You are on page 1of 21

SELECTION OF THIRD PARTY REVERSE LOGISTICS PROVIDER USING

FUZZY EXTENT ANALYSIS

G. Kannan

Associate Professor in Operations and Supply Chain Management,

Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.

E-mail: gov@sam.sdu.dk ; govindkannan_2001@rediffmail.com

E.mail: gov@sam.sdu.dk
ABSTRACT

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a structured model for the selection third
party reverse logistics provider under fuzzy environment for the battery industry which
establish the relative weights for attributes and sub-attributes.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses fuzzy extent analysis to solve the third
party reverse logistics provider selection problem.

Findings – Due to growing environmental legislations, the reverse logistics has attained more
importance among practioners and academicians. The important decisions related to the
reverse logistics is whether the company should maintain the separate reverse logistics
system or it can be outsourced. Since, the reverse logistics takes 12 times as many steps to
process returns as it does to manage outbound logistics(Accenture supply chain management
practice). Due to this many companies decided to outsourse the reverse logistics activities or
functions through third party reverse logistics provider. This work aims in selecting the best
third party reverse logistics provider using fuzzy extent analysis.

Research limitations/implications – Fuzzy extent analysis is a highly multifaceted
methodology which requires more numerical calculations which increases the time to take a
decision. Limitation of this work is that in this study only fuzzy extent analysis has been
concentrated and other multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods such as VIKOR,
TOPSIS and ELECTRE can be applied in a fuzzy environment for solving such problem.

Originality/value – In this research, 7 attributes and 34 sub-attributes are considered and the
interpretation of reverse logistics attributes in terms of their pair wise comparisons has been
carried out. Those attributes possessing lower priorities in the fuzzy extent analysis need to
be taken care on a selection of best 3PRLP.

Keywords - 3PRLP, Supply Chain Management, Reverse Logistics, AHP, fuzzy extent
analysis.
Paper type - Research paper

1. INTRODUCTION

In the recent years the importance of reverse logistics has increased the responsibility
of organizations. Because of changes in legislation, both for environmental protection and for
economic and service reasons, an increasing number of companies now take into account
reverse flows, going backwards from customers to point of origin or recovery centers, within
their logistics systems (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 1998; Fleischmann et al., 2000).

Given that RL is not the firm's core activity, one of the most important decisions to be
taken by any producer is whether or not to outsource such functions to a third-party reverse
logistics provider (3PRLP). This typically is an irreversible decision, because the chosen
strategy, once adopted, will not be changed frequently. The management of returns is
complicated by the substantial uncertainties associated with their timing, volume and
condition (Serrato, 2007). Richard (2001a) examines a number of environments in which
strategic planning models, sometimes with associated regulatory intervention, have been
suggested to counter the growing problem of waste and its effects on the environment. It is
not a new industrial practice but has recently received growing attention, as more companies
are using it as a strategic tool to get more profit, to avoid any waste and even benefit the
customer relationship (Andel, 1997; Klausner and Hendrickson, 2000).
Reverse Logistics mainly concern with returned products. Reverse logistics can be
defined as the reverse process of logistics (Luttwak, 1971). Traditionally, reverse logistics
has been viewed primarily as the process of recycling products. Today, definitions vary
depending on what company or segment of industry is attempting to define it. Retailers see
reverse logistics as a way to get product that has been returned by a consumer back to the
vendor (Buxbaum, 1998). Manufacturers tend to view reverse logistics as the process of
receiving defective products or reusable containers back from the user. CLM defines reverse
logistics as “The process of planning, implementing, and controlling the efficient, cost
effective flow of raw materials, in-process inventory, finished goods and related information
from the point of consumption to the point of origin for the purpose of recapturing value or
proper disposal”(Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 1998). Reverse logistics has become an
important entity and plays an important role in company’s competitive advantage and making
the pursuit of their function a strategic decision (Schwartz, 2000). It does not include
disposition management, administration time and cost of converting unproductive returns into
productive assets. This also gives rise to the situation for outsourcing. Hence, reverse

. the fundamental factor to be considered is whether there is a reliable 3PRLP for the type of reverse logistics network required. The general reverse logistics chain is shown in the Fig. 1. which specializes in these activities and can take advantage of the economies of scale to convert reverse logistics functions in a profit-creating activity into the closed-loop chain. reverse logistics activities can effectively be accomplished by involving a 3PRLP. Due to the complexity of the process. While considering outsourcing decisions for reverse logistics. In this research after . This paper presents a structured model for evaluating the 3PRLP selection for battery industry located in southern part of India using Fuzzy extent analysis. logistics is necessary for handling and disposition of returned products and information. Outsourcing makes the firm to concentrate on reverse logistics activities in order to earn the customers reputation through immediate response. automobiles and computers etc. cellular telephone reuse. Distribution Production Supply Use Collection Selection Re-processing Re-distribution Re Use Disposal Figure 1: The Reverse Logistics Chain Outsourcing to a 3PRLP has been identified as one of the most important management strategies for reverse logistics networks in the recent years. Even though there are several 3PRLPs in some of the scenarios such as pharmaceuticals. electronic goods. one of the most important issue in reverse logistics systems is that some of them are not really prepared to effectively address the service needs due to the lack of knowledge in reverse logistics networks. container reuse.

