Comparison of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Methods: Case of Furniture Firms Websites

Öz

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods are successfully applied in different fields and disciplines. However, in many studies, the problem of selecting appropriate methods and parameters for decision problems comes to the fore. In this article, a comparison of MCDM methods is made. AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, Fuzzy TOPSIS, and Fuzzy VIKOR were used. To conduct these analyses, the websites of furniture firms were evaluated in relation to the changes that occurred after COVID-19. In application, the literature review and expert opinion determined six main criteria, with a total of 31 criteria. The weights of the criteria used in the AHP method were calculated. Then, the ranking of the websites was obtained according to the results obtained from the methods. Later, the comparison was made based on the factors: the classical ranking of results, rank similarity coefficients, computational complexity, and adequacy to changes of alternatives. The results show that all approaches used are suitable for website evaluation. However, it was observed that the methods produced similar results in the rank similarity coefficients test. VIKOR performed better in computational complexity, and the fuzzy TOPSIS method performed better in compatibility with alternative changes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• multi-criteria decision making
• fuzzy
• website
• comparison
• COVID-19

Bulanık Çok Kriterli Yöntemlerin Karşılaştırılması: Mobilya İşletmelerinin Web Siteleri Örneği

Öz

Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemleri farklı alan ve disiplinlerde başarıyla uygulanmaktadır. Ancak birçok çalışmada karar problemlerine uygun yöntem ve parametrelerin seçilmesi sorunu gündeme gelmektedir. Bu makalede, ÇKKV yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması yapılmıştır. Yöntemlerden AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, Bulanık TOPSIS ve Bulanık VIKOR kullanılmıştır. Bu analizleri yapmak için COVID-19 sonrası değişimlerle mobilya işletmelerinin web siteleri değerlendirilmiştir. Uygulamada literatür taraması ve uzman görüşü sonucunda altı ana kriter olmak üzere toplam 31 kriter belirlenmiştir. AHP yönteminden kullanılan kriterlerin ağırlıklarını hesaplanmıştır. Daha sonra yöntemlerden elde edilen sonuçlara göre web sitelerinin sıralamasını elde edilmiştir. Sonra ise yöntemler klasik sonuçların sıralaması, ilişki testi, işlem karmaşıklığı ve alternatif sayısındaki değişiklik ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuçlar, kullanılan tüm yaklaşımların web sitesi değerlendirmesinde uygun olduğunu göstermektedir. Fakat ilişki testinde yöntemlerin benzer sonuçlar çıktığı, hesaplama karmaşıklığında VIKOR daha iyi performans gösterdiği ve alternatif değişikliklerine uygunlukta ise bulanık TOPSIS yöntemi daha iyi performans gösterdiği gözlemlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çok kriterli karar verme
• bulanık
• web sitesi
• karşılaştırma
• COVID-19

Kaynakça

1. Sałabun W, Wątróbski J, Shekhovtsov A. Are MCDA methods benchmarkable? a comparative study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, AND PROMETHEE II methods. Symmetry 2020; 12(9): 1549.
2. Abdullah L. Fuzzy multi criteria decision making and its applications: a brief review of category. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sci 2013; 97:131-136.
3. Kul Y, Şeker A, Yurdakul M. Bulanık çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinin alışılmamış imalat yöntemlerinin seçiminde kullanılması. J of The Faculty of Eng Architecture of Gazi Uni 2014; 29(3): 589-603.
4. Ceballos B, Lamata MT, Pelta DA. A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Progress in Artificial Intelligence 2016; 5: 315-322.
5. Zamani-Sabzi H, King JP, Gard CC, Abudu S. Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment. Operations Research Perspectives 2016; 3: 92-117.
6. Zanakis SH, Solomon A, Wishart N, Dublish S. Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. Eur J of Operational Research 1998; 107(3): 507-529.
7. Wątróbski J, Jankowski J, Ziemba P, Karczmarczyk A, Zioło M. (2019). Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 2019; 86: 107-124.
8. Sałabun W, Urbaniak K. A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems. In Int Conference on Computational Science 2020 June; (pp. 632-645). Springer, Cham.

9. Wang CN, Nguyen NAT, Dang TT, Lu CM. A compromised decision-making approach to third-party logistics selection in sustainable supply chain using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy VIKOR methods. Mathematics 2021; 9(8): 886.
10. Erdebilli B, Sıcakyüz Ç. An Integrated Q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy (Q-ROF) for the Selection of Supply-Chain Management. Sustainability 2024; 16(12): 4901.
11. Biswas S, Bandyopadhyay G, Pamucar D, Sanyal A. A decision making framework for comparing sales and operational performance of firms in emerging market. Int J of Know-based Inte Eng Sys 2022; 26(3): 229-248.
12. Piya S, Shamsuzzoha A, Azizuddin M, Al-Hinai N, Erdebilli B. Integrated fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method to analyze green management practice in hospitality industry in the sultanate of Oman. Sustainability 2022; 14(3): 1118.
13. Erdebilli B, Gecer E, Yılmaz İ, Aksoy T, Hacıoglu U, Dinçer H, Yüksel S. Q-ROF fuzzy TOPSIS and VIKOR methods for the selection of sustainable private health insurance policies. Sustainability 2023; 15(12): 9229.
14. Solangi YA, Shah SAA, Zameer H, Ikram M, Saracoglu BO. Assessing the solar PV power project site selection in Pakistan: based on AHP-fuzzy VIKOR approach. Env Sci Poll Research 2019; 26(29): 30286-30302.
15. Yeşilkaya M, Çabuk Y. A hybrid mathematical model for international target market decision: the case of fibreboard industry. Wood Material Sci & Eng 2023; 18(6):2013-2028.
16. Nebati EE, Vatansever EN, Makas G. SWARA, ARAS ve WASPAS yöntemleri ile yeni şube yeri seçimi: bir kargo firması örneği. Fırat Üni Müh Bil Dergisi 2023; 35(1): 217-237.
17. Dincer H, Yüksel S, Hacioglu U, Erdebilli B. Multidimensional Analysis of Investment Priorities for Circular Economy with Quantum Spherical Fuzzy Hybrid Modeling. Int J of Inf Tech Decision Making 2024.
18. Chang DY. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J of Operational Res 1996; 95(3): 649-655.
19. Yu X, Guo S, Guo J, Huang X. Rank B2C e-commerce websites in e-alliance based on AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with App 2011; 38(4): 3550-3557.
20. Junior FRL, Osiro L, Carpinetti LCR. A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Applied Soft Computing 2014; 21: 194-209.
21. Büyüközkan G, Güleryüz S. An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey. Int J Prod Econ 2016; 182: 435-448.
22. Dey B, Bairagi B, Sarkar B, Sanyal SK. Group heterogeneity in multi member decision making model with an application to warehouse location selection in a supply chain. Computers Ind Eng 2017; 105: 101-122.
23. Banaeian N, Mobli H, Fahimnia B, Nielsen IE, Omid M. Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. Computers Operations Res 2018; 89: 337-347.
24. Alkahtani M, Al-Ahmari A, Kaid H, Sonboa M. Comparison and evaluation of multi-criteria supplier selection approaches: A case study. Advances in Mechanical Eng 2019; 11(2): 1687814018822926.
25. Rashidi K, Cullinane K. A comparison of fuzzy DEA and fuzzy TOPSIS in sustainable supplier selection: Implications for sourcing strategy. Expert Systems with App 2019; 121: 266-281.
26. Ghaleb AM, Kaid H, Alsamhan A, Mian SH, Hidri L. Assessment and comparison of various MCDM approaches in the selection of manufacturing process. Advances in Materials Sci Eng 2020; 2020: 1-16.
27. Youssef AE. An integrated MCDM approach for cloud service selection based on TOPSIS and BWM. IEEE Access 2020; 8: 71851-71865.
28. Baczkiewicz A, Kizielewicz B, Shekhovtsov A, Wątróbski J, Sałabun W. Methodical aspects of MCDM based E-commerce recommender system. J Theoretical App Elec Commerce Res 2021; 16(6): 2192-2229.
29. Kropivšek J, Grošelj P, Oblak L, Jošt M. A comprehensive evaluation model for wood companies websites based on the AHP/R-TOPSIS method. Forests 2021; 12(6): 706.
30. Pramanik PKD, Biswas S, Pal S, Marinković D, Choudhury P. A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for resource selection in mobile crowd computing. Symmetry 2021; 13(9): 1713.
31. Kizielewicz B, Bączkiewicz A. Comparison of Fuzzy TOPSIS, Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy WASPAS and Fuzzy MMOORA methods in the housing selection problem. Procedia Computer Sci 2021; 192: 4578-4591.
32. Varghese B, Karande P. AHP-MARCOS, a hybrid model for selecting gears and cutting fluids. Materials Today: Proceedings 2022; 52:1397-1405.
