Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Agile Outsourcing Provider Selection in COVID-19: An Application in Turkish White Goods Industr

Abstract

The concept of agility in project management has emerged to enhance traditional project management methodologies that are sequential and linear. An agile project includes planned processes as well as iterations. In global competitive environments, obtaining agility in outsourcing processes allows the companies to handle the changes and dynamic issues. In today's COVID-19 pandemic conditions, the importance of agility concept increases compared to the preCOVID-19 pandemic period. In addition, providing agility in outsourcing processes enables to overcome the changes in the competitive markets and dynamic problems. In this study, intuitionistic fuzzy COPRAS method, which aims to obtain a solution relative to the ideal solution, is used to rank agile outsourcing provider alternatives and identify the best performing one among them. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets are used to deal with loss of information and hesitation in data that may occur in operations with fuzzy numbers. The application of the proposed intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making approach is illustrated by conducting a case study for an outsourced information technology-based project in Turkish white goods industry during the COVID-19 period. For that reason, five provider alternatives are proposed, and 13 evaluation criteria are utilized. The applied decision approach provides including intuitionistic fuzzy numbers into the decision framework for expressing experts’ opinions, hence hesitation is computed. The proposed decision model integrates the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on the agile outsourcing provider evaluation/selection framework.

Keywords

• COPRAS
• COVID-19 pandemic
• agile outsourcing provider selection
• agility concept
• multi-criteria decision making
• project management
• intuitionistic fuzzy sets.

COVID-19 Pandemisi Döneminde Çevik Dış Kaynak Sağlayıcısı Seçimi Problemi İçin Sezgisel Bulanık Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemi: Türk Beyaz Eşya Sektöründe Bir Uygulama

Abstract

Proje yönetiminde çeviklik kavramı, sıralı ve doğrusal olan geleneksel proje yönetimi metodolojilerini geliştirmek için ortaya çıkmıştır. Çevik bir proje, yinelemelerin yanı sıra planlanmış süreçleri de içermektedir. Rekabetin fazla olduğu global alanlarda dış kaynak kullanılan süreçlerde çevikliğin sağlanması, şirketlerin değişimlere ve dinamik çevrelere uyum sağlayabilmesi açısından faydalıdır. Günümüz COVID-19 pandemisi koşullarında çeviklik kavramının önemi eskiye oranla daha da artmaktadır. Ayrıca, dış kaynak kullanımı süreçlerinde çeviklik kavramının sağlanması, piyasalardaki değişimlerin ve dinamik sorunların üstesinden gelinmesini sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, çevik dış kaynak sağlayıcısı alternatiflerini sıralamak ve aralarından en iyi performans göstereni belirlemek için ideal çözüme göre bir çözüm elde etmeyi amaçlayan sezgisel bulanık COPRAS yaklaşımı kullanılmaktadır. Sezgisel bulanık kümeler, bulanık sayılarla yapılan işlemlerde meydana gelebilecek bilgi kayıpları ve verilerdeki tereddüt ile başa çıkmak için kullanılmaktadır. Sezgisel bulanık karar verme yaklaşımının uygulaması COVID-19 döneminde Türk beyaz eşya endüstrisinde bir dış kaynak sağlayıcısı tarafından uzaktan yürütülecek bilgi teknolojileri tabanlı proje için bir vaka çalışması yapılarak sağlanmıştır. Bu amaçla, beş adet alternatif dış kaynak sağlayıcısı önerilmiş ve 13 adet seçim kriteri kullanılmıştır. Uygulanan yaklaşım, uzmanların görüşlerini ifade etmek için sezgisel bulanık sayıların kullanılmasını sağlamakta, böylece verilerdeki tereddüt hesap edilebilmektedir. Önerilen karar modeli, COVID-19 pandemisinin etkilerini çevik dış kaynak sağlayıcı değerlendirme/seçim karar çerçevesine dahil etmektedir.

Keywords

• COPRAS
• COVID-19 pandemisi
• çevik dış kaynak sağlayıcısı seçimi
• çeviklik kavramı
• çok ölçütlü karar verme
• proje yönetimi
• sezgisel bulanık kümeler.

References

1. Alkhatib SF, Darlington R, Yang Z, Nguye T, 2015. A novel technique for evaluating and selecting logistics service providers based on the logistics resource view. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(20): 6976-6989.
2. Atanassov K, 1986. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20: 87-96.
3. Büyükozkan G, Güleryüz S, Karpak B, 2017. A new combined IF-DEMATEL and IF-ANP approach for CRM partner evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics, 191: 194-206.
4. Büyüközkan G, Göçer F, Karabulut Y, 2019, A new group decision making approach with IF AHP and IF VIKOR for selecting hazardous waste carriers. Measurement, 134: 66-82.
5. Chen YH, Wang TC, Wu CY, 2011. Strategic decisions using the fuzzy PROMETHEE for IS outsourcing. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10): 13216-13222.
6. De SK, Biswas R, Roy AR, 2000. Some operations on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114: 477-484.
7. Ecer F, 2018. Third-party logistics (3PLs) provider selection via fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(2): 615-634.
8. Ecer F, 2022. An extended MAIRCA method using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for coronavirus vaccine selection in the age of COVID-19. Neural Computing & Applications, doi. 10.1007/s00521-021-06728-7.

