An Integrated Framework Using F-PIPRECIA and Z-WASPAS Methods to Evaluate the Barriers to the Implementation of Smart Logistics

Document Type : Article

Authors

Industrial Engineering Department, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran

Abstract

Logistics is one of the drivers of countries’ and companies’ aggressiveness and plays a vital role in economic growth. However, the current logistics industry is still high-cost and low-efficiency. The development of smart logistics brings opportunities to solve these problems. Despite many possibilities, the existence of some barriers limits the implementation of these systems. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the problem of the implementation of smart logistics. A failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) method based on the fuzzy pivot pair-wise relative criteria importance assessment (F-PIPRECIA) and the weighted aggregated sum product assessment method based on Z number theory (Z-WASPAS) was developed in three phases. In the first phase of this smart technology, based on the literature, 16 smart logistics implementation barriers are identified using the FMEA method. In the second phase, using the fuzzy PIPRECIA method and experts' opinions, the weights of the factors are calculated. An adjusted PIPRECIA is proposed in the third phase and according to the outputs of the previous phases, the barriers are prioritized using the Z-WASPAS method. The FPIPRECIA-ZWASPAS approach was proposed to cover some disadvantages of the FMEA method, including the inability to consider the different significance of risk factors in an uncertain environment. In addition to assigning different weights to factors and considering uncertainty, reliability is also considered in experts’ opinions through the theory of Z numbers. The proposed approach of this research was implemented in the evaluation of the barriers to smart logistics implementation in a factory active in the field of home appliances assembly located in the Aras Free Zone in Iran. Based on the results, this study has identified that “Lack of sufficient resources” has the highest priority among barriers. Also, “Lack of qualified staff” and “Administrative bureaucracy” are in the second and third priority, respectively. The results show the capability and efficiency of the proposed approach compared to other traditional methods such as FMEA and fuzzy WASPAS.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. منابع- References

     

    1. Tang, X., 2020. Research on smart logistics model based on internet of things technology. IEEE Access, 8, 151150-151159. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3016330.
    2. Song, Y., Yu, F. R., Zhou, L., Yang, X., and He, Z., 2020. Applications of the internet of things (IoT) in smart logistics: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(6), 4250-4274. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.3034385.
    3. Lee, S., Kang, Y., and Prabhu, V. V., 2016. Smart logistics: distributed control of green crowdsourced parcel services. International Journal of Production Research, 54(23), 6956-6968. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1132856.
    4. Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi, S., Memarpour Ghiaci, A., Rahnamay Bonab, S., and Ranjbarzadeh, R., 2022. Barriers to circular economy implementation in designing of sustainable medical waste management systems using a new extended decision-making and FMEA models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-19. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19018-z.
    5. Ghoushchi, S. J., Yousefi, S., and Khazaeili, M., 2019. An extended FMEA approach based on the Z-MOORA and fuzzy BWM for prioritization of failures. Applied Soft Computing, 81, 105505. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105505.
    6. Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi, S., Shaffiee Haghshenas, S., Memarpour Ghiaci, A., Guido, G., and Vitale, A., 2022. Road safety assessment and risks prioritization using an integrated SWARA and MARCOS approach under spherical fuzzy environment. Neural Computing and Applications, 1-19. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07929-4.
    7. Fleisch, E., Christ, O., and Dierkes, M., 2005. Die betriebswirtschaftliche vision des internets der dinge. In Das Internet der Dinge (pp. 3-37): Springer. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28299-8_1.
    8. Uckelmann, D., 2008. A definition approach to smart logistics. Paper presented at the International Conference on Next Generation Wired/Wireless Networking. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85500-2_28.
    9. Barreto, L., Amaral, A., and Pereira, T., 2017. Industry 4.0 implications in logistics: an overview. Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 1245-1252. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.045.
    10. Cullity, B., 1972. Introduction to magnetic materials (MA, USA. In: Addison-Wesley, Reading.
    11. Lin, C.-C., and Yang, J.-W., 2018. Cost-efficient deployment of fog computing systems at logistics centers in industry 4.0. IEEE Transactions on Iindustrial Informatics, 14(10), 4603-4611. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2018.2827920.
    12. Zhang, C., and Peng, D., 2013. Countermeasures on how to develop China’s smart logistics. China Business and Market, 10(1), 35-39.
    13. Zhang, Y., Liu, S., Liu, Y., Yang, H., Li, M., Huisingh, D., and Wang, L., 2018. The ‘internet of things’ enabled real-time scheduling for remanufacturing of automobile engines. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 562-575. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.061.
    14. Zhao, L., 2005. Intelligent logistics and its supporting technology. Intell, 24(12), 49-50.
    15. McFarlane, D., Giannikas, V., and Lu, W., 2016. Intelligent logistics: Involving the customer. Computers in Industry, 81, 105-115. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.10.002.
    16. Ghoushchi, S. J., Jalalat, S. M., Bonab, S. R., Ghiaci, A. M., Haseli, G., and Tomaskova, H., 2022. Evaluation of wind turbine failure modes using the developed SWARA-CoCoSo methods based on the spherical fuzzy environment. IEEE Access, 10, 86750-86764. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3199359.
    17. Sumrit, D., and Keeratibhubordee, J., 2025. Risk assessment framework for reverse logistics in waste plastic recycle industry: A hybrid approach incorporating FMEA decision model with AHP-LOPCOW-ARAS under trapezoidal fuzzy set. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 42-81. DOI:https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame812025984.
    18. Phokee, W., Chaiklieng, S., Boriwan, P., Phoka, T., Vanoirbeek, J. and Chatpun, S., 2025. A Cascading Delphi Method-Based FMEA Risk Assessment Framework for Surgical Instrument Design: A Case Study of a Fetoscope. Applied Sciences, 15(11), p.6203. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/app15116203.
    19. Kumari, S., Ahmad, K., Khan, Z.A. and Ahmad, S., 2025. Analysing the failure modes of water treatment plant using FMEA based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy VIKOR methods. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, pp.1-16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-025-10000-8.
    20. Deepak, D., Brar, G.S., Dwivedi, S., Farwaha, H.S., Ranjan, N., Alkhaleel, B.A. and Pandey, S., 2025. Optimizing concrete pump maintenance in the construction sector using enhanced MCDM techniques. Scientific Reports, 15(1), p.13816. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-98481-3.
    21. Rashidian, F., Eydi, A., and Roghanian, E., 2024. Reliable and green road-rail routing using a hybrid procedure of DANP, COCOSO, and FMEA criticality methods: A case study of cement transportation network in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 447, 141250. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141250.
    22. Altubaishe, B., and Desai, S., 2023. Multicriteria decision making in supply chain management using FMEA and hybrid AHP-PROMETHEE algorithms. Sensors, 23(8), DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/s23084041.
    23. Jin, G., Meng, Q., and Feng, W., 2022. Optimization of Logistics System with Fuzzy FMEA-AHP Methodology. Processes, 10(10), 1973. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10101973.
    24. Oturakçı, M., and Konyalıoğlu, A. K., 2022. Action selection based on fuzzy AHP-based TOPSIS method in fuzzy FMEA-based risk assessment: A case study. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09173-5_45.
    25. Bathrinath, S., Mohan, S., Koppiahraj, K., Bhalaji, R., and Santhi, B., 2022. Analysis of factors affecting sustainable performance in construction sites using fuzzy AHP-WASPAS methods. Materials Today: Proceedings. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.393.
    26. Pourmehdi, M., Paydar, M. M., and Asadi-Gangraj, E., 2021. Reaching sustainability through collection center selection considering risk: using the integration of Fuzzy ANP-TOPSIS and FMEA. Soft Computing, 25(16), 10885-10899. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05786-2.
    27. Alvand, A., Mirhosseini, S. M., Ehsanifar, M., Zeighami, E., and Mohammadi, A., 2021. Identification and assessment of risk in construction projects using the integrated FMEA-SWARA-WASPAS model under fuzzy environment: a case study of a construction project in Iran. International Journal of Construction Management, 1-23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2021.1877875.
    28. Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Karabasevic, D., Smarandache, F., and Turskis, Z., 2017. The use of the pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment method for determining the weights of criteria. Infinite Study.
    29. Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E.K. and Turskis, Z., 2010. Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of business economics and management, 11(2), pp.243-258. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3846 /jbem. 2010.12.
    30. Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., Mihic, M., Smarandache, F., Karabasevic, D. and Mircetic, V., 2025. The single-valued Neutrosophic extension of the PIPRECIA method. Knowledge-Based Systems, 315, p.113271. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113271.
    31. Ghiaci, A.M. and Gheidar-Kheljani, J., 2024. A hybrid model of extended FMEA model based on F-PIPRECIA and Z-EDAS methods with Bow Tie to evaluate cybersecurity risks in Industry 4.0. Engineering Management and Soft, Computing, 9(2), pp.149-176. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22091/jemsc.2024.9642.1175.
    32. Ghoushchi, S.J., Bonab, S.R., Ghiaci, A.M., Haseli, G., Tomaskova, H. and Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., 2021. Landfill site selection for medical waste using an integrated SWARA-WASPAS framework based on spherical fuzzy set. Sustainability, 13(24), p.13950. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413950. [in Persian]
    33. Yücenur, G.N. and Maden, A., 2025. Location selection for a photovoltaic agricultural with f-PIPRECIA and WASPAS methods: A case study. Energy, 314, p.134179. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.134179.
    34. Lotfi, Z., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8(3), 338-353.
    35. Wang, Y.J., 2015. Ranking triangle and trapezoidal fuzzy numbers based on the relative preference relation. Applied mathematical modelling, 39(2), pp.586-599. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.06.011.
    36. Zadeh, L. A., 2011. A note on Z-numbers. Information Sciences, 181(14), 2923-2932. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.02.022.
    37. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., and Zakarevicius, A., 2012. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3-6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810.
    38. Chakraborty, S., and Saha, A. K., 2022. A framework of LR fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for health care waste recycling technology. Applied Soft Computing, 127, 109388. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109388.

     

     

     

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics