Quantifying the Sustainability of Products and Suppliers in Food Distribution Companies

[EN] Supplier evaluation is a relevant task of supply chain management where multicriteria methods make great contributions to manufacturing industries. This is not the case in food distribution companies, which have a key role in providing safe and affordable food to society. The purpose of this research is to measure the sustainability of products and suppliers in food distribution companies through a multiple criteria approach. Firstly, the system proposed provides indicators to qualify products and assess the food quality, using the compensatory Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) model. Secondly, these indicators are included in supplier evaluation, which takes economic, environmental, and social criteria into account. MAUT and Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE), a non-compensatory method, are used for supplier evaluation. This approach has been validated for fresh food in a supermarket chain, mainly using historical data. Partial indicators, such as food safety scores, together with global indicators of suppliers, inform the most appropriate decisions and the most appropriate relations between companies and providers. Poor performance in food safety can lead to the disqualification of some suppliers. MAUT is good for qualifying products and is easy to apply at the operational level in logistic platforms, while PROMETHEE is more suitable for supplier segmentation, as it helps to identify supplier strengths and weaknesses.This research was funded by the Regional Ministry of Education, Research, Culture and Sport of the Autonomous Government of the Valencian Region, Spain, grant number AICO/2017/066.Segura Maroto, M.; Maroto Álvarez, MC.; Segura García Del Río, B. (2019). Quantifying the Sustainability of Products and Suppliers in Food Distribution Companies. Sustainability. 11(21):1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215875S1181121Thies, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T. S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2019). Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 274(1), 1-21. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.039Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2017). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 607-616. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.075Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2015). Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412-1442. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340Chai, J., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2020). Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112903. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112903Chai, J., Liu, J. N. K., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872-3885. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046Ansari, Z. N., & Kant, R. (2017). A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2524-2543. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.023Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16-24. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009Rajeev, A., Pati, R. K., Padhi, S. S., & Govindan, K. (2017). Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 299-314. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026Demir, L., Akpınar, M. E., Araz, C., & Ilgın, M. A. (2018). A green supplier evaluation system based on a new multi-criteria sorting method: VIKORSORT. Expert Systems with Applications, 114, 479-487. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.071Dweiri, F., Kumar, S., Khan, S. A., & Jain, V. (2016). Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 62, 273-283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.030Chang, L., Ouzrout, Y., Nongaillard, A., Bouras, A., & Jiliu, Z. (2014). Multi-criteria decision making based on trust and reputation in supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 362-372. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.014Ekici, A. (2013). An improved model for supplier selection under capacity constraint and multiple criteria. International Journal of Production Economics, 141(2), 574-581. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.013Lin, R.-H. (2012). An integrated model for supplier selection under a fuzzy situation. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(1), 55-61. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.024Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (2011). A weighted max–min model for fuzzy multi-objective supplier selection in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 139-145. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.044Chen, Y.-J. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Information Sciences, 181(9), 1651-1670. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.07.026Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., & Çobanoğlu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2741-2751. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064Şen, C. G., Baraçlı, H., Şen, S., & Başlıgil, H. (2009). An integrated decision support system dealing with qualitative and quantitative objectives for enterprise software selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5272-5283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.070Bottani, E., & Rizzi, A. (2008). An adapted multi-criteria approach to suppliers and products selection—An application oriented to lead-time reduction. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 763-781. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.03.012Govindan, 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. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2016.10.004Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009Rezaei, J., & Ortt, R. (2013). Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 225(1), 75-84. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.09.037Segura, M., & Maroto, C. (2017). A multiple criteria supplier segmentation using outranking and value function methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 69, 87-100. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.10.031Bloemhof, J. M., & Soysal, M. (2016). Sustainable Food Supply Chain Design. Springer Series in Supply Chain Management, 395-412. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29791-0_18Grimm, J. H., Hofstetter, J. S., & Sarkis, J. (2014). Critical factors for sub-supplier management: A sustainable food supply chains perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 159-173. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.011Lau, H., Nakandala, D., & Shum, P. K. (2018). A business process decision model for fresh-food supplier evaluation. Business Process Management Journal, 24(3), 716-744. doi:10.1108/bpmj-01-2016-0015Beske, P., Land, A., & Seuring, S. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 131-143. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.026Schmitt, E., Galli, F., Menozzi, D., Maye, D., Touzard, J.-M., Marescotti, A., … Brunori, G. (2017). Comparing the sustainability of local and global food products in Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 346-359. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.039Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R. B., Albadvi, A., & Aghdasi, M. (2010). PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1), 198-215. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021The PROMETHEE Bibliographical Databasehttp://www.promethee-gaia.net/bibliographical-database.htmlChen, Y.-H., Wang, T.-C., & Wu, C.-Y. (2011). Strategic decisions using the fuzzy PROMETHEE for IS outsourcing. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 13216-13222. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.137Araz, C., & Ozkarahan, I. (2007). Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure. International Journal of Production Economics, 106(2), 585-606. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.008Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2003). Supplier selection using a multi-criteria decision aid method. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(4), 177-187. doi:10.1016/s1478-4092(03)00032-3Seuring, S. (2013). A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decision Support Systems, 54(4), 1513-1520. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.053Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., & Seuring, S. (2014). Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 299-312. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.032Xu, Z. (2000). On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 126(3), 683-687. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00082-xKonys. (2019). Green Supplier Selection Criteria: From a Literature Review to a Comprehensive Knowledge Base. Sustainability, 11(15), 4208. doi:10.3390/su11154208D-Sight CDMhttp://www.d-sight.com/solutions/d-sight-cd

Improving Food Supply Chain Management by a Sustainable Approach to Supplier Evaluation

[EN] Increasing food supply chain sustainability means having to deal with many conflicting aspects and involves producers, several departments in distribution companies, and consumers. The objectives of this research are to develop models to solve real-world supplier evaluation problems and validate them with real data on fresh fruits in a supermarket chain. Literature review and results from a survey with managers from purchasing, logistics, and quality departments of a food distribution company are used to establish criteria, to first model the assessment of products and, second, to model supplier evaluation. A multicriteria hybrid approach is proposed, using multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) to assess the quality of products and Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) to complete their evaluation with strategic criteria to be included in the second phase. The results allow companies to rank suppliers by product and classify them according to the main criteria categories, such as product strategy, food safety, economic, logistic, commercial, green image and corporate social responsibility. A sorting approach is also applied to obtain ordered groups of suppliers. Finally, the models proposed can form the core of a decision support system in order to create and monitor the supplier base in food distribution companies, as well as to inform sustainable decision making.This research was funded by the Regional Ministry of Education, Research, Culture and Sport of the Autonomous Government of the Valencian Region, Spain, grant number AICO/2017/066.Segura Maroto, M.; Maroto Álvarez, MC.; Segura García Del Río, B.; Casas-Rosal, JC. (2020). Improving Food Supply Chain Management by a Sustainable Approach to Supplier Evaluation. Mathematics. 8(11):1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8111952S123811Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16-24. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2015). Sustainable supplier management – a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412-1442. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340Aouadni, S., Aouadni, I., & Rebaï, A. (2019). A systematic review on supplier selection and order allocation problems. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 15(S1), 267-289. doi:10.1007/s40092-019-00334-yChai, J., Liu, J. N. K., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872-3885. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040Chai, J., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2020). Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112903. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112903Wetzstein, A., Hartmann, E., Benton jr., W. C., & Hohenstein, N.-O. (2016). A systematic assessment of supplier selection literature – State-of-the-art and future scope. International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 304-323. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.022Ansari, Z. N., & Kant, R. (2017). A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2524-2543. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.023Schramm, V. B., Cabral, L. P. B., & Schramm, F. (2020). Approaches for supporting sustainable supplier selection - A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 123089. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123089Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046Rajeev, A., Pati, R. K., Padhi, S. S., & Govindan, K. (2017). Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 299-314. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026Demir, L., Akpınar, M. E., Araz, C., & Ilgın, M. A. (2018). A green supplier evaluation system based on a new multi-criteria sorting method: VIKORSORT. Expert Systems with Applications, 114, 479-487. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.071Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2017). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 607-616. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.075Thies, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T. S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2019). Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 274(1), 1-21. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.039Konys. (2019). Green Supplier Selection Criteria: From a Literature Review to a Comprehensive Knowledge Base. Sustainability, 11(15), 4208. doi:10.3390/su11154208Segura, M., Maroto, C., & Segura, B. (2019). Quantifying the Sustainability of Products and Suppliers in Food Distribution Companies. Sustainability, 11(21), 5875. doi:10.3390/su11215875Memari, A., Dargi, A., Akbari Jokar, M. R., Ahmad, R., & Abdul Rahim, A. R. (2019). Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50, 9-24. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002Dweiri, F., Kumar, S., Khan, S. A., & Jain, V. (2016). Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 62, 273-283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.030Chang, L., Ouzrout, Y., Nongaillard, A., Bouras, A., & Jiliu, Z. (2014). Multi-criteria decision making based on trust and reputation in supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 362-372. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.014Ekici, A. (2013). An improved model for supplier selection under capacity constraint and multiple criteria. International Journal of Production Economics, 141(2), 574-581. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.013Lin, R.-H. (2012). An integrated model for supplier selection under a fuzzy situation. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(1), 55-61. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.024Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (2011). A weighted max–min model for fuzzy multi-objective supplier selection in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 139-145. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.044Chen, Y.-J. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Information Sciences, 181(9), 1651-1670. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.07.026Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., & Çobanoğlu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2741-2751. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064Şen, C. G., Baraçlı, H., Şen, S., & Başlıgil, H. (2009). An integrated decision support system dealing with qualitative and quantitative objectives for enterprise software selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5272-5283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.070Bottani, E., & Rizzi, A. (2008). An adapted multi-criteria approach to suppliers and products selection—An application oriented to lead-time reduction. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 763-781. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.03.012Segura, M., & Maroto, C. (2017). A multiple criteria supplier segmentation using outranking and value function methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 69, 87-100. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.10.031Trapp, A. C., & Sarkis, J. (2016). Identifying Robust portfolios of suppliers: a sustainability selection and development perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2088-2100. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.062Araz, C., & Ozkarahan, I. (2007). Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure. International Journal of Production Economics, 106(2), 585-606. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.008Boran, F. E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., & Akay, D. (2009). A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(8), 11363-11368. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2002). Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 229-246. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00243-0Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228-238. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5Nemery, P., & Lamboray, C. (2007). ℱlow $\mathcal{S}$ ort: a flow-based sorting method with limiting or central profiles. TOP, 16(1), 90-113. doi:10.1007/s11750-007-0036-xLau, H., Nakandala, D., & Shum, P. K. (2018). A business process decision model for fresh-food supplier evaluation. Business Process Management Journal, 24(3), 716-744. doi:10.1108/bpmj-01-2016-0015D-Sight CDM http://www.d-sight.com/solutions/d-sight-cdmNemery, P., Lidouh, K., & Mareschal, B. (2011). On the usefulness of taking the weights into account in the GAIA visualisations. International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, 3(3), 228. doi:10.1504/ijids.2011.041585Nemery, P., Ishizaka, A., Camargo, M., & Morel, L. (2012). Enriching descriptive information in ranking and sorting problems with visualizations techniques. Journal of Modelling in Management, 7(2), 130-147. doi:10.1108/17465661211242778Xu, Z. (2000). On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 126(3), 683-687. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00082-xOrtiz‐Barrios, M., Miranda‐De la Hoz, C., López‐Meza, P., Petrillo, A., & De Felice, F. (2019). A case of food supply chain management with AHP, DEMATEL, and TOPSIS. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 27(1-2), 104-128. doi:10.1002/mcda.169

