Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinin Karar Üzerindeki Etkisi: AHS ve AAS Kıyaslaması

Year 2021, , 1841 - 1860, 30.07.2021

Yıldız Şahin , Sedanur Selay Kasap , Ezel Özkan , Gülçin Demirağaç

https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.826120
Cited By: 1

Abstract

 Modelleme çalışmalarında dikkate alınması gereken iki önemli aşama bulunmaktadır. Bunlardan birincisi karar problemini değerlendirirken kullanılacak olan kriterlerin doğru ve eksiksiz şekilde tespit edilmesidir. Sonraki aşama ise tespit edilen kriterler arasındaki etkileşimlerin ve ilişki yapısının doğru ifade edilebilmesidir. Bazı karar problemleri basitçe hiyerarşik olarak modellenebilirken bazıları için son derece karmaşık geri bildirim ve etkileşimler içeren yapılar daha uygun olabilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı özellikteki modelleme tekniklerinin problem çözümüne etkisini araştırmaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHS) ve Analitik Ağ Süreci (AAS) karar probleminde modelleme aracı olarak seçilmişlerdir. Çalışma kapsamında Türkiye’deki bir zincir AVM’nin sekiz farklı ildeki alışveriş ve yaşam merkezi seçilerek müşteriler tarafında tercih edilebilirlik düzeylerine göre kıyaslanmışlardır. Çalışma iki aşamalı olarak ele alınmıştır. Birinci aşamada problemin değerlendirme kriterleri AHS ve AAS yöntemleri kullanılarak modellenmiş ve kriter ağırlıkları hesaplanmıştır. İkinci aşamada ise AHS ve AAS yöntemleriyle belirlenen kriter ağırlıklarını kullanarak VİKOR ve TOPSİS yöntemleri ile alışveriş merkezleri değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda yapısal olarak farklı iki yöntemden elde edilen ağırlıkların çözüm sonuçlarına etkisi tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

Kurumsal performans değerlendirme AHS yöntemi AAS yöntemi TOPSİS yöntemi VİKOR yöntemi

References

  • Aşchilean, I., Badea, G., Giurca, I., Naghiu, G. S. ve Iloaie, F. G. (2017). Choosing the optimal technology to rehabilitate the pipes in water distribution systems using the AHP method. Energy Procedia, 112, 19-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1109.
  • Ballı, S. ve Karasulu, B. (2013). Bulanık karar verme sistemlerinde paralel hesaplama. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 19(2), 61-67. doi: 10.5505/pajes.2013.91300.
  • Baswaraj, A., Rao, M. S. ve Pawar, P. J. (2018). Application of AHP for process parameter selection and consistency verification in secondary steel manufacturing. Materials today: Proceedings, 5(13), 27166-27170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2018.09.027.
  • Benmouss, K., Laaziri, M., Khoulji, S., Kerkeb, M. L. ve El Yamami, A. (2019). AHP-based approach for evaluating ergonomic criteria. Procedia Manufacturing, 32, 856-863. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.294.
  • Boroumand, S., Chamjangali, M. A. ve Bagherian, G. (2017). Double injection/single detection asymmetric flow injection manifold for spectrophotometric determination of ascorbic acid and uric acid: Selection the optimal conditions by MCDM approach based on different criteria weighting methods. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 174, 203-213. doi: 10.1016/j.saa.2016.11.031.
  • Bouraima, M. B., Qiu, Y., Yusupov, B. ve Ndjegwes, C. M. (2020). A study on the development strategy of the railway transportation system in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) based on the SWOT/AHP technique. Scientific African, e00388. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00388.
  • Ceylan, Ş. ve Yılmaz, I. (2020). Orta ölçekli yerleşime uygunluk planlarının CBS tabanlı analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AHS) kullanılarak hazırlanması: Sivas il merkezi örneği. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 26(3), 545-558. doi: 10.5505/pajes.2019.98975.
  • Chiang, Y. M., Chen, W. L. ve Ho, C. H. (2016). Application of analytic network process and two-dimensional matrix evaluating decision for design strategy. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 98, 237-245. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.06.005.
  • Chou, C. C. (2018). Application of ANP to the selection of shipping registry: The case of Taiwanese maritime industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 67, 89-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.04.009.
  • Chung, S. H., Lee, A. H. L. ve Pearn, W. L. (2005). Analytical network process approach for product mix planning in semiconductor. International Journal of Production Economics, 96, 15-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.02.006.
  • Çalışkan, H., Kurşuncu, B., Kurbanoğlu, C. ve Güven, Ş. Y. (2013). Material selection for the tool holder working under hard milling conditions using different multi criteria decision making methods. Materials & Design, 45,473-479. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.09.042.
  • Dilek, S. ve Top, S. (2013). Charges on parking in shopping malls: evidence from Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 382-390. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.506.
  • Erkip, F. (2003). The shopping mall as an emergent public space in Turkey. Environment and Planning A, 35(6), 1073-1093. doi: 10.1068/a35167.
  • Eshtehardian, E., Ghodousi, P. ve Bejanpour, A. (2013). Using ANP and AHP for the supplier selection in the construction and civil engineering companies; case study of Iranian company. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(2), 262-270. doi: 10.1007/s12205-013-1141-z.
  • Göktürk, İ., Eryılmaz, A., Yörür, B. ve Yuluğkural, Y. (2011). Bir işletmenin tedarikçi değerlendirme ve seçim probleminin çözümünde AAS Ve VIKOR yöntemlerinin kullanılması. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı 25. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/439426.
  • Gümüş, M. G., Balta, M. Ö. ve Durduran, S. S. (2019). Coğrafi bilgi sistemlerine dayalı çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri ile alışveriş merkezi kuruluş yeri seçimi: Niğde örneği. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 134-146. doi: 10.28948/ngumuh.495245.
  • Hwang, C. L. ve Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, NewYork. Erişim adresi: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540105589.
  • Ikram, M., Sroufe, R. ve Qingyu Z. (2020). Prioritizing and overcoming barriers to integrated management system (IMS) implementation using AHP and G-TOPSIS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 120121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120121.
  • Jiang, Y. ve Shen, J. (2013). Weighting for what? A comparison of two weighting methods for measuring urban competitiveness. Habitat International, 38, 167-174. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.003.
  • Kanakaratne, M. D. S., Bray, J. ve Robson, J. (2020). The influence of national culture and industry structure on grocery retail customer loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 102013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102013.
  • Konstantinos, I., Georgios, T. ve Garyfalos, A. (2019). A Decision Support System methodology for selecting wind farm installation locations using AHP and TOPSIS: Case study in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region, Greece. Energy Policy, 132, 232-246. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.020.
