EKİPMAN SEÇİMİ PROBLEMİNDE PROMETHEE VE BULANIK PROMETHEE YÖNTEMLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANALİZİ

Öz

İnsan, makine, malzeme gibi çok çeşitlilikte ve değişken özellikler gösteren bileşenlere sahip olan üretimsistemlerinin planlanması, yönetilmesi ve kontrol edilmesi genellikle zor ve karmaşık bir yapıya sahip olup,birden fazla etken tarafından etkilenen kararlar alınmasını gerektiren bir süreçtir. Bu tip süreçlerde karşılaşılanproblemler çok sayıda çelişen kriter içeren kompleks karar problemleri niteliğindedir. Bu gibi durumlardaanalitik bir bakış açısı sağlayan, probleme matematiksel ve mantıklı çözümler getirebilen çok kriterli kararverme yöntemlerinin uygulanması çözüm ve daha sonraki aşamalarda büyük yararlar sağlamaktadır. Ekipmanseçimi, etkin bir üretim sistemi için oldukça önemli bir konudur. Genellikle birbirine çok benzeyen pek çoktipteki ekipmanın arasından en doğru seçimi yapmayı çok sayıda kriterin göz önüne alınması ile birliktegerektiren, yorucu, karmaşık, zor bir karar verme problemidir. Bu çalışmada, bir işletmenin kaynak makinesiseçimi problemi, dilsel ifadelerle tanımlanan kriterlerin önceliklendirilmesini içeren çok kriterli bir karar vermeproblemi temelinde incelenmiştir. Yapılan uygulamada problem hem bulanık hem de kesin sayılarınkullanılmasıyla çözülerek alternatif ekipmanlar için hem kısmi hem de tam sıralama belirlenmiştir. Elde edilensonuçlar ile her iki durum karşılaştırmalı olarak ayrıntılı bir şekilde analiz edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekipman seçimi, çok ölçütlü karar verme, PROMETHEE, Bulanık PROMETHEE

Kaynakça

1. Dağdeviren, M., ve Eren, T., “Analytical
2. Hierarchy Process and Use of 0-1 Goal
3. Programming Methods in Selecting Supplier
4. Firm”, J. Fac. Eng. Arch. Gazi Univ.,16 , 2, 41-
5. , 2001.
6. Kralawski, A., Pedrycz W., ve Nyström L.,
7. “Fuzzy Neural Network as Instance Generator for
8. Case-Based Reasoning System: An Example of

9. Selection of Heat Exchange Equipment in Mixing
10. Tanks”, Neural Computing & Applications, 8,
11. –113, 1999.
12. Kulak, O., Durmuşoglu, M. B., ve Kahraman, C.,
13. “Fuzzy multiattribute equipment selection based
14. on information axiom”, Journal of Materials
15. Processing Technology, 169, 337–345, 2005.
16. Dağdeviren, M., “Decision making in equipment
17. selection: an ıntegrated approach with AHP and
18. PROMETHEE”, Journal of Intelligent
19. Manufacturing, 19, 397-406, 2008.
20. Ayağ, Z., ve Özdemir, R. G., “A fuzzy AHP
21. approach to evaluating machine tool
22. alternatives”, Journal of Intelligent
23. Manufacturing, 17, 179–190, 2006.
24. Başçetin, A., ve Kesimal, A., “A new approach in
25. selection of loading-hauling systems in surface
26. mining”, 16th Mining Congress of Turkey,
27. ISBN 975-395-310-0, 1999.
28. Başçetin, A., “A decision support system for
29. optimal equipment selection in open pit mining:
30. Analytical Hierarchy Process”, İstanbul Üniv.
31. Müh. Fak. Yerbilimleri Dergisi, 16, 2, 1-11,
32. -
33. Chan, F. T. S., Ip, R. W. L., ve Lau, H.,
34. “Integration of expert system with analytic
35. hierarchy process for the design of material
36. handling equipment selection system”, Journal
37. of Materials Processing Technology, 116, 137–
38. , 2001.
39. Manassero, G., Semeraro Q., ve Tolio T., “A new
40. method to cope with decision makers' uncertainty
41. in the equipment selection process”, CIRP
42. Annals – Manufacturing Technology, 53, 1,
43. -392, 2004.
44. Chakraborty, S., ve Banik, D., “Design of a
45. material handling equipment selection model
46. using Analytical Hierarchy Process”, International Journal of Advanced
47. Manufacturing Technologies, 28, 1237-1245,
48. -
49. İç, Y. T., ve Yurdakul, M., “Decision support
50. system for selection of machining centers”, J.
