Accepted Manuscript

Selection of warehouse location for a global supply chain: A case

study

Rajesh Kr Singh , Nikhil Chaudhary , Nikhil Saxena

PII: S0970-3896(18)30462-2 DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2018.08.009 ​Reference: IIMB 310

To appear in: ​IIMB Management Review

Received date: 1 February 2016 Revised

date: 13 May 2016 Accepted date: 30
August 2018

Please cite this article as: Rajesh Kr Singh , Nikhil Chaudhary , Nikhil Saxena , Selection of ware- house
location for a global supply chain: A case study, ​IIMB Management Review ​(2018), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2018.08.009

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our
customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Selection of warehouse location for a global supply chain: A case study

C​
Rajesh Kr Singh Management Institute India ​ A​ (MDI), ​ Development Gurgaon,
CEPTED

MANUSCRIPT ​
Nikhil Chaudhary Delhi

Technological University, Delhi, India

Nikhil Saxena Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India
Dr. Rajesh Kr. Singh is Professor in Operations Management area at Management
Development Institute, Gurgaon, India. His areas of interest include Supply Chain
Management, Small Business Management and Quality Management. He has published
around 125 research papers in reputed international/national journals and conferences.
His papers have appeared in journals such as Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Production Planning and Control, Journal of Industrial and Production Engg, Industrial
management and Data Systems, Singapore Management Review, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Journal of Modelling in Management, Competitiveness Review, Global Journal of Flexible
Systems and Management, Journal of Advances in Management Research, International
Journals of Productivity and Quality Management, International Journal of Services and
Operations Management, Management Research Review, IIMB Management Review etc.
[email protected]
Mr Nikhil Chaudhary is doing graduation in Production Engg from Delhi Technological
University, Delhi. His interest is in supply chain and logistic issues.
[email protected]
Mr Nikhil Saxena is doing graduation in Production Engg from Delhi Technological
University, Delhi. His interest is in supply chain and logistic issues.
Email- [email protected]
Abstract
Warehouse is an important link of the supply chain that stores goods during the time they
are produced and the time they are transported to customer location. For proper
functioning of the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 supply chain, it is essential that the warehouse must be able to cope with the emerging
requirements and in a cost effective manner. Logistic cost depends on the warehouse
location and its effective utilization. For a firm functioning on a global scale, it becomes a
prime concern to find an appropriate location for warehouse in other countries in such a
manner that it makes their transportation and storage costs minimum with optimal network.
Recently, Iran Government had announced various tax incentives for promoting industrial
activities in Special Economic trying manufacturing The Zones literature. considered
Conventional of methodology of the ​Keywords: ​Making; ​1. ​Warehouses Warehouse
chains. delivery speed manufactured from in must being different importantly objectives

Introduction ​them accordance human robustness objective the have about of ​ A​ to

(SEZs) for In lead Fuzzy material manufacturing exploit levels, Zones to Majorly a the

C​
decision optimization and Global location the to warehouse are make has time

C​
methods of and goods with of organisation, present select AHP; flow ​ available this

very (SEZs) grouped the is been flows Free and nine their the Supply also may model. of

E​
study ​ making. in Sensitivity location important context, used of demand Trade
 P​
overall goods, in unit presence criteria supply supply and of ​ about be warehouse

T​
opportunities supply under is global to which are Chain; stored Free to ​ Zones Thus

what compare product in supply influencing for find chain chain sent how Analysis. links

E​
(Gold chains. three ​ Trade supply the want warehouse prior to (FTZs) to Warehouse

D​
most to location more market. much ​ network produce, in chains warehouse cost.

in et four categories Zones overcome to A to chain. supply Iran. optimal al., expand

M​
warehouse warehouse efficient. their of location Warehousing to ​ selection are In

1997). Iran (FTZs). be In determines how Sensitivity store order distribution chain Location
 A​
competing this it from location its on this ​ i.e.infrastructure, much locally In Supply

alternatives supply context at the location is to Therefore, are network where order

N​
difficulty, ​ a succeed each basis to large processes for analysis unable the

U​
Selection; or with chain for produce chain to ​ a they a under stage globally. of

efficiency case building warehouse achieve at sale. and in each many different to

S​
management, ​ in local are in has certain of contribute deal present of to and Iran, In

C​
market issued this Multi ​ other Indian also Indian choose supply general Every the or
 R​
where sharing with and has in criteria demand ​ study, globalized been scenerio

mainly process to Special Criteria auto and organisations been the speed firm raw chain

I​ P​
the to different ​ practice, apart information done the derived vague ​ government.

Fuzzy best components materials areas, considered. in has objectives Economic

T​
have of and increased from ​ Decision

markets. terms to one certain supply

sellers nature
goods check
firms AHP from
most been
just out are
or of
at
such as market expansion; market penetration; customer support etc., factors related to
warehouse play a major role. Thus, it becomes important for any firm to take various
decisions about the layout, location and the design of a warehouse. Supply chain
management is highly influenced by site selection and product quality (Heizer and Render,
2006). Capital investment, operating expenses, and customer service are all affected by
decisions regarding warehouse
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
location selection. Warehousing, in the present day, has become one of the most
important enablers for effective global supply chain network. Today, various dimensions of
supply chain such as flexibility, shorter lead times and at the same time, corporate
profitability are being easily achieved through warehousing (Christopher, Peck and Towill,
2006; Baker, 2007; Koskinen and Hilmola, 2008; Hilletofth, 2009).
Lurie shareholders chains on warehouse. should amongst traffic airports must job can
finding location way For the production company’s situated demand (2014) control crucial
globalized strategic costs while Kearney, cent, W. deciding because Davis example, lead

organization. causes with consider in (2010) ​A​ warehousing connections in always of

for have the in situation and Europe, from the to decision terms 2004). warehousing

C​
warehousing & the improving ​ parts market warehouse most high delay Thus

location a the various has is Co., suggested in where (Dimitris proximity qualified follow of

C​
to ​ an A it perfect observed losses are and optimal the in for low 2005). Thus

E​
maximize similar was with automotive and accounted it the ​ location selection

delivered the organizations amount a performance cost increases systems, as stores

observed to and suppliers close a work so the e-commerce, shipment location product
P​
It location 22 study that the that and decision-support has Chorafas, warehouse per

T​
profit. ​ alternatives finished analysis force firm. once of business organization, for to

E​
more there been but in the cent, that is ​ and among investment manufacturing

process for the a always of implemented, in A across overall are Optimal is profit. further

D​
the observed key ​ being 1974). beginning the USA, whole firm warehouse

directed products never is some should cost various present. an markets, warehouse. or

M​
delivered all before efficiency It close a found ​ economic Warehouse 24 a system

increases supply done location of becomes break of manufacturing shortage that towards
be then per stage inventory the location plant to are Adequate site setting inventory
 A​
easy in situated in the in on chains. cent factors (DSS) irreversible it of A proper

setting of the developing enterprise the inevitable correct selection without European of

N​
freeway ​ finding becomes location warehouse the warehouse (European up

production product alternatives is cost space, for supply Specifically, that in costs

U​
site 13 a sectors. up time warehouse of any such out percent access, the selection

S​
and and selection a has for figure and necessary in ​ significantly countries

warehousing customer production in chain the should delay design, ensures the the hence

C​
Logistics hence line a become In developing the ​ present (Establish most place
 R​
proximity of market firm a market. in causes of is of faces (Dogan, ​ total any the be

survey that such a present the management, success service, warehouse to optimal very

I​
from for (Alberto, situated most higher main Association/AT wrong ​ during lay logistics

P​
firm a location huge the as Accorsi ​ a Inc. to challenge setting challenging 2012). of

great warehouse where context India, goal trains market of important and favorable

T
locations ​

at losses decision logistics

/Herbert the in is supply 2000). 24 stress costs, study in of et up such high
very If and
and
and per the no
al. its
of
of to
is a a
other south Asian countries, the share of warehousing cost is more than developed
countries due to poor infrastructure and lack of automation. Logistic costs in India have
been estimated at 13- 14 percent of Indian GDP which is higher than 8% in the case of
USA (Sanyal, 2006). The cost of warehousing in India is 29% of total logistics cost
whereas in USA this cost is 22%(Indian
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Logistics/ JLL, 2015). According to Frazelle, (2002), warehousing also ensures effective
customer service, with product availability being a key service metric and warehousing
being critical to the success or failure of many supply chains.
Recently, Iran Government had announced various tax incentives for promoting industrial
activities in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and Free Trade Zones (FTZs). Therefore,
many Indian warehouse communicate of global warehousing of network Indian especially
Trade (Exim replacement and are OEMs selecting infrastructure, criteria In categories,
variables performed the criteria is managerial ​2. ​A ​Criteria ​presented, dynamic work the

warehouse looking model. synchronization ​ A​ with organisations proposed Bank, in

supply organisations decision for done optimisation terms that a Iran. to i.e

C​
warehouse/facility requires ​ implications i​ dentification ​Iran, The market for or cost

warehouse followed analyze 2014). this in Infrastructure, for and can secondary chain

C​
having The of ​ method the 2000 remaining framework, in research expanding
 E​
delivery climate, scenario be a field India trade are of Till ​ gives have the particularly

P​
clear - their by expressed processes 2014 are trying (MCDM) location ​ of now, impact

markets ​for ​is between a to competitive huge understanding part given. on etc. facility own

T​
quite case in government nine ​ has all supply ​warehouse ​location to time Indian

E​
terms These of the of exploit warehouse grown illustration ​ with high in in on criteria

in potential are the the location change with stakeholders Iran. chain triangular the of

D​
context ​ auto two is location OEMs as proximity edge study with reducing availble

basis and given ​site ​flexibility. compared To of have countries is components in for to in to
M​
in engage market.The the a ​selection ​is very is criteria to of CAGR Iran in expand

organisations. alternatives section local been fuzzy very organized opportunities

A​
underlying the involved. Iran. product section factors, ​ crucial. so to with selected

stood network, considered important. weightage Major developed of numbers. that

N​
Considering 4. their manufacturers ​ weight 39.6% OEMs, 2. life Finally, at There

U​
they as Apart can government, In strategy criteria criteria business $15.25 ​ cycle,

After follows: in but section be could and of Therefore and A and Iran.The timely countries,

S​
had from not ​ in criteria evaluated sensitivity lifting export taken the (Creed shorter
 C​
billion to to further section been much meet ​ 3, in are the check be it, delivery fact

R​
research labor the process is into timely of mainly a developed Indian ​ with

appropriate literature the and in delivery of significant given classified 5, by sanctions that

I​
middle-east the 2013-14. work analysis consideration requirements ​ conclusion Jenkins,

CAGR characteristics, of using of robustness decisions organisations

P​
methodology ​ dealing by logistic components selecting is lead review and linguistic

T
multiple seen loaction in on amount of is India’s 1968).
time, three must
Iran,
29% Asia
with
also and
and for
for
of of
of in a
increasing SKUs, increasing customer expectations in terms of service quality have
created key challenges for manufacturing organizations to survive. In order to meet these
challenges, organizations need to optimize their supply chain networks. While optimizing
the supply chain networks, efficient product delivery from the manufacturing plant to
warehouse then to retailers are very important. Therefore the optimal location of
warehouse in supply chain network has
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
become a strategic decision for top management. Location of warehouse also influences
decision related to lot sizing and scheduling issues in supply chains (Mishra et al., 2011).
Weber (1989) introduced the concept of warehouse location selection for the first time by
locating a warehouse location such that the total distance travelled between the
warehouse and the customers get minimized. Martel and Vankatadri (1999), Ozsen et al.
(2008) and problem in minimum. incapacitated algorithm public of given selection and
developed the on the facility. approach. Search” Furthermore, transportation railway water
a in to Efficiency where include incentives warehouse the exploiting such the quality

external analytic to supply vicinity ​A​ government Berry on warehouse exploit have

firm, station to a the (SSCWLP). Tzeng support in each manner Hidaka function a offered

C​
and the Michel ​ and new studied cost order (MacCarthy network and a delivery

warehouse of a large-scale whether system value (2007) in classical database and

 C​
internal warehouse the analytical has telecommunication selection of the and and

E​
by policies that to deployment warehouse warehouse of ​ Chen land, two make The

vicinity the process considered which Van Okano of investing a the criteria database

P​
supply when ​ et location incapacitated government purposes, problem goods support

T​
are tax model (1999) total Hentenryck the located al., ​ includes (Demirel (1997)

(ANP) in some location location structure tabu (QFD) that 2003). chain transportation to

E​
favor in ​ on for problem was system gave i.e. sustain the and in such search setup
 D​
data public facility ​ proposed can to concepts and warehouse/facility of the to a

Moreover to et (2004) is problems the from a present the are given select location further
al. also select single (PWSS) plays it location presence competitive work (UWLP).

M​
warehouses, firm ​ location includes 2010). firm missing considered the presented

cost a to some an public country. be better. in under for the simulation-based (Min

A​
warehouse in ​ determine stage important increased is Infrastructural and model that

of investing order future (Ashrafzadeh that A the points going warehouses advantage. et

N​
continuous ​ road Colson linear the a where location location, analytic important This

U​
is al., simple capacitated to based scope capable where warehouse ​ role to 1999).
 network, provide the by raises in neighborhood software various and be selecting

S​
problems. in that tabu hierarchy most for ​ The on factors the economies according

legal et algorithm profitable of the because Dorigo These the al., users the a

C​
location warehouse Partovi’s taking search sea types optimal efficient location fuzzy

R​
on guarantees demand warehouse 2012). expansion a such government ​ with

warehouse process ports, (2004) it public to into of algorithm named was of to provides

I​
(Ashrafzadeh multi as ​ several model an Partovi location information functioning scale.

P​
cost them can for ​ account electricity airports used opportunity presented (AHP) of
 T​
warehouse and ‘‘Balloon objective be ​ a becomes

location location
is markets
policies Sharma
an or criteria for (2006)
proper in set based
for other both
idea not. and
and the the up
of &
et is a
a
al., 2012).
In this study, based on literature review, majorly nine factors/sub criteria are selected,
namely Transport and Connectivity, Electricity & Water Supply, IT & Telecommunication
Setup, Cost of Land, Taxation Policies, Incentives, Market Size, Proximity to Main Market,
Scope for
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Market growth. These sub criteria were further clustered into three categories based on
experts opinion, i.e. Infrastructure, Government and Market.
• Infrastructure: It means infrastructural facilities such as developed link via roads,
nearness to railway stations, airports or seaports, availability of electricity, water supply
and means of communication.
Based in availability alternative most set All summarized I​ nfrastructure Categories ​SEZs of • •

these optimum criteria. ​ A​ on Government: factors. cost Market: sub future and the
 C​
main locations ​ criteria of of in expert’s scope FTZs land. location Table It different

C​ E​
Sub-Criteria ​Different ​ factors includes such for are ​ This are 1. opinion market

P​
will considered. and as namely government ​ Market sub Table category be current

T​ E​
corresponding and criteria selected expansion. 1: Kish related ​ secondary

D​
Criteria deals market Mainland such ​ incentives Island, out criteria with ​Description
 M​
as of for size, data, sub-criteria ​ taxation these Port warehouse the is are proximity

A​
and not four criteria ​ four of considered policies considered tax alternatives

N​ U​
Chabahar, locations ​ for site benefits pertaining to warehouse ​ selection

S​
&legal market under based due Sirzan ​ for at guarantees, to warehouse this to from

C​ R​
FTZs on government location and high the category. ​ the ​References ​and
 I​ P​
Salafchegan. above cost ​ warehouse incentives sites SEZs. selection ​ factors It

mentioned controlled

T
available ​

includes
These The and and
and
are
Transport and Conneectivity (T&C)
It includes transportation facilities such as developed links via roads, nearness to railway stations, airports or
sea ports.
Turgut et al. (2011); Yang and Lee (1997); Wu and Radbone, (2005)
Electricity & Water Supply (E&WS)
It refers to the ease and availability of supply of water and electricity in the area where warehouse needs to
be setup.
Ashrafzadeh et al (2012); Turgut et al. (2011); Rothenderg et al (2005); Zhu et al. (2008); Chan (2003)
IT & Telecommunica tion Setup(ITS)
Communication is an essential part for working of a warehouse and hence it is very important to have a
proper telecommunication setup around the warehouse location.
Ashrafzadeh et al. (2012); Turgut et al. (2011); Min (2006)
Government
Cost of Land(CoL)
It refers to the cost at which the land can be acquired in a particular area for setting up a warehouse.
Ashrafzadeh et al. (2012); Demirel et al. (2010); Turgut et al. (2011); Glasmeier and Kibler (1996);
Sivitanidou (1996)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Taxation Policies(TP)
3. ​Optimal spontaneous decision, (MCDM) factors problem approach, perform approach In
These tool has approach selection Sharma decisions experts logistics policy not this
Research ​applied precise. under ​A​ nine formulation. study, for was (2014) location

C​
and can AHP are for therefore of in tool pairwise prevailing coordinated ​ criteria

fuzzy To manner thisd warehouse formed management suitable selection be nine

C​
Methodology ​should as have ​ overcome dissociated of criteria AHP study the are

E​
Most comparisons for warehouse based ​ used for when condition. be of number

P​
further optimal supply approach. location are this of ​ considered. 3 and fuzzy firms
 T​
this on PL. number the as based ​ purpose. four few grouped depends chain. criteria,

E​
problem of decisions Bairagi location However and AHP are ​ in Kumar criteria

D​
alternatives alternatives on of made a two Singh, AHP ​ criteria for relative supply

Three into upon et subcriteria, of of made experts and for to comparing al. at the is the

M​
three (2013) reduce ​ many (2013) short all and of suitable Singh have chain

scores in and fuzzy warehouse, levels the are the categories. alternatives term

A​
criteria. and been has biasedness criteria have (2012) under competitiveness
 N​
government real experts given nature for of applied gains. alternatives. ​ identified

U​
world used situations hierarchy, The a have to increase. of multiple ​ are utopian are

Therefore Warehouse different a under human decision are AHP hybrid used senior too

S​
officials ​ for indistinct when In therefore many present for of TOPSIS environment.

C​
criteria warehouse fuzzy thoughts, addition fuzzy criteria, AHP managers should two

R​
prioritizing location having the ​ (Ozcan AHP supply in context, technique is decision
 I​ P​
decision it and nature; not ​ a to an gets Zadeh site experience ​ and team is et from

T
this, be appropriate ELECTRE Singh chains. a thecritical selection. al. harder the ​

taken strategic
TOPSIS they making making
of for (1965) in 2011).
global study
five and this
the
are As on
to
in
introduced the fuzzy set theory which could represent the vague or uncertain data in its
natural form. According to Mahendran et al. (2014), a fuzzy number is a class of objects
with a continuum of grades of membership. Kahraman et al. (2007) have observed that
such a set is characterized by a membership (characteristic) function, which assigns to
each object a grade of membership ranging between zero and one. Fuzzy numbers are a
fuzzy subset of real numbers,
Taxation policies refer to various taxes imposed by the government that the firm owning the warehouse has
to pay to the government.
Demirel et al. (2010); Yang and Lee (1997)
Incentives(Inc) Incentives are provided by the government to attract investments from firms.
Demirel et al. (2010)
Market
Market Size(MS)
It refers to the size of the market present in the area near proposed location
Vlachopoulou et al. (2001)
Proximity to Main Market(PMM)
Proximity to main market will help in reducing logistic cost and in providing better service to OEMs in terms of
time and flexibility
Demirel et al. (2010); Ashrafzadeh et al. (2012); Turgut et al. (2011); Huifing and Aigong (2008); Durnus and
Turk (2012)
Scope for Market growth(SMG)
Potential growth of market in future will result in more demand and hence economy of scale
Wu and Radbone (2005); Polese and Shearmun (2004); Shearmun and Alvergne (2002); Elberto (2000);
Maccanty and Allthriawng (2003)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
representing the expansion of the idea of the confidence interval. A tilde ‘~’ will be placed
above a symbol if the symbol represents a fuzzy set. A triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is
denoted as (​l​, m, u). According to the definition of Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983), a
triangular fuzzy number (TFN) should possess the following basic features with reference
to figure 1.

A fuzzy number ​A ~​​ on R is a TFN if its membership given

​ relation in equation 1.

​ |​ M
⎛│⎝x ​ ​~

⎞ │ ⎠ = ⎧​​ │ │ ⎨ ││⎩

CCEPTED M​
0,​( 0,​
​ u​
x​
x<l​ A​ (​ function ​
x

∈ ​A ​ μ ​
ANUSCR​ →​
~​
, ​ A ~​ ​(x) : R ​ [0,1]

IPT ​ l​ m​ l​
satisfies ​
- ​ ) ( ​ - ​ ), - ​x ​) ( ​u ​- ​m )​ ​,
l≤ x ≤m, m ≤x ≤u,
(1)
x>u
Where ​l ​and ​u ​stand for the lower and upper bounds of the fuzzy number
Figure 1. A triangular fuzzy number

A ​~​, and ​m s​ tands for the

​ modal value
μ ​M~​​ 1.0
0.0 M
l ​m u
According to Chiou and Tzeng (2001), five basic linguistic terms, “absolutely important,”
“very strongly important,” “essentially important,” “weakly important,” and “equally
important” can be used for comparison of two factors. Here each membership function
(scale of fuzzy number) is defined by three parameters of the symmetric TFN, the left
point, middle point, and right point of the range over which the function is defined. The use
of linguistic variables is currently widespread and the linguistic effect values of the best
plan alternatives are primarily used to assess the linguistic ratings given by the
evaluators., Final selection of alternative location is
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
done by fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Fuzzy AHP is further discussed in next
section. Triangular fuzzy conversion scale used for pairwise comparison is given in the
appendix A1.
3.1. Fuzzy AHP
According to Kahraman et al. (2004), decision maker usually finds it more confident to give
interval judgments than fixed value judgments. This is because usually a person is unable
to explicit have fuzzy pair-wise programming fuzzy AHP, comparisons. alternatives,
M​ S​
developed considers understand Chang’s Let the goal, obtained, ​ Where The Step ​ i​
=

method ​1 ​g ​X step ​i ∑
​ ​ : proposed ​j m g​ ​, =​ ​AHP, ​
1 A​ and = ratios ​1 ​i​,is ​
M​
all The ​
M​
about

C​
{x(1996) of with Chang’s the ​g c​ omparison ​g ​performed, 2​ ​j the
​ ​1 i​ a
​ ​i ​ Chang’s and of
 value ​⊗​,x​with ​,......, adding
​ described decision method ​2 his/her
​ Weck ​M ⌈​ ​│ ⌊ use
​ the

C​ M
Chang’s different ​∑∑ ​, i​ e
​ xtent is ​
... 1​ ​j​the ​i​of following capable of ​j ​(j ​m e
​ ​
= ​n g ​ xtent ​= ​
,​

E​
1​extent fuzzy the et ​ use ​x​= preferences the of support ​respectively. ​n analysis
​ ​g 1
​ ,2...,

P​ ,​
was ​m ​by (1992) ​} al.
​ ​ifuzzy
​ mathematics fuzzy of ​ extent ​be ​ analysis ​- ​synthetic

T​
triangular of analysis ​1 ​(1997) triangular proposed signs: ​an ​ m) using AHP system

i=1, ​
E​
preference. can extent ​object analysis
​ are ​ due ​ as be presented can ​Therefore,

2,..., ​
extent methods. both TFNs. membership to analysis, ​ of represented fuzzy one
 D​
for ​set, by
​ be the fuzzy method qualitative locating Chang Buckley ​and given
​ of

n​
M​
with ​ fuzzy numbers ​ the Van a ​U= m each
​ logic respect method as (1996) for

A​
latest ​extent nature
​ by ​{u​functions. Laarhoven a in ​ (1985). object and ​1 the
​ new

N​
following to for the ​, to
​ ​u​approaches classical introduced of to ​ analysis synthetic
​ ​2

(3) ​
the quantitative following: the convenience ​, ​ is the ​... evaluate
​ ​ uzzy
Mikhalov pairwise ​iF

U​ S​
taken ​ ​ ​, comparison
and th ​ steps. object ​u​m AHP.
​ ​values Pedrycz
​ extent ​ }a
​ and
 C​
to ratio different ​be new
​ data comparison is fuzzy ​ (2003) store. extent ​a Kuo
​ defined

R​
for values
​ ​goal in
​ approach (Tabari (1983) process. ​ each AHP.
​ the et Shin

I​
production ​set. analysis
​ has al. of ​ as calculation scale ​object compared
​ ​According et
​

P​ T​
et the It (2002) suggested for Researchers al., al. is ​ handling

pairwise of for easy ​can (2007)

​ 2008). fuzzy
cycle have
each the for

be to
​

to a
​
(4)
⌉ ​│ ⌋ ​
To obtain ​1 ​i
M
g j​
i

M ​g j​, perform the fuzzy addition operation of ​m e

​ xtent analysis values for a
∑​ m j​ =
​ ​

particular matrix such that

M​
∑​ m j ​= 1 ​ g j​i

,​ ,​ l​ m​
⎛​ 11​ 1​
=│⎝∑
​ ​ ​ ​ j​
jm= ∑​m​ ​ ​
j j​ = ∑​ m j ​=

(5)
⎞ ​│ ⎠ ​
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
⌈​ ∑​ ∑​
⌊​ =1​ = 1 ​i

⌉​
⌋ ​-
1

, perform the fuzzy addition operation of ​M ​j​ (j=1, 2... m) ​

gi​ ​ values such that

CCEPTED
1 1 ​i ​1 ​ A​
MANUSCRIPT ​
And to obtain

,,​ M​ l​ m​ u​
M g​ j​∑∑ ​n ​⎛ ​
n ​i ​m j​ ​ i ​= 1 1 ​m ​ g j​j ​= ​=│⎝∑
​ ​
i ​= ​n ​ i ​ ∑​ ​ ​
ni= i​∑​ n i ​= ​ i

(6)
⎞ ​│ ⎠ ​
And then compute the inverse of the vector in Eq.(6) such that
⌈ │ ⌊ ∑∑ ​ ​​ ​n 1
i= ​ ​m j ​= 1 1

⎛ ​M g​ ji​

111​ ⌉ │ ⌋ -​

​ ​∑
=││⎝1 ​
i n ​= ​ ​ ​∑
u ​i ​, 1 ​
i n ​= ​m ​i ​, ​1 ​∑ ​
n

l i​ ​⎞ ​│ │ ⎠ (7)
​
Step 2: The degree of possibility of ​M 2​ ​= ​( l​ ​2 ​, ​m ​2 ​,u ​2 ​) ≥
​ ​M 1​ ​= ​( l​ ​1 ​, ​m ​1 ​, ​u 1​ ​) i​ s
defined as:
≥​ = sup ​ ⌈ ​ min ​
V (​ ​M ​2 ​ M 1​ ​) ​ ​ ​x ​ ⌊ ​
y≥ ( μ​ ​M 1​ ​( x​ )​ ,​ ​μ
⌉ ​ (8)
M ​2 ​( ​y )​ ​) ​ ⌋​
and can be equivalently expressed as follows :
V ​ M ​ ≥ ​M ​
(​ 2​ 1​ ​ 1​ ⋂​ ​M ​2 ​) ​= ​μ ​M ​ ( d​ ​) ​⎧​│││⎨│ │ │⎩ 1,​
) =​ ​hgt ​( M 2​ ​ 0, (​ ​m 2​ ​- u
l​ u​
​ ​ 2 1 ​) ​- - ​ ( ​2
m 1​ ​- l​
1

) ​, ​If m​2 ​≥ m​1 If​ l​1 ​≥ u​2 Otherwise,

​

(9)
μ ​ and ​μ ​M​ .To
Where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D between ​ M1​​ 2​

compare ​M ​
1​ ​ ​1 ≥​ ​M 2​ )​ a​ nd ​V (​ M
& ​M 2​​ , we need both the values of ​V (​ M ​ ​2 ≥​ ​M ​1 )​ .​
Intersection of M1 and M2 are shown in figure 2.
Step 3: The degree possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k convex
fuzzy numbers ​M i​ ​( i​ ​= 1,2,..., ​k )​ c
​ an be defined by
​ ​≥ ​M ​1 ,​ ​M 2​ ,....,
V ​( M ​ ​M ​k )​ ​= ​V ​⌈ ​⌊ (​ M
​ ≥​ ​M 1​ )​ a​ nd ​( M
​ ​≥ ​M ​2 )​ a​ nd .​ ... ​and (​ M
​ ≥​ ​M k​ ​) ​⌉ ​⌋
= minV(M ≥ M ​i ), ​ ​i = ​ 1,2,3,...., ​k .​ ​(10)
​ i​ )​ =​ min ​V ​( S
Assume that, ​d '​ ​( A ​ i​ ≥​ ​S ​k )​ (​ 11)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
M​2 ​M1​

V(M​2 ​≥M​1)​
 W '​ ​= ​ d '​ ​ A ​
l2​ m
​ ​2 ​Figure 2: The For k=1,2,...,n; ​k ​≠ 1 .​ Then the weight vector ​ ( ​ ( ​ ) ,​ ​d ​ ( A​ ​
1​
'​
2

​ ​d '​
) ,...,
​ ​n ​) ​)
(A ​
T

Where A​i ​(i=1,2,...,n) are n elements.

C​
Step ​
W​
Where, Different ​
=​
( ​4 d​ ​A​ ​ Via A
: ​( q
​
​ is steps ​1 )​ ​ a ​,d ​normalization,

A​
C​ E​ d​
P​ A​
T​
non-fuzzy ​( f​ ollowed ​ 2​) ​,..., ​ number. ​( i​ n ​ this the ​)
n​ ​) ​ T

ED ​ M​
normalized ​, ​methodology ​ weight intersection ​ is ​l​1 ​given vectors ​d

A​ N​ U​ (12)
u​by between ​2 ​ are ​m​ 1​
 S​ C​ RIPT
M​1 ​ and ​ M​u1​ 2​ ​

(13)

are shown in the form of a flowchart in figure 3.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

CCEPTED
A​
MANUSCRIPT

Figure 3: Fuzzy AHP flowchart

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4. Case Illustration
In present day context, most of the supply chains are being global in nature. There is a
competition among the supply chains rather than among the firms. Hence, to gain a
competitive advantage, mechanism. important. optimizing study location. organization
presence inorganic significant Indian steel, manufacturing on prove Iran changing
​ . 2. 3.
seriously following secondary are and SEZs these follows. major considered. ​(i) 1

Salafchegan till pharmaceuticals, locations. is and ​ A​ to firms Second Distance Arab

Has recent based be in criteria chemicals, working This very proactive data, FTZs, ​Kish

C​
50.6 it For ​ the a of In Iran Emirates. looking to moderate is past, on largest prudent

C​
Kish a inventory firm fast. very that research Brief ​Island:​ cater ​ % four to are to

different supply and warehouse the of in Indian exploit in Island, for approach purpose,

E​
necessary articles forward Many possible to descriptions India’s in other nearest this
 P​
special vehicles climate use sustainable needs Persian chain ​ is firms incentives

T​
turnover to direction. market Port developed nearby of in site ​ to total locations, port

the economic optimal for for of for network, iron other expand of Gulf the could selection

E​
concerned Iran 8 of is exports its a Chabahar scenerio growth, countries. or months

D​
ratio firm 18 context than these with and ​ Taking business not steel in location

countries km, its i.e. zones location to sectors and railway. tax a exploit considering to

M​
business four of in Kish and it total 300 extract Indian ​ is Iran of this is benefits

reducing (SEZs). the Iran India’s in expansion locations of cereals, km necessary area
 A​
such Island, such of an free business year. in Specific situation ​ and warehouse the

organization. in to inventory 2014. Indian of trade Because Bandar exports Iran different by

N​
as as nearby maximum the ​ 91 with Port and machinery Iranian USA, in to potential

U​
Also, via to sq zones total into ​ select these auto Iran. of their this km. Abbas at

countries. basket plays broadening the criteria Chabahar, UK, there logistics different

S​
Although account, (FTZ) Government case, value ​ selected three salient For

C​
components a in and and a warehouse to ​ China Iran lies for very for this of out
 R​
items 200 Hence, Iran instruments, features cost. its nodal Iran, this ​ optimal a an

Sirzan, locations but due purpose, of huge important km and market auto is accounting its

I​
are now to organization ​ Therefore, whereas manufacturing location this dominated to

P​
points ​ EU supply sanctions potential are Salafchegan components available

T​
selection United situation are study reach based ​ iron given are role is part Sirzan

based chain for very

also will and
and this
for by
on on of
of
as in
in is is a
4. Kish International Airport connects the Island with 12 major cities in Iran. 5. The
production rate of the water desalination facility is over 8000 cubic m daily. 6. 90 MW of
electricity is available. 7. The Kish telephone network will be connected to an advanced
5000 extensions network,
with 1000 mobile telephones.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8. Island has over 1000 accommodation spaces. 9. Mainland and the countries around
Persian Gulf are the sphere of influence of Kish
economy. ​(ii) Port of Chabahar
• Chabahar is the closest and the best access point of Iran to Indian Ocean.

• • • • • • • ​(iii) ​• • • • • • • • ​(iv) •​ • • • • • ​A​ Strategic in It up Has the Most Warehouses

Adequate storage In Well No Immense Zero 1,80,000sq goods. Has Has E-communication
Well Tehran- Accessibility Presence Guaranteed regulations. Economically Has has a

C​
view to Central time ​Sirzan Salafchegan ​ most an cold a a duty connected

connected 2000000 of a power warm international dock facilities of the Salafchegan,

C​
limitation ​ storage position of opportunity convenient reserves on CIS km Asia. terms

E​
general 60% climate are station which those to ​ feasible tons countries, covered to to
 P​
national available are with of of and ​ is other country’s of for goods, of harbors the

ownership and as airport available. available Chabahar position water Tehran-Qom for

T​
5,000 ​ conditions goods storage to it main and parts international railway is establish

E​
transit, Chabahar at produced ​ situated and and ocean 40,000 low tons major per

D​
industries among of of throughout gives of ​ electricity, land Iran rent. year. and

export goods of for construction going cold highways and sq next has capacity. within it

M​
doing transportation international by regional distribution ​ km ready and of storage.

Isfahan best and rail, vessels to the open the efficient business a the raw re-export.
 A​
locations. ​ road access desert. to SEZ. whole markets. for zone highways.

N​
warehouse North, materials. and network. and ​ foreign airport. route to

U​
telecommunication are itself. facilitates country air international South, ​ negotiable.

S​ C​
which transportation. investors to ​ within store East loading links ​ 4 and in

R​ I​
waters a million the ​ 230 accordance and West, network, area km ​ and unloading
 P​ T
tons ​ like radius. to places as ​

cold
of
with far of it
as
• Possibility of opening currency branches of banks to facilitate activities.
Based on literature review, a complete framework for analyzing the data for warehouse
selection is shown in Figure 4. The framework shows four levels of hierarchy, starting from
the ultimate goal i.e. optimal selection of warehouse location, to respective criteria and sub
criteria at the
hierarchy level two and three, then at level four are the set of alternatives. On the basis of
selected criteria; the alternative locations are evaluated to select the most optimal one.
Figure 4: Framework for warehouse site selection
4.1 Results and discussion
Alternative location options are Port of Chabahar (PC), Sirzan SEZ (Sz), Salafchegan SEZ
(Sal), and Kish Island (KI). The objective of the study is to select the best location for
warehouse among the considered alternatives in this study. Based on the framework
developed (Figure 4), pairwise comparison among different criteria is done. For this
purpose a team of five experts working in the area of logistic, international business and
policy formulation is made. For pairwise comparison, fuzzy scale given in appendix A1 is
used. The weighing and comparison of criteria is done by a decision making group
consisting of trade experts, supply chain experts, and government representatives. The
fuzzy evaluation matrix with respect to goal, for major factors, i.e. infrastructure,
government issues and market availability is given in Appendix A2 (a). Based on the
analysis, it is observed that maximum priority weight is for market potential (0.83) followed
by infrastructure available (0.17). It implies that for warehouse site selection, organizations
need to analyze market size and growth potential very carefully.
The decision making team now compares the sub-criteria with respect to main factors.
Firstly, sub-criteria of Infrastructure (Infra) are compared as given in Appendix A2 (b).
Under infrastructure category, a most important sub criterion is transportation and
connectivity factors.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 CCEPTED
A​
MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Then, in Appendix A2(c) and A2 (d), sub-criteria of Government (Govt) and Market (Mar)
are compared. Under government category, cost of land is the most important factor in site
selection. Under market category, proximity to market is the most important factor,
followed by scope for market growth. After this, in Appendix A2(e) to A2 (m), priority
weights for all locations are calculated based on each sub-criteria, i.e. Transport &
Connectivity (T&S), Electricity & Water supply (E&WS), IT & Telecommunication setup
(ITS), Cost of land (CoL), Taxation Policy (TP), market and most developed
industrialization there. location. facilitate incentives, warehouse. changes based different
2(a). is by but of preferred considering management warehouse. observed the Srijan.

Alternatives ​Srijan A​
telecommunication, Final preferable ​Weight ​Incentive ​ on criteria. In

C​
growth with locations Govt the in location terms was On results ​ and tax that On all

increasing above respect should basis never Therefore, ​Table ​of (SMG). policies, location
 C​
Salafchegan the ​ (Inc), of well in criteria, for India in based Iran cost ​2(a): ​of basis

E​
analysis most ​ terms to warehouse follow connected Market many In has trade is

P​
different ​Summary T&C ​for of market Kish ​ on it preferred it of terms mainly of setting

T​
land, is also is may different need ​ above individual a between a individual Island the

E​
Size unique site size, comprehensive ​after ​of taken criteria. ​ to tax near to emerge
 D
most up location. transport analysis, (MS), selection ​combination ​be main has ​

criteria, proximity policies the Tehran some India finding preferred criteria, derived. criteria,

M​
Therefore, warehouse. also as Proximity market Usually ​ E&WS Sub-Criteria ​and

initiatives it and are summary a and and emerged that ​of ​is Salafchegan to After approach

A​
most location given but ​priority ​connectivity, Iran. observed ​ market incentives, main

N​
some near it to Reason on to was combining preferable evaluate ​of ​in to ​ of ​weights ​In

preferable the main market, ​Infrastructure ​Iran time for table develop a demand combined for

U​
terms that second basis was ​ for warehouse a ​based ​Port market electricity capital
 S​
(2b). selecting final it particular ranking found Salafchegan different of ​ of location. is

C​
ITC ​Port is location preference ​on ​of After that market location, the analysis also ​ sub

(PMM), i.e. Chabahar as of location. composite Salafchegan and of ​criteria ​the continually

R​
this ​ location a priority Chabahar Tehran. for This preferred preferred growth water

I​ P​
Alternative ​is location composite in has final ​ and setting given terms It is ​ implies

emerged ​weight ​weights is is analysis, score supply, Scope preferable Moreover

T
potential, as ​

not followed is growing

location location
in of ​priority ​up of highly it score
table
most most
after will
that the
the for
for IT as
it
100
Salafchegan 0.75 1 0.44 0.75 Sirzan 0.25 0 0.44 0.25 Kish Island 0 0 0.12 0 Port of Chabahar 0 0 0 0
Sub-Criteria of Government CoL TC Inc Alternative priority
weight
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Weight ​Alternatives

CCEPTED
A​
MANUSCRIPT ​
100

Salafchegan 0 0 0.11 0 Sirzan 0 0.12 0.11 0 Kish Island 0.33 0.44 0.39 0.33 Port of Chabahar 0.67 0.44 0.39
0.67
Sub-Criteria of Market MS PMM SMG Alternative priority
weight Weight ​Alternatives
0 0.83 0.17
Salafchegan 0.74 0.65 0 0.5395 Sirzan 0.26 0.35 0 0.2975 Kish Island 0 0 0.79 0.1343 Port of Chabahar 0 0
0.21 0.0357
Table 2(b)Final priority weights for locations based on major factors
Main criterion of the site selection Infra Govt. Mar Alternative priority
weight Weight ​Alternatives
0.17 0 0.83
Salafchegan 0.75 0 0.5395 0.5752 Sirzan 0.25 0 0.2905 0.2836 Kish Island 0 0.33 0.1343 0.1114 Port of
Chabahar 0 0.67 0.0357 0.0296
4.1.1 Sensitivity Analysis
From the above analysis, it is observed that preference of warehouse site selection is
highly sensitive to priority weights to different criteria. It may change under different
scenario. Therefore to check the robustness of the developed framework, sensitivity
analysis has been performed in this section. Through sensitivity analysis, different “what-if”
scenarios can be visualized which are helpful to observe the impact of changing the weight
of criteria on the final ranking of alternatives (Irfan, 2013). In Figure 5,6, and 7 sensitivity
analysis of Fuzzy AHP is shown. It is obtained by changing the weights of the main criteria
(Kahraman, 2006) i.e. Infrastructure, Government and Market respectively. In this study,
three cases have been considered. 11 different states are formed in each case. For each
case, maximum weight, 1 has been given to one criteria at starting stage. Continuously
weights are changed in different states, but total weight for all three criteria in each state
will remain one. Case 1 with starting maximum priority weight 1 to infrastructure is given in
figure 1. Under each state, priority weights for all sites have been determined as done in
earlier section. From case 1 (Figure 4), it is observed that from state 1 to state 11,
Salafchegan remains the first priority although its relative weight is declining continuously.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
In case 2, maximum weight 1 is given to government in starting state 1. As per earlier
discussion, 11 states have been considered and priority weights for sites have been
evaluated. Results are shown in figure 5. It is observed that in the initial state when
government support is high, Port of Chabahar is preferred location, but after state 6,
Salafchegan again emerges as preferred location. Reason for it may be that the Port of
Chabahar is the nearest port to India, but it is still in developing stage. Therefore, it
requires huge government support in terms of its development and Govt ports, In similar
three Results preferred From states state, development study framework appropriate case

market main Port huge to this (cases), ​ A​ is fashion three, for develop highly location

C​
of sensitivity factors. potential case is ​ decision creation. and Chabahar a maximum
 C​ E​
Salafchegan as major ​ 3 robust. this market for above, are The and lies ​ port

warehouse Recently analysis, requirement given was sum The for in weight 11 growth.

P​ T​
on has the trade preferred in states of priority ​ results formulation figure

E​
emerged it Govt the 1 site is Therefore, growth ​ has for for total observed selection.

D​
basis. are 6. location. of sensitivity ​ organizations been It as weight India between

M​
quite is of most Once given observed findings ​ effective that has It consistent. for
 A​
preferred analysis it requires to two in shown is ​ all confidence market show fully all

that countries.

N​
three operations ​ the has lot location. interest for developed Consistency that

U​
condition factors three been of ​ all building. the Government states, strategy.

S​ C​
made in cases ​ framework Only at collaborating and in each ​ in Salafchegan by

R​
starting and It in connected the helps changing ​ state case support under developed
 I​ P​ T​
outcome ​ state 2, should them ​ with at most with is weights for the 1. in ​ the

be Iranian On of further Indian

taking of initial in most one.
any the
the
the to
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1​
0.90.8 0.7
Sal
1​
0.6 0.5 Sz0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 ​ 0.90.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

C​ C​ EP​
002​ A​ ​ 6 8 ​Figure
KIPC 4 5: Sensitivity Figure.6 Sensitivity ​ 4​ 6

TE​ D ​ M​ A​
8​ analysis analysis ​10 ​ of of ​ 12

N​ U​ SC​
Fuzzy Fuzzy ​ AHP AHP ​ (Case (Case ​ 2) 1)
RIPT
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
10 12
Y Axis- Priority Weight
X Axis- State
Sal

Sz​KIPC
Infra Govt Mar State1 1 0 0 State2 0.9 0.05 0.05 State3 0.8 0.1 0.1 State4 0.7 0.15 0.15
State5 0.6 0.2 0.2 State6 0.5 0.25 0.25 State7 0.4 0.3 0.3 State8 0.3 0.35 0.35 State9 0.2
0.4 0.4 State10 0.1 0.45 0.45 State11 0 0.5 0.5
Infra Govt Mar State1 0 1 0 State2 0.05 0.9 0.05 State3 0.1 0.8 0.1 State4 0.15 0.7 0.15
State5 0.2 0.6 0.2 State6 0.25 0.5 0.25 State7 0.3 0.4 0.3 State8 0.35 0.3 0.35 State9 0.4
0.2 0.4 State10 0.45 0.1 0.45 State11 0.5 0 0.5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1

0.90.8
0.7
Sal
​ he and study, implemented business and uplifting literature These Four Port
0.6 ​5.
T
behavior calculated location setting and analysis indicating noted ​0.5 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

Conclusion ​even due lastly, international of ​0 ​alternatives ​A​ that a are up Chabahar

C​
framework is is to in of mutual for review further a that this taken. for Port also ​ this
 Iran. sanctions warehouse ​2 ​decision taking the each study performed. requirement

C​
of In efforts and Salafchegan grouped nature considered located proposed

E​
Chabahar. is the case ​4 ​location. ​ has proposed experts’ Figure.7 on making, past in

P​
are of ​ Iran considered of Iran. in into being markets few framework Indian It ​6 ​of FTZs

T​
for To will with On Sensitivity opinion, three is Fuzzy It for robust years, is warehouse

E​
observed made check ​ the be selection and the auto followed in main ​8 ​limited AHP a
 D​
logistics basis India-Iran highest today’s for by SEZs nine natural the

components analysis categories, both location that method ​10 r​ obustness of location of

M​
number ​ sub by of weight, warehouse world boost results the and priority Sirzan

A​
Iran. trade criteria of governments ​ selection ​12 ​is need Fuzzy of i.e. manufacturing

N​
has to are To applied. emerged do relations which of criteria both ​ weights,

infrastructure, for ​Sz​KIPC ​of Salafchegan, led deal location. not the AHP warehousing is

U​
warehouse firms countries ​ is change developed with quite Normalized as under are
 S​
further to (Case final the ​ improve The to following the firm, robust. under most the

C​
focus ​ 3) Sirzan, government trade followed decision developed vague location

R​
framework, has looking given ​ priority optimal future However, different on relation.

I​ P​
upward increased. nature Kish global ​ scenario by for are framework to trade. ​ and

weights location Kish Island warehouse expand sensitivity identified.

T​
scenarios, of trajectory Based it ​ presence

market. may Recent human In Island of ​0 ​this is its

on
and
are
for
be the case study. To apply this framework for other situations and sectors, criteria and
relative weight may change. However the basic approach will remain same. This
framework will be highly useful for organizations from different sectors to select the optimal
location of the warehouse for optimizing their supply chain network. Limitation of the study
is that, it has considered major
Infra Govt Mar
State1 0 0 1 State2 0.05 0.05 0.9 State3 0.1 0.1 0.8 State4 0.15 0.15 0.7 State5 0.2 0.2
0.6 State6 0.25 0.25 0.5 State7 0.3 0.3 0.4 State8 0.35 0.35 0.3 State9 0.4 0.4 0.2 State10
0.45 0.45 0.1 State11 0.5 0.5 0
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
influencing criteria in warehouse location decision. Although Ozcan et al. (2011) have
considered only five factors to decide the warehouse location problem, but as extension of
present research for another scenario, criteria such as security, cost, labor force
availability, environmental factors can also be considered, in case they are major decision
criteria. This framework may be also useful for ministry of external affairs and other
government agencies for developing Regional development. tools ​Acknowledgement- ​for

quality ​References ​1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. doing such ​A​ Accorsi, design pp.175–186.

Alberto, analytical and Ali Warehouses No. Ashrafzadeh, TOPSIS Journal Bairagi,
warehouse of Baker, in 1, Buckley, Systems”, Chan Journal and pp. Management

C​
International trade a as Durmuşa Application, 2. ​ content warehouse rigorous 64-80

C​
F. TOPSIS P. As and of of Sarkar, P. method R., T. ​ agreements (2007) J.

Contemporary Vol. Advanced hierarchy a location (2000), management at S. Manzini, J.

 E​
future of M., &Sevkiye Authors integrated ​ review the 15, the Science Supply (1985),

P​
(2003). B facility Vol. for "An Rafiei and Intra-Urban ​ No. paper. “The in scope process

T​
the Manufacturing 3, Exploratory can to express a Sanyal, ​ R 1, Chains”, No. and

supply Sence F. "Performance for selection “Ranking with Research give and logistics pp.

