10.22190/FUME210130048K

381

399

Decision-making processes increasingly use models based on various methods to ensure professional analysis and evaluation of the considered alternatives. However, the abundance of these methods makes it difficult to choose the proper method to solve a given problem. Also, it is worth noting whether different results can be obtained using different methods within a single decision problem. In this paper, we used three selected Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods called COMET, TOPSIS, and SPOTIS in order to examine how the obtained rankings vary. The selection of material suppliers was taken into consideration. The equal weights, entropy and standard deviation methods were used to determine the weights for criteria. Final preferences values were then compared with the WS similarity coefficient and weighted Spearman correlation coefficient to check the similarity of the received rankings. It was noticed that in the given problem, all of the methods provide highly correlated results, and the obtained positional rankings are not significantly different. However, practical conclusions indicate the need to look for improved solutions in the correct and accurate assessment of suppliers in a given period.

MCDA, Supplier Selection, COMET, TOPSIS, SPOTIS

De Montis, A., De Toro, P., Droste-Franke, B., Omann, I., Stagl, S., 2000, Criteria for quality assessment of mcda methods, In 3rd Biennial Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, pp. 3-6.

Kizielewicz, B., Sałabun, W., 2020, A new approach to identifying a multi-criteria decision model based on stochastic optimization techniques, Symmetry, 12(9), 1551.

Guitouni, A., Martel, J.-M., 1998, Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate mcda method, European journal of operational research, 109(2), pp. 501-521.

Jacquet-Lagreze, E., Siskos, Y., 2001, Preference disaggregation: 20 years of mcda experience, European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), pp. 233-245.

Badi I., Pamucar D., 2020, Supplier selection for steelmaking company by using combined Grey-MARCOS methods, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), pp. 37-48.

Nutt, D. J., Phillips, L. D., Balfour, D., Curran, H. V., Dockrell, M., Foulds, J., Fagerstrom, K., Letlape, K., Milton, A., Polosa, R., Ramsey J., Sweanor D., 2014, Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the mcda approach, European addiction research, 20(5), pp. 218-225.

Kizielewicz, B., Wątróbski, J., Sałabun, W., 2020, Identification of relevant criteria set in the mcda process—wind farm location case study, Energies, 13(24), 6548.

Sałabun, W., Wątróbski, J., Shekhovtsov, A., 2020a, Are mcda methods benchmarkable? a comparative study of topsis, vikor, copras, and promethee ii methods, Symmetry, 12(9), 1549.

Shekhovtsov, A., Kołodziejczyk, J, 2020, Do distance-based multi-criteria decision analysis methods create similar rankings?, Procedia Computer Science, 176, pp. 3718-3729.

Ambrasaite, I., Barfod, M. B., Salling, K. B., 2011, Mcda and risk analysis in transport infrastructure appraisals: The rail baltica case, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 20, pp. 944-953.

Nalmpantis, D., Roukouni, A., Genitsaris, E., Stamelou, A., Naniopoulos, A., 2019, Evaluation of innovative ideas for public transport proposed by citizens using multi-criteria decision analysis (mcda), European Transport Research Review, 11(1), pp. 1-16.

Karczmarczyk, A., Wątróbski, J., Ladorucki, G., Jankowski, J., 2018, Mcda-based approach to sustainable supplier selection, In 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 769-778.

Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., Chatterjee, P., 2020, Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS), Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231.

Angelis, A., Kanavos, P., 2017, Multiple criteria decision analysis (mcda) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework, Social Science & Medicine, 188, pp. 137-156.

Goetghebeur, M. M., Wagner, M., Khoury, H., Levitt, R. J., Erickson, L. J., Rindress, D., 2012, Bridging health technology assessment (hta) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (mcda) applying the evidem framework to medicines appraisal, Medical decision making, 32(2), pp. 376-388.

Ensslin, L., Dutra, A., Ensslin, S. R., 2000, Mcda: a constructivist approach to the management of human resources at a governmental agency, International transactions in operational Research, 7(1), pp. 79-100.

Triantaphyllou, E., Baig, K., 2005, The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four mcda methods, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(2), pp. 213-226.

