Entropi ve SAW Yöntemlerinin Bütünleştirilmesiyle Bir Süt Ürünleri Fabrikasında Makine Seçimi

Öz

Makine seçimi firmalar için önemli ve zor bir süreç olup, bu süreç sonunda firmalar hiç beklemedikleri problemlerle karşılaşabilirler. Firma yöneticileri, en iyi alternatifi bulmak için, fabrikanın ihtiyaçlarını belirlemeli ve gerekli kriterleri saptamalıdır. Diğer yandan, doğru makine seçimini yapabilmek için gerekli kriterler; üretim tesisine, pazar gereksinimlerine ve müşteriler tarafından belirlenen kriterlere göre değişebilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, entropi ve basit toplamlı ağırlıklandırma (SAW) yöntemlerinin birlikte kullanılması ile üç farklı tedarikçi firmanın sunduğu üç farklı makine arasında on iki farklı değerlendirme kriterinin bir arada göz önüne alınarak tercih yapılmasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üretim Yönetimi,Entropi Yöntemi,SAW Yöntemi,Makine Seçimi

Machine Selection in a Dairy Product Company with Entropy and SAW Methods Integration

Öz

Machine selection is an important and difficult process for the firms, and its results may generate more problems than anticipated. In order to find the best alternative, managers should define the requirements of the factory and determine the necessary criteria. On the other hand, the decision making criteria for choosing the right equipment may vary according to the type of the manufacturing facility, market requirements, and consumer assigned criteria. This study aims to find the best machine alternative among the three machine offerings according to twelve evaluation criteria by integrating entropy method with SAW method.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Production Management,Entropy Method,SAW Method,Machine Selection

Kaynakça

1. AFSHARI, A., MOJAHED, M., & YUSUFF, R. M. (2010). ‘‘Simple additive weighting approach to personnel selection problem’’, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1, 5, 511-515.
2. EROL, Ismail. FERRELL Jr., WILLIAM G. (2009), “Integrated approach for reorganizing purchasing: Theory and a case analysis on a Turkish company”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56, 1192–1204.
3. EROL, İsmail. SENCER, Safiye. ÖZMEN, Aslı. SEARCY, Cory. (2014), “Fuzzy MCDM framework for locating a nuclear power plant in Turkey”, Energy Policy, 67, 186–197.
4. EROL, İsmail. (2004), “Toplam Kalite Yönetimi ve Tam Zamanında Üretim Yaklaşımlarının Satınalma İşlevi ile İlişkilendirilmesi, Bütünsel Bir Yaklaşım Önerisi ve Örnek Olay Analizi”, Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 15, 4, 2-18.
5. HABTEMARIAM, Bereket Tesfamariam. FANG, Qinhua. (2016), “Zoning for a multiple-use marine protected area using spatial multi-criteria analysis: The case of the Sheik Seid Marine National Park in Eritrea”, Marine Policy, 63, 135–143.
6. HAGURA, Yoshio, et al. (2011) “Quantification of grittiness of yogurt using flow characteristics indexes”, Procedia Food Science, 1, 594-600.
7. HAMZADAYI, Alper. YILDIZ, Gokalp. (2016), “Hybrid strategy based complete rescheduling approaches for dynamic m identical parallel machines scheduling problem with a common server”, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 63, 104–132.
8. GENCER, Cevriye; GÜRPINAR, Didem. (2007), “Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31, 11, 2475-2486.

9. http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/homogenization_T3.html , (28.10.2016).
10. http://physics.info/viscosity/ , (28.10.2016).
11. KALISZEWSKI, I. PODKOPAEV, D. (2016), “Simple additive weighting - A meta model for multiple criteria decision analysis methods”, Expert Systems with Applications, 54, 155–161.
12. LIU, Sen. CHAN, Felix T. S. RAN, Wenxue. (2016), “Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: An improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes”, Expert Systems with Applications, 55, 37–47.
13. LUO, Zhongyang. SULTAN, Umair. NI, Mingjiang. PENG, Hao. SHI, Bingwei. Xiao, Gang. (2016), “Multi-objective optimization for GPU3 Stirling engine by combining multi-objective algorithms”, Renewable Energy, 94, 114-125.
14. MAIMOUN, Mousa. MADANI, Kaveh. REINHART, Debra. (2016), “Multi-level multi-criteria analysis of alternative fuels for waste collection vehicles in the United States”, Science of the Total Environment, 550, 349–361.
15. MOON, Jewook. LEE, Chanwoo. PARK, Sangho. KIM, Yanghoon. CHANG, Hangbae. (2016), “Mathematical model-based security management framework for future ICT outsourcing project”, Discrete Applied Mathematics, (article in press).
16. NGUYEN, Huu-Tho, DAWAL, Siti Zawiah Md, NUKMAN, Yusoff, AOYAMA, Hideki. (2014), “A hybrid approach for fuzzy multi-attribute decision making in machine tool selection with consideration of the interactions of attributes”, Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 6, 3078-3090.
17. OLTEAN-DUMBRAVA, Crina. WATTS, Greg. Miah, Abdul. (2016), “Towards a more sustainable surface transport infrastructure: a case study of applying multi criteria analysis techniques to assess the sustainability of transport noise reducing devices”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2922-2934.
18. SABBAGHIAN, Reza Javidi. ZARGHAMI, Mahdi. NEJADHASHEMI, A. Pouyan. SHARIFI, Mohammad Bagher. HERMAN, Matthew R. DANESHVAR, Fariborz. (2016), “Application of risk-based multiple criteria decision analysis for selection of the best agricultural scenario for effective watershed management”, Journal of Environmental Management, 168, 260-272.
19. YURDAKUL, Mustafa. (2004) “AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 146, 3, 365-376.
20. WANG, Peng. ZHU, Zhouquan. WANG, Yonghu. (2016), “A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design”, Information Sciences, 345, 27–45.