EDAS ve WASPAS yöntemleriyle tıbbi malzeme tedarikçisi belirleme

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı bir sağlık kuruluşunda yapılan boyun fıtığı, bel fıtığı ve omurga ameliyatlarında kullanılacak olan tıbbi malzemeler için en uygun tedarikçi firmayı belirlemektir. Bu süreçte malzemelerin uygun şekilde tedarikine ilave olarak tedarikçi firmanın da hizmet vermesi gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle kuruluş için, hekim ve hasta memnuniyetini en üst seviyeye çıkaracak tedarikçiyi belirlemek çok önemli olmaktadır. Bu süreç çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) problemi olarak da görülmektedir. Bu nedenle problemi çözmek için ÇKKV yöntemlerinden Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA), Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) ve Weighted Aggregated Sum Product ASsessment (WASPAS) yöntemleri bütünleşik olarak kullanılarak en uygun tedarikçi firma belirlenmiştir. SWARA ile kriter ağırlıkları belirlenirken, EDAS ve WASPAS yöntemleri ile tedarikçiler, kriterler dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca duyarlılık analizi yapılarak kriter ağırlıklarının tedarikçi seçimindeki olası etkileri ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Yöntemlerin uygulanması neticesinde en uygun tedarikçinin EDAS’a göre T1, WASPAS’a göre ise T2 olduğu belirlenmiştir. T3 her iki yönteme göre de son sırada yer almıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• Tıbbi malzeme
• SWARA
• EDAS
• WASPAS
• Multi-Criteria decision making
• Medical equipment

Determination of the right medical equipment supplier using the EDAS and WASPAS methods

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the most appropriate supplier for the medical equipment to be used in cervical disc herniation, lumbar disc herniation, and spine surgeries in a health institution. The supplier was also to provide maintaining services. Thus, determination of the proper supplier was of great importance for the health institution to maximize the satisfaction of the physicians and the patients. It was considered to be a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem, so the Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA), Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS), and Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) methods were used in an integrated way in the determination process. While the SWARA method was employed in determining the weights for the criteria, the EDAS and WASPAS methods were used in the evaluation process. A sensitivity analysis was also made to reveal the possible effects of the weights on supplier selection. The results demonstrated that the best supplier was T1 according to EDAS, and T2 according to WASPAS, while T3 was in the last place according to both methods.

Keywords

• Multi-Criteria decision making
• Medical equipment

Kaynakça

1. G. W. Dickson, An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions, Journal of Purchasing 2, 1, 5-17, 1996.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745493X.1966.tb00818.x
2. J. Chai, J.N.K. Liu and E.W.T Ngal, Application of Decision Making Techniques In Supplier Selection: A Systematic Review of Literature, Experts Systems with Applications, 40, 3872–3885, 2013. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040
3. L.Z. Tong, Wang, J. and Z. Pu, Sustainable supplier selection for SMEs based on an extended PROMETHEE Ⅱ approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330, 129830, 2022. https://doi.org/ 10.1016 /j.jclepro.2021.129830
4. R. Baki, An Integrated Multi-criteria Structural Equation Model for Green Supplier Selection. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 1-14, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-021-00415-7
5. V. Kaushik, A. Kumar, H. Gupta, H. And G. Dixit, A hybrid decision model for supplier selection in Online Fashion Retail (OFR). International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 25, 1, 27-51, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2020.1791810
6. S. A. Hoseini, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, P. Skačkauskas, A. Fallahpour and S. Saberi, A Combined Interval Type-2 Fuzzy MCDM Framework for the Resilient Supplier Selection Problem. Mathematics, 10 1, 44, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10010044
7. A. G. Savaşkan, M. Deste and Ş. Ekinci, Kayısı Sektöründeki İşletmelerde Bulanık TOPSİS İle Tedarikçi Seçimi. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 10(4), 449-466, 2021.
