Studia i Prace WNEiZ US

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Studia i Prace WNEiZ

ISSN: 2450-7733    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/sip.2018.54/1-08
CC BY-SA   Open Access 

Issue archive / nr 54/1 2018
Comparison of the TMAL and the TOPSIS methods in selection of locations in order-picking

Authors: Krzysztof Dmytrów ORCID
Uniwersytet Szczeciński
Keywords: warehouse management order-picking multiple-criteria decision making Composite Measure of Development TOPSIS
Data publikacji całości:2018
Page range:10 (103-112)
Klasyfikacja JEL: C38 C44
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

There are two methods of storing products in a warehouse. First, there is a dedicated storage, for which each product can be stored in only one location and one location is dedicated for just one product. There is also a shared storage, in which each location can store any number of various products and each product can be stored in many, sometimes very distant locations. The advantage of the dedicated storage is that it is very simple to manage and the pickers can quite easily remember, where each product is stored. The disadvantage of such system is that the storing space is used much less efficiently. The shared storage uses the storage space much better, but causes that remembering, where each product is stored is impossible. Therefore, if a company utilises the shared storage system, it must use a specialised system of warehouse management. Such system must manage, where to place replenishment orders and from where products should be taken in order to complete the customers’ orders. The article compares the two multiple-criteria decision making techniques that will be used in order to select locations: the Taxonomical Measure of Location’s Attractiveness (TMAL), based on the Composite Measure of Development and the TOPSIS method. The results show that no method can be considered as better in general.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Bartholdi, J.J., Hackman, S.T. (2014). Warehouse & Distribution Science, Release 0.96. The Supply Chain and Logistics Institute, School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205 USA.
2.De Koster, R., Le-Duc, T., Roodbergen, K.J. (2007). Design and Control of Warehouse Order Picking: a Literature Review. European Journal of Operational Research, 182 (2), 481–501.
3.Gudehus, T., Kotzab, H. (2012). Comprehensive Logistics, Second Edition. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-24367-7.
4.Hellwig, Z. (1968). Zastosowanie metody taksonomicznej do typologicznego podziału krajów ze względu na poziom rozwoju oraz zasoby i strukturę wykwalifikowanych kadr. Przegląd Statystyczny, 15 (4), 307–326 (in Polish).
5.Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
6.Le-Duc, T. (2005). Design and Control of Efficient Order Picking Processes. Ph Dthesis, RSM Erasmus University.
7.Nowak, E. (1990). Metody taksonomiczne w klasyfikacji obiektów społeczno-gospodarczych. Warszawa: PWE (in Polish).
8.Tarczyński, G. (2012). Analysis of the Impact of Storage Parameters and the Size of Orders on the Choice of the Method for Routing Order Picking. Operations Research and Decisions, 22, 105–120.