1914

Treyler Üreten Bir İşletmede Bulanık AHP, ELECTRE ve VIKOR Yöntemi ile Catering Firma Seçimi

Toplu yemek ihtiyacının olduğu her işletme için anlaşma yapılacak catering firması oldukça önemlidir. Catering firmaları, iş yerlerinde veya topluluk olan diğer yerlerde daha pratik ve daha ekonomik bir yemek çözümü sundukları için, oldukça sık tercih edilmektedir. Dolayısıyla da insanlar toplu yemek siparişi vermek için beklentilerini karşılayacak yemek firmaları aramaktadırlar. Yoğun çalışma ortamında çalışanların günlük yaşama devam etmesi ve iş stresinden uzaklaşabilmesi için yemek molası ve kalitesi önemlidir. Çalışanların firmalarda, insan kaynakları departmanına en fazla şikayet ettikleri konular arasında, seçilen catering firmalarının beklentileri karşılayamaması olmaktadır. Günümüzde insanların bilinçlenmesinden kaynaklanan beklenti yükselmesini karşılayabilmek için firmaların catering firması seçerken zorlandıkları gözlenmiştir. Catering firması seçimi yaparken en az catering menüleri kadar önemli başka hususlar da vardır. İyi bir catering firmasıyla çalışmak için göz önünde bulundurulması gereken bazı kriterler vardır. Bu çalışmada, dorse üretimi yapan bir firma için çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri (ÇKKV) kullanılarak catering firması seçimi yapılmıştır. Catering firması seçiminde, kalite, fiyat, mesafe ve hizmet kriterleri dikkate alınmıştır. Bulanik Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (BAHP) ile kriterlerin ağırlıkları belirlenmiş, ELECTRE (ELimination and Choice Expressing REality) ve VIKOR yöntemleri ile altenatifler sıralanarak seçilmiştir.

Catering Company Selection with Fuzzy AHP, ELECTRE and VIKOR Method for a Company Producing Trailer

It is very important to choose a catering company for all kinds of businesses where there is a need for bulk meals. Catering companiesare often preferred because they offer a more practical and more economical food solution at workplaces or other community locations.Therefore, people are looking for food companies to meet their expectations. In order to make a selection that is meaningful and meetsyour expectations, it is necessary to choose a company that can provide this service in a complete way. The food break and quality areimportant for the employees to continue their daily life and get away from the work stress in a busy working environment. The foodbreak and quality are important for the employees to continue their daily life and get away from the work stress in a busy workingenvironment. Among the issues that employees complain to the human resources department in the companies is the fact that the selectedcatering companies cannot meet the expectations. It has been observed that companies have difficulty in choosing food supplier in orderto meet the expectation of increase in people's awareness. While choosing a catering company, there are other important issues as muchas the catering menus. There are some criteria to consider when working with a good catering firm. In this study, a catering companywas selected by using multi-criteria decision making methods (MCDM) for a firm making a trailer. In choosing a catering company,quality, price, distance and service criteria are taken into consideration. The weight of the criteria was determined by the Fuzzy AnalyticHierarchy Process (FAHP), and alternatives were selected by ELECTRE (ELimination and Choice Expressing REality) and VIKORmethods.

PDF

___

Atan, M. Türe, H. and Koçak, D. (2016). Analitik Ağ Süreci Yöntemi İle Gençlerde Madde Bağımlılığı ve Erken Uyarı Sistemine İlişkin Bir Uygulama. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (24), 103-112.
Ersöz, F. Kinci, C. H. and Ersöz, T. (2018). A Model Proposal for Course Selection with the Fuzzy MOORA Approach. European Journal of Science and Technology, (14), 369-377.
Dickson, G. W. (1966). An Analysis of Vendor Selection Systems and Decisions. Journal of Purchasing, Vol.2, No.1, 5-17, 1966.
Soner, S. and Önüt, S. (2006). Çok Kriterli Tedarikçi Seçimi: Bir ELECTRE-AHP Uygulaması, Yıldız Teknik Üniverstesi Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 2006/4, 110-120.
Gal, T. and Hanne T. (2006). Nonessential Objectives within Network Approaches for MCDM, European Journal of Operational Research, 168, 584–592.
Pi W.-N. and Low, C. (2006). Supplier Evaluation And Selection Via Taguchi Loss Functions And An AHP. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 27, 625–630.
Liu, Fuh-Hwa F. and Hui L. H. (2005). The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process Method For Selecting Supplier. International Journal of Production Economics, 97, 308–3
Vahidov, R. and Fei, JI (2005). A Diversity-Based Method for Infrequent Purchase Decision Support in e-commerce, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 4, 143–158.
Vinodh, S. Prasanna, M. and Prakash, N. H. (2014). Integrated Fuzzy AHP TOPSIS for selecting the best plastic recycling metod: A case study. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38, 4662- 4672.
Prakash, C. and Barua, M.K. (2015). Integration of AHP- TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 37, 599-615.
Macuzic, I. Tadic, D. Aleksic, A. and Stefanovic, M. (2016). A two step fuzzy model fort he assessment and ranking of organizational resilience factors in the process industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 40, 122-130.
Alarcin, F. Balin, A. Demirel, H. (2014). Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS integrated hybrid metod for auxiliary systems of ship main engines. Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology, 13(1), 3-11.
Patil, S. K. and Kant, R. (2014). A fuzzy AHP- TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 679-693.
Taylan, O. Bafail, A.O. Abdulaal, R.M.S. and Kabli, M.R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, 17, 105-116.
Junior, F.R.L. Osiro, L. and Carpinetti, L.C.R. (2014). A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Applied Soft Computing, 21, 194-209.
Kahraman, C. Cebeci, U. and Ruan, D. (2004). Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey. International journal of production economics, 87(2), 171-184.
Aytaç E. Tuş Işık A. Kundakcı, N. (2011). Fuzzy ELECTRE I Method for valuating Catering Firm Alternatives. Ege akademik bakış/Ege Academic Review, 11, 125-134.
Hatami-Marbini, A. and Tavani, M. (2011). An Extension of the ELECTRE I Method for Group Decision-Making under a Fuzzy Environment. Omega, 39, 373-386.
Ulutaş, A. (2019). Swara Ve Mairca Yöntemleri İle Catering Firması Seçimi. Busıness&Management Studıes: An Internatıonal Journal BMIJ, 7(4): 1467-1479.
Fu, Y. K. (2019). An integrated approach to catering supplier selection using AHP-ARAS-MCGP methodology. Journal of Air Transport Management, 75, 164-169.
Chang, D.Y. (1996). Applications of the Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP, Eurppean Journal of Operational Research, Volume 95, Issue 3, Pages 649-655.
Yılmaz, E. (2012). Bulanık AHP-VIKOR Bütünleşik Yöntemi ile Tedarikçi Seçimi. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, XXXIII(2), 331-354.
An, D. Xi, B. Wang, Y. Xu, D. Tang, J. Dong, L. Ren, J. and Pang C. (2016). A sustainability assessment methodology for prioritizing the technologies of groundwater contamination remediation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112 4647-4656.
Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. (2004). Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156 (2), 445–455.
Peng, J.P. Yeh, W.C. Lai, T.C. and Hsu, C.B. (2015). The Incorporation of the Taguchi and the VIKOR Methods to Optimize MultiResponse Problems in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environments. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 38 (7), 897-907.
Ho, W.R. Tsai, C.L. Tzeng, G.-H. and Fang, S.K. (2011). Combined DEMATEL Technique with A Novel MCDM Model for Exploring Portfolio Selection Based on CAPM, Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (1), 16–25.