4.7 Article

Novel fuzzy hybrid multi-criteria group decision making approaches for the strategic supplier selection problem

Journal

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
Volume 42, Issue 7, Pages 3342-3356

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.12.014

Keywords

Fuzzy set; Consensus; CCSD; Possibility measure; Neat OWA; Fuzzy TOPSIS; Goal programming; Satisfaction function; Multi-stakeholder; Multi-criteria; Supplier selection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current complexity of supply chains (SC) activities requires the need for coordination between supply chains partners to maximize the efficiency. Considered by practitioners as one of the main SC coordination problems, this paper considers the strategic supplier selection problem. Fuzzy set is used in order to address the imprecision of supply chain partners in formulating the preferences values of various selection criteria. The problem is formulated as a multi-stakeholder multi-criteria (MSMC) decision making problem and solved using two novel approaches. The first hybrid approach combines the fuzzy consensus-based possibility measure and fuzzy TOPSIS method. The second hybrid approach combines the fuzzy consensus-based neat OWA and goal programming model where, the inclusion and participation of stakeholders in the decision-making process is explicit. For each approach, the correlation coefficient and standard deviation (CCSD) based objective weight determination model is used to compute the criteria weights. To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed approaches, a simple example of strategic supplier selection problem is presented and the numerical results analyzed. Moreover, for each approach, the deviations between individual solutions and collective solution are evaluated using the Levenshtein distance. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of each approach are listed. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available