33. Ho W, Ma X. The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J of Operational Res 2018; 267(2):399-414.
34. Yeşilkaya M, Çabuk Y, Karayılmazlar S. TOPSIS-VIKOR yöntemleriyle Türkiye’deki illerin endüstriyel odun üretimi analizi. Bartın Orman Fak Dergisi 2022; 24(3): 476-487.
35. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP). J of the Operational Res Society 1980; 41(11):1073-1076.
36. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Services Sci 2008; 1(1): 83-98.
37. Aminbakhsh S, Gunduz M, Sonmez R. Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects. J of Safety Res 2013; 46: 99-105.
38. Nefeslioglu HA, Sezer EA, Gokceoglu C, Ayas Z. A modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) approach for decision support systems in natural hazard assessments. Computers & Geosciences 2013; 59: 1-8.
39. Naseem MH, Yang J, Xiang Z. Prioritizing the solutions to reverse logistics barriers for the e-commerce industry in Pakistan based on a fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach. Sustainability 2021; 13(22): 12743.
40. Wu J, Sun J, Zha Y, Liang L. Ranking approach of cross-efficiency based on improved TOPSIS technicus. J of Systems Eng Elec 2011; 22(4): 604-608.
41. Hezer S, Gelmez E, Özceylan E. Comparative analysis of TOPSIS, VIKOR and COPRAS methods for the COVID-19 Regional Safety Assessment, J of Infection and Public Health 2021; 14(6): 775-786.
42. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European J Operational Res 2004; 156(2): 445-455.
43. Alpay S, Iphar M. Equipment selection based on two different fuzzy multi criteria decision making methods: Fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR. Open Geosciences 2018; 10(1): 661-677.
44. Ploskas N, Papathanasiou J. A decision support system for multiple criteria alternative ranking using TOPSIS and VIKOR in fuzzy and nonfuzzy environments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 219; 377:1-30.
45. Yoon KP, Hwang, CL. Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. 1995, Sage publications.
46. Shohda AM, Ali MA, Ren G, Kim JG, Abdo AM, Abdellah WR, Hassan AM. Sustainable assignment of Egyptian ornamental stones for interior and exterior building finishes using the AHP-TOPSIS technique. Sustainability 2022; 14(4):2453.
47. Mardani A, Zavadskas EK, Govindan K, Amat Senin A, Jusoh A. VIKOR technique: A systematic review of the state of the art literature on methodologies and applications. Sustainability 2016; 8(1): 37.
48. Opricovic S. Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Sys. App 2011; 38(10): 12983-12990.
49. Yavuz S, Deveci M. Bulanık TOPSIS ve Bulanık VIKOR yöntemleriyle alışveriş merkezi kuruluş yeri seçimi ve bir uygulama. Ege Academic Review 2014; 14(3): 463-479.
50. Amiri MP. Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with App 2010; 37(9). 6218-6224.
51. Chen CT. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Systems 2000; 114(1): 1-9.
52. Lee Y, Kozar KA. Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success: An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Decision Support Systems 2006; 42(3): 1383-1401.
53. Lin HF. An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Computers Edu 2010; 54(4): 877-888.
54. Li R, Sun T. Assessing factors for designing a successful B2C E-commerce website using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS-Grey methodology. Symmetry 2020; 12(3): 363.
55. Raju KS, Duckstein L, Arondel C. Multicriterion analysis for sustainable water resources planning: a case study in Spain. Water Resources Man 2000; 14(6): 435-456.
56. Arabameri A, Pradhan B, Pourghasemi HR, Rezaei K. Identification of erosion-prone areas using different multi-criteria decision-making techniques and GIS. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 2018; 9(1): 1129-1155.
57. Arabameri A, Tiefenbacher JP, Blaschke T, Pradhan B, Tien Bui D. Morphometric analysis for soil erosion susceptibility mapping using novel gis-based ensemble model. Remote Sensing 2020; 12(5): 874.
58. Chitsaz N, Banihabib ME. Comparison of different multi criteria decision-making models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resources Man 2015; 29: 2503-2525.
59. Chakraborty S, Saha AK. A framework of LR fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for health care waste recycling technology. App Soft Computing 2022; 127: 109388.