4.5 Article

The Selection of Wagons for the Internal Transport of a Logistics Company: A Novel Approach Based on Rough BWM and Rough SAW Methods

期刊

SYMMETRY-BASEL
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sym9110264

关键词

internal transport; rough Best-Worst Method (BWM); rough Simple Additive Weighting (SAW); logistics; railway wagon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rationalization of logistics activities and processes is very important in the business and efficiency of every company. In this respect, transportation as a subsystem of logistics, whether internal or external, is potentially a huge area for achieving significant savings. In this paper, the emphasis is placed upon the internal transport logistics of a paper manufacturing company. It is necessary to rationalize the movement of vehicles in the company's internal transport, that is, for the majority of the transport to be transferred to rail transport, because the company already has an industrial track installed in its premises. To do this, it is necessary to purchase at least two used wagons. The problem is formulated as a multi-criteria decision model with eight criteria and eight alternatives. The paper presents a new approach based on a combination of the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method and rough numbers, which is used for ranking the potential solutions and selecting the most suitable one. The rough Best-Worst Method (BWM) was used to determine the weight values of the criteria. The results obtained using a combination of these two methods in their rough form were verified by means of a sensitivity analysis consisting of a change in the weight criteria and comparison with the following methods in their conventional and rough forms: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Ordering Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and MultiAttributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC). The results show very high stability of the model and ranks that are the same or similar in different scenarios.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据