the weight vector of all criteria as: w j =
{w1 , w2 , ...., wn } where w j ∈ [0, 1] and ∑nj=1 w j = 1.
Step 2. Decision-makers assess each alternative’s performance against each criterion
in linguistic terms that is given in Table 3.1.
Step 3. Alternatives’ linguistic assessments are transformed to their spherical fuzzy

numbers equivalents and single-valued spherical fuzzy alternative evaluation matrices
are obtained, and all matrices are aggregated by utilizing equation 3.12.
28
Figure 3.2 : Flowchart of the first approach.
Table 3.1 : Linguistic terms and their corresponding single-valued spherical fuzzy
numbers.
Linguistic term (µ, ν, π)

Absolutely more importance(AMI) (0.9,0.1,0.1)
High importance (HI) (0.7,0.3,0.3)
Slightly more importance (SMI) (0.6,0.4,0.4)
Equally importance (EI) (0.5,0.4,0.5)
Slightly low importance (SLI) (0.4,0.6,0.4)
Low importance (LI) (0.3,0.7,0.3)
Very low importance (VLI) (0.2,0.8,0.2)
Absolutely low importance (ALI) (0.1,0.9,0.1)
The structure of alternative evaluation matrix is given in equation 3.25.

 
(µ11 , ν11 , π11 ) ... (µ1n , ν1n , π1n)
˜ = (C j (Ai ))mxn =  (µ21 , ν21 , π21 ) ... (µ2n , ν2n , π2n) 
 
AEM (3.25)
 ... ... ... 
(µm1 , νm1 , πm1 ) ... (µmn , νmn , πmn )
where the evaluation of alternative Ai (i = 1, 2, ..., m) with respect to criterion

˜ = (C j (Ai ))mxn is a
C j ( j = 1, 2, ..., n) is donated by C j (Ai ) = (µi j , νi j , πi j ) and AEM
single-valued spherical fuzzy alternative evaluation matrix; µi j , νi j and πi j are the
membership, non-membership and hesitancy degrees for the ith alternative and jth
criterion.
29
Step 4. Since the importance of each criterion may differ, an importance level
is assigned to each criterion based on the opinions of decision-makers by utilizing
linguistic terms that is given in Table 3.1.
Step 5. Linguistic evaluations of criteria are converted to their corresponding

spherical fuzzy numbers and single-valued spherical fuzzy criterion weight matrices
Step 6. The alternative evaluation and criterion weight matrices are multiplied by
utilizing equation 3.9 and single-valued spherical fuzzy decision matrix is obtained.
Step 7. Strong concordance (C1 ), moderate concordance (C2 ), and weak concordance
(C3 ) sets are determined by utilizing equations 3.26, 3.27 and 3.28 respectively.
The single-valued spherical fuzzy strong concordance set:
C1kl = { j | µk j ≥ µl j , νk j < νl j , πk j < πl j } (3.26)
The single-valued spherical fuzzy moderate concordance set:
C2kl = { j | µk j ≥ µl j , νk j < νl j , πk j ≥ πl j } (3.27)
The single-valued spherical fuzzy weak concordance set:
C3kl = { j | µk j ≥ µl j , νk j ≥ νl j } (3.28)
The complementary subsets of concordance sets which are strong discordance (D1 ),
moderate discordance (D2 ) and weak discordance (D3 ) sets are determined by utilizing
equations 3.29, 3.30 and 3.31 respectively.
The single-valued spherical fuzzy strong discordance set:
D1kl = { j | µk j < µl j , νk j ≥ νl j , πk j ≥ πl j } (3.29)
The single-valued spherical fuzzy moderate discordance set:
D2kl = { j | µk j < µl j , νk j ≥ νl j , πk j < πl j } (3.30)
The single-valued spherical fuzzy weak discordance set:
D3kl = { j | µk j < µl j , νk j < νl j } (3.31)
30
Step 8. Obtain concordance and discordance indices and construct concordance and
discordance matrices.
Concordance index is obtained by utilizing equation 3.32.
gkl = wC1 × ∑ w j + wC2 × ∑ w j + wC3 × ∑ wj (3.32)

j∈C1kl j∈C2kl j∈C3kl
where wC1 , wC2 and wC3 are the weights of strong, moderate and weak concordance
sets respectively. And, w j is the normalized crisp weight of jth criterion where
∑nj=1 w j = 1.
To obtain w j , transform the single-valued spherical fuzzy criterion weight matrix that
is obtained in step 5 to a crisp form by utilizing equation 3.14, and obtain w j∗ . Then
normalize these crisp values as follows:
w∗j
wj =
∑nj=1 w∗j
where w∗j is the unnormalized crisp weight of the jth criterion.
Concordance matrix is defined as in equation 3.33.

 
− g12 ... ... g1m
 g21 − ... ... ... 
 
G=  ... ... ... ... ... 
 (3.33)
 ... ... ... − g(m−1)m 
gm1 gm2 ... g(m)m−1 −
where a higher value of gkl indicates that Ak is preferred to Al .
Discordance index is obtained by utilizing equation 3.34.

max j∈D∗kl wD∗ d(Ak j , Al j )
hkl = (3.34)
max j∈J d(Ak j , Al j )
D∗kl is the strong, moderate or weak discordance set, wD∗ is the weight for strong,
moderate or weak discordance set, and d(Ak j , Al j ) is the normalized Euclidean distance
that is given in equation 3.15 between alternatives Ak and Al for the jth criterion.
Discordance matrix is obtained as given in equation 3.35.

 
− h12 ... ... h1m
 h21 − ... ... ... 
 
H =  ... ... ...
 ... ...  (3.35)
 ... ... ... − h(m−1)m 
hm1 hm2 ... h(m)m−1 −
31
where a higher value of hkl indicates that Ak is less favorable to Al .
With a bigger final concordance index gkl and a lower final discordance index hkl , the
dominance relationship of alternative Ak over alternative Al gets stronger.
Step 9. Obtain the global matrix.
The concordance and discordance matrices are aggregated by utilizing equation 3.36
and global matrix is obtained as given in 3.37.
gkl
rkl = (3.36)
gkl + hkl
 
− r12 ... ... r1m
 r21 − ... ... ... 
 
 ... ...
R= ... ... ...  (3.37)
 ... ... ... − r(m−1)m 
rm1 rm2 ... r(m)m−1 −
A greater rkl value indicates that alternative Ak is preferable than alternative Al .
Step 10. Rank the alternatives.
Appraisal scores are calculated by utilizing equation 3.38 and alternatives are ranked
accordingly.
m
ASk = ∑ rkl ; k = 1, 2, 3..., m (3.38)
l=1,l̸=k
In the MCDM problem, m is the number of alternatives, and ASk is the appraisal score
for alternative Ak . The alternatives are prioritized based on their ASk values. The better
the alternative, the greater the ASk .
3.5 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE (Second Approach)
The flowchart (3.3) details of the second approach are given below. Since the first
six steps are the same with the first approach, we skip them and continue from step
7. After obtaining single-valued spherical fuzzy decision matrix in step 6 , you may
continue as follows:
Step 7. Construction of outranking relations based on score and accuracy functions.
The second approach has a more straightforward manner. Outranking relations are
formed by using single types of concordance and discordance sets which are obtained
32
Figure 3.3 : Flowchart of the second approach.
through score [192] and accuracy [59] functions specified for single-valued spherical
fuzzy sets. The concordance set (Ckl ) is obtained as given in equation 3.39.
πk j 2 πk j 2
Ckl = { j|[(2µk j − ) − (νk j − ) ]>
2 2 (3.39)
πl j 2 πl j 2
{[(2µl j − ) − (νl j − ) ]}
2 2
The complementary subset of concordance set, discordance set (Dkl ) is obtained as

πk j 2 πk j 2
Dkl = { j|[(2µk j − ) − (νk j − ) ]<
2 2 (3.40)
πl j 2 πl j 2
{[(2µl j − ) − (νl j − ) ]}
2 2
33
If the score values of the alternatives are equal in pairwise comparison, the accuracy
values are tested. The fuzzy number with the lower accuracy value might be regarded
to be higher.
In this context, for the following case,

πk j 2 πk j 2
{ j|[(2µk j − ) − (νk j − ) ]=
2 2
πl j 2 πl j 2
{[(2µl j − ) − (νl j − ) ]}
2 2
the concordance and discordance sets are obtained based on the accuracy function
defined for single-valued spherical fuzzy sets [59] as given in equations 3.41 and 3.42.
Ckl = {(µk2j + νk2j + πk2j ) ≤ (µl2j + νl2j + πl2j )} (3.41)
Dkl = {(µk2j + νk2j + πk2j ) > (µl2j + νl2j + πl2j )} (3.42)
Step 8. Construct concordance and discordance matrices using concordance and

discordance indices.
Concordance index is defined as in equation 3.43.
gkl = ∑ wj (3.43)
j∈Ckl
where w j is the normalized crisp weight of jth criterion and ∑nj=1 w j = 1.
Equation 3.44 is used to calculate the discordance index.

max j∈Dkl d(Ak j , Al j )
hkl = (3.44)
d(Ak j , Al j ) is the normalized Euclidean distance (equation 3.15) between alternatives
Ak and Al .
Concordance and discordance matrices are defined as in equations 3.33 and 3.35
respectively.
and global matrix is obtained as defined in equation 3.37.
accordingly. The higher the appraisal score the better the alternative.
34
3.6 Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE (Third Approach)
This model has the same structure with the second approach of single-valued spherical
fuzzy ELECTRE model. However, instead of using single-valued spherical fuzzy
sets, interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets are used, and they enable users an increased
fuzziness modeling capacity. The flowchart (3.4) and details of interval-valued
spherical fuzzy ELECTRE is presented below.
Figure 3.4 : Flowchart of the third approach.
Step 1. Define an MCDM problem.
An MCDM problem is described with a collection of alternatives and the most relevant
criteria. A unified criteria type is used by converting any cost criteria to benefit criteria.
35
Let Ai be the selected alternatives as: Ai = {A1 , A2 , ...., Am }; C j be the criteria set
as: C j = {C1 ,C2 , ....,Cn } and let w j be the weight vector of all criteria as: w j =
{w1 , w2 , ...., wn } where w j ∈ [0, 1] and ∑nj=1 w j = 1.
Step 2. Evaluate the alternatives.
Decision-makers assess each alternative’s performance under each criterion in the

linguistic terms listed in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 : Linguistic terms and their corresponding interval-valued spherical fuzzy
numbers.
Linguistic terms [a, b], [c, d], [e, f ]

Absolutely More Importance (AMI) ([0.85,0.95], [0.10,0.15], [0.05,0.15])
Very High Importance (VHI) ([0.75,0.85], [0.15,0.20], [0.15,0.20])
High Importance (HI) ([0.65,0.75], [0.20,0.25], [0.20,0.25])
Slightly More Importance (SMI) ([0.55,0.65], [0.25,0.30], [0.25,0.30])
Equally Importance (EI) ([0.50,0.55], [0.45,0.55], [0.30,0.40])
Slightly Low Importance (SLI) ([0.25,0.30], [0.55,0.65], [0.25,0.30])
Low Importance (LI) ([0.20,0.25], [0.65,0.75], [0.20,0.25])
Very Low Importance (VLI) ([0.15,0.20], [0.75,0.85], [0.15,0.20])
Absolutely Low Importance (ALI) ([0.10,0.15], [0.85,0.95], [0.05,0.15])
Step 3. Transform alternative evaluations to interval-valued spherical fuzzy numbers.
Linguistic evaluations of alternatives are converted to their corresponding

interval-valued spherical fuzzy numbers and interval-valued spherical fuzzy alternative
evaluation matrices are obtained. Then, all matrices are aggregated by utilizing
equation 3.21.
Interval-valued alternative evaluation matrix has a structure as shown in equation 3.45.
] = (C j (Ai ))mxn =
AEM
 
([a11 , b11 ], [c11 , d11 ], [e11 , f11 ]) ... ([a1n , b1n ], [c1n , d1n ], [e1n , f1n ])
 ([a21 , b21 ], [c21 , d21 ], [e21 , f21 ]) ... ([a2n , b2n ], [c2n , d2n ], [e2n , f2n ])  (3.45)
 
 ... ... ... 
([am1 , bm1 ], [cm1 , dm1 ], [em1 , fm1 ]) ... ([amn , bmn ], [cmn , dmn ], [emn , fmn ])
where the evaluation of alternative Ai (i = 1, 2, ..., m) with respect to criterion

˜ =
C j ( j = 1, 2, ..., n) is donated by C j (Ai ) = ([a11 , b11 ], [c11 , d11 ], [e11 , f11 ]) and AEM
(C j (Ai ))mxn is an interval-valued spherical fuzzy alternative evaluation matrix;
[ai j , bi j ], [ci j , di j ] and [ei j , fi j ] are the membership, non-membership and hesitancy
degrees for the ith alternative and jth criterion.
36
Step 4. Evaluate the criteria.
Since the importance of each criterion may differ, an importance level is assigned to
each criterion based on the opinions of decision-makers by utilizing linguistic terms
that is given in Table 3.2.
Step 5. Transform criterion evaluations to interval-valued spherical fuzzy numbers.
Linguistic evaluations of criteria are converted to their corresponding interval-valued

spherical fuzzy numbers and interval-valued spherical fuzzy criterion weight matrices
Step 6. Obtain the final decision matrix.
The alternative evaluation and criterion weight matrices are multiplied by utilizing
equation3.18 and interval-valued spherical fuzzy decision matrix is obtained.
Step 7. Construct outranking relations based on score and accuracy functions.
Total concordance and total discordance sets are obtained by utilizing score and
accuracy functions defined for interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets [87]. The
concordance set is obtained as given in equation 3.46.
(akl )2 + (bkl )2 − (ckl )2 − (dkl )2 − ( e2kl )2 − ( f2kl )2

Ckl = >
2 (3.46)
e f
(al j )2 + (bl j )2 − (cl j )2 − (dl j )2 − ( 2l j )2 − ( 2l j )2
2
The complementary subset of concordance set, discordance set is obtained as given in

equation 3.47.

Dkl = <
2 (3.47)
e f
(al j )2 + (bl j )2 − (dl j )2 − (dl j )2 − ( 2l j )2 − ( 2l j )2
2
And for the case,

=
2
e f
(al j )2 + (bl j )2 − (cl j )2 − (dl j )2 − ( 2l j )2 − ( 2l j )2
2
37
the concordance and discordance sets are obtained as given in equations 3.48 and 3.49.
(akl )2 + (bkl )2 + (ckl )2 + (dkl )2 + (ekl )2 + ( fkl )2

Ckl = ≤
2 (3.48)
(al j )2 + (bl j )2 + (cl j )2 + (dl j )2 + (el j )2 + ( fl j )2
2
(akl )2 + (bkl )2 + (ckl )2 + (dkl )2 + (ekl )2 + (kl )2

Dkl = >
2 (3.49)
(al j )2 + (bl j )2 + (cl j )2 + (dl j )2 + (el j )2 + ( fl j )2
2
Step 8. Construct concordance and discordance matrices with concordance and

discordance indices.
Concordance index is obtained by utilizing equation 3.50.
gkl = ∑ wj (3.50)
j∈Ckl
where w j is the normalized crisp weight of jth criterion and ∑nj=1 w j = 1
Discordance index is obtained by utilizing equation 3.51.
max j∈Dkl d(Ak j , Al j )

hkl = (3.51)
where d(Ak j , Al j ) is the normalized Euclidean distance (equation 3.24) between

alternatives Ak and Al .
and global matrix is obtained as defined in equation 3.36.
accordingly.
38
4. APPLICATION
4.1 Problem Definition
Internal audit is considered to be the backbone of an organization and is regarded as the

key element for the application of an accounting system [196]. Internal audit planning,
on the other hand, is the first step of internal auditing, and it is a phase in which
the purpose, scope, duration, and resources of the internal audit to be carried out are
defined. Effective internal audit planning enables audit activities to be the catalyst for
a company that protects and adds value to the organization [116]. Moreover, effective
planning of internal audit and prioritization of units to be audited are important in terms
of both effective use of internal auditors and efficient use of economic resources. For
this reason, in today’s organizations with a wide variety of units, it has become very
important to determine the riskiest ones by comparing the risk levels of each and to
direct the internal audit activity to these units for the organization to make the most
effective use of internal audit.
4.2 Criteria
Internal control is a method for ensuring the efficacy of an organization’s activities,

the accuracy of financial reporting, and compliance with laws and regulations [197].
COSO [1], the most recent internal control framework, was released in 2013 and
includes five integrated components: control environment, risk assessment, control
activities, information and communication, and monitoring activities. Internal auditors
should examine and report on the efficacy of internal controls, according to the
framework. Figure 4.1 depicts the organization of the COSO internal control
architecture.
C1 Control environment. Control environment is the basic component of an internal

control system that constitutes a basis for the other components by ensuring the internal
control awareness of employees in an institution [1]. Corporate culture, ethical values,
39
Figure 4.1 : COSO internal control framework [1].
management philosophy, working style, organizational structure, and the institution’s
policies and procedures all reflect the control environment.
C2 Risk assessment. It is the process of identifying and assessing key risks that impede
a company from attaining its objectives, as well as choosing effective risk mitigation
solutions [1].
C3 Control activities. Control activities are policies and procedures that are put in place
to make it easier to achieve operational goals by lowering the effect or possibility of
risk [1]. Approval, authorization, reconciliation, performance assessment, separation
of roles, double signature technique, asset access, and so on are all examples of control
activities. Control activities include internal controls such as data handling control and
real control of accounting records and assets [198].
C4 Information and communication. This component of the framework includes the

information, communication, and recording systems that will ensure that the necessary
information is transmitted to the people, personnel, and managers who need it in a
specific format and within a timeframe that will allow those concerned to fulfill their
internal control and other responsibilities [1]. Information and communication are
important factors for an effective internal control system [199].
C5 Monitoring activities. Monitoring activities are ongoing or periodic evaluations

of the presence and functioning of the other four components of internal control [1].
Regular meetings, periodic audits, and the availability of fraud detection systems are
some of the key methods of monitoring [200].
40
4.3 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE Solution (First Approach)
In the application part of our study, an internal audit planning problem in a university
is handled. For this purpose, academic units are prioritized in terms of their
internal control risk levels. Four academic units of a university, namely faculty of
A (A1), faculty of B (A2), faculty of C (A3), and faculty of D (A4) are evaluated
with respect to five components of internationally recognized COSO internal control
framework, namely control environment (C1), risk assessment (C2), control activities
(C3), information and communication (C4), and monitoring activities (C55). The
decision-makers are three qualified internal auditors having the same experience level
and thus having equal weights (1/3). The problem in question was solved by using
three decision support models developed above, and the outcomes were analyzed.
Following that, sensitivity and comparative analyses are given. The numerical
operations were solved using Microsoft Excel. The numerical solution of the MCDM
problem for the first approach is as follows:
Step 1. Four alternatives and five criteria are determined as described above.
Step 2. The performances (internal control risk levels) of four academic units
are evaluated with respect to five criteria (dimensions of COSO internal control
framework) by three decision-makers (internal auditors) by utilizing the linguistic scale
that is given in Table 3.1. Alternative evaluations are obtained as in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 : Linguistic evaluations of alternatives.
DM Alternative C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
DM1 A1 AMI SLI SMI SMI SLI
A2 VHI VLI EI VHI SMI
A3 AMI SLI VLI EI VHI
A4 AMI LI VHI VHI EI
DM2 A1 AMI EI SMI VHI VHI
A2 VHI LI SMI VHI SLI
A3 VHI EI EI SMI SMI
A4 AMI SMI VHI AMI VHI
DM3 A1 VHI EI VHI SMI VHI
A2 VHI LI VHI VHI EI
A3 VHI EI EI VHI EI
A4 AMI LI VHI VHI EI
41
Step 3. Three internal auditors’ linguistic assessments of alternatives are transformed
to their corresponding spherical fuzzy numbers and three spherical fuzzy alternative
evaluation matrices are obtained. Then, three matrices are aggregated by utilizing
equation 3.12 and one single collective matrix is obtained as given in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 : Single-valued spherical fuzzy alternative evaluation matrix.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
A1 (0.87; (0.87; (0.67; (0.67; (0.58;
0.14; 0.14; 0.37; 0.37; 0.44;
0.14) 0.47) 0.37) 0.37) 0.35)
A2 (0.80; (0.26; (0.59; (0.73; (0.49;
0.20; 0.74; 0.41; 0.27; 0.56;
0.20) 0.27) 0.42) 0.27) 0.44)
A3 (0.83; (0.46; (0.37; (0.62; (0.59;
0.17; 0.54; 0.64; 0.39; 0.41;
0.17) 0.47) 0.40) 0.41) 0.42)
A4 (0.90; (0.38; (0.73; (0.76; (0.56;
0.10; 0.63; 0.27; 0.25; 0.45;
0.10) 0.33) 0.27) 0.26) 0.46)
Step 4. A Criterion importance level is assigned to each component of COSO internal

control framework by three internal auditors by utilizing the linguistic terms that is
given in Table 3.1. Linguistic evaluations of criteria are given in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 : Linguistic evaluations of criteria.
Criterion C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
DM1 AMI SLI VHI HI SMI
DM2 AMI SMI HI HI HI
DM3 AMI EI HI HI SMI
Step 5. Linguistic evaluations of five criteria are converted to their corresponding

spherical fuzzy numbers and three spherical fuzzy criterion weight matrices are
obtained. Then, three matrices are aggregated by utilizing equation 3.12 and one single
matrix is obtained as given in Table 4.4.
Step 6. The alternative evaluation matrix and criterion weight matrix are multiplied
by utilizing equation 3.18 and spherical fuzzy decision matrix is obtained as given in
Table 4.5.
42
Table 4.4 : Single-valued spherical fuzzy criterion weight matrix.
SF (0.90; (0.51; (0.70; (0.73; (0.63;
Weight 0.10; 0.51; 0.30; 0.27; 0.37;
0.10) 0.44) 0.30) 0.27) 0.37)
Crisp weight 26.500 12.603 20.592 19.499 17.084
Normalized 0.275 0.131 0.214 0.203 0.177
Crisp weight
Table 4.5 : Single-valued spherical fuzzy decision matrix.
A1 (0.78; (0.23; (0.46; (0.44; (0.37;
0.17; 0.69; 0.45; 0.46; 0.55;
0.17) 0.51) 0.43) 0.44) 0.45)
A2 (0.72; (0.13; (0.44; (0.51; (0.31;
0.22; 0.82; 0.48; 0.40; 0.60;
0.22) 0.35) 0.46) 0.38) 0.49)
A3 (0.75; (0.23; (0.27; (0.44; (0.38;
0.20; 0.69; 0.66; 0.48; 0.53;
0.20) 0.51) 0.42) 0.46) 0.49)
A4 (0.81; (0.19; (0.54; (0.53; (0.35;
0.14; 0.75; 0.38; 0.39; 0.56;
0.14) 0.42) 0.36) 0.37) 0.51)
Step 7. Strong concordance, moderate concordance, and weak concordance sets are
determined by utilizing equations 3.26, 3.27 and 3.28 as presented in Tables 4.6 4.7
and 4.8 respectively.
Strong discordance (D1 ), moderate discordance (D2 ) and weak discordance (D3 ) sets
are determined by utilizing equations 3.29, 3.30 and 3.31 and presented in Tables 4.9
4.10 and 4.11 respectively.
Note that relative weights of strong, moderate and weak discordance sets are taken as
1, 0.75 and 0.25 respectively.
Step 8. Concordance indices are calculated by utilizing equation 3.32 and concordance
matrix is obtained as in Table 4.12. Discordance indices are obtained by utilizing
equation 3.34 and discordance matrix is obtained as in Table 4.13.
Step 9. The concordance and discordance indices are aggregated by utilizing equation
3.36. The global matrix, which is composed of global indices, is obtained as in Table
4.14.
43
Table 4.6 : Strong concordance set (First approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 1,3 1,4 5
A2 4 - 4 -
A3 - 1 - 5
A4 1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3,4 -
Table 4.7 : Moderate concordance set (First approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 2 3 2
A2 - - 3 -
A3 5 2,5 - 2
A4 - 2 - -
Table 4.8 : Weak concordance set (First approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - - 2 -
A2 5 - - 5
A3 2 - - -
A4 - - - -
Step 10. Appraisal scores of alternatives are obtained by utilizing equation 3.38 and
presented in Table 4.15.
The appraisal score of alternatives are obtained as A4 > A1 > A3 > A2 for the first
approach. According to these results, faculty of D (A4) has the highest internal control
risk level, and internal audit activity should be carried out in this unit. On the other,
faculty of A (A1) has the second, faculty of C (A3) has the third and faculty of B (A2)
has the lowest level of risks.
4.4 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE Solution (Second Approach)
After obtaining spherical fuzzy decision matrix as in Table 4.5, the numerical solution
of the second approach is as follows:
Step 7. Outranking relations are constructed through single types of concordance and
discordance sets by utilizing score and accuracy functions defined for single-valued
spherical fuzzy sets [192]. The total concordance set is obtained by utilizing equation
44
Table 4.9 : Strong discordance set (First approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 4 - 1,3,4
A2 1,3 - 1 1,3,4
A3 1,4 4 - 1,3,4
A4 5 - 5 -
Table 4.10 : Moderate discordance set (First approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - - 5 -
A2 2 - 2,5 2
A3 3 3 - -
A4 2 - 2 -
Table 4.11 : Weak discordance set (First approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 5 - -
A2 - - - -
A3 - - - -
A4 - 5 - -
3.39 as in Table 4.16. The complementary subset of concordance set, discordance set
is obtained by utilizing equation 3.40 as presented in Table 4.17.
Step 8. Concordance indices are obtained by utilizing equation 3.43 and concordance
matrix is obtained as in Table 4.18. Discordance indices are obtained by utilizing
equation 3.43 and concordance matrix is obtained as in Table 4.19.
Step 9. The global matrix is defined by utilizing equation 3.44 as in Table 4.20.
Step 10. Appraisal scores are calculated by utilizing equation 3.38 and obtained as in
Table 4.21.
The appraisal score of alternatives are obtained as A4 > A1 > A3 > A2 for the second
approach. Faculty of D (A4) has the highest internal control risk level, and internal
audit activity should be carried out in this unit.
4.5 Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy ELECTRE Solution (Third Approach)
The numerical solution of the MCDM problem for the third approach is as follows:
45
Table 4.12 : Concordance matrix (First approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 0.59 0.67 0.28
A2 0.25 - 0.36 0.04
A3 0.17 0.51 - 0.28
A4 0.69 0.79 0.69 -
Table 4.13 : Discordance matrix (First approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 0.51 0.60 1.00
A2 0.75 - 0.64 1.00
A3 0.75 0.75 - 1.00
A4 0.61 0.10 0.62 -
Table 4.14 : Global matrix (First approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 0.53 0.53 0.22
A2 0.25 - 0.36 0.04
A3 0.18 0.40 - 0.22
A4 0.53 0.89 0.53 -
Table 4.15 : Appraisal scores of alternatives (First approach).
Alternative Appraisal score Rank

A1 0.426 2
A2 0.217 4
A3 0.267 3
A4 0.649 1
Step 1. The alternatives and the most related criteria are determined as in the first and
second approach.
Step 2. The performances of alternatives are evaluated as in the first and second
approach which is given in Table 4.2.
Step 3. Linguistic evaluations of alternatives are converted to their correspond-

ing interval-valued spherical fuzzy numbers by utilizing Table 3.2, and three
interval-valued spherical fuzzy alternative evaluation matrices are obtained. Then, all
matrices are aggregated by utilizing equation 3.21 and one single collective matrix is
obtained as in Table 4.22.
46
Table 4.16 : Total concordance set (Second approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 1,2,3,5 1,2,3,4 2,5
A2 4 - 3,4 -
A3 2,5 1,2,5 - 2,5
A4 1,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,3,4 -
Table 4.17 : Total discordance set (Second approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 4 5 1,3,4
A2 1,2,3,5 - 1,2,5 1,2,3,4,5
A3 1,3,4 3,4 - 1,3,4
A4 2,5 - 2,5 -
Table 4.18 : Concordance matrix (Second approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 0.80 1.00 0.31
A2 0.20 - 0.42 0.00
A3 0.31 0.58 - 0.31
A4 0.69 1.00 0.69 -
Table 4.19 : Discordance matrix (Second approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 0.51 0.17 1.00
A2 1.00 - 0.90 1.00
A3 1.00 1.00 - 1.00
A4 0.82 0.00 0.29 -
Table 4.20 : Global matrix (Second approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 0.61 0.83 0.24
A2 0.17 - 0.32 0.00
A3 0.24 0.37 - 0.24
A4 0.46 1.00 0.70 -
Table 4.21 : Appraisal scores of alternatives (Second approach).

A1 0.557 2
A2 0.162 4
A3 0.280 3
A4 0.721 1
47
Table 4.22 : Interval-valued spherical fuzzy alternative evaluation matrix.
Alternative C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
A1 ([0.82, 0.92], ([0.40, 0.45], ([0.58, 0.68], ([0.58, 0.68], ([0.47, 0.55],
[0.12, 0.17], [0.49, 0.59], [0.23, 0.28], [0.23, 0.28], [0.37, 0.45],
[0.10, 0.17]) [0.28, 0.37]) [0.23, 0.28]) [0.23, 0.28]) [0.22, 0.28])
A2 ([0.75, 0.85], ([0.18, 0.23], ([0.58, 0.64], ([0.68, 0.78], ([0.41, 0.48],
[0.15, 0.20], [0.69, 0.79], [0.32, 0.40], [0.18, 0.23], [0.44, 0.53],
[0.15, 0.20]) [0.18, 0.23]) [0.26, 0.34]) [0.19, 0.23]) [0.27, 0.34])
A3 ([0.78, 0.88], ([0.40, 0.45], ([0.33, 0.39], ([0.59, 0.67], ([0.56, 0.64],
[0.14, 0.18], [0.49, 0.59], [0.59, 0.70], [0.32, 0.39], [0.32, 0.40],
[0.13, 0.19]) [0.28, 0.37]) [0.25, 0.32]) [0.25, 0.33]) [0.26, 0.34])
A4 ([0.85, 0.95], ([0.28, 0.34], ([0.68, 0.78], ([0.71, 0.81], ([0.55, 0.61],
[0.10, 0.15], [0.57, 0.66], [0.18, 0.23], [0.17, 0.22], [0.39, 0.48],
[0.05, 0.15]) [0.22, 0.27]) [0.19, 0.23]) [0.17, 0.22]) [0.28, 0.37])
48
Step 4. The criterion weights are assigned as in the first and second approach which is
given in Table 4.3.
Step 5. Linguistic evaluations of criteria are converted to their correspond-

ing interval-valued spherical fuzzy numbers by utilizing Table 3.2, and three
interval-valued spherical fuzzy criterion weight matrices are obtained. Then, all
matrices are aggregated by utilizing equation 3.21 and one single collective matrix
is obtained as in Table 4.23.
Step 6. The alternative evaluation and criterion weight matrices are multiplied by
utilizing equation3.18 and interval-valued spherical fuzzy decision matrix is evaluated
as in Table 4.24.
49
Table 4.23 : Interval-valued spherical fuzzy criterion weight matrix.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
IV SF ([0.85, 0.95], ([0.41, 0.48], ([0.68, 0.78], ([0.65, 0.75], ([0.58, 0.68],
weight [0.10, 0.15], [0.44, 0.53], [0.18, 0.23], [0.20, 0.25], [0.23, 0.28],
[0.05, 0.15]) [0.27, 0.34]) [0.19, 0.23]) [0.20, 0.25]) [0.23, 0.28])
Crisp weight 0.793 -0.067 0.482 0.428 0.316
Normalized 0.376 0.000 0.240 0.216 0.167
crisp weight
50
Table 4.24 : Interval-valued spherical fuzzy decision matrix.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
A1 ([0.69, ([0.16, ([0.40, ([0.38, ([0.27,
0.87], 0.21], 0.53], 0.51], 0.38],
[0.16, [0.62, [0.30, [0.30, [0.43,
0.22], 0.73], 0.36], 0.37], 0.52],
[0.11, [0.34, [0.29, [0.30, [0.30,
0.22]) 0.40]) 0.35]) 0.36]) 0.36])
A2 ([0.64, ([0.07, ([0.38, ([0.44, ([0.24,

0.81], 0.11], 0.50], 0.59], 0.32],
[0.18, [0.76, [0.37, [0.27, [0.49,
0.28], 0.85], 0.45], 0.34], 0.59],
[0.16, [0.25, [0.30, [0.26, [0.33,
0.24]) 0.28]) 0.38]) 0.33]) 0.39])
A3 ([0.66, ([0.16, ([0.23, ([0.38, ([0.33,

0.84], 0.21], 0.31], 0.50], 0.44],
[0.17, [0.62, [0.61, [0.37, [0.39,
0.24], 0.73], 0.72], 0.45], 0.48],
[0.13, [0.34, [0.28, [0.30, [0.33,
0.23]) 0.40]) 0.35]) 0.38]) 0.40])
A4 ([0.72, ([0.11, ([0.46, ([0.46, ([0.32,

0.90], 0.16], 0.61], 0.61], 0.42],
[0.14, [0.67, [0.26, [0.26, [0.45,
0.21], 0.77], 0.33], 0.33], 0.54],
[0.07, [0.29, [0.26, [0.25, [0.34,
0.21]) 0.33]) 0.32]) 0.32]) 0.42])
Step 7. Total concordance and total discordance sets are obtained as in Tables 4.25
and 4.26.
Step 8. Concordance and discordance matrices are given in Tables 4.27 and 4.28.
Step 9. Table 4.29 shows the global matrix.
Step 10. The appraisal scores of alternatives are obtained as in Table 4.30.
The appraisal score of alternatives are obtained as A4 > A1 > A3 > A2 for the third
approach also. Faculty of D (A4) is selected as in the first and second approaches.
For this problem Faculty of B (A4) is the worst.
51
4.6 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis is critical in MCDM techniques since the output, i.e. ranking
of alternatives, is frequently reliant on subjective data. These information are either
decision-makers’ assessments of the alternatives or weights assigned to each criteria.
Different scenarios based on criteria can be used to test the solution’s robustness.
In this study, to certify the developed model, two separate sensitivity analyses are
presented with respect to change in criterion and decision-maker weights on the
final rankings. In the first study, a one-at-a-time sensitivity analysis is conducted
based on each criterion. For this purpose, the reference criterion weight values,
namely absolutely more importance (AMI), equally importance (EI), and absolutely
low importance (ALI), were determined to see the effect of the change in the criterion
weights on the final rankings. Then, assigning these reference values to each criterion
one by one, the alternatives are ranked. The rankings of alternatives in this way for the
first, second, and third approaches are given in Figures 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 respectively.
When the results of the first approach are examined, it is seen that the fourth alternative
has the highest score in all scenarios and ranks first. Likewise, the first alternative has
the second rank in all scenarios. The third alternative is in third place in all scenarios
except one scenario. Finally, the second alternative has the lowest appraisal score in
all scenarios except for only one and has the last rank.
The sensitivity analysis results of the second approach are as follows: The fourth
alternative is first in 14 of the 15 scenarios. The first alternative has the second rank
in all criterion weight scenarios. It is seen that the third alternative maintains its third
rank in all scenarios except for only one scenario. Likewise, it is seen that the second
alternative is in the last place with the lowest score value in 14 of the 15 scenarios.
Finally, the third approach yielded the following findings. In each of the 15 cases,
the fourth alternative is ranked first, while the first alternative is placed second. In
nine of the 15 scenarios, the third alternative is ranked third, and in six scenarios, it is
ranked last. Finally, the second alternative is in last place in nine situations, and in six
scenarios, it is replaced by the third alternative, which is in third place.
52
Figure 4.2 : All-in-one sensitivity analysis results (First approach).
Figure 4.3 : All-in-one sensitivity analysis results (Second approach).
Figure 4.4 : All-in-one sensitivity analysis results (Third approach).
53
Based on these findings, the first and second approaches are highly stable against varied
criteria weights, whereas the third approach is typically robust to criterion weight
changes, but is somewhat more unstable than the first and second approaches.
Another sensitivity analysis is conducted for the decision-maker weights. For this
purpose, the weights of the decision-makers are changed significantly and 10 different
scenarios are obtained. The rankings of alternatives obtained by this way are given in
Figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 respectively.
For the first model, the sensitivity analysis findings for the decision-maker weights are
as follows. In 10 different decision-maker weighting scenarios, the fourth alternative
is the best. In all circumstances, the first alternative earns the second highest score. In
eight of the 10 scenarios, the third alternative is third, and in two of them, it is last. In
all but two cases, the second alternative has the lowest ranking.
The second approach’s decision-maker weight sensitivity analysis is as follows: In all

circumstances, the fourth alternative takes first place, whereas the first alternative takes
second place in all cases. In just one situation, the third alternative is the last; in the
other nine, it is the third alternative. Finally, while the second alternative is the last
with the lowest score value in nine out of ten situations, it is only replaced by the third
option in one of them.
When looking at the outcomes of the third proposed model, it is clear that the fourth
alternative comes out on top in all situations, while the first alternative comes in second.
In seven out of the 10 situations, the third alternative is in third place, and in three of
these scenarios, it is the worst. Finally, while the second alternative is the last in seven
situations, it is replaced in three scenarios by the third alternative, which takes third
place.
According to these results, it is possible to say that the proposed models generally
give balanced results under different decision-maker weight distributions. The second
model stood out as the most balanced model, changing only in one scenario. While the
stability of the first model, which differs in two scenarios, is in the second rank, the
sensitivity of the third scenario, which differs in three scenarios, is slightly lower than
the first and second models.
54
Figure 4.5 : Decision-maker weight sensitivity analysis results (First approach).
Figure 4.6 : Decision-maker weight sensitivity analysis results (Second approach).
Figure 4.7 : Decision-maker weight sensitivity analysis results (Third approach).
55
4.7 Comparative Analysis
To demonstrate the applicability and validity of the suggested technique, a comparative

study is carried out. For this purpose, the same problem is solved with eight different
fuzzy MCDM models developed in spherical fuzzy (SF) and intuitionistic fuzzy (IF)
environments. The selected models for comparative analysis are SF TOPSIS [59], SF
CODAS [201], SF EDAS and IF TOPSIS [202], IF EDAS [203] and IF CODAS [203]
and IF CODAS [204].
Comparative analysis results, in other words, appraisal scores obtained from the three
approaches of the proposed methodology and the other six state of the art fuzzy MCDM
models are presented in Table 4.31.
56
Table 4.25 : Total concordance set (Third approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 1,3,5 1,3,4 5
A2 4 - 3,4 -
A3 5 1,5 - 5
A4 1,3,4 1,3,4,5 1,3,4 -
Table 4.26 : Total discordance set (Third approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 4 5 1,3,4
A2 1,2,3,5 - 1,2,5 1,2,3,4,5
A3 1,3,4 3,4 - 1,3,4
A4 2,5 - 2,5 -
Table 4.27 : Concordance matrix (Third approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 0.784 0.833 0.167
A2 0.216 - 0.457 0.000
A3 0.167 0.543 - 0.167
A4 0.833 1.000 0.833 -
Table 4.28 : Discordance matrix (Third approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 0.381 0.210 1.000
A2 1.000 - 0.686 1.000
A3 1.000 1.000 - 1.000
A4 0.879 0.000 0.209 -
Table 4.29 : Global matrix (Third approach).
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 - 0.673 0.799 0.143
A2 0.178 - 0.399 0.000
A3 0.143 0.352 - 0.143
A4 0.486 1.000 0.799 -
Table 4.30 : Appraisal scores of alternatives (Third approach).

A1 0.538 2
A2 0.192 4
A3 0.213 3
A4 0.762 1
57
Table 4.31 : Appraisal scores of the alternatives for different MCDM approches.
First Second Third SF SF SF IF IF IF

approach approach approach TOPSIS EDAS CODAS TOPSIS EDAS CODAS
A1 0.426 0.557 0.538 0.560 0.556 0.018 0.589 0.565 0.016
A2 0.217 0.162 0.192 0.442 0.513 -0.091 0.436 0.324 -0.046
A3 0.267 0.280 0.213 0.428 0.450 -0.049 0.237 0.108 -0.160
A4 0.649 0.721 0.762 0.634 0.771 0.125 0.901 0.997 0.198
Table 4.32 : Statistical comparison of the ranks obtained from comparative analysis.
First Second Third SF SF SF IF IF IF

approach approach approach TOPSIS EDAS CODAS TOPSIS EDAS CODAS
First approach 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80
Second apporach x 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80
Third approach x x 1.00 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80
58
A comparative analysis of the proposed models reveals that the fourth alternative is
ranked first in each model, the first alternative is ranked second, the third alternative
is ranked third, and the second alternative is ranked last in all models. Despite the
changes in score values, the rankings for all three models are the same.
When the internal audit planning problem was solved using the spherical fuzzy
TOPSIS method with the same data set, the following rankings were calculated: The
fourth alternative has the first rank, while the first alternative has the second rank, as
in the proposed models. Although the third and fourth rows have switched positions,
the score values are relatively similar, and it can be said that the proposed models are
compatible with the spherical TOPSIS approach. The same rankings were obtained
with spherical fuzzy EDAS so the proposed models are also compatible with this
technique.
The problem at hand was also solved with the spherical fuzzy CODAS methodology
on the same data set. It was seen that the score values were negative due to the
mathematical approach of this method. The ranking, on the other hand, was identical
to the proposed models, implying that the two techniques are completely compatible.
Unlike previous analyses, an intuitionistic fuzzy model was used for the final
comparison analysis. Following the TOPSIS technique’s steps, linguistic evaluations
from decision-makers were transformed into intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, and
appraisal score values were calculated. In this analysis, the first and second rankings
were identical, while the third and fourth rows were swapped.
Further statistical analysis was also applied to analyze the results obtained from the
comparative analysis. For this purpose, Spearman’s rank correlation technique, which
allows us to ascertain whether there is a significant rank correlation between two sets
of values, was conducted as given in Equation 3.25.
m
6
ρxy = 1 −
m(m2 − 1) ∑ (tix − tiy)2 (4.1)
i=1
where x and y denote the xth and yth MCDM methods, respectively; m is the number
of alternatives, tix and tiy are the rankings obtained from xth and yth MCDM methods.
The coefficient ρ measures the degree of consistency between them.
59
The Spearman’s rank coefficients that will help to interpret comparative analysis
results statistically are given in Table 4.32. The suggested spherical fuzzy ELECTRE
models have rank correlations of between 0.8 and 1 with selected MCDM techniques,
indicating that the proposed models are compatible with other state-of-the-art
approaches.
60
5. DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Discussions
Internal audit today covers a wide range of topics, and when the internal audit
processes are evaluated, it is seen that decision-making problems occur in almost
every area. Many processes, such as internal audit planning based on the priority
of units to be audited, might be regarded as decision-making problems due to their
nature, which may include several conflicting and intangible criteria. And since such
a decision problem has a subjective and imprecise character, decision-makers often
prefer linguistic judgments over precise numerical estimates.
In this thesis, a decision support framework is established to be used at various

stages of internal audit activities by developing novel spherical fuzzy ELECTRE
models. Unlike other fuzzy ELECTRE approaches, e.g., intuitionistic and Pythagorean
fuzzy ELECTRE, which may discard some information when modeling uncertainty
because hesitancy degrees are not modeled separately, the proposed spherical fuzzy
ELECTRE allows modeling membership, non-membership, and hesitancy parameters
independently. On the other hand, an alternative approach is also given by utilizing
an interval type of spherical fuzzy set, which enables modeling more fuzziness in the
problem.
Within the scope of the thesis, three different models are presented by integrating
the ELECTRE method with single and interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets. In the
first approach, a comparison is made between each pair of alternatives during the
determination of outranking relationships based on each individual parameter of
single-valued spherical fuzzy numbers, and for each criterion. In this model, while the
user can directly reflect all the parameters of the spherical fuzzy sets onto the model,
they have absolute control over the model. In this approach, users define the weights
of strong, moderate, and weak concordance and discordance sets, and three gradual
sets must be reflected in the model at various rates, which may alter the model’s final
61
ranks to some degree. On the other hand, it can be said that this traditional gradual
approach can be quite cumbersome since comparisons are made through membership,
non-membership, and hesitancy degree parameters for every alternative pair and for
each criterion.
In traditional ELECTRE methods, implementation of outranking relations is somewhat

difficult due to the large number of parameters that the user must specify, and a
user-defined threshold of concordance and discordance sets may influence the final
rankings of alternatives. For this purpose, in the second approach, instead of comparing
the degrees of membership, non-membership, and hesitancy parameters one by one,
a collective set of concordance and discordance sets is created directly by utilizing
the score and accuracy functions of single-valued spherical fuzzy sets. Since these
functions are widely used in the ranking of fuzzy numbers, it is very appropriate
behavior to use them here as well. With this approach, the volume of mathematical
operations is decreased significantly, and the appraisal scores are reached with a more
practical method. Since the score and accuracy functions defined for spherical fuzzy
sets already use all the information, i.e., membership, non-membership, and hesitancy
degree parameters of the fuzzy numbers, it is very suitable to use these functions for
constructing the outranking relations. Moreover, since there are no gradual outranking
relations such as weak, moderate, or strong concordance sets, the user does not have to
assign any weight to concordance and discordance sets. On the other hand, one can say
that in the pairwise comparison of alternatives that form the backbone of the ELECTRE
model, we let the control and rely entirely on score and accuracy functions. Since there
are various score and accuracy functions of spherical fuzzy sets based on different
approaches, the suggested decision support model may behave differently under the
influence of the selected functions. However, this can also be evaluated as an advantage
since the user can choose any mathematically and scientifically acknowledged function
according to the nature of the problem at hand.
In the third approach, interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets are used for dealing with
the hesitancy in the problem. Interval-valued fuzzy sets enable users to model the
parameters of a fuzzy set in an interval-type manner rather than a single point.
There may be some real-life scenarios when information available is insufficient,
and interval-valued fuzzy sets containing ill-known membership degrees are ideal to
62
cope with such problems [205] i.e. the decision-maker may not be sure about the
membership, non-membership, and hesitancy degrees, and interval type of parameters
can be used instead of a single point in such situations. Moreover, there may also
be problems where additional space is needed for modeling the uncertainty, and
interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets provide a significantly increased area in this
respect.
However, the third approach can be criticized as follows: Although it allows for
additional fuzziness in its nature due to its interval-valued nature, this approach also
uses the same linguistic scale as other approaches. This means that the problem’s data
is stored in a discrete format. Linguistic data is collected from the decision-makers in
a discrete manner, i.e., the decision-makers make the evaluations through a linguistic
scale containing a certain number of linguistic expressions. Then these expressions
are transformed into an interval-valued spherical fuzzy environment in which the
operations are conducted before returning to a crisp atmosphere. It can be stated that
we are unable to completely benefit from the fuzziness modeling capacity advantage
of interval-type of character because of restricted data entry into the problem at the
beginning.
In the preceding paragraphs, each technique is discussed in terms of its mathematical

foundation. In the following, it is aimed to provide a more detailed analysis
of each model using sensitivity and comparative analyses before recommending a
holistic approach to the framework’s implementation. In this study, two types of
sensitivity analyses are provided for criterion and decision-maker weights, and the
following discussions can be made about the models in this context. Although all
three approaches provide successful results in criterion weight sensitivity analysis,
the first and second approaches provide more balanced findings than the third one.
The fact that interval-valued spherical sets are considerably more complicated than
single-valued spherical sets may explain these outcomes. On the other hand, the
decision-maker weight sensitivity analysis reveals that the second technique produces
the most balanced outcomes. In the first technique, the order of the alternatives was
distorted in two situations and in three scenarios in the third approach, while in the
second approach, the ranking of the two alternatives was affected in just one case.
63
Overall, we can infer that the second technique is slightly more favorable based on the
sensitivity analysis results.
In addition, other commonly used fuzzy MCDM methodologies were also compared
to the proposed spherical fuzzy ELECTRE models, and in the light of the comparative
study, the following remarks may be made concerning the models generated: First and
foremost, it should be emphasized that the rankings of alternatives obtained from all
three models are similar. In other words, within the scope of internal audit planning,
all three models listed the units’ internal control maturity levels in the same way.
When compared with other state-of-the-art MCDM models, it is seen that the proposed
framework gives highly correlated results. It can be said that all models within the
framework benefit from the advantages of ELECTRE and single and interval-valued
spherical fuzzy sets while keeping their consistency with other models, which increases
their reliability. The advantages and disadvantages of the proposed spherical fuzzy
ELECTRE models are summarized in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 : Advantages and disadvantages of the proposed models.
64
The main advantage of the first approach is that all fuzzy number parameters are
directly employed to solve the problem. Without any other function intervening
and without any data loss, the information at hand is immediately reflected in the
problem. There’s no need for a score or accuracy function in the first approach.
Another significant advantage is the user’s ability to customize the concordance
and discordance indices. Here, it may be possible to specify different indices for
different types of problems. On the other hand, the following may be considered the
disadvantages of the first approach. The three types of outranking relations, namely
concordance and discordance sets, can cause processing complexity, and each gradual
concordance and discordance weight that the user has to determine can affect the result
of the problem.
The positive and negative aspects of the second model in the framework can be
summarized as follows: First of all, the second model also makes use of spherical fuzzy
sets as in the first model; however, the calculation of appraisal score values, i.e., the
ranking of alternatives, is done in a much shorter way. Instead of gradual outranking
relations, the methodology is finalized through single and holistic outranking relations.
In this context, the fact that the score functions used are quite available in the literature
and have been applied to many problems previously can be considered an advantage,
while dependence on the functions itself can be seen as a disadvantage.
The third model that has been suggested differs somewhat from the first two. This
approach employs interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets, whereas the preceding two
ELECTRE models use single-valued spherical fuzzy sets. Interval types of fuzzy sets
are useful when an accurate assignment of fuzzy parameters is problematic. The main
advantage of the third model is that it can carry more fuzziness. However, this is open
to debate. Because, while interval-valued fuzzy sets can carry more fuzziness, data
entries for MCDM-type problems are provided via a linguistic scale.In other words,
there is a discrete data entry, not a continuous one. For example, when a nine-scale
linguistic term is used, there will be only nine different types of data entries, and there
is only one fuzzy number corresponding to each linguistic expression in the presented
linguistic scale. Therefore, it can be said that we are not fully benefiting from the
fuzziness carrying capacity of an interval-valued spherical fuzzy number.
65
In addition, in the comparison of the alternatives, the score and accuracy functions are
used as in the second method. However, it should be noted that the functions used here
are those developed for interval spherical fuzzy sets, and in the literature, the score
and accuracy functions of interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets are not as common as
those of single-valued spherical fuzzy sets, and thus reliance on them might be seen as
a drawback. On the other hand, in interval-valued spherical sets, there are six variables
for each fuzzy number. These are membership, non-membership, and hesitancy
degrees, with lower and upper values. In such a structure, the computation process
becomes a little more complex. In this case, as in the first model, the comparison
of each parameter would be very laborious, so the gradual type of outranking based
interval-valued spherical fuzzy ELECTRE model was not considered in this study.
Although the single type of outranking relations reduced the computational volume in
the second model, in the third approach, the model became a bit cumbersome due to the
six-variable fuzzy numbers and the resulting more complex arithmetic and aggregation
operations of interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets.
In the light of all these comments, it is thought that it would be useful to give a holistic
roadmap for the use of the proposed framework. The roadmap created in this context
is presented in Figure 5.2.
In summary, if the user is certain of the values of the fuzzy numbers’ parameters,
he or she should use the first or second approach; if the user is doubtful, he or she
should use the third approach. The first model, on the other hand, should be used if
the user wishes to compare the alternatives using the membership, non-membership,
and hesitancy parameters and acquire model flexibility. On the other hand, if the user
has access to reliable score and accuracy functions and wishes to come to a conclusion
on a single type of outranking relation without assigning weights to these relations,
the second technique is advised. As a consequence, each model has its own set of
benefits and drawbacks. Nevertheless, in general, all models in the framework have
shown positive findings in both sensitivity and comparative analyses, and benefit from
the advantages of spherical fuzzy sets to a certain extent. Thus, the suggested single
and interval-valued spherical fuzzy ELECTRE framework can be utilized by internal
audit units as an auxiliary decision-making tool.
66
Figure 5.2 : A roadmap for the use of the proposed framework.
67
5.2 Theoretical Implications
The theoretical implications of this thesis can be summarized as follows:
• Although the classical ELECTRE technique is a powerful MCDM tool, the

vagueness of an MCDM problem cannot be expressed with this model alone. In this
study, a new framework is proposed by extending the classical ELECTRE technique
with single and interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets for handling this vagueness.
• Spherical fuzzy sets are known to provide more space to decision-makers for
expressing their evaluations than most other fuzzy extensions; and membership,
non-membership, and hesitancy degrees can be modeled independently in spherical
fuzzy sets.
• The proposed interval-valued character enables spherical fuzzy sets to model the
above-mentioned degrees in an increased area.
• Three different spherical fuzzy ELECTRE are presented based on a gradual and
single type of outranking relations. The parameters of spherical fuzzy sets are
used for the first approach, and the score and accuracy functions of single and
interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets are used for the second and third approaches.
• Sensitivity analyses for both criterion and decision-maker weights are presented to
show the robustness of the model.
• A comprehensive comparative analysis is conducted to compare the proposed

model with other state-of-the-art fuzzy MCDM models.
5.3 Practical Implications
This thesis provides a novel spherical fuzzy ELECTRE decision support model and
an illustration through the prioritization of the most risky academic units in terms of
their internal control levels. Internal auditors, internal audit managers, risk managers,
internal control managers, and other beneficiaries can use the proposed decision
support model. The practical benefits of the proposed model can be summarized as
follows:
68
• The suggested model can provide support to internal auditors while making internal
audit planning and making strategic decisions.
• This study enables the internal audit planning activity to be carried out in
a scientific, systematic, and quantified manner by taking into account the
internationally accepted COSO internal control framework.
• The proposed model allows the internal audit planning process to be handled
in a pluralistic manner by including the evaluations of experts with different
perspectives and thus increases the accountability of internal audit activity.
• The model proposed in this study has a flexible character and can be used in other
decision-making problems.
69
70
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 Summary
The planning phase of internal audit activity is a complicated process in which

the riskiest units are determined, i.e., the units for which internal auditing will be
performed are prioritized, and effective audit planning is very critical for providing
assurance to the organization’s most vulnerable units. Internal audit plans that are
rational and scientifically designed also aid in the completion of internal audit work at
the lowest feasible cost while maintaining the maximum level of quality and efficiency.
However, obtaining the most critical units is a tough task since it incorporates a number
of conflicting and intangible elements, and due to the ambiguity and imprecision of the
selection problem, decision-makers frequently prefer linguistic judgments over exact
numerical analyses.
In decision-making studies, fuzzy logic and its derivatives are effective tools for
dealing with ambiguous data, and the theory of spherical fuzzy sets provides a powerful
tool for modeling the uncertainties in MCDM problems by providing independent and
wide spaces of membership, non-membership, and hesitancy degrees. One of the
recent extensions of spherical fuzzy sets, interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets, on the
other hand, provides a greater fuzziness modeling capacity than single-valued spherical
fuzzy sets.
This thesis focuses on developing a novel decision support framework developed

by extending the ELECTRE method with newly developed spherical fuzzy sets.
The proposed model is provided in three approaches by using the methodology of
traditional ELECTRE and by utilizing the parameters, basic mathematical operations,
and score and accuracy functions of single and interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets.
The framework is applied to support internal audit planning and select the most critical
unit for the audit activity based on an internationally recognized internal control
framework. Academic units are listed according to their risk levels for the internal audit
71
activity planned at a university. Three independent internal auditor decision-makers
evaluated the internal control maturity levels of five academic units within this scope.
Five components of the COSO internal control framework were employed as a set
of criteria in the evaluation. Two types of sensitivity analyses based on criterion
and decision-maker weight distributions are performed to check the robustness of the
method. The findings show that spherical fuzzy ELECTRE gives stable results under
different criteria and decision-maker weight distribution scenarios. On the other hand,
the analysis of comparative analysis reveals that the appraisal scores obtained by the
suggested models are highly consistent with other decision-making methods.
The first chapter introduces the topic and includes the definition and theoretical
foundation of internal audit, the concepts of decision making and fuzzy logic, and
the purpose and motivation of the thesis.
The second chapter of the thesis contains the literature review. The application of
decision-making models to internal audit problems is summarized. The limitations
and shortcomings of these studies are highlighted. Following that, previous work on
single and interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets is given. This section also includes
a summary of notable works on other forms of spherical fuzzy sets. Finally, prior
ELECTRE approaches are examined, with a focus on the research’s methodological
frameworks. These ELECTRE applications’ drawbacks and benefits are highlighted.
The third chapter provides the methodology as follows: First, the classical structure
of ELECTRE, which serves as the backbone of the proposed model, is presented,
then mathematical preliminaries for spherical fuzzy sets are given. In this context,
definitions of single and interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets are presented, as well as
fundamental arithmetic operations and other essential operations such as aggregation
and defuzzification operators. Finally, the suggested methodology is provided by
giving the frameworks and explaining the step-by-step details for each of the three
approaches.
The methodology is applied in the fourth chapter, using an internal audit planning
problem as a given scenario. The internal control maturity levels of the organizational
units that will be audited are prioritized for this purpose using the COSO internal
control framework. The selected problem is addressed using three alternative methods,
72
and each numerical implementation is then examined using sensitivity and comparison
analysis. Sensitivity analyses results show the robustness of the framework under
different criteria and decision-maker weight distribution scenarios. The findings of
the comparative analysis of the proposed models revealed that the suggested spherical
fuzzy ELECTRE models for the internal audit planning problem have a high level of
correlation. In other words, the unit designated as critical in terms of internal control
maturity level by one method is the same as other ways, and vice versa.
The fifth chapter presents the discussions about the study. For this purpose, first, the
advantages and disadvantages of the proposed approaches are discussed. Following
that, the models are discussed in light of the findings of the sensitivity and comparison
analyses, and all models are reviewed holistically, and a suggestion is given for the
implementation of the methodology within the scope of the internal audit decision
support system. This section also summarizes the theoretical and practical implications
of the study.
The highlights of the thesis can be summarized as follows:
• ELECTRE method is extended with single-valued spherical fuzzy sets for the first
time.
• ELECTRE method is extended with interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets for the first
time.
• This is the first study to develop a fuzzy MCDM methodology for prioritizing units
for internal audit activity and utilize the COSO internal control framework for this
purpose.
• The ELECTRE method is presented in three different ways, in this context, besides
traditional ELECTRE methodology, alternative approaches are also presented by
utilizing the score and accuracy functions of single and interval-valued spherical
fuzzy sets.
• Sensitivity analyses for criterion and decision-maker weights are performed for the
purpose of analyzing the stability of proposed methods.
73
• A comparative study is presented, and the effectiveness of the proposed model is
compared with other state-of-the-art fuzzy MCDM methods. While commenting
on the results, Spearman’s rank coefficients are also given.
6.2 Future Research Recommendations
In the future, other scholars can give attention to the following aspects:
• There is abundant room for further progress in determining operators for spherical
fuzzy sets. Division and subtraction operators can be discussed for a better
understanding of the mechanisms underlying spherical fuzzy sets.
• The score and accuracy functions for spherical fuzzy sets with interval values are
limited. Other researchers can use alternative ways to develop score and accuracy
functions in this setting.
• Proposed spherical fuzzy MCDM models may not have received enough advantage
from the data collected in the fuzzy form at the initial steps. All phases of the
model should take place in a fuzzy environment if possible. Future research may
be conducted without the need to shift from a fuzzy to a crisp atmosphere.
• Other types of distance measures rather than normalized Euclidean distance can be
used for constructing discordance indices.
• Different types of spherical fuzzy sets, such as cubic spherical sets or T spherical
sets, can also be used with the ELECTRE method.
• Commonly used MCDM approaches that use normalization may suffer from the
rank-reversal issue, and this may reduce the reliability of the applied method since
it may cause the model to give incorrect results [206]. Other scholars can develop
reliable analytical methods to analyze the stability of the fuzzy ELECTRE against
rank-reversal phenomena.
• Essentially, the COSO internal control framework consists of 17 criteria, which are
grouped under five main criteria. In this study, only the main criteria are considered.
In future studies, a deeper analysis can be conducted by evaluating the sub-criteria
74
and an AHP ELECTRE model can be developed to handle such a task. Such a
model can also be applied to other real-life problems.
• Other variants of the ELECTRE model can be studied in the same way. As a result,
different ELECTRE techniques can be compared.
• The reader should bear in mind that the study is purely dependent on subjective
decision-maker evaluations and the available data in the institution is not directly
reflected in the model, and this issue can be considered a limitation. Some scholars
may develop an MCDM model that makes use of real data by using machine
learning techniques such as logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, and
decision trees.
• A sentiment analysis-based criterion selection can also be a quite interesting area to

be explored. Criterion set selection may be done using sentiment analysis, i.e., an
opinion mining approach, and therefore a more complete decision support model
can be generated.
75
76
REFERENCES
[1] Provasi, R. and Riva, P. (2015). The Updated COSO Report 2013, Journal of
Modern Accounting and Auditing, 11(10), 487–498.
[2] Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Information and control, Fuzzy Sets, 8(3), 338–353.
[3] Chun, C. (1997). On the functions and objectives of internal audit and their
underlying conditions, Managerial Auditing Journal.
[4] Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial
behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of Financial
Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
[5] Moe, T.M. (1984). The new economics of organization, American Journal of
Political Science, 739–777.
[6] Wiseman, R.M., Cuevas-Rodríguez, G. and Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (2012).

Towards a social theory of agency, Journal of Management Studies,
49(1), 202–222.
[7] Schillemans, T. and Busuioc, M. (2015). Predicting public sector accountability:

From agency drift to forum drift, Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 25(1), 191–215.
[8] Maijoor, S. (2000). The internal control explosion, International Journal of

Auditing, 4(1), 101–109.
[9] Chowdhury, D. (2012). Incentives, Control and Development: Governance in

Private and Public Sector with Special Reference to Bangladesh, Dhaka
Viswavidyalay Prakashana Samstha University of Dhaka.
[10] Panda, B. and Leepsa, N. (2017). Agency theory: Review of theory and
evidence on problems and perspectives, Indian Journal of Corporate
Governance, 10(1), 74–95.
[11] Urbanek, P. (2020). Reform of the higher education system in Poland from the
perspective of agency theory, European Journal of Higher Education,
10(2), 130–146.
[12] Colbert, J.L. and Jahera Jr, J.S. (1988). The role of the audit and agency theory,
Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 4(2), 7–12.
[13] Adams, M.B. (1994). Agency theory and the internal audit, Managerial Auditing
Journal.
77
[14] Sarens, G. and Abdolmohammadi, M.J. (2011). Monitoring effects of the
internal audit function: agency theory versus other explanatory variables,
International Journal of Auditing, 15(1), 1–20.
[15] Niskanen, M., Karjalainen, J. and Niskanen, J. (2010). The role of auditing
in small, private family firms: is it about quality and credibility?, Family
Business Review, 23(3), 230–245.
[16] Ettredge, M., Reed, M. and Stone, M. (2000). An examination of substitution

among monitoring devices: the case of internal and external audit
expenditures, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 15(1),
57–79.
[17] Varici, I. (2013). The relationship between information asymmetry and the
quality of audit: An empirical study in Istanbul Stock Exchange,
International Business Research, 6(10), 132.
[18] Astami, E.W., Rusmin, R., Hartadi, B. and Evans, J. (2017). The role of audit
quality and culture influence on earnings management in companies
with excessive free cash flow: Evidence from the Asia-Pacific region,
International Journal of Accounting & Information Management.
[19] Oussii, A.A. and Taktak, N.B. (2018). The impact of internal audit function
characteristics on internal control quality, Managerial Auditing Journal.
[20] Héroux, S. and Fortin, A. (2013). The internal audit function in information
technology governance: A holistic perspective, Journal of Information
Systems, 27(1), 189–217.
[21] Al-Zwyalif, I.M. (2013). IT governance and its impact on the usefulness of
accounting information reported in financial statements, International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(2).
[22] Andry, J.F. (2016). Performance Measurement IT of Process Capability Model

Based on COBIT: A Study Case, Data Manajemen dan Teknologi
Informasi (DASI), 17(3), 21–26.
[23] Mukhtar, R. and Ali, N.A. (2011). Quality governance of human aspects of
quality initiatives in the public service sector., Current Issues of Business
& Law, 6(1).
[24] Clemen, R.T. (1996). Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision

Analysis, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
[25] Durbach, I.N. and Stewart, T.J. (2009). Using expected values to simplify
decision making under uncertainty, Omega, 37(2), 312–330.
[26] Wang, X. and Triantaphyllou, E. (2008). Ranking irregularities when

evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods, Omega,
36(1), 45–63.
[27] Roy, B., (2005). Paradigms and challenges, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis:
State of the Art Surveys, Springer, pp.3–24.
78
[28] Tavares, L.V. (2012). An acyclic outranking model to support group decision
making within organizations, Omega, 40(6), 782–790.
[29] Ozsahin, D.U., Hamidat, L., Alimi, F.D., Uzun, B. and Ozsahin, I., (2021).
Evaluation of migraine drugs using MCDM methods, Applications of
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Theories in Healthcare and Biomedical
Engineering, Elsevier, pp.261–275.
[30] Afkham, L., Abdi, F. and Komijan, A. (2012). Evaluation of service quality
by using fuzzy MCDM: A case study in Iranian health-care centers,
Management Science Letters, 2(1), 291–300.
[31] Alizadeh, R., Soltanisehat, L., Lund, P.D. and Zamanisabzi, H. (2020).
Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making
through a hybrid MCDM method, Energy Policy, 137, 111174.
[32] Çolak, M. and Kaya, İ. (2017). Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives
by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for
Turkey, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 840–853.
[33] Abdel-Basset, M., Ding, W., Mohamed, R. and Metawa, N. (2020). An

integrated plithogenic MCDM approach for financial performance
evaluation of manufacturing industries, Risk Management, 22(3),
192–218.
[34] Sánchez-Lozano, J. and Rodríguez, O.N. (2020). Application of Fuzzy

