Investigation of the Use of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques in Maritime Studies With Prisma Method

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques make it possible to reach the optimal solution among different criteria and priorities with their dynamic processes. The ability to analyse big data, use integrated techniques, respond to complex problems in terms of quantitative and qualitative criteria, and structure the result as a repeatable process for different decision makers makes these techniques an increasingly attractive source of reference. MCDM techniques are used in many different fields of science today. One of them is maritime studies. In the current maritime curriculum, the fact that decision-making is among the minimum requirements at both operational and management levels in deck and engine departments draws attention to the importance of the subject in maritime terms. At this point, investigating the use of multi-criteria decision-making techniques in the maritime field on a global scale will contribute to the literature. In this study, the use of MCDM techniques in maritime has been investigated with the PRISMA method. The findings contribute to the scientific literature by revealing the use of multi-criteria decision-making techniques in maritime, their change over time and their main fields of study. With the results obtained, it is aimed to reveal the profile of a methodological concept used globally in maritime studies and to serve as a reference for future studies. Given the evolving landscape of maritime publications utilizing the MCDM technique, the study results will be an incentive to explore potential avenues for future methodological advances.

Keywords

• Maritime
• Multi Criteria Decision Making
• PRISMA

References

1. Adalı, E. A., & Işık, A. T. (2017). Bir tedarikçi seçim problemi için SWARA ve WASPAS yöntemlerine dayanan karar verme yaklaşımı [The decision making approach based on SWARA and WASPAS methods for the supplier selection problem]. International Review of Economics and Management, 5(4), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.18825/iremjournal.335408
2. Akın, N. G. (2017). İşletme bölümü öğrencilerinin meslek seçimini etkileyen faktörlerin bulanık DEMATEL yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi [Evaluating the factors that affect the professional selection of the business department students with fuzzy DEMATEL method]. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 13(4), 873-890. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.2017433413
3. Aksakal, E., & Dağdeviren, M. (2010). ANP ve DEMATEL yöntemleri ile personel seçimi problemine bütünleşik bir yaklaşım [An integrated approach for personel selection with DEMATEL and ANP methods]. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(4), 905-913.
4. Altın, H. (2020). ARAS ve MOOSRA yöntemlerinin performans sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması: Amerika kıtası ülkeleri [A comparison of performance results of ARAS and MOOSRA methods: American continent countries]. Journal of Economics, Finance and Accounting, 7(2), 173-186. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1212
5. Anonymous. (2018). Gemiadamları ve Kılavuz Kaptanlar Eğitim ve Sınav Yönergesi. Retrieved on October 21, 2023 from https://denizcilik.uab.gov.tr/uploads/pages/yonerge-talimat/gemiadamlari-ve-kilavuz-kaptanlar-egitim-ve-sinav-yonergesi-yds-puan-cetveli-degistirilmis.pdf
6. Aşık, Z., & Özen, M. (2019). Meta-analiz basamakları ve raporlanması [Meta-analysis steps and reporting]. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 13(2), 232-240. https://doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.569924
7. Baykal, N., & Beyan, T. (2004). Bulanık mantık ilke ve temelleri. Bıçaklar Kitabevi.
8. Brans, J. P., & Vincke, Ph. (1985). Note—A preference ranking organisation method. Management Science, 31(6), 647-656. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647

9. Brans, J. P., & Vinckle Ph., Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5
10. Çakır, E., Akel, G., & Doğaner, M. (2018). Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren özel alışveriş sitelerinin bütünleşik SWARA-WASPAS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of private shopping sites in Turkey by integrated SWARA - WASPAS method]. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 18. EYİ Özel Sayısı, 599-616. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.347658
11. Dağdeviren, M., Dönmez, N., & Kurt, M. (2006), Bir işletmede tedarikçi değerlendirme süreci için yeni bir model tasarımı ve uygulaması [Developing a new model for supplier evaluation process for a company and its application]. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik ve Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 247-255.
12. Dalbudak, E., & Rençber, Ö. F. (2022). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri üzerine literatür incelemesi [A literature review on multi-criteria decision making methods]. Gaziantep Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.55769/gauniibf.1068692
13. Ekin, E., & Okutan, C. (2021). PROMETHEE yöntemi ile tesis yeri seçim problemine ilişkin bir uygulama [An application related to the problem of facility location selection using the PROMETHEE method]. Gaziantep Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 46-58.
14. Haliloğlu, M., & Odabaş, M. S. (2018). Çok ölçütlü karar vermede AHP yöntemi. Kilis 7 Aralık Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 2(2), 13-18.
15. Hall, A. D. (1989). Metasystems methodology: A new synthesis and unification. Pergamon Press.
16. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
17. Hwang, C. L., Lai, Y. J., & Liu, T. Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers and Operational Research, 20(8), 889-899. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-V
18. Li, C. W., & Tzeng, G. H. (2009). Identification of a threshold value for the DEMATEL method using the maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to find critical services provided by a semiconductor intellectual property mall. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 9891–9898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.01.073
19. Nilashi, M., Zakaria, R., Ibrahim, O., Majid, M. Z. A., Zin, R. M., & Farahmand, M. (2015). MCPCM: A DEMATEL- ANP – based multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate the critical success factors in construction projects. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 40, 343-361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1529-1
20. Ömürbek, N., Demirci, N., & Akalın, P. (2013). Analitik ağ süreci ve topsis yöntemleri ile bilimdalı seçimi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 5(9), 118-140.
21. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). The compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
22. Opricovic, S. (2011). Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12983-12990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.097
23. Özkan, M. M. (2003). Bulanık hedef programlama. Ekin Kitabevi.
24. Öztel, A. (2021). Çok kriterli karar verme seçiminde yeni bir yaklaşım. Kriter Yayınevi.
25. Phua, M. H., & Minowa, M. (2005). A GIS based multi criteria decision making approach to forest conservation planning and a landscape scale: A case study in the Kinabalu area, Sabah, Malaysia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2-4), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.03.004
26. Şen, Z. (2009). Bulanık mantık ilkeleri ve modelleme. Su Vakfı Yayınları.
27. Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making methods and application. Charpman and Hall/CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b11032
28. Uludağ, A. S., & Doğan, H. (2016). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılmasına odaklı bir hizmet kalitesi uygulaması [A service quality application focusing on the comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods]. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 17-47.
29. Üstün, Ö., Özdemir, M. S., & Demirtaş, E. A. (2005). Kıbrıs Sorunu Çözüm Önerilerini Değerlendirmede Analitik Serim Süreci Yaklaşımı. Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 16(4), 2-13.
30. Yavuz, S., & Deveci, M. (2014). Bulanık TOPSIS ve bulanık VIKOR yöntemleriyle alışveriş merkezi kuruluş yeri seçimi ve bir uygulama [Selection of shopping center location with the methods of fuzzy VIKOR and fuzzy TOPSIS and an application]. Ege Akademik Bakış, 14(3), 463-479.
31. Yıldırım, B.F., Kuzu, S., & Özdemir, M. (2016). Bulanık VIKOR yaklaşımı ile mobil işletim sistemlerinin değerlendirilmesi, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(1), 79-95. https://hdl.handle.net/11630/4349
32. Yoon, K. (1987). A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions, The Journal of The Operational Research Society, 38(3), 277-286.
33. Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making: An introduction. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985161
34. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control, 8, 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
35. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810
36. Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill.