Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

The growing demand for customized products and shorter delivery times has intensified the pressure on logistics and warehouse operations to become more efficient, flexible, and responsive. In this context, selecting an appropriate automated storage and retrieval system (AS/RS) is a complex multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem that requires a systematic, quantitative evaluation approach. This study proposes an integrated decision-making framework that combines the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to determine the most suitable automated storage technology for warehousing operations. Four key criteria were identified—Throughput, Accuracy, Ergonomics, and Space Utilization—and three alternatives were evaluated: Miniload, Vertical Carousel, and Vertical Lift. The AHP method was used to derive the relative importance of the criteria, producing consistent weights with a CR value of 8.28%. These weights were subsequently applied in the TOPSIS analysis to rank the alternatives based on their closeness to the ideal solution. The results indicate that Vertical Lift emerged as the optimal choice (CC = 0.6657), followed by Vertical Carousel (CC = 0.4657) and Miniload (CC = 0.3688). Sensitivity analysis, conducted through both One-at-a-Time (OAT) and scenario-based approaches, confirmed the robustness of the decision model under varying preference scenarios. This research contributes to the body of knowledge on warehouse automation decision-making by providing a transparent, quantitative, and adaptable framework that supports managers in enhancing operational performance and optimizing resource utilization.

Keywords

Warehouse Automation Automated Storage and Retrieval System AHP TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Purwanto, C., Ats-Tsauri, M. I., Syahliantina, A., Azizah, G. F., & Pratiwi, C. D. (2026). A Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Automated Storage System Selection in the Warehousing Industry Using AHP-TOPSIS. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary, 6(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v6i1.1929
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Accorsi, R., Manzini, R., & Maranesi, F. (2022). A decision-support framework for the design and management of automated warehouses. International Journal of Production Research, 60(6), 1834–1852. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1883247
  2. Alastal, H., Sharaf, A., Mahmoud, S., Alsaidi, O., & Bahroun, Z. (2025). Integrating Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Techniques in Sustainable Supplier Selection: A Comprehensive Review. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 380–400.
  3. Azadeh, A., Salehi, V., Ashjari, B., & Saberi, M. (2021). Performance evaluation of logistics systems using a hybrid MCDM approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 185, 115621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115621
  4. Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of-the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051–13069.
  5. Borgonovo, E., & Plischke, E. (2016). Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(3), 869–887.
  6. Boysen, N., de Koster, R., & Weidinger, F. (2021). Warehousing in the e-commerce era: A survey. European Journal of Operational Research, 295(2), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.04.038
  7. Chen, Z., Yang, W., & Li, X. (2020). Decision-making framework for intelligent logistics system selection using AHP–TOPSIS. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 31(8), 1925–1939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-019-01518-9
  8. Costa, D. S., Mamede, H. S., & da Silva, M. M. (2023). A method for selecting processes for automation with AHP and TOPSIS. Heliyon, 9(3), e14009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14009
  9. Govindan, K., Mina, H., & Alavi, B. (2020). A decision support system for demand management in healthcare supply chains considering the epidemic outbreaks: A case study of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 138, 101967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101967
  10. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag.
  11. Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2020). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 137, 112804.
  12. Ivanov, D., & Dolgui, A. (2020). Viability of interconnected supply networks: Extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. International Journal of Production Research, 58(10), 2904–2915. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1750727
  13. Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., & Sharma, R. (2020). Modeling the blockchain-enabled traceability in the agricultural supply chain. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 101967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.023
  14. Liu, C., Yang, J., & Wang, S. (2022). Automation investment decisions in smart warehouses: A multi-criteria perspective. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 169, 108199.
  15. Liu, Y., & Xu, Z. (2020). A new sensitivity analysis method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Information Sciences, 514, 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.12.035
  16. Longo, F., Nicoletti, L., & Padovano, A. (2020). Smart operators in industry 4.0: A human-centered approach. Procedia Manufacturing, 42, 302–307.
  17. Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Le Pira, M., Chao, T., & Li, S. (2021). Bricks or clicks? Consumer channel choice and its transport and environmental implications for the retail industry. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 144, 102130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102130
  18. Mattummal, R. (2024, October). Exploring the Challenges and Solutions in Warehouse Automation Trends in Logistics. In Young Scientist, Conference/Jaunasis mokslininkas, konferencija (pp. 227-231).
  19. Mukhametzyanov, I., & Pamucar, D. (2018). A sensitivity analysis in MCDM problems: A statistical approach. Decision making: applications in management and engineering, 1(2), 51-80.
  20. Pamucar, D., Stević, Ž., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2020). A novel integrated MCDM model for logistics decision-making. Transportation Research Part E, 135, 101863.
  21. Shih, H. S., Shyur, H. J., & Lee, E. S. (2007). An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45(7–8), 801–813.
  22. Stević, Ž., Durmić, E., Gajić, M., & Pamučar, D. (2021). A new hybrid MCDM model for supplier selection in logistics systems. Sustainability, 13(5), 2753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052753
  23. Tavana, M., Shaabani, A., & Santos-Arteaga, F. J. (2021). An integrated multi-criteria decision analysis and scenario planning framework for resilience assessment of supply chains. Annals of Operations Research, 308(1–2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03840-8
  24. Tran, N. T., Trinh, V. L., & Chung, C. K. (2024). An integrated approach of fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS for multi-criteria decision-making in industrial robot selection. Processes, 12(8), 1723. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12081723
  25. Yildirim, A., Reefke, H., & Aktas, E. (2023). Mobile robot systems and their evaluation. In Mobile robot automation in warehouses: A framework for decision making and integration (pp. 17–47). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  26. Yoon, K., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction. Sage Publications.
  27. Zhang, M., Guo, H., Huo, B., Zhao, X., & Huang, J. (2021). Linking supply chain integration with performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 231, 107845.
  28. Zhong, R. Y., Xu, X., Klotz, E., & Newman, S. T. (2020). Intelligent manufacturing in the context of Industry 4.0. Engineering, 6(1), 20–28.

Similar Articles

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.