Equipment selection for an e-commerce company using Entropy-based TOPSIS, EDAS and CODAS methods during the COVID-19

Ersoy, Yusuf

doi:10.17270/J.LOG.2021.603

Powiadomienia systemowe

Sesja wygasła!

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Equipment selection for an e-commerce company using Entropy-based TOPSIS, EDAS and CODAS methods during the COVID-19

Autorzy

Ersoy Yusuf

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17270/J.LOG.2021.603

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Background: The importance and market share of e-commerce has been increasing with the COVID-19 pandemic in recent days. Employees sometimes cannot go to the workplace due to epidemics such as COVID-19 that is spreading rapidly around the world, natural disasters and accidents. Companies can continue to serve their customers with the internet infrastructure and computer technologies they will provide to their employees. Thus, e-commerce companies can provide a sustainable competitive advantage in the sector. Working with the right suppliers is one of the important decisions that will improve the service quality of the firms and affect the sustainability of the enterprise. Methods: This study aims to select the best laptop for a company in the online trade industry using Entropy-based EDAS, CODAS and TOPSIS methods. In the study, 6 alternative laptops have been evaluated according to hard disk capacity, ram, battery power, processor speed, weight, price criteria. The Entropy method has been used to identify the weights of the criteria in the study. These criteria weights have been used in EDAS, CODAS and TOPSIS methods. TOPSIS, EDAS and CODAS methods have been used to determine the best alternative. Also, the correlation between the results of the TOPSIS, EDAS and CODAS methods has been examined with the Spearman Correlation approach. Results: As a result of the Entropy method, it has been determined that the most important criterion is the hard disk capacity criterion. TOPSIS, EDAS and CODAS method results have been compared and the most suitable alternative has been selected. According to the results of the study, the best alternative has been selected as A5. Spearman Correlation analysis results show that there was a strong positive relationship between the methods used and the results obtained. Conclusions: The study differs from existing studies in the literature in that it is the first study in which laptop selection was made using TOPSIS, EDAS and CODAS methods together. The results of this study can be compared with the results of future studies that will be carried out using different MCDM methods and different data.

Słowa kluczowe

CODAS COVID-19 EDAS electronic commerce laptop selection TOPSIS

CODAS COVID-19 EDAS handel elektroniczny TOPSIS

Wydawca

Wyższa Szkoła Logistyki

Czasopismo

LogForum

Rocznik

2021

Tom

Vol. 17, no. 3

Strony

341--358

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 76 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Ersoy Yusuf

y.ersoy@alparslan.edu.tr

Muş Alparslan University Malazgirt Vocational School, Malazgirt, Muş, Turkey

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0106-1695

Bibliografia

1. Adalı E.A., Işık A.T., 2017. The multiobjective decision making methods based on MULTIMOORA and MOOSRA for the laptop selection problem, Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 13, 229-237. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-016-0175-5
2. Adalı E.A., Tuş A., 2019. Hospital site selection with distance-based multi-criteria decision-making methods, International Journal of Heathcare Management, 1-11. http://doi.org/10.1080/20479700.2019.1674005
3. Aggarwal A., Choudhary C., Mehrotra D., 2018. Evaluation of Smartphones in Indian Market using EDAS, Procedia Computer Science, 132, 236-243. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.193
4. Aldalou E., Perçin S., 2020. Financial Performance Evaluation of Food and Drink Index Using Fuzzy MCDM Approach, International Journal of Economics and Innovation, 6(1), 1-19. http://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.650422
5. Altıntaş F., 2020. Analysis of Competition Performances of G 7 countries with Entrophy based TOPSIS and EDAS Methods, Social Mentality and Researcher Thinkers Journal, 6(31), 737-748. http://doi.org/10.31576/smryj.521
6. Aytekin A., Durucasu H., 2020. Nearest solution to references method for multicriteria decision-making problems. Decision Science Letter, 10(2), 111-128. http://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2020.11.007
7. Aytekin A., Karamaşa Ç., 2017. Analyzing Financial Performance of Insurance Companies Traded In BIST via Fuzzy Shannon’s Entropy Based Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodology, Alphanumeric Journal, 5(1), 71-84. http://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.323832
8. Aytekin A., Kuvat O., 2018. Determination of the importance levels of criteria evaluated in laptop selection by AHP: Application of 1st and 2st grade computer engineering students, Manas Journal of Social Studies 7(4), 193-211. Available on the Internet: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mjss/issue/43010/520776
9. Badi I., Ballem M.A., Shetwan A.G., 2018. Site selection of desalination plant in Libya by using Combinative Distance-based Assessment (CODAS) Method, International Journal for Quality Research, 12(3), 609-624. http://doi.org/10.18421/IJQR12.03-04
10. Bakır M., Alptekin N., 2018. A new approach in service quality assesment: An application on airlines through CODAS method, Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(4), 1336-1353. http://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v6i4.409
11. Behzad M., Zolfani S.H., Pamucar D., Behzad M., 2020. A comparative assessment of solid waste management performance in the Nordic countries based on BWM-EDAS, Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 1-11. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122008
12. Behzedian M., Otaghsara S.K., Yazdani M., Ignatius J., 2012. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051-13069. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056
13. Chatterjee P., Banerjee A., Mondal S., Boral S., Chakraborty S., 2018. Development of a Hybrid Meta-Model for Material Selection Using Design of Experiments and EDAS Method, Engineering Transactions, 66(2), 187-207. Available on the Internet: http://et.ippt.pan.pl/index.php/et/article/view/812
14. Chen C.T., 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1
15. Chiang C-T., Yang M-H., Koo T-L. Liao C.H., 2020. What drives costumer engagement behavior? The impact of user participation from a sociotechnical perspective, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 21(3), 197-214. Available on the Internet: http://www.jecr.org/node/612
16. Chitnis A., Vaidya O.S., 2016. Efficiency ranking method using DEA and TOPSIS (ERM-DT): case of an Indian bank, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(1), 166-182. http://doi.org/10.1108/bij-09-2013-0093
17. Çakır F.S., Pekkaya M., 2020, Determination of Interaction Between Criteria and the Criteria Priorities in Laptop Selection Problem. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 22, 1177-1190. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-00857-2
18. Debata B., Patnaik P., Mishra A. 2020. COVID‐19 pandemic! It's impact on people, economy, and environment, Journal of Public Affairs An International Journal, 20(4), 1-5. http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2372
19. De Matos C.A., Curth M, Garcia A.D.S., 2020. Customer loyalty in the online context: Understanding trust in different parties, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 21(4), 237-251. http://www.jecr.org/node/615
