Deniz Liman İşletmelerinin Strateji Seçimlerinde AHP Modellemesi ile Karar Alma Süreci
Hakan Kılcı, Burcu Özge Özaslan ÇalışkanBu araştırmada deniz liman işletmelerinin strateji seçimlerinde üst düzey yönetime yardımcı olacak bir model geliştirmek hedeflen- miştir. Araştırmanın modellemesinde altı boyuttan oluşan deniz liman performans göstergelerinin her birinin ağırlıklarını bulmak için AHP (Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci) kullanılmış konusunda uzman olan, çeşitli alanlardan seçilen katılımcılardan oluşturulan odak grup görüşmeleri neticesinde anket formalarıyla elde edilen veriler Super Decision Paket Programı ve Microsoft Office Excel Programı kullanılarak analize tabi tutulmuştur. Bu analiz neticesinde öncelikle bir deniz liman işletmesinin performansını etkileyen 6 ana faktörün ve bunların alt boyutlarının ağırlıkları (katsayıları) tespit edilmiştir. Modelde deniz liman performans göstergeleri strateji seçiminde kullanılan kriterler, deniz liman işletmelerinin seçebilecekleri 3 strateji ise alternatifleri oluşturmaktadır. Bu stratejiler maliyet liderliği stratejisi, farklılaştırma stratejisi ve cevap (hızlı yanıt) verme stratejisidir. Araştırmanın son aşamasında iki deniz liman işletmesinin üst düzey yöneticilerine ağırlıklandırılmış kriterleri kendi liman işletmelerini göz önünde bulundurarak Likert ölçeği ile 1’den 9’a kadar değerlerle puanlandırması istenmiştir. İki deniz liman işletmesinin üst düzey yöneticisinin yapmış olduğu puanlama neticesinde her iki deniz limanı da kendileri için en uygun stratejinin farklılaştırma stratejisi olduğu sonucuna varmıştır.
In the Strategy Choices of Sea Port Operations Decision Making Process with AHP Modeling
Hakan Kılcı, Burcu Özge Özaslan ÇalışkanIn this research, it is aimed to develop a model that will assist senior management in the strategy choices of sea port enterprises. In the modeling of the research, AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) was used to find the weights of each of the sea port performance indicators consisting of six dimensions. The data obtained through the survey forms as a result of the focus group discussions held with the participants selected from various fields, who are experts in their field, were analyzed using the Super Decision Package Program and Microsoft Office Excel Program. has been subjected to. As a result of this analysis, the weights (coefficients) of 6 main factors and their sub-dimensions that affect the performance of a sea port enterprise were determined. In the model, sea port performance indicators constitute the criteria used in strategy selection, and the 3 strategies that sea port enterprises can choose constitute the alternatives. These strategies are cost leadership strategy, differentiation strategy and responsive (quick response) strategy. In the final stage of the research, senior managers of two sea port enterprises were asked to score the weighted criteria with values from 1 to 9 on a Likert scale, taking into account their own port enterprises. As a result of the scoring made by the senior managers of the two sea port operators, both sea ports concluded that the most suitable strategy for them was the differentiation strategy.
The adoption of the most appropriate strategy to assist seaport operators in gaining a competitive advantage in their management processes is crucial for achieving sustainable growth and enhancing competitive strength. This study aims to develop a model to guide senior management in selecting strategies for seaport companies. The research proposes a model that helps identify the most suitable strategy among three basic approaches used by seaport operators, based on key performance indicators (KPIs) commonly applied in the industry. In the model, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was employed to determine the relative weights of six dimensions of seaport performance indicators.
Data was collected through surveys distributed to participants in focus group interviews, comprising experts from various sectors with significant experience in their fields. The experts included four academics, four terminal operator managers, four seaport managers, and four ship transportation business managers. These responses were analyzed using the Super Decision software package. As a result, the weights (coefficients) of the six factors influencing seaport performance were identified. These factors are organized into six primary dimensions, which are further subdivided into 16 sub-dimensions. The weights of both the main dimensions and their sub-dimensions were calculated by comparing the factors on a Likert scale.
In the proposed model, seaport performance indicators serve as the criteria for strategy selection, while the three strategies available to seaport operators represent the alternatives. The three basic strategies for seaport companies are: cost leadership, differentiation, and responsiveness (rapid response).
To weight the main criteria and their sub-dimensions, a group decision-making approach was employed, involving four par- ticipants from each of four key stakeholder groups who are directly involved in or impacted by seaport operations. The criteria comparisons provided by each stakeholder were entered into the Super Decision software. After confirming that the inconsistency ratio was below the threshold of 0.10, the weights of the main criteria and their sub-dimensions were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each comparison across all 16 participants.
The analysis revealed that the main criterion with the highest weight was "Terminal and Supply Chain Integration" (0.27), while "Supporting Activities" was the criterion with the lowest weight (0.06). After determining the weights, two seaport operator managers (coded as A and B) were asked to rate the three strategies on a scale from 1 to 10 for each sub-dimension of the main criteria. The weighted scores were then calculated by multiplying the ratings by the corresponding weights of the sub-dimensions and main criteria. The final scores were derived by summing the weighted scores for each sub-dimension.
Seaport operator manager A assigned the highest score (8.48) to the differentiation strategy, indicating that it was the most suitable for their port. The second-highest score (8.28) was given to the responsiveness strategy, while the cost leadership strategy received the lowest score (8.22). Similarly, seaport operator manager B also rated the differentiation strategy highest (8.25), followed by the responsiveness strategy (8.16). The cost leadership strategy received the lowest score (6.80) from manager B.
In this study’s modeling approach, the key performance indicators (KPIs) of seaport enterprises were utilized as criteria for evaluating strategic alternatives. Consequently, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) model was structured with the goal positioned at the highest level. The second level includes six primary marine performance indicators as the main criteria. The third level consists of the sub-dimensions of these main criteria, while the lowest level of the model represents the strategic alternatives.
In other words, the framework of the study is organized into a four-tier hierarchical structure. In this model, the criteria and goals in the first three levels are interlinked through nodes. However, the strategic alternatives at the bottom level are not interconnected with the other layers and are independently assessed. This distinctive approach sets our study apart from conventional AHP models, lending it an innovative character.
