Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Konteyner Taşımacılığında Nakliye Müteahhitlerinin Hat Seçim Kriterlerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 112 - 126, 17.12.2019

Abstract

Müşterilerine kapıdan kapıya entegre çözümler sunabilen konteyner taşımacılığı, temelde ithalatçı, ihracatçı ve hat operatörlerinden oluşmaktadır. İthalat ve ihracat yapan firmaların, farklı lojistik taleplerinin yerine getirilmesi, hatlar ile olan diyaloğunun daha etkin sağlanabilmesi ve firmaların ana faaliyet alanlarına odaklanabilmesi için nakliye müteahhidi ismi altında lojistik hizmet sağlayıcılar bulunmaktadır. Uluslararası literatürde forwarder olarak belirtilen bu firmalar, sigorta, taşıma, depolama, gümrükleme, ambalaj vb. lojistik faaliyetlerin gerçekleşmesinde aracılık yapmaktadırlar. Bu faaliyetlerin başta ekonomik olması adına, nakliye müteahhitlerinin optimal hat operatörünü seçmesi gerekmektedir. Bu süreçte nakliye müteahhitlerinin tercihini etkileyecek farklı kriterler ortaya çıkmaktadır.

Bu kriterlerin belirlenmesi ve seçim sürecinde etki düzeylerinin incelenerek, karar verme sürecinin modeller üzerinden çözümünün gerçekleştirildiği, çok kriterli karar verme, günümüzde çok sayıda işletmenin uyguladığı, birden fazla amacın gerçekleştirilmesi için uygulanan bir yöntem olarak dikkati çekmektedir. Bu çalışmada belirtilen problem, nakliye müteahhidinin, konteyner hat operatörü seçiminde kullandığı kriterlerin belirlenmesi, ağırlıklarının oluşturularak, karar modelinin kullanılmasıdır. Bu sebeple, ülkemizde faaliyet gösteren uluslararası nakliye müteahhitleri ile görüşme sağlanarak, hat operatör tercihini etkileyen kriterlerin belirlenmesi ve karar destek sisteminde ağırlıklarının tanımlanması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, gerçek veriler ile güncel nakliye talebi değerlendirilmiş ve karar verme süreci AHP ve EDAS yöntemleri kullanılarak oluşturulmuştur.

References

  • Wagner, I., (2018). Transportation & Logistics. Global Container Market, www.statista.com adresinden alınmıştır.
  • URL-1, Annual Report (2019). 09.05.2019, www.clarksons.com.
  • Deniz Ticaret Odası. 2017 Deniz Sektörü Raporu, www.denizticaretodasi.org.tr adresinden alınmıştır.
  • Tuna, O., (1994). Türkiye’de İhracatın Arttırılmasında Lojistik Bir Destek Kurumu Olarak Nakliye Müteahhitliğinin Rolü, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
  • Deveci, D, A., (2006). Kobilerin Uluslararası Pazarlara Açılmasında Nakliye Yüklenicileri ve Fonksiyonları, Kobi Esnaf ve Sanatkarların Sesi Gazetesi, Haziran.
  • Sevgili, C., Nas, S., (2017). Taşıma İşleri Komisyoncularının Gemi Acentelerini Tercih Ölçütleri, İzmir Limanı Uygulaması, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt 13(1): 155-165.
  • Sezer, H., Saatçioğlu, Ö. Y., (2008). Düzenli Hat Deniz Taşımacılığında Nakliye Müteahhidinin Gemi Operatörü Seçimine Çok Ölçütlü Karar Destek Yaklaşımı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4, 19-46.
  • Ho, T-C., C, R-H., C, C-C. and L, H-S., (2017). Key Influence Factors For Ocean Freight Forwarders Selecting Container Shipping Lines Using The Revised Dematel Approach. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 25(3): 299-310.
  • Krapfel, R, E., Mentzer, J, T., (1982). Shippers Transportation Choice Processes Under Deregulation. Industrial Marketing Management, 11(3): 117-124.Brooks, M, R., (1985). An Alternative Theoretical Approach To The Evaluation Of Liner Shipping, Part II: Choice Criteria. Maritime Policy and Management, 12(2): 145-155.
  • Brooks, M, R., (1990). Ocean Carrier Selection Criteria in a New Environment. The Logistics and Transportation Reviews, 26(4): 339-355.
  • Brooks, M, R., (1991). Assessment Of The Ocean Carrier Decision Environment: a Longitudinal Study. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 31(2): 219-229.
  • Murphy, P, R., Hall, P, K., (1995). The Relative Importance Of Cost and Service in Freight Transportation Choice Before and After Deregulation: an Update. Transportation Journal, 35(1): 30-39.
  • Tiwari, P., Itoh, H., Doi, M., (2003). Shippers’ Port and Carrier Selection Behavior in China: a Discrete Choice Analysis. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5(1): 23-39.
  • Yen, J, R., Chen, S, M., (2004). Modeling the Shippers’ Behavior in Short-Sea Routes. Maritime Quarterly, 13(2): 73-96.
  • Douglas, V, M., Page, T, J., Keller, S, B., Ozments, J., (2006). Determining Important Carrier Attributes: a Fresh Perspective Using The Theory Of Reasoned Action. Transportation Journal, 45(4): 7-19.
  • Salleh, A, L., (2007).Worldwide Sourcing Practice Of Malaysian Electrical and Electronics Companies. The Business Review Cambridge, 8(2): 61-67.
  • Zsidisin, G, A., Voss, M, D., Schlosser, M., (2007). Shipper-Carrier Relationships and Their Effect on Carrier Performance. Transportation Journal, 46(2): 5-18.
  • Brooks, M, R., Trifts, V., (2008). Short Sea Shipping in North America: Understanding The Requirements of Atlantic Canadian Shippers. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(2): 145-158.
  • Rogerson, S., Andersson, D., Johansson, M, I., (2014). Influence Of Context on The Purchasing Process For Freight Transport Services. International Journal of Logistics ,17(3): 232-248.
  • Kacar, A, Y., (2015). Freight Forwarder Rolleri ve Bu Rollerin Sonuçları, www.lojistikdünyasi.net adresinden alınmıştır.
  • URL-2, (2019), 02.03.2019, http://tusside.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/yontemlerimiz/
  • Yıldırım, B. F., Önder, E., (2014). İşletmeciler, Mühendisler ve Yöneticiler İçin Operasyonel, Yönetsel ve Stratejik Problemlerin Çözümünde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri. Bursa, Dora Yayınları.
  • Hu, J., Peng, J., (2008). Application of Supplier Selection Based On The AHP Theory. Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling Workshop (International Symposium), 1095-1097.
  • Wang Y., Liu J., Elhag T., (2008). “An Integrated AHP-DEA Methodology For Bridge Risk Assessment”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54(3): 513-525.
  • Saaty, T, L., (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. Mcgraw-Hill, New York.
  • Supçiller, A., Çapraz, O., (2011). AHP-TOPSIS Yöntemine Dayalı Tedarikçi Seçimi Uygulaması. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics e-Journal, 10 (3), 1-22.
  • Ghorabaee, M, K., 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.
  • Çakır, E., (2018). Elektronik Belde Yönetim Sistemi (EBYS) Yazılımı Seçiminde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri: Bir Belediye Örneği. Business Economics and Management Research Journal, 1 (1): 15-30.
  • Kokkinis, G., Mihiotis, A., Pappis, C, P., (2006). Freight forwarding in Greece: Services Provided and Choice Criteria. EuroMed Journal of Business, 1: 64-81.
  • Abshire, R, D., Premeaux, S, R., (1991). Motor Carrier Selection Criteria: Perceptual Differences Between Shippers and Carriers, Transportation Journal, 31(1): 31-35.
  • Wong, P, C., Yan, H., Bamford, C., (2008). Evaluation Of Factors For Carrier Selection in The China Pearl River Delta. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(1): 27-52.
  • Kent, J, L., Parker, R, S., (1999). International Containership Carrier Selection Criteria: Shippers/ Carriers Differences, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 29 (6): 398-408.
  • Wen, C, H., Huang, J, Y., (2007) A Discrete Choice Model Of Ocean Carrier Choice. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 7: 795-807.
  • Lu, C-S., (2003). An Evaluation Of Service Attributes in a Partnering Relationship Between Maritime Firms and Shippers in Taiwan. Transportation Journal, 42(5): 5-16.
  • Özsümer, A., Mitri, M., Çavuşgil, T., (1993). Selecting International Freight Forwarder. International Journal Of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 23(3): 9-16.
  • Kannan, V., Bose, S, K., Kannan, N, G., (2011). An Evaluation Of Ocean Container Carrier Selection Criteria: an Indian Shipper’s Perspective. Management Research Review, 34(7): 754-772.
  • Çancı, M., Erdal, M., (2003). Lojistik Yönetimi: Freight forwarder El Kitabı. UTİKAD Yayınları, 2. Baskı, İstanbul.
  • Saaty, T, L., (1990). How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 48: 9-26.Chu, H, C., (2014). Exploring Preference Heterogeneity Of Air Freight Forwarders in The Choices Of Carriers and Routes. Journal of Air Transport Management, 37: 45-52:
  • Premeaux, S, R., Abshire, R, D., Mondy, J, B., Rader, C., (1995). The Perceptual Differences Between Shippers and Motor Carriers Regarding The Carrier Choice Decision and The Industrial Marketing Implications Of These Differences, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3(2): 98-105.

