Araştırma Makalesi

RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS

Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3 3 Ekim 2024
PDF İndir
EN

RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS

Öz

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the Multi Criteria Decision-making (MCDM) methods developed by Thomas Lorie Saaty. It can be defined as the theory of measurement through pairwise comparisons, relying on expert judgments of priority scales. This study aims to compare the alternative pedestrian routes within the production area of a manufacturing company located in Manisa, Türkiye, utilizing AHP. AHP is selected as a suitable tool for this case study, since it allows inclusion of tangible and intangible criteria and consideration of sub-criteria as part of the decision-making process. Three alternative pedestrian routes were evaluated by applying the AHP method to define the best route enabling access for pedestrians to the targeted area in the manufacturing building. The decision criteria were defined by expert Decision Makers of the company and are in line with criteria, such as safety, cost effectiveness and time, utilized broadly for layout selection related studies in manufacturing as per the conducted literature review. The best alternative route was determined as Route 1, and the main criteria priorities were ranked as Criteria 1- “Operational Health and Safety (OHS) Risk Assessment,” Criteria 4 “Restricted access to the material warehouse,” Criteria 2 “Investment Feasibility” and Criteria 3 “Walking Time.” As a conclusion, AHP is effectively applied to prioritize the tangible and intangible criteria and select most suitable pedestrian routes within a manufacturing facility.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Etik Beyan

Çalışma Etik Kurul İzni gerektirmemektedir. Ancak çalışmada etik kurallara riayet edilmiş, 3 uzman Karar verici tarafından ölçek doldurulmadan önce bilgilendirilmiş, gönüllü onam formları imzalatılmıştır.

Kaynakça

  1. Abad, J, Lafuente E. and Vilajosana, J. (2013) “An Assessment of The OHSAS 18001 Certification Process: Objective Drivers and Consequences on Safety Performance and Labor Productivity”, Safety Science, 60: 47-56.
  2. Abdalla, S, Kızıl, M.S. and Canbulat, I. (2019) “Development of a Method for Layout Selection Using Analytical Hierarchy Process, In Naj Aziz And Bob Kininmonth (eds.)”, Proceedings of the 2013 Coal Operators' Conference, Mining Engineering, University of Wollongong.
  3. Aitken, J., Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2002) “Understanding, Implementing and Exploiting Agility and Leanness”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 5 (1): 59-74.
  4. Al-Hawari, T., Mumani, A. and Momani, A. (2014) “Application of The Analytic Network Process to Facility Layout Selection”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 33 (4): 488-497.
  5. American Society for Quality (ASQ), https://asq.org/quality-resources/total-quality-management Access date: 11.03.2024.
  6. Aruldoss, M., Lakshmi, T.M. and Venkatesan, P. (2013) “A Survey on Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods and Its Applications”, American Journal of Information Systems, 1(1): 31-43.
  7. Avikal, S., Mishra, P.K. and Jain, R. (2013) “An AHP And PROMETHEE Methods-Based Environment Friendly Heuristic for Disassembly Line Balancing Problems”, Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 14(1): 69-85.
  8. Balaji, M. and Santhanakrishnan, D. S. (2019) “An Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process in Vehicle Routing Problem”, Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 47(3): 196-205.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

Demografi (Diğer)

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Erken Görünüm Tarihi

4 Ekim 2024

Yayımlanma Tarihi

3 Ekim 2024

Gönderilme Tarihi

15 Nisan 2024

Kabul Tarihi

20 Ağustos 2024

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2024 Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA
Kayahan Karakul, A., & Pire Özgen, S. (2024). RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 22(3), 182-199. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.1468578
AMA
1.Kayahan Karakul A, Pire Özgen S. RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS. Journal of Management and Economics Research. 2024;22(3):182-199. doi:10.11611/yead.1468578
Chicago
Kayahan Karakul, Aygülen, ve Saba Pire Özgen. 2024. “RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS”. Journal of Management and Economics Research 22 (3): 182-99. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.1468578.
EndNote
Kayahan Karakul A, Pire Özgen S (01 Ekim 2024) RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS. Journal of Management and Economics Research 22 3 182–199.
IEEE
[1]A. Kayahan Karakul ve S. Pire Özgen, “RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS”, Journal of Management and Economics Research, c. 22, sy 3, ss. 182–199, Eki. 2024, doi: 10.11611/yead.1468578.
ISNAD
Kayahan Karakul, Aygülen - Pire Özgen, Saba. “RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS”. Journal of Management and Economics Research 22/3 (01 Ekim 2024): 182-199. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.1468578.
JAMA
1.Kayahan Karakul A, Pire Özgen S. RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS. Journal of Management and Economics Research. 2024;22:182–199.
MLA
Kayahan Karakul, Aygülen, ve Saba Pire Özgen. “RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS”. Journal of Management and Economics Research, c. 22, sy 3, Ekim 2024, ss. 182-99, doi:10.11611/yead.1468578.
Vancouver
1.Aygülen Kayahan Karakul, Saba Pire Özgen. RANKING ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS FOR A FACTORY BY APPLYING ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS. Journal of Management and Economics Research. 01 Ekim 2024;22(3):182-99. doi:10.11611/yead.1468578