Supplier evaluation and selection: a fuzzy novel multi-criteria group decision-making approach

Suppliers’ evaluation and selection is a subject widely explored through many different kinds of approaches and multi-criteria decision methods, and more recently also through group decision making ones. This paper addresses these problems by proposing an easy-going two-phase supplier selection decision model that uses a scientific approach and incorporates performance criteria in screening and selecting the potential suppliers for further optimal supplier selection. The first phase of the model determines the performance of the suppliers on both quantitative and qualitative criteria and the relative importance weights of the criteria. Fuzzy set theory is utilized to deal with the imprecision and vagueness involved with the subjective judgment of both the qualitative data of the decision-matrix and the relative importance weights of the criteria. In the second phase, the suppliers are screened using their efficiencies and an agreed threshold. Then, the optimal supplier for corporation is selected from the limited potential suppliers set. To illustrate the applicability and validate the proposed model, a case study of a beverage producing company located in Ghana, the Sub-Saharan Africa is proposed. The results of the study can provide valuable clues and guidelines to decision-makers and analyst in pre-contract negotiations. The proposed model will assist practicing managers to effectively reduce their supply-base and efficiently select the optimal supplier for corporation. Implications of the study to the theory and practice and future research directions are also outlined.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Adaptation of the Wound Healing Questionnaire universal-reporter outcome measure for use in global surgery trials (TALON-1 study): mixed-methods study and Rasch analysis

BackgroundThe Bluebelle Wound Healing Questionnaire (WHQ) is a universal-reporter outcome measure developed in the UK for remote detection of surgical-site infection after abdominal surgery. This study aimed to explore cross-cultural equivalence, acceptability, and content validity of the WHQ for use across low- and middle-income countries, and to make recommendations for its adaptation.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study within a trial (SWAT) embedded in an international randomized trial, conducted according to best practice guidelines, and co-produced with community and patient partners (TALON-1). Structured interviews and focus groups were used to gather data regarding cross-cultural, cross-contextual equivalence of the individual items and scale, and conduct a translatability assessment. Translation was completed into five languages in accordance with Mapi recommendations. Next, data from a prospective cohort (SWAT) were interpreted using Rasch analysis to explore scaling and measurement properties of the WHQ. Finally, qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated using a modified, exploratory, instrumental design model.ResultsIn the qualitative phase, 10 structured interviews and six focus groups took place with a total of 47 investigators across six countries. Themes related to comprehension, response mapping, retrieval, and judgement were identified with rich cross-cultural insights. In the quantitative phase, an exploratory Rasch model was fitted to data from 537 patients (369 excluding extremes). Owing to the number of extreme (floor) values, the overall level of power was low. The single WHQ scale satisfied tests of unidimensionality, indicating validity of the ordinal total WHQ score. There was significant overall model misfit of five items (5, 9, 14, 15, 16) and local dependency in 11 item pairs. The person separation index was estimated as 0.48 suggesting weak discrimination between classes, whereas Cronbach's α was high at 0.86. Triangulation of qualitative data with the Rasch analysis supported recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ items 1 (redness), 3 (clear fluid), 7 (deep wound opening), 10 (pain), 11 (fever), 15 (antibiotics), 16 (debridement), 18 (drainage), and 19 (reoperation). Changes to three item response categories (1, not at all; 2, a little; 3, a lot) were adopted for symptom items 1 to 10, and two categories (0, no; 1, yes) for item 11 (fever).ConclusionThis study made recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ for use in global surgical research and practice, using co-produced mixed-methods data from three continents. Translations are now available for implementation into remote wound assessment pathways