Supplier Selection Among Different Scale Construction Companies Using Fuzzy Ahp and Fuzzy Topsis

Karabayır, Ayşe Nur; Botsalı, Ahmet Reha

doi:10.31202/ecjse.933617

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Karabayır et al [24] used multi-criteria decision-making methods for selecting the most convenient supplier for construction companies. Fuzzy AHP was used for the calculation of decision criteria weights, and then Fuzzy TOPSIS was applied for ranking the alternatives.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acer et al [23] studied the selection of field operation personnel for a port by using AHP and MOORA, two MCDM methods. Karabayır et al [24] used Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS for selecting the most convenient supplier for construction companies. Uluskan et al [25] studied supplier selection of a public institution operating in the railway industry with the help of fuzzy AHP.…”

Section: Table 25 Final Priority Values For Company C's Candidatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Site Supervisor Selection With Analytic Hierarchy Process (Ahp) and Case Study

Bülbül,

Kanıt

2024

KONJES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to develop a methodology for the selection of site supervisors for construction companies carrying out medium-sized building construction works. For this purpose, 3 construction companies were interviewed and the developed method was used for the site supervisor selection of these companies. In this context, 4 candidates who applied to Company A were given scores by the company official according to the selection criteria used in this study and analyses were made with AHP. Candidate 3 ranked first with a priority value of 26.57%. This result was compared with the results of the simultaneous selection by the company using its own method and it was seen that the company selected the same candidate. Same procedure was used for companies B and C. Three different candidates had applied to each company. According to the results, Candidate 3 was selected by Company B with a priority value of 37.52% and Candidate 1 was selected by Company C with a priority value of 35.87%. It was observed that the selection results of both companies carried out simultaneously with their own methods were the same with the candidates found in the study.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Table 25 Final Priority Values For Company C's Candidatesmentioning

confidence: 99%