4.5 Article

Virtual enterprise partner selection integrating LINMAP and TOPSIS

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY
Volume 67, Issue 10, Pages 1288-1308

Publisher

PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD
DOI: 10.1057/jors.2016.22

Keywords

multi-criteria decision-making; virtual enterprise; partner selection; TOPSIS; LINMAP

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71061006, 61263018, 11461030]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province of China [20114BAB201012, 20142BAB201011]
  3. Young scientists Training object of Jiangxi province [20151442040081]
  4. Science and Technology Project of Jiangxi province educational department of China [GJJ150463, GJJ150466]
  5. Excellent Young Academic Talent Support Program of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Virtual enterprise (VE) has become an ever-increasing trend in today's highly competitive markets. A more scientific decision-making process for selecting partner is very important during the formation phase of VE. Partner selection is formulated as a type of fuzzy hybrid multi-criteria group decision-making problems with fuzzy truth degrees of alternatives' comparisons represented as trapezoidal fuzzy numbers (TrFNs). Integrating Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Linear Programming Technique for Multidimensional Analysis of Preference (LINMAP), we use the relative closeness degrees to define fuzzy consistency and inconsistency indices. The decision makers' weight vector is derived by using the relative entropy. Criteria weights are estimated through constructing a new fuzzy linear programming model with TrFNs, which is solved by the developed fast and efficient method. Collective ranking matrix of alternatives is generated through constructing multi-objective assignment model. Example analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available