ÇKKV Yöntemleri İle İmalat İşletmelerinde TZY Performans Faktörlerinin Önem Derecelerinin Belirlenmesi ve En İdeal Rekabet Stratejisi Seçimi: Ordu İli Örneği

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 2, 569 - 593, 09.01.2019

Selçuk Korucuk

https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2018332782

Öz

Tedarik Zinciri Yönetimi (TZY) performans faktörleri uygulanabilir ve verimli bir işletme faaliyeti gerçekleştirmek için hayati derecede öneme sahiptir. TZY performans faktörleri maliyet, kalite, esneklik, lojistik seviyesi, bilgi paylaşımı gibi unsurlara doğrudan etki etmesi sebebi ile işletmeler açısından oldukça önemlidir. Öte yandan işletmeye uygun rekabet stratejisi seçimi, pek çok karar problemini içinde barındıran bir çeşit Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) problemidir. Dolayısıyla böyle bir durumda ÇKKV yöntemlerinin uygulanması tercih edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada; Ordu ili’nde 50 ve üzeri çalışanı olan imalat işletmelerinde SWARA temelli ARAS ve COPRAS yöntemleri ile TZY performans faktörlerinin önem dereceleri ortaya konulmuş ve en ideal rekabet stratejisi seçimi yapılmıştır. Yapılan değerlendirme sonucunda TZY performans unsurlarından en önemlisi “esneklik” faktörü olmuştur. Diğer taraftan hem ARAS hem de COPRAS yönteminde “Odaklanma stratejisi”nin en ideal rekabet stratejisi olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

TZY, TZY Performans Faktörleri, Rekabet Stratejileri, SWARA, ARAS, COPRAS

The Determinatıon of The Importance Rate of The SCM Performance Factors in The Manufacturing Operations With The MCDM Methods and The Best Ideal Competitive Strategy Selection: Case of Ordu Province

Öz

Supply chain management (SCM) performance factors are vital to achieving an applicable and efficient business activity. SCM performance factors are very important for businesses as they have direct impact on cost, quality, flexibility, logistics level, information sharing. On the other hand, choosing a competitive strategy suitable for the business is a kind of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem that includes many decision problems. Therefore, in such a case, the application of the methods of MCDM is preferred. In this study, the importance of SWARA based ARAS and COPRAS methods and SCM performance criteria were determined and the most ideal competition strategy selection was made in manufacturing enterprises with 50 or more employees in Ordu province. As a result of the evaluation, the most important of the performance elements of SCM was the “flexibility” factor. On the other hand, both "ARAS" and "COPRAS" method have achieved "Focus strategy" as the most ideal competition strategy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

SCM, SCM Performance Factors, Competition Strategies, SWARA, ARAS, COPRAS

Kaynakça

• AGHDAIE, M, H, HASHEMKHANI, ZOLFANI, S, ZAVADSKAS, E,K. (2013), “A hybrid Approach for Market Segmentation and Market Segment Evaluation and Selection: An Integration of Data Mining and MADM”, Transformations in Business & Economics, 12(2 B) 431-458.
• AKSOY, E, ÖMÜRBEK, N, KARAATLI, M. (2015), “AHP Temelli MULTIMOORA ve COPRAS Yöntemi İle Türkiye Kömür İşletmeleri’nin Performans Değerlendirmesi”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi,Cilt 33, Sayı 4, 1-28.
• ASKARIAZAD, M., WANOUS, M. (2009). “A Proposed Value Model For Prioritising Supply Chain Performance Measures, Int. J. Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, S. 1 (2), s. 115-128.
• ALIMARDANI, M., HASHEMKHANI ZOLFANI, S., AGHDAIE, M. H. VE TAMOŠAITIENĖ, J. (2013), “A Novel Hybrid SWARA and VIKOR Methodology For Supplier Selection İn An Agile Environment”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(3), 533-548.
• ARSLAN, H, M, (2017), “AHP-ARAS Hibrit Yöntemi ile Lojistik İşletmelerinin En Uygun Araç Seçimi”, The Journal of Operations Research, Statistics, Econometrics and Management Information SystemsVolume 5, Issue 2 , 271-282.
• AYYILDIZ, E., DEMİRCİ, E., (2018), “Türkiye’de Yer Alan Şehirlerin Yaşam Kalitelerinin Swara Entegreli Topsıs Yöntemi İle Belirlenmesi”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı 30, 67-87.
• BARCA, M., ESEN Ş. (2012), “Rekabet Avantajı Sağlamada ve Sürdürmede Stratejik Yaklaşımlar”, Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 2(7), 89-107.
• BEAMON B, M., (1999), “Measuring Supply Chain Performance”, International Journal of Operations &Production Management, S. 19, no.3, 275-292.
• BÜLBÜL, H. (2007), “Türkiye’deki Büyük Gıda Sanayi Firmalarının Rekabetçi ve Yenilikçi Uygulamaları”, H.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25 (1), 91-120.
• CANTÜRK, N, (2016). “İşletmelerde Fırsat ve Kaynak Tabanlı Yaklaşımların Rekabet Stratejisi Tercihleri ile İlişkisi: Burdur Mermer İşletmlerinde Bir Araştırma”, Bartın Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7/13, 95-121.
• CAMISON, C., VILLAR-LOPEZ, A. (2014). Organization Alinnovation as an Enabler of Technological Innovation Capabilities and Firm Performance. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2891-2902.
• CHAN, F. T. S. (2003). “Performance Measurement in A Supply Chain”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, S. 21, s. 534– 548.
• CHATTERJEE, P., CHAKRABORTY, S. (2013). “Gear Material Selection using Complex Proportional Assessment and Additive Ratio Assessment-based Approaches: A Comparative Study”, International Journal of Materials Science and Engineering, 1 (2): 104-111.
• COŞKUN, S., MESCİ, M., KILINÇ, İ. (2013). Stratejik Rekabet Üstünlüğü Sağlama Aracı Olarak İnovasyon Stratejileri: Kocaeli Otel İşletmeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(2), 101-132.
• ÇAKIR, E. (2016), “Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) Software Selection with Fuzzy COPRAS Method: A Municipal Case”, W. Sayers ve M. Avcı (Ed.), Law and Order in Turkish Society içinde (ss. 92–100). Berlin: AGP Research.
• ÇETİNKAYA, Ö. (2006). Rekabet Stratejilerinin Belirlenmesinde Portföy Analizi ve TARİŞ Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Gazi Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 8(3), 57-76.
• DADELO, S., TURSKIS, Z., ZAVADSKAS, E., DADELIENE, R. (2012). Multiple Criteria Assessment of Elite Security Personal on The Basis of ARAS and Expert Methods”, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 46 (4), 65-88.
• DESS, G. D., DAVIS, P. S. (1984). Porter's (1980), “ Generic Strategies as Determinants of Strategic Group Membership and Organizational Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, C.27 S.3, 467-488.
• ECER, F. (2016). “ARAS Yöntemi Kullanılarak Kurumsal Kaynak Planlaması Yazılımı Seçimi”, Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (1), 89-98.
• GUNASEKARAN A., KOBU, B, (2007). “Performance Measures And Metrics in Logistics And Supply Chain Management: A Review Of Recent Literature (1995–2004) For Research And Applications”, International Journal of Production Research, S. 45 (12), 2819-2840.
• HILL, C. W., JONES, G. R. (2009). “Essentials of Strategic Management”, Cengage Learning, USA.
• KAKLAUSKAS, A., E.K. ZAVADSKAS, S. RASLANAS, R. GINEVICIUS, A. KOMKA., P. MALINAUSKAS, (2006), “Selection of Low-E Windows in Retrofit of Public Buildings By Applying Multiple Criteria Method COPRAS: A Lithuanian Case”, Energy and Buildings, 38 (5), 454-462.
• KAPLANOĞLU, E, (2018), “ARAS VE COPRAS Yöntemleriyle Nakit Akışına Dayalı Performans Ölçümü: BİST Kimya, Petrol, Kauçuk ve Plastik Ürünler Sektöründe Bir Uygulama”, Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi (MUVU), 11/2, 153-184.
• KERŠULIENE, V., ZAVADSKAS, E. K., TURSKIS, Z. (2010), “Selection of Rational Dispute Resolution Method by Applying New Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA)”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243–258.
• KOUCHAKSARAEI, R. H., ZOLFANI, S. H., GOLABCHI, M. (2015). “Glasshouse Locating Based On SWARA-COPRAS Approach”, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 19(2), 111-122.
• KUTUT, V., ZAVADSKAS, E. K., LAZAUSKAS, M. (2014).” Assessment of Priority Options for Preservation of Historic City Centre Buildings using MCDM (ARAS)”, Procedia Engineering, 57: 657-661.
• MAVI, R,K, GOH, M., ZARBAKHSHNIA, N, (2017), “ Sustainable Third-Party Reverse Logistic Provider Selection with Fuzzy SWARA and Fuzzy MOORA in Plastic Industry”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1-18.
• MOUSAVI-NASAB, S, H., SOTOUDEH-ANVARI, A, (2017), “A Comprehensive MCDM- Based Approach Using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an Auxiliary Tool for Material Selection Problems”, Materials & Design, 121, 237-253.
• MULLINER, E, MALYS, N., MALIENE, V, (2016), “Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods for the Assessment of Sustainable Housing Affordability”, Omega, 59, 146-156.
• NEZHAD, M. R. G., ZOLFANI, S. H., MOZTARZADEH, F., ZAVADSKAS, E. K, BAHRAMI, M. (2015).” Planning The Priority of High Tech Industries Based on SWARA-WASPAS Methodology: The Case of The Nanotechnology Industry in Iran”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 28(1), 1111–1137.
• NGUYEN, H.T., S.Z.M. DAWAL, Y. NUKMAN, H. AOYAMA, (2014), “A Hybrid Approach for FuzzyMulti-Attribute Decision Making in Machine Tool Selection with Consideration of the Interactions of Attributes”, Expert Systems with Applications, 41(6), 3078-3090.
• OFLAZOĞLU, S., KOÇAK. A. (2012). “Stratejik Yönlülüklerin Yenilik ve Performans Üzerindeki Etkisi. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 121-144.
• ÖMÜRBEK, N, EREN, H., DAĞ, O, (2017), “Entropi-Aras ve Entropi-Moosra Yöntemleri İle Yaşam Kalitesi Açısından AB Ülkelerinin Değerlendirilmesi”, Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt-Sayı: 10(2), 29-48.
• ÖZBEK, A, (2017), “Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ve Excel İle Problem Çözümü, Kavram-Teori-Uygulama”, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.
• PODVEZKO, V. (2011), “The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS”, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 22(2), 134-146.
• POPOVİC, G., D. STANUJKİC., S. STOJANOVİC (2012), “Investment Project Selection by Applying COPRAS Method and Imprecise Data”, Serbian Journal of Management, 7(2), 257-269.
• PORTER, M. (1998). “Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors”, The Free Press, New York.
• PORTER, M. E. (2000). “Rekabet Stratejileri Sektör ve Rakip Analizi Teknikleri”, (Çev.: Gülen Ulubilgen). İstanbul: Sistem Yayınları.
• RUZGYS, A., VOLVAČİOVAS, R., IGNATAVİČİUS, Č., TURSKİS, Z. (2014). “Integrated Evaluation of External Wall Insulation in Residential Buildings Using SWARA-TODIM MCDM Method”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(1), 103-110.
• Sliogeriene, J., Turskis, Z. & Streimikiene, D. (2013). Analysis and choice of energy generation technologies: The multiple criteriaaassessment on the case study of Lithuania. Energy Procedia, 32, 11-20.
• STANIUNAS, M., M. MEDINECKIENE, E.K. ZAVADSKAS, D. KALIBATAS (2013), “To Modernize or Not: Ecological–Economical Assessment of Multi-Dwelling Houses Modernization”, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering , 13(1), 88-98.
• STANUJKIC, D., KARABASEVIC, D., ZAVADSKAS, E. K. (2015). “A Framework For The Selection of A Packaging Design Based on The SWARA Method”, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 26(2), 181-187.
• SUŠINSKAS, S., ZAVADSKAS., E. K., TURSKIS, Z. (2011). “Multiple Criteria Assessment of Pile-Columns Alternatives”, Baltic Journal of Road & Bridge Engineering, 6(3): 77-83.
• TAO, X., (2009). “Performance Evaluation Of Supply Chain Based On Fuzzy Matter-Element Theory”, International Conference On Information Management, Innovation Management And Industrial Engineering.
• TRIANTAPHYLLOU, E. (2000). “Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
• TUŞ IŞIK, A., AYTAÇ ADALI, E. (2016). “A New Integrated Decision Making Approach Based on SWARA and OCRA Methods For The Hotel Selection Problem”, International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 8(2), 140–151.
• YILDIRIM, B.F. (2015). “Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Problemlerinde ARAS Yöntemi”, Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6 (9), 285-296.
• Yurdoğlu, H., ve Kundakcı, N, (2017), “SWARA ve WASPAS Yöntemleri ile Sunucu Seçimi”, Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. Vol. 20 Sayı 38, 253-269.
• UYGURTÜRK, H, (2016), “Girişim Sermayesi Yatırım Ortaklıklarının Likidite ve Karlılık Performanslarının COPRAS Yöntemi İle Analizi”, Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9/2,637-650.
• ÜLGEN, H., MİRZE, S,K, (2004), “İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim”, Literatür Yayınları, No:113, İstanbul
• VAFAEIPOUR, M., ZOLFANI, S. H., VARZANDEH, M. H. M., DERAKHTI, A., KESHAVARZ, M. E. (2014), “Assessment of Regions Priority for Implementation of Solar Projects in Iran: New Application of a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach”, Energy Conversion and Management, 86, 653–663.
• VALIPOUR, A, YAHAYA, N, MD NOOR, NORHAZILAN, ANTUCHEVICIENE, J., TAMOSAITIENE, J, (2017), “Hybrid SWARA-COPRAS Method for Risk Assessment in Deep Foundation Excavation Project: An Iranian Case Study”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23/4, 524-532.
• ZAVADSKAS, E.K., A. KAKLAUSKAS, Z. TURSKİS, J. TAMOSAITIENE, (2008), “Contractor Selection Multi- Attribute Model Applynig COPRAS Method With Grey Interval Numbers”, International Conference 20th EURO Mini Conference “Continuous Optimization and Knowledge-Based Technologies” (EurOPT-2008), 20-23 May 2008, Neringa, Lithuania, 241-247.
• ZAVADSKAS, E. K, TURSKIS, Z., VILUTIENE, T. (2010).“Multiple Criteria Analysis of Foundation Instalment Alternatives by Applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method”, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 10, (3): 123–141.
• ZAVADSKAS, E.K., TURSKİS, Z. (2010). “A New Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method in Multicriteria Decision-Making”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16 (2), 159-172.
• ZOLFANI, S. H., BAHRAMI, M. (2014). “Investment Prioritizing in High Tech Industries Based on SWARA-COPRAS Approach”, Technological & Economic Development of Economy, 20 (3), 534–553.
• ZOPOUNİDİS, C. (1999). “ Multicriteria Decision Aid and in Financial Management”, European Journal of Operational Research,119 (2), 404-415.