Using Hybrid Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy QFD Approach in Green Supplier Selection

Öz

From the past to the present, concerns of individuals and nations about the future of the world have escalated. This is because the damages inflicted upon nature by both humans and businesses have reached undeniable levels. Especially, businesses have had adverse impacts on environmental events such as climate change, global warming, air pollution, and depletion of natural resources. To address this situation, governments, businesses, and individuals have turned to environmentally friendly 'green' practices. Businesses operating in various sectors, by embracing the principle of environmental sensitivity, have highlighted not only the economic value but also the ecological value in their product or service production, presentation, and post-sales support services. As a result, in every stage of the product life cycle, from suppliers to customers, the necessity of collaboration among all value chain members (suppliers, customers, producers, etc.) has emerged, and the green supply chain approach has developed. In the context of the green supply chain, selecting the best supplier to contribute to the entire value chain emerges as one of the most critical issues. In the study, it was aimed to choose the best green supplier that a company operating in the automotive main industry in Turkey considers to work for sheet metal parts supply. For this, Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) and Fuzzy Quality Function Deployment (Fuzzy QFD) methods are used in a hybrid approach. The four suppliers determined by the company were evaluated according to the ten green supplier selection criteria determined by the literature review and the opinions of five experts. In the evaluation phase, the importance weights of the green supplier selection criteria were determined with fuzzy AHP and the best green supplier was selected by using these importance weights in the fuzzy QFD method.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Green supplier
• fuzzy AHP
• fuzzy QFD

Yeşil Tedarikçi Seçiminde Hibrit Bulanık AHP ve Bulanık QFD Yaklaşımının Kullanılması

Öz

Geçmişten günümüze insanların ve devletlerin dünyanın geleceği hakkındaki endişeleri artmıştır. Çünkü hem insanların hem de işletmelerin doğaya verdiği zararlar göz ardı edilemeyecek düzeylere ulaşmıştır. İşletmeler özellikle iklim değişikliği, küresel ısınma, hava kirliliği ve doğal kaynakların tükenmesi gibi çevresel olaylara olumsuz etkilerde bulunmuşlardır. Bu durumun önüne geçmek için devletler, işletmeler ve bireyler çevre dostu “yeşil” uygulamalara yönelmişlerdir. Farklı sektörlerde faaliyet gösteren işletmeler, çevreye duyarlılık ilkesini benimseyerek ürün veya hizmet üretiminde, sunumunda ve satış sonrası destek hizmetlerinde ekonomik değer oluşturmanın yanı sıra ekolojik değeri de vurgulamışlardır. Bu sayede ürün yaşam döngüsünün her aşamasında, tedarikçilerden müşterilere kadar tüm değer zinciri üyelerinin (tedarikçiler, müşteriler, üreticiler vb.) iş birliği içinde çalışması gerekliliği ortaya çıkmış ve yeşil tedarik zinciri yaklaşımı gelişmiştir. Yeşil tedarik zinciri bağlamında, tüm değer zincirine katkı sağlayan en iyi tedarikçinin seçilmesi en kritik konulardan biri olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Yapılan çalışmada, Türkiye’de otomotiv ana sanayisinde faaliyet gösteren bir işletmenin sac parça tedariği için çalışmayı düşündüğü en iyi yeşil tedarikçiyi seçmek amaçlanmıştır. Bunun için Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (Bulanık AHP) ve Bulanık Kalite Fonksiyon Göçerimi (Bulanık QFD) yöntemleri hibrit bir şekilde kullanılmıştır. Firmanın belirlediği 4 tedarikçi, literatür taraması ve 5 uzman kişinin de görüşleri alınarak belirlenen 10 yeşil tedarikçi seçim kriterine göre değerlendirilmiştir. Değerlendirme aşamasında. Bulanık AHP ile yeşil tedarikçi seçim kriterlerinin önem ağırlıkları belirlenmiş ve bu önem ağırlıkları Bulanık QFD yönteminde kullanılarak en iyi yeşil tedarikçi seçilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yeşil tedarikçi
• bulanık AHP
• bulanık QFD

Kaynakça

1. Abdel-Baset, M., Chang, V., Gamal, A., & Smarandache, F. (2019). An integrated neutrosophic ANP and VIKOR method for achieving sustainable supplier selection: A case study in importing field. Computers in Industry, 106, 94-110
2. Aguiar, J. A., Pimenta, C. D., & Ball, P. D. (2013). Green supply chain management: a study on criteria selection and collaboration with suppliers. In 4th International workshop Advances in Cleaner Production, São Paulo (pp. 1-9).
3. Akman, G., & Alkan, A. (2006). Tedarik Zinciri Yönetiminde Bulanık AHP yöntemi kullanılarak tedarikçilerin performansının ölçülmesi: Otomotiv Yan Sanayiinde bir uygulama. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(9), 23-46.
4. Akpınar, M. E. (2021). An applıcatıon on the most suıtable supplıer selectıon wıth fuzzy topsıs and fuzzy vıkor methods. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(2), 627-640.
5. Arıkan, M., & Gökbek, B. (2014). Çok ölçütlü karar verme yaklaşımlarına dayalı tedarikçi seçimi: elektronik sektöründe bir uygulama. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 30(5), 346-354.
6. Arimura, T. H., Darnall, N., & Katayama, H. (2011). Is ISO 14001 a gateway to more advanced voluntary action? The case of green supply chain management. Journal of environmental economics and management, 61(2), 170-182.
7. Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2010). A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International journal of production economics, 126(2), 370-378.
8. Azadi, M., Jafarian, M., Saen, R. F., & Mirhedayatian, S. M. (2015). A new fuzzy DEA model for evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain management context. Computers & operations research, 54, 274-285.

9. Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. International journal of production economics, 124(1), 252-264.
10. Baki, R. (2022). An integrated multi-criteria structural equation model for green supplier selection. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 9(4), 1063-1076.
11. Bali, O. (2018). A dynamic mcdm approach based on simplified neutrosophic sets for green supplier selection. Journal of Management and Information Science, 6(2), 14-23.
12. Bali, O., Kose, E., & Gumus, S. (2013). Green supplier selection based on IFS and GRA. Grey systems: theory and Application, 3(2), 158-176.
13. Banaeian, N., Mobli, H., Fahimnia, B., Nielsen, I. E., & Omid, M. (2018). Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. Computers & Operations Research, 89, 337-347.
14. Baskaran, V., Nachiappan, S., & Rahman, S. (2012). Indian textile suppliers' sustainability evaluation using the grey approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 647-658.
15. Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems, 17(3), 233-247.
16. Büyüközkan, G. (2012). An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making approach for green supplier evaluation. International Journal of Production Research, 50(11), 2892- 2909.
17. Cao, Q., Wu, J., & Liang, C. (2015). An intuitionsitic fuzzy judgement matrix and TOPSIS integrated multi-criteria decision making method for green supplier selection. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 28(1), 117-126.
18. Chan, L. K., & Wu, M. L. (2005). A systematic approach to quality function deployment with a full illustrative example. Omega, 33(2), 119-139.
19. Chiou, C. Y., Hsu, C. W., & Hwang, W. Y. (2008, December). Comparative investigation on green supplier selection of the American, Japanese and Taiwanese electronics industry in China. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 1909-1914). IEEE.
20. Chiou, H. K. (2001). Fuzzy hierarchical evaluation with grey relation model of green engineering for industry. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 3(3), 466-475.
21. Çalik, A. (2018). Bulanık çok-amaçlı doğrusal programlama ve aralık tip-2 bulanık AHP yöntemi ile yeşil tedarikçi seçimi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (39), 96-109.
22. Dağdeviren, M. (2007). Bulanik analitik hiyerarşi prosesi ile personel seçimi ve bir uygulama. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(4).
23. Daldır, İ., & Tosun, Ö. (2018). Bulanık WASPAS ile yeşil tedarikçi seçimi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(4), 193-208.
24. de Oliveira, L. M. V., Santos, H. F. D., de Almeida, M. R., & Costa, J. A. F. (2020). Quality Function Deployment and Analytic Hierarchy Process: A literature review of their joint application. Concurrent Engineering, 28(3), 239-251.
25. Denizhan, B., Yalçıner, A. Y., & Berber, Ş. (2017). Analitik hiyerarşi proses ve bulanık analitik hiyerarşi proses yöntemleri kullanılarak yeşil tedarikçi seçimi uygulaması. Nevşehir Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 6(1), 63-78.
26. Dobos, I., & Vörösmarty, G. (2014). Green supplier selection and evaluation using DEA-type composite indicators. International Journal of Production Economics, 157, 273-278.
27. Freeman, J., & Chen, T. (2015). Green supplier selection using an AHP-Entropy-TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(3), 327-340.
28. Genovese, A., Lenny Koh, S. C., Bruno, G., & Esposito, E. (2013). Greener supplier selection: state of the art and some empirical evidence. International Journal of Production Research, 51(10), 2868-2886.
29. Govindan, K., Kadziński, M., & Sivakumar, R. (2017). Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain. Omega, 71, 129-145.
30. Govindan, K., Kannan, D., & Shankar, M. (2015). Evaluation of green manufacturing practices using a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with PROMETHEE. International Journal of Production Research, 53(21), 6344-6371.
31. Gupta, S., Soni, U., & Kumar, G. (2019). Green supplier selection using multi-criterion decision making under fuzzy environment: A case study in automotive industry. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 136, 663-680.
32. Handfıeld, R., Ernest, L., Nichols, Jr. (1999). Introduction to supply chain management. New Jersey: Pretice Hall, Handfield, R., Walton, S. V., Sroufe, R., & Melnyk, S. A. (2002). Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process. European journal of operational research, 141(1), 70-87. Hashemi, S. H., Karimi, A., & Tavana, M. (2015). An integrated green supplier selection approach with analytic network process and improved Grey relational analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 178-191. Hashemi, S. H., Karimi, A., Aghakhani, N., & Kalantar, P. (2014). A grey-based carbon management model for green supplier selection. Journal of Grey System, 26(2), 124-131.
33. Hsu, C. W., Kuo, T. C., Chen, S. H., & Hu, A. H. (2013). Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 164-172.
34. Huang, J., Mao, L. X., Liu, H. C., & Song, M. S. (2022). Quality function deployment improvement: A bibliometric analysis and literature review. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1347-1366.
35. Humphreys, P. K., Wong, Y. K., & Chan, F. T. S. (2003). Integrating environmental criteria into the supplier selection process. Journal of Materials processing technology, 138(1-3), 349-356.
36. Humphreys, P., McIvor, R., & Chan, F. (2003). Using case-based reasoning to evaluate supplier environmental management performance. Expert systems with Applications, 25(2), 141-153.
37. Islam, S., & Deb, S. C. (2019). Neutrosophic goal programming approach to a green supplier selection model with quantity discount. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 30, 98-112.
38. Karamaşa, Ç., Korucuk, S., & Ergün, M. (2021). Determining the green supplier selection criteria in textile enterprises and selecting the most ideal distribution model: A case study of Gi̇resun. Alphanumeric Journal, 9(2), 311-324.
39. Kaur, P., Dutta, V., Pradhan, B. L., Haldar, S., & Chauhan, S. (2021). A pythagorean fuzzy approach for sustainable supplier selection using TODIM. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 1-11.
40. KILINÇ, S., & Yağmahan, B. (2021). Sürdürülebilirlik için GİA ve AHP Yöntemleri ile Yeşil Tedarikçi Seçimi: Bir Otomotiv Ana Sanayi Uygulaması. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (27), 686-698.
41. Korucuk, S. (2018). ÇKKV yöntemleri ile imalat işletmelerinde TZY Performans faktörlerinin önem derecelerinin belirlenmesi ve en ideal rekabet stratejisi seçimi: Ordu ili örneği. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 33 (2), 569-593.
42. Lee, A. H., Kang, H. Y., Hsu, C. F., & Hung, H. C. (2009). A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7917-7927.
43. Lee, A. H., Kang, H. Y., Lin, C. Y., & Chen, J. S. (2017). A novel fuzzy quality function deployment framework. Quality technology & quantitative management, 14(1), 44-73.
44. Li, Y., Liu, X., & Chen, Y. (2012). Supplier selection using axiomatic fuzzy set and TOPSIS methodology in supply chain management. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 11, 147-176.
45. Lin, R. J. (2013). Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices. Journal of cleaner production, 40, 32-39.
46. Liu, H. C., Shi, H., Li, Z., & Duan, C. Y. (2022). An integrated behavior decision-making approach for large group quality function deployment. Information Sciences, 582, 334-348.
47. Lu, L. Y., Wu, C. H., & Kuo, T. C. (2007). Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18-19), 4317-4331.
48. Madenoğlu, F. S. (2019). Bulanık çok kriterli karar verme ortamında yeşil tedarikçi seçimi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(4), 1850-1869.
49. Özdemir, A. İ. (2004). Tedarik zinciri yönetiminin gelişimi, süreçleri ve yararları. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (23).
50. Öztürk, B. A., & Özçelik, F. (2014). Sustainable supplier selection with a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method based on triple bottom line. Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(3), 129.
51. Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2010). A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International journal of production economics, 126(2), 370-378.
52. Öztürk, B. A., & Özçelik, F. (2014). Sustainable supplier selection with a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method based on triple bottom line. Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(3), 129.
53. Öztürk, M., & Paksoy, T. (2020). A new interval type-2 hybrid fuzzy rule-based AHP system for supplier selection. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 35(3), 1519-1535.
54. Qin, J., Liu, X., & Pedrycz, W. (2017). An extended TODIM multicriteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 626-638.
55. Qiyas, M., & Abdullah, S. (2022). Decision Support System Based on Spherical 2-tuple Linguistic Fuzzy Aggregation Operators and their Application in Green Supplier Selection. Punjab University. Journal of Mathematics, 54 (6), 411-428
56. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 175). Springer Science & Business Media.
57. Soyer, A., & Türkay, B. (2020). Yeşil satın alma ve yeşil tedarikçi seçimi: beyaz eşya sektöründe bir uygulama. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, 8(4), 1202-1222.
58. Şişman, B. (2016). Bulanık MOORA yöntemi kullanılarak yeşil tedarikçi geliştirme programlarının seçimi ve değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Yaşar University, 11(44), 302-315.
59. Taş, M. A., Çakır, E., & Ulukan, Z. (2021). Spherical fuzzy SWARA-MARCOS approach for green supplier selection. 3C Tecnologia, 115-133.
60. Teng, J. Y., Huang, W. C., & Lin, M. C. (2010). Systematic budget allocation for transportation construction projects: a case in Taiwan. Transportation, 37, 331-361.
61. Thongchattu, C. and Siripokapirom, S. (2010). Green supplier selection consensus by neural network. 2nd International Conference on Mechanical and Electronics Engineering.
62. Tian, Z. P., Zhang, H. Y., Wang, J. Q., & Wang, T. L. (2018). Green supplier selection using improved TOPSIS and best-worst method under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Informatica, 29 (4), 773-800.
63. Tsui, C. W., & Wen, U. P. (2014). A hybrid multiple criteria group decision-making approach for green supplier selection in the TFT-LCD industry. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014.
64. Tuzkaya, G., Ozgen, A., Ozgen, D., & Tuzkaya, U. R. (2009). Environmental performance evaluation of suppliers: A hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 6(3), 477-490.
65. Van, L. H., Yu, V. F., Dat, L. Q., Dung, C. C., Chou, S. Y., & Loc, N. V. (2018). New integrated quality function deployment approach based on interval neutrosophic set for green supplier evaluation and selection. Sustainability, 10 (3), 838.
66. Wang Chen, H. M., Chou, S. Y., Luu, Q. D., & Yu, T. H. K. (2016). A fuzzy MCDM approach for green supplier selection from the economic and environmental aspects. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2016.
67. Wątróbski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2016). Green supplier selection framework based on multi-criteria decision-analysis approach. In Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2016 (pp. 361-371). Springer International Publishing.
68. Wen, U. P., & Chi, J. M. (2010, October). Developing green supplier selection procedure: a DEA approach. In 2010 IEEE 17Th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (pp. 70-74). IEEE.
69. Wu, Q., Zhou, L., Chen, Y., & Chen, H. (2019). An integrated approach to green supplier selection based on the interval type-2 fuzzy best-worst and extended VIKOR methods. Information Sciences, 502, 394-417.
70. Xiong, L., Zhong, S., Liu, S., Zhang, X., & Li, Y. (2020). An approach for resilient-green supplier selection based on WASPAS, BWM, and TOPSIS under intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020.
71. Yang, B., Wu, Y. and Yin, M. (2008). Supplier selection modeling and anallysis based on polychromatic sets, ınternational federation for ınformation processing. Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems, 2, 1481-1485
72. Yazdani, M., Torkayesh, A. E., Stević, Ž., Chatterjee, P., Ahari, S. A., & Hernandez, V. D. (2021). An interval valued neutrosophic decision-making structure for sustainable supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 183, 115354.
73. Yildiz, A. (2016). Interval type 2-fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS method in supplier selection in garment industry/Metoda fuzzy TOPSIS Interval tip 2 si metoda fuzzy TOPSIS în selectarea furnizorului din industria de confectii. Industria Textila, 67(5), 322.
74. Yildiz, A., & Yayla, A. (2017). Application of fuzzy TOPSIS and generalized Choquet integral methods to select the best supplier. Decision Science Letters, 6(2), 137-150.
75. Yildiz, A. (2019). Green supplier selection using topsis method: a case study from the automotive supply industry. Journal of Engineering Research and Applied Science, 8(2), 1146-1152.
76. Yu, Q., & Hou, F. (2016). An approach for green supplier selection in the automobile manufacturing industry. Kybernetes, 45(4), 571-588.
77. Yücesan, M. (2019). Green Supplier selection for plastic industry using integrated model based on Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11 (1), 26-41.
78. Zaralı, F. (2021). Intuitionistic fuzzy green supplier selection and an application in the machine manufacturing sector. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 5(1), 676-687.
79. Zhao, H., & Guo, S. (2014). Selecting green supplier of thermal power equipment by using a hybrid MCDM method for sustainability. Sustainability, 6(1), 217-235.
80. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2008). Green supply chain management implications for “closing the loop”. Transport