ÜÇÜNCÜ TARAF LOJİSTİK (3PL) SAĞLAYICILARININ SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERSPEKTİFİNDEN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: FUCOM TEMELLİ ENTEGRE BİR YAKLAŞIM

Öz

Geleneksel yaklaşımda 3PL seçimi, uzun yıllar boyunca sadece maliyet temelli olmuştur. Ancak işletmeler, tedarikçi seçiminde tek bir kriter olarak maliyetin yeterli olmadığının farkına varmış ve artan çevresel kaygılara paralel olarak sürdürülebilirlik odaklı kriterleri de değerlendirme süreçlerine dahil etmişlerdir. Bu bağlamda mevcut çalışma, FUCOM temelli TOPSIS, SAW ve MABAC tekniklerinin entegrasyonu ile 3PL sağlayıcıların yalnızca geleneksel kriterler değil aynı zamanda sürdürülebilirlik odağında kapsamlı bir şekilde değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada, Ekonomik boyuttan 2, Çevresel boyuttan 3 ve Sosyal boyuttan 2 olmak üzere toplam 7 kriter kullanılmıştır. Beş uzmandan alınan görüşler, FUCOM yöntemi ile analiz edilmiş ve sonuçlar, en önemli kriterin “maliyet”, en az önemli kriterin ise “İş güvenliği ve işçi sağlığı” olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. TOPSIS, SAW ve MABAC tekniklerinin sonuçlarına göre, en uygun alternatif A3 iken en son seçenek A4‘tür. Sonuçların tutarlılığını test etmek amacıyla iki aşamalı duyarlılık analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Birinci aşamada kriterler, SWARA ve BWM tekniklerine göre ağırlıklandırılırken ikinci aşamada TOPSIS, SAW ve MABAC yöntemlerinin sıralama sonuçlarını entegre etmek ve nihai bir sıralama elde etmek amacıyla Copeland ve Borda sayımı teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Duyarlılık analiziyle sonuçlarının güvenilirliği test edilen değerlendirme modeli, işletmeler için daha etkin ve verimli 3PL seçimine yönelik bir karar destek sistemi sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dış kaynak kullanımı
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Üçüncü taraf lojistik (3PL)
• FUCOM
• 3PL sağlayıcı seçimi.

EVALUATION OF THIRD PARTY LOGISTICS (3PL) PROVIDERS FROM A SUSTAINABILITY PERSPECTIVE: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH BASED ON FUCOM

Abstract

In the traditional approach, 3PL selection has been based solely on cost for many years. However, businesses have realized that more than cost is required as a single criterion in supplier selection. They have included sustainability-oriented criteria in their evaluation processes in parallel with increasing environmental concerns. The present study aims to comprehensively evaluate 3PL providers on traditional criteria and sustainability by integrating FUCOM-based TOPSIS, SAW, and MABAC techniques. A total of 7 criteria were used in the research: 2 from the Economic dimension, three from the Environmental dimension, and 2 from the Social dimension. The opinions of five experts were analyzed by the FUCOM method, and the results revealed that the most important criterion was "cost" and the least essential criterion was "Occupational safety and health". According to the results of TOPSIS, SAW, and MABAC techniques, the most appropriate alternative is A3, while the last is A4. In order to test the consistency of the results, a two-stage sensitivity analysis was performed. In the first stage, the criteria are weighted according to SWARA and BWM techniques. In contrast, in the second stage, Copeland and Borda count techniques integrate TOPSIS, SAW, and MABAC methods' ranking results and obtain a final ranking. The evaluation model's reliability of the results tested by sensitivity analysis provides a decision support system for more effective and efficient 3PL selection for businesses.

Keywords

• Outsourcing
• Sustainability
• Third-party logistics (3PL)
• FUCOM
• 3PL provider selection.

References

1. Akpınar, M. E. (2021). Third-Party Logistics (3PL) Provider Selection Using Hybrid Model of SWARA and WASPAS. International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 7(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.29132/ijpas.972885
2. Ambika, P., Ayshwarya, B., Nguyen, P. T., Hashim, W., Rinjani, F., Muslihudin, M., ... & Maseleno, A. (2019). The best of village head performance: Simple additive weighting method. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2), 1568-1572.
3. Arslantaş, O., Gümüş, M., & Özder, E. H. (2023). Scholarship recipient selection for higher education with AHP, SAW and TOPSIS. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 7(2), 1685-1700. https://doi.org/10.56554/jtom.1140823
4. Asadabadi, M. R., Ahmadi, H. B., Gupta, H., & Liou, J. J. H. (2023). Supplier selection to support environmental sustainability: the stratified BWM TOPSIS method. Annals of Operations Research, 322(1), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04878-y
5. Ayçin, E. (2018). Üçüncü parti lojistik hizmet sağlayıcı seçim kriterlerinin gri dematel bütünleşik yaklaşımıyla belirlenmesi. Alphanumeric Journal, 6(2), 277-292. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.418829
6. Ayçin, E., & Aşan, H. (2021). İş zekası uygulamaları seçimindeki kriterlerin önem ağırlıklarının FUCOM yöntemi ile belirlenmesi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.903563
7. Ayshwarya, B., Firdiansah, F. A., Alfian, F. Y., Nguyen, P. T., Hashim, W., Shankar, K., ... & Maseleno, A. (2019). The best land selection using simple additive weighting. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2 Special Issue 3), 1520-1525.
8. Azadi, A., Jalali, A. S., & Navidi, M. N. (2023). Land evaluation approaches comparing TOPSIS and SAW with parametric methods for rice cultivation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11849-8

9. Badi, I., Muhammad, L. J., Abubakar, M., & Bakır, M. (2022). Measuring Sustainability Performance Indicators Using FUCOM-MARCOS Methods. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 5(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta040722060b
10. Bayazit, O. (2006). Use of analytic network process in vendor selection decisions. Benchmarking, 13(5), 566– 579. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770610690410
11. Bulak, M. E., Kozanoğlu, O., Aydoğduoğlu, Ş. N., Göçer, F., & Algül, R. (2021). E-Ticaret Sitelerinin Kullanılabilirliğinin AHP ve TOPSİS Yöntemleriyle Karşılaştırılması. European Journal of Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.963658
12. Bulgurcu, B., & Nakiboglu, G. (2018). An extent analysis of 3PL provider selection criteria: A case on Turkey cement sector. Cogent Business and Management, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1469183
13. Cahyapratama, A., & Sarno, R. (2018). Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) methods in singer selection process. In 2018 International Conference on Information and Communications Technology (ICOIACT), 234-239.
14. Chakraborty, S., Raut, R. D., Rofin, T. M., Chatterjee, S., & Chakraborty, S. (2023). A comparative analysis of Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC) model for healthcare supplier selection in fuzzy environments. Decision Analytics Journal, 8, 100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100290
15. Chakraborty, S., Sarkar, B., & Chakraborty, S. (2023). A FUCOM-MABAC-based integrated approach for performance evaluation of the Indian National Parks. OPSEARCH, 60(1), 125–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-022-00611-2
16. Chan, F. T. S., Chan, H. K., Ip, R. W. L., & Lau, H. C. W. (2007). A decision support system for supplier selection in the airline industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(4), 741–758. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054JEM629
17. Chen, Z. H., Wu, D. F., Luo, W., & Cheng, X. J. (2024). A hybrid heterogeneous framework for medical waste disposal evaluation by fusing group BWM and regret-rejoice MABAC. Expert Systems with Applications, 249, 123514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123514
18. Chou, S. Y., Chang, Y. H., & Shen, C. Y. (2008). A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(1), 132-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.006
19. Çakır, E., Tozan, H., & Vayvay, Ö. (2009). A Method For Selecting Third Party Logistic Service Provider Using Fuzzy AHP. Journal of Naval Sciences and Engineering, 5(3), 38-54.
20. Dai, X., Li, H., Zhou, L., & Wu, Q. (2024). The SMAA-MABAC approach for healthcare supplier selection in belief distribution environment with uncertainties. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 129, 107654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107654
21. Daim, T. U., Udbye, A., & Balasubramanian, A. (2013). Use of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for selection of 3PL providers. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 24(1), 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381311287472
22. Dang, P. F., Sun, L. F., Yang, Z. X., Gong, B., Zhu, J., & Yuan, S. (2024). A comprehensive risk assessment method of hydrogenation units integrating DEMATEL-TOPSIS-CM. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 79, 411-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.01.094
23. Demirtaş, M. C. (2022). Üniversite Rektörlerinin Sosyal Medya Kullanimlarinin Mabac Yöntemi İle Değerlendirilmesi. Öneri Dergisi, 17(57), 102-147. https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.941348
24. Do, Q. H., Tran, V. T., & Tran, T. T. (2024). Evaluating Lecturer Performance in Vietnam: An Application of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods. Heliyon, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30772
25. Ecer, F. (2018). Third-party logistics (3PLs) provider selection via fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(2), 615–634. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1213207
26. Ecer, F. (2021). FUCOM sübjektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemi ile rüzgâr çiftliği yer seçimini etkileyen faktörlerin analizi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 27(1), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.5505/pajes.2020.93271
27. Ecer, F. (2021). Sürdürülebilir Tedarikçi Seçimi: FUCOM Sübjektif Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemi Temelli MAIRCA Yaklaşımı. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 8(1), 26-48. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.691693
28. Ecer, F. (2021). A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110916
29. Ekin, E., & Dolanbay, G. (2024). AHP Temelli TOPSIS Yöntemi ile Yer Seçim Problemine İlişkin Bir Uygulama. İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 301-317. https://doi.org/10.17336/igusbd.1209399
30. Eren, T., & Gür, S. (2017). Online alışveriş siteleri için AHP ve TOPSIS yöntemleri ile 3PL firma seçimi. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(2), 819-834. https://doi.org/10.17218/hititsosbil.285102
31. Erginel, N., Şentürk, S., & Binici, Y. (2014). The use of ANP method based on BOCR criteria for 3PL provider selection. Anadolu University Journal of Science and Technology B-Theoretical Sciences, 3(1), 33- 44. https://doi.org/10.20290/btdb.61937
32. Fan, J., Lei, T., & Wu, M. (2024). MEREC-MABAC method based on cumulative prospect theory for picture fuzzy sets: Applications to wearable health technology devices. Expert Systems with Applications, 124749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124749
33. Forson, E. D., Kwayisi, D., Kazapoe, R. W., Ntori, C., Adjei, S. K., Mahamuda, A., ... & Amedzro, K. Y. (2024). Application of a hybrid BWM-TOPSIS approach for mineral potential mapping. Heliyon, 10(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31743
34. Gardas, B. B., D. Raut, R., & Narkhede, B. E. (2019). Analysing the 3PL service provider’s evaluation criteria through a sustainable approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(5), 958–980. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2018-0154
35. Genç, V., Özdağoğlu, A., & Keleş, M. K. (2022). Otomobil motor yağı alternatiflerinin FUCOM, MAIRCA, MABAC ve BWM yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 7(1), 55-82. https://doi.org/10.26650/JTL.2022.1020313
36. Göl, H., & Catay, B. (2007). Third-party logistics provider selection: Insights from a Turkish automotive company. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(6), 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710826290
37. Gölcük, İ., Durmaz, E. D., & Şahin, R. (2023). Bulanık FUCOM ve bulanık çizge teorisi-matris yaklaşımı ile iş güvenliği risklerinin önceliklendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(1), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.970514
38. Güngör, H. Y. (2024). Analysis of Financial Performance of Public Sports Clubs in Türkiye via CRITIC-Based SAW Method. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 13(2), 499-509. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1366043
39. Hidayad, M. K., & Utama, D. N. (2022). Third-Party Logistic Selection for Logistic Aggregator Company using Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Journal of Computer Science, 18(9), 811–820. https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2022.811.820
40. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. P. (1981). TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution)– A Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Multiple Attribute Decision Making–Methods and Applications, a State-Of-The-At Survey. Springer Publications.
41. Jayant, A., Singh, P., & Gandhi, I. (2015). Article: Application of AHP-VIKOR Hybrid MCDM Approach for 3pl Selection: A Case Study. In Article in International Journal of Computer Applications. IJCA. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283149392
42. Jharkharia, S., & Shankar, R. (2007). Selection of logistics service provider: An analytic network process (ANP) approach. Omega, 35(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2005.06.005
43. Jovčić, S., & Průša, P. (2021). A hybrid mcdm approach in third-party logistics (3pl) provider selection. Mathematics, 9(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/math9212729
44. Kannan, D., Garg, K., Jha, P. C., & Diabat, A. (2017). Integrating disassembly line balancing in the planning of a reverse logistics network from the perspective of a third party provider. Annals of Operations Research, 253(1), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2272-7
45. Keleş, M. K. (2022). CRITIC temelli MABAC yöntemi ile Türk Hava Yollarının yıllara göre performansının değerlendirilmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Uygulamalı Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.31200/makuubd.1070559
46. Keleş, S., & Demiral, Ö. (2023). Üçüncü Parti Lojistik Tedarikçisi Seçim Kriterlerinin Uzman Görüşlerine Göre Belirlenmesi. Artuklu Kaime Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.55119/artuklu.1055488
47. Khan, H. U., Abbas, M., Alruwaili, O., Nazir, S., Siddiqi, M. H., & Alanazi, S. (2024). Selection of a smart and secure education school system based on the Internet of Things using Entropy and TOPSIS approaches. Computers in Human Behavior, 108346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108346
48. Komsiyah, S., Ayuliana., & Balqis, D. A. (2023). Analysis of decision support system for determining industrial sub-district using DEMATEL-MABAC methods. Procedia Computer Science, 216, 499-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.162
49. Korucuk, S. (2018). Soğuk zincir taşımacılığı yapan işletmelerde 3pl firma seçimi: İstanbul örneği. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (16), 341-366.
