Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Expert Systems
with Applications
Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253
www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

A decision support system for supplier selection based

on a strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach
a,* a,b
Shuo-Yan Chou , Yao-Hui Chang
a
Department of Industrial Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, 43 Keelung Road, Section 4, Taipei 106, Taiwan
b
Department of Industrial Management, Lunghwa University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan, Taiwan

Abstract

This study presents a strategy-aligned fuzzy simple multiattribute rating technique (SMART) approach for solving the supplier/ven-
dor selection problem from the perspective of strategic management of the supply chain (SC). The majority of supplier rating systems
obtained their optimal solutions without considering firm operations management (OM)/SC strategy. The proposed system utilizes OM/
SC strategy to identify supplier selection criteria. A fuzzy SMART is applied to evaluate the alternative suppliers, and deals with the
ratings of both qualitative and quantitative criteria. The final decision-maker incorporates the supply risks of individual suppliers into
final decision making. Finally, an empirical study is conducted to demonstrate the procedure of the proposed system and identify the
suitable supplier(s).
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Supplier selection; Simple multiattribute rating technique; Fuzzy set theory; Multiple attributes decision-making; Supply chain management

1. Introduction up to 70% (Ghobadian, Stainer, & Kiss, 1993). Meanwhile,

Due to intense global competition, firms must focus on
quickly and precisely responding to customer demand and
must be concerned with the customer satisfaction. These
pressures prompt business enterprises to actively invest in
supply chain management (SCM), and to establish a soun-
der strategic alliance against competitors. SCM attempts to
reduce supply chain (SC) risk and uncertainty, thus
improving customer service and optimizing inventory lev-
els, business processes, and cycle times, and resulting in
increased competitiveness, customer satisfaction and prof-
itability (Simchi-Levi, Kaminsky, & Simchi-Levi, 2003).
One of the key competencies for SC success is an effective
purchasing function (Cakravastia & Takahashi, 2004; Giu-
nipero & Brand, 1996; Porter & Millar, 1985). In most
industries the cost of raw materials and component parts
comprises the bulk of product cost, in some cases reaching
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 2737 6327; fax: +886 2 2737 6344.
E-mail address: sychou@im.ntust.edu.tw (S.-Y. Chou).
in high-technology companies, purchased materials and
services comprise up to 80% of total product cost (Weber,
Current, & Benton, 1991). Additionally, strategic partner-
ship with better performing suppliers should be integrated
into the SC to improve the performance in various aspects
including reducing costs by eliminating wastages, continu-
ously improving quality to achieve zero defects, improving
flexibility to meet end-customer needs, reducing lead time
at different stages of the SC, and so on (Kumar, Vrat, &
Shankar, 2004).
In SCM, selecting appropriate cooperation partners is
the crucial first step. Chan (2003) described that from the
perspective of manufacturers, customers become increas-
ingly influential in terms of their purchasing and bargain-
ing power. Consequently, manufacturers must cooperate
or interact with suppliers to maximize the productivity at
the minimize cost while satisfying customer requirements.
Manufacturers can not forecast customer demand pre-
cisely, and they prefer to manage suppliers via different
methods such as supplier development, supplier evaluation,
supplier selection, supplier coordination, etc.

