You are on page 1of 6

Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 11363–11368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier
selection with TOPSIS method
Fatih Emre Boran a,*, Serkan Genç a, Mustafa Kurt b, Diyar Akay b
a
b

Institute of Science and Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering, Gazi University, 06570 Ankara, Turkey
Department of Industrial Engineering, Gazi University, 06570 Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords:
Intuitionistic fuzzy set
Supplier selection
TOPSIS method
Group decision making

a b s t r a c t
Supplier selection, the process of finding the right suppliers who are able to provide the buyer with the
right quality products and/or services at the right price, at the right time and in the right quantities, is one
of the most critical activities for establishing an effective supply chain. On the other hand, it is a hard
problem since supplier selection is typically a multi criteria group decision-making problem involving
several conflicting criteria on which decision maker’s knowledge is usually vague and imprecise. In this
study, TOPSIS method combined with intuitionistic fuzzy set is proposed to select appropriate supplier in
group decision making environment. Intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (IFWA) operator is utilized
to aggregate individual opinions of decision makers for rating the importance of criteria and alternatives.
Finally, a numerical example for supplier selection is given to illustrate application of intuitionistic fuzzy
TOPSIS method.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Supply Chain Management (SCM) has received recently considerable attention in both academia and industry. The major aims of
SCM are to reduce supply chain (SC) risk, reduce production costs,
maximize revenue, improve customer service, optimize inventory
levels, business processes, and cycle times, and resulting in increased competitiveness, customer satisfaction and profitability
(Chou & Chang, 2008; Ha & Krishnan, 2008; Heizer & Render,
2004; Monczka, Trent, & Handfield, 2001; Simchi-Levi, Kaminsky,
& Simchi-Levi, 2003; Stevenson, 2005).
One of the important activities for SC success is an effective purchasing function (Cakravastia & Takahashi, 2004; Chou & Chang,
2008; Giunipero & Brand, 1996; Porter & Millar, 1985). The purchasing function has received a great deal of attention in the
SCM due to factors such as globalization, increased value added
in supply and accelerated technological change. The purchasing
function involves buying the raw materials, supplies and components for the organization. The most important activity of the purchasing function is the selection of appropriate supplier, since it
brings significant savings for the organization (Haq & Kannan,
2006).
One of the well known studies on supplier selection belongs to
Dickson (1966) who identified 23 important evaluation criteria for
supplier selection. Weber, Current, and Benton (1991) reviewed
and classified 74 articles addressed the supplier selection problem.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 213 32 33; fax: +90 312 212 00 59.
E-mail address: feboran@gazi.edu.tr (F.E. Boran).
0957-4174/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039

de Boer, Labro, and Morlacchi (2001) identified four stages for supplier selection including definition of the problem, formulation of
criteria, qualification, and final selection, respectively. They reviewed and classified MCDM approaches for supplier selection.
Several methodologies have been proposed for the supplier
selection problem. The systematic analysis for supplier selection
includes categorical method, weighted point method (Timmerman,
1986; Zenz, 1981), matrix approach (Gregory, 1986), vendor performance matrix approach (Soukup, 1987) vendor profile analysis
(VPA) (Thompson, 1990), analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Barbarosoglu & Yazgac, 1997; Narasimhan, 1983; Nydick & Hill, 1992),
analytic network process (ANP) (Sarkis & Talluri, 2000), mathematical programming (Chaudhry, Forst, & Zydiak, 1993; Pan, 1989;
Rosenthal, Zydiak, & Chaudhry, 1995; Sadrian & Yoon, 1994; Weber & Current, 1993) and multiple objective programming (MOP)
(Buffa & Jackson, 1983; Feng, Wang, & Wang, 2001; Ghoudsypour
& O’Brien, 1998; Sharma, Benton, & Srivastava, 1989; Weber & Ellram, 1992).
Most of these methods do not seem to address the complex and
unstructured nature and context of many present day purchasing
decisions (de Boer, Van der Wegen, & Telgen, 1998). In many existing decision models in the literature, only quantitative criteria
have been considered for supplier selection. Several influence factors are often not taken into account in the decision-making process, such as incomplete information, additional qualitative
criteria and imprecision preferences (Chen, Lin, & Huang, 2006;
Zhang, Zhang, Lai, & Lu, 2009). Therefore, fuzzy set theory (FST)
has been applied to supplier selection recently. Li, Fun, and Hung
(1997) and Holt (1998) discussed the application of FST in supplier

2006). . IFWA operator is utilized to aggregate all individual decision makers’ opinions for rating the importance of criteria and the alternatives. Lau. 1986): Intuitionistic fuzzy set introduced by Atanassov (1986) is an extension of the classical FST. mij . In order to do that. knowledge about x is more certain. Liang & Shi. 5 4     ðlAm ðx1 Þ. Finally conclusion of this paper is presented in Section 5. . pA1 ðx1 Þ ð2Þ It is obviously seen that for every x 2 X: 2. Zhang & Fu. 2006. aggregation of expert opinions is very important to appropriately perform evaluation process. A third parameter of IFS is pA(x). . 2. 2005. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets 2 ð1Þ  3 lA1 ðxn Þ. and Tasßkin (2007) presented a fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making approach to supplier selection based on fuzzy arithmetic operation. . pA1 ðx2 Þ   lA ðxÞ  lB ðxÞ. Xn} be a set of criteria.. 1994. kk 2 ½0. 2004. . medical diagnosis (De. pAm ðx1 ÞÞ lAm ðx2 Þ. then multiplication operator is defined as follows (Atanassov. . Let A and B are IFSs of the set X. mA1 ðx2 Þ. . vA(x): X ? [0. Xu & Yager. 2007. and Choy (2008) presented fuzzy AHP to efficiently tackle both quantitative and qualitative decision factors involved in the selection of global supplier. mAi ðxj Þ. 2008) and pattern recognition (Hung & Yang.. r ij . mA ðx1 Þ. TOPSIS method combined with intuitionistic fuzzy set has enormous chance of success for supplier selection process. . Obviously. 1. the ordinary fuzzy set concept is recovered (Shu. Szmidt & Kacprzyk. pA2 ðx2 Þ    lA2 ðxn Þ. If pA(x) is great. k2. Cheng. . Intuitionistic fuzzy sets have been applied many areas such as. when lA(x) = 1  mA(x) for all elements of the universe. 2002. m. Çelebi. k3.E. Chen & Tan. The importance of the decision makers are considered as linguistic terms expressed in intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Chou and Chang (2008) presented strategy-aligned fuzzy simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART) approach for solving the supplier selection problem from the perspective of strategic management of the SC. k = {k1. Wang. 2007. Construct aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix based on the opinions of decision makers. Vlachos & Sergiadis. all the individual decision opinions need to be fused into a group opinion to construct aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix. . known as the intuitionistic fuzzy index or hesitation degree of whether x belongs to A or not pA ¼ 1  lA ðxÞ  mA ðxÞ 0 6 pA ðxÞ 6 1 AB¼ lA1 ðx2 Þ. pA ðx1 Þ lA2 ðx2 Þ. & Chang.. In Section 2. Haq and Kannan (2006) presented a structured model for evaluating the supplier selection for the rubber industry using AHP and the model is verified with the fuzzy AHP. A2. pAm ðx2 Þ    lAm ðxn Þ.. 2007b. . 2 . . 2009. . mA ðxÞijx 2 X  ð3Þ If the pA(x) is small. . Am} be a set of alternatives and X = {X1. kl} is the weight of each deciPl sion maker and k¼1 kk ¼ 1. 2007a. such that   3. Therefore. which is a suitable way to deal with vagueness. . . 2007c. . Biswas. In Section 4. Li & Cheng. Önüt. a numerical example is demonstrated. 2001. pA1 ðxn Þ 6     7 7 6 6 l ðx1 Þ. pAi ðxj ÞÞði ¼ 1. 2001. . . the procedure for Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS method has been given as follows: Step 1. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets introduced by Atanassov (1986) are suitable way to deal with this challenge and applied many decision-making problem under uncertain environment. Boran et al. Tiwari. . Assume that decision group contains l decision makers. & Yager. . pAm ðxn Þ . Rest of this paper is organized as follows. knowledge about x is more uncertain. 2005. 2006). mA2 ðx2 Þ. The TOPSIS method considering both positive-ideal and negative-ideal solution is one of the popular methods in multi-attribute decision-making problem. X2. nÞ. The importance of the criteria and the impact of alternatives on criteria provided by decision makers are difficult to precisely express by crisp data in the selection of supplier problem. Szmidt & Kacprzyk. Pasi. In group decision-making problems. r ij Þ ð1Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ ðlÞ ¼ k1 r ij  k2 r ij  k3 r ij      kl r ij " # l  l  l  l  k Y k Y k k Y Y ðkÞ k ðkÞ k ðkÞ k ðkÞ k ¼ 1 1  lij . . mk. 2002. & Roy. mAm ðxn Þ. where ð1Þ ð2Þ ðlÞ rij ¼ IFWAk ðr ij . . j ¼ 1. Bayrak. . . 2003. 2003. respectively. mAm ðx2 Þ. Let Dk = [lk. In group decision-making process. Chan. (2006) extended the concept of TOPSIS method to develop a methodology for solving supplier selection problems in fuzzy environment. The aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix can be defined as follows: where lA(x). Chen et al. pk] be an intuitionistic fuzzy number for rating of kth decision maker. 2000. mAm ðx1 Þ. mA2 ðxn Þ. decision-making problems (Atanassov. Wang & Xin. . mA ðxÞ þ mB ðxÞ  mA ðxÞ  mB ðxÞjx 2 X  ð4Þ Let A = {A1. mA1 ðx1 Þ. Section 3 presents detailed description of intuitionsitic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Intuitionistic fuzzy set A in a finite set X can be written as: lA1 ðx1 Þ. . This paper proposes an intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making with TOPSIS method for supplier selection problem. IFWA operator proposed by Xu (2007d) is used. Liu & Wang. and Isßık (2009) developed a supplier evaluation approach based on ANP and TOPSIS methods for the supplier selection. 2004). 7 6 . lA ðxÞ. 1] are membership function and nonmembership function. Xu. pA2 ðxn Þ 7 7 6 A2 2 2 R¼6 7 7 6 . Kumar. 1  lij  mij k¼1 k¼1 k¼1 k¼1 ð6Þ Here r ij ¼ ðlAi ðxj Þ. Therefore. Then the weight of kth decision maker can be obtained as:  kk ¼ P l lk þ pk and  lk lk þmk  lk þ pk k¼1 Pl k¼1 kk   lk lk þmk  ð5Þ ¼ 1. . Step 2. brief description of intuitionistic fuzzy sets is given.11364 F. Hong & Choi. Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS   A ¼ hx. ðkÞ Let RðkÞ ¼ ðr ij Þmxn is an intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix of each decision maker. R = (rij)mxn. Kara. . Determine the weights of decision makers. mA1 ðxn Þ. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 11363–11368 0 6 lA ðxÞ þ mA ðxÞ 6 1 selection.

0. .75] [0.90] . 7 7 . max mAi W ðxj Þjj 2 J2 lA W ðxj Þ ¼ min lAi W ðxj Þjj 2 J1 . . pj) (j = 1. . Szmidt and Kacprzyk (2000) and Grzegorzewski (2004). mAm W ðx2 Þ. including the generalizations of Hamming distance. . . 2. Linguistic terms Weight DM1 DM2 DM3 Very important 0. mA2 W ðxn Þ. 1  l  m j j j k¼1 k¼1 k¼1  W ¼ w1 . .60) (0. distance measures proposed by Atanassov (1999). pj signed to criterion Xj by the kth decision maker. 0. . 7 . min mAi W ðxj Þjj 2 J2 i i i i lAi W ðxj Þjj 2 J1 . pA W ðx1 Þ 6 A2 W 2 2 0 R ¼6 6 . pAm W ðx1 ÞÞ lAm W ðx2 Þ. n). r 0ij    ð10Þ lA W ðxj Þ ¼ max mA W ðxj Þ ¼ min mAi W ðxj Þjj 2 J1 . .50.. m0ij . Si and Si . all the individual decision maker opinions for the importance of each criteria need to hbe fused. . Step 5.60.11365 F. . 0. W represents a set of grades of importance. . Then the weights of the criteria are calculated by using IFWA operator: ð1Þ ð2Þ ðlÞ ð2Þ ð3Þ A ¼ ðlÞ ¼ k1 wj  k2 wj  k3 wj      kl wj " # l  l  l  l  k Y kk Y k k Y Y ðkÞ k ðkÞ k ðkÞ k ¼ 1 1  lj . . 7 . mj .50. i ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ be an intuitionistic fuzzy number asLet wj ¼ lj . 0. 0. 1986): ð8Þ and ð9Þ Then the aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix can be defined as follows:  l ðx1 Þ. In order to measure separation between alternatives on intuitionistic fuzzy set. pA1 W ðxn Þ 3 7 7 lA2 W ðx2 Þ. pA1 W ðx2 Þ r 032 r 033 . r 2m 7 7 .35. . 5     ðlAm W ðx1 Þ. . .90. mA1 W ðx1 Þ. r 3j 7 7 7 . pAm W ðx2 Þ    lAm W ðxn Þ. 6 4 r 0i1 Step 3.. In order to obtain W. . 0. After the weights of criteria (W) and the aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix are determined. . .20) (0. . Obtain intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution and intuitionistic fuzzy negative-ideal solution. .. . . .50] [0.00] [0.30] [0. 0. 0. 7 . . mA2 W ðx2 Þ. mAi W ðxj Þ.10.10.. r 0i2 r 0i3 7 . mA W ðxj Þ ð7Þ  r 013 r0ij ¼ ðl0ij . 4 . 6 . . pA2 W ðx2 Þ    lA2 W ðxn Þ. . / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 11363–11368 2 .238 Important 0. . . pAi W ðxj ÞÞ is an element of the aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix.. . 0.. mA1 W ðxn Þ. . . pA1 W ðx1 Þ 6  A1 W  6 6 l ðx1 Þ. pAm W ðxn Þ    Table 1 The importance of decision makers and their weights. Linguistic terms IFNs Extremely good (EG)/extremely high (EH) Very very good (VVG)/very very high (VVH) Very good (VG)/very high (VH) Good (G)/high (H) Medium good (MG)/medium high (MH) Fair (F)/medium (M) Medium bad (MB)/medium low (ML) Bad (B)/low (L) Very bad (VB)/very low (VL) Very very bad (VVB)/very very low (VVL) [1. wj . . 0.90) a IFN Intuitionistic fuzzy number. Determine the weights of criteria.10] [0. mA W ðx1 Þ.40] [0. Then A* and A are obtained as: wj ¼ IFWAk ðwj . 5 r n1 r n2 r n3 . mAm W ðx1 Þ. max lAi W ðxj Þjj 2 J2 mA W ðxj Þ ¼ max mAi W ðxj Þjj 2 J1 . .00.25.. mAm W ðxn Þ.70. 0. the separation measures..20] [0.E. 0. lAi ðxÞ  lW ðxÞ. p0ij Þ ¼ ðlAi W ðxj Þ. r 01j lA W ðxj Þ. 6 . mAi ðxÞ þ mW ðxÞ  mAi ðxÞ  mW ðxÞijx 2 X 2 r 023 where k¼1 pAi W ðxÞ ¼ 1  mAi ðxÞ  mW ðxÞ  lAi ðxÞ  lW ðxÞ þ mAi ðxÞ  mW ðxÞ r 022 . respectively.. r nm 2 r011 6 6 r0 6 21 6 6 0 6r R0 ¼ 6 31 6 6 . Let J1 and J2 be benefit criteria and cost criteria. . 0. mj. r33 .40. ... pA2 W ðxn Þ 7 7 7 7 . . 4  lA1 W ðx2 Þ. w3 .75.356 Table 2 Linguistic terms for rating the importance of criteria and the decision makers. Step 4. 0. r 02j 7 7 7 0 7 .45) (0. r 1m 3 r 11 6 6 r 21 6 6 R ¼ 6 r 31 6 . Linguistic terms IFNsa Very important Important Medium Unimportant Very unimportant (0. All criteria may not be assumed to be equal importance. of each alternative from intuitionistic fuzzy posi- n o R  W ¼ hx.10. 7 7 5 . wj Here wj = (lj. mA W ðxj Þ and A ¼ lA W ðxj Þ. Construct aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix. r 3m 7 7 . w2 . 6 . Table 3 Linguistic terms for rating the alternatives. wj Þ ð1Þ r 012 3    lA1 W ðxn Þ.80.10) (0. Euclidean distance and their normalized distance measures can be used. A* is intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution and A is intuitionistic fuzzy negative-ideal solution. After selecting the distance measure. Calculate the separation measures..406 Medium 0. .60] [0.. .10] [0. min lAi W ðxj Þjj 2 J2 ð11Þ i ð12Þ i ð13Þ i ð14Þ i Step 6. the aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix is constructed according to the following definition (Atanassov. . 0. Boran et al. . . r 12 r13 r 22 r23 r 32 . mA1 W ðx2 Þ. mðkÞ .90.

375 0. (5) were utilized: 0:9     ¼ 0:406 0:50 þ 0:50 þ 0:05 0:95 0:9 þ 0:75 þ 0:05 0:75 0:95   0:50 0:50 þ 0:05 0:95     ¼ 0:238 ¼ 0:9 þ 0:50 þ 0:05 0:50 þ 0:75 þ 0:05 0:75 0:95 0:95   0:75 þ 0:05 0:75 0:95     ¼ 0:356 ¼ 0:9 þ 0:50 þ 0:05 0:50 þ 0:75 þ 0:05 0:75 0:95 0:95 kDM1 ¼ kDM2 kDM3 Step 2.546 0. Boran et al. Linguistic terms used for the ratings of the decision makers and criteria are given in Table 2.702 0.E.175 0. Importance degree of the decision makers on group decision was shown in Table 1. After the relative closeness coefficient of each alternative is determined.11366 F. Delivery performance. Calculate the relative closeness coefficient to the intuitionistic ideal solution. five suppliers have remained as alternatives for further evaluation. In this paper. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 11363–11368 tive-ideal and negative-ideal solutions are calculated. In order to obtain the weights of the decision makers.300 The ratings given by the decision makers to five alternatives were shown in Table 4.174 0.074 0. The aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix based on aggregation of decision makers’ opinions was constructed as follows: . Rank the alternatives. Suppliers Table 5 The importance weight of the criteria.092 0. Criteria DM1 DM2 DM3 X1 X2 X3 X4 VI I I M VI I I I I I M M Table 6 Separation measures and the relative closeness coefficient of each alternative. Numerical example An automotive company is desired to select the most appropriate supplier for one of the key elements in its manufacturing process. Four criteria are considered as: Decision makers X1 ð17Þ Step 8. we use normalized Euclidean distance (Szmidt & Kacprzyk. In order to evaluate alternative suppliers. Price. Eq.082 0. alternatives are ranked according to descending order of C i ’s. Alternatives S* S C i Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Alt5 0. The relative closeness coefficient of an alternative Ai with respect to the intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution A* is defined as follows: C i ¼ Si  S i  þ Si  where 0 6 C i 6 1 Table 4 The ratings of the alternatives. vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi u X  2  u1 n     S ¼ t lAi W ðxj Þ  lA W ðxj Þ þ mAi W ðxj Þ  mA W ðxj Þ 2 þ pAi W ðxj Þ  pA W ðxj Þ 2 2n j¼1 ð15Þ vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi u X  2  u1 n     S ¼t lAi W ðxj Þ  lA W ðxj Þ þ mAi W ðxj Þ  mA W ðxj Þ 2 þ pAi W ðxj Þ  pA W ðxj Þ 2 2n j¼1 ð16Þ  Step 7. a committee composed of three decision makers has been formed.074 0. Procedure for the selection of supplier contains the following steps: Step 1.075 0. 2000) The linguistic terms shown in Table 3 are used to rate each alternative supplier with respect to each criterion by three decision makers. Construct the aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix based on the opinions of decision makers. DM1 DM2 DM3 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 G MG VVG MG F VG G VG G MG G F VG G MG X2 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 MG F VG F MB G MG G F F MG G VG MG F X3 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 VG G VG VG G G MG VG G G VG MG G G MG X4 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 H MH VH H M H M VH MH MH H MH H MH M 4. Determine the weights of the decision makers.110 0. Criteria X1: X2: X3: X4: Product quality. After pre-evaluation. Relationship closeness.131 0.124 0.385 0.

