Trans RINA, Vol 161, Part A4, Intl J Maritime Eng, Oct-Dec 2019 4.3 PRIORITIZATION OF S, W, O AND T’S


Internal and external analyzes were performed and S, W, O and T factors were determined as 10 criteria based on the most important ones with the help of literature review. After the survey conducted by 103 experts in the maritime field, 76 people received a response. In the light of the opinions of the experts, the 10 most important criteria arising from the sector that determine Turkey’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in maritime transportation have been selected and reduced to 5 main criteria. At this point, as a result of the literature review on the main SWOT factors the 10 criteria shown in Table 1 and 2 are reduced to 5 main criteria.


The initial 5 factors (The Most Powerful Strengths In Turkey’s Maritime Transportation) for the strengths are S1, S3, S4, S5 and S6.


The 5 factors (The Most Powerful Weaknesses In Turkey’s Maritime Transportation) determined by the experts for the weaknesses variables areW1, W2, W3, W4 and W5.


The 5 factors (The Most Likely Opportunities In Turkey’s Maritime Transportation) determined by the experts for the variable of opportunities are O1, O2, O4, O5 and O6.


The 5 factors (The Most Likely Threats In Turkey’s Maritime Transportation.) identified by the experts for the threat variables are T1, T3, T4, T6 and T8.


5. AHP ANALYSIS (2nd STAGE)


Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method is a mathematical method used to solve complex decision making problems with multiple criteria (Saaty, 1977). By using the AHP method, the priority levels of the factors that constitute the SWOT analysis can be determined. AHP method used in many areas and it has been used with methods such as fuzzy logic and linear programming in the problems of planning, selecting the best alternative and solving disputes (Vaidya and Kumar, 2006).


A feedback network or a reliable hierarchical structure with various types of impacts, such as stakeholders and decision alternatives, needs to be developed in AHP (Saaty, 1990).


The implementation of the AHP method consists of 5 main steps (Saaty, 1990). These steps are; hierarchical structure of the problem, creating binary comparison matrices, calculating the priority values of binary comparison matrices, calculation of consistency ratio and calculation of final priority values.


5.1


HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE PROBLEM


In this first step, the problem of research is shown by a hierarchical structure. At the top of the hierarchy the


purpose is shown, in the middle (if any, their sub-criteria) the criteria are formed and at the lowest point the alternatives are displayed. The aim here is to select the most appropriate alternative among the other alternatives. There are some points to be considered in the formation of hierarchical structure (Saaty, 1990). Hierarchical structure should represent the problem in the best way. All second factors affecting the problem also should be considered.


Binary comparison starts fromthe top of the hierarchy and square matrices, called preference matrices, are created by comparisons at each level. It is common for different experts to establish different hierarchies on the same subject (Vargas, 1990).


5.2


CREATING BINARY COMPARISON MATRICES


In the second step, comparison matrices are created. Each element in the matrix is compared in binary with the other by the decision maker. When making paired comparisons, the scale shown in Table 3 is used. The values of 2, 4, 6 and 8 in the scale are known as intermediate values.


Table 3. Scale to be used in AHP analysis (Saaty,1977) Point


Definition 1


Equal Importance


3 Moderate Importance


5 7 9


2, 4, 6, 8


Strong Importance


Very Strong Importance


Extreme Importance


Average Values Explanation


The two activities contribute equally to the purpose.


One activity is preferred to a slightly higher degree than the other.


One activity is strongly preferred over the other.


One activity is strongly preferred and its dominance is readily seen in practice.


Evidence of preference for one activity to another has a very large reliability.


Values that fall between two successive jurisdictions to use when reconciliation is required.


The evaluation phase in AHP is based on the concept of double comparison. The elements at one level of the hierarchy are compared in binary with each other according to their contribution or importance to higher- level elements. The total weight of the items at the lowest level of the hierarchy is obtained by the sum of weights found by comparing the items at a level to all the items at a higher level. If the activity in the row during the double comparison is less favourable than the activity in the column, it can be written instead of the corresponding two-sided, 1/3, 1/5, 1/7 and 1/9 in the matrix.


A-442


©2019: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166