Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT STUDIES:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Published: 2020-03-25

EVALUATION OF TRAVEL AGENCIES WHO SELL ONLINE WITH AHP-GRAY RELATIVE ANALYSIS AND AHP-WASPAS METHODS

Doct. Student, Pamukkale University
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Pamukkale University
AHP, GRA, WASPAS, Travel Agencies

Abstract

Today, with the increase in electronic commerce, most of the consumers are interested in hotels, tours, transportation, etc. prefers travel agencies' websites to make purchases. In this context, AHP, Gray Relational Analysis and WASPAS of multi-criteria decision making methods were used in order to determine the best travel agency. The criteria used to evaluate five alternative agencies are payment options, number of themes, number of complaints, number of contracted banks, duration of activity, number of branches, current campaign opportunities and number of destinations. The weights of the criteria were determined by AHP method. The most important criteria is number of themes. Then, according to the weight of these criteria, travel agencies were evaluated by GRA and WASPAS methods and the most appropriate agency was selected.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Adalı, E. A., & Işık, A. T. (2017). Bir Tedarikçi Seçim Problemi İçin SWARA ve WASPAS Yöntemlerine Dayanan Karar Verme Yaklaşımı. International Review of Economics and Management, 5 (4), 56-77.
  2. Aghdaie, M. H., Zolfani, S. H., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2014). Sales Branches Performance Evaluation: A Multiple Attribute Decision Making Approach. 8th International Scientific Conference Business and Management 2014, (s. 1-7). Lithuania.
  3. Akçakanat, Ö., Eren, H., Aksoy, E., & Ömürbek, V. (2017). Bankacılık Sektöründe Entropi ve WASPAS Yöntemleri ile Performans Değerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22 (2), 285-300.
  4. Bağcı, H., & Yiğiter, Ş. Y. (2019). Bist’te Yer Alan Enerji Şirketlerinin Finansal Performansının Sd ve Waspas Yöntemleriyle Ölçülmesi. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9 (18), 877-900.
  5. Bayrak, H. (2019, 02 6). Dijilopedi. 09 24, 2019 tarihinde www.dijilopedi.com: https://dijilopedi.com/2019-turkiye-internet-kullanim-ve-sosyal-medya-istatistikleri/ adresinden alındı
  6. Biswas, P., Pramanik, S., & Giri, B. C. (2014). Entropy Based Grey Relational Analysis Method for Multi-Attribute Decision Making under Single Valued Neutrosophic Assessments. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 2, 105-113.
  7. Camelia, D., Emil, S., & Liviu-Adrian, C. (2013). Grey Relational Analysis of the Financial Sector in Europe. The Journal of Grey System, 25 (4), 19-30.
  8. Chakraborty, S., Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2015). Applications of WASPAS Method as a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Tool. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics and Research/ Academy of Economic Studies, 49 (1), 5-22.
  9. Çakır, E., & Akel, G. (2017). Evaluation of Service Quality of Hotel and Holiday Reservation Web Sites in Turkey by Integrated Swara- Gray Relationship Analysis Method. Global Business Research Congress (GBRC).3, s. 81-95. İstanbul: PressAcademia Procedia.
  10. Jayakrishna, K., & Vinodh, S. (2017). Application of Grey Relational Analysis for Material and End of Life Strategy Selection with Multiple Criteria. International Journal of Materials Engineering Innovation, 8, 250-272.
  11. Ju-Long, D. (1982). Control Problems of Grey Systems. Systems & Control Letters, 1 (5), 288-294.
  12. Ju-Long, D. (1989). Introduction to Grey System Theory. The Journal of Grey System, 1 (1), 1-24.
  13. Kabir, G., & Hasin, M. (2012). Comparative Analysis Of TOPSIS and FUZZY TOPSIS for the Evaluation of Travel Website Service Quality. International Journal for Quality Research, 6 (3), 169-185.
  14. Karaatlı, M., Ömürbek, N., Aksoy, E., & Karakuzu, H. (2014). Turizm İşletmeleri İçin AHP Temelli Bulanık TOPSIS Yönetimi ileTur Operatörü Seçimi. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 14 (2), 53-70.
  15. Karaca, C., & Ulutaş, A. (2018). Entropi ve Waspas Yöntemleri Kullanılarak Türkiye için Uygun Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynağının Seçimi. Ege Akademik Bakış, 18 (3), 483-494.
  16. Karim, R., & Karmaker, C. (2016). Machine Selection by AHP and TOPSIS Methods. American Journal of Industrial Engineering, 4 (1), 7-13.
  17. Kose, E., Aplak, H. S., & Kabak, M. (2013). Personel Seçimi için Gri Sistem Teori Tabanlı Bütünleşik Bir Yaklaşım. Ege Academıc Revıew, 13 (4), 461-471.
  18. Lee, C.-C., Chiang, C., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2009). The Evaluation of Travel Website Service Quality by Fuzzy MCDM. In Proceedings of 17th Fuzzy Theory and Its Applications Symposium, (s. 18-19).
  19. Lee, W.-S., & Lin, Y.-C. (2011). Evaluating and Ranking Energy Performance of Office Buildings Using Grey Relational Analysis. Energy, 36 (5), 2551-2556.
  20. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156 (2), 445-455.
  21. Özdağoğlu, A., Gümüş, Y., Özdağoğlu, G., & Gümüş, G. K. (2017). Evaluating Financial Performance with Grey Relational Analysis: An Application of Manufacturing Companies Listed on Borsa İstanbul. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi (73), 289-312.
  22. Özgüven, N. (2012). Promethee Sıralama Yöntemi ile Özel Alışveriş Siteleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (27), 195-201.
  23. Peker, İ., & Baki, B. (2011). Gri İlişkisel Analiz Yöntemiyle Türk Sigortacılık Sektöründe Performans Ölçümü. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies (7), 1-18.
  24. Perçin, S., & Bektash, E. (2018). Turizm Şirketlerinin Hizmet Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi: Trabzon İli Örneği. Anadolu İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 2 (1), 1-23.
  25. Persia, M. A., & Gitelson, R. J. (1993). The Difference Among Travel Agency Users in the Importance Ratings of Agency Service Features. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 1 (4), 77-97.
  26. Pohekar, S. D., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making to Sustainable Energy Planning-A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8 (4), 356-381.
  27. Roy, J., Sharma, H. K., Kar, S., Zavadskas, E. K., & Saparauskas, J. (2019). An Extended COPRAS Model for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems and Its Application in Web-Based Hotel Evaluation and Selection. Economic Research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 32 (1), 219-253.
  28. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision Making With The Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1 (1), 83-98.
  29. Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory And Applications Of The Analytic Network Process: Decision Making With Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, And Risks. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
  30. Saaty, T. L. (1988). What is The Analytic Hierarchy Process ? G. Mitra, H. J. Greenberg, F. A. Lootsma, M. J. Rijkaert, H. J. Zimmermann, & G. Mitra (Dü.) içinde, Mathematical Models for Decision Support (Cilt 48, s. 109-121). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  31. Sarıçalı, G., & Kundakcı, N. (2016). AHP ve COPRAS Yöntemleri ile Otel Alternatiflerinin Değerlendirilmesi. International Review of Economics and Management, 4 (1), 45-66.
  32. Soleymaninejad, M., Shadifar, M., & Karimi, A. (2016). Evaluation of Two Major Online Travel Agencies of Us Using TOPSIS Method. Digit. Technol, 2 (1), 1-8.
  33. Supçiller, A. A., & Çapraz, O. (2011). AHP-TOPSIS Yöntemine Dayalı Tedarikçi Seçimi Uygulaması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi (13), 1-22.
  34. Şahin, B., & Cıbıt, Ö. (2016). Mobil Pazarlama ve Online Alışveriş İlişkisine Yönelik Tüketici Algıları: Seyahat Acentası Müşterilerine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. 9 (44), s. 1221-1231.
  35. Şikayetvar. (2019, 04 30). 04 30, 2019 tarihinde www.sikayetvar.com: https://www.sikayetvar.com/ adresinden alındı
  36. Tayalı, H. A. (2017). Tedarikçi Seçiminde WASPAS Yöntemi. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5 (47), 368-380.
  37. Tayyar, N., Akcanlı, F., Genç, E., & Erem, I. (2014). BİST'e Kayıtlı Bilişim ve Teknoloji Alanında Faaliyet Gösteren İşletmelerin Finansal Performanslarının Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) ve Gri İlişkisel Analiz (GİA) Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi , 19-40.
  38. Turizm Gazetesi. (2016, 12 24). 09 24, 2019 tarihinde www.turizmgazetesi.com: https://www.turizmgazetesi.com/news.aspx?id=82191 adresinden alındı
  39. Urosevic, S., Karabasevic, D., Stanujkic, D., & Maksimovic, M. (2017). An Approach to Personnel Selection in the Tourism Industry Based on The SWARA and The WASPAS Methods. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 51 (1), 75-88.
  40. Uygurtürk, H., & Korkmaz, T. (2015). Türkiye'deki A Grubu Seyahat Acentalarının Tercih Sıralamasının PROMETHEE Yöntemi ile Belirlenmesi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 6 (2), 141-155.
  41. Wu, H.-H. (2002). A Comparative Study of Using Grey Relational Analysis in Multiple Attribute Decision Making Problems. Quality Engineering, 15 (2), 209-217.
  42. Xiao, X.-C., Wang, X.-Q., Fu, K.-Y., & Zhao, Y.-J. (2012). Grey Relational Analysis on Factors of the Quality of Web Service. Physics Procedia (33), 1992-1998.
  43. Yıldırım, B. F. (2018). Gri İlişkisel Analiz. B. F. Yıldırım, & E. Önder içinde, İşletmeciler, Mühendisler ve Yöneticiler İçin Operasyonel, Yönetsel ve Stratejik Problemlerin Çözümünde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri (s. 229-236). Bursa: Dora Basım Yayın.
  44. Yurdoğlu, H., & Kundakcı, N. (2017). SWARA ve WASPAS Yöntemleri ile Sunucu Seçimi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20 (38), 253-269.
  45. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment. Electronics and Electrical Engineering, 6 (122), 3-6.

How to Cite

TOSUN GAVCAR, C., & ORGAN, A. (2020). EVALUATION OF TRAVEL AGENCIES WHO SELL ONLINE WITH AHP-GRAY RELATIVE ANALYSIS AND AHP-WASPAS METHODS. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(1), 731-753. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i1.1405