4.7 Article

A likelihood-based TODIM approach based on multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic information for evaluation in logistics outsourcing

期刊

COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
卷 99, 期 -, 页码 287-299

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2016.07.023

关键词

Linguistic decision-making; Multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets (MHFLTSs); Logistics outsourcing; Likelihood; TODIM

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71571193, 71271218, 71431006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a likelihood-based TODIM approach based on multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic information is developed for the selection and evaluation of contractors in logistics outsourcing. First, various definitions and operations related to hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets (HFLTSs) and hesitant fuzzy linguistic sets (HFLSs) are discussed. Next, the definition of multi-hesitant linguistic term sets (MHFLTSs) is reviewed, which can eliminate the limitations associated with HFLTSs and HFLSs as well as emphasize the significance of repeated values. Then, a likelihood function is developed for multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic term elements (MHFLTEs) based on a generalized function of the possibility degree of real numbers. Using this generalized function based on linguistic scale functions, alternatives that satisfy certain properties can be selected according to various semantic situations and the preferences of decision makers. Finally, the likelihood function of MHFLTEs is embedded into TODIM to address decision-making problems in which decision makers exhibit bounded rationality, and hesitance and repetitiveness exist in the linguistic evaluation information. According to the results of the illustrative examples and comparative analysis, the proposed approach can be used to effectively solve multi-criteria decision making problems involving the selection and evaluation of third-party logistics service providers. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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