A Customer-Oriented Assortment Selection in the Big Data Environment

  • Morteza SaberiEmail author
  • Zahra Saberi
  • Mehdi Rajabi Aasadabadi
  • Omar Khadeer Hussain
  • Elizabeth Chang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT, volume 41)


Customers prefer the availability of a range of products when they shop online. This enables them to identify their needs and select products that best match their desires. This is addressed through assortment planning. Some customers have strong awareness of what they want to purchase and from which provider. When considering customer taste as an abstract concept, such customers’ decisions may be influenced by the existence of the variety of products and the current variant market may affect their initial desire. Previous studies dealing with assortment planning have commonly addressed it from the retailer’s point of view. This paper will provide customers with a ranking method to find what they want. We propose that this provision benefits both the retailer and the customer. This study provides a customer-oriented assortment ranking approach. The ranking model facilitates browsing and exploring the current big market in order to help customers find their desired item considering their own taste. In this study, a scalable and customised multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method is structured and utilised to help customers in the process of finding their most suitable assortment while shopping online. The proposed MCDM method is tailored to fit the big data environment.


Assortment selection Online shopping Big data MCDM Customer-oriented 


  1. 1.
    Saberi, Z., et al.: Stackelberg game-theoretic approach in joint pricing and assortment optimizing for small-scale online retailers: seller-buyer supply chain case. In: 2018 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA). IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saberi, Z., et al.: Online retailer assortment planning and managing under customer and supplier uncertainty effects using internal and external data. In: 2017 IEEE 14th International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE). IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saberi, Z., et al.: Stackelberg model based game theory approach for assortment and selling price planning for small scale online retailers. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 100, 1088–1102 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hart, C., Rafiq, M.: The dimensions of assortment: a proposed hierarchy of assortment decision making. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 16(3), 333–351 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flamand, T., et al.: Integrated assortment planning and store-wide shelf space allocation: an optimization-based approach. Omega 81, 134–149 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kök, A.G., Fisher, M.L., Vaidyanathan, R.: Assortment planning: review of literature and industry practice. In: Retail Supply Chain Management, pp. 175–236. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kunnumkal, S., Martínez-de-Albéniz, V.: Tractable approximations for assortment planning with product costs. Oper. Res. 67, 436–452 (2019)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flores, A., Berbeglia, G., Van Hentenryck, P.: Assortment optimization under the sequential multinomial logit model. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 273(3), 1052–1064 (2019)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kautish, P., Sharma, R.: Managing online product assortment and order fulfillment for superior e-tailing service experience: an empirical investigation. Asia Pac. J. Market. Logistics 4, 1161–1192 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Melacini, M., et al.: E-fulfilment and distribution in omni-channel retailing: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logistics Manag. 48(4), 391–414 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Argouslidis, P., et al.: Consumers’ reactions to variety reduction in grocery stores: a freedom of choice perspective. Eur. J. Mark. 52(9/10), 1931–1955 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, Z., Lu, Q., Talebian, M.: Online versus bricks-and-mortar retailing: a comparison of price, assortment and delivery time. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53(13), 3823–3835 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang, R., Sahin, O.: The impact of consumer search cost on assortment planning and pricing. Manag. Sci. 64(8), 3649–3666 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sauré, D., Zeevi, A.: Optimal dynamic assortment planning with demand learning. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 15(3), 387–404 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goyal, V., Levi, R., Segev, D.: Near-optimal algorithms for the assortment planning problem under dynamic substitution and stochastic demand. Oper. Res. 64(1), 219–235 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pan, X.A., Honhon, D.: Assortment planning for vertically differentiated products. Prod. Oper. Manag. 21(2), 253–275 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Azadeh, A., et al.: Z-AHP: A Z-number extension of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. In: 2013 7th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST). IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shokri, H., et al.: An integrated AHP-VIKOR methodology for Facility Layout design. Ind. Eng. Manag. Syst. 12(4), 389–405 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aboutorab, H., et al.: ZBWM: the Z-number extension of Best Worst Method and its application for supplier development. Expert Syst. Appl. 107, 115–125 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nawaz, F., et al.: An MCDM method for cloud service selection using a Markov chain and the best-worst method. Knowl.-Based Syst. 159, 120–131 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang, Y., et al.: Ranking scientific articles based on bibliometric networks with a weighting scheme. J. Informetr. 13(2), 616–634 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Asadabadi, M.R., Chang, E., Saberi, M.: Are MCDM methods useful? A critical review of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP). Cogent Eng. 6, 1623153 (2019). (just-accepted)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rezaei, J.: Piecewise linear value functions for multi-criteria decision-making. Expert Syst. Appl. 98, 43–56 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mitchell, R.: Web Scraping with Python: Collecting More Data from the Modern Web. O’Reilly Media Inc, Sebastopol (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morteza Saberi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zahra Saberi
    • 2
  • Mehdi Rajabi Aasadabadi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Omar Khadeer Hussain
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Chang
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information, Systems and ModellingUTSSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of BusinessUNSW CanberraCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations