Bulanık Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Yeşil Tedarik Zincirindeki Risklerin Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Çevresel düşünceleri tedarik zinciri yönetimi araştırma ve uygulamalarına entegre etmek için artan bir ihtiyaç bulunmaktadır. İşletmeler çevresel düzenlemelere ve müşteri taleplerine cevap verebilmek için yeşil tedarik zinciri (YTZ) stratejileri aramaya çalışmaktadırlar. YTZ uygulamalarının başarıyla yönetilmesinde rol oynayan çeşitli riskler ve risk faktörleri vardır. Belirsiz riskler YTZ operasyonlarını bozma ve dolayısıyla tedarik zincirinin başarı oranını düşürme eğilimin-dedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bulanık ortamda YTZ faaliyetlerinin uygulanmasıyla ilgili riskleri değerlendirmek için Analitik Hiyerarşi Sürecine (AHP) ve TOPSIS, VIKOR ve ARAS metodolojisine dayanan entegre bir karar yaklaşımı önermektir. Türkiye’de mobilya sektöründen bir işletme üzerinden, Bulanık AHP yöntemi tanımlanmış risklerin önceliğini elde etmek için uygulanmış, bulanık TOPSIS, VIKOR ve ARAS yöntemleri elde edilen risk önceliklerini dikkate alarak tedarikçi risk değerlendirmesi için kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışmada önerilen risk değerlendirme yaklaşımı, stratejik karar süreçlerinde risklerin önemini anlamak ve farklı karar verme yöntemlerinin değerlendirilmesi için mantıklı araçlar sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ARAS
• , Bulanık AHP
• Mobilya sektörü
• Risk değerlendirmesi
• TOPSIS
• VIKOR

Kaynakça

1. Akman, G. (2015). Evaluating suppliers to include green supplier development programs via fuzzy c-means and VIKOR methods. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 86, 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.10.013
2. Aqlan, F., & Lam, S. S. (2015). Supply chain risk modelling and mitigation. International Journal of Production Research, 53(18), 5640–5656. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1047975
3. Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9
4. Chatterjee, K., & Kar, S. (2016). Multi-criteria analysis of supply chain risk management using interval valued fuzzy TOPSIS. OPSEARCH, 53(3), 474–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-015-0241-6
5. Chatterjee, K., Zavadskas, E., Tamošaitienė, J., Adhikary, K., & Kar, S. (2018). A Hybrid MCDM Technique for Risk Management in Construction Projects. Symmetry, 10(2), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10020046
6. Christopher, M., & Lee, H. (2004). Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(5), 388–396. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030410545436
7. Dehdasht, G., Mohamad Zin, R., Ferwati, M., Mohammed Abdullahi, M., Keyvanfar, A., & McCaffer, R. (2017). DEMATEL-ANP Risk Assessment in Oil and Gas Construction Projects. Sustainability, 9(8), 1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081420
8. Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2015.01.003