  • Korkmazer, C., Aktar, Demirtaş, E. ve Erol, D. (2016). Çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemleri ile atık bertaraf firması seçimi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 22(4), 305-313. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/pajes/issue/24686/261043.
  • Liu, G., Zheng, S., Xu, P. ve Zhuang, T. (2018). An ANP-SWOT approach for ESCOs industry strategies in Chinese building sectors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 93, 90-99. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.090.
  • Matin, A., Zare, S., Ghotbi-Ravandi, M. ve Jahani, Y. (2020). Prioritizing and weighting determinants of workers' heat stress control using an analytical network process (ANP) a field study. Urban Climate, 31, 100587. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100587.
  • Nebati, E. ve Ekmekçi, İ. (2020). A Study on Shopping Malls Performance Criteria Analysis Using AHP Method. Politeknik Dergisi, 23(1), 85-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.473568.
  • Nunkoo, R., Teeroovengadum, V., Ringle, C. M. ve Sunnassee, V. (2019). Service quality and customer satisfaction: The moderating effects of hotel star rating. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 102414. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102414.
  • Opricovic, S. ve Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: a Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 445-455. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
  • Opricovic, S. ve Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with other outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178, 514-529. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020.
  • Önüt, S. ve Efendigil, T. ve Kara, S. S. (2010). A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting shopping center site: An example from Istanbul, Turkey. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 1973-1980. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.080.
  • Pakand, M. ve Toufigh V. (2017). A multi-criteria study on rammed earth for low carbon buildings using a novel ANP-GA approach. Energy and Buildings, 150, 466-476. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.06.004.
  • Patnaik, P. K., Swain, P. T. R., Mishra, S. K., Purohit, A. ve Biswas, S. (2020). Composite material selection for structural applications based on AHP-MOORA approach. Materials Today: Proceedings. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.063.
  • Rad, T. G., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A., Abbasi, A. ve Choi, S. M. (2018). A methodological framework for assessment of ubiquitous cities using ANP and DEMATEL methods. Sustainable Cities and Society, 37, 608-618. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.11.024.
  • Rajak, M. ve Shaw, K. (2019). Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Technology in Society, 59, 101186. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101186.
  • Rajesh, R. (2020). Sustainable supply chains in the Indian context: An integrative decision-making model. Technology in Society, 61, 101230. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101186.
  • Ren, J. (2018). Technology selection for ballast water treatment by multi-stakeholders: A multi-attribute decision analysis approach based on the combined weights and extension theory. Chemosphere, 191, 747-760. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.10.053.
  • Ruiz-Padillo, A., Pasqual, F. M., Larranaga-Uriarte, A. M. ve Bettella-Cybis, H. B. (2018) Application of multi-criteria decision analysis methods for assessing walkability: A case study in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 63, 855-871. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.07.016.
  • Saaty, T. L. (1987). The Analytic Hierarchy Process – What it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8.
  • Saaty, T. L. (2004). Fundamentals of the Analytic Network Process-dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13(2), 129-157. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0158-y.
  • Solangi, Y. A., Tan, Q., Mirjat, N. H. ve Ali, S. (2019). Evaluating the strategies for sustainable energy planning in Pakistan: An integrated SWOT-AHP and Fuzzy-TOPSIS approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117655. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117655.
  • Vavrek, R. (2019). Evaluation of the impact of selected weighting methods on the results of the TOPSIS technique. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18(6), 1821–1843. doi: https://doi.org/10.1142/S021962201950041X.
  • Vayvay, Ö., Özcan, Y. ve Cruz-Cunha, M. M. (2012). ERP consultant selection problem using AHP, fuzzy AHP and ANP: A case study in Turkey. Journal of Business Management and Economics, 3(3), 106-117. Erişim adresi: http://www.e3journals.org.
  • Wang, Y., Zhao, N., Jing, H., Meng, B. ve Yin, X. (2016). A novel model of the ideal point method coupled with objective and subjective weighting method for evaluation of surrounding sock stability. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Volume 2016, 1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8935156.
  • Zhou, X., Wang, L., Qin, J., Chai, J. ve Muñoz, C. Q. G. (2019). Emergency rescue planning under probabilistic linguistic information: An integrated FTA-ANP method. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 37, 101170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101170.
  • Zhu, X., Dapeng, N., Wang, X., Wang, F. ve Jia, M. (2019). Comprehensive energy saving evaluation of circulating cooling water system based on combination weighting method. Applied Thermal Engineering, 157, 113735. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.113735.

Year 2021, , 1841 - 1860, 30.07.2021

Yıldız Şahin , Sedanur Selay Kasap , Ezel Özkan , Gülçin Demirağaç

https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.826120
Cited By: 1

Abstract

References

  • Aşchilean, I., Badea, G., Giurca, I., Naghiu, G. S. ve Iloaie, F. G. (2017). Choosing the optimal technology to rehabilitate the pipes in water distribution systems using the AHP method. Energy Procedia, 112, 19-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1109.
  • Ballı, S. ve Karasulu, B. (2013). Bulanık karar verme sistemlerinde paralel hesaplama. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 19(2), 61-67. doi: 10.5505/pajes.2013.91300.
  • Baswaraj, A., Rao, M. S. ve Pawar, P. J. (2018). Application of AHP for process parameter selection and consistency verification in secondary steel manufacturing. Materials today: Proceedings, 5(13), 27166-27170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2018.09.027.
  • Benmouss, K., Laaziri, M., Khoulji, S., Kerkeb, M. L. ve El Yamami, A. (2019). AHP-based approach for evaluating ergonomic criteria. Procedia Manufacturing, 32, 856-863. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.294.
  • Boroumand, S., Chamjangali, M. A. ve Bagherian, G. (2017). Double injection/single detection asymmetric flow injection manifold for spectrophotometric determination of ascorbic acid and uric acid: Selection the optimal conditions by MCDM approach based on different criteria weighting methods. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 174, 203-213. doi: 10.1016/j.saa.2016.11.031.
  • Bouraima, M. B., Qiu, Y., Yusupov, B. ve Ndjegwes, C. M. (2020). A study on the development strategy of the railway transportation system in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) based on the SWOT/AHP technique. Scientific African, e00388. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00388.
  • Ceylan, Ş. ve Yılmaz, I. (2020). Orta ölçekli yerleşime uygunluk planlarının CBS tabanlı analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AHS) kullanılarak hazırlanması: Sivas il merkezi örneği. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 26(3), 545-558. doi: 10.5505/pajes.2019.98975.
  • Chiang, Y. M., Chen, W. L. ve Ho, C. H. (2016). Application of analytic network process and two-dimensional matrix evaluating decision for design strategy. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 98, 237-245. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.06.005.
  • Chou, C. C. (2018). Application of ANP to the selection of shipping registry: The case of Taiwanese maritime industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 67, 89-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.04.009.
  • Chung, S. H., Lee, A. H. L. ve Pearn, W. L. (2005). Analytical network process approach for product mix planning in semiconductor. International Journal of Production Economics, 96, 15-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.02.006.
  • Çalışkan, H., Kurşuncu, B., Kurbanoğlu, C. ve Güven, Ş. Y. (2013). Material selection for the tool holder working under hard milling conditions using different multi criteria decision making methods. Materials & Design, 45,473-479. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.09.042.
  • Dilek, S. ve Top, S. (2013). Charges on parking in shopping malls: evidence from Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 382-390. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.506.
  • Erkip, F. (2003). The shopping mall as an emergent public space in Turkey. Environment and Planning A, 35(6), 1073-1093. doi: 10.1068/a35167.
  • Eshtehardian, E., Ghodousi, P. ve Bejanpour, A. (2013). Using ANP and AHP for the supplier selection in the construction and civil engineering companies; case study of Iranian company. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(2), 262-270. doi: 10.1007/s12205-013-1141-z.
  • Göktürk, İ., Eryılmaz, A., Yörür, B. ve Yuluğkural, Y. (2011). Bir işletmenin tedarikçi değerlendirme ve seçim probleminin çözümünde AAS Ve VIKOR yöntemlerinin kullanılması. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı 25. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/439426.
  • Gümüş, M. G., Balta, M. Ö. ve Durduran, S. S. (2019). Coğrafi bilgi sistemlerine dayalı çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri ile alışveriş merkezi kuruluş yeri seçimi: Niğde örneği. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 134-146. doi: 10.28948/ngumuh.495245.
  • Hwang, C. L. ve Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, NewYork. Erişim adresi: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540105589.
  • Ikram, M., Sroufe, R. ve Qingyu Z. (2020). Prioritizing and overcoming barriers to integrated management system (IMS) implementation using AHP and G-TOPSIS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 120121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120121.
  • Jiang, Y. ve Shen, J. (2013). Weighting for what? A comparison of two weighting methods for measuring urban competitiveness. Habitat International, 38, 167-174. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.003.
  • Kanakaratne, M. D. S., Bray, J. ve Robson, J. (2020). The influence of national culture and industry structure on grocery retail customer loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 102013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102013.
  • Konstantinos, I., Georgios, T. ve Garyfalos, A. (2019). A Decision Support System methodology for selecting wind farm installation locations using AHP and TOPSIS: Case study in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region, Greece. Energy Policy, 132, 232-246. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.020.
  • Korkmazer, C., Aktar, Demirtaş, E. ve Erol, D. (2016). Çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemleri ile atık bertaraf firması seçimi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 22(4), 305-313. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/pajes/issue/24686/261043.
  • Liu, G., Zheng, S., Xu, P. ve Zhuang, T. (2018). An ANP-SWOT approach for ESCOs industry strategies in Chinese building sectors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 93, 90-99. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.090.
  • Matin, A., Zare, S., Ghotbi-Ravandi, M. ve Jahani, Y. (2020). Prioritizing and weighting determinants of workers' heat stress control using an analytical network process (ANP) a field study. Urban Climate, 31, 100587. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100587.
  • Nebati, E. ve Ekmekçi, İ. (2020). A Study on Shopping Malls Performance Criteria Analysis Using AHP Method. Politeknik Dergisi, 23(1), 85-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.473568.
  • Nunkoo, R., Teeroovengadum, V., Ringle, C. M. ve Sunnassee, V. (2019). Service quality and customer satisfaction: The moderating effects of hotel star rating. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 102414. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102414.
  • Opricovic, S. ve Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: a Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 445-455. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
  • Opricovic, S. ve Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with other outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178, 514-529. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020.
  • Önüt, S. ve Efendigil, T. ve Kara, S. S. (2010). A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting shopping center site: An example from Istanbul, Turkey. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 1973-1980. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.080.
  • Pakand, M. ve Toufigh V. (2017). A multi-criteria study on rammed earth for low carbon buildings using a novel ANP-GA approach. Energy and Buildings, 150, 466-476. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.06.004.
  • Patnaik, P. K., Swain, P. T. R., Mishra, S. K., Purohit, A. ve Biswas, S. (2020). Composite material selection for structural applications based on AHP-MOORA approach. Materials Today: Proceedings. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.063.
  • Rad, T. G., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A., Abbasi, A. ve Choi, S. M. (2018). A methodological framework for assessment of ubiquitous cities using ANP and DEMATEL methods. Sustainable Cities and Society, 37, 608-618. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.11.024.
  • Rajak, M. ve Shaw, K. (2019). Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Technology in Society, 59, 101186. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101186.
  • Rajesh, R. (2020). Sustainable supply chains in the Indian context: An integrative decision-making model. Technology in Society, 61, 101230. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101186.
  • Ren, J. (2018). Technology selection for ballast water treatment by multi-stakeholders: A multi-attribute decision analysis approach based on the combined weights and extension theory. Chemosphere, 191, 747-760. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.10.053.
  • Ruiz-Padillo, A., Pasqual, F. M., Larranaga-Uriarte, A. M. ve Bettella-Cybis, H. B. (2018) Application of multi-criteria decision analysis methods for assessing walkability: A case study in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 63, 855-871. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.07.016.
  • Saaty, T. L. (1987). The Analytic Hierarchy Process – What it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8.
  • Saaty, T. L. (2004). Fundamentals of the Analytic Network Process-dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13(2), 129-157. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0158-y.
  • Solangi, Y. A., Tan, Q., Mirjat, N. H. ve Ali, S. (2019). Evaluating the strategies for sustainable energy planning in Pakistan: An integrated SWOT-AHP and Fuzzy-TOPSIS approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117655. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117655.
  • Vavrek, R. (2019). Evaluation of the impact of selected weighting methods on the results of the TOPSIS technique. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18(6), 1821–1843. doi: https://doi.org/10.1142/S021962201950041X.
  • Vayvay, Ö., Özcan, Y. ve Cruz-Cunha, M. M. (2012). ERP consultant selection problem using AHP, fuzzy AHP and ANP: A case study in Turkey. Journal of Business Management and Economics, 3(3), 106-117. Erişim adresi: http://www.e3journals.org.
  • Wang, Y., Zhao, N., Jing, H., Meng, B. ve Yin, X. (2016). A novel model of the ideal point method coupled with objective and subjective weighting method for evaluation of surrounding sock stability. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Volume 2016, 1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8935156.
  • Zhou, X., Wang, L., Qin, J., Chai, J. ve Muñoz, C. Q. G. (2019). Emergency rescue planning under probabilistic linguistic information: An integrated FTA-ANP method. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 37, 101170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101170.
  • Zhu, X., Dapeng, N., Wang, X., Wang, F. ve Jia, M. (2019). Comprehensive energy saving evaluation of circulating cooling water system based on combination weighting method. Applied Thermal Engineering, 157, 113735. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.113735.
There are 44 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Yıldız Şahin 0000-0002-6283-5340

Sedanur Selay Kasap 0000-0002-4168-9436

Ezel Özkan 0000-0002-2638-3674

Gülçin Demirağaç 0000-0001-8914-3953

Publication Date July 30, 2021
Submission Date November 15, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2021

Cite

APA Şahin, Y., Kasap, S. S., Özkan, E., Demirağaç, G. (2021). Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinin Karar Üzerindeki Etkisi: AHS ve AAS Kıyaslaması. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(3), 1841-1860. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.826120
AMA Şahin Y, Kasap SS, Özkan E, Demirağaç G. Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinin Karar Üzerindeki Etkisi: AHS ve AAS Kıyaslaması. MJSS. July 2021;10(3):1841-1860. doi:10.33206/mjss.826120
Chicago Şahin, Yıldız, Sedanur Selay Kasap, Ezel Özkan, and Gülçin Demirağaç. “Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinin Karar Üzerindeki Etkisi: AHS Ve AAS Kıyaslaması”. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 10, no. 3 (July 2021): 1841-60. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.826120.
EndNote Şahin Y, Kasap SS, Özkan E, Demirağaç G (July 1, 2021) Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinin Karar Üzerindeki Etkisi: AHS ve AAS Kıyaslaması. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 10 3 1841–1860.
IEEE Y. Şahin, S. S. Kasap, E. Özkan, and G. Demirağaç, “Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinin Karar Üzerindeki Etkisi: AHS ve AAS Kıyaslaması”, MJSS, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1841–1860, 2021, doi: 10.33206/mjss.826120.
ISNAD Şahin, Yıldız et al. “Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinin Karar Üzerindeki Etkisi: AHS Ve AAS Kıyaslaması”. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 10/3 (July 2021), 1841-1860. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.826120.
JAMA Şahin Y, Kasap SS, Özkan E, Demirağaç G. Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinin Karar Üzerindeki Etkisi: AHS ve AAS Kıyaslaması. MJSS. 2021;10:1841–1860.
MLA Şahin, Yıldız et al. “Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinin Karar Üzerindeki Etkisi: AHS Ve AAS Kıyaslaması”. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, vol. 10, no. 3, 2021, pp. 1841-60, doi:10.33206/mjss.826120.
Vancouver Şahin Y, Kasap SS, Özkan E, Demirağaç G. Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinin Karar Üzerindeki Etkisi: AHS ve AAS Kıyaslaması. MJSS. 2021;10(3):1841-60.

Cited By

Evaluation of Open and Distance Education Websites: A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach
Systems
https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020058

MANAS Journal of Social Studies (MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi)     


16155