50. Kucukaltan, B., Irani, Z., & Aktas, E. (2016). A decision support model for identification and prioritization of key performance indicators in the logistics industry. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.045
51. Li, F., Li, L., Jin, C., Wang, R., Wang, H., & Yang, L. (2012). A 3PL supplier selection model based on fuzzy sets. Computers and Operations Research, 39(8), 1879–1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.06.022
52. Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Zhao, J., Huang, Y., Wang, Z., & Yi, Y. (2024). Distribution of geothermal resources in Eryuan County based on entropy weight TOPSIS and AHP‒TOPSIS methods. Natural Gas Industry B, 11(2), 213-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ngib.2024.03.002
53. Liu, A., Li, Z., Shang, W. L., & Ochieng, W. (2023). Performance evaluation model of transportation infrastructure: Perspective of COVID-19. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103605
54. Mandal, U., & Seikh, M. R. (2023). Interval-valued spherical fuzzy MABAC method based on Dombi aggregation operators with unknown attribute weights to select plastic waste management process. Applied Soft Computing, 145, 110516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110516
55. Mavi, R. K., Goh, M., & Zarbakhshnia, N. (2017). Sustainable third-party reverse logistic provider selection with fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy MOORA in plastic industry. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 91(5–8), 2401–2418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9880-x
56. Mercan, T., & Can, A. (2023). İşgören Seçiminde Etkili Olan Faktörlerin FUCOM Yöntemi ile Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Havayolu İşletmesinde Uygulama. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 14(40), 1311-1329. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1271318
57. Nguyen, T. M. H., & Ménoury, M. (2022). Selection of 3PL providers for overseas market expansion: insights from a Vietnamese company. Journal of Supply Chain Management Science. https://doi.org/10.18757/jscms.2022.6846
58. Nila, B., & Roy, J. (2023). A new hybrid MCDM framework for third-party logistics provider selection under sustainability perspectives. Expert Systems with Applications, 234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121009
59. Ozcalici, M. (2022). Asset allocation with multi-criteria decision making techniques. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 5(2), 78-119. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame0305102022o
60. Özbek, H. E., & Oğuz, S. (2024). Yeniden Kullanılabilir Maskeler için Çevre Dostu Tedarikçi Seçimi: Entropi Tabanlı TOPSIS Yöntemi ile Bir Uygulama. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 8(2), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1406618
61. Özdağoğlu, A., Keleş, M. K., & Genç, V. (2021). FUCOM ve PROMETHEE yöntemleri ile ticari araç seçimi: peyzaj firmasında bir uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25(Özel Sayı), 231-253. https://doi.org/10.53487/ataunisosbil.825910
62. Özdağoğlu, A., Keleş, M. K., & Işıldak, B. (2021). Havalimanlarının Bulanık DEMATEL ve MABAC yöntemleri ile sıralanması. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 46-67. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.697259
63. Öztürkçü, N., & Özcan, S. (2024). Bütünleşik ANP, MARCOS, WASPAS ve MAIRCA Yöntemleri Kullanılarak Proje Lojistiği Operasyonlarında Üçüncü Parti Lojistik Hizmet Sağlayıcı Seçimi. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(27), 98-125. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.1308549
64. Özüdoğru, H., & Uzun, H. (2024). Sigortacılık Sektöründe Hizmet Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi: AHS ve TOPSIS Yöntemi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(2), 1200-1225. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2024.1851
65. Pala, O. (2023). MEREC-CORR ve SAW temelli lojistik performans değerlendirme. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(25), 117-135. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.1130928
66. Pamucar, D., Chatterjee, K., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2019). Assessment of third-party logistics provider using multi-criteria decision-making approach based on interval rough numbers. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 127, 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.023
67. Pamučar, D., & Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016–3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
68. Pamucar, D., Macura, D., Tavana, M., Božanić, D., & Knežević, N. (2022). An integrated rough group multicriteria decision-making model for the ex-ante prioritization of infrastructure projects: Serbian Railways case. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101098
69. Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
70. Patel, H., & Chang, C. T. (2024). Beyond throughput: Evaluating maritime port competitiveness using MABAC and Bayesian methods. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 110248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110248
71. Peker, B. N., & Görener, A. (2022). Tesis Yeri Seçiminde Kriterlerin Önem Ağırlıklarının Bulanık FUCOM Yöntemiyle Belirlenmesi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(45), 1512-1536. https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.1212318
72. Perçin, S. (2009). Evaluation of third-party logistics (3PL) providers by using a two-phase AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Benchmarking, 16(5), 588–604. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770910987823
73. Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2016). A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-party reverse logistics partner for Indian electronics industry. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 7, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.04.001
74. Raj, D., Maity, S. R., & Das, B. (2023). Optimization of Process Parameters of Laser Cladding on AISI 410 Using MEREC Integrated MABAC Method. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-023-08487-0
75. Rane, N. L., Achari, A., Choudhary, S. P., Mallick, S. K., Pande, C. B., Srivastava, A., & Moharir, K. N. (2023). A decision framework for potential dam site selection using GIS, MIF and TOPSIS in Ulhas river basin, India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138890
76. Raut, R., Kharat, M., Kamble, S., & Kumar, C. S. (2018). Sustainable evaluation and selection of potential third-party logistics (3PL) providers: An integrated MCDM approach. Benchmarking, 25(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2016-0065
77. Rony, M. A., Aslamiyah, S., & Anggraeni, M. D. (2023). Implementation of analytical hierarchy process and simple additive weighting for major selection. Jurnal Mantik, 7(1), 39-49.
78. Roy, J., Pamučar, D., & Kar, S. (2020). Evaluation and selection of third party logistics provider under sustainability perspectives: an interval valued fuzzy-rough approach. Annals of Operations Research, 293(2), 669–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03501-x
79. Sabry, I., Hewidy, A. M., Naseri, M., & Mourad, A. H. I. (2024). Optimization of Process Parameters of Metal Inert Gas Welding Process on Aluminum Alloy 6063 Pipes Using Taguchi-TOPSIS Approach. Journal of Alloys and Metallurgical Systems, 100085.
80. Sahir, S. H., Rosmawati, R., & Minan, K. (2017). Simple additive weighting method to determining employee salary increase rate. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, 3(8), 42- 48.
81. Sahoo, D., Parida, P. K., & Pati, B. (2024). Efficient fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making for optimal college location selection: A comparative study of min–max fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Results in Control and Optimization, 15, 100422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rico.2024.100422
82. Sarkis, J., & Talluri, S. (2002). A Model for Strategic Supplier Selection. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38(4), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2002.tb00117.x
83. Sasananan, M., Narkhede, B. E., Gardas, B. B., & Raut, R. D. (2016). Selection of Third Party Logistics Service Provider Using a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Indian Cement Manufacturing Industries. Thammasat International Journal of Science and Technology, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.14456/tijsat.2016.23
84. Savun-hekimoğlu, B., Erbay, B., Burak, Z. S., & Gazioğlu, C. (2021). A comparative MCDM analysis of potential short-term measures for dealing with mucilage problem in the Sea of Marmara. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 8(4), 572-580. https://doi.org/10.30897/ijegeo.1026107
85. Sen, D. K., Datta, S., & Mahapatra, S. S. (2017). Decision Support Framework for Selection of 3PL Service Providers: Dominance-Based Approach in Combination with Grey Set Theory. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 16(1), 25–57. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500474
86. Setyani, R. E., & Saputra, R. (2016). Flood-prone areas mapping at Semarang City by using simple additive weighting method. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 227, 378-386.
