Multi Criteria Decision Making Model for Logistics Processes in Particular Enterprise

Open access


Relevant indicators and measurement methods should be assessed in order to contribute to optimize management of an enterprise. Business performance can be measured by various indicators and various business results could be assessed. Analyses of value chains should be focused on specification of so called bottle necks which mention those activities that disable to increase business margin. At the same time, these analyses show the inefficiency caused by oversized of some activities regarding to lower level of assurance or safety and lower performance of other business activities. Importance of multi criteria decision-making methods for evaluation of alternatives doesn´t lie in definite increasing of results objectivity although it should lead to that. Priority of this method lies mainly in simplification of manager´s decision making. It allows managers to arrange alternatives according to extensive file of criteria, it describes particular steps of solution and its logical sequence, this methodology also requires from managers to express their understanding of various criteria importance. All this process of solution is transparent, repeatable and there are evident starting assumptions and also how these assumptions, situations, criteria and incidents affect reached results.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aláč P. 2005. Viackriteriálne rozhodovanie v logistickom reťazci drevárskeho podniku. PhD thesis. TU vo Zvolene Drevárska fakulta 137 p.

  • Balmat J. Lafont F. Maifret R. Pessel N. 2011. A decision-making system to maritime risk assessment. Ocean Engineering 38(1) 171-176.

  • Canbolat Y. Chelst K. Garg N. 2007. Combining decision tree and MAUT for selecting a country for a global manufacturing facility. Omega 35(3) 312-325.

  • Chen Y. Okudan G. Riley D. 2010. Decision support for construction method selection in concrete buildings: Prefabrication adoption and optimization. Automation in Construction 19(6) 665-675.

  • Fishburn P. 1967. Conjoint measurement in utility theory with incomplete product sets. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 4(1) 104-119.

  • Fitzgerald L. Johnston R. Brignall T. J. Silvestro R. Voss C. 1991. Performance measurement in service businesses. Chartered Institute of Management Accountants London UK.

  • Flint D. J. Larsson E. Gammelgaard B. Mentzer J.T. 2005. Logistic Innovation: A customer value-oriented social process. Journal of Business Logistics 26(1) 113–147 DOI: 10.1002/j.2158-1592.2005.tb00196.x ISSN 0735-3766.

  • Gibson B.J. Mentzer J.T. Cook R.L. 2005. Supply Chain Management: The Pursuit of a Consensus Definition. Journal of Business Logistics 26 17–25 DOI: 10.1002/j.2158-1592.2005.tb00203.x.

  • Gomez-Limon J. Arriaza M. Riesgo L. 2003. An MCDM analysis of agricultural risk aversion. European Journal of Operational Research 151(3) 569-585.

  • Jeetendra V. A. Krishnaiah Chetty O. V. Prashanth Reddy J. 2000. Petri nets for project management and resource levelling. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 16(7) 516-520.

  • Kahneman D. 2012. Myšlení rychlé a pomalé. Jan Melvil publishing Brno s.r.o. ISBN 978-80-87270-42-4 542 p.

  • Kanji G.K. 2002. Performance measurement system. Total Quality Management 13(5) 715–728.

  • Kaplan R. S. Norton D.P 1996. The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press Boston MA.

  • Keegan D.P. Eiler R.G. Jones C.R. 1989. Are your performance measures obsolete? Management Accounting 70(12) 45–50.

  • Keeney R. 1977. The art of assessing multiattribute utility functions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 19(2) 267-310.

  • Kennerley M. Neely A. D. 2000. Performance measurement framework -A review. In Performance measurement-Past present and future. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on performance measurement. Cambridge UK 19–21 July.

  • Khadam I. Kaluarachchi J. 2003. Multi-criteria decision analysis with probabilistic risk assessment for the management of contaminated ground water. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(6) 683-721.

  • Konidari P. Mavrakis D. 2007. A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate change mitigation policy instruments. Energy Policy 35(12) 6235-6257.

  • Lakehal A. Tachi F. 2018. Probabilistic Assessment of Road Risks for Improving Logistics Processes. MATEC Web of Conferences 183 01003 DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201818301003.

  • Langevin A. Riopel D. 2005. Logistics Systems – Design and Optimization. Springer ISBN 0-387-24971-0 387.

  • Liu R. Kumara A. Van der Aalst W. 2007. A formal modelling approach for supply chain event management. Decision Support Systems 43 761-778.

  • Loken E. 2007. Use of multi-criteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11(7) 1584-1595.

  • MacBryde J. Radnor Z. Shepherd C. Günter H. 2006. Measuring supply chain performance: current research and future directions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55(3/4) 242-258 ISSN: 1741-0401.

  • Neely A. 2002. Business performance measurement. Cambridge University Press Cambridge MA.

  • Saaty T. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning priority setting resource allocation. McGraw-Hill New York.

  • Song C. Hong Z. 2008. Time scorecard: an integrative performance measurement framework for time-based companies. In 4th International conference on wireless communications networking and mobile computing (pp. 1–5). Dalian China 12–14 October.

  • Zadeh L. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8(3) 338-353.

  • Zhang X. Lu Q. Wu T. 2011. Petri-net based applications for supply chain management: an overview. International. Journal of Production Research 49(13) 3939-3961.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 132 132 7
PDF Downloads 122 122 3