Deniz Konteyner Limanları Perspektifinde Terminal Seçimi için Entegre bir AHP TOPSIS Yaklaşımı Türkiye’nin Konteyner Liman ve Terminalleri İçin Örnek bir Uygulama

Öz

Bu çalışma konteyner operatörleri, lojistik işletmeler ve tedarik zincirinin diğer aktörleri açısından konteyner liman seçiminin stratejik önemine odaklanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın ana odak noktası iki önemli soruyla ilgilidir: Bir konteyner limanı ve terminali, lojistik ve deniz konteyner operatörleri tarafından nasıl seçilir ve karar vericiler için en önemli faktörler nelerdir. Bu sorulara cevap ararken, başlangıçta seçim kriterlerinin ve karar alternatiflerinin ayrıntılı olarak belirlenmesi gerekmektedir. Uygun ve optimal konteyner limanı ve terminali seçebilmek için Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) teorisi ve TOPSIS yöntemi seçilmiştir ve bu metodolojiler konteyner limanı seçimiyle ilgili karar verme problemini çözmek için entegre edilmiştir. Bu çalışma beş aşamadan oluşmaktadır. İlk aşamada bir literatür taraması yapıldı. optimal konteyner liman ve terminalini seçmek için AHP ve TOPSIS yöntemleri tanımlanmış ve bu entegre yöntemin adımları bu çalışmanın ikinci aşamasında gösterilmiştir. Üçüncü aşamada, hibrid yöntem olarak entegre bir AHP-TOPSIS yöntemi kullanılarak sayısal analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Dördüncü aşamada elde edilen sonuçlar değerlendirilmiş ve uzmanlar kurulu tarafından derinlemesine analiz yapılmıştır. Son aşamada bu çalışma özetlenmiş ve son sonuçlar gösterilmiş ve bu hibrid yöntemin konteyner liman seçim süreci ile ilgili literatüre katkısı değerlendirilmiştir. Bu çalışmada yedi üyeden oluşan uzmanlar kurulu oluşturulmuş ve kurul üyeleri şirketlerinde karar verme süreçlerinde önemli rol oynayan profesyonellerdir. Bu nedenle, uzmanlar kurulu tarafından araştırmacı tarafından seçilirken, deniz taşımacılığı sektöründe üst düzey yönetici veya şirket sahibi olmak ana kural olarak belirlenmiştir. Tüm seçim kriterleri, karar alternatifleri ve bu çalışmanın temel amacı, uzmanlar kurulu ile birlikte gerçekleştirilen yuvarlak masa toplantılarında belirlenmiştir. Çift yönlü karşılaştırma soruları araştırmacı tarafından hazırlanmıştır ve üst düzey yönetici olarak denizcilik alanında çalışan seçilmiş otuz karar vericiye yönlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• AHP-TOPSIS Yöntemi,Liman Seçimi,Lojistik,Denizyolu Taşımacılığı

An Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Approach for Terminal Selection Problems in the Logistics Management Perspectives of Marine Container Ports: A Case Study for Turkey’s Container Ports and Terminals

Öz

This study focuses on the strategic importance of container port selection with regard to container operator companies, logistics firms and other actors of a supply chain. The main focal point of this paper deals with two important questions: how a container port and terminal is selected by logistics and marine container operators and what is the most important factors for decision makers. When an answer is seeking to these questions, initially it should be necessary to determine the selection criteria and decision alternatives in detail. In order to select proper and optimal container port and terminal, the Analytic Hierarchy Process theory and TOPSIS method were selected and these methodologies were integrated to solve decision-making problem that related to container port selection. This study consists of five stages. In the first stage, a literature review was made. AHP and TOPSIS methods were defined and their steps of these methodologies were shown in the second stage of this study. In the third stage, numerical analysis was realized by using an integrated AHP-TOPSIS methods as a hybrid method. In the fourth stage, the obtained results were evaluated and depth analysis was made by the member of the board of experts. In the final stage, this study was summarized and final results were shown and the contribution of this hybrid method to the literature concerning with the container port selection process was evaluated. In this study, the board of experts that consisted of seven members was constructed and they are professionals who play an important role in the decision making processes in their companies. Therefore, while the members of the board of experts were selected by the researcher, to be the senior executive or company owner in the field of the maritime transportation sector was determined as the main rule. All selection criteria, decision alternatives and the main goal of this study were determined in the roundtable meetings that realized with together the board of experts. Pairwise comparison questions were prepared by the researcher and were directed to the selected thirty decision makers who work in the field of maritime as the senior executive. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• AHP-TOPSIS Methods,Container Port Selection,Logistics,Maritime Transportation

Kaynakça

1. Referans1 Slack, Brian. 1985. “Containerization: Inter-Port Competition and Port Selection”. Maritime Policy and Management, 12, 4.: 293-303.
2. Referans2 Hayuth, Yehuda. 1980. “Container Traffic in Ocean Shipping Policy,” in: International Conference on Ports for Europe, Brugge.
3. Referans3 Jansson, Jan. O., Shneers, Daniel. 1987. Liner Shipping Economics. Chapman and Hall Ltd, New York.
4. Referans4 James, Bicheno Francis, Gail, Saltz. 1988 “The Perception of Route Competition Via Seaports in The European Communities.” Maritime Policy and Management, 15: 35-55.
5. Referans5 Thomson, Brian. 1998. “Structure Changes in The Maritime Industry’s Impact on the Inter-Port Competition in Container Trade.” International conference on shipping development and port management.
6. Referans6 Sternberg, Richard W. 2000. “The Successful Factors of an Ocean Transshipment Center, the Case Study of One Italian Port,” The Journal of Chinese Ports, 29, 2.: 13-18.
7. Referans7 Malchow, Matthew Brian, Kanafani, Adib. 2004. “A Disaggregate Analysis of Port Selection,” Transportation Research Part E, 40: 317-337.
8. Referans8 Murphy, Paul R., Daley, James, M., Dalenberg, Douglas R. 1992. “Port Selection Criteria: An Application of a Transport Research Framework.” Logistics and Transportation Review, 28: 237-255.

9. Referans9 Lirn, Tae. C., Thanopoulou, H. A., Beresford, Anthony K. C. 2003. “Transshipment Port Selection and Decision-Making Behaviour: Analyzing the Taiwanese Case.” International Journal of Logistics - Research and Applications, 6: 229-244.
10. Referans10 Lirn, T. C., Thanopoutou, H.A., Beynon, M. J., Beresford, A.K.C. 2004. An Application of AHP on Transshipment Port Selection: A Global Perspective. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6: 70-91.
11. Referans11 Ha, Myung-Shin. 2003. “A Comparison of Service Quality at Major Container Ports: Implications for Korean Ports.” Journal of Transport Geography, 112: 131-137.
12. Referans12 Chou, Chien-Chang. 2007. “A Fuzzy MCDM Method for Solving Marine Transshipment Container Port Selection Problems.” Applied Mathematics and Computation, 186, 1: 435-444.
13. Referans13 Yeo, Gi-Tae., Ng, Adolf K.Y., Lee, Tae-Woo and Yang, Zaili. 2014. “Modelling Port Choice in an Uncertain Environment.” Maritime Policy & Management, 41, 3: 251-267.
14. Referans14 Tongzon, Jose. L. 2009. “Port Choice and Freight Forwarders.” Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, 45, 1: 186-195.
15. Referans15 Ernst, Fred. G. 2001. “Economics of Transportation in Container Shipping Logistics,” in: International Conference on Port and Maritime R&D and Technology, Singapore.
16. Referans16 Bird, James. 1988. “Freight Forwarders Speak: The Perception of Route Competition via Seaports in The European Communities Research Project.” Maritime Policy and Management, 15, 1: 12-27.
17. Referans17 Willingale, Michael, C. 1984. “Ship-Operator Port-Routing Behavior and the Development Process.” In: Hoyle, B.S. and Hilling, D. eds. Seaport Systems and Spatial Change. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 43-59.
18. Referans18 Murphy, Paul R., Daley, James M., Dalenberg. 1991. “Selecting Links and Nodes İn İnternational Transportation: An Intermediary’s Perspective.” Transportation Journal, 31: 33-40.
19. Referans19 Saleh, Al-Dhahri, LaLonde, Bernard J. 1972. “Industrial Buying Behavior and The Motor Carrier Selection Decision.” Journal of Purchasing, 8: 18-33.
20. Referans20 Brooks, Mary R. 2004. “The Governance Structure of Ports.” Review of Network Economics, 3, 2: 168-183.D’Este, Glen, Meyrick, Samuel. 1992. “Carrier Selection in A RO/RO Ferry Trade Part 1. Decision Factors and Attitudes.” Maritime Policy and Management, 19, 2: 115–126.
21. Referans21 D’Este, Glen. 1992. “Carrier Selection in A Ro/Ro Ferry Trade Part 2: Conceptual Framework for The Decision Process.” Maritime Policy and Management, 19, 2: 127–138.
22. Referans22 McGinnis, Michael. 1979. “Shipper Attitudes Towards Freight Transport Choice. A Factor Analytic Study.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials, Management, 10: 25–34.
23. Referans23 Ogden, Kenneth W., Rattray, Anna. 1982. “Analysis of Freight Mode Choice”. In: Proceedings of the 7th Australian Transport Research Forum, Hobart, Australia: 249–276.
24. Referans24 Gilmour, Peter. 1976. “Some Policy Implications of Subjective Factors in the Modal Choice for Freight Movements.” The Logistics and Transportation Review, 12: 39–57.
25. Referans25 Wilson, Fred R., Bisson, Brain J., Kobia, Klein B. 1986. “Factors that Determine Mode Choice in The Transportation of General Freight” Transportation Research Record, 1061: 26–31.
26. Referans26 Cook, William R. 1967. “Transportation Decisions of Certain Firms İn The Black Country.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 1: 325–344.
27. Referans27 Bayliss, Eddie J., Edwards, Samuel L. 1970. Industrial Demand for Transport. Ministry of Transport: London.
28. Referans28 Chang, T.S. 2008. “Best Routes Selection in İnternational Intermodal Networks.” Computers & Operations Research, 35, 9: 2877-2891.
29. Referans29 Rimmer, Peter J. 1998. “Ocean Liner Shipping Services: Corporate Restructuring and Port Selection/Competition.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 39, 2: 193-208.
30. Referans30 Heaver, Trevor, Meersman, Hilda, Voorde Eddy Van D. 2001. “Co-Operation and Competition in International Container Transport: Strategies for Ports.” Maritime Policy & Management, 28, 3: 293-305.
31. Referans31 Nir, An-Shuen, Lin, Kuang, Liang, Gin-Shuh. 2003. “Port Choice Behavior – From The Perspective of the Shipper.” Maritime Policy and Management, 30, 2: 165–173.
32. Referans32 Tiwari, Piyush, Itoh, Hidekazu, Doi, Masayuki. 2003. “Shippers’ Containerized Cargo Transportation Behavior in China: A Discrete Choice Analysis.” Journal of Transportation Economics and Statistics, 6 1: 71–87.
33. Referans33 Barysienė Jurgita. 2012. “A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Container Terminal Technologies Applying the Copras-G Method.” Transport, 274: 364–372.
34. Referans34 Ergin, Ayfer, Eker, İpek, Alkan, Güler. 2015. “Selection of Container Port Using ELECTRE Technique.” International Journal of Operations and Logistics Management, 4, 4: 268-275.
35. Referans35 Sayareh, Jafar., Alizmini, Hamed Rezaee. 2014. Hybrid Decision-Making Model for Selecting Container Seaport in the Persian Gulf.” The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 30, 1: 75-95.