Modeling, Scheduling, and Control in Advanced Production Systems - Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2019, Vol. 11(2) 1–19
Ó The Author(s) 2019
Comparison and evaluation of DOI: 10.1177/1687814018822926
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
multi-criteria supplier selection
approaches: A case study

Mohammed Alkahtani1,2 , Abdulrahman Al-Ahmari1,2 ,

Husam Kaid1 and Mohammed Sonboa1

Abstract
Supplier selection problem has a major regard in terms of the performance of supply chain of an organization. Several
various approaches were proposed, including the analytic hierarchy process, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, and fuzzy
technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). However, no comparative researches of these
three approaches related to the supplier selection problem have been carried out. Therefore, this article proposes a
methodology to evaluate the selected approaches. The evaluation was conducted based on the following factors: agility
during the decision process, computational complexity, number of criteria and alternative suppliers, and adequacy in sup-
porting a group decision. The methodology is implemented in X company. The results show that each approach is con-
venient to the supplier evaluation and selection problem, particularly toward the support of group decision-making and
uncertainty modeling. In terms of computational complexity, analytic hierarchy process performs better than fuzzy
TOPSIS and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Moreover, the fuzzy TOPSIS approach is better suited to the supplier eva-
luation and selection in terms of agility during the decision process, the number of criteria and alternative suppliers, and
the adequacy in supporting a group decision.

Keywords
Multi-criteria decision-making, supplier evaluation, supplier selection, analytic hierarchy process, technique for order of
preference by similarity to ideal solution, fuzzy

Date received: 27 February 2018; accepted: 11 December 2018

Handling Editor: Wu Naiqi

Introduction noteworthy investment funds for the association. The

Supply chain management (SCM) is a methodology for
incorporating the agent elements of an association in
order to make a general arrangement for the associa-
tion, while fulfilling the administration approach and
maintaining the greatest conceivable reduction in cost
based on an unreliable understanding of the conditions
of a rival association. Purchasing commands a critical
position in many associations because the acquired
parts, segments, and supplies commonly make up
40%–60% of the offers of its items. The most essential
procedure of the purchasing function is the productive
choice of suppliers, because doing so brings about
issue of supplier choice can be essentially characterized
as picking the correct supplier(s) for certain items or
material gatherings. In many organizations, the cost of
1
Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud
University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2
Raytheon Chair for Systems Engineering (RCSE Chair), Advanced
Manufacturing Institute, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Corresponding author:
Mohammed Alkahtani, Department of Industrial Engineering, College of
Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia.
Email: moalkahtani@ksu.edu.sa

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
crude materials and parts can represent up to 70% of
the aggregate costs. In this way, keeping in mind the
end goal of decreasing the costs identified with supply
acquisition, organizations should work with suppliers
that give the required material speedier, less expensive,
and superior to contenders. Supplier determination uti-
lizes an expansive correlation of suppliers with a typical
arrangement of criteria and measures. It can be seen as
a multi-criteria issue, which incorporates both quantita-
tive and subjective criteria. Numerous criteria have
been utilized as a part of the supplier selection issue.
With a specific end goal of choosing the best supplier,
two inquiries should be made. The first is what criteria
will be utilized as a part of a supplier assessment? The
second is what are the evaluation approaches that will
be utilized to choose a supplier?
Several articles propose the use of different evaluation
multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches to
the supplier selection problem. These approaches are
analytic hierarchy process (AHP),1 technique for
order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
(TOPSIS),2 ViseKriterijumska Optimizacija I logical capability among auto assemblers, indirect
Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR),3 elimination and
choice translating reality (ELECTRE),4 preference
ranking organization method for enrichment evalua-
tion (PROMETHEE),5 data envelopment analysis
(DEA),6 simple additive weighting (SAW),7 simple
multi-attribute rating technique (SMART),8 case-
based reasoning (CBR),9 and multi-attribute utility
theory (MAUT),10 approaches based on fuzzy set the-
ory,11 and so on.
It is obvious from the literature review that earlier
studies have mostly focused on MCDM approaches
such as AHP, fuzzy AHP, and fuzzy TOPSIS for sup-
plier evaluation. However, it is necessary to do a com-
parative assessment of various approaches with regard
to supplier selection. To overcome this gap, the aim of
this article is to implement a comparative analysis of
such methods conducted to the supplier evaluation and
selection problem. A comparison of the methods will
then be made considering the following factors: agility
during the decision process, computational complexity,
adequacy with regard to changes in alternatives or cri-
teria, agility in terms of the decision process, computa-
tional complexity, the number of criteria and
alternative suppliers applied, and the adequacy in sup-
porting group decision-making.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows.
In section ‘‘Literature review,’’ a literature review of the
supplier selection criteria and approaches is described.
Section ‘‘Methodology’’ details the methodology
applied in this article as well as some concepts related
to fuzzy set theory and the AHP, fuzzy AHP, and fuzzy
TOPSIS approaches. Section ‘‘Case study’’ provides the
results of applying the proposed approaches to a real
case study. Section ‘‘Comparative analysis of proposed
approaches’’ introduces the comparative analyses of
the proposed approaches. Finally, some concluding
remarks and areas of future work are provided in sec-
tion ‘‘Conclusion and future work.’’
Literature review
Two particular significance issues are considered to
select the best supplier. One is what criteria should be
used and the other is regarding the method used to
compare suppliers. Weber et al.12 demonstrated that
the selection of a supplier is complicated by the differ-
ent criteria that should be considered. Meanwhile, vari-
ous approaches can be utilized to do a selection.
Analyses of the two cases of supplier evaluation and
selection have attracted the interest of much academics
and purchasers since the 1960s.
Criteria in supplier selection
Chen et al.13 recommended that there are important
variations in terms of financial standing and techno-
suppliers, and direct suppliers, but no diversity in
delivery, flexibility, relationship, reliability, quality,
and price. In most of the researches listed, the major
criteria for supplier evaluation and selection are the
quality, service, cost, delivery, relationship, capacity,
customer requirements, and flexibility. Studies pub-
lished from 1995 to 2005 focused on quality, finance,
service, delivery, relationships, technology, facility,
management, and products. Environmental escalated
in 2007, becoming primary supplier evaluation and
selection criteria. Risk factors involved in supplier
selection also gained prominence in 2007. Benefits,
opportunities, communication, and risks (BOCR)
constitute the tools needful for gauging a supplier
evaluation and selection.
Supplier selection approaches
Weber et al.12 classified quantitative methods to sup-
plier evaluation and selection into four different
categories: linear weight models, mathematical pro-
gramming models, statistical/probabilistic methods,
and integrated methods. Their researches showed that
with linear weighted models, a weight is typically
assigned on each criterion (typically determined subjec-
tively), where the total score for each supplier is
summed based on the performance of each criterion
multiplied by the weight. Mathematical programming
models involve linear, mixed integer, and goal pro-
gramming. Statistical approaches involve methods such
as a stochastic economic order quantity (EOQ) model
and cluster analysis. Other methods such the fuzzy set
theory, integrated methods, and activity-based costing
are used. AHP is one of the approaches used under a
Alkahtani et al.
linear weighted model. AHP is a MCDM approach
that supplies a scope that can work using multiple cri-
teria. Numerous studies have been carried out in the
area of supplier selection using AHP.14–22 Interpretive
structural modeling (ISM) is also another technique,
which was implemented for supplier evaluation and
selection. The objective of this technique is to identify
the relationships among items and build the model of
problem.23,24 Min25 and Rao et al.26 used a multi-
attribute utility method for supplier evaluation and
selection, which is another approach for determining
the relative weights of attributes. Mani et al.27 focused
on socially sustainable supplier evaluation and selection
through social parameters utilizing AHP for decision-
making. A new AHP approach called D-AHP has been
projected to solve the supplier evaluation and selection
problem by utilizing D numbers to extend the classical
AHP approach.28 Rezaei et al.29 proposed a robust
two-phased funnel methodology for selecting suppliers,
along with fuzzy AHP, through which the suppliers are
assessed against the main criteria and sub-criteria.
Dweiri et al.30 proposed a decision-support model for
supplier evaluation and selection regarding AHP. Their
proposed methodology is stated as follows: (1)
Identification of the main criteria (quality, price, ser-
vice, and delivery) is achieved utilizing a literature
review and ranking the main criteria regarding expert
opinions utilizing AHP for the start of the model. (2)
The second stage in their developed methodology is the
recognizing of sub-criteria and ranking them regarding
the main criteria. (3) The final stage includes a sensitiv-
ity analysis conducted to inspect the robustness of a
decision utilizing expert choice software.
A study by Lo and Sudjatmika31 put forward a new
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) for an effec-
tive assessment of suppliers using bell-shaped member-
ship functions. According to mathematical
programming models, Chaudhry et al.32 provided a
model that can help in supplier evaluation and selection
with price breaks using linear and mixed binary integer
programming. Some studies20,33–37 also used the above
tools to solve the problem of supplier evaluation and
selection. Ng38 used a weighted linear program to con-
struct a model that can solve the problem of supplier
selection with regard to supply quality, variety, deliv-
ery, reciprocal of distance, and reciprocal of price
index. The study by Van der Rhee et al.39 provided a
resultant multinomial legit model of discrete choice
analysis (DCA) that can be used to determine the influ-
ence of flexibility, cost, service features, and delivery on
supplier selection. Mixed-integer programming was
applied by Sawik40 and deals with the combined sche-
duling of customer orders and selection of suppliers for
single, dual, and multiple objective suppliers. The paper
by Sanayei et al.3 proposed a model to solve MCDM
problems utilizing the VIKOR method. Moghaddam41
3
conducted a multi-objective optimization model to deal
with the supplier selection process and optimized the
number of products in a closed-loop supply chain net-
work. The paper by Bohner and Minner42 synchro-
nized the problem of supplier selection; their study was
formulated as a mixed-integer linear problem, which is
solved using a full factorial design. Using a statistical
approach, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multi-
variate ANOVA (MANOVA), Swift43 studied a single-
and multi-supplier selection strategy and identified the
variation among the product technical support, price,
and cost. Mummalaneni et al.44 utilized a conjoint
analysis to discover the ‘‘preferences and trade-offs sup-
plier evaluation and selection’’ of Chinese purchasing
managers. Verma and Pullman45 employed a DCA to
check the choice of suppliers. A confirmatory factor
analysis and a path analysis are used to empirically
inspect the relationships among the supplier selection
criteria, supplier participation of the design teams, and
a continuous improvement program, customer satisfac-
tion, and overall performance of the firm.46 Riedl
et al.47 conducted a MANOVA for supplier selection.
Through an integrated approach, the combination
of quality function deployment (QFD) and AHP was
improved to select the best suppliers in a strategic man-
ner.48 Rouyendegh and Saputro49 developed a robust
fuzzy method with a multi-criteria group decision-
making framework for suppliers to select the integrated
QFD and data envelopment analysis. Karsak and
Dursun50 described a hybrid technique for suppliers to
select and allocate orders. This technique integrates the
multi-choice goal programming and fuzzy TOPSIS to
avoid any thoughtlessness in the decision-making pro-
cess. A study by Fallahpour et al.51 aimed at utilizing a
combination of AHP with multi-expression program-
ming for introducing supplier selection and evaluation
methods. Tavana et al.52 presented a novel hybrid fuzzy
MCDM method that combines an adaptive neuro-
fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and artificial neural
network (ANN) to deal with the selection criteria and
alternative ranking problems. Luthra et al.22 developed
a framework to evaluate the selection of potential sup-
pliers by applying a combination of AHP and VIKOR,
a multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution
approach. Wan et al.53 investigated a type of MCDM
problem with two-level criteria and proposed a novel
hybrid approach integrating the 2-tuple linguistic ana-
lytic network process (TL-ANP) and interval 2-tuple
ELECTRE-II (IT-ELECTRE II). In the study of Li
et al.,54 a conjunctive MCDM approach for cloud ser-
vice supplier selection of manufacturing enterprise was
developed. Neural network is used to realize the expert
importance degree determination; fuzzy AHP is used to
compute the subjective weight; and CRITIC (CRiteria
Importance Through Inter-criteria Correlation) is used
to define the objective weight. TOPSIS is used to
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

