Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 157 (2019) 479–488

4th International Conference on Computer Science and Computational Intelligence 2019

(ICCSCI), 12–13 September 2019

Applications of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Decision Support

Systems of Cement Vendor Selection
Siti Komsiyaha,*, Rini Wongsob, Syali Widia Pratiwia
a
Mathematics Department, School of Computer Science, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
b
Computer Science Department, School of Computer Science, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia 11480

Abstract

Fuzzy ELECTRE (Elimination Et Choix Traduisant la Realité) is one of the fuzzy multi criteria decision making methods for
resolving the ambiguity of concepts that are associated with decision maker’s judgments. In this paper, the proposed methods are
applied to a construction company in Indonesia, that is the fuzzy ELECTRE method is applied to cement vendors recommendation
problem of PT Wijaya Karya. There are four vendors (A1,A2,A3 and A4) as a recommendation for the best vendor selection. The
selection of vendors of raw materials is one of the activities in supply chain management at PT Wijaya Karya. The role of the
vendor will contribute to determining the success of this company. After determining the criteria that affect the vendor selection
decisions, the results for fuzzy ELECTRE methods are presented.
© 2019
© 2019 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Computer Science and
Peer-review
Computationalunder responsibility
Intelligence 2019. of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Computer Science and
Computational Intelligence 2019
Keywords: Decision Support System (DSS); Supplier; Vendor; Cement; Fuzzy ELECTRE;

1. Introduction

The selection of suppliers or vendors of raw materials is one of the activities in supply chain management at PT
Wijaya Karya. The role of the supplier or vendor will contribute to determining the success of the company. One of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: siti_komsiyah@ymail.com

1877-0509 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Computational
Intelligence 2019

1877-0509 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Computational
Intelligence 2019.
10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.003
480 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 157 (2019) 479–488
2 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

the main material that is classified as very important and needed in all development projects is cement. Therefore, to
get the good quality cement, companies need to select cement suppliers or vendors with the right method so that
cement material orders can be fulfilled optimally. In the process of selecting cement suppliers or vendors, decision
making is often faced with various criteria and the number of alternative suppliers or vendors available. PT Wijaya
Karya has an appraisal system for each acquisition of project goods and services. However, the application is
sometimes still not maximal especially for the procurement of the main material for cement. This is what prompted
the author to make an innovation by making a decision support system (DSS) application that can help PT Wijaya
Karya in selecting cement vendors.

According to Sri Kusumadewi 1, in DSS there is the term multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) which is
used to determine the best alternative of a number of alternatives based on certain criteria. Based on its objectives,
MCDM can be divided into 2 models, namely multi attribute decision making (MADM) and multi objective decision
making (MODM). In the case of selecting a cement vendor, a number of alternatives will be selected in a limited
number, so that the MADM model will be used. ELECTRE is one method that can be used to solve the problem of
multiple attribute decision making (MADM). However, according to Sri Kusumadewi 1, if data about the attributes of
an alternative is not presented completely and contains uncertainty or inconsistency, then the ordinary MADM method
cannot be used. A slight change in value can lead to significant differences in categories. To overcome this problem,
fuzzy logic is needed that can handle the weaknesses of the exact set (crisp). The fuzzy method aims to capture the
subjective judgment of decision makers related to the criteria so that the ranking process or alternative selection can
be accurate and consistent. Therefore, Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision Making (FMADM) is the right method for
selecting alternatives 2.

In this paper, the author refers to several journal references. The first journal was deals with actual application
of academic of staff selection using Fuzzy ELECTRE method which one university in Turkey selected the best
candidate among five others, all of whom had passed the initial examination where the objective is to determine the
most eligible individual for a certain position written by Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh and Turan Erman Erkan 3.
The second journal written by Esra Aytac, A. Tus Isik, and Nilsen Kundakci 4. In this paper fuzzy ELECTRE I method
is applied to catering firm selection problem of a textile company. According to Tolga Kaya 5, Fuzzy ELECTRE is
used to assess the environmental impact generated by the six different industrial districts which were predicted to
shape the future industrial structure of Istanbul metropolitan area. And by Sevkli 6, the aim of this study is to compare
and contrast crisp and fuzzy ELECTRE methods for supplier selection where are applied to a manufacturing company
in Turkey. Then by Rahmi Baki 7, Fuzzy ELECTRE I method was administered to the problem of selecting the best
candidate for a sales engineer position which the candidates were evaluated by 3 decision makers based on 5 criteria.
While In this paper, the authors will analyze the Fuzzy ELECTRE (Fuzzy Elimination Et Choix Traduisant La Realite)
methods to be applied in the selection of cement vendors at PT Wijaya Karya.

2. Literature Review and Methods

2.1 Triangular Fuzzy Number Function

Basically, the membership function of the triangle curve is a membership function which is a combination of 2 lines
(linear) and is indicated by the presence of three parameters (a, b, c) that determine the x coordinates of the three
angles as shown in Fig 1. 1 and triangular fuzzy number (TFN ) function is as follows 8:

0; � ≤ � atau � ≥ �
�[�] = �(� − �)/(� − �); �≤�≤�
(� − �)/(� − �); �≤�≤�
 Siti Komsiyah et al. et/ Procedia
Siti Komsiyah Computer
al. / Procedia Science
Computer 00 (2019)
Science 000–000
157 (2019) 479–488 4813

Membership
function �(�)

0 x

Fig 1. Triangular Fuzzy Number Function

2.2 Fuzzy Electre Method

In fuzzy ELECTRE, linguistic preferences can easily be converted to fuzzy numbers 5. In other words, decision
making utilizing fuzzy numbers is not a single value in the ELECTRE evaluation process 9. A fuzzy outranking
relationship, k s l, can be characterized by a membership function (k, l) which shows the outranking level associated
with each alternative pair (Ak, Al) on ELECTRE fuzzy 5.

Following are the steps of Fuzzy ELECTRE proposed by Sevkli 6:

1. Determine the weight of criteria based on their importance
In the early stages, decision makers are responsible for determining the criteria weight based on their
importance, then these weights are changed in the form of an aggregated fuzzy important weight (wj) which is
illustrated by fuzzy triangular number wj = (lj, mj, uj) where aggregated fuzzy important weight is determined by
Formula (1):

1 �
�� = ���� {��� } �� = � ��� �� = ���� {��� } (1)
� ���

Then, aggregated fuzzy importance weight for each criterion is normalized as follows:
� = (��� , ��� , ��� )
� (2)

where �� is shown in equation (3).

1� 1� 1�
�� �� ��
��� = � ��� = ��� = (3)
∑��� 1�� ∑��� 1���
� ∑��� 1���
�
�

which then resulted in the normalization of the aggregated fuzzy important weight matrix as follows:
�� = (��� , �
�� , �
��� ) (4)

2. Make a decision matrix

��� ��� ⋯ ���
��� ��� ⋯ ���
�= � ⋮ � (5)
��� ��� ⋯ ���

where i = 1, 2,…,m ; j = 1, 2,…,n

��� = value of an alternative (i) to criteria (j)

3. Normalization of the decision matrix (�)

482 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 157 (2019) 479–488
4 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

After making a decision matrix, do normalize. Normalization calculations use Eq (6) which will produce a
matrix like Eq 7).

���
��� =
(6)
�∑� �
��� ���

��� ��� ⋯ ���

��� ��� ⋯ ���
�= � ⋮ � (7)
��� ��� ⋯ ���
Where :
��� = Normalization of choice measurements from alternatives (i) and criteria (j)
��� = value of an alternative (i) to criteria (j)
m = number of alternatives
n = number of criteria
4. Normalized matrix weighting
After normalization, each column of the matrix R is multiplied by the weights (��� ) determined by the decision
maker, so that the V matrix is formed. The normalized matrix weighting for each criterion is defined as follows:

�� = [���� ]�×� for i = 1, 2, …, m dan j = 1, 2, …, n

where ���� = ��� × � ��� (8)
thus becoming,
�� �
��� ⋯ �
���
⎡ �� ⎤
�� �
��� ⋯ �
��� ⎥
�� = ⎢ ��
⎢ ⋮ ⎥
� � �
⎣��� ��� ⋯ ��� ⎦

�� �
��� ⋯ �
���
⎡ �� ⎤
�� �
��� ⋯ �
��� ⎥
� � = ⎢ ��
⎢ ⋮ ⎥ (9)
� � �
⎣��� ��� ⋯ ��� ⎦

�� �
��� ⋯ �
���
⎡ �� ⎤
�� �
��� ⋯ �
��� ⎥
� � = ⎢ ��
⎢ ⋮ ⎥
� � �
⎣��� ��� ��� ⎦

where :
vij = element of the normalized decision matrix weighted V.
wj = the weight of the jth criteria..
rij = elements of the normalized R decision matrix
V1 = Normalized matrices are weighted for W1 weights
V2 = Normalized matrices are weighted for W2 weights
V3= Normalized matrices are weighted for W3 weights

5. Calculates concordance and discordance sets

For each alternative pair �� and �� (k, l = 1, 2, 3, …., m), the decision matrix for criteria j is divided into 2 subsets.
First the concordance set {��� } shows the sum of the weighting criteria for which alternative �� is better than
alternative �� .
 Siti Komsiyah
Siti Komsiyah et al. et/ Procedia
al. / Procedia Computer
Computer Science
Science 157 (2019)
00 (2019) 479–488
000–000 4835

��� = {� | ��� ≥ ��� } for j = 1, 2, …, n. (10)

Second, the discordance set {��� } is given as:
��� = {� | ��� < ��� } for j = 1, 2, …, n.
(11)
where:
��� = concordance set..
��� = discordance set.
��� = index of matriks V.
��� = index of matriks V
6. Determine the index of concordance (C�� ) and discordance (C�� ).
Determining the concordance index can be determined by the formula (12) below.
� � �
��� = � ��� ��� = � ��� ��� = � ��� (12)
�∗ �∗ �∗

Where j* is the criteria included in the concordance set. Whereas to determine the discordance index can be determined
by the formula (13) below.
� �
∑� � |��� � − ��� �
�
��� = � �
∑� |��� − ���
� �
∑� � |��� � − ��� �
�
��� = � �
(13)
∑� |��� − ���
� �
∑� � |��� � − ��� �
�
��� = � �
∑� |��� − ���
Where j+ is the criteria included in the discordance set.
7. Calculates final concordance and discordance.
Final concordance (��� ∗
) and discordance (���
∗
) can be calculated using equation (14) below.
� � � �
∗ ∗
��� = �� �
��� ��� = �� �
��� , dimana Z = 3 (14)
��� ���

The above formula can be said to be the defuzzification process, an alternative would be better if the final concordance
value is greater and the final discordance value is smaller than other alternatives.

8. Conduct ranking
The ranking process is obtained by applying equation (15) which aims to get the best alternative.
�(�, �) ≥ � ��� �(�, �) ≤ � (15)
Where C and D are the average of Cpq dan Dpq.

3. Simulation Result and Discussion

Based on the results of the interview from WIKA’s staff and then the level of importance can be processed. The
following in Table 1 is a list of criteria along with the code and importance of each criterion for the procurement of
cement:

Table 1. List of Criteria and Weight

Code Criteria Level of Importance
C1 Price Very Important
C2 Quality Important
C3 Lead time Important
C4 Finance Important
C5 K3L Quite Important
484 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 157 (2019) 479–488
6 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

In this paper, 2 experiments were carried out using 2 case study data. Experiment 1 was conducted using cement
procurement data on the Kemayoran Athlete Athlete Building Block D10-3 project in Jakarta in 2016. As for the
second experiment, it was conducted using cement procurement data on the ULM Campus Building construction
project in Banjarmasin in 2017. To conduct this experiment the author uses the criteria assessment data for each vendor
(alternative) such as following table 2 and table 3 based on the two projects above.

Table 2. List of Alternative Assesment on Experiment 1

Table 3. List of Alternative Assesment on Experiment 2
Criteria A1 A2 A3 A4
Criteria A1 A2 A3 A4
Price 100 60 80 90 Price 80 100 100 90
Quality 100 90 100 90
Quality 90 80 80 80
Lead time 100 80 100 80
Lead time 80 80 90 80
Finance 80 80 80 80 Finance 80 80 80 80
K3L 80 80 100 80
K3L 80 80 80 80

The next step is to do calculation simulation with Fuzzy ELECTRE method :

1. Converts the weight of the criteria to the TFN scale and calculates aggregated fuzzy important weight.
Here is the TFN scale for weighting criteria and conversion results:

Table 4. TFN scale for Criteria Weight Table 5. Weight Conversion Results into TFN Scale Criteria
Weight Linguistic Variable L M U TFN
Code Weight
1 Very unimportant 0 0.1 0.25 L M U
2 Not important 0.15 0.3 0.46 C1 5 0.75 0.9 1
3 Quite important 0.35 0.5 0.65 C2 4 0.55 0.7 0.85
4 Important 0.55 0.7 0.85 C3 4 0.55 0.7 0.85
5 Very Important 0.75 0.9 1 C4 4 0.55 0.7 0.85
C5 3 0.35 0.5 0.65

After converting the criteria weight into TFN, the next step is to calculate aggregated fuzzy important weight.

Table 6. Normalization of Aggregated Fuzzy Importance Weight

Code W1 W2 W3
C1 0.138 0.15 0.165
C2 0.189 0.193 0.194
C3 0.189 0.193 0.194
C4 0.189 0.193 0.194
C5 0.296 0.27 0.254

2. Calculate the decision matriks

The value of the decision matrix is obtained from alternative assessments on each of the criteria illustrated in Table
7 and Table 8.

Table 7. Decision Matrix for Experiment 1

Table 8. Decision Matrix for Experiment 2
Code A1 A2 A3 A4 Code A1 A2 A3 A4
C1 100 60 80 90
C1 80 100 100 90
C2 100 90 100 90 C2 90 80 80 80
C3 100 80 100 80
C3 80 80 90 80
C4 80 80 80 80
C4 80 80 80 80
C5 80 80 100 80 C5 80 80 80 80
 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 157 (2019) 479–488 485
Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 7

3. Calculate the normalization of the decision matrix

The followingin table 9 and 10 are the results of the normalization of the decision matrix for experiments 1 and 2

Table 9. Normalised Decision Matrix Experiment 1 Table 10. Normalised Decision Matrix Experiment 2
Code A1 A2 A3 A4 Code A1 A2 A3 A4
C1 0.597 0.358 0.477 0.537 C1 0.431 0.538 0.538 0.485
C2 0.526 0.473 0.526 0.473 C2 0.545 0.484 0.484 0.484
C3 0.552 0.442 0.552 0.442 C3 0.484 0.484 0.545 0.484
C4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 C4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
C5 0.468 0.468 0.585 0.468 C5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

4. Calculate normalized matrix weighting

Normalized matrix weighting (Matrikx of V1, V2 and V3) is done by multiplying the importance weight of the criteria
by the value of the normalized matrix

Table 11. Matrix V1 for Experiment 1 Table 12. Matrix V2 for Experiment 1
Code A1 A2 A3 A4 Code A1 A2 A3 A4
C1 0.082 0.049 0.066 0.074 C1 0.082 0.049 0.066 0.074
C2 0.099 0.089 0.099 0.089 C2 0.099 0.089 0.099 0.089
C3 0.104 0.084 0.104 0.084 C3 0.104 0.084 0.104 0.084
C4 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095 C4 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095
C5 0.139 0.139 0.173 0.139 C5 0.139 0.139 0.173 0.139

Table 13. Matrix V3 for Experiment 1 Table 14. Matrix V1 for Experiment 2
Code A1 A2 A3 A4 Code A1 A2 A3 A4
C1 0.082 0.049 0.066 0.074 C1 0.059 0.074 0.074 0.067
C2 0.099 0.089 0.099 0.089 C2 0.103 0.091 0.091 0.091
C3 0.104 0.084 0.104 0.084 C3 0.091 0.091 0.103 0.091
C4 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095 C4 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095
C5 0.139 0.139 0.173 0.139 C5 0.148 0.148 0.148 0.148

Table 15. Matrix V2 for Experiment 2 Table 16. Matriks V3 for Experiment 2
Code A1 A2 A3 A4 Code A1 A2 A3 A4
C1 0.065 0.081 0.081 0.073 C1 0.071 0.089 0.089 0.08
C2 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 C2 0.106 0.094 0.094 0.094
C3 0.097 0.093 0.105 0.093 C3 0.094 0.094 0.106 0.094
C4 0.135 0.097 0.097 0.097 C4 0.097 0.097 0.097 0.097
C5 0.081 0.135 0.135 0.135 C5 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127

5. Calculate Concordance and Discordance Set

Table 17. Concordance Set Experiment 1 Table 18. Discordance Set Experiment 1
Code C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Code C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
A12 1 1 1 1 1 A12 0 0 0 0 0
A13 1 1 1 1 0 A13 0 0 0 0 1
A14 1 1 1 1 1 A14 0 0 0 0 0
A21 0 0 0 1 1 A21 1 1 1 0 0
A23 0 0 0 1 0 A23 1 1 1 0 1
A24 0 1 1 1 1 A24 1 0 0 0 0
A31 0 1 1 1 1 A31 1 0 0 0 0
A32 1 1 1 1 1 A32 0 0 0 0 0
A34 0 1 1 1 1 A34 1 0 0 0 0
A41 0 0 0 1 1 A41 1 1 1 0 0
A42 1 1 1 1 1 A42 0 0 0 0 0
A43 1 0 0 1 0 A43 0 1 1 0 1
8 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000
486 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 157 (2019) 479–488

Table 19. Concordance Set Experiment 2 Table 20. Discordance Set Experiment 2
Code C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Code C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
A12 0 1 1 1 1 A12 1 0 0 0 0
A13 0 1 0 1 1 A13 1 0 1 0 0
A14 0 1 1 1 1 A14 1 0 0 0 0
A21 1 0 1 1 1 A21 0 1 0 0 0
A23 1 1 0 1 1 A23 0 0 1 0 0
A24 1 1 1 1 1 A24 0 0 0 0 0
A31 1 0 1 1 1 A31 0 1 0 0 0
A32 1 1 1 1 1 A32 0 0 0 0 0
A34 1 1 1 1 1 A34 0 0 0 0 0
A41 1 0 1 1 1 A41 0 1 0 0 0
A42 0 1 1 1 1 A42 1 0 0 0 0
A43 0 1 0 1 1 A43 1 0 1 0 0

6. Calculates index concordance and discordance

Following are the results of concordance and discordance index calculations for experiments 1 and 2:

Table 21. Index Concordance Matrix Experiment 1 Table 22. Index Discordance Matrix Experiment 1
Concordance Concordance Concordance Discordance Discordance Discordance
Code Code
1 2 3 1 2 3
A12 1 1 1 A12 0 0 0
A13 0.71 0.73 0.75 A13 0.68 0.64 0.6
A14 1 1 1 A14 0 0 0
A21 0.49 0.46 0.45 A21 1 1 1
A23 0.19 0.19 0.19 A23 1 1 1
A24 0.86 0.85 0.84 A24 1 1 1
A31 0.86 0.85 0.84 A31 0.32 0.36 0.4
A32 1 1 1 A32 0 0 0
A34 0.86 0.85 0.84 A34 0.11 0.12 0.14
A41 0.49 0.46 0.45 A41 1 1 1
A42 1 1 1 A42 0 0 0
A44 0.33 0.34 0.36 A44 0.89 0.88 0.86

Table 23. Index Concordance Matrix Experiment 2 Table 24. Index Discordance Matrix Experiment 2
Concordance Concordance Concordance Discordance Discordance Discordance
Code Code
1 2 3 1 2 3
A12 0.86 0.85 0.84 A12 0.56 0.57 0.6
A13 0.67 0.66 0.64 A13 0.69 0.7 0.71
A14 0.86 0.85 0.84 A14 0.4 0.4 0.43
A21 0.81 0.81 0.81 A21 0.44 0.43 0.4
A23 0.81 0.81 0.81 A23 1 1 1
A24 1 1 1 A24 1 1 1
A31 0.81 0.81 0.81 A31 0.31 0.3 0.29
A32 1 1 1 A32 0 0 0
A34 1 1 1 A34 0 0 0
A41 0.81 0.81 0.81 A41 0.6 0.6 0.57
A42 0.86 0.85 0.84 A42 1 1 1
A44 0.67 0.66 0.64 A44 1 1 1
 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 157 (2019) 479–488 487
Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000 9

7. Calculate index final concordance dan discordance.

Table 25. Index Final Concordance and Table 26. Index Final Concordance and
Discordance Matrix Experiment 1 Discordance Matrix Experiment 2
Index Final Index Final Index Final Index Final
Code Code
Concordance Discordance Concordance Discordance
A12 1 0 A12 0.85 0.58
A13 0.73 0.64 A13 0.66 0.7
A14 1 0 A14 0.85 0.41
A21 0.47 1 A21 0.81 0.42
A23 0.19 1 A23 0.81 1
A24 0.85 1 A24 1 0
A31 0.85 0.36 A31 0.81 0.3
A32 1 0 A32 1 0
A34 0.85 0.12 A34 1 0
A41 0.47 1 A41 0.81 0.59
A42 1 0 A42 0.85 1
A43 0.34 0.88 A43 0.66 1

8. Determine the ranking

Table 27. Ranking Result for Experiment 1 Table 28. Ranking Result for Experiment 2
Code Value Ranking Code Value Ranking
A1 2.09 2 A1 0.67 3
A2 -1.49 4 A2 1.19 2
A3 2.22 1 A3 2.51 1
A4 0.07 3 A4 -0.28 4

Based on the ranking results in table 27 and 28, it can be seen that alternative 3 (vendor A3) is the best
alternative/vendor for experiment 1 and experiment 2.7Here fig 2 is an example of the final calculation application
page the Fuzzy ELECTRE method:

Fig 2. Final Results Calculation Page for Fuzzy ELECTRE method

488 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 157 (2019) 479–488
10 Siti Komsiyah et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2019) 000–000

4. Conclusion
Based on the results of the analysis and discussion can be concluded that criteria that can influence the selection
of cement vendors in PT Wijaya Karya consist of 5 criteria, which are based on price, quality, time, finance, and HSE
aspects. In the cement vendor selection application, the author uses the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method. From the
implementation of it method by conducting 2 experiments using different case studies, the Fuzzy ELECTRE method
has a same ranking result which is vendor A3 as the best ranking. The decision support system application using Fuzzy
ELECTRE is considered quite satisfying by the user and can be the latest innovation to be applied in the procurement
of cement at PT Wijaya Karya.
Future research may try fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods such as VİKOR, PROMETHE, TOPSİS,
DEMATEL and their hybrid versions. In addition, the same method can be used for other positions after the
reevaluation of the criteria.

Acknowledgements

We thank to Bina Nusantara University was supported this research and who provided insight and expertise that
greatly assisted this paper, and reviewer for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

References

1 Kusumadewi S. Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision Making (FUZZY MADM) Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu; 2006.
2 Kahraman C, Onar S, Oztaysi B. Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making: A Literature Review*. International Journal Of Computational
Intelligence Systems. 2018 May; 8(4).
3 Rouyendegh BD, Erkhan TE. An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Academic Staff Selection. Human Factors and Ergonomics
in Manufacturing & Service Industries. 2012;(1-9).
4 Aytac E, Isik AT, Kundakci N. Fuzzy ELECTRE I Method for Evaluating Catering Firm Alternatives. Ege Academic Review. 2011; 11(125-
134).
5 Kaya T, Kahraman C. An Integrated Fuzzy AHP–ELECTRE Methodology For Environmental Impact Assessment. Expert Systems with
Applications. ; 38(8553-8562).
6 Sevkli M. An Application of the Fuzzy ELECTRE Method for Supplier Selection. International Journal of Production Research. 2010; 48(12 :
3393-3405).
7 Baki R. PERSONNEL SELECTION THROUGH FUZZY ELECTRE I. The Journal of MacroTrends in Applied Science. 2016; 4(1).
8 Zimmermann HJ. Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2011.
9 Wu MC, Chen TY. The ELECTRE Multicriteria Analysis Approach Based on Atanassov’s Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Expert Systems with
Applications. 2011; 38(10 ; 12318-12327).