Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

D-ANP: a multiple criteria decision making method for supplier selection

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Supplier selection can be regarded as a classic multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. To a great extent, experts’ evaluations play a decisive role in the decision-making process. There will inevitable exist a variety of indefinite factors, which result from imprecision, uncertainty, and fuzziness due to the subjective judgment of human beings. As an effective tool to express uncertain information, the theory of D numbers performs better in comparison to other existing methods. In addition to that, analytic network process (ANP) method is applied more broadly for its advantages of flexibility, rationality and creditability than analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. In this study, the D-ANP methodology is proposed to apply in the field of supplier selection, which is the extension of the traditional ANP method using D numbers. The validity of the presented methodology is illustrated by an application for supplier selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, Murugesan P (2015) Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J Clean Prod 98:66–83

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Chai J, Liu JN, Ngai EW (2013) Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: a systematic review of literature. Expert Syst Appl 40(10):3872–3885

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zeng S, Peng X, Baležentis T, Streimikiene D (2019) Prioritization of low-carbon suppliers based on pythagorean fuzzy group decision making with self-confidence level. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 32(1):1073–1087

    Google Scholar 

  5. Trapp AC, Sarkis J (2016) Identifying robust portfolios of suppliers: a sustainability selection and development perspective. J Clean Prod 112:2088–2100

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2011) Multiple criteria decision making (mcdm) methods in economics: an overview. Technol Econ Dev Econ 17(2):397–427

    Google Scholar 

  7. Liao H, Wu X, Liang X, Xu J, Herrera F (2018) A new hesitant fuzzy linguistic oreste method for hybrid multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(6):3793–3807

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zhu T, Luo L, Liao H, Zhang X, Shen W (2019) A hybrid multi-criteria decision making model for elective admission control in a chinese public hospital. Knowl-Based Syst 173:37–51

    Google Scholar 

  9. Xiao F, Ding W (2019) Divergence measure of pythagorean fuzzy sets and its application in medical diagnosis. Appl Soft Comput 79:254–267

    Google Scholar 

  10. Deng X, Jiang W (2019) Evaluating green supply chain management practices under fuzzy environment: a novel method based on D number theory [J]. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. 21(5):1389–1402

  11. Fei L, Xia J, Feng Y, Liu L (2019) An electre-based multiple criteria decision making method for supplier selection using dempster-Shafer theory. IEEE Access 7:84701–84716

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zhou Q, Dong Y, Zhang H, Gao Y (2018) The analytic hierarchy process with personalized individual semantics. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 11(1):451-468

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fei L (2019) On interval-valued fuzzy decision-making using soft likelihood functions. Int J Intell Syst 34(7):1631–1652

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mi X, Liao H (2019) An integrated approach to multiple criteria decision making based on the average solution and normalized weights of criteria deduced by the hesitant fuzzy best worst method. Comput Ind Eng 133:83–94

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zeng S, Chen S-M, Kuo L-W (2019) Multiattribute decision making based on novel score function of intuitionistic fuzzy values and modified vikor method. Inf Sci 488:76–92

    Google Scholar 

  16. Deng X, Jiang W (2019) D number theory based game-theoretic framework in adversarial decision making under a fuzzy environment. Int J Approx Reason 106:194–213

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Zeng S, Asharf S, Arif M, Abdullah S (2019) Application of exponential jensen picture fuzzy divergence measure in multi-criteria group decision making. Mathematics 7(2):191

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Li Y, Deng Y (2019) Intuitionistic evidence sets. IEEE Access 7(1):106417–106426

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wang Y, Zhang K, Deng Y (2019) Base belief function: an efficient method of conflict management. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 10(9):3427–3437

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jiang W, Huang C, Deng X (2019) A new probability transformation method based on a correlation coefficient of belief functions. Int J Intell Syst 34:1337–1347

    Google Scholar 

  21. Xiao F (2019) A multiple-criteria decision-making method based on D numbers and belief entropy [J]. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. 21(4): 1144–1153.

  22. Deng X, Jiang W, Wang Z (2019) Zero-sum polymatrix games with link uncertainty: a Dempster-Shafer theory solution. Appl Math Comput 340:101–112

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Zeng S, Llopis-Albert C, Zhang Y (2018) A novel induced aggregation method for intuitionistic fuzzy set and its application in multiple attribute group decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33(11):2175–2188

    Google Scholar 

  24. Liu F, Gao X, Zhao J, Deng Y (2019) Generalized belief entropy and its application in identifying conflict evidence. IEEE Access 7(1):126625–126633

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zeng S, Cao C, Deng Y, Shen X (2018) Pythagorean fuzzy information aggregation based on weighted induced operator and its application to r&d projections selection. Informatica 29(3):567–580

    Google Scholar 

  26. Li Y, Deng Y (2019) TDBF: two dimension belief function. Int J Intell Syst 34(8):1968–1982

    Google Scholar 

  27. Xiao F (2019) Multi-sensor data fusion based on the belief divergence measure of evidences and the belief entropy. Information Fusion 46(2019):23–32

    Google Scholar 

  28. Liao H, Wu X, Dn ma: A double normalization-based multiple aggregation method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision making, Omega. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.04.001. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048318302287

  29. Zhao J, Deng Y (2019) Performer selection in human reliability analysis: D numbers approach. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control 14(3):437–452

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation, Inc. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Mardani A, Jusoh A, Zavadskas EK (2015) Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications - two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst Appl 42(8):4126–4148

    Google Scholar 

  32. Buyukozkan G, Cifci G, Guleryuz S (2011) Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9407–9424

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wang TC, Chen YH (2008) Applying fuzzy linguistic preference relations to the improvement of consistency of fuzzy AHP. Inf Sci 178(19):3755–3765

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2007) A consensus model for group decision making with incomplete fuzzy preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(5):863–877

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Saaty TL (2006) The analytic network process, Springer

  36. Kang H-Y, Lee AH, Yang C-Y (2012) A fuzzy anp model for supplier selection as applied to ic packaging. J Intell Manuf 23(5):1477–1488

    Google Scholar 

  37. Liou JJ, Chuang Y-C, Tzeng G-H (2014) A fuzzy integral-based model for supplier evaluation and improvement. Inf Sci 266:199–217

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Liao H, Long Y, Tang M, Mardani A, Xu J, Low carbon supplier selection using a hesitant fuzzy linguistic span method integrating the analytic network process., Transformations in Business & Economics 18 (2)

  39. Laird AR, Riedel MC, Sutherland MT, Eickhoff SB, Ray KL, Uecker AM, Fox PM, Turner JA, Fox PT (2015) Neural architecture underlying classification of face perception paradigms. NeuroImage 119:70–80

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hsu CF, Li RK, Kang HY, Lee AH (2014) A systematic evaluation model for solar cell technologies, Mathematical Problems in Engineering

  41. García-Melón M, Poveda-Bautista R et al (2015) Using the strategic relative alignment index for the selection of portfolio projects application to a public venezuelan power corporation. Int J Prod Econ 170:54–66

    Google Scholar 

  42. Büyüközkan G, Berkol Ç (2011) Designing a sustainable supply chain using an integrated analytic network process and goal programming approach in quality function deployment. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):13731–13748

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tsai W-H, Lee P-L, Shen Y-S, Hwang ET (2014) A combined evaluation model for encouraging entrepreneurship policies. Ann Oper Res 221(1):449–468

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Zheng Y, He Y, Xu Z, Pedrycz W (2018) Assessment for hierarchical medical policy proposals using hesitant fuzzy linguistic analytic network process. Knowl-Based Syst 161:254–267

    Google Scholar 

  45. Chen H, Chen S (2014) The conceptual model for the strategic planning of energy sources. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 9(3):248–255

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hu Z, Rao C, Zheng Y, Huang D (2015) Optimization decision of supplier selection in green procurement under the mode of low carbon economy. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 8(3):407–421

    Google Scholar 

  47. Wu LC (2009) Supplier selection under uncertainty: a switching options perspective. Ind Manag Data Syst 109(1–2):191–205

  48. Kara SS (2011) Supplier selection with an integrated methodology in unknown environment. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):2133–2139

  49. Deng Y (2012) D numbers: theory and applications. Journal of Information and Computational Science 9(9):2421–2428

    Google Scholar 

  50. Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Annals of Mathematics and Statistics 38(2):325–339

  51. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Liu B, Deng Y (2019) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis based on D numbers theory. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control 14(5):672–691

    Google Scholar 

  53. Liu HC, You JX, Fan XJ, Lin QL (2014) Failure mode and effects analysis using D numbers and grey relational projection method. Expert Syst Appl 41(10):4670–4679

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mo H, Deng Y (2019) An evaluation for sustainable mobility extended by D numbers. Technol Econ Dev Econ 25(5):802–819

    Google Scholar 

  55. Fan G, Zhong D, Yan F, Yue P (2016) A hybrid fuzzy evaluation method for curtain grouting efficiency assessment based on an AHP method extended by D numbers. Expert Syst Appl 44(1):289–303

    Google Scholar 

  56. Xia J, Feng Y, Liu L, Liu D, Fei L, On entropy function and reliability indicator for D numbers [J], Applied Intelligence 49(9): 3248–3266.

