Farklı uzaklık hesaplama yaklaşımlarının TOPSIS üzerinde kullanılabilirliğinin incelenmesi

Karar verme problemlerinin çoğunda, karar vericiler birbiriyle çelişen amaçlarla karşılaşırlar. Birden fazla kriterin var olduğu ve kriterlerin birbirleriyle çeliştiği karar problemlerinin çözümünde, çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerinden faydalanılır. Bu çalışmada, pozitif ideal çözüme en yakın, negatif ideal çözüme en uzak karar alternatifini belirlemeye çalışan bir ÇKKV yaklaşımı olan TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) yöntemi ele alınmıştır. TOPSIS yönteminin ilk önerilen halinde, alternatiflerin pozitif ve negatif ideal çözümlere uzaklığı ölçülürken Öklid uzaklık hesaplama yöntemi kullanılmaktadır. Literatürde TOPSIS yönteminde Öklid yerine farklı uzaklık hesaplama yöntemleri kullanıldığında çıkan sonuçları inceleyen çok fazla çalışma yoktur. Bu sebeple bu çalışmada, Öklid uzaklığından ve literatürde ele alınan ölçütlerden farklı bazı uzaklık hesaplama yöntemlerinin TOPSIS yönteminde kullanılmasının, bu yöntemle çözülen bir karar probleminin sonuçlarında ne gibi bir benzerlik/farklılık yarattığı incelenmiştir. TOPSIS yönteminde kullanılabileceği düşünülen uzaklık yöntemleri tanıtılarak, örnek bir uygulama üzerinde oluşan alternatif sıralamaları verilmiş, en iyi karar alternatifi değişmese de karar alternatiflerinin sıralanmasında farklılıklar oluştuğu gözlemlenmiştir. Sonuçlar, TOPSIS yönteminde farklı uzaklık hesaplama teknikleri kullanarak bulunan alternatif kararların karar vericilere sunulması ile daha tutarlı ve anlamlı karar verilmesine destek sağlanabileceğini göstermektedir.

Usability analysis of different distance measures on TOPSIS

In many decision problems, decision makers face with conflicting objectives. In order to solve decision problems with criteria conflicting each other, multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques are applied. This study deals with TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) technique which is a MCDM approach that leads to determine the decision alternative that is the nearest to the positive ideal solution and the furthest to the negative ideal solution. The proposed form of TOPSIS calculates the distance of decision alternatives to positive and negative ideal solutions by using Euclidean distance formula. In the literature, there aren't many studies that analyse the results obtained by using different distance calculation formulas in TOPSIS technique. Thus, in the scope of this study, it is analysed that what kind of differences or similarities can be obtained by using some different distance calculation techniques in the TOPSIS method. The different calculation methods are introduced and the alternative rankings obtained by using these methods are given. It is seen that the best decision alternative does not change for each method, but the ranking of decision alternatives changes. The obtained results show that providing alternative decisions found by using different distance measures in TOPSIS method can support decision makers to make more consistent and meaningful decisions.

PDF

___

1. Kirkwood C.W., Strategic decision making: Multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets, Duxbury Press, Belmont, California, 1997.
2. Oz E., Management Information Systems, 4th Edition, International Thomson Publishing, Boston, USA, 2004.
3. Tabucanon M.T. Multiple criteria decision making in industry, Elsevier, New York, USA, 1988.
4. Yoon K.P., Hwang C.L., Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction, SAGE Publications, California, USA, 2005.
5. Gregory G., Decision Analysis, Plenum Pres, New York, USA, 1998.
6. Ersöz F., Kabak M., Savunma Sanayi Uygulamalarında Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinin Literatür Araştırması, KHO Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 9 (1), 97-125, 2010.
7. Hwang C.L., Yoon K., Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, 1981.
8. Özdağoğlu A., Farklı Normalizasyon Yöntemlerinin TOPSIS'te Karar Verme Sürecine Etkisi, Ege Akademik Bakış, 13 (2), 245-257, 2013.
9. Olson D.L., Comparison of Weights in TOPSIS Models, Math. Comput. Modell., 40 (7), 721-727, 2004.
10. Omosigho S.E., Omorogbe, D.E.A., Supplier Selection Using Different Metric Functions, Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 25 (3), 413-423, 2015.
11. Chang C.H., Lin J.J., Lin J.H., Chiang M.C., Domestic open-end equity mutual fund performance evaluation using extended TOPSIS method with different distance approaches, Expert Syst. Appl., 37, 4642-4649, 2010.
12. Ye J., Multicriteria Group Decision-Making Method Using Vector Similarity Measures For Trapezoidal Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers, Group Decision and Negotiation, 21 (4), 519-530, 2012.
13. Liao H., Xu Z., Approaches to manage hesitant fuzzy linguistic information based on the cosine distance and similarity measures for HFLTSs and their application in qualitative decision making, Expert Syst. Appl., 42, 5328-5336, 2015.
14. Yoon K., Systems Selection by Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Doktora Tezi, Kansas State University, 1980.
15. Lai Y.J., Liu T.Y., Hwang C.L., TOPSIS for MODM, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 76 (3), 486-500, 1994.
16. Yoon K., Hwang C.L., Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Kanada, 1995.
17. Cevikcan E., Cebi S., Kaya I., Fuzzy VIKOR and Fuzzy Axiomatic Design Versus to Fuzzy TOPSIS: An Application of Candidate Assessment", Journal Of Multıple-Valued Logic And Soft Computing, 15 (2-3), 181-208, 2009.
18. Celik M., Cebi S., Kahraman C., Er I.D., Application of axiomatic design and TOPSIS methodologies under fuzzy environment for proposing competitive strategies on Turkish container ports in maritime transportation network, Expert Syst. Appl., 36, 4541-4557, 2009.
19. Baykasoglu A., Golcuk I., Development of a novel multiple-attribute decision making model via fuzzy cognitive maps and hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS, Information Sciences, 301, 75-98, 2015.
20. Dagdeviren M., Yavuz S., Kilinc N., Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment, Expert Syst. Appl., 36, 8143-8151, 2009.
21. Şeker A., Using Outputs of NASA-TLX for Building a Mental Workload Expert System, Gazi University Journal of Science, 27 (4), 1131-1142, 2014.
22. Dagdeviren M., A hybrid multi-criteria decisionmaking model for personnel selection in manufacturing systems, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21, 451- 460, 2010.
23. İç Y.T., Yıldırım S., Improvement of a Product Design Using Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods with Taguchi Method, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 27 (2), 447-458, 2012.
24. Kul Y., Şeker A., Yurdakul M., Usage of Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods in Selection of Nontraditional Manufacturing Methods, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 29 (3), 589-603, 2014.
25. Kabak M., Köse E., Kırılmaz O., Burmaoğlu S., A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach to assess building energy performance, Energy Build., 72, 382- 389, 2014.
26. İç Y.T., Tekin M., Pamukoğlu F.Z., Yıldırım S.E., Development of a Financial Performance Benchmarkıng Model for Corporate Firms, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 30 (1), 71-85, 2015.
27. Chen C.T., Lin C.T., Huang S.F., A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 102, 289-301, 2006.
28. Tsaur S.H., Chang T.Y., Yen C.H., The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM, Tourism Management, 23, 107-115, 2002.
29. Tzeng G.H., Lin C.W., Opricovic S., Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation, Energy Policy, 33, 1373-1383. 2005.
30. Chen M.F., Tzeng G.H., Combining Grey Relation and TOPSIS Concepts for Selecting an Expatriate Host Country, Math. Comput. Modell., 40, 1473-1490, 2004.
31. Yang T., Hung C.C., Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem, Rob. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 23, 126-137, 2007.
32. Cha S.H., Comprehensive Survey on Distance/Similarity Measures between Probability Density Functions, International Journal Of Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 1 (4), 300-307, 2007.
33. Yurdakul M., İc Y.T., An Illustrative Study Aimed to Measure and Rank Performance of Turkish Automotive Companies Using TOPSIS, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 18, (1), 1-18, 2003.