AN ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS APPLICATION: DETERMINING THE MOST IMPORTANT BOARD TYPE OF TURKEY REGARDING EXPORTATION IN RECENT YEARS

Year 2018, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 53 - 58, 11.12.2018

Bahadır Çağrı Bayram , Nadir Ersen , İlker Akyüz , Tutku Üçüncü , Kadri Cemil Akyüz

Abstract

In this paper, the board industry
of Turkey which occupies an important place in Turkish forest product industry
was accepted as the research subject. Turkey exports various forest products
and the boards have a great importance among them. Therefore, regarding export:
determining the most important of these products in recent years was aimed. So,
the purpose of the study was turned into a decision-making problem, for the
decision-making analyses, criteria are needed. Thus, some criteria were derived
from different export related data.

            According
to the conducted research, the latest and most up to date statistical data were
found at The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
Statistical Database (FAOSTAT) and which are from 2015. So, the data were taken
from FAOSTAT. For solving this decision-making problem, one of the
multi-criteria decision-making methods: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was
used.

            The chosen
board types are fibreboard (hardboard, MDF and HDF), particle board (particle board
and OSB) and plywood. These products were selected because of their wide range
of industrial uses, market share and the ease of finding statistical data about
their production amount, export amount and export value. The results of the AHP
analysis are as follows: Fibreboard is the most important product among the
boards while particle board takes second place and the plywood is the last one.
At the discussion part, the possible causes of this results were discussed and
some suggestions were made.

Keywords

Export, Turkey, Board, AHP, Decision-making

References

• Bertolini, M., Braglia, M., & Carmignani, G. (2006). Application of the AHP methodology in making a proposal for a public work contract. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 422–430. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.01.005
• Russo, R. D. F. S. M., & Camanho, R. (2015). Criteria in AHP: A Systematic Review of Literature. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 1123–1132. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.081
• Ho, W., & Ma, X. (2018). The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 267(2), 399–414. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.09.007
• Ossadnik, W., & Lange, O. (1999). AHP-based evaluation of AHP-Software. European Journal of Operational Research, 118(3), 578–588. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00321-X
• Vargas, L. G., & Dougherty, J. J. (1982). The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multicriterion Decision Making. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences, 2(1), 59–92. doi:10.1080/01966324.1982.10737086
• Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 26(7), 641–658. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2630699