87. Seyedmohammadi, J., Sarmadian, F., Jafarzadeh, A. A., Ghorbani, M. A., & Shahbazi, F. (2018). Application of SAW, TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS models in cultivation priority planning for maize, rapeseed and soybean crops. Geoderma, 310, 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.012
88. Shakouri, H., Nabaee, M., & Aliakbarisani, S. (2014). A quantitative discussion on the assessment of power supply technologies: DEA (data envelopment analysis) and SAW (simple additive weighting) as complementary methods for the “Grammar”. Energy, 64, 640-647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.022
89. Singh, R. K., Gunasekaran, A., & Kumar, P. (2018). Third party logistics (3PL) selection for cold chain management: a fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Annals of Operations Research, 267(1–2), 531–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2591-3
90. Situmeang, I. J. T., Hummairoh, S., Harahap, S. M., & Mesran, M. (2021). Application of SAW (simple additive weighting) for the selection of campus ambassadors. International Journal of Informatics and Computer Science, 5(1), 21-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.30865/ijics.v5i1.2847
91. Soba, M., & Şimşek, A. (2019). Bulanık TOPSIS Yöntemiyle Üçüncü Parti Lojistik (3pl) Hizmeti Veren Bir Firmanın Seçimi. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research (JSHSR), 6(33), 380-399. https://doi.org/10.26450/jshsr.1051
92. Sonar, H. C., & Kulkarni, S. D. (2021). An integrated AHP-MABAC approach for electric vehicle selection. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 41, 100665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100665
93. Sremac, S., Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Arsić, M., & Matić, B. (2018). Evaluation of a third-party logistics (3PL) provider using a rough SWARA-WASPAS model based on a new rough dombi aggregator. Symmetry, 10(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10080305
94. Sun, H., Yu, Q., Wang, X., Zhang, X., & Ruan, X. (2024). Exploring sustainable watershed flood risks management: an innovative TFAHP-TOPSIS methodology in the Georges River Basin, Australia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 104626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104626
95. Tuljak-Suban, D., & Bajec, P. (2020). Integration of AHP and GTMA to make a reliable decision in complex decision-making problems: Application of the logistics provider selection problem as a case study. Symmetry, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/SYM12050766
96. Ulutaş, A. (2019). Entropi ve MABAC yöntemleri ile personel seçimi. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 13(19), 1552-1573. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.580456
97. Ulutaş, A. (2019). SWARA ve MAIRCA Yöntemleri İle Catering Firması Seçimi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(4), 1467–1479. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v7i4.1166
98. Ulutaş, A., Topal, A., Görçün, Ö. F., & Ecer, F. (2024). Evaluation of third-party logistics service providers for car manufacturing firms using a novel integrated grey LOPCOW-PSI-MACONT model. Expert Systems with Applications, 241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122680
99. Wang, C. N., Nguyen, N. A. T., & Dang, T. T. (2023). Sustainable Evaluation of Major Third-Party Logistics Providers: A Framework of an MCDM-Based Entropy Objective Weighting Method. Mathematics, 11(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/math11194203
100. Waziana, W., Irviani, R., Oktaviani, I., Satria, F., Kurniawan, D., & Maseleno, A. (2018). Fuzzy Simple Additive Weighting for Determination of Recipients Breeding Farm Program. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 118(7), 93-100.
101. Yadav, S., Garg, D., & Luthra, S. (2020). Selection of third-party logistics services for internet of things-based agriculture supply chain management Selection of third-party logistics services for internet of thingsbased 205. In Int. J. Logistics Systems and Management (Vol. 35, Issue 2).
102. Yagmahan, B., & Yılmaz, H. (2023). An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(1), 96-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02044-1
103. Yayla, A. Y., Oztekin, A., Gumus, A. T., & Gunasekaran, A. (2015). A hybrid data analytic methodology for 3PL transportation provider evaluation using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. International Journal of Production Research, 53(20), 6097–6113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1022266
104. Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Coulibaly, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2017). A group decision making support system in logistics and supply chain management. Expert Systems with Applications, 88, 376–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.07.014
105. Yürüyen, A. A., & Ulutaş, A. (2020). Bulanık AHP ve bulanık EDAS yöntemleri ile üçüncü parti lojistik firması seçimi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler), 283-294. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.767354
106. Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., & Çobanoģlu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2741–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064
107. Zhang, J., Zhang, S., Qiao, J., Wei, J., Wang, L., Li, Z., & Zhuo, J. (2024). Safety resilience evaluation of hydrogen refueling stations based on improved TOPSIS approach. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 66, 396-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.04.129
108. Zhu, X., Ran, Y., Zhang, G., Chen, J., & Heli, L. (2023). Identification of maintenance significant items for machine tools by integrating DEMATEL and MABAC with spherical fuzzy sets. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 126, 107155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107155
109. Zolfani, S. H., & Chatterjee, P. (2019). Comparative evaluation of sustainable design based on Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) and Best Worst Method (BWM) methods: a perspective on household furnishing materials. Symmetry, 11(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11010074