TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI

Ayfer Ergin

doi:10.54410/denlojad.1040183

TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI

Öz

Çalışma, Türkiye pazarındaki büyük göndericiler arasındaki farklılıkları ve benzerlikleri belirlemek için okyanus konteyner taşıyıcı seçim kriterlerini incelemiştir. Uygulama tekstil, beyaz eşya ve kimya sektörleri olmak üzere yüksek taşıma hacmine sahip üç farklı gönderici grup arasında yapılmıştır. Türkiye'de ilk kez yüksek kapasiteye sahip üç gönderici grubu ile çalışılmış bu gruplar arasındaki bakış açısı farklılıkları irdelenmiştir. Aynı zamanda bilgilimiz kadarıyla bu çalışma üç farklı yüksek kapasiteli gönderici grup arasındaki farklılıkları analiz etmek için bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) yöntemini kullanan ilk çalışmadır. Bu yönüyle çalışma literatüre katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Yapılan bulanık AHP uygulaması sonucunda önem ağırlıkları farklılık göstersede her üç sektör için en önemli ana kriter güvenirlilik olarak bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Bagchi, P. K. (1989). Carrier selection: the analytic hierarchy process. Logistics and transportation review, 25, 63.
Bardi, E. J. (1973). Carrier selection from one mode. Transportation Journal, 23-29.
Brooks, M. R. (1990). Ocean carrier selection criteria in a new environment, Centre for International Business Studies, Dalhousie University.
Brooks, M. R. (1995). Understanding the ocean container market—a seven country study [1]. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22, 39-49.
Brooks, M. R. and Trifts, V. (2008). Short sea shipping in North America: understanding the requirements of Atlantic Canadian shippers. Maritime Policy and Management, 35, 145-158.
Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 95, 649-655.
Choi, K.-S., Xia, T.-S. and Lee, P. T.-W. (2020). Structural relationships among shipper’s perception, value, and choice intention of Korea–China train ferry service. Maritime Policy and Management, 1-15.
Collison, F. M. (1984). Market segments for marine liner service. Transportation Journal, 24, 40-54.

Coulter, R. L., Darden, W. R., Coulter, M. K. and Brown, G. (1989). Freight transportation carrier selection criteria: Identification of service dimensions for competitive positioning. Journal of business research, 19, 51-66.
D'este, G. and Meyrick, S. (1992). Carrier selection in a RO/RO ferry trade Part 1. Decision factors and attitudes. Maritime Policy and Management, 19, 115-126.
Dağdeviren, M. and Yüksel, İ. (2008). Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Information sciences, 178, 1717-1733.
Davis-Sramek, B., Robinson, J. L., Darby, J. L. and Thomas, R. W. (2020). Exploring the differential roles of environmental and social sustainability in carrier selection decisions. International Journal of Production Economics, 227, 1-9.
Ergin, A. (2011). Container Carrier Firm Selection In The Supply Chain Management And Its Application In Turkey. Phd, Istanbul University.
Ergin, A. (2021). A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating differences between ocean container carriers and their customers. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 13, 402-421.
Evans, R. E. and Southard, W. R. (1974). Motor carriers'and shippers'perceptions of the carrier choice decision. Logistics and Transportation Review, 10.
Fanam, P. D. and Ackerly, L. (2019). Evaluating ocean carrier selection criteria: perspectives of Tasmanian shippers. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 4, 1-16.
Fanam, P. D., Nguyen, H.-O. and Cahoon, S. (2018). An empirical analysis of the critical selection criteria of liner operators: the perspective of freight forwarders. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 10, 567-586.
Gailus, S. And Jahn, C. (2013). Ocean container carrier selection in north west-ern europe–qualitative empirical research to-wards a discrete choice model. Pioneering Solutions in Supply Chain Performance Management: Concepts, Technologies and Applications. Herausgeber EUL Verlag.
Ho, T.-C., Chiu, R.-H., Chung, C.-C. And Lee, H.-S. (2017). Key influence factors for ocean freight forwarders selecting container shipping lines using the revised dematel approach. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 25, 299-310.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U. And Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi‐criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics information management.
Kannan, V. (2010). Benchmarking the service quality of ocean container carriers using AHP. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17, 637-656.
Kannan, V., Bose, S. And Kannan, N. (2011). An evaluation of ocean container carrier selection criteria: an Indian shipper's perspective. Management Research Review, 34, 754-772.
Kannan, V., Bose, S. And Kannan, N. (2012). Improving the service quality of ocean container carriers: an Indian case study. Benchmarking: An international journal, 19, 709-729.
Kent, J. L. And Stephen Parker, R. (1999). International containership carrier selection criteria: shippers/carriers differences. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 29, 398-408.
Koldemir, B. And Yapici, M. (2016). A Study on role of green port implementation and ‘‘green-collar’’workers in port facilities. Proceedings Book, 413.
Krapfel, R. E. And Mentzer, J. T. (1982). Shippers' transportation choice processes under deregulation. Industrial Marketing Management, 11, 117-124.
Lambert, D. M., Lewis, M. C. And Stock, J. R. (1993). How shippers select and evaluate general commodities LTL motor carriers. Journal of Business Logistics, 14, 131.
Lehmusvaara, A., Tuominen, M. And Korpela, J. (1999). An integrated approach for truck carrier selection. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 2, 5-20.
Liberatore, M. J. And Miller, T. (1995). A decision support approach for transport carrier and mode selection. Journal of business logistics, 16, 85.
Lu, C.-S. (2003a). An evaluation of service attributes in a partnering relationship between maritime firms and shippers in Taiwan. Transportation Journal, 42, 5-16.
Lu, C.-S. (2003b). Market segment evaluation and international distribution centers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 39, 49-60.
Maloni, M. J., Gligor, D. M. And Lagoudis, I. N. (2016). Linking ocean container carrier capabilities to shipper–carrier relationships: a case study. Maritime Policy and Management, 43, 959-975.
Mangan, J., Lalwani, C. And Gardner, B. (2002). Modelling port/ferry choice in RoRo freight transportation. International Journal of Transport Management, 1, 15-28.
Mcginnis, M. A. (1978). Segmenting freight markets. Transportation Journal, 18, 58-68.
Mcginnis, M. A. (1990). The relative importance of cost and service in freight transportation choice: before and after deregulation. Transportation Journal, 30, 12-19.
Meixell, M. J. And Norbis, M. (2008). A review of the transportation mode choice and carrier selection literature. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 19, 183-211.
Murphy, P. R., Daley, J. M. And Hall, P. K. (1997). Carrier selection: do shippers and carriers agree, or not? Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 33, 67-72.
Pearson, J. N. And Semeijn, J. (1999). Service priorities in small and large firms engaged in international logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 29, 181-192.
Saleh, F. And La Londe, B. J. (1972). Industrial buying behavior and the motor carrier selection decision. Journal of Purchasing, 8, 18-33.
Sharp, J. (1987). Haulier selection—an application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 38, 319-328.
Shen, L., Mathiyazhagan, K., Kannan, D. And Ying, W. (2015). Study on analysing the criteria's for selection of shipping carriers in Chinese shipping market using analytical hierarchy process. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 7, 742-757.
Wen, C.-H. And Lin, W.-W. (2016). Customer segmentation of freight forwarders and impacts on the competitive positioning of ocean carriers in the Taiwan–southern China trade lane. Maritime Policy and Management, 43, 420-435.
Williams, Z., Garver, M. S. And Taylor, G. S. (2013). Carrier selection: understanding the needs of less-than-truckload shippers. Transportation Journal, 52, 151-182.
Wong, P. C., Yan, H. And Bamford, C. (2008). Evaluation of factors for carrier selection in the China Pearl River delta. Maritime Policy and Management, 35, 27-52.
Yasa, H., Ergin, M. F., Ergin, A. And Alkan, G. (2016). Importance of Inert Gases for Chemical Transportation. Proceedings Book 825.
Zhu, K.-J., Jing, Y. And Chang, D.-Y. (1999). A discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 116, 450-456.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Deniz Mühendisliği

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Ayfer Ergin ^*
0000-0002-6276-4001
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

29 Aralık 2021

Gönderilme Tarihi

22 Aralık 2021

Kabul Tarihi

27 Aralık 2021

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2021 Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.54410/denlojad.1040183

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA69MW49WJ

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Ergin, A. (2021). TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI. Mersin Üniversitesi Denizcilik ve Lojistik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.54410/denlojad.1040183

AMA

1.Ergin A. TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI. DENLOJAD. 2021;3(2):115-135. doi:10.54410/denlojad.1040183

Chicago

Ergin, Ayfer. 2021. “TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI”. Mersin Üniversitesi Denizcilik ve Lojistik Araştırmaları Dergisi 3 (2): 115-35. https://doi.org/10.54410/denlojad.1040183.

EndNote

Ergin A (01 Aralık 2021) TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI. Mersin Üniversitesi Denizcilik ve Lojistik Araştırmaları Dergisi 3 2 115–135.

IEEE

[1]A. Ergin, “TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI”, DENLOJAD, c. 3, sy 2, ss. 115–135, Ara. 2021, doi: 10.54410/denlojad.1040183.

ISNAD

Ergin, Ayfer. “TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI”. Mersin Üniversitesi Denizcilik ve Lojistik Araştırmaları Dergisi 3/2 (01 Aralık 2021): 115-135. https://doi.org/10.54410/denlojad.1040183.

JAMA

1.Ergin A. TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI. DENLOJAD. 2021;3:115–135.

MLA

Ergin, Ayfer. “TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI”. Mersin Üniversitesi Denizcilik ve Lojistik Araştırmaları Dergisi, c. 3, sy 2, Aralık 2021, ss. 115-3, doi:10.54410/denlojad.1040183.

Vancouver

1.Ayfer Ergin. TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI. DENLOJAD. 01 Aralık 2021;3(2):115-3. doi:10.54410/denlojad.1040183

Cited By

Factors Impacting on the Selection of Ocean Container Shipping Companies Using SWARA and CoCoSo Methods

Journal of ETA Maritime Science

https://doi.org/10.4274/jems.2025.82957

TEDARIK ZINCIRI YÖNETIMINDE OKYANUS KONTEYNER TAŞIYICI SEÇIMI: BULANIK ANALITIK HIYERARJI PROSESI YAKLAŞIMI

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster

Cited By

Factors Impacting on the Selection of Ocean Container Shipping Companies Using SWARA and CoCoSo Methods

Mersin University Journal of Maritime and Logistics Research