0957-4174/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.03.001
2242 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253
Supplier selection in industry is a cross-functional,
group decision-making (GDM) problem, frequently solved
by a non-programmed decision-making process, and in-
volving long-term commitment for a company. A decision
group includes many decision-makers/experts (DMs) such
as the research and development (R&D), engineering, qual-
ity assurance, and financial personnel. In reality, the
importance (or reliability) of individual DMs may not be
equal or uniform. The final outcome of the GDM process
may be significantly influenced by the degree of importance
of such individual DMs. Pearson and Ellram (1995) found
that the growing importance of cross-functional team
involvement in supplier selection and evaluation signifi-
cantly influences overall buying firm performance. There-
fore, an effective method of aggregating the various
influences of individual opinions, evaluations, and ratings
from multiple DMs must be identified and applied to sup-
plier selection problems.
There are four stages in the purchasing and supply
literature, namely, defining the problem, formulation of
criteria, qualification, and final selection. Defining the
problem in the decision-making processes is the first step
in the method that supports the DMs in carefully question-
ing the need for a decision and identifying available alter-
natives. During the criteria formulation stage, the main
task for buying firms is assessing the key competitive fac-
tors in their industry and translating these dimensions into
supplier selection criteria. Strategic management decisions
influence the relative importance of the various criteria
involved in the supplier selection process (Weber, Current,
& Desai, 2000). The choice and the number of criteria to be
included in the supplier selection process must be carefully
determined to represent the competitive strategies of buy-
ing firm (Sarkis & Talluri, 2002; Talluri & Narasimhan,
2003). No publication that treats the stages of problem def-
inition and criteria formulation can be found for supplier
selection processes (de Boer, Labro, & Morlacchi, 2001).
The majority of supplier selection models in the existing lit-
erature ignore the fact that evaluation criteria must be
aligned with firm strategy. The combined data envelop-
ment analysis (DEA) method proposed by Talluri and
Narasimhan (2004) and the framework based on the
analytic network process (ANP) employed by Sarkis and
Talluri (2002) for discriminating vendor strategic capabili-
ties and performance metrics are somewhat extent relevant
in this strategy-aligned context. In fact, many existing deci-
sion models only consider quantitative criteria in supplier
selection. Several influences are often ignored in the
decision-making process, including additional qualitative
criteria, incomplete information and imprecise preferences
(Chen, Lin, & Huang, 2006). Additionally, from a long-
term perspective, supplier selection is a decision-making
problem at the strategic management level that involves a
semi-structured process. The inherent imprecision of the
relevant information and decision process from such
problems is broad, foresight, non-recurring and external.
The majority of these attributes are evaluated by human
perception and judgment that cannot be quantified pre-
cisely. Consequently, supplier selection problems typically
involve the vagueness inherent in linguistic assessment
and multiple attributes/criteria decision-making (termed
MADM in this study). Approaches employing only exact
numerical (crisp) values cannot support the decision-
making procedures required to solve such evaluation
problems. Fuzzy set theory (FST), which allows for vague
boundaries, provides a mechanism to utilize fuzziness in
subjective or imprecise determinations of preferences,
constraints, and goals (Yager, 1982; Kahraman, Ruan, &
Dogan, 2003).
Harrison and Pelletier (2001) noted that successful stra-
tegic outcomes are a joint function of managerial attitudes
towards the decision-making process and towards the
decision itself. Their study concluded that the best type
of decision-making is characterized by attainable strategic
objectives pursued through a judgmental rather than a
computational process.
This study is interested in the supplier selection prob-
lem in a SC. The proposed solution methodology aims to
achieve the following characteristics.
• The formulations of multiple attributes/criteria must
match firm operations management (OM)/SC strategy.
• The problem should be simplified to save subsequent
implementation planning and evaluation costs while
making decisions effectively without incurring significant
loss of quality in dynamic and uncertain decision-mak-
ing environments.
• DMs are better off pursuing satisfactory outcomes
obtained via a judgmental process rather than pursuing
a maximized outcome obtained through a single compu-
tational process.
• Expertise, experience, authority, and the responsibilities
of different DMs regarding specific attributes/
criteria and alternative ratings need not be considered
uniform.
• The proposed approach must consider both quantitative
and qualitative criteria.
• The supplier selection model must consider the supply
risks for the individual potential suppliers.
The supplier rating system (SRS) is the core of the case
based supplier selection module (CSSM), which is primarily
intended to rate supplier performance level using the pre-
defined criteria (Choy, Lee, & Lo, 2003). This study thus
proposes a pragmatic SRS, strategy-aligned fuzzy simple
multiattributes rating technique (SMART) approach, for
solving the supplier selection problem in a SC. The remain-
der of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses
the related literature. Section 3 then describes a review of
FST. Next, Section 4 introduces the strategy-aligned fuzzy
SMART approach in the GDM situation. Subsequently,
Section 5 illustrates the procedures involved in the proposed
system using an empirical example. Finally, conclusions are
drawn in Section 6.
 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253
2. Literature review
Firms achieve missions in three conceptual ways: (1)
cost leadership, (2) differentiation and (3) quick response
(Hambrick & Fredrickson, 2001; Porter, 1980). Functional
managers translate these strategic concepts into tangible
tasks. In defining the link between corporate and func-
tional strategies, Buffa (1984) proposed four basic compet-
itive elements of strategy: cost, quality, dependability, and
flexibility. Watts, Kim, and Hahn (1992) developed a con-
ceptual framework for connecting procurement to firm
competitive strategy, and to the strategies of other func-
tions. These strategic competitive elements are prioritized
to satisfy firm level strategies. Depending on the firm strat-
egy, functional managers must identify their strategic pri-
orities and the procurement strategy should be consistent
with the competitive strategy.
Monczka and Morgan (1992) pointed out that the inte-
gration of procurement strategy with business unit level
strategy comprises five main stages: (1) definition of corpo-
rate objectives and strategy, (2) procurement strategy
development, (3) commodities/people strategy develop-
ment, (4) laying out the linkages and accountabilities and
(5) performance measurement. Saunders (1994) proposed
that it is possible to move beyond the conventional func-
tional differentiation between purchasing and manufactur-
ing and consider a more integrated perspective which links
the two processes to produce a single framework for SC
strategy. As firms strive to increase their competitiveness
by pursuing high quality, reduced cost, product customiza-
tion, and speed-to-market, they increasingly emphasize the
SC. The key to effective SCM is to make the suppliers to
help the firm satisfy ever-changing market demand in the
firm strategy. To ensure that the SC supports the firm’s
strategy, it is necessary to consider the SC issues listed in
Table 1. Just as the OM function supports overall the firm
strategy, the SC is designed to support the OM strategy
(Heizer & Render, 2004).
Hockstra and Romme (1992) noted that the decoupling
point separates the part of organization (or SC) oriented
towards customer orders from the part of organization
Table 1
Supply chain issues for supporting the firm’s strategy (source: Heizer & Render, 2004)
Low cost strategy
1. Supplier’s goal Supply demand at lowest possible
cost
2. Primary Select primarily for cost
selection criteria
3. Process Maintain high average utilization
characteristics
4. Inventory Minimize inventory throughout
characteristics the chain to hold down costs
5. Lead time Shorten lead time as long as it does
characteristics not increase costs
6. Product design Maximize performance and
characteristics minimize cost.
2243
(or SC) based on planning and then identifies five classes
of SCs by varying the position of the decoupling point
as follows: Buy-to-Order, Make-to-Order, Assemble-to-
Order, Make-to-Stock, and Ship-to-Stock. Furthermore,
Naylor, Naim, and Berry (1999) related the decoupling
point directly to the characteristics of the lean and agile
paradigms. The lean paradigm can be applied to the SC
upstream of the decoupling point and the agile paradigm
can be applied to the SC downstream of the decoupling
point. Combining agility and leanness in one SC via the
strategic use of a decoupling point has been termed ‘‘le-
agility’’. Lean SC works well where demand is relatively
stable and thus predictable and where variety is low. Con-
versely, in contexts in which demand is volatile and the cus-
tomer requirement for variety is high, agility needs to be
significantly higher (Agarwal, Shankar, & Tiwari, 2006).
Vonderembse, Uppal, Huang, and Dismukes (2006) devel-
oped a framework for classifying supply chain types
according to product characteristics and the product life
cycle (PLC) stage. Required SC strategy may change
according to product type and stage of PLC (Wang,
Huang, & Dismuke, 2004; Vonderembse et al., 2006).
Table 2 summarizes the SC classification based on product
type and PLC. Meanwhile, Tables 3 and 4 compare differ-
ent types of SCs.
de Boer et al. (2001) developed a prescriptive framework
for classifying the available models in the literature. The
diversity of the buying situation in terms of complexity
and importance of the purchasing practice, including new
task purchase, modified re-buy, and straight re-buy, are
shown on one axis of the framework. The other axis covers
the four different stages in the supplier evaluation process:
(1) problem definition, (2) criteria formulation, (3) supplier
qualification and (4) final selection. Most the decision-
making methods are applied to the qualification and final
selection stage of the buying process, namely supplier selec-
tion. Thorough supplier selection is essential to partnership
strategy. Early in the supplier development, the market is
scanned for the alternative suppliers. These suppliers are
screened based on their R&D and engineering capabilities,
financial stability, production capacity, present R&D
Response strategy Differentiation strategy
Respond quickly to changing requirements Share market research; jointly develop
and demand to minimize stockouts products and options
Select primarily for capacity, speed, and Select primarily for product development
flexibility skills
Invest in excess capacity and flexible Modular processes that lend themselves to
processes mass customization
Develop responsive system, with buffer Minimize inventory in the chain to avoid
stocks positioned to ensure supply obsolescence
Invest aggressively to reduce production Invest aggressively to reduce development
lead time lead time
Use product designs that lead to low setup Use modular design to postpone product
time and rapid production ramp-up differentiation for as long as possible
2244 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253

Table 2 the important criteria in supplier selection according to

Supply chain classification based on product type and PLC (source: Wang
et al., 2004; Vonderembse et al., 2006)
PLC Product type
Standard Innovative
Introduction Lean SC Agile SC
Growth Lean SC Agile SC
Maturity Lean SC Hybrid/lean SC
Decline Lean SC Hybrid/lean SC
potential capability, and the quality of their logistics and
quality systems (van Weele, 2000).
Supplier selection decisions are complicated by the need
to consider various criteria in the decision-making process.
The seven most mentioned criteria in the Dickson (1966)
survey were quality, delivery, performance history, warrant
and claim policy, production facilities and capacity, net
price, and technical capabilities. Ellram (1990) described
the factors that influenced firm choice of a supplier. Ellram
used a contingency approach because the factors and their
importance varied from company to company. Table 5
summarizes the factors.
In the review of Weber et al. (1991), the six most men-
tioned criteria were price, delivery, quality, facilities and
capacity, geographic location, and technical capability.
Choi and Hartley (1996) surveyed purchasing managers
to identify their supplier selection practices in the US auto-
motive industry, and then found supplier selection criteria,
including finance, consistency, relationship, flexibility,
technological capability, service, reliability, and price.
Ghodsypour and O’Brien (1998) agreed that cost, quality,
and service are the three main considerations when decid-
ing supplier selection parameters. Managers can identify
one of five levels of buyer–supplier integration, the firm
competitive situation, and buyer corporate strategy. Table
6 lists buyer–supplier integration strategies and the impor-
Hybrid tant criteria for supplier selection. The numbers of selection
Hybrid SC criteria can be adjusted, according to the actual policy in
Hybrid SC different company, to suit individual firm strategies (Choy
Hybrid SC et al., 2003).
Hybrid SC
Hong, Park, Jang, and Rho (2005) defined important
criteria of both supply risk and supply profit. In terms of
supply risk, they defined the criteria which can be used to
evaluate whether or not a supplier is capable of delivering
the desired product, in the desired quantity, and at the
desired time. On the other hand, they defined the criteria
that can be used to evaluate profit as price, quality and
quantity.
The SMART is popular because its analysis incorpo-
rates a wide variety of quantitative and qualitative criteria.
SMART uses the simple additive weight (SAW) method to
obtain total values for individual alternatives, helping to
rank them according to order of preference (Edwards,
1977; Edwards & Barron, 1994). Although, SMART has
been successfully applied in MADM problems, this
approach is ineffective when dealing with the inherent
imprecision of linguistic valuation in the decision-making
(Chen, 2001; Kahraman et al., 2003).
From a practical perspective, decision-making or prob-
lem-solving procedures that follow the ‘‘plan, do, check,
and action’’ (PDCA) management cycle can be easily
understood and applied in any organization (Stevenson,
2005). A simulation experiment by Zanakis, Solomon, Wis-
hart, and Dublish (1998) evaluated eight MADM methods:
SAW; multiplicative exponential weighting (MEW);

Table 3
Comparison of lean, agile and Leagile supply chains (I) (source: Wang et al., 2004; Vonderembse et al., 2006)
Category Lean SC Agile SC Leagile/hybrid SC
1. Definition A lean SC employs continuous Agility relates to the interface between aA hybrid SC generally involves ‘‘ assemble
improvement to focus on the elimination company and the market. Agile SCs profit to order’’ products where demand can be
of waste or non-value added steps in the by responding to rapidly changing, accurately forecasted. The SC helps to
SC. It is supported by the reduction of continually fragmenting global markets by achieve some degree of customization by
setup times to allow for the economic being dynamic and context-specific, postponing product differentiation until
production of small quantities; thereby aggressively changing, and growth final assembly. Lean or agile SCs are
achieving cost reduction, flexibility and oriented. They are driven by customer ultilized for component production. The
internal responsiveness designed products and services agile part of the chain establishes an
interface to understand and satisfy
customer requirements by being
responsive and innovative
2. Purpose Focus on cost reduction and flexibility for Understands customer requirements by Employ lean production methods
already available products. Employs a interfacing with customers and market manufacturing. Interfaces with the market
continuous improvement process to focus and being adaptable to future changes. to understand customer requirements.
on the elimination of waste or non-value Aims to produce in any volume and Achieve a degree of customization by
added activities across the chain. deliver to a wide variety of market niches postponing product differentiation until
Primarily aims at cost cutting, flexibility simultaneously. Provides customized final assembly and adding innovative
and incremental improvements in products at short lead times components to the existing products
products (responsiveness) by reducing the cost of
variation
3. Approach to Supplier attributes involve low cost and Supplier attributes involve speed, Supplier attributes involve low cost and
choosing suppliers high quality. flexibility, and quality. high quality, along with the capability for
speed and flexibility, as and when required
 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253 2245

Table 4
Comparison of lean, agile and Leagile supply chains (II) (source: Wang et al., 2004; Vonderembse et al., 2006)
Distinguishing attributes Lean SC Agile SC Leagile/hybrid SC
1. Market demand Predictable/stable Volatile Volatile and unpredictable
2. Product variety Low High Medium
3. PLC Long Short Short
4. Customer drivers Cost Lead time and availability Service level
5. Profit margin Low High Moderate
6. Purchasing policy Buy goods Assign capacity Vendor managed inventory
7. Typical products Commodities Fashion goods Product as per customer demand
8. Quality Market qualifier Market qualifier Market qualifier
9. Cost Market winner Market qualifier Market winner
10. Lead time Market qualifier Market qualifier Market qualifier
11. Service level Market qualifier Market winner Market winner

Table 5
Supplier selection criteria adapted from Ellram (1990)
Criteria Sub-criteria
1. Financial Economic performance, financial stability
2. Performance Delivery, quality, price
3. Technology Manufacturing capability, design capabilities, ability to cope with technology changes, capacity utilization
4. Organizational culture and Top management capability, feeling of trust, internal and external integration of supplier, management attitude/outlook
strategy for the future, compatibility across levels and functions of buyer and supplier, strategic fit between buyer and supplier
5. Other factors Safety record of the supplier, business references, supplier’s customer base

Table 6
Buyer–supplier integration strategies and their important criteria (source: Ghodsypour & O’Brien, 1998)
Levels of integration
1. No integration
2. Logistical integration
3. Operational integration
4. Integrating process and products
with supplier
5. Business partnership
Important criteria for supplier selection
Price and quality
Besides the price and quality, the operational logistics elements such as reliability, flexibility, supply lots, lead time
and so on
The suppliers’ process capability such as set up time, lot size, lead time, etc. should be considered in the supplier
selection process
Besides the criteria of the preceding levels, the supplier’s human resource from several points of view such as design
involvement, management ability, culture, etc. should be considered
Besides technological and human resource point of view, the strategic directions of the suppliers should be
considered

technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solu-
tion (TOPSIS); elimination and (et) choice translating real-
ity (ELECTRE); and four analytical hierarchy processes
(AHPs). The rank-reversal dimension indices in the simula-
tion identified SAW and MEW as the best approaches.
Additionally, Chang and Yeh (2001) proposed using the
SAW method in accordance with the result of empirical
validation for the three methods (the SAW method, the
weighted product method, the TOPSIS). These findings
of these studies indicate that simpler evaluation techniques
do not necessarily have worse performance. The SMART
proposed in this study is a modified SAW and thus inherits
its simplicity.
As indicated by the literature review, the FST is incor-
porated into many concepts and procedures when enhanc-
ing their capability to handle MADM problems in fuzzy
environments (Chen et al., 2006; Chang & Wang, 2006;
Kuo & Chen, 2004; Lee, Lau, Liu, & Tam, 2001; Wang
& Elhag, 2006). No study has yet integrated FST and
SMART to solve fuzzy MADM problems in GDM. The
judgmental decision-making system is necessary and suffi-
cient for strategic MADM. Firms encounter supply risk,
whether it is explicitly understood and assessed, or reac-
tively managed. The approach used by Deng (1999),
namely using uniform rather than the different judgmental
coefficients to compute the total values of individual sup-
pliers and then obtain the ranking order, is impractical.
This study proposes a simple and pragmatic fuzzy SMART
with a strategy-aligned framework and a judgmental deci-
sion-making process to solve supplier selection problems
in the GDM situation. The proposed system has several
advantages over traditional methods used to solve strategic
supplier selection problem. First, the proposed system
obtains the optimal solution by considering its fit with firm
strategy. This intention is achieved by linking the criteria of
supplier selection and firm OM/SC strategy. Additionally,
2246 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253

the integration of FST and SMART to solve fuzzy MADM μ W~ ( x)

problems is unique. Finally, rather than using a uniform
risk (Deng, 1999), the proposed model varies supply risks
for individual suppliers. VL L ML M MH H VH
1

3. Fundamentals of fuzzy set theory

FST, as pioneered by Zadeh (1965), addresses problems

involving fuzzy phenomena. In a universe of discourse X, a
fuzzy subset A e of X is defined with a membership function
lA~ ðxÞ that maps each element x in X to a real number in the
interval [0, 1]. The function value of lA~ ðxÞ signifies the
degree of membership of x in A. e In this study, fuzzy opin-
ions expressed by DMs are represented as triangular fuzzy
numbers (TFNs). The reason of using TFNs is because
such representations are intuitive and easy to use. The basic
features of TFN (Dubois & Prade, 1978; Keufmann &
Gupta, 1991) and primary operations for two TFNs (Chen
& Hwang, 1992; Chiou, Tzeng, & Cheng, 2005) are shown
in the Appendix.
Since linguistic variables are not directly mathematically
operable, to cope with this difficulty, each linguistic vari-
able is associated with a fuzzy number characterizing the
meaning of each generic verbal term. In FST, conversion
scales are applied to transform linguistic terms into fuzzy
numbers. Determining the number of conversion scales is
generally intuitive (Chen & Hwang, 1992). Miller (1965)
noted that the scale of ‘seven plus or minus two’ generates
the largest amount of information from a DM regarding
the objectives on the basis of absolute judgments. In this
study, the scale of seven is adopted.
Given the fuzzy nature of the supplier selection problem,
importance weights of individual attributes and ratings of
alternatives are used as linguistic variables in this study
(Table 7). Fig. 1 shows the respective membership func-
tions of importance weights. The TFN is easy to use and
interpret. For example, a very significant weight of a spe-
cific attribute can be measured by a TFN and denoted by
(9, 10, 10) (Table 7). Additionally, the TFN can also be
used to represent the quantitative terms. For example,
‘‘approximately equal to 700’’ can be represented by
(690, 700, 710); ‘‘approximately between 760 and 800’’ can
be represented by (760, 780, 800); the crisp number 300
can be represented by (300, 300, 300) (Liang, 1999).
Table 7
TFNs of importance weights and ratings
Importance weights Ratings
Linguistic variables TFNs Linguistic variables
Very low (VL) (0, 0, 1) Very poor (VP)
Low (L) (0, 1, 3) Poor (P)
Medium low (ML) (1, 3, 5) Medium poor (MP)
Medium (M) (3, 5, 7) Fair (F)
Medium high (MH) (5, 7, 9) Medium good (MG)
High (H) (7, 9, 10) Good (G)
Very high (VH) (9, 10, 10) Very good (VG)
X
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fig. 1. Membership functions of importance weights.
Four well-known defuzzification methods exist: the cen-
troid method (or center of area), mean of maximal, a-cut
method, and signed distance method (Tang, Tzeng, &
Wang, 1999; Tsaur, Tzeng, & Wang, 1997; Yao & Chiang,
2003). Each method has advantages and disadvantages
(Klic & Yan, 1995). This study adopts the centroid method,
because of its simplicity and widespread use.
4. Strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach
This section describes the strategy-aligned fuzzy
SMART approach. The proposed system employs a novel
systematic approach, fuzzy SMART, through a judgmental
decision-making process by considering firm strategy and
individual supplier supply risks. The fuzzy SMART proce-
dure is applicable to individual and GDM situation.
4.1. Form a decision committee and identify supplier
selection criteria
Group size also influences the effectiveness of GDM.
Yetton and Botter (1983) pointed out groups of five are
the most effective, closely followed by groups of seven.
Odd numbered groups help avoid decision deadlocks. This
study thus adopts decision groups of five or seven.
First, the members of the committee organize meetings
to agree on a profile of firm OM/SC strategy, the support-
ing roles of the desired potential supplier, and to establish
the specific criteria via the following three stages (Fig. 2):
Define the corporate objectives and strategy.
TFNs Develop the OM/SC strategy.
(0, 0, 10)
(0, 10, 30)
(10, 30, 50)
(30, 50, 70)
(50, 70, 90) Identify the criteria for supplier selection.
(70, 90, 100)
(90, 100, 100)
Fig. 2. Construction of the specific criteria.
 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253 2247

(1) definition of corporate objectives and strategy, (2) OM/ e jp , denoted as dð~
weights. The defuzzification of W wjp Þ, is
SC strategy development and (3) identification of supplier therefore given by
selection criteria. In the final stage, the DMs identify the 1
important supplier selection criteria according to OM/SC wjp Þ ¼ ðajp þ bjp þ cjp Þ;
dð~ j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; p ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; u:
3
strategy, buyer–supplier integration strategy, and contin-
ð3Þ
gency situation, etc.
Assume that there is a committee of k DMs (Dt, t = The crisp value of normalized weight for sub-criterion Cjp,
1, 2, . . . , k) who are responsible for assessing the importance denoted as Wjp, is given by
weights of the u sub-criteria and n criteria (Cj, j =
1, 2, . . . , n) as well as the scores of m alternatives (Ai, i = dð~wjp Þ
W jp ¼ Pu ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; p ¼ 1; 2; . . . u; ð4Þ
1, 2, . . . , m) under each of the u sub-criteria (Cjp, j = 1, wjp Þ
p¼1 dð~
2, . . . , n, p = 1, 2,. . . , u). Pu
where p¼1 W jp ¼ 1; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . n.
4.2. Assessment and aggregation of the fuzzy weights e j , denoted as dð~
The defuzzification of W wj Þ, is therefore
given by
Introduce linguistic weighting variables for DMs to
assess sub-criteria and criteria importance, and then com- 1
wj Þ ¼ ðaj þ bj þ cj Þ;
dð~ j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: ð5Þ
pute aggregated fuzzy weight of sub-criterion and each 3
criterion. The crisp value of normalized weight for criterion Cj, de-
noted as Wj, is given by
4.2.1. Fuzzy sub-criteria weights
Let It, t = 1, 2,. . . , k, where It 2 I and It 2 [1, 10], be the dð~wj Þ
e jpt ¼ W j ¼ Pn ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; ð6Þ
weight of importance given to individual DMs Dt, W wj Þ
j¼1 dð~
ðajpt ; bjpt ; cjpt Þ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; p ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; u; t ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; P
k; be the linguistic weight given to sub-criteria Cjp, where nj¼1 W j ¼ 1. The weight vector W = [w1, w2, . . . , wn]
j = 1, 2,. . . , n, p = 1, 2,. . . , u, by DM Dt. The aggregated can therefore be formed.
fuzzy sub-criterion weight with respect to individual crite-
ria Cj, W e jp ¼ ðajp ; bjp ; cjp Þ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; p ¼ 1; 2; . . . u, 4.4. Computation of the aggregated fuzzy ratings of criteria
of sub-criteria Cjp assessed by the committee of k DMs is
defined as: Uses linguistic rating variables for DMs to assess fuzzy
.X k (or crisp) ratings of alternatives with respect to individual
We jp ¼ ðI 1  W e jp1  I 2  W e jp2      I k  W jpk Þ I t; sub-criteria, and then compute aggregated fuzzy ratings
t¼1 and construct the fuzzy rating matrix.
ð1Þ
Pk Pk Pk Pk 4.4.1. Aggregation of fuzzy ratings of individual sub-criteria
where ajp ¼ t¼1 I t ajpt = t¼1 I t ; bjp ¼ t¼1 I t bjpt = t¼1 I t ;
Pk P Let ~xijpt ¼ ðaijpt ; bijpt ; cijpt Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m, j = 1,2,. . . , h,
cjp ¼ t¼1 I t cjpt = kt¼1 I t .
p = 1,2,. . .,u, t = 1,2,. . .,k, be the linguistic suitability
If I 1 ¼ I 2 ¼    ¼ I k , the importance of individual DMs’
rating assigned to alternative supplier Ai for qualitative/
opinions influence the outcome of decision-making are
subjective sub-criteria Cjp by DM Dt. Let ~vijpt ¼ ðd ijpt ;
equal.
eijpt ; fijpt Þ, i = 1, 2,. . . , m, j = h + 1, h + 2,. . . , n, p = 1, 2,
. . . , u, t = 1, 2,. . . , k, be the fuzzy (or crisp) cost or benefit
4.2.2. Fuzzy criteria weights
e jt ¼ ðajt ; bjt ; cjt Þ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; t ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; k; be assessed to alternative supplier Ai for quantitative/objec-
Let W
tive sub-criteria Cjp by DM Dt. Eqs. (7) and (8) shown in
the linguistic weight given to criteria Cj = 1,2, . . . , n, by
ej ¼ the following are applied to normalize the quantitative
DM Dt. The aggregated fuzzy criterion weight, W
value.
ðaj ; bj ; cj Þ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; of criteria Cj assessed by the
committee of k DMs is defined as: ~vijpt  mini fd ijpt g
~xijpt ¼  100; ð7Þ
.X k maxi ffijpt g  mini fd ijpt g
We j ¼ ðI 1  W e l1  I 2  W e j2      I k  W jk Þ I t ; ð2Þ where ~xijpt denotes the normalized fuzzy rating of fuzzy
t¼1
P P P P benefit ~vijpt .
where
Pk aj P¼ kt¼1 I t ajt = kt¼1 I t ; bj ¼ kt¼1 I t bjt = kt¼1 I t ; cj ¼ maxi ffijpt g  ~vijpt
k
t¼1 I t cjt = t¼1 I t .
~xijpt ¼  100; ð8Þ
maxi ffijpt g  mini fd ijpt g
4.3. Defuzzification of the fuzzy weights of criteria where ~xijpt denotes the normalized fuzzy rating of fuzzy cost
~vijpt .
The simple and popular method, centroid method, is Let us further defined ~xijp as the aggregated fuzzy rating
adopted to defuzzify the fuzzy sub-criteria and criteria of alternative Ai for sub-criterion Cjp, such that
2248 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253
,
~xijp ¼ ðI 1  ~xijp1  I 2  ~xijp2      I k  ~xijpk Þ
which can subsequently be represented and computed as
~xijp ¼ ðaijp ; bijp ; cijp Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n;
p ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; u;
P P P P
where aijp ¼ kt¼1 I t aijpt = kt¼1 I t ; bijp ¼ kt¼1 I t bijpt = kt¼1 I t ;
P P
cijp ¼ kt¼1 I t cijpt = kt¼1 I t :
4.4.2. Aggregation of fuzzy ratings of individual criteria
Let ~xij as the aggregated fuzzy rating of alternative Ai for
criterion Cj, such that
~xij ¼ ðwj1  ~xij1  wj2  ~xij2      wju  ~xiju Þ;
which can subsequently be represented and computed as
~xij ¼ ðaij ; bij ; cij Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n:
4.4.3. Construction of the fuzzy rating matrix
The fuzzy rating matrix D e can be expressed in a matrix
format
e ¼ ½~xij  :
D group is assembling peripherals, such as, mouse, keyboard,
mn
4.5. Computation of the total fuzzy values of individual
alternatives
The total fuzzy value vector Te can be then obtained by
e by the corresponding
multiplying the fuzzy rating matrix D
weight vector W respectively, i.e.
Te ¼ D
e  W T ¼ ½f~ i  ;
m1
where f~ i ¼ ðai ; bi ; ci Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m:
4.6. Defuzzification of the total fuzzy values considering
individual supply risks
This study defines supply risk as whether or not a sup-
plier can deliver a required product, in the required quan-
tity, and by the required date. In accordance with the track
records, the final DM would determine the risk coefficients.
The total crisp values (TCV) of individual suppliers can
be found by the following managerial defuzzification
equation:
dðf~ i Þ ¼ ai  ai þ ð1  ai Þ  ci ; 0 6 ai 6 1;
~
where f i ¼ ðai ; bi ; ci Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; ai is the risk coeffi-
cient of supplier Ai and dðf~ i Þ is the defuzzified value of
the total fuzzy value of supplier Ai. Then select the sup-
plier(s) with maximum TCV.
The main steps of the proposed system are described as
follows:
Step 1: Identify the criteria for supplier selection.
Step 2: Compute the fuzzy weights of individual sub-crite-
ria and criteria.
X
k Step 3: Compute the normalized values of individual
I l; ð9Þ quantitative sub-criteria and the aggregated fuzzy
l¼1
rating of each qualitative sub-criterion.
Step 4: Compute the aggregated fuzzy rating of each sup-
plier-criterion combination, and then, form the
fuzzy rating matrix.
Step 5: Compute the total fuzzy values of individual sup-
pliers, and then, rank order of suppliers based on
the maximum TCV.
5. Empirical study
5.1. Illustrative example
ð10Þ
Company G is a famous manufacturer in the Taiwanese IT
industry. The main business of company G is producing and
assembling computer, communications, and consumer elec-
tronics (3C) products, for example digital projector, monitor,
wireless network, hub, modem, PC motherboard, etc.
This practical case focuses on peripherals and compo-
nents strategic business group. The main activity of this
hub, and so on, by purchasing specific components. In this
state, the DMs must carefully assess individual suppliers
and make trade-offs among the various criteria considered
to achieve a single consistent evaluation. For simplicity, a
single component is considered for the present analysis,
namely USB cables for keyboard and mouse.
There are three potential suppliers (A1: supplier X, A2:
supplier Y, and A3: supplier Z), which supply USB cables.
ð11Þ Before pursuing long-term collaboration, company G car-
ried out short-term collaboration with these three potential
suppliers to obtain many real, quantitative and historical
data about these suppliers. Company G expects to eventu-
ally select two of these suppliers as business partners. Five
managers are invited to provide some information and
opinions during the decision process. Some of the attitudes
and opinions of these managers play decisive roles in the
outcome of this case. This empirical study illustrates the
supplier selection process using USB cables as an example.
Step 1: Management appoints a special committee respon-
sible for selecting the best supplier of USB cables.
The committee consists of five managers from var-
ious functional departments within the company,
ð12Þ
namely, operations manager D1, engineering man-
ager D2, general marketing manager D3, purchas-
ing manager D4, and R&D manager D5. The
committee organizes several meetings to agree on
a profile of the lean SC to match corporate low
cost strategy and the desired supplier. After several
sessions and discussions with managers, the fol-
lowing profile is obtained:
• The supplier should employ continuous im-
provement to achieve cost reduction, flexibility
and internal responsiveness.
 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253 2249

