Tedarikçi Seçiminde HF-AHP ve ARAS Tekniğinin Entegrasyonu: Atık Su Arıtma Tesisinde Bir Vaka Çalışması

Öz

Tedarikçi değerlendirmesi ve seçimi ile ilgili konular günümüzün gelişen iş dünyasında sıkıntılı olduğu kanıtlanmıştır. Bununla birlikte, karar verme süreçleri HF-AHP ve ARAS gibi yöntem ve tekniklerle kolaylaştırılabilir..Bu çalışmanın amacı, HF-AHP ve ARAS yöntemlerini entegre edilmesiyle beş farklı tedarikçi firmanın sunduğu beş farklı makine arasında dört farklı değerlendirme kriterinin bir arada göz önüne alınarak tercih yapılmasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üretim Yönetimi,HF-AHP Yöntemi,ARAS Yöntemi,Tedarikçi Seçimi

An Integration of HF-AHP and ARAS Techniques in Supplier Selection: A Case Study in Waste Water Treatment Facility

Öz

Issues regarding the supplier evaluation and selection have been proven troubsome in today’s floruishing business world. However, decision making processes could be facilitated by such methods and techniques as HF-AHP and ARAS. This study aims to find the best supplier alternative among the five various machines offered by five suppliers according to four evaluation criterias by integrating HF-AHP with ARAS method

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Production Management,HF-AHP Method,ARAS Method,Supplier Selection

Kaynakça

1. Bakshi, T., & Sarkar, B. (2011). MCA based performance evaluation of project selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1105.0390.
2. Balezentiene, L., & Kusta, A. (2012). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in grassland ecosystems of the central Lithuania: multi-criteria evaluation on a basis of the ARAS method. The Scientific World Journal, 2012.
3. Beuthe, M., & Scannella, G. (2001). Comparative analysis of UTA multicriteria methods. European Journal of operational research, 130(2), 246-262.
4. Dadelo, S., Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E. K., & Dadeliene, R. (2012). Multiple criteria assessment of elite security personal on the basis of aras and expert methods. Journal of economic computation and economic cybernetics studies and research, 46(4), 65-88.
5. Greco, S., Figueira, J., & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer's International series.
6. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple criteria decision making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 186, 58-191.
7. Keeney R.L., Raiffa H. (1976). Decision with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs, New York, John Wiley & Sons
8. Kutut, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Lazauskas, M. (2014). Assessment of priority alternatives for preservation of historic buildings using model based on ARAS and AHP methods. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 14(2), 287-294.

9. Larichev, О. (2000). Decision-making theory and methods. Moscow: Logos (in Russian).
10. Medineckiene, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Björk, F., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria decision-making system for sustainable building assessment/certification. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 15(1), 11-18.
11. Öztaysi, B., Onar, S. Ç., Boltürk, E., & Kahraman, C. (2015, August). Hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. In Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 2015 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
12. Pareto, V., & Page, A. N. (1971). Translation of Manuale di economia politica (Manual of political economy). AM Kelley. ISBN 978-0-678-00881-2.
13. Patterson, P. G., & Spreng, R. A. (1997). Modelling the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: an empirical examination. International Journal of service Industry management, 8(5), 414-434.
14. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3), 234-281.
15. Saaty, T. L. (1980). Analytic Heirarchy Process. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online.
16. Şenvar, Ö. (2017), “A Systematic Customer Oriented Approach based on Hesitant Fuzzy AHP for Performance Assessments of Service Departments”, Advances in Fuzzy Logic and Technology 2017: Proceedings of: EUSFLAT- 2017 – The 10th Conference of the European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology, September 11-15, 2017, Warsaw, Poland IWIFSGN’2017 – The Sixteenth International Workshop on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Generalized Nets, September 13-15, 2017, Warsaw, Poland, 3. Cilt.
17. Stanujkic, D., & Jovanovic, R. (2012). Measuring a quality of faculty website using ARAS method. In Proceeding of the International Scientific Conference Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Education 2012 (pp. 545-554).
18. Štreimikienė, D., Šliogerienė, J., & Turskis, Z. (2016). Multi-criteria analysis of electricity generation technologies in Lithuania. Renewable Energy, 85, 148-156.
19. Torra, V. (2010). Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(6), 529-539.
20. Tüysüz, F., & Şimşek, B. (2017). A hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets-based AHP approach for analyzing the performance evaluation factors: An application to cargo sector. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 3(3), 167-175.
21. Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), 159-172.
22. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Vilutiene, T. (2010). Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method. Archives of civil and mechanical engineering, 10(3), 123-141.
23. Zavadskas, E. K., Vainiūnas, P., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2012). Multiple criteria decision support system for assessment of projects managers in construction. International journal of information technology & decision making, 11(02), 501-520.