A comparison of TOPSIS, grey relational analysis and COPRAS methods for machine selection problem in the food industry of Turkey

[EN] The paper aims to compare the results of the selection/choice of cream separators by using multi-criteria decision-making methods in an integrated manner for an enterprise with a dairy processing capacity of 80 to 100 tons per day operating in the Turkish food sector. A total of 7 alternative products and 7 criteria for milk processing were determined. Criterion weights were calculated using entropy method and then integrated into TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions), GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) and COPRAS (Complex Proportional Assessment) methods. Sensitivity analyses were carried out on the results obtained from the three methods to check for their reliability. At the end of the study, similar alternative and appropriate results were found from the TOPSIS and COPRAS methods. However, different alternative but appropriate or suitable results were obtained from the GRA method. Sensitivity analysis of the three methods showed that all the methods used were valid. In the review of available and related literature, very few studies on machine selection in the dairy and food sector in general were found. For this reason, it is thought that the study will contribute to the decision-making process of companies in the dairy sector in their choice of machinery selections. As far as is known, this paper is the first attempt in extant literature to compare in an integrated manner the results of TOPSIS, COPRAS and GRA methods considered in the study.Özcan, S.; Çelik, AK. (2021). A comparison of TOPSIS, grey relational analysis and COPRAS methods for machine selection problem in the food industry of Turkey. International Journal of Production Management and Engineering. 9(2):81-92. https://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2021.14734OJS819292Ahmed, M., Qureshi, M.N., Mallick, J., Kahla, N.B. (2019). Selection of sustainable supplementary concrete materials using OSM-AHP-TOPSIS approach. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2019, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2850480Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., Mininno, V. (2014). A peer IF-TOPSIS based decision support system for packaging machine selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(5), 2157-2165https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.09.014Alpay, S., Ihpar, M. (2018). Equipment selection based on two different fuzzy multi criteria decision making methods: Fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR. Open Geosciences, 10(1), 661-677. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0053Antucheviciene, J., Zavadskas, E.K., Zakarevičius, A. (2012). Ranking redevelopment decisions of derelict buildings and analysis of ranking results. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 46(2), 37-63. Retrieved June 08, 2020 from http://www.ecocyb.ase.ro/22012/Edmundas%20ZAVADSKAS%20_DA_.pdfAyağ, Z., Özdemir, R.G. (2006). A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 17(2), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-005-6635-1Belton, V., Stewart, T.J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Berlin: Kluwer Academic Publishers.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4Camcı, A., Temur, G.T., Beşkese, A. (2018). CNC router selection for SMEs in woodwork manufacturing using hesitant fuzzy AHP method. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(4), 529-549. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2018-0017Çakır, S. (2018). An integrated approach to machine selection problem using fuzzy SMART-fuzzy weighted axiomatic design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 29(7), 1433-1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1189-3Çelen, A. (2014). Comparative analysis of normalization procedures in TOPSIS method: With an application to Turkish deposit banking market. Informatica, 25(2), 185-208. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2014.10Chandan, R.C. (2008). Dairy Processing and Quality Assurance: An Overview. Ramesh C. Chandan, Arun Kilara, Nagendra Shah (Eds.), In Dairy Processing and Quality Assurance (pp. 1-40). New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780813804033Chatterjee, P., Chakraborty, S. (2014). Investigating the effect of normalization norms in flexible manfacturing sytem selection using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review, 7(3), 141-150. https://doi.org/10.25103/jestr.073.23Clarke, M.P., Denby, B., Schofield, D. (1990). Decision making tools for surface mine equipment selection. Mining Science and Technology, 10(3), 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9031(90)90530-6Datta, S., Sahu, N., Mahapatra, S. (2013). Robot selection based on grey-MULTIMOORA approach. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 3(2), 201-232. https://doi.org/10.1108/GS-05-2013-0008Deng, H., Yeh, C.H., Willis, R. J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers and Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00069-6Doğan, M., Aslan, D., Aktar, T., Sarac, M.G. (2016). A methodology to evaluate the sensory properties of instant hot chocolate beverage with different fat contents: multi-criteria decision-making techniques approach. European Food Research and Technology, 242(6), 953-966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-015-2602-zErtuğrul, İ., Güneş, M. (2007). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method for machine selection. P. Melin, O. Castillo, E.G. Ramirez, J. Kacprzyk and W. Pedrycz (Eds.), In Analysis and Design of Intelligent Systems Using Soft Computing Techniques (pp. 638-648). Berlin, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72432-2_65Ertuğrul, İ., Öztaş, T. (2015). The application of sewing machine selection with the multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis method (MOORA) in apparel sector. Textile and Apparel, 25(1), 80-85. Retrieved May 17, 2020 from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tekstilvekonfeksiyon/issue/23647/251887FAO. (2019a). Dairy Market Review. FAO Publishing, Rome.FAO. (2019b). Food Outlook - Biannual Report on Global Food Markets. FAO Publishing, Rome.Feizabadi, A., Doolabi, M.S., Sadrnezhaad, S.K., Zafarani, H.R., Doolabi, D.S. (2017). MCDM selection of pulse parameters for best tribological performance of Cr-Al2O3 nano-composite co-deposited from trivalent chromium bath. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 727, 286-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.08.098Feng, C.M., Wang, R.T. (2000). Performance evaluation for airlines including the consideration of financial ratios. Journal of Air Transport Management, 6(3), 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6997(00)00003-XGuo, X., Sun, Z. (2016). A novel evaluation approach for tourist choice of destination based on grey relation analysis. Scientific Programming, 2016, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1812094Gurmeric, V.E., Dogan, M., Toker, O.S., Senyigit, E., Ersoz, N.B. (2013). Application of different multi-criteria decision techniques to determine optimum flavour of prebiotic pudding based on sensory analyses. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 6(10), 2844-2859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-012-0972-9Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K. (1980). Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. New York: Springer-Verlag.Jahan, A., Yazdani, M., Edwards, K.L. (2021). TOPSIS-RTCID for range target-based criteria and interval data. International Journal of Production Management and Engineering, 9(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2021.13323Kabak, M., Dağdeviren, M. (2017). A hybrid approach based on ANP and Grey Relational Analysis for machine selection. Technical Gazette, 24(Supplement 1), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20141123105333Kang, H.Y., Lee, A.H.I., Yang, C.Y. (2012). A fuzzy ANP model for supplier selection as applied to IC packaging. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(5), 1477-1488.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-010-0448-6Karaman, S.,Toker, Ö.S., Yüksel, F., Çam, M., Kayacier, A., Dogan, M. (2014). Physicochemical, bioactive, and sensory properties of persimmon-based ice cream: Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution to determine optimum concentration. Journal of Dairy Science, 97(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7111Karim, R., Karmaker, C.L. (2016). Machine selection by AHP and TOPSIS methods. American Journal of Industrial Engineering, 4(1), 7-13. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajie-4-1-2Kumru, M., Kumru, P.Y. (2015). A fuzzy ANP model for the selection of 3D coordinate-measuring machine. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 26(5), 999-1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-014-0882-yNguyen, H.T., Dawal, S. Z. Md., Nukman, Y., Aoyama, H. (2014). A hybrid approach for fuzzy multi-attribute decision making in machine tool selection with consideration of the interactions of attributes. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(6), 3078-3090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.10.039OECD/FAO. (2019). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019-2028. OECD Publishing, Paris.Önüt, S., Kara, S.S., Işik, E. (2009). Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: A case study for a telecommunication company. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 3887-3895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.02.045Özceylan, E., Kabak, M., Dağdeviren, M. (2016). A fuzzy-based decision making procedure for machine selection problem. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 30(3), 1841-1856. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-151895Özdağoğlu, A., Yakut, E., Bahar, S. (2017). Machine selection in a dairy product company with Entropy and SAW methods integration. Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal, 32(1), 341-359. https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2017321605Özgen, A., Tuzkaya, G., Tuzkaya, U.R., Özgen, D. (2011). A multi-criteria decision making approach for machine tool selection problem in a fuzzy environment. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 4(4), 431-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2011.9727802Ozturk, G., Dogan, M., Toker, O.S. (2014). Physicochemical, functional and sensory properties of mellorine enriched with different vegetable juices and TOPSIS approach to determine optimum juice concentration. Food Bioscience, 7, 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2014.05.001Pang, B., Bai, S. (2013). An integrated fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for supplier selection based on analytic network process. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(5), 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-011-0551-3Paramasivam, V., Senthil, V., Ramasamy, N.R. (2011). Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with digraph and matrix approach, AHP and ANP. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 54(9-12), 1233-1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2997-4Pavličić, D.M. (2001). Normalisation affects the results of MADM methods. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 11(2), 251-265. Retrieved May 6, 2020 from http://scindeks.ceon.rs/article.aspx?artid=0354-02430102251PSamanta, B., Sarkar, B., Mukherjee, S.K. (2002). Selection of opencast mining equipment by a multi-criteria decision-making process. Mining Technology, 111(2), 136-142. https://doi.org/10.1179/mnt.2002.111.2.136Seçme, N.Y., Bayrakdaroğlu, A., Kahraman, C. (2009). Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish Banking Sector using Analytic Hierarchy Process and TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11699-11709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.013Sharma, A., Yadava, V. (2011). Optimization of cut quality characteristics during nd:yag laser straight cutting of ni-based superalloy thin sheet using grey relational analysis with entropy measurement. Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 26(12), 1522-1529. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2011.551910Shih, H. S., Shyur, H.J., Lee, E.S. (2007). An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45(7-8), 801-813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2006.03.023Stanujkic, D., Đorđević, B., Đorđević, M. (2013). Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: A case of ranking Serbian Banks. Serbian Journal of Management, 8(2), 213-241. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm8-3774Štirbanović, Z., Stanujkić, D., Miljanović, I., Milanović, D. (2019). Application of MCDM methods for flotation machine selection. Minerals Engineering, 137, 140-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2019.04.014Sun, C.C. (2014). Combining grey relation analysis and entropy model for evaluating the operational performance: An empirical study. Quality and Quantity, 48(3), 1589-1600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9854-0Taha, Z., Rostam, S. (2011). A fuzzy AHP-ANN-based decision support system for machine tool selection in a flexible manufacturing cell. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 57(5-8), 719-733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3323-5Temiz, I., Çalış, G. (2017). Selection of construction equipment by using multi-criteria decision making methods. Procedia Engineering, 196, 286-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.201Tosun, N. (2006). Determination of optimum parameters for multi-performance characteristics in drilling by using grey relational analysis. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 28(5-6), 450-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-004-2386-yUğur, L.O. (2017). Application of the VIKOR multi-criteria decision method for construction machine buying. Journal of Polytechnic, 20(4), 879-885. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.369058Ulubeyli, S., Kazaz, A. (2009). A multiple criteria decision-making approach to the selection of concrete pumps. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 15(4), 369-376. https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.369-376Vafaei, N., Ribeiro, R.A., Camarinha-Matos, L.M. (2018). Data normalisation techniques in decision making: Case study with TOPSIS method. International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, 10(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIDS.2018.090667Vatansever, K., Kazançoğlu, Y. (2014). Integrated usage of fuzzy multi criteria decision making techniques for machine selection problems and an application. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(9), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIDS.2018.090667https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIDS.2018.090667Wang, T.C., Lee, H.D. (2009). Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 8980-8985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035Wu, J., Sun, J., Liang, L., Zha, Y. (2011). Determination of weights for ultimate cross efficiency using Shannon entropy. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5162-5165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.046Wu, W., Peng, Y. (2016). Extension of grey relational analysis for facilitating group consensus to oil spill emergency management. Annals of Operations Research, 238(1-2), 615-635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-2067-2Wu, Z., Ahmad, J., Xu, J. (2016). A group decision making framework based on fuzzy VIKOR approach for machine tool selection with linguistic information. Applied Soft Computing, 42, 314-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.02.007Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Yakhchali, S.H. (2012). Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) selection using fuzzy multicriteria decision making methods. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 30, 194-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.02.021Yılmaz, B., Dağdeviren, M. (2010). Comparative analysis of PROMETHEE and fuzzy PROMETHEE methods in equipment selection problem. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 25(4), 811-826. Retrieved May 6, 2020 from https://avesis.gazi.edu.tr/yayin/989e528e-9184-4d8e-8970-fccfabbbed73/comparative-analysis-of-promethee-and-fuzzy-promethee-methods-in-equipment-selection-problemYılmaz, B., Dağdeviren, M. (2011). A combined approach for equipment selection: F-PROMETHEE method and zero-one goal programming. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), 11641-11650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.043Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A., Banaitis, A., Kvederyte, N. (2004). Housing credit access model: The case for Lithuania. European Journal of Operational Research, 155(2), 335-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00091-2Zhang, H., Gu, C.L., Gu, L. W., Zhang, Y. (2011). The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by TOPSIS and information entropy: A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management, 32(2), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.00

Extended Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (E-FAHP): A General Approach

