Evaluation of suppliers under uncertainty: a multiphase approach based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy EDAS
A decision-making process requires a prior definition and fulfilment of certain factors, especially when it refers to complex fields such as supply chain management. One of the most important items in the initial stage of a supply chain, which strongly influences its further flow, is making a decision on the most suitable supplier. In this paper, a model for evaluation and supplier selection has been proposed, which has been considered in more than ten different production areas. The model consists of twenty quantitative and qualitative criteria, which are reduced to a total of nine by the application of the fuzzy AHP and the assessment of managers in production companies. The verification of the model has been presented throughout a selection of suppliers in a company for the production of plastic bags and foils, where the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) method has been used to determine the significance of the criteria, and the Fuzzy Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (Fuzzy EDAS) to evaluate and select suppliers. The obtained results have been considered throughout a sensitivity analysis in which a total of 15 different scenarios have been formed and where the stability of the model has been determined, since the supplier one is the best solution in all the cases.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Badi, I.; Abdulshahed, A. M.; Shetwan, A. 2018. A case study of supplier selection for a steelmaking company in Libya by using the combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) model, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 1(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame180101b
Baležentis, A.; Baležentis, T. 2011. An innovative multi-criteria supplier selection based on two-tuple MULTIMOORA and hybrid data, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 45(2): 37–56.
Ballı, S.; Korukoğlu, S. 2009. Operating system selection using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods, Mathematical and Computational Applications 14(2): 119–130. https://doi.org/10.3390/mca14020119
Birgün Barla, S. 2003. A case study of supplier selection for lean supply by using a mathematical model, Logistics Information Management 16(6): 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576050310503420
Božanić, D.; Tešić, D.; Milićević, J. 2018. A hybrid fuzzy AHP-MABAC model: application in the Serbian army – the selection of the location for deep wading as a technique of crossing the river by tanks, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 1(1): 143–164. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1801143b
Bronja, Harun; Bronja, Haris. 2015. Two-phase selection procedure of aluminized sheet supplier by applying fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology, Tehnički vjesnik 22(4): 821–828. https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20140203122653
Büyüközkan, G.; Göçer, F. 2017. Application of a new combined intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach based on axiomatic design methodology for the supplier selection problem, Applied Soft Computing 52: 1222–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.08.051
Çebi, F.; Bayraktar, D. 2003. An integrated approach for supplier selection, Logistics Information Management 16(6): 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576050310503376
Chamodrakas, I.; Batis, D.; Martakos, D. 2010. Supplier selection in electronic marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications 37(1): 490–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.043
Chan, F. T. S.; Kumar, N. 2007. Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach, Omega 35(4): 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2005.08.004
Chang, D.-Y. 1996. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 95(3): 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
Chen, C.-T.; Lin, C.-T.; Huang, S.-F. 2006. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management, International Journal of Production Economics 102(2): 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.03.009
Chen, N.; Xu, Z.; Xia, M. 2015. The ELECTRE I multi-criteria decision-making method based on hesitant fuzzy sets, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 14(3): 621–657. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622014500187
Chiouy, C.-Y.; Chou, S.-H.; Yeh, C.-Y. 2011. Using fuzzy AHP in selecting and prioritizing sustainable supplier on CSR for Taiwan’s electronics industry, Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences 32(5): 1135–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02522667.2011.10700110
Dickson, G. W. 1966. An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions, Journal of Purchasing 2(1): 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.1966.tb00818.x
Ecer, F. 2018. Third-party logistics (3Pls) provider selection via Fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 24(2): 615–634. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1213207
Ellram, L. M. 1990. The supplier selection decision in strategic partnerships, Journal of Supply Chain Management 26(4): 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.1990.tb00515.x
Eraslan, E.; Atalay, K. D. 2014. A comparative holistic fuzzy approach for evaluation of the chain performance of suppliers, Journal of Applied Mathematics 2014: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/109821
Fallahpour, A.; Olugu, E. U.; Musa, S. N. 2017. A hybrid model for supplier selection: integration of AHP and multi expression programming (MEP), Neural Computing and Applications 28(3): 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-2078-6
