Yıl: 2010 Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 811 - 826 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi

Öz:
İnsan, makine, malzeme gibi çok çeşitlilikte ve değişken özellikler gösteren bileşenlere sahip olan üretim sistemlerinin planlanması, yönetilmesi ve kontrol edilmesi genellikle zor ve karmaşık bir yapıya sahip olup, birden fazla etken tarafından etkilenen kararlar alınmasını gerektiren bir süreçtir. Bu tip süreçlerde karşılaşılan problemler çok sayıda çelişen kriter içeren kompleks karar problemleri niteliğindedir. Bu gibi durumlarda analitik bir bakış açısı sağlayan, probleme matematiksel ve mantıklı çözümler getirebilen çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinin uygulanması çözüm ve daha sonraki aşamalarda büyük yararlar sağlamaktadır. Ekipman seçimi, etkin bir üretim sistemi için oldukça önemli bir konudur. Genellikle birbirine çok benzeyen pek çok tipteki ekipmanın arasından en doğru seçimi yapmayı çok sayıda kriterin göz önüne alınması ile birlikte gerektiren, yorucu, karmaşık, zor bir karar verme problemidir. Bu çalışmada, bir işletmenin kaynak makinesi seçimi problemi, dilsel ifadelerle tanımlanan kriterlerin önceliklendirilmesini içeren çok kriterli bir karar verme problemi temelinde incelenmiştir. Yapılan uygulamada problem hem bulanık hem de kesin sayıların kullanılmasıyla çözülerek alternatif ekipmanlar için hem kısmi hem de tam sıralama belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar ile her iki durum karşılaştırmalı olarak ayrıntılı bir şekilde analiz edilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Comparative analysis of PROMETHEE and fuzzy PROMETHEE methods in equipment selection problem

Öz:
Planing, managing and controling of production systems, which have varient and inconstant featured components like human, machines and materials, have got a complex and hard structure and is a process that requires taking decisions influencing by criteria more than one. Problems met this type of processes are decision problems involving numerous conflicting criteria, and in such situations employing multi criteria decision making methods providing a analytical point of view, giving mathematical and logical solutions to problems, derives great advantages in solving and subsequent stages. Equipment selection is a quite important subject for an effective production system, and is a decision making problem which is exhausting, complex, hard and generally requiring both selecting the most appropriate choice among a wide range of resembling alternatives and taking consideration of numerous criteria. In this study, the welding machine selection problem of a company is analyzed based on a multi criteria decision making problem including prioritization of the linguistically defined criteria. In our application, both partial and full ranking are determined for alternative equipments by employing crisp numbers as well as fuzzy numbers to solve the problem. Both cases are analyzed comparatively in detail with obtained results.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Derleme Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Dağdeviren, M., ve Eren, T., “Analytical Hierarchy Process and Use of 0-1 Goal Programming Methods in Selecting Supplier Firm”, J. Fac. Eng. Arch. Gazi Univ.,16 , 2, 41- 52, 2001.
  • 2. Kralawski, A., Pedrycz W., ve Nyström L., “Fuzzy Neural Network as Instance Generator for Case-Based Reasoning System: An Example of Selection of Heat Exchange Equipment in Mixing Tanks”, Neural Computing & Applications, 8, 106–113, 1999.
  • 3. Kulak, O., Durmuşoglu, M. B., ve Kahraman, C., “Fuzzy multiattribute equipment selection based on information axiom”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 169, 337–345, 2005.
  • 4. Dağdeviren, M., “Decision making in equipment selection: an ıntegrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19, 397-406, 2008.
  • 5. Ayağ, Z., ve Özdemir, R. G., “A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 17, 179–190, 2006.
  • 6. Başçetin, A., ve Kesimal, A., “A new approach in selection of loading-hauling systems in surface mining”, 16th Mining Congress of Turkey, ISBN 975-395-310-0, 1999.
  • 7. Başçetin, A., “A decision support system for optimal equipment selection in open pit mining: Analytical Hierarchy Process”, İstanbul Üniv. Müh. Fak. Yerbilimleri Dergisi, 16, 2, 1-11, 2003.
  • 8. Chan, F. T. S., Ip, R. W. L., ve Lau, H., “Integration of expert system with analytic hierarchy process for the design of material handling equipment selection system”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 116, 137– 145, 2001.
  • 9. Manassero, G., Semeraro Q., ve Tolio T., “A new method to cope with decision makers' uncertainty in the equipment selection process”, CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, 53, 1, 389-392, 2004.
  • 10. Chakraborty, S., ve Banik, D., “Design of a material handling equipment selection model using Analytical Hierarchy Process”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, 28, 1237-1245, 2006.
  • 11. İç, Y. T., ve Yurdakul, M., “Decision support system for selection of machining centers”, J. Fac. Eng. Arch. Gazi Univ, 23, 1, 85-95, 2008.
  • 12. Decision Lab, 1.01.0388, copyright © 1998-2000, Visual Decision Inc., Canada. _____http://www.visualdecision.com>.
  • 13. Saaty, T., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw- Hill International Book Company, USA,1980.
  • 14. Schniederjans, M. J., ve Wilson, R.L., “Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Goal Programming- for Information System Project Selection”, Information & Management, 20, 5, 333-342, 1991.
  • 15. Suresh, N.C., ve Kaparthi, S., “Flexible AutomationInvestments: A Synthesis of Two Multi-Objective Modeling Approaches”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 22, 3, 257-272, 1992.
  • 16. Ehie, I.C., ve Benjamin, C.O., “An Integrated Multiobjective Planning Model: A Case Study Of The Zambian Copper Mining Industry”, European J. of Operational Research, 68, 2, 160-172, 1993.
  • 17. Myint, S., ve Tabucanon, M.T., “A Multiple- Criteria Approach to Machine Selection for Flexible Manufacturing Systems”, International Journal of Production Economics, 33, 1-3, 121- 131, 1994.
  • 18. Ramanathan, R., ve Ganesh, L. S., “Energy Alternatives for Lighting in Households: An Evaluation Using An Integrated Goal Programming-AHP Model”, Energy, 20, 1, 63- 72, 1995.
  • 19. Ramanathan, R. ve Ganesh, L. S., “Energy Resource Allocation Incorporating Qualitative and Quantitative Criteria: An Integrated Model Using Goal Programming And AHP”, Socio- Economic Planning Sciences, 29, 3, 197-218, 1995.
  • 20. Schniederjans, M.J., ve Garvin, T., “Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multi-Objective Programming for the Selection of Cost Drivers in Activity-Based Costing”, European Journal of Operational Research, 100, 1, 72-80, 1997.
  • 21. Badri, M. A., “Combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Goal Programming for Global Facility Location-Allocation Problem”, International J. of Production Economics, 62, 3, 237-248, 1999.
  • 22. Badri, M. A., “A Combined AHP–GP Model for Quality Control Systems”, International Journal of Production Economics, 72, 1, 27-40, 2001.
  • 23. Bowen, W.M., “Subjective Judgements and Data Envelopment Analysis in Site Selection”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 14, 2, 133-144, 1990.
  • 24. Shang, J., ve Sueyoshi, T., “A Unified Framework for the Selection of a Flexible Manufacturing System”, European Journal of Operational Research, 85, 2, 297-315, 1995.
  • 25. Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A. ve Hadad, Y., “An AHP/DEA Methodology for Ranking Decision Making Units”, International Transactions in Operational Research, 7, 2, 109-124, 2000.
  • 26. Yang, T., ve Kuo, C., “A Hierarchical AHP/DEA Methodology for the Facilities Layout Design Problem”, European Journal of Operational Research, 147, 1, 128-136, 2003.
  • 27. Mon, D., Cheng, C. ve Lin, J., “Evaluating Weapon System Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Based on Entropy Weight”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 62, 2, 127-134, 1994.
  • 28. Chang, D., “Applications of the Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP”, European Journal of Operational Research, 95, 3, 649-655, 1996.
  • 29. Weck, M., Klocke, F., Schell, H., ve Rüenauver, E., “Evaluating Alternative Production Cycles Using the Extended Fuzzy AHP Method”, European Journal of perational Research, 100, 2, 351- 366, 1997.
  • 30. Zhu, K., Jing, Y., ve Chang, D., “A Discussion on Extent Analysis Method and Applications of Fuzzy AHP”, European Journal of Operational Research, 116, 2, 450-456, 1999.
  • 31. Kuo, R. J., Chi, S. C. ve Kao, S. S., “A Decision Support System for Locating Convenience Store Through Fuzzy AHP”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 37, 1-2, 323-326, 1999.
  • 32. Leung, L. C. ve Cao, D., “On Consistency and Ranking of Alternatives in Fuzzy AHP”, European Journal of Operational Research, 124, 1, 102- 113, 2000.
  • 33. Yu, C.S., “A GP-AHP Method for Solving Group Decision-Making Fuzzy AHP Problems”, Computers & Operations Research, 29, 14, 1969-2001, 2002.
