Research Article


DOI :10.22532/jtl.237889   IUP :10.22532/jtl.237889    Full Text (PDF)

Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System

Sümeyra UzunHalim Kazan

Decision is optimum reaction in the face of situations, but encountered problems can be among more than one alternatives in accordance with precise purpose and according to certain criteria. Going for multiple criterion decision making methods fend us to reach optimum solutions in the case of facing decision problems. After informing regarding with studies, multiple criterion decision making methods were talked over (discussed) such as AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE. Discussed methods were implemented to the selection of main engine which is important in the field of vessel building and results were compared. The purpose of implement these methods is to choose the most appropriate machine for the Project. The problem of choosing the most appropriate main engine was talked over on this study for fishing vessel NB25 Wartsila. Totally 12 criteria were ascertained and it was tried to choose the most appropriate main engine among 7 engines according to determined criteria. Decision problem was tried to solve with AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE methods, and the results were compared. At the end of comparison, it was observed that AHP AND PROMETHEE methods gave us close results to each other. The results of AHP and PROMETHEE methods showed consistency in ( with) actual situation.
DOI :10.22532/jtl.237889   IUP :10.22532/jtl.237889    Full Text (PDF)

Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinden AHP TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE Karşılaştırılması: Gemi İnşada Ana Makine Seçimi Uygulaması

Sümeyra UzunHalim Kazan

Karar verme karşılaşılan durumlar karşısında en uygun tepkinin verilmesidir. Fakat karşılaşılan problem belli bir amaç doğrultusunda belli ölçütlere göre birden fazla alternatif arasından olabilir. Böyle bir karar problemi karşısında çok ölçütlü karar verme yöntemlerine başvurmak en uygun çözüme ulaşmayı sağlamaktadır. Çalışmada karar verme ile ilgili bilgi verildikten sonra çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri olan AHP, TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE yöntemleri ele alınmıştır. Ele alınan bu yöntemler gemi inşada önemli olan ana makine seçimine uygulanmıştır ve bulunan sonuçlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Bu yöntemlerin uygulanmasındaki amaç projeye en uygun makinenin seçilmesidir. Bu çalışmada NB 25 Wartsila balıkçı gemisi projesine uygun ana makine seçimi problemi ele alınmıştır. Toplam 12 kriter belirlenmiş ve bu kriterlere göre 7 ana makine arasından projeye en uygun makineye karar verilmeye çalışılmıştır. Karar problemine AHP, TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE yöntemleriyle çözüm getirilmeye çalışılmış ve bulunan sonuçlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Yapılan uygulama sonucunda AHP ve PROMETHEE yöntemlerinin yakın sonuçlar verdiği gözlemlenmiştir. Ana makine için AHP ve PROMETHEE sonuçları gerçek durumla tutarlılık göstermiştir.

PDF View

References

  • Brans, J.-P., & Mareschal, B. (2005). Promethee Methods. J. Figuera, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott içinde, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis:State Of The Art Surveys (s. 163-195). Kluwer Academics. google scholar
  • Timor, M. (2011). Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi. İstanbul: Türkmen Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Herişçakar, E. (1999). Gemi Ana Makina Seçiminde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri AHP ve SMART Uygulanması. Gemi İnşaatı Ve Deniz Teknolojisi Teknik Kongresi . İstanbul: Yapım Matbaacılık Ltd. google scholar
  • Kuruüzüm, A., & Atsan, N. (2001). Analitik Hiyerarşi Yöntemi Ve İşletmecilik Alanındaki Uygulamaları. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, s. 83-105. google scholar
  • Macharis, C., Springael, J., Brucker, K. D., & Verbeke, A. (2004). PROMETHEE and AHP:The Design Of Operational Synergies in Multicriteria Analysis.Strengthening PROMETHEE With İdeas of AHP. European Journal Of Operational Research(153), s. 307-317. google scholar
  • Saaty, T. (1994). How To Make A Decision:The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Interfaces, s. 19-43. google scholar
  • Timor, M. (2010). Yöneylem Araştırması. İstanbul: Türkmen Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Olson, D.L. (2004). Comparison Of Weights In TOPSIS Models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling(40), s.721-727. google scholar
  • Ghosh, D.N.(2011). Analytic Hierarchy Process & TOPSIS Method to Evaluate Faculty Performance in Engineering Education. UNIASCIT(1), s.63-70. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Uzun, S., & Kazan, H. (0001). Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System. Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 1(1), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.22532/jtl.237889


AMA

Uzun S, Kazan H. Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System. Journal of Transportation and Logistics. 0001;1(1):99-113. https://doi.org/10.22532/jtl.237889


ABNT

Uzun, S.; Kazan, H. Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System. Journal of Transportation and Logistics, [Publisher Location], v. 1, n. 1, p. 99-113, 0001.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Uzun, Sümeyra, and Halim Kazan. 0001. “Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System.” Journal of Transportation and Logistics 1, no. 1: 99-113. https://doi.org/10.22532/jtl.237889


Chicago: Humanities Style

Uzun, Sümeyra, and Halim Kazan. Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System.” Journal of Transportation and Logistics 1, no. 1 (Sep. 2024): 99-113. https://doi.org/10.22532/jtl.237889


Harvard: Australian Style

Uzun, S & Kazan, H 0001, 'Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System', Journal of Transportation and Logistics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 99-113, viewed 29 Sep. 2024, https://doi.org/10.22532/jtl.237889


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Uzun, S. and Kazan, H. (0001) ‘Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System’, Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 1(1), pp. 99-113. https://doi.org/10.22532/jtl.237889 (29 Sep. 2024).


MLA

Uzun, Sümeyra, and Halim Kazan. Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System.” Journal of Transportation and Logistics, vol. 1, no. 1, 0001, pp. 99-113. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.22532/jtl.237889


Vancouver

Uzun S, Kazan H. Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System. Journal of Transportation and Logistics [Internet]. 29 Sep. 2024 [cited 29 Sep. 2024];1(1):99-113. Available from: https://doi.org/10.22532/jtl.237889 doi: 10.22532/jtl.237889


ISNAD

Uzun, Sümeyra - Kazan, Halim. Comparing MCDM Methods of AHP, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE: A Study on the Selection of Ship Main Engine System”. Journal of Transportation and Logistics 1/1 (Sep. 2024): 99-113. https://doi.org/10.22532/jtl.237889



TIMELINE



LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.