A decision-making methodology for vendor selection problem with uncertain inputs

References

• Agarwal, P., Sahai, M., Mishra, V., Bag, M. and Singh, V. 2011. A review of multi-criteria decision making techniques for supplier evaluation and selection, Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput., 2, (4), 801–810.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Faraj, T. N., Alidi, A. S. and Al-Zayer, J. A. 1993. Vendors selection via a spreadsheet analytical hierarchy process, Comput. Ind. Eng., 25, (1), 65–68.
   Google Scholar
• Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S. and Saghafinia, A. 2012. Location decision of supply chain management in the auto motive industry, Int. J. Eng., 1, (2), 2305–8269.
   Google Scholar
• Arabzad, S. M., Bahrami, M. and Ghorbaniz, M. 2012. Integrating Kano-DEA models for distribution evaluation problem, Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci., 41, 506–512.
   Google Scholar
• Arikan, F. 2015. An interactive solution approach for multiple objective supplier selection problem with fuzzy parameters, J. Intell. Manuf., 26, (5), 989–998. doi: 10.1007/s10845-013-0782-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azadeh, A., Mokhtari, Z., Sharahi, Z. J. and Zarrin, M. 2015. An integrated experiment for identification of best decision styles and teamworks with respect to HSE and ergonomics program: the case of a large oil refinery, Accid. Anal. Prev., 85, 30–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azadeh, A., Tohidi, H., Zarrin, M., Pashapour, S. and Moghaddam, M. 2016. An integrated algorithm for performance optimization of neurosurgical ICUs, Expert Syst. Appl., 43, 142–153.10.1016/j.eswa.2015.08.042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azadeh, A., Zarrin, M., Abdollahi, M., Noury, S. and Farahmand, S. 2015. Leanness assessment and optimization by fuzzy cognitive map and multivariate analysis, Expert Syst. Appl., 42, (15), 6050–6064.10.1016/j.eswa.2015.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azadeh, A., Zarrin, M. and Salehi, N. 2016. Supplier selection in closed loop supply chain by an integrated simulation-Taguchi-DEA approach, J. Enterp. Inf. Manage., 29, (3), 302–326.10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banker, R. D., Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., Thrall, R. M. and Zhu, J. 2004. Returns to scale in different DEA models, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 345–362.10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00174-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya, A., Geraghty, J. and Young, P. (2010). Supplier selection paradigm: an integrated hierarchical QFD methodology under multiple-criteria environment, Appl. Soft Comput., 10, (4), 1013–1027. Doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2010.05.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhutta, K. S. and Huq, F. 2002. Supplier selection problem: a comparison of the total cost of ownership and analytic hierarchy process approaches, Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J., 7, (3), 126–135.10.1108/13598540210436586
   Google Scholar
• Carrera, D. A. and Mayorga, R. V. 2008. Supply chain management: a modular fuzzy inference system approach in supplier selection for new product development, J. Intell. Manuf., 19, (1), 1–12.10.1007/s10845-007-0041-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çelebi, D. and Bayraktar, D. 2008. An integrated neural network and data envelopment analysis for supplier evaluation under incomplete information, Expert Syst. Appl., 35, (4), 1698–1710.
   Google Scholar
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2, (6), 429–444.10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, N. and Bose, G. 2013. Selection of vendors for wind farm under fuzzy MCDM environment, Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput., 4, (4), 535–546.10.5267/j.ijiec.2013.06.002
   Google Scholar
• Cook, W. D., Kress, M. and Seiford, L. M. 1996. Data envelopment analysis in the presence of both quantitative and qualitative factors, J. Oper. Res. Soc., 47, (7), 945–953. doi: 10.2307/3010140.10.1057/jors.1996.120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, W. W. and Tone, K. 1997. Measures of inefficiency in data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier estimation, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 99, (1), 72–88.10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00384-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das, S. K. and Shahin, H. 2003. Models for supply chain vendor selection in e-markets, J. Chin. Inst. Ind. Eng., 20, (3), 231–239.doi: 10.1080/10170660309509231.
   Google Scholar
• Dey, B., Bairagi, B., Sarkar, B. and Sanyal, S. 2012. A MOORA based fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for supply chain strategy selection, Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput., 3, (4), 649–662.
   Google Scholar
• Ding, H., Benyoucef, L. and Xie, X. 2003. A simulation-optimization approach using genetic search for supplier selection, in Proceedings Simulation Conference, 2003. Proceedings of the 2003 Winter2003, Volume 2, IEEE, Brockton, 1260–1267.
   Google Scholar
• Dogan, I. and Aydin, N. 2011. Combining Bayesian Networks and Total Cost of Ownership method for supplier selection analysis, Comput. Ind. Eng., 61, (4), 1072–1085.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ertay, T., Kahveci, A. and Tabanlı, R. 2011. An integrated multi-criteria group decision-making approach to efficient supplier selection and clustering using fuzzy preference relations, Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 24, (12), 1152–1167.
   Google Scholar
• Guneri, A. F., Yucel, A. and Ayyildiz, G. 2009. An integrated fuzzy-lp approach for a supplier selection problem in supply chain management, Expert Syst. Appl., 36, (5), 9223–9228.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, P., Huang, G., Cadden, T. and McIvor, R. 2007. Integrating design metrics within the early supplier selection process, J. Purchasing Supply Manage., 13, (1), 42–52.10.1016/j.pursup.2007.03.006
   Google Scholar
• Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U. and Ulukan, Z. 2003. Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP, Logistics Inf. Manage., 16, (6), 382–394.10.1108/09576050310503367
   Google Scholar
• Karande, P. and Chakraborty, S. 2013. Using MACBETH method for supplier selection in manufacturing environment, Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput., 4, (2), 259–272.10.5267/j.ijiec
   Google Scholar
• Kawaguchi, H., Tone, K. and Tsutsui, M. 2014. Estimation of the efficiency of Japanese hospitals using a dynamic and network data envelopment analysis model, Health Care Manage. Sci., 17, (2), 101–112.10.1007/s10729-013-9248-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khaleie, S., Fasanghari, M. and Tavassoli, E. 2012. Supplier selection using a novel intuitionist fuzzy clustering approach, Appl. Soft Comput., 12, (6), 1741–1754.10.1016/j.asoc.2012.01.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khani, F., Naderi, H., Zangeneh, M. and Fazeli, E. 2012. Measuring the relative efficiency of Ilam hospitals using data envelopment analysis, Manage. Sci. Lett., 2, (4), 1189–1194.
   Google Scholar
• Kuah, C. T. and Wong, K. Y. 2011. Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis, Procedia Comput. Sci., 3, 499–506.10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.084
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, M., Vrat, P. and Shankar, R. 2004. A fuzzy goal programming approach for vendor selection problem in a supply chain, Comput. Ind. Eng., 46, (1), 69–85.
   Google Scholar
• Kuo, R., Lee, L. and Hu, T.-L. 2010. Developing a supplier selection system through integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEA: a case study on an auto lighting system company in Taiwan, Prod. Planning Control, 21, (5), 468–484.10.1080/09537280903458348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo, R. and Lin, Y. 2012. Supplier selection using analytic network process and data envelopment analysis, Int. J. Prod. Res., 50, (11), 2852–2863.10.1080/00207543.2011.559487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, W., Chen, Y. and Fu, Y. 2008. Combination of TOPSIS and 0-1 programming for supplier selection in supply chain management, in Proceedings Networking, Sensing and Control, 2008. ICNSC 2008. IEEE International Conference on 2008, IEEE, Sanya, 1531–1535.
   Google Scholar
• Liao, C.-N. and Kao, H.-P. 2010. Supplier selection model using Taguchi loss function, analytical hierarchy process and multi-choice goal programming, Comput. Ind. Eng., 58, (4), 571–577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, J., Ding, F.-Y. and Lall, V. 2000. Using data envelopment analysis to compare suppliers for supplier selection and performance improvement, Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J., 5, (3), 143–150.10.1108/13598540010338893
   Google Scholar
• Mazinani, M., Ghazi, S. E., Ghazi, N. E. and Ghaseminejad, A. 2011. Proposing new models for finding the most efficient DMUs in DEA, Int. J. of Manage. Sci and Eng. Manage., 6, (6), 403–407. doi: 10.1080/17509653.2011.10671189.
   Google Scholar
• Morlacchi, P. 1999. Vendor evaluation and selection: the design process and a fuzzy-hierarchical model, in Proceedings of the 8th IPSERA Conference, Dublin.
   Google Scholar
• Pang, B. and Bai, S. 2013. An integrated fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for supplier selection based on analytic network process, J. Intell. Manuf., 24, (1), 163–174.
   Google Scholar
• Saati, S. M., Memariani, A. and Jahanshahloo, G. R. 2002. Efficiency analysis and ranking of DMUs with fuzzy data, Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Making, 1, (3), 255–267.10.1023/A:1019648512614
   Google Scholar
• Sadjadi, S. and Omrani, H. 2008. Data envelopment analysis with uncertain data: an application for Iranian electricity distribution companies, Energy Policy, 36, (11), 4247–4254.10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saen, R. F. 2008. Supplier selection by the new AR-IDEA model, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 39, (11–12), 1061–1070.10.1007/s00170-007-1287-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahin, F. and Robinson, E. P. 2002. Flow coordination and information sharing in supply chains: review, implications, and directions for future research, Decis. Sci., 33, (4), 505–536.10.1111/deci.2002.33.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanayei, A., Farid Mousavi, S. and Yazdankhah, A. 2010. Group decision making process for supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment, Expert Syst. Appl., 37, (1), 24–30.10.1016/j.eswa.2009.04.063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sevkli, M., Lenny Koh, S., Zaim, S., Demirbag, M. and Tatoglu, E. 2007. An application of data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection: a case study of BEKO in Turkey, Int. J. Prod. Res., 45, (9), 1973–2003.10.1080/00207540600957399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, S. and Balan, S. 2013. An integrative supplier selection model using Taguchi loss function, TOPSIS and multi criteria goal programming, J. Intell. Manuf., 24, (6), 1123–1130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, C.-d., Bian, D.-x. and Li, S.-l. 2010. Application of BP neural network and DEA in the logistics supplier selection, in Proceedings Computer Engineering and Technology (ICCET), 2010 2nd International Conference on2010, Volume 1, IEEE, Chengdu, V1-361–V361-364.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, P. M., Siguaw, J. A. and White, S. C. 2002. Measuring the performance of suppliers: an analysis of evaluation processes, J. Supply Chain Manage., 38, (4), 29–41.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, W. and Dimitrov, S. 2013. The US Navy explores detailing cost reduction via data envelopment analysis, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 227, (1), 166–173.10.1016/j.ejor.2012.11.058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talluri, S., Narasimha, R. and Nair, A. 2006. Vendor performance with supply risk: a chance-constrained DEA approach, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 100, (2), 212–222.10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.11.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, K. C. 2001. A framework of supply chain management literature, Eur. J. Purchasing Supply Manage., 7, (1), 39–48.
   Google Scholar
• Tempelmeier, H. 2002. A simple heuristic for dynamic order sizing and supplier selection with time-varying data, Prod. Oper. Manage., 11, (4), 499–515.
   Google Scholar
• Uuddin, M. S. and Varghese, P. 2005. Supply chain management and best supplier selection practices. Eskilstuna: Master of science, Department of Innovation, Design and Product Development, Mälardalen University.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, S. M. and Kemmerling, R. 2014. Supply chain management executives in corporate upper echelons, J. Purchasing Supply Manage., 20, (3), 156–166. doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2014.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, G., Huang, S. H. and Dismukes, J. P. 2004. Product-driven supply chain selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 91, (1), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, C. A., Current, J. R. and Benton, W. C. 1991. Vendor selection criteria and methods, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 50, (1), 2–18.10.1016/0377-2217(91)90033-R
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, C. A., Current, J. R. and Desai, A. 1998. Non-cooperative negotiation strategies for vendor selection, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 108, (1), 208–223.10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00131-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wind, Y. and Robinson, P. J. 1968. The determinants of vendor selection: the evaluation function approach, J. Purchasing, 4, (3), 29–42.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, C. and Barnes, D. 2011. A literature review of decision-making models and approaches for partner selection in agile supply chains, J. Purchasing Supply Manage., 17, (4), 256–274.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, D. 2009. Supplier selection: a hybrid model using DEA, decision tree and neural network, Expert Syst. Appl., 36, (5), 9105–9112.10.1016/j.eswa.2008.12.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, D. and Olson, D. L. 2008. Supply chain risk, simulation, and vendor selection, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 114, (2), 646–655.10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, J. and Yan, F. 2011. A multi-objective decision making model for the vendor selection problem in a bifuzzy environment, Expert Syst. Appl., 38, (8), 9684–9695.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Y.-P. O., Shieh, H.-M., Leu, J.-D. and Tzeng, G.-H. 2008. A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications, Int. J. Oper. Res., 5, (3), 160–168.
   Google Scholar
• Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C. and Çobanoğlu, C. 2011. A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation, Expert Syst. Appl., 38, (3), 2741–2751.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, X., Lee, C. and Chen, S. 2012. Supplier evaluation and selection: a hybrid model based on DEAHP and ABC, Int. J. Prod. Res., 50, (7), 1877–1889.10.1080/00207543.2011.560908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar