MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400201529 · doi:10.1080/03155986.2024.2367193

Supplier selection for global service providers: a decision support system

2024· article· en· W4400201529 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruno P. Bruck, Manuel Iori, Carlo Alberto Magni, Daniele Pretolani, Dario Vezzali

Bibliographic record

VenueINFOR Information Systems and Operational Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsService providerSelection (genetic algorithm)BusinessProcess managementDecision support systemComputer scienceService (business)Knowledge managementData miningMarketingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we develop a decision support system (DSS) aimed at solving a real-world supplier selection problem (SSP) for a global service provider (GSP) operating in the facility management (FM) industry. The GSP provides its customers with FM services, which are subcontracted to external suppliers selected on the basis of multiple criteria, like economic soundness, quality of service, capacity, and closeness. The SSP is formulated as a multi-objective generalized assignment problem, where the quality and the closeness of the selected suppliers are maximized, whereas a penalty produced by overcapacity assignments is minimized. The quality of each supplier is computed by applying a weighted sum method, resulting from a multi-criteria decision analysis in which the criteria weights are determined through an Analytic Hierarchy Process. The DSS is developed using a modular architecture with a relational database, a supplier evaluator, and a simulator, as well as an additional user-friendly interface. The simulator relies on a rolling horizon algorithm and three alternative configurations to assign contracts to suppliers. The effectiveness of the DSS is assessed by means of extensive computational experiments on historical data. The results show a significant average improvement of 25% compared to the solution adopted by the company.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.205
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFOR Information Systems and Operational ResearchSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207