Evaluating Blockchain Integration In Intelligent Logistics Ecosystems: A Comparative MCDM Approach

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Hassan First University, ENSA, LAMSAD Laboratory, Berrechid, Morocco

2 Cadi Ayyad University, Higher Normal School, L2IS Laboratory, Marrakech, Morocco

Abstract

Objective: Supply chain management in dynamic environments requires advanced digital technologies to enhance transparency, security, and operational efficiency. Blockchain technology has emerged as a promising solution for improving traceability and trust in intelligent logistics ecosystems. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare blockchain platform alternatives using a structured multi-criteria decision-making framework in order to support technology selection in modern logistics systems.
Methods: This research applies a comparative multi-criteria decision-making approach integrating Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), AHP-TOPSIS, and Fuzzy AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS methods. A hierarchical evaluation model was developed. Expert judgments and literature-based criteria were used to determine weights and assess the relative performance of blockchain platform alternatives.
Results: The evaluation results demonstrate consistent rankings across both crisp and fuzzy decision models. Sensitivity analysis further confirms the robustness of the ranking results under different weighting scenarios.
Conclusion: The findings highlight the importance of scalability, interoperability, and transparency when selecting blockchain platforms for intelligent logistics ecosystems. The proposed framework provides decision-makers with a systematic evaluation tool that can support strategic technology adoption and improve decision quality in supply chain digital transformation initiatives.

Keywords

References

Baydaş, M., Elma, O. E., & Pamučar, D. (2022). Exploring the specific capacity of different multi criteria decision making approaches under uncertainty using data from financial markets. Expert Systems with Applications, 197, 116755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116755
Biju Patnaik University of Technology (BPUT), Rourkela, Odisha, India, Sahoo, S. K., Goswami, S. S., & Biju Patnaik University of Technology (BPUT), Rourkela, Odisha, India. (2023). A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances, 1(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma1120237
Chatterjee, P., & Stević, Ž. (2019). A two-phase fuzzy AHP - fuzzy TOPSIS model for supplier evaluation in manufacturing environment. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(1), 72–90. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta1901060c
Dožić, S. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making methods: Application in the aviation industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 79, 101683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.101683
Görçün, Ö. F., Pamucar, D., & Biswas, S. (2023). The blockchain technology selection in the logistics industry using a novel MCDM framework based on Fermatean fuzzy sets and Dombi aggregation. Information Sciences, 635, 345–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.03.113
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046
Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.004
Ishak, A. & Wanli. (2020). Analysis of fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS methods in multi criteria decision making: literature review. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1003(1), 012147. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1003/1/012147
Jalao, E. R., Wu, T., & Shunk, D. (2014). A stochastic AHP decision making methodology for imprecise preferences. Information Sciences, 270, 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.077
Kandarkar, P. C., & Ravi, V. (2024). Investigating the impact of smart manufacturing and interconnected emerging technologies in building smarter supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 35(5), 984–1009. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-11-2023-0498
Karthikeyan, R., Venkatesan, K. G. S., & Chandrasekar, A. (2016). A comparison of strengths and weaknesses for analytical hierarchy process. 9(3).
Khan, A. U., & Ali, Y. (2020). analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process methods and their applications: twenty years review from 2000–2019: AHP & ANP techniques and their Applications: twenty years review from 2000 to 2019. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v12i3.822
Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A. R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., & Bansal, R. C. (2017). A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191
Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Systems with Applications, 161, 113738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738
Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2015). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications – Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), 4126–4148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003
Munier, N., & Hontoria, E. (2021). Rationality of the AHP method. In N. Munier & E. Hontoria (Eds.), uses and limitations of the AHP method: A non-mathematical and rational analysis (pp. 31–39). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60392-2_4
Nguyen, L. T. T., Nguyen, T. H. T., & Nguyen, D. D. (2024). An integrated FAHP and TOPSIS for supplier selection under uncertainty: A case study in electrical explosion protection and sensor company. International Journal of Applied Management Science, 16(3), 304–328. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAMS.2024.140045
Niazmandi, M. M., Sedaeesoula, R., Lari, S., & Yousefi, M. (2024). Integrated project delivery (IPD) capabilities on reducing claims in urban underground projects: A hybrid FAHP-FTOPSIS approach. Sustainable Futures, 7, 100175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100175
Oudani, M. (2023). A combined multi-objective multi criteria approach for blockchain-based synchromodal transportation. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 176, 108996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.108996
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
Saoud, A., Lachgar, M., Hanine, M., Dhimni, R. E., Azizi, K. E., & Machmoum, H. (2025). decideXpert: collaborative system using AHP-TOPSIS and fuzzy techniques for multicriteria group decision-making. SoftwareX, 29, 102026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2024.102026
Sirisawat, P., & Kiatcharoenpol, T. (2018). Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches to prioritizing solutions for reverse logistics barriers. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 117, 303–318.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.01.015
Zandebasiri, M., & Pourhashemi, M. (2016). The place of AHP method among the multi-criteria decision making methods in forest management. 6(2).
 
International Journal of Supply and Operations Management
Volume 13, Issue 1
February 2026
Pages 61-79

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics