OECD ÜLKELERİNİN TELEKOMÜNİKASYON SEKTÖRÜ AÇISINDAN SMAAEDAS YÖNTEMİ İLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Ortalama çözüme olan uzaklığa göre değerlendiren yeni ve etkili EDAS yöntemi 2015 yılından bu yana literatürde artan bir şekilde yer almaktadır. Şimdiye kadar, birçok sektörde karar verme problemlerini çözmek için çeşitli EDAS modelleri geliştirilmiş ve uygulanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, EDAS modellerinin ortak noktası olan bir EDAS sınırlaması ele alınmıştır. EDAS 'da bulunan iki girdi: alternatiflerin kriter değerleri ve kriterlerin önem ağırlıkları genellikle belirsizdir. Bu sınırlamaya çözüm getirmek için, EDAS ile SMAA entegre edilerek, EDAS' ın girdilerindeki belirsizliklerin üstesinden eşzamanlı olarak gelebilmek için SMAA-EDAS yöntemi önerilmektedir. Önerilen SMAA-EDAS yöntemi ile OECD ülkeleri telekomünikasyon sektörü geniş bant altyapıları ve yapısal hizmetleri açısından değerlendirilmiştir. Kriter ağırlıkları ve değerlerindeki belirsizlikle SMAA-EDAS % 99.96 düzeyinde güvenilirlik değeriyle etkili ve geçerli sonuçlarla başa çıkabilmiştir.

EVALUATION OF OECD COUNTRIES WITH SMAA-EDAS METHOD IN TERMS OF TELECOMMUNICATION SECTOR

The new and effective EDAS method, which evaluates according to the distance to the average solution, has attracted increasing attention from the academic world since 2015. So far, several EDAS models have been developed and implemented to solve decision-making problems in many sectors. In this study, we point out a limitation of EDAS, which is shared by all the EDAS-based models. Two types of inputs inherent in EDAS, i.e., criteria measurements and criteria weights are usually uncertain. To address this limitation, the SMAA-EDAS method is proposed in order to overcome the uncertainties in EDAS inputs by integrating EDAS and SMAA. With the proposed SMAA-EDAS method, OECD countries were evaluated in terms of broadband infrastructures and structural services of telecommunication sector. SMAA-EDAS was able to cope with effective the uncertainty in criteria measurements and weights, and obtained valid results with a confidence factor value of 99.96%.

PDF

___

[1] J. Figueira, S. Greco and M. Ehrgott, Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2005.
[2] B. Roy, Paradigms and challenges. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2005.
[3] T. L. Saaty, “The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: The AHP/ANP approach,” Operations Research, vol. 61, no. 5, p. 1101–1118, 2013.
[4] W. Ho, X. W. Xu and P. K. Dey, “Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 202, no. 1, p.16–24, 2010.
[5] K. G. Mehdi, E.K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat, and Z. Turskis, “Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS),” Informatica, vol. 26, no.3, p.435-451, 2015.
[6] Y. Y. Li, J. Q. Wang, and T. L. Wang, “A linguistic neutrosophic multi-criteria group decision-making approach with EDAS method,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 44, no. 3, p. 2737-2749, 2019.
[7] J. Ouenniche, O.J.U. Perez, A. Ettouhami, A new EDAS-based in-sample-out-of-sample classifier for risk-class prediction, Management Decision, 2019.
[8] M. K. Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis, Multi-criteria group decision-making using an extended EDAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, 2017.
[9] M. K. Ghorabaee, M. Amiri and E. K. Zavadskas, “A new multi-criteria model based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and EDAS method for supplier evaluation and order allocation with environmental considerations,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 112, p. 156-174, 2017.
[10]C. Kahraman, M. K. Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, S. Cevik Onar, M. Yazdani, and B. Oztaysi, “Intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS method: an application to solid waste disposal site selection,” Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, vol. 25, no.1, p. 1-12, 2017.
[11]Z. Turskıs, Z. Morkunaite and V. Kutut, “A hybrid multiple criteria evaluation method of ranking of cultural heritage structures for renovation projects,” International journal of strategic property management, vol. 21, no.3, p.318-329, 2017.
[12]M. K. Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas and M. Amir “Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: an application to supplier selection,” International journal of computers communications & control, vol.11, no.3, p.358-371, 2016.
[13]X. Peng, C. Lıu, “Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS, new similarity measure and level soft set,” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 32, no.1, p.955-968, 2017.
[14]M. K. Ghorabaee et al. Multi-criteria group decision-making using an extended EDAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. 2017.
[15]X. Peng, J. Daı, ”Algorithms for interval neutrosophic multiple attribute decision-making based on MABAC, similarity measure, and EDAS,” International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, 2017.
[16]A. Karaşan, C. Kahraman, “A novel interval-valued neutrosophic EDAS method: prioritization of the United Nations national sustainable development goals,” Soft Computing, vol. 22, no.15, p.4891-4906, 2018.
[17]A. Karaşan, C. Kahraman, Interval-valued neutrosophic extension of EDAS method. In: Advances in Fuzzy Logic and Technology, Springer, Champ. p. 343-357, 2017.
[18]M. K. Ghorabaee et al. Stochastic EDAS method for multi-criteria decision-making with normally distributed data. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 33, no. 3, p. 1627-1638, 2017.
[19]Özmen, M., “Telekomünikasyon sektöründe müşteri kaybı yönetimi için meta sezgisel tabanlı karar destek sistemi,” Doktora Tezi, Erciyes Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kayseri, 2017.
[20]R. Lahdelma, J. Hokkanen, P. Salmınen, “SMAA-stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 106, no.1, p.137-143, 1998.
[21]R. Lahdelma and P. Salmınen, “SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making,” Operations research, vol. 49, no.3, p.444-454, 2001.
[22]S. Angılella, S. Corrente, S. Greco, “Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis for the Choquet integral preference model and the scale construction problem,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 240, no.1, p.172-182, 2015.
[23]M. Bottero et al., “Dealing with a multiple criteria environmental problem with interaction effects between criteria through an extension of the Electre III method,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 245, no. 3, p.837- 850, 2015.
[24]I. Durbach, R. Lahdelma, P. Salmınen, “The analytic hierarchy process with stochastic judgements,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 238, no.2, p.552-559, 2014.
[25]R. Lahdelma and P. Salmınen, “Prospect theory and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA),” Omega, vol. 37, no.5, p.961-971, 2009.
[26]S. Corrente, J.R. Fıgueıra, S. Greco, “The smaa-promethee method,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 239, no.2, p. 514-522, 2014.
[27]R. Lahdelma and P. Salmınen, “Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis using the data envelopment model,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 170, no.1, p.241-252, 2006.
[28]D. Okul, C. Gencer, E. K. Aydogan, “A method based on SMAA-topsis for stochastic multi-criteria decision making and a real-world application,” International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, vol. 13, no. 05, p. 957-978, 2014.
[29]M. Ozmen, E. Kızılkaya Aydogan and F. Zaralı, “Logistics center location selection using the new method SMAATODIM,” MCDM, 2015.
[30]E. Kızılkaya Aydogan and M. Ozmen, “The stochastıc vikor method and its use in reverse logistic option selection problem,” RAIRO-Operations Research, vol. 51, no.2, p. 375-389, 2017.
[31]E. Akgül et al., “Optimization of the Murata Vortex Spinning machine parameters by the SMAA-MOORA approach,” Industria Textila, vol. 68, no. 5, p.323-331, 2017.
[32]E. Kızılkaya Aydoğan, M. Özmen, “Two new method for multi criteria stochastic decision making: SMAA-GRA and SMAA-DEMATEL-GRA,” 2015.
[33]T. Tervonen, and R. Lahdelma, “Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 178, no.2, p. 500-513, 2007.
[34]P. Wanke M. A. K. Azad, and C. P. Barros, “Efficiency factors in OECD banks: A ten-year analysis,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 64, p. 208-227, 2016.
[35]M. Zaman, S. Morid and M. Delavar, “Evaluating climate adaptation strategies on agricultural production in the Siminehrud catchment and inflow into Lake Urmia, Iran using SWAT within an OECD framework,”Agricultural Systems, vol. 147, p. 98-110, 2016.
[36]H. Kazanet, E. Karaman, B. Y. Akçalı and E. Şişmanoğlu, “Assessment of teog examination success: topsis multicriteria decision-making method practice,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 195, p. 915-924, 2015.
[37]K. Rashıdı, A. Shabani and R. F. Saen, “Using data envelopment analysis for estimating energy saving and undesirable output abatement: a case study in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) countries,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 105, p.241-252, 2015.
[38]R. K. Mavi, R. F. Saen and M. Goh, “Joint analysis of eco-efficiency and eco-innovation with common weights in two-stage network DEA: A big data approach,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 144, p.553-562, 2019.
[39]P. Zhou, K. L. Poh and B. W. Ang, “A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance,” European journal of operational research, vol. 178, no.1, p.1-9, 2007.
[40]M. Kou, K. Chen, S. Wang and Y. Shao, “Measuring efficiencies of multi-period and multi-division systems associated with DEA: An application to OECD countries’ national innovation systems,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 46, p.494-510, 2016.
[41]L. Martí, J. C. Martín and R. Puerta, “A DEA-logistics performance index,” Journal of Applied Economics, vol. 20, no.1, p.169-192, 2017
[42]S. Greco, M. Ehrgott and J. R. Figueira. Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.
[43]https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/9789264276284-en
[44]F Diskaya, S Emir, N Orhan, “Measuring the technical efficiency of telecommunication sector within global crisis: comparison of G8 countries and Turkey,” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 24, p. 206-218, 2011.