OECD ÜLKELERİNİN TELEKOMÜNİKASYON SEKTÖRÜ AÇISINDAN SMAA-EDAS YÖNTEMİ İLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 224 - 237, 30.01.2020

Mihrimah Özmen

https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.611987

Cited By: 4

Öz

Ortalama çözüme olan uzaklığa göre
değerlendiren yeni ve etkili EDAS yöntemi 2015
yılından bu yana literatürde artan bir şekilde yer almaktadır. Şimdiye
kadar, birçok sektörde karar verme problemlerini çözmek için çeşitli EDAS
modelleri geliştirilmiş ve uygulanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, EDAS modellerinin ortak
noktası olan bir EDAS sınırlaması ele alınmıştır. EDAS 'da bulunan iki girdi: alternatiflerin
kriter değerleri ve kriterlerin önem ağırlıkları genellikle belirsizdir. Bu
sınırlamaya çözüm getirmek için, EDAS ile SMAA entegre edilerek, EDAS' ın
girdilerindeki belirsizliklerin üstesinden eşzamanlı olarak gelebilmek için
SMAA-EDAS yöntemi önerilmektedir. Önerilen SMAA-EDAS yöntemi ile OECD ülkeleri
telekomünikasyon sektörü geniş bant altyapıları ve yapısal hizmetleri açısından
değerlendirilmiştir. Kriter ağırlıkları ve değerlerindeki belirsizlikle
SMAA-EDAS % 99.96 düzeyinde güvenilirlik değeriyle etkili ve geçerli sonuçlarla
başa çıkabilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ÇKKV, EDAS, SMAA, OECD

Kaynakça

• 1. "Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. New York: Springer Science & Business Media."2. "Roy, B. (2005). Paradigms and challenges. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag."3. "Saaty, T. L. (2013). The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: The AHP/ANP approach. Operations Research, 61(5), 1101–1118."4. "Ho, W., Xu, X. W., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16–24."5. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435-451.6. Li, Y. Y., Wang, J. Q., & Wang, T. L. (2019). A linguistic neutrosophic multi-criteria group decision-making approach with EDAS method. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 44(3), 2737-2749.7. Ouenniche, J., Uvalle Perez, O. J., & Ettouhami, A. (2019). A new EDAS-based in-sample-out-of-sample classifier for risk-class prediction. Management Decision, 57(2), 314-323.8. Ghorabaee, M. K., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2017). Multi-criteria group decision-making using an extended EDAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets.9. Ghorabaee, M. K., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2017). A new multi-criteria model based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and EDAS method for supplier evaluation and order allocation with environmental considerations. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 112, 156-174.10. Kahraman, C., Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Cevik Onar, S., Yazdani, M., & Oztaysi, B. (2017). Intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS method: an application to solid waste disposal site selection. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 25(1), 1-12.11. Turskis, Z., Morkunaite, Z., & Kutut, V. (2017). A hybrid multiple criteria evaluation method of ranking of cultural heritage structures for renovation projects. International journal of strategic property management, 21(3), 318-329.12. Ghorabaee, M. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Amiri, M., & Turskis, Z. (2016). Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: an application to supplier selection. International journal of computers communications & control, 11(3), 358-371.13. Peng, X., & Liu, C. (2017). Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS, new similarity measure and level soft set. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32(1), 955-968.14. Ghorabaee, M. K., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2017). Multi-criteria group decision-making using an extended EDAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets.15. Peng, X., & Dai, J. (2017). Algorithms for interval neutrosophic multiple attribute decision-making based on MABAC, similarity measure, and EDAS. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, 7(5).16. Karaşan, A., & Kahraman, C. (2018). A novel interval-valued neutrosophic EDAS method: prioritization of the United Nations national sustainable development goals. Soft Computing, 22(15), 4891-4906.17. Karaşan, A., & Kahraman, C. (2017). Interval-valued neutrosophic extension of EDAS method. In Advances in Fuzzy Logic and Technology 2017 (pp. 343-357). Springer, Cham.18. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2017). Stochastic EDAS method for multi-criteria decision-making with normally distributed data. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 33(3), 1627-1638.19. Özmen, M., Telekomünikasyon sektöründe müşteri kaybı yönetimi için meta sezgisel tabanlı karar destek sistemi. Erciyes Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Doktora Tezi, 137 s. Kayseri, 2017. 20. Lahdelma R., Hokkanen J. and Salminen P. SMAA-Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis, In: European Journal of Operational Research, 1998, vol. 106, pp. 137–143.21. Lahdelma R and Salminen P. SMAA-2: stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. In: Operations Research, 2001, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 444–454.22. "Angilella, S., Corrente, S., & Greco, S. (2015). Stochastic multiobjective acceptabilityanalysis for the Choquet integral preference model and the scale construction problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(1), 172–182."23. "Bottero, M., Ferretti, V., Figueira, J. R., Greco, S., & Roy, B. (2015). Dealing with a multiple criteria environmental problem with interaction effects between criteria through an extension of the ELECTRE III method. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(3), 837–850."24. "Durbach, I., Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P. (2014). The analytic hierarchy process with stochastic judgements. European Journal of Operational Research, 238(2), 552–559."25. Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P. (2009). Prospect theory and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA). Omega, 37(5), 961–971.26. "Corrente, S., Figueira, J. R., & Greco, S. (2014). The SMAA-PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 239(2), 514–522."27. "Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P. (2006). Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis using the data envelopment model. European Journal of Operational Research, 170(1), 241–252"28. Okul, D., Gencer, C., & Aydogan, E. K. (2014). A method based on SMAA-topsis for stochastic multi-criteria decision making and a real-world application. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 13(05), 957-978.29. "Ozmen M, Kızılkaya Aydogan E and Zaralı F 2015 Logistics center location selection using the new method SMAATODIM. MCDM 2015"30. "Aydogan E K and Ozmen M 2017 The stochastıc vikor method and its use in reverse logistic option selection problem. RAIRO-Operations Research 512: 375–389"31. Akgül, E., Aydoğan, E. K., Özmen, M., & Türksoy, H. G. (2017). Optimization of the Murata Vortex Spinning machine parameters by the SMAA-MOORA approach. Industria Textila, 68(5), 323-331.32. Kizilkaya Aydogan, E., & Ozmen, M. (2015). Two new method for multi criteria stochastic decision making: SMAA-GRA and SMAA-DEMATEL-GRA. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 30(4), 627-640.33. "Tervonen, T., & Lahdelma, R. (2007). Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 500–513."34. Wanke, P., Azad, M. A. K., & Barros, C. P. 2016 Efficiency factors in OECD banks: A ten-year analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 64, 208-22735. Zaman, M. R., Morid, S., & Delavar, M. 2016 Evaluating climate adaptation strategies on agricultural production in the Siminehrud catchment and inflow into Lake Urmia, Iran using SWAT within an OECD framework. Agricultural Systems, 147, 98-11036. Kazan, H., Karaman, E., Akçalı, B. Y., & Şişmanoğlu, E. 2015 Assessment of teog examination success: topsis multi-criteria decision-making method practice. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 915-92437. Rashidi, K., Shabani, A., & Saen, R. F. 2015 Using data envelopment analysis for estimating energy saving and undesirable output abatement: a case study in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development OECD countries. Journal of cleaner production, 105, 241-25238. Mavi, R. K., Saen, R. F., & Goh, M. 2018 Joint analysis of eco-efficiency and eco-innovation with common weights in two-stage network DEA: A big data approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change39. Zhou, P., Poh, K. L., & Ang, B. W. 2007 A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance. European journal of operational research, 1781, 1-940. Kou, M., Chen, K., Wang, S., & Shao, Y. 2016 Measuring efficiencies of multi-period and multi-division systems associated with DEA: An application to OECD countries’ national innovation systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 46, 494-51041. Martí, L., Martín, J. C., & Puertas, R. 2017 A DEA-LOGISTICS PERFORMANCE INDEX. Journal of Applied Economics, 20(1)42. Ehrgott M, Figueira J R and Greco S(2010). Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, Springer.43. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/9789264276284-en44. Diskaya, F., Emir, S., & Orhan, N. (2011). Measuring the technical efficiency of telecommunication sector within global crisis: comparison of G8 countries and Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 206-218.