Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi

Can, Gülin Feryal; kılıç delice, elif; KAHYA, Emin

doi:10.17341/gazimmfd.484974

Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi

Elif KILIÇ DELİCE, (Atatürk Üniversitesi, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Endüstri Mühendisliği Bölümü, Erzurum, Türkiye)

Gülin Feryal CAN, (2Başkent Üniversitesi, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Endüstri Mühendisliği Bölümü, Ankara, Türkiye)

Emin KAHYA (Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Mühendislik ve Mimarlık Fakültesi, Endüstri Mühendisliği Bölümü, Eskişehir, Türkiye)

Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi

9 1

Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 35 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 1297 - 1314 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974 İndeks Tarihi: 12-01-2021

Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi

Öz:

Günümüzde, işe bağlı kas iskelet sistemi rahatsızlıkları (KİSR) giderek artmaktadır. Bu durum, hem iş verimliliğinidüşürmekte hem de çalışan sağlığını olumsuz etkilemektedir. Bu nedenle, KİSR’nın ortaya çıkmadan önceönlenmesi amacıyla çalışma ortamının ergonomik ilkelere dayanılarak tasarlanması önem taşımaktadır. Bununlabirlikte, işletmelerde ergonomik açıdan tasarım iyileştirme çalışmalarına başlamadan önce, çalışanların zorlanmadüzeylerinin yüksek olduğu departmanların belirlenmesi ve bu departmanlardaki ofis bileşenlerinin tasarımlarınındeğerlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada, ofis bileşenlerinin neden olduğu zorlanma düzeylerininbelirlenmesi ve bu düzeylere göre, öncelikli olarak ergonomik iyileştirme yapılacak departmanların tespiti içinHızlı Ofis Zorlanma Değerlendirmesi yöntemi temelinde entegre birçok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yaklaşımıönerilmiştir. Önerilen yaklaşımda, ofis bileşenleri nedeniyle oluşan zorlama düzeyleri ROSA yöntemi iledeğerlendirilmiştir. Ofis bileşenlerinin zorlanma seviyeleri üzerindeki önem ağırlıklarının belirlenmesinde, AdımAdım Ağırlık Değerlendirme Oran Analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Zorlanma düzeylerine göre departmanlarınsıralanmasında ise Ağırlıklandırılmış Bütünleşik Toplam Çarpım Değerlendirmesi yöntemi uygulanmıştır.Önerilen yaklaşım, havacılık sanayisinde faaliyet gösteren bir firmada uygulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak; zorlanmadüzeyini arttıran en önemli ofis bileşeni sandalye olarak belirlenirken, İmalat Mühendisliği ve ARGEdepartmanları, zorlanma düzeyi en yüksek birimler olarak tespit edilmiştir. Bununla birlikte, duyarlılık vekarşılaştırmalı analiz yapılarak, departmanların zorlanma düzeylerine ait sıralamaların değişimi değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelime:

Improving the rapid office strain assessment method with an integrated multi-criteria decision making approach

Öz:

Nowadays, work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMDs) are gradually increasing. This not only reduces work efficiency but also negatively affects workers’ health. For this reason, it is important to design the working environment based on ergonomic principles in order to prevent WMDs before they occur. In addition, before starting ergonomic design improvement activities in the enterprises, it is necessary to identify the departments with high strain levels and evaluate the design of the office components in these departments. In this study, an integrated multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach was proposed based on the Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA) method to determine the strain level caused by office components and to identify the departments to be ergonomically improved according to these levels. In the proposed approach, the strain level related to office components was evaluated by ROSA method. To determine the importance weights of office components on strain levels, Step-by-Step Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) was used. Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) method was applied to order the departments according to the strain levels. The proposed approach was implemented in a company operating in the aviation industry. As a result, the most important office component that increases the strain level was determined as the chair, while the Manufacturing Engineering and R & D departments were determined as the units with the highest strain levels. Additionally, by performing sensitivity and comparative analysis, changes in the departments’ rankings were evaluated.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Mirmohammadi S.J., Mehrparvar A.H., Soleimani H., Lotfi M.H., Akbari H. ve Heidari N., Musculoskeletal disorders among video display terminal (VDT) workers comparing with other office workers, Iran Occupational Health, 7 (2),11-4, 2010.
2. Eriş H, Can G.F. ve Fığlalı N., Çalışma duruşu ve kasiskelet sistemi rahatsızlıkları, Makine Mühendisleri Odası Dergisi-Endüstri Ve İşletme Mühendisliği Meslek Dalı ana Komisyon Bülteni,129, 8-14, 2009.
3. Coluci M.Z, Alexandre N.M. ve De Freitas Pedrini T., Musculoskeletal symptoms and workers' perception about job factors in a pulp and paper ındustry, Work, 41 (1), 5728-5730, 2012.
4. Choobineh A., Solaymani E. ve Mohammad Beigi A., Musculoskeletal symptoms among workers of metal structure manufacturing industry in Shiraz, Iranian Journal of Epidemiology, 5, 35-43, 2009.
5. Blatter B. M. ve Bongers P. M., Duration of computer use and mouse use in relation to musculoskeletal disorders of neck or upper limb, Int. J. Ind. Ergon, 30, 295–306, 2002.
6. Toomingas A. ve Gavhed D., Workstation layout and work postures at call centres in Sweden in relation to national law, EU-directives and ISO-standards, and to operators’ comfort and symptoms, Int. J. Ind. Ergon, 38, 1051-1061, 2008.
7. Crawford J.O., The Nordic musculoskeletal questionnaire, Occupational Medicine, 57, 300-1, 2007.
8. Sonne M, Villalta D.L. ve Andrews D.M., Development and evaluation of an office Ergonomic risk checklist: Rosarapid office strain assessment, Appl Ergon.,43, 98- 108, 2012.
9. Kuorinka I., Jonsson B., Kilbom A., Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, Andersson G ve Jørgensen K.,Standardized Nordic questionnaires for the analyses of musculoskeletal symptoms, Appl Ergon., 18, 233-7, 1987.
10. Cook C., Burgess-Limerick R. ve Chang SW. The prevalence of neck and upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms in computer mouse users, Int. J. Ind. Ergon, 26, 347–356, 2000.
11. Amell T.K. ve Kumar S., Work-Related Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: currents concepts, Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 25, 69- 78, 2000.
12. Ferasati, F. ve Jalilian, M., Evaluation of WMSDS in VDT users with rapid office strain assessment (ROSA) method, Journal of Ergonomics, 1 (3), 65-74, 2014.
13. Brink Y., Louw Q., Grimmer K. ve Jordaan E, The relationship between sitting posture and seated-related upper quadrant musculoskeletal pain in computing south African adolescents: a prospective study, Manual Therapy, 20, 820–826, 2015.
14. Cheng H.K., Wong M.T., Yu Y.C. ve Ju Y.Y., Workrelated musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomic risk Factors in Special Education Teachers and Teacher’s Aides, BMC Pub Health, 16, 137, 2016.
15. Davis K.G. ve Kotowski S.E. Postural variability: an effective way to reduce musculoskeletal discomfort in office work, Hum Factors, 56, 1249–1261, 2014.
16. Aghdaie M.H., Zolfani S.H. ve Zavadskas E.K., Sales branches performance evaluation: a multiple attribute decision making approach, 8th international scientific conference-business and management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania, 2014.
17. Keršuliene V., Zavadskas E. K. ve Turskis Z., Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA), Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11 (2), 243–258, 2010.
18. Zolfani S.H. ve Saparauskas J., New Application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system, Engineering Economics, 24 (5), 408–414, 2013.
19. Aghdaie M.H., Zolfani S.H. ve Zavadskas E.K., Decision making in machine tool selection: an integrated approach with SWARA and COPRAS-G methods, Engineering Economics, 24(1), 5–17, 2013.
20. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J. ve Zakarevicius, A. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment, Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 122 (6), 3-6, 2012.
21. Chakraborty S. ve Zavadskas E.K., Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making. ınformatica, 25, 1–20, 2014.
22. Andrews, D. M., The Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA): Validity of online worker self-assessments and the relationship to worker discomfort, Occupational Ergonomics, 10 (3), 83-101, 2011.
23. Krusun M. ve Chaiklieng S., Ergonomic risk assessment in university office workers, Asia-Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 19 (5), 696-707, 2014.
24. Sonne M.W., Ward R., Thuy C. ve Andrews D. M., Integration of mobile office equipment into the Rapid office Strain Assessment (ROSA), Ace 2015, 2015
25. Ghanbary-Sartang A. ve Habibi H., Evaluation of musculoskeletal disorders to method Rapid office Strain Assessment (ROSA) in computers users, Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2 (1), 47-54, 2015.
26. Soroush M. ve Hassani H., Musculoskeletal complaints associated with computer use and its ergonomic risks for office workers of a medical sciences university in Tehran, Ann Mil Health Sci Res, 13 (1), 2-6, 2015
27. Nasiri I., Motamedzade M., Golmohammadi R. ve Faradmal J., Assessment of risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders using the Rapid office Strain Assessment (ROSA) method and implementing ergonomics intervention programs in Sepah Bank, Health and Safety at Work, 5 (2), 47-62, 2015.
28. Matos M. ve Arezes P., Ergonomic evaluation of office workplaces with Rapid office Strain Assessment (ROSA), Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 4689-4694, 2015.
29. Nasiri I.M.A.N., The survey of musculoskeletal disorders risk factors among office workers and the ımplementation of an ergonomic training program, Journal Mil Med, 16 (4), 211-216, 2015.
30. Sohrabi M., Faridizad A.M. ve Farasati F., Comparing results of musculoskeletal disorders evaluation in computer users with CMDQ, RULA and ROSA methods, Scientific Journal of Ilam University of Medical Sciences, 23 (4), 53-62, 2015.
31. Poochada W. ve Chaiklieng S., Ergonomic risk assessment among call center workers, Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 4613-4620, 2015
32. Samaei S.I., Tirgar A., Khanjani N., Mostafaee, M., Bagheri Hosseinabadi, M. ve Amrollahi, M., Assessment of ergonomics risk factors influencing incidence of musculoskeletal disorders among office workers, Health and Safety at Work, 5 (4), 1-12, 2015.
33. Armal A., Mokhtarinia H., Biglarian, A. ve Abdi, K., Face and convergent validity of persian version of Rapid office Strain Assessment (ROSA) checklist, Archives of Rehabilitation, 16 (4), 356-365, 2016.
34. Ghanbary A. ve Habibi E., Evaluation of musculoskeletal disorders among computer users in Isfahan, Iranian Journal of Health, Safety and Environment, 2 (3), 330-334, 2015.
35. Liebregts J., Sonne M. ve Potvin J. R., Photographbased ergonomic evaluations using the Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA), Applied Ergonomics, 52, 317-324, 2016.
36. Mani K., Provident I. ve Eckel E., Evidence-based ergonomics education: promoting risk factor awareness among office computer workers, Work, 55 (4), 913-922, 2016.
37. Saeidi C., Dastaran S. ve Musavi S., Evaluation of the risk factors of musculoskeletal disorders and its relation to the workload of employees at 118 Call Center in Sanandaj, Iran, Journal of Health and Development, 5 (2), 110-121, 2016.
38. Machado-Matos M. ve Arezes P. M., Impact of a workplace exercise program on neck and shoulder segments in office workers, Dyna, 83 (196), 63-68, 2016.
39. A'syaroh I.K., Etika Muslimah S.T., Evaluasi postur kerja pada unit Integrated Operation Center Regional (IOCR) pt ABC menggunakan metode Rapid office Strain Assesment (Rosa), Doctoral Dissertation, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, 2016.
40. Valipour F., Mohammadian, M.S., Yahyaei E., Shokri S. ve Ahmadi O., Assessment of the staff working posture using REBA & ROSA methods in a military hospital, Health Research, 1 (3), 167-172, 2016.
41. Khandan M., Arab Z. ve Koohpaei A., High ergonomic risk of computer work postures among Iranian hospital staff: evidence from a cross-sectional study, International Journal of Hospital Research, 5 (1), 29-34, 2016.
42. Rodrigues M.S.A., Leite R.D.V., Lelis C.M. ve Chaves T.C. Differences in ergonomic and workstation factors between computer office workers with and without reported musculoskeletal pain, Work, 57 (4), 563-572, 2017.
43. Davudian-Talab A., Azari G., Badfar G., Shafeei A. ve Derakhshan Z., Evaluation and correlation of the rapid upper limb assessment and rapid office strain assessment methods for predicting the risk of musculoskeletal disorders, Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal, 2 (4), 155-160, 2017.
