SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 4

EVALUATION OF THE SELECTION OF BUSES USED IN INTERCITY TRANSPORTATION WITH THE EDAS TECHNIQUE BASED ON AHP AND THE CRITIC TECHNIQUES

ŞEHİRLERARASI TAŞIMACILIKTA KULLANILAN OTOBÜSLERE İLİŞKİN SEÇİMLERİN AHP VE CRITIC TABANLI EDAS YÖNTEMİ İLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Ömer Faruk Görçün(Kadir Has Üniversitesi)0000-0003-3850-6755
Hande Küçükönder(BARTIN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0853-8185
Pages
1280–1303
Publication Date
2021-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Also, it has been observed that P14 Brand-TE Safari 13 HD is the best alternative.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study suggests a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model for evaluating the intercity bus selections. the proposed model consists of three phases.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While in the first phase, the preparation process is carried out, in the second phase, the weights of the criteria are calculated and preference ratings of the alternatives are determined in the third phase.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also, it has been observed that P14 Brand-TE Safari 13 HD is the best alternative.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Otobüs Seçimi · ÇKKV Yöntemleri · EDAS

Abstract

This study suggests a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model for evaluating the intercity bus selections. the proposed model consists of three phases. While in the first phase, the preparation process is carried out, in the second phase, the weights of the criteria are calculated and preference ratings of the alternatives are determined in the third phase. To identify the criteria weights the Analitik Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the CRITIC (CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) have been implemented. Next, EDAS (The Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution) technique has been applied to determine the preference ratings of the decision alternatives. According to results of the analysis, the most determinative criteria are asthetic and compfort. Also, it has been observed that P14 Brand-TE Safari 13 HD is the best alternative.

Özet

Bu çalışma, şehirlerarası otobüs seçimlerini değerlendirmek için hibrit bir çok kriterli karar verme (MCDM) modeli önermektedir. Önerilen model üç aşamadan oluşmaktadır. Birinci aşamada hazırlık süreci yürütülürken, ikinci aşamada kriterlerin ağırlıkları hesaplanmakta ve üçüncü aşamada alternatiflerin tercih dereceleri belirlenmektedir. Kriter ağırlıklarını belirlemek için Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) ve CRITIC (Kriterler Arası Korelasyon Yoluyla Kriter Önemi) uygulanmıştır. Daha sonra, karar alternatiflerinin tercih derecelerini belirlemek için EDAS (Ortalama Çözümden Uzaklığa Dayalı Değerlendirme) tekniği uygulanmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre en belirleyici kriterler estetik ve konfordur. Ayrıca P14 Brand-TE Safari 13 HD’nin en iyi alternatif olduğu gözlemlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Görçün, Ö. F., Küçükönder, H. (2021). EVALUATION OF THE SELECTION OF BUSES USED IN INTERCITY TRANSPORTATION WITH THE EDAS TECHNIQUE BASED ON AHP AND THE CRITIC TECHNIQUES. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 4, 1280–1303. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.794181

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (26)

  1. Referans1 Aggarwal, A., Choudhary, C. & Mehrotra, D. (2018). Evaluation of smartphones in the Indian market using EDAS. Procedia computer science 132, 236-243.
  2. Referans2 Celik, E., Bilisik, ON., Erdogan, M., Gumus, AT. & Baracli, H. (2013). An integrated novel interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM method to improve customer satisfaction in public transportation for Istanbul. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 58, 28-51.
  3. Referans3 Deng, H., Yeh, CH. & Willis RJ. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973.
  4. Referans4 Ecer, F. (2017). Third-party logistics (3pls) provider selection via fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1, 615-634.
  5. Referans5 Janic, M. & Reggiani, A. (2002). An application of the multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) analysis to the selection of a new hub airport. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 2(2), 113-141.
  6. Referans6 Karabasevic, D., Zavadskas, E.K., Stanujkic, D., Popovic, G. & Brzakovic, M. (2018). An approach to personnel selection in the IT industry based on the EDAS method. Transformations in Business and Economics, 17, 54–65.
  7. Referans7 Karmakar, P., Dutta, P. & Biswas, S. (2018). Assessment of mutual fund performance using distance-based multi-criteria decision making techniques-an Indian perspective. Research Bulletin, 44, 17-38.
  8. Referans8 Keshavarz, GM., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, EK., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2018). A dynamic fuzzy approach based on the edas method for multi-criteria subcontractor evaluation. Information, 9, 1-15.
  9. Referans9 Keshavarz, GM., Zavadskas, EK., Amiri, M. & Turskis, Z. (2016). Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: an application to supplier selection. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 11, 358-371.
  10. Referans10 Keshavarz, GM., Zavadskas, EK., Olfat, L. & Turskis, Z. 2015. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica 26, 435-451.
  11. Referans11 Kundakci, N. (2018). An integrated method using Macbeth and EDAS methods for evaluating steam boiler alternatives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 26, 27-34.
  12. Referans12 Kuo, MS. & Liang, GS. (2011). Combining VIKOR with GRA techniques to evaluate service quality of airports under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1304-1312.
  13. Referans13 Kuo, Y., Yang, T. & Huang, G.W. (2008). The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple attribute decision-making problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 55, 80-93.
  14. Referans14 Liang, WZ., Zhao, GY. & Luo, SZ. (2018). An integrated EDAS-ELECTRE method with picture fuzzy information for cleaner production evaluation in gold mines. IEEE Access, 6, 65747–65759.
  15. Referans15 Nunic, Z.B. (2018). Evaluation and selection of manufacturer PVC carpentry using fucom-mabac model. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 1, 13-28.
  16. Referans16 Ouenniche, J., Uvalle Perez, OJ. & Ettouhami, A. (2018). A new EDAS-based in-sample-out-of-sample classifier for risk-class prediction. Management Decision, 99, 100-101.
  17. Referans17 Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  18. Referans18 Stević, Ž, Vasiljević, M., Puška, A., Tanackov, I., Junevičius, R. & Vesković, S. (2019). Evaluation of suppliers under uncertainty: a multiphase approach based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy EDAS. Transport, 34, 52-66.
  19. Referans19 Turskis, Z., Morkunaite, Z. & Kutut, V., (2017). A hybrid multiple criteria evaluation method of ranking of cultural heritage structures for renovation projects. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 21, 318-329.
  20. Referans20 Tzeng, GH., Lin, CW. & Opricovic, S. (2005). Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy, 33, 1373-1383.
  21. Referans21 Ulutas, A. (2017). Sewing machine selection for a textile workshop by using EDAS method. Journal of Business Research Turk, 9, 169-183.
  22. Referans22 Vahdani, B., Zandieh, M. & Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. (2011). Two novel FMCDM methods for alternative-fuel buses selection. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35(3), 1396-1412.
  23. Referans23 Wang, YM. & Luo, Y. (2010). Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 51(1-2), 1-12.
  24. Referans24 Zavadskas, EK., Stević, Ž., Turskis, Z. & Tomaševıć, M. (2019). Edas in minkowski space (EDAS-m) method for evaluating autonomous vehicles. Studies in Informatics and Control, 28(3), 255-264.
  25. Referans25 Zhang, S., Gao, H., Wei, G., Wei, Y. & Wei, C. (2019). Evaluation based on distance from the average solution method for multiple criteria group decision making under picture 2-tuple linguistic environment. Mathematics, 7, 1-14.
  26. Referans26 Zindani, D., Maity, SR. & Bhowmik, S. (2019) Fuzzy-EDAS (Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution) for Material Selection Problems. In: Narayanan R., Joshi S., Dixit U. (eds) Advances in Computational Methods in Manufacturing. Lecture Notes on Multidisciplinary Industrial Engineering. Springer, Singapore, 755-771.