Gri İlişkisel Analiz ve VIKOR Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması: İmalat Sektörü Üzerine Örnek Bir Uygulama

Öz

Çok kriterli karar verme problemlerinde farklı metodolojilere dayanan birçok teknik bulunmaktadır. Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci, Gri İlişkisel Analiz, ELECTRE, MOORA, PROMETHEE, TOPSIS, BWM ve VIKOR bu yöntemlerden bazılarıdır. Bu çalışmada, GIA ve VIKOR yöntemlerinin metodoloji, uygulama ve sıralamada gösterdikleri başarıları açısından karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu nedenle imalat sektöründe faaliyet gösteren ve BIST endeksine kayıtlı bazı işletmeler GIA ve VIKOR yöntemleri ile devir hızlarına göre sıralanmıştır. Daha sonra işletmeler sıralamalarına göre beş sınıfa ayrılmış ve bunlardan birinci, üçüncü ve beşinci grupta yer alanlar diskriminant analizi ile yeniden sınıflandırılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, GIA yönteminin sıralama açısından VIKOR’den daha başarılı olduğu, aradaki başarı farkının ise VIKOR yönteminde sübjektif olarak belirlenen v parametresinden kaynaklandığı bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme,Gri İlişkisel Analiz,VIKOR Yöntemi,Diskriminant Analizi

Comparisons of Grey Relational Analysis And VIKOR Method: A Sample Application on Manufactionary Sector

Öz

There are many techniques based on different methodologies in multi-criteria decision-making problems. Analytical Hierarchy Process, Gray Relational Analysis, ELECTRE, MOORA, PROMETHEE, TOPSIS, and VIKOR are some of these methods. In this study, it was aimed to compare the GIA and VIKOR methods in terms of their methodology, application, and successes of ranking. Then the companies were divided into five classes according to their rankings. So, the first, third and fifth groups were reclassified by discriminant analysis. As a result, it was found that the GIA method was more successful than the VIKOR in terms of ranking, and the difference in this success was due to the subjectively determined v parameter in the VIKOR method

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Quantitative Decision Making,Grey Relational Analysis,VIKOR Method,Discriminant Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Baş, Metin ve Çakmak, Zeki, (2012). Gri ilişkisel analiz ve lojistik regresyon analizi ile işletmelerde finansal başarısızlığın belirlenmesi ve bir uygulama, Anadolu Üniversitesi Journal of Social Sciences, 12(3) ss:63-82.
2. Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G. and Cosenza, E. (2009). Comparative analysis of multi‐criteria decision‐making methods for seismic structural retrofitting. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24(6), 432-445.
3. Ceballos, Blanca, Lamata, Maria Teresa and Pelta, David A. (2016). A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 5(4), 315-322.
4. Dashtı, Zeinab, Pedram, M.Mohsen and Shanbehzadeh, Jamshid, (2010), “A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Based Method For Ranking Sequential Patterns”, International MultiConference Of Engineers And Computers Scientists March 17-19, Vol I., 2010, s.611-614
5. Gaudenzi, Barbara and Borghesi, Antonio (2006). Managing risks in the supply chain using the AHP method. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 17(1), 114-136.
6. Hartati, Sri, Sari, Kenny. P. and Abadi, Satria (2018). Model Design of Performance Improvement Strategy of Private Higher Education Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method and Mutivariate Data Analysis (MDA). bit-Tech, 1(2), 48-64.
7. Huang, J. T. and Liao, Y. S. (2003). Optimization of machining parameters of Wire-EDM bases on grey relation and statistical analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 41, 1707–1720.
8. Kilic, Hüseyin S., Zaim, Selim and Delen, Dursun (2015). Selecting “The Best” ERP system for SMEs using a combination of ANP and PROMETHEE methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(5), 2343-2352.

9. Kumar Abhishek, Sah Bikash, Singh Arvind, Deng Yan, He Xiangning, Kumar Praveen and Bansal R. (2017) “A Review of Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Towards Sustainable Renewable Energy Development” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, c.69, ss:596-609
10. Kumar, Nitesh, Soota, Tarun, Gupta, Neetesh and Rajput, Sunil K. (2018). Multi attribute outranking approach for supplier selection. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 404, No. 1, p. 012008). IOP Publishing.
11. Kung, Chaang-Yung. and Wen, Kun-Li (2007). Applying grey relational analysis and grey decision-making to evaluate the relationship between company attributes and its financial performance—a case study of venture capital enterprises in Taiwan. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 842-852.
12. Kuo Yiyo, Yang Taho and Huang Guan (2008) “The Use of Grey Relational Analysis in Solving Multiple Attribute Decision Making Problems” Computer & Industrial Engineering 55 pp:80-93
13. Mishra, Arunodaya Raj, Singh, Rahul Kumar and Motwani, Deepak (2018). Intuitionistic fuzzy divergence measure-based ELECTRE method for performance of cellular mobile telephone service providers. Neural Computing and Applications, 1-21.
14. Oğuz, Ayşe (2006) “Hanehalkı Tipi ve Kır Kent Ayırımının Diskriminant Analizi ile İncelenmesi” Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, s. 11 ss:70-84
15. Özcan, Tuncay, Çelebi, Numan and Esnaf, Şakir (2011). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9773-9779.
16. Polatidis, Heracles, Kyriaki Haralambidou and Dias Haralambopoulos (2014) “Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Geothermal Energy: A Comparison Between the ELECTRE III and the PROMETHEE II Methods” Energy Sources
17. Rençber, Ömer Faruk (2018) “Finansal Oranların Önem Düzeylerinin Hesaplanmasında AHP ve BWM Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması” ICOAEF, ss:715-731
18. Rezaei, Jafar (2015). Best-Worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method, Omega, 53, pp. 49-57.
19. Şamiloğlu, Famil ve Akgün, Ali İhsan (2015) “Finansal Tablolar Analizi” Ekin Yayınevi
20. Tang, Huimin, Yong Shi and Peiwu Dong (2019). Public blockchain evaluation using entropy and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 117, 204-210.
21. Tayyar, Nezih, Akcanli, Fatma, Genç, Erhan and Erem, Isil (2014) “BIST’te Kayıtlı Bilişim ve Teknoloji Alanında Faaliyet Gösteren İşletmelerin Finansal Performanslarının Analitik Hiyerarşi (AHP) ve Gri İlişkisel Analiz (GIA) Yöntemleriyle Değerlendirilmesi” Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, Ocak, ss:19-40
22. Bo Wang, Junnian Songa, Jingzheng Ren, Kexin Li, Haiyan Duana and Xian’enWang (2019). Selecting sustainable energy conversion technologies for agricultural residues: A fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based prioritization from life cycle perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 142, 78-87.
23. Jiang-Jiang, WangYou-Yin, Jing Chun-Fa, Zhang Jun and Hong Zhao, (2009), “Review On Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Aid In Sustainable Energy Decision-Making, Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews” (13), pp:2263-2278.
24. Zhiguo Wang, Hao Hao, Feng Gao, Qian Zhang, Ji Zhang and Yanjun Zhou. (2019). Multi-Attribute Decision Making on Reverse Logistics Based on DEA-TOPSIS: A Study of the Shanghai End-of-Life Vehicles Industry. Journal of Cleaner Production.
25. Yalcin, Nese, Bayrakdaroglu Ali and Kahraman Cengiz (2012). Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods for financial performance evaluation of Turkish manufacturing industries. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 350-364.
26. Yang, Ching-Chow and Bai-Sheng Chen (2006). Supplier selection using combined analytical hierarchy process and grey relational analysis. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(7), 926-941.
27. Yurdakul, Mustafa ve İç, Yusuf Tansel (2003) “Türk Otomotiv Firmalarının Performans Ölçümü ve Analizine Yönelik TOPSİS Yöntemini Kullanan Bir Örnek Çalışma” Gazi Ünv. Müh. Mim. Fak. Der. 18(1) ss:1-18