• Because of applying the lean SC, the supplier
must be capable of providing low cost and high
quality.
• Low cost is imperative, because cost is critical
for a market winner in a SC.
• Supplier organizational culture and strategy
should be considered to select the desired sup-
plier, especially given their contribution to the
overall cost and quality appeal of products in
long-term continuous improvement.
After comprehensive discussion based on the above profile,
all the selection criteria for USB cables supplier are identi-
fied accordingly. The five DMs collectively set up five crite-
ria and establish two critical sub-criteria for each criterion.
The detail descriptions of criteria and sub-criteria are listed
below:
(1) Cost (C1)
• Unit price (C11): The percent discount a supplier
can provide for a given unit the relative market price
at a particular time. Here, purchasing price, trans-
portation cost and taxes are considered together.
• Cost reduction plan (C12): The percentage dis-
count margins that a supplier can provide for a
given unit on an annual basis.
(2) Quality (C2)
• Interval rejection rate (C21): A supplier checks the
ratio of defective units when inspecting the USB
cables.
• Customer rejection rate (C22): Company G checks
the ratio of defective units when detecting the
USB cables.
(3) Delivery (C3)
• Lead time (C31): The number of days from order
placement to the receipt of the goods ordered.
• Flexibility (C32): A supplier can fulfill how many
percentages of USB cables company G unexpect-
edly request.
(4) Organizational culture and strategy (C4)
• Management capability (C41): The DMs impress
on the management capability image of a supplier
according to mutual interaction.
• Strategic fit (C42): Strategic fit represents the fit
between firm strategy and supplier strategy as
judged by the DMs.
(5) Technical capacity (C5)
• Innovation (C51): The DMs impress on supplier
ability to develop new products or techniques
and improve existing products.
• Technical problem-solving (C52): A supplier
spends how many days solving unexpected prob-
lems happening in Company G, such as post-sale
support.
The committee then continues the sequent procedures to
identify the best alternative supplier(s) as the business
partner(s).
Step 2: After applying the compromise mechanism of the
committee discussion, the importance weights of
individual DMs It, (I1 = 5, I2 = 3, I3 = 2, I4 = 6,
I5 = 4), are assigned by the final DM. Linguistic
weighting variables (Table 7) and their respective
fuzzy numbers (Fig. 1) for DMs are then used to
assess the importance weights of the sub-criteria
(Table 8) and criteria (Table 9). Based on the
assessment values, the fuzzy weights of individual
sub-criteria and criteria can then be computed by
using Eqs. (1), (2), (4) and (6), respectively (Tables
8 and 9).
Step 3: For quantitative sub-criteria, company G collects
real historical data that has not been assessed by
the DM regarding the three suppliers in Table 10
through short-term collaboration. In accordance
with real historical data, the normalized values
of individual quantitative sub-criteria can be
computed by using Eqs. (7) or (8) (Table 10).
Meanwhile, the linguistic rating variables (Table
7) and their respective fuzzy numbers for DMs
are used to assess the fuzzy ratings of the
three alternatives with respect to each qualitative
sub-criterion, and then compute the aggregated
fuzzy rating of each qualitative sub-criterion can
be computed by Eq. (9). Table 11 lists the
results.

Table 8
Linguistic and aggregated importance weights of the sub-criteria
Sub-criteria DMs’ linguistic weights Aggregated weights
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Fuzzy Defuzzified Normalized
C11 VH H VH H VH (8.1, 9.55, 10) 9.22 0.49
C12 VH VH H VH VH (8.8, 9.9, 10) 9.57 0.51
C21 MH H M ML MH (3.9, 5.9, 7.75) 5.85 0.39
C22 VH H H VH H (8.1, 9.55, 10) 9.22 0.61
C31 VH M MH MH H (6.1, 7.85, 9.15) 7.70 0.49
C32 MH H H MH MH (6.6, 8.25, 9.45) 8.10 0.51
C41 MH VH H MH VH (6.1, 8.25, 9.45) 8.10 0.57
C42 MH H MH ML MH (4.1, 6.1, 7.95) 6.05 0.43
C51 MH ML M MH M (3.8, 5.8, 7.8) 5.80 0.47
C52 M MH MH H M (4.7, 6.7, 8.4) 6.60 0.53
2250 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253

Table 9
Linguistic and aggregated importance weights of the criteria
Criteria DMs’ linguistic weights Aggregated weights
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Fuzzy Defuzzified Normalized
C1 VH VH H H VH (8.2, 9.6, 10) 9.27 0.25
C2 H H MH H MH (6.4, 8.4, 9.7) 8.17 0.22
C3 H MH H MH MH (5.7, 7.7, 9.35) 7.58 0.20
C4 MH H H MH MH (5.5, 7.5, 9.25) 7.42 0.20
C5 ML MH M M ML (2.6, 4.6, 6.6) 4.60 0.13

Table 10
Real data and normalized fuzzy rating (NFR) of each supplier with respect to all quantitative criteria
Sub-criteria Suppliers Real data (crisp values) Benefit/cost NFRs
C11 A1 90% Cost (61.9, 61.9, 61.9)
A2 96.5% (0, 0, 0)
A3 86% (100, 100, 100)
C12 A1 3.5% Benefit (40, 40, 40)
A2 2.5% (0, 0, 0)
A3 5% (100, 100, 100)
C21 A1 0.45% Cost (100, 100, 100)
A2 0.61% (42.86, 42.86, 42.86)
A3 0.73% (0, 0, 0)
C22 A1 0.26% Cost (57.89, 57.89, 57.89)
A2 0.18% (100, 100, 100)
A3 0.37% (0, 0, 0)
C31 A1 7 Cost (0, 0, 0)
A2 3 (100, 100, 100)
A3 4 (75, 75, 75)
C32 A1 56% Benefit (0, 0, 0)
A2 68% (57.14, 57.14, 57.14)
A3 77% (100, 100, 100)
C52 A1 1 Cost (0, 0, 0)
A2 1 (0, 0, 0)
A3 0.5 (100, 100, 100)

Table 11
Linguistic and aggregated fuzzy ratings of sub-criteria
Sub-criteria Suppliers DMs’ linguistic ratings Aggregated fuzzy ratings
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
C41 A1 G G VG G G (72, 91, 100)
A2 MG G G G G (65, 85, 97.5)
A3 VG MG G MG VG (70, 85.5, 95.5)
C42 A1 MG G MG G MG (59, 79, 94.5)
A2 G MG MG MG G (59, 79, 94.5)
A3 G MG G VG MG (69, 86, 96.5)
C51 A1 F MG G G MG (53, 73, 89)
A2 MP F F F MG (29, 49, 69)
A3 VG G G M VG (73, 88.5, 97)

Step 4: Compute the aggregated fuzzy rating of each sup-
plier-criterion combination using Eq. (10), and
then, form the fuzzy rating matrix (Table 12).
Step 5: Compute the total fuzzy values of individual sup-
pliers by Eq. (11) (Table 13). Then compute the
individual TCV by Eq. (12). Suppliers are existing
vendor of the company G. Based on the track
records, the final DM identifies the risk coefficients
a1, a2, a3 as 0.2, 0.1, 0.15, respectively. The ranking
order for the three alternative suppliers is A3, A2,
 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253 2251

Table 12
Fuzzy rating matrix
Suppliers Criteria
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
A1 (50.73, 50.73, 50.73) (74.31, 74.31, 74.31) (0, 0, 0) (70.4, 85.84, 97.64) (24.91, 34.31, 38.27)
A2 (0, 0, 0) (77.72, 77.72, 77.72) (78.14, 78.14, 78.14) (61.56, 82.42, 96.21) (12.47, 21.07, 29.67)
A3 (100, 100, 100) (0, 0, 0) (87.75, 87.75, 87.75) (69.57, 85.72, 95.93) (87.31, 94.6, 98.59)

