International market selection: a MABA based EDAS analysis framework

Abstract

Research background: International market selection is an essential issue for big companies that supply food products. Different types of decision factors and different characteristics of different international markets have brought up a complicated decision-making problem for food supply companies. In order to select the most suitable and profitable market, food supply companies have to consider several qualitative and quantitative factors, including social, political, economic, and ecological aspects.

Purpose of the article: In order to overcome international market selection issues, the current study develops a novel integrated decision-making tool.

Methods: A novel decision-making model of market analysis is developed as an extended model of Market Attractiveness and Business Attractiveness (MABA) analysis based on the Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM). To improve the MABA analysis model, we combine the EDAS method with MABA analysis to empower decision-makers in food supply companies to evaluate several international markets and select the most profitable market for their products.

Findings & value added: In this study, we first identified the most important and frequently used decision factors for market analysis problems within MABA analysis under two categories: market attractiveness and business attractiveness. To show the proposed methodology's applicability and feasibility, we perform a case study for a food supply company in Iran that supplies products to Middle East and Asian countries. In order to investigate the reliability of the obtained results, we perform a sensitivity analysis concerning the importance of involved decision factors. The proposed decision-making tool results suggest that the model can be used as a reliable tool for market analysis problems. To sum up the long-term value of the study, we have developed a novel decision-making tool using MABA analysis and the EDAS method. No study integrates any MCDM methods with MABA analysis to the best of our knowledge. Integration of EDAS method with MABA analysis empowers decision-makers in market selection division to use more systematic methods for evaluating several markets.

Keywords

international market selection, EDAS, General Electric (GE) Matrix, McKinsey matrix, MABA analysis

References

1. Aghdaie, M. H., & Alimardani, M. (2015). Target market selection based on market segment evaluation: a multiple attribute decision making approach. International Journal of Operational Research, 24(3), 262?278. doi: 10.1504/IJOR.2015.072231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJOR.2015.072231
   View in Google Scholar
2. Ahi, A., Kuivalainen, O., & Bahreinian, M. (2019). A systematic approach to international market selection: measuring the attractiveness of emerging economies in the case of the timber industry. International Journal of Export Marketing, 3(2), 105?118. doi: 10.1504/IJEXPORTM.2019.104396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEXPORTM.2019.10026135
   View in Google Scholar
3. Al Qur?an, M. (2020). Success factors influencing the selection of the location of international firms. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 30(5), 665?679. doi: 10.1108/CR-05-2018-0030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-05-2018-0030
   View in Google Scholar
4. Amatulli, C., Caputo, T., & Guido, G. (2011). Strategic analysis through the general electric/McKinsey Matrix: an application to the Italian fashion industry. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5), 61. doi: 10.5539/ijbm .v6n5p61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n5p61
   View in Google Scholar
5. Andersen, O., & Buvik, A. (2002). Firms? internationalization and alternative approaches to the international customer/market selection. International business review, 11(3), 347?363. doi: 10.1016/S0969-5931(01)00064-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(01)00064-6
   View in Google Scholar
6. Andersson, S. (2000). The internationalization of the firm from an entrepreneurial perspective. International Studies of Management & Organization, 30(1), 63?92. doi: 10.1080/00208825.2000.11656783. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2000.11656783
   View in Google Scholar
7. 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, 122008. doi: 10.1016/ j.jclepro.2020.122008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122008
   View in Google Scholar
8. Brouthers, L. E., & Nakos, G. (2005). The role of systematic international market selection on small firms? export performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 363?381. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00142.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00142.x
   View in Google Scholar
9. Buckley, P. J. (2017). The competitiveness of emerging country multinational enterprise. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 27(3), 208?216. doi: 10.1108/CR-03-2016-0017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-03-2016-0017
   View in Google Scholar
10. Budeva, D., & Mullen, M. R. (2016). Does culture matter for international market selection? International Journal of Export Marketing, 1(2), 193?214. doi: 10.1504/IJEXPORTM.2016.081570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEXPORTM.2016.081570
    View in Google Scholar
11. Cachon, G. P. (1999). Competitive supply chain inventory management. In Quantitative models for supply chain management. Boston, MA: Springer, 111?146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4949-9_5
    View in Google Scholar
12. Cavusgil, S. T., Kiyak, T., & Yeniyurt, S. (2004). Complementary approaches to preliminary foreign market opportunity assessment: country clustering and country ranking. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(7), 607?617. doi: 10.10 16/j.indmarman.2003.10.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.10.005
    View in Google Scholar
13. Christian, A. V., Zhang, Y., & Salifou, C. K. (2016). Country selection for international expansion: TOPSIS method analysis. Modern Economy, 7(04), 470. doi: 10.4236/me.2016.74052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2016.74052
    View in Google Scholar
14. Clark, D. R., Li, D., & Shepherd, D. A. (2018). Country familiarity in the initial stage of foreign market selection. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(4), 442?472. doi: 10.1057/s41267-017-0099-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0099-3
    View in Google Scholar
15. Decuseara, N. R. (2013). Using the general electric/Mckinsey Matrix in the process of selecting the central and east European markets. Management Strategies Journal, 19(1), 59?66.
    View in Google Scholar
16. Dincer, H., & Yuksel, S. (2019). An integrated stochastic fuzzy MCDM approach to the balanced scorecard-based service evaluation. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 166, 93?112. doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2019.04.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2019.04.008
    View in Google Scholar
17. Dunning, J. H. (1988). The theory of international production. International Trade Journal, 3(1), 21?66. doi: 10.1080/08853908808523656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08853908808523656
    View in Google Scholar
18. Dunning, J. H. (2015). The eclectic paradigm of international production: a restatement and some possible extensions. In The eclectic paradigm. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 50?84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-54471-1_3
    View in Google Scholar
19. Ebadi Torkayesh, A., Fathipoir, F., & Saidi-Mehrabd, M. (2019). Entropy-based multi-criteria analysis of thermochemical conversions for energy recovery from municipal solid waste using guzzy VIKOR and ELECTRE III: vase of Azerbaijan region, Iran. Journal of Energy Management and Technology, 3(1), 17?29. doi: 10.22109/JEMT.2018.134505.1098.
    View in Google Scholar
20. Ecer, F. (2015). Performance evaluation of internet banking branches via a hybrid MCDM model under fuzzy environment. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 49(2), 211?230.
    View in Google Scholar
21. Ecer, F. (2020a). An analysis of the factors affecting wind farm site selection through FUCOM subjective weighting method Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 27(1), 24?34. doi: 10.5505/pajes.2020.93271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5505/pajes.2020.93271
    View in Google Scholar
22. Ecer, F. (2020b). Multi-criteria decision making for green supplier selection using interval type-2 fuzzy AHP: a case study of a home appliance manufacturer. Operational Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s12351-020-00552-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-020-00552-y
    View in Google Scholar
23. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection: a novel integrated fuzzy best worst method (F-BWM) and fuzzy CoCoSo with Bonferroni (CoCoSo'B) multi-criteria model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 121981. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121981
    View in Google Scholar
24. Fuertes, G., Alfaro, M., Vargas, M., Gutierrez, S., Ternero, R., & Sabattin, J. (2020). Conceptual framework for the strategic management: a literature review?descriptive. Journal of Engineering, 6253013. doi: 10.1155/2020/625 3013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6253013
    View in Google Scholar
25. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011
    View in Google Scholar
26. Górecka, D., & Szałucka, M. (2013). Country market selection in international expansion using multicriteria decision aiding methods. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 8, 32?55.
    View in Google Scholar
27. Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Ecer, F., Pamučar, D., & Raslanas, S. (2020). Neighborhood selection for a newcomer via a novel BWM-based revised MAIRCA integrated model: a case from the Coquimbo-La Serena conurbation, Chile. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 24(2), 102?118. doi: 10.3846/ijspm.2020.11543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2020.11543
    View in Google Scholar
28. Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Yazdani, M., Ebadi Torkayesh, A., & Derakhti, A. (2020). Application of a Gray-based decision support framework for location selection of a temporary hospital during COVID-19 pandemic. Symmetry, 12(6), 886. doi: 10.3390/sym12060886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12060886
    View in Google Scholar
29. He, X., Lin, Z., & Wei, Y. (2016). International market selection and export performance: a transaction cost analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 50(5/6), 916?941. doi: 10.1108/EJM-02-2013-0083. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2013-0083
    View in Google Scholar
30. Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
    View in Google Scholar
31. Imran Khan, M. (2018). Evaluating the strategies of compressed natural gas industry using an integrated SWOT and MCDM approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1035?1052. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.231
    View in Google Scholar
32. Johanson, J., & Mattsson, L. G. (1987). Interorganizational relations in industrial systems: a network approach compared with the transaction-cost approach. International Studies of Management & Organization, 17(1), 34?48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1987.11656444
    View in Google Scholar
33. Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975). The internationalization of the firm: Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305?322. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1975.tb00514.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1975.tb00514.x
    View in Google Scholar
34. Kahraman, C., Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Cevik Onar, S., 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. doi: 10.3846/16486897.201 7.1281139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/16486897.2017.1281139
    View in Google Scholar
35. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2016). A new combinative distance-based assessment (Codas) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 50(3), 25?44.
    View in Google Scholar
36. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., 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. doi: 10.15388/Informatica.2015.57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2015.57
    View in Google Scholar
37. Kinuthia, B. K., & Murshed, S. M. (2015). FDI determinants: Kenya and Malaysia compared. Journal of Policy Modeling, 37(2), 388?400. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod .2015.01.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2015.01.013
    View in Google Scholar
38. Koch, A. J. (2001). Selecting overseas markets and entry modes: two decision processes or one? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19(1), 65?75. doi: 10.11 08/02634500110366120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500110366120
    View in Google Scholar
39. Kotler, P. T. (2019). Marketing management. Pearson UK.
    View in Google Scholar
40. Li, C., Negnevitsky, M., & Wang, X. (2020). Prospective assessment of methanol vehicles in China using FANP-SWOT analysis. Transport Policy, 96, 60?75. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.06.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.06.010
    View in Google Scholar
41. Lu, M. T., Hsu, C. C., Liou, J. J. H., & Lo, H. W. (2018). A hybrid MCDM and sustainability-balanced scorecard model to establish sustainable performance evaluation for international airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 71, 9?19. doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.05.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.05.008
    View in Google Scholar
42. Marchi, G., Vignola, M., Facchinetti, G., & Mastroleo, G. (2014). International market selection for small firms: a fuzzy-based decision process. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 2198?2212. doi: 10.1108/EJM-09-2012-0512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2012-0512
    View in Google Scholar
43. Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2001). Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2), 1?25. doi: 10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.tb00001.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.tb00001.x
    View in Google Scholar
44. Mersland, R., Nyarko, S. A., & Sirisena, A. B. (2020). A hybrid approach to international market selection: the case of impact investing organizations. International Business Review, 29(1), 101624. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.201 9.101624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101624
    View in Google Scholar
45. Musso, F., & Francioni, B. (2014). International strategy for SMEs: criteria for foreign markets and entry modes selection. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(2), 301?312. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-10-2013-0149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-10-2013-0149
    View in Google Scholar
46. Natarajarathinam, M., & Nepal, B. (2012). A holistic approach to market assessment for a manufacturing company in an emerging economy. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(7), 1142?1151. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.05.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.05.003
    View in Google Scholar
47. Oey, E., Noviyanti, & Sanny, L. (2018). Evaluating international market selection with multi-criteria decision making tools-a case study of a metal company in Indonesia. International Journal of Business Excellence, 16(3), 341?361. doi: 10.1504/IJBEX.2018.095645. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2018.10016691
    View in Google Scholar
48. Ozturk, A., Joiner, E., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2015). Delineating foreign market potential: a tool for international market selection. Thunderbird International Business Review, 57(2), 119?141. doi: 10.1002/tie.21686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21686
    View in Google Scholar
49. Paley, N. (1999). The manager?s guide to competitive marketing strategies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
    View in Google Scholar
50. Pamucar D., Ecer, F., Cirovic, G., & Alrasheedi, M. (2020). Application of improved best-worst method in real-world problems. Mathematics, 8(3), 414. doi: 10.3390/math8030414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math8081342
    View in Google Scholar
51. Papadopoulos, N., & Denis, J. E. (1988). Inventory, taxonomy and assessment of methods for international market selection. International Marketing Review, 5(3), 38?51. doi: 10.1108/eb008357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb008357
    View in Google Scholar
52. Papadopoulos, N., & Martín, O. M. (2011). International market selection and segmentation: perspectives and challenges. International Marketing Review, 28(2), 132?149. doi: 10.1108/02651331111122632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331111122632
    View in Google Scholar
53. Ragland, C. B., Brouthers, L. E., & Widmier, S. M. (2015). Institutional theory and international market selection for direct selling. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(4), 538?555. doi: 10.1108/MIP-02-2014-0033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-02-2014-0033
    View in Google Scholar
54. Rahman, S. H. (2003). Modelling of international market selection process: a qualitative study of successful Australian international businesses. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 119?132. doi: 10.1108/13522 750310470127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750310470127
    View in Google Scholar
55. Ramadani, V., Zendeli, D., Gerguri-Rashiti, S., & Dana, L. P. (2018). Impact of geomarketing and location determinants on business development and decision making. Competitiveness Review, 28(1), 98?120. doi: 10.1108/CR-12-2016-0081. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-12-2016-0081
    View in Google Scholar
56. Reid, S. D. (1981). The decision-maker and export entry and expansion. Journal of International Business Studies, 12(2), 101?112. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.849 0581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490581
    View in Google Scholar
57. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49?57. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
    View in Google Scholar
58. Robinson, S. J. Q., Hichens, R. E., & Wade, D. R. (2001). The directional policy matrix?tool for strategic planning. Marketing: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, 4, 103. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301(78)80002-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(78)80002-8
    View in Google Scholar
59. Root, F. R. (1994). Entry strategies for international markets. Jossey-Bass.
    View in Google Scholar
60. Schoemaker, P. (2017). MABA analysis (General Electric Matrix), Web seminar, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=dWWg2dPSfgI (18.03 2020)
    View in Google Scholar
61. Schu, M., & Morschett, D. (2017). Foreign market selection of online retailers?a path-dependent perspective on influence factors. International Business Review, 26(4), 710?723. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.01.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.01.001
    View in Google Scholar
62. Schühly, A., & Tenzer, H. (2017). A multidimensional approach to international market selection and nation branding in sub-Saharan Africa. Africa Journal of Management, 3(3-4), 236?279. doi: 10.1080/23322373.2017.1375812. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322373.2017.1375812
    View in Google Scholar
63. Sener, H. Y. (2014). Determining new markets using analytic hierarchy process: case study in Güral Porcelain. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(5), 149. doi: 10.5539/ijms.v6n5p149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v6n5p149
    View in Google Scholar
64. Shen, L., Zhou, J., Skitmore, M., & Xia, B. (2015). Application of a hybrid entropy?McKinsey Matrix method in evaluating sustainable urbanization: a China case study. Cities, 42, 186?194. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.006
    View in Google Scholar
65. Sheng, S. Y., & Mullen, M. R. (2011). A hybrid model for export market opportunity analysis. International Marketing Review, 28(2), 163?182. doi: 10.1108/ 02651331111122650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331111122650
    View in Google Scholar
66. Solangi, Y. A., Tan, Q., Mirjat, N, H., & Ali, S. (2019). Evaluating the strategies for sustainable energy planning in Pakistan: an integrated SWOT-AHP and Fuzzy-TOPSIS approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117655. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117655. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117655
    View in Google Scholar
67. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
    View in Google Scholar
68. Torkayesh, A. E., & Basit, M. N. (2020a). Application of BWM-WASPAS model for digital supplier selection problem: a case study in online retail shopping. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Decision Making, 1(1), 12?23. doi: 10.31181/jiedm200101012t. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/jiedm200101012t
    View in Google Scholar
69. Torkayesh, S. E., Amiri, A., Iranizad, A., & Torkayesh, A. E. (2020b). Entropy based EDAS decision making model for neighborhood selection: a case study in istanbul. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Decision Making, 1(1), 1?11. doi: 10.31181/jiedm200101001t. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/jiedm200101001t
    View in Google Scholar
70. Tosun, N. (2017). Target market selection in fresh fruit-vegetable sector using Fuzzy VIKOR method. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, 4(4), 465?471. doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.734
    View in Google Scholar
71. Vahlne, J. E., & Johanson, J. (2013). The Uppsala model on evolution of the multinational business enterprise?from internalization to coordination of networks. International Marketing Review, 30(3), 189?210. doi: 10.1108/0265133 1311321963. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331311321963
    View in Google Scholar
72. Varmazyar, M., Dehghanbaghi, M., & Afkhami, M. (2016). A novel hybrid MCDM model for performance evaluation of research and technology organizations based on BSC approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 58, 125?140. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.06.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.06.005
    View in Google Scholar
73. Vernon, R. (1992). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. In International economic policies and their theoretical foundations. Academic Press, 415?435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-444281-8.50024-6
    View in Google Scholar
74. Whitelock, J., & Jobber, D. (2004). An evaluation of external factors in the decision of UK industrial firms to enter a new non?domestic market: an exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 38(11/12), 1437?1455. doi: 10.1108/03 090560410560182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410560182
    View in Google Scholar
75. Yang, W., & Jiang, X. (2018). Evaluating sustainable urbanization of resource-based cities based on the mckinsey matrix: case study in China. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 144(1), 05017020. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP .1943-5444.0000423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000423
    View in Google Scholar
76. Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2019a). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management Decision, 57(9), 2501?2519. doi: 10.1108/MD-05-2017 -0458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458
    View in Google Scholar
77. Yazdani, M., Hernandez, V. D., Chatterjee, P., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2019b). A statistical approach for improvement of Best Worst Method (BWM). In 17th international colloquium ?Sustainable decisions in built environment ?. Vilnius: Gediminas Technical University. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/colloquium.2019.002
    View in Google Scholar
78. Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., & Torkayesh, A. E. (2020a). An integrated AHP-QFD-based compromise ranking model for sustainable supplier selection. In Handbook of research on interdisciplinary approaches to decision making for sustainable supply chains. IGI Global, 32?54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9570-0.ch002
    View in Google Scholar
79. Yazdani, M., Torkayesh, A. E., & Chatterjee, P. (2020b). An integrated decision-making model for supplier evaluation in public healthcare system: the case study of a Spanish hospital. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 33(5), 965?989. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0294
    View in Google Scholar
80. Zolfani, S. H., Yazdani, M., Pamucar, D., & Zarate, P. (2020). A VIKOR and TOPSIS focused reanalysis of the MADM methods based on Logarithmic Normalization. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 18(3), 341?355. doi: 10.22190/FUME191129016Z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME191129016Z
    View in Google Scholar
81. Žižović, M., & Pamucar, D. (2019). New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(2), 126?137. doi: 10.31181/dmame19 02102z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1902102z
    View in Google Scholar
82. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2008). Green supply chain management implications for ?closing the loop?. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(1), 1?18. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2006.06.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2006.06.003
    View in Google Scholar