  57. Deng X, Lu X, Chan FT, Sadiq R, Mahadevan S, Deng Y (2015) D-cfpr: D numbers extended consistent fuzzy preference relations. Knowl-Based Syst 73:61–68

    Google Scholar 

  58. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Dong Y, Xu Y, Li H, Dai M (2008) A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 186(1):229–242

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. Dong Y, Fan Z-P, Yu S (2014) Consensus building in a local context for the AHP-GDM with the individual numerical scale and prioritization method. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23(2):354–368

    Google Scholar 

  61. Dong Y, Xu W, Xu W (2013) An automatic method to reach consensus in a local context for AHP group decision making. European Journal of Industrial Engineering 7(4):456–474

    Google Scholar 

  62. Deng X, Hu Y, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014) Supplier selection using ahp methodology extended by d numbers. Expert Syst Appl 41(1):156–167

    Google Scholar 

  63. Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12(12):117–131

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F, Luque M (2004) Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 154(1):98–109

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Xu Z (2007) A survey of preference relations. Int J Gen Syst 36(2):179–203

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  66. Wang YM, Fan ZP (2007) Fuzzy preference relations: aggregation and weight determination. Comput Ind Eng 53(1):163–172

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  67. Lee LW (2012) Group decision making with incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on the additive consistency and the order consistency. Expert Syst Appl 39(14):11666–11676

    Google Scholar 

  68. Liu X, Pan Y, Xu Y, Yu S (2012) Least square completion and inconsistency repair methods for additively consistent fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 198(1):1–19

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. Chan FT, Kumar N (2007) Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended ahp-based approach. OMEGA 35(4):417–431

    Google Scholar 

  70. Zhang X, Deng Y, Chan FT, Mahadevan S (2015) A fuzzy extended analytic network process-based approach for global supplier selection. Appl Intell 43(4):760–772

    Google Scholar 

  71. Liu Z, Xiao F (2019) An interval-valued exceedance method in mcdm with uncertain satisfactions. Int J Intell Syst 34(10):2676–2691

    Google Scholar 

  72. Kaya R, Yet B (2019) Building bayesian networks based on dematel for multiple criteria decision problems: a supplier selection case study. Expert Syst Appl 134:234–248

    Google Scholar 

  73. He Z, Jiang W, Chan FT (2018) Evidential supplier selection based on interval data fusion. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 20(4):1159–1171

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  74. Fei L, Deng Y, Hu Y (2019) Ds-vikor: a new multi-criteria decision-making method for supplier selection. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 21(1):157–175

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  75. Zha Q, Dong Y, Zhang H, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) A Personalized Feedback Mechanism Based on Bounded Confidence Learning to Support Consensus Reaching in Group Decision Making, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2019.2945922

  76. Li C, Dong Y, Herrera F (2019) A consensus model for large-scale linguistic group decision making with a feedback recommendation based on clustered personalized individual semantics and opposing consensus groups. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27(2):221–233

    Google Scholar 

  77. Li C, Rodríguez RM, Martínez L, Dong Y, Herrera F (2018) Personalized individual semantics based on consistency in hesitant linguistic group decision making with comparative linguistic expressions. Knowl-Based Syst 145:156–165

    Google Scholar 

  78. Wang Y, Dong Y, Zhang H, Gao Y (2018) Personalized individual semantics based approach to MAGDM with the linguistic preference information on alternatives. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 11(1):496–513

    Google Scholar 

  79. Li C-C, Dong Y, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Martínez L (2017) Personalized individual semantics in computing with words for supporting linguistic group decision making. An application on consensus reaching, Information Fusion 33:29–40

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61763009).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, China

    Liguo Fei

Authors
  1. Liguo Fei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liguo Fei.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fei, L. D-ANP: a multiple criteria decision making method for supplier selection. Appl Intell 50, 2537–2554 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01639-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01639-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation