IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i9p1544-d808531.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Decision-Making Tool for Algorithm Selection Based on a Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Solve Replenishment, Production and Distribution Planning Problems

Author

Listed:
  • Eduardo Guzman

    (Research Centre on Production Management and Engineering (CIGIP), Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV), Calle Alarcón 1, 03801 Alcoy, Spain)

  • Beatriz Andres

    (Research Centre on Production Management and Engineering (CIGIP), Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV), Calle Alarcón 1, 03801 Alcoy, Spain)

  • Raul Poler

    (Research Centre on Production Management and Engineering (CIGIP), Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV), Calle Alarcón 1, 03801 Alcoy, Spain)

Abstract

A wide variety of methods and techniques with multiple characteristics are used in solving replenishment, production and distribution planning problems. Selecting a solution method (either a solver or an algorithm) when attempting to solve an optimization problem involves considerable difficulty. Identifying the best solution method among the many available ones is a complex activity that depends partly on human experts or a random trial-and-error procedure. This paper addresses the challenge of recommending a solution method for replenishment, production and distribution planning problems by proposing a decision-making tool for algorithm selection based on the fuzzy TOPSIS approach. This approach considers a collection of the different most commonly used solution methods in the literature, including distinct types of algorithms and solvers. To evaluate a solution method, 13 criteria were defined that all address several important dimensions when solving a planning problem, such as the computational difficulty, scheduling knowledge, mathematical knowledge, algorithm knowledge, mathematical modeling software knowledge and expected computational performance of the solution methods. An illustrative example is provided to demonstrate how planners apply the approach to select a solution method. A sensitivity analysis is also performed to examine the effect of decision maker biases on criteria ratings and how it may affect the final selection. The outcome of the approach provides planners with an effective and systematic decision support tool to follow the process of selecting a solution method.

Suggested Citation

  • Eduardo Guzman & Beatriz Andres & Raul Poler, 2022. "A Decision-Making Tool for Algorithm Selection Based on a Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Solve Replenishment, Production and Distribution Planning Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-28, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:9:p:1544-:d:808531
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/9/1544/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/9/1544/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    2. Müller, David & Müller, Marcus G. & Kress, Dominik & Pesch, Erwin, 2022. "An algorithm selection approach for the flexible job shop scheduling problem: Choosing constraint programming solvers through machine learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(3), pages 874-891.
    3. Peng, Yi & Kou, Gang & Wang, Guoxun & Shi, Yong, 2011. "FAMCDM: A fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 677-689, December.
    4. Tarhan, İstenç & Oğuz, Ceyda, 2022. "A matheuristic for the generalized order acceptance and scheduling problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(1), pages 87-103.
    5. Mula, Josefa & Peidro, David & Díaz-Madroñero, Manuel & Vicens, Eduardo, 2010. "Mathematical programming models for supply chain production and transport planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(3), pages 377-390, August.
    6. Vanajakumari, Manoj & Sun, Haoying & Jones, Ashley & Sriskandarajah, Chelliah, 2022. "Supply chain planning: A case for Hybrid Cross-Docks," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Kannan, Devika & Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa & Jabbour, Charbel José Chiappetta, 2014. "Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(2), pages 432-447.
    8. Douek-Pinkovich, Yifat & Ben-Gal, Irad & Raviv, Tal, 2022. "The stochastic test collection problem: Models, exact and heuristic solution approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(3), pages 945-959.
    9. Stadtler, Hartmut, 2005. "Supply chain management and advanced planning--basics, overview and challenges," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(3), pages 575-588, June.
    10. Ramesh Kumar & L. Ganapathy & Ravindra Gokhale & Manoj Kumar Tiwari, 2020. "Quantitative approaches for the integration of production and distribution planning in the supply chain: a systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(11), pages 3527-3553, June.
    11. Santosh Kumar Yadav & Dennis Joseph & Nasina Jigeesh, 2018. "A review on industrial applications of TOPSIS approach," International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 30(1), pages 23-28.
    12. John Silberholz & Bruce Golden & Swati Gupta & Xingyin Wang, 2019. "Computational Comparison of Metaheuristics," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Michel Gendreau & Jean-Yves Potvin (ed.), Handbook of Metaheuristics, edition 3, chapter 0, pages 581-604, Springer.
    13. Eric Afful-Dadzie & Stephen Nabareseh & Anthony Afful-Dadzie & Zuzana Oplatková, 2015. "Erratum to: A fuzzy TOPSIS framework for selecting fragile states for support facility," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1857-1857, September.
    14. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    15. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    16. Jacob Lohmer & Rainer Lasch, 2021. "Production planning and scheduling in multi-factory production networks: a systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(7), pages 2028-2054, April.
    17. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    18. Eric Afful-Dadzie & Stephen Nabareseh & Anthony Afful-Dadzie & Zuzana Oplatková, 2015. "A fuzzy TOPSIS framework for selecting fragile states for support facility," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1835-1855, September.
    19. Md Ashikur Rahman & Rajalingam Sokkalingam & Mahmod Othman & Kallol Biswas & Lazim Abdullah & Evizal Abdul Kadir, 2021. "Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Techniques for Combinatorial Optimization Problems: Overview and Recent Advances," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(20), pages 1-32, October.
    20. Karimi-Mamaghan, Maryam & Mohammadi, Mehrdad & Meyer, Patrick & Karimi-Mamaghan, Amir Mohammad & Talbi, El-Ghazali, 2022. "Machine learning at the service of meta-heuristics for solving combinatorial optimization problems: A state-of-the-art," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(2), pages 393-422.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    2. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    3. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    4. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    5. Bilbao-Terol, Amelia & Arenas-Parra, Mar & Cañal-Fernández, Verónica & Antomil-Ibias, José, 2014. "Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-17.
    6. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    7. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    8. Chunguang Bai & Behnam Fahimnia & Joseph Sarkis, 2017. "Sustainable transport fleet appraisal using a hybrid multi-objective decision making approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 250(2), pages 309-340, March.
    9. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    10. Li, Sheng-Tun & Chou, Wei-Chien, 2014. "Power planning in ICT infrastructure: A multi-criteria operational performance evaluation approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 134-148.
    11. 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.
    12. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    13. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    14. Kuang-Hua Hu & Wei Jianguo & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2017. "Risk Factor Assessment Improvement for China’s Cloud Computing Auditing Using a New Hybrid MADM Model," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 737-777, May.
    15. Maghsoodi, Abtin Ijadi, 2023. "Cryptocurrency portfolio allocation using a novel hybrid and predictive big data decision support system," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    16. Caetani, Alberto Pavlick & Ferreira, Luciano & Borenstein, Denis, 2016. "Development of an integrated decision-making method for an oil refinery restructuring in Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-210.
    17. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    18. Ioannis Sitaridis & Fotis Kitsios, 2020. "Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a multi-criteria approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 377-399, November.
    19. Sirirat Sae Lim & Hong Ngoc Nguyen & Chia-Li Lin, 2022. "Exploring the Development Strategies of Science Parks Using the Hybrid MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-29, April.
    20. Zeynep Gamze Mert & Gülşen Akman, 2011. "The Profile of the Organized Industrial Zones in Kocaeli/TURKEY," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1137, European Regional Science Association.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:9:p:1544-:d:808531. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.