COMPARISON OF TOPSIS AND VIKOR MULTI CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 6, 825 - 831, 31.12.2018

Fatih Sarı

https://doi.org/10.15317/Scitech.2018.172

Öz

Nowadays, beside Geographical Information Systems (GIS) analysis capabilities, Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques have been applied to a large amount of spatial decision problems. MCDA techniques are widely used in different kind of site suitability analysis in the field of environmental, engineering, topographical, social and economic perspectives. When planners are giving decision to related problems, there are limitations, expectations and requirements are involved in this stage. Right decision giving require to characterize the complex criteria structure and select appropriate data.

The most used MCDA techniques in GIS are Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR). In this study, TOPSIS and VIKOR techniques are compared to each other according to the models and capabilities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

AHP, Geographical information systems, Multi criteria decision techniques, TOPSIS, VIKOR

TOPSIS VE VIKOR Çok Ölçütlü Karar Analizlerinin Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Günümüzde, Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) analiz yeteneklerinin yanı sıra, çok ölçütlü karar problemlerine Çok Ölçütlü Karar Analizi (MCDA) teknikleri uygulanmıştır. MCDA teknikleri, çevre, mühendislik, topoğrafik, sosyal ve ekonomik perspektifler alanında farklı tipte saha uygunluk analizlerinde yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Plancılar ilgili sorunlara karar verdiğinde, bu aşamada sınırlamalar, beklentiler ve gereksinimler söz konusudur. Doğru karar verme, karmaşık kriter yapısını tanımlamak ve uygun verileri seçmek için gereklidir.

CBS'de en çok kullanılan MCDA teknikleri, Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP), İdeal Çözüm ile Benzerlik Sırasına Göre Tercih Sırası Tekniği (TOPSIS) ve Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje'dir (VIKOR). Bu çalışmada, TOPSIS ve VIKOR teknikleri, model ve kabiliyetlere göre birbirleriyle karşılaştırılmıştır.    

Anahtar Kelimeler

AHP, Coğrafi bilgi sistemleri, Çok ölçütlü karar analizi, TOPSIS, VIKOR

Kaynakça

• Albadvi, A, Chaharsooghi, S.K., Esfahanipour, A., 2007, “Decision Making in Stock Trading: an Application of PROMETHEE”, Eur. J. Oper. Res., Vol. 177(2), pp. 673–683.
• Arentze, T. A., Timmermans, H. J. P., 2000, “ALBATROSS: A Learning-based Transportation Oriented Simulation System”, EIRASS, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.
• Baizyldayeva, U., Vlasov,O., Kuandykov, A., Akhmetov, T., 2013, “Multi-Criteria Decision Support Systems”, Comparative Analysis, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 16(12), pp. 1725-1730.
• Brans, J.P, Mareschal, B, Vincke, P., 1984, “PROMETHEE: A New Family of Outranking Methods in MCDM”. In: Brans J.P. (ed.) Operational Research IFORS 84. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 477–490.
• Brans J.P., Vincle, P., 1985, “A Preference Ranking Organization Method”, Manage. Sci. Vol. 31(6), pp. 647–656.
• Cheng, S., Chan, C. W., Huang, G. H., 2002, “Using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Supporting Decisions of Solid Waste Management”, Journal of Environment Science Health, Vol. 37(6), pp. 975-990.
• Eleren, A., Karagül, M., 2008, “1986-2006 Türkiye Ekonomisinin Performans Değerlendirmesi”, Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İİBF Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, Vol. 15(1), pp. 1-14.
• Ho, W., Xu, X., Dey, P. K., 2010, “Multi-criteria Decision Making Approaches for Supplier Evaluation and Selection: A Literature Review”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 202(1), pp. 16-24.
• Hwang, C, L., Yoon, K., 1981, Multiple Attribute Decision Making—Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
• Kalkan, S., Turanlı,M., Özden, Ü., Başar, Ö., 2017, Comparison of Ranking Results Obtained by TOPSIS and VIKOR Methods, using the Same Criteria as Times Higher Education World University Ranking”, European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 6(1), pp. 107-122.
• Opricovic, S., 1998, Multicriteria Optimization of Civil EngineeringSystems, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade.
• Opricovic, S., Tzeng, H,G., 2004, “Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 156, pp. 445–455.
• Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G. H., 2007, “Extended VIKOR Method in Comparison with Other Outranking Methods”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 178(2), pp. 514-529.
• Peters, L., Zelewski, S., 2007, TOPSIS alsTechnikzurEffieienzanalyse, ZeitschriftfürAusbildung und Hochschulkontakt, 1-9.
• Saaty, T.L., 1977, “A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 234–281.
• Saaty, T.L., 1980, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, New York: Wiley.
• Saaty, T.L., 1994, Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory With The Analytical Hierarchy Process, RWS Publ. Pittsburg, 69-84.
• Saaty, T.L., 2001, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, 2nd edition, PRWS Publications, Pittsburgh PA.
• Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 1991, Prediction, Projection and Forecasting Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 25.
• Sakthivel, G., Ilangkumaran, M., Gaikwad, A., 2015, “A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Modeling Approach for the Best Biodiesel Blend Selection based on ANP-TOPSIS Analysis”, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 239–256.
• Senvar, O., Tuzkaya, G., Kahraman, C., 2014, “Multi Criteria Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE Method. In: Kahraman C., Öztayşi B. (eds) Supply Chain Management Under Fuzziness”, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Vol 313. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Triantaphyllou, E., 2000, Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 139-140.
• Yu, J., Chen, Y., Wu, J., Khan, S., 2011, “Cellular Automata-Based Spatial Multi-Criteria Land Suitability Simulation for Irrigated Agriculture”, Int. J. Geogr. Inform. Sci., Vol. 25 (1), pp. 131–148.
• Wang, Y, M., Elhag T, M, S., 2006, “Fuzzy TOPSIS Method Based on Alpha Level Sets with an Application to Bridge Risk Assessment”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 31(2), pp. 309–319.
• Zeleny, M., 1982, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Mc-Graw-Hill, New York.