Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Kağıt Fabrikası Kuruluş Yeri Seçimi

Küreselleşen dünya ve artan rekabet şartları göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, işletmelerin başarıları açısından kuruluş yerinin belirlenmesi kritik öneme sahiptir. Türkiye’de ekonomik potansiyeli olan kağıt endüstrisinde kuruluş yeri tespit edilmesi sektör yatırımları açısından önem arz etmektedir. Sektörde özellikle son yıllarda tersine lojistiğin en önemli uygulama alanlarından olan atık kâğıtların geri dönüşümü ile büyük oranda hammadde kaynağı sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, kağıt fabrikası kuruluş yeri tespiti için beş aday şehir arasından en uygun yerin belirlenmesine yönelik bir karar destek modeli önerilmiştir. Bu maksatla, kuruluş yeri alternatiflerinin çeşitli olması ve kriterlerinin karmaşık olması nedeniyle sıkça kullanılan matematiksel ve mantıksal model temelli çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada kuruluş yeri değerlendirme kriterleri olarak; pazar, işgücü, hammadde, ulaşım, teşvikler, atıklar, enerji ve arazi olarak belirlenmiştir. Uygulamada AHP, TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE yöntemleri ile çözümler yapılmış ve sonuçlar karşılaştırılmış etkin karar verilmiştir. Bu uygulamanın diğer endüstrilerde yapılacak kuruluş yeri seçim problemleri için bir öngörü oluşturacağı düşünülmektedir.

Selection of Paper Factory Location Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods

When taking into consideration of the globalizing world and the increasingly competitive conditions, determination of the location of the establishment has critical importance for success of businesses. In the paper industry which has economic potential in Turkey, determination of the location of establishment is important for sector investments. Recycling of waste papers which is one of the most important application areas of reverse logistics especially in recent years can provide a large part of raw material source. In this study, a decision support model was proposed to determine the most optimal location among five candidate cities for paper factory location. For this purpose, mathematical and logical model-based multi-criteria decision making methods, which are commonly used because of the variety of site location alternatives and the complexity of their criteria, were used. Market, labor, raw material, transportation, incentives, wastes, energy and land were determined as the consideration criteria for establishment location in the study. In the application, solutions were performed with AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE methods and effective decisions were made by comparison of the results. It is believed that this application will provide an insight into the location selection problems to be made in other industries.

PDF

___

Akkayan, S.C., 1979. Türkiye’de Kağıt ve Karton Üretiminin Özel Sektör Yönünden İncelenmesi, Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University, 183-199.
Gürbüz, O. 1995. Türkiye’de Kağıt Sanayii ve Silifke-Taşucu Kağıt Fabrikası. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi, (30), 225-242.
Çevik, B., 2016. Kâğıt ve Kâğıt Ürünleri Sektörü, İş Bankası İktisadi Araştırmalar Raporu, https://ekonomi.isbank.com.tr/User Files/pdf/sr20607_kagitsektoru.pdf, Mayıs, 2016. Erişim Tarihi: Şubat 5, 2018.
Yıldırım, H., Yavan, Ö., 2012. KİT’lerde Özelleştirme Sonrası Yeniden Yapılanma: Çaycuma SEKA Örnek Uygulaması. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 3(5), 117-138.
Cakir, H., Yildirim Gonul, B., 2015. Tarihi Yapılarda Mekansal Belleğin Korunması: İzmit SEKA Selüoz ve Kağıt Fabrikasının Dönüşümü, Beykent Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 85–110.
Sakarya, S., Canlı, Ş., 2011. Kâğıt Karton Sanayi Sektör Raporu, Orta Anadolu İhracatçı Birlikleri, Orta Anadolu Ağaç Mamulleri ve Orman Ürünleri İhracatçıları Birliği, 1-42.
Yorulmaz, H., 2014. Doğu Marmara Bölgesi Kâğıt Sanayi Sektör Raporu, Doğu Marmara Bölgesi Kalkınma Ajansı, Bölge Planı Yayını serisi (16), 1-38.
Zaimoğlu, S., 2012. Kağıt ve Kağıt Ürünleri Sektör Meclisi Raporu, Türkiye Odalar ve Borsalar Birliği (TOBB) https://www.tobb. org.tr, Ocak, 2012. Erişim Tarihi: Şubat 5, 2018.
Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., Diabat, A., 2013. Integrated Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making Method and Multi-objective Programming Approach for Supplier Selection and Order Allocation in a Green Supply Chain, Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 355-367.
Macharis, C., Bernardini, A., 2015. Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the Evaluation of Transport Projects: Time for a Multi-actor Approach, Transport Policy, 37, 177-186.
Dağdeviren, M., 2007. Bulanik Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi ile Personel Seçimi ve Bir Uygulama, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 22(4), 791-799.
Küçükoğlu, İ., Yagmahan, B., Onaylı, A., Çayhan, E.D., Ünal, M., 2017. Application of Goal Programming Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches for the Stock Area Selection Problem of an Automotive Company. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 6(3), 187-198.
Velasquez, M., Hester, P.T., 2013. An Analysis of Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods, International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 56-66.
Ertuğrul, İ., Karakaşoğlu, N., 2014. Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods for Facility Location Selection, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 39(7-8), 783-795.
Badri, M.A., 1999. Combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Goal Programming for Global Facility Location-allocation Problem. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(3), 237-248.
Drezner, Z. (Ed.), 1999. Facility Location: a Survey of Applications and Methods. Springer Verlag.
Farahani, R.Z., Steadie Seifi, M., Asgari, N., 2010. Multiple Criteria Facility Location Problems: A Survey. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34(7), 1689-1709.
Jamshidi, M., 2009. Median Location Problem, in Facility Location, Facility Location Concepts, Models, Algorithms and Case Studies Farahani, R. Z., (ed.), Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 177-191.
Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., Doǧan, I., 2003. Fuzzy Group Decision-making for Facility Location Selection, Information Sciences, 157, 135-153.
Özcan, T., Çelebi, N., Esnaf, Ş., 2011. Comparative Analysis of Multi-criteria Decision Making Methodologies and Implementation of a Warehouse Location Selection Problem, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9773-9779.
Tavakkolı, M.R., Mousavi, S.M., Heydar, M., 2011. An Integrated AHP-VIKOR Methodology for Plant Location Selection, International Journal of Engineering-Transactions B: Applications, 24(2), 127-137.
Mousavi, S.M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Heydar, M., Ebrahimnejad, S., 2013. Multi-criteria Decision Making for Plant Location Selection: an Integrated Delphi–AHP– PROMETHEE Methodology. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 38(5), 1255-1268.
Choudhary, D., Shankar, R., 2013. An STEEP-Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Framework for Evaluation and Selection of Thermal Power Plant Location: A Case Study from India. Energy, 42(1), 510-521.
Lundmark, R., 2011. Choice of Location for Investments in the European Paper Industry: the Impact of Wastepaper. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 33(3), 167-180.
Braglia, M., Gabbrielli, R., 2011. A Decision Support System for Locational Analysis in Paper Industry. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 11(1), 38-55.
Vali, M., Rafighi, A., Azizi, M., Mohebbi, N., 2013. Optimal Site Selection for Fluting Paper Mill from Agricultural Wastes in Golestan Province, Iran. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 6(1), 23-30.
Barimani, A., Ghasemian, A., Azizi, M., Zabizadeh, S.M., 2014. Optimized Locating of Fluting Paper Plant from Agricultural Residues Using AHP (Based on benefit and cost approach), International Journal of Lignocellulosic Products, 1(2), 104-120.
Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J.R. (ed.), 2016. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer.
Pohekar, S.D., Ramachandran, M., 2004. Application of Multi-criteria Decision Making to Sustainable Energy Planning-a Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8(4), 365-381.
Yoon, K.P., Hwang, C.L., 1995. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: an Introduction (Vol. 104), Sage publications.
Myers, J.H., Alpert, M.I., 1968. Determinant Buying Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement. The Journal of Marketing, 32 (4), 13-20.
Saaty, T.L., 1977. A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to Make a Decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26.
Saaty, T.L., 1994. How to Make a Decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Interfaces, 24(6), 19-43.
Saaty, T.L., 2016. The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the Measurement of Intangible Criteria and for Decision-making. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Springer, New York, 363-419.
Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 2001. The Seven Pillars of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Springer US, 27-46.
Yoon, K., Hwang, C.L., 1981. TOPSIS (technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution)–a Multiple Attribute Decision Making, w: Multiple Attribute Decision Making– methods and Applications, a State-of-the-at Survey, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 128-140.
Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y., Hwang, C.L., 1994. Topsis for MODM. European Journal of Operational Research, 76(3), 486-500.
Monjezi, M., Dehghani, H., Singh, T.N., Sayadi, A.R., Gholinejad, A., 2012. Application of TOPSIS Method for Selecting the Most Appropriate Blast Design. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 5(1), 95-101.
Hwang, C.L., Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y., 1993. A New Approach for Multiple Objective Decision Making. Computers & Operations Research, 20(8), 889-899.
Roy, B., Vinche, P., Mareschal, B., 1981. How to Select and How to Rank Project: The PROMETHEE Method, European Journal of Operational Research, br, 24, 207-218.
Uzun, S., 2015. Gemi İnşa Sürecinde Ana Makine ve Jeneratör Seçimi: Ahp, Topsıs ve Promethee Uygulaması, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi, Gebze.
Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., 1985. Note-A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making), Management science, 31(6), 647-656.
Opricović, S., 1998. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. University of Belgrade-Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 2(1), 5-21.
Saaty, T.L., 2008. Relative Measurement and its Generalization in Decision Making Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors the Analytic Hierarchy/network Process. RACSAM-Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 102(2), 251-318.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resources Allocation, New York: McGraw.
Rangone, A., 1996. An Analytical Hierarchy Process Framework for Comparing the Overall Performance of Manufacturing Departments. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(8), 104-119.
Dinçer, S.E., Ekin, E., Karakaş, K.S., 2017. Promethee Yöntemiyle Uçak Komponentlerinin Önceliklendirilmesi Problemlerine Çözüm Yaklaşımı, Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 6(3), 106-125.