44. Rahman M.N.A., Razak N.S.A., Hassan M.F., Adzila S., Ngali M.Z. ve Salleh S.M., Quantifying exposure to risk factors among office workers using ROSA method, Advanced Science Letters, 23 (8), 7597-7600, 2017.
45. Ebrahimi H., Barakat S., Habibi E. ve Mohammadian M., Comparing of RULA AND ROSA method in assessing risk of musculoskeletal disorders and ıts relationship with mental health in computer users, Iran Occupational Health, 14 (5), 142-134, 2017.
46. Özkan N.F. ve Kahya E., Assessing ergonomic risks in an university’s administrative offices, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 32 (1), 141-150, 2017.
47. Jiménez-Romero M.D.L.A., Prevalencia De Dolencias Musculo-Esqueléticas Y Evaluación De Riesgo Postural En Trabajadores Administrativos Del instituto Tecnológico De Costa Rica En La Sede Central Cartago, https://repositoriotec.tec.ac.cr/bitstream/handle/2238/9 723/prevalencia_dolencias_musculo_esquel%c3%a9tic as_evaluaci%c3%b3n.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, 2017.
48. Maghsoudian L. Ergonomic assessment of musculoskeletal disorders risk factors in office staff using ROSA method and its relation with efficiency, Journal of Military Medicine, 19 (1), 31-39, 2017.
49. Jusoh F. ve Zahid M.N.O., Ergonomics risk assessment among support staff in university malaysia pahang, In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 319, 2018, DOI:10.1088/1757- 899X/319/1/012059
50. Haghshenas B., Habibi E., Hajar F.H.E., Sartang A.G., Van Wijk L. ve Khakkar S., the Association Between Musculoskeletal Disorders with Mental Workload and Occupational Fatigue in the office Staff of A Communication Service Company in Tehran, Iran, 2017.
51. Besharati A., Daneshmandi H., Zareh K., Fakherpour A. ve Zoaktafi M., Work-related musculoskeletal problems and associated factors among office workers, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 1-19, 2018.
52. Kingkaew W.M., Paileeklee S. ve Jaroenngarmsamer P., Validity and Reliability of the Rapid office Strain Assessment [Rosa] Thai Version, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 101 (1), 145-9, 2018.
53. Sanaeinasab H., Saffari M., Valipour F., Alipour H.R., Sepandi M., Al Zaben F. ve Koenig H.G., The effectiveness of a model-based health education intervention to ımprove ergonomic posture in office computer workers: a randomized controlled trial, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1-12, 2018.
54. Keršulienė V. ve Turskis Z., integrated fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making model for architect selection, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17 (4), 645–666, 2011.
55. Zolfani S.H., Esfahani M.H., Bitarafan M., Zavadskas E.K. ve Arefi S. L., Developing a new hybrid MCDM method for selection of the optimal alternative of mechanical longitudinal ventilation of tunnel pollutants during automobile accidents, Transport, 28 (1), 89–96, 2013.
56. Alimardani M., Zolfani S.H., Aghdaie M.H. ve Tamosaitiene J., A novel hybrid SWARA and VIKOR methodology for supplier selection in an agile environment, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19 (3), 533–548, 2013.
57. Aytaç E., Adalı A. ve Tuş I., Bir Tedarikçi seçim problemi için SWARA ve WASPAS yöntemlerine dayanan karar verme yaklaşımı, International Review of Economics and Management, 5 (4), 56-77, 2017.
58. Zolfani S.H., Zavadskas E.K. ve Turskis Z., Design of products with both international and local perspectives based on yin-yang balance theory and SWARA method, Economic Research, 26 (2), 153–166, 2013.
59. Zolfani S.H. ve Saparauskas J., New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system, Engineering Economics, 24 (5), 408–414, 2013.
60. Aghdaie M.H., Zolfani S.H. ve Zavadskas E.K., A hybrid approach for market segmentation and market segment evaluation and selection: an integration of data mining and MADM, Transformations in Business and Economics,12, 431-458, 2013.
61. Bagoˇcius V. ve Zavadskas K.E., Turskis Z., Multicriteria selection of adeep-water port in Klaipeda, Procedia Eng., 57, 144–148, 2013.
62. Staniunas M., Medineckien˙e M., Zavadskas E.K. ve Kalibatas D., To modernize or not: ecologicaleconomical assessment of multi-dwelling houses modernization, Arch. Civil Mech. Eng., 13, 88–98, 2013.
63. Zavadskas E.K., antucheviciene J., Saparauskas J. ve Turskis Z., MCDM methods WASPAS and MULTIMOORA: verification of robustness of methods when assessing alternative solutions, Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res., 47, 5–20, 2013.
64. T. D˙ejus, J. antucheviˇcien˙e, Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site, J. Civil Eng. Manage., 19, 728–737, 2013.
65. Zolfani S.H. ve Bahrami M., ınvestment prioritizing in high tech industries based on SWARA-COPRAS approach, Technological & Economic Development of Economy, 20 (3), 534–553, 2014.
66. Lashgari S., Antuchevičienė J., Delavari A. ve Kheirkhah O., Using QSPM and WASPAS methods for determining outsourcing strategies, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15 (4), 729-743, 2014.
