Deniz Liman İşletmelerinin Strateji Seçimlerinde AHP Modellemesi ile Karar Alma Süreci

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 152 - 166, 06.05.2025

Hakan Kılcı , Burcu Özge Özaslan Çalışkan

https://doi.org/10.26650/JTL.2025.1566430

Öz

Bu araştırmada deniz liman işletmelerinin strateji seçimlerinde üst düzey yönetime yardımcı olacak bir model geliştirmek hedeflen- miştir. Araştırmanın modellemesinde altı boyuttan oluşan deniz liman performans göstergelerinin her birinin ağırlıklarını bulmak için AHP (Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci) kullanılmış konusunda uzman olan, çeşitli alanlardan seçilen katılımcılardan oluşturulan odak grup görüşmeleri neticesinde anket formalarıyla elde edilen veriler Super Decision Paket Programı ve Microsoft Office Excel Programı kullanılarak analize tabi tutulmuştur. Bu analiz neticesinde öncelikle bir deniz liman işletmesinin performansını etkileyen 6 ana faktörün ve bunların alt boyutlarının ağırlıkları (katsayıları) tespit edilmiştir. Modelde deniz liman performans göstergeleri strateji seçiminde kullanılan kriterler, deniz liman işletmelerinin seçebilecekleri 3 strateji ise alternatifleri oluşturmaktadır. Bu stratejiler maliyet liderliği stratejisi, farklılaştırma stratejisi ve cevap (hızlı yanıt) verme stratejisidir. Araştırmanın son aşamasında iki deniz liman işletmesinin üst düzey yöneticilerine ağırlıklandırılmış kriterleri kendi liman işletmelerini göz önünde bulundurarak Likert ölçeği ile 1’den 9’a kadar değerlerle puanlandırması istenmiştir. İki deniz liman işletmesinin üst düzey yöneticisinin yapmış olduğu puanlama neticesinde her iki deniz limanı da kendileri için en uygun stratejinin farklılaştırma stratejisi olduğu sonucuna varmıştır.

JEL Classification : M51 , M30 , O18 , R41

Anahtar Kelimeler

Deniz Liman İşletmeciliği , Anahtar Performans Göstergeleri , Stratejik Yönetim , Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi

In the Strategy Choices of Sea Port Operations Decision Making Process with AHP Modeling

Öz

In this research, it is aimed to develop a model that will assist senior management in the strategy choices of sea port enterprises. In the modeling of the research, AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) was used to find the weights of each of the sea port performance indicators consisting of six dimensions. The data obtained through the survey forms as a result of the focus group discussions held with the participants selected from various fields, who are experts in their field, were analyzed using the Super Decision Package Program and Microsoft Office Excel Program. has been subjected to. As a result of this analysis, the weights (coefficients) of 6 main factors and their sub-dimensions that affect the performance of a sea port enterprise were determined. In the model, sea port performance indicators constitute the criteria used in strategy selection, and the 3 strategies that sea port enterprises can choose constitute the alternatives. These strategies are cost leadership strategy, differentiation strategy and responsive (quick response) strategy. In the final stage of the research, senior managers of two sea port enterprises were asked to score the weighted criteria with values from 1 to 9 on a Likert scale, taking into account their own port enterprises. As a result of the scoring made by the senior managers of the two sea port operators, both sea ports concluded that the most suitable strategy for them was the differentiation strategy.

JEL Classification : M51 , M30 , O18 , R41

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sea Port Management , Key Performance Indicators , Strategic Management , Analytical Hierarchy Process

Kaynakça

• Atshuller, G., Shapiro, R., (1956), “About Technical Creativity” Quest Psychol 6, 37-49. google scholar
• Bowersox, J.D., and Closs, D., (1996), Logistical Management the Integrated Supply Chain Process, McGraw-Hill Companies. google scholar
• Calabrese A., Costa, R., Levialdi, N., Menichini, T., (2016). “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting”, Journal of Cleaner Production 121, 248-264. google scholar
• Clemen, R.T., (1996)., “Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis” 2 nd Edition, Duxburry Press, London. google scholar
• Coeck, C., Notteboom, T., Verbeke, A., Winkelmans, W., (1996), “A resource-based perspective on strategic port planning in”, Proceedings of the 11th International Harbour Congress. Antwerp, 29-40. google scholar
• Daellenbach, H., (1994), “Systems and Decision Making: A Management Science Approach”, Wiley, West Sussex, Chichester. google scholar
• Dawidowicz, L.F., Postan, M. (2015), “The directions of the service development of European seaports specializing in handling perishable goods”, pp. 75-98 google scholar
• Esmer, S., (2019). “Liman ve Terminal Yönetimi”, T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayın N:3840, Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayını No:2647, Eskişehir. google scholar
• Goss, R.O. (1990) ‘Economic policies and seaports: the economic functions of seaports’, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.207-219. google scholar
• Heaver, T.D., (1995) The implications of increased competition among ports for port policy and management, Maritime Policy & Management: The flagship journal of international shipping and port research, 22:2, 125-133. google scholar
• Heizer, J. and Render, B., (2014). “Operations Management Sustainability and Supply Chain Management” Pearson Education Limited, Harlow England. google scholar
• https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dtlkdb2016d1_en.pdf. google scholar
• https://marport.com.tr. google scholar
• Hui Shan LOH and Vinh Van THAI, (2014). “Managing Port-Related Supply Chain Disruptions: A Conceptual Paper”, The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, Volume 30, Number 1, pp.97-116. google scholar
• Ishikawa., K., (1968), “Guide to Quality Control” JUSE, Tokyo. google scholar
• Junior, G.D.A.D.S., Beresford, A.,KC., Pettit, S., J., (2003), “Liner Shipping and Terminal Operators: International or Globalisation?”, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 5 Volume (293-412). google scholar
• Robertson, D.W. (1946). “A Note on the Classical Origin of Circumstances in the Medieval Confessional”. Studies in Philology. 105 (3) :236-251. google scholar
• Saaty, T. L., & Shih, H. S. (2009). Structures in decision making: On the subjective geometry of hierarchies and networks. European Journal of Operations Research, 199(3), 867-872. google scholar
• Shih-Hsu., S., and Olson, D.L., (2022), “TOPSIS and its Extensions: A Distance-Based MCDM Approach”, Springer Press google scholar
• Slack, N. (1994), "The Importance-Performance Matrix as a Determinant of Improvement Priority", International Journal of Operations google scholar
• Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 59-75. google scholar
• Fleming, W.H., and Souganidis, P.E., (1989)., “The Existence of Value Functions of Two-Player, Zero-Sum Stochastic Differential Games”: Indiana University Mathematics Journal , Summer, 1989, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 293-314. google scholar
• Osborn, A.F., (1953), “Applied Imagination Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking”, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. google scholar
• Turban, E., Aronson, J.E., Liang, T.P., and Sharda, R., (2006), “Decision Support and Business Intelligence Systems”, 8th Edition Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. google scholar
• Ha, MH, Yang, Z, Notteboom, T, Ng, AKY and Heo, MW (2017) Revisiting port performance measurement: A hybrid multi-stakeholder framework for the modelling of port performance indicators. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 103. pp. 1-16. google scholar
• Yıldırım, B., F., ve Önder, E., (2018). “İşletmeciler, Mühendisler ve Yöneticiler için Operasyonel, Yönetsel ve Stratejik Problemlerin Çözümünde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri”, Dora Basım- Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti., Bursa. google scholar