Exploring The Shortcomings in Formal Criteria Selection For Multicriteria Decision Making Based Inventory Classification Models A Systematic Review A

International Journal of Production Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tprs20
Exploring the shortcomings in formal criteria

selection for multicriteria decision making based
inventory classification models: a systematic
review and future directions
Frank Michael Theunissen, Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout & Shafiq Alam
To cite this article: Frank Michael Theunissen, Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout & Shafiq Alam (06
Mar 2024): Exploring the shortcomings in formal criteria selection for multicriteria decision
making based inventory classification models: a systematic review and future directions,
International Journal of Production Research, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2024.2320680
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2024.2320680
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 06 Mar 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 228
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2024.2320680
REVIEW ARTICLE
Exploring the shortcomings in formal criteria selection for multicriteria decision

making based inventory classification models: a systematic review and future
directions
Frank Michael Theunissen a , Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout b∗ and Shafiq Alam c
a Department of Operations and Engineering Innovation, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand; b School of Food and Advanced Science,
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand; c Massey Business School, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Criteria selection significantly impacts the reliability and utility of multicriteria decision making Received 12 April 2023
(MCDM) models. While criteria may vary across industries, a formalised criteria selection process is Accepted 29 January 2024
influential in determining MCDM model outcomes. This article analyses and compares the criteria KEYWORDS
selection approaches used in 62 articles that apply MCDM-based inventory classification models, Multicriteria decision
contrasting them with methodologies outside the field. Our findings reveal a conspicuous absence of making; inventory
formal criteria selection methods within MCDM-based inventory classification research. The limited classification; criteria
application of quantitative and qualitative approaches indicates that this field has not kept pace with selection; criteria selection
methodological advances in criteria selection. To bridge this gap, we advocate for further research process; inventory
aimed at developing a conceptual framework for criteria selection tailored to inventory classification. management
We also suggest evaluating the impact of formal criteria selection processes on inventory manage-
ment decisions and exploring the benefits of integrating artificial intelligence into criteria selection
for inventory classification studies. Additionally, this article identifies several limitations related to
criteria selection for practitioners employing MCDM-based inventory classification models.
1. Introduction
most relevant factors that directly contribute to the deci-
Inventory classification is a classic MCDM problem, sion objective. A robust formal criteria selection process
whereby a set of objects (i.e. inventory items) is cate- ensures that the chosen criteria effectively reflect key
gorised into predefined classes based on selected criteria, aspects of the decision context, thereby enabling accu-
with each object being assigned to a single class (Hu rate evaluation and comparison of alternatives, in this
et al. 2017). Classifying inventory serves multiple pur- case inventory items. Effective criteria selection should
poses such as determining optimal order or production consider multiple factors related to the decision objec-
quantities, establishing reorder points, calculating safety tive, simultaneously avoiding overlap, duplication, and
stock, and other related metrics based on multiple criteria misalignment (de Souza et al. 2021; Lima-Junior and
(Van Kampen, Akkerman, and Van Donk 2012). Inven- Carpinetti 2016). It also involves ensuring that each cri-
tory classification relies on relevant and effective crite- terion adds unique value to the decision making pro-
ria that simplify inventory management by reducing the cess, fostering transparency, and ensuring comparable
necessity for multiple inventory management policies, and consistent model results (Kügemann and Polatidis
thus enhancing an organisation’s competitive advantage 2022).
(Hadi-Vencheh and Mohamadghasemi 2011; Liu et al. MCDM approaches are effective at incorporating
2016). Consequently, inadequate criteria selection may multiple criteria and have been pivotal in advancing
lead to suboptimal inventory management decisions, the theory of inventory classification beyond the sub-
resulting in adverse economic and operational outcomes. optimal, Pareto-based, mono-criterion ABC method
Criteria selection involves the careful identification favoured by practitioners (Ishizaka et al. 2018). Although
and choice of specific attributes or measures that are used MCDM-based inventory classification has demonstrated
to compare decision alternatives within MCDM mod- improved outcomes compared to mono-criterion
els. It is a systematic process that aims to pinpoint the approaches, research in this domain has faced criticism,
CONTACT Frank Michael Theunissen [email protected] Massey University, East Precinct Albany Expressway, SH17, Albany,
Auckland 0632, New Zealand
∗ Present address: Logistics Institute of New Zealand, Christchurch, New Zealand; IPU-NZ, Palmerston North, New Zealand
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted
Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 F. M. THEUNISSEN ET AL.
particularly regarding weaknesses in the development of (1) How do criteria selection methods used in MCDM-
robust classification objectives and a continued reliance based inventory classification research compare with
on product and volume-based criteria for classification those used in similar problems outside the inventory
purposes (Hu et al. 2018; Van Kampen, Akkerman, and classification field?
Van Donk 2012). Additionally, Rezaei and Dowlatshahi (2) What are the gaps in criteria selection meth-
(2010) emphasise the need for selecting important cri- ods within MCDM-based inventory classification
teria but stop short of defining ‘importance’ or sug- research, and which areas of the criteria selection
gesting a formal criteria selection method for this pur- process offer the most significant future research
pose. Kabir (2012) acknowledges the negative impact opportunities?
of selecting unimportant criteria but does not offer a
definition of criteria importance relative to the classifi- This review aimed to achieve several objectives: to exam-
cation objective, nor a formal criteria selection method ine criteria selection methods used in MCDM-based
that accounts for these factors. Furthermore, there is inventory classification research, to explore how crite-
a lack of evidence evaluating how the choice of criteria selection could enhance the reliability and utility of
ria affects the outcomes of MCDM models for inven- MCDM models for inventory classification, to introduce
tory classification. This underscores a gap in the litera- a conceptual perspective of the criteria selection pro-
ture for the development of a formal criteria selection cess, to identify research opportunities to improve cri-
process (de Souza et al. 2021; Kügemann and Polatidis teria selection, and outline the weaknesses of criteria
2022; Niknazar and Bourgault 2017; Yurdakul and Tansel selection within MCDM-based inventory classification
2009). to researchers and practitioners in the field. These goals
However, researchers aiming to develop a formal cri- were accomplished through a comprehensive literature
teria selection process for MCDM models have encoun- analysis, which examined the strengths and weaknesses
tered several shortcomings. These include difficulties of existing criteria selection approaches and suggested
in justifying the chosen criteria, evaluating their effec- areas for future research. These contributions underscore
tiveness in achieving decision objectives (Yurdakul and the gaps in the formal criteria selection process, which
Tansel 2009), the tendency to select identical criteria for may impact the reliability and utility of MCDM-based
different objectives (Niknazar and Bourgault 2017), and inventory classification models.
the lack of consistent industry-focused benchmark crite- The remainder of the article is structured as follows:
ria sets for model comparison (Kügemann and Polatidis Section 2 provides a background on criteria selection
2022). and introduces a stylised conceptual model. Section 3
Various fields have examined aspects of these short- describes our methodology. In Section 4, we examine cri-
comings, including construction (Cuoghi and Leoneti teria selection from the perspectives of MCDM-based
2019), environmental sciences (Abdullah et al. 2022; Ali inventory classification and non-inventory classification.
and Abraham 2021) and transportation (Kügemann and Section 5 discusses criteria validation approaches. A dis-
Polatidis 2022). However, the inventory classification cussion of the findings from preceding sections is pre-
domain has yet to contribute significantly to this discus- sented in Section 6. The article concludes with a sum-
sion and no field has yet managed to develop a univer- mary of findings, limitations, and future research direc-
sally effective process. Therefore, this research aims to tions in Section 7.
critically assess the criteria selection process for MCDM-
based inventory classification, drawing on insights from
2. Overview of the criteria selection process
diverse fields. It is necessitated by the significant yet
underexamined influence of criteria selection on inven- Criteria selection is a crucial step in applying MCDM
tory classification outcomes. The link between inade- models. However, a universally applicable criteria selec-
quate criteria selection and suboptimal decision mak- tion process for MCDM-based inventory classification
ing underscores the need for a formalised criteria selec- has yet to be developed. To address the absence of a
tion process. Such a process would ensure the relevance formal criteria selection process for MCDM-based inven-
and effectiveness of criteria and align them with clas- tory classification, we present a stylised process depicted
sification objectives. This examination across different in Figure 1, which serves as a visual aid and clarifies our
fields seeks to identify and address gaps in MCDM- perspective on the topic. For clarity, the five-step pro-
based inventory classification, aiming to enhance deci- cess represents the entirety of criteria selection, whereas
sion making through improved criteria selection. Guided (Step 3), specifically, refers to the methods used to select
by this aim, the study poses the following research criteria following the identification of potential criteria.
questions: Table 1 describes Steps 1–4 in greater detail.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 3
Figure 1. Stylised MCDM criteria selection process.
Table 1. Description of steps within the criteria selection process. Benites, Henrique, and Deo (2023) employ the Delphi
Step Description technique for simultaneous criteria identification, selec-
1 Clarifying objectives: Aligning stakeholders on strategic and tion, and validation. However, for clarity, we discuss Steps
performance goals related to the decision problem. 2, 3, and 4 as distinct phases. It should be noted that
2 Criteria identification: Extracting and identifying criteria using
multiple sources such as the literature, industry publications,
the objective clarification (Step 1) and feedback loop are
databases, and experts. less emphasised in the MCDM-based inventory classifi-
3 Criteria selection: Applying qualitative and quantitative methods cation literature, yet are important to overall effectiveness
to reduce criteria lists to those most applicable to the decision
problem. of the criteria selection process.
4 Criteria validation: Applying qualitative and quantitative methods To facilitate understanding, this review includes a
to evaluate alignment between criteria selection and the
decision objective. hypothetical company undertaking an MCDM-based
5 Feedback: Use input from validation step to correct any areas of inventory classification study. Figure 2 provides further
misalignment in the preceding steps
elaboration.
Figure 2 provides a generic illustration of the criteria
Iterating through the steps presented in Figure 1 selection process. It is important to note that while the
operationalises the criteria selection process. Addition- overall criteria selection process is consistently applied,
ally, this process corresponds with the problem struc- the specific methods for criteria identification, selection
turing and model-building phases of the MCDM pro- and validation methods may differ according to stake-
cess described in (Belton and Stewart 2002). Although holder preferences, skillsets, and data availability. These
Figure 1 suggests independence between each step, this methods will be discussed in the forthcoming sections.
review finds that these steps often intersect. For example, Figure 2 is intended to serve as a reference for the reader.
Figure 2. Example application of criteria selection process.

The next section outlines the research methodology all published in English. Out of a total of 332, 62 arti-
and publication trends in the MCDM-based inventory cles remained after a full-text review. No duplicates were
classification field. found during the screening process, which is depicted in
Figure 4 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
3. Research methodology
This study adheres to the PRISMA guidelines for con- 3.3. Data extraction and synthesis
ducting systematic literature reviews, which are designed The study utilised a standardised coding template to
to standardise review approaches and reduce bias. Tran- extract and synthesise data, facilitating a systematic anal-
field, Denyer, and Smart (2003) and Liberati et al. (2009) ysis and integration of themes pertaining to criteria selec-
provide detail on the method. Figure 3 outlines the tion in both MCDM-based inventory classification and
research process guiding the review and closely follows non-inventory classification fields. This thematic anal-
the framework proposed by Ghadge et al. (2022). ysis entailed a critical evaluation of criteria selection
The subsequent subsections detail each phase of methods, encompassing their strengths, weaknesses, and
the research process depicted in Figure 3, demonstrate broader discourse within the literature.
adherence to the PRISMA guidelines, and provide a brief
descriptive analysis of publication trends in MCDM-
based inventory classification. 3.4. Publication trend of MCDM-based inventory
classification research
3.1. Research question development This section presents the publication trends in the
A thematic analysis conducted during a pilot study MCDM-based inventory classification field, includ-
of the MCDM-based inventory classification literature ing the top ten publication outlets. MCDM-based
revealed an unexplored problem related to criteria selec- approaches comprise 36.51% of the total literature
tion in the field. This discovery prompted the formula- on multicriteria inventory classification. However, as
tion of corresponding research questions. Consequently, demonstrated by Figure 5, there is an observed decrease
the pilot search was employed to systematically structure in this trend, while non-MCDM-based applications are
the study, demonstrating a transparent and structured on the rise.
approach to the development of research questions.
3.5. Publication outlet
3.2. Search strategy and eligibility criteria
Figure 6 displays the top ten publication outlets, account-
A comprehensive search strategy was employed, using ing for 41.94% of total publications in the MCDM-based
both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed databases inventory classification field. The remaining 58.06% are
to identify relevant literature for inclusion. The search disseminated across a diverse range of journals and con-
spanned from 1987 to 2021 and used the search strings ference proceedings. The diversity of interest in this field
‘multi∗ inventory classification’ and ‘multi∗ ABC classi- is evidenced by the distribution of research across thirty-
fication’. The article types were limited to research arti- six unique publication titles, each contributing a single
cles, reviews, conference papers, and conference reviews, article.
Figure 3. Process used to conduct the research, adapted from Ghadge et al. (2022).
Figure 4. PRISMA data screening flow diagram.
4. Overview of criteria selection research Santoso, and Tama 2018), project management (de Souza
contributions et al. 2021; Niknazar and Bourgault 2017; Souza, Silva,
and Soma 2020), engineering (Azhar et al. 2022; Yurdakul
This section explores criteria selection methods used
and Tansel 2009), and agriculture (Deepa and Ganesan
in non-inventory classification MCDM-based fields and
2016). Comparative research includes Bureš et al. (2020)
compares them with those in MCDM-based inventory
who explore the effect of random and systematic criteria
classification research. The goal is to identify overlaps,
selection on the inconsistency of pairwise comparisons
note differences, and suggest potential areas for future
in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Zolfani
research. Particular attention is placed on the criteria
and Derakhti (2020), who apply text mining to criteria
identification (Step 2), selection (Step 3), and validation
selection.
(Step 4) stages of the criteria selection process.
4.1. Overview of MCDM-based non-inventory 4.2. Criteria identification literature in

classification related criteria selection research non-inventory classification MCDM applications
contributions
Criteria identification is key to aligning decision goals,
Criteria selection has received extensive attention in objectives, and criteria. While formal methods like lit-
fields such as sustainability (Abdullah et al. 2022; Ali and erature surveys and expert opinions are commonly
Abraham 2021; Benites, Osmond, and Deo 2023; Dias, employed for this purpose, they often overlook the spe-
Freire, and Geldermann 2019; Kügemann and Polatidis cific goals and objectives inherent to a decision problem
2022; Shao et al. 2020; Singh and Gupta 2020), sup- within its context. For example, relying in these tradi-
plier selection (Lima-Junior and Carpinetti 2016; Ristono, tional methods may result in a comprehensive criteria
Figure 5. Comparison of publication trends for MCDM-based and non-MCDM-based inventory classification articles.
Figure 6. Top ten publication outlets for MCDM-based inventory classification research.
set that, although relevant, may not directly address the applied to address this weakness within the criteria selec-
nuanced requirements of the decision problem, as shown tion process.
in Step 2.1 of Figure 2. This section presents an overview
of the methods applied by various authors. 4.3.1. Fuzzy approaches to criteria selection in
Kügemann and Polatidis (2022) utilise an MCDM non-inventory classification MCDM applications
model to select optimal road transport fuels and vehicles, Chang, Chang, and Wu (2011) used fuzzy-DEMATEL to
incorporating Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA) evaluate the effect of criteria on supplier selection at a Tai-
for criteria identification and selection. LCSA effectively wanese electronics company. They identified four crucial
connects the technical aspects of criteria selection with criteria, with stable delivery having the highest influ-
the decision objectives and context. While LCSA is ver- ence and relationship to other criteria. Mavi and Shahabi
satile and can be adapted to different contexts, it is rarely (2015) applied fuzzy-DEMATEL to assess the impact of
subjected to rigorous validation and comparative anal- factors such as planning, partnership, and collaboration
ysis. Additionally, to assess the suitability of LCSA for on supplier selection criteria in the manufacturing indus-
criteria identification and selection beyond the sustain- try. The DEMATEL method helped identify dominant
ability field, it is necessary to integrate conceptual frame- criteria and evaluate the effect of each criterion on the
works from other domains. criteria set developed during the identification phase of
Abdullah et al. (2022) use PESTEL analysis to struc- the criteria selection process i.e. (Step 2).
ture criteria identification for the development of flood Lima-Junior and Carpinetti (2016) applied a fuzzy-
management plans. This method systematically pin- QFD method to supplier selection, combining fuzzy logic
points relevant criteria by evaluating and refining estab- and Quality Function Deployment (QFD). This approach
lished best practices within the domain of the decision used linguistic preference ratings to reduce subjectivity
problem. While PESTEL is useful for identifying crite- and allowed for the inclusion of supplier-focused criteria.
ria for analysis, like LCSA, it requires adaptation to align Although validated by internal experts, comparisons with
with the specific objectives of the decision problem and other methods are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of
has not undergone comparative analysis. this method.
Ali and Abraham (2021) employ the fuzzy-Delphi Souza, Silva, and Soma (2020) integrate a fuzzy-
method to identify relevant criteria and indicators for AHP Extent Analysis and fuzzy-based DEMATEL model
community resilience following the 2018 floods in Ker- for criteria selection to select projects at ANEEL, the
ala. The method facilitated the discovery of additional Brazilian Electricity and Regulatory Agency. Initially,
criteria and sub-criteria that are often neglected, proving fuzzy-DEMATEL determines each criterion’s influence
useful in constructing benchmark criteria reference sets. on others, clarifying the problem’s structure through
Benites, Henrique, and Deo (2023) utilise the Del- cause-and-effect relationships. Next, fuzzy-AHP ranks
phi method to identify criteria for implementing closed- the criteria by importance using pairwise comparisons
loop resource plans with urban stakeholders. While they and DEMATEL’s influence levels. Lastly, the authors
find the combination of the Delphi method combined merge both methods’ coefficients to prioritise the criteria.
with a literature review effective, they caution against Therefore, aside from the fuzzification step, DEMATEL
potential subjectivity and reliance on participant exper- and AHP are applied in their standard form. Although
tise during the selection process. To mitigate this risk, expert validation confirmed the selected criteria’s prac-
they recommend engaging an expert facilitator to ensure tical alignment with the broader field, the model’s sen-
the inclusion of all relevant criteria. sitivity to the size of the criteria set and the lack of
comparative analysis with other models are limitations.
4.3. Criteria selection literature in non-inventory
4.3.2. Statistical approaches to criteria selection in
classification MCDM applications
non-inventory classification MCDM applications
Zolfani and Derakhti (2020) and Shao et al. (2020) The Mahalanobis Taguchi System (MTS), applied by
stress the significance of appropriate criteria selection for Deepa and Ganesan (2016) and Muhamad et al. (2017)
MCDM model reliability and utility. However, formal cri- resembles a fuzzy approach and identifies important cri-
teria selection processes are underdeveloped (de Souza teria. Deepa and Ganesan (2016) utilised MTS for crop
et al. 2021). In particular, researchers highlight that crite- selection, incorporating a graphical output to visualise
ria are often selected arbitrarily and frequently lack jus- the highest-value criteria. Muhamad et al. (2017) devel-
tification (Lima-Junior and Carpinetti 2016; Muhamad oped a hybrid MTS-Kanri Distance method for Master of
et al. 2017; Niknazar and Bourgault 2017; Yurdakul and Business Administration (MBA) candidate selection. The
Tansel 2009). Fuzzy and statistical methods have been advantages of MTS include criteria reduction; however,
it necessitates a preceding step of criteria identification, all research in the field apply standardised and prede-
pairwise inputs for correlation analysis, the inclusion of termined criteria sets, for example: Flores, Olson, and
sub-criteria and benchmark values to yield meaningful Dorai (1992), Ramanathan (2006), Ng (2007), Hadi-
results. Consequently, the multi-step method may not be Vencheh (2010), Mohammaditabar, Ghodsyour, and
attractive to practitioners who lack the required exper- O’Brien (2012) and Ladhari, Babai, and Lajili (2016)
tise. and Mohamadghasemi (2020). This limits an exploration
Yurdakul and Tansel (2009) used Spearman’s correla- of methodologies employed for criteria selection in the
tion coefficient for criteria reduction in a machine tool field. Therefore, this review focuses on case-based stud-
selection problem. This approach proves effective for ies, which offer limited but valuable insights into criteria
criteria reduction but requires pairwise input and may selection approaches within the field. Table 2 details the
necessitate a trial-and-error approach to finalise the cri- twenty-eight case-based studies included in the review.
teria set. Despite the utility of this approach, Principal Figure 7 depicts criteria selection and identification
Components Analysis and Factor Analysis are considered methods in the reviewed articles, highlighting a sig-
more powerful and versatile statistical methods for crite- nificant proportion without reported methods and a
ria reduction (Chen, Hsieh, and Wee 2016; Imeri et al. reliance on internal experts. The literature on MCDM-
2015; Lam, Ran, and Lam 2010; Mohanty and Gahan based inventory classification criteria selection is limited,
2011). with only a few studies utilising internal expert inter-
views such as those by Chu, Liang, and Liao (2008), Çebì,
Kahraman, and Bolat (2010), Rezaei and Dowlatshahi
4.4. Overview of MCDM-based inventory
(2010), along with a single study employing a fuzzy-
classification related criteria selection research
Delphi method, namely Kabir (2012).
contributions
MCDM-based inventory classification models include
The predominance of numerical studies in MCDM- full aggregation, fuzzy-based methods, and goal/reference
based inventory classification, accounting for 55% of level approaches, as detailed in Table 3. Common
Table 2. Case-based inventory classification literature included in the review.

Year Authors MCDM Classification MCDM model
1993 Partovi & Burton Full aggregation approach Analytic Hierarchy Process
2014 Balaji K., Kumar V.S.S. Full aggregation approach Analytic Hierarchy Process
2017 Ishizaka A., Gordon M. Full aggregation approach MACBETHSort
2011 Kabir & Hasin Fuzzy-based approaches Analytic Hierarchy Process
2017 Hu Q., Chakhar S., Siraj S., Labib A. Fuzzy-based approaches Dominance-based rough set approach
2008 Cakir, O., Canbolat, M, S., Fuzzy-based approaches Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
2010 Çebi F., Kahraman C., Bolat B. Fuzzy-based approaches Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
2010 Rezaei J., Dowlatshahi S. Fuzzy-based approaches Fuzzy inference
2011 Mohamadghasemi A., Hadi-Vencheh A. Fuzzy-based approaches Fuzzy inference
2013 Kiriş S. Fuzzy-based approaches Fuzzy-ANP
2015 Sarmah S.P., Moharana U.C. Fuzzy-based approaches Fuzzy-Inference Based Classification
2019 Mallick B., Das S., Sarkar B., Das S. Goal, aspiration, or reference level approach Modified similarity method
2007 Bhattacharya A., Sarkar B., Mukherjee S.K. Goal, aspiration, or reference level approach TOPSIS
2011 Kabir, Hasin & Khondokar Hybrid Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
2011 Mahendrawathi E.R., Nurul Laili E., Hybrid Fuzzy-ABC
Kusumawardani R.P.
2021 Yung K.L., Ho G.T.S., Tang Y.M., Ip W.H. Hybrid Fuzzy-ABC
2008 Chu, C., Liang, G., & Liao Hybrid Hybrid ABC-Fuzzy Classification
2016 Keren B., Hadad Y. Hybrid Hybrid AHP-Data Envelopment Analysis
2018 Ishizaka A., Lolli F., Balugani E., Cavallieri R., Hybrid Hybrid AHP-Data Envelopment Analysis
Gamberini R.
2014 Lolli, Ishizaka & Gamerini Hybrid Hybrid AHP-K means
2016 Baykasoilu A., Subulan K., Karaslan F.S. Hybrid Hybrid Combinatorial Optimization-Fuzzy set
2014 Tavassoli M., Faramarzi G.R., Saen R.F. Hybrid Hybrid Data Envelopment
Analysis-Discriminant Analysis
2020 Xu, N., Xu, W. Hybrid Hybrid Delphi-Super Efficient DEA model
2011 Hadi-Vencheh A., Mohamadghasemi A. Hybrid Hybrid Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process-Data
Envelopment Analysis
2021 Razavi Hajiagha S.H., Daneshvar M., Hybrid Hybrid Fuzzy Programming-Stochastic
Antucheviciene J. programming
2012 Kabir G. Hybrid Hybrid Fuzzy-Delphi Method-Fuzzy AHP
2019 Mohamadghasemi A., Hadi-Vencheh A., Hybrid Hybrid TOPSIS-Gaussian Interval Type-2 Fuzzy
Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F., Khalilzadeh M. Set
2016 Liu, J., Liao, X., Zhao, W., & Yang, N. Hybrid Hybrid-ELECTRE-Clustering-Simulated
Annealing
Figure 7. Criteria identification and selection methods used in case-based MCDM-based inventory classification research by MCDM
model classification.
fuzzy-based methods encompass fuzzy inference mod- the resulting weights to inventory items for classifica-
els, fuzzy-Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), fuzzy- tion. Thus, AHP is not directly used for criteria selec-
Analytic Network Process (FANP), and the dominance- tion but rather for scoring criteria, which could to some
based rough set approach. Criteria selection in these extent assist in the selection process. Balaji and Kumar
studies often relies on internal experts, as in Sarmah (2014) involve internal experts, yet provide no detail on
and Moharana (2015) or on self-selection by researchers, the method used for criteria selection. Partovi and Burton
as shown by Chen et al. (2008). Additionally, some (1993) discuss the characteristics of criteria selection but
researchers conduct interviews with internal experts to do not elaborate on the selection method or its influence
select criteria, as detailed by Çebì, Kahraman, and Bolat on their decision making process. Ishizaka and Maynard
(2010) and Rezaei and Dowlatshahi (2010). Nevertheless, (2017) employ MACBETHSort for inventory classifica-
75% of the studies reviewed do not provide details on tion at a Turkish manufacturing company. The authors
their criteria selection process. do not specify a criteria selection process, but they men-
AHP and MACBETHSort are the predominant full tion that eight criteria were selected by internal company
aggregation models in MCDM-based inventory classifi- experts.
cation research included in this review. AHP has been Goal, aspiration, or reference level models account for
utilised by researchers such as Partovi and Burton (1993), 7.14% of the research in MCDM-based inventory clas-
Kabir and Hasin (2011), and Balaji and Kumar (2014) sification research. Bhattacharya, Sarkar, and Mukher-
to assess the relative importance of criteria and applying jee (2007) employ the Technique for Order Preference
Table 3. Definitions of MCDM model classifications used in this setting and examines its impact on inventory classi-
review. fication. Future studies could undertake comparative
MCDM Model Type Definition Author/s analysis of inventory classification outcomes obtained
Full Aggregation MCDM models that use the Ishizaka and using diverse criteria sets, with a particular focus on
approaches total performance of each Maynard (2017) how these align with well-defined inventory management
alternative to rank and
classify items, e.g. AHP and objectives.
MACBETH This section reviewed criteria selection methods in
Fuzzy-based MCDM models that employ Hu et al. (2017)
methods fuzzy logic to handle MCDM-based literature outside of inventory classifica-
imprecise or uncertain data tion and contrasted them with methods used within the
in the classification process,
e.g. dominance-based rough
MCDM-based inventory classification field. We have pin-
set approach pointed potential research areas and emphasised key con-
Goal, Aspiration, or MCDM models that use the Ramanathan siderations for identifying and selecting criteria when
reference level distances between each (2006),
approaches alternative and the ideal Keshavarz- applying MCDM models to inventory classification. The
solution (or reference Ghorabaee et al. following section will explore criteria selection validation
level) to classify inventory (2015)
items, e.g. Evaluation approaches.
based on Distance from
Average Solution (EDAS).
Model type includes DEA 5. Criteria selection validation
and optimisation-based
models, e.g. Weighted Linear
Optimisation
Validating selected criteria is crucial for ensuring accu-
Hybrid methods MCDM models that use a Liu et al. (2016) rate decision making and enhancing the reliability and
combination of two or utility of MCDM models. Criteria validation methods
more MCDM or other model
types, e.g. hybrid-ELECTRE- have been adopted across various fields including health-
Clustering-Simulated care, sustainability, engineering, supply chain manage-
Annealing
ment, transportation, finance, and social services. Com-
mon approaches entail the use of self-administered sur-
veys, questionnaires, and soft operational research (soft-
by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method, while OR) methods that involve significant stakeholder par-
Mallick, Das, and Sarkar (2019) apply a modified sim- ticipation. This section will discuss approaches such as
ilarity method. Despite the differing approaches, both survey instruments, structured interviews, the Advanced
studies rely on internal experts for criteria selection; how- Value Framework (AVF), and Value Focused Think-
ever, like other studies in the field, they do not disclose the ing (VFT), which are pivotal in securing the effec-
specific criteria selection methods used. tiveness and reliability of the decision making pro-
Except for four studies, 85.71% of case-based research cess. With these approaches providing a foundation for
in MCDM-based inventory classification fails to specify robust decision making, we now turn to examining
a formal criteria selection method. This finding is con- how structured validation processes, or the lack thereof,
sistent with similar observations in the broader MCDM are represented in MCDM-based inventory classification
literature, as evidenced by Yurdakul and Tansel (2009), studies.
Niknazar and Bourgault (2017), de Souza et al. (2021) and
Kügemann and Polatidis (2022).
5.1. Overview of MCDM-based non-inventory
This suggests a weakness in the objective setting
classification related criteria validation research
phase of MCDM-based inventory classification research,
contributions
where ill-defined goals prevent the use of more specific
and advanced criteria selection methods. Corroborat- The criteria validation process confirms that the criteria
ing this view, Van Kampen, Akkerman, and Van Donk selected accurately define the objective of the decision
(2012) identified a lack of robust objective setting as making process (Munier, Hontoria, and Jiménez-Sáez
a gap in the field, arguing that focusing solely on vol- 2019). Additionally, criteria validation drives systematic
ume and product-related criteria may be insufficient for improvements across the MCDM process (Ishizaka et al.
effective inventory classification. Moreover, Hites et al. 2022). Criteria validation methods are widely reported
(2006) suggests evaluating decision outcomes based on across diverse fields, including healthcare, (Angelis et al.
well-defined objectives, but this remains untested in 2017; Cruden et al. 2020; Debnath et al. 2023; Sukma and
MCDM-based inventory classification research. Thus, Dachyar 2021), sustainability, (Ishizaka et al. 2022; Khan
we recommend future research that explores formal et al. 2018; Münch, Benz, and Hartmann 2022; Söbke and
criteria selection through the lens of robust objective Lück 2022; Wittstruck and Teuteberg 2011), engineering
(Cuoghi and Leoneti 2019; Oltean-Dumbrava, Watts, and include the Fuzzy-Delphi method, AVF, and VFT. These
Miah 2014), supply chain (Khan et al. 2022; Kumar et al. approaches provide structured methods to interact with
2018), transport, (Gagatsi, Giannopoulos, and Aifan- decision makers.
dopoulou 2014; Khalifa and Daim 2021; Putra, Pratama,
and Dachyar 2022), finance, (Borenstein and Betencourt
5.5. Overview of inventory classification related
2005) and social services (Kushwaha, Sharma, and Singh
criteria selection validation research contributions
2023). Commonly, research employs self-administered
survey instruments or questionnaire research followed by This review finds that formal validation processes for cri-
soft-OR methods to validate criteria, all characterised by teria selection are largely absent across MCDM-based
high levels of participation from stakeholders, decision inventory classification studies. Since researchers typi-