Re Use (OR4) Dowlatshahi (2000). Reverse Storage (RLF3). Packing (RLF2). Demir (2003) and Schwartz (2000) . Recycle (OR2). which has the impact on the organizations strategic goal. (2001). Various attributes and sub attributes used in this study has been found in literature and finalized through discussions made with the organization outsourcing group. Khoo and Mitsuru (2006)and Holguin (2002) Collection (RLF1). Laura meade and Sarkis (2002). Role (OR) and Disposal (OR5) Dowlatshahi (2000). The following table 1 show the attributes of selection criteria. (RLF) Schwartz (2000). (3PLS) Selection (3PLS4) and Direct Gunasekaran et al. logistics Warehouse Management (3PLS2). Section 3 describes the problem and 3PRLP model. Table: 1 Attributes & Sub-Attributes Attributes Sub-Attributes Third party Inventory Replenishment (3PLS1). Transportation Services (3PLS5) Davis and Gaither (1985). LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review is mainly aimed at identifying the attributes and sub attributes that need to be considered in 3PRLP selection process. relevance in 3PRLP selection process and the references in detail. Gupta and Bagchi (1987). Schwartz (2000). Functions Delivery (RLF6) Kaliampakos (2002). Section 4 describes the solution methodology. Carrier Kleinsorge et al. Jules (1990) and Stock (1990) Reclaim (OR1). 2. Dowlatshahi (2000). Dowlatshahi (2000). (1991). Logistics Transitional Processing (RLF5) and Jeffery and Ramanujam (2006).introduction of the literature review is given in section 2. Organizational Remanufacture (OR3). Services Shipment Consolidation (3PLS3). In Section 5 the application model and result analysis are discussed and conclusion of the paper is discussed in section 6. This table is adopted from the study done by Kannan (2009) in his earlier work using AHP. Van and Zijm (1999). Sorting (RLF4).

Andersson Criteria (OPC) Customer Satisfaction (OPC5) and Norrman (2002). Lynch (2000). (1999). Supply chain Van and Zijm (1999). Lynch (2000). Razzaque and Sheng (1998). The attributes and sub attributes have to be most prevalent and important in the third party selection process. Holguin (2002) and Jeffery and Ramanujam (2006) Based on the above literature. (1993). Applications planning (IT3). Cost Saving (US3) Monczka et al. An analysis should be made such that the third party provider should be partnered or make alliance in reverse logistics systems to achieve optimal result and multiple organizations might be involved in the reverse logistics function. Andersson and Norrman (2002). (1999) (IU3PL) morale(IU3PL4) and Mohrman and Glinow (1990) Organizational Quality (OPC1). Langley et al. this paper presents a structured model for evaluating the third party reverse logistics selection using fuzzy extent analysis proposed by Chang (1996). Jing et. Choosing the possible criteria for the third party selection involves a decision making process . PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The company chosen for this study is to build a partner who is a third party for its reverse logistics network. Cost (OPC2). Bensaou (1993) User Improvement (US2). Effective Communication (US1). (2006). Order Dowlatshahi (2000).(1999) Customer Satisfaction (IU3PL1). Service Mohr (1994). Boyson et al. (IT) (IT4) and Freight Payment (IT5) Scalle and Cotteleer (1999).al. IT Management (IT2). Lynch of 3PL Profitability (IU3PL3) and Employee (2000). Boyson et. (1999). Hendrik et al. (2002). Langley et al. Kleindorfer and partovi (1990) and Stank and Daugherty (1997) Warehouse Management (IT1). Reverse logistics systems can be given to the third party reverse logistics providers. Stock. (2007). (1999). Khoo and Mitsuru (2006). Shipment and Tracking (2006). Flexibility (OPC4) and Kwang et al. Boyson et al. Boyson et al. Time Kim et al. 3.. Satisfaction and Overall working Relations (US4) Gunipero (1990) (US) Lynch (2000). Performance (OPC3). (1998). al. (2004). Impact of use Frequently Updating (IU3PL2). Boyson et al. (2002). et al.

m ) are TFNs whose parameters are. respectively. b. Let X = { x1 .(3) j =1  j =1 j =1 j =1  . SOLUTION METHODOLOGY In this work fuzzy extent analysis is adopted to solve the problem of selection of Third party reverse logistics provider. 2 is comprised of four levels for selecting the best third party Level 1 represents the goal i.∑ c j  .. ∑ b j . x2 . The outline of the fuzzy extent analysis method (Chang.which includes experts from various functional activities of the organization.(2004) for Chang’s extent analysis: Step 1..K . depicting least.(1) Where all the M gji ( j = 1. gi . The objective is to select a set of third parties. Organizational role. Impact of use of 3PL (Third party Logistics) and Reverse logistics functions. M g2i . 1996) each object is taken and analysis for each goal. and U = {u1 .(2) i i j =1  i =1 j =1  ∑ m To obtain j =1 M gji . perform the fuzzy addition operation of m extent analysis values for a particular matrix such that m  m m m  ∑ M gji =  ∑ a j . Therefore m extent analysis values for each object can be obtained. As per Chang (1992. Level 2 represents the seven attributes such as Third party logistics services. M gmi . c ) .K . 1996) can be summarized below. u2 . 2. evaluate and rank them according to pre defined attributes. Organizational Performance criteria. Level 3 represents 34 sub attributes and level 4 represents the number of third parties (alternatives).K. n ----------------. The selected attributes and sub attributes are given in Table 1. um } be a goal set. is performed. most and largest possible values respectively and represented as ( a. IT Application. Fig. 4. ----------------. Selection of best third party. The attributes and sub attributes involved in the third party selection have been chosen by conducting a survey.e. The following steps depicted by Kahraman et al.K .K. as under: M 1gi .2. The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to i th object is defined as −1 m  n m  Si = ∑ M gj ⊗  ∑∑ M gj  ----------------. User satisfaction. i = 1. xn } be an object set.

(5)  i =1 j =1   ∑ ci ∑ bi ∑ ai   i =1 i =1 i =1  Step 2. if b2 ≥ b1  ----------------. The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k convex fuzzy numbers M i ( i = 1. if a1 ≥ c2  a1 − c2  . c1 ) is defined as  ( V ( M 2 ≥ M 1 ) = sup  min µ M1 ( x ) .K . The degree of possibility of M 2 = ( a2 . 2. n . b2 . −1 And to obtain  ∑ i =1 ∑ j =1 M gji  n m .∑ ci   i =1 i =1 i =1  ----------------.(4) And then compute the inverse of the vector in the above equation such that −1  n m  1  j  1 1  ∑∑ M gi  = n . b1 . µ M 2 ( x )   ) ----------------. M2 M1 1 V ( M2 ≥ M1 ) D 0 a2 b2 a1 d c2 b1 c1 Figure 3: The intersection between M 1 and M 2 To compare M 1 and M 2 . both the values of V ( M 1 ≥ M 2 ) and V ( M 2 ≥ M 1 ) . k ) can be defined by . c2 ) ≥ M 1 = ( a1 . m ) values such that n m  n n n  ∑ i =1 ∑ M gj j =1 i =  ∑ ai . 2.(7) = hgt ( M 1 ∩ M 2 ) = µ M 2 ( d ) =  0.(6) And can be equivalently expressed as follows: V ( M 2 ≥ M1 )   1. Step 3. ∑ bi .K . perform the fuzzy addition operation of   M gji ( j = 1. n  ----------------. otherwise  ( b2 − c2 ) − ( b1 − a1 ) where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D between µ M1 and µ M 2 as shown in Figure 3.

K.1) (1.1/2.K. M 2 .1/2) important(VSMI) Absolutely more important(AMI) (5/2.1) Equally important(EI) (1/2. 2.1.2/3. 5. 2.3) (1/3. d ' ( An ) ----------------.2/5. By normalizing. n ) are n elements. 2.K.3/2) (2/3. APPLICATION OF THE MODEL AND RESULT ANALYSIS An objective of this section is to illustrate how to choose the best 3PRPL’s using this model and the model was applied to a battery company which is located in the southern part of India.3/2. 2008) Triangular fuzzy Triangular fuzzy Linguistics scale for importance scale reciprocal scale Just equal (JE) (1.(9) For k = 1.1/3.K .2/3) Very strongly more (2.2) (1/2.(11) where W is a non-fuzzy number. ( i = 1.5/2.1) Strongly more important(SMI) (3/2.3.(8) Assuming that d ' ( Ai ) = min V ( Si ≥ Sk ) ----------------. d ( A2 ) .K . M k ) = V ( M ≥ M 1 ) and ( M ≥ M 2 ) and K ( M ≥ M k )  = min V ( M ≥ M i ) .1. Triangular Fuzzy Conversion Scale (Modified from Percin.V ( M ≥ M 1 .2.(10) Where Ai = ( i = 1. d ' ( A2 ) .1. 3.5/2) (2/5.2/5) . ----------------. k ) .1. Table 2.2) Weakly important(WI) (1. k ≠ i. Then the weight vector is given by ( ) T W ' = d ' ( A1 ) .7/2) (2/7.K . In order to perform a pairwise comparison among the attributes and sub-attributes. the normalized weight vectors are ( ) T W = d ( A1 ) . d ( An ) ----------------. Step 4. The first step in the fuzzy extent analysis is creating a pair wise comparison matrix. the linguistic scale for the triangular numbers and fuzzy conversion scales given in Table 2 are used in the proposed model. n.

0.0.1) (1/2.1) (5/2.2) (1.67.57) = (0.3) (2.30.2) (1.32.0. 42.3/2) (1.3/2.494.57) = (0.2) (2.13.00) ⊗ (1/ 74.1.1.50) ⊗ (1/ 74.1.1) (1/2.2/3.40.1. 15.67.12.8.1.1.9. 42.57) 4: = (0. the weight vector is given as W ' = (1.3/2.1) (2/3.00. 42.1) (1/3.30.3.2) (1.22.3/2.1) (1/2.0. Table 3 .50) ⊗ (1/ 74.2/5.5/2.0.1.3/2) (1.55.20) With the help of equation 7.08.57) = (0.19) S IU 3 PL = (4. The normalized weight vectors are calculated using the equation 11 and the same is given below.08.1) By applying formula (2) given in section 4: S3 PLS = (9.1) (1.55.2) (1.2/3.0.3) (1/2.5/2.0.5.7.21) SUS = (4.2/3.3/2) RLF (2/7.1) (1.9.3/2.1) (2/3.1.1) (1.1) (1.451.10.1/2) (1/2.7/2) (2.73. 42.12.1.70.70.2/3.0.50) ⊗ (1/ 74.1.70.1/3.55.3/2.30.57) = (0. 9 and 10 the minimum degree of possibility of superiority of each criterion over another is obtained.50.55.2) (1/2. Therefore.30.2) IT (2/3.1.2) (1.3/2) IU3PL (2/3.3/2) (1/2.7/2) (5/2.2) (1/2.22) S IT = (5. Fuzzy evaluation matrix 3PLS RLF OPC OR IT US IU3PL 3PLS (1.15.2/3.1) (1.1.30.70. 12.10.3/2.3/2) (1/2.0.1.3/2.30.57) = (0.13.70.0.3/2.0.1/2) (1/2. First the pair wise comparison matrix is constructed with the help of expert team and the same is shown in table 3.10.07.1.36) S RLF = (5.18. 42.2/5) (2/3.2/3.0.30) SOR = (5.1) (1.57) = (0.50.55.2) (1.1.2) (1.5.90) ⊗ (1/ 74. 42.1) US (2/3. 42.33.07.2) (1/2.3) OR (1/3.0.1.0.2/3.1) (1/3.30.632.8.45.70.2/5.26) SOPC = (7.5/2.1.8.06.1/3.372)T The normalized value of this vector decides the priority weights of each criterion over another.79.05.0.9.1.1.1) (1/2.1) (1.0.1.55.6.83.0.2) (1.00) ⊗ (1/ 74.2/5) (1.10.2) OPC (2/7.70.1.1) (1/2. This further decides the weight vectors of the criteria.90) ⊗ (1/ 74.55.83.0.3.1/2) (1/2.2/3.785. .1.0.2/5.0.1.50.

