Selecting Suitable e-Procurement Decision Models for the Maldivian Public Sector by Evaluating MCDA Methods

  • Mohamed Adil
  • Miguel Baptista Nunes
  • Guo Chao Peng
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 275)


Public sector procurement is governed by laws and regulations enforcing a rigid structure with multiple criteria for assessing and selecting suppliers. This paper analyses legal and operational requirements of public sector e-procurement of the Maldives education sector. The research was based on a desktop review of traditional academic sources as well as gray literature to identify legal and fiscal constraints and regulations, followed by a field research to identify operational requirements. Subsequently, an evaluation study, which applied the findings of the desktop study and the field research, was conducted to select an appropriate Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method for that specific context. After a thorough analysis of MCDA methods, two methods emerged as applicable for the Maldivian context and capable of meeting both operational and legal constraints. The paper provides an extensive discussion on the selection of suitable MCDA methods for Maldivian public sector procurement requirements.


Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Public Sector Procurement e-Procurement Decision Model Evaluation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amponsah, C.T.: Application of multi-criteria decision making process to determine critical success factors for procurement of capital projects under public-private partnerships. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 3, 107–129 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weele, A.J.V.: Purchasing and supply chain management: analysis, strategy, planning and practice. Cengage Learning, Andover (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leenders, M.R., Fearon, H.E.: Purchasing and supply management. Irwin, Chicago (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baily, P., Farmer, D., Jessop, D., Jones, D.: Purchasing Principles and Management. Pitman Publishing, London (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    England, W.B.: The purchasing system. Irwin, Homewood, Illinois (1967)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weele, A.J.V.: Purchasing and supply chain management: analysis, planning and practice. Business Press, London (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Falagario, M., Sciancalepore, F., Costantino, N., Pietroforte, R.: Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. European Journal of Operational Research 218, 523–529 (2012)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown, R.B., Wright, R.D.J., Cloke, C.G., Morris, T.B., Trumper, I.F.S.: Government purchasing: a multi-department review of government contract and procurement procedures. HMSO, London (1984) (Office, C.)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lysons, K., Gillingham, M.: Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leenders, M.R., Johnson, P.F., Flynn, A.E., Fearon, H.E.: Purchasing and supply management: with 50 supply chain cases. McGraw-Hill, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rowlinson, S., McDermott, P. (eds.): Procurement Systems: A guide to best practice in construction. E & FN Spon, London (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dhaulathuge Maaliyyathu Gaanoonu, Maldives (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dhaulathuge Maaliyyathuge Gavaaidhu, Maldives (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, J. (eds.): Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice. SAGE, London (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen, S., Osman, M., Peng, G.C.: Information systems evaluation: methodologies and practical case studies. In: Isaias, P., Nunes, J.M.B. (eds.) Information Systems Research and Exploring Social Artifacts: Approaches and Methodologies. IGI Global, Hershey (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guitouni, A., Martel, J.-M.: Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. European Journal of Operational Research 109, 501–521 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ho, W., Xu, X., Dey, P.K.: Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 202, 16–24 (2010)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.): Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Linkov, I., Varghese, A., Jamil, S., Seager, T.P., Kiker, G., Bridges, T.: Multi-criteria decision analysis: A framework for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites. In: Linkov, I., Ramadan, A.B. (eds.) Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making, pp. 15–54. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mateus, R., Ferreira, J.A., Carreira, J.: Full disclosure of tender evaluation models: Background and application in Portuguese public procurement. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 16, 206–215 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keeney, R.L.: Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Operations Research 50, 935–945 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boer, L., de Boer, L., Linthorst, M.M., Schotanus, F., Telgen, J.: An analysis of some mistakes, miracles and myths in supplier selection. In: 15th IPSERA Conference, SanDiego (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roy, B.: Paradigms and chappenges. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 3–24. Springer, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E.: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2, 429–444 (1978)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    San Cristóbal, J.R.: A multi criteria data envelopment analysis model to evaluate the efficiency of the renewable energy technologies. Renewable Energy 36, 2742–2746 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li, X.-B., Reeves, G.R.: A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 115, 507–517 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang, Y.-M., Chin, K.-S., Luo, Y.: Cross-efficiency evaluation based on ideal and anti-ideal decision making units. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 10312–10319 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ng, W.L.: An efficient and simple model for multiple criteria supplier selection problem. European Journal of Operational Research 186, 1059–1067 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zavadskas, E.K., Antucheviciene, J.: Multiple criteria evaluation of rural building’s regeneration alternatives. Building and Environment 42, 436–451 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V.M., Shankar, C.: Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Materials and Design 32, 851–860 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Podvezko, V.: The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics 22, 134–146 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Adil
    • 1
  • Miguel Baptista Nunes
    • 1
  • Guo Chao Peng
    • 1
  1. 1.Information SchoolUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations