IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxiiiy2020ispecial1p476-487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Analysis of Electronic Freight Exchanges in the United States and Europe with the Use of the Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Method “Promethee”

Author

Listed:
  • Jaroslaw Witkowski
  • Jakub Marcinkowski
  • Maja Kiba-Janiak

Abstract

Purpose: The main purpose of this article is to conduct a comparative analysis of the electronic freight exchanges in the United States and in Europe by means of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) method Promethee. Design/Methodology/Approach: MCDM Promethee method with the use of secondary data based on industry and branch reports from Europe and the United States as well as available statistical data and the analysis of relevant literature. The article is addressed, both to EFEs providers as well as their users. Findings: On the market of European and American open electronic freight exchanges there is a dispersed entity structure that promotes the occurrence of price competition. The differences, however, relate in particular to the number of users, geographic domination within the markets served, the period and nature of cooperation and the motives for its implementation, the integration of users' IT systems and the role of freight exchange operators in the construction and functioning of the supply chain. Practical Implications: The indication of the fundamental differences between European and American exchanges, which comprise the area for further improvements. Research limitations: The analysis is based on secondary data. No possibility of obtaining primary data from the largest players on the market of electronic freight exchanges in Europe and the USA, which constitute confidential business information Originality/value: tool development with the use of MCDM method for a comparative analysis of electronic freight exchanges. The tool can support electronic freight exchanges in the identification of strengths and weaknesses of their services as well as can be used in the process of formulation of their development strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaroslaw Witkowski & Jakub Marcinkowski & Maja Kiba-Janiak, 2020. "A Comparative Analysis of Electronic Freight Exchanges in the United States and Europe with the Use of the Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Method “Promethee”," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 476-487.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:special1:p:476-487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ersj.eu/journal/1916/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Magdalena Osinska & Wojciech Zalewski, 2020. "Determinants of Using Telematics Systems in Road Transport Companies," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 474-487.
    2. Davies, Ian & Mason, Robert & Lalwani, Chandra, 2007. "Assessing the impact of ICT on UK general haulage companies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 12-27, March.
    3. Florin Leon & Costin Bădică, 2017. "An Optimization Web Service for a Freight Brokering System," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 324-337, December.
    4. Abu-Taleb, Maher F. & Mareschal, Bertrand, 1995. "Water resources planning in the Middle East: Application of the PROMETHEE V multicriteria method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 500-511, March.
    5. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    7. Maja Kiba-Janiak & Jarosław Witkowski, 2019. "Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans: How Do They Work?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-15, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christoph Heinbach & Jan Beinke & Friedemann Kammler & Oliver Thomas, 2022. "Data-driven forwarding: a typology of digital platforms for road freight transport management," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(2), pages 807-828, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    2. Mahsa Ghandi & Abbas Roozbahani, 2020. "Risk Management of Drinking Water Supply in Critical Conditions Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE V Technique," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(2), pages 595-615, January.
    3. Mavrotas, G. & Diakoulaki, D. & Caloghirou, Y., 2006. "Project prioritization under policy restrictions. A combination of MCDA with 0-1 programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 296-308, May.
    4. Topcu, Y.I & Ulengin, F, 2004. "Energy for the future: An integrated decision aid for the case of Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 137-154.
    5. Ulengin, Fusun & Ilker Topcu, Y. & Sahin, Sule Onsel, 2001. "An integrated decision aid system for Bosphorus water-crossing problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 179-192, October.
    6. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    7. Morais, Danielle Costa & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2007. "Group decision-making for leakage management strategy of water network," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 441-459.
    8. Maja Kiba-Janiak & Jarosław Witkowski, 2019. "Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans: How Do They Work?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-15, August.
    9. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    10. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    11. Guh, Yuh-Yuan, 1997. "Introduction to a new weighting method -- Hierarchy consistency analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 215-226, October.
    12. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Taking a closer look at multiple criteria analysis and economic evaluation," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139785, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Meløn, Mønica García & Aragonés Beltran, Pablo & Carmen González Cruz, M., 2008. "An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 754-765, October.
    14. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    15. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    17. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    18. Roberto Cervelló Royo & Fernando García García & Francisco Guijarro-Martínez & Ismael Moya-Clemente, 2011. "Housing Ranking: a model of equilibrium between buyers and sellers expectations," ERSA conference papers ersa11p314, European Regional Science Association.
    19. Al-Alawi, Baha M. & Coker, Alexander D., 2018. "Multi-criteria decision support system with negotiation process for vehicle technology selection," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 278-296.
    20. Tommaso Agasisti & Giuseppe Munda, 2017. "Efficiency of investment in compulsory education: An Overview of Methodological Approaches," JRC Research Reports JRC106681, Joint Research Centre.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Electronic freight exchange; multiple criteria decision making; Promethee; international comparative analysis.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M21 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Economics - - - Business Economics
    • M15 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - IT Management
    • O14 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:special1:p:476-487. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.