Development of a Novel Integrated CCSD-ITARA-MARCOS Decision-Making Approach for Stackers Selection in a Logistics System

Uluta¸s, Alptekin and Karabasevic, Darjan and Popovic, Gabrijela and Stanujkic, Dragisa and Thanh Nguyen, Phong and Karaköy, Ça˘gatay (2020): Development of a Novel Integrated CCSD-ITARA-MARCOS Decision-Making Approach for Stackers Selection in a Logistics System. Published in: Mathematics , Vol. 1672, No. 08 (1 October 2020): 01-15.

Abstract

The main goal of this paper is to propose a Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach that will facilitate decision-making in the field of logistics—i.e., in the selection of the optimal equipment for performing a logistics activity. For defining the objective weights of the criteria, the correlation coefficient and the standard deviation (CCSD method) are applied. Furthermore, for determining the semi-objective weights of the considered criteria, the indifference threshold-based attribute ratio analysis method (ITARA) is used. In this way, by combining these two methods, the weights of the criteria are determined with a higher degree of reliability. For the final ranking of the alternatives, the measurement of alternatives and ranking according to the compromise solution method (MARCOS) is utilized. For demonstrating the applicability of the proposed approach, an illustrative case study pointing to the selection of the best manual stacker for a small warehouse is performed. The final results are compared with the ones obtained using the other proved MCDM methods that confirmed the reliability and stability of the proposed approach. The proposed integrated approach shows itself as a suitable technique for applying in the process of logistics equipment selection, because it defines the most influential criteria and the optimal choice with regard to all of them in a relatively easy and comprehensive way. Additionally, conceiving the determination of the criteria with the combination of objective and semi-objective methods enables defining the objective weights concerning the attitudes of the involved decision-makers, which finally leads to more reliable results

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: MCDM; the CCSD method; the ITARA method; the MARCOS method; stackers; logistics
• Subjects: L - Industrial Organization > L6 - Industry Studies: Manufacturing; L - Industrial Organization > L6 - Industry Studies: Manufacturing > L62 - Automobiles ; Other Transportation Equipment ; Related Parts and Equipment; M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M1 - Business Administration > M11 - Production Management

References

1. Tadi´c, S.; Zeˇcevi´c, S.; Petrovi´c-Vujaˇci´c, J. Global trends and logistics development. Ekon. Vidici 2013, 18, 519–532.

2. Mohsen; Hassan, M.D. A framework for selection of material handling equipment in manufacturing and logistics facilities. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2010, 21, 246–268.

3. Tuzkaya, G.; Gülsün, B.; Kahraman, C.; Özgen, D. An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an application. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 2853–2863.

4. Tabucanon, M.T.; Batanov, D.N.; Verma, D.K. Decision support system for multicriteria machine selection for flexible manufacturing systems. Comput. Ind. 1994, 25, 131–143.

5. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Stevi´c, Ž.; Mardani, A. Modelling procedure for the selection of steel pipes supplier by applying fuzzy AHP method. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl. 2020, 39–53.

6. Ðali´c, I.; Stevi´c, Ž.; Karamasa, C.; Puška, A. A novel integrated fuzzy PIPRECIA–interval rough SAW model: Green supplier selection. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2020, 3, 126–145.

7. Wang, Y.M.; Luo, Y. Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Math. Comput. Model. 2010, 51, 1–12.

8. Hatefi, M.A. Indifference threshold-based attribute ratio analysis: A method for assigning the weights to the attributes in multiple attribute decision making. Appl. Soft Comput. 2019, 74, 643–651.

9. Stevi´c, Ž.; Pamuˇcar, D.; Puška, A.; Chatterjee, 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. 2020, 140, 106231.

10. Popovic, G.; Stanujkic, D.; Brzakovic, M.; Karabasevic, D. A multiple-criteria decision-making model for the selection of a hotel location. Land Use Policy 2019, 84, 49–58.

11. Karabaševi´c, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Stanujkic, D.; Popovic, G.; Brzakovic, M. An Approach to Personnel Selection in the IT Industry Based on the EDAS Method. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2018, 17, 54–65.Mathematics 2020, 8, 1672 13 of 15

12. Stanujkic, D.; Karabasevic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K. A New Approach for Selecting Alternatives Based on the Adapted Weighted Sum and the SWARA Methods: A Case of Personnel Selection. Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 2017, 51, 39–56. 13. Hansson, S.O.; Hadorn, G.H. Argument-based decision support for risk analysis. J. Risk Res. 2018, 21, 1449–1464.

14. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Kildiene, S. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM ˙ /MADM methods. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2014, 20, 165–179.

15. Stanujkic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Liu, S.; Karabasevic, D.; Popovic, G. Improved OCRA method based on the use of interval grey numbers. J. Grey Syst. 2017, 29, 49–60.

16. Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; Valipour, A. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications–a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2015, 28, 516–571.

17. Popovic, G.; Stanujkic, D.; Karabasevic, D. A framework for the evaluation of hotel property development projects. Int. J. Strat. Prop. Manag. 2019, 23, 96–107.

18. Bakir, M.; Akan, ¸S.; Kiraci, K.; Karabasevic, D.; Stanujkic, D.; Popovic, G. Multiple-Criteria Approach of the Operational Performance Evaluation in the Airline Industry: Evidence from the Emerging Markets. Rom. J. Econ. Forecast. 2020, 23, 149.

19. Stanujkic, D.; Karabasevic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Smarandache, F.; Brauers, W.K. A bipolar fuzzy extension of the MULTIMOORA method. Informatica 2019, 30, 135–152.

20. Karabasevic, D.; Maksimovic, M.; Stanujkic, D.; Brzakovic, P.; Brzakovic, M. The evaluation of websites in the textile industry by applying ISO/IEC 9126-4 standard and the EDAS method. Ind. Text. 2018, 69, 489– 494.

21. Churchman, C.W.; Ackoff, R.L. An approximate measure of value. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Am. 1954, 2, 172–187.

22. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980.

23. Saaty, T.L. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: Analytic Networkprocess; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1996.

24. Roy, B. Multicriteria for Decision Aiding; Kluwer: London, UK, 1996.

25. Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P. A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Manag. Sci. 1985, 31, 647–656.

26. Yoon, K.P.; Hwang, C.L. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995; Volume 104.

27. Opricovic, S. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems; Faculty of Civil Engineering: Belgrade, Serbia, 1998.

28. Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Sarka, V. The new method of multi-criteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Techological Econ. Dev. Econ. 1994, 1, 131–139.

29. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 16, 159–172.

30. Brauers, W.K.; Zavadskas, E.K. The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern. 2006, 35, 445–469.

31. Brauers, W.K.M.; Zavadskas, E.K. Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 16, 5–24.

32. Keršuliene, V.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2010, 11, 243–258.

33. Stanujkic, D.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Karabasevic, D.; Smarandache, F.; Turskis, Z. The use of Pivot Pair-wise Relative Criteria Importance Assessment method for determining weights of criteria. Rom. J. Econ. Forecast. 2017, 20, 116–133.

34. Gigovi´c, L.; Pamuˇcar, D.; Baji´c, Z.; Mili´cevi´c, M. The combination of expert judgment and GIS-MAIRCA analysis for the selection of sites for ammunition depots. Sustainability 2016, 8, 372.

35. Pamuˇcar, D.; Stevi´c, Ž.; Sremac, S. A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in mcdm models: Full consistency method (FUCOM). Symmetry 2018, 10, 393.

36. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Olfat, L.; Turskis, Z. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica 2015, 26, 435–451.

37. Yazdani, M.; Zarate, P.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 2501–2519.

38. Wadhwa, S.; Madaan, J.; Chan, F.T.S. Flexible decision modeling of reverse logistics system: A value adding MCDM approach for alternative selection. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2009, 25, 460–469.

39. Prakash, C.; Barua, M.K. A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-party reverse logistics partner for Indian electronics industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2016, 7, 66–78.

40. Wang, H.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Li, Y. An integrated MCDM approach considering demands-matching for reverse logistics. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 199–210.

41. Zak, J.; W˛egli´nski, S. The selection of the logistics center location based on MCDM ˙ /A methodology. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 3, 555–564.

42. Mihajlovi´c, J.; Rajkovi´c, P.; Petrovi´c, G.; Ciri´c, D. The selection of the logistics distribution center location ´ based on MCDM methodology in southern and eastern region in Serbia. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl.2019, 2, 72–85.

43. Celik, E.; Gumus, A.T.; Alegoz, M. A trapezoidal type-2 fuzzy MCDM method to identify and evaluate critical success factors for humanitarian relief logistics management. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 27, 2847–2855.

44. Budak, A.; Kaya, I.; Kara¸san, A.; Erdo˘gan, M. Real-time location systems selection by using a fuzzy MCDM ˙ approach: An application in humanitarian relief logistics. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 92.

45. Aguezzoul, A. Third-party logistics selection problem: A literature review on criteria and methods. Omega 2014, 49, 69–78.

46. Jamshidi, A.; Jamshidi, F.; Ait-Kadi, D.; Ramudhin, A. A review of priority criteria and decision-making methods applied in selection of sustainable city logistics initiatives and collaboration partners. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 5175–5193.

47. Mathew, M.; Sahu, S. Comparison of new multi-criteria decision making methods for material handling equipment selection. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2018, 8, 139–150.

48. Khandekar, A.V.; Chakraborty, S. Selection of material handling equipment using fuzzy axiomatic design principles. Informatica 2015, 26, 259–282.

49. Hadi-Vencheh, A.; Mohamadghasemi, A. A new hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for solving the material handling equipment selection problem. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2015, 28, 534–550.

50. Eko Saputro, T.; Daneshvar Rouyendegh, B. A hybrid approach for selecting material handling equipment in a warehouse. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2016, 11, 34–48.

51. Singh, R.K.; Benyoucef, L. A consensus based group decision making methodology for strategic selection problems of supply chain coordination. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2013, 26, 122–134.

52. Hanane, A.; Brahim, O.; Bouchra, F. CCSD and TOPSIS methodology for selecting supplier in a paper company. In Proceedings of the 2016 4th IEEE International Colloquium on Information Science and Technology (CiSt), Tangier, Morocco, 24–26 October 2016; pp. 275–280.

53. Dahooie, J.H.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Firoozfar, H.R.; Vanaki, A.S.; Mohammadi, N.; Brauers, W.K.M. An improved fuzzy MULTIMOORA approach for multi-criteria decision making based on objective weighting method (CCSD) and its application to technological forecasting method selection. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2019, 79, 114–128.

54. Heidary Dahooie, J.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Vanaki, A.S.; Firoozfar, H.R.; Lari, M.; Turskis, Z. A new evaluation model for corporate financial performance using integrated CCSD and FCM-ARAS approach. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2019, 32, 1088–1113.

55. Kim, I.; Park, K.; Lee, K.; Park, M.; Lim, H.; Shin, H.; Kim, S.D. Application of various cytotoxic endpoints for the toxicity prioritization of fine dust (PM2.5) sources using a multi-criteria decision-making approach. Environ. Geochem. Health 2019, 42, 1775–1788.

56. Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple Attribute Decision Making; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981; pp. 58–191.

57. Zavadskas, E.K.; Podvezko, V. Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2016, 15, 267–283.

58. Puška, A.; Stojanovi´c, I.; Maksimovi´c, A.; Osmanovi´c, N. Evaluation software of project management used measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) method. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl. 2020, 3, 89–102.

59. Badi, I.; Pamucar, D. Supplier selection for steelmaking company by using combined Grey-MARCOS methods. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2020, 3, 37–48.

60. Stevi´c, Ž.; Brkovi´c, N. A Novel Integrated FUCOM-MARCOS Model for Evaluation of Human Resources in a Transport Company. Logistics 2020, 4, 4.

61. Stankovi´c, M.; Stevi´c, Ž.; Das, D.K.; Suboti´c, M.; Pamuˇcar, D. A new fuzzy MARCOS method for road traffic risk analysis. Mathematics 2020, 8, 457.

62. Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Antucheviciene, J.; Zakarevicius, A. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika Ir Elektrotechnika 2012, 122, 3–6.

63. Deng, J. Control problems of grey systems. Syst. Control Lett. 1982, 1, 288–294.