4.5 Article

Selection of logistic service provider using fuzzy PROMETHEE for a cement industry

期刊

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/17410381211267727

关键词

Computer software; Group decision support systems; Decisionmakers; FuzzyPROMETHEE; Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process; Geometrical analysis for interactive aid; Multi-criteria decision making

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to develop a method to select the best alternative in a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) environment when the decision is taken by a group of members in an uncertain environment. Design/methodology/approach - In this paper, Fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (Fuzzy PROMETHEE) technique has been used for MCDM problems. The team of decision makers is constituted to integrate their opinion. The analysis is done using Geometrical Analysis for Interactive Aid (GAIA) plane, available in Decision Lab 2000 software, which provides valuable help in understanding the conflicts among criteria. Findings - The selection of best alternative is done on the basis of generally conflicting criteria. Fuzzy PROMETHEE technique has been proposed and the same is demonstrated using Decision Lab 2000 software. This software can be used for as many criteria as possible and also in a fuzzy environment, where the crisp data for criteria comparison are not available. It is found that the analysis of the results becomes very easy and effective with this software. A case study is conducted for a cement company to select the logistic service providers (LSPs) to demonstrate its ease and effectiveness of use. Originality/value - The research provides a model to choose the best alternative using Decision Lab 2000 software for Fuzzy PROMETHEE technique. The proposed methodology can be used in a fuzzy environment with ease and effectiveness. In the competitive scenario, this could help the industry in prompt and efficient decision making in MCDM problems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据