Huang, J, 2008, Combining entropy weight and topsis method for information system selection, In 2008 ieee conference on cybernetics and intelligent systems, pp.1281-1284.

Wang, Y.-M., Luo, Y., 2010, Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 51(1-2), pp. 1-12.

Asuero, A. G., Sayago, A., Gonzalez, A., 2006, The correlation coefficient: An overview. Critical reviews in analytical chemistry, 36(1), pp. 41-59.

Chai, J., Liu, J. N., Ngai, E. W., 2013, Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature, Expert systems with applications, 40(10), pp. 3872-3885.

Biswas, T. K., Das, M. C., 2020, Selection of the barriers of supply chain management in Indian manufacturing sectors due to COVID-19 impacts, Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(3), pp. 1-12.

Tavana, M., Yazdani, M., Di Caprio, D., 2017, An application of an integrated anp--qfd framework for sustainable supplier selection, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 20(3), pp. 254-275.

Liu, T., Deng, Y., Chan, F., 2018, Evidential supplier selection based on dematel and game theory, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20(4), pp. 1321-1333.

Zhong, L., Yao, L., 2017, An electre i-based multi-criteria group decision making method with interval type-2 fuzzy numbers and its application to supplier selection, Applied Soft Computing, 57, pp. 556-576.

Javad, M. O. M., Darvishi, M., Javad, A. O. M., 2020, Green supplier selection for the steel industry using bwm and fuzzy topsis: a case study of khouzestan steel company, Sustainable Futures, 2, 100012.

Schramm, V. B., Cabral, L. P. B., Schramm, F., 2020, Approaches for supporting sustainable supplier selection-a literature review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 123089.

Jain, V., Sangaiah, A. K., Sakhuja, S., Thoduka, N., Aggarwal, R., 2018, Supplier selection using fuzzy ahp and topsis: a case study in the indian automotive industry, Neural Computing and Applications, 29(7), pp. 555-564.

Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., Gold, S., 2018, Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy ahp-vikor based approach, International Journal of Production Economics, 195, pp.106-117.

Wan, S.-p., Xu, G.-l., Dong, J.-y., 2017, Supplier selection using anp and electre ii in interval 2-tuple linguistic environment, Information Sciences, 385, pp. 19-38.

Costa, A. S., Govindan, K., Figueira, J. R., 2018, Supplier classification in emerging economies using the electre tri-nc method: A case study considering sustainability aspects, Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, pp. 925-947.

Abdullah, L., Chan, W., Afshari, A., 2019, Application of promethee method for green supplier selection: a comparative result based on preference functions, Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 15(2), pp. 271-285.

Chai, J., Ngai, E. W., 2020, Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead, Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112903.

Ecer, F., 2020, Multi-criteria decision making for green supplier selection using interval type-2 fuzzy ahp: a case study of a home appliance manufacturer, Operational Research, pp. 1-35.

Pamucar, D., Yazdani, M., Montero-Simo, M. J., Araque-Padilla, R. A., Mohammed, A., 2021, Multi-criteria decision analysis towards robust service quality measurement, Expert Systems with Applications, 170, 114508.

Pamučar, D., Behzad, M., Božanić, D., Behzad, M., 2020, Decision making to support sustainable energy policies corresponding to agriculture sector: Case study in iran’s caspian sea coastline, Journal of Cleaner Production, 125302.

Rouyendegh, B. D., Yildizbasi, A., Üstünyer, P., 2020, Intuitionistic fuzzy topsis method for green supplier selection problem, Soft Computing, 24(3), pp. 2215-2228.

Cinelli, M., Kadziński, M., Gonzalez, M., Slowiński, R., 2020, How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy, Omega, 102261.

Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Ziolo, M., 2019a, Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection, Omega, 86, pp. 107-124.

Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Ziolo, M. 2019b, Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection: Rule set database and exemplary decision support system implementation blueprints, Data in brief, 22, 639.

Ceballos, B., Lamata, M. T., Pelta, D. A., 2016, A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods, Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 5(4), pp. 315-322.

Chang, Y.-H., Yeh, C.-H., Chang, Y.-W., 2013, A new method selection approach for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making, Applied Soft Computing, 13(4), pp. 2179-2187.

Kolios, A., Mytilinou, V., Lozano-Minguez, E., Salonitis, K., 2016, A comparative study of multiple-criteria decision-making methods under stochastic inputs, Energies, 9(7), 566.

Özcan, T., Çelebi, N., Esnaf, S., 2011, Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), pp. 9773-9779.

Matsatsinis, N. F., Samaras, A. P., 2001, Mcda and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems, European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), pp. 414-429.

Oliveira, G. D., Dias, L. C., 2020, The potential learning effect of a mcda approach on consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles, Annals of Operations Research, 293(2), pp. 767-787.

Chakraborty S, Chattopadhyay R, Chakraborty S., 2020, An integrated D-MARCOS method for supplier selection in an iron and steel industry, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), pp. 49-69.

Mousseau, V., Figueira, J., Dias, L., da Silva, C. G., Clímaco, J., 2003, Resolving inconsistencies among constraints on the parameters of an mcda model, European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), pp. 72-93.

Pietersen, K., 2006, Multiple criteria decision analysis (mcda): A tool to support sustainable management of groundwater resources in south Africa, Water SA, 32(2), pp. 119-128.

Sałabun, W., Karczmarczyk, A., 2018, Using the comet method in the sustainable city transport problem: an empirical study of the electric powered cars, Procedia computer science, 126, pp. 2248-2260.

Wątróbski, J., Sałabun, W., Karczmarczyk, A., Wolski, W., 2017, Sustainable decision-making using the comet method: An empirical study of the ammonium nitrate transport management, In 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 949-958.

Sałabun, W., Ziemba, P., Wątróbski, J., 2016, The rank reversals paradox in management decisions: The comparison of the ahp and comet methods, In International Conference on Intelligent Decision Technologies, pp. 181-191.

Sałabun, W., 2014, The Characteristic Objects Method: a new approach to identify a multi-criteria group decision-making model, Intl J Comput Tech Appl, 5(5), pp. 1597-1602

Sałabun, W., 2015, The Characteristic Objects Method: A New Distance‐based Approach to Multicriteria Decision‐making Problems, Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 22(1-2), pp. 37-50.

Watróbski, J., Sałabun, W., 2016, The characteristic objects method: A new intelligent decision support tool for sustainable manufacturing, In International Conference on Sustainable Design and Manufacturing, pp. 349-359.

Dezert, J., Tchamova, A., Han, D., Tacnet, J.-M., 2020, The spotis rank reversal free method for multi-criteria decision-making support, In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), pp. 1-8.

Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J., 2012, A state-of the-art survey of topsis applications, Expert Systems with applications, 39(17), pp. 13051-13069.

Lai, Y.-J., Liu, T.-Y., Hwang, C.-L., 1994, Topsis for modm, European journal of operational research, 76(3), pp. 486-500.

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), pp. 445-455.

Sałabun, W., Urbaniak, K., 2020, A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems, In International Conference on Computational Science, pp. 632-645.

da Silva, E. M., Ramos, M. O., Alexander, A., Jabbour, C. J. C., 2020, A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier risk management, Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118808.

Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Sarkis, J., 2019, Unlocking effective multi-tier supply chain management for sustainability through quantitative modeling: Lessons learned and discoveries to be made, International Journal of Production Economics, 217, pp. 11-30.

Wetzstein, A., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., Benton Jr, W. C., 2019, Uncovering the supplier selection knowledge structure: a systematic citation network analysis from 1991 to 2017. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(4), 100519.

Hoque, I., Rana, M. B., 2020, Buyer–supplier relationships from the perspective of working environment and organisational performance: review and research agenda. Management Review Quarterly, 70(1), pp. 1-50.

Chatterjee, P., Stević, Ž, 2019, A two-phase fuzzy AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS model for supplier evaluation in manufacturing environment, Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(1), pp. 72-90.

Kizielewicz, B., Kołodziejczyk, J., 2020, Effects of the selection of characteristic values on the accuracy of results in the comet method, Procedia Computer Science, 176, pp. 3581-3590.

Paradowski, B., Więckowski, J., Dobryakova, L., 2020, Why topsis does not always give correct results?, Procedia Computer Science, 176, pp. 3591-3600.