BibTex RIS Cite

Pet Şişe Tedarikçisi Seçiminde Bulanık AHP ve Bulanık TOPSIS Yaklaşımı

Year 2012, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 351 - 371, 01.09.2012

  Yrd.Doç.Dr. Nezih Tayyar

Abstract

Keywords

-

References

  • 1. Buckley, J. J. (1985), "Fuzzy hierarchical analysis", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), pp. 233-247.
  • 2. Chang, D.-Y. (1996), "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP", European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), pp. 649-655.
  • 3. Chen, C.-T. (2000), "Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decisionmaking under fuzzy environment", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), pp. 1-9.
  • 4. Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992), Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
  • 5. Chu, T.-C., & Lin, Y.-C. (2003), "A Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Robot Selection", Int J Adv Manuf Technol(21), pp. 284-290.
  • 6. Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010), "Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review", European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), pp. 16-24.
  • 7. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York.
  • 8. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ruan, D. (2004), "Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey", International Journal of Production Economics, 87, pp. 171– 184.
  • 9. Kahraman, C., Ates, N. Y., Çevik, S., Gülbay, M., & Erdogan, S. A. (2007), "Hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS model for selection among logistics information technologies", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(2), pp.143–168.
  • 10. Kaptanoğlu, D., & Özok, A. F. (2006), "Akademik performans değerlendirmesi için bir bulanık model", itüdergisi/d mühendislik, 5(1), s. 193-204.
  • 11. Liang, G.-S. (1999), "Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts", European Journal of Operational Research, 112(3), pp. 682-691.
  • 12. Saaty, R. W. (1987), "The analytic hierarchy process--what it is and how it is used", Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), pp. 161-176.
  • 13. Seçme, N. Y., & Özdemir, A. İ. (2008), "Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi ile Çok Kriterli Stratejik Tedarikçi Seçimi: Türkiye Örneği", İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 22(2), pp. 175-191.
  • 14. Tsaur, S.-H., Chang, T.-Y., & Yen, C.-H. (2002), "The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM", Tourism Management, 23(2), pp. 107-115.
  • 15. Ulucan, A. (2007), Yöneylem Araştırması, İşletmecilik Uygulamalı Bilgisayar Destekli Modelleme, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara.
  • 16. van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983), "A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3), pp. 199-227.
  • 17. Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991), "Vendor selection criteria and methods", European Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), pp. 2-18.
  • 18. Yahya, S., & Kingsman, B. (1999), "Vendor rating for an entrepreneur development programme: a case study using the analytic hierarchy process method", Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50, pp. 916-930.
  • 19. Zadeh, L. A. (1965), "Fuzzy sets", Information and Control, 8(3), pp. 338-353.
  • 20. Zhang, G., & Lu, J. (2003), "An integrated group decision-making method dealing with fuzzy preferences for alternatives and individual judgments for selection criteria", Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, pp. 501-51

PET ŞİŞE TEDARİKÇİSİ SEÇİMİNDE BULANIK AHP VE BULANIK TOPSIS YAKLAŞIMI

Year 2012, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 351 - 371, 01.09.2012

  Yrd.Doç.Dr. Nezih Tayyar

Abstract

Bu araştırmada bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi ve bulanık TOPSIS yöntemleri en iyi pet şişe tedarikçisi seçimi probleminde kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın amacı pet şişe tedarikçisi seçerken göz önünde bulundurulması gereken kriterleri belirlemek ve iki yöntemin sonuçlarını karşılaştırmaktır. Pet şişe tedarikçisi seçerken göz önünde bulundurulması gereken kriterlerin ağız düzgünlüğü, hatalı oranı, gramaj, fiyat, nakliye maliyeti, ödeme opsiyonları, zamanında teslimat, müşteri ilişkileri ve güven olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca problemin yapısına bulanık TOPSIS’in bulanık AHP’ye oranla daha uygun olduğu bulunmuştur

Keywords

Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Bulanık AHP Bulanık TOPSIS Tedarikçi Seçimi

References

  • 1. Buckley, J. J. (1985), "Fuzzy hierarchical analysis", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), pp. 233-247.
  • 2. Chang, D.-Y. (1996), "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP", European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), pp. 649-655.
  • 3. Chen, C.-T. (2000), "Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decisionmaking under fuzzy environment", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), pp. 1-9.
  • 4. Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992), Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
  • 5. Chu, T.-C., & Lin, Y.-C. (2003), "A Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Robot Selection", Int J Adv Manuf Technol(21), pp. 284-290.
  • 6. Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010), "Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review", European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), pp. 16-24.
  • 7. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York.
  • 8. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ruan, D. (2004), "Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey", International Journal of Production Economics, 87, pp. 171– 184.
  • 9. Kahraman, C., Ates, N. Y., Çevik, S., Gülbay, M., & Erdogan, S. A. (2007), "Hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS model for selection among logistics information technologies", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(2), pp.143–168.
  • 10. Kaptanoğlu, D., & Özok, A. F. (2006), "Akademik performans değerlendirmesi için bir bulanık model", itüdergisi/d mühendislik, 5(1), s. 193-204.
  • 11. Liang, G.-S. (1999), "Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts", European Journal of Operational Research, 112(3), pp. 682-691.
  • 12. Saaty, R. W. (1987), "The analytic hierarchy process--what it is and how it is used", Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), pp. 161-176.
  • 13. Seçme, N. Y., & Özdemir, A. İ. (2008), "Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi ile Çok Kriterli Stratejik Tedarikçi Seçimi: Türkiye Örneği", İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 22(2), pp. 175-191.
  • 14. Tsaur, S.-H., Chang, T.-Y., & Yen, C.-H. (2002), "The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM", Tourism Management, 23(2), pp. 107-115.
  • 15. Ulucan, A. (2007), Yöneylem Araştırması, İşletmecilik Uygulamalı Bilgisayar Destekli Modelleme, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara.
  • 16. van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983), "A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory", Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3), pp. 199-227.
  • 17. Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991), "Vendor selection criteria and methods", European Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), pp. 2-18.
  • 18. Yahya, S., & Kingsman, B. (1999), "Vendor rating for an entrepreneur development programme: a case study using the analytic hierarchy process method", Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50, pp. 916-930.
  • 19. Zadeh, L. A. (1965), "Fuzzy sets", Information and Control, 8(3), pp. 338-353.
  • 20. Zhang, G., & Lu, J. (2003), "An integrated group decision-making method dealing with fuzzy preferences for alternatives and individual judgments for selection criteria", Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, pp. 501-51
There are 20 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

  Yrd.Doç.Dr. Nezih Tayyar This is me

Publication Date September 1, 2012
Published in Issue Year 2012 Volume: 17 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Tayyar, .Y.N. (2012). PET ŞİŞE TEDARİKÇİSİ SEÇİMİNDE BULANIK AHP VE BULANIK TOPSIS YAKLAŞIMI. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 351-371.