Table 13 a GDM situation are also detailed. Additionally, the pro-

Total fuzzy values and TCV posed system and the judgmental decision-making proce-
Supplier Values Risk coefficient ai dure enable the final DM to consider individual supplier
Fuzzy TCV supply risks by using a risky coefficient a.
A1 (46.35, 50.66, 53.53) 52.09 a1 = 0.2 For practicality, decision-making approaches and/or
A2 (46.66, 51.95, 55.83) 54.91 a2 = 0.1 problem-solving methods employed during the planning
A3 (67.81, 71.99, 74.55) 73.54 a3 = 0.15 stage of the PDCA management cycle should be simple
for the organization to understand and to use. Supplier
selection involves subjective, vague and imprecise assess-
ments, which are by nature fuzzy. Fuzzy assessments
Table 14
expressed in linguistic terms are often intuitive and effective
Risk coefficients and ranking order of suppliers
for DMs during the assessment process. The proposed sys-
Area Ranking order
tem is established to solve the supplier selection problem, in
(1) 0.15 a1 0.3, 0.05 a2 0.15, 0.1 a3 0.2 A3  A2, A3  A1 which the importance weights of all criteria and the ratings
(2) 0.15 a1 0.3, 0.05 a2 0.15 A2  A1
of different alternative suppliers with respect to qualitative
criteria are assessed using linguistic variables represented
by fuzzy numbers rather than crisp values. Meanwhile,
and A1. The committee thus should identify A3, A2.
the fuzzy (or crisp) costs or benefits of the quantitative cri-
as the business partners for sourcing USB cables
teria are transformed into fuzzy ratings to make them com-
(Table 13).
patible with the linguistic ratings of the qualitative criteria.
The main novel points and merits of the proposed sys-
5.2. Sensitivity analysis tem are in fivefold: First, the proposed approach can ade-
quately handle the inherent uncertainty and imprecision
This empirical study identifies the best supplier as A3. of human decision-making. The conventional SMART
The TCVs of supplier A1 and supplierA2 are close, with combined with FST has been extended to the domain of
the TCV of supplier A1 being 52.09 and that of supplier supplier selection under GDM in fuzzy environments. Sec-
A2 being 54.91 (Table 13). ond, the proposed system can rate both qualitative and
The final DM wishes to identify the impact of changes in quantitative criteria and effectively select suitable suppliers
the risk coefficients in terms of the ranking order, and then in SC system. Third, the proposed system is the only
assigns the possible area of the risk coefficients a1, a2, a3 as approach that considers supplier selection to support buy-
0.15–0.3, 0.05–0.15, 0.1–0.2, respectively, and ranks sup- ing firm OM/SC strategy, the essence of the job of the man-
plier order based on computed TCVs (Table 14). Table ager, and the feedback mechanism of the management
14 shows that the best supplier is supplier A3, the ranking system in fuzzy SMART under a GDM situation. Fourth,
order of supplier A1 and supplier A2 is A2  A1. because the proposed system utilizes simplified ranking
Sensitivity analysis provides adequate reflection of the fuzzy numbers rather than the other fuzzy ranking methods
final DM’s attitude towards individual supply risks of sup- (Chen & Hwang, 1992), its computation is much faster.
pliers in his/her assessments, and can be used as a support- Fifth, the proposed system allows MADM problems to
ing tool for the final DM. accommodate linguistic terms represented as fuzzy num-
bers. The proposed system facilitates the creation of a more
6. Conclusions realistic decision procedure. Consequently, the novel archi-
tecture of fuzzy SMART can be applied to other mana-
This study presents an effective strategy-aligned fuzzy gement decision-making problems, such as personnel selec-
SMART approach suitable for solving the supplier selec- tion, facility location selection, and project assessment.
tion problem under a fuzzy GDM environment. Depending Future research should adopt the proposed system,
on the OM/SC strategy, DMs can easily identify the strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART, to develop a methodology
supplier selection criteria and their respective weights. or algorithm to link and translate the strategy supporting
Mathematical treatment and fuzzy operations involving DM to identify supplier selection criteria. Future research
subjectivity and vagueness through fuzzy numbers under should also examine the strategy-aligned fuzzy SMARTS
2252 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253

(SMART using swings) or SMARTER (SMART extended (7) Subtraction of any realk and a fuzzy number x
to ranking) suitable for solving the supplier selection e . k ¼ ða1  k; a2  k; a3  kÞ;
A
problem.
k.Ae ¼ ðk  a3 ; k  a2 ; k  a1 Þ:
Appendix A
Two multiplication commutative properties are also estab-
A.1. Triangular fuzzy number (TFN)
lished to facilitate the computation in the proposed system:
A TFN Ae is described as any fuzzy subset of the real line
eB
A e¼B e
e  A;
R with membership function leðxÞ that possesses the fol-
A
lowing basic features (Dubois & Prade, 1978; Keufmann e¼B
kB e  k:
& Gupta, 1991):
The proofs of these two properties are straight-forward
(1) lA~ ðxÞ is a continuous mapping from R to the closed and thus omitted.
interval [0, 1],
(2) lA~ ðxÞ ¼ 0; for all x 2 [1, a], References
(3) lA~ ðxÞ is strictly increasing on [a, b],
(4) lA~ ðxÞ ¼ 1; for x = b, Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2006). Modeling the metrics
of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: an ANP-based approach.
(5) lA~ ðxÞ is strictly decreasing on [b, c],
European Journal of Operational Research, 173, 211–225.
(6) lA~ ðxÞ ¼ 0; for all x 2 [c,1], Buffa, E. S. (1984). Meeting the competitive challenge. Illinois: Homewood.
Cakravastia, A., & Takahashi, K. (2004). Integrated model for supplier
where a, b, c are real numbers. A TFN Ae can be defined selection and negotiation in a make-to -order environment. Interna-
as a triplet (a, b, c), and the membership function lA~ ðxÞ is tional Journal of Production Research, 42(21), 4457–4474.
Chan, F. T. S. (2003). Interactive selection model for supplier selection
defined as:
process an AHP. International Journal of Production Research, 41,
8
> ðx  aÞ 3549–3579.
>
> ; a 6 x 6 b; Chang, P. C., & Wang, Y. W. (2006). Fuzzy Delphi and back-propagation
>
> ðb  aÞ
>
< model for sales forecasting in PCB industry. Expert Systems with
lA~ ðxÞ ¼ ðc  xÞ Applications, 30(4), 715–726.
>
> ; b 6 x 6 c; Chang, Y. H., & Yeh, C. H. (2001). Evaluating airline competitiveness
> ðc  bÞ
>
>
> using multiattribute decision-making. Omega, 29, 405–415.
: Chen, C. T. (2001). A fuzzy approach to select the location of the
0; otherwise:
distribution center. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118, 65–73.
Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-
making method and applications. Berlin, Heidelberg and New York:
A.2. Fuzzy operations for TFNs
Springer-Verlag.
Chen, C. T., Lin, C. T., & Huang, S. F. (2006). A fuzzy approach for
Given two TFNs A e ¼ ða1 ; a2 ; a3 Þ and B
e ¼ ðb1 ; b2 ; b3 Þ, supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management.
seven primary operations of these two TFNs can be International Journal of Production Economics, 102, 289–301.
expressed as (Chen & Hwang, 1992; Chiou et al., 2005): Chiou, H. K., Tzeng, G. H., & Cheng, D. C. (2005). Evaluating
sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM
approach. Omega, 33, 223–234.
(1) Addition of two fuzzy numbers  Choi, T. Y., & Hartley, J. L. (1996). An exploration of supplier selection
eB
e ¼ ða1 þ b1 ; a2 þ b2 ; a3 þ b3 Þ; practices across the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management,
A
14, 333–343.
(2) Multiplication of two fuzzy numbers  Choy, K. L., Lee, W. B., & Lo, V. (2003). Design of a case based
intelligent supplier relationship management- the integration of
eB
A e ¼ ða1 b1 ; a2 b2 ; a3 b3 Þ; supplier rating system and product coding system. Expert Systems
with Applications, 25, 87–100.
(3) Multiplication of any real number k and a fuzzy de Boer, L., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods
number supporting supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, 7, 75–89.
e ¼ ðkb1 ; kb2 ; kb3 Þ;
kB Deng, H. (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison.
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21, 215–231.
(4) Division of two fuzzy numbers D Dickson, G. W. (1966). An analysis of vendor selection system and
e Be ¼ ða1 =b3 ; a2 =b2 ; a3 =b1 Þ; decisions. Journal of Purchasing, 2(1), 28–41.
AD Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1978). Operations on fuzzy numbers. Interna-
(5) Division by any real number kD tional Journal of Systems Science, 9, 613–626.
Edwards, W. (1977). How to multiattribute utility measurement for social
e
ADk ¼ ða1 =k; a2 =k; a3 =kÞ; decision-making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernet-
ics, SMC-7, 326–340.
(6) Subtraction of two fuzzy numbers x Edwards, W., & Barron, F. H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER:
improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement.
e.B
A e ¼ ða1  b3 ; a2  b2 ; a3  b1 Þ; Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(3), 306–325.
 S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2241–2253
Ellram, L. M. (1990). The supplier selection decision in strategic partner-
ships. Journal of Purchasing and Material Management, 26(4), 8–12.
Ghobadian, A., Stainer, A., & Kiss, T. (1993). A computerized vendor
rating system. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on
Logistics (pp. 321–328). Nottingham, UK: The University of
Nottingham.
Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (1998). A decision support system for
supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and
linear programming. International Journal of Production Economics.,
56–57(1–3), 199–212.
Giunipero, L. C., & Brand, R. R. (1996). Purchasing’s role in supply chain
management. International Journal of Logistics management, 7(1),
29–38.
Hambrick, D. C., & Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Are you sure you have a
strategy? Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 48–59.
Harrison, E. F., & Pelletier, M. A. (2001). Revisiting strategic decision
success. Management Decision, 33(3), 169–179.
Heizer, J., & Render, B. (2004). Principles of operations management. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hockstra, S., & Romme, J. (1992). Integral logistics structures: developing
customer oriented goods flow. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hong, G. H., Park, S. C., Jang, D. S., & Rho, H. M. (2005). An effective
supplier selection method for constructing a competitive supply-
relationship. Expert Systems with Applications, 28, 629–639.
Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., & Dogan, I. (2003). Fuzzy group decision-
making for facility location selection. Information Sciences, 157,
135–153.
Keufmann, A., & Gupta, M. M. (1991). Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic:
theory and application. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Klic, G. I., & Yan, B. (1995). Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic theory and
applications. London: Prentice-Hall.
Kumar, M., Vrat, P., & Shankar, R. (2004). A fuzzy goal programming
approach for vendor selection problem in a supply chain. Computer
and Industrial Engineering, 46, 69–85.
Kuo, R. J., & Chen, J. A. (2004). A decision support system for order
selection in electronic commerce based on fuzzy neural network
supported by real-coded genetic algorithm. Expert Systems with
Applications, 26(2), 141–154.
Lee, W. B., Lau, H., Liu, Z. Z., & Tam, S. (2001). A fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process approach in modular product design. Expert
Systems, 18(1), 32–42.
Liang, G. S. (1999). Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts.
European Journal of Operational Research, 112, 682–691.
Miller, G. A. (1965). The magic number seven, plus or minus seven.
Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Monczka, J. P., & Morgan, J. P. (1992). Strategic sourcing management.
Purchasing, 13, 70.
Naylor, J. B., Naim, M. M., & Berry, D. (1999). Leagility: Integrating the
lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain.
International Journal of Production Economics, 62, 107–118.
Pearson, J. N., & Ellram, L. M. (1995). Supplier selection and evaluation
in small versus large electronics firm. Journal of Small Business
Management, 33(4), 53–65.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing
industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.
2253
Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you
competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 63(4), 149–160.
Sarkis, J., & Talluri, S. (2002). A model for strategic supplier selection.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38(1), 18–28.
Saunders, M. (1994). Strategic purchasing and supply chain management.
London: Pitman Publishing.
Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P., & Simchi-Levi, E. (2003). Designing and
managing the supply chain: concepts, strategies, and case studies. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Stevenson, W. J. (2005). Operations management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Talluri, S., & Narasimhan, R. (2003). Vendor evaluation with perfor-
mance variability: a max-min approach. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research, 146(3), 543–552.
Talluri, S., & Narasimhan, R. (2004). A methodology for strategic
sourcing. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(1), 236–
250.
Tang, M. T., Tzeng, G. H., & Wang, S. W. (1999). A hierarchy fuzzy
MCDM method for studying electronic marketing strategies in the
information service industry. Journal of International Information
Management, 8(1), 1–22.
Tsaur, S. H., Tzeng, G. H., & Wang, G. C. (1997). Evaluating tourist risks
from fuzzy perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 796–812.
van Weele, A. J. (2000). Purchasing and supply chain management.
London: Thomson Learning.
Vonderembse, M. A., Uppal, M., Huang, S. H., & Dismukes, J. P. (2006).
Designing supply chains: towards theory development. International
Journal of Production Economics, 100, 223–238.
Wang, Y. M., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2006). Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on
alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert
Systems with Applications, 31(2), 309–319.
Wang, G., Huang, S. H., & Dismuke, J. P. (2004). Product-driven supply
chain selection using integrated multicriteria decision-making meth-
odology. International Journal of Production Economics, 91, 1–15.
Watts, C. A., Kim, K. Y., & Hahn, C. K. (1992). Linking purchasing to
corporate competitive strategy. International Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, 4–7.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991). Vendor selection
criteria and methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 50(1),
2–18.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Desai, A. (2000). An optimization
approach to determining the number of vendors to employ. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 5(2), 90–98.
Yager, R. R. (1982). Fuzzy sets and possibility theory. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Yao, J. S., & Chiang, J. (2003). Inventory without backorder with fuzzy
total cost and fuzzy storing cost defuzzified by centroid and signed
distance. European Journal of Operational Research, 148, 401–
409.
Yetton, P., & Botter, P. (1983). The relationships among group size,
member ability, social decision schemes, and performance. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance(October), 145–159.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., & Dublish, S. (1998).
Multiattribute decision-making: A simulation comparison of select
methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 507–529.