  • 34. Bozdağ, C.E., Kahraman, C. ve Ruan, D., “Fuzzy Group Decision Making for Selection Among Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems”, Computers in Industry, 51, 1, 13-29, 2003.
  • 35. Kahraman, C., Ruan, D. ve Doğan, I., “Fuzzy Group Decision-Making for Facility Location Selection”, Information Sciences, 157, 135-153, 2003.
  • 36. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U. ve Ruan, D., “Multi- Attribute Comparison of Catering Service Companies Using Fuzzy AHP: The Case of Turkey”, Int. Journal Production Economics, 87, 171-184, 2004.
  • 37. Büyüközkan, G., Ertay, T., Kahraman, C. Ve Ruan, D., “Determining the Importance Weights for the Design Requirements in the House of Quality Using the Fuzzy Analytic Network Approach”, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 19, 443-461, 2004.
  • 38. Kulak, O. ve Kahraman, C., “Fuzzy Multi- Attribute Selection Among Transportation Companies Using Axiomatic Design and Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Information Sciences, 170, 191-210, 2005.
  • 39. Tolga, E., Demircan, M.L. ve Kahraman, C., “Operating System Selection Using Fuzzy Replacement Analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Int. J. of Production Economics, 97, 89-117, 2005.
  • 40. Dağdeviren, M., Akay, D., Çetinyokus, T. ve Kurt, M., “Bulanık Matematiksel Programlama Teknigi İle Bir İş Değerlendirme Uygulaması”, Teknoloji Z.K.Ü. Karabük Teknik Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5, 1-2,91-96,2002.
  • 41. Dağdeviren, M., Yüksel, İ., “Developing a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model for Behaviour Based Safety Management”, Information Sciences, 178, 6, 1717-1733, 2008.
  • 42. Saaty, T.,”The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes”, MCDM XV-th Int. Conf., Ankara, Turkey, 2000.
  • 43. Tam, M.C.Y. ve Tummala, V.M.R., ”An Application of the AHP in Vendor Selection of a Telecommunications System” The Int. J. of Management Science, 29, 2, 171-182, 2001.
  • 44. Saaty, T., The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making, Kobe, Japan, 1999.
  • 45. Saaty, T., Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, USA, 2000.
  • 46. Brans, J. P., ve Vincke, P. H., “A preference ranking organization method”, Management Science, 31, 647-656, 1985.
  • 47. Brans, J. P., Vincke, P. H., ve Mareschall, B., “How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method”, European Journal of Operational Research, 14, 228-238, 1986.
  • 48. Goumas, M., ve Lygerou, V., “An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects”, European Journal of Operational Research, 123, 606-613, 2000.
  • 49. Geldermann J., Spengler, T., ve Rentz, O., “Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment. Case study: Iron and steel making industry”, Fuzzy Set Systems, 115, 45– 65, 2000.
  • 50. Le Téno, J., F., ve Mareschal, B., “An interval version of PROMETHEE for the comparison of building products’ design with ill-defined data on environmental quality”, Eur Journal of Operational Research, 109, 522–529, 1998.
  • 51. Bilsel, R., U., Büyüközkan, G., ve Ruan, D., “A fuzzy prefernce-ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital web sites”, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 21, 1181-1197, 2006.
  • 52. Briggs, Th., Kunsch, P.L., ve Mareschal, B., “Nuclear waste management: An application of the multicriteria PROMETHEE methods”, European Journal of Operational Research, 44, 110, 1990.
  • 53. Chou, W. C., Lin, W. T., ve Lin, C. Y., “Application of fuzzy theory and PROMETHEE technique to evaluate suitable ecotechnology method: A case study in Shihmen Reservoir Watershed, Taiwan”, Ecological Engineering, 31, 269–280, 2007.
  • 54. Queiruga, D., Walther, G., Gonza’lez-Benito, J., ve Spengler, T., “Evaluation of sites for thelocation of WEEE recycling plants in Spain”, Waste Management, 28, 1, 181–190, 2008.
  • 55. D’Avignon, G., ve Mareschal, B., “An application of the PROMETHEE and GAIA methods”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 12, (10–11), 1393–1400, 1989.
  • 56. Du Bois, Ph., Brans, J.P., Cantraine, F., ve Mareschal, B., “MEDICIS: An expert system for computer-aided diagnosis using the PROMETHEE multicriteria method”, European Journal of Operational Research, 39, 284–292, 1989.
  • 57. Olson, D.L., “Comparison of three multicriteria methods to predict known outcomes”, European Journal of Operational Research, 130, 3, 576– 587, 2001.
  • 58. Rekiek, B., de Lit, P., ve Delchambre, A., “Hybrid assembly line design and user’s preferences”, International Journal of Production Research, 40, 5, 1095–1111, 2002.
  • 59. Baourakis, G., Doumpos, M., Kalogeras, N., ve Zopounidis, C., “Multicriteria analysis and assessment of financial viability of agribusinesses: The case of marketing cooperatives and juice-producing companies”, Agribusiness, 18, 4, 543–558, 2002.
  • 60. Albadvi, A., Chaharsooghi, S.K., ve Esfahanipour, A., “Decision making in stock trading: An application of PROMETHEE”, European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 673–683, 2007.
  • 61. Hyde, K., Maier, H., ve Colby, C., “Incorporating uncertainty in the PROMETHEE MCDA method”, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 12, 245–259, 2003.
  • 62. Albadvi, A., “Formulating national information technology strategies: A preference ranking model using PROMETHEE method”, European Journal of Operational Research, 153, 290– 296, 2004.
  • 63. Johnson, M.P., “Spatial decision support for assisted housing mobility counseling”, Decision Support Systems, 41, 296–312, 2005.
  • 64. Zhang, G., Ni, Y., Churchill, J., ve Kokot, S., “Authentication of vegetable oils on the basis of their physico-chemical properties with the aid of chemometrics”, Talanta, 70, 293–300, 2006.
  • 65. Iniestra, J. G., ve Gutiérrez, J.G., “Multicriteria decisions on interdependent infrastructure transportation projects using an evolutionarybased framework”, Applied Soft Computing, 9, 512–52, 2009.
  • 66. Mohamadabadi, H., S., Tichkowsky, G., ve Kumar, A., “Development of a multicriteria assesment model for ranking of renewable and non-renewable transportation fuel vehicles”, Energy, 34, 112-125, 2009.
  • 67. Brans, J. P., ve Mareschall, B., “The PROMCALC & GAIA decision support system for multi-criteria decision aid”, Decision Support Systems, 12, 297-310, 1994.
  • 68. Ballı, S., Karasulu, B., ve Korukoğlu, S., “En uygun otomobil seçimi problemi için bir bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemi uygulaması”, D.E.Ü.İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 22, 1, 139-147, 2007.
  • 69. DuBois D., ve Prade H., “Operations on fuzzy numbers”, Int J Syst Sci, 9, 613– 626, 1978.
  • 70. Brans, J. P., ve Mareschal, B., “How to decide with PROMETHEE”, Visual Decision Inc., Montreal, Canada, http://www.visualdecision.com, 1998.
  • 71. Wang, J. J., ve Yang, D. L., “Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for information systems outsourcing”, Computers & Operation Research, 34, 3691-3700.
APA Yılmaz Kaya B, DAGDEVİREN M (2010). Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. , 811 - 826.
Chicago Yılmaz Kaya Burcu,DAGDEVİREN METİN Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. (2010): 811 - 826.
MLA Yılmaz Kaya Burcu,DAGDEVİREN METİN Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. , 2010, ss.811 - 826.
AMA Yılmaz Kaya B,DAGDEVİREN M Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. . 2010; 811 - 826.
Vancouver Yılmaz Kaya B,DAGDEVİREN M Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. . 2010; 811 - 826.
IEEE Yılmaz Kaya B,DAGDEVİREN M "Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi." , ss.811 - 826, 2010.
ISNAD Yılmaz Kaya, Burcu - DAGDEVİREN, METİN. "Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi". (2010), 811-826.
APA Yılmaz Kaya B, DAGDEVİREN M (2010). Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(4), 811 - 826.
Chicago Yılmaz Kaya Burcu,DAGDEVİREN METİN Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 25, no.4 (2010): 811 - 826.
MLA Yılmaz Kaya Burcu,DAGDEVİREN METİN Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.25, no.4, 2010, ss.811 - 826.
AMA Yılmaz Kaya B,DAGDEVİREN M Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2010; 25(4): 811 - 826.
Vancouver Yılmaz Kaya B,DAGDEVİREN M Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2010; 25(4): 811 - 826.
IEEE Yılmaz Kaya B,DAGDEVİREN M "Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi." Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, ss.811 - 826, 2010.
ISNAD Yılmaz Kaya, Burcu - DAGDEVİREN, METİN. "Ekipman seçimi probleminde PROMETHEE ve bulanık PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi". Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 25/4 (2010), 811-826.