INTERNET SERVICES CAMPAIGN RANKING BASED ON AN INTEGRATED DECISION MAKING APPROACH

Year 2017, Volume: 35 Issue: 3, 523 - 534, 01.09.2017

Zehra Nur Lafcı Hüseyin Selçuk Kılıç

Abstract

Regarding the firms, the internet service sector in Turkey is quite small. There are few major brands competing strictly both to attract new customers and protect existing customers by providing advantageous and aggressive campaigns. In this study, a campaign selection model in the internet service sector is established by using multiple-criteria decision making techniques. While creating this model, it is benefited from the campaign information of Turkey's leading internet service provider. Besides, while determining the criteria and selecting alternatives, the opinions of experts were received. For determining criteria weights, AHP was used together with fuzzy approximations. For decision makers, there is always an environment of uncertainty in question and this uncertainty has been reduced to a minimum level with fuzzy logic. Later, within the scope of multi-criteria decision making techniques, the popular methods; TOPSIS and VIKOR were separately used to list the alternatives. Afterwards, one listing has been established by integrating two separate listings.

Keywords

FAHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, internet services

References

• [1] Hodgett, R. E., “Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 85(5-8), 1145-1157, 2016.
• [2] Zamani-Sabzi, H., King, J. P., Gard, C. C., & Abudu, S., “Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment”, Operations Research Perspectives, 3, 92- 117, 2016.
• [3] Ertuğrul, İ., Karakaşoğlu, N., “Banka şube performanslarının VIKOR yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi”, Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 20(1), 19-28, 2009.
• [4] Gumus, A. T., “Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 4067-4074, 2009.
• [5] Ballı, S., Korukoğlu, S., “Operating system selection using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods”, Mathematical and Computational Applications, 14(2), 119-130, 2009.
• [6] Seçme, N. Y., Bayrakdaroğlu, A., Kahraman, C., “Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11699-11709, 2009.
• [7] Tadić, D., Arsovski, S., Stefanovic, M., Aleksic, A., “A fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS for ELV dismantling selection”, International Journal for Quality Research, 4(2), 377-384, 2010
• [8] Mikaeil, R., Yousefi, R., Ataei, M., “Sawability ranking of carbonate rock using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and TOPSIS approaches”, Scientia Iranica, 18(5), 1106-1115, 2011.
• [9] Jia, J., Fan, Y., Guo, X., “The low carbon development (LCD) levels’ evaluation of the world’s 47 countries (areas) by combining the FAHP with the TOPSIS method”, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(7), 6628-6640, 2012.
• [10] Parsaei S., Keramati, M. A., Zorriassatine, F., RezaFeylizadeh, M., “An order acceptance using FAHP and TOPSIS methods: A case study of Iranian vehicle belt production industry”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 3(2), 211-224, 2012.
• [11] Amile, M., Sedaghat, M., Poorhossein, M., “Performance Evaluation of Banks using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS, Case study: State-owned Banks, Partially Private and Private Banks in Iran”, Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 2(3), 128-138, 2013.
• [12] Pavani, S., Sharma, L. K., Hota, H. S., “A group expert evaluation for teachers by integrating fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS models”, IEEE International Conference in MOOC Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), India, December, 2013, 85-90.
• [13] Kilic, H. S., Zaim, S., Delen, D., “Development of a hybrid methodology for ERP system selection: The case of Turkish Airlines”, Decision Support Systems, 66, 82-92, 2014.
• [14] Mohaghar, A., Fathi, M. R., Zarchi, M. K., Omidian, A., “A combined VIKOR–fuzzy AHP approach to marketing strategy selection, Business Management and Strategy”, 3(1), 13-27, 2012.
• [15] Kuo, C. W., Chang, S. C., Tsai, P. H., “An evaluation of alternative business strategies: A Hybrid fuzzy model approach”, International Conference on Fuzzy Theory and it's Applications (iFUZZY), China, November, 2012, 305-309.
• [16] Fouladgar, M. M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Yakhchali, S. H., Ghasempourabadi, M. H., “Project portfolio selection using Fuzzy AHP and VIKOR techniques”, Transformation in Business & Economics, 11(1), 213-231, 2012.
• [17] Thipparat, T., Thaseepetch, T., “Dwelling Selection by Applying VIKOR and Fuzzy AHP Method”, International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 63(6), 26-32, 2013.
• [18] Thipparat, T., Thaseepetch, T., “An Integrated VIKOR and Fuzzy AHP Method for Assessing a Sustainable Research Project”, World Applied Sciences Journal, 22(12), 1729-1738, 2013.
• [19] Rezaie, K., Ramiyani, S. S., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Badizadeh, A., “Evaluating performance of Iranian cement firms using an integrated fuzzy AHP–VIKOR method”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(21), 5033-5046, 2014.
• [20] Pourebrahim, S., Hadipour, M., Mokhtar, M. B., Taghavi, S., “Application of VIKOR and fuzzy AHP for conservation priority assessment in coastal areas: Case of Khuzestan district”, Iran, Ocean & Coastal Management, 98, 20-26, 2014.
• [21] Chaghooshi, A. J., Zarchi, M. K., “Using Integration of Fuzzy AHP–VIKOR for Selecting the Best Strategy in Green Supply Chain Management”, Global Journal of Management Studies and Researches, 1(1), 46-53, 2014.
• [22] Ren, J., Lützen, M., “Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for technology selection for emissions reduction from shipping under uncertainties”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 40, 43-60,2015.
• [23] Yalcin, N., Bayrakdaroglu, A., Kahraman, C., “Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods for financial performance evaluation of Turkish manufacturing industries”, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 350-364, 2012.
• [24] Sasirekha, V., Ilanzkumaran, M., “Heterogeneous wireless network selection using FAHP integrated with TOPSIS and VIKOR”, International Conference on Informatics and Mobile Engineering (PRIME), India, February, 2013, 399-407.
• [25] Anojkumar, L., Ilangkumaran, M., Sasirekha, V., “Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry”, Expert Systems with Applications, 41(6), 2964-2980, 2014.
• [26] Xia, W., Wu, Z., “Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount environments”, Omega, 35(5), 494-504, 2007.
• [27] Terceno, A., De Andrés, J., Barberà, G., Lorenzana, T., “Using fuzzy set theory to analyse investments and select portfolios of tangible investments in uncertain environments”, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 11(3), 263-281, 2003.
• [28] Kilic, H. S., “A fuzzy AHP based performance assessment system for the strategic plan of Turkish Municipalities”, International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 3(2), 77-86, 2011.
• [29] Buckley, J. J., “Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis”, Fuzzy Sets Systems, 17(1), 233–247, 1985.
• [30] Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G. H. “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS”, European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455, 2004.
• [31] Bhutia, P. W., Phipon, R., “Application of AHP and TOPSIS method for supplier selection problem”, IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN), 2(10), 43-50, 2012.
• [32] Ghosh, D. N., “Analytic Hierarchy Process & TOPSIS Method to Evaluate Faculty Performance in Engineering Education”, Universal Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 1(2), 63-70, 2011.
• [33] Yu, P. L., “A class of solutions for group decision problems”, Management Science, 19(8), 936-946, 1973.
• [34] Hung, Y. H., Tzeng, G. H., “Using ANP, VIKOR, and dematel for holistic knowledge management of SMEs”, IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), Singapore, June, 2010, 898-903.
• [35] Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G. H., “Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods”, European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514-529, 2007.
• [36] Kilic, H. S., “The performance evaluation of municipalities with VIKOR: an application among municipalities in Istanbul”, International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 4(2), 45-51, 2012.
• [37] Kilic, H. S., Ayhan, M. B., “The comparison of municipality recyclable waste collection performances with fuzzy based integrated approaches”, Joint Symposium on IMSS’14 and CIE’44, 2014.