Evaluation of Line Selection Criteria of Freight Forwarders in Container Transportation

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 112 - 126, 17.12.2019

Abstract

Container transportation, which can offer door-to-door integrated solutions to its customers, consists mainly of importers, exporters and shipping lines There are logistic service providers under the name of the freight forwarder for import and export companies to meet their different logistic demands, to make their dialogue with the lines more effective and to be focused them on the main activity areas. These providers, which are designated as forwarders in international literature, mediate realization of logistics activities like insurance, transportation, storage, customs clearance, packaging and so on. In order for these activities to be particularly economical, freight forwarders must select the optimal line operator. In this process, different criteria emerge that will affect the choice of freight forwarders.

Multi-criteria decision making that determining these criteria and examining the effect levels in the selection process and the decision making process is realized through the solution of models has emerged as a method applied of more than one enterprise in today. The problem mentioned in this study is the determination of the criteria used by the shipping contractor in selecting the container line operator, using the weighting model and using the decision model. For this reason, it was aimed to determine the criteria affecting line operator preference and to define their weight in decision support system by meeting with international transportation contractors operating in our country. For this purpose, the actual data and the current shipping demand are evaluated and the decision-making process is established by using AHP and EDAS methods.

References

  • Wagner, I., (2018). Transportation & Logistics. Global Container Market, www.statista.com adresinden alınmıştır.
  • URL-1, Annual Report (2019). 09.05.2019, www.clarksons.com.
  • Deniz Ticaret Odası. 2017 Deniz Sektörü Raporu, www.denizticaretodasi.org.tr adresinden alınmıştır.
  • Tuna, O., (1994). Türkiye’de İhracatın Arttırılmasında Lojistik Bir Destek Kurumu Olarak Nakliye Müteahhitliğinin Rolü, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
  • Deveci, D, A., (2006). Kobilerin Uluslararası Pazarlara Açılmasında Nakliye Yüklenicileri ve Fonksiyonları, Kobi Esnaf ve Sanatkarların Sesi Gazetesi, Haziran.
  • Sevgili, C., Nas, S., (2017). Taşıma İşleri Komisyoncularının Gemi Acentelerini Tercih Ölçütleri, İzmir Limanı Uygulaması, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt 13(1): 155-165.
  • Sezer, H., Saatçioğlu, Ö. Y., (2008). Düzenli Hat Deniz Taşımacılığında Nakliye Müteahhidinin Gemi Operatörü Seçimine Çok Ölçütlü Karar Destek Yaklaşımı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4, 19-46.
  • Ho, T-C., C, R-H., C, C-C. and L, H-S., (2017). Key Influence Factors For Ocean Freight Forwarders Selecting Container Shipping Lines Using The Revised Dematel Approach. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 25(3): 299-310.
  • Krapfel, R, E., Mentzer, J, T., (1982). Shippers Transportation Choice Processes Under Deregulation. Industrial Marketing Management, 11(3): 117-124.Brooks, M, R., (1985). An Alternative Theoretical Approach To The Evaluation Of Liner Shipping, Part II: Choice Criteria. Maritime Policy and Management, 12(2): 145-155.
  • Brooks, M, R., (1990). Ocean Carrier Selection Criteria in a New Environment. The Logistics and Transportation Reviews, 26(4): 339-355.
  • Brooks, M, R., (1991). Assessment Of The Ocean Carrier Decision Environment: a Longitudinal Study. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 31(2): 219-229.
  • Murphy, P, R., Hall, P, K., (1995). The Relative Importance Of Cost and Service in Freight Transportation Choice Before and After Deregulation: an Update. Transportation Journal, 35(1): 30-39.
  • Tiwari, P., Itoh, H., Doi, M., (2003). Shippers’ Port and Carrier Selection Behavior in China: a Discrete Choice Analysis. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5(1): 23-39.
  • Yen, J, R., Chen, S, M., (2004). Modeling the Shippers’ Behavior in Short-Sea Routes. Maritime Quarterly, 13(2): 73-96.
  • Douglas, V, M., Page, T, J., Keller, S, B., Ozments, J., (2006). Determining Important Carrier Attributes: a Fresh Perspective Using The Theory Of Reasoned Action. Transportation Journal, 45(4): 7-19.
  • Salleh, A, L., (2007).Worldwide Sourcing Practice Of Malaysian Electrical and Electronics Companies. The Business Review Cambridge, 8(2): 61-67.
  • Zsidisin, G, A., Voss, M, D., Schlosser, M., (2007). Shipper-Carrier Relationships and Their Effect on Carrier Performance. Transportation Journal, 46(2): 5-18.
  • Brooks, M, R., Trifts, V., (2008). Short Sea Shipping in North America: Understanding The Requirements of Atlantic Canadian Shippers. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(2): 145-158.
  • Rogerson, S., Andersson, D., Johansson, M, I., (2014). Influence Of Context on The Purchasing Process For Freight Transport Services. International Journal of Logistics ,17(3): 232-248.
  • Kacar, A, Y., (2015). Freight Forwarder Rolleri ve Bu Rollerin Sonuçları, www.lojistikdünyasi.net adresinden alınmıştır.
  • URL-2, (2019), 02.03.2019, http://tusside.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/yontemlerimiz/
  • Yıldırım, B. F., Önder, E., (2014). İşletmeciler, Mühendisler ve Yöneticiler İçin Operasyonel, Yönetsel ve Stratejik Problemlerin Çözümünde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri. Bursa, Dora Yayınları.
  • Hu, J., Peng, J., (2008). Application of Supplier Selection Based On The AHP Theory. Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling Workshop (International Symposium), 1095-1097.
  • Wang Y., Liu J., Elhag T., (2008). “An Integrated AHP-DEA Methodology For Bridge Risk Assessment”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54(3): 513-525.
  • Saaty, T, L., (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. Mcgraw-Hill, New York.
  • Supçiller, A., Çapraz, O., (2011). AHP-TOPSIS Yöntemine Dayalı Tedarikçi Seçimi Uygulaması. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics e-Journal, 10 (3), 1-22.
  • Ghorabaee, M, K., 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.
  • Çakır, E., (2018). Elektronik Belde Yönetim Sistemi (EBYS) Yazılımı Seçiminde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri: Bir Belediye Örneği. Business Economics and Management Research Journal, 1 (1): 15-30.
  • Kokkinis, G., Mihiotis, A., Pappis, C, P., (2006). Freight forwarding in Greece: Services Provided and Choice Criteria. EuroMed Journal of Business, 1: 64-81.
  • Abshire, R, D., Premeaux, S, R., (1991). Motor Carrier Selection Criteria: Perceptual Differences Between Shippers and Carriers, Transportation Journal, 31(1): 31-35.
  • Wong, P, C., Yan, H., Bamford, C., (2008). Evaluation Of Factors For Carrier Selection in The China Pearl River Delta. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(1): 27-52.
  • Kent, J, L., Parker, R, S., (1999). International Containership Carrier Selection Criteria: Shippers/ Carriers Differences, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 29 (6): 398-408.
  • Wen, C, H., Huang, J, Y., (2007) A Discrete Choice Model Of Ocean Carrier Choice. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 7: 795-807.
  • Lu, C-S., (2003). An Evaluation Of Service Attributes in a Partnering Relationship Between Maritime Firms and Shippers in Taiwan. Transportation Journal, 42(5): 5-16.
  • Özsümer, A., Mitri, M., Çavuşgil, T., (1993). Selecting International Freight Forwarder. International Journal Of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 23(3): 9-16.
  • Kannan, V., Bose, S, K., Kannan, N, G., (2011). An Evaluation Of Ocean Container Carrier Selection Criteria: an Indian Shipper’s Perspective. Management Research Review, 34(7): 754-772.
  • Çancı, M., Erdal, M., (2003). Lojistik Yönetimi: Freight forwarder El Kitabı. UTİKAD Yayınları, 2. Baskı, İstanbul.
  • Saaty, T, L., (1990). How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 48: 9-26.Chu, H, C., (2014). Exploring Preference Heterogeneity Of Air Freight Forwarders in The Choices Of Carriers and Routes. Journal of Air Transport Management, 37: 45-52:
  • Premeaux, S, R., Abshire, R, D., Mondy, J, B., Rader, C., (1995). The Perceptual Differences Between Shippers and Motor Carriers Regarding The Carrier Choice Decision and The Industrial Marketing Implications Of These Differences, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3(2): 98-105.
There are 39 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Çetin Polat 0000-0003-1031-1593

Fahriye Merdivenci This is me 0000-0001-8956-7051

Publication Date December 17, 2019
Submission Date August 5, 2019
Acceptance Date September 9, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 5 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Polat, Ç., & Merdivenci, F. (2019). Konteyner Taşımacılığında Nakliye Müteahhitlerinin Hat Seçim Kriterlerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences, 5(2), 112-126.

Creative Commons Lisansı

This Journal is licensed with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).