Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,419

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS)

Stević, Željko, Pamučar, Dragan, Puška, Adis, Chatterjee, Prasenjit·2020·Computers & Industrial Engineering

Abstract

Abstract Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are very useful tools for daily decision-making in different fields. In addition, determining an acceptable solution with respect to different factors is certainly a very demanding and difficult task. In this paper, a new Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to COmpromise Solution (MARCOS) method for a sustainable supplier selection in the healthcare industry (in a polyclinic) in Bosnia and Herzegovina is developed. The advantages of the developed method are: the consideration of an anti-ideal and ideal solution at the very beginning of the formation of an initial matrix, closer determination of utility degree in relation to both solutions, the proposal of a new way to determine utility functions and their aggregation, the possibility to consider a large set of criteria and alternatives while maintaining the stability of the method. Supplier selection is very important for organizations in the medical industry. Sustainability in the supplier selection process in the medical industry is a strategically important issue, and poorly implemented in the private medical sector. Therefore, the example explains how to use the MARCOS method to select sustainable suppliers in the private medical sector. A case study of a sustainable supplier selection for the healthcare industry (a polyclinic) includes ranking of eight alternatives with regard to 21 criteria for all aspects of sustainability. The results and verification of the new method are carried out throughout a comprehensive sensitivity analysis. 21 scenarios with changes in the weight values of criteria were established, the measurement scale from 1 to 9 was changed to 1–5, a comparison with six other MCDM methods was performed, and it was verified in dynamic conditions which implied a change of the elements of the initial decision-making matrix. All phases of the sensitivity analysis showed the validity of MARCOS method. The obtained results and all scenarios in sensitivity analysis show that A2 remains the best alternative.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Metadata

Authors
Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P.
Venue
Computers & Industrial Engineering
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
140
Pages
106231
ISSN
0360-8352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996521213
Cited by
1,419
References
1
FWCI
77.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
The paper
Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.