67. Zolfani S.H. ve Banihashemi S.S.A., Personnel selection based on a novel model of game theory and MCDM approaches, 8th international Scientific Conference, Business and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania, 2014.
68. Stanujkic D., Djordjevic B. ve Karabasevic D., Selection of candidates in the process of recruitment and selection of personnel, Quaestus Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 7, 53–64, 2015.
69. Karabasevic D., Stanujkic D. ve Urosevic S., The MCDM model for personnel selection based on SWARA and ARAS methods, Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies, 20 (77), 43-52, 2015.
70. Karabasevic D., Stanujkic D. ve Urosevic S., Maksimovic M., Selection of candidates in the mining Industry based on the application of the SWARA and the MULTIMOORA methods, Acta Montanistica Slovaca, 20 (2), 116–124, 2015.
71. Stanujkic D., Karabasevic D. ve Zavadskas E.K., A framework for the selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA method, Engineering Economics, 26 (2), 181–187, 2015.
72. Dehnavi A., Aghdam I.N., Pradhan B. ve Morshed Varzandeh M.H., A New Hybrid Model Using StepWise Weight Assessment Ratio analysis (SWARA) Technique and Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy inference System (ANFIS) for Tegional Landslide Hazard Assessment in Iran, Catena, 135 (2015), 122–148, 2015.
73. Chakraborty, S. ve Zavadskas, E.K. Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making, Informatica, 25 (1), 1–20, 2014.
74. Shukla S., Mishra P.K., Jain R. ve Yadav, H.C., An integrated decision-making approach for ERP system selection using SWARA and PROMETHEE method, Int. J. of Intelligent Enterprise, 3 (2), 120–147, 2016.
75. Yazdani M., Zavadskas E.K., Ignatius J. ve Abad M.D., Sensitivity analysis in MADM methods: application of material selection, Engineering Economics, 27 (4), 382– 391, 2016.
76. Zolfani S.H., Pourhossein M., Yazdani M. ve Zavadskas E.K., Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM Framework, Alexandria Engineering Journal, Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57 (1), 357-365, 2018.
77. Işık A.T. ve Adalı E.A., A new integrated decisionmaking approach based on SWARA and OCRA methods for the hotel selection problem, International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 8 (2), 140-151, 2016.
78. Can G.F. ve Atalay K.D., Eraslan E., Tabletlerin kullanılabilirlik ölçütlerine göre çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla değerlendirilmesi, Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, 5 (ÖS), 81-88, 2017.
79. Çakır E., Kriter ağırlıklarının SWARA– Copeland yöntemi ıle belirlenmesi: bir üretim işletmesinde uygulama, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4 (1), 42-56, 2017.
80. Zavadskas E.K. ve Baušys R., Lazauskas M., sustainable assessment of alternative sites for the construction of awaste incineration plant by applying WASPAS method with single-valued neutrosophic set, Sustainability, 7, 15923–15936, 2015.
81. Madic M. ve Gecevska V., Radovanovic M., Petkovic, D., Multi-Criteria economic analysis of machining processes using the WASPAS method, Journal of Production Engineering, 17 (2), 79-82, 2014.
82. Mathew M., Sahu S. ve Upadhyay A.K., Effect of normalization techniques in robot selection using weighted aggregated sum product assessment, International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies, 4 (2), 59-63, 2017.
83. Akçakanat Ö., Eren H. ve Aksoy E., Ömürbek, Bankacılık sektöründe ENTROPİ VE WASPAS yöntemleri ile performans değerlendirmesi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 285-300, 2017.
84. Alam K.A., Ahmed R., Butt F. S., Kim S.G., ve Ko K.M., An uncertainty-aware integrated fuzzy AHPWASPAS model to evaluate public cloud computing services, Procedia Computer Science, 130, 504-509, 2018.
85. Zolfani, S. H., Aghdaie, M. H., Derakhti, A., Zavadskas, E. K. ve Varzandeh, M. H. M., Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Syst. Appl., 40 (17), 7111-7121, 2013.
86. Vafaeıpour, M., Zolfanı, S. H., Varzandeh, M. H. M., Derakhtı, A. ve Keshavarz, M. E., Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar projects in Iran: new application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach, Energy Convers. Manage., 86, 653– 663, 2014.
87. Bitarafan S., Zolfani S.H., Arefi S.L., Zavadskas E.K. ve Mahmoudzadeh A., Evaluation of real-time intelligent sensors for structural health monitoring of bridges based on SWARA-WASPAS; a case in Iran, Baltic J.Road Bridge Eng. 9 (4),333-340, 2014.
88. Can G.F., Delice E.K. ve Özçakmak B.C., Çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla oturma düzeneği seçimi, Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, 5 (ÖS:Ergonomi2016), 213-225, 2017.
89. Hwang C.L. ve Yoon, K. MultipleAttribute Decision Making Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.
90. Delice E.K., A fuzzy multicriteria model for airline companies selection, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 31 (2), 263-276, 2016.

APA	kılıç delice e, Can G, KAHYA E (2020). Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi. , 1297 - 1314. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
Chicago	kılıç delice elif,Can Gülin Feryal,KAHYA Emin Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi. (2020): 1297 - 1314. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
MLA	kılıç delice elif,Can Gülin Feryal,KAHYA Emin Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi. , 2020, ss.1297 - 1314. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
AMA	kılıç delice e,Can G,KAHYA E Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi. . 2020; 1297 - 1314. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
Vancouver	kılıç delice e,Can G,KAHYA E Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi. . 2020; 1297 - 1314. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
IEEE	kılıç delice e,Can G,KAHYA E "Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi." , ss.1297 - 1314, 2020. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
ISNAD	kılıç delice, elif vd. "Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi". (2020), 1297-1314. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.484974

APA	kılıç delice e, Can G, KAHYA E (2020). Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(3), 1297 - 1314. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
Chicago	kılıç delice elif,Can Gülin Feryal,KAHYA Emin Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 35, no.3 (2020): 1297 - 1314. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
MLA	kılıç delice elif,Can Gülin Feryal,KAHYA Emin Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.35, no.3, 2020, ss.1297 - 1314. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
AMA	kılıç delice e,Can G,KAHYA E Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020; 35(3): 1297 - 1314. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
Vancouver	kılıç delice e,Can G,KAHYA E Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020; 35(3): 1297 - 1314. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
IEEE	kılıç delice e,Can G,KAHYA E "Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi." Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, ss.1297 - 1314, 2020. 10.17341/gazimmfd.484974
ISNAD	kılıç delice, elif vd. "Hızlı ofis zorlanma değerlendirmesi yönteminin entegre birçok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesi". Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 35/3 (2020), 1297-1314. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.484974