KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1

EDAS ve WASPAS yöntemleriyle tıbbi malzeme tedarikçisi belirleme

Determination of the right medical equipment supplier using the EDAS and WASPAS methods

Aşır Özbek(Kırıkkale Üniversitesi)0000-0003-2753-5147
Muhammet Arif Özbek(İSTANBUL MEDİPOL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1847-2562
Sayfa
144–158
Yayın Tarihi
2023-01-15
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

T3 her iki yönteme göre de son sırada yer almıştır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışmanın amacı bir sağlık kuruluşunda yapılan boyun fıtığı, bel fıtığı ve omurga ameliyatlarında kullanılacak olan tıbbi malzemeler için en uygun tedarikçi firmayı belirlemektir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:SWARA ile kriter ağırlıkları belirlenirken, EDAS ve WASPAS yöntemleri ile tedarikçiler, kriterler dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:T3 her iki yönteme göre de son sırada yer almıştır.
🔬Tür:Deneysel Tarla Denemesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Çok Kriterli Karar Verme · Tıbbi malzeme · SWARA

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı bir sağlık kuruluşunda yapılan boyun fıtığı, bel fıtığı ve omurga ameliyatlarında kullanılacak olan tıbbi malzemeler için en uygun tedarikçi firmayı belirlemektir. Bu süreçte malzemelerin uygun şekilde tedarikine ilave olarak tedarikçi firmanın da hizmet vermesi gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle kuruluş için, hekim ve hasta memnuniyetini en üst seviyeye çıkaracak tedarikçiyi belirlemek çok önemli olmaktadır. Bu süreç çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) problemi olarak da görülmektedir. Bu nedenle problemi çözmek için ÇKKV yöntemlerinden Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA), Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) ve Weighted Aggregated Sum Product ASsessment (WASPAS) yöntemleri bütünleşik olarak kullanılarak en uygun tedarikçi firma belirlenmiştir. SWARA ile kriter ağırlıkları belirlenirken, EDAS ve WASPAS yöntemleri ile tedarikçiler, kriterler dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca duyarlılık analizi yapılarak kriter ağırlıklarının tedarikçi seçimindeki olası etkileri ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Yöntemlerin uygulanması neticesinde en uygun tedarikçinin EDAS’a göre T1, WASPAS’a göre ise T2 olduğu belirlenmiştir. T3 her iki yönteme göre de son sırada yer almıştır.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the most appropriate supplier for the medical equipment to be used in cervical disc herniation, lumbar disc herniation, and spine surgeries in a health institution. The supplier was also to provide maintaining services. Thus, determination of the proper supplier was of great importance for the health institution to maximize the satisfaction of the physicians and the patients. It was considered to be a Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem, so the Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA), Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS), and Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) methods were used in an integrated way in the determination process. While the SWARA method was employed in determining the weights for the criteria, the EDAS and WASPAS methods were used in the evaluation process. A sensitivity analysis was also made to reveal the possible effects of the weights on supplier selection. The results demonstrated that the best supplier was T1 according to EDAS, and T2 according to WASPAS, while T3 was in the last place according to both methods.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Özbek, A., Özbek, M. A. (2023). EDAS ve WASPAS yöntemleriyle tıbbi malzeme tedarikçisi belirleme. Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 144–158. https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.1076387

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (99)

  1. G. W. Dickson, An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions, Journal of Purchasing 2, 1, 5-17, 1996.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745493X.1966.tb00818.x
  2. J. Chai, J.N.K. Liu and E.W.T Ngal, Application of Decision Making Techniques In Supplier Selection: A Systematic Review of Literature, Experts Systems with Applications, 40, 3872–3885, 2013. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040
  3. L.Z. Tong, Wang, J. and Z. Pu, Sustainable supplier selection for SMEs based on an extended PROMETHEE Ⅱ approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330, 129830, 2022. https://doi.org/ 10.1016 /j.jclepro.2021.129830
  4. R. Baki, An Integrated Multi-criteria Structural Equation Model for Green Supplier Selection. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 1-14, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-021-00415-7
  5. V. Kaushik, A. Kumar, H. Gupta, H. And G. Dixit, A hybrid decision model for supplier selection in Online Fashion Retail (OFR). International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 25, 1, 27-51, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2020.1791810
  6. S. A. Hoseini, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, P. Skačkauskas, A. Fallahpour and S. Saberi, A Combined Interval Type-2 Fuzzy MCDM Framework for the Resilient Supplier Selection Problem. Mathematics, 10 1, 44, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10010044
  7. A. G. Savaşkan, M. Deste and Ş. Ekinci, Kayısı Sektöründeki İşletmelerde Bulanık TOPSİS İle Tedarikçi Seçimi. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 10(4), 449-466, 2021.