20. Deng F., Li Y., Lin H., Miao J., Liang X., 2020. A BWM-TOPSIS Hazardous Waste Inventory Safety Risk Evaluation, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 1-18. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165765
21. Dehdasht G., Ferwati M.S., Zin R.M., Abidin N.Z., 2020. A hybrid approach using entropy and TOPSIS to select key drivers for a successful and sustainable lean construction implementation, PLoS ONE, 15(2), 1-32. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228746
22. Ecer F., 2018. Third-party logistics (3PLs) provider selection via fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(2), 615-634. http://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1213207
23. Ecer F., Pamucar D., Mardani A., Alrasheedi M., 2021. Assessment of renewable energy resources using new interval rough number extension of the level based weight assessment and combinative distance-based assessment, Renewable Energy, 170, 1156-1177. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.004
24. Erkayman B., Khorshidi M., Usanmaz B., 2018. An integrated fuzzy approach for ERP deployment strategy selection under conflicting criteria, Atatürk University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 32(3), 807-823. Available on the Internet: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/articlefile/503853
25. Ersoy Y. 2021. Performance Evaluation in Distance Education by Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and TOPSIS Methods, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 46(2), 1803-1817. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-05087-0
26. George J., Singh A. Bhaisare A.K., 2018. Implementation of TOPSIS Technique for Supplier Selection, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 5(6), 2582-2585. Available on the Internet: https://www.irjet.net/archives/V5/i6/IRJETV5I6484.pdf
27. Ghorabaee M.K., Zavadskas E.K., Olfat L., Turskis Z, 2015. Multi-Criteria Inventory Classification Using a New Method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS), INFORMATICA, 26(3), 435-451. http://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2015.5 7
28. Ghorabaee M. K., Zavadskas E.K., Turskis Z., Antucheviciene J., 2016. A New Combinativ Distance-Based Assessment (CODAS) Method For Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 3(50), 25-44. Available on the Internet: http://www.ecocyb.ase.ro/Articles2016_3.htm
29. Ghorabaee M.K., Amiri M., Zavadskas E.K., Turskis Z., Antucheviciene J., 2017. A new hybrid simulation-based assignment approach for evaluating airlines with multiple service quality criteria, Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 45-60. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.05.008
30. Ghorabaee M.K, Amiri M., Zavadskas E.K., Antucheviciene J., 2018. A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluation of construction equipment with sustainability considerations, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 18(1), 32–49. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011
31. Hanine M., Boutkhoum O., Tikniouine A., Agouti T., 2016. Application of an integrated multi criteria decision making AHP TOPSIS methodology for ETL software selection, SpringerPlus, 5, 1-17. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1888-z
32. Hwang C.L., Yoon K., 1981, Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications, Springer, New York. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
33. Jayant A., Sharma J., 2018. A comprehensive literature review of MCDM techniques Electre, Promethee, Vikor and Topsis applications in business competitive environment, International Journal of Current Research, 10(2), 65461-65477.
34. Juodagalvienė B., Turskis Z., Šaparauskas J., Endriukaitytė A., 2017, Integrated Multicriteria Evaluation of House’s Plan Shape based on The EDAS and SWARA Methods. Engineering Structures and Technologies, 9(3), 117-125. http://doi.org/10.3846/2029882X.2017.1347528
35. Kahraman C, Ghorabaee M.K., Zavadskas E.K., Onar, S.C., Yazdani, M., Oztaysi B., 2017. Intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS method: an application to solid waste disposal site selection, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 25(1), 1-12. http://doi.org/10.3846/16486897.2017.1281139
36. Kalyani K.S., Nagarani S., Maragatham L., Kumar N.D., 2016. Multi criteria decision making for selecting the best laptop. IJCTA (International Journal of Control Theory and Applications), 9(36), 437-441.
37. Kaplinski O., Peldschus F., Nazarko J., Kaklauskas A. Baušys R., 2019. MCDM, operational research and sustainable development in the trans-border Lithuanian-German-Polish co-operation, Engineering Management in Production and Services, 11(2). 7-18. http://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2019-0007
38. Karabasevic D., Zavadskas E.K., Stanujkic D., Popovic G., Brzakovic M., 2018. An Approach To Personnel Selection In The It Industry Based On The EDAS Method, Transformations in Business & Economics, 17(2), 54-65. Available on the Internet: http://www.transformations.knf.vu.lt/44/article/anap
39. Kecek G., Demirağ F., 2016. A comparative analysis of TOPSIS and MOORA in laptop selection, Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(14), 1-9. Available on the Internet: https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/RHSS/article/view/32077/32947
40. Kolios A., Mytilinou V., Lozano-Minguez E., Salonitis K., 2016, A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs, Energies, 9(7), 1-21. http://doi.org/10.3390/en9070566
41. Kundakcı N., 2019. An integrated method using MACBETH and EDAS methods for evaluating steam boiler alternatives, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 26, 27-34. http://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1656
42. Lakshmi T.M., Venkatesan V.P., Martin A., 2015. Identification of a Better Laptop with Conflicting Criteria Using TOPSIS, International Journal of Information Engineering and Electronic Business, 6, 28-36. http://doi.org/10.5815/ijieeb.2015.06.05
43. Li X., Liao Q., Luo X(R)., Wang Y., 2020., Juxtaposting impacts of social media interaction experiences on e-commerce reputation, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 21(2), 75-95. Available at: http://www.jecr.org/node/602
44. Liang W., Zhao G., Luo S., 2018. An Integrated EDAS-ELECTRE Method with Picture Fuzzy Information for Cleaner Production Evaluation in Gold Mines, IEEE Access, 6, 65747-65759. http://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2878747
45. Liang Y., 2020. An EDAS Method for Multiple Attribute Group Decision-Making under Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment and Its Application for Evaluating Green Building Energy-Saving Design Projects, Symmetry, 12(3), 1-12. http://doi.org/10.3390/sym12030484
46. Mardani A., Jusoh A., Nor K.M.D., Kahalifah Z., Zakwan N., Valipour A., 2015. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications - a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), 516-571. http://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139
47. Mathew M., Sahu S., 2018. Comparison of new multi-criteria decision making methods for matiral handling equipment selection. Management Science Letters, 8(3), 139- 150. http://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2018.1.004
48. Mathew M., Thomas J., 2019. Interval valued multi criteria decision making methods for the selection of flexible manufacturing System, International Journal of Data and Network Science, 3, 349-358. http://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2019.4.001
49. Mitra S., Goswami S.S., 2019, Application of Integrated MCDM Technique (AHPSAW) for the Selection of Best Laptop Computer Model, International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM), 4(12), 1-6. http://doi.org/10.18231/2454-9150.2019.0091
50. Palczewski K., Salabun W., 2019. The fuzzy TOPSIS applications in the last decade, Procedia Computer Science, 159, 2294-2303. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.404
51. Pekkaya M., Aktogan M., 2014. Laptop Selection: A comparative analysis with DEA, TOPSIS and VIKOR. The International Journal of Economic and Social Research, 10(1), 107-125. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/esad/issue/6069/81670
52. Posel D., Oyenubi A., Kollamparambil, U., 2021. Job loss and mental health during the COVID-19 lockdown: Evidence from South Africa. PLoS ONE, 16(3), 1-15. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249352
53. Rezaei J. 2015. A Systematic Review of Multicriteria Decision-making Applications in Reverse Logistics, Transportation Research Procedia, 10, 766-776. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.030
54. Saadat S., Rawtani D., Hussain C.M., 2020. Environmental perspective of COVID-19, Science of the Total Environment, 728, 1-8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138870
55. Shih H-S., Shyur H-J, Lee E.S., 2007. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45(7-8), 801-813. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2006.03.023
56. Siew L.W., Wai C.J., Hoe L.W., 2016. An empirical study on the preference of laptop in Malaysia with analytic hierarchy process model, SCIREA Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 1(2), 127-141. Available on the Internet: http://www.scirea.org/journal/PaperInformation?PaperID=218
57. Siksnelyte-Butkiene I., Streimikiene D., Balezentis T., Skulskis V., 2021, A Systematic Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Sustainable Selection of Insulation Materials in Buildings. Sustainability, 13(2), 1-21. http://doi.org/10.3390/su13020737
58. Simic V., Karagoz S., Deveci M., Aydin N., 2021. Picture fuzzy extension of the CODAS method for multi-criteria vehicle shredding facility location, Expert Systems with Applications, 175, 1-37. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114644
59. Srichetta P., Thurachon W., 2012. Applying Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process to Evaluate and Select Product of Notebook Computers, International Journal of Modeling and Optimization, 2(2), 168-173. http://doi.org/10.7763/IJMO.2012.V2.105
60. Stanujkic D., Zavadskas E.K., Ghorabaee M.K., Turskis Z., 2017. An Extension of the EDAS Method Based on the Use of Interval Grey Numbers, Studies in Informatics and Control, 26(1), 5-12. http://doi.org/10.24846/v26i1y201701
61. Stanujkic D., Jevtic M., Ivanov B., 2018, An approach for laptop computers evaluation using multiple-criteria desicion analysis, 263-267. Proceeding of International Scientific Conference, 16-17 November 2018, GABROVO. Available on the Internet: http://unitechselectedpapers.tugab.bg/2018/papers/s4_p64.pdf
62. Stević Ž., Pamučar D., Vasiljević M., Stojić G., Korica S., 2017. Novel Integrated Multi-Criteria Model for Supplier Selection: Case Study Construction Company, Symmetry, 9(11), 1-34. http://doi.org/10.3390/sym9110279
63. Statista., 2020. E-Commerce: Retail e-commerce sales worldwide from 2014 to 2023, Available on the Internet: www.statista.com/statistics/379046/worldwide-retail-e-commerce-sales/2020. Accessed: 2 January 2021.
64. Trinkūnienė E., Podvezko V., Zavadskas E.K., Jokšienė I., Vinogradova I., Trinkūnas V., 2017. Evaluation of quality assurance in contractor contracts by multi‐attribute decision making methods, Economic Research‐Ekonomska Istraživanja, 30(1), 1152-1180. http://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2017.1325616
65. Turskis Z., Morkunaite Z., Kutut V., 2017. A hybrid multiple criteria evaluation method of ranking of cultural heritage structures for renovation projects, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Vo21(3), 318-329. http://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2017.1325782
66. Ulutaş A., Cengiz E., 2018. Laptop selection for a business with CRITIC and EVAMIX method, The Journal of International Social Research, 11(55), 881-887. http://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.20185537260
67. Ulutaş A., 2019. The performance analysis of logistics companies with Entrophy based EDAS method, International Journal of Economics and Administrative Studies, 23, 53-66. http://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.458754
68. Urbancokava V., Kompan M., Trebulova Z., Bielikova M., 2020. Behavior-based customer demography prediction in ecommerce, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 21(2), 96-112. Available at: http://www.jecr.org/node/603
69. Vimal J., Chaturverdi V., Dubey A.K., 2012. Application of TOPSIS method for supplier selection in manufacturing industry. International Journal of Research in Engineering & Applied Sciences (IJREAS), 2(5), 25-35.
70. Yalçın N., Pehlivan N.P., 2019. Application of the Fuzzy CODAS method based on fuzzy envelopes for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: A case study on a personnel selection problem, Symmetry, 11(4), 1-27. http://doi.org/10.3390/sym11040493
71. Yorulmaz M., İç Y.T., Seyrek A., 2019. Development of a Decision Support System for Computer Replacement Decisions, International Journal of Informatics Technologies, 12(3), 195-202. http://doi.org/10.17671/gazibtd.510657
72. Zhang S., Gao H., Wei G., Wei Y., Wei C., 2019. Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution Method for Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making under Picture 2-Tuple Linguistic Environment, Mathematics, 7(3), 1-16. http://doi.org/10.3390/math7030243
73. You P., Guo S., Zhao H., Zhao H. 2017. Operation performance evaluation of power grid enterprise using a hybrid BWMTOPSIS method, Sustainability, 9(12), 1- 15. http://doi.org/10.3390/su9122329
74. Wang T.C., Lee H D., 2009, Developing A Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach Based on Subjective Weights and Objective Weights, Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 8980-8985. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035
75. Wang E., Alp N., Shi J., Wang C., Zhang X., Chen H., 2017, Multi-criteria building energy performance benchmarking through variable clustering based compromise TOPSIS with objective entropy weighting, Energy, 125, 197-210. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.131
76. Xu X., Wu J-H., Li Q., 2020. What drives consumer shopping behaviour in live streaming commerce?, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 21(3), 144-167. Available at: http://www.jecr.org/node/609

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2021).

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-91c27930-cb42-4280-9944-175c0b353a5b