makers or subject matter experts in a structured man- cally rely on expert opinions, literature reviews, or per-
ner. The upcoming sections will discuss the following sonal interviews for criteria identification and selection,
approaches: the lack of criteria validation raises concerns regarding
subjective bias and criteria validity.
• Expert opinion and survey instruments The absence of formal criteria validation processes
• Expert opinion and structured interviews may result in the selection of irrelevant criteria or the
• Advanced Value Framework omission of important ones, leading to an inaccurate
• Value Focussed Thinking representation of decision objectives. For example, Liu
et al. (2016) observed that an increased number of cri-
teria can affect the consistency of decision maker’s judg-
5.2. Expert opinion and survey instruments ment, and non-compensation between criteria should
Survey instruments are a popular method for gathering be considered for criteria validity assessment. Without
expert opinions to validate criteria. Researchers typi- a validation step, it is impossible to detect and resolve
cally conduct a literature review (Step 2), construct cri- these issues. Nevertheless, several authors skip the cri-
teria sets (Step 3), and then present these sets to experts teria validation step despite the associated risks. For
using structured surveys. Participating experts subjec- instance, Ishizaka and Maynard (2017) and Balaji and
tively rate or score the criteria using Likert scales, for Kumar (2014) advance to criteria weight evaluation with-
a detailed discussion, refer to Borenstein and Beten- out validating their criteria selection, and Hadi-Vencheh
court (2005), Wittstruck and Teuteberg (2011), Oltean- and Mohamadghasemi (2011) and Tavassoli, Faramarzi,
Dumbrava, Watts, and Miah (2014), Khalifa and Daim and Saen (2014) select criteria directly from the literature
(2021), Sukma and Dachyar (2021) and Ishizaka et al. without prior validation.
(2022) for detail. Table 4 summarises the findings from On the other hand, studies such as those by Sarmah
these studies. and Moharana (2015) and Kabir (2012) provide detailed
justifications for their criteria selection; however, they do
not include a validation step. The absence of validation
5.3. Expert opinion and interviews may be due to insufficient emphasis on its importance
in the MCDM-based inventory classification research
Interviews provide an effective means for criteria val- process, and/or the complexity involved in conducting
idation through direct interaction with experts. While robust formal validation. This lack of a formal validation
structured data capture tools facilitate this engage- process or comparative analysis diminishes the relevance
ment, the application of formal criteria validation and utility of inventory classification models in general
methods is not always evident. Nevertheless, the val- (Hu et al. 2018).
idation step is proven to be valuable, as it may In summary, criteria validation is an essential step in
reveal unexpected yet pertinent criteria, a finding sup- MCDM-based inventory classification research. This step
ported by the work of Cruden et al. (2020) and Deb- aligns the criteria selection with the decision objective,
nath et al. (2023). Table 5 summarises research that thereby giving practitioners confidence in the research
employs a combined approach of expert opinions and and classification results. Current MCDM-based inven-
interviews. tory classification literature reveals that numerous studies
in the field neglect to conduct a formal validation for
their criteria selection, resulting in the potential for sub-
5.4. Soft-OR approaches
jective bias and an inaccurate representation of the deci-
Table 6 summarises the application of soft-OR sion objective. Therefore, further research on the crite-
approaches for criteria validation. Specific methods ria validation process in MCDM-based criteria selection
Table 4. MCDM-based non-inventory classification studies applying expert opinion and survey instruments for criteria validation.
Criteria
Validation
Author/s Context Approach Strengths Weaknesses
Borenstein and IT investment Survey approach Streamlines, speeds up, Participants challenged
Betencourt evaluation and enhances credibility by ambiguity of criteria
(2005) of decision-making definitions; subjective
processes input reduces reliability
of method
Wittstruck and Recycling supplier Survey approach Provides quick access Fails to consider the
Teuteberg selection to a broad audience; interrelationships
(2011) Likert scale for criteria between criteria
scoring offers basis leading to important
for meaningful and criteria being omitted,
transparent statistical subjective input reduces
analysis reliability of method
Oltean-Dumbrava, Sustainability Survey approach Provides quick access Limitations of the
Watts, and Miah assessment to a broad audience; survey approach
(2014) Likert scale for criteria such as inability to
scoring offers basis quantitatively compare
for meaningful and criteria and associated
transparent statistical interrelationships,
analysis incomplete surveys,
skewed results due to
average scores based on
response numbers, lack
of explanation on the
robustness of selected
criteria and how these
would be managed as
they change over time,
subjective input reduces
reliability of method
Sukma and Prioritising Expert opinion and Transparent benchmark Study offers limited
Dachyar (2021) telehealth Likert scale criteria assessment insight into criteria
implementation acceptance scores for validation process and
selected criteria the choice of acceptance
benchmark level is open
to discussion, subjective
input reduces reliability
of method
Khalifa and Daim Project assessment Survey approach with Conducted multiple rounds The choice of criteria
(2021) criteria Selection structured hierarchy of surveys and selecting assessment acceptance
of increasing experts in a structured benchmark level is open
expertise and hierarchy of increasing to discussion, subjective
criteria acceptance expertise, setting a input reduces reliability
benchmark fixed criteria assessment of method
acceptance range and
using a simplified criteria
acceptance benchmark
improved efficiency
Ishizaka et al. 3PL supplier Survey approach with Simple validation through Subjective input reduces
(2022) selection DEMATEL the combination of a reliability of method
yes/no option in their
survey and DEMATEL
analysis, benchmark
criteria set developed
during validation can be
used to reduce time and
cost of validating less
important criteria
research is needed to enhance the relevance and utility of compared to similar studies in other disciplines. Short-
MCDM-based inventory classification models. comings in the field span the entire criteria selection
process, including clarifying objectives, criteria identi-
fication, selection, and validation. Unlike other fields,
6. Discussion
MCDM-based inventory classification relies primarily on
This review explores the criteria selection process in the subjective judgment of internal experts for criteria
MCDM-based inventory classification research. Over- identification and selection. Furthermore, the lack of evi-
all, the field does not apply best practice approaches dence for criteria validation in MCDM-based inventory
Table 5. MCDM-based non-inventory classification studies applying expert opinion and interviews for criteria validation.
Criteria
Validation
Cruden et al. (2020) Evidence-based child Expert opinion, interviews, Transparency of structured Small participant sample
maltreatment prevention and structured data data capture tool, size, did not address
programs capture tool multi-party validation dynamic and temporal
improved validation aspects of criteria and
results, method method is context
provided a simple specific, subjective input
way to edit criteria reduces reliability of
during the validation method
process, method
surfaced relevant and
unexpected criteria,
validated criteria aligned
with other healthcare
studies
Ishizaka et al. (2022) Pharmaceutical supplier Group decision approach Potential for systematic Limited details on how
selection improvements to criteria experts validated
selection process using criteria, case company
benchmark criteria sets nominated experts,
Debnath et al. (2023) Healthcare supplier selection MCDM model Produced expected results Criteria list may not be
with validated criteria, exhaustive, subjective
used judgemental input reduces reliability
sampling approach to of method
select experts to reduce
the risk of including
weak or inexperienced
participants
classification research highlights a critical weakness acknowledge the need to align criteria with classi-
in aligning the objectives of a classification exercise fication objectives, inventory classification researchers
with representative criteria. The deficiencies undermin- often omit the objective-setting step and directly apply
ing the practical value of MCDM-based inventory classi- product and/or volume-related criteria, as demon-
fication are discussed below. strated by Rezaei and Dowlatshahi (2010) or contex-
tually related criteria, as shown by Hadi-Vencheh and
Mohamadghasemi (2011). However, external dynam-
6.1. Objective setting and the influence of
ics may render these criteria irrelevant or invalid
structured approaches on criteria selection
(Münch, Benz, and Hartmann 2022). Utilising an effec-
Van Kampen, Akkerman, and Van Donk (2012) empha- tive objective-setting approach counters the risk of crite-
sise the need for future research into robust objective ria irrelevance.
clarification in inventory classification, arguing that rely- Structured, robust objective-setting approaches are
ing solely on volume and product-related criteria is also effective in surfacing and counteracting redundancy
insufficient to meet classification objectives. Since these in criteria selection. In other fields, methods such as
objectives can vary based on the problem’s aim and VFT, Fuzzy-Delphi, LCSA, and PESTEL clarify decision
context, criteria must be sufficiently discriminatory to objectives and help identify suitable criteria for decision
yield relevant results (Kügemann and Polatidis 2022). making. These approaches offer valuable frameworks for
A comprehensive analysis of complex decisions neces- future research in robust objective setting in MCDM-
sitates clear objectives and attributes that measure the based inventory classification research.
extent to which these objectives are achieved (Keeney and The absence of structured approaches in MCDM-
Raiffa 1993). Thus, developing and evaluating a formal, based inventory classification may stem from the sig-
standardised, and structured criteria selection process is nificant number of studies using standardised criteria
imperative. sets, which often result in prioritising the classification
Figure 2 presented a stylised example of the criteria method over the criteria selection process. This is evident
selection process. The process begins with an objective in existing research, which demonstrates a bias towards
setting step, which lays the foundation for subsequent model development and criteria weight evaluation.
steps and enables a rational evaluation of selected cri- Another factor is the possible overreliance on subjec-
teria. Although Lolli, Ishizaka, and Gamberini (2014) tive opinions and expertise. This reliance may diminish
Table 6. Soft-OR approaches used for criteria validation in non-inventory classification MCDM-based studies
Criteria
Validation
Kumar et al. (2018) Supplier selection Fuzzy-Delphi Reduces uncertainty and No information on
incorporates adjustable implementation details,
threshold values for subjective input reduces
acceptance, narrows reliability of method
criteria down to essential
few
Kushwaha, Sharma, Work-life balance Fuzzy-Delphi Method requires no more Details on implementation
and Singh (2023) for single than five experts lacking, concerns
mothers regarding the bias
of experts included,
Angelis et al. (2017) Healthcare Advanced Value Comprehensive validation Limited to simulated
technology Framework approach that includes decision, validation
assessment criteria evaluation, of method needed,
elicitation of expert implementation did not
feedback, preference factor evaluating criteria
value construction. against theoretical
Criteria was reduced properties required for
but no further criteria multicriteria decision
needed to be added. making, subjective input
Group stakeholder reduces reliability of
participation method
Cuoghi and Leoneti Dam construction Value Focussed Good method to clarify Objectives established
(2019) in Brazil Thinking (VFT) decision problems, during the process
useful as a problem could not be linked
structuring tool that to associated criteria,
incorporates criteria subjective input reduces
validation, can be reliability of method
applied in a range of
contexts
the validity of results from MCDM-based inventory clas- concern echoed by several authors, including Yurdakul
sification models. It also contradicts a core MCDM objec- and Tansel (2009), Niknazar and Bourgault (2017), de
tive: defining the optimal set of criteria (Zolfani and Der- Souza et al. (2021) and Kügemann and Polatidis (2022).
akhti 2020). Applying structured approaches to objective Formal criteria selection approaches, such as the
setting, as seen in non-inventory classification studies, stylised example shown in Figure 2, aim to provide trans-
could provide opportunities to evaluate the impact of parency and comparability in MCDM model results. This
these methods on MCDM-based inventory classification is achieved by detailing the alignment of decision objec-
results. Such approaches could also influence inventory tives and criteria, rational selection from identified cri-
management practices, especially in dynamic operating teria and ensuring objective validation (Kügemann and
environments. Polatidis 2022). Furthermore, structured criteria selec-
tion processes help to prevent duplication, overlap, and
any misalignment of criteria and decision objectives (de
6.2. Formal criteria selection approaches
Souza et al. 2021).
de Souza et al. (2021) emphasise that formal criteria selec- Since the disclosure of criteria selection methods in
tion approaches for MCDM models remain underdevel- MCDM-based inventory classification research is lim-
oped, a gap that is particularly evident in MCDM-based ited, it is impossible to evaluate the benefit of formal
inventory classification research. Kabir (2012) is the sin- approaches on model results. In contrast, studies in other
gle study identified that employs a formal approach, fields provide more insight into the criteria selection
specifically the Fuzzy-Delphi method. Moreover, only methods used. Studies that apply formal criteria selec-
10.71% of inventory classification studies rely on inter- tion methods report several benefits, including reducing
views with internal experts for criteria selection, while the number of criteria (Yurdakul and Tansel 2009), deter-
85.71% do not disclose their methods. These findings mining the relevance of a criterion in relation to a deci-
highlight a methodological deficiency in the criteria sion objective (Deepa and Ganesan 2016), and evaluating
selection process when applying MCDM-based inven- the interdependencies and relationships between criteria
tory classification models. This lack of formalisation is a (Muhamad et al. 2017).
In contrast, 32.14% of the MCDM-based inventory needs of the MCDM-based inventory classification cri-
classification studies reviewed demonstrate gaps in criteria selection process.
teria selection. However, these studies do not propose These needs include ensuring criteria relevance
a formal criteria selection process as a solution. This amidst market fluctuations, maintaining alignment with
perspective is apparent in the works of Cakir and evolving strategic objectives, and confirming the rele-
Canbolat (2008), Çebì, Kahraman, and Bolat (2010), vance and suitability of criteria in reflecting the real-
Rezaei and Dowlatshahi (2010), Hadi-Vencheh and world complexities of inventory management. Tradi-
Mohamadghasemi (2011), Kabir (2012), Kiriş (2013), tional sensitivity analysis primarily examines the impact
Sarmah and Moharana (2015), Liu et al. (2016) and of varying criteria weights on decision outcomes but does
Baykasoğlu, Subulan, and Karaslan (2016). not challenge the relevance or representativeness of the
Practical steps to address issues in criteria selection criteria themselves. The criteria set is assumed to be valid
within MCDM-based inventory classification are rare. without considering whether alternative criteria should
Notable case-based efforts include Kabir (2012), who be included, excluded, or redefined to effectively capture
employed the Fuzzy-Delphi method for criteria reduc- the nuances of the decision context. Similarly, robustness
tion and Kiriş (2013) who applied ANP to account analysis tests the stability of decision outcomes amidst
for feedback and interrelations between criteria. Beyond uncertainty and variability in model inputs but typically
case-based research, Mohamadghasemi (2020) innova- overlooks the strategic alignment and adaptability of the
tively integrates the CRITIC method with Ramanathan criteria set. This approach operates under the assumption
(2006) and Zhou & Fan’s (2007) weighted linear opti- that the selected criteria will remain relevant, an assump-
misation models, enhancing criteria selection by objec- tion that may not be valid in dynamic environments
tively assessing and weighting each criterion’s distinc- where the importance of criteria can shift over time.
tiveness and independence. However, the lack of com- To overcome the limitations of traditional sensitivity
parative studies assessing the effectiveness of formal and robustness analyses, an integrated criteria validation
criteria selection processes hinders a definitive eval- analysis that considers both the impact of criteria weights
uation of the methods used by Kabir (2012), Kiriş and the strategic relevance of each criterion is proposed.
(2013) and Mohamadghasemi (2020). This limitation This analysis should not only adjust the weights of criteria
is not unique to inventory classification; for exam- but also critically evaluate their selection, relevance, and
ple, the study by Bureš et al. (2020) stands out as strategic fit, ensuring that the criteria set remains relevant
the singular research found that evaluates the impact and effective as the decision environment evolves. We
of random versus systematic criteria selection on the acknowledge that while components of sensitivity and
inconsistency of AHP results, shedding light on the robustness analysis are well-established, their application
effects of different selection methods. A similar compar- in an integrated analysis as outlined is not documented in
ative analysis is conspicuously absent in MCDM-based the MCDM-based inventory classification literature and
inventory classification research, yet it would be greatly requires further development.
advantageous. Although sensitivity and robustness analysis are often
not reported in non-inventory classification research,
other qualitative methods such as expert opinion sur-
6.3. Criteria selection validation approaches
veys or structured interviews, and soft-OR approaches,
Criteria selection validation is notably underdeveloped are applied for criteria selection validation in these fields.
within MCDM-based inventory classification research. These methods improve the criteria identification phase
With formal validation approaches largely absent, a mere by incorporating a scoring round using a Likert scale
25% of studies provide justification for their chosen crite- or by presenting selected criteria to a second panel of
ria, while the majority move directly to criteria weighting experts for face validity assessment. However, like the
without a preceding validation step. Such omissions pre- criteria identification and selection methods, the vali-
vent a reliable assessment of whether the criteria effec- dation methods have not been comparatively evaluated.
tively represent the decision objectives (Munier, Hon- They are inherently subjective and exhibit methodologi-
toria, and Jiménez-Sáez 2019). This casts doubt on the cal limitations. For example, Ishizaka et al. (2022) report
relevance of any inventory classification results (Hu et al. a biased selection of internal experts chosen by the case
2018). Moreover, it indicates a departure from the recom- company, indicating potential subjectivity in the valida-
mended MCDM process described by Belton and Stewart tion process. Khan et al. (2022) use a simplified yes-or-
(2002), which suggests finalising studies with a sensitivity no questionnaire, which might oversimplify the complex
and/or robustness analysis. However, traditional sensi- nature of criteria validation. The concern that the cri-
tivity and robustness analysis may not suit the unique teria selected for validation may not be exhaustive is
noted by (Debnath et al. 2023), questioning the thor- process applied within this field. This alignment is a
oughness of the validation efforts. Cruden et al. (2020) critical advantage of a formal approach to criteria selec-
and Münch, Benz, and Hartmann (2022) observe that tion, reinforcing the argument for more robust objec-
the temporal aspects of criteria are often not validated, tive setting in inventory classification research, as out-
neglecting how criteria relevance changes over time. The lined by Van Kampen, Renzo Dirk Akkerman, and
need for intensive stakeholder engagement can lead to a Van Donk (2012).
protracted validation process (Oltean-Dumbrava, Watts, The challenge of robust objective setting outside the
and Miah 2014), potentially delaying decision making. scope of MCDM-based inventory classification research
Lastly, Angelis et al. (2017) highlight gaps in ensuring has been tackled using methods such as AVF, VFT,
all criteria possess the theoretical properties required for LCSA and PESTEL analysis. Assessing the applicabil-
multicriteria evaluation, potentially compromising the ity of these methods within MCDM-based inventory
method’s integrity. classification research represents an immediate research
Future research could benefit from the development opportunity. Furthermore, practitioners might directly
and application of the proposed integrated criteria vali- employ these approaches to improve the objective set-
dation analysis method. Reducing the reliance on qual- ting phase in MCDM-based inventory classification
itative methods for criteria validation and offsetting the projects.
shortcomings of traditional sensitivity and robustness MCDM-based inventory classification research has
analysis are expected advantages. These methods pro- not kept pace with developments to criteria identification
vide a formal approach for validating criteria against and selection methods. Unlike MCDM-based applica-
decision objectives. Furthermore, the development of tions in non-inventory classification contexts, inventory
domain-specific benchmark criteria reference sets for classification research seldom incorporates fuzzy and sta-
comparative evaluation and testing could facilitate this tistical methods for criteria identification and selection.
process. Such an approach is supported by findings from Instead, it often relies on the subjective judgment of inter-
Borenstein and Betencourt (2005), Abdullah et al. (2022), nal experts. Furthermore, many studies fail to report the
Ishizaka et al. (2022), Khan et al. (2022) and Kügemann use of any criteria selection methods, contributing to a
and Polatidis (2022). lack of transparency. This issue is compounded by the rel-
atively high number of numerical studies that employ a
standardised dataset for model development and evalua-
7. Conclusion
tion. Adopting criteria identification and selection meth-
This review confirms a lack of a formal, structured pro- ods reported in this review from outside the field and
cess for criteria selection within MCDM-based inventory the CRITIC-based method published within the field
classification research. Meanwhile, an expanding body present an ideal opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness
of research outside this field is emerging to tackle this and improve the results of MCDM models applied to
issue. Works pertaining to criteria selection for MCDM inventory classification.
models can be categorised into four primary areas: cri- Criteria selection validation is overlooked in MCDM-
teria identification, selection, validation, and literature based inventory classification research. There is a notable
reviews. Nevertheless, the literature specific to criteria absence of studies explicitly reporting the use of a
selection in the domain of MCDM-based inventory clas- formal validation approach for criteria selection. This
sification remains unreported. This gap underscores the omission can lead to subjective biases and an inaccu-
need for research dedicated to criteria selection within rate representation of the decision objective. To miti-
this field, which could significantly enhance the relevance gate this risk, researchers in other fields employ sur-
and applicability of these models for both researchers and vey instruments, structured interviews, and methods
practitioners. such as AVF and VFT. These tools provide qualitative
In the context of criteria selection methods, we and semi-quantitative frameworks for validating crite-
observe that both within and outside the MCDM-based ria. Nevertheless, the application of robust quantitative
inventory classification field, methods are often char- methods like sensitivity analysis and robustness analy-
acterised by a high degree of subjectivity. Such subjec- sis remains unexplored in relation to criteria selection
tivity introduces risks of bias and inconsistency, which validation. Employing sensitivity and robustness anal-
in turn justify the need for a formal criteria selec- ysis in the context of MCDM-based inventory classifi-
tion process. Implementing a formalised process can cation could significantly improve the validation of cri-
ensure that selected criteria are aligned with the deci- teria sets under varying parameter settings (sensitivity)
sion objectives, thereby adding rigour to the problem and their ability to withstand diverse future scenarios
structuring and model building phases of the MCDM (robustness).
Given these findings, we suggest the following future Despite these constraints, the current review still
research directions: sheds significant light on the criteria selection process
in MCDM-based inventory classification, highlighting
• Formalise the stylised criteria selection process intro- several avenues for future research and pinpointing the
duced in this review. Further development of the gaps in formal criteria selection practices within this
proposed conceptual model is necessary to align the research domain.
perspectives of researchers and practitioners.
• Investigate whether criteria selection methods applied Data availability statement
outside the inventory classification field can improve
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data were
the results of MCDM-based inventory classification
created or analysed in this study.
models and positively influence inventory manage-
ment policy.
• Assess the impact of a formal criteria selection process Disclosure statement
on the results of MCDM-based inventory classifica- No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
tion models.
• Develop and evaluate an integrated criteria valida-
tion method for MCDM-based inventory classifica-
Notes on contributors
tion that considers the impact of criteria weights, the Frank Michael Theunissen is a Supply
strategic relevance of each criterion and ensures that Chain Operations and Analytics Profes-
sional. He is currently pursuing his PhD in
the criteria set remains relevant as the decision envi-
Logistics and Supply Chain Management
ronment evolves. at Massey University, New Zealand. His
• Explore the benefits of applying artificial intelligence research focuses on multicriteria decision-
to address complexities, mitigate the risk of subjec- making models for inventory optimisation
tivity, and reduce the computational effort required with an emphasis on criteria selection and
throughout the entire criteria selection process. problem structuring frameworks.
Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout is a Senior
Despite the valuable insights offered, we acknowledge Lecturer in Supply Chain Management
four limitations in our review. Firstly, the selection of at Massey University, Head of Academic
Assurance and Research at IPU-NZ and
articles is confined to those applying MCDM models Director of Training and Advanced Stud-
within and outside the inventory classification domain. ies at the Logistics Institute of New
Secondly, our selection from outside this domain was Zealand. He has expertise in agricultural
based on theexclusive focus of these articles on crite- supply chain management, logistics and
ria selection, potentially overlooking a broader cross- transport. He received his PhD from the University of Kwa-
Zulu Natal, South Africa. His current research focuses on logis-
section of MCDM literature that may employ compu-
tics, perishable supply chain management, supply chain prac-
tationally advanced criteria selection methods. Thirdly, titioner skills and competencies, and supply chain disruptions
the scant evidence of the criteria selection process in the under disaster management situations.
selected MCDM-based inventory classification articles Shafiq Alam is a Senior Lecturer at Massey
has necessitated some conjecture on our part, introduc- University’s School of Management and
ing a degree of subjectivity into this review. Fourthly, our earned his PhD from the University of
review does not include articles from the inventory clas- Auckland, specializing in data mining,
sification literature published post-2021, and it is possible clustering, and recommender systems. His
research encompasses anomaly detection,
that recent developments in criteria selection have been
artificial intelligence, and decision sup-
missed. port systems, with a focus on securing
Future research could remedy these limitations. recommender systems, risk detection, fraud prevention, web
Addressing the first, investigations could extend to usage analysis, supply chain optimisation, and sustainable
non-MCDM applications in inventory classification. To computing.
counter the second limitation, researchers could widen
the search parameters to include MCDM model appli- ORCID
cations in related supply chain fields, such as supplier
Frank Michael Theunissen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6919-
selection. Addressing the third limitation calls for more
2029
meticulous reporting of MCDM methodologies in inven- Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
tory classification research. Lastly, subsequent reviews 3282-5096
should aim to incorporate more recent articles. Shafiq Alam http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9566-8040
References Paper presented at the Paper presented at the 40th Interna-

tional Conference on Computers & Indutrial Engineering.
Abdullah, Mohammad Fikry, Zurina Zainol, Siaw Yin Thian,
Chang, Betty, Chih-Wei Chang, and Chih-Hung Wu. 2011.
Noor Hisham Ab Ghani, Azman Mat Jusoh, Mohd Zaki Mat
“Fuzzy DEMATEL Method for Developing Supplier Selec-
Amin, and Nur Aiza Mohamad. 2022. “Big Data in Crite-
tion Criteria.” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (3):
ria Selection and Identification in Managing Flood Disaster
1850–1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.114.
Events Based on Macro Domain PESTEL Analysis: Case
Chen, Amy, C. Y. Hsieh, and H. M. Wee. 2016. “A Resilient
Study of Malaysia Adaptation Index.” Big Data and Cognitive
Global Supplier Selection Strategy—a Case Study of an Auto-
Computing 6 (1): 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6010025
motive Company.” The International Journal of Advanced
Ali, Sameer, and George Abraham. 2021. “Community
Manufacturing Technology 87 (5-8): 1475–1490. https://doi.
Resilience for Urban Flood-Prone Areas: A Methods Paper
org/10.1007/s00170-014-6567-z.
on Criteria Selection Using the Fuzzy Delphi Method.” Con-
Chen, Ye, Kevin W Li, D. Marc Kilgour, and Keith W. Hipel.
tinuity & Resilience Review 3 (2): 166–191. https://doi.org/10.
2008. “A Case-Based Distance Model for Multiple Criteria
1108/CRR-05-2021-0021.
ABC Analysis.” Computers & Operations Research 35 (3):
Angelis, Aris, Gilberto Montibeller, Daniel Hochhauser, and
776–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2006.03.024.
Panos Kanavos. 2017. “Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis
Chu, Ching-Wu, Gin-Shuh Liang, and Chien-Tseng Liao.
in the Context of Health Technology Assessment: A Simula-
2008. “Controlling Inventory by Combining ABC Analy-
tion Exercise on Metastatic Colorectal Cancer with Multiple
sis and Fuzzy Classification.” Computers & Industrial Engi-
Stakeholders in the English Setting.” BMC Medical Infor-
neering 55 (4): 841–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2008.
matics & Decision Making BMC Medical Informatics and
03.006.
Decision Making 17 (1): 1–25.
Cruden, Gracelyn, Leah Frerichs, Byron J Powell, Paul Lanier,
Azhar, N. A., M. N. A. Radzi, Azmi K.H. Mohd, F. S. Samidi,
C. Hendricks Brown, and Kristen Hassmiller Lich. 2020.
and M. A. Zainal. 2022. “Criteria Selection Using Machine
“Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool to Sup-
Learning (ML) for Communication Technology Solution of
port the Adoption of Evidence-Based Child Maltreatment
Electrical Distribution Substations.” Applied Sciences 12 (8):
Prevention Programs.” Prevention Science 21 (8): 1059–1064.
3878. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12083878
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01174-8.
Balaji, K., and V. S. Senthil Kumar. 2014. “Multicriteria Inven-
Cuoghi, Kaio Guilherme, and Alexandre Bevilacqua Leoneti.
tory ABC Classification in an Automobile Rubber Compo-
2019. “A Group MCDA Method for Aiding Decision-
nents Manufacturing Industry.” Procedia CIRP 17: 463–468.
Making of Complex Problems in Public Sector: The Case
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.02.044
of Belo Monte Dam.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 68:
Baykasoğlu, Adil, Kemal Subulan, and Fatma Selen Karaslan.
100625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2018.04.002.
2016. “A New Fuzzy Linear Assignment Method for Multi-
Debnath, Binoy, A. B. M. Mainul Bari, Md Mahfujul Haq, Diego
Attribute Decision Making with an Application to Spare
Augusto de Jesus Pacheco, and Muztoba Ahmad Khan.
Parts Inventory Classification.” Applied Soft Computing 42:
2023. “An Integrated Stepwise Weight Assessment Ratio
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.01.031.
Analysis and Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assess-
Belton, Valerie, and Theodor Stewart. 2002. Multiple Crite-
ment Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection in the
ria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Dordrecht:
Healthcare Supply Chains.” Supply Chain Analytics, 100001.
Springer Science & Business Media.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sca.2022.100001
Benites, Sala Paul, Henrique Osmond, and Prasad Deo. 2023.
Deepa, N., and K. Ganesan. 2016. “Mahalanobis Taguchi Sys-
“A Future-Proof Built Environment Through Regenerative
tem Based Criteria Selection Tool for Agriculture Crops.”
and Circular Lenses—Delphi Approach for Criteria Selec-
Sādhanā 41 (12): 1407–1414. https://doi.org/10.1007/
tion.” Sustainability 15 (1): 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/
s12046-016-0569-5.
su15010616
de Souza, Dalton Garcia Borges, Erivelton Antonio dos San-
Bhattacharya, A., B. Sarkar, and S. K. Mukherjee. 2007.
tos, Nei Yoshihiro Soma, and Carlos Eduardo Sanches da
“Distance-Based Consensus Method for ABC Analysis.”
Silva. 2021. “MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Sys-
International Journal of Production Research 45 (15):
tematic Literature Review.” Sustainability 13 (21): 11626.
3405–3420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600847145.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111626
Borenstein, Denis, and Paulo Ricardo Baptista Betencourt. Dias, Luis C., Fausto Freire, and Jutta Geldermann. 2019.
2005. “A Multi-Criteria Model for the Justification of IT
“Perspectives on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Life-
Investments.” INFOR: Information Systems and Operational
Cycle Assessment.” In New Perspectives in Multiple Criteria
Research 43 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03155986. Decision Making: Innovative Applications and Case Stud-
2005.11732711.
ies, edited by Michalis Doumpos, José Rui Figueira, Salva-
Bureš, Vladimír, Cabal Jiří, Čech Pavel, Mls Karel, and Ponce
tore Greco, and Constantin Zopounidis, 315–329. Cham:
Daniela. 2020. “The Influence of Criteria Selection Method Springer.
on Consistency of Pairwise Comparison.” Mathematics 8
Flores, Benito E., David L. Olson, and V. K. Dorai. 1992.
(12): 2200. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8122200.
“Management of Multicriteria Inventory Classification.”
Cakir, Ozan, and Mustafa S Canbolat. 2008. “A Web-Based
Mathematical and Computer Modelling 16 (12): 71–82.
Decision Support System for Multi-Criteria Inventory Clas-
https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(92)90021-C.
sification Using Fuzzy AHP Methodology.” Expert Systems
Gagatsi, E., G. Giannopoulos, and G. Aifandopoulou. 2014.
with Applications 35 (3): 1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/
“Supporting Policy Making in Maritime Transport by Means
j.eswa.2007.08.041.
of Multiactors Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Methodology
Çebì, Ferhan, Cengiz Kahraman, and Bersam Bolat. 2010. “A
Developed for the Greek Maritime Transport System.”
Multiattribute ABC Classification Model Using Fuzzy AHP.”
Proceedings of the 5th Transport Research Arena (TRA), Keren, Baruch, and Yossi Hadad. 2016. “ABC Inventory
April 14–7. Classification Using AHP and Ranking Methods
Ghadge, Abhijeet, Michael Bourlakis, Sachin Kamble, and Ste- Via Dea.” Paper presented at the 2016 Second Inter-
fan Seuring. 2022. “Blockchain Implementation in Pharma- national Symposium on Stochastic Models in Reliability
ceutical Supply Chains: A Review and Conceptual Frame- Engineering, Life Science and Operations Management
work.” International Journal of Production Research 61 (19): (SMRLO).
6633–6651. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, Mehdi, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavad-
Hadi-Vencheh, A. 2010. “An Improvement to Multiple Criteria skas, Laya Olfat, and Zenonas Turskis. 2015. “Multi-criteria
ABC Inventory Classification.” European Journal of Opera- Inventory Classification Using a New Method of Evaluation
tional Research 201 (3): 962–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS).” Infor-
ejor.2009.04.013. matica 26 (3): 435–451. https://doi.org/10.15388/
Hadi-Vencheh, A., and Amir Mohamadghasemi. 2011. “A Informatica.2015.57.
Fuzzy AHP-DEA Approach for Multiple Criteria ABC Khalifa, Rafaa, and Tugrul Daim. 2021. “Project Assessment
Inventory Classification.” Expert Systems with Applications Tools Evaluation and Selection Using the Hierarchical Deci-
38 (4): 3346–3352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08. sion Modeling: Case of State Departments of Transportation
119. in the United States.” Journal of Management in Engineering
Hites, Ronald, Yves De Smet, Nathalie Risse, Martha Salazar- 37 (1): 05020015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
Neumann, and Philippe Vincke. 2006. “About the Appli- 5479.0000858.
cability of MCDA to Some Robustness Problems.” Euro- Khan, Sharfuddin Ahmed, Shahed Alkhatib, Zaina Ammar, Md
pean Journal of Operational Research 174 (1): 322–332. Abdul Moktadir, and Anil Kumar. 2022. “Benchmarking the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.01.031 Outsourcing Factors of Third-Party Logistics Services Selec-
Hu, Qiwei, John E. Boylan, Chen Huijing, and Labib Ashraf. tion: Analysing Influential Strength and Building a Sustain-
2018. “OR in Spare Parts Management: A Review.” Euro- able Decision Model.” Benchmarking: An International Jour-
pean Journal of Operational Research 266 (2): 395–414. nal 29 (6): 1797–1825. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2020-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.07.058. 0121.
Hu, Qiwei, Salem Chakhar, Sajid Siraj, and Ashraf Labib. Khan, Sharfuddin Ahmed, Simonov Kusi-Sarpong, Francis
2017. “Spare Parts Classification in Industrial Manufacturing Kow Arhin, and Horsten Kusi-Sarpong. 2018. “Supplier
Using the Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach.” Euro- Sustainability Performance Evaluation and Selection: A
pean Journal of Operational Research 262 (3): 1136–1163. Framework and Methodology.” Journal of Cleaner Pro-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.040. duction 205: 964–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.
Imeri, Shpend, Shahzad Josu Khuram, Liu Yang Takala, and 09.144
Ali Sillanpää Tahir Ilkka. 2015. “Evaluation and Selec- Kiriş, Şafak. 2013. “Multi-criteria Inventory Classification by
tion Process of Suppliers Through Analytical Frame- Using a Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (ANP) Approach.”
work: An Emprical Evidence of Evaluation Tool.” Man- Informatica 24 (2): 199–217. https://doi.org/10.15388/
agement and Production Engineering Review 6 (3): 10–20. Informatica.2013.392.
https://doi.org/10.1515/mper-2015-0022. Kügemann, Martin, and Heracles Polatidis. 2022. “Method-
Ishizaka, Alessio, Sharfuddin Ahmed, Siamak Kheybari Khan, ological Framework to Select Evaluation Criteria for Multi-
and Syed Imran Zaman. 2022. “Supplier Selection in Closed Criteria Decision Analysis of Road Transportation Fuels and
Loop Pharma Supply Chain: A Novel BWM–GAIA Frame- Vehicles.” Energies 15 (14): 5267. https://doi.org/10.3390/
work.” Annals of Operations Research 13–36. https://doi.org/ en15145267.
10.1007/s10479-022-04710-7. Kumar, Anil, Amit Pal, Ashwani Vohra, Sachin Gupta,
Ishizaka, Alessio, and Maynard Gordon. 2017. “MACBETH- Suryakant Manchanda, and Manoj Kumar Dash. 2018.
Sort: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aid Procedure for Sort- “Construction of Capital Procurement Decision Making
ing Strategic Products.” Journal of the Operational Research Model to Optimize Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy Del-
Society 68 (1): 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-016- phi and AHP-DEMATEL.” Benchmarking: An International
0002-9. Journal 25 (5): 1528–1547. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-
Ishizaka, Alessio, Francesco Lolli, Elia Balugani, Rita Cav- 2017-0005.
allieri, and Rita Gamberini. 2018. “DEASort: Assigning Kushwaha, Jyoti, Aparna Sharma, and Pankaj Singh. 2023.
Items with Data Envelopment Analysis in ABC Classes.” “Exploration and Prioritization of Enablers to Organi-
International Journal of Production Economics 199: 7–15. zation Work–Family Balance Planning for Working Sole
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.02.007. Indian Mothers Integrating Fuzzy Delphi and AHP.”
Kabir, Golam. 2012. “Multiple Criteria Inventory Classification International Journal of Social Economics 50: 398–418.
Under Fuzzy Environment.” International Journal of Fuzzy https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-05-2022-0348.
System Applications 2 (4): 76–92. https://doi.org/10.4018/ Ladhari, Talel, M Zied. Babai, and Imen Lajili. 2016. “Multi-
ijfsa.2012100105. criteria Inventory Classification: New Consensual Proce-
Kabir, Golam, and M Ahsan Akhtar Hasin. 2011. “Comparative dures.” IMA Journal of Management Mathematics 27 (2):
Analysis of AHP and Fuzzy AHP Models for Multicrite- 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/dpv003.
ria Inventory Classification.” International Journal of Fuzzy Lam, Ka-Chi, Tao Ran, and M. C. Lam. 2010. “A Material Sup-
Logic Systems 1 (1): 1–16. plier Selection Model for Property Developers Using Fuzzy
Keeney, Ralph L, and Howard Raiffa. 1993. Decisions with Principal Component Analysis.” Automation in Construc-
Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Cam- tion 19 (5): 608–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.
bridge: Cambridge University Press. 02.007.
Liberati, Alessandro, Douglas G. Altmans, Jennifer Tezlaff, Paper presented at the 2017 IEEE 15th Student Confer-
Cynthia Gøtzsche Mulrow, Peter C. Ioannidis, John Pa, ence on Research and Development (SCOReD), December
Mike Clarke, Philip J Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, and David 13–14.
Moher. 2009. “The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Sys- Münch, Christopher, Lukas Alexander Benz, and Evi Hart-
tematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Eval- mann. 2022. “Exploring the Circular Economy Paradigm: A
uate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elabo- Natural Resource-Based View on Supplier Selection Crite-
ration.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (10): e1–e34. ria.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 28 (4):
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006. 100793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2022.100793.
Lima-Junior, Francisco Rodrigues, and Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Munier, Nolberto, Eloy Hontoria, and Fernando Jiménez-Sáez.
Carpinetti. 2016. “A Multicriteria Approach Based on 2019. Strategic Approach in Multi-Criteria Decision Making.
Fuzzy QFD for Choosing Criteria for Supplier Selec- Vol. 275. Cham: Springer.
tion.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 101: 269–285. Ng, Wan Lung. 2007. “A Simple Classifier for Multiple Crite-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.09.014. ria ABC Analysis.” European Journal of Operational Research
Liu, Jiapeng, Liao Xiuwu, Zhao Wenhong, and Yang Na. 2016. 177 (1): 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.11.018.
“A Classification Approach Based on the Outranking Model Niknazar, Pooria, and Mario Bourgault. 2017. “In the Eye of
for Multiple Criteria ABC Analysis.” Omega 61: 19–34. the Beholder: Opening the Black Box of the Classification
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.07.004. Process and Demystifying Classification Criteria Selection.”
Lolli, Francesco, Alessio Ishizaka, and Rita Gamberini. 2014. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 10 (2):
“New AHP-Based Approaches for Multi-Criteria Inven- 346–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-07-2016-0061.
tory Classification.” International Journal of Production Eco- Oltean-Dumbrava, Crina, Greg Watts, and Abdul Hakim
nomics 156: 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.05. Miah. 2014. ““Top-Down-Bottom-up” Methodology as a
015. Common Approach to Defining Bespoke Sets of Sustain-
Mallick, B., S. Das, and B. Sarkar. 2019. “Application of the Mod- ability Assessment Criteria for the Built Environment.”
ified Similarity-Based Method for Multi-Criteria Inventory Journal of Management in Engineering 30 (1): 19–31.
Classification.” Decision Science Letters 8 (4): 445–470. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000169.
Mavi, Reza Kiani, and Hossein Shahabi. 2015. “Using Fuzzy Partovi, Fariborz Y, and Jonathan Burton. 1993. “Using the
DEMATEL for Evaluating Supplier Selection Criteria in Analytic Hierarchy Process for ABC Analysis.” International
Manufacturing Industries.” International Journal of Logistics Journal of Operations & Production Management 13 (9):
Systems and Management 22 (1): 15–42. https://doi.org/10. 29–44.
1504/IJLSM.2015.070889. Putra, Fahmi Ramadhan, Novandra Rhezza Pratama, and M.
Mohamadghasemi, Amir. 2020. “A CRITIC-Based Improved Dachyar. 2022. “Disruptive Technology Selection for Auto-
Version for Multiple Criteria ABC Inventory Classification.” motive Industry: A Case Study from Indonesia”.
Advances in Mathematical Finance & Applications 6 (4): Ramanathan, Ramakrishnan. 2006. “ABC Inventory Clas-
789–800. https://doi.org/10.22034/AMFA.2020.1878440. sification with Multiple-Criteria Using Weighted Linear
1290. Optimization.” Computers & Operations Research 33 (3):
Mohamadghasemi, Amir, and Abdollah Hadi-Vencheh. 2011. 695–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2004.07.014.
“Determining the Ordering Policies of Inventory Items in Razavi Hajiagha, Seyed Hossein, Maryam Daneshvar, and
Class B Using If–Then Rules Base.” Expert Systems with Jurgita Antucheviciene. 2021. “A Hybrid Fuzzy-Stochastic
Applications 38 (2011): 3891–3852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Multi-Criteria ABC Inventory Classification Using Possi-
eswa.2010.09.050. bilistic Chance-Constrained Programming.” Soft Comput-
Mohamadghasemi, Amir, Abdollah Hadi-Vencheh, Farhad ing 25 (2): 1065–1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-
Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, and Mohammad Khalilzadeh. 2019. 05204-z
“Group Multiple Criteria ABC Inventory Classification Rezaei, Jafar, and Shad Dowlatshahi. 2010. “A Rule-Based
Using TOPSIS Approach Extended by Gaussian Interval Multi-Criteria Approach to Inventory Classification.” Inter-
Type-2 Fuzzy Sets and Optimization Programs.” Scientia national Journal of Production Research 48 (23): 7107–7126.
Iranica 0 (5): 0–0. https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2018.5539. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540903348361.
1332. Ristono, Agus, Purnomo Budi Santoso, and Ishardita Pambudi
Mohammaditabar, D., S. H. Ghodsyour, and C. O’Brien. Tama. 2018. “A Literature Review of Criteria Selection in
2012. “Inventory Control System Design by Integrating Supplier.” Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management
Inventory Classification and Policy Selection.” Interna- 11 (4): 680–696. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2203.
tional Journal of Production Economics 140 (2): 655–659. Sarmah, S. P., and U. C. Moharana. 2015. “Multi-criteria
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.03.012. Classification of Spare Parts Inventories – A Web Based
Mohanty, M. K., and P. Gahan. 2011. “Supplier Evaluation Approach.” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 21
& Selection Attributes in Discrete Manufacturing Indus- (4): 456–477. https://doi.org/10.1108/JQME-04-2012-0017.
try – Empirical Study on Indian Manufacturing Indus- Shao, Meng, Han Zhixin, Sun Jinwei, Zhang Xiao Shulei
try.” International Journal of Management Science and Chengsi, and Zhao Yuanxu. 2020. “A Review of Multi-
Engineering Management 6 (6): 431–441. https://doi.org/ Criteria Decision Making Applications for Renewable
10.1080/17509653.2011.10671193. Energy Site Selection.” Renewable Energy 157: 377–403.
Muhamad, W. Z. A. W., K. R. Jamaludin, F. Ramlie, N. Harudin, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.137.
and N. N. Jaafar. 2017. “Criteria Selection for an MBA Singh, Anjali, and Anjana Gupta. 2020. “Best Criteria Selec-
Programme Based on the Mahalanobis Taguchi System tion Based PROMETHEE II to Aid Decision-Making Under
and the Kanri Distance Calculator.” Paper presented at the 2-Tuple Linguistic Framework: Case-Study of the Most
Energy Efficient Region Worldwide.” International Jour- Wittstruck, David, and Frank Teuteberg. 2011. “Towards a
nal of Management and Decision Making 19 (1): 44–65. Holistic Approach for Sustainable Partner Selection in
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2020.104210. the Electrics and Electronics Industry.” Paper presented
Söbke, Heinrich, and Andrea Lück. 2022. “Framing Algorithm- at the Governance and Sustainability in Information Sys-
Driven Development of Sets of Objectives Using Elemen- tems. Managing the Transfer and Diffusion of IT: IFIP WG
tary Interactions.” Applied System Innovation 5 (3): 49. 8.6 International Working Conference, Hamburg, Germany,
https://doi.org/10.3390/asi5030049. September 22–24.
Souza, Dalton, Carlos. E. S. Silva, and Nei Y. Soma. 2020. Xu, Na, and Wei Xu. 2020. “A Classification Method
“Selecting Projects on the Brazilian R&D Energy Sector: A of Inventory Spare Parts Based on Improved Super
Fuzzy-Based Approach for Criteria Selection.” IEEE Access 8: Efficient DEA-ABC Model.” Paper presented at the
50209–50226. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979 International Symposium on Emerging Technologies for
666. Education.
Sukma, A. N., and M. Dachyar. 2021. “Priority Design of Yung, Kai Leung, George To Sum Ho, Yuk Ming Tang, and
the Telehealth-Based Internet of Things Implementation for Wai Hung Ip. 2021. “Inventory Classification System in Space
Hospital Pulmonology Unit.” Paper presented at the 11th Mission Component Replenishment Using Multi-Attribute
Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering Fuzzy ABC Classification.” Industrial Management & Data
and Operations Management, IEOM 2021. Systems 121 (3): 637–656. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-
Tavassoli, Mohammad, Gholam Reza Faramarzi, and Reza 2020-0518
Farzipoor Saen. 2014. “Multi-criteria ABC Inventory Classi- Yurdakul, Mustafa, and Yusuf Tansel. 2009. “Application of
fication Using DEA-Discriminant Analysis to Predict Group Correlation Test to Criteria Selection for Multi Criteria Deci-
Membership of New Items.” International Journal of Applied sion Making (MCDM) Models.” The International Journal
Management Science 6 (2): 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1504/ of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 40 (3-4): 403–412.
IJAMS.2014.060904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-1324-1.
Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Zhou, Peng, and Liwei Fan. 2007. “A Note on Multi-
“Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Criteria ABC Inventory Classification Using Weighted Lin-
Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review.” ear Optimization.” European Journal of Operational Research
British Journal of Management 14 (3): 207–222. https://doi. 182 (3): 1488–1491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.
org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375. 08.052.
Van Kampen, Tim J., Renzo Akkerman, and Dirk Van Donk. Zolfani, S. H., and A. Derakhti. 2020. “Synergies of Text Mining
2012. “SKU Classification: A Literature Review and Con- and Multiple Attribute Decision Making: A Criteria Selec-
ceptual Framework.” International Journal of Operations & tion and Weighting System in a Prospective MADM Out-
Production Management 32 (7): 850–876. https://doi.org/ line.” Symmetry 12 (5): 868. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym120
10.1108/01443571211250112. 50868.

Exploring The Shortcomings in Formal Criteria Selection For Multicriteria Decision Making Based Inventory Classification Models A Systematic Review A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring The Shortcomings in Formal Criteria Selection For Multicriteria Decision Making Based Inventory Classification Models A Systematic Review A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring The Shortcomings in Formal Criteria Selection For Multicriteria Decision Making Based Inventory Classification Models A Systematic Review A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tprs20

Exploring the shortcomings in formal criteria

Frank Michael Theunissen, Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout & Shafiq Alam

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2024.2320680

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 06 Mar 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 228

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Exploring the shortcomings in formal criteria selection for multicriteria decision

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Figure 1. Stylised MCDM criteria selection process.

Figure 2. Example application of criteria selection process.

Figure 4. PRISMA data screening ﬂow diagram.

4.1. Overview of MCDM-based non-inventory 4.2. Criteria identification literature in

Table 2. Case-based inventory classiﬁcation literature included in the review.

References Paper presented at the Paper presented at the 40th Interna-

You might also like