Bir Tekstil İşletmesi için Desen Programı Seçiminde ARAS ve OCRA Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması

Year 2017, Volume: 19 Issue: 1, 83 - 105, 30.06.2017

Emel Ercan Nilsen Kundakçı

Abstract

Günümüzün yüksek rekabet ortamında faaliyet gösteren tekstil işletmeleri için müşteri memnuniyetinin sağlanması önem arz etmektedir. Bu bağlamda, tekstil işletmeleri müşterilerine sunacakları numune tasarımlarını en iyi şekilde hazırlamak isterler. Bu tasarımları oluştururken tercih ettikleri desen programlarında görsel çıktı kalitesi, kullanım zorluğu, özellik sayısı, hizmet kalitesi, marka güvenirliği, zaman kaybı ve fiyat gibi kriterlere önem vermektedirler. Bu çalışmada, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerinden ARAS (Additive Ratio ASsesment) ve OCRA (Operational Competitiveness RAting) yöntemleri ile bir tekstil işletmesinde numune tasarımında kullanılacak desen programı seçimi yapılmıştır. Desen programı seçiminde dikkate alınan kriterlerin ağırlıkları MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation TecHnique) yöntemi kullanılarak bulunurken, desen programı alternatiflerinin değerlendirilmesinde ARAS ve OCRA yöntemlerinden yararlanılmış ve elde edilen sonuçlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Her iki yöntem ile aynı sıralama elde edilmiş, sıralama sonuçlarına göre en uygun desen programı belirlenmiş ve tekstil işletmesine bu programı satın alması önerilmiştir.

Keywords

ÇKKV, MACBETH Yöntemi, ARAS Yöntemi, OCRA Yöntemi

References

• Balezentiene, L. and Kusta, A. 2012. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Grassland Ecosystems of the Central Lithuania: Multi-Criteria Evaluation on a Basis of the ARAS Method, The ScientificWorld Journal, Article ID 908384, doi:10.1100/2012/908384. Bana e Costa, C.A. and Vansnick, J.C. 1997. Applications of the MACBETH Approach in the Framework of Additive Aggregation Model, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analsyis, 6(2), 107-114.
• Bana e Costa, C.A., Correa, E.C., Ensslin, L. and Vansnick, J.C. 1999. Decision Support Systems in Action: Integrated Application in Multicriteria Decision Aid Process, European Journal of Operations Research, 113, 2, 315-335.
• Bana e Costa, C.A. and Correa, E.C. 2000. Construction of a Total Quality Index Using a Multicriteria Approach: The case of Lisbon Gas Company, Research Paper10/2000, CEG-IST, Technical University of Lisbon.
• Bana e Costa, C.A., Nunes Da Silva, F. and Vansnick, J.C. 2001. Conflict Dissolution in the Public Sector: A Case Study, European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), 388-401.
• Bana e Costa, C.A. and Oliveira, R.C. 2002. Assigning Priorities for Maintenance, Repair and Refurbishment in Managing a Municipal Housing Stock, European Journal of Operational Research, 138, 380–391.
• Bana e Costa, C.A. 2002. Issues in Facilitating Bid Evaluation in Public Call for Tenders. (Ed.) F. Khosrowshahi, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Decision Making in Urban and Civil Engineering, pp. 703–709, London.
• Bana e Costa, C.A., Da Costa-Lobo, M.L., Ramos, I.A. and Vansnick J.C. 2002a. Multicriteria Approach for Strategic Town Planning, (Ed). Denis Bouyssou, Eric Jacquet-Lagrèze, Patrice Perny, Roman Słowiński, Daniel Vanderpooten and Philippe Vincke, Aiding Decisions with Multiple Criteria, New York: Springer.
• Bana e Costa, C.A., Correa, E.C., De Corte, J.M. and Vansnic, J.C. 2002b. Facilitating Bid Evaluation in Public Call for Tenders: A SocioTechnical Approach, Omega, 30, 227 – 242.
• Bana e Costa, C.A., Barroso, L.A. and Soares, J.O. 2002c. Qualitative Modelling of Credit Scoring: A Case Study in Banking, European Research Studies, 5 (1-2), 37–51.
• Bana e Costa C.A. and Chagas, M. P. 2004. A Career Choice Problem: An Example of How to Use MACBETH to Build a Quantitative Value Model Based on Qualitative Value Judgments, European Journal of Operational Research, 153, 323–331.
• Bana e Costa, C.A., De Corte, J.M. and Vansnick, J.C. 2012. MACBETH, International Journal of Information Tecnology & Decision Making, 11, 2, 359-387.
• Burgazoğlu, H. 2015. MACBETH, (Ed.) B.F. Yıldırım, E. Önder, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri, Bursa: Dora Yayınevi.
• Chatterjee, P. and Chakraborty, S. 2012. Material Selection Using Preferential Ranking Methods, Material and Design, 35, 384-393.
• Darji, V.P. and Rao, R.V. 2014. Intelligent Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods for Material Selection in Sugar Industry, Procedia Materials Science, 5, 2585 – 2594.
• Ecer, F. 2016. ARAS Yöntemi Kullanılarak Kurumsal Kaynak Planlaması Yazılımı Seçimi, Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 89-98.
• Fakhfakh, N., Verjus, H., Pourraz, F., and Moreaux, P. 2011. Measuring the Satisfaction Degree of Quality Attributes Requirements for Services Orchestrations, Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Communication Theory, Reliability, and Quality of Service, Hungary, pp. 89-94.
• Genç, T., Kabak, M., Köse, E. ve Yılmaz, Z. 2015. Bireysel Emeklilik Sistemi Seçimi Problemine İlişkin MACBETH Yaklaşımı, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, 22, 47-65.
• http://www.m-macbeth.com, M-MACBETH Kullanım Kılavuzu (Erişim Tarihi: 03 Aralık 2016). Jayanthi, S., Kocha, B., and Sinha, K.K. 1996. Competitive Analysis of U.S Food Processing Plants, The Retail Food Industry Center, Working Paper 96-04.
• Jayanthi, S., Kocha, B. and Sinha, K.K. 1999. Competitive Analysis of Manufacturing Plants: An Application to the US Processed Food Industry, European Journal of Operational Research, 118 (2), 217–234.
• Kaklauskas, A., Tupenaite, L., Kanapeckiene, L. and Naimaviciene, J. 2013. Knowledge-Based Model for Standard Housing Renovation, Procedia Engineering, 57, 497 – 503.
• Karande, P. and Chakraborty, S. 2013. Using MACBETH Method for Supplier Selection in Manufacturing Environment, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 4, 259–272.
• Karande P. and Chakraborty, S. 2014. A Facility Layout Selection Model Using MACBETH Method, Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, January 7 – 9, Bali, Indonesia.
• Kundakcı, N. 2016. Combined Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach based on MACBETH and Multi-MOORA Methods, Alphanumeric Journal, 4(1), 17–26.
• Kutut, V., Zavadskas, E. K. and Lazauskas, M. 2013. Assessment of Priority Options for Preservation of Historic City Centre Buildings Using MCDM (ARAS), Procedia Engineering, 57, 657 -661.
• Özbek, A. 2015. Operasyonel Rekabet Değerlendirmesi (OCRA) Yöntemiyle Mevduat Bankalarinin Etkinlik Ölçümü, NWSA-Social Sciences, 10, (3), 120-134.
• Parkan, C. 1994. Operational Competitiveness Ratings of Production Units, Managerial and Decision Economics, 15, 3, 201-221.
• Parkan, C. 1996a. Measuring the Performance of Hotel Operations, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 30(4), 257–292. Parkan, C. 1996b. Performance Measurement for a Subway System in Hong Kong, The Georgia Productivity Workshop II, Athens, GA.
• Parkan, C. 1999. Performance Measurement in Government Services, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 9(2), 121135.
• Parkan, C. 2002. Measuring the Operational Performance of Public Transit Company, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(6), 693-720.
• Parkan, C. 2003. Measuring the Effect of a New Point of Sale System on the Performance of Drugstore Operations, Computers & Operations Research, 30(4), 729-744.
• Parkan, C. 2005. Benchmarking Operational Performance: The Case of Two Hotels, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(8), 679 – 696.
• Parkan, C. and Wu, M.L. 1999a. Measuring the Performance of Operations of Hong Kong’s Manufacturing Industries. European Journal of Operational Research, 118, 2, 235-258.
• Parkan, C. and Wu, M.L., 1999b. Measurement of the Performance of an Investment Bank Using the Operational Competitiveness Rating Procedure, Omega, 27(2), 201-217.
• Parkan, C., Lam, K. and Hang, G. 1997. Operational Competitiveness Analysis on Software Development, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(9), 892-905.
• Parkan, C. and Wu, M.L. 1998. Process Selection with Multiple Objective and Subjective Attributes, Production Planning & Control, 9(2), 189–200.
• Parkan, C. and Wu, M.L. 2000. Comparison of Three Modern Multicriteria Decision-Making Tools, International Journal of Systems Science, 31(4), 497-517.
• Paul, D., Agarwal, P. K. and Chakraborty, S. 2016. Performance Appraisal of Indian State Police Forces Using ARAS Method, Management Science Letters, 6, 361–372.
• Shariati, S., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Salsani, A. and Tamosaitiene, J. 2014. Proposing a New Model for Waste Dump Site Selection: Case Study of Ayerma Phosphate Mine, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 25(4), 410–419.
• Stanujkic, D. and Jovanovic, R. 2012. Measuring a Quality of Faculty Website Using ARAS Method, Contemporary Issues In Business, Management And Education‘2012, ISSN 2029-7963/ISBN 978-609-457323-1 doi:10.3846/cibme.2012.45.
• Tuş Işık, A., and Aytaç Adalı, E. 2016. A New Integrated Decision Making Approach Based on SWARA and OCRA Methods for the Hotel Selection Problem, International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 8 (2), 140-151.
• Yıldırım, B.F. 2015. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Problemlerinde ARAS Yöntemi. KAÜ İİBF Dergisi, 6(9), 285-296.
• Zavadskas, E. K. and Turskis, Z. 2010. A New Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method in Multicriteria Decision‐Making, Ukio Technologinis ir Ekonominis Vystymas, 16(2), 159-172.
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z. and Vilutiene, T. 2010. Multiple Criteria Analysis of Foundation Instalment Alternatives by Applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 10(3), 123-141.