  8. A. Afrasiabi, M. Tavana and D. Di Caprio, An extended hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for sustainable and resilient supplier selection. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-24, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17851-2
  9. S. Aouadni and J. Euchi, Using Integrated MMD-TOPSIS to Solve the Supplier Selection and Fair Order Allocation Problem: A Tunisian Case Study. Logistics, 6, 1, 8, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ logistics6010008
  10. A. Mohammed, M. Yazdani, A. Oukil, E. S. Gonzalez, A Hybrid MCDM Approach towards Resilient Sourcing. Sustainability 13, 2695, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13052695
  11. V. T. Nguyen, N. H. Hai and N. T. K. Lan, Spherical Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making Model for Wind Turbine Supplier Selection in a Renewable Energy Project. Energies, 15, 3, 713, 2022. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ en15030713
  12. M. Yazdani, D. Pamucar, P. Chatterjee and A. E. Torkayesh, A multi-tier sustainable food supplier selection model under uncertainty. Operations Management Research, 1-30, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.1007 / s12063-021-00186-z
  13. H. Lau, P. K. Shum, D. Nakandala, Y. Fan and C. Lee, A game theoretic decision model for organic food supplier evaluation in the global supply chains. J Clean Prod 242:118536, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2019.118536
  14. Y. K. Fu, An integrated approach to catering supplier selection using AHP-ARAS-MCGP methodology. J Air Transp Manag 75, 164–169, 2019. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.01.011
  15. C. Wu, Y. Lin and D. Barnes, An integrated decision-making approach for sustainable supplier selection in the chemical industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 184, 115553, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.eswa.2021.115553
  16. P. Liu, X. Wang, P. Wang, F. Wang and F. Teng, Sustainable medical supplier selection based on multi-granularity probabilistic linguistic term sets. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1-38, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3846/ tede.2022.15940
  17. N. Ö. Doğan H. Akbal, Sağlık sektöründe tedarikçi seçim kararının ahp yöntemi ile incelenmesi: bir üniversite hastanesi Örneği. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17, 4, 440-456. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.664380
  18. Z. Stević, D. Pamučar, A. Puška and P. Chaterjee P, Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to COmpromise Solution (MARCOS). Comput Ind Eng 140, 106231, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
  19. S. J. Miah, K. Ahsan, and K. A. B. Msimangira, An Approach of purchasing decision support in healthcare supply chain management. Operations and Supply Chain Management, 6(2), 43–53. 2013. http://doi.org/10.31387/oscm0140087
  20. G. Mehralian, A. R. Gatari, M. Morakabati, M. and H. Vatanpoura, Developing a suitable model for supplier selection based on supply chain risks: An empirical study from Iranian. Pharmaceutical Companies. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 11(1), 209–219, 2012.
  21. S. G. Fashoto, B. Akinnuwesi, O. Owolabi, and D. Adelekan, Decision support model for supplier selection in healthcare service delivery using analytical hierarchy process and artificial neural network. African Journal of Business Management, 10(9), 209–232, 2016. doi: 10.5897/AJBM2016.8030
  22. A. Ahmadi, M. S. Pishvaee and S. A. Torabi, Procurement management in healthcare systems. Operations Research Applications in Health Care Management, 569–598, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-65455-3_22
  23. M. Bahadori, S. M. Hosseini, E. Teymourzadeh, R. Ravangard, M. Raadabadi and K. Alimohammadzadeh, A supplier selection model for hospitals using a combination of artificial neural network and fuzzy VIKOR. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 13(4), 286-294, 2020. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ 20479700.2017.1404730
  24. P. Ishtiaq, S. A. Khan and M. U. Haq, A multi-criteria decision-making approach to rank supplier selection criteria for hospital waste management: A case from Pakistan. Waste Management & Research, 36(4), 386-394,2018.https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X1875589 4
  25. N. Pourghahreman and A. Qhatari, Supplier selection in an agent based pharmaceutical supply chain: An application of TOPSIS and PROMETHEE Π. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 3(3), 231-240,2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2015.4.001
  26. A. Alinezad, A., A. Seif and N. Esfandiari, Supplier evaluation and selection with QFD and FAHP in a pharmaceutical company. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 68(1–4), 355–364,2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-0134733-3
  27. I. Badi and M. Ballem, Supplier selection using the rough BWM-MAIRCA model: A case study in pharmaceutical supplying in Libya. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(2), 16–33,2018.https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1802016b
  28. D. Pramanik, S. C. Mondal and A. Haldar, Resilient supplier selection to mitigate uncertainty: Soft-computing approach. J. Model. Manag, 15, 1339–1361, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-01-2019-0027
  29. L. Xiong, S. Zhong, S. Liu, X. Zhang and Y. Li, An Approach for Resilient-Green Supplier Selection Based on WASPAS, BWM, and TOPSIS under Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Math. Probl. Eng., 1–18, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1761893
  30. M. Hasan, D. Jiang, A. S. Ullah, N. E. Alam, Resilient supplier selection in logistics 4.0 with heterogeneous information. Expert Syst. Appl., 139, 112799, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.07.016
  31. A. Mohammed, Towards ‘gresilient’ supply chain management: A quantitative study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155, 104641, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec. 2019.104641
  32. A. Z. Piprani, N. I. Jaafar and S. M. Ali, Prioritizing resilient capability factors of dealing with supply chain disruptions: An analytical hierarchy process (AHP) application in the textile industry. Benchmarking Int. J., 27, 2537–2563, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2019-0111
  33. S. V. Parkouhi, A. S. Ghadikolaei and H. F. Lajimi, Resilient supplier selection and segmentation in grey environment. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 1123–1137, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.007
  34. R. Davoudabadi, S. M. Mousav and E. Sharifiba, An integrated weighting and ranking model based on entropy, DEA and PCA considering two aggregation approaches for resilient supplier selection problem. J. Comput. Sci. 40, 101074, 2020. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j. jocs. 2019.101074
  35. A. Amindoust, A resilient-sustainable based supplier selection model using a hybrid. Comput. Ind. Eng., 126, 122–135,2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.09. 031
  36. D. Pramanik, A. Haldar, S. C. Mondal, S. K. Naskar and A. Ray. Resilient supplier selection using AHP-TOPSIS-QFD under a fuzzy environment. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag., 12, 1–10, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17509653. 2015. 1101719
  37. S. PrasannaVenkatesan and M. Goh, Multi-objective supplier selection and order allocation under disruption risk. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 95, 124-142, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.09.005
  38. A. K. Sahu, S. Datta and S. Mahapatra, Evaluation and selection of resilient suppliers in fuzzy environment Exploration of Fuzzy VIKOR. Benchmarking Int. J., 23, 651–673, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2014-0109
  39. A. Haldar, A. Ray, D. Banerjee and S. Ghosh, A hybrid MCDM model for resilient supplier selection. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag., 7, 284–292, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2012.10671234
  40. S. Vinodh, R. Anesh Ramiya and S. Gautham, Application of fuzzy analytic network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organization. Expert Syst. Appl., 38, 272–280, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.057
  41. A. Kumar, V. Jain and S. Kumar, A comprehensive environment friendly approach for supplier selection. Omega 42, 1, 109–123, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2013.04.003
  42. R. J. Gırubha and S. Vinodh, Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis for material selection of an automotive component, Materials & Design, 37, 478-486, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.matdes.2012.01.022
  43. X. Sang and X. Liu, An interval type-2 fuzzy sets-based TODIM method and its application to green supplier selection. J Oper Res Soc 67, 5, 722–734, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2015.86
  44. H. Shabanpour H, S. Yousef and R. F. Saen, Future planning for benchmarking and ranking sustainable suppliers using goal programming and robust double frontiers DEA. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 50, 129–143, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.10. 022
  45. C. M. Su, D. J. Horng, M. L. Tseng, A. S. Chiu, K. J. Wu and H. P. Chen, Improving sustainable supply chain management using a novel hierarchical grey-DEMATEL approach. J Clean Prod 134, 469–481, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.080
  46. A. Fallahpour, E. U. Olugu, S. N. Musa, K. Y. Wong and S. Noori, A decision support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply chain management. Comput Ind Eng 105, 391–410, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.01.005
  47. S. Luthra, K. Govindan, D. Kannan, S. K. Mangla and C. P. Garg, An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J Clean Prod 140, 1686–1698, 2017. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.jclepro. 2016.09.078
  48. W. Song, Z. Xu and H. C. Liu, Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for solar air-conditioner manufacturer: An integrated approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79, 1461–1471, 2017. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.081
  49. M. Abdel-Basset, G. Manogaran, A. Gamal and F. Smarandache, A hybrid approach of neutrosophic sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Design Automation for Embedded Systems, 22, 3, 257-278, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10617-018-9203-6
  50. A. Awasthi, K. Govindan and S. Gold, Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int J Prod Econ 195, 106–117, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10. 013
  51. A. Azimifard, S. H. Moosavirad and S. Ariafar, Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran’s steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resour Policy 57, 30–44, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.01.002
  52. H. Lu, S. Jiang, W. Song and X. Ming, A Rough Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection under Vague Environment. Sustainability 10, 8, 2622, 2018. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su10082622
  53. Y. Song and G. Li, A large-scale group decision-making with incomplete multi-granular probabilistic linguistic term sets and its application in sustainable supplier selection. J Oper Res Soc 1–15, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2018.1458017
  54. S. A. R. Khan, Y. Zhang, M. Anees, H. Golpîra, A. Lahmar and D. Qianli, Green supply chain management, economic growth and environment: A GMM based evidence. J Clean Prod 185, 588–599, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.226
  55. M. Abdel -Baset, V. Chang, A. Gamal and F. Smarandache, An integrated neutrosophic ANP and VIKOR method for achieving sustainable supplier selection: A case study in importing feld. Comput Ind 106, 94–110, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind. 2018.12.017
  56. R. Alikhani, S. A. Torabi and N. Altay, Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria. Int J Prod Econ 208, 69–82, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe. 2018.11.018
  57. K. Rashidi and K. Cullinane, A comparison of fuzzy DEA and fuzzy TOPSIS in sustainable supplier selection: Implications for sourcing strategy. Expert Syst Appl 121, 266–281, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eswa.2018.12.025
  58. L. Fei, Y. Deng and Y. Hu, DS-VIKOR: A new multi-criteria decision-making method for supplier selection. Int J Fuzzy Syst 21, 1, 157–175, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0543-y
  59. S. H. Zolfani and P. Chatterjee, Comparative evaluation of sustainable design based on Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) and Best Worst Method (BWM) methods: a perspective on household furnishing materials. Symmetry 11, 1, 74, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11010074
  60. N. Jain, A. R. Singh and R. K. Upadhyay, Sustainable supplier selection under attractive criteria through FIS and integrated fuzzy MCDM techniques. Int J Sustain Eng, 1–22, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038. 2020.1737751
  61. B. D. Rouyendegh, A. Yildizbasi and P. Üstünyer, Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection problem. Soft Comput 24,3,2215–2228,2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04054-8
  62. T. C. Wen, K. H. Chang and H. H. Lai, Integrating the 2-tuple linguistic representation and soft set to solve supplier selection problems with incomplete information. Eng Appl Artif Intell 87,103248, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103248
  63. F. Ecer and D. Pamucar, Sustainable supplier selection: A novel integrated fuzzy best worst method (F-BWM) and fuzzy CoCoSo with Bonferroni (CoCoSo’B) multi-criteria model. J Clean Prod 266, 121981. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121981
  64. M. Yazdani, P. Chatterjee and A. E. Torkayesh, An Integrated AHPQFD-Based Compromise Ranking Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection. In Handbook of Research on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Decision Making for Sustainable supply chains, 32–54, IGI Globa, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9570-0
  65. M. Yazdani, P. Zarate, E. Kazimieras Zavadskas and Z. Turskis, A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Manag Decis 57, 9, 2501–2519, 2019. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458
  66. D. Stanujkic, D. Karabasevic and E. K. Zavadskas, A framework for the selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA method, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 26, 2, 181-187, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.2.8820
  67. A. Özbek, Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve Excel ile problem çözümü, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 3. Baskı, Ankara, 2021.
  68. S. Chakraborty and E.K. Zavadskas, Applications of WASPAS method in manufacturing decision making, Informatica, 25, 1, 1–20, 2014.
  69. V. Keršulienė and Z. Turskis, Integrated Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making Model For Architect Selection, Technological And Economic Development Of Economy, 17,4, 645-666, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.635718
  70. A. Özbek ve E. Erol, AHS ve SWARA Yöntemleri İle Yem Sektöründe İş Sağlığı Ve Güvenliği Kriterlerinin Ağırlıklandırılması, AKÜ İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 2, 51-66, 2018. https://doi.org/ 10.33707/ akuiibfd.451969
  71. A. Özbek, BİST'te İşlem Gören Faktoring Şirketlerinin Mali Yapılarının Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemleri İle Değerlendirilmesi, Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F Yönetim Ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 25, 1, 29-53, 2018a. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.306188
  72. A. Özbek, Fortune 500 Listesinde Yer Alan Lojistik Firmaların Değerlendirilmesi, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 1, 13-26, 2018b.
  73. S. H. Zolfani, E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis, Design Of Products With Both International And Local Perspectives Based On Yin-Yang Balance Theory And SWARA Method, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 26,2, 153-166, 2013. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ 1331677X.2013.11517613
  74. M. Alimardani, S. Hashemkhani Zolfani, M. H. Aghdaie and J. Tamošaitienė, A novel hybrid SWARA and VIKOR methodology for supplier selection in an agile environment. Technological and economic development of economy, 19, 3, 533-548, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.814606
  75. E. A. Adalı ve A. T. Işık, Bir Tedarikçi Seçim Problemi için SWARA ve WASPAS Yöntemlerine Dayanan Karar Verme Yaklaşımı, International Review of Economics and Management, 5,4, 56-77, 2017. https://doi.org/10.18825/iremjournal.335408
  76. J. Heidary Dahooie, E. Beheshti Jazan Abadi, A. S. Vanaki and H. R. Firoozfar, Competency‐based IT personnel selection using a hybrid SWARA and ARAS‐G methodology. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 28, 1, 5-16, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20713
  77. E. Çakır, Kentsel Dönüşüm Kapsamında Müteahhit Firmanın SWARA–Gri İlişkisel Analiz Yöntemiyle Seçilmesi, The Journal Of International Scientific Researches, 2, 6, 79-95, 2017.
  78. D. Karabaševıć, D. Stanujkıć, S. Uroševıć and M. Maksımović, An Approach To Personnels Election Based On SWARA And WASPAS Methods, Bizinfo (Blace) Journal Of Economics, Management and Informatics, 7, 1, 1-11, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5937/ bizinfo1601001K
  79. S. H. Zolfani and S. S. A. Banıhashemı, Personnel Selection Based On A Novel Model Of Game Theory And MCDM Approaches, In Proc Of 8th International Scientific Conference Business And Management, 191-198, 2014. https://doi.org/10.3846/bm.2014.024
  80. A. Özbek ve İ. Demirkol, Lojistik sektöründe faaliyet gösteren işletmelerin SWARA ve GİA yöntemleri ile analizi. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8, 1, 71-86, 2018.
  81. S. H Zolfani, M. H. Aghdaıe, A. Derakhtı, E. K. Zavadskas and M. H. M. Varzandeh, Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hyrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert systems with applications, 40, 17, 7111-7121, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013. 06.040
  82. A. Ruzgys, R. Volvačiovas, Čignatavičius amd Z. Turskis, Integrated evaluation of external wall insulation in residential buildings using SWARATODIM MCDM method. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20, 1, 103-110, 2014. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013.843585
  83. M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat ve Z. Turskis, Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26,3, 435-451, 2015.
  84. A. Özbek, Türkiye’deki İllerin EDAS ve WASPAS Yöntemleri İle Yaşanabilirlik Kriterlerine Göre Sıralanması, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9, 1, 2019.
  85. S. Lashgari, J. Antuchevičienė, A. Delavari and O. Kheirkhah, Using QSPM and WASPAS methods for determining outsourcing strategies, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15, 4, 729-743, 2014. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2014.908789
  86. E. K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, J. Šaparauskas and Z. Turskis, Multi-criteria assessment of facades’ alternatives: Peculiarities of ranking methodology, Procedia Engineering 57, 107–112, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.016
  87. Z. Turskis, E. K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene and N. Kosareva, A hybrid model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 10, 6, 113-128, 2015.
  88. M. K. Ghorabaee, E. K. Zavadskas, M. Amiri and A. Esmaeili, Multi-criteria evaluation of green suppliers using an extended WASPAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 213-229, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016. 07.031
  89. G. Stojić, Ž. Stevıć, J. Antuchevıčıenė, D. Pamučar and M. Vasıljevıć, A Novel Rough WASPAS Approach for Supplier Selection in a Company Manufacturing PVC Carpentry Products. Information, 9, 5, 121, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info9050121
  90. T. Dėjus and J. Antuchevıčıenė, Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19, 5, 728-737, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013.812578
  91. P. Karande, E.K. Zavadskas and S. Chakraborty, A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 7, 3, 399-42, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2016.1.001
  92. V. G. Venkatesh., R. Dubey, P. Joy, M. Thomas, V. Vijeesh and A. Moosa, Supplier selection in blood bags manufacturing industry using TOPSIS model. International Journal of Operational Research, 24(4), 461, 2015.
  93. M. Palanisamy and R. Ranganathan, An Efficient supplier selection Model for Hospital Pharmacy through Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Services and Operations Management 33(4), 468-493,2019.
  94. A. Forghani, S. J. Sadjadi, ans B. Farhang Moghadam, B., A supplier selection model in pharmaceutical supply chain using PCA, Z-TOPSIS and MILP: A case study. PloS one, 13(8), 2018. e0201604. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0201604
  95. K. Kirytopoulos, V. Leopoulos and D. Voulgaridou, Supplier selection in pharmaceutical industry. Benchmarking:An International Journal, 15(4), 494–516,2008.https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770810887267
  96. C. I. Enyinda, E. Dunu and J. Bell-Hanyes, A model for quantifying strategic supplier selection: Evidence from a generic pharmaceutical firm supply chain. International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences, 3(2), 25–44, 2010.
  97. B. E. Rouyendegh and T. E. Saputro, Supplier selection using integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP: A case study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 116, 3957–3970, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro. 2014. 01.874
  98. E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene and A. Zakarevicius, Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3-6, 2012. https://doi.org/ 10.5755/ j01.eee.122.6.1810
  99. Y. R. Kahraman, Robust sensitivity analysis for multi-attribute deterministic hierarchical value models. Air Force Inst of Tech Wright-Patterson afb OH, 2002.