Integration of the MEREC Objective Weighting Method and PIV Ranking Method for Multi-Criteria Vendor Selection
Keywords:
Vendor Selection, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, MEREC Weighting, PIV Method, Decision Support SystemAbstract
Vendor selection is a critical decision in supply chain management because it directly influences procurement costs, product quality, delivery performance, and operational continuity. The presence of multiple evaluation criteria with different characteristics makes vendor selection a complex multi-criteria decision-making problem. This study proposes an integrated MEREC-PIV method to provide an objective and systematic approach to vendor selection. MEREC is applied to determine the objective weights of the evaluation criteria based on the effect of criterion removal on overall alternative performance, while PIV is used to rank vendor alternatives according to their proximity to reference values. The proposed approach was implemented using a dataset consisting of 25 vendor alternatives and six criteria, namely price, delivery time, quality, service, reputation, and flexibility. The MEREC results indicate that delivery time (KT2) and price (KT1) are the most influential criteria, with weights of 0.3620 and 0.3618, respectively. The PIV ranking results show that V07 achieved the highest priority with a final value of 0.2665, followed by V18 (0.2762), V13 (0.2796), V03 (0.2962), and V23 (0.3287). These findings demonstrate that the MEREC-PIV integration can objectively determine criterion importance and generate a systematic ranking of vendor alternatives. The proposed approach can support decision-makers in identifying the most suitable vendor based on quantitative and data-driven evaluation.
Downloads
References
Word:
[1] S. Dhruva, R. Krishankumar, E. K. Zavadskas, K. S. Ravichandran, and A. H. Gandomi, “Selection of Suitable Cloud Vendors for Health Centre: A Personalized Decision Framework with Fermatean Fuzzy Set, LOPCOW, and CoCoSo,” Informatica, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 65–98, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.15388/23-INFOR537.
[2] Z. K. D. Indriyanti and S. Sumanto, “Decision support for trucking vendor selection at PT. Ricakusuma Lestari Abadi Based on the SAW method,” J. Mandiri IT, vol. 14, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 67–75, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.35335/mandiri.v14i1.420.
[3] A. M. Yiğit, “Supplier Selection with AHP, TOPSIS and WASPAS as Multi-criteria Decision-making Techniques: An Application in Office Chairs Industry,” Uluslararası İşletme Bilim. ve Uygulamaları Derg., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 116–130, 2025.
[4] M. A. M. Al-Gerafi et al., “Promoting inclusivity in education amid the post-COVID-19 challenges: An interval-valued fuzzy model for pedagogy method selection,” Int. J. Manag. Educ., vol. 22, no. 3, p. 101018, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2024.101018.
[5] H. Onuoha et al., “Integrating GIS and AHP for Photovoltaic Farm Site Selection: A Case Study of Ikorodu, Nigeria,” Processes, vol. 13, no. 1. 2025. doi: 10.3390/pr13010164.
[6] H. A. Dağıstanlı and K. G. Kurtay, “Facility Location Selection for Ammunition Depots based on GIS and Pythagorean Fuzzy WASPAS,” J. Oper. Intell., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 36–49, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.31181/jopi2120247.
[7] J. Wang, Setiawansyah, and A. R. Isnain, “Decision Support System for Performance Assessment of the Best Salesperson with the Integration of Entropy and WASPAS,” Int. J. Informatics Data Sci., vol. 2, no. 2 SE-, pp. 63–71, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.64366/ijids.v2i2.88.
[8] Junhai Wang and Setiawansyah, “Integration of LOPCOW and ARAS Methods for Selecting the Best Employees in the Finance Division,” J. Decis. Support Syst. Res., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 125–134, May 2025, doi: 10.64366/dss.v2i3.102.
[9] P. Liu, T. Zhang, F. Tian, Y. Teng, and M. Yang, “Optimized Grid Partitioning and Scheduling in Multi-Energy Systems Using a Hybrid Decision-Making Approach,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 13. 2024. doi: 10.3390/en17133253.
[10] B. S. Mahapatra, D. Ghosh, D. Pamucar, and G. S. Mahapatra, “Dynamic group decision-making for enterprise resource planning selection using two-tuples Pythagorean fuzzy MOORA approach,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 263, p. 125675, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125675.
[11] M. Seidi, S. Yaghoubi, and F. Rabiei, “Multi-objective optimization of wire electrical discharge machining process using multi-attribute decision making techniques and regression analysis,” Sci. Rep., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 10234, 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-60825-w.
[12] M. S. Saidin, L. S. Lee, S. M. Marjugi, M. Z. Ahmad, and H.-V. Seow, “Fuzzy Method Based on the Removal Effects of Criteria (MEREC) for Determining Objective Weights in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems,” Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 1544, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.3390/math11061544.
[13] T. Van Dua, D. Van Duc, N. C. Bao, and D. D. Trung, “Integration of objective weighting methods for criteria and MCDM methods: application in material selection,” EUREKA Phys. Eng., no. 2, pp. 131–148, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003171.
[14] D. D. Trung, N. T. P. Giang, D. Van Duc, T. Van Dua, and H. X. Thinh, “The Use of SAW, RAM and PIV Decision Methods in Determining the Optimal Choice of Materials for the Manufacture of Screw Gearbox Acceleration Boxes,” Int. J. Mech. Eng. Robot. Res., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 338–347, 2024, doi: 10.18178/ijmerr.13.3.338-347.
[15] K. Shunmugesh et al., “Enhancing drilling performance in 3D printed PLA implants application of PIV and ML models,” Sci. Rep., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 13314, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-96126-z.
[16] D. T. Do, “Assessing the Impact of Criterion Weights on the Ranking of the Top Ten Universities in Vietnam,” Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 14899–14903, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.48084/etasr.7607.
[17] M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene, “Determination of Objective Weights Using a New Method Based on the Removal Effects of Criteria (MEREC),” Symmetry (Basel)., vol. 13, no. 4, p. 525, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.3390/sym13040525.
[18] M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, “Assessment of distribution center locations using a multi-expert subjective–objective decision-making approach,” Sci. Rep., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 19461, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98698-y.
[19] S. S. Goswami, S. K. Mohanty, and D. K. Behera, “Selection of a green renewable energy source in India with the help of MEREC integrated PIV MCDM tool,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1153–1160, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.019.
Downloads
PUBLISHED DATE SCHEDULE
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 A. Ferico Octaviansyah Pasaribu, Ajeng Savitri Puspaningrum, Sanriomi Sintaro (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
