ARALIK TİP 2 BULANIK TOPSIS YÖNTEMİ İLE YATIRIM YERİ KARAR ANALİZİ

Abstract

Karar verme problemlerinde,  birden fazla kriter birlikte değerlendirilirken,  mümkün çözümlerden en uygun alternatifi seçmek hedeflenmektedir.  Günümüz şartlarında büyük boyutta kararlar almak isteyen yatırımcılar, hedef pazarda varlıklarını devam ettirebilmek ve maksimum faydayı sağlamak için birden fazla faktörü birlikte değerlendirerek en iyi seçimi yapmak zorundadırlar. Bu karar yatırım bölgesi seçimi için alınıyorsa yatırımcı, yatırım dönemi boyunca firmaya maksimum fayda sağlayacak bölgeyi seçmek zorundadır. Çok kriterli karar verme olarak adlandırılan bu tip problemler çok fazla sayıda farklı teknikle çözülebilmekte ve karar vericilere büyük faydalar sağlamaktadır.

Bu çalışmada; imalat sektöründe yatırım yapacak olan bir firmada yatırım bölgesi kararı verilirken, aralık tip 2 bulanık TOPSIS yöntemi kullanılarak, en doğru seçim kararını almak hedeflenmiştir. Buna ulaşmak için belirlenen kriterler, yatırımcının gerçekte karşılaşabileceği ekonomik, teknik, kültürel ve sosyal tüm faktörler birlikte ele alınarak oluşturulmuştur. Belirlenen on adet kriter üç farklı yatırım bölgesi için değerlendirilip yatırım için en doğru bölgenin Marmara bölgesi olduğuna karar verilmiştir.

Keywords

• Aralık tip 2 bulanık TOPSIS,yatırım yeri seçimi,çok kriterli karar verme

Investment Location Decision Analysis with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy TOPSIS Method

Abstract

In decision making problems, when multiple criteria are evaluated together, it is aimed to choose the most suitable alternative from possible solutions. Investors who want to make big-scale decisions in today's conditions have to make the best choice by evaluating more than one factor together to maintain their assets in the target market and to provide maximum benefit. If this decision is taken for facility location selection, the investor must choose the region that will provide maximum benefit to the company during the investment period. These types of problems, called multi-criteria decision making, can be solved with a large number of different techniques and provide great benefits to decision makers.

In this study; it is aimed to make the right decision for facility location selection by using the interval type 2 fuzzy TOPSIS method for a firm that will invest in the manufacturing sector. In order to achieve this, the criteria set out are taken together with all the economic, technical, cultural and social factors that the investor might actually encounter. Specified ten criteria are evaluated for three different investment regions and it is decided that the most appropriate region for investment is the Marmara region.

Keywords

• Interval Type 2 Fuzzy TOPSIS,facility location selection,multi-criteria decision making

References

1. Anbar, A., Alper, D. (2015). Yatırım Projeleri Analizi. Ekin Yayınları, Bursa.
2. Aliasghary M. (2013). Aralık Değerli Tip 2 Bulanık Mantık Sistemleri için Genel Çıkarımlar ve bir Tasarım Yöntemi. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Doktora Tezi.
3. Ashtiani, B., Haghighirad, F., Makui, A., Ali Montazer, G., (2009). Extension of fuzzy TOPSIS method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing, 9 (2), 457-461.
4. Baykasoglu, A., Gölcük, İ. (2017). Development of an interval type-2 fuzzy sets based hierarchical MADM model by combining DEMATEL and TOPSIS. Expert Systems With Applications 70 (37–51).
5. Chen, C.-T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1–9. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1
6. Chen, C.-T., Lin, C.-T., Huang, S.-F. (2006). A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 102(2), 289–301. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.03.009
7. Chen, S. M., Lee, L. W. (2010). Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(4), 2790–2798. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.09.012
8. Chen, S.M., Lee, L.W. (2010). Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (4), 2790-2798.

9. Chen, S., and Hwang, C.L. (1992). Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications. Springer Verlag.
10. Choudhary, D. Shankar, R. (2012). An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India. Energy, 42 510-521.
11. Chu, T.C. (2002). Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group decisions. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowlege-Based Systems, 10 (6), 687-701.
12. Çalık, A. Paksoy, T. (2017). Aralık Tip-2 Bulanık AHP Yöntemi ile Üçüncü Parti Tersine Lojistik (3PTL) Firma Seçimi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 20-1.
13. Çebi, F., Otay, İ. (2015). Multi-Criteria and Multi-Stage Facility Location Selection under Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Environment: A Case Study for a Cement Factory. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, Vol. 8, No. 2 330-344.
14. Deveci, M. Demirel, N. Ç., Ahmetoğlu E. ( 2017). Airline new route selection based on interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM: A case study of new route between Turkey- North American region destinations. Journal of Air Transport Management 59, 83-99.
15. Dymova, L., Sevastjanov, P., Tikhonenko, A. (2015). An interval type-2 fuzzy extension of the TOPSIS method using alpha cuts. Knowledge-Based Syst. 83, 116-127.
16. Erdoğan, M. ve Kaya, İ. (2015). An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methodology Based on Type-2 Fuzzy Sets for Selection Among Energy Alternatives in Turkey. Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 12 (1), 1-25.
17. Erkayman, B.; Gundogar, E.; Akkaya, G.; Ipek, M. (2011). A Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach For Logistics Center Location Selection. Journal of Business Case Studies. 7: 3; 49-54.
18. Ertuğrul, I., Karakaşoğlu, N. (2008). Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 39(7-8):783- 95.
19. Hwang, C. L., Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
20. Jacquet-Lagrèze E. (1990). Interactive Assessment of Preferences Using Holistic Judgments the Prefcalc System. In: Bana e Costa C.A. Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
21. Kahraman, C. Onar, S. C., Öztayşi, B. (2015). Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making: A Literature Review. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, Vol. 8, No. 4637-666.
22. Kılıç, M., Kaya, I. (2015). Investment project evaluation by a decision making methodology based on type-2 fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing, 27, 399-410.
23. Lee, L.-W., Chen, S.-M. (2008). A new method for fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the arithmetic operations of interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 2008 International Conference on, 6(July), 3084–3089. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLC.2008.4620938
24. Lee, L.W., Chen, S.M., (2008). Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the extension of TOPSIS method and interval type-2 fuzzy sets. International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, IEEE,Vol 6:3260-3265.
25. Liao, T.W. (2015). Two interval type 2 fuzzy TOPSIS material selection methods. Mater. Des. 88, 1088-1099.
26. Mendel, J.M. (2001). Uncertain Rule-Based Fuzzy Logic Systems: Introduction and New Directions. Vol.2, Prentice Hall.
27. Özek, M. B., Akpolat, Z. H. (2010). Bulanık Mantık için Yeni bir Yaklaşım: Tip 2 Bulanık Mantık, Engineering Sciences, Vol: 5- 3.
28. Sağır, H., Doğanalp, B.( 2016). Bulanık Çok-Kriterli Karar Verme Perspektifinden Türkiye İçin Enerji Kaynakları Değerlendirmesi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11.
29. Yong, D. (2006). Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28: 839–844
30. Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X