A New Proposal for the Measurement of Criterion Weights in the Scope of Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Somer’s D-DEMATEL based Hybrid Approach (SDBHA)

Öz

The obtained results underscore the effectiveness of the SDBHA in objectively determining criteria weights across various countries. Sensitivity and comparative analyses with other well-established methods, such as ENTROPY, CRITIC, SD, SVP, LOPCOW, and MEREC, were conducted to assess the sensitivity, credibility, and reliability of SDBHA. According to the findings, SDBHA is sensitive and close to a credible and reliable state. Remarkable observations include the effectiveness of SDBHA, as indicated by simulation analyses, in consistently distinguishing and determining criteria weights across various scenarios, demonstrating its stability and robustness. In conclusion, SDBHA emerges as a potent and objective criteria weighting technique, notably enhancing the DEMATEL method and providing significant contributions to the literature on MCDM.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• MCDM
• Somer’s D
• DEMATEL
• SDBHA
• Criteria Weights

Kaynakça

1. Aghelie, A., Mustapha, N. M., Sorooshian, S., & Azizan, N. A. (2016). Mathematical Modeling of Interrelationship Analysis to Determine Multi-Criteria Decision Making Casual Relations. Journal of Advanced Research Design, 20(1), 8-33. google scholar
2. Atan, M., & Altan, Ş. (2020). Örnek Uygulamalarla Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri. Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi. google scholar
3. Ayçin, E. (2019). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme. Ankara: Nobel Yayın. google scholar
4. Baş, F. (2021). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinde kriter ağırlıklarının belirlenmesi. Ankara: Nobel Bilimsel. google scholar
5. Çelikbilek, Y. (2018). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Akademşk Yayıncılık. google scholar
6. Demir, G. (2022). Hayat dışı sigorta sektöründe kurumsal performansın PSI-SD tabanlı MABAC metodu ile ölçülmesi: Anadolu Sigorta örneği. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 112-136. google scholar
7. Demir, G., Özyalçın, T., & Bircan , H. (2021). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ve ÇKKV Yazılımı ile Problem Çözümü. Ankara: Nobel. google scholar
8. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis , L. (1995). Determining Objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: The Critic Method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770. google scholar

9. Dinçer, S. E. (2019). Çok Kriterli Karar Alma. Ankara: Gece Akademi. google scholar
10. Ecer, F. (2020). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. google scholar
11. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega(112), 1-17. google scholar
12. Fontela, E., & Gobus, A. (1976). The DEMATEL observer. Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Center. google scholar
13. Gigovic, L., Pamucar, D., Bajic, Z., & Milicevic, M. (2016). The Combination of Expert Judgment and GIS-MAIRCA Analysis for the Selection of Sites for Ammunition Depots. Sustainability, 8(232), 1-30. google scholar
14. Gülençer, İ., & Türkoğlu, S. P. (2020). Gelişmekte Olan Asya ve Avrupa Ülkelerinin Finansal Gelişmişlik Performansının İstatistiksel Varyans Prosedürü Temelli OCRA Yöntemiyle Analizi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 55(2), 1330-1344. google scholar
15. Haste, H. (2020). DEMATEL Yöntemi. H. Bircan içinde, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Problemlerinde Kriiter Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemleri (s. 78-94). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. google scholar
16. Kalaycı, Ş. (2014). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri (3-409 b.). Ankara, Türkiye: Anı Yayın Dağıtım. google scholar
17. Karadağ, A. (2021). Gri Sistem Teorisi Tabanlı Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri ve Uygulama Örnekleri Teori ve Uygulama. Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi. google scholar
18. Karagöz, Y. (2010). İlişki Katsayıları (1 b.). Ankara, Türkiye: Detay Yayıncılık. google scholar
19. Karagöz, Y. (2010). İlişki Katsayısı ile Öğrenci Başarı Faktörlerinin Belirlenmesi. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9(32), 425-446. google scholar
20. Kaya , İ., & Karaşan, A. (2020). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme. Kocaeli: Umuttepe Yayınları. google scholar
21. Keleş, N. (2023). Uygulamalarla Klasik ve Güncel Karar Verme Yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Bilimsel. google scholar
22. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2018). Simultaneous Evaluation of Criteria and Alternatives (SECA) for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Informatica, 29(2), 265-280. google scholar
23. Kumar, P., Jana, C., Pal, M., & Simic, V. (2023). Sustainable carbon dioxide storage assessment in geological media using modified Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR and DEMATEL approach. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 48(25), 9474-9497. google scholar
24. Mao, Q., Chen, J., Lv, J., Guo, M., & Xie, P. (2023). Selection of plastic solid waste treatment technology based on cumulative prospect theory and fuzzy DEMATEL. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 41505-41536. google scholar
25. Metsamuuronen, J. (2020). Dimension-Corrected Somers’ D for the Measurement Modelling Settings. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(2), 297-317. google scholar
26. Nasser, A. A., Alkhulaidi, A. A., Ali, M. N., Hankal, M., & Al-olofe, M. (2019). A Weighted Euclidean Distance - Statistical Variance Procedure based Approach for Improving the Healthcare Decision Making System in Yemen. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 12(3), 1-15. google scholar
27. Newson, R. (2006). Confidence Intervals for Rank Statistics: Somers’ D and Extensions. The Stata Journal, 6(3), 309-334. google scholar
28. Nezhad, M. Z., Nazarian-Jashnabadi, J., Rezazadeh, J., Mehraeen, M., & Bagheri, R. (2023). Assessing Dimensions Influencing IoT Implemen-tation Readiness in Industries: A Fuzzy DEMATEL and Fuzzy AHP Analysis. Journal of Soft Computing and Decision Analytics, 1(1), 102-123. google scholar
29. Odu, G. 0. (2019). Weighting Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Making Technique. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manage, 23(8), 1449-1457. google scholar
30. Ogrodnik, K. (2018). The use of the dematel method to analyse cause and effect relationships between sustainable development indicators. EKONOMIA (SRODOWISKO), 4(67), 60-72. google scholar
31. Oktay, E. (2017). İlişki Ölçüleri. Erzurum: Erzurum Kültür Eğitim Kitap Kırtasiye. Orth, W. (2010). The predictive accuracy of credit ratings: Measurement and statistical inference. Munich Personal RePEc Archive(2/10), 1-17. google scholar
32. Özceylan, E., & Özkan, B. (2020). DEMATEL (Decision Makng Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) Yöntemi ile Lojistik Performans Endeksi Kriterlerinin Değerlendirilmesi. M. Kabak, & Y. Çınar içinde, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri MS EXCEL Çözümlü Uygulamalar (s. 61-73). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. google scholar
33. Özdemirci, F., Yüksel, S., Dinçer, H., & Eti, S. (2023). An assessment of alternative social banking systems using T-Spherical fuzzy TOP-DEMATEL approach. Decision Analytics Journal, 6, s. 1-8. google scholar
34. Paksoy, S. (2017). A DEMATEL method for identifying critical success factors in an implementation of information system project. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics & Emprical Economics Journal, 6, 1-17. google scholar
35. Paksoy, S. (2017). Çok Kriterli Karar Vermede Güncel Yaklaşımlar. Adana: Karahan Kitapevi. google scholar
36. Pala, O. (2021). IDOCRIW ve MARCOS temelli BIST ulaştırma işletmelerinin finansal performans analizi. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bİlimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(23), 263-294. google scholar
37. Pinto, B. M., Ferreira, F. A., Spahr, R. W., Sunderman, M. A., & Pereira, L. F. (2023). Analyzing causes of urban blight using cognitivemapping and DEMATEL. Annals of Operations Research, 325, 1083-1110. google scholar
38. Saaty, T. L. (2008). International Journal of Services Sciences. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, 1(1), 83-98. google scholar
39. Sanchez-Cabrero, R., Manoso-Pacheco, L., & Leon-Mej^a, A. C. (tarih yok). Gender-Differentiated Perceptions of Teaching among Preservice Teachers of Secondary Education. 12, 1-19. google scholar
40. Sel, A. (2020). IDOCRIW Yöntemi. H. Bircan içinde, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Problemlerinde Kriter Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemleri (s. 37-50). Ankara: Nobel Akdemik Yayıncılık. google scholar
41. Si, S.-L., You, X.-Y., Liu, H.-C., & Zhang, P. (2018). DEMATEL Technique: A Systematic Review of the State-of-the-Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3696457. google scholar
42. Smidovnik, T., & Groselj, P. (2021). Inclusion of uncertainty with different types of fuzzy numbers into DEMATEL. Serbian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49-59. google scholar
43. Somers , R. H. (1962). A new asymmetric measure of association for ordinal variables. American Sociological Review, 27(6), 799-811. google scholar
44. Tepe, S. (2021). Örnek Uygulamalarla Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri. Ankara: Akademisyen Kitapevi. google scholar
45. Torres-Ruiz, J., Perez-Fragoso, A., Maravillas-Montero, J., Llorente, L., Mejıa-Domınguez, N. R., Paez-Franco, J., . . . Gomez-Martın, D. (2021). Redefining COVID-19 Severity and Prognosis: The Role of Clinical and Immunobiotypes. The Journal Frontiers in Immunology, 12, 1-13. google scholar
46. Uludağ, A. S., & Doğan, H. (2021). Üretim Yönetiminde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme. Ankara: Nobel. google scholar
47. Ulutaş, A., & Topal, A. (2020). Bütünleştirilmiş çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinin üretim sektörü uygulamaları. Ankara: Akademisyen Kitapevi. google scholar
48. Valencia-Arias, A., & Restrepo, L. M. (2020). Entrepreneurial Intentions among Engineering Students: Applying a Theory of Planned Behavior Perspective. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 28(1), 59-69. google scholar
49. Valencia-Arias, A., Rendon, C. C., Palacios-Moya, L., Benjumea-Arias, M., Cavero, J., Moreno-Lopez, G., & Gallegos-Ruiz, A. L. (2023). Model Proposal for Service Quality Assessment of Higher Education: Evidence from a Developing Country. Education Sciences, 13(83), 1-16. google scholar
50. Yovi, E. Y., & Yamada, Y. (2023). Addressing Occupational Ergonomics Issues in Indonesian Forestry: Laborers, Operators or Equivalent Workers. Croat. j. for. eng., 40(2), 351-363. google scholar
51. Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria wights in MCMD. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2), 267-283. google scholar