IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i17p7691-d1733227.html

Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Transportation Management System (TMS) Software: A Bayesian Best–Worst and TOPSIS Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Cengiz Kerem Kütahya

    (Aviation Academic Programs, School of Aviation, Australian University, West Mishref, Safat 13015, Kuwait)

  • Bükra Doğaner Duman

    (Department of Transportation and Logistics, Istanbul University, Istanbul 34000, Turkey)

  • Gültekin Altuntaş

    (Department of Logistics, Istanbul University, Istanbul 34000, Turkey)

Abstract

Transportation Management Systems (TMSs) play a pivotal role in streamlining logistics operations, yet selecting the most suitable TMS software remains a complex, multi-criteria decision-making problem. This study introduces a hybrid evaluation framework combining the Bayesian Best–Worst Method (BBWM) and TOPSIS to identify, weigh, and rank software selection criteria tailored to the logistics business. Drawing on insights from 13 logistics experts, five main criteria—technological competence, service, functionality, cost, and software developer (vendor)—and 16 detailed sub-criteria are defined to reflect business-specific needs. The core novelty of this research lies in its systematic weighting of TMS software criteria using the BBWM, offering robust and expert-driven priority insights for decision makers. Results show that functionality (26.6%), particularly load tracking (35.8%) and cost (22.7%), mainly software license cost (39.8%), are the dominant decision factors. Beyond operational optimization, this study positions TMS software selection as a strategic entry point for sustainable digital transformation in logistics. The proposed framework empowers business to align digital infrastructure choices with sustainability goals such as emissions reduction, energy efficiency, and intelligent resource planning. Applying TOPSIS to a real-world case in Türkiye, this study ranks software alternatives, with “ABC” emerging as the most favorable solution (57.2%). This paper contributes a replicable and adaptable model for TMS software evaluation, grounded in business practice and advanced decision science.

Suggested Citation

  • Cengiz Kerem Kütahya & Bükra Doğaner Duman & Gültekin Altuntaş, 2025. "Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Transportation Management System (TMS) Software: A Bayesian Best–Worst and TOPSIS Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-25, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:17:p:7691-:d:1733227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/17/7691/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/17/7691/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davenport, Thomas H., 2018. "The AI Advantage: How to Put the Artificial Intelligence Revolution to Work," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262039176, December.
    2. Wei, Chun-Chin & Chien, Chen-Fu & Wang, Mao-Jiun J., 2005. "An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 47-62, April.
    3. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Gultekin Altuntas & Bahadir Fatih Yildirim, 2022. "Logistics specialist selection with intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method," International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 42(1), pages 1-34.
    5. Kheybari, Siamak & Kazemi, Mostafa & Rezaei, Jafar, 2019. "Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 612-623.
    6. Badri Ahmadi, Hadi & Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Rezaei, Jafar, 2017. "Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 99-106.
    7. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    8. Kevin Zhu & Kenneth L. Kraemer & Sean Xu, 2006. "The Process of Innovation Assimilation by Firms in Different Countries: A Technology Diffusion Perspective on E-Business," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(10), pages 1557-1576, October.
    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. Feng, Jianghong & Guo, Ping & Xu, Guangyi & Xu, Gangyan & Ning, Yu, 2024. "An integrated decision framework for resilient sustainable waste electric vehicle battery recycling transfer station site selection," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 373(C).
    2. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    4. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Marcelo Werneck Barbosa & María de los Ángeles Raimann Pumpin & Gonzalo Vargas, 2025. "Prioritization of Water Footprint Management Practices and Their Effect on Agri-Food Firms’ Reputation and Legitimacy: A Best–Worst Method Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-24, April.
    6. Gholamreza Haseli & Reza Sheikh & Jianqiang Wang & Hana Tomaskova & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2021. "A Novel Approach for Group Decision Making Based on the Best–Worst Method (G-BWM): Application to Supply Chain Management," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Ortega-Rodríguez, Cristina & Labella, Álvaro & Ruiz-Rodríguez, Ma del Consuelo, 2025. "The Compliance Officer in Nonprofit Cooperative Societies: Validation of the figure through the Best–Worst Method," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    8. Himanshu Gupta & Kumar Shreshth & Manjeet Kharub & Ashwani Kumar, 2024. "Strategies to overcome challenges to smart sustainable logistics: a Bayesian-based group decision-making approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 11743-11770, May.
    9. Gupta, Himanshu & Yadav, Avinash Kumar & Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Khan, Sharfuddin Ahmed & Sharma, Shashi Chandra, 2022. "Strategies to overcome barriers to innovative digitalisation technologies for supply chain logistics resilience during pandemic," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    10. Dilupa Nakandala & Yung Po Tsang & Henry Lau & Carman Ka Man Lee, 2022. "An Industrial Blockchain-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Framework for Global Freight Management in Agricultural Supply Chains," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "Better decisions with less cognitive load: The Parsimonious BWM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    12. Ridvan Ertugrul Yildirim & Aziz Sisman, 2025. "Spatial Decision Support for Determining Suitable Emergency Assembly Places Using GIS and MCDM Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-28, March.
    13. Aleksandar Aleksić & Danijela Tadić, 2023. "Industrial and Management Applications of Type-2 Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Techniques Extended with Type-2 Fuzzy Sets from 2013 to 2022," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, May.
    14. Yalcin Kavus, Bahar & Gulum Tas, Pelin & Ayyildiz, Ertugrul & Taskin, Alev, 2022. "A three-level framework to evaluate airline service quality based on interval valued neutrosophic AHP considering the new dimensions," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Chen, Faan & Li, Yaxin & Feng, Qianqian & Dong, Zehao & Qian, Yiming & Yan, Yi & Ho, Mun S. & Ma, Qianchen & Zhang, Dashan & Jin, Yuanzhe, 2023. "Road safety performance rating through PSI-PRIDIT: A planning tool for designing policies and identifying best practices for EAS countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    16. Yang, Hua & Xu, Yong & Zhou, Kan & Li, Jiuyi, 2024. "Mapping development potential and priority zones for utility-scale photovoltaic on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(PA).
    17. Rehman, Ubaid ur, 2025. "Evaluation and assessment of clean energy technologies: A bipolar fuzzy BWM-EDAS method for sustainable solution," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(C).
    18. Dragan Pamučar & Fatih Ecer & Goran Cirovic & Melfi A. Arlasheedi, 2020. "Application of Improved Best Worst Method (BWM) in Real-World Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Gul, Muhammet & Yucesan, Melih, 2022. "Performance evaluation of Turkish Universities by an integrated Bayesian BWM-TOPSIS model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    20. Chong Li & He Huang & Ya Luo, 2022. "An Integrated Two-Dimension Linguistic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Supplier Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-24, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:17:p:7691-:d:1733227. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.