TESİS YERİ SEÇİMİNDE KRİTERLERİN ÖNEM AĞIRLIKLARININ BULANIK FUCOM YÖNTEMİYLE BELİRLENMESİ

Year 2022, Volume: 21 Issue: 45, 1512 - 1536, 30.12.2022

Bilge Nur Peker , Ali Görener

https://doi.org/10.46928/iticusbe.1212318

Cited By: 4

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı, İstanbul’da imalat sektöründe kompozit pervane alanında faaliyet gösteren bir firmanın fabrika yeri seçiminde dikkate alması gereken kriterlerin önem ağırlıklarının tespit edilmesidir. Bu kapsamda beş ana kriter ve yirmi bir alt kriter kullanılarak, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerinden biri olan bulanık Tam Tutarlılık Yöntemi (FUCOM) kullanılmıştır.
Yöntem/Tasarım/Metodoloji/Yaklaşım: Araştırma için iki ile otuz beş yıl arasında tecrübeye sahip dokuz uzmanın bulunduğu karar verme grubu oluşturulmuş ve ÇKKV yöntemlerinden biri olan bulanık FUCOM yöntemiyle kriterlerin önem ağırlıklarının belirlenmesi hedeflenmiştir. Oldukça yeni bir yöntem olan Bulanık FUCOM; tutarlılıktaki avantajı ve minimum karşılaştırma sayısı avantajları nedeniyle kriter ağırlıklarını belirlemek için uygun bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.
Bulgular: Yapılan analiz çerçevsinde en önemli tesis yeri seçim kriterleri; yatırım maliyeti, işletme ve bakım maliyetleri, devlet teşvikleri, arazi genişleme potansiyeli ve karbon ayak izi olarak karşımıza çıkmıştır.
Özgünlük: Güncel bir yöntem olan FUCOM’un bulanık mantık ile entegre edilmiş versiyonu kullanılarak tesis yeri seçimi kriterlerin önem ağırlıklarının belirlenmesinin özgün bir katkı oluşturduğu düşünülmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Tesis Yer Seçimi, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme, Bulanık FUCOM

Keywords

Tesis Yer Seçimi, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme, Bulanık FUCOM, Facility Location Selection, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Fuzzy FUCOM

The Fuzzy FUCOM Method for Determining the Importance Weights of Criteria in Facility Location Selection

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the study is to determine the importance weights of the criteria that a company operating in the field of composite propellers in the manufacturing sector in Istanbul, Turkey should consider in choosing a facility location. In this context, the fuzzy Full Consistency Method (FUCOM), one of the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods, was used by using five main criteria and twenty-one sub-criteria.
Method/Design/Methodology/Approach: A decision-making group consisting of nine experts with two to thirty-five years of experience was formed for the research, and it was aimed to determine the importance weights of the criteria with the fuzzy FUCOM method, which is one of the MCDM methods. Fuzzy FUCOM, a fairly new method, provides a suitable framework for determining criterion weights due to its advantage in consistency and minimum number of comparisons.
Findings: The most important facility location selection criteria in the framework of the analysis; investment cost, operation and maintenance costs, government incentives, land expansion potential, and carbon footprint.
Originality: It is thought that determining the importance weights of the facility location selection criteria by using the fuzzy logic integrated version of FUCOM, which is an up-to-date method, is an original contribution.
Keywords: Facility Location Selection, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Fuzzy FUCOM

Keywords

Facility Location Selection, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Fuzzy FUCOM

References

• Altuntas, S. ve Dereli, T. (2017). Application of an aggregation technique to facility layout design selection. Journal of Thermal Engineering, 3(1), 1078-1088.
• Asori, M., Dogbey, E., Morgan, A. K., Ampofo, S. T., Mpobi, R. K. J. ve Katey, D. (2022). Application of GIS-based multi-criteria decision making analysis (GIS-MCDA) in selecting locations most suitable for siting engineered landfills – the case of Ashanti Region, Ghana. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 33(3), 800-826.
• Ayadi, H., Hamani, N., Kermad, L. ve Benaissa, M. (2021). Novel fuzzy composite indicators for locating a logistics platform under sustainability perspectives. Sustainability, 13, 3891.
• Aytekin, A. (2018). Using hybrid method in selecting timber factory location. Drvna Industrija, 6(3), 273-281.
• Bajpai, A., Kaul, A., Darbari, J.D. ve Jha, P. C. (2020). A fuzzy MCDM model for facility location evaluation based on quality of life. Soft Computing for Problem Solving içinde (ss. 687-697), Springer.
• Baki, R. (2022). Evaluation of the five busiest airports in Turkey through fuzzy FUCOM and MAIRCA. European Journal of Applied Business Management, 8(3), 15-31.
• Banihashemi, S. A., Khalilzadeh, M., Antucheviciene, J. ve Šaparauskas, J. (2021). Trading off time–cost–quality in construction project scheduling problems with fuzzy SWARA–TOPSIS approach. Buildings, 11, 387.
• Biswas, S. ve Pamucar, D. (2020). Facility location selection for b-schools in Indian context: A multi-criteria group decision based analysis. Axioms, 9(3), 1-18.
• Böyükaslan, A. ve Ecer, F. (2021). Determination of drivers for investing in cryptocurrencies through a fuzzy full consistency method-Bonferroni (FUCOM-F’B) framework. Technology in Society, 67, 101745.
• Cedolin, M., Göker, N., Dogu, E. ve Albayrak, Y. E. (2018). Facility location selection employing fuzzy DEA and fuzzy goal programming techniques. Proceedings of the Conference of the European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology 2017 içinde (ss. 466-476). Springer.
• Chithambaranathan, P., Rajkumar, A., Prithiviraj, D. ve Palpandi, M. (2022). A multi criteria decision based approach for facility location selection with flexible criteria weights. Materials Today: Proceedings, 62, 1215-1217.
• Chou, S., Chang, Y. ve Shen, C. (2008). A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(1), 132-145.
• Chou, T., Hsu, C. ve Chen, M. (2008). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for international tourist hotels location selection. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 293-301.
• Cooper, L. (1963). Location-allocation problems. Operations Research, 11(3), 331-343.