8. A. Afrasiabi, M. Tavana and D. Di Caprio, An extended hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for sustainable and resilient supplier selection. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-24, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17851-2

9. S. Aouadni and J. Euchi, Using Integrated MMD-TOPSIS to Solve the Supplier Selection and Fair Order Allocation Problem: A Tunisian Case Study. Logistics, 6, 1, 8, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ logistics6010008
10. A. Mohammed, M. Yazdani, A. Oukil, E. S. Gonzalez, A Hybrid MCDM Approach towards Resilient Sourcing. Sustainability 13, 2695, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13052695
11. V. T. Nguyen, N. H. Hai and N. T. K. Lan, Spherical Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making Model for Wind Turbine Supplier Selection in a Renewable Energy Project. Energies, 15, 3, 713, 2022. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ en15030713
12. M. Yazdani, D. Pamucar, P. Chatterjee and A. E. Torkayesh, A multi-tier sustainable food supplier selection model under uncertainty. Operations Management Research, 1-30, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.1007 / s12063-021-00186-z
13. H. Lau, P. K. Shum, D. Nakandala, Y. Fan and C. Lee, A game theoretic decision model for organic food supplier evaluation in the global supply chains. J Clean Prod 242:118536, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2019.118536
14. Y. K. Fu, An integrated approach to catering supplier selection using AHP-ARAS-MCGP methodology. J Air Transp Manag 75, 164–169, 2019. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.01.011
15. C. Wu, Y. Lin and D. Barnes, An integrated decision-making approach for sustainable supplier selection in the chemical industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 184, 115553, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.eswa.2021.115553
16. P. Liu, X. Wang, P. Wang, F. Wang and F. Teng, Sustainable medical supplier selection based on multi-granularity probabilistic linguistic term sets. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1-38, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3846/ tede.2022.15940
17. N. Ö. Doğan H. Akbal, Sağlık sektöründe tedarikçi seçim kararının ahp yöntemi ile incelenmesi: bir üniversite hastanesi Örneği. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17, 4, 440-456. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.664380
18. Z. Stević, D. Pamučar, A. Puška and P. Chaterjee P, Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to COmpromise Solution (MARCOS). Comput Ind Eng 140, 106231, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
19. S. J. Miah, K. Ahsan, and K. A. B. Msimangira, An Approach of purchasing decision support in healthcare supply chain management. Operations and Supply Chain Management, 6(2), 43–53. 2013. http://doi.org/10.31387/oscm0140087
20. G. Mehralian, A. R. Gatari, M. Morakabati, M. and H. Vatanpoura, Developing a suitable model for supplier selection based on supply chain risks: An empirical study from Iranian. Pharmaceutical Companies. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 11(1), 209–219, 2012.
21. S. G. Fashoto, B. Akinnuwesi, O. Owolabi, and D. Adelekan, Decision support model for supplier selection in healthcare service delivery using analytical hierarchy process and artificial neural network. African Journal of Business Management, 10(9), 209–232, 2016. doi: 10.5897/AJBM2016.8030
22. A. Ahmadi, M. S. Pishvaee and S. A. Torabi, Procurement management in healthcare systems. Operations Research Applications in Health Care Management, 569–598, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-65455-3_22
23. M. Bahadori, S. M. Hosseini, E. Teymourzadeh, R. Ravangard, M. Raadabadi and K. Alimohammadzadeh, A supplier selection model for hospitals using a combination of artificial neural network and fuzzy VIKOR. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 13(4), 286-294, 2020. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ 20479700.2017.1404730
24. P. Ishtiaq, S. A. Khan and M. U. Haq, A multi-criteria decision-making approach to rank supplier selection criteria for hospital waste management: A case from Pakistan. Waste Management & Research, 36(4), 386-394,2018.https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X1875589 4
25. N. Pourghahreman and A. Qhatari, Supplier selection in an agent based pharmaceutical supply chain: An application of TOPSIS and PROMETHEE Π. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 3(3), 231-240,2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2015.4.001
26. A. Alinezad, A., A. Seif and N. Esfandiari, Supplier evaluation and selection with QFD and FAHP in a pharmaceutical company. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 68(1–4), 355–364,2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-0134733-3
27. I. Badi and M. Ballem, Supplier selection using the rough BWM-MAIRCA model: A case study in pharmaceutical supplying in Libya. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(2), 16–33,2018.https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1802016b
28. D. Pramanik, S. C. Mondal and A. Haldar, Resilient supplier selection to mitigate uncertainty: Soft-computing approach. J. Model. Manag, 15, 1339–1361, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-01-2019-0027
29. L. Xiong, S. Zhong, S. Liu, X. Zhang and Y. Li, An Approach for Resilient-Green Supplier Selection Based on WASPAS, BWM, and TOPSIS under Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Math. Probl. Eng., 1–18, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1761893
30. M. Hasan, D. Jiang, A. S. Ullah, N. E. Alam, Resilient supplier selection in logistics 4.0 with heterogeneous information. Expert Syst. Appl., 139, 112799, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.07.016
31. A. Mohammed, Towards ‘gresilient’ supply chain management: A quantitative study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155, 104641, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec. 2019.104641
32. A. Z. Piprani, N. I. Jaafar and S. M. Ali, Prioritizing resilient capability factors of dealing with supply chain disruptions: An analytical hierarchy process (AHP) application in the textile industry. Benchmarking Int. J., 27, 2537–2563, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2019-0111
33. S. V. Parkouhi, A. S. Ghadikolaei and H. F. Lajimi, Resilient supplier selection and segmentation in grey environment. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 1123–1137, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.007
34. R. Davoudabadi, S. M. Mousav and E. Sharifiba, An integrated weighting and ranking model based on entropy, DEA and PCA considering two aggregation approaches for resilient supplier selection problem. J. Comput. Sci. 40, 101074, 2020. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j. jocs. 2019.101074
35. A. Amindoust, A resilient-sustainable based supplier selection model using a hybrid. Comput. Ind. Eng., 126, 122–135,2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.09. 031
36. D. Pramanik, A. Haldar, S. C. Mondal, S. K. Naskar and A. Ray. Resilient supplier selection using AHP-TOPSIS-QFD under a fuzzy environment. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag., 12, 1–10, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17509653. 2015. 1101719
37. S. PrasannaVenkatesan and M. Goh, Multi-objective supplier selection and order allocation under disruption risk. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 95, 124-142, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.09.005
38. A. K. Sahu, S. Datta and S. Mahapatra, Evaluation and selection of resilient suppliers in fuzzy environment Exploration of Fuzzy VIKOR. Benchmarking Int. J., 23, 651–673, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2014-0109
39. A. Haldar, A. Ray, D. Banerjee and S. Ghosh, A hybrid MCDM model for resilient supplier selection. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag., 7, 284–292, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2012.10671234
40. S. Vinodh, R. Anesh Ramiya and S. Gautham, Application of fuzzy analytic network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organization. Expert Syst. Appl., 38, 272–280, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.057
41. A. Kumar, V. Jain and S. Kumar, A comprehensive environment friendly approach for supplier selection. Omega 42, 1, 109–123, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2013.04.003
42. R. J. Gırubha and S. Vinodh, Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis for material selection of an automotive component, Materials & Design, 37, 478-486, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.matdes.2012.01.022
43. X. Sang and X. Liu, An interval type-2 fuzzy sets-based TODIM method and its application to green supplier selection. J Oper Res Soc 67, 5, 722–734, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2015.86
44. H. Shabanpour H, S. Yousef and R. F. Saen, Future planning for benchmarking and ranking sustainable suppliers using goal programming and robust double frontiers DEA. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 50, 129–143, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.10. 022
45. C. M. Su, D. J. Horng, M. L. Tseng, A. S. Chiu, K. J. Wu and H. P. Chen, Improving sustainable supply chain management using a novel hierarchical grey-DEMATEL approach. J Clean Prod 134, 469–481, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.080
46. A. Fallahpour, E. U. Olugu, S. N. Musa, K. Y. Wong and S. Noori, A decision support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply chain management. Comput Ind Eng 105, 391–410, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.01.005
47. S. Luthra, K. Govindan, D. Kannan, S. K. Mangla and C. P. Garg, An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J Clean Prod 140, 1686–1698, 2017. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.jclepro. 2016.09.078
48. W. Song, Z. Xu and H. C. Liu, Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for solar air-conditioner manufacturer: An integrated approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79, 1461–1471, 2017. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.081
49. M. Abdel-Basset, G. Manogaran, A. Gamal and F. Smarandache, A hybrid approach of neutrosophic sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Design Automation for Embedded Systems, 22, 3, 257-278, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10617-018-9203-6
50. A. Awasthi, K. Govindan and S. Gold, Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int J Prod Econ 195, 106–117, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10. 013
51. A. Azimifard, S. H. Moosavirad and S. Ariafar, Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran’s steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resour Policy 57, 30–44, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.01.002
52. H. Lu, S. Jiang, W. Song and X. Ming, A Rough Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection under Vague Environment. Sustainability 10, 8, 2622, 2018. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su10082622
53. Y. Song and G. Li, A large-scale group decision-making with incomplete multi-granular probabilistic linguistic term sets and its application in sustainable supplier selection. J Oper Res Soc 1–15, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2018.1458017
54. S. A. R. Khan, Y. Zhang, M. Anees, H. Golpîra, A. Lahmar and D. Qianli, Green supply chain management, economic growth and environment: A GMM based evidence. J Clean Prod 185, 588–599, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.226
55. M. Abdel -Baset, V. Chang, A. Gamal and F. Smarandache, An integrated neutrosophic ANP and VIKOR method for achieving sustainable supplier selection: A case study in importing feld. Comput Ind 106, 94–110, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind. 2018.12.017
56. R. Alikhani, S. A. Torabi and N. Altay, Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria. Int J Prod Econ 208, 69–82, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe. 2018.11.018
57. K. Rashidi and K. Cullinane, A comparison of fuzzy DEA and fuzzy TOPSIS in sustainable supplier selection: Implications for sourcing strategy. Expert Syst Appl 121, 266–281, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eswa.2018.12.025
58. L. Fei, Y. Deng and Y. Hu, DS-VIKOR: A new multi-criteria decision-making method for supplier selection. Int J Fuzzy Syst 21, 1, 157–175, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0543-y
59. S. H. Zolfani and P. Chatterjee, Comparative evaluation of sustainable design based on Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) and Best Worst Method (BWM) methods: a perspective on household furnishing materials. Symmetry 11, 1, 74, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11010074
60. N. Jain, A. R. Singh and R. K. Upadhyay, Sustainable supplier selection under attractive criteria through FIS and integrated fuzzy MCDM techniques. Int J Sustain Eng, 1–22, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038. 2020.1737751
61. B. D. Rouyendegh, A. Yildizbasi and P. Üstünyer, Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection problem. Soft Comput 24,3,2215–2228,2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04054-8
62. T. C. Wen, K. H. Chang and H. H. Lai, Integrating the 2-tuple linguistic representation and soft set to solve supplier selection problems with incomplete information. Eng Appl Artif Intell 87,103248, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103248
63. F. Ecer and D. Pamucar, Sustainable supplier selection: A novel integrated fuzzy best worst method (F-BWM) and fuzzy CoCoSo with Bonferroni (CoCoSo’B) multi-criteria model. J Clean Prod 266, 121981. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121981
64. M. Yazdani, P. Chatterjee and A. E. Torkayesh, An Integrated AHPQFD-Based Compromise Ranking Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection. In Handbook of Research on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Decision Making for Sustainable supply chains, 32–54, IGI Globa, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9570-0
65. M. Yazdani, P. Zarate, E. Kazimieras Zavadskas and Z. Turskis, A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Manag Decis 57, 9, 2501–2519, 2019. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458
66. D. Stanujkic, D. Karabasevic and E. K. Zavadskas, A framework for the selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA method, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 26, 2, 181-187, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.2.8820
67. A. Özbek, Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve Excel ile problem çözümü, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 3. Baskı, Ankara, 2021.
68. S. Chakraborty and E.K. Zavadskas, Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making, Informatica, 25, 1, 1–20, 2014.
69. V. Keršulienė and Z. Turskis, Integrated Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making Model For Architect Selection, Technological And Economic Development Of Economy, 17,4, 645-666, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.635718
70. A. Özbek ve E. Erol, AHS ve SWARA Yöntemleri İle Yem Sektöründe İş Sağlığı Ve Güvenliği Kriterlerinin Ağırlıklandırılması, AKÜ İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 2, 51-66, 2018. https://doi.org/ 10.33707/ akuiibfd.451969
71. A. Özbek, BİST'te İşlem Gören Faktoring Şirketlerinin Mali Yapılarının Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemleri İle Değerlendirilmesi, Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F Yönetim Ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 25, 1, 29-53, 2018a. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.306188
72. A. Özbek, Fortune 500 Listesinde Yer Alan Lojistik Firmaların Değerlendirilmesi, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 1, 13-26, 2018b.
73. S. H. Zolfani, E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis, Design Of Products With Both International And Local Perspectives Based On Yin-Yang Balance Theory And SWARA Method, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 26,2, 153-166, 2013. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ 1331677X.2013.11517613
74. M. Alimardani, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, M. H. Aghdaie and J. Tamošaitienė, A novel hybrid SWARA and VIKOR methodology for supplier selection in an agile environment. Technological and economic development of economy, 19, 3, 533-548, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.814606
75. E. A. Adalı ve A. T. Işık, Bir Tedarikçi Seçim Problemi için SWARA ve WASPAS Yöntemlerine Dayanan Karar Verme Yaklaşımı, International Review of Economics and Management, 5,4, 56-77, 2017. https://doi.org/10.18825/iremjournal.335408
76. J. Heidary Dahooie, E. Beheshti Jazan Abadi, A. S. Vanaki and H. R. Firoozfar, Competency‐based IT personnel selection using a hybrid SWARA and ARAS‐G methodology. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 28, 1, 5-16, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20713
77. E. Çakır, Kentsel Dönüşüm Kapsamında Müteahhit Firmanın SWARA–Gri İlişkisel Analiz Yöntemiyle Seçilmesi, The Journal Of International Scientific Researches, 2, 6, 79-95, 2017.
