Selection of the Best LNG Natural Gas Supplier with Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: Turkey Example in Current Conditions

Year 2019, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 13 - 30, 30.06.2019

Caner Erden , Halil Karayel Halil İbrahim Demir , Abdullah Hulusi Kökçam

Abstract

Decision
of supplier selection has a crucial importance for a firm to succeed. Liquefied
Natural Gas‎ (LNG) is a crucial alternative to ensure the safety of natural gas
supply in today's conditions, especially for the state of natural gas supply
security. LNG supplier selection constitutes the most important key point of
this process. This study aims to make the selection of the best LNG natural gas
supplier for Turkey using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique
for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods according
to the current conditions. For this purpose, expert opinions, activity reports
and literature reviews were made to determine main and sub criteria. AHP method
is applied by using Expert Choice Software and TOPSIS was analyzed with
Microsoft Excel for the best supplier choice. In addition, it has been shown
that which criteria brings which alternatives forward, which criteria are
decisive in the result and which are not decisive.

Keywords

Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), Supplier selection, AHP, TOPSIS, Expert Choice

References

• Chankong, V., & Haimes, Y. Y. (1983). Optimization-based methods for multiobjective decision-making-an overview. Large Scale Systems in Information and Decision Technologies, 5(1), 1–33.Erdal, L., & Karakaya, E. (2012). Economic, political and geographical factors affecting Energy supply security. Uludag University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences journal, 31(1), 107–136.Herişçakar, E. (1999). AHP and Smart application of multi-criteria decision making methods in the selection of the main machine of the ship. Ship Construction and Maritime technology Technical Congress, 99, 240–256.Hwang, C.-L., Lai, Y.-J., & Liu, T.-Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers & operations research, 20(8), 889–899.Hwang, C.-L., Paidy, S. R., Yoon, K., & Masud, A. S. M. (1980). Mathematical programming with multiple objectives: A tutorial. Computers & Operations Research, 7(1–2), 5–31.Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Içinde Multiple attribute decision making (ss. 58–191). Springer.Kaya, Y., & Kahraman, C. (2004). Comparison of TOPSIS and ELECTRE methods from multipurpose decision making methods. Institute of Aviation and Space Technologies, Istanbul, June (Access: http://www. hho. edu. tr).Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1(1), 83–98.Samouilidis, J.-E., & Mitropoulos, C. S. (1982). Energy-economy models: A survey. European Journal of Operational Research, 11(3), 222–232.Satman, A. (2007). The energy vision of Turkey. Electricity generation seminar from geothermal energy, 3–18.Soyuer, H., & Kocamaz, M. (2003). Computer aided Human Resource evaluation and selection process in enterprises. II. National Congress of Information, Economics and Management: proceedings, İzmit, 673–684.Tzeng, G.-H., & Huang, J.-J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. CRC press.Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple Criteria Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill.