THREE ULTIMATE RANKING VALUES AREN’T OUTGOING INTO ONE APIECE INTEGER FOR ULTIMATE RANKING METHOD WHICH IS USED QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT IS ANALYSED WITH TOPSIS METHOD

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 17 - 40, 01.06.2017

Osman Yakıt

Öz

The aim of this study is provided to make ranking values which aren’t outgoing into one apiece integer by using Ultimate Ranking Method that find meaning in Quality Function Deployment (QFD), analyse by TOPSIS method. For this; is examined the obtained datum which at the result of Quality Function Deployment study that is applied in a company at first and thereafter is provided evaluating the applied results of Ultimate Ranking Method in regard to TOPSIS method. When this evaluate is performed, Microsoft Excel is used a tool and totally three relative closeness values are separately calculated for three ranking types (Pre-AHP Ranking, Post-AHP Ranking, The Ranking According to the Average of Percentage Importances at Pre-AHP and Post-AHP) subject to Ultimate Ranking Method. Persuant to this relative closeness values; is determined which ranking type is with which priority taken into consideration and related analyse is revealed in this manner.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Central Cabin Door, Quality Function Deployment, Ultimate Ranking Method, TOPSIS Method

KALİTE FONKSİYON GÖÇERİMİNDE KULLANILAN NİHAİ SIRALAMA YÖNTEMİNDE ÜÇ NİHAİ SIRALAMA DEĞERİNİN BİRER TAMSAYI ŞEKLİNDE ÇIKMAMASININ TOPSIS YÖNTEMİ İLE ÇÖZÜMLENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı; TOPSIS yöntemini kullanarak, Kalite Fonksiyon Göçerimi (KFG)‘nde anlam bulan Nihai Sıralama Yöntemi ile birer tamsayı şeklinde çıkmayan sıralama değerlerinin çözümlenmesini sağlamaktır. Bunun için ilk olarak bir firmada uygulanmış olan Kalite Fonksiyon Göçerimi çalışması sonucu elde edilmiş olan veriler incelenmiş ve daha sonra Nihai Sıralama Yöntemi’ne ait uygulama sonuçlarının TOPSIS yöntemine göre değerlendirilmesi sağlanmıştır. Bu değerlendirme gerçekleştirilirken Microsoft Excel bir araç olarak kullanılmış ve Nihai Sıralama Yöntemi’ne konu olan üç sıralama türü (AHP Öncesi Sıralama, AHP Sonrası Sıralama, AHP Öncesi ve AHP Sonrası Yüzde Önemlerin Ortalamasına Göre Sıralama) için toplam üç oransal yakınlık değeri hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen bu oransal yakınlık değerlerine göre; hangi sıralama türünün, hangi öncelikle dikkate alınması gerektiği belirlenmiş ve ilgili çözümleme bu şekilde ortaya koyulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Merkezi Kabin Kapısı, Kalite Fonksiyon Göçerimi, Nihai Sıralama Yöntemi, TOPSIS Yöntemi

Kaynakça

• AKBABA, A., (2005), “Müşteri Odaklı Hizmet Üretiminde Kalite Fonksiyon Göçerimi (KFG) Yaklaşımı: Konaklama İşletmeleri için Bir Uygulama Çalışması” (“The Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Approach in Customer Focused Service Production: An Application Study for Hospitality Industry”), Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(1): 59-81.
• ALPHONCE, C. B., (1997), “Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Agriculture in Developing Countries”, Agricultural Systems, 53(1): 97-112, (doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(96)00035-2).
• BALEŽENTIS, A., Baležentis, T. ve Valkauskas, R., (2010), “Evaluating Situation of Lithuania in the European Union: Structural Indicators and Multimoora Method”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(4): 578-602.
• BALEŽENTIS, T. ve Zeng, S., (2013), “Group Multi-Criteria Decision Making Based upon Interval-Valued Fuzzy Numbers: An Extension of the Multimoora Method”, Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2): 543-550.
• BALEŽENTIS, T., Zeng, S. ve Baležentis, A., (2014), “Multimoora-IFN: A MCDM Method Based On Intuitionistic Fuzzy Number for Performance Management”, Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 48(4): 80-97.
• BANG, W. ve Chang, B.-Y., (2013), “Quality Factor Analysis of Metalworking Process with AHP”, International Journal of Production Research, 51(19): 5741-5756, (doi: 10.1080/00207543.2013.793422).
• BRAUERS, W. K. M., Kildienė, S., Zavadskas, E. K. ve Kaklauskas, A., (2013), “The Construction Sector in Twenty European Countries During The Recession 2008–2009 – Country Ranking By Multımoora”, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 17(1): 58-78, (doi: 10.3846/1648715X.2013.775194).
• BRAUERS, W. K. M. ve Zavadskas, E. K., (2006), “The MOORA Method and Its Application to Privatization in a Transition Economy”, Control and Cybernetics, 35(2): 445–469.
• BRAUERS, W. K. M. ve Zavadskas, E. K., (2010), “Project Management by MULTIMOORA as an Instrument for Transition Economies”; Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(1): 5–24, (doi: 10.3846/tede.2010.01).
• BRAUERS, W. K. M. ve Zavadskas, E. K., (2011), “Multimoora Optimization Used to Decide on A Bank Loan to Buy Property”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(1): 174–188, (doi: 10.3846/13928619.2011.560632).
• CHADAWADA, R., Sarfaraz, A., Jenab, K. ve Pourmohammadi, H., (2015), “Integration of AHP-QFD for Selecting Facility Location”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 22(3): 411-425, (doi: 10.1108/BIJ-06-2013-0064).
• CHEN, L.-H. ve Ko, W.-C., (2010), “Fuzzy Linear Programming Models for NPD Using A Four-Phase QFD Activity Process Based on the Means-End Chain Concept”, European Journal of Operational Research, 201(2): 619-632.
• CHIN, K.-S., Pun, K.-F., Leung, W. M. ve Lau, H., (2001), “A quality function deployment approach for improving technical library and information services: a case study”, Library Management, 22(4/5): 195-204.
• DAI, J. ve Blackhurst, J., (2012), “A Four-Phase AHP–QFD Approach for Supplier Assessment: A Sustainability Perspective”, International Journal Of Production Research, 50(19): 5474-5490, (doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.639396).
• DONG, Q. ve Saaty, T. L., (2014), “An Analytic Hierarchy Process Model of Group Consensus”, Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 23(3): 362-374, (doi: 10.1007/s11518-014-5247-8).
• GENÇ, T. ve Masca, M., (2013), “TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE Yöntemleri ile Elde Edilen Üstünlük Sıralamalarının Bir Uygulama Üzerinden Karşılaştırılması”, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2): 539-566.
• GUPTA, H., (2015), “Selection of Best Hospital for Surgery Using AHP”, The IUP Journal of Operations Management, 14(3): 18-32.
• GÜLLÜ, E. ve Ulcay, Y., (2002), “Kalite Fonksiyonu Yayılımı ve Bir Uygulama”, Uludağ Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1): 71-91.
• HAFEEZ, K. ve Mazouz, A., (2011), “Using Quality Function Deployment as a higher education management and governance tool”, Current Issues Of Business & Law, 6(1): 31-52, (doi:10.5200/1822-9530.2011.02).
• HALBLEIB, L., Wormington, P., Cieslak, W. ve Street, H., (1993), “Application of Quality Function Deployment to the Design of A Lithium Battery”, IEEE Transactions on Components, Hybrids, and Manufacturing Technology, 16(8): 802-807.
• HO, W., He, T., Lee, C. K. M. ve Emrouznejad, A., (2012), “Strategic Logistics Outsourcing: An Integrated QFD and Fuzzy AHP Approach”, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(12): 10841-10850.
• HWANG, C. -L. ve Yoon, K., (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. (doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9)
• JAHANSHAHLOO, G. R., Lotfi, F. H. ve Izadikhah, M., (2006), “An Algorithmic Method to Extend TOPSIS for Decision-Making Problems with Interval Data”, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 175(2): 1375-1384, (doi:10.1016/j.amc.2005.08.048).
• JOVANOVIĆ, B. ve Delibašić, B., (2014), “Application of Integrated QFD and Fuzzy AHP Approach in Selection of Suppliers”, Management (ISSN: 1820-0222), Issue 72: 25-35, (doi: 10.7595/management.fon.2014.0018).
• KARIMI, B. H., Mozafari, M. M. ve Asli, M. N., (2012), “Applying a Hybrid QFD-TOPSIS Method to Design Product in the Industry (Case Study in Sum Service Company)”, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 4(18): 3283-3288.
• KARSAK, E. E., (2004), “Fuzzy Multiple Objective Decision Making Approach to Prioritize Design Requirements in Quality Function Deployment. International Journal Of Production Research, 42(18): 3957-3974.
• LI, M., Jin, L. ve Wang, J., (2014), “A New MCDM Method Combining QFD with TOPSIS for Knowledge Management System Selection from The User’s Perspective in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment”, Applied Soft Computing, Volume 21: 28-37.
• LIU, Q., (2014), “An Extended TOPSIS Method for Multiple Attribute Decision Making Problems with Unknown Weight Based on 2-Dimension Uncertain Linguistic Variables”, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 27(5): 2221-2230, (doi: 10.3233/IFS-141186).
• MEAN-SHEN, L., (2010), “A Refined and Integrated Kano Model and the Implementation of Quality Function Deployment - Research on the Library of A Vocational and Technical School in Southern Taiwan”, International Journal Of Organizational Innovation, 2(3): 305-335.
• ÖZDAĞOĞLU, A., (2013), “Farklı Normalizasyon Yöntemlerinin TOPSIS'te Karar Verme Sürecine Etkisi”, Ege Akademik Bakış (Ege Academic Review), 13(2): 245-257.
• PAKDİL, F., Işın, F. B. ve Genç, H., (2012), “A Quality Function Deployment Application Using Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis in After Sales Services”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(12): 1397-1411.
• PANG, J., Zhang, G. ve Chen, G., (2011), “Application of Aggregate Analysis for Product Design Quality Using QFD Model and TOPSIS”, MECHANIKA (ISSN 1392 -1207), 17(6): 661-664.
• ROSZKOWSKA, E. ve Wachowicz, T., (2015), “Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems”, European Journal of Operational Research, 242(3): 920-932.
• SAATY, T. L., (1995), Decision Making For Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process For Decisions in A Complex World, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
• SAATY, T. L., (2004), “Decision Making – The Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP)”, Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13(1), pp. 1-35.
• SAATY, T. L., (2007), “Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/ANP: Generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7), pp. 860-891.
• SAATY, T. L., (2008), “Decision Making with The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Int. J. Services Sciences, 1(1), pp. 83-98.
• SOFYALIOĞLU, Ç. ve Tunail, İ., (2012), “Kano Modelinin Kalite Fonksiyon Göçerimi Planlama Matrisinde Kullanımı”, Ege Akademik Bakış (Ege Academic Review), 12(1): 125-135.
• TUROF, M., (2011), “Methods Used in Planning Quality Management Systems - Quality Function Deployment Method”, Economics, Management & Financial Markets, 6(1): 602-609.
• WIDANINGRUM, D. L., (2014), “The Importance of Take-Out Food Packaging Attributes: Conjoint Analysis and Quality Function Deployment Approach”, EPJ Web Of Conferences, (68): 1-7, (doi:10.1051/epjconf/20146800036).
• YAKIT, O., (2015), Ürün Geliştirme Sürecinin İyileştirilmesinde Kalite Fonksiyon Göçerimi: Bir Üretim İşletmesinde Uygulama, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Isparta.
• YOON, K., (1980), Systems Selection by Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
• ZENG, S., Baležentis, A. ve Su, W., (2013), “The Multi-Criteria Hesitant Fuzzy Group Decision Making With Multimoora Method”, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 47(3): 171-184.
• ZHANG, F., Yang, M. ve Liu, W., (2014), “Using Integrated Quality Function Deployment and Theory of Innovation Problem Solving Approach for Ergonomic Product Design”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Volume 76: 60-74.
• ZHU, X., Wang, F., Wang, H., Liang, C., Tang, R., Sun, X. ve Li, J., (2014), “TOPSIS method for quality credit evaluation: A case of air-conditioning market in China”, Journal of Computational Science, 5(2): 99-105, (doi: 10.1016/j.jocs.2013.02.001).