Reference Ideal Method (FRIM) to the military advanced training
aircraft selection, Applied Soft Computing, 88, 106061.
[35] Çarman, F. and Tuncer Şakar, C. (2019). An MCDM-integrated maximum

coverage approach for positioning of military surveillance systems,
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 70(1), 162–176.
[36] Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K., (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision
making, Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Springer, pp.58–191.
[37] Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A. and Sarka, V. (1994). The new method of
multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects, Technological
and Economic Development of Economy, 1(3), 131–139.
[38] Brans, J.P., Vincke, P. and Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank
projects: The PROMETHEE method, European Journal of Operational
Research, 24(2), 228–238.
[39] Benayoun, R., Roy, B. and Sussman, B. (1966). Une méthode pour
guider le choix enprésence de points devue multiples, Notedetravail49.
Sema-Metra Direction-Scientifique.
[40] Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM

methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, European
Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455.
79
[41] Krylovas, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Kosareva, N. and Dadelo, S. (2014). New
KEMIRA method for determining criteria priority and weights in solving
MCDM problem, International Journal of Information Technology &
Decision Making, 13(06), 1119–1133.
[42] Tervonen, T., Linkov, I., Figueira, J.R., Steevens, J., Chappell, M. and
Merad, M. (2009). Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials,
Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(4), 757–766.
[43] Roussat, N., Dujet, C. and Méhu, J. (2009). Choosing a sustainable demolition
waste management strategy using multicriteria decision analysis, Waste
Management, 29(1), 12–20.
[44] Gomes, L.F.A.M. and Rangel, L.A.D. (2009). Using ELECTRE IV in the
promotion of social and economic development: A case study in Rio
de Janeiro, Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 34(3),
155–172.
[45] Shanian, A. and Savadogo, O. (2006). A non-compensatory compromised

solution for material selection of bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte
membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) using ELECTRE IV, Electrochimica Acta,
51(25), 5307–5315.
[46] Merad, M., Verdel, T., Roy, B. and Kouniali, S. (2004). Use of
multi-criteria decision-aids for risk zoning and management of large
area subjected to mining-induced hazards, Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 19(2), 125–138.
[47] Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., Mirasgedis, S., Zaimi, S. and Lalas, D.
(2003). A multiple criteria decision-aid approach in defining national
priorities for greenhouse gases emissions reduction in the energy sector,
European Journal of Operational Research, 146(1), 199–215.
[48] Joerin, F., Thériault, M. and Musy, A. (2001). Using GIS and outranking
multicriteria analysis for land-use suitability assessment, International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(2), 153–174.
[49] Arondel, C. and Girardin, P. (2000). Sorting cropping systems on the basis of
their impact on groundwater quality, European Journal of Operational
Research, 127(3), 467–482.
[50] Kaya, T. and Kahraman, C. (2011). An integrated fuzzy AHP–ELECTRE

methodology for environmental impact assessment, Expert Systems with
Applications, 38(7), 8553–8562.
[51] Hatami-Marbini, A. and Tavana, M. (2011). An extension of the Electre I

method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment, Omega,
39(4), 373–386.
[52] Choi, T., Han, J. and Koo, J. (2015). Decision method for rehabilitation priority
of water distribution system using ELECTRE method, Desalination and
Water Treatment, 53(9), 2369–2377.
80
[53] Atanassov, K., (1986), Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. fuzzy sets and systems 20 (1),
87-96.
[54] Atanassov, K. Geometrical interpretation of the elements of the intuitionistic

fuzzy objects, IM-MFAIS, (Preprint).
[55] Smarandache, F., (1999). A unifying field in Logics: Neutrosophic Logic.,

Philosophy, American Research Press, pp.1–141.
[56] Torra, V. (2010). Hesitant fuzzy sets, International Journal of Intelligent

Systems, 25(6), 529–539.
[57] Cuong, B.C. and Kreinovich, V. (2013). Picture Fuzzy Sets-a new concept
for computational intelligence problems, Third World Congress on
Information and Communication Technologies, IEEE, pp.1–6.
[58] Yager, R.R. (2016). Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets, IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems, 25(5), 1222–1230.
[59] Kutlu Gündoğdu, F. and Kahraman, C. (2019). Spherical fuzzy sets and
spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems,
36(1), 337–352.
[60] Mahmood, T., Ullah, K., Khan, Q. and Jan, N. (2019). An approach toward
decision-making and medical diagnosis problems using the concept
of spherical fuzzy sets, Neural Computing and Applications, 31(11),
7041–7053.
[61] Ashraf, S., Abdullah, S. and Abdullah, L. (2019). Child development

influence environmental factors determined using spherical fuzzy
distance measures, Mathematics, 7(8), 661.
[62] Yuan, G., Xie, F., Dinçer, H. and Yüksel, S. (2021). The theory of
inventive problem solving (TRIZ)-based strategic mapping of green
nuclear energy investments with spherical fuzzy group decision-making
approach, International Journal of Energy Research.
[63] Khan, Q., Gwak, J., Shahzad, M. and Alam, M.K. (2021). A novel
approached based on T-spherical fuzzy schweizer-sklar power heronian
mean operator for evaluating water reuse applications under uncertainty,
Sustainability, 13(13), 7108.
[64] Nasir, A., Jan, N., Yang, M.S. and Khan, S.U. (2021). Complex T-Spherical
Fuzzy Relations With Their Applications in Economic Relationships and
International Trades, IEEE Access, 9, 66115–66131.
[65] Marzouk, M.M. (2011). ELECTRE III model for value engineering applications,
Automation in Construction, 20(5), 596–600.
[66] Dortaj, A., Maghsoudy, S., Ardejani, F.D. and Eskandari, Z. (2020). Locating
suitable sites for construction of subsurface dams in semiarid region
of Iran: using modified ELECTRE III, Sustainable Water Resources
Management, 6(1), 1–13.
81
[67] Li, H. and Sun, J. (2009). Hybridizing principles of the Electre method
with case-based reasoning for data mining: Electre-CBR-I and
Electre-CBR-II, European Journal of Operational Research, 197(1),
214–224.
[68] Rouyendegh, B.D. and Erkan, T.E. (2013). An application of the fuzzy electre
method for academic staff selection, Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing & Service Industries, 23(2), 107–115.
[69] Peng, H.G., Shen, K.W., He, S.W., Zhang, H.Y. and Wang, J.Q. (2019).
Investment risk evaluation for new energy resources: An integrated
decision support model based on regret theory and ELECTRE III, Energy
Conversion and Management, 183, 332–348.
[70] Uddin, S., Ali, S., Kabir, G., Suhi, S., Enayet, R. and Haque, T. (2019). An
AHP-ELECTRE framework to evaluate barriers to green supply chain
management in the leather industry, International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology, 26(8), 732–751.
[71] Jasemi, M. and Ahmadi, E. (2018). A new fuzzy ELECTRE based multiple
criteria method for personnel selection, Scientia Iranica, 25(2), 943–953.
[72] Şenel, B., Şenel, M. and Aydemir, G. (2018). Use And Comparison of Topis
And Electre Methods In Personnel Selection, ITM Web of Conferences,
volume 22, EDP Sciences, p.01021.
[73] Akram, M., Khan, A. and Karaaslan, F. (2021). Complex Spherical

Dombi Fuzzy Aggregation Operators for Decision-Making., Journal of
Multiple-Valued Logic & Soft Computing, 37.
[74] Ali, Z., Mahmood, T. and Yang, M.S. (2020). TOPSIS method based
on complex spherical fuzzy sets with Bonferroni mean operators,
Mathematics, 8(10), 1739.
[75] Ramezanian, R. (2019). Estimation of the profiles in posteriori ELECTRE

TRI: a mathematical programming model, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 128, 47–59.
[76] Wu, M.Q., Chen, T.Y. and Fan, J.P. (2019). Divergence measure of T-spherical
fuzzy sets and its applications in pattern recognition, IEEE Access, 8,
10208–10221.
[77] Liu, P., Zhu, B. and Wang, P. (2019). A multi-attribute decision-making

approach based on spherical fuzzy sets for Yunnan Baiyao’s R&D
project selection problem, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 21(7),
2168–2191.
[78] Buran, B. and Erçek, M. (2021). Convergence or Divergence among Business

Models of Public Bus Transport Authorities across the Globe: A Fuzzy
Approach, Sustainability, 13(19), 10861.
82
[79] Zhang, H., Wei, G. and Chen, X. (2021). CPT-MABAC method for spherical
fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making and its application
to green supplier selection, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems,
(Preprint), 1–11.
[80] Oztaysi, B., Kahraman, C. and Onar, S.C. (2021). Spherical fuzzy REGIME
method waste disposal location selection, International Conference on
Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, Springer, pp.715–723.
[81] Fernández-Martínez, M. and Sánchez-Lozano, J. (2021). Assessment of

Near-Earth Asteroid Deflection Techniques via Spherical Fuzzy Sets,
Advances in Astronomy, 2021.
[82] Menekşe, A. and Camgöz Akdağ, H. (2021). Information Technology

Governance Evaluation Using Spherical Fuzzy AHP ELECTRE,
International Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, Springer,
pp.757–765.
[83] Gündoğdu, F.K. and Kahraman, C., (2021). Optimal site selection of electric
vehicle charging station by using spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method,
Decision Making with Spherical Fuzzy Sets, Springer, pp.201–216.
[84] Determining the Optimal Offshore Wind Power Station Using a Two-Stage
MCDM-Based Spherical Fuzzy Set Approach, number=Preprint
author=Wang, Chia-Nan and Nguyen, Ngoc-Ai-Thy and Dang,
Thanh-Tuan, year=2021.
[85] Riaz, M., Saba, M., Khokhar, M.A. and Aslam, M. (2021). Medical diagnosis
of nephrotic syndrome using m-polar spherical fuzzy sets, International
Journal of Biomathematics, 2150094.
[86] Zeng, S., Garg, H., Munir, M., Mahmood, T. and Hussain, A. (2019). A
multi-attribute decision making process with immediate probabilistic
interactive averaging aggregation operators of T-spherical fuzzy sets and
its application in the selection of solar cells, Energies, 12(23), 4436.
[87] Gündoğdu, F.K. and Kahraman, C. (2019). A novel fuzzy TOPSIS method
using emerging interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets, Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 85, 307–323.
[88] Zhou, X., Chen, C., Tian, H., Wang, L., Yang, Z. and Yang, H.
(2021). Time-varying FMEA method based on interval-valued spherical
fuzzy theory, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 37(8),
3713–3729.
[89] Erdoğan, M. (2021). Assessing farmers’ perception to Agriculture 4.0

technologies: A new interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets based approach,
International Journal of Intelligent Systems.
[90] Serap, T. The Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy Based Methodology and its
Application to Electric Car Selection, Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve
Teknoloji Dergisi, 9(5), 1970–1983.
83
[91] Gul, M. and Ak, M.F. (2021). A modified failure modes and effects analysis
using interval-valued spherical fuzzy extension of TOPSIS method:
case study in a marble manufacturing facility, Soft Computing, 25(8),
6157–6178.
[92] Gündoğdu, F.K. and Kahraman, C., (2021). Hospital performance assessment
using interval-valued spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,
Decision Making with Spherical Fuzzy Sets, Springer, pp.349–373.
[93] Duleba, S., Kutlu Gündoğdu, F. and Moslem, S. (2021). Interval-Valued

Spherical Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Method to Evaluate Public
Transportation Development, Informatica, 1–26.
[94] Aydın, S. and Gündoğdu, F.K., (2021). Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy

MULTIMOORA Method and Its Application to Industry 4.0, Decision
Making with Spherical Fuzzy Sets, Springer, pp.295–322.
[95] Hamal, S. and Senvar, O. A novel integrated AHP and MULTIMOORA method
with interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets and single-valued spherical
fuzzy sets to prioritize financial ratios for financial accounting fraud
detection, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, (Preprint), 1–28.
[96] Figueira, J.R., Mousseau, V. and Roy, B. (2016). ELECTRE methods, Multiple
Criteria Decision Analysis, 155–185.
[97] Buchanan, J., Sheppard, P. and Vanderpoorten, D. (1998). Ranking projects

using the ELECTRE method, Operational Research Society of New
Zealand, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference, volume 30,
pp.42–51.
[98] Petrović, M., Bojković, N., Stamenković, M. and Anić, I. (2018). Supporting
performance appraisal in ELECTRE based stepwise benchmarking
model, Omega, 78, 237–251.
[99] Buchanan, J.T., Sheppard, P.J. and Vanderpooten, D. (1999). Project Ranking
using ELECTRE III, Citeseer.
[100] Gershon, M. and Duckstein, L. (1983). Multiobjective approaches to river

basin planning, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
109(1), 13–28.
[101] Zhong, F. and Deng, Y. (2020). Audit Risk Evaluation Method Based on
TOPSIS and Choquet Fuzzy Integral, American Journal of Industrial
and Business Management, 10(4), 815–823.
[102] Sueyoshi, T., Shang, J. and Chiang, W.C. (2009). A decision support
framework for internal audit prioritization in a rental car company: A
combined use between DEA and AHP, European Journal of Operational
Research, 199(1), 219–231.
[103] Petridis, K., Drogalas, G. and Zografidou, E. (2021). Internal auditor

selection using a TOPSIS/non-linear programming model, Annals of
Operations Research, 296(1), 513–539.
84
[104] Prasad, R. (2019). Selection of internal safety auditors in an Indian construction
organization based on the SWARA and ARAS methods, Journal of
Occupational Health and Epidemiology, 8(3), 134–140.
[105] Öztürk, M.S. and Erdoğan, M. (2017). Audit company selection by using the
AHP and TOPSIS methods, International Research Journal of Applied
Finance, 8(10), 620–633.
[106] Kuvat, Ö. and Kılıç, B.İ., (2020). The Evaluation of the Criteria for the
Selection and Change of the Independent Audit Firm Using the AHP
Method, Contemporary Issues in Audit Management and Forensic
Accounting, Emerald Publishing Limited.
[107] Chen, H.C. and Yang, C.H. (2019). Applying a multiple criteria
decision-making approach to establishing green marketing audit criteria,
Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 256–265.
[108] Karakaya, G., (2021). Investigation of the Duty of Public Internal Auditors
with AHP Method in Turkey, Auditing Ecosystem and Strategic
Accounting in the Digital Era, Springer, pp.87–103.
[109] Chen, F.H. (2015). Application of a hybrid dynamic MCDM to explore the key
factors for the internal control of procurement circulation, International
Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 2951–2969.
[110] Goman, M. and Koch, S. (2019). Multiplicative Criteria Aggregation

Technique for Risk-Based Audit Planning, 14th Iberian Conference on
Information Systems and Technologies, IEEE, pp.1–6.
[111] Bouayad, H., Benabbou, L. and Berrado, A. (2018). An Analytic Hierarchy

Process based approach for Information technology governance frame-
work selection, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications, pp.1–6.
[112] Ahriz, S., Yamami, A., Mansouri, K. and Qbadou, M. (2018). COBIT
5-based approach for IT project portfolio management: Application to
a Moroccan university, International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science and Applications (IJACSA), 9(4), 88–95.
[113] Apriliana, A.F., Sarno, R. and Effendi, Y.A. (2018). Risk analysis of
IT applications using FMEA and AHP SAW method with COBIT
5, International Conference on Information and Communications
Technology, IEEE, pp.373–378.
[114] Liu, J.Y. (2018). An internal control system that includes corporate social
responsibility for social sustainability in the new era, Sustainability,
10(10), 3382.
[115] Sardasht, M.S. and Rashedi, E. (2018). Identifying Influencing Factors of

Audit Risk Model: A Combined Fuzzy ANP-DEMATEL Approach, The
International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 18(24), 69–117.
85
[116] Wang, X., Zhao, T. and Chang, C.T. (2021). An integrated FAHP-MCGP
approach to project selection and resource allocation in risk-based
internal audit planning: A case study, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 152, 107012.
[117] Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S. and Kartal, M.T. (2016). Evaluating the corporate
governance based performance of participation banks in Turkey with
the house of quality using an integrated hesitant fuzzy mcdm, BDDK
Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi, 10(1), 9–33.
[118] Hu, K.H., Jianguo, W. and Tzeng, G.H. (2017). Risk factor assessment
improvement for China’s cloud computing auditing using a new hybrid
MADM model, International Journal of Information Technology &
Decision Making, 16(03), 737–777.
[119] Zhao, B. and Li, N. (2013). Internal Audit Outsourcing Content

Decision-making Based on AHP, Journal of Audit & Economics, 1(006).
[120] Shiue, W., Liu, J.Y. and Li, Z.Y. (2021). Strategic multiple criteria group
decision-making model for continuous auditing system, Journal of
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 28(5-6), 269–282.
[121] Tian, C., Li, H., Tian, S. and Tian, F. (2020). Risk Assessment of Safety
Management Audit Based on Fuzzy TOPSIS Method, Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, 2020.
[122] Chuanmo, H. and Shiguo, W. (2009). Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation on

Enterprise Internal Control Based on AHP, Accounting Research, 4,
55–61.
[123] Melo Filho, G.P., Martins, V.W.B., Rampasso, I.S., Quelhas, O.L.G., Pinto,
J.S., Silva, D., Osiro, L. and Anholon, R. (2021). Critical analysis of
internal audit processes carried out by Brazilian companies, The TQM
Journal.
[124] Gholamhossein, M. and Navid Reza, N. (2012). Ranking The Factors

Affecting Auditing Risk Using Topsis Technique, Journal of Audit
Science, 28–50.
[125] Gaosong, Q. and Leping, Y. (2021). Measurement of internal audit

effectiveness: Construction of index system and empirical analysis,
Microprocessors and Microsystems, 104046.
[126] Priyantina, R.A. and Sarno, R. (2018). Measuring maturity index of risk
management for IT-governance using fuzzy ahp and fuzzy topsis,
International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and
Communication, IEEE, pp.17–22.
[127] Mutiara, A., Prasetyo, E. and Widya, C. (2017). Analyzing COBIT 5

IT Audit Framework Implementation using AHP Methodology, JOIV:
International Journal on Informatics Visualization, 1(2), 33–39.
86
[128] Othman, M.F.I., Pee, N.C., Rahim, Y.A., Sulaiman, H.A., Othman, M.A.
and Aziz, M.Z.A.A. (2018). Using analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
to evaluate barriers in adopting formal IT governance practices, Journal
of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC),
10(1-6), 35–40.
[129] Yudatama, U. and Sarno, R. (2015). Evaluation maturity index and

risk management for it governance using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy
TOPSIS (case Study Bank XYZ), International Seminar on Intelligent
Technology and Its Applications, IEEE, pp.323–328.
[130] Gündoğdu, F.K. and Kahraman, C. (2020). A novel spherical fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process and its renewable energy application, Soft Computing,
24(6), 4607–4621.
[131] Oztaysi, B., Onar, S.C. and Kahraman, C. (2020). A dynamic pricing
model for location based systems by using spherical fuzzy AHP scoring,
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, (Preprint), 1–10.
[132] Dogan, O. (2021). Process mining technology selection with spherical fuzzy
AHP and sensitivity analysis, Expert Systems with Applications, 178,
114999.
[133] Buyuk, A.M. and Temur, G.T. (2020). A Framework for Selection of the Best
Food Waste Management Alternative by a Spherical Fuzzy AHP Based
Approach, International Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems,
Springer, pp.151–159.
[134] Buyuk, A.M. and Temur, G.T. Food waste treatment option selection through
spherical fuzzy AHP, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, (Preprint),
1–11.
[135] Singer, H. and Özşahin, Ş. (2021). Prioritization of laminate flooring selection
criteria from experts’ perspectives: a spherical fuzzy AHP-based model,
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 1–16.
[136] Unal, Y. and Temur, G.T. Sustainable supplier selection by using spherical
fuzzy AHP, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, (Preprint), 1–11.
[137] Kutlu Gündoğdu, F. (2020). A spherical fuzzy extension of MULTIMOORA

method, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38(1), 963–978.
[138] Sharaf, I.M., (2021). Evaluating Geothermal Energy Systems Using Spherical
Fuzzy PROMETHEE, Decision Making with Spherical Fuzzy Sets,
Springer, pp.375–397.
[139] Sharaf, I.M. and Khalil, E.A.H.A. (2021). A spherical fuzzy TODIM approach
for green occupational health and safety equipment supplier selection,
International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Manage-
ment, 16(1), 1–13.
87
[140] Sarucan, A., Baysal, M.E. and Engin, O. A spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method
for solving the physician selection problem, Journal of Intelligent &
Fuzzy Systems, (Preprint), 1–14.
[141] Onar, S.C., Kahraman, C. and Oztaysi, B. (2020). Multi-criteria spherical
fuzzy regret based evaluation of healthcare equipment stocks, Journal of
Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, (Preprint), 1–11.
[142] Otay, I. and Atik, S. (2020). Multi-criteria oil station location evaluation
using spherical AHP&WASPAS: a real-life case study, International
Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, Springer, pp.591–598.
[143] Ayyildiz, E. and Gumus, A.T. (2020). A novel spherical fuzzy AHP-integrated
spherical WASPAS methodology for petrol station location selection
problem: a real case study for Istanbul, Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, 27(29), 36109–36120.
[144] Jaller, M. and Otay, I. (2020). Evaluating Sustainable Vehicle Technologies
for Freight Transportation Using Spherical Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS,
International Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, Springer,
pp.118–126.
[145] Mathew, M., Chakrabortty, R.K. and Ryan, M.J. (2020). A novel approach
integrating AHP and TOPSIS under spherical fuzzy sets for advanced
manufacturing system selection, Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence, 96, 103988.
[146] Ashraf, S., Abdullah, S. and Almagrabi, A.O. (2020). A new emergency
response of spherical intelligent fuzzy decision process to diagnose of
COVID19, Soft Computing, 1–17.
[147] Barukab, O., Abdullah, S., Ashraf, S., Arif, M. and Khan, S.A. (2019). A
new approach to fuzzy TOPSIS method based on entropy measure under
spherical fuzzy information, Entropy, 21(12), 1231.
[148] Yang, Z., Li, X., Garg, H. and Qi, M. (2020). Decision support algorithm for
selecting an antivirus mask over COVID-19 pandemic under spherical
normal fuzzy environment, International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3407.
[149] Haque, T.S., Chakraborty, A., Mondal, S.P. and Alam, S. (2020). Approach
to solve multi-criteria group decision-making problems by exponential
operational law in generalised spherical fuzzy environment, CAAI
Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 5(2), 106–114.
[150] Jin, H., Ashraf, S., Abdullah, S., Qiyas, M., Bano, M. and Zeng, S. (2019).
Linguistic spherical fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications
in multi-attribute decision making problems, Mathematics, 7(5), 413.
[151] Nguyen, P.H., Tsai, J.F., Dang, T.T., Lin, M.H., Pham, H.A. and Nguyen,
K.A. (2021). A hybrid spherical fuzzy MCDM approach to prioritize
governmental intervention strategies against the COVID-19 pandemic:
A case study from Vietnam, Mathematics, 9(20), 2626.
88
[152] Peng, X. and Li, W. (2021). Spherical fuzzy decision making method based on
combined compromise solution for IIoT industry evaluation, Artificial
Intelligence Review, 1–30.
[153] Kieu, P.T., Nguyen, V.T., Nguyen, V.T. and Ho, T.P. (2021). A Spherical Fuzzy
Analytic Hierarchy Process (SF-AHP) and Combined Compromise
Solution (CoCoSo) Algorithm in Distribution Center Location Selection:
A Case Study in Agricultural Supply Chain, Axioms, 10(2), 53.
[154] Olugu, E.U., Mammedov, Y.D., Young, J.C.E. and Yeap, P.S. (2021).
Integrating spherical fuzzy Delphi and TOPSIS technique to identify
indicators for sustainable maintenance management in the Oil and Gas
industry, Journal of King Saud University-Engineering Sciences.
[155] Kovač, M., Tadić, S., Krstić, M. and Bouraima, M.B. (2021). Novel Spherical
Fuzzy MARCOS Method for Assessment of Drone-Based City Logistics
Concepts, Complexity, 2021.
[156] Menekşe, A. and Camgöz Akdağ, H. (2021). Seismic Vulnerability

Assessment Using Spherical Fuzzy ARAS, International Conference on
Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, Springer, pp.733–740.
[157] Farrokhizadeh, E., Seyfi-Shishavan, S.A., Gündoğdu, F.K., Donyatalab, Y.,

Kahraman, C. and Seifi, S.H. (2021). A spherical fuzzy methodology
integrating maximizing deviation and TOPSIS methods, Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 101, 104212.
[158] Omerali, M. and Kaya, T. Product lifecycle management application selection

framework based on interval-valued spherical fuzzy COPRAS, Journal
of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, (Preprint), 1–14.
[159] Aydoğdu, A. and Gül, S. (2021). New entropy propositions for interval-valued
spherical fuzzy sets and their usage in an extension of ARAS
(ARAS-IVSFS), Expert Systems, e12898.
[160] Özgül, E., Dinçer, H. and Yüksel, S. (2021). HoQ-based evaluation of UHC
competencies using an extension of interval-valued spherical fuzzy and
hesitant 2-tuple linguistic term sets, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy
Systems, (Preprint), 1–19.
[161] Lathamaheswari, M., Nagarajan, D., Garg, H. and Kavikumar, J.,

(2021). Interval Valued Spherical Fuzzy Aggregation Operators and
Their Application in Decision Making Problem, Decision Making with
Spherical Fuzzy Sets, Springer, pp.27–51.
[162] Karaaslan, F. and Dawood, M.A.D. (2021). Complex T-spherical fuzzy

Dombi aggregation operators and their applications in multiple-criteria
decision-making, Complex & Intelligent Systems, 7(5), 2711–2734.
[163] Ajay, D. and Aldring, J., (2022). Complex Spherical Fuzzy Sets and an
Application to Catering Services in Aviation 4.0, Intelligent and Fuzzy
Techniques in Aviation 4.00, Springer, pp.87–121.
89
[164] Devaraj, A. and Aldring, J. (2021). Tangent Similarity Measure of Cubic
Spherical Fuzzy Sets and Its Application to MCDM, International
Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, Springer, pp.802–810.
[165] Farid, F. and Donyatalab, Y., (2022). Novel Spherical Fuzzy Eco-holonic
Concept in Sustainable Supply Chain of Aviation Fuel, Intelligent and
Fuzzy Techniques in Aviation 4.0, Springer, pp.201–235.
[166] Noori, A., Bonakdari, H., Morovati, K. and Gharabaghi, B. (2020).

Development of optimal water supply plan using integrated fuzzy Delphi
and fuzzy ELECTRE III methods—Case study of the Gamasiab basin,
Expert Systems, 37(5), e12568.
[167] Pereira, J., de Oliveira, E.C., Gomes, L.F. and Araújo, R.M. (2019). Sorting
retail locations in a large urban city by using ELECTRE TRI-C and
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, Soft Computing, 23(12), 4193–4206.
[168] Ayyildiz, E., Gumus, A.T. and Erkan, M. (2020). Individual credit ranking by
an integrated interval type-2 trapezoidal fuzzy Electre methodology, Soft
Computing, 24(21), 16149–16163.
[169] Kumar, P., Singh, R.K. and Kharab, K. (2017). A comparative analysis of
operational performance of Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Providers
in the Delhi working area using an approach of fuzzy ELECTRE,
Applied Soft Computing, 59, 438–447.
[170] Singh, D.K. and Kaushik, P. (2019). Intrusion response prioritization based on
fuzzy ELECTRE multiple criteria decision making technique, Journal of
Information Security and Applications, 48, 102359.
[171] Mishra, A.R., Singh, R.K. and Motwani, D. (2020). Intuitionistic fuzzy
divergence measure-based ELECTRE method for performance of
cellular mobile telephone service providers, Neural Computing and
Applications, 32(8), 3901–3921.
[172] Rouyendegh, B.D. (2018). The intuitionistic fuzzy ELECTRE model, Interna-
tional Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management,
13(2), 139–145.
[173] Kilic, H.S., Demirci, A.E. and Delen, D. (2020). An integrated decision
analysis methodology based on IF-DEMATEL and IF-ELECTRE for
personnel selection, Decision Support Systems, 137, 113360.
[174] Chen, T.Y. (2016). An IVIF-ELECTRE outranking method for multiple

criteria decision-making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets,
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(3), 416–452.
[175] Hashemi, S.S., Hajiagha, S.H.R., Zavadskas, E.K. and Mahdiraji, H.A.
(2016). Multicriteria group decision making with ELECTRE III method
based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information, Applied
Mathematical Modelling, 40(2), 1554–1564.
90
[176] Tian, Z.p., Nie, R.x., Wang, X.K. and Wang, J.q. (2020). Single-valued
neutrosophic ELECTRE II for multi-criteria group decision-making with
unknown weight information, Computational and Applied Mathematics,
39(3), 1–32.
[177] Peng, J.j., Wang, J.q. and Wu, X.h. (2017). An extension of the ELECTRE ap-
proach with multi-valued neutrosophic information, Neural Computing
and Applications, 28(1), 1011–1022.
[178] Zhang, L., Cheng, S. and Liu, P. (2020). Probability multi-valued neutrosophic
ELECTRE method for multi-criteria group decision-making, Journal of
Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, (Preprint), 1–18.
[179] Karaşan, A. and Kahraman, C. (2020). Selection of the Most Appropriate

Renewable Energy Alternatives by Using a Novel Interval-Valued
Neutrosophic ELECTRE I Method, Informatica, 31(2), 225–248.
[180] Peng, J.j., Wang, J.q. and Wu, X.h. Extended ELECTRE I method
with multi-hesitant fuzzy information, International Journal of Fuzzy
Systems, 21.
[181] Akram, M., Ilyas, F. and Garg, H. (2021). ELECTRE-II method for
group decision-making in Pythagorean fuzzy environment, Applied
Intelligence, 1–19.
[182] Chen, T.Y. (2020). New Chebyshev distance measures for Pythagorean fuzzy
sets with applications to multiple criteria decision analysis using an
extended ELECTRE approach, Expert Systems with Applications, 147,
113164.
[183] Tooranloo, H.S., Zanjirchi, S.M. and Tavangar, M. (2020). ELECTRE

approach for multi-attribute decision-making in refined neutrosophic
environment, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 31, 101–119.
[184] Akram, M., Ilyas, F. and Garg, H. (2020). Multi-criteria group decision
making based on ELECTRE I method in Pythagorean fuzzy information,
Soft Computing, 24(5), 3425–3453.
[185] Çalı, S. and Balaman, Ş.Y. (2019). A novel outranking based multi
criteria group decision making methodology integrating ELECTRE and
VIKOR under intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Expert Systems with
Applications, 119, 36–50.
[186] Liao, H., Yang, L. and Xu, Z. (2018). Two new approaches based on
ELECTRE II to solve the multiple criteria decision making problems
with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets, Applied Soft Computing, 63,
223–234.
[187] Chu, T.C. and Le, H.T. (2020). An extension to fuzzy ELECTRE, Soft
Computing, 24(10), 7541–7555.
91
[188] Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples,
Revue Française D’informatique Et De Recherche Opérationnelle, 2(8),
57–75.
[189] Prokopowicz, P., (2017). Processing direction with ordered fuzzy numbers,
Theory and Applications of Ordered Fuzzy Numbers, Springer, Cham,
pp.81–98.
[190] Chakraverty, S., Sahoo, D.M. and Mahato, N.R., (2019). Defuzzification,
Concepts of Soft Computing, Springer, pp.117–127.
[191] Thillaigovindan, N., Shanthi, S.A. and Naidu, J.V. (2016). A better score
function for multiple criteria decision making in fuzzy environment with
criteria choice under risk, Expert Systems with Applications, 59, 78–85.
[192] Kahraman, C., Gündogdu, F.K., Onar, S.Ç. and Öztaysi, B. (2019). Hospital
Location Selection Using Spherical Fuzzy TOPSIS., EUSFLAT.
[193] Merigó, J.M. and Casanovas, M. (2011). Induced aggregation operators in

the Euclidean distance and its application in financial decision making,
Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7603–7608.
[194] Peng, X. and Yang, Y. (2016). Fundamental properties of interval-valued

Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operators, International Journal of
Intelligent Systems, 31(5), 444–487.
[195] Peng, X. and Yang, Y. (2016). Pythagorean fuzzy Choquet integral

based MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision making,
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 31(10), 989–1020.
[196] Al-Matari, E.M., Al-Swidi, A. and Fadzil, F.H.B. (2014). The effect of the
internal audit and firm performance: A proposed research framework,
International Review of Management and Marketing, 4(1), 34.
[197] Dickins, D. and Fay, R.G. (2017). COSO 2013: Aligning internal controls and
principles, Issues in Accounting Education, 32(3), 117–127.
[198] Chang, S.I., Tsai, C.F., Shih, D.H. and Hwang, C.L. (2008). The development
of audit detection risk assessment system: Using the fuzzy theory and
audit risk model, Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 1053–1067.
[199] Vu, H.T. et al. (2016). The research of factors affecting the effectiveness of
internal control systems in commercial banks-empirical: Evidence in
Viet Nam, International Business Research, 9(7), 144.
[200] Chan, K.C., Chen, Y. and Liu, B. (2020). The linear and non-linear effects
of internal control and its five components on corporate innovation:
Evidence from Chinese firms using the COSO framework, European
Accounting Review, 1–33.
[201] Gündoğdu, F.K. and Kahraman, C. (2019). Extension of CODAS with

Spherical Fuzzy Sets., Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic & Soft
Computing, 33.
92
[202] Memari, A., Dargi, A., Jokar, M.R.A., Ahmad, R. and Rahim, A.R.A.
(2019). Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic
fuzzy TOPSIS method, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50, 9–24.
[203] Kahraman, C., Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E.K., Cevik Onar,
S., Yazdani, M. and Oztaysi, B. (2017). Intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS
method: an application to solid waste disposal site selection, Journal of
Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 25(1), 1–12.
[204] Ren, J. (2018). Sustainability prioritization of energy storage technologies for

promoting the development of renewable energy: A novel intuitionistic
fuzzy combinative distance-based assessment approach, Renewable
Energy, 121, 666–676.
[205] Chen, T.Y. and Tsao, C.Y. (2008). The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method
and experimental analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 159(11), 1410–1428.
[206] Mufazzal, S. and Muzakkir, S. (2018). A new multi-criterion decision making

(MCDM) method based on proximity indexed value for minimizing rank
reversals, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 119, 427–438.
93
94
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name Surname : Akın Menekşe
EDUCATION :
• M.Sc. : 2016, Middle East Technical University, Faculty of

Engineering, Civil Engineering
• B.Sc. : 2006, Middle East Technical University, Faculty of
Engineering, Civil Engineering
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND REWARDS:

• 2017-present Internal Auditor
• 2006-2016 Civil Engineer
PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PATENTS ON THE THESIS:

• Menekse A., Camgoz Akdag, H. 2021. Internal Audit Plannig Using Spherical
Fuzzy ELECTRE. Applied Soft Computing, 114, 108155.
• Menekse, A., Camgoz Akdag, H. 2021. Information Technology Governance

Evaluation Using Spherical Fuzzy AHP ELECTRE. In International Conference
on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems. Springer, 757–765.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PATENTS:

• Menekse, A., Camgoz Akdag, H. 2021. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Using
Spherical Fuzzy ARAS. In International Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy
Systems. Springer, 733–740.
• Menekse A., Camgoz Akdag, H. 2022. Distance education tool selection using
novel spherical fuzzy AHP EDAS. Soft Computing, 26, 2022.
• Menekse, A., Camgoz Akdag, H. 2021. A novel Interval-Valued spherical Fuzzy

EDAS: An Application to IT Auditor Selection. In Virtual Global Joint Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Its Application Areas. Springer, xx–xx.
95
• Gülerce, Z., Tanvir Shah, S., Menekşe, A., Arda Özacar, A., Kaymakci, N., Önder
Çetin, K. 2017. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for East Anatolian Fault
Zone Using Planar Fault Source Models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 107(5), 2353-2366
• Güner, B., Menekşe, A., Özacar, A., Gülerce, Z. 2015. Kuzey Anadolu ve Doğu
Anadolu Fay Zonu için Deprem Tekrarlanma Parametrelerinin Belirlenmesi. 3.
Türkiye Deprem Mühendisliği ve Sismoloji Konferansı, 130.
96
A. MENEKŞE INTERNAL AUDIT DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK USING SPHERICAL FUZZY ELECTRE 2022

Istanbul Technical University Graduate School

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Istanbul Technical University Graduate School

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY ⋆ GRADUATE SCHOOL

INTERNAL AUDIT DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK

INTERNAL AUDIT DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK

Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. Hatice CAMGÖZ AKDAĞ

KÜRESEL BULANIK ELECTRE TABANLI

İşletme Anabilim Dalı

İşletme Doktora Programı

Tez Danışmanı: Prof. Dr. Hatice CAMGÖZ AKDAĞ

Thesis Advisor : Prof. Dr. Hatice CAMGÖZ AKDAĞ ........................

Jury Members : Prof. Dr. Selim ZAİM ........................

Prof. Dr. Başar ÖZTAYŞİ ........................

Prof. Dr. Cengiz KAHRAMAN ........................

Asst. Prof. Dr. Fuat KOSANOĞLU ........................

Date of Submission : 17 January 2022

January 2022 Akın MENEKŞE

AHP : Analytic Hierarchy Process

A˜S , B˜S : Single-valued spherical fuzzy set

Table 3.1 : Linguistic terms and their corresponding single-valued spherical

Figure 1.1 : Geometrical representations of type 1 and 2 intuitionistic fuzzy

1.1 Internal Audit

Internal auditing is a type of independent assurance and consultation that helps a

1.1.1 Internal audit and agency theory

According to the literature, internal auditing has been suggested as a monitoring

1.2 Decision-Making and Fuzzy Set Theory

MCDM is a methodology that uses a systematic quantitative approach to help users

ELECTRE [39] is one of the most successful decision-making techniques based

Another key advantage of ELECTRE over other methodologies is its capacity to

• The outranking relations within ELECTRE methods are generally obtained by

• The traditional ELECTRE method is extended with single-valued spherical fuzzy

• A more straightforward way is proposed in a single-valued spherical fuzzy

1.4 Outline of Thesis

2.1 Related Works around Internal Audit

2.2 Spherical Fuzzy Set Applications

2.3 ELECTRE Applications

Furthermore, Cali and Balaban [185] developed intuitionistic fuzzy ELECTRE by

ELECTRE [188] is an MCDM method that evaluates relationships between

Concordance set is defined as in equation 3.1.

D(k, l) = j | vk j < vl j (3.2)

where w j is the normalized weight of jth criterion and ∑nj=1 w j = 1

3.2 Single-Valued Spherical Fuzzy Sets

Definition, basic operators, aggregation operator, normalized Euclidean distance [59],

and the decision-maker’s hesitancy (πA˜S ) can be described independently from

0 ≤ µA2˜ (u) + νA2˜ (u) + πA2˜ (u) ≤ 1; ∀u ∈ ∪ (3.6)

Equation 3.6 becomes as below for on the surface of the sphere,

µA2˜ (u) + νA2˜ (u) + πA2˜ (u) = 1; ∀u ∈ ∪ (3.7)

Definition 2. Addition, multiplication, multiplication by a scalar, and power of

2. Multiplication of two spherical fuzzy sets [59] is given in equation 3.9.

Definition 3. The aggregation procedure is a function that is utilized when we need to

˜ w [59] is used for aggregating the matrices.

where w = (w1 , w2 , ..., wn ); w j ∈ [0, 1] and ∑ni=1 w j = 1.

˜ w for a single-valued spherical fuzzy set is given in equation 3.13.

Definition 4. Fuzzification is the process of converting a crisp number to its proper

3.3 Interval-Valued Spherical Fuzzy Sets

Definition; addition, multiplication, multiplication by a scalar, power, aggregation

Definition 6. In equation 3.16, an interval-valued spherical fuzzy set A

of discourse U is supplied. [87].

For convenience, an interval-valued spherical fuzzy set,

fS = ([µ L (u), µ U (u)], [ν L (u), ν U (u)], [π L (u), π U (u)])

Definition 7. Interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets’ addition, multiplication,

1. Addition operation of two interval-valued spherical fuzzy number [87] is given in

((b1 )2 + (b2 )2 − (b1 )2 (b2 )2 )1/2 ], [c1 c2 , d1 d2 ],

2. Equation 3.18 gives the multiplication operation of two interval-valued spherical

(d1 )2 + (d2 )2 − (d1 )2 (d2 )2 )1/2 )], [((1 − (c2 )2 )(e1 )2 +