[EN] Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) methodologies have witnessed a growing development from the late 1980s until now, and countless FAHP based applications have been published in many fields including economics, finance, environment or engineering. In this context, the FAHP methodologies have been generally restricted to fuzzy numbers with linear type of membership functions (triangular numbers-TN-and trapezoidal numbers-TrN). This paper proposes an extended FAHP model (E-FAHP) where pairwise fuzzy comparison matrices are represented by a special type of fuzzy numbers referred to as (m,n)-trapezoidal numbers (TrN (m,n)) with nonlinear membership functions. It is then demonstrated that there are a significant number of FAHP approaches that can be reduced to the proposed E-FAHP structure. A comparative analysis of E-FAHP and Mikhailov's model is illustrated with a case study showing that E-FAHP includes linear and nonlinear fuzzy numbers.Reig-Mullor, J.; Pla Santamaría, D.; Garcia-Bernabeu, A. (2020). Extended Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (E-FAHP): A General Approach. Mathematics. 8(11):1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8112014S114811Chai, J., Liu, J. N. K., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872-3885. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040Tavana, M., Zareinejad, M., Di Caprio, D., & Kaviani, M. A. (2016). An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and SWOT method for outsourcing reverse logistics. Applied Soft Computing, 40, 544-557. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.12.005Medasani, S., Kim, J., & Krishnapuram, R. (1998). An overview of membership function generation techniques for pattern recognition. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 19(3-4), 391-417. doi:10.1016/s0888-613x(98)10017-8Medaglia, A. L., Fang, S.-C., Nuttle, H. L. W., & Wilson, J. R. (2002). An efficient and flexible mechanism for constructing membership functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 139(1), 84-95. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00157-6Mikhailov, L. (2003). Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134(3), 365-385. doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(02)00383-4Appadoo, S. S. (2014). Possibilistic Fuzzy Net Present Value Model and Application. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014, 1-11. doi:10.1155/2014/865968Mikhailov, L., & Tsvetinov, P. (2004). Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Applied Soft Computing, 5(1), 23-33. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2004.04.001Hepu Deng. (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. FUZZ-IEEE’99. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.99CH36315). doi:10.1109/fuzzy.1999.793038Van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 229-241. doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(83)80082-7Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233-247. doi:10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2Enea, M., & Piazza, T. (2004). Project Selection by Constrained Fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 3(1), 39-62. doi:10.1023/b:fodm.0000013071.63614.3dKrejčí, J., Pavlačka, O., & Talašová, J. (2016). A fuzzy extension of Analytic Hierarchy Process based on the constrained fuzzy arithmetic. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 16(1), 89-110. doi:10.1007/s10700-016-9241-0Cakir, O., & Canbolat, M. S. (2008). A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria inventory classification using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 1367-1378. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.041Isaai, M. T., Kanani, A., Tootoonchi, M., & Afzali, H. R. (2011). Intelligent timetable evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3718-3723. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.030Büyüközkan, G., & Güleryüz, S. (2016). A new integrated intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making approach for product development partner selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 102, 383-395. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.05.038Zheng, G., Zhu, N., Tian, Z., Chen, Y., & Sun, B. (2012). Application of a trapezoidal fuzzy AHP method for work safety evaluation and early warning rating of hot and humid environments. Safety Science, 50(2), 228-239. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.08.042Calabrese, A., Costa, R., & Menichini, T. (2013). Using Fuzzy AHP to manage Intellectual Capital assets: An application to the ICT service industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(9), 3747-3755. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.081Ishizaka, A., & Nguyen, N. H. (2013). Calibrated fuzzy AHP for current bank account selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(9), 3775-3783. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.089Somsuk, N., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2014). A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85, 198-210. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.007Chan, H. K., Wang, X., & Raffoni, A. (2014). An integrated approach for green design: Life-cycle, fuzzy AHP and environmental management accounting. The British Accounting Review, 46(4), 344-360. doi:10.1016/j.bar.2014.10.004Tan, R. R., Aviso, K. B., Huelgas, A. P., & Promentilla, M. A. B. (2014). Fuzzy AHP approach to selection problems in process engineering involving quantitative and qualitative aspects. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 92(5), 467-475. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2013.11.005Rezaei, J., Fahim, P. B. M., & Tavasszy, L. (2014). Supplier selection in the airline retail industry using a funnel methodology: Conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(18), 8165-8179. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.005Song, Z., Zhu, H., Jia, G., & He, C. (2014). Comprehensive evaluation on self-ignition risks of coal stockpiles using fuzzy AHP approaches. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 32, 78-94. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2014.08.002Dong, M., Li, S., & Zhang, H. (2015). Approaches to group decision making with incomplete information based on power geometric operators and triangular fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(21), 7846-7857. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.06.007Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 104, 375-390. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.001Mosadeghi, R., Warnken, J., Tomlinson, R., & Mirfenderesk, H. (2015). Comparison of Fuzzy-AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49, 54-65. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.10.001Lupo, T. (2016). A fuzzy framework to evaluate service quality in the healthcare industry: An empirical case of public hospital service evaluation in Sicily. Applied Soft Computing, 40, 468-478. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.12.010Tuljak-Suban, D., & Bajec, P. (2018). The Influence of Defuzzification Methods to Decision Support Systems Based on Fuzzy AHP with Scattered Comparison Matrix: Application to 3PLP Selection as a Case Study. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 26(03), 475-491. doi:10.1142/s021848851850023xAkbar, M. A., Shameem, M., Mahmood, S., Alsanad, A., & Gumaei, A. (2020). Prioritization based Taxonomy of Cloud-based Outsource Software Development Challenges: Fuzzy AHP analysis. Applied Soft Computing, 95, 106557. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106557Jung, H. (2011). A fuzzy AHP–GP approach for integrated production-planning considering manufacturing partners. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5833-5840. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.039Shaw, K., Shankar, R., Yadav, S. S., & Thakur, L. S. (2012). Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for developing low carbon supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), 8182-8192. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.149Abdullah, L., & Zulkifli, N. (2015). Integration of fuzzy AHP and interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL: An application to human resource management. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(9), 4397-4409. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.021Akkaya, G., Turanoğlu, B., & Öztaş, S. (2015). An integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MOORA approach to the problem of industrial engineering sector choosing. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(24), 9565-9573. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.061Kutlu, A. C., & Ekmekçioğlu, M. (2012). Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 61-67. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.044Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2012). A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2341-2354. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.061Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M. S., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, 17, 105-116. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2014.01.003Patil, S. K., & Kant, R. (2014). A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(2), 679-693. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.093Sun, L., Ma, J., Zhang, Y., Dong, H., & Hussain, F. K. (2016). Cloud-FuSeR: Fuzzy ontology and MCDM based cloud service selection. Future Generation Computer Systems, 57, 42-55. doi:10.1016/j.future.2015.11.025Ar, I. M., Erol, I., Peker, I., Ozdemir, A. I., Medeni, T. D., & Medeni, I. T. (2020). Evaluating the feasibility of blockchain in logistics operations: A decision framework. Expert Systems with Applications, 158, 113543. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113543Yalcin, N., Bayrakdaroglu, A., & Kahraman, C. (2012). Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods for financial performance evaluation of Turkish manufacturing industries. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 350-364. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.024Chang, S.-C., Tsai, P.-H., & Chang, S.-C. (2015). A hybrid fuzzy model for selecting and evaluating the e-book business model: A case study on Taiwan e-book firms. Applied Soft Computing, 34, 194-204. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.05.011Li, N., & Zhao, H. (2016). Performance evaluation of eco-industrial thermal power plants by using fuzzy GRA-VIKOR and combination weighting techniques. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 169-183. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.113Mandic, K., Delibasic, B., Knezevic, S., & Benkovic, S. (2014). Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Modelling, 43, 30-37. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.036Li, 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(2), 147-176. doi:10.1007/s10700-012-9117-xKaya, Ö., Alemdar, K. D., & Çodur, M. Y. (2020). A novel two stage approach for electric taxis charging station site selection. Sustainable Cities and Society, 62, 102396. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102396Chen, J.-F., Hsieh, H.-N., & Do, Q. H. (2015). Evaluating teaching performance based on fuzzy AHP and comprehensive evaluation approach. Applied Soft Computing, 28, 100-108. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.050Javanbarg, M. B., Scawthorn, C., Kiyono, J., & Shahbodaghkhan, B. (2012). Fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria decision making systems using particle swarm optimization. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 960-966. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.095Che, Z. H., Wang, H. S., & Chuang, C.-L. (2010). A fuzzy AHP and DEA approach for making bank loan decisions for small and medium enterprises in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(10), 7189-7199. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.010Krejčí, J. (2015). Additively reciprocal fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices and multiplicative fuzzy priorities. Soft Computing, 21(12), 3177-3192. doi:10.1007/s00500-015-2000-2Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2014). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22(4), 749-761. doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2013.2272585Mikhailov, L. (2000). A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(3), 341-349. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.260089

TOPSIS-RTCID for range target-based criteria and interval data

[EN] The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is receiving considerable attention as an essential decision analysis technique and becoming a leading method. This paper describes a new version of TOPSIS with interval data and capability to deal with all types of criteria. An improved structure of the TOPSIS is presented to deal with high uncertainty in engineering and engineering decision-making. The proposed Range Target-based Criteria and Interval Data model of TOPSIS (TOPSIS-RTCID) achieves the core contribution in decision making theories through a distinct normalization formula for cost and benefits criteria in scale of point and range target-based values. It is important to notice a very interesting property of the proposed normalization formula being opposite to the usual one. This property can explain why the rank reversal problem is limited. The applicability of the proposed TOPSIS-RTCID method is examined with several empirical litreture’s examples with comparisons, sensitivity analysis, and simulation. The authors have developed a new tool with more efficient, reliable and robust outcomes compared to that from other available tools. The complexity of an engineering design decision problem can be resolved through the development of a well-structured decision making method with multiple attributes. Various decision approches developed for engineering design have neglected elements that should have been taken into account. Through this study, engineering design problems can be resolved with greater reliability and confidence.Jahan, A.; Yazdani, M.; Edwards, K. (2021). TOPSIS-RTCID for range target-based criteria and interval data. International Journal of Production Management and Engineering. 9(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2021.13323OJS11491Ahn, B.S. (2017). The analytic hierarchy process with interval preference statements. Omega, 67, 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.05.004Alemi-Ardakani, M., Milani, A.S., Yannacopoulos, S., Shokouhi, G. (2016). On the effect of subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: A case study on impact optimization of composites. Expert Systems With Applications, 46, 426-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.11.003Amiri, M., Nosratian, N.E., Jamshidi, A., Kazemi, A. (2008). Developing a new ELECTRE method with interval data in multiple attribute decision making problems. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8, 4017-4028. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2008.4017.4028Bahraminasab, M., Jahan, A. (2011). Material selection for femoral component of total knee replacement using comprehensive VIKOR. Materials & Design, 32, 4471-4477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.046Baradaran, V., Azarnia, S. (2013). An Approach to Test Consistency and Generate Weights from Grey Pairwise Matrices in Grey Analytical Hierarchy Process. Journal of Grey System, 25.Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S.K., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 13051-13069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056Cables, E., Lamata, M.T., Verdegay, J.L. (2018). FRIM-Fuzzy Reference Ideal Method in Multicriteria Decision Making. In Collan, M. & Kacprzyk, J. (Eds.) Soft Computing Applications for Group Decision-making and Consensus Modeling. Cham, Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60207-3_19Çakır, S. (2016). An integrated approach to machine selection problem using fuzzy SMART-fuzzy weighted axiomatic design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1189-3Celen, A. (2014). Comparative analysis of normalization procedures in TOPSIS method: with an application to Turkish deposit banking market. Informatica, 25, 185-208. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2014.10Celik, E., Erdogan, M., Gumus, A. (2016). An extended fuzzy TOPSIS-GRA method based on different separation measures for green logistics service provider selection. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 13, 1377-1392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-0977-4Dymova, L., Sevastjanov, P., Tikhonenko, A. (2013). A direct interval extension of TOPSIS method. Expert Systems With Applications, 40, 4841-4847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.02.022Garca-Cascales, M.S., Lamata, M.T. (2012). On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A. (2015). Comprehensive MULTIMOORA method with target-based attributes and integrated significant coefficients for materials selection in biomedical applications. Materials & Design, 87, 949-959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.08.087Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A. (2016). Interval MULTIMOORA method with target values of attributes based on interval distance and preference degree: biomaterials selection. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 13, 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-016-0176-4Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A. (2017). Interval target-based VIKOR method supported on interval distance and preference degree for machine selection. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 57, 184-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2016.10.018Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A., Sayadi, M.K. (2016). Extension of MULTIMOORA method with interval numbers: An application in materials selection. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40, 1372-1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.07.019Hajiagha, S.H.R., Hashemi, S.S., Zavadskas, E.K., Akrami, H. (2012). Extensions of LINMAP model for multi criteria decision making with grey numbers. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18, 636-650. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.740518Hazelrigg, G.A. (2003). Validation of engineering design alternative selection methods. Engineering Optimization, 35, 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215031000097059Hu, J., Du, Y., Mo, H., Wei, D., Deng, Y. (2016). A modified weighted TOPSIS to identify influential nodes in complex networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 444, 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2015.09.028Huang, Y., Jiang, W. (2018). Extension of TOPSIS Method and its Application in Investment. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 43, 693-705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2736-3Jahan, A. (2018). Developing WASPAS-RTB method for range target-based criteria: toward selection for robust design. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 1362-1387. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2017.1295288Jahan, A., Bahraminasab, M., Edwards, K.L. (2012). A target-based normalization technique for materials selection. Materials & Design, 35, 647-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.09.005Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L. (2013). VIKOR method for material selection problems with interval numbers and target-based criteria. Materials & Design, 47, 759-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.12.072Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L. (2015). A state-of-the-art survey on the influence of normalization techniques in ranking: Improving the materials selection process in engineering design. Materials & Design, 65, 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.09.022Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L., Bahraminasab, M. (2016). Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of engineering materials in product design, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.Jahan, A., Mustapha, F., Ismail, M.Y., Sapuan, S.M., Bahraminasab, M. (2011). A comprehensive VIKOR method for material selection. Materials & Design, 32, 1215-1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.10.015Jahan, A., Zavadskas, E.K. (2018). ELECTRE-IDAT for design decision-making problems with interval data and target-based criteria. Soft Computing, 23, 129-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3501-6Jahanshahloo, G.R., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Davoodi, A.R. (2009). Extension of TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data: Interval efficiency. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49, 1137-1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.07.009Jahanshahloo, G.R., Lotfi, F.H., Izadikhah, M. (2006). An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 175, 1375-1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.08.048Kasirian, M., Yusuff, R. (2013). An integration of a hybrid modified TOPSIS with a PGP model for the supplier selection with interdependent criteria. International Journal of Production Research, 51, 1037-1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.663107Kuo, T. (2017). A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. European Journal of Operational Research, 260, 152-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.052Liang, D., Xu, Z. (2017). The new extension of TOPSIS method for multiple criteria decision making with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Applied Soft Computing, 60, 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.06.034Liao, H., Wu, X. (2019). DNMA: A double normalization-based multiple aggregation method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision making. Omega, 94. 102058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.04.001Liu, H.C., You, J.X., Zhen, L., Fan, X.J. (2014). A novel hybrid multiple criteria decision making model for material selection with targetbased criteria. Materials & Design, 60, 380-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.03.071Maghsoodi, A.I., Maghsoodi, A.I., Poursoltan, P., Antucheviciene, J., Turskis, Z. (2019). Dam construction material selection by implementing the integrated SWARA-CODAS approach with target-based attributes. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 19, 1194-1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2019.06.010Milani, A.S., Shanian, A., Madoliat, R., Nemes, J.A. (2005). The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 29, 312-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0473-1Peldschus, F. (2009). The analysis of the quality of the results obtained with the methods of multi-criteria decisions. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 15, 580-592. https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.580-592Peldschus, F. (2018). Recent findings from numerical analysis in multi-criteria decision making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 1695-1717. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2017.1356761Perez, E.C., Lamata, M., Verdegay, J. (2016). RIM-Reference Ideal Method in Multicriteria Decision Making. Information Sciences, 337- 338, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.12.011Sayadi, M.K., Heydari, M., Shahanaghi, K. (2009). Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem with interval numbers. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33, 2257-2262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2008.06.002Sen, P., Yang, J.B. (1998). MCDM and the Nature of Decision Making in Design, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3020-8_2Sevastianov, P. (2007). Numerical methods for interval and fuzzy number comparison based on the probabilistic approach and Dempster- Shafer theory. Information Sciences, 177, 4645-4661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.05.001Shanian, A., Savadogo, O. (2009). A methodological concept for material selection of highly sensitive components based on multiple criteria decision analysis. Expert Systems With Applications, 36, 1362-1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.11.052Shen, F., Ma, X., Li, Z., Xu, Z., Cai, D. (2018). An extended intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method based on a new distance measure with an application to credit risk evaluation. Information Sciences, 428, 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.10.045Shishank, S., Dekkers, R. (2013). Outsourcing: decision-making methods and criteria during design and engineering. Production Planning & Control, 24, 318-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.648544Shouzhen, Z., Yao, X. (2018). A method based on TOPSIS and distance measures for hesitant fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 969-983. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1216472Stanujkic, D., Magdalinovic, N., Jovanovic, R., Stojanovic, S. (2012). An objective multi-criteria approach to optimization using MOORA method and interval grey numbers. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18, 331-363. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.676996Suder, A., Kahraman, C. (2018). Multiattribute evaluation of organic and inorganic agricultural food investments using fuzzy TOPSIS. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24, 844-858. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1216905Tilstra, A.H., Backlund, P.B., Seepersad, C.C., Wood, K.L. (2015). Principles for designing products with flexibility for future evolution. International Journal of Mass Customisation, 5, 22-54. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMASSC.2015.069597Tsaur, R.C. (2011) Decision risk analysis for an interval TOPSIS method. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218, 4295-4304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2011.10.001Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E.K. (2010) A novel method for multiple criteria analysis: grey additive ratio assessment (ARAS-G) method. Informatica, 21, 597-610. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2010.307Wang, Y.M., Luo, Y. (2009) On rank reversal in decision analysis. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49, 1221-1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.06.019Ye, J. (2015) An extended TOPSIS method for multiple attribute group decision making based on single valued neutrosophic linguistic numbers. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 28, 247-255. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-141295Yue, Z. (2013) Group decision making with multi-attribute interval data. Information Fusion, 14, 551-561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2013.01.00

Improving Distributed Decision Making in Inventory Management: A Combined ABC-AHP Approach Supported by Teamwork