0.00322 0.0. Kannan.01026 0.00111 0. In this part the result obtained through fuzzy extent analysis (table 5 & 6) is compared with solution obtained through AHP (table 4.0047 0.00208 0.01167 0.00808 0.00185 0.15593.00247 0.01441 0.00727 0.00873 0.00353 0.00542 0.00456 0.00285 0.00518 0.0.0229 0.24669. Organizational role.00196 0.384676 3PLS4 0.0.12202.00291 3PLS5 0.00058 0.0021 ORGANIZATIONAL OPC1 0.00483 0. Reverse logistics functions.00372 0.00502 0.01333 0.12997 0.11118 0.00445 0.06966 0. W = (0.0069 0.00372 0.19154 0.0.01399 0.18852 0.00151 CRITERIA OPC3 0.00682 0.0013 0.00132 LOGISTICS RLF3 0.11374 0.00203 0. Kannan (2008)) OVERALL RATING OF THIRD PARTIES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMPANY GLOBAL WEIGHTS SUB- CRITERIA WEIGHT 3PRLP1 3PRLP2 3PRLP3 3PRLP4 3PRLP5 3PRLP6 3PRLP7 CRITERIA 3PLS1 0.00757 0.00154 0.00398 0.00238 0.00287 0. 3PL service.00326 0.00636 0.00257 0.11133. Table 4: Over all rating of Third Parties (AHP.00404 0.00216 SERVICES 0.0095 THIRD PARTY 3PLS2 0. From table 6 it can be concluded that the calculated importance level of attributes for the case is in the following order.00879 0.00947 0.10528 0.04787 0. This result is compared with the previous study done by Kannan (2009) using AHP and it shows that the top priority remains the same with little changes in the other attributes priorities.17779].0132 0. Organizational performance criteria.02169 0.00316 0.00398 0.00074 0. IT Applications.13732 0.1939.00175 0. From table 6 it can be seen that 3PRLP1 is preferred which has the highest weight of [0.00698 0.0.02687 0.00276 0. The total weighted score is shown in the table 6 for the each alternative (3PRLP1 to 3PRLP7) and it was obtained by multiplying the local priority vectors of alternatives.00825 0.00072 0.00547 0.0105 0.00255 0.14968 0.00186 0.00719 0. Based on the global priority weight.00753 0.45094 0.01385 0.00641 RLF1 0.00846 0.00356 LOGISTICS 3PLS3 0.00406 0.00167 0.00125 FUNCTION RLF4 0.07909.00348 0. priority vectors of attributes and sub-attributes.0201 0.00428 0.00722 0.186549 RLF5 0.31199 0.00945 0. Impact of use of 3pl and User Satisfaction.00237 RLF6 0.32836 0.00213 0. Table 6 gives the local priority vectors for the alternatives with respect to attributes and sub-attributes.00389 0.01119 0.09173) Further the weights of sub-attributes and weights of alternatives with respect to each sub- attribute are found using the similar procedure.00198 0. The results are shown in the table 5 and table 6.01598 0.00319 REVERSE RLF2 0.00432 0.00158 0.2176] among seven third parties.00279 0.02553 0.00488 0.00522 0.30953 0. 2009).00117 0.02315 0.19143 0.00502 PERFORMANCE OPC2 0.00869 0. the 3PRLP is selected when it has the highest overall priority.00186 0.00129 . Third party 2 is at the second choice [0.04688 0.

00097 0.10104 0.01283 0.18741 0.17435 0.09694 0.11867 0.18277 0.16422 0.03289 0.0006 0.17770 0.00116 0.08942 0.17255 0.041527 IU3PL4 0.26654 0.00045 0.03827 0.18913 0.00246 0.18043 0.05149 0.18406 0.00169 IT2 0.00354 0.30267 0.0008 0.00059 0.12698 0.10213 0.00049 0.16608 0.33735 0.00148 0.06492 0.0017 0.15457 RLF1 0.13993 SERVICES 0.00045 0.00327 0.17908 LOGISTICS 3PLS3 0.11372 0.13503 0.00023 0.15601 0.00396 0.31735 0.00096 OPC5 0.00191 0.00071 0.0008 0.0003 0.06731 0.10483 0.19456 0.00279 0.00141 0.05780 0.0006 0.22856 0.15348 0.00327 0.00895 0.21404 0.09728 0.00027 0.039672 US4 0.00116 0.10003 0.14329 0.00631 0.39089 0.00069 0.08776 0.09369 0.09920 0.20406 0.00028 OVERALL PRIORITY 0.0006 0.01398 0.00026 0.00022 IU3PL1 0.19995 0.21974 0.00096 0.00405 0.00115 0.00097 0.07631 ORGANIZATIONAL OPC1 0.05595 0.16971 0.13753 0.00627 0.13108 0.00511 0.00119 0.00159 0.0008 0.00256 0.00252 0.10451 0.114938 OR4 0.32675 0.08664 0.0004 0.0002 0.10064 0.00061 IT APPLICATION IT3 0.0023 0.00117 0.20423 0.00472 0.00076 0.19367 0.00035 SATISFACTION US3 0.00099 0.00893 0.16028 0.00265 0.29606 0.14604 0.00042 0.17687 0.00062 0.08987 0.18646 0.05393 0.22043 0.26501 0.00057 0.00105 ROLE OR3 0.003 0.00913 0.24669 3PLS4 0.0602 RANK 1 2 3 5 4 6 7 Table 5: Local rating of Third Parties (Fuzzy Extent analysis) OVERALL RATING OF THIRD PARTIES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMPANY LOCAL WEIGHTS SUB- CRITERIA WEIGHT 3PRLP1 3PRLP2 3PRLP3 3PRLP4 3PRLP5 3PRLP6 3PRLP7 CRITERIA 3PLS1 0.0025 0.16558 0.0008 0.20902 0.0004 0.00153 0.00166 0. 0.00274 0.05243 0.00236 0.20702 0.07986 0.07985 0.11391 0.00263 0.10960 0.0055 0.05855 0.0042 0.00354 0.30988 0.00145 0.19458 0.00216 0.00155 0.1127 0.14632 0.18035 0.01095 0.00031 0.00177 0.00038 OR1 0.00141 0.00527 0.18979 0.00046 0.00166 0.00448 0.15159 0.00037 0.00051 THIRD PARTY IU3PL3 0.00288 0.00075 0.00276 0.07361 RLF2 0.00419 0.16041 PERFORMANCE OPC2 0.20188 0.00141 0.0017 0.09305 0.00113 0.21500 THIRD PARTY 3PLS2 0.00122 0.00053 0.151992 OPC4 0.08807 0.00413 0.16652 0.00082 0.19390 OPC3 0.14740 0.05179 0.15786 0.06431 0.00043 0.24187 0.04198 0.09320 0.00861 0.08001 REVERSE LOGISTICS RLF3 0.00198 IT1 0.17976 0.24252 0.00056 0.00371 0.08542 RLF6 0.00143 0.11510 0.00049 IT5 0.00195 0.05515 0.0008 OR5 0.29096 0.00072 0.56614 0.04336 0.00039 0.12945 0.00113 0.15693 0.00153 IMPACT OF USE OF IU3PL2 0.09711 0.00025 0.15763 0.14741 0.22440 0.07305 FUNCTION RLF4 0.00201 ORGANIZATIONAL OR2 0.00316 0.00227 0.00093 0.14735 CRITERIA 0.00333 0.00207 0.18495 0.00138 0.0903 0.15593 RLF5 0.00098 0.20996 0.10712 0.00051 0.00085 0.00072 0.0023 0.00113 USER US2 0.16212 3PLS5 0.00693 0.00187 0.22300 0.12103 0.09324 0.30903 0.14605 0.00182 0.00126 0.20358 0.18595 0.00379 0.14852 0.01704 0.20402 0.00122 US1 0.00081 0.00761 0.29465 0.00048 0.05238 0.20273 0.00243 0.080647 IT4 0.19946 0.10069 0.0631 0.00409 0.57226 0.00023 0.19131 0.08923 0.16122 .

