DEMİR ÇELİK SEKTÖRÜNDE FAALİYET GÖSTEREN BİR İŞLETMEDE ENTROPİ TEMELLİ MAUT VE TOPSIS YÖNTEMLERİ İLE PERFORMANSIN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Demir-çelik geçmişten bugüne toplumlar için temel yapı taşlarından biri olmuştur. Demir çağına girişle birlikte savunmada kullanılmış ve bu kullanım teknolojideki gelişmelerle doğru orantılı olarak artmıştır. Taşıtlar, yedek parçalar, inşaat malzemeleri ve birçok makine üretiminde demir-çelik kullanımı küresel ölçekte rekabet gücü elde edilmesini sağlayarak sektörün önemini ortaya koymaktadır. İşletmelerin yapı taşlarından birisi ise performanslarının değerlendirilerek kontrol altında tutulmasıdır. Bu araştırmada, demir-çelik sektöründe faaliyet gösteren bir işletmenin on yıl (2014-2023) içerisinde gösterdiği performansın tespit edilmesi amacıyla, literatür taraması sonucu uzman akademisyen görüşleri doğrultusunda “çalışan sayısı, yatırım harcamaları, faaliyet kârı, üretim, ihracat ve satış olmak üzere altı adet kriter belirlenmiştir. Belirlenen bu kriterler entropi yöntemi ile objektif olarak ağırlıklandırılarak Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Tekniklerinden MAUT ve TOPSIS yöntemleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Her iki yöntemle yapılan analiz sonuçları, demir-çelik sektöründe faaliyet gösteren bu işletmenin 2016 yılından 2023 yılına kadar her yıl belirlenen kriterler bazında performansını arttırdığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca bu işletmenin 2014-2023 yılları arası sergilediği en düşük performansın 2015 yılına ait olduğu da tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Demir-Çelik Sektörü
• Entropi Yöntemi
• MAUT Yöntemi
• TOPSIS Yöntemi
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme

EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE IN A COMPANY OPERATING IN THE IRON AND STEEL SECTOR USING ENTROPY-BASED MAUT AND TOPSIS METHODS

Öz

Iron and steel have been fundamental building blocks of societies from past to present. With the advent of the Iron Age, they were used for defense, and this use has increased in direct proportion to advances in technology. The use of iron and steel in the production of vehicles, spare parts, construction materials, and many types of machinery demonstrates the sector's importance by enabling global competitiveness. One of the cornerstones of any business is the evaluation and monitoring of its performance. In this research, in order to determine the performance of a company operating in the iron and steel sector over the next ten years (2014-2023), six criteria were determined based on the opinions of expert academics following a literature review. These criteria were objectively weighted using the entropy method and analyzed using the MAUT and TOPSIS methods of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques. The results of the analyses conducted with both methods show that this company operating in the iron and steel sector improved its performance based on the determined criteria every year from 2016 to 2023. It was also determined that the lowest performance of this company between 2014 and 2023 occurred in 2015.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Iron and Steel Sector
• Entropy Method
• MAUT Method
• TOPSIS Method
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Kaynakça

1. Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, R., Elhoseny, M., Abouhawash, M., Nam, Y., & AbdelAziz, N. M. (2021). Efficient mcdm model for evaluating the performance of commercial banks: A case study. Computers, Materials and Continua, 67(3), 2729-2746.
2. Akinci, G. S., & Eren, O. (2017). Analysiıng the entrepreneurship performance for OECD countries via entropy-maut integrated technique. PressAcademia Procedia, 4(1), 224-230.
3. Akkaynak, B. (2023). Ar-Ge yatırımları ve finansal performans: dış ticaret sermaye şirketleri üzerine bir uygulama. Enderun, 7(1), 18-36.
4. Aksoy, E., Ömürbek, N., & Karaatlı, M. (2015). AHP temelli MULTIMOORA ve COPRAS yöntemi ile Türkiye Kömür İşletmeleri’nin performans değerlendirmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(4), 1-28.
5. Altin, H. (2020). A comparative analysis of CE-TOPSIS and CE-MAUT methods. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences, 11(3), 18–51.
6. Arıbaş, M., & Özcan, U. (2016). Akademik araştırma projelerinin AHP ve TOPSIS yöntemleri kullanılarak değerlendirilmesi. Politeknik Dergisi, 19(2), 163–173.
7. Ayçin, E., & Orçun, Ç. (2019). Mevduat bankalarinin performanslarinin ENTROPİ ve MAIRCA yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(42), 175-194.
8. Aytekin, S., & Özçalık, S. G. (2018). Borsa İstanbul teknoloji ve bilişim endeksi firmalarında ar-ge harcamaları ve finansal performans ilişkisi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(ICEESS’18), 67-73.

9. Babalola, Y. A., & Abiola, F. R. (2013). Financial ratio analysis of firms: A tool for decision making. International journal of management sciences, 1(4), 132-137.
10. Bączkiewicz, A., Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., Wątróbski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2021). Methodical aspects of MCDM based E-commerce recommender system. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(6), 2192-2229.
11. Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051–13069.
12. Bolelli, M. (2021). Assessment of selected European and Asian Countries COVID-19 statuses using entropy and MAUT Methods. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(44), 7483-7504.
13. Bülbül, S. ve Köse, A. (2012). Türk gıda şirketlerinin finansal performansının çok amaçlı karar verme yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25.
14. Cegan, J. C., Filion, A. M., Keisler, J. M., & Linkov, I. (2017). Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: literature review. Environment Systems and Decisions, 37, 123-133.
15. Chejarla, K. C., Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2022). MCDM applications in logistics performance evaluation: A literature review. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 29(3-4), 274-297.
16. Da Costa, A. R., Wagner, D., & Patisson, F. (2013). Modelling a new, low CO2 emissions, hydrogen steelmaking process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 46, 27-35.
17. Dağıstanlı, H. A. (2023). An integrated fuzzy MCDM and trend analysis approach for financial performance evaluation of energy companies in Borsa Istanbul sustainability index. Journal of Soft Computing and Decision Analytics, 1(1), 39-49.
18. Demir, G. (2021). Türk çimento firmalarının finansal performansının bulanık SWARA-COPRAS-MAUT yöntemleri ile karşılaştırılması. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(4), 1875-1892.
19. Drury, C. (1993). A survey of management accounting practices in UK manufacturing companies. (No Title).
20. Eccles, R. G. (1991). The performance measurement manifesto. Harvard Business Review, 69(1), 131-137.
21. Fajarika, S. (2019). Sıstem pendukung keputusan pemilihan balita sehat se-kecamatan sei lepan menggunakan metode multi atributte utility theory (maut) (studi kasus: puskesmas desa lama). KOMIK (Konferensi Nasional Teknologi Informasi dan Komputer), 3(1).
22. Fishburn, P. C. (1967). Methods of estimating additive utilities. Management science, 13(7), 435-453.
23. Fitria, A., Nada, N. Q., & Dewanto, F. M. (2024). İmplementation of the multi-attribute utility theory (maut) algorithm in the web-based performance evaluation system for the administrators of nurul hayah islamic boarding school. IJISTECH (International Journal of Information System and Technology), 8(3), 168-176.
24. Goyal, P. K. (2016). A study of ratio analysis as a technique of financial performance evaluation. Kaav International Journal of Law, Finance & Industrial Relations, 3(2), 56-65.
25. Ha, M. H., Yang, Z., & Lam, J. S. L. (2019). Port performance in container transport logistics: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Transport Policy, 73, 25-40.
26. He, K., & Wang, L. (2017). A review of energy use and energy-efficient technologies for the iron and steel industry. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1022-1039.
27. Işik, Ö., & Koşaroğlu, Ş. M. (2020). Analysis of the financial performance of Turkish listed oil companies through the application of SD and MAUT methods. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 55(3), 1395-1411.
28. Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1998). Innovations in performance measurement: Trends and research implications. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 205.
29. Kaur, N., & Singh, V. (2021). Empirically examining the impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance: evidence from Indian steel industry. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 6(2), 134-151.
30. Khan, S. A., Gupta, H., Gunasekaran, A., Mubarik, M. S., & Lawal, J. (2023). A hybrid multi‐criteria decision‐making approach to evaluate interrelationships and impacts of supply chain performance factors on pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 30(1-2), 62-90.
31. Kumar, I. P. (2019). Importance of financial ratios in financial performance. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 6(1), 130–137.
32. Kumar, R. (2025). A comprehensive review of mcdm methods, applications, and emerging trends. Decision Making Advances, 3(1), 185-199.
33. Liu, L., Zhou, J., An, X., Zhang, Y., & Yang, L. (2010). Using fuzzy theory and information entropy for water quality assessment in Three Gorges region, China. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 2517-2521.
34. Lu, X., Li, L. Y., Lei, K., Wang, L., Zhai, Y., & Zhai, M. (2010). Water quality assessment of Wei River, China using fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Environmental Earth Sciences, 60, 1693-1699.
35. Ma, Y. M., Wu, Y. M., & Wu, B. J. (2015). Comprehensive evaluation of sustainable urban development of Yangtze River Delta based on entropy method and quadrant method. Economic Geography, 35(6), 47-53.
36. Madanchian, M., & Taherdoost, H. (2023). A comprehensive guide to the TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making. Sustainable Social Development, 1(1), Article 2220.
37. Maharani, S., Ridwanto, H., Hatta, H. R., Khairina, D. M., & Ibrahim, M. R. (2021). Comparison of TOPSIS and MAUT methods for recipient determination home surgery. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 10(4), 930–937.
38. Murad, C. A., Bellinello, M. M., Silva, A. J., de Souza, G. F. M., Netto, A. C., de Andrade Melani, A. H., & de Carvalho Michalski, M. Â. (2021). İmproving the reliability of the critical asset maintenance plan using Entropy and MAUT Approaches: A hydropower plant case study.
39. Nain, A., Jain, D., & Trivedi, A. (2024). Multi-criteria decision-making methods: application in humanitarian operations. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 31(6), 2090-2128.
40. Oshoke, A. S., & Sumaina, J. (2015). Performance evaluation through ratio analysis. Journal of Accounting and Financial Management, 1(8), 1-10.
41. Özcan, A., & Ömürbek, N. (2020). Bir demir çelik işletmesinin performansının çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (8), 77-98.
42. Özdağoğlu, A., Ustaömer, T. C., & Keleş, M. K. (2022). Performance evaluatıon in airline ındustry with Crıtıc and Merec Based Maut And Psı Methods. Transport & Logistics, 22(52).
43. Özomay, M. (2023). Sustainable and environmental dyeing with maut method comparative selection of the dyeing recipe. Sustainability, 15(3), 2738.
44. Pandey, V., Komal, & Dincer, H. (2023). A review on TOPSIS method and its extensions for different applications with recent development. Soft Computing, 27, 18011–180.
45. Pavić, Z., & Novoselac, V. (2013). Notes on TOPSIS method. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science, 1(2), 5–12.
46. Raju, K. S., & Pillai, C. R. S. (1999). Multicriterion decision making in performance evaluation of an irrigation system. European Journal of Operational Research, 112(3), 479-488.
47. Ramadiani, R., Hatta, H. R., & Novita, N. (2019). Comparison of two methods between TOPSIS and MAUT in determining BIDIKMISI scholarship. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, 1–6.
48. Sahoo, S. K., & Goswami, S. S. (2023). A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances, 1(1), 25-48.
49. Sarıgül, S. S., Ünlü, M., & Yaşar, E. (2023). Financial performance analysis of Airlines operating in Europe: CRITIC based MAUT and MARCOS methods. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 5(2), 76-97.
50. Sevim, U. (2021). İşletmelerin çevresel yatırım harcamalarının finansal performans üzerine etkisi: BİST sürdürülebilirlik endeksi üzerine bir araştırma. Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 7(1), 55-67.
51. Sgobbi, A., Nijs, W., De Miglio, R., Chiodi, A., Gargiulo, M., & Thiel, C. (2016). How far away is hydrogen? Its role in the medium and long-term decarbonisation of the European energy system. İnternational Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(1), 19-35.
52. Sulistiani, H., Palupiningsih, P., Hamidy, F., Sari, P. L., & Khairunnisa, Y. (2023). Employee Performance Evaluation Using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) with PIPRECIA-S Weighting: A Case Study in Education Institution. In 2023 International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Informations System (ICIMCIS), pp. 369-373).
53. Şahin, M. (2021). Location selection by multi-criteria decision-making methods based on objective and subjective weightings. Knowledge and Information Systems, 63(8), 1991-2021.
54. Taufik, I., Alam, C. N., Mustofa, Z., Rusdiana, A., & Uriawan, W. (2021, March). Implementation of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) method for selecting diplomats. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 1098, No. 3, p. 032055). IOP Publishing.
55. Tripathy, P., Khambete, A. K., & Chauhan, K. A. (2019). An innovative approach to assess sustainability of urban mobility—Using fuzzy MCDM method. In Innovative Research in Transportation Infrastructure: Proceedings of ICIIF 2018 (pp. 55-63). Springer Singapore.
56. Tunca, M. Z., Ömürbek, N., Cömert, H. G., & Aksoy, E. (2016). OPEC ülkelerinin performanslarinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden Entropi ve Maut ile değerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 7(14), 1-12.
57. Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. T. (2013). An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods International Journal of Operations Research Vol. 10.
58. Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press.
59. Yıldırım, Z., & Sakar, F. M. (2023). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden TOPSIS yöntemi ile fakültelerin akademik performanslarının analizi. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(25), 98-116.
60. You, P., Liu, S., & Guo, S. (2021). A hybrid novel fuzzy MCDM method for comprehensive performance evaluation of pumped storage power station in China. Mathematics, 10(1), 71.
61. Zhang, W. M., An, J. W., & Han, C. (2003). The application of entropy method in the evaluation of urban sustainable development. J. Quant. Tech. Econ, 6, 115-118.
62. Zhou, Y., Zhang, Q., Li, K., & Chen, X. (2012). Hydrological effects of water reservoirs on hydrological processes in the East River (China) basin: complexity evaluations based on the multi‐scale entropy analysis. Hydrological Processes, 26(21), 3253-3262.
63. Zou, Z. H., Yi, Y., & Sun, J. N. (2006). Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 18(5), 1020-1023.
64. İnternet Kaynakları
65. Url-1: https://worldsteel.org/ (E.T.: 19.07.2024).