0:267. 859–868. G. Intuitionistic fuzzy interpretations of multi-criteria multi-person and multi-measurement tool decision making. 18(1). 0:103Þ. Forst. S. Obtain intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution and intuitionistic fuzzy negative-ideal solution. & Tasßkin. Also intuitionistic fuzzy averaging operator was utilized to aggregate opinions of decision makers. ð0:347. M. 46(14). The importance of the criteria represented as linguistic terms were shown in Table 5. Determine the weights of the criteria. Negative and positive separation measures based on normalized Euclidean distance for each alternative were calculated in Table 6. (1997). 42(21). (1993). After intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution and intuitionistic fuzzy negative-ideal solution were calculated based on the euclidean distance.. Çelebi. 27–34. European Journal of Operational Research. (1983). Step 7. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 11363–11368 Step 3. (1999). The alternatives were ranked as Alt3 > Alt1 > Alt2 > Alt4 > Alt5. personnel selection. . & Choy. intuitionistic fuzzy set can be used for dealing with uncertainty in multi-criteria decision-making problems such as project selection. ð0:303. 36(14). 0:422. Vendor selection with price breaks. 54–63. Product quality. M. International Journal of Production Research. 4457–4474. Atanassov. K. Alt3 was selected as appropriate supplier among the alternatives. 0:105Þg Step 6. T. References ð0:530. X2. K. Chaudhry.. relationship closeness and delivery performance are benefit criteria J1 = {X1. W. 0:453. and then five alternatives were ranked according to descending order of C i ’s. Chan. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management. R.. W. Heidelberg: Springer. C. Tiwari. Conclusions This study presents a multi-criteria group decision making for evaluation of supplier using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS. Atanassov. 0:200. Bayrak. (2005). R. manufacturing systems. ð0:443... 52–66. Kumar. K. 0:353. 38(1). S. An application of the analytic hierarchy process to the supplier selection problem. International Journal of Production Research. H. (2007). the relative closeness coefficients of alternatives were obtained and alternatives were ranked.. 0:053Þ Step 4. K. 0:606. Production and Inventory Management Journal. 0:550. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets are suitable way to deal with uncertainty. TOPSIS method combined with intuitionistic fuzzy set has enormous chance of success for multi-criteria decision-making problems due to containing vague perception of decision makers’ Step 5. 0:452. the ratings of each alternative with respect to each criterion and the weights of each criterion were given as linguistic terms characterized by intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Buffa. In the evaluation process.. H. L. Rank the alternatives. A fuzzy approach method for supplier selection.X 4 g 3 ð0:861. 70. K. 87– 96. 0:128. (8) as follows: 11367 5. 19(3). 0:371. 0:294. Integrated model for supplier selection and negotiation in a make-to-order environment.. 20. N.. Lau.X3 . & Jackson. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. G.E. ð0:585. 0:053Þ 5 ð0:576. (7) to determine the weight of each criterion. A. Calculate the separation measures. M. & Yager. After the weights of the criteria and the rating of the alternatives had been determined. the aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix was constructed by utilizing Eq. (1986). 0:117Þ. & Takahashi. Barbarosoglu. S. Y. Atanassov. 2 W fX 1 . 3825–3857.. N. Construct the aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix. 0:011Þ T 6 ð0:750. Global supplier selection: A fuzzy-AHP approach. ð0:438. L. T.X2 . Boran et al. Opinions of decision makers on criteria were aggregated using Eq. K. 0:121Þ. Then intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution and intuitionistic fuzzy negative-ideal solution were obtained as follows: opinions. The relative closeness coefficients were determined. 0:054Þ.F. G. X3} and price is cost criteria J2 = {X4}.. International Journal of Systems Science. (2008). F. F.. P. in future. J.. Cakravastia. A ¼ fð0:731. 0:094Þ. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. F. A goal programming model for purchase planning. 0:050Þ 7 6 7 ¼6 7 4 ð0:680. 0:091Þg A ¼ fð0:484. T. 14–21. T. Production Planning and Control: The Management of Operations. (2004). & Yazgac. Therefore. & Zydiak. and many other areas of management decision problems. 0:109Þ. Pasi. 0:215.

C. 24–29. J.. C. R. M. Models for multiple attribute decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy information. 652–661). An optimization model for concurrent selection of tolerances and suppliers. Pan. Li.. A model for strategic supplier selection. Y.. C. 27–32. X. A. 2(1). G. (1998). Harvard Business Review. (1994). S. Liu. (2001). Trent. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. Xu. Leenders (Ed. L. & Morlacchi.. Proceedings of the 9th international IPSERA conference (pp. Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: A case study for a telecommunication company. 23. R. & Krishnan. S. 1603–1611. Labro. E. Control and Cybernetics. Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. (2006). International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making. 28. and case studies.. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. (1983). H. Computers and Industrial Engineering. An novel approach to supplier selection based on vague sets group decision. Nydick. Lin. & Lu. de Boer. S. & Yoon. (2007d). C. 153–164. Narasimhan. & Chaudhry. (1985). Z. Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. & Huang. Vendor selection criteria and methods. 2241–2253. N. 26. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Önüt. M. Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill. (2007a). T. J. 209–213.. E. B. L. 34(2).. Z. International Journal of Production Economics. Expert System with Applications. R. 56–57(1–3). D. D. E. 7. Z.. R. 388–393. International Journal of Production Economics. 28–41. 26(1). (1992). R. T. & Simchi-Levi. & Yager. G. 31–36. R. 246–262. 46(12). Purchasing’s role in supply chain management. Giunipero. In Proceedings of the annual national conference of the decision sciences institute (pp. A new measure for supplier performance evaluation. Handling multi criteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory. (2004). E.. 23(2). 7–12. S.. Pattern Recognition Letters. 197–206. A similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application in supporting medical diagnostic reasoning. 18. H. Szmidt.E. J. J. L. & Srivastava. Z. 2139–2148. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management. L. Hung.. Kaminsky.. 117. Szmidt.. J. (1990). I. E. International Journal of Logistics management. C. (1986). Z. Zhang. Zhang.. 2206.11368 F. Distance measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. D. (2009). A. Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. P. 1. & Current. & Handfield. E. Pattern Recognition Letters. H. (2001). 102. E. A hybrid approach to supplier selection for the maintenance of a competitive supply chain. (1991). L. de Boer. J. 68. W. C. European Journal of Operational Research. New similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and application to pattern recognitions. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. & Kacprzyk. & Brand. 289–301. Similarity measures on three kinds of fuzzy sets. V. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. W. Rosenthal. Z. Benton. S. R. R. (2003). D. (2002).).. (1986).. 40. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to structure the supplier selection procedure. 15–33. L. 75–89. A. (2004). Chou. 417–433. (2007). 11–18.. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. (1995). P. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. J. S. G. 27–32. Szmidt. Supplier selection strategies. Sadrian.. J. Pattern Recognition Letters. R. 42(1). Multi criteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory. 16(3).. IEE Transaction of Fuzzy Systems. (2002). C.. Fuzziness and KnowledgeBased Systems. (2003).. G. 114. Designing and managing the supply chain: Concepts. Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets in group decision making. W. G. Which contractor selection methodology? International Journal of Project Management. Y. S.. & Xin. 149–160. 826–835. S. P.. (2001).. A review of methods supporting supplier selection. & Kacprzyk. J. Wang. New York: Wiley. 9557–9563. 3887–3895. & Fu. 29–38. A decision support system for supplier selection based on a strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach. 837–852. & Kacprzyk. Stevenson.. 25. R. Xu. W.. S. R. & Chang.. S. Zenz. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. & Ellram. Decision Sciences. European Journal of Operational Research.. (1993). C. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management. Xu. Xu. A procurement decision support system in business volume discount environments. C... 29. 50(1). & Wang. (2000). & Shi. 4460–4466. Szmidt. A. H. 163–172. & Kacprzyk. (1981). 1088–1090). (2003). Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management. 179. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. Outranking methods in support of supplier selection. S. J. Y. J. 2687–2693. R. 285–297. An analysis of vendor selection system and decisions. 35–48. S. J. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management. C. K. Xu... 2–18.. International Journal of General Systems. (2006). 505–518. 3–14. P. (1994). (1989). De. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management. Chen. 1179–1187.. O. X. Source selection: A matrix approach. (2006). . (2006). Sharma. Purchasing and the management of materials. (2008).. Wang. 67. strategies. Some similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications to multiple attribute decision making. (1989). (2005). R. & Yager. R. (2000). 22(2). E. Current. D. (2005). S. 48.. Expert Systems with Applications. M. 148. M. Expert Systems with Applications. R. & Choi. (2009).. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. (2008). Biswas. Information Sciences.. J.. 36(2). & Sergiadis. 103–113. 15. 6. 36(5). C. Zhang. S. J. 14–23. 109–121. R. (1997). 28(2). & O’Brien. J. Pattern Recognition Letters. E. & Render. & Cheng. 36(3). Li. K. (2007b)... An analytic approach to supplier selection. S. Competitive strategy and purchasing decisions.. Weber. S. Purchasing and supply chain management (2nd ed. 177.). 173–184.. P. Operations management. Szmidt. M. K. 24. P. 31. 7(1). Principles of operations management. 319–328. Kara. Wang. 3070. E. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hong. R. 109–118. Grzegorzewski. A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. W. How information gives you competitive advantage. (2001). & Hung. Operations Research. L. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. Thompson.. Holt. 29. R. & Roy. London: Richard Ivey Business School. 1. & Millar. S. F. Liang. A consensus-reaching process under intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Soukup. Zydiak. C. (2008). Ghoudsypour. & Chang.. & Hill. Vendor selection with bundling. (2001). 26(1). (1992). R.. S. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets in some medical applications. H. E.. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. In M. M. (2009). Allocation of order quantities among suppliers.. Cheng. J. Expert Systems with Applications. K. S. C. Heizer. (2007). & Kannan. Vlachos. S.. (1998). 199–212. (1998). E. W. Xu. E. Feng.. (2006). Supplier selection using multi-objective programming: A decision support system approach. R. R. Timmerman. Monczka. G. (1966). European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. L. Z. Haq.. Journal of Purchasing. IIE Transactions on Operations Engineering. W. S.. 34. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. Q. H. L. Simchi-Levi. D. Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for faulttree analysis on printed circuit board assembly. 1037–1053. Y.. 15(6). 23(3). 63(4). A.. C.. C. 221–225. (2000). (2004). F. T. Intuitionistic fuzzy information – Applications to pattern recognition. W. An approach to vendor performance evaluation. Weber. A. J. Fun.. 220–233. 753–758. 1307–1317. J. Pattern Recognition Letters. Vendor profile analysis. Z. Dickson. (1996). C. & Benton. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 11363–11368 Chen. Boran et al. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. Y. An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in medical diagnosis. Microelectronics Reliability. F. (2004). 2363–2379. & Telgen. OH: South-Western College Publishing. A. 1303–1311. & Kacprzyk. C. Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and/or interval-valued fuzzy sets based on the Hausdorff metric. S. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making. J. K. QoS-aware web services selection with intuitionistic fuzzy set under consumer’s vague perception. D. Cincinnati. 114. P. 4(2– 3). H. A. & Tan. European Journal of Operational Research. (1987). Expert Systems with Applications. Ha. Porter. Shu. 148–151. 25(2). Gregory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Weber. & Wang. 2063–2069. Similarity measures on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. & Isßık. International Journal of Uncertainty. H. & Yang. & Talluri. S. Lai. Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. C. Van der Wegen. 27. Y. 36–39. Sarkis.. A multiobjective approach to vendor selection. Similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on Hausdorff distance. Y. Pattern Recognition Letters. (2007c). 35.