arrange the suppliers by their weighted index-value

matrix. The integration of fuzzy set theory into
VIKOR, TOPSIS, and gray relational analysis (GRA)
methods was thoroughly discussed by Banaeian et al.55
The work of Jain et al.56 displays the selection of head-
lamp supplier using incorporated fuzzy MCDM
approaches: AHP and TOPSIS.

Methodology
In this section, an MCDM tool is illustrated to support
the decision-makers in evaluating and selecting the best
supplier among the list of competing suppliers. It con-
tains four major elements: (1) the criteria used in the
evaluation of all competing suppliers; (2) a list of com-
peting suppliers and their impact on each criterion, the
data of which are gathered from supplier selection
experts in the purchasing department as well as through
related studies; (3) the MCDM tool utilizing the three
approaches, that is, AHP, fuzzy AHP, and fuzzy
TOPSIS, to assist the decision-maker in comparing and
evaluating the various supplier alternatives based on
the gathered data regarding the company criteria and
supplier benefits; and (4) a comparison between the
three approaches to select the best one for the supplier
evaluation and selection problem. The developed meth-
odology is shown in Figure 1. The methodology pro-
posed above can be executed based on the following
procedures:

1. Gather the wanted data from the purchasing
department, end users, and supplier selection
experts in the selected company. The collected
data involve the following:
(a) The most important criteria used for the
evaluation process;
(b) A list of competing suppliers;
(c) Development of a scoring system for eva-
luation purposes;
(d) The impact of competing suppliers on all
criteria and sub-criteria.
Assess the extracted criteria for each supplier using
the proposed supplier database. The supplier database
includes the chosen suppliers and their contributions to
the selected criteria. The data in this database are gath-
ered from the studies based on the supplier selection
process, surveys distributed to candidate supplier
experts, and face-to-face interviews. The obtained data
from the experts are transformed into fuzzy form data
based on a designed fuzzy scale to remove the subjectiv-
ity of the data for using as inputs to the fuzzy TOPSIS
and fuzzy AHP. The database is structured as shown in
Table 1.
Figure 1. Proposed methodology flow chart.
2. Rank the criteria based on the expert inputs.
The structured format of this procedure is
shown in Table 2.
3. Run the proposed models of AHP, fuzzy AHP,
and fuzzy TOPSIS using the acquired data from
Tables 1 and 2 to perform the desired computa-
tions and comparisons.
4. Compare the three proposed approaches to
choose the best one for the supplier evaluation
and selection problem based on its adequacy
regarding changes to agility during the decision
process, computational complexity, number of
criteria and alternative suppliers, and adequacy
in supporting a group decision.
Analytical hierarchy process
The study of Nydick and Hill1 defined AHP as an
approach utilized for supplier evaluation and selection
problem and included the following procedures:
Alkahtani et al. 5

Table 1. Supplier database structure.57

Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3 Supplier 4 . Supplier m

Criteria 1 Low (L) Medium (M) High (H) Low (L) . Very low (VL)
Criteria 2 Medium (M) Very high (VH) Medium (M) High (H) . Medium (M)
Criteria 3 Low (L) Medium (M) Very low (VL) Very high (VH) . High (H)
Criteria 4 High (H) High (H) Low (L) Medium (M) . High (H)
. . . . . . Low (L)
Criteria n Very low (VL) Low (L) Very low (VL) High (H) . Very high (VH)

Table 2. Input form decision-maker for importance.

Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 . Criteria n

Criteria 1 – Medium (M) High (H) Low (L) . Very low (VL)
Criteria 2 Medium (M) – Medium (M) High (H) . Medium (M)
Criteria 3 Low (L) Medium (M) – Very high (VH) . High (H)
Criteria 4 High (H) High (H) Low (L) – . High (H)
. . . . . . Low (L)
Criteria n Very low (VL) Low (L) Very low (VL) High (H) . –

1. Identify the criteria and sub-criteria for the The implementation of FAHP uses the following
assessment of suppliers; steps:58
2. Based on relative importance, build pairwise
comparisons of the criteria in accomplishing the Step 1. The value of the fuzzy synthetic extent with
goal and calculate the weights or priorities of respect to the ith object is defined through equation
the criteria; (2)
3. Identify measures, which present the accom-
plishment of criteria by each supplier;
4. Based on step 3, for suppliers, build the pairwise " #1
X
m X
n X
m
comparisons of the relative importance with Si = Mgij  Mgij ð2Þ
regard to the criteria, and then calculate the cor- j=1 i=1 j=1
responding weights; Pm j
5. Based on the results of steps 2 and 4, for each To obtain j = 1 Mgi , a fuzzy addition operation of
supplier, calculate the weights in accomplishing m extent analysis values for a particular matrix is
the hierarchy goal. applied such that
!
X
m X
m X
m X
m
Fuzzy AHP approach Mgij = lj , mj , uj , j = 1, 2, . . . , m
j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1
Let X = x1, x2, ., xm be an object set and G = g1, g2,
., gn be a goal set. According to the method by ð3Þ
Chang,58 each object is taken and extent analysis for Pn Pm
each goal is performed, respectively. Therefore, m To calculate i=1 j=1 Mgij , the following fuzzy
extent analysis values for each object can be obtained addition operation of Mgij , (j = 1, 2, . . . , m) is found as
through equation (1) follows
!
Mgi1 , Mgi2 , . . . , Mgim , i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n ð1Þ X
n X
m X
n X
n X
n
Mgij = li , mi , ui , i = 1, 2, . . . , n
where Mgij , j = 1, 2, ., m, are triangular fuzzy numbers i=1 j=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
(TFNs) that contain parameters l, m, and u, which indi- ð4Þ
cate the least possible value, most possible value, and
upper possible value, respectively. A TFN is repre- The inverse of the vector is then computed using
sented as (l, m, u). equation (5)
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 3. Linguistic measure comparisons for the decision-

maker.

Cij VL L M H VH

VL ~1 ~3 ~5 ~7 ~9
L ~1=~3 ~1 ~3 ~5 ~7
M ~1=~5 ~1=~3 ~1 ~3 ~5
H ~1=~7 ~1=~5 ~1=~3 ~1 ~3
VH ~1=~9 ~1=~7 ~1=~5 ~1=~3 ~1

Figure 2. Intersection between M1 and M2. VL: very low; L: low; M: medium; H: high; VH: very high.

" #1  
X
n X
m
1 1 1 Table 4. Fuzzy number membership function.
Mgij = Pn , Pn , Pn ,
i=1 j=1 i = 1 ui i = 1 mi i = 1 li
Linguistic Fuzzy TFNs Reciprocal TFNs
where 8li , mi , ui . 0 terms no. fuzzy no.
ð5Þ Very low ~1 (1,1,2) ~1 (1,1,2)
importance (VL)
Step 2. The degree of possibility of Low ~3 (2,3,4) ~1=~3 (1/4,1/3,1/2)
M1 = ðl1 , m1 , u1 Þ ø M2 = ðl2 , m2 , u2 Þ is expressed importance (L)
through equation (6) Medium ~5 (4,5,6) ~1=~5 (1/6,1/5,1/4)
importance (M)
High ~7 (6,7,8) ~1=~7 (1/8,1/7,1/6)
importance (H)
V ðM1 ø M2 Þ = sup min (mM1 ð xÞ, mM2 ð yÞ ð6Þ Very high ~9 (8,9,9) ~1=~9 (1/9,1/9,1/8)
xøy
importance (VH)
where x and y are the values on the axis of membership TFN: triangular fuzzy number.
function. Equation (6) can be expressed through equa-
tions (7) and (8) as
 
W_ = d_ ðA1 Þ, d_ ðA2 Þ, . . . , d_ ðAn Þ ð11Þ
V ðM2 ø M1 Þ = hgtðM1 \ M2 Þ = mM2 ðd Þ ð7Þ
8 where Ai = ði = 1, 2, 3, . . . , nÞ are n elements.
< 1 if m2 ø m1
V ðM2 ø M1 Þ = 0 if l1 ø l2 ð8Þ
: l1 u2
if otherwise Step 4. Through normalization, the normalized
ðm2 u2 Þðm1 l1 Þ
weight vectors are given in equation (12)
Here, d is the ordinate of the highest intersection
point D between mM1 and mM2 (see Figure 2). To com-
pare M1 and M2 , we need the values of both W = ðd ðA1 Þ, d ðA2 Þ, . . . , d ðAn ÞÞT ð12Þ
V ðM1 ø M2 Þ and V ðM2 ø M1 Þ.
where W is a non-fuzzy number.
Step 3. The degree of possibility for a convex
fuzzy number greater than k convex numbers Step 5. Rank the normalized values to select the best
Mi ði = 1, 2, . . . , k Þ can be defined through equa- supplier.
tion (9)
The information elicitation from experts and users is
a very boring task, particularly when using the FAHP.
V ðM ø M1 , M2 , . . . , Mk Þ = V ½ðM ø M1 Þ and ðM ø M2 Þ, This needs developing many pairwise comparisons. To
and, . . . , andðM ø Mk Þ overcome this issue, Al-Ahmari57 suggested that for the
users and decision-makers, build a pairwise comparison
ð9Þ for the various measures of linguistic. This can be con-
Assume that ducted through a single table utilizing Table 2. The
pairwise comparison of the linguistic measures of the
d_ ðAi Þ = min V ðSi ø Sk Þ ð10Þ decision-maker is illustrated in Table 3, where Cij
denotes the importance of scale i with respect to scale j.
For k = 1, 2, . . . , n, k 6¼ i, the weight vector is given The TFNs for the fuzzy numbers are illustrated in
by equation (11) Table 4.
Alkahtani et al. 7

Fuzzy TOPSIS approach  

V~ = ~vij m 3 n ð20Þ
Fuzzy TOPSIS approach was developed by Chen2 to
fix MCDM problems under doubt. Linguistic variables Here, ~vij is given by equation (21)
are utilized by the decision-makers, Dr (r = 1, ., k), to
estimate the criteria weights and the ratings of alterna- ^
~vij = xij 3 w
~j ð21Þ
tives. Thus, W ~ rj denotes the weight of the jth criterion,
Cj (j = 1, ., m), specified by the rth decision-maker. Step 5. Identify the fuzzy positive ideal solution
Similarly, ~xrij denotes the rating of the ith supplier (alter- (FPIS, A + ) and the fuzzy negative ideal solution
natives), Ai (i = 1, ., n), regarding criterion j, specified (FNIS, A2) based on equations (22) and (23)
by the rth decision-maker. Given these, the approach
involves the following procedures: n o
A+ = ~v+1 , ~
v +
j , . . . , ~
v +
m ð22Þ
Step 1. Collect the criteria and sub-criteria weights n o
and ratings of alternatives that were offered by k A = ~v
1 ,~vj , ...,~ v
m ð23Þ
decision-makers, as shown in equations (13) and
(14), respectively where ~v+ v
j = ð1, 1, 1Þ and ~j = ð0, 0, 0Þ.

Step 6. Compute the distance dj+ and dj of each

1h i
alternative from ~v+ v
~j =
w ~1 + w
w ~ 2j +    + w~ kj ð13Þ j and ~j , respectively, based on
k j equations (24) and (25)
1h i
~xj = ~x1j + x2j +    + ~xkj ð14Þ
k

X
n
Step 2. Combine the fuzzy decision matrix of the cri- dj+ = dv ~vij , ~v+
j ð24Þ
~ ) and alternatives (D)
teria (W ~ based on equations j=1

(15) and (16) X

n

dj = dv ~vij , ~v
j ð25Þ
2 3 j=1
: : : :
6 x11 x12 x1j x1m 7 where d(.,.) denotes the distance between two fuzzy
6 7
6 : : : : 7 numbers based on a vertex approach. For TFNs, this
6 7
D=6
~
6 : : : : 77 ð15Þ can be shown by equation (26)
6 : : : : 7
6 7 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
iffi
4 : : : : 5 1h 2 2 2
d ð~x, ~zÞ = ðlx  lz Þ + ðm  mz Þ + ðux  uz Þ
xn1 xn2 xnj xnm 3
~ = ½w
w ~2 +    + w
~1 + w ~ m ð16Þ ð26Þ

Step 3. Using a linear scale transformation, normal- Step 7. Calculate the closeness coefficient, CCi ,
~
ize the fuzzy decision matrix of the alternatives (D). based on equation (27)
~
The normalized fuzzy decision matrix R is given by
equations (17)–(19) dj
CCi = ð27Þ
dj+ + dj
 
~ = ~rij
R ð17Þ
m3n
! Step 8. According to the closeness coefficient, CCi ,
lij mij uij
~rij = + , + , + and u+
j = maxi uij ðbenefitcriteriaÞ determine the ranking of alternatives in decreasing
uj uj uj order. The best alternative is the one closest to the
ð18Þ FPIS and farthest from the FNIS.
   
lj lj lj
~rij = , , and lj = maxi lij ðcostcriteriaÞ ð19Þ Case study
uij mij lij

Step 4. Calculate the weighted normalized decision

matrix, V~ , by multiplying the weights of the evalua-
tion criteria, w
~ j , by the elements ~rij of the normalized
fuzzy decision matrix, which is expressed through
equation (20)
Background
X company produces chemicals through six units
according to its annual report (2007): basic chemicals,
intermediates, polymers (polyolefins, PVC, and polye-
ster), specialized products, fertilizers, and metals (steel,
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

along with stakes in aluminum companies). It is one of Table 5. Criteria and sub-criteria of the case study.
the world’s largest makers of polyethylene and poly-
propylene, and the majority (70%) is owned by the Criteria Sub-criteria
Saudi government (company annual report, 2007). At Supplier performance Financial (FIN)
the end of each year, the company forms an expert criteria
committee to evaluate the performance of its suppliers Managerial (MS)
during the past year to reward the best supplier among Support resource (SR)
the list of competing suppliers for certain commodities. Quality systems and process (QS)
Product performance End use (EU)
The committee consists of employees from the purchas- criteria
ing department, research and development section, and Handling (HAN)
end users of the selected commodities. The aim of this Use in manufacturing (UIM)
process is to reward the best supplier and encourage Other business considerations (OBC)
Service performance Customer support (CSU)
the other suppliers to enhance their performance in
criteria
order to be eligible to supply the company with the Customer satisfiers (CST)
commodity in the future. As an example, the material Follow-up (FU)
(X) used for a spare part in a company catalyst plant is Professionalism (PRF)
considered as the area of application for the proposed Cost criteria Purchasing cost (PC)
Transportation cost (TRC)
method. The goal is to select the best supplier among
Storage cost (SC)
four competing suppliers. To apply this method, two Transaction processing cost (TPC)
questions should be answered. The first question is
how many suppliers will provide the material? Under a
single supplier, all quantities are ordered from one sup-
plier. Under multiple suppliers, different quantities supplier performance criteria are divided into finan-
are ordered from different suppliers due to certain cial strength, management approach and capability,
constraints. The second question is what are the cri- technical ability, support resources, and quality sys-
teria that will be used to evaluate and select the best tems. The product performance criteria are classified
supplier? For the first question, due to company’s into the end use, handling, use in manufacturing, and
security policy, and for internal reasons, material X other business considerations. The service perfor-
should be ordered from a single source. The criteria mance criteria are classified into customer support,
used to evaluate the best suppliers are those utilized customer satisfiers, follow-up, and professionalism.
by Kahraman et al.59 with certain modifications, as The cost criteria are divided into the purchase price,
agreed upon by the purchasing department, the deci- transportation cost, storage cost, and transaction
sion-maker, in the company. These criteria are processing cost. Table 5 shows the selected criteria
divided into supplier performance, product perfor- and sub-criteria of the case study. The AHP applied
mance, service performance, and cost criteria. The to the case study is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. AHP used in case study.

Alkahtani et al. 9

Table 6. TFN matrix relevant to the criteria and sub-criteria.

Criteria Importance SP PP SP CC

SP (4,5,6) (1,1,2) (1/6,1/5,1/4) (2,3,4) (1/4,1/3,1/2)

PP (8,9,9) (4,5,6) (1,1,2) (6,7,8) (2,3,4)
SP (2,3,4) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/8,1/7,1/6) (1,1,2) (1/6,1/5,1/4)
CC (6,7,8) (2,3,4) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (4,5,6) (1,1,2)
FIN MS QS SR
FIN (8,9,9) (1,1,2) (2,3,4) (1,1,2) (4,5,6)
MS (6,7,8) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1,1,2) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (2,3,4)
QS (8,9,9) (1,1,2) (2,3,4) (1,1,2) (4,5,6)
SR (4,5,6) (1/6,1/5,1/4) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/6,1/5,1/4) (1,1,2)
HAN UIM OBC EU
HAN (4,5,6) (1,1,2) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (2,3,4) (1/6,1/5,1/4)
UIM (6,7,8) (2,3,4) (1,1,2) (4,5,6) (1/4,1/3,1/2)
OBC (2,3,4) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/6,1/5,1/4) (1,1,2) (1/8,1/7,1/6)
EU (8,9,9) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (1,1,2)
FU CSU CST PRF
FU (6,7,8) (1,1,2) (1,1,2) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (2,3,4)
CSU (6,7,8) (1,1,2) (1,1,2) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (2,3,4)
CST (8,9,9) (2,3,4) (2,3,4) (1,1,2) (4,5,6)
PRF (4,5,6) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/6,1/5,1/4) (1,1,2)
PC TRC SC TPC
PC (6,7,8) (1,1,2) (1/6,1/5,1/4) (2,3,4) (1/4,1/3,1/2)
TRC (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (1,1,2) (6,7,8) (2,3,4)
SC (1,1,2) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/8,1/7,1/6) (1,1,2) (1/6,1/5,1/4)
TPC (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (4,5,6) (1,1,2)

TFN: triangular fuzzy number; FIN: financial; MS: managerial; QS: quality systems and process; SR: support resource; HAN: handling; UIM: use in
manufacturing; OBC: other business considerations; EU: end use; FU: follow-up; CSU: customer support; CST: customer satisfiers; PRF:
professionalism; PC: purchasing cost; TRC: transportation cost; SC: storage cost; TPC: transaction processing cost.

Data analysis SSC = ð3:42, 4:53, 6:75Þ  ð0:02, 0:03, 0:04Þ

To assess the suppliers according to the company’s = ð0:08, 0:14, 0:27Þ
selection criteria, measures of selected criteria need to SPP = ð13:00, 16:00, 20:00Þ  ð0:02, 0:03, 0:04Þ
be developed. A unanimity should be formed within = ð0:31, 0:51, 0:80Þ
the organization or team regarding the standards, mea-
SSp = ð1:54, 1:68, 2:92Þ  ð0:02, 0:03, 0:04Þ
sures, and approaches utilized to compare or rate sup-
pliers. A company needs to propose efficient measures = ð0:04, 0:05, 0:11Þ
for all of its chosen criteria. The decision-maker decides SCC = ð7:25, 9:33, 12:50Þ  ð0:02, 0:03, 0:04Þ
on the importance levels of the chosen criteria utilizing = ð0:17, 0:30, 0:50Þ
a scale in which VL = very low importance, L = low,
M = medium, H = high, and VH = very high. These The possibility degree of Si over Sj (i6¼j) can be
importance levels are transformed into their associated defined through equation (7). SSC ø SPP = 0 and
fuzzy numbers utilizing the proposed program. These SSC ø SSP = 1
criteria and sub-criteria with their importance and asso-
ciated fuzzy numbers are shown in Table 6. In addition, 0:17  0:27
SSC ø SCC = = 0:39
an evaluation of the suppliers regarding the sub-criteria ð0:14  0:27Þ  ð0:3  0:17Þ
of the main criteria is presented in Table 7. SPP ø SSC = 1, SPP ø SSP = 1, SPP ø SCC = 1
0:08  0:11
SSP ø SSC = = 0:28
Fuzzy AHP application. The fuzzy synthetic extent value ð0:05  0:11Þ  ð0:14  0:08Þ
regarding each criterion is computed utilizing the for- SSP ø SPP = 0, SSP ø SCC = 0
mula for the operations of algebraic of the fuzzy set and SCC ø SSC = 1, SCC ø SSp = 1
equation (2). The various values of the fuzzy synthetic
0:31  0:5
extent regarding the four main criteria are represented SCC ø SPP = = 0:47
by SSC, SPP, SSP, and SCC, respectively ð0:3  0:5Þ  ð0:51  0:31Þ
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 7. Supplier’s evaluation regarding the sub-criteria of the is the most convenient supplier for the special ‘‘finan-
criteria. cial aspect’’ criterion. All results of the identified sup-
pliers and the selected main and sub-criteria are
Criteria Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3 Supplier 4
presented in Table 8. Finally, the final normalized
FIN (6,7,8) (4,5,6) (8,9,9) (6,7,8) scores for all alternative suppliers are illustrated in the
MS (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (4,5,6) last row of Table 8 as the overall weight vectors for the
QS (8,9,9) (2,3,4) (8,9,9) (4,5,6) main criteria and suppliers. According to this final
SR (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (8,9,9) (1,1,2) score, supplier 3 obtains a value of 0.405 and is the best
HAN (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (6,7,8)
UIM (6,7,8) (8,9,9) (8,9,9) (4,5,6)
supplier for this case study.
OBC (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (8,9,9)
EU (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (8,9,9) (6,7,8)
AHP application. The given case study was solved utiliz-
FU (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (4,5,6)
CSU (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (6,7,8) (4,5,6) ing AHP. With AHP, the preference degree of the
CST (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (8,9,9) (6,7,8) decision-maker regarding the selection of each pairwise
PRF (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (8,9,9) (6,7,8) comparison is constructed using crisp values acquired
PC (8,9,9) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (2,3,4) from Table 6. The importance scale is transformed into
TRC (6,7,8) (8,9,9) (4,5,6) (6,7,8)
crisp values as VL = 1, L = 3, M = 5, H = 7, and
SC (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (8,9,9) (4,5,6)
TPC (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (8,9,9) VH = 9. The pairwise comparisons are performed
according to the recent developments in AHP metho-
FIN: financial; MS: managerial; QS: quality systems and process; SR: dology.57 The pairwise comparisons between each of
support resource; HAN: handling; UIM: use in manufacturing; OBC:
the two selected criteria are made utilizing the values of
other business considerations; EU: end use; FU: follow-up; CSU:
customer support; CST: customer satisfiers; PRF: professionalism; PC: their importance made from the following formula
purchasing cost; TRC: transportation cost; SC: storage cost; TPC: IF objective(i) importance ø objective(j) importance
transaction processing cost. THEN
PW(i, j) = objective(i) importance 2 objective(j)
importance + 1
Using equation (8), the minimum possibility degree PW(j, i) = 1/PW(i, j)
can be presented as follows ELSE
PW(j, i) = objective(j) importance 2 objective(i)
V ðSSC ø SPP , SSP , SCC Þ = minð0, 1, 0:40Þ = 0 importance + 1
V ðSPP ø SSC , SSP , SCC Þ = minð1, 1, 1Þ = 1 PW(i, j) = 1/PW(j, i)
END IF
V ðSSP ø SSC , SPP , SCC Þ = minð0:27, 0, 0Þ = 0
where PW(j, i) is the value of pairwise comparison
V ðSCC ø SSC , SPP , SSP Þ = minð1, 0:47, 1Þ = 0, 47 between i and j. Table 9 shows the evaluation matrix
relevant to the main criteria and sub-criteria.
Thus, the weight vector is given as
The weight vectors for the sub-criteria are calcu-
W_ = ð0, 1, 0, 047ÞT , and after normalization process, lated. Table 10 shows the summary of the resulting
the weight vector regarding the decision criteria SSC, weight vectors for the main criteria, sub-criteria, and
SPP, SSP, and SCC can be represented as follows overall weight vectors. It is clear that the ‘‘product per-
formance’’ is the most important criterion for company
W = ð0:0, 0:68, 0:00, 0:32Þ
with regard to the selected material. According to the
The above weighed vector indicates that the second ranking of the suppliers, supplier 3 is the best supplier
criterion (product performance) is the most important for this case study with the largest overall score of
criterion selected. According to this evaluation, the two 0.413. The criteria of the firm selected are consistent
main criteria in the first level are ‘‘product perfor- with the supplier capabilities. Although supplier 3 did
mance’’ and ‘‘cost criteria’’ with an importance value of not have the highest weight with respect to the cost cri-
0.68 and 0.32, respectively. teria (for both FAHP and AHP), it is still the best sup-
The developed computerized tool conducts the plier among all of the competing suppliers regarding
desired computations based on the various procedure the overall evaluation.
of FAHP to get the weight vectors of every evaluated
alternative supplier for every chosen criterion. Fuzzy TOPSIS application. According to the linguistic
The weight vector of the four suppliers (illustrated in terms, the decision-makers perform assessment of the
Table 8) regarding to the ‘‘financial aspect’’ criterion is weight of the criteria and the supplier’s ratings; TFNs
calculated as (0.208, 0.00, 0.498, 0.294). It is clear from were utilized to identify the linguistic values of these
the above weighed vector that supplier 3 obtains a variables, as indicated in Tables 6 and 7. Table 11
value of 0.498 (the maximum value in this vector) and shows the TFN aggregation of the judgments and
Alkahtani et al. 11

Table 8. Fuzzy AHP results for the case study.

Criteria Weight Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3 Supplier 4

FAHP results (weight vectors for sub-criteria of SC criteria and suppliers, and normalized score)
FIN 0.421 0.208 0.0 0.498 0.294
MS 0.158 0.162 0.162 0.464 0.211
QS 0.421 0.486 0 0.486 0.027
SR 0 0 0.391 0.609 0
Normalization – 0.318 0.026 0.488 0.169
FAHP results (weight vectors for sub-criteria of PP criteria and suppliers, and normalized score)
HAN 0 0 0.037 0.408 0.555
UIM 0.32 0.044 0.478 0.478 0
OBC 0 0 0 0.312 0.688
EU 0.68 0 0 0.5 0.5
Normalization – 0.014 0.153 0.493 0.34
FAHP results (weight vectors for sub-criteria of SP criteria and suppliers, and normalized score)
FU 0.228 0.228 0 0.545 0.228
CSU 0.228 0 0.452 0.452 0.096
CST 0.545 0 0 0.64 0.36
PRF 0 0 0 0.649 0.351
Normalization – 0.052 0.103 0.576 0.269
FAHP results (weight vectors for sub-criteria of CC criteria and suppliers, and normalized score)
PC 0.68 0.68 0 0.32 0
TRC 0 0.246 0.568 0 0.187
SC 0 0 0.32 0.68 0
TPC 0.32 0.005 0.168 0 0.826
Normalization – 0.464 0.054 0.218 0.264
FAHP results (overall weight vectors for main criteria and suppliers, and normalized score)
SP 0 0.318 0.026 0.488 0.169
PP 0.68 0.014 0.153 0.493 0.34
SP 0 0.052 0.103 0.576 0.269
CC 0.32 0.464 0.054 0.218 0.264
Normalization – 0.158 0.121 0.405 0.316

AHP: analytic hierarchy process; FAHP: fuzzy AHP; FIN: financial; MS: managerial; QS: quality systems and process; SR: support resource; HAN:
handling; UIM: use in manufacturing; OBC: other business considerations; EU: end use; FU: follow-up; CSU: customer support; CST: customer
satisfiers; PRF: professionalism; PC: purchasing cost; TRC: transportation cost; SC: storage cost; TPC: transaction processing cost.

normalized fuzzy decision matrix of the weights of the
main criteria, sub-criteria, and the supplier’s ratings.
The weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix is
shown in Table 12. Based on the study by Chen,2 FPIS,
A + and FNIS, A2 are expressed as
+
A = fð1, 1, 1Þ, ð1, 1, 1Þ, ð1, 1, 1Þ, ð1, 1, 1Þg
A = fð0, 0, 0Þ, ð0, 0, 0Þ, ð0, 0, 0Þ, ð0, 0, 0Þg
The distances dj+ and dj of the ratings of each sup-
plier from A + and A2, computed based on equations
(24)–(26), are illustrated in Tables 13 and 14, respec-
tively. The overall performance of every supplier is rep-
resented by CCi, which is computed in equation (27)
and shown in Table 15. Finally, this computation leads
to the outranking illustrated in Table 15, which means
that supplier 3 is the best alternative, followed by sup-
pliers 4, 2, and 1, in that order.
In the final obtained results for FAHP, AHP, and
fuzzy TOPSIS, the alternative suppliers are ranked
based on their respective weights regarding the
selected criteria by the decision-maker (see Table 16
and Figure 4). The presented methodology concluded
that supplier 3 is considered in the case study.
Comparative analysis of the proposed
approaches
The comparison of all considered approaches was con-
ducted based on the following factors: agility during the
decision process, computational complexity, number of
criteria and alternative suppliers, and adequacy in sup-
porting a group decision.
Agility during the decision process
The number of judgments desired from decision-makers
for all approaches is assessed by this factor. Let m be
the number of criteria, and n be the number of suppli-
ers, in the AHP and fuzzy AHP approaches, for a deci-
sion matrix Ai 3 i, the required number of judgments is
as follows
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 9. Evaluation matrix relevant to the main criteria and Considering equations (29) and (30), Figure 5 shows
sub-criteria. the number of judgments for two techniques when the
number of alternatives and the criteria differ from two
Criteria Importance SP PP SP CC
to nine. It can be observed that, as the number of alter-
SP 5 1 1/5 3 1/3 natives and criteria increase, the number of desired
PP 9 5 1 7 3 judgments when utilizing AHP and fuzzy AHP is large
SP 3 1/3 1/7 1 1/5 and more prominent than when utilizing fuzzy
CC 7 3 1/3 5 1 TOPSIS. Thus, in the case study, fuzzy TOPSIS needed
FIN MS QS SR
FIN 9 1 3 1 5 84 judgments, whereas AHP and fuzzy AHP needed
MS 7 1/3 1 1/3 3 126 judgments. Thus, it can be stated that the fuzzy
QS 9 1 3 1 5 TOPSIS strategy performs better than the AHP and
SR 5 1/5 1/3 1/5 1 fuzzy AHP strategies in terms of the level of communi-
HAN UIM OBC EU cation with decision-makers for data gathering. Based
HAN 5 1 1/3 3 1/5
UIM 7 3 1 5 1/3 on previous results, fuzzy TOPSIS provides more note-
OBC 3 1/3 1/5 1 1/7 worthy dexterity in the choice procedure than AHP
EU 9 5 3 7 1 and fuzzy AHP.
FU CSU CST PRF
FU 7 1 1 1/3 3
CSU 7 1 1 1/3 3
CST 9 3 3 1 5
Computational complexity
PRF 5 1/3 1/3 1/5 1 In this section, the complexity of computation of all
PC TRC SC TPC techniques is assessed considering the time intricacy.
PC 7 1 5 7 3
TRC 3 1/5 1 3 1/3 Similar to the study of Chang,60 the time intricacy, T,
SC 1 1/7 1/3 1 1/5 is assessed in light of the number of augmentations
TPC 5 1/3 3 5 1 inside the calculations. In this article, logical and expo-
nentiation operations are moreover utilized as a gauge
FIN: financial; MS: managerial; QS: quality systems and process; SR:
support resource; HAN: handling; UIM: use in manufacturing; OBC:
of the time complexity. Considering there are n elective
other business considerations; EU: end use; FU: follow-up; CSU: suppliers, m criteria, and ms sub-criteria, the AHP tech-
customer support; CST: customer satisfiers; PRF: professionalism; PC: nique requires m(m + 1) + n(m + 1) operations to
purchasing cost; TRC: transportation cost; SC: storage cost; TPC: determine the AHP-engineered degree for all choice
transaction processing cost. grids, and finally nm operations are required to process
the execution worldwide. In this manner, the time com-
plexity (TAHP) of the AHP approach is communicated
i1
JAi, i = i ð28Þ through equation (31)
2
Because there are m matrices of size n 3 n (one for TAHP = mðm + 1Þ + nðm + 1Þ + nm
ð31Þ
every decision criterion), moreover to the decision = mðm + 2n + 1Þ + n
matrix of size m 3 m with regard to the criteria weight,
and ms 3 ms with regard to the sub-criteria weight, the The fuzzy AHP approach requires 6m(n + 1) opera-
total required number of judgments is given in equation tions to calculate the fuzzy synthetic extent to all the
(29) decision matrices, nm(n2 1) + n(n2 1) to calculate the
possibility degrees, n(m + 1) to normalize the vector
m1 Xm
msi  1 n1Xm W_ , and finally nm operations to calculate the overall
Jn,AHP
m, ms = m + msi +n msi performance. Therefore, the time complexity, TFuzzy
2 i=1
2 2 i=1
AHP, of the fuzzy AHP approach is expressed using
ð29Þ equation (32)
In the fuzzy TOPSIS approach, a total of m judg- TFuzzyAHP = 6mðn + 1Þ + nmðn  1Þ + nðn  1Þ
ments for each of the n alternatives are desired, more-
over to the decision matrix of size m 3 m with regard to + nðm  1Þ + nm ð32Þ
2
the criteria weight, and ms 3 ms with regard to the sub- TFuzzyAHP = n ðm + 1Þ + mð7n + 6Þ
criteria weight, it can be represented as equation (30)
Moreover, fuzzy TOPSIS approach needs 3nm oper-
X
m X
m ations to calculate the normalized decision matrix, 3nm
Jn,FuzzyTOPSIS
m, ms =m+ msi + n msi ð30Þ operations to calculate the weighted decision matrix,
i=1 i=1
7nm operations to calculate the distances d + , and 7nm
operations to calculate the distances d2. Therefore, the
Alkahtani et al. 13

Table 10. AHP results for the case study.

Criteria Weight Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3 Supplier 4

AHP results (weight vectors for sub-criteria of SC criteria and suppliers, and normalized score)
FIN 0.390 0.2 0.078 0.522 0.2
MS 0.152 0.167 0.167 0.5 0.167
QS 0.390 0.423 0.051 0.423 0.104
SR 0.068 0.097 0.209 0.643 0.051
Weight vectors – 0.275 0.090 0.488 0.147
AHP results (weight vectors for sub-criteria of PP criteria and suppliers, and normalized score)
HAN 0.118 0.068 0.152 0.39 0.39
UIM 0.262 0.152 0.39 0.39 0.068
OBC 0.055 0.095 0.095 0.249 0.56
EU 0.565 0.055 0.118 0.565 0.262
Weight vectors – 0.084 0.192 0.481 0.243
AHP results (weight vectors for sub-criteria of SP criteria and suppliers, and normalized score)
FU 0.200 0.2 0.078 0.522 0.2
CSU 0.200 0.068 0.39 0.39 0.152
CST 0.522 0.055 0.118 0.565 0.262
PRF 0.078 0.095 0.095 0.56 0.249
Weight vectors – 0.090 0.163 0.521 0.227
AHP results (weight vectors for sub-criteria of CC criteria and suppliers, and normalized score)
PC 0.565 0.565 0.118 0.262 0.055
TRC 0.118 0.2 0.522 0.078 0.2
SC 0.055 0.055 0.262 0.565 0.118
TPC 0.262 0.076 0.191 0.076 0.657
Weight vectors – 0.366 0.193 0.208 0.233
AHP results (overall weight vectors for main criteria and suppliers, and normalized score)
SP 0.118 0.275 0.09 0.488 0.147
PP 0.565 0.084 0.192 0.481 0.243
SP 0.055 0.09 0.163 0.521 0.227
CC 0.262 0.366 0.193 0.208 0.233
Weight vectors – 0.181 0.179 0.413 0.228

AHP: analytic hierarchy process; FIN: financial; MS: managerial; QS: quality systems and process; SR: support resource; HAN: handling; UIM: use in
manufacturing; OBC: other business considerations; EU: end use; FU: follow-up; CSU: customer support; CST: customer satisfiers; PRF:
professionalism; PC: purchasing cost; TRC: transportation cost; SC: storage cost; TPC: transaction processing cost.

time complexity, TFuzzy TOPSIS, of the fuzzy TOPSIS
approach is expressed through equation (33)
TFuzzyTOPSIS = 3nm + 3nm + 7nm + 7nm = 20nm ð33Þ
Figure 6 shows the variety of complexity as an ele-
ment of the number of choices for the various number
of criteria for all techniques. It can be observed that,
overall, AHP shows better performance than fuzzy
AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS; additionally, fuzzy AHP
shows better performance than fuzzy TOPSIS. In the
case study, the AHP strategy needed 404 operations,
the fuzzy AHP technique needed 816 operations, and
the fuzzy TOPSIS technique required 1280 operations.
Number of criteria and alternative suppliers
The fuzzy TOPSIS strategy does not force any confine-
ments regarding the number of options or criteria uti-
lized as a part of the determination procedure.
However, a similar examination of the AHP and fuzzy
AHP approaches shows that they do force certain
impediments with regard to the number of criteria and
options. Saaty61 proposed that the number of criteria
or other options to be contrasted when utilizing AHP
be restricted to nine so as to not force a trade-off with
human judgment and its consistency. This recommen-
dation is applied similar to the fuzzy AHP approach.
In the applied case, using the four main criteria, four
sub-criteria for each main criterion, and four choices,
the utilizations of the AHP and fuzzy AHP methodolo-
gies were impeccably feasible. Despite the fact that the
restriction regarding the number of main and sub-
criteria can be reduced by applying them to the AHP
and fuzzy AHP pecking-order structures, the number
of options forces a genuine confinement. Consequently,
the decision of the technique relies on the particularities
of the current conditions. For example, while choosing
another supplier for another item, with numerous
potential providers, the use of fuzzy TOPSIS results in
a superior decision.
Adequacy in supporting group decision-making
All approaches allow judgment gathering for greater
than one decision-maker. According to the fuzzy
 14 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Weights of criteria 3 sub-criteria

TOPSIS approach, gathering of various judgments is
performed based on equations (34) and (35) for the cri-

FIN: financial; MS: managerial; QS: quality systems and process; SR: support resource; HAN: handling; UIM: use in manufacturing; OBC: other business considerations; EU: end use; FU: follow-up; CSU:
teria weights and the alternative supplier ratings
(0.198,0.309,0.444) 1h 1 i
(0.395,0.556,0.667)
(0.296,0.432,0.593)

(0.593,0.778,0.889)

(0.148,0.259,0.395)
(0.198,0.333,0.444)
(0.099,0.185,0.296)

(0.074,0.086,0.198)
(0.148,0.259,0.395)
(0.395,0.556,0.667)

(0.395,0.556,0.667)

(0.198,0.333,0.444)

(0.148,0.259,0.395)

(0.296,0.432,0.593)
~ 2j +    + w
~ kj ð34Þ

(0.444,0.605,0.79)
~j =
w ~j + w
w
k
1h i
(0.79,1,1) ~ ij = ~x1j + ~xrj +    + w
w ~ kj ð35Þ
k
here, k indicates the decision-makers.
In the case of fuzzy AHP, despite the fact that this is
not expressly considered in the technique proposed by
(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.222,0.333,0.444)

(0.667,0.778,0.889)
Weights of criteria

customer support; CST: customer satisfiers; PRF: professionalism; PC: purchasing cost; TRC: transportation cost; SC: storage cost; TPC: transaction processing cost.
Chang,60 the author recommends that a collection be
made by utilizing the mathematical average of the judg-
(0.889,1,1)

ments. Because the measure of information desired by

the fuzzy AHP technique is more noteworthy than that
desired by fuzzy TOPSIS, expanding the number of
decision-makers will bring about a larger increment in
Weights of sub-criteria

the time unpredictability of fuzzy AHP when con-

trasted with the fuzzy TOPSIS strategy. In this manner,
(0.667,0.778,0.889)

(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.667,0.778,0.889)

(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.667,0.778,0.889)

(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.111,0.111,0.222)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)

(0.667,0.778,0.889)

(0.444,0.556,0.667)

although both techniques support group decision-mak-

Table 11. Fuzzy numbers and normalized fuzzy decision matrix of the aggregated ratings of the alternative suppliers.

ing, due to the effect on the time complexity, the fuzzy

(0.889,1,1)

(0.889,1,1)

(0.889,1,1)
(0.889,1,1)

TOPSIS strategy is determined to be the best. Despite

the fact that both strategies register a collection in light
of the fuzzy arithmetic mean, an optional approach is
weighting the judgments of the distinctive decision-
(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.111,0.111,0.222)
(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.667,0.778,0.889)

(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)

makers and the total information by determining the

weighted average, for example, the procurement crew
A4 (Supplier 4)

will be better prepared to judge the execution of the

(0.889,1,1)

(0.889,1,1)

suppliers, and in this way, their judgments may be

more significant than those of others not as familiar
with the acquisition process. Table 17 shows the sum-
marized findings for comparative analysis of AHP,
(0.667,0.778,0.889)

(0.667,0.778,0.889)

(0.667,0.778,0.889)

(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.667,0.778,0.889)

(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.222,0.333,0.444)
(0.667,0.778,0.889)

fuzzy AHP, and fuzzy TOPSIS. Note that the com-

parative results will be affected if the input data are
A3 (Supplier 3)

changed.
(0.889,1,1)

(0.889,1,1)

(0.889,1,1)

(0.889,1,1)

(0.889,1,1)
(0.889,1,1)

(0.889,1,1)
(0.889,1,1)

Conclusion and future work

In this article, an MCDM tool was developed to select
(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)
(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)

(0.444,0.556,0.667)

the best supplier at X company. To develop this tool,

A2 (Supplier 2)

two questions were answered. First, what criteria

should be considered to evaluate each supplier? Second,
(0.889,1,1)

(0.889,1,1)

what methodology should be used to select the best

supplier? A literature review was conducted regarding
these two questions. Several various approaches have
been proposed, including the AHP, fuzzy AHP, and
(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.222,0.333,0.444)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)
(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)
(0.444,0.556,0.667)

(0.667,0.778,0.889)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)
(0.222,0.333,0.444)

fuzzy TOPSIS. Because classical AHP does not reflect

A1 (Supplier 1)

the human thought process, the fuzzy AHP method

(0.889,1,1)

(0.889,1,1)

was proposed to overcome the weakness of classic

AHP. Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS have been used
to assist decision-makers in companies in supplier selec-
tion process. The proposed methodology combines
databases for suppliers obtained from experts and pre-
Criteria

HAN

vious studies, along with MCDM tools (AHP, fuzzy

OBC

TRC
CSU

TPC
CST
UIM

PRF
FIN

QS
MS

PC
EU
FU

SC
SR

AHP, and fuzzy TOPSIS) to be used for evaluations

Alkahtani et al. 15

Table 12. Weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix.

Criteria A1 A2 A3 A4

FIN (0.263,0.432,0.593) (0.176,0.309,0.444) (0.351,0.556,0.667) (0.263,0.432,0.593)

MS (0.132,0.24,0.395) (0.132,0.24,0.395) (0.198,0.336,0.527) (0.132,0.24,0.395)
QS (0.351,0.556,0.667) (0.088,0.185,0.296) (0.351,0.556,0.667) (0.176,0.309,0.444)
SR (0.044,0.103,0.198) (0.088,0.171,0.296) (0.176,0.309,0.444) (0.022,0.034,0.099)
HAN (0.088,0.185,0.296) (0.176,0.309,0.444) (0.263,0.432,0.593) (0.263,0.432,0.593)
UIM (0.395,0.605,0.79) (0.527,0.778,0.889) (0.527,0.778,0.889) (0.263,0.432,0.593)
OBC (0.088,0.185,0.296) (0.088,0.185,0.296) (0.132,0.259,0.395) (0.176,0.333,0.444)
EU (0.176,0.333,0.444) (0.351,0.556,0.667) (0.702,1,1) (0.527,0.778,0.889)
FU (0.066,0.144,0.263) (0.033,0.086,0.176) (0.099,0.202,0.351) (0.066,0.144,0.263)
CSU (0.033,0.086,0.176) (0.099,0.202,0.351) (0.099,0.202,0.351) (0.066,0.144,0.263)
CST (0.044,0.111,0.198) (0.088,0.185,0.296) (0.176,0.333,0.444) (0.132,0.259,0.395)
PRF (0.044,0.103,0.198) (0.044,0.103,0.198) (0.088,0.185,0.296) (0.066,0.144,0.263)
PC (0.395,0.605,0.79) (0.198,0.336,0.527) (0.296,0.471,0.702) (0.099,0.202,0.351)
TRC (0.099,0.202,0.351) (0.132,0.259,0.395) (0.066,0.144,0.263) (0.099,0.202,0.351)
SC (0.016,0.029,0.088) (0.049,0.067,0.176) (0.066,0.086,0.198) (0.033,0.048,0.132)
TPC (0.066,0.144,0.263) (0.132,0.24,0.395) (0.066,0.144,0.263) (0.263,0.432,0.593)

FIN: financial; MS: managerial; QS: quality systems and process; SR: support resource; HAN: handling; UIM: use in manufacturing; OBC: other
business considerations; EU: end use; FU: follow-up; CSU: customer support; CST: customer satisfiers; PRF: professionalism; PC: purchasing cost;
TRC: transportation cost; SC: storage cost; TPC: transaction processing cost.

Table 13. Rating distances of every alternative from Table 14. Ratings distances of every alternative from A2
A + regarding every criterion. regarding every criterion.

Criteria d (A1, A + ) d (A2, A + ) d (A3, A + ) d (A4, A + ) Criteria d (A1, A2) d (A2, A2) d (A3, A2) d (A4, A2)

FIN 0.586 0.699 0.493 0.586 FIN 0.450 0.328 0.540 0.450
MS 0.752 0.752 0.660 0.752 MS 0.278 0.278 0.378 0.278
QS 0.493 0.815 0.493 0.699 QS 0.540 0.208 0.540 0.328
SR 0.887 0.819 0.699 0.949 SR 0.131 0.204 0.328 0.062
HAN 0.815 0.699 0.586 0.586 HAN 0.208 0.328 0.450 0.450
UIM 0.434 0.309 0.309 0.586 UIM 0.618 0.747 0.747 0.450
OBC 0.815 0.815 0.746 0.691 OBC 0.208 0.208 0.283 0.336
EU 0.691 0.493 0.172 0.309 EU 0.336 0.540 0.912 0.747
FU 0.846 0.904 0.790 0.846 FU 0.177 0.115 0.241 0.177
CSU 0.904 0.790 0.790 0.846 CSU 0.115 0.241 0.241 0.177
CST 0.885 0.815 0.691 0.746 CST 0.133 0.208 0.336 0.283
PRF 0.887 0.887 0.815 0.846 PRF 0.131 0.131 0.208 0.177
PC 0.434 0.660 0.537 0.790 PC 0.618 0.378 0.517 0.241
TRC 0.790 0.746 0.846 0.790 TRC 0.241 0.283 0.177 0.241
SC 0.956 0.904 0.885 0.930 SC 0.054 0.112 0.130 0.083
TPC 0.846 0.752 0.846 0.586 TPC 0.177 0.278 0.177 0.450
d+
j 12.022 11.859 10.358 11.539 d
j 4.416 4.587 6.207 4.930

FIN: financial; MS: managerial; QS: quality systems and process;
SR: support resource; HAN: handling; UIM: use in manufacturing;
OBC: other business considerations; EU: end use; FU: follow-up;
CSU: customer support; CST: customer satisfiers; PRF: professionalism;
PC: purchasing cost; TRC: transportation cost; SC: storage cost;
TPC: transaction processing cost.
FIN: financial; MS: managerial; QS: quality systems and process;
SR: support resource; HAN: handling; UIM: use in manufacturing;
OBC: other business considerations; EU: end use; FU: follow-up;
CSU: customer support; CST: customer satisfiers; PRF: professionalism;
PC: purchasing cost; TRC: transportation cost; SC: storage cost;
TPC: transaction processing cost.

and comparisons of the criteria and alternative suppli-
ers of different companies. In the proposed methodol-
ogy, both qualitative and quantitative factors of the
system criteria and supplier benefits are considered.
This methodology was supported using a program to
facilitate the application and supply the desired compu-
tational precision.
A real case study was presented in this article to
validate the suggested methodology. One material
(X) used in a spare part was selected from the com-
pany plant. Four competing suppliers were evalu-
ated against four main criteria, each of which
contains four sub-criteria. It was found that supplier
3 was evaluated to be the best among all of the
16 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 15. Outranking of alternative suppliers based on fuzzy Table 16. Overall supplier scores using AHP, fuzzy AHP, and
TOPSIS. fuzzy TOPSIS.

Supplier d+
j d
j CCi Rank Suppliers AHP Fuzzy AHP Fuzzy TOPSIS

A1 (Supplier 1) 12.022 4.416 0.269 4 Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
A2 (Supplier 2) 11.859 4.587 0.279 3
A3 (Supplier 3) 10.358 6.207 0.375 1 Supplier 1 0.181 3 0.158 3 0.269 4
A4 (Supplier 4) 11.539 4.930 0.299 2 Supplier 2 0.179 4 0.121 4 0.279 3
Supplier 3 0.413 1 0.405 1 0.375 1
TOPSIS: technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution. Supplier 4 0.228 2 0.316 2 0.299 2

AHP: analytic hierarchy process; TOPSIS: technique for order of

preference by similarity to ideal solution.

Figure 4. Overall supplier scores using AHP, fuzzy AHP, and fuzzy TOPSIS.

Figure 5. Comparative analysis with respect to agility during the decision process.

competing suppliers with regard to all of the pro- complexity, AHP performs better than fuzzy AHP
posed approaches. However, the comparative analy- and fuzzy TOPSIS. Moreover, the fuzzy TOPSIS
sis showed that, in terms of computational approach is better suited to the supplier selection
Alkahtani et al. 17

Figure 6. Comparative analysis with respect to the time complexity.

Table 17. Summarized comparative analysis of AHP, fuzzy AHP, and fuzzy TOPSIS.

Parameters AHP Fuzzy AHP Fuzzy TOPSIS

Agility during the decision – – Shows better performance than

process AHP and fuzzy AHP
Computational complexity Shows better Shows better performance than –
performance fuzzy TOPSIS
than fuzzy AHP
and fuzzy
TOPSIS
Number of criteria and – – Shows better performance than
alternative suppliers AHP and fuzzy AHP
Adequacy in supporting group – – Shows better performance than
decision-making AHP and fuzzy AHP

AHP: analytic hierarchy process; TOPSIS: technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution.

problem with respect to agility during the decision Declaration of conflicting interests
process, the number of criteria and alternative sup- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
pliers, and adequacy with regard to the support respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
group decision. Therefore, this article contributes to article.
the introduction of a methodology for helping prac-
titioners and researchers select more efficient meth- Funding
ods to the supplier selection problem. An expansion
of the research reported in this thesis can evolve in The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
the following directions:
article: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship
of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding
1. The suggested methodology can be expanded to this work through the Research Project No. NFG-15-03-09.
cover multiple suppliers and assist decision-
makers in determining different quoted quanti- ORCID iDs
ties from each supplier.
2. The suggested methodology can be extended to Mohammed Alkahtani https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7343-
9098
cover multiple layers of criteria.
Abdulrahman Al-Ahmari https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
3. The suggested methodology can be applied to
3079-0141
different selection techniques. Husam Kaid https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3608-013X
18
References
1. Nydick RL and Hill RP. Using the analytic hierarchy
process to structure the supplier selection procedure.
J Supply Chain Manage 1992; 28: 31–36.
2. Chen C-T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-
making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Set Syst 2000;
114: 1–9.
3. Sanayei A, Mousavi SF and Yazdankhah A. Group deci-
sion making process for supplier selection with VIKOR
under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 2010; 37:
24–30.
4. Konidari P and Mavrakis D. A multi-criteria evaluation
method for climate change mitigation policy instruments.
Energ Policy 2007; 35: 6235–6257.
5. Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, et al. PRO-
METHEE: a comprehensive literature review on meth-
odologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 2010; 200:
198–215.
6. Hermans E, Brijs T, Wets G, et al. Benchmarking road
safety: lessons to learn from a data envelopment analysis.
Accid Anal Prev 2009; 41: 174–182.
7. Qin X-S, Huang GH, Chakma A, et al. A MCDM-based
expert system for climate-change impact assessment and
adaptation planning —a case study for the Georgia
Basin, Canada. Expert Syst Appl 2008; 34: 2164–2179.
8. Chen Y, Okudan GE and Riley DR. Decision support
for construction method selection in concrete buildings:
prefabrication adoption and optimization. Automat
Constr 2010; 19: 665–675.
9. Li H and Sun J. Ranking-order case-based reasoning for
financial distress prediction. Knowl-Based Syst 2008; 21:
868–878.
10. Fishburn PC. Conjoint measurement in utility theory
with incomplete product sets. J Math Psychol 1967; 4:
104–119.
11. Balmat J-F, Lafont F, Maifret R, et al. A decision-
making system to maritime risk assessment. Ocean Eng
2011; 38: 171–176.
12. Weber CA, Current JR and Benton W. Vendor selection
criteria and methods. Eur J Oper Res 1991; 50: 2–18.
13. Chen C-T, Lin C-T and Huang S-F. A fuzzy approach
for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain man-
agement. Int J Prod Econ 2006; 102: 289–301.
14. Ghodsypour SH and O’Brien C. A decision support sys-
tem for supplier selection using an integrated analytic
hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod
Econ 1998; 56: 199–212.
15. Chan FT and Kumar N. Global supplier development
considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based
approach. Omega 2007; 35: 417–431.
16. Huang SH and Keskar H. Comprehensive and configur-
able metrics for supplier selection. Int J Prod Econ 2007;
105: 510–523.
17. Xia W and Wu Z. Supplier selection with multiple cri-
teria in volume discount environments. Omega 2007; 35:
494–504.
18. Chan FT, Kumar N, Tiwari M, et al. Global supplier
selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Int J Prod Res 2008;
46: 3825–3857.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
19. Ustun O and Demı EA. An integrated multi-objective
decision-making process for multi-period lot-sizing with
supplier selection. Omega 2008; 36: 509–521.
20. Ha SH and Krishnan R. A hybrid approach to supplier
selection for the maintenance of a competitive supply
chain. Expert Syst Appl 2008; 34: 1303–1311.
21. Lee AH. A fuzzy supplier selection model with the con-
sideration of benefits, opportunities, costs and risks.
Expert Syst Appl 2009; 36: 2879–2893.
22. Luthra S, Govindan K, Kannan D, et al. An integrated
framework for sustainable supplier selection and evalua-
tion in supply chains. J Clean Prod 2017; 140: 1686–1698.
23. Mandal A and Deshmukh S. Vendor selection using
interpretive structural modelling (ISM). Int J Oper Prod
Manage 1994; 14: 52–59.
24. Kannan G, Haq AN, Sasikumar P, et al. Analysis and
selection of green suppliers using interpretative structural
modelling and analytic hierarchy process. Int J Manage
Decis Mak 2008; 9: 163–182.
25. Min H. International supplier selection: a multi-attribute
utility approach. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manage 1994;
24: 24–33.
26. Rao C, Xiao X, Goh M, et al. Compound mechanism
design of supplier selection based on multi-attribute auc-
tion and risk management of supply chain. Comput Ind
Eng 2017; 105: 63–75.
27. Mani V, Agrawal R and Sharma V. Supplier selection
using social sustainability: AHP based approach in India.
Int Strateg Manage Rev 2014; 2: 98–112.
28. Deng X, Hu Y, Deng Y, et al. Supplier selection using
AHP methodology extended by D numbers. Expert Syst
Appl 2014; 41: 156–167.
29. Rezaei J, Fahim PB and Tavasszy L. Supplier selection in
the airline retail industry using a funnel methodology:
conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHP. Expert
Syst Appl 2014; 41: 8165–8179.
30. Dweiri F, Kumar S, Khan SA, et al. Designing an inte-
grated AHP based decision support system for supplier
selection in automotive industry. Expert Syst Appl 2016;
62: 273–283.
31. Lo S-C and Sudjatmika FV. Solving multi-criteria sup-
plier segmentation based on the modified FAHP for sup-
ply chain management: a case study. Soft Comput 2016;
20: 4981–4990.
32. Chaudhry SS, Forst FG and Zydiak JL. Vendor selection
with price breaks. Eur J Oper Res 1993; 70: 52–66.
33. Weber CA, Current JR and Desai A. Non-cooperative
negotiation strategies for vendor selection. Eur J Oper
Res 1998; 108: 208–223.
34. Braglia M and Petroni A. A quality assurance-oriented
methodology for handling trade-offs in supplier selection.
Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manage 2000; 30: 96–112.
35. Liu J, Ding F-Y and Lall V. Using data envelopment
analysis to compare suppliers for supplier selection and
performance improvement. J Supply Chain Manage 2000;
5: 143–150.
36. Chen Y-J. Structured methodology for supplier selection
and evaluation in a supply chain. Inform Sci 2011; 181:
1651–1670.
Alkahtani et al.
37. Kumar A, Jain V and Kumar S. A comprehensive envi-
ronment friendly approach for supplier selection. Omega
2014; 42: 109–123.
38. Ng WL. An efficient and simple model for multiple cri-
teria supplier selection problem. Eur J Oper Res 2008;
186: 1059–1067.
39. Van der Rhee B, Verma R and Plaschka G. Understand-
ing trade-offs in the supplier selection process: the role of
flexibility, delivery, and value-added services/support. Int
J Prod Econ 2009; 120: 30–41.
40. Sawik T. Single vs. multiple objective supplier selection in
a make to order environment. Omega 2010; 38: 203–212.
41. Moghaddam KS. Supplier selection and order allocation
in closed-loop supply chain systems using hybrid Monte
Carlo simulation and goal programming. Int J Prod Res
2015; 53: 6320–6338.
42. Bohner C and Minner S. Supplier selection under failure
risk, quantity and business volume discounts. Comput Ind
Eng 2017; 104: 145–155.
43. Swift CO. Preferences for single sourcing and supplier
selection criteria. J Bus Res 1995; 32: 105–111.
44. Mummalaneni V, Dubas KM and Chao C-n. Chinese
purchasing managers’ preferences and trade-offs in sup-
plier selection and performance evaluation. Ind Market
Manage 1996; 25: 115–124.
45. Verma R and Pullman ME. An analysis of the supplier
selection process. Omega 1998; 26: 739–750.
46. Tracey M and Leng Tan C. Empirical analysis of supplier
selection and involvement, customer satisfaction, and firm
performance. J Supply Chain Manage 2001; 6: 174–188.
47. Riedl DF, Kaufmann L, Zimmermann C, et al. Reducing
uncertainty in supplier selection decisions: antecedents
and outcomes of procedural rationality. J Oper Manage
2013; 31: 24–36.
48. Rajesh G and Malliga P. Supplier selection based on AHP
QFD methodology. Proced Eng 2013; 64: 1283–1292.
49. Rouyendegh BD and Saputro TE. Supplier selection
using integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP: a case study.
Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2014; 116: 3957–3970.
19
50. Karsak EE and Dursun M. An integrated supplier
selection methodology incorporating QFD and DEA
with imprecise data. Expert Syst Appl 2014; 41:
6995–7004.
51. Fallahpour A, Olugu EU and Musa SN. A hybrid model
for supplier selection: integration of AHP and multi
expression programming (MEP). Neur Comput Appl
2017; 28: 499–504.
52. Tavana M, Fallahpour A, Di Caprio D, et al. A hybrid
intelligent fuzzy predictive model with simulation for sup-
plier evaluation and selection. Expert Syst Appl 2016; 61:
129–144.
53. Wan S-p, Xu G-l and Dong J-y. Supplier selection using
ANP and ELECTRE II in interval 2-tuple linguistic envi-
ronment. Inform Sci 2017; 385–386: 19–38.
54. Li L, Hang J, Sun H, et al. A conjunctive multiple-cri-
teria decision-making approach for cloud service supplier
selection of manufacturing enterprise. Adv Mech Eng
2017; 9: 1–15.
55. Banaeian N, Mobli H, Fahimnia B, et al. Green supplier
selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: a
case study from the agri-food industry. Comput Oper Res
2018; 89: 337–347.
56. Jain V, Sangaiah AK, Sakhuja S, et al. Supplier selection
using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: a case study in the Indian
automotive industry. Neur Comput Appl 2018; 29:
555–64.
57. Al-Ahmari AM. Evaluation of CIM technologies in
Saudi industries using AHP. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2007; 34: 736–747.
58. Chang D-Y. Extent analysis and synthetic decision.
Optim Tech Appl 1992; 1: 352–355.
59. Kahraman C, Cebeci U and Ulukan Z. Multi-criteria
supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist Inform Man-
age 2003; 16: 382–394.
60. Chang D-Y. Applications of the extent analysis method
on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 1996; 95: 649–655.
61. Saaty RW. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is
and how it is used. Math Model 1987; 9: 161–176.