2014
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2014.952791
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the inventory performance of multi-criteria classification methods: empirical investigation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
30
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
30
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Th ough the model is simple enough to run without advanced software, it has the flexibility to add and change constraints and factors as needed. Similar attempts to multi-criteria inventory classification (MCIC) include (Bacchetti et al 2013, Hatefi et al 2014, Lolli et al 2014, Millstein et al 2014, Park et al 2014, Roda et al 2014, Soylu and Akyol 2014, Babai et al 2015.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Th ough the model is simple enough to run without advanced software, it has the flexibility to add and change constraints and factors as needed. Similar attempts to multi-criteria inventory classification (MCIC) include (Bacchetti et al 2013, Hatefi et al 2014, Lolli et al 2014, Millstein et al 2014, Park et al 2014, Roda et al 2014, Soylu and Akyol 2014, Babai et al 2015.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, high inventory may also lower the performance of the firm due to inherent costs related to inventory keeping such as security cost, depreciation and rent. Empirical studies by [3] and [4] show that there is a negative relationship between inventory holding period and firms' performance. The scale of the impact of IHP differs in small and medium SMEs leading to the following hypothesis, when non-linear relationship is accounted for;…”
Section: Inventory Holding Periodmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This means that the weight of each criterion becomes irrelevant in determining the aggregate score of an item. Babai et al [23] presented a service-cost performance index analysis of four MCIC models ( [13,19,21,22]). They concluded that [13] and [19] perform better.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%