An MAGDM based on constrained FAHP and FTOPSIS and its application to supplier selection

Mathematical and Computer Modelling

Volumn 54, Issue 11-12, 2011, Pages 2802-2815

  Chen, Zhiping ^a   Yang, Wei ^a,b  

^a XI'AN JIAOTONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b XI'AN UNIVERSITY OF ARCHITECTURE AND TECHNOLOGY   (China)

Author keywords

Extent analysis technique; Fuzzy AHP; Fuzzy TOPSIS; Multiple attribute decision making

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES; ATTRIBUTE WEIGHT; EVALUATION PROCESS; FUZZY AHP; FUZZY ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; FUZZY INFORMATION; FUZZY TOPSIS; LINGUISTIC TERMS; MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTE DECISION MAKING; MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTE GROUP; MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTES; PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE; RELATIVE IMPORTANCE; SUPPLIER SELECTION; WEIGHT VECTOR;

ALGORITHMS; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; LINGUISTICS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 80052614442     PISSN: 08957177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mcm.2011.06.068     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Saaty T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process 1980, McGraw-Hill, New York.
2. Chiclana F., Herrera E., Herrera-Viedma E. Integrating multiplicative preference relations in a multipurpose decision-making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2001, 122:277-291.
3. Herrera F., Herrera-Viedma E., Chiclana F. Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research 2001, 129:372-385.
4. Wang Y.M., Chin K.S. A linear goal programming priority method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its applications in new product screening. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 2008, 49:451-465.
5. Wang T.C., Chen Y.H. Applying fuzzy linguistic preference relations to the improvement of consistency of fuzzy AHP. Information Sciences 2008, 178:3755-3765.
6. Hwang C.L., Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications 1981, Springer, Berlin.
7. Opricovic S., Tzeng G.H. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research 2004, 156:445-455.
8. Abo-Sinna M.A., Amer A.H. Extensions of TOPSIS for multiobjective large-scale nonlinear programming problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation 2005, 162:243-256.
9. Chen C.T. Extension of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2000, 114:1-9.
10. Wang Y.M., Elhag T. Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Systems with Applications 2006, 31:309-319.
11. Jahanshahloo G.R., Lotfi F.H., Izadikhah M. Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision-making problems with fuzzy data. Applied Mathematics and Computation 2006, 181:1544-1551.
12. Iraj M., Nezam M., Armaghan H., Rahele N. Designing a model of fuzzy TOPSIS in multiple criteria decision making. Applied Mathematics and Computation 2008, 206:607-617.
13. Shiha H.S., Shyurb H.J., Leec E.S. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 2007, 45:801-813.
14. Chen T.Y., Tsao C.Y. The interval-valued fuzzy TOPSIS method and experimental analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2007, 159:1410-1428.
15. Chu T.C., Lin Y.C. An interval arithmetic based fuzzy TOPSIS model. Expert Systems with Applications 2009, 36:10870-10876.
16. Lin M.C., Wang C.C., Chen M.S., Chang C.A. Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry 2008, 59(1):17-31.
17. Önüt S., Soner S. Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Management 2008, 28:1552-1559.
18. Dagdeviren M., Yavuz S., Kilinc N. Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Application 2009, 36:8143-8151.
19. Ertugul I., Karakasoglu N. Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications 2009, 36(1):702-715.
20. Gumus A.T. Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two steps fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications 2009, 36:4067-4074.
21. Secme N.Y., Bayrakdaroglu A., Kahraman C. Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Application 2009, 36:11699-11709.
22. Önüt S., Efendigil T., Soner S. A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting shopping center site: an example from Istanbul, Turkey. Expert Systems with Application 2010, 37:1973-1980.
23. Rostamzadeh R., Sofian S. Prioritizing effective 7Ms to improve production systems performance using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications 2011, 38:5166-5177.
24. Enea M., Piazza T. Project selection by constrained fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making 2004, 3:39-62.
25. Klir G.J. Fuzzy arithmetic with requisite constraints. Fuzzy Sets and System 1997, 91:165-175.
26. Tiryaki F., Ahlatcioglu B. Fuzzy portfolio selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Information Science 2009, 179:53-69.
27. Chen T.C., Lin C.T., Huang S.F. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics 2006, 102:289-301.
28. Amir S., Mousavi S.F., Yazdankhah A. Group decision making process for supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 2010, 37:24-30.
29. Önüt S., Kara S.S., Isik E. Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: a case study for a telecommunication company. Expert Systems with Applications 2009, 36:3887-3895.
30. Chang D.Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 1996, 95(3):649-655.
31. Yurdakul M. Selection of computer-integrated manufacturing technologies using a combined analytic hierarchy process and goal programming model. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2004, 20:329-340.
32. Daǧeviren M., Yüksel , Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Information Sciences 2008, 178:1717-1733.
33. Mikhailov L. A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements. European Journal of Operational Research 2004, 159:687-704.
34. Miller G.A. The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limitations on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 1956, 63:81-97.
35. Chan F.T.S., Kumar N. Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega-International Journal of Management Science 2007, 35:417-431.
36. Liu H.T., Wang W.K. An integrated fuzzy approach for provider evaluation and selection in third-party logistics. Expert Systems with Applications 2009, 36:4387-4398.