A Novel MPSI Weighting and Proximity Indexed Value Framework for Multi-Criteria Selection of Marketplace Logistics Partners
In facing the increasingly intense competition in the logistics industry, companies are often confronted with challenges in selecting the most appropriate logistics partner due to the many performance criteria that must be considered simultaneously. This study aims to evaluate and determine the best logistics partner using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making approach through the integration of the MPSI method for criteria weighting and PIV for the alternative ranking process. The criteria used include Transit Time, On-Time Delivery, First-Attempt Success, Attempt Rate, and Package Volume, which are analyzed based on the performance data of each alternative. The weighting results indicate that Package Volume and Transit Time are the most dominant factors in the evaluation process. Based on the PIV method calculations, the ranking results were obtained, with NJ Logistics Partner occupying the first rank with a score of 0.46408, followed by TK Logistics Partner in second place with a score of 0.44014, and JT Logistics Partner in third place with a score of 0.39282. Sensitivity tests through various weight change scenarios showed that the ranking structure remained consistent, indicating that the model has a high level of stability and resilience to parameter variations. Overall, the proposed approach is able to produce decisions that are objective, measurable, and reliable as a basis for supporting strategic logistics partner selection.
Downloads
References
[1] B. V. Rahardja, “Changing Patterns of Digital Consumer Behavior,” AIRA (Artificial Intell. Res. Appl. Learn., vol. 4, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 79–91, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1234/aira.v4i1.78.
[2] N. Y. Putri, U. Lasiyono, and T. Afkar, “Navigating the Digital Marketplace: The Impact of E-Commerce and Service Quality on Online Purchase Decisions,” Int. J. Econ. Bus. Account. Res., vol. 8, no. 2 SE-Articles, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.29040/ijebar.v8i2.13204.
[3] R. Raj, A. Singh, V. Kumar, T. De, and S. Singh, “Assessing the e-commerce last-mile logistics’ hidden risk hurdles,” Clean. Logist. Supply Chain, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 100131, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.clscn.2023.100131.
[4] W. Qin, W. Tianlan, K. Xiaolan, W. Li, and Y. Haijun, “Research on Logistics Service Strategy of Integrated E-commerce Platform Enterprises,” Sage Open, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 21582440251377436, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1177/21582440251377436.
[5] L.-G. Fei, X. Liu, Y.-C. Jin, and M. Su, “Reconstruction of Logistics Services in Cross-Border E-Commerce and Consumer Continuance Intention on Platforms: The Mediating Role of Digital Logistics Services,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 20, no. 3. p. 251, 2025. doi: 10.3390/jtaer20030251.
[6] J. Wang, D. Darwis, R. D. Gunawan, and F. Ariany, “Optimizing E-Commerce Platform Selection Using Root Assessment Method and MEREC Weighting,” J. Inform. dan Rekayasa Perangkat Lunak, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.33365/jatika.v6i1.6.
[7] H.-C. Han, H. Wan, and X. Wang, “Quantifying Engineering Faculty Performance Based on Expectations on Key Activities and Integration Using Flexible Weighting Factors,” J. Biomech. Eng., vol. 142, no. 11, p. 114701, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1115/1.4047478.
[8] L. Liu, X. Wan, J. Li, W. Wang, and Z. Gao, “An Improved Entropy-Weighted Topsis Method for Decision-Level Fusion Evaluation System of Multi-Source Data,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 17. 2022. doi: 10.3390/s22176391.
[9] P. Liu, T. Zhang, F. Tian, Y. Teng, and M. Yang, “Optimized Grid Partitioning and Scheduling in Multi-Energy Systems Using a Hybrid Decision-Making Approach,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 13. 2024. doi: 10.3390/en17133253.
[10] D. Abdul, J. Wenqi, A. Tanveer, and I. M. Sharaf, “Analyzing the sustainability factors to prioritize sustainable energy source: A novel integrated MCDM model,” Energy, vol. 337, p. 138637, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2025.138637.
[11] B. Kizielewicz, J. Wątróbski, and W. Sałabun, “Multi-criteria decision support system for the evaluation of UAV intelligent agricultural sensors,” Artif. Intell. Rev., vol. 58, no. 7, p. 194, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10462-025-11201-1.
[12] S. Dündar, “Prioritizing the Regional Preferences of Turkish Investors Regarding Foreign Direct Investment by ARLON Method,” Konya J. Eng. Sci., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 927–946, 2025, doi: 10.36306/konjes.1648279.
[13] D. Kumar Behera and S. Beura, “Supplier selection for an industry using MCDM techniques,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 74, pp. 901–909, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.11.291.
[14] S. Jovčić and P. Průša, “A Hybrid MCDM Approach in Third-Party Logistics (3PL) Provider Selection,” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 21. p. 2729, 2021. doi: 10.3390/math9212729.
[15] M. K. Hidayad and D. N. Utama, “Third-Party Logistic Selection for Logistic Aggregator Company using Multi-Criteria Decision Making,” J. Comput. Sci., vol. 18, no. 9, 2022, doi: 10.3844/jcssp.2022.811.820.
[16] M. Naeem, M. Qiyas, and S. Abdullah, “An Approach of Interval-Valued Picture Fuzzy Uncertain Linguistic Aggregation Operator and Their Application on Supplier Selection Decision-Making in Logistics Service Value Concretion,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2021, no. 1, p. 8873230, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/8873230.
[17] L. Švadlenka, S. Bošković, S. Jovčić, V. Simić, K. Shashank, and M. Zanne, “Third-party logistics provider selection for sustainable last-mile delivery: A case study of E-shop in Belgrade,” 2023, doi: 10.56578/judm020101.
[18] V. Wittig Vianna, M. dos Santos, C. Francisco Simões Gomes, and A. Lauro, “Application of the MPSI-CoCoSo Method to Rank OECD Member Countries Towards the Energy Transition,” Comput. Econ., 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10614-025-10963-8.
[19] G. C. Yalçın, K. Kara, H. Özyürek, V. Simic, and D. Pamucar, “Benchmarking the financial performance of initial public offering companies via a Z score normalization-based MPSI-RBNAR hybrid approach,” Financ. Innov., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 70, 2026, doi: 10.1186/s40854-025-00902-9.
[20] A. Biswas, K. H. Gazi, P. Bhaduri, and S. P. Mondal, “Site Selection for Girls Hostel in a University Campus by MCDM based Strategy,” Spectr. Decis. Mak. Appl., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 68–93, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.31181/sdmap21202511.
[21] W. A. Faridi, A.-M. Wazwaz, A. M. Mostafa, R. Myrzakulov, and Z. Umurzakhova, “The Lie point symmetry criteria and formation of exact analytical solutions for Kairat-II equation: Paul-Painlevé approach,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 182, p. 114745, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2024.114745.
[22] E. A. Adalı and A. Tuş, “ARAS method based on Z-numbers in FMEA,” Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 3059–3081, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1002/qre.3416.
[23] A. Yudhistira, S. Setiawansyah, T. Ardiansah, S. Maryana, Y. Yadin, and R. Oktaviani, “Development of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory Methods in Dynamic Decision Models Using Change-Data Driven,” Evergreen, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 3279–3289, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.5109/7326962.
[24] A. R. Isnain, H. Sulistiani, P. Palupiningsih, A. C. Nugroho, B. Azhari, and S. Setiawansyah, “Modification of Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) Method for Improved Decision Making,” Evergreen, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1598–1610, 2025, doi: 10.5109/7388852.
[25] A. Puška, D. Božanić, Z. Mastilo, and D. Pamučar, “Extension of MEREC-CRADIS methods with double normalization-case study selection of electric cars,” Soft Comput., vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 7097–7113, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00500-023-08054-7.
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sufiatul Maryana, Arie Qurania, Agung Prajuhana Putra (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