Gencer, C.; Gürpinar, D. 2007. Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm, Applied Mathematical Modelling 31(11): 2475–2486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2006.10.002
Guo, X.; Yuan, Z.; Tian, B. 2009. Supplier selection based on hierarchical potential support vector machine, Expert Systems with Applications 36(3): 6978–6985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.08.074
Hashemian, S. M.; Behzadian, M.; Samizadeh, R.; Ignatius, J. 2014. A fuzzy hybrid group decision support system approach for the supplier evaluation process, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 73(5–8): 1105–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-5843-2
Hashemkhani Zolfani, S.; Sedaghat, M.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2012. Performance evaluating of rural ICT centers (telecenters), applying fuzzy AHP, SAW-G and TOPSIS Grey, a case study in Iran, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 18(2): 364–387. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.685110
Ho, W.; Xu, X.; Dey, P. K. 2010. Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review, European Journal of Operational Research 202(1): 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009
Hruška, R.; Průša, P.; Babić, D. 2014. The use of AHP method for selection of supplier, Transport 29(2): 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2014.930928
Hudymáčová, M.; Benková, M.; Pócsová, J.; Škovránek, T. 2010. Supplier selection based on multi-criterial AHP method, Acta Montanistica Slovaca 15(3): 249–255.
Jafarnejad, A.; Salimi, M. 2013. Grey TOPSIS method for supplier selection with literature and Delphi criteria in an auto company, Academia Arena 5(12): 40–46.
Jain, V.; Sangaiah, A. K.; Sakhuja, S.; Thoduka, N.; Aggarwal, R. 2018. Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: a case study in the Indian automotive industry, Neural Computing and Applications 29(7): 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2533-z
Jamil, N.; Besar, R.; Sim, H. K. 2013. A study of multicriteria decision making for supplier selection in automotive industry, Journal of Industrial Engineering 2013: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/841584
Kabi, A. A.; Hussain, M.; Khan, M. 2017. Assessment of supplier selection for critical items in public organisations of Abu Dhabi, World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 13(1): 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1504/WRSTSD.2017.083710
Kahraman, C.; Cebeci, U.; Ulukan, Z. 2003. Multi‐criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP, Logistics Information Management 16(6): 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1108/09576050310503367
Kahraman, C.; Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Cevik Onar, S.; Yazdani, M.; Oztaysi, B. 2017. Intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS method: an application to solid waste disposal site selection, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management 25(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3846/16486897.2017.1281139
Kannan, V. R.; Tan, K. C. 2006. Buyer‐supplier relationships: the impact of supplier selection and buyer‐supplier engagement on relationship and firm performance, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 36(10): 755– 775. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030610714580
Karabašević, D., Stanujkić, D., Đorđević, B., & Stanujkić, A. 2018. The weighted sum preferred levels of performances approach to solving problems in human resources management. Serbian Journal of Management, 13(1), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm13-12589
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Antuchevičienė, J. 2018a. A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluation of construction equipment with sustainability considerations, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 18(1): 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011
Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z.; Antuchevičienė, J. 2018b. A dynamic fuzzy approach based on the EDAS method for multi-criteria subcontractor evaluation, Information 9(3): 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9030068
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Olfat, L.; Khatami Firouzabadi, S. A. 2017a. Designing a multi-product multi-period supply chain network with reverse logistics and multiple objectives under uncertainty, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 23(3): 520–548. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2017.1312630
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Antuchevičienė, J. 2017b. Supplier evaluation and selection in fuzzy environments: a review of MADM approaches, Economic Research – Ekonomska Istraživanja 30: 1073–1118. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2017.1314828
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. 2017c. Multi-criteria group decision-making using an extended EDAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, E&M. Ekonomie a Management 20(1): 48–68. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2017-1-004
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Amiri, M.; Turskis, Z. 2016. Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: an application to supplier selection, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control 11(3): 358–371. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2016.3.2557
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Olfat, L.; Turskis, Z. 2015. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS), Informatica 26(3): 435–451. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2015.57
Khorasani, O.; Bafruei, M. K. 2011. A fuzzy AHP approach for evaluating and selecting supplier in pharmaceutical industry, International Journal of Academic Research 3(1): 346–352.
Kilic, H. S. 2013. An integrated approach for supplier selection in multi-item/multi-supplier environment, Applied Mathematical Modelling 37(14–15): 7752–7763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.03.010
Kilincci, O.; Onal, S. A. 2011. Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company, Expert Systems with Applications 38(8): 9656–9664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.159
Kwong, C. K.; Bai, H. 2003. Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach, IIE Transactions 35(7): 619–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170304355
Lam, K.-C.; Tao, R.; Lam, M. C.-K. 2010. A material supplier selection model for property developers using fuzzy principal component analysis, Automation in Construction 19(5): 608–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.007
Lee, A. H. I. 2009. A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consideration of benefits, opportunities, costs and risks, Expert Systems with Applications 36(2): 2879–2893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.01.045
Liao, C.-N.; Fu, Y.-K.; Wu, L.-C. 2016. Integrated FAHP, ARAS-F and MSGP methods for green supplier evaluation and selection, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 22(5): 651–669. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2015.1072750
Lima Junior, F. R.; Osiro, L.; Carpinetti, L. C. R. 2014. A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection, Applied Soft Computing 21: 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.03.014
Lin, H.-T.; Chang, W.-L. 2008. Order selection and pricing methods using flexible quantity and fuzzy approach for buyer evaluation, European Journal of Operational Research 187(2): 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.003
Mahmoodzadeh, S.; Shahrabi, J.; Pariazar, M.; Zaeri, M. S. 2007. Project selection by using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 1(6): 270–275.
Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; Valipour, A. 2015. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014, Economic Research – Ekonomska Istraživanja 28: 516–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139
Mehralian, G.; Gatari, A. R.; Morakabati, M.; Vatanpour, H. 2012. Developing a suitable model for supplier selection based on supply chain risks: an empirical study from Iranian pharmaceutical companies, Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 11(1): 209–219.
Min, H.; Galle, W. P. 1999. Electronic commerce usage in business‐to‐business purchasing, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 19(9): 909–921. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910280232
Muralidharan, C.; Anantharaman, N.; Deshmukh, S. G. 2002. A multi-criteria group decisionmaking model for supplier rating, Journal of Supply Chain Management 38(3): 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2002.tb00140.x
Özbek, A. 2015. Supplier selection with fuzzy TOPSIS, Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 6(18): 114–125.
Pamučar, D.; Stević, Ž.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2018. Integration of interval rough AHP and interval rough MABAC methods for evaluating university web pages, Applied Soft Computing 67: 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.02.057
Parthiban, P.; Zubar, H. A.; Garge, C. P. 2012. A multi criteria decision making approach for suppliers selection, Procedia Engineering 38: 2312–2328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.277
Pi, W.-N.; Low, C. 2006. Supplier evaluation and selection via Taguchi loss functions and an AHP, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 27(5–6): 625–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-004-2227-z
Ren, J.; Toniolo, S. 2018. Life cycle sustainability decision-support framework for ranking of hydrogen production pathways under uncertainties: an interval multi-criteria decision making approach, Journal of Cleaner Production 175: 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.070
Rezaei, J.; Fahim, P. B. M.; Tavasszy, L. 2014. Supplier selection in the airline retail industry using a funnel methodology: Conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications 41(18): 8165–8179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.005
Saad, S. M.; Kunhu, N.; Mohamed, A. M. 2016. A fuzzy-AHP multi-criteria decision-making model for procurement process, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 23(1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLSM.2016.073295
Simpson, P. M.; Siguaw, J. A.; White, S. C. 2002. Measuring the performance of suppliers: an analysis of evaluation processes, Journal of Supply Chain Management 38(4): 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2002.tb00118.x
Singh, R.; Rajput, H.; Chaturvedi, V.; Vimal, J. 2012. Supplier selection by technique of order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method for automotive industry, International Journal of Advanced Technology & Engineering Research 2(2): 157–160.
Stanujkic, D.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Turskis, Z. 2017. An extension of the EDAS method based on the use of interval grey numbers, Studies in Informatics and Control 26(1): 5–12. https://doi.org/10.24846/v26i1y201701
Stević, Ž.; Pamučar, D.; Vasiljević, M.; Stojić, G.; Korica, S. 2017a. Novel integrated multi-criteria model for supplier selection: case study construction company, Symmetry 9(11): 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9110279
Stević, Ž.; Pamučar, D.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Ćirović, G.; Prentkovskis, O. 2017b. The selection of wagons for the internal transport of a logistics company: a novel approach based on rough BWM and rough SAW methods, Symmetry 9(11): 264. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9110264
Stević, Ž.; Tanackov, I.; Vasiljević, M.; Novarlić, B.; Stojić, G. 2016. An integrated fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS model for supplier evaluation, Serbian Journal of Management 11(1): 15–27. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm11-10452
Sun, C.-C. 2010. A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods, Expert Systems with Applications 37(12): 7745–7754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.066
Tam, M. C. Y.; Tummala, V. M. R. 2001. An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system, Omega 29(2): 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(00)00039-6
Ting, S.-C.; Cho, D.-I. 2008. An integrated approach for supplier selection and purchasing decisions, Supply Chain Management: an International Journal 13(2): 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540810860958
Triantaphyllou, E.; Mann, S. H. 1995. Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering applications: some challenges, International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practice 2(1): 35–44.
Turskis, Z.; Juodagalvienė, B. 2016. A novel hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model to assess a stairs shape for dwelling houses, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 22(8): 1078–1087. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2016.1259179
Turskis, Z.; Keršulienė, V.; Vinogradova, I. 2017. A new fuzzy hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach to solve personnel assessment problems. Case study: director selection for estates and economy office, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 51(3): 211–229.
Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Antuchevičienė, J.; Kosareva, N. 2015. A hybrid model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for construction site selection, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control 10(6): 873–888. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2015.6.2078
Uygun, Ö.; Kaçamak, H.; Ayşim, G.; Şimşir, F. 2013. Supplier selection for automotive industry using multi-criteria decision making techniques, TOJSAT: The Online Journal of Science and Technology 3(4): 126–137.
Wang, G.; Huang, S. H.; Dismukes, J. P. 2004. Product-driven supply chain selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology, International Journal of Production Economics 91(1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00221-4
Wang, T.-K.; Zhang, Q.; Chong, H.-Y.; Wang, X. 2017. Integrated supplier selection framework in a resilient construction supply chain: an approach via analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and grey relational analysis (GRA), Sustainability 9(2): 289. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020289
Wang, W.-P. 2010. A fuzzy linguistic computing approach to supplier evaluation, Applied Mathematical Modelling 34(10): 3130–3141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.02.002
Weber, C. A.; Current, J. R.; Benton, W. C. 1991. Vendor selection criteria and methods, European Journal of Operational Research 50(1): 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(91)90033-R
Yücenur, G. N.; Vayvay, Ö.; Demirel, N. Ç. 2011. Supplier selection problem in global supply chains by AHP and ANP approaches under fuzzy environment, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 56(5–8): 823–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3220-y
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8(3): 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
Zavadskas, E. K.; Cavallaro, F.; Podvezko, V.; Ubartė, I.; Kaklauskas, A. 2017. MCDM assessment of a healthy and safe built environment according to sustainable development principles: a practical neighborhood approach in Vilnius, Sustainability 9(5): 702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050702
Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z.; Kildienė, S. 2014. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20(1): 165–179. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037
Zeydan, M.; Çolpan, C.; Çobanoğlu, C. 2011. A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation, Expert Systems with Applications 38(3): 2741–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064