Multi-Criteria Decision Making techniques for the management of public procurement tenders: A case study

Abstract Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques are mathematical tools that help decision makers evaluating and ranking in an automatic way many possible alternatives over multiple conflicting criteria in highly complex situations. Several MCDM approaches exist, and their application fields are numerous, including the Supplier Selection Problem (SSP), which is an important problem in the management field. The aim of this paper is to perform a comparative analysis among some selected well-known MCDM techniques to show how they can properly support the specific decision making process of Public Procurement (PP) tenders, which is a particular type of the SSP, characterized by very stringent rules, thus requiring a specific assessment. Indeed, PP is a field characterized by the need for transparency, objectivity, and non-discrimination, which requires tendering organizations to explicitly state the adopted awarding method, the chosen decision criteria, and their relative importance in the call for proposals. However, this field has been seldomly investigated in the pertinent literature and thus the aim of this paper is to overcome such a limitation. In particular, this work focuses on the most commonly adopted methods in the field of supplier selection, namely the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment of Evaluations (PROMETHEE), the Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), and the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). First, we adapt these techniques to the PP problem and its requirements. Then, by means of some real tenders at a European Institution, the selected techniques are compared with each other and with the currently adopted methodology in their classical deterministic setting, to identify which method best suits the specific requirements of PP tenders. Hence, since nowadays uncertainty is inherent in data from real applications, and can be modelled by expert evaluations through fuzzy logic, the comparison is extended to the fuzzy counterparts of two of the most promising selected approaches, i.e., the Fuzzy AHP and the Fuzzy DEA, showing that these methods can be effectively applied to the PP sector also in the presence of uncertainty on the tenders data.

[1]  Cengiz Kahraman,et al.  Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making: A Literature Review , 2015, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst..

[2]  Jafar Razmi,et al.  An integrated approach for supplier portfolio selection: Lean or agile? , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[3]  Ali Emrouznejad,et al.  The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): a literature review with a social network analysis , 2017, Int. J. Prod. Res..

[4]  Milind Kumar Sharma,et al.  Multi-criteria supplier selection model using the analytic hierarchy process approach , 2016 .

[5]  Seyed Jafar Sadjadi,et al.  A state-of-art review on supplier selection problem , 2013 .

[6]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  DECISION MAKING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS , 2008 .

[7]  Patrick T. Hester,et al.  An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods , 2013 .

[8]  Reza Baradaran Kazemzadeh,et al.  PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[9]  K. Thai,et al.  International Public Procurement: Innovation and Knowledge Sharing , 2015 .

[10]  H.-J. Zimmermann Fuzzy set theory , 2010 .

[11]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 1978 .

[12]  Jacek Skorupski,et al.  Multi-criteria group decision making under uncertainty with application to air traffic safety , 2014, Expert Syst. Appl..

[13]  Mariagrazia Dotoli,et al.  A cross-efficiency fuzzy Data Envelopment Analysis technique for performance evaluation of Decision Making Units under uncertainty , 2015, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[14]  Johan Springael,et al.  PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  James Nga-Kwok Liu,et al.  Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[16]  Sylvain Kubler,et al.  A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications , 2016, Expert Syst. Appl..

[17]  Evangelos Triantaphyllou,et al.  USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS FOR DECISION MAKING IN ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS: SOME CHALLENGES , 1995 .

[18]  Mariagrazia Dotoli,et al.  Integrated Network Design of Agile Resource-Efficient Supply Chains Under Uncertainty , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems.

[19]  Doraid M. Dalalah,et al.  A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for supplier selection , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[20]  Eric W.T. Ngai,et al.  Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead , 2020, Expert Syst. Appl..

[21]  Rodney H. Green,et al.  Efficiency and Cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, Meanings and Uses , 1994 .

[22]  V. Vommi,et al.  A simple approach to multiple attribute decision making using loss functions , 2017 .

[23]  Celik Parkan,et al.  Comparison of three modern multicriteria decision-making tools , 2000, Int. J. Syst. Sci..

[24]  Concepción Maroto,et al.  A multiple criteria supplier segmentation using outranking and value function methods , 2017, Expert Syst. Appl..

[25]  M. Dotoli,et al.  A fuzzy technique for supply chain network design with quantity discounts , 2017, Int. J. Prod. Res..

[26]  Juuso Liesiö,et al.  Baseline value specification and sensitivity analysis in multiattribute project portfolio selection , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[27]  Tien-Chin Wang,et al.  Some Issues on Consistency of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2006, 2006 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics.

[28]  William C. Wedley,et al.  Modelling risk and uncertainty with the analytic hierarchy process , 2002 .

[29]  M. Dotoli,et al.  A hierarchical model for optimal supplier selection in multiple sourcing contexts , 2012 .

[30]  Gaetano Manfredi,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Multi‐Criteria Decision‐Making Methods for Seismic Structural Retrofitting , 2009, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastructure Eng..

[31]  R. Passaro,et al.  AHP-based approaches for supplier evaluation: Problems and perspectives , 2012 .

[32]  José M. Merigó,et al.  Heavy Moving Averages and Their Application in Econometric Forecasting , 2018, Cybern. Syst..

[33]  Xiaowei Xu,et al.  Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[34]  Alessio Ishizaka,et al.  Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software , 2013 .

[35]  Pushparenu Bhattacharjee,et al.  A comparative study of some prominent multi criteria decision making methods for connecting rod material selection , 2016 .

[36]  Selin Soner Kara,et al.  Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: A case study for a telecommunication company , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[37]  Taufiq Rizaldi,et al.  Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods (AHP, TOPSIS, SAW & PROMENTHEE) for Employee Placement , 2018 .

[38]  Fabio Sciancalepore,et al.  Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[39]  James S. Dyer,et al.  Multiattribute Utility Theory (MAUT) , 2016 .

[40]  Mariagrazia Dotoli,et al.  A stochastic cross-efficiency data envelopment analysis approach for supplier selection under uncertainty , 2016, Int. Trans. Oper. Res..

[41]  R Ramanathan,et al.  A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

[42]  N. Malys,et al.  Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability , 2016 .

[43]  A. Weele Purchasing and Supply Chain Management: Analysis, Strategy, Planning and Practice , 2009 .

[44]  T. Sexton,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis: Critique and Extensions , 1986 .

[45]  M. Wang,et al.  The comparison between MAUT and PROMETHEE , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

[46]  W. Cooper,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software , 1999 .

[47]  Ole Bent Olesen,et al.  Stochastic Data Envelopment Analysis - A review , 2016, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[48]  Anita Schöbel,et al.  On the Similarities of Some Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis Methods , 2011 .

[49]  S. Si,et al.  DEMATEL Technique: A Systematic Review of the State-of-the-Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications , 2018 .

[50]  Walid Abdul-Kader,et al.  Green supplier selection generic framework: a multi-attribute utility theory approach , 2011 .

[51]  Kirti Peniwati,et al.  Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[52]  Samuel H. Huang,et al.  Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection , 2007 .

[53]  Adel Hatami-Marbini,et al.  The State of the Art in Fuzzy Data Envelopment Analysis , 2014 .

[54]  Jan Telgen,et al.  Public procurement: International cases and commentary , 2007 .

[55]  José L. Jimeno,et al.  Another potential shortcoming of AHP , 2006 .