Advertisement

Sādhanā

, 44:108 | Cite as

Logistics competitiveness of OECD countries using an improved TODIM method

  • Mihrimah OzmenEmail author
Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides a forum where governments can work together to increase the global welfare and to seek solutions to common problems through economic growth, where logistics plays an important role and contributes to financial stability. Evaluation of the logistics competitiveness of countries is a technical decision-making issue involving a variety of criteria. Most importantly, these criteria usually conflict with each other and they often act and react upon one another. As in logistics competitiveness as well as in many decision-making problems, the relationships among criteria are interdependent. Moreover, different dimensions and criteria weights also affect the evaluation results. By considering these situations, in order to handle these criteria interactions, Mahalanobis distance (MD) based TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese for Interactive and Multicriteria Decision Making) method has been developed and it has been applied to evaluate the logistics competitiveness of the OECD countries. Evaluation of the correlation between criteria develops the consideration outcomes (regarding sorting) to a certain degree with the traditional TODIM method.

Keywords

Logistics competitiveness OECD countries Mahalanobis distance TODIM criteria dependency 

References

  1. 1.
    Martí L, Martín J C and Puertas R 2017 A DEA-LOGISTICS PERFORMANCE INDEX. Journal of Applied Economics 20(1): 169–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erkayman B, Gundogar E and Akkaya G and Ipek M 2011 A fuzzy TOPSIS approach for logistics center location selection. Journal of Business Case Studies 73: 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koban E and Keser H Y 2008 Dış ticarette lojistik. Ekin Basım Yayın Dağıtım Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gomes L F A M, Machado M A S, da Costa F F and Rangel L A 2013 Criteria interactions in multiple criteria decision aiding: A Choquet formulation for the TODIM method. Procedia Computer Science 17: 324–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wanke P, Azad M A K and Barros C P 2016 Efficiency factors in OECD banks: A ten-year analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 64: 208–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zaman M R, Morid S and Delavar M 2016 Evaluating climate adaptation strategies on agricultural production in the Siminehrud catchment and inflow into Lake Urmia, Iran using SWAT within an OECD framework. Agricultural Systems 147: 98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kazan H, Karaman E, Akçalı B Y and Şişmanoğlu E 2015 Assessment of teog examination success: topsis multi-criteria decision-making method practice. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 195: 915–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rashidi K, Shabani A and Saen R F 2015 Using data envelopment analysis for estimating energy saving and undesirable output abatement: a case study in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development OECD countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 105: 241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mavi R K, Saen R F and Goh M 2018 Joint analysis of eco-efficiency and eco-innovation with common weights in two-stage network DEA: A big data approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.035. In Press
  10. 10.
    Zhou P, Poh K L and Ang B W 2007 A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 1781: 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kou M, Chen K, Wang S and Shao Y 2016 Measuring efficiencies of multi-period and multi-division systems associated with DEA: An application to OECD countries’ national innovation systems. Expert Systems with Applications 46: 494–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chow G, Heaver T D and Henriksson L E 1994 Logistics performance: definition and measurement. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 241: 17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klumpp M, Abidi H, Bioly S, Buchkremer R, Ebener S and Sandhaus G 2017 Logistics Dynamics and Demographic Change. In: Dynamics in Logistics pp. 347–362 Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kucukaltan B, Irani Z and Aktas E 2016 A decision support model for identification and prioritization of key performance indicators in the logistics industry. Computers in Human Behavior 65: 346–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ab Talib M S, Abdul Hamid A B and Chin T A 2016 Can halal certification influence logistics performance? Journal of Islamic Marketing 74: 461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khlie K, Serrou D, and Abouabdellah A 2016 October The impact of Lean-logistics and the information system on the information flow management within the healthcare supply chain. In: Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications SITA, 2016 11th International Conference, IEEE pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guner S and Coskun E 2012 Comparison of impacts of economic and social factors on countries’ logistics performances: a study with 26 oecd countries. Research in Logistics and Production 2: 330–343Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Castrellón-Torres J P, Torres-Acosta J H and Adarme-Jaimes W 2014 Model for the logistics distribution of medicines in the Colombian public health program. Dyna 81187: 257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abidi H, de Leeuw S and Klumpp M 2014 Humanitarian supply chain performance management: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 195/6: 592–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Biswas T and Samanta S 2016 A strategic decision support system for logistics and supply chain network design. Sādhanā 416: 583–588MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wong D W, Choy K L, Chow H K and Lin C 2014 Assessing a cross-border logistics policy using a performance measurement system framework: the case of Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta region. International Journal of Systems Science 456: 1306–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aydogan E K 2011 Performance measurement model for Turkish aviation firms using the rough-AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 384: 3992–3998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ozmen M, Aydogan E K, Ates N and Uzal N 2016 Developing a decision-support system for waste management in aluminum production. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 216: 803–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ambrosini C and Routhier J L 2004 Objectives, methods and results of surveys carried out in the field of urban freight transport: an international comparison. Transp. Rev. 24 (1): 57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gergin RE and Baki B 2015 Evaluation by integrated AHP and TOPSIS method of logistics performance in Turkey’s regions. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 6 (4): 115–135 (in Turkish).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yang Y C and Chen S L 2016 Determinants of global logistics hub ports: Comparison of the port development policies of Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. Transport Policy 45: 179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Özceylan E, Çetinkaya C, Erbaş M and Kabak M 2016 Logistic performance evaluation of provinces in Turkey: A GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 94: 323–337Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roy V, Mitra S K, Chattopadhyay M and Sahay B S2017 Facilitating the extraction of extended insights on logistics performance from the logistics performance index dataset: A two-stage methodological framework and its application. Research in Transportation Business and Management,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.10.001. In PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yu M and Hsiao B 2015 Measuring the technology gap and logistics performance of individual countries by using a meta-DEA–AR model. Maritime Policy Manage 43 (1): 98–120MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Çakır S 2017 Measuring logistics performance of OECD countries via fuzzy linear regression. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis 24(3-4): 177–186MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jiang C and Chen D 2009 Research on urban logistics infrastructure: an empirical study of China. Journal of Service Science and Management 2: 80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gomes L F 1989 Multicriteria ranking of urban transportation system alternatives. Journal of Advanced Transportation 231: 43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tversky A and Kahneman D 1992 Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 54: 297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gomes L F A M 2009 An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. European Journal of Operational Research 1931: 204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gomes L F A M, Rangel L A D and Maranhão F J C 2009 Multicriteria analysis of natural gas destination in Brazil: An application of the TODIM method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 501-2: 92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Passos A C, Teixeira M G, Garcia K C, Cardoso A M and Gomes L F A M 2014 Using the TODIM-FSE method as a decision-making support methodology for oil spill response. Computers and Operations Research 42: 40–48MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Soni, N, Christian R A and Jariwala N 2016 Pollution Potential Ranking of Industries Using Classical TODIM Method. Journal of Environmental Protection 711: 1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang X and Xu Z 2014 The TODIM analysis approach based on novel measured functions under hesitant fuzzy environment. Knowledge-Based Systems 61: 48–58.sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mahalanobis P C 1936 On the generalized distance in statistics. National Institute of Science of India, 2: 49–55Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang Z X and Wang Y Y 2014 Evaluation of the provincial competitiveness of the Chinese high-tech industry using an improved TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications 416:2824–2831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Haughwout A F 2001 Infrastructure and social welfare in metropolitan America. Economic Policy Review 73: 43–54Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ojala L and Celebi D 2015 February The World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index LPI and drivers of logistics performance. In document préparé pour la Table ronde du Forum international des transports sur les stratégies de développement logistique et leurs indicateurs de résultats 9-10 mars 2015, Queretaro, MexiqueGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Saidi S and Hammami S 2011 May The role of transport and logistics to attract foreign direct investment in the developing countries. In: Logistics (LOGISTIQUA), 2011 4th International Conference on (pp. 484–489). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
  45. 45.
    OECD 2018 “Freight transport” indicator,  https://doi.org/10.1787/708eda32-en accessed on 03 July 2018
  46. 46.
    OECD 2018 Container transport indicator  https://doi.org/10.1787/26de63f3-en Accessed on 04 July 2018
  47. 47.
    OECD 2018 Passenger transport indicator  https://doi.org/10.1787/463da4d1-en Accessed on 04 July 2018
  48. 48.
    Saaty T L 2003 Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research 1451: 85–91MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ozmen M, Kızılkaya Aydogan E and Zaralı F 2015 Logistics center location selection using the new method SMAA-TODIM. MCDM 2015Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Aydogan E K and Ozmen M 2017 The stochastıc vikor method and its use in reverse logistic option selection problem. RAIRO-Operations Research 512: 375–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringErciyes UniversityKayseriTurkey

Personalised recommendations