Factory Location Selection Using AHP, TOPSIS and ELECTRE Methods: A Case Study

Abstract

This study employs MCDM techniques—specifically AHP, TOPSIS, and ELECTRE—to identify the optimal location for a facility based on a set of predefined criteria: Proximity to Raw Materials, Proximity to Market, Workforce Potential, Technical Capabilities, Fixed Costs, and Public Supports. Within the methodological framework, the AHP approach was utilized to accurately assign weights to the evaluation criteria, whereas TOPSIS was applied to rank the alternatives based on their proximity to the ideal solution, and ELECTRE was employed to analyze the dominance relationships among the options. The implementation phase involved a comprehensive analysis of factors such as raw material access, cost structures, and labor availability using these methods, revealing that all three approaches yielded consistent and corroborative results. The case study concluded that Izmir, which received the highest performance score according to all three MCDM methods based on the defined criteria, stands out as the most strategically suitable city for olive oil factory locations.

Keywords

• MCDM
• AHP
• ELECTRE
• TOPSIS
• Decision Analysis

AHP, ELECTRE, TOPSIS Yöntemleri ile Fabrika Lokasyon Seçimi: Vaka Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışma, önceden tanımlanmış bir dizi kritere (Hammaddeye Yakınlık, Pazara Yakınlık, İşgücü Potansiyeli, Teknik Kapasite, Sabit Maliyetler ve Kamu Destekleri) dayanarak bir tesis için en uygun yeri belirlemek amacıyla çok kriterli karar verme (MCDM) tekniklerini (özellikle AHP, TOPSIS ve ELECTRE) kullanmaktadır. Metodolojik çerçeve içinde, değerlendirme kriterlerine doğru ağırlıklar atamak için AHP yaklaşımı kullanılırken, alternatifleri ideal çözüme yakınlıklarına göre sıralamak için TOPSIS ve seçenekler arasındaki baskınlık ilişkilerini analiz etmek için ELECTRE kullanılmıştır. Uygulama aşaması, bu yöntemler kullanılarak hammadde erişimi, maliyet yapıları ve işgücü mevcudiyeti gibi faktörlerin kapsamlı bir analizini içermiş ve üç yaklaşımın da tutarlı ve birbirini doğrulayan sonuçlar verdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Vaka çalışması, tanımlanmış kriterlere göre üç MCDM yönteminin tümüne göre en yüksek performans puanını alan İzmir'in, zeytinyağı fabrikası yerleri için stratejik olarak en uygun şehir olduğu sonucuna varmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ÇKKV
• AHP
• ELECTRE
• TOPSIS
• Karar Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Topal, Z. (2015) The History of olive cultivationand olive productionin Trabzon, Journal of Black Sea Studies, 10(19), 167-206.
2. Akgül, C. (2023) The Use of olives and olive oil in the Turkish cuisine and the heath benefits, Journal of Anadolu Bil Vocational School of Higher Education, 18(67), 127-138.
3. Uzun, B. and Çeken, H. (2023). Change and new approaches in tourism within olive oil tourism (p. 173-190), Özgür Publications, DOI: https://doi. org/10.58830/ozgur. pub286. c1129.
4. Arısoy, E. (2019). Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods PROMETHEE, Master Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, Social Sciences Instute, Izmir.
5. Demireli, E. (2010). TOPSIS multi criteria decision making method: An Examination on state owned commercial bank in Türkiye, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Development, 5(1), 101-112.
6. Yıldırım, F. and Önder, E. (2014) Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods,. Bursa: Dora Publications
7. Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S.K., Yazdani, M. and Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of theart survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 13051-13069.
8. Huang, J-Y. (2016). Patent portfolio analysis of the cloud computing industry. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 39, 45-64.

9. Lau, H., Nakandla, D., Samaranayake, P., Shum, P.K. (2016). BPM for supporting customer relationship and profit decision. Business Process Management Journal, 22(1), 231-255.
10. Mehralian, G., Nazari, J.A., Rasekh, H.R., Hosseini, S. (2016). TOPSIS approach to prioritize critical success factors of TQM. The TQM Journal, 28(2), 235-249.
11. Kumar Sahu, A., Datta, S., Mahapatra, S.S. (2016). Evaluation and selection of resilient suppliers in fuzzy environment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(3), 651-673.
12. Liu, J. ve Li, S. (2015). Research on the Ranking of University Education based on Grey-TOPSIS-DEA Method. iJET, 8(10), 51-54.
13. Song, J. ve Zheng, J. (2015). The Application of Grey-TOPSIS Method on Teaching Quality Evaluation of the Higher Education. iJET, 10(8), 42-45.
14. Wang, H-C., Chiu, W-P., Wu, S-C. (2015). QoS-driven selection of web service considering group preference. Computer Networks, 93, 111-124.
15. Houska, M. (2012). Reply to the Paper ‘Multi-Criteria Analysis of Economic Activity for European Union Member States and Candidate Countries: TOPSIS and WSA Applications’ by S. E. Dincer. European Journal of Social Sciences, 30(2), 290-295.
16. Parsaei, S., Keramati, M.A., Zorriassatine, F., Feylizadeh, M.R. (2012). An order acceptance using FAHP and TOPSIS methods: A case study of Iranian vehicle belt production industry. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 3, 211-224.
17. Özgüven, N. (2011). Kriz Döneminde Küresel Perakendeci Aktörlerin Performanslarının TOPSIS Yöntemi İle Değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25(2), 151-162.
18. Ghosh, D.N. (2011). Analytic Hierarchy Process & TOPSIS Method to Evaluate Faculty Performance in Engineering Education. UNIASCIT, 1(2), 63-70.
19. Monavvarian, A., Fathi, M.R., Zarchi, M.K., Faghih, A. (2011). Combining ANP with TOPSIS in Selecting Knowledge Management Strategies (Case Study: Pars Tire Company). European Journal of Scientific Research, 54(4), 538-546.
20. Jadidi, O.,Firouzi, F., Bagliery, E. (2010). TOPSIS Method for Supplier Selection Problem. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 47, 956-958.
21. Özkan, Ö. (2007) The Study of Decision Making Methods Used for Personnel Selection: AHP, ELECTRE and TOPSIS Sample, Dokuz Eylül University, Social Sciences Institute, Master Thesis, Izmir.
22. Ahmet Çadırcı. (t.y.). Türkiye Population Database, Access Date 25.12.2025, https://nufus.ahmetcadirci.com/