4.6 Article

A new combined IF-DEMATEL and IF-ANP approach for CRM partner evaluation

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.05.012

关键词

Intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making; MCDM; Intuitionistic Fuzzy ANP; Intuitionistic Fuzzy DEMATEL; CRM partner evaluation

资金

  1. Galatasaray University [16.402.004, 17.402.001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Selection of the most suitable business partner is a strategic decision for outsourcing problems. This study aims to provide an effective evaluation approach for assessing alternative CRM partners. The choice of a suitable partner is a very complex decision, involving many conflicting objectives as well as complex considerations. Such decision processes involving several perspectives can be worked around by using Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques. MCDM can assist decision makers with reaching consensus with collective participation and objective decisions based on value judgments. This paper proposes a combined approach for effectively evaluating CRM partners that integrates Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets (IFS) with Group Decision Making (GDM). It consists of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (IF-ANP) for building and analyzing the criteria weights and Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (IF-DEMATEL), a useful technique for managing uncertainties to identify interrelations between criteria. As the IFS describe powerfully vagueness and uncertainty, IFS can depict decision makers' evaluations with a structure which is more rich, allowing for a more accurate description of the decision making process. The scientific value of the paper stems from its ability to present a novel study that makes use of GDM based MCDM with combined IF-DEMATEL and IF-ANP approaches. This study contributes to the existing literature by providing a combined IFS based DEMATEL-ANP framework for the first time and developing a novel evaluation model for a real industrial problem to improve the CRM partner selection process.

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

4.6
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