A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method Proposal For The Solution Of The Packaging Supplier Selection Problem
Abstract
Decision processes may not always have precision due to differences of opinion arising from human behaviour. When supplier selection problems are solved, many criteria, such as different opinions of decision-makers and their conflict of interests are considered. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques are highly effective in finding solutions to such problems. The goal of this article was to find a solution to packaging supplier selection problem of a manufacturing company in a fuzzy environment. To this end, eight suppliers were examined in line with 15 evaluation criteria. The opinions of 4 different decision-makers were taken during decision-making process. The solution of the problem was based upon a mixed model consisting of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP), used to determine the weights of the criteria, and Fuzzy Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (F-WASPAS), utilised to make preference among alternatives. At the end of the analysis on the determination of the criteria weights, the most appropriate supplier selection was determined as the delivery date and price, respectively, the two factors most influencing the construction phase. As a result of the evaluation made, A2 was specified to be the most proper supplier. Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the effectiveness of the results. A2 was determined to be the most proper supplier according to the selection results obtained by MARCOS, MABAC, SAW, ARAS, TOPSIS, EDAS methods.
Keywords
Fuzzy Set , Supplier Selection Problems , Multiple-criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) , F-WASPAS , F-AHP.
References
- Ahmet, F., Kılıç K., Modification to Fuzzy Extent Analysis Method and its performans Analysis, 6th IESM Congerance Seville, Spain, 2015.
- Ayyildiz E., Gumus A.T., A novel spherical fuzzy AHP-integrated spherical WASPAS methodology for petrol station location selection problem: a real case study for İstanbul, Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2020) 27:36109–36120
- Bellman RE, Zadeh LA. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment management. Science, 1970;17(4):141–64.
- Chang, D-Y, Theory and Methodology, Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research (1996), 95; 649-655.
- Gumus, A.-T., Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, (2009), 36(2), 4067–4074
- Gögüs, Ö., Boucher T. O., Strong transitivity, rationality and weak monotonicity in fuzzy pairwise comparisons, Fuzzy Sets and Systems (1998), 94; 133 144.
- Hsieh, T.-Y., Lu, S.-T., & Tzeng, G.-H., Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management, 2004, 22(7), 573–584.
- Hsu C-W., Hu A.H., Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process, Journal of Cleaner Production 2009, 17; 255–264
- Jain N., Singh A. R., Upadhyay R. K., Sustainable supplier selection under attractive criteria through FIS and integrated fuzzy MCDM techniques, Internatıonal Journal Of Sustaınable Engıneerıng, DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2020.1737751.
- Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U. ve Da Ruan, “Multi-Attribute Comparison of Catering Service Companies Using Fuzzy AHP: The Case of Turkey”, International Journal of Production Economics, 2004, 87, 2, 171-184.