9. Erkayman B, Gundogar E, Yilmaz A, 2012. An integrated fuzzy approach for strategic alliance partner selection in third-party logistics. Scientific World Journal, Article No: 486306.
10. Faisal MN, Raza SA, 2016. IT outsourcing intent in academic institutions in GCC countries: An empirical investigation and multi-criteria decision model for vendor selection. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 29(3): 432-453.
11. Garg H, Vimala J, Rajareega S, Preethi D, Perez-Dominguez L, 2022. Complex intuitionistic fuzzy soft SWARA - COPRAS approach: An application of ERP software selection. Aims Mathematics, 7(4): 5895-5909.
12. Gireesha O, Somu N, Krithivasan K, Sriram VSS, 2020. IIVIFS-WASPAS: An integrated multi-criteria decision-making perspective for cloud service provider selection. Future Generation Computer Systems-The International Journal of Escience, 103: 91-110.
13. Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Vafadarnikjoo A, 2016. A grey DEMATEL approach to develop third-party logistics provider selection criteria. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(4): 690-722.
14. Govindan K, Kadzinski M, Ehling R, Miebs G, 2019. Selection of a sustainable third-party reverse logistics provider based on the robustness analysis of an outranking graph kernel conducted with ELECTRE I and SMAA. Omega, 85: 1-15.
15. Göker N, Dursun M, Cedolin C, 2020. A novel IFCM integrated distance based hierarchical intuitionistic decision making procedure for agile supplier selection. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38: 653-662.
16. Ho W, He T, Lee CKM, Emrouznejad A, 2012. Strategic logistics outsourcing: An integrated QFD and fuzzy AHP approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(12): 10841-10850.
17. Ji P, Zhang H, Wang J, 2018. Selecting an outsourcing provider based on the combined MABAC–ELECTRE method using single-valued neutrosophic linguistic sets. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 120: 429-441.
18. Kahraman C, Parchami A, Onar SC, Oztaysi B, 2017. Process capability analysis using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32: 1659-1671.
19. Kahraman C, Öztayşi B, Çevik S, 2018. An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS approach to evaluation of outsource manufacturers. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 29(1): 283-297.
20. Kahraman C, Onar SC, Öztayşi B, Şeker Ş, Karasan A, 2021. Integration of fuzzy AHP with other fuzzy multicriteria methods: A state of the art survey. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing, 35(1-2): 61-92.
21. Karasan A, Kahraman C, 2019. A novel intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL - ANP - TOPSIS integrated methodology for freight village location selection. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 36(2): 1335-1352.
22. Karasan A, Erdoğan M, İlbahar E, 2018. Prioritization of production strategies of a manufacturing plant by using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP & TOPSIS approach. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(4): 510-528.
23. Kaya I, 2012. Evaluation of outsourcing alternatives under fuzzy environment for waste management. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 60: 107-118.
24. Kumar R, Harwinder S, Dureja JS, 2012. An approach to analyze logistic outsourcing problem in medium-scale organization by CFPR and VIKOR. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 23(7): 885-898.
25. Kumari R, Mishra AR, 2020. Multi-criteria COPRAS method based on parametric measures for intuitionistic fuzzy Sets: Application of green supplier selection. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Electrical Engineering, 44: 1645-1662.
26. Lei H, Ganjeizadeh F, Jayachandran PK, Ozcan P, 2017. A statistical analysis of the effects of Scrum and Kanban on software development projects. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 43: 59-67.
27. Li YL, Ying CS, Chin KS, Yang HT, Xu J, 2018. Third-party reverse logistics provider selection approach based on hybrid-information MCDM and cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195: 573-584.
28. Liu LB, Berger P, Zeng A, Gerstenfeld A, 2008. Applying the analytic hierarchy process to outsourcing location decision. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(6): 435-449.
29. Liu S, Hu YN, Zhang X, Li YF, Liu L, 2020. Blockchain service provider selection based on an integrated BWM-Entropy-TOPSIS method under an intuitionistic fuzzy environment. IEEE Access, 8: 104148.
30. Ljubojevic S, Pamucar D, Jovanovic D, Vesovic V, 2019. Outsourcing transport service: a fuzzy multi-criteria methodology for provider selection based on comparison of the real and ideal parameters of providers. Operational Research: An International Journal, 19: 399-433.
31. Mishra AR, Singh RK, Motwani D, 2020a. Intuitionistic fuzzy divergence measure-based ELECTRE method for performance of cellular mobile telephone service providers. Neural Computing & Applications, 32(8): 3901-3921.
32. Mishra AR, Rani P, Mardani A, Pardasani KR, Govindan K, Alrasheedi M, 2020b. Healthcare evaluation in hazardous waste recycling using novel interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information based on complex proportional assessment method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 139: 106140.
33. Mishra AR, Rani P, Pandey K, Mardani A, Streimikis J, Streimikiene D, Alrasheedi M, 2020c. Novel multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy SWARA-COPRAS approach for sustainability evaluation of the bioenergy production process. Sustainability, 12(10): 4155.
34. Opoku-Mensah E, Yin YM, Asiedu-Ayeh LO, Asante D, Tuffour P, Ampofo SA, 2021. Exploring governments' role in mergers and acquisitions using IVIF MULTIMOORA-COPRAS technique. International Journal of Emerging Markets, doi. 10.1108/IJOEM-11-2020-1405.
35. Otay I, Öztayşi B, Onar SC, Kahraman C, 2017. Multi-expert performance evaluation of healthcare institutions using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP&DEA methodology. Knowledge-Based Systems, 133: 90-106.
36. Perçin S, 2019. An integrated fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy AD approach for outsourcing provider selection. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(2): 531-552.
37. Perçin S, 2021. Circular supplier selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Environment Development and Sustainability, doi. 10.1007/s10668-021-01671-y.
38. Rani P, Mishra AR, Ansari MD, Ali J, 2021. Assessment of performance of telecom service providers using intuitionistic fuzzy grey relational analysis framework (IF-GRA). Soft Computing, 25: 1983-1993.
39. Schitea D, Deveci M, Iordache M, Bilgili K, Akyurt İZ, Iordache I, 2019. Hydrogen mobility roll-up site selection using intuitionistic fuzzy sets based WASPAS, COPRAS and EDAS. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44(16): 8585-8600.
40. Sen DK, Datta S, Mahapatra SS, 2017. Decision support framework for selection of 3PL service providers: Dominance-based approach in combination with grey set theory. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 16(1): 25-57.
41. Singh R, Gunasekaran A, Kumar P, 2018. Third party logistics (3PL) selection for cold chain management: a fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Annals of Operations Research, 267: 531-553.
42. Şeker Ş, 2020. A novel integrated MCDM approach: An application for selection of the optimal Fiber optical access network strategy. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38(1): 565-575.
43. Tjader Y, May JH, Shang J, Vargas LG, Gao N, 2014. Firm-level outsourcing decision making: A balanced scorecard-based analytic network process model. International Journal of Production Economics, 147: 614-623.
44. Totten J, 2017. Critical success factors for agile project management in non-software related product development teams. Ph.D. thesis, Western Michigan University.
45. Tsai WH, Leu JD, Liu JY, Lin SJ, Shaw MJ, 2010. A MCDM approach for sourcing strategy mix decision in IT projects. Expert Systems with Applications, 37: 3870-3886.
46. Uygun O, Kacamak H, Kahraman UA, 2015. An integrated DEMATEL and Fuzzy ANP techniques for evaluation and selection of outsourcing provider for a telecommunication company. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 86: 137-146.
47. Wang LE, Liu HC, Quan MY, 2016. Evaluating the risk of failure modes with a hybrid MCDM model under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environments. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 102: 175-185.
48. Wang CN, Nguyen NAT, Dang TT, Lu CM, 2021. A compromised decision-making approach to third-party logistics selection in sustainable supply chain using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy VIKOR methods. Mathematics, 9(8): 886.
49. Xu ZS, 2007. Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 15(6): 1179–1187.
50. Xu GL, Wan SP, Xie XL, 2015. A selection method based on MAGDM with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Article ID 791204, 1–13.
51. Yıldırım BF, 2019. Evaluation of credit card platforms using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of BRSA Banking and Financial Markets, 13(1): 37-58.
52. Zadeh LA, 1965. Information and Control, 8: 338-353.
53. Zarbakhshnia N, Wu Y, Govindan K, Soleimani H, 2020. A novel hybrid multiple attribute decision-making approach for outsourcing sustainable reverse logistics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242: 118-461.
54. Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, 1996. Determination of an effcient contractor by using the new method of multicriteria assessment. In: langford, D. a. and retik, a. (eds.) International symposium for “The organisation and management of construction”. Shaping theory and practice. Managing the construction project and managing risk. CIB W, 65(2): 95-104.