51. Fac. Eng. Arch. Gazi Univ, 23, 1, 85-95, 2008.
52. Decision Lab, 1.01.0388, copyright © 1998-2000,
53. Visual Decision Inc., Canada.
54. .
55. Saaty, T., The Analytic Hierarchy Process,
56. McGraw- Hill International Book Company,
57. USA,1980.
58. Schniederjans, M. J., ve Wilson, R.L., “Using the
59. Analytic Hierarchy Process and Goal
60. Programming- for Information System Project
61. Selection”, Information & Management, 20, 5,
62. -342, 1991.
63. Suresh, N.C., ve Kaparthi, S., “Flexible
64. AutomationInvestments: A Synthesis of Two
65. Multi-Objective Modeling Approaches”,
66. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 22, 3,
67. -272, 1992.
68. Ehie, I.C., ve Benjamin, C.O., “An Integrated
69. Multiobjective Planning Model: A Case Study Of
70. The Zambian Copper Mining Industry”,
71. European J. of Operational Research, 68, 2,
72. -172, 1993.
73. Myint, S., ve Tabucanon, M.T., “A Multiple-
74. Criteria Approach to Machine Selection for
75. Flexible Manufacturing Systems”, International
76. Journal of Production Economics, 33, 1-3, 121-
77. , 1994.
78. Ramanathan, R., ve Ganesh, L. S., “Energy
79. Alternatives for Lighting in Households: An
80. Evaluation Using An Integrated Goal
81. Programming-AHP Model”, Energy, 20, 1, 63-
82. , 1995.
83. Ramanathan, R. ve Ganesh, L. S., “Energy
84. Resource Allocation Incorporating Qualitative
85. and Quantitative Criteria: An Integrated Model
86. Using Goal Programming And AHP”, Socio-
87. Economic Planning Sciences, 29, 3, 197-218,
88. -
89. Schniederjans, M.J., ve Garvin, T., “Using the
90. Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multi-Objective
91. Programming for the Selection of Cost Drivers in
92. Activity-Based Costing”, European Journal of
93. Operational Research, 100, 1, 72-80, 1997.
94. Badri, M. A., “Combining the Analytic Hierarchy
95. Process and Goal Programming for Global
96. Facility Location-Allocation Problem”,
97. International J. of Production Economics, 62,
98. , 237-248, 1999.
99. Badri, M. A., “A Combined AHP–GP Model for
100. Quality Control Systems”, International
101. Journal of Production Economics, 72, 1, 27-40,
102. -
103. Bowen, W.M., “Subjective Judgements and Data
104. Envelopment Analysis in Site Selection”,
105. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,
106. , 2, 133-144, 1990.
107. Shang, J., ve Sueyoshi, T., “A Unified
108. Framework for the Selection of a Flexible
109. Manufacturing System”, European Journal of
110. Operational Research, 85, 2, 297-315, 1995.
111. Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A. ve Hadad, Y., “An
112. AHP/DEA Methodology for Ranking Decision
113. Making Units”, International Transactions in
114. Operational Research, 7, 2, 109-124, 2000.
115. Yang, T., ve Kuo, C., “A Hierarchical AHP/DEA
116. Methodology for the Facilities Layout Design
117. Problem”, European Journal of Operational
118. Research, 147, 1, 128-136, 2003.
119. Mon, D., Cheng, C. ve Lin, J., “Evaluating
120. Weapon System Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy
121. Process Based on Entropy Weight”, Fuzzy Sets
122. and Systems, 62, 2, 127-134, 1994.
123. Chang, D., “Applications of the Extent Analysis
124. Method on Fuzzy AHP”, European Journal of
125. Operational Research, 95, 3, 649-655, 1996.
126. Weck, M., Klocke, F., Schell, H., ve Rüenauver,
127. E., “Evaluating Alternative Production Cycles
128. Using the Extended Fuzzy AHP Method”,
129. European Journal of perational Research, 100,
130. , 351- 366, 1997.
131. Zhu, K., Jing, Y., ve Chang, D., “A Discussion
132. on Extent Analysis Method and Applications of
133. Fuzzy AHP”, European Journal of Operational
134. Research, 116, 2, 450-456, 1999.
135. Kuo, R. J., Chi, S. C. ve Kao, S. S., “A Decision
136. Support System for Locating Convenience Store
137. Through Fuzzy AHP”, Computers & Industrial
138. Engineering, 37, 1-2, 323-326, 1999.
139. Leung, L. C. ve Cao, D., “On Consistency and
140. Ranking of Alternatives in Fuzzy AHP”,
141. European Journal of Operational Research,
142. , 1, 102- 113, 2000.
143. Yu, C.S., “A GP-AHP Method for Solving Group
144. Decision-Making Fuzzy AHP Problems”,
145. Computers & Operations Research, 29, 14,
146. -2001, 2002.
147. Bozdağ, C.E., Kahraman, C. ve Ruan, D., “Fuzzy
148. Group Decision Making for Selection Among
149. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems”,
150. Computers in Industry, 51, 1, 13-29, 2003.
151. Kahraman, C., Ruan, D. ve Doğan, I., “Fuzzy
152. Group Decision-Making for Facility Location
153. Selection”, Information Sciences, 157, 135-153,
154. -
155. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U. ve Ruan, D., “Multi-
156. Attribute Comparison of Catering Service
157. Companies Using Fuzzy AHP: The Case of
158. Turkey”, Int. Journal Production Economics,
159. , 171-184, 2004.
160. Büyüközkan, G., Ertay, T., Kahraman, C. Ve
161. Ruan, D., “Determining the Importance Weights
162. for the Design Requirements in the House of
163. Quality Using the Fuzzy Analytic Network Approach”, International Journal of Intelligent
164. Systems, 19, 443-461, 2004.
165. Kulak, O. ve Kahraman, C., “Fuzzy Multi-
166. Attribute Selection Among Transportation
167. Companies Using Axiomatic Design and
168. Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Information
169. Sciences, 170, 191-210, 2005.
170. Tolga, E., Demircan, M.L. ve Kahraman, C.,
171. “Operating System Selection Using Fuzzy
172. Replacement Analysis and Analytic Hierarchy
173. Process”, Int. J. of Production Economics, 97,
174. -117, 2005.
175. Dağdeviren, M., Akay, D., Çetinyokus, T. ve
176. Kurt, M., “Bulanık Matematiksel Programlama
177. Teknigi İle Bir İş Değerlendirme Uygulaması”,
178. Teknoloji Z.K.Ü. Karabük Teknik Eğitim
179. Fakültesi Dergisi, 5, 1-2,91-96,2002.
180. Dağdeviren, M., Yüksel, İ., “Developing a Fuzzy
181. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model for
182. Behaviour Based Safety Management”,
183. Information Sciences, 178, 6, 1717-1733, 2008.
184. Saaty, T.,”The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic
185. Network Processes”, MCDM XV-th Int. Conf.,
186. Ankara, Turkey, 2000.
187. Tam, M.C.Y. ve Tummala, V.M.R., ”An
188. Application of the AHP in Vendor Selection of a
189. Telecommunications System” The Int. J. of
190. Management Science, 29, 2, 171-182, 2001.
191. Saaty, T., The Analytic Hierarchy Process for
192. Decision Making, Kobe, Japan, 1999.
193. Saaty, T., Fundamentals of Decision Making
194. and Priority Theory, RWS Publications,
195. Pittsburgh, USA, 2000.
196. Brans, J. P., ve Vincke, P. H., “A preference
197. ranking organization method”, Management
198. Science, 31, 647-656, 1985.
199. Brans, J. P., Vincke, P. H., ve Mareschall, B.,
200. “How to select and how to rank projects: The
201. PROMETHEE method”, European Journal of
202. Operational Research, 14, 228-238, 1986.
203. Goumas, M., ve Lygerou, V., “An extension of
204. the PROMETHEE method for decision making in
205. fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy
206. exploitation projects”, European Journal of
207. Operational Research, 123, 606-613, 2000.
208. Geldermann J., Spengler, T., ve Rentz, O.,
209. “Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment.
210. Case study: Iron and steel making industry”,
211. Fuzzy Set Systems, 115, 45– 65, 2000.
212. Le Téno, J., F., ve Mareschal, B., “An interval
213. version of PROMETHEE for the comparison of
214. building products’ design with ill-defined data on
215. environmental quality”, Eur Journal of
216. Operational Research, 109, 522–529, 1998.
217. Bilsel, R., U., Büyüközkan, G., ve Ruan, D., “A
218. fuzzy prefernce-ranking model for a quality
219. evaluation of hospital web sites”, International
220. Journal of Intelligent Systems, 21, 1181-1197,
221. -
222. Briggs, Th., Kunsch, P.L., ve Mareschal, B.,
223. “Nuclear waste management: An application of
224. the multicriteria PROMETHEE methods”,
225. European Journal of Operational Research,
226. , 110, 1990.
227. Chou, W. C., Lin, W. T., ve Lin, C. Y.,
228. “Application of fuzzy theory and PROMETHEE
229. technique to evaluate suitable ecotechnology
230. method: A case study in Shihmen Reservoir
231. Watershed, Taiwan”, Ecological Engineering,
232. , 269–280, 2007.
233. Queiruga, D., Walther, G., Gonza’lez-Benito, J.,
234. ve Spengler, T., “Evaluation of sites for
235. thelocation of WEEE recycling plants in Spain”,
236. Waste Management, 28, 1, 181–190, 2008.
237. D’Avignon, G., ve Mareschal, B., “An
238. application of the PROMETHEE and GAIA
239. methods”, Mathematical and Computer
240. Modelling, 12, (10–11), 1393–1400, 1989.
241. Du Bois, Ph., Brans, J.P., Cantraine, F., ve
242. Mareschal, B., “MEDICIS: An expert system for
243. computer-aided diagnosis using the
244. PROMETHEE multicriteria method”, European
245. Journal of Operational Research, 39, 284–292,
246. -
247. Olson, D.L., “Comparison of three multicriteria
248. methods to predict known outcomes”, European
249. Journal of Operational Research, 130, 3, 576–
250. , 2001.
251. Rekiek, B., de Lit, P., ve Delchambre, A., “Hybrid
252. assembly line design and user’s preferences”,
253. International Journal of Production Research,
254. , 5, 1095–1111, 2002.
255. Baourakis, G., Doumpos, M., Kalogeras, N., ve
256. Zopounidis, C., “Multicriteria analysis and
257. assessment of financial viability of
258. agribusinesses: The case of marketing cooperatives
259. and juice-producing companies”,
260. Agribusiness, 18, 4, 543–558, 2002.
261. Albadvi, A., Chaharsooghi, S.K., ve Esfahanipour,
262. A., “Decision making in stock trading: An
263. application of PROMETHEE”, European
264. Journal of Operational Research, 177, 673–683,
265. -
266. Hyde, K., Maier, H., ve Colby, C., “Incorporating
267. uncertainty in the PROMETHEE MCDA
268. method”, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
269. Analysis, 12, 245–259, 2003.
270. Albadvi, A., “Formulating national information
271. technology strategies: A preference ranking
272. model using PROMETHEE method”, European
273. Journal of Operational Research, 153, 290–
274. , 2004.
275. Johnson, M.P., “Spatial decision support for
276. assisted housing mobility counseling”, Decision
277. Support Systems, 41, 296–312, 2005.
278. Zhang, G., Ni, Y., Churchill, J., ve Kokot, S.,
279. “Authentication of vegetable oils on the basis of
280. their physico-chemical properties with the aid of
281. chemometrics”, Talanta, 70, 293–300, 2006.
282. Iniestra, J. G., ve Gutiérrez, J.G., “Multicriteria
283. decisions on interdependent infrastructure
284. transportation projects using an evolutionarybased
285. framework”, Applied Soft Computing, 9,
286. –52, 2009.
287. Mohamadabadi, H., S., Tichkowsky, G., ve
288. Kumar, A., “Development of a multicriteria
289. assesment model for ranking of renewable and
290. non-renewable transportation fuel vehicles”,
291. Energy, 34, 112-125, 2009.
292. Brans, J. P., ve Mareschall, B., “The PROMCALC
293. & GAIA decision support system for multi-criteria
294. decision aid”, Decision Support Systems, 12,
295. -310, 1994.
296. Ballı, S., Karasulu, B., ve Korukoğlu, S., “En
297. uygun otomobil seçimi problemi için bir bulanık
298. PROMETHEE yöntemi uygulaması”,
299. D.E.Ü.İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 22, 1, 139-147, 2007.
300. DuBois D., ve Prade H., “Operations on fuzzy
301. numbers”, Int J Syst Sci, 9, 613– 626, 1978.
302. Brans, J. P., ve Mareschal, B., “How to decide
303. with PROMETHEE”, Visual Decision Inc.,
304. Montreal, Canada,
305. http://www.visualdecision.com, 1998.
306. Wang, J. J., ve Yang, D. L., “Using a hybrid
307. multi-criteria decision aid method for information
308. systems outsourcing”, Computers & Operation
309. Research, 34, 3691-3700.