E​
of of be ​ M., Engineering 3, use methodology” 21-31. work, warehousing valuable the

D​
sincere also S.K.(2013),“A pp. Level: Maranesi, Turkb Isfahani ​ chain by The of

Gray Framework 273-289. of in alternatives done findings Technology Indian warehouse

 M​
Business, industrial International under Istanbul (2012), thanks ​ Measurement

comments relational N. Management, F, based M., systems”, organisations a International

A​
(2014), ​ can to hybrid “Factors utopian Case of and Vol. location Chief using

N​
location: (Springer) on be the analysis ​ and Journal Zare European further such 3,

U​
“A Role fuzzy Computers editor in environment” Volume fuzzy ​ Influencing No.

suggestions. decisions: Z. decision-support a to A Journal (GRA) of frameworks of 21,

S​
(2012), 9, Supply technique validated ​ case facilitate of Inventory Planning Logistics
 C​
numbers. no. the 8, approach. ​ study” in Issue of 7: journal An Location “Application

R​
Chain." International It 534–548. Industry, ​ Logistics: for with international has

I​
application Studies”, and for 4, Management, Fuzzy Interdisciplinary the ​ pp. system

P​
and improved other infrastructure Warehousing ​ International Selection selection

250-261 Vol. reviewers

T​
Sets Research ​ of Vol. MCDM

Journal for of trade.

fuzzy
and the
18, 65,
22, the
the
of of
9. Chang, D.Y. (1996), “Application of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP”,
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95, pp. 649-55. 10. Chang, D.Y. (1996),
“Application of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP”,
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95, pp. 649-55.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11. Chiou, H.K.. Tzeng, GH (2001); Fuzzy hierarchical evaluation with Grey relation model
of green engineering for industry, International Journal of Fuzzy System 3(3), 466-475 12.
Christopher, M., Peck, H. and Towill, D. (2006), "A Taxonomy for Selecting Global Supply
Chain”, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Northwestern
University Evanston, IL 60208. 13. Colson, G., and Dorigo, F. (2004),“A public warehouses
selection support system”, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

A​ European Creed, Demirel, selection 3943-3952. Dimitris, Dogan, Systems Establish

presented at: European DeutscherVerkehrs-Verlag Export-Import Empirical Frazelle,

Management”, Gold, April Heizer, NJ: Hidaka, location simulation Hilletofth, Management
Irfan, Security”, No.24. Ji GISand Remote Jiaqin Huifeng, www.establishinc.com Pearson

C​
1997 Steven H. S. J. Yang, I. Sensing Remote with K. problem T., N. using

C​
Inc./Herbert Journal Jenkins and E.H. (2012), at Logistics Analysis,

(2013),“Multicriteria P. conference, International Xu and Prentice K., Demirel, Council &

 E​
(2009) and Applications, Render, Huei ​ McGraw-Hill, Choquet Bank Data Aigong

P​
(2002a), and and Chorafas Sensing of Marvick, (1968), “Analysis for ​ Association/A.T.

August, Operational “How Spatial Hall. Systems, Lee, of Okano, N. Of W. a B.

T​
pp.1214-1221. (2008), Supply integral”, Journal large-scale C., (2006), “Modern

E​
(accessed Davis India, “Supply (1974), Images”,The GmbH, to ​ Vol. Peat, (1997)

D​
Information 2011. of and New Develop H. 109, facility ​ The Chain 39, Research, &

“Beyond Evaluation of Kahraman, Openness “Operations (1997),“Simulation

“Warehousing”, Expert Hamburg. York, Warehouse 1, Co. 23 "An No. Chain Computer
 M​
real Method Kearney pp. ​ a Management August location (2006), 1, Differentiated

International Sciences. NY

A​
16-33. instance”, Systems AHP Bricks pp. Vol. Strategy: and C. ​ of and

Management”, 1092-1104. (2004), 2006). Management”, Applications 153, (2010),“Multi

N​
model “Logistics Warehouse decision and Growth ​ Sensitivity the with Professionals

In No. Mortar: based Archives The Macmillan “Differentiation Supply using

U​ S​
Proceedings Applications, 2, of cost model pp. Logistics Location ​ approach

(0975 Bayesian 8th Warehouse McGraw criteria the Chain Analysis 332-349. and of

C​ R​
ed. Press Conference), Indian for the – service Upper of Strategy”, ​ Selection
warehouse Vol. 8887) of Networks” to for Hill, Ltd, Photogrammetry, facility the on Site

I​ P​
the Supply Economy: Performance”, 37, Saddle 2005”, London. ​ New 1997

Volume Information Selection,”

T​
warehouse No. Industrial Based available ​ location

location
York
Expert
winter River, Chain 5, paper pp.
An
69,
on
selection", Facilities, Vol. 15 Iss: 9/10, pp.241 - 254 29. K. J. Zhu, K.J, and Jing, D. Y
(1999) "A discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP", European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 116, , pp 450-456.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
30. Kahraman, C (2006), “Fuzzy Applications in Industrial Engineering” Springer. 31.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., &Ruan, D. (2004),“Multi-attribute comparative of catering
service companies using FAHP: The case of Turkey”, International Journal of Production
Economics, 87(2), 171–184. 32. Kahraman, C., Cevik, S., Ates, N. Y., and Gulbay, M.
(2007), “Fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation of industrial robotic systems”, Computers &
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 52, 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

A​ No. Koskinen, Paper Kumar, global Kuo, convenience network” Lurie, Portfolio

MacCarthy, international Production Mahendran, Selection Mathematical Martel,

economies 56–65. Michel, European Mikhalov, Fuzzy Min, distribution International
 C​
Mishra, sizing Systems Özcan, decision problem, Ozsen, model 4, ​ H., R.J.,

Industry”, M. Sets pp. 3PL”, with and L., T. N., P A., with L., making Renewal,” Expert

C​
Computers ​ (2010), Journal and 414-433. and of P. L. and Management, ,Çelebi,

risk of Coullard, Chi, Kumar, P, warehousing B. facility P Journal Journal &Vankatadri,

E​
store Applications, operations-A Sciences, and ​ (2003). Measuring Singh, Moorthy

scale”, Melachrinoudis, Systems, L., Van pooling”, Systems Industrial S.C “Winning

P​
methodologies of Hilmola, ​ and V., location Blue N. Operational of of in

T​
Hentenryck,2004; from R.K, C. and Deriving ​ In Modelling Industry. Management

Kumar, Atthrirawong, and Vol. M. 134, with Vol. Mine R., Naval IEPM scheduling
 E​
Management Instrument Kao, ​ Vol. (2012) supply B. in U. Delphi Esnaf, O-P 8.

D​
through &Daskin, 365-385. 23, Applications, Dynamic K. Group. ​ N., (1999),

Research 38, E. Research. priorities S.S. and conference (2008), No. and in “A Kumar,
(1999). S. chain pp.11751–11762. study”, Management, Science, implementation 7, S.

M​
(2002),“A W. ​ problem integration fuzzy (2011), for and A Markets M. pp.

“Optimizing Saravanan “Supply Logistics (2003),“Factors from perspectives: simple M.,

A​
Engineering Vol. Data S. 794-818. The ​ AHP proceedings, Vol. International (2008),

N​
and in fuzzy “Comparative Through 38, Systems, relocation decision ​ 27 and of

Chain Vol.7, tabu (NRL), manufacturing (2014), Tiwari, pp.9773–9779. No. of fuzzy supply
 U​
TOPSIS ​ pairwise “Capacitated search A College a No.3, Business Challenges 1,

S​
effecting 108, Vol. support Glasgow, warehouse M.K. “A ​ pp. of Journal case AHP

C​
network Fuzzy analysis 2, pp. a 55, 75-85. methodology for ​ comparision (2011), pp.

hybrid study. Selection”, Model 287-303. environment” pp. and system location warehouse

R​
warehouse of 208-227. of Book, AHP location 295–312. structures of artificial

I​
North-European Operations “Addressing ​ manufacturing/ Innovation Approach Omega:
 P​
multi-criteria for ​ decisions Vol. to judgement. selecting

T
selection ​

location; evaluate
Applied
location Expert 1, neural under
The and
and
pp. for
lot in
46. Partovi, F. Y. (2006), “An analytic model for locating facilities strategically” Omega, Vol.
34, No. 1, pp. 41-44. 47. Pole `se, M. &Shearmur, R. (2004), “Is distance really dead?
Comparing industrial location patterns over time in Canada”, International Regional
Science Review, 24(4), pp. 431–457.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
48. Rothenberg, S., Pil, F.K., & Maxwell, J. (2001). Lean, green, and the quest for superior
environmental performance. Production and Operations Management, 10(3), 228-243. 49.
Sanyal, S.(2006), “Logistics in a competitive milieu”, The Hindu, 23 December. 50.
Sharma, R. R. K., and Berry, V. (2007), “Developing new formulations and relaxations of
single stage capacitated warehouse location problem (SSCWLP): Empirical investigation
for assessing relative strengths and computational effort”, European Journal of 51. 52. 53.

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. ​A​ Operational Shearmur, service Studies, Shih,

making”, Singh, AHP 8, Singh, hierarchy Tabari, method 206, Turgut, based Istanbul”,
Tzeng, fuzzy Transportation Van theory”, Vlachopoulou, in Vol. Weber, programming:
Distribution Weck, production Operational Wu, foreign www.joneslanglasalle.co.in; 2015.
 C​
pp. warehouse 598–606. 71, ​ Laarhoven, J. and H., 524-538. decision R.K R.K. M.,

G. multi direct M., for B. &Radbone, location, 39(7), Fuzzy No. C.A. Mathematical

C​
extent process Shyur, Disaster T., H., R. location Kaboli, and Research, Research,

E​
Klocke, cycles & (2013) 1, investment &Alvergne, ​ Tas, site pp. Logistics and

Planning Sets objective M., pp. a support and Sharma, analysis”, P.J.M. H., decision

P​
(AHP)”, a 1143–1163. Prevention ​ 205-212. selection Silleos, G., Chen, and selection:

T​
using A., “Prioritizing I. comparative & F., Ellram, Vol. Vol. ​ (2005), Herekoglu, system

and Lee, Systems, Aryanezhad, and and Management, Schell, in M.K Y. programming
 E​
Measuring Journal support C. the ​ 177, 100, G., Shanghai”, Computer Technology,

Indian decisions”, Pedrycz, E. W. A and (2002),“Intra-metropolitan L.M. (2015), and for

D​
“Global ​ extended S. No. No. hybrid H. Vol. the (1999),“The study Management,

of A., (2007), disaster Manthou, system logistics 2, 2, and M. factors (1993),“Supplier

M​
Industrial Business Modelling, W. 11, ​ Vol. Tozan, pp. pp. “Selecting Cities,

analysis”, integration International of B., Rüenauver, Vol. pp. and (1983),“A fuzzy 803-812.

A​
351-66. “An centre approach”, 23, seventeen Shahanaghi, ​ - for V. 229-41. H.,

22(4), 23, optimal Taking Excellence, No. and revised extension Vol. (2001),“Geographic

N​
coordinated AHP Applied 45, and competitive No. ​ location 2. Production and pp.
 U​
20, Fuzzy 801–813. E. Vayvay, 1, Journal giant location sectors ​ International

selection method”, 275–286. pp. the genetic (1997), pp. patterns K., Mathematics of

S​
Vol.17, selection extension 37-55. ​ leaps intra-urban 499-520. supply TOPSIS

C​
&Siadat, supply of O. in Engineering of ​ “Evaluating Production of (2011), forward,

algorithm Ile-de-France”, using airport European No.1 and chain information Journal

R​ I​
high-order chain for of A. and pp.80-98. a determinants Saaty’s ​ multi-objective

P​
(2008),“A group “A fire case using Computation, JLL; , using ​ Vol.31, of Economics,
 T
fuzzy Journal approach”, alternative stations: study ​

Physical business
decision
analytic
systems
August, priority Fuzzy- Urban
AHP new No.
for
of of a
64. Zadeh, L. A. (1965),“Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 338–353.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Appendix
A1:Triangular fuzzy conversion scale used for pairwise comparison

C​ C​
E&WS T&C Govt Infra CoL Mar ITS Inc ​ A​ TP ​A2: ​ The pairwise ​ A2 A2

E​
(2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/9,1/4,2/7) (3/2,2,5/2) (d): (b): ​ (1,1,1)
 P​
(1,1,1) (1,1,1) A2(a): A2 T&C Infra CoL MS Evaluation Evaluation (c): ​comparison ​ The

T​ E​ D​
Evaluation ​ fuzzy ​ ​ f ​sub evaluation ​
of of sub o of ​the ​criterion (2/5,1/2,2/3)

criterion sub (3/2,2,5/2) (5/2,3,7/2) (5/2,3,7/2) (2/3,1,3/2) (3/2,2,5/2) E&WS ​selected (​ 1,1,1) (1,1,1)

M​ A​
(1,1,1) PMM Govt criterion TP ​ matrix with with ​ sub ​respect with respect with

N​ U​
criteria ​ respect respect to to ​ market (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/7,1/3,2/5) infrastructure

(5,/2,3,7/2) ​and ​(2/3,1,3/2) (7/2,4,9/2) (3/2,2,5/2) to (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) to SMG Mar ITS Inc

S​ C​ R​ I​
government ​ available ​the goal ​ (level ​ alternatives ​ 1)

Weights
Weights
Weights
Weights Priority
Priority
Priority

P​
Priority ​ 0.17

0.83 0
100
100

T
MS (1,1,1) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/5,1/2,2/3) 0 PMM (5/2,3,7/2) (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2) 0.83 SMG (3/2,2,5/2)
(2/5,1/2,2/3) (1,1,1) 0.17
A2 (e): Evaluation of locations with respect to transport & connectivity
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sal Sz KI PC Priority Weights Sal (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2) (7/2,4,9/2) (5/2,3,7/2) 0.75 Sz (2/5,1/2,2/3)
(1,1,1) (5/2,3,7/2) (3/2,2,5/2) 0.25 KI (2/9,1/4,2/7) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (1,1,1) (2/5,1/2,2/3) 0 PC
(2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (3/2,2,5/2) (1,1,1) 0 Sal Sal Sal Sal Sal PC PC PC PC KI KI KI KI Sz Sz

C​
Sz Sz ​A​ A2 ​ (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/9,1/4,2/7) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/7,1/3,2/5)

(2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/9,1/4,2/7) (g): (2/3,1,3/2) (1,1,1)

 C​ E​
(1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) A2 ​ Evaluation Sal Sal Sal Sal Sal A2 (j): A2 ​ (f):

P​ T​
Evaluation (h): A2 ​ Evaluation (i): Evaluation of ​ Evaluation locations (2/5,1/2,2/3)

(2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/9,1/4,2/7) (3/2,2,5/2) (2/3,1,3/2)

E​
(2/3,1,3/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (2/3,1,3/2) of ​ (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) locations Sz Sz

D​ M​
Sz Sz Sz of of ​ with locations locations of locations respect with ​ with with

respect (2/3,1/2,3/2) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (5/2,3,7/2) (2/3,1,3/2) (3/2,2,5/2)

A​
(3/2,2,5/2) (5/2,3,7/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (2/3,1,3/2) (5/2,3,7/2) (3/2,2,5/2) to with ​ (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
 N​
(1,1,1) (1,1,1) respect IT respect KI KI KI KI KI & to respect ​ telecommunication incentives

U​ S​
to to electricity cost ​ to tax of (2/5,1/2,2/3) ​ (7/2,4,9/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (5/2,3,7/2)

(5/2,3,7/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (5/2,3,7/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (2/3,1,3/2) (7/2,4,9/2) (7/2,4,9/2) (3/2,2,5/2) policies

C​ R​
land (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) PC PC PC PC PC & ​ water setup ​ supply

IP​
Weights

Weights
Weights
Weights
Weights Priority
Priority
Priority
Priority
Priority 0.44 0.44 0.12
0.33 0.67
0.12 0.44 0.44
0.11 1 0 0 0
0
00

T
0​

Sz (2/3,1,3/2) (1,1,1) (2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/5,1/2,2/3) 0.11 KI (5/2,3,7/2) (5/2,3,7/2) (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2)

0.39 PC (3/2,2,5/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (1,1,1) 0.39
A2 (k): Evaluation of locations with respect to market size
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Sal Sz KI PC Priority Weights Sal (1,1,1) (2/3,1,3/2) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/7,1/3,2/5) 0.74 Sz (2/3,1,3/2)
(1,1,1) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/7,1/3,2/5) 0.26 KI (3/2,2,5/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (1,1,1) (2/3,1,3/2) 0 Sal Sal PC PC

C​
PC KI KI Sz Sz ​ A​ A2 ​ (l): (5/2,3,7/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (5/2,3,7/2) (5/2,3,7/2) (2/3,1,3/2)

C​ E​ P​
(3/2,2,5/2) (3/2,2,5/2) A2 (1,1,1) (1,1,1) ​ Evaluation Sal Sal (m): ​ Evaluation ​ of

T​
locations (2/5,1/2,2/3) (5/2,3,7/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (2/3,1,3/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (3/2,2,5/2) of
 E​ D​ M​
(1,1,1) (1,1,1) Sz Sz locations ​ with respect with ​ (2/7,1/3,2/5)

A​
(2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/5,1/2,2/3) respect (3/2,2,5/2) (2/3,1,3/2) (2/3,1,3/2) to ​ (1,1,1)

N​ U​
(1,1,1) proximity KI KI to ​ scope to ​ market for (2/7,1/3,2/5) (2/5,1/2,2/3) (2/5,1/2,2/3)

S​ C​
(2/5,1/2,2/3) ​ (2/3,1,3/2) (2/3,1,3/2) market (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) PC PC ​ growth

RIP​
Weights

Weights Priority
Priority 0.65 0.35
0.79 0.21 0
00
 T
00​