9. Hashemi, S. H., Karimi, A., & Tavana, M. (2015). An integrated green supplier selection approach with analytic network process and improved Grey relational analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.027
10. Hu, A. H., Hsu, C.-W., Kuo, T.-C., & Wu, W.-C. (2009). Risk evaluation of green components to hazardous substance using FMEA and FAHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 7142–7147. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2008.08.031
11. Humphreys, P. ., Wong, Y. ., & Chan, F. T. . (2003). Integrating environmental criteria into the supplier selection process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 138(1–3), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00097-9
12. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer-Verlag. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=X-wYAQAAIAAJ
13. Jabbarzadeh, A., Haughton, M., & Pourmehdi, F. (2019). A robust optimization model for efficient and green supply chain planning with postponement strategy. International Journal of Production Economics, 214, 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2018.06.013
14. Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2010). Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul. Energy, 35(6), 2517–2527. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2010.02.051
15. Kumar, M. S., Sunil, L., & Suresh, J. (2018). Benchmarking the risk assessment in green supply chain using fuzzy approach to FMEA: Insights from an Indian case study. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(8), 2660–2687. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2017-0074
16. Lee, A. H. I. (2009). A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consideration of benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 2879–2893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.01.045
17. Lin, H.-F. (2010). An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Computers & Education, 54(4), 877–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2009.09.017
18. Majumdar, A., Sinha, S. K., Shaw, M., & Mathiyazhagan, K. (2020). Analysing the vulnerability of green clothing supply chains in South and Southeast Asia using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Research, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1708988
19. Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2015a). Flexible Decision Modeling for Evaluating the Risks in Green Supply Chain Using Fuzzy AHP and IRP Methodologies. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-014-0081-x
20. Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2015b). Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 104, 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.001
21. Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2016). An Integrated Methodology of FTA and Fuzzy AHP for Risk Assessment in Green Supply Chain. International Journal of Operational Research, 25(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJOR.2016.073252
22. Mital, M., Del Giudice, M., & Papa, A. (2018). Comparing supply chain risks for multiple product categories with cognitive mapping and Analytic Hierarchy Process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2017.05.036
23. Ngan, S. L., Promentilla, M. A. B., Yatim, P., & Lam, H. L. (2019). A Novel Risk Assessment Model for Green Finance: the Case of Malaysian Oil Palm Biomass Industry. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, 3(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-018-0043-4
24. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJOR.2006.01.020
25. Ozturkoglu, Y., Kazancoglu, Y., & Ozkan-Ozen, Y. D. (2019). A sustainable and preventative risk management model for ship recycling industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238, 117907. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.117907
26. Qu, Z., Wan, C., Yang, Z., & Lee, P. (2018). A Discourse of Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Approaches. Içinde International Series in Operations Research and Management Science (ss. 7–29). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62338-2_2
27. Rostamzadeh, R., Ghorabaee, M. K., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., & Nobar, H. B. K. (2018). Evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS- CRITIC approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.12.071
28. Ruimin, M., Yao, L., & Huang, R. (2012). The Green Supply Chain Management Risk Analysis. Advanced Materials Research, 573–574, 734–739. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.573-574.734
29. Sanayei, A., Farid Mousavi, S., & Yazdankhah, A. (2010). Group decision making process for supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2009.04.063
30. Song, W., Ming, X., & Liu, H.-C. (2017). Identifying critical risk factors of sustainable supply chain management: A rough strength-relation analysis method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.12.145
31. Tang, O., Matsukawa, H., & Nakashima, K. (2012). Supply chain risk management. International Journal of Production Economics, 139(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2012.06.015
32. Turskis, Z., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). A new fuzzy additive ratio assessment method (ARAS‐F). Case study: The analysis of fuzzy multiple criteria in order to select the logistic centers location. Transport, 25(4), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2010.52
33. Tzeng, G.-H., & Huang, J.-J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making. Methods and applications (1st Editio). Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1201/b11032
34. Venkatesh, V. G., Rathi, S., & Patwa, S. (2015). Analysis on supply chain risks in Indian apparel retail chains and proposal of risk prioritization model using Interpretive structural modeling. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 26, 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRETCONSER.2015.06.001
35. Wang, P., Li, Y., Wang, Y.-H., & Zhu, Z.-Q. (2015). A New method based on TOPSIS and response surface method for MCDM problems with interval numbers. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/938535
36. Wang, X., Chan, H. K., & Diaz-Rainey, I. (2012). A two-stage fuzzy-AHP model for risk assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2011.03.021
37. Wong, J.-T. (2020). Dynamic procurement risk management with supplier portfolio selection and order allocation under green market segmentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119835. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.119835
38. Yang, Z. k., & Li, J. (2010). Assessment of green supply chain risk based on circular economy. 2010 IEEE 17Th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 1276–1280. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIEEM.2010.5645996
39. Yudi, F., Tim, W., Norris, I. M., Won, S. Y., & Masatoshi, K. (2018). Managing project success using project risk and green supply chain management: A survey of automotive industry. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(2), 332–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2017-0007
40. Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., & Vilutiene, T. (2010). Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 10(3), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60141-1
41. Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras, & Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐making. Ukio Technologinis ir Ekonominis Vystymas, 16(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10