[EN] The need of organizations to ensure service levels that impact on customer satisfaction has required the design of collaborative processes among stakeholders involved in inventory decision making. The increase of quantity and variety of items, on the one hand, and demand and customer expectations, on the other hand, are transformed into a greater complexity in inventory management, requiring effective communication and agreements between the leaders of the logistics processes. Traditionally, decision making in inventory management was based on approaches conditioned only by cost or sales volume. These approaches must be overcome by others that consider multiple criteria, involving several areas of the companies and taking into account the opinions of the stakeholders involved in these decisions. Inventory management becomes part of a complex system that involves stakeholders from different areas of the company, where each agent has limited information and where the cooperation between such agents is key for the system's performance. In this paper, a distributed inventory control approach was used with the decisions allowing communication between the stakeholders and with a multicriteria group decision-making perspective. This work proposes a methodology that combines the analysis of the value chain and the AHP technique, in order to improve communication and the performance of the areas related to inventory management decision making. This methodology uses the areas of the value chain as a theoretical framework to identify the criteria necessary for the application of the AHP multicriteria group decision-making technique. These criteria were defined as indicators that measure the performance of the areas of the value chain related to inventory management and were used to classify ABC inventory of the products according to these selected criteria. Therefore, the methodology allows us to solve inventory management DDM based on multicriteria ABC classification and was validated in a Colombian company belonging to the graphic arts sector.Pérez Vergara, IG.; Arias Sánchez, JA.; Poveda Bautista, R.; Diego-Mas, JA. (2020). Improving Distributed Decision Making in Inventory Management: A Combined ABC-AHP Approach Supported by Teamwork. Complexity. 2020:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6758108S1132020Poveda-Bautista, R., Baptista, D. C., & García-Melón, M. (2012). Setting competitiveness indicators using BSC and ANP. International Journal of Production Research, 50(17), 4738-4752. doi:10.1080/00207543.2012.657964Castro Zuluaga, C. A., Velez Gallego, M. C., & Catro Urrego, J. A. (2011). Clasificación ABC Multicriterio: Tipos de Criterios y efectos en la asignación de pesos. ITECKNE, 8(2). doi:10.15332/iteckne.v8i2.35Morash, E. A., & Clinton, S. R. (1998). Supply Chain Integration: Customer Value through Collaborative Closeness versus Operational Excellence. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(4), 104-120. doi:10.1080/10696679.1998.11501814Fabbe-Costes, N. (2015). Évaluer la création de valeurdu Supply Chain Management. Logistique & Management, 23(4), 41-50. doi:10.1080/12507970.2015.11758621Flores, B. E., & Clay Whybark, D. (1986). Multiple Criteria ABC Analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 6(3), 38-46. doi:10.1108/eb054765Partovi, F. Y., & Burton, J. (1993). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for ABC Analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(9), 29-44. doi:10.1108/01443579310043619Balaji, K., & Kumar, V. S. S. (2014). Multicriteria Inventory ABC Classification in an Automobile Rubber Components Manufacturing Industry. Procedia CIRP, 17, 463-468. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.02.044Ramanathan, R. (2006). ABC inventory classification with multiple-criteria using weighted linear optimization. Computers & Operations Research, 33(3), 695-700. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2004.07.014Van Kampen, T. J., Akkerman, R., & Pieter van Donk, D. (2012). SKU classification: a literature review and conceptual framework. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(7), 850-876. doi:10.1108/01443571211250112Flores, B. E., Olson, D. L., & Dorai, V. K. (1992). Management of multicriteria inventory classification. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 16(12), 71-82. doi:10.1016/0895-7177(92)90021-cGajpal, P. P., Ganesh, L. S., & Rajendran, C. (1994). Criticality analysis of spare parts using the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics, 35(1-3), 293-297. doi:10.1016/0925-5273(94)90095-7Scala, N. M., Rajgopal, J., & Needy, K. L. (2014). Managing Nuclear Spare Parts Inventories: A Data Driven Methodology. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 61(1), 28-37. doi:10.1109/tem.2013.2283170Hadad, Y., & Keren, B. (2013). ABC inventory classification via linear discriminant analysis and ranking methods. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 14(4), 387. doi:10.1504/ijlsm.2013.052744Altay Guvenir, H., & Erel, E. (1998). Multicriteria inventory classification using a genetic algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research, 105(1), 29-37. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(97)00039-8Rezaei, J., & Dowlatshahi, S. (2010). A rule-based multi-criteria approach to inventory classification. International Journal of Production Research, 48(23), 7107-7126. doi:10.1080/00207540903348361Hatefi, S. M., Torabi, S. A., & Bagheri, P. (2013). Multi-criteria ABC inventory classification with mixed quantitative and qualitative criteria. International Journal of Production Research, 52(3), 776-786. doi:10.1080/00207543.2013.838328Ishizaka, A., Pearman, C., & Nemery, P. (2012). AHPSort: an AHP-based method for sorting problems. International Journal of Production Research, 50(17), 4767-4784. doi:10.1080/00207543.2012.657966Yu, M.-C. (2011). Multi-criteria ABC analysis using artificial-intelligence-based classification techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3416-3421. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.127Tsai, C.-Y., & Yeh, S.-W. (2008). A multiple objective particle swarm optimization approach for inventory classification. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 656-666. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.02.017Aydin Keskin, G., & Ozkan, C. (2013). Multiple Criteria ABC Analysis with FCM Clustering. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2013, 1-7. doi:10.1155/2013/827274Lolli, F., Ishizaka, A., & Gamberini, R. (2014). New AHP-based approaches for multi-criteria inventory classification. International Journal of Production Economics, 156, 62-74. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.05.015Raja, A. M. L., Ai, T. J., & Astanti, R. D. (2016). A Clustering Classification of Spare Parts for Improving Inventory Policies. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 114, 012075. doi:10.1088/1757-899x/114/1/012075Zowid, F. M., Babai, M. Z., Douissa, M. R., & Ducq, Y. (2019). Multi-criteria inventory ABC classification using Gaussian Mixture Model. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(13), 1925-1930. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.484Babai, M. Z., Ladhari, T., & Lajili, I. (2014). On the inventory performance of multi-criteria classification methods: empirical investigation. International Journal of Production Research, 53(1), 279-290. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.952791Schneeweiss, C. (2003). Distributed decision making––a unified approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 150(2), 237-252. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00501-5Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83. doi:10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590Cakir, O., & Canbolat, M. S. (2008). A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria inventory classification using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 1367-1378. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.041Liu, J., Liao, X., Zhao, W., & Yang, N. (2016). A classification approach based on the outranking model for multiple criteria ABC analysis. Omega, 61, 19-34. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.07.004Douissa, M. R., & Jabeur, K. (2016). A New Model for Multi-criteria ABC Inventory Classification: PROAFTN Method. Procedia Computer Science, 96, 550-559. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.08.233Lolli, F., Balugani, E., Ishizaka, A., Gamberini, R., Rimini, B., & Regattieri, A. (2018). Machine learning for multi-criteria inventory classification applied to intermittent demand. Production Planning & Control, 30(1), 76-89. doi:10.1080/09537287.2018.1525506Kartal, H., Oztekin, A., Gunasekaran, A., & Cebi, F. (2016). An integrated decision analytic framework of machine learning with multi-criteria decision making for multi-attribute inventory classification. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, 599-613. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.06.004López-Soto, D., Angel-Bello, F., Yacout, S., & Alvarez, A. (2017). A multi-start algorithm to design a multi-class classifier for a multi-criteria ABC inventory classification problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 81, 12-21. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.048Dweiri, F., Kumar, S., Khan, S. A., & Jain, V. (2016). Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 62, 273-283. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.030Bruno, G., Esposito, E., Genovese, A., & Simpson, M. (2016). Applying supplier selection methodologies in a multi-stakeholder environment: A case study and a critical assessment. Expert Systems with Applications, 43, 271-285. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.016Poza, C. (2020). A Conceptual Model to Measure Football Player’s Market Value. A Proposal by means of an Analytic Hierarchy Process. [Un modelo conceptual para medir el valor de mercado de los futbolistas. Una propuesta a través de un proceso analítico jerárquico]. RICYDE. Revista internacional de ciencias del deporte, 16(59), 24-42. doi:10.5232/ricyde2020.05903Guarnieri, P., Sobreiro, V. A., Nagano, M. S., & Marques Serrano, A. L. (2015). The challenge of selecting and evaluating third-party reverse logistics providers in a multicriteria perspective: a Brazilian case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 209-219. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.040Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Selection of new production facilities with the Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Ordering method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7317-7325. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.004Partovi, F. Y., & Anandarajan, M. (2002). Classifying inventory using an artificial neural network approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 41(4), 389-404. doi:10.1016/s0360-8352(01)00064-xAlonso-Manzanedo, M., De-la -Fuente-Aragon, M. V., & Ros-McDonnell, L. (2013). A Proposed Collaborative Network Enterprise Model in the Fruit-and-Vegetable Sector Using Maturity Models. Annals of Industrial Engineering 2012, 359-366. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-5349-8_42Augusto, M., Lisboa, J., Yasin, M., & Figueira, J. R. (2008). Benchmarking in a multiple criteria performance context: An application and a conceptual framework. European Journal of Operational Research, 184(1), 244-254. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.10.05

Multiobjective Approach to Portfolio Optimization in the Light of the Credibility Theory

[EN] The present research proposes a novel methodology to solve the problems faced by investors who take into consideration different investment criteria in a fuzzy context. The approach extends the stochastic mean-variance model to a fuzzy multiobjective model where liquidity is considered to quantify portfolio's performance, apart from the usual metrics like return and risk. The uncertainty of the future returns and the future liquidity of the potential assets are modelled employing trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. The decision process of the proposed approach considers that portfolio selection is a multidimensional issue and also some realistic constraints applied by investors. Particularly, this approach optimizes the expected return, the risk and the expected liquidity of the portfolio, considering bound constraints and cardinality restrictions. As a result, an optimization problem for the constraint portfolio appears, which is solved by means of the NSGA-II algorithm. This study defines the credibilistic Sortino ratio and the credibilistic STARR ratio for selecting the optimal portfolio. An empirical study on the S&P100 index is included to show the performance of the model in practical applications. The results obtained demonstrate that the novel approach can beat the index in terms of return and risk in the analyzed period, from 2008 until 2018.García García, F.; González-Bueno, J.; Guijarro, F.; Oliver-Muncharaz, J.; Tamosiuniene, R. (2020). Multiobjective Approach to Portfolio Optimization in the Light of the Credibility Theory. Technological and Economic Development of Economy (Online). 26(6):1165-1186. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.13189S11651186266Acerbi, C., & Tasche, D. (2002). On the coherence of expected shortfall. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7), 1487-1503. doi:10.1016/s0378-4266(02)00283-2Ahmed, A., Ali, R., Ejaz, A., & Ahmad, I. (2018). Sectoral integration and investment diversification opportunities: evidence from Colombo Stock Exchange. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 5(3), 514-527. doi:10.9770/jesi.2018.5.3(8)Arenas Parra, M., Bilbao Terol, A., & Rodrı́guez Urı́a, M. V. (2001). A fuzzy goal programming approach to portfolio selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 133(2), 287-297. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(00)00298-8Arribas, I., Espinós-Vañó, M. D., García, F., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2019). Negative screening and sustainable portfolio diversification. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1566-1586. doi:10.9770/jesi.2019.6.4(2)Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M., & Heath, D. (1999). Coherent Measures of Risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3), 203-228. doi:10.1111/1467-9965.00068Bawa, V. S. (1975). Optimal rules for ordering uncertain prospects. Journal of Financial Economics, 2(1), 95-121. doi:10.1016/0304-405x(75)90025-2Bermúdez, J. D., Segura, J. V., & Vercher, E. (2012). A multi-objective genetic algorithm for cardinality constrained fuzzy portfolio selection. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 188(1), 16-26. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2011.05.013Bezoui, M., Moulaï, M., Bounceur, A., & Euler, R. (2018). An iterative method for solving a bi-objective constrained portfolio optimization problem. Computational Optimization and Applications, 72(2), 479-498. doi:10.1007/s10589-018-0052-9Bi, T., Zhang, B., & Wu, H. (2013). Measuring Downside Risk Using High-Frequency Data: Realized Downside Risk Measure. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 42(4), 741-754. doi:10.1080/03610918.2012.655826Carlsson, C., Fullér, R., & Majlender, P. (2002). A possibilistic approach to selecting portfolios with highest utility score. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 131(1), 13-21. doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(01)00251-2Chen, W., & Xu, W. (2018). A Hybrid Multiobjective Bat Algorithm for Fuzzy Portfolio Optimization with Real-World Constraints. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 21(1), 291-307. doi:10.1007/s40815-018-0533-0Choobineh, F., & Branting, D. (1986). A simple approximation for semivariance. European Journal of Operational Research, 27(3), 364-370. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90332-2Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2), 182-197. doi:10.1109/4235.996017Fang, Y., Lai, K. K., & Wang, S.-Y. (2006). Portfolio rebalancing model with transaction costs based on fuzzy decision theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 175(2), 879-893. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.05.020Favre, L., & Galeano, J.-A. (2002). Mean-Modified Value-at-Risk Optimization with Hedge Funds. The Journal of Alternative Investments, 5(2), 21-25. doi:10.3905/jai.2002.319052García, F., González-Bueno, J., Guijarro, F., & Oliver, J. (2020). Forecasting the Environmental, Social, and Governance Rating of Firms by Using Corporate Financial Performance Variables: A Rough Set Approach. Sustainability, 12(8), 3324. doi:10.3390/su12083324García, González-Bueno, Oliver, & Riley. (2019). Selecting Socially Responsible Portfolios: A Fuzzy Multicriteria Approach. Sustainability, 11(9), 2496. doi:10.3390/su11092496García, F., González-Bueno, J., Oliver, J., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2019). A CREDIBILISTIC MEAN-SEMIVARIANCE-PER PORTFOLIO SELECTION MODEL FOR LATIN AMERICA. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 20(2), 225-243. doi:10.3846/jbem.2019.8317García, F., Guijarro, F., & Moya, I. (2013). A MULTIOBJECTIVE MODEL FOR PASSIVE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT: AN APPLICATION ON THE S&P 100 INDEX. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(4), 758-775. doi:10.3846/16111699.2012.668859García, F., Guijarro, F., & Oliver, J. (2017). Index tracking optimization with cardinality constraint: a performance comparison of genetic algorithms and tabu search heuristics. Neural Computing and Applications, 30(8), 2625-2641. doi:10.1007/s00521-017-2882-2García, F., Guijarro, F., Oliver, J., & Tamošiūnienė, R. (2018). HYBRID FUZZY NEURAL NETWORK TO PREDICT PRICE DIRECTION IN THE GERMAN DAX-30 INDEX. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(6), 2161-2178. doi:10.3846/tede.2018.6394Goel, A., Sharma, A., & Mehra, A. (2018). Index tracking and enhanced indexing using mixed conditional value-at-risk. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 335, 361-380. doi:10.1016/j.cam.2017.12.015González-Bueno, J. (2019). Optimización multiobjetivo para la selección de carteras a la luz de la teoría de la credibilidad. Una aplicación en el mercado integrado latinoamericano. Editorial Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana.Gupta, P., Inuiguchi, M., & Mehlawat, M. K. (2011). A hybrid approach for constructing suitable and optimal portfolios. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5620-5632. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.073Gupta, P., Inuiguchi, M., Mehlawat, M. K., & Mittal, G. (2013). Multiobjective credibilistic portfolio selection model with fuzzy chance-constraints. Information Sciences, 229, 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2012.12.011Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., Inuiguchi, M., & Chandra, S. (2014). Portfolio Optimization Using Credibility Theory. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 127-160. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54652-5_5Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., Inuiguchi, M., & Chandra, S. (2014). Portfolio Optimization with Interval Coefficients. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 33-59. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54652-5_2Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., Kumar, A., Yadav, S., & Aggarwal, A. (2020). A Credibilistic Fuzzy DEA Approach for Portfolio Efficiency Evaluation and Rebalancing Toward Benchmark Portfolios Using Positive and Negative Returns. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 22(3), 824-843. doi:10.1007/s40815-020-00801-4Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., & Saxena, A. (2010). A hybrid approach to asset allocation with simultaneous consideration of suitability and optimality. Information Sciences, 180(11), 2264-2285. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.02.007Gupta, P., Mehlawat, M. K., Yadav, S., & Kumar, A. (2020). Intuitionistic fuzzy optimistic and pessimistic multi-period portfolio optimization models. Soft Computing, 24(16), 11931-11956. doi:10.1007/s00500-019-04639-3Gupta, P., Mittal, G., & Mehlawat, M. K. (2013). Expected value multiobjective portfolio rebalancing model with fuzzy parameters. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 52(2), 190-203. doi:10.1016/j.insmatheco.2012.12.002Heidari-Fathian, H., & Davari-Ardakani, H. (2019). Bi-objective optimization of a project selection and adjustment problem under risk controls. Journal of Modelling in Management, 15(1), 89-111. doi:10.1108/jm2-07-2018-0106Hilkevics, S., & Semakina, V. (2019). The classification and comparison of business ratios analysis methods. Insights into Regional Development, 1(1), 48-57. doi:10.9770/ird.2019.1.1(4)Huang, X. (2006). Fuzzy chance-constrained portfolio selection. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 177(2), 500-507. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2005.11.027Huang, X. (2008). Mean-semivariance models for fuzzy portfolio selection. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 217(1), 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.cam.2007.06.009Huang, X. (2009). A review of credibilistic portfolio selection. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 8(3), 263-281. doi:10.1007/s10700-009-9064-3Huang, X. (2010). Portfolio Analysis. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11214-0Huang, X. (2017). A review of uncertain portfolio selection. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32(6), 4453-4465. doi:10.3233/jifs-169211Huang, X., & Di, H. (2016). Uncertain portfolio selection with background risk. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 276, 284-296. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2015.12.018Huang, X., & Wang, X. (2019). International portfolio optimization based on uncertainty theory. Optimization, 70(2), 225-249. doi:10.1080/02331934.2019.1705821Huang, X., & Yang, T. (2020). How does background risk affect portfolio choice: An analysis based on uncertain mean-variance model with background risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 111, 105726. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.105726Jalota, H., Thakur, M., & Mittal, G. (2017). Modelling and constructing membership function for uncertain portfolio parameters: A credibilistic framework. Expert Systems with Applications, 71, 40-56. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.11.014Jalota, H., Thakur, M., & Mittal, G. (2017). A credibilistic decision support system for portfolio optimization. Applied Soft Computing, 59, 512-528. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2017.05.054Kaplan, P. D., & Alldredge, R. H. (1997). Semivariance in Risk-Based Index Construction. The Journal of Investing, 6(2), 82-87. doi:10.3905/joi.1997.408419Konno, H., & Yamazaki, H. (1991). Mean-Absolute Deviation Portfolio Optimization Model and Its Applications to Tokyo Stock Market. Management Science, 37(5), 519-531. doi:10.1287/mnsc.37.5.519Li, B., Zhu, Y., Sun, Y., Aw, G., & Teo, K. L. (2018). Multi-period portfolio selection problem under uncertain environment with bankruptcy constraint. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 56, 539-550. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2017.12.016Li, H.-Q., & Yi, Z.-H. (2019). Portfolio selection with coherent Investor’s expectations under uncertainty. Expert Systems with Applications, 133, 49-58. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.05.008Li, X., & Qin, Z. (2014). Interval portfolio selection models within the framework of uncertainty theory. Economic Modelling, 41, 338-344. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2014.05.036Liagkouras, K., & Metaxiotis, K. (2015). Efficient Portfolio Construction with the Use of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Best Practices and Performance Metrics. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 14(03), 535-564. doi:10.1142/s0219622015300013Liu, B. (2004). Uncertainty Theory. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39987-2Baoding Liu, & Yian-Kui Liu. (2002). Expected value of fuzzy variable and fuzzy expected value models. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 10(4), 445-450. doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2002.800692Liu, N., Chen, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Optimizing portfolio selection problems under credibilistic CVaR criterion. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 34(1), 335-347. doi:10.3233/jifs-171298Liu, Y.-J., & Zhang, W.-G. (2018). Multiperiod Fuzzy Portfolio Selection Optimization Model Based on Possibility Theory. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 17(03), 941-968. doi:10.1142/s0219622018500190Mansour, N., Cherif, M. S., & Abdelfattah, W. (2019). Multi-objective imprecise programming for financial portfolio selection with fuzzy returns. Expert Systems with Applications, 138, 112810. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.07.027Markowitz, H. (1952). PORTFOLIO SELECTION*. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.xMarkowitz, H., Todd, P., Xu, G., & Yamane, Y. (1993). Computation of mean-semivariance efficient sets by the Critical Line Algorithm. Annals of Operations Research, 45(1), 307-317. doi:10.1007/bf02282055Martin, R. D., Rachev, S. (Zari), & Siboulet, F. (2003). Phi-alpha optimal portfolios and extreme risk management. Wilmott, 2003(6), 70-83. doi:10.1002/wilm.42820030619Mehlawat, M. K. (2016). Credibilistic mean-entropy models for multi-period portfolio selection with multi-choice aspiration levels. Information Sciences, 345, 9-26. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2016.01.042Mehlawat, M. K., Gupta, P., Kumar, A., Yadav, S., & Aggarwal, A. (2020). Multiobjective Fuzzy Portfolio Performance Evaluation Using Data Envelopment Analysis Under Credibilistic Framework. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 28(11), 2726-2737. doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2020.2969406Mehralizade, R., Amini, M., Sadeghpour Gildeh, B., & Ahmadzade, H. (2020). Uncertain random portfolio selection based on risk curve. Soft Computing, 24(17), 13331-13345. doi:10.1007/s00500-020-04751-9Moeini, M. (2019). Solving the index tracking problem: a continuous optimization approach. Central European Journal of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10100-019-00633-0Narkunienė, J., & Ulbinaitė, A. (2018). Comparative analysis of company performance evaluation methods. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(1), 125-138. doi:10.9770/jesi.2018.6.1(10)Palanikumar, K., Latha, B., Senthilkumar, V. S., & Karthikeyan, R. (2009). Multiple performance optimization in machining of GFRP composites by a PCD tool using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II). Metals and Materials International, 15(2), 249-258. doi:10.1007/s12540-009-0249-7Pflug, G. C. (2000). Some Remarks on the Value-at-Risk and the Conditional Value-at-Risk. Probabilistic Constrained Optimization, 272-281. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3150-7_15Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2000). Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. The Journal of Risk, 2(3), 21-41. doi:10.21314/jor.2000.038Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2002). Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7), 1443-1471. doi:10.1016/s0378-4266(02)00271-6Rubio, A., Bermúdez, J. D., & Vercher, E. (2016). Forecasting portfolio returns using weighted fuzzy time series methods. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 75, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2016.03.007Saborido, R., Ruiz, A. B., Bermúdez, J. D., Vercher, E., & Luque, M. (2016). Evolutionary multi-objective optimization algorithms for fuzzy portfolio selection. Applied Soft Computing, 39, 48-63. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.11.005Sharpe, W. F. (1966). Mutual Fund Performance. The Journal of Business, 39(S1), 119. doi:10.1086/294846Sharpe, W. F. (1994). The Sharpe Ratio. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 21(1), 49-58. doi:10.3905/jpm.1994.409501Sortino, F. A., & Price, L. N. (1994). Performance Measurement in a Downside Risk Framework. The Journal of Investing, 3(3), 59-64. doi:10.3905/joi.3.3.59Srinivas, N., & Deb, K. (1994). Muiltiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms. Evolutionary Computation, 2(3), 221-248. doi:10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221Vercher, E., & Bermúdez, J. D. (2012). Fuzzy Portfolio Selection Models: A Numerical Study. Financial Decision Making Using Computational Intelligence, 253-280. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3773-4_10Vercher, E., & Bermudez, J. D. (2013). A Possibilistic Mean-Downside Risk-Skewness Model for Efficient Portfolio Selection. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 21(3), 585-595. doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2012.2227487Vercher, E., & Bermúdez, J. D. (2015). Portfolio optimization using a credibility mean-absolute semi-deviation model. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(20), 7121-7131. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.05.020Vercher, E., Bermúdez, J. D., & Segura, J. V. (2007). Fuzzy portfolio optimization under downside risk measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 158(7), 769-782. doi:10.1016/j.fss.2006.10.026Wang, S., & Zhu, S. (2002). Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 1(4), 361-377. doi:10.1023/a:1020907229361Yue, W., & Wang, Y. (2017). A new fuzzy multi-objective higher order moment portfolio selection model for diversified portfolios. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 465, 124-140. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2016.08.009Yue, W., Wang, Y., & Xuan, H. (2018). Fuzzy multi-objective portfolio model based on semi-variance–semi-absolute deviation risk measures. Soft Computing, 23(17), 8159-8179. doi:10.1007/s00500-018-3452-yZadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353. doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-xZhai, J., & Bai, M. (2018). Mean-risk model for uncertain portfolio selection with background risk. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 330, 59-69. doi:10.1016/j.cam.2017.07.038Zhao, Z., Wang, H., Yang, X., & Xu, F. (2020). CVaR-cardinality enhanced indexation optimization with tunable short-selling constraints. Applied Economics Letters, 28(3), 201-207. doi:10.1080/13504851.2020.174015

A GPU-accelerated immersive audio-visual framework for interaction with molecular dynamics using consumer depth sensors

© the Partner Organisations 2014. With advances in computational power, the rapidly growing role of computational/simulation methodologies in the physical sciences, and the development of new human-computer interaction technologies, the field of interactive molecular dynamics seems destined to expand. In this paper, we describe and benchmark the software algorithms and hardware setup for carrying out interactive molecular dynamics utilizing an array of consumer depth sensors. The system works by interpreting the human form as an energy landscape, and superimposing this landscape on a molecular dynamics simulation to chaperone the motion of the simulated atoms, affecting both graphics and sonified simulation data. GPU acceleration has been key to achieving our target of 60 frames per second (FPS), giving an extremely fluid interactive experience. GPU acceleration has also allowed us to scale the system for use in immersive 360° spaces with an array of up to ten depth sensors, allowing several users to simultaneously chaperone the dynamics. The flexibility of our platform for carrying out molecular dynamics simulations has been considerably enhanced by wrappers that facilitate fast communication with a portable selection of GPU-accelerated molecular force evaluation routines. In this paper, we describe a 360°atmospheric molecular dynamics simulation we have run in a chemistry/physics education context. We also describe initial tests in which users have been able to chaperone the dynamics of 10-alanine peptide embedded in an explicit water solvent. Using this system, both expert and novice users have been able to accelerate peptide rare event dynamics by 3-4 orders of magnitude. This journal i