Journals / Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 3

INTERNET SERVICES CAMPAIGN RANKING BASED ON AN INTEGRATED DECISION MAKING APPROACH

Pages
523–534
Publication Date
2017-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Afterwards, one listing has been established by integrating two separate listings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Regarding the firms, the internet service sector in Turkey is quite small.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Later, within the scope of multi-criteria decision making techniques, the popular methods; TOPSIS and VIKOR were separately used to list the alternatives.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Afterwards, one listing has been established by integrating two separate listings.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:FAHP · TOPSIS · VIKOR

Abstract

Regarding the firms, the internet service sector in Turkey is quite small. There are few major brands competing strictly both to attract new customers and protect existing customers by providing advantageous and aggressive campaigns. In this study, a campaign selection model in the internet service sector is established by using multiple-criteria decision making techniques. While creating this model, it is benefited from the campaign information of Turkey's leading internet service provider. Besides, while determining the criteria and selecting alternatives, the opinions of experts were received. For determining criteria weights, AHP was used together with fuzzy approximations. For decision makers, there is always an environment of uncertainty in question and this uncertainty has been reduced to a minimum level with fuzzy logic. Later, within the scope of multi-criteria decision making techniques, the popular methods; TOPSIS and VIKOR were separately used to list the alternatives. Afterwards, one listing has been established by integrating two separate listings.

🔖

Cite This Article

LAFCI, Z. N., KILIÇ, H. S. (2017). INTERNET SERVICES CAMPAIGN RANKING BASED ON AN INTEGRATED DECISION MAKING APPROACH. Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 3, 523–534. https://ajindex.com/articles/419244

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Hodgett, R. E., “Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 85(5-8), 1145-1157, 2016
  2. Zamani-Sabzi, H., King, J. P., Gard, C. C., & Abudu, S., “Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment”, Operations Research Perspectives, 3, 92- 117, 2016
  3. Ertuğrul, İ., Karakaşoğlu, N., “Banka şube performanslarının VIKOR yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi”, Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 20(1), 19-28, 2009
  4. Gumus, A. T., “Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 4067-4074, 2009
  5. Ballı, S., Korukoğlu, S., “Operating system selection using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods”, Mathematical and Computational Applications, 14(2), 119-130, 2009
  6. Seçme, N. Y., Bayrakdaroğlu, A., Kahraman, C., “Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS”, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11699-11709, 2009
  7. Tadić, D., Arsovski, S., Stefanovic, M., Aleksic, A., “A fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS for ELV dismantling selection”, International Journal for Quality Research, 4(2), 377-384, 2010 [8] Mikaeil, R., Yousefi, R., Ataei, M., “Sawability ranking of carbonate rock using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and TOPSIS approaches”, Scientia Iranica, 18(5), 1106-1115, 2011
  8. Jia, J., Fan, Y., Guo, X., “The low carbon development (LCD) levels’ evaluation of the world’s 47 countries (areas) by combining the FAHP with the TOPSIS method”, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(7), 6628-6640, 2012
  9. Parsaei S., Keramati, M. A., Zorriassatine, F., RezaFeylizadeh, M., “An order acceptance using FAHP and TOPSIS methods: A case study of Iranian vehicle belt production industry”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 3(2), 211-224, 2012
  10. Amile, M., Sedaghat, M., Poorhossein, M., “Performance Evaluation of Banks using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS, Case study: State-owned Banks, Partially Private and Private Banks in Iran”, Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 2(3), 128-138, 2013
  11. Pavani, S., Sharma, L. K., Hota, H. S., “A group expert evaluation for teachers by integrating fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS models”, IEEE International Conference in MOOC Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), India, December, 2013, 85-90
  12. Kilic, H. S., Zai