Multi-Criteria Decision Support System for Best Warehouse Performance Selection Using Combined Compromise Solution Method

Junhai Wang; Setiawansyah Setiawansyah; Auliya Rahman Isnain

doi:10.47065/bulletinds.v4i2.7196

Junhai Wang Zhejiang Technical Institute of Economics, China
Setiawansyah Setiawansyah * Indonesia
Auliya Rahman Isnain Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia, Indonesia

(*) Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47065/bulletinds.v4i2.7196

Keywords: Decision Support System; CoCoSo; Warehouse Evaluation; Multi-Criteria; Combined Compromise

Abstract

Selecting the best performing warehouse is a strategic step in supporting the efficiency of the supply chain and distribution of goods. This research aims to design a multi-criterion-based decision support system in evaluating and determining the best warehouse using the Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method. This method was chosen for its ability to combine the strength of weighted average approaches and relative compromises between alternatives, resulting in more balanced and objective decisions. This research involves eight warehouse alternatives that are assessed based on a number of relevant performance criteria. The process starts from problem identification, determination of criteria, data collection, normalization, weighting, to the application of the CoCoSo method. The final results showed that Warehouse C obtained the highest score of 4.8155, followed by Warehouse E and Warehouse A, indicating that the three warehouses had the best performance. These findings are expected to be a reference in strategic decision-making related to warehousing management as well as the basis for the development of a data-based performance evaluation system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

A. M. Barasin, A. Y. Alqahtani, and A. A. Makki, “Performance Evaluation of Retail Warehouses: A Combined MCDM Approach Using G-BWM and RATMI,” Logistics, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 10, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3390/logistics8010010.

K. Adegbola, “A simulation study of single-vendor, single and multiple-manufacturers supply chain system, with stochastic demand and two distribution policies,” J. Decis. Anal. Intell. Comput., vol. 3, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 62–79, May 2023, doi: 10.31181/jdaic10010052023a.

X. Lyu, “Intelligent warehousing performance management based on Internet of Things and automation technology in the context of green manufacturing,” Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog., vol. 53, p. 102761, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2024.102761.

V. Sarasi, C. Iman, and F. and Nurfauzia, “Performance of omnichannel warehouse of Muslim fashion company in Indonesia based on workforce, equipment, space, and information system aspects,” Cogent Soc. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 2302214, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2302214.

N. Chen, Q. Liu, Ž. Stević, M. Andrejić, and V. Pajić, “An integrated cost based approach for warehouse performance evaluation: A new multiphase model,” Alexandria Eng. J., vol. 101, pp. 62–77, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2024.05.063.

Y. U. Kim, S. Yang, S. Wi, and S. Kim, “Evaluation of heterogeneous core sandwich panels for energy efficiency and fire safety in warehouse buildings,” Appl. Therm. Eng., vol. 249, p. 123455, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2024.123455.

M. Sanjari-Parizi, Z. Sazvar, S. Nayeri, and R. Mehralizade, “Novel decision-making methods for the sustainable warehouse location selection problem considering the value alteration boundaries and accumulation of alternatives,” Clean Technol. Environ. Policy, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 2977–3002, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10098-024-02759-5.

V. Pajić, M. Andrejić, M. Jolović, and M. Kilibarda, “Strategic Warehouse Location Selection in Business Logistics: A Novel Approach Using IMF SWARA–MARCOS—A Case Study of a Serbian Logistics Service Provider,” Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 5. 2024. doi: 10.3390/math12050776.

F. Xu, “A 2TLNS-based exponential TODIM-EDAS approach for evaluating sustainable development of cross-border e-commerce platforms under uncertainty,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 46, pp. 6383–6398, 2024, doi: 10.3233/JIFS-237170.

Y. Cai, “A generalized integrated framework for urban public transport operations evaluation based on interval neutrosophic TODIM and EDAS technique,” Soft Comput., vol. 28, no. 17, pp. 10331–10344, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00500-024-09787-9.

C.-N. Wang, F.-C. Yang, T. M. Vo, V. T. Nguyen, and M. Singh, “Enhancing Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: A Groundbreaking Bi-Algorithm MCDM Approach,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 16. 2023. doi: 10.3390/app13169105.

A. Yudhistira, J. Wang, Y. Rahmanto, and S. Setiawansyah, “Decision Support System for Optimizing Supplier Selection Using TOPSIS and Entropy Weighting Methods,” J. Pendidik. dan Teknol. Indones., vol. 4, no. 5 SE-, pp. 175–185, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.52436/1.jpti.456.

J. Wang, S. Setiawansyah, and Y. Rahmanto, “Decision Support System for Choosing the Best Shipping Service for E-Commerce Using the SAW and CRITIC Methods,” J. Ilm. Inform. dan Ilmu Komput., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 101–109, 2024, doi: 10.58602/jima-ilkom.v3i2.32.

J. Wang, A. R. Isnain, R. R. Suryono, Y. Rahmanto, M. Mesran, and S. Setiawansyah, “Decision Support System for Platform Selection in E-Commerce Using the OWH-TOPSIS Method,” J. Comput. Syst. Informatics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 172–181, 2024, doi: 10.47065/josyc.v6i1.5990.

J. Wang, D. Darwis, S. Setiawansyah, and Y. Rahmanto, “Implementation of MABAC Method and Entropy Weighting in Determining the Best E-Commerce Platform for Online Business,” JiTEKH, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 58–68, 2024, doi: 10.35447/jitekh.v12i2.1000.

Y. Rahmanto, J. Wang, S. Setiawansyah, A. Yudhistira, D. Darwis, and R. R. Suryono, “Optimizing Employee Admission Selection Using G2M Weighting and MOORA Method,” Paradig. - J. Komput. dan Inform., vol. 27, no. 1 SE-, pp. 1–10, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.31294/p.v27i1.8224.

Q. Wang, T. Cheng, Y. Lu, H. Liu, R. Zhang, and J. Huang, “Underground Mine Safety and Health: A Hybrid MEREC–CoCoSo System for the Selection of Best Sensor,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 4, p. 1285, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/s24041285.

A. E. Torkayesh, D. Pamucar, F. Ecer, and P. Chatterjee, “An integrated BWM-LBWA-CoCoSo framework for evaluation of healthcare sectors in Eastern Europe,” Socioecon. Plann. Sci., vol. 78, p. 101052, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101052.

S. Dhruva, R. Krishankumar, E. K. Zavadskas, K. S. Ravichandran, and A. H. Gandomi, “Selection of Suitable Cloud Vendors for Health Centre: A Personalized Decision Framework with Fermatean Fuzzy Set, LOPCOW, and CoCoSo,” Informatica, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 65–98, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.15388/23-INFOR537.

P. Rani, J. Ali, R. Krishankumar, A. R. Mishra, F. Cavallaro, and K. S. Ravichandran, “An integrated single-valued neutrosophic combined compromise solution methodology for renewable energy resource selection problem,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 15, p. 4594, 2021.

S. Riahi, A. Bahroudi, M. Abedi, and S. Aslani, “Hybrid outranking of geospatial data: Multi attributive ideal-real comparative analysis and combined compromise solution,” Geochemistry, vol. 82, no. 3, p. 125898, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.chemer.2022.125898.

K.-H. Chang, “Integrating Subjective–Objective Weights Consideration and a Combined Compromise Solution Method for Handling Supplier Selection Issues,” Systems, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 74, 2023.

Bila bermanfaat silahkan share artikel ini

Berikan Komentar Anda terhadap artikel Multi-Criteria Decision Support System for Best Warehouse Performance Selection Using Combined Compromise Solution Method