07158 0.00687 0.00692 0.12319 0.28966 0.00598 0.14426 0.00134 0.00833 0.21404 0.00516 0.11843 0.00275 0.00735 0.00340 0.05854 0.14963 IT APPLICATION IT3 0.01441 0.00054 0.11718 0.00497 0.00621 0.00872 0.00123 0.00710 0.00512 0.00697 0.00325 0.00090 RLF6 0.06600 0.16349 0.13382 0.20395 0.00257 0.15405 0.00911 0.13498 0.18741 0.00220 0.14963 0.00884 0.13938 0.06991 0.24015 0.11133 IT4 0.00710 0.05428 0.15386 IT1 0.16657 0.00961 0.20273 0.12347 0.16290 0.18834 0.00506 .07387 0.33702 0.06731 0.00465 0.00958 0.18089 0.16159 0.05336 0.00465 0.00234 0.00620 0.00816 RLF1 0.14248 0.08649 0.00604 0.16714 0.18529 0.00273 0.00533 0.15222 SATISFACTION US3 0.24187 0.16902 0.16382 0.00273 0.21163 0.00952 0.15995 0.00956 0.00238 0.09980 0.19713 0.20338 0.18065 0.44670 0.22060 0.16889 0.15425 0.00210 LOGISTICS FUNCTION RLF4 0.12202 OR4 0.00204 0.16825 0.00550 0.15780 0.00242 0.00243 OPC1 0.00502 0.00583 0.00652 0.00327 0.01327 0.00305 0.26323 0.00862 0.17103 0.14799 0.09160 0.28966 0.17581 0.18406 0.18226 0.23273 0.14473 0.00317 0.11030 OPC5 0.18084 0.00540 0.16284 US1 0.12771 0.16987 ORGANIZATIONAL ROLE OR3 0.13824 OR1 0.20811 0.05982 0.11843 0.00395 0.00752 0.05274 0.18089 0.20900 0.00757 0.13036 0.14511 IT2 0.07150 0.05270 0.00122 0.13600 0.15608 0.00514 0.09593 0.01104 0.10017 0.00239 0.00695 0.00084 0.20273 0.00842 0.16631 IU3PL1 0.00471 0.01136 0.09058 0.00089 0.07909 US4 0.11418 0.00986 3PLS2 0.00185 ORGANIZATIONAL OR1 0.06768 0.18797 0.00225 REVERSE RLF3 0.12427 0.20218 0.26312 0.00337 0.00887 0.00075 0.13531 0.21974 0.16723 0.20406 0.18425 0.20092 0.00238 0.00113 0.15932 0.12889 0.00417 0.00401 0.06695 0.12796 0.10733 0.00647 SERVICES 3PLS4 0.06595 0.20092 0.17976 0.26323 0.20914 0.18829 0.00272 0.00701 0.00628 0.00218 RLF2 0.00183 0. OPC4 0.14326 OF THIRD PARTY IU3PL3 0.18015 0.14242 OR5 0.00544 0.14690 0.19247 0.00297 0.21352 0.00600 0.00301 0.01095 0.17959 0.00687 CRITERIA OPC4 0.20118 0.12234 0.16784 0.16166 0.00423 0.00645 0.11467 0.00231 0.01066 3PLS5 0.00514 ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE OPC3 0.19438 0.18226 0.13095 0.10534 0.21730 0.00332 0.32975 0.05924 0.16908 IMPACT OF USE IU3PL2 0.25692 0.11577 0.17287 0.00659 0.15756 0.00935 0.00766 0.00150 0.00735 0.00594 0.00619 OPC5 0.05428 0.00092 0.18138 0.11179 0.12482 0.18979 0.01010 0.18145 Table 6: Overall Global rating of Third Parties (Fuzzy Extent analysis) OVERALL RATING OF THIRD PARTIES IDENTIFIED BY THE COMPANY GLOBAL WEIGHTS SUB- CRITERIA WEIGHT 3PRLP1 3PRLP2 3PRLP3 3PRLP4 3PRLP5 3PRLP6 3PRLP7 CRITERIA 3PLS1 0.00462 0.00645 THIRD PARTY LOGISTICS 3PLS3 0.00654 0.18595 0.05916 0.08875 0.06102 0.15760 OR2 0.00157 RLF5 0.18818 0.01216 0.09173 IU3PL4 0.20652 0.18798 0.12206 0.20753 0.00291 0.00186 0.31214 0.09757 0.01130 0.00237 0.14085 0.11815 0.22090 0.11049 USER US2 0.18529 0.21915 0.00752 OPC2 0.26654 0.14661 0.00377 0.06897 0.11179 0.09202 0.05594 0.05749 0.16201 0.18230 0.14303 0.11680 IT5 0.14605 0.18043 0.00467 0.06897 0.15111 0.12973 0.12218 0.00291 0.00888 0.00796 0.17435 0.00295 0.21008 0.

00280 0. and it is more capable of capturing a human's appraisal of ambiguity when complex multi-attribute decision-making problems are considered.00381 0.00114 0.00718 0.00021 0.17581 0.00503 0. While fuzzy AHP requires weighty computations.00074 0.15780 0.00511 0.05877 0.00754 0.00213 0.00221 0. 2005). ROLE OR2 0.00203 IT APPLICATION IT3 0.20914 0.00406 0.33702 0.00306 OR5 0.00468 0.00523 IMPACT OF USE IU3PL2 0.00239 0.00581 0.17779 0.00253 0.00316 0.00387 OVERALL PRIORITY 0. the top level management and managers are often uncertain about how to share the key information to enhance the selection process. The selection process in the reverse logistics service provider involves both types of attributes like quantitative and qualitative attributes to select the best possible provider.00259 IU3PL4 0.00527 0.00417 0.00312 IT5 0.00332 0.00427 0.00477 0.00018 0.21767 0.00150 0.00318 0.07159 US4 0.00019 IU3PL1 0.00243 0.00427 0.32975 0.00229 0.00451 0.00231 0.00390 USER US2 0.00320 0. However.13878 0.00279 0.00277 0.00264 0.12206 0.00081 0.00271 IT2 0.00532 0.00255 0.00345 0.00411 OR4 0.00509 0.00310 0.00123 0.00441 0.00010 0.00152 0.00468 0.00510 0.00095 0.00172 0.00314 0.00211 0.00431 OR3 0.00208 0.00209 0.00183 0.00408 0.00263 IT4 0.00008 0.00480 0.00161 0.00016 0.00252 SATISFACTION US3 0.00265 0.00276 0.00251 0.00428 0.00687 0.00348 0.00125 0.00573 0.26312 0. Fuzzy extent analysis approach seems to be particularly effective in reducing the uncertainty in the determination of the relative weight given to the different attribute and in finding the impact of each alternatives with respect to the attributes and sub-attributes which are involved in the selction process.00151 0.25692 0.00346 0.00395 0.00566 US1 0.24015 0.00434 0.00478 0.00352 0.31214 0. it is a more systematic method than the others.00153 0.00171 0.01441 0.00507 0.00394 0.00248 0.23273 0.00304 0.00127 0.00246 0.00196 0.00356 0.00077 0.16784 0.00180 IT1 0. .00022 0.00447 0.00353 0.00514 0.00389 0.00346 OF THIRD PARTY IU3PL3 0.00447 0.00095 0.00187 0.00131 0.00322 0.44670 0.00338 0.00178 0.16714 0.00320 0.00191 0. CONCLUSION Reverse logistics service provider problem becomes more important for most manufacturing companies in today’s complex environment.10472 0.20811 0.16216 0.00448 0.14079 RANK 1 2 5 6 7 3 4 6.00402 0. This is true because pairwise comparisons provide a flexible and realistic way to accommodate real-life data (Tolga.00188 0.00245 0.09593 0.00779 0. This study utilizes a fuzzy extent analysis framework to select the best third party reverse logistics provider for a battery manufacturing industry in India.00557 0.

“AHP in political group decisions: a study in the art of possibilities”.J. “Interorganizational cooperation: the role of information technology”. No. Work study. Vol.61–3. “Outsourcing implications on comapanies’ profitability and liquidity: a sample of UK companies”... pp.. pp. Journal of Business logistics. TOPSIS and ELECTRE can be applied in a fuzzy environment for solving such a problem. and Norrman. “Managing third party logistics relationships: what does it take”.14-29.. 7. Juma’h and Douglas Wood. pp. Interfaces. P. (1999). 20. (2002). needs. “The reverse logistics files”. and Walden. T. (2000). Vol. FL. Upper Saddle River. No. N. 71-76. 4. and Hanna J. Carlsson. No. pp. S. “Reverse logistics: a second chance to profit”. “Justification of new manufacturing technology: a strategic approach using the analytical hierarchy process”. 265-275. 7.J: Prentice-Hall. S. (1999). T.. Inbound Logistics. “Strategic examination of reverse logistics and repair service requirements. Transportation and Distribution.21 No. P. 73-100 Brockmann.For future research multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods such as VIKOR. Vol. E. (1995).. 8. 25. Dresner. Journal of Business Logistics. Vol. D. 49. Bloomberg.. IIE Solution. An empirical comparison of US and Japanese Supplier Relations. M. Vol. in: Proceedings on the 14th International Conference on Information Systems. market size. Vol. 20. 3. “Logistics”. H. (2002). pp. Buxbaum.. pp. No. REFERENCE Albayarakoglu. 1. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. M.. (1998). and opportunities”. pp. C. Boyson. M. Corsi.. Andel. . 141-59. pp. Bensaou. pp. 2. D. 117–127.. Blumberg. Ahmad. pp. D. and Rabinovich. LeMay. T. 36-40.. A.B. (1993). (1997). 7. “Procurement of logistics services a minutes work or a multi year project”. Orland. (1999). “21 Warehousing trends in the 21st Century”. 64–7. Production and Inventory Management Journal. Andersson. (1996). 14..M. No.. 38. No. Vol.

Working paper of the Center for Integrated Manufacturing and Service Operations. “An evaluation of success factors using the AHP to implement ISO 14001. 17–8. “Information priority-setting for better resource allocation using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)”. pp. P. Beullens. No 6. “Measuring supply chain performance: current research and future directions”.based ESM”. 7. JM. “Application of the extent Analysis method on fuzzy AHP”. and Orhan. 3. N. Vol. Demir. No. 499–509. (2006). pp. (1999). 649-655. “Managements new Paradigms”. pp.. Patel. International Journal of Quality Reliability management. and Gaither. (1998). “What it’s all about”. “Developing a theory of reverse logistics”.. 205-222. Vol. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. pp. A. pp.. 262.M. JS. No. IL: Council of Logistics Management. and Machimada. Forbes management. TJ. and Tirtiroglu. Fleischmann. pp. No. S. “Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment”. K.. Cheng. 30. International Journal of Quality Reliability management. (1996). pp. Council of Logistics Management (CLM). Vol. (2000).S.. 38... Dowlatshahi. “Outsourcing: reverse logistics push into high gear”. 8–10.. Vol.Chang. Craig Shepherd and Hannes Gunter. Davis. “Reuse of waste bricks in the production line”. 61-70. (1999). 6. No. 31. No. pp. H. 9. PF. pp. K. pp. Building and Environment. Drucker. (1985). Vol. pp. Van Wassenhove. (2001). JS. 71– 87. 38. Chin. (1998). 152-177. 1451–1455. Traffic World. Vol.A. “The Impact of Product Recovery on Logistics Network Design”.S. 2000/33/TM/CIMSO. E. (2000). (1998). pp. Discount Store News.. 341-361. Management Science. 2. Chin. Crowe. No. . European Journal of Operation Research.. Gunasekaran. pp. 21.. EWL.. (2000). C. and Li. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.. 3/4. D-Y. M. “Optimal ordering policies under conditions of extended payment privileges”. Oak Brook. “Multi-attribute analysis of ISO 9000 registration using AHP”. 143-54. 4–6. Information management and Computer Security. “Return to sender”. 3.. LN. 95. 1/2. Vol. and Tummala. I. 55. 2. (2003). Noble. Vol. Bloemhof-Ruwaard..R. (2001).. R. M. Vol. Vol. 15. Interfaces. V. No. Vol..242-258.. Cottrill.

6. Benardos. and Kannan.. pp. 8. Vol. pp. and Bagchi. Vol.. 74–94. Gooley. N. pp. Vol. (2006). and Joachim. “Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process for evaluating and selecting vendor in supply chain model”. Wu. 19–24.G. “Underground storage warehouses in Attica.. 527–534. Turin. Journal of Transportation Engineering. 3. A. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management. Purchasing.. pp. Haq. K. 29. J. Italy.P. Vol. pp. Jeffery. Jing. (1990). 22. 826–840. Hannon. Holguin-Veras. G. D. (1990). 49–55. 336–346.A. pp. J. 526–535. AL. International Journal of Production Economics. P. 8. Vol. Vol. Y. 128. pp. (2002). Gupta. 826-835. pp. 4... and Mavrikos. D. “Revealed preference analysis of the commercial vehicle choice process”. A. Vol. . Vol. (2009) “Fuzzy approach for the selection of third party reverse logistics provider” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. Vol. Urban Underground Space: a Resource for Cities.. K.C..C. (2002). Vol. (2006). European Management Journal. (1987). pp. (2006)..C. and Ramanujam. “Inbound freight consolidation under just-in-time procurement: Application of clearing models”. (2002). 26. J. G. “Motivating and monitoring JIT supplier performance”.. 9th International Conference... 21. 37. F. KL.... 103. “Transitional management in an evolving European context”. J. Greece: a feasible long-term solution”. Y. “Line blurs between 3PLs and contract manufactures”. “Optimal ordering policy in a distribution system”. 3. 4. TB. A. B. Hendrik. 2. (1998).. Matthias. Jules. Kaliampakos. No. Journal of Business Logistics. Kannan. No.Gunipero. Proceedings. “Performance evaluation as an influence factor for the determination of profit shares of competence cells in non- hierarchical regional production networks”. Logistics Management and Distribution Report. Kin. No. Z. Marco. No. 103. “Reverse logistics: five steps to success”. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. K. No. 474-479. “Carrier-mode Logistics Optimization of Inbound Supply Chains for Electronics Manufacturing”. (2006). Boston. No. November 14–16. and Van Dijck .K. L. International Journal of Production Economics. and Liu.

(2000)..C.. Vol. Lynch. L.. pp. M. pp. IJ. and Tyndall. CJ. Kleindorfer. and Kim.1. 822–831. “The impact of network service performance on customer satisfaction and loyalty: High-speed internet service case in Korea”. “A model for reverse logistics entry by third-party providers”.W. R. Millen.G. Kim.35–44. No. (1991). Klausner. New York. Marien.32... Kleinsorge. Kim. (1990).M. JK. Khoo. “Third party logistics study 2002: results and findings of the seventh annual study.Kaufmann.TH. M. (2002). Krumwiede. R.14. (1991). Vol. P.. “Reverse-logistics strategy for product take- back”. 214-224. CF. Luttwak. New York: Harper & Row. 28. and Logar C. “A qualitative examination of factors affecting reverse logistics systems for end-of-life computers”.. Kwang. Council of Logistics Management Publications. 35–58. (2002). 3. CT.. Ponzurick. R.. Lieb.M. “The shipper–carrier partnership: A new tool for performance evaluation”. Interfaces. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management.B. I. (1993). (2006). A.Y. and Partovi. (1998).325–333.30. Expert Systems with Applications Vol.D. pp. USA”. Langley.R. Journal of Business Logistics. “The effects of customer satisfaction and switching barrier on customer loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication services”... “Integrating manufacturing strategy and technology choice”. pp.6. YJ..N. Illinois. (2007). No. Van Nostrand. pp. 12. Vol. No. No. (2002). 47. and Van Wassenhove. . M. (2004). Council of Logistics Management. Vol.. P.23. “A dictionary of modern war”.A. KB. OR. and Sheu C. “Emerging topic tracking system in WWW”.. and Jeong. 43-52. Department of Information and Communication Engineering..K. 30. Park. CG.455–79. Vol.. Telecommunications Policy. Supply chain Management Review.156–65. Illinois. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. pp. Allen. Park.J.. E. “ Third-party logistics services: a comparison of experienced American and European manufacturing”. OR. (1971). The University of Tokyo. Vol.. No. F. Schary. I ... T. 145–159. USA”. Knemeyer. Vol. pp... European Journal of Operational Research. “Reverse logistics as competitive strategy”. 32.6. E. Jeong. Vol. and Hendrickson. 2. Park. D. D. and Mitsuru. JC.. pp. OMEGA. “Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic theory and application”. pp. and Tanner. A. “Logistics outsourcing: a management guide. (2000).

pp. J. 4. F. pp. 27-31. Ravi. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. “High technology organizations: a synthesis”. No. 56.. Vol. Vol. “Determining what to benchmark: an analytic hierarchy process approach”. “Modeling the logistics outsourcing relationship variables to enhance shippers’ productivity and competitiveness in logistical supply chain”.Y. (1994). T. M. 135–152.A. pp.A. (1990). and Callahan. New York. 42–54. (2002). pp.. Vol. 2. Razzaque. An international journal of Supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. “A conceptual model for selecting and evaluating third party reverse logistics provider”. 28. 121-34 Partovi. Vol. “Supply base strategies to maximize supplier performance”.M. L. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. and Spekman. 1. “Many happy returmns”. P. 89-107. R. Mohrman. Press.239-255. (2000). M. Vol. 2. pp. D. Murpy. Journal of Business logistics. 278–295. T. Purchasing. 25-39.689-714.. Trent. Monczka. 23. (1998). Vol. (2005). The Journal of Business Strategy. Vol. “Manufacturing take aim at end of the supply chain”.. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. V. S. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management.. P.. 8.2. “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes. and Sheng.30. in: Von Glinow. Qureshi. 14. and Sarkis.. Kumar.. No. 283-295 Meyer. “Outsourcing of logistics functions: a literature survey”. and conflict resolution techniques”. Mohr. 4. Vol. R. pp. (2007).N.. pp. “Third-party logistics: Some user versus provider perspective”. No. M... Mohrman._Eds. No. communication behavior. Strategic Management Journal. CC. and Kumar..A. 6. No.. 124(6):111. and Poist. and Von Glinow. pp. J..J. Oxford Univ.J. Ravi Shankar and Tiwari. 7. No. (1994). M. (1998). .M. Vol. “Productivity improvement of a computer hardware supply chain”. R. S. Minahan. (1993). pp. 21.. MA.A. pp. 15. No.. No. 54. R.K. (1999). H.Meade. Managing Complexity in High Technology Organizations..

Mcgraw-Hill. Work Study. Boston. “Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory”. “A Managerial framework for the acquisition of third- party logistics services”. No. Vol. Scalle.L. “The impact of operating environment on the formation of cooperative logistics relationships”. T. pp. “Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP)”. Saaty. 22. (1980). (1998). 9-26. 18.Jr. “Reverse logistics strengthens supply chain”. DS. pp.. pp. (1994). Logistics supplement. Sohail. and Langely. RS.. No. (2001).. 53-65. and Sohal. 5. pp. Rogers.. PA. 5. . 24. 50. 2. Saaty. (2001a). 48.. “How to make decision: the analytic decision process”. 5. 22–4. M. (2002). pp. Technovation.X. Vol. Interfaces. Vol. pp. (2000). New york. 19-43. No.. No. S. pp. pp.J. and Tibben-Lembke RS. No. Rosen. (1990). Transportation Research (Logistics and Transportation Review). DS. 23. “Choosing a quality contractor”. (2003). The University of Nevada. 3. Work Study. “Ready for returns?”. and Cotteleer. C. 401-8.. Vol. Transportation and distribution. European Journal of Operation Research. and Daugherty. pp. T. C. 41. “The Analytic Hierarchy process: Planning. 4-5. “How to make decision: the analytic decision process”. Reverse Logistics Council. Saaty. 95-100.L.. (1997). Center for Logistics Management.L. PJ..105-111. H. Pittsburgh. Vol. “Going backward: Reverse logistics trends and Practices”. T. (1999). pp. pp. Vol. Sink. “Does the future of military logistics lie in outsourcing and privatization? Accountants – the new gatekeepers of war-time operations”.197-201. Information week.Richard Cardinali. Roberts. Journal of Business logistics. MA. 129-148.. Vol. (1997). (2001). Saaty. 33. “Third party logistics services: a Malaysian perspective”. No. 50. 2.. (2001). TP. Resource Allocation”.. C. A. No. 163-89. T. Stank. 1. Vol. “An examination of reverse logistics practices”. and Tibben-Lembke.NY.6. Vol.. Priority setting. Journal of Business Logistics.L. Rogers. RWS. K. 2nd edn. No.J. B. Harvard Business School Publishing. Reno. “Waste management: a missing element in strategic planning”. (1994). Richard Cardinali. Schwartz.

Oreis. JD. 450- 456. C. ON.P. Logistics and Transportation Review.. No. Vol. “A decision on extent analysis method and application of fuzzy AHP”. “Models for warehouse management: Classification and examples”. 1. Stock. .L. pp. and Rao. 116. (1999).. NP. 43-57. 59. Vol.R. pp. No. 26. 96-108. pp. 16. Decision Sciences. (1990).. and Kahraman. KJ. pp. Weiss. (1998). “The analytic hierarchy process – a survey of the method and its applications”. Demircan. Vol.. and Chang. JR. 519-528. E. Zhu.Stock. “AHP design issues for large-scale systems”. J. pp. 2. (1986). pp. Vol. Y. E. and Zijm. 18. European Journal of Operation Research. F. Tolga. (1999).1. Jing. and information technology strategically: opportunities and challenges for warehousing”. (1987).. Vol. Van. 133-148.. No. and Kasarda. 4. communication. Interfaces. DY.. Vol. 37-52. No.H. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. “Logistics strategy and structure a conceptual framework”. W. 1. 89-117 Zahedi. 18.97. “Managing computer. No.. pp. V..N. Vol.M. (2005) “Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process” International Journal of Production Economics. International Journal of Production Economics. M.

... LEVEL I SELECTING THE BEST THIRD PARTY IT ORGANIZATIONAL 3PL LEVEL II IMPACT APPLICATIONS ROLE SERVICES OF USE OF 3PL REVERSE USER ORGANIZATIONAL LOGISTICS SATISFACTION PERFORMANCE FUNCTIONS CRITERIA OPC1 IU3PLI RLF1 OR1 US1 IT1 OPC2 3PLS1 LEVEL III IU3PL2 RLF2 OR2 US2 IT2 OPC3 3PLS2 IU3PL3 RLF3 OR3 US3 IT3 OPC4 3PLS3 IU3PL4 RLF4 OR4 US4 IT4 3PLS4 IT5 OPC5 RLF5 OR5 3PLS5 RLF6 LEVEL IV 3PRLP 1 3PRLP 2 . 3PRLP n Figure 2: Proposed Fuzzy extent analysis Model .......