78. D. Karabaševıć, D. Stanujkıć, S. Uroševıć and M. Maksımović, An Approach To Personnels Election Based On SWARA And WASPAS Methods, Bizinfo (Blace) Journal Of Economics, Management and Informatics, 7, 1, 1-11, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5937/ bizinfo1601001K
79. S. H. Zolfani and S. S. A. Banıhashemı, Personnel Selection Based On A Novel Model Of Game Theory And MCDM Approaches, In Proc Of 8th International Scientific Conference Business And Management, 191-198, 2014. https://doi.org/10.3846/bm.2014.024
80. A. Özbek ve İ. Demirkol, Lojistik sektöründe faaliyet gösteren işletmelerin SWARA ve GİA yöntemleri ile analizi. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8, 1, 71-86, 2018.
81. S. H Zolfani, M. H. Aghdaıe, A. Derakhtı, E. K. Zavadskas and M. H. M. Varzandeh, Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hyrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert systems with applications, 40, 17, 7111-7121, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013. 06.040
82. A. Ruzgys, R. Volvačiovas, Čignatavičius amd Z. Turskis, Integrated evaluation of external wall insulation in residential buildings using SWARATODIM MCDM method. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20, 1, 103-110, 2014. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013.843585
83. M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat ve Z. Turskis, Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26,3, 435-451, 2015.
84. A. Özbek, Türkiye’deki İllerin EDAS ve WASPAS Yöntemleri İle Yaşanabilirlik Kriterlerine Göre Sıralanması, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9, 1, 2019.
85. S. Lashgari, J. Antuchevičienė, A. Delavari and O. Kheirkhah, Using QSPM and WASPAS methods for determining outsourcing strategies, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15, 4, 729-743, 2014. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2014.908789
86. E. K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, J. Šaparauskas and Z. Turskis, Multi-criteria assessment of facades’ alternatives: Peculiarities of ranking methodology, Procedia Engineering 57, 107–112, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.016
87. Z. Turskis, E. K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene and N. Kosareva, A hybrid model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 10, 6, 113-128, 2015.
88. M. K. Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, M. Amiri and A. Esmaeili, Multi-criteria evaluation of green suppliers using an extended WASPAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 213-229, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016. 07.031
89. G. Stojić, Ž. Stevıć, J. Antuchevıčıenė, D. Pamučar and M. Vasıljevıć, A Novel Rough WASPAS Approach for Supplier Selection in a Company Manufacturing PVC Carpentry Products. Information, 9, 5, 121, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info9050121
90. T. Dėjus and J. Antuchevıčıenė, Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19, 5, 728-737, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013.812578
91. P. Karande, E.K. Zavadskas and S. Chakraborty, A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 7, 3, 399-42, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2016.1.001
92. V. G. Venkatesh., R. Dubey, P. Joy, M. Thomas, V. Vijeesh and A. Moosa, Supplier selection in blood bags manufacturing industry using TOPSIS model. International Journal of Operational Research, 24(4), 461, 2015.
93. M. Palanisamy and R. Ranganathan, An Efficient supplier selection Model for Hospital Pharmacy through Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Services and Operations Management 33(4), 468-493,2019.
94. A. Forghani, S. J. Sadjadi, ans B. Farhang Moghadam, B., A supplier selection model in pharmaceutical supply chain using PCA, Z-TOPSIS and MILP: A case study. PloS one, 13(8), 2018. e0201604. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0201604
95. K. Kirytopoulos, V. Leopoulos and D. Voulgaridou, Supplier selection in pharmaceutical industry. Benchmarking:An International Journal, 15(4), 494–516,2008.https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770810887267
96. C. I. Enyinda, E. Dunu and J. Bell-Hanyes, A model for quantifying strategic supplier selection: Evidence from a generic pharmaceutical firm supply chain. International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences, 3(2), 25–44, 2010.
97. B. E. Rouyendegh and T. E. Saputro, Supplier selection using integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP: A case study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 116, 3957–3970, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro. 2014. 01.874
98. E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene and A. Zakarevicius, Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3-6, 2012. https://doi.org/ 10.5755/ j01.eee.122.6.1810
99. Y. R. Kahraman, Robust sensitivity analysis for multi-attribute deterministic hierarchical value models. Air Force Inst of Tech Wright-Patterson afb OH, 2002.