Lojistik yönetimi kapsamında ulaştırma modunun seçimi: Tekstil sektöründe bir uygulama

İşletmelerin lojistik faaliyetlerinin etkin yönetimi, organizasyonların amaçlarına ulaşmasında belirleyici bir unsurdur. Özellikle küresel ölçekteki lojistik operasyonlarında, uygun ulaştırma alternatifinin seçimi kritik önem arz etmektedir. Ulaştırma modu seçimi; çeşitli alternatiflerin yer aldığı, sayısallaştırılabilen ve sayısallaştırılması zor olan faktörleri içeren, çok kriterli bir karar verme problemidir. Bu çalışmada, farklı ulaştırma modu alternatiflerinin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılacak kriterlerin önem dereceleri, analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AHP) metodu uygulanarak hesaplanmıştır. Alternatif ulaştırma modu seçeneklerinin değerlendirilmesinde ise, ideal çözüme benzerliğe dayalı sıralama tekniği (TOPSIS) kullanılmıştır. Önerilen model, İtalya-Türkiye arasında yük taşımacılığı gerçekleştiren, tekstil endüstrisinde faaliyet gösteren, İtalyan menşeli bir firma için uygulanmıştır. Yöntem kapsamında dört farklı taşıma modu alternatifi değerlendirilmiş ve en iyi alternatif belirlenmiştir. Yapılan analiz sonucunda, karayolu - denizyolu - karayolu intermodal ulaştırma alternatifi seçilmiştir.

Transportation mode selection through logisthics management: Anappl ication in the textile industry

Effective management of enterprises’ logistics activities is significant factor that achieve their purposes. Selection of appropriate tranportation alternative is crucial issue especially for the global logistics operations. Tranportation mode selection problem is a multi criteria decision making problem which includes both tangible and intangible assessment factors which several alternatives. In this study, priorities of selection criteria for evaluate the transportation mode alternatives were calculated by using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method; and evaluation of different alternatives via Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method has been done. The proposed model is applied on the freight transport between Italy and Turkey for a Italy-based company in textile industry. By using this methodology four alternative transportation modes were appraised and the best alternative was decided. According to the analysis, land- sea- land intermodel choice is selected.

___

  • Ahire, S. L. ve Rana, D. S., 1995, “Selection of TQM Pilot Projects Using an MCDM Approach”. Int. Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol: 12, No: 1, s: 61-81.
  • Armacost, R. L., Componation, P. J., Mullens, M. A. ve Swart, W.W., 1994, “An AHP Framework for Prioritizing Customer Requirements in QFD: An Industrialized Housing Application”. IIE Transactions, Vol: 26, No: 4, s: 72-79.
  • Athawale, V.M. ve Chakraborty, S., 2010, “A TOPSIS Method-based Approach to Machine Tool Selection”, Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (www.iieom.org/index-3.htm.). Son Erişim Tarihi: 27.01.2012.
  • Barker, T. J. ve Zabinsk, Z. B., 2011, “A Multicriteria Decision Making Model for Reverse Logistics Using Analytical Hierarchy Process”. Omega, Vol: 39, No: 5, s: 558-573.
  • Benton, W. C., 2009, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Second Edition. Mc Graw Hill. Ohio. Bevilacqua, M. ve Braglia, M., 2000, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process Applied to Maintenance Strategy Selection”. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol: 70, No: 2, s: 71-83.
  • Beyazid, O., 2005, “Use of AHP in Decision-Making for Flexible Manufacturing Systems”. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol: 16, No: 7, s: 808- 819.
  • Bowersox, D. J. ve Closs, D.J., 1996, Logistical Management: The Integrated Supply Chain Process. The McGraw-Hill Co. Inc. Singapore.
  • Byun, D. H., 2001, “The AHP Approach for Selecting an Automobile Purchase Model”. Information and Management, Vol: 38, No: 5, s: 289-297.
  • Chen, L. Y. ve Wang, T. C., 2009, “Optimizing Partners’ Choice in IS/IT Outsourcing Projects: The Strategic Decision Of Fuzzy VIKOR”, Int. Journal Production Economics, s: 233-242.
  • Chopra, S. ve Meindl, P., 2007, Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning & Operation. Pearson Education, Inc. Third Edition. New Jersey.
  • Chu, T. C., 2002, “Facility Location Selection Using Fuzzy TOPSIS Under Group Decisions”. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol: 10, s: 687-701.
  • Chu, T. C. ve Lin, Y. C., 2003, “A Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Robot Selection”. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol: 21, s: 284-290.
  • Dağdeviren, M. ve Eren, T., 2001, “Tedarikçi Firma Seçiminde Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi ve 0-1 Hedef Programlama Yöntemlerinin Kullanılması”. Gazi Üni. Mühendislik- Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 16, Sayı: 1-2, s: 41-52.
  • Dağdeviren, M., Yavuz, S. ve Kılınç, N., 2009, “Weapon Selection Using the AHP and TOPSIS Methods Under Fuzzy Environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol: 36, s: 8143-8151.
  • Demireli, E., 2010, “TOPSIS Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Sistemi: Türkiye’deki Kamu Bankaları Üzerine Bir Uygulama”, Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, Cilt: 5, No:1, s: 101-112.
  • Gerdsri, N. ve Kocaoğlu, D. F., 2007, “Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Build a Strategic Framework For Technology Roadmapping”. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol: 46, No: 7-8, s: 1071-1080.
  • Hwang, C. L. ve Yoon, K., 1981, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Application, Springer Publications, Berlin.
  • Junior, L.C.I. ve D’Agosto, M.A., 2011, “Modal Choice for Transportation of Hazardous Materials: the Case of Land Modes of Transport of Bio-ethanol in Brazil”. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol: 19, s: 229-240.
  • Konaklı, Z. ve Göksu, A., 2011, “Supplier Selection Process with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) Algorithm”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol: 5, No: 33, s: 12735-12748.
  • Lee, S. ve Walsh, P., 2011, “SWOT and AHP Hybrid Model for Sport Marketing Outsourcing Using a Case of Intercollegiate Sport”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 14, s: 361-369.
  • Liu, F. H. F. ve Hai, H. L., 2005, “The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process Method for Selecting Supplier”. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol: 97, s: 308- 317.
  • Lin, M., Wang, C., Chen, M. ve Chang, C. A., 2008, “Using AHP and TOPSIS Approaches in Customer-Driven Product Design Process”. Computers in Industry, Vol: 59, No: 1, s: 17-31.
  • Lin, Z. C. ve Yang, C. B., 1996, “Evaluation of Machine Selection by the AHP Method”. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol: 57, No: 3, s: 253-258.
  • Opricovic, S. ve Tzeng, G., 2004, “Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS”. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol: 156, s: 445-455.
  • Punakivi, M. ve Hinkka, V., 2006, “Selection Criteria of Transportation Mode: A Case Study in Four Finnish Industry Sectors”. Transport Reviews, Vol: 26, No: 2, s: 207-219.
  • Saaty, T.L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York.
  • Saaty, T. L., 2008, “Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, International Journal Services Sciences, Vol: 1, No: 1, s: 83-98.
  • Shahanaghi, K. ve Yazdian, S. A., 2009, “Vendor Selection Using a New Fuzzy Group TOPSIS Approach”. Journal of Uncertain Systems, Vol: 3, No: 3, s: 221-231.Shanian, A. ve Savadogo, O., 2006, “TOPSIS Multiple-Criteria Decision Support Analysis for Material Selection of Metallic Bipolar Plates for Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell”. Journal of Power Sources, Vol: 159, s: 1095-1104.
  • Shyjith, K. Ilangkumaran, M. ve Kumanan, S., 2008, “Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach to Evaluate Optimum Maintenance Strategy in Textile Industry”. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol: 14, No: 4, s: 375-386.
  • Supçiller, A. A. ve Çapraz, O., 2011, “AHP-TOPSIS Yöntemine Dayalı Tedarikçi Seçimi Uygulaması”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, No: 13, s: 1-22.
  • Tam, M. C. Y. ve Tummala, V. M. R., 2001, “An Application of the AHP in Vendor Selection of a Telecommunications System”. Omega, Vol: 29, No: 2, s: 171-182.
  • Tortum, A. Yayla, N. ve Gökdağ, M., 2009, “The Modeling of Mode Choices of Intercity Freight Transportation with the Artificial Neural Networks and Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System”. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol: 36, s: 6199-6217.
  • Triantaphyllou, E. ve Mann,, S. H., 1990, “An Evaluation of the Eigenvalue Approach for Determining the Membership Values in Fuzzy Sets”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol: 35, s: 295-301.
  • Tuzkaya, Ö. ve Önüt, U. R., 2008, “A Fuzzy Analytic Network Process Based Approach to Transportation-Mode Selection Turkey-Germany: A Case Study”. Information Sciences, Vol: 178, s: 3133-3146.
  • Tuzkaya, U. R., 2009, “Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Transportation Modes Using an Integrated Methodology and an Application”. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol: 6, No: 2, s: 277-290.
  • Uygurtürk, H. ve Korkmaz, T., 2012, “Finansal Performansın TOPSIS Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemi İle Belirlenmesi: Ana Metal Sanayi İşletmeleri Üzerine Bir Uygulama”. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, Cilt: 7, Sayı: 2, s: 95-115.
  • Wei, C., Chien, C. ve Wang, M. J., 2005, “An AHP-based Approach to ERP System Selection”. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol: 96, s: 47-62. World Trade Organization (WTO), Annual Report, 2010.
  • Yaralıoğlu, K., 2004, Uygulamada Karar Destek Yöntemleri, İlkem Yayınları, İzmir.
  • Zangeneh, A., Jadid, S. ve Rahimi-Kian, A., 2009, “A Hierarchical Decision Making Model for the Prioritization of Distributed Generation Technologies: A Case Study for Iran”. Energy Policy, Vol: 37, s: 5752-5763.
  • Zhang, J. ve Tan, W., 2012, “Research on the Performance Evaluation of Logistics Enterprise Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Energy Procedia, Vol: 14, s:1618- 1623.