## 6 Results and Discussions  
In this study, an integrated approach that combines Fuzzy AEW) and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods, has been adopted. This study suggests the use of Fuzzy AEW--a significant method used in management decisions while weighing the criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS, one of the most efficient algorithms among multi-criteria decision-making methods for sequencing the alternatives in the literature.  
To demonstrate the applicability/feasibility of the suggested model; the goal of building the institutional capacity of TUBITAK has been selected in this study. A literature review has been made during the selection of the strategic goals and the opinion of an experienced Strategic Planning expert, who works for the Department of Strategy Development at TUBITAK, has been sought. Three of the criteria, which affect the selection process of the goals, were taken from the Strategic Planning Guideline prepared by the Presidency of the Republic of Turkiye and these criteria are assertiveness, covering medium- and long-term frames, and clarity. Since the guideline introduced the obligation for setting a goal on institutional capacity, another criterion, the fourth criterion, has been added, which is the Institutional Capacity Framework. A hierarchical model of selecting corporate capacity goals is given in Figure 3.  
Criteria have been weighed through the evaluation of the expert and the AEW method.  
The results of the evaluation of the criteria in the study by the expert team show that the \"Institutional Capacity Framework\" is the most important criterion (0.3293). Goals should be assertive but achievable. Results show that Assertiveness has a secondary priority (0.2676). Goals should cover a medium and long-term time frame. Being Medium-Long Term has a third priority (0.2072) by taking expert opinions. Clarity means that it clearly  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Rank** & **Goals** & \(D_{I}^{*}\) & \(D_{I}^{-}\) & \(CC_{I}\) \\ \hline
1 & Goal 2 & 3.28503696 & 0.735891755 & 0.18302 \\
2 & Goal 1 & 3.335877282 & 0.689910164 & 0.17137 \\
3 & Goal 5 & 3.445575621 & 0.582507748 & 0.14461 \\
4 & Goal 4 & 3.523337426 & 0.508555358 & 0.12613 \\
5 & Goal 3 & 3.562504745 & 0.471366902 & 0.11685 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Goal Ranking.  
Figure 3: Hierarchical model of selecting corporate capacity goal.  
reveals the desired outcome to be achieved but should not give details on how to achieve it. It is apparent that the priorities of the criteria are ranked last (0.1959).  
Alternative goals have been defined as the result of the literature review and the previous strategic plans of TUBITAK. Three goals for the institutional capacity development of TUBITAK have been detected in 2008-2012, 2018-2022, and 2019-2023's Strategic Plans and these goals have been defined as \"alternative goals\".  
In addition to these, two more goals have been laid down: \"strengthening institutional capacity and human resources\" and \"carrying out relevant activities to increase the administrative and managerial capacity of TUBITAK\", which were previously developed by the members of the strategic planning team.  
As the result of the evaluation of these alternatives using the Fuzzy TOPSIS method, and seeking the opinion of the strategy development experts, Goal 2 has been selected as the final goal for developing institutional capacity. Goal 2 includes enhancing the managerial, governance and communication capacity of TUBITAK departments to ensure that they operate at the fastest, most efficient, reliable, and transparent fashion possible (2019-2023 sp). This goal is published in the most recent version of the strategic plan of the organization. This reveals the effect of the suggested model.