Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Dijital Lojistik Pazar Performansının Hibrit ÇKKV Yöntemleriyle İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, gelişmekte olan ülkelerin dijital lojistik pazar performansını bütünleşik Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerini kullanarak değerlendirmektir. Bu çalışmada kullanılan kriterler literatür taraması sonucu belirlenmiştir. Kriter ağırlıklarının hesaplanmasında LOPCOW yöntemi kullanılırken, alternatifler MAUT, TOPSIS, MARCOS ve CoCoSo gibi farklı ÇKKV yöntemlerine göre sıralanmıştı. Ayrıca, bu çalışmada Borda sayımı yöntemi kullanılarak alternatiflere ilişkin son sıralama elde edilmiştir. LOPCOW yönteminden elde edilen sonuçlar, geleceğe hazırlık (FR) ve yurt içi lojistik fırsatlarının (DLO) sırasıyla en önemli ve en az önemli kriterler olduğunu göstermiştir. MAUT, TOPSIS, MARCOS ve CoCoSo yöntemlerinden elde edilen sıralama sonuçları, Birleşik Arap Emirlikleri'nin (BAE) en yüksek dijital lojistik pazar performansına sahip olduğunu, onu Çin ve Katar'ın takip ettiğini göstermiştir. Bu çalışmanın, gelişmekte olan ülkelerdeki politika yapıcılar ve şirketlere dijital lojistik pazar performansı hakkında fikir sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Bu çalışmanın temel sınırlılığı, ülkelerin dijital lojistik pazar performansının AEMLI ve DCI raporlarından elde edilen verilere dayanarak değerlendirilmesidir. Gelecekteki araştırmalarda farklı kriterlerin kullanılması mümkün olabilir.

Keywords

• Lojistik pazar performans
• Dijitalleşme
• Gelişen pazarlar
• ÇKKV

Investigation of Digital Logistics Market Performance in Developing Countries with Hybrid MCDM Methods

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the digital logistics market performance of developing countries using integrated MCDM methods. For this investigation, the criteria were determined based on the previous research. While the LOPCOW method was used to determine the weights of the criteria, the alternatives were ranked based on various MCDM methods, namely MAUT, TOPSIS, MARCOS, and CoCoSo. Additionally, in this study, the final ranking was obtained by the Borda count method. Results from the LOPCOW method showed that future readiness (FR) and domestic logistics opportunities (DLO) were the most and least important criteria, respectively. According to results obtained by the MAUT, TOPSIS, MARCOS and CoCoSo methods showed that, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has the highest digital logistics market performance, followed by China and Qatar. It is thought that this study will provide insight into digital logistics market performance for policy makers and companies in developing countries. The main limitations of this study that the digital logistics market performance of countries was evaluated based on the data from the AEMLI and DCI reports. In future investigations, it might be possible to use different criteria.

Keywords

• logistics market performance
• digitalization
• emerging markets
• MCDM

References

1. Aboul-Dahab, K., & Ibrahim, M. A. (2020). Investigating the efficiency of the logistics performance index (LPI) weighting system using the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method. International Journal of Science and Research, 9, 269-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3815764
2. Adıgüzel Mercangöz, B., Yıldırım, B. F., & Kuzu Yıldırım, S. (2020). Time period based COPRAS-G method: application on the Logistics Performance Index. LogForum, 16(2), 239-250. http://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2020.432
3. Agility. (2023). Agility Emerging Markets Logistics Index (AEMLI). Available at: https://www.agility.com/en/emerging-markets-logistics-index/ (07.08.2023)
4. Akyüz, G., & Aka, S. (2017). An Additive Approach With Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods On Evaluation Of Supplier Performance. Journal Of Management & Economics Research, 15(2), 28-46. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.277893
5. Bensassi, S., Márquez-Ramos, L., Martínez-Zarzoso, I., & Suárez-Burguet, C. (2015). Relationship between logistics infrastructure and trade: Evidence from Spanish regional exports. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 72, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.11.007
6. Borgogna, A., Sheikh, H., & Raad, M. (2022). Modernizing logistics through digitization. Available at: https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/m1/en/strategic-foresight/sector-strategies/transport-logistics management/modernizing-logistics.html (04.12.2023)
7. Bugarčić, F. Ž., Skvarciany, V., & Stanišić, N. (2020). Logistics performance index in international trade: Case of Central and Eastern European and Western Balkans countries. Business: Theory and Practice, 21(2), 452-459. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/btp.2020.12802
8. Çakir, S., & Perçin, S. (2013). Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleriyle lojistik firmalarinda performans ölçümü/Performance measurement of logistics firms with multi-criteria decision making methods. Ege Akademik Bakis, 13(4), 449-459.

9. Calabrase, J. (2022). China’s digital inroads into the Middle East. Available at: https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/10/19/chinas-digital-inroads-into-the-middle-east/ (05.12.2023)
10. Chejarla, K. C., Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2022). MCDM applications in logistics performance evaluation: A literature review. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 29(3-4), 274-297. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1774
11. Chow, G., Heaver, T. D., & Henriksson, L. E. (1994). Logistics performance: definition and measurement. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 24(1), 17-28.
12. Dare, T. O., Aubyn, L. N. A., & Boumgard, T. (2019). Analyzing, evaluating and improving the logistics performance index (LPI) of a country's economy: Case study: Nigeria, Ghana and Morocco. Master of Science. Malmö: World Maritime University
13. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
14. García, L., Martí, L., Martín, J. C., & Puertas, R. (2015). A DEA-Logistic Performance Index. In European Transport Conference 2015Association for European Transport (AET). https://aetransport. org/past-etcpapers/conference-papers-2015.
15. Han, H., & Trimi, S. (2018). A fuzzy TOPSIS method for performance evaluation of reverse logistics in social commerce platforms. Expert systems with applications, 103, 133-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.003
16. IMD. (2022). World Digital Competitiveness Index (DCI). Available at: https://www.imd.org/centers/wcc/world-competitiveness-center/rankings/world-digital-competitiveness-ranking/ (19.07.2023)
17. Isik, O., Aydin, Y., & Kosaroglu, S. M. (2020). The assessment of the logistics performance index of CEE countries with the new combination of SV and MABAC methods. LogForum, 16(4), 549-559. http://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2020.504
18. Kara, K., & Yalçın, G. C. (2022). Digital Logistics Market Performance of Developing Countries. International Journal of Academic Accumulation, 5(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.53001/uluabd.2022.38
19. Kara, K., Bentyn, Z., & Yalçın, G. C. (2022). Determining the logistics market performance of developing countries by entropy and MABAC methods. LogForum, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.17270/j.log.2022.752
20. Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge university press.
21. KnowESG. (2023). GUUD Singapore Rolls Out New Digital Logistics Platform ClickargoSG. Available at: https://www.knowesg.com/tech/guud-singapore-rolls-out-new-digital-logistics-platform-clickargosg-20012023 (10.10.2023).
22. Kovács, G., & Kot, S. (2016). New logistics and production trends as the effect of global economy changes. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 14(2), 115-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2016.14.2.11
23. Lagoudis, I., Madentzoglou, E. M., Theotokas, I. N., & Yip, T. L. (2019). Maritime cluster attractiveness index. Maritime business review, 4(2), 169-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MABR-11-2018-0044
24. Magli, D. (2023). Maersk, Microsoft sign digitalisation and decarbonisation partnership. Available at: https://www.porttechnology.org/news/maersk-microsoft-sign-digitalisation-and-decarbonisation-partnership/ (10.10.2023)
25. Martí, L., Martín, J. C., & Puertas, R. (2017). A DEA-logistics performance index. Journal of applied economics, 20(1), 169-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(17)30008-9
26. Mešić, A., Miškić, S., Stević, Ž., & Mastilo, Z. (2022). Hybrid MCDM solutions for evaluation of the logistics performance index of the Western Balkan countries. ECONOMICS-Innovative and Economics Research Journal, 10(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2022-0004
27. Miškić, S., Stević, Ž., Tadić, S., Alkhayyat, A., & Krstić, M. (2023). Assessment of the LPI of the EU countries using MCDM model with an emphasis on the importance of criteria. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 11(3), 258-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/WRITR.2023.10056767
28. Navickas, V., Sujeta, L., & Vojtovich, S. (2011). Logistics systems as a factor of country’s competitiveness. Ekonomika ir vadyba, (16), 231-237.
29. Özekenci E. K. (2023). Assessing The Logistics Market Performance of Developing Countries By SWARA-CRITIC Based CoCoSo Method. LogForum 19 (3),375-394. http://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2023.857.
30. Rasool, F., Greco, M., Morales-Alonso, G., & Carrasco-Gallego, R. (2023). What is next? The effect of reverse logistics adoption on digitalization and inter-organizational collaboration. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. Vol. 53 No. 5/6 pp. 563-588. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2022-0173
31. Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W. S., & Tavasszy, L. (2018). Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transport Policy, 68, 158-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.05.007
32. Roszkowska, E. (2011). Multi-criteria decision making models by applying the TOPSIS method to crisp and interval data. Multiple Criteria Decision Making/University of Economics in Katowice, 6(1), 200-230.
33. Srisawat, P., Kronprasert, N., & Arunotayanun, K. (2017). Development of decision support system for evaluating spatial efficiency of regional transport logistics. Transportation research procedia, 25, 4832-4851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.493
34. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & industrial engineering, 140, 106231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
35. Strategic Market Research. (2022). Digital logistics market by solution. Available at: https://www.strategicmarketresearch.com/market-report/digital-logistics-market (09.10.2023)
36. Surucu, E., & Sakar, G. D. (2018). Supply chain performance: Measuring the impact of supply chain orientation and brand equity. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, 5(1), 1-17. http://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2018.803
37. Uluskan, M., Akpolat, G., & Şimşek, D. (2022). Evaluation of The Performance of Private Universities witH AHP, COPRAS, SAW, TOPSIS and BORDA Count Methods. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 33(1), 22-61. https://doi.org/10.46465/endustrimuhendisligi.972512
38. Ulutaş, A., & Karaköy, Ç. (2019). An analysis of the logistics performance index of EU countries with an integrated MCDM model. Economics and Business Review, 5(4), 49-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2019.4.3
39. Vukadin, M., & Jovičić, M. (2022) Method of Evaluation of Application of Public-Private Partnerships. Economics-Časopis Za Inovacijska I Ekonomska Istraživanja, 2(1).
40. Wang, M., Lin, S. J., & Lo, Y. C. (2010, December). The comparison between MAUT and PROMETHEE. In 2010 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (pp. 753-757). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2010.5675608
41. Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management Decision, 57(9), 2501-2519. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458
42. Yildirim, B. F., & Adiguzel Mercangoz, B. (2020). Evaluating the logistics performance of OECD countries by using fuzzy AHP and ARAS-G. Eurasian Economic Review, 10(1), 27-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40822-019-00131-3
43. Yu, M. M., & Rakshit, I. (2023). An alternative assessment approach to global logistics performance evaluation: Common weight H‐DEA approach. International Transactions in Operational Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13360