Sustainable-supplier selection for manufacturing services: a failure mode and effects analysis model based on interval-valued fuzzy group decision-making

  • N. Foroozesh
  • R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam
  • S. Meysam Mousavi
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

Inside supply chains’ exercises, evaluating suitable suppliers in light of the sustainability criteria, including economic, environmental, and social, can assist organizations to move toward sustainable development by considering their risks. Evaluating and choosing the sustainable-supplier for manufacturing services with lowest risks among candidates in the sustainable-supply chain management (S-SCM) is a vital issue for logistics managers, particularly by considering different sustainable criteria via three dimensions of the sustainability for strategic decisions. This paper introduces a new failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) model based on multi-criteria decision-making by a group of supply chain-experts with interval-valued fuzzy (IVF) setting and asymmetric uncertainty information concurrently. In fact, the proposed model evaluates and ranks the suppliers according to their risks of economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Concepts of mean, variance, and skewness are introduced into the proposed FMEA model, and their mathematical relations are presented based on fuzzy possibilistic statistical concepts. Then, new definitions in the FMEA are presented for obtaining ideal solutions under uncertain conditions with possibilisic mean and possibilistic standard deviation, along with the possibilisic cube-root of skewness. Also, novel separation measures, max- and min-indices, and new fuzzy ranking index for risk scoring are presented to provide order of sustainable-supplier candidates under risky conditions. Finally, a real case study for manufacturing services is given and solved by the proposed FMEA model to demonstrate its capability in the S-SCM environment. The results of the proposed model illustrate that sustainable suppliers have been assessed and selected with the least amount of risks according to three dimensions of the sustainability.

Keywords

Sustainable-supplier selection Manufacturing services Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) Interval-valued fuzzy sets Multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) Fuzzy possibilistic mean-variance-skewness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to four anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and constructive suggestions that greatly enhanced the quality of this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Ashley L, Armitage G, Taylor J (2016) Recognising and referring children exposed to domestic abuse: a multi-professional, proactive systems-based evaluation using a modified Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Health Soc Care Community. {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hsc.12359/full}
  2. 2.
    Ashtiani B, Haghighirad F, Makui A, ali Montazer G (2009) Extension of fuzzy TOPSIS method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. Appl Soft Comput 9(2):457–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buddress L (2013) Managing supply chain sustainability and risk: keys to success. Strateg Manag 18(2):3–16Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabanes B, Hubac S, Le Masson P, Weil B (2016) Design-oriented manufacturing: the case of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) in semiconductor industry (No. hal-01261185)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carlsson C, Fullér R (2001) On possibilistic mean value and variance of fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets Syst 122(2):315–326MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carter CR, Rogers DS (2008) A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 38(5):360–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chanamool N, Naenna T (2016) Fuzzy FMEA application to improve decision-making process in an emergency department. Appl Soft Comput 43:441–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen PS, Wu MT (2013) A modified failure mode and effects analysis method for supplier selection problems in the supply chain risk environment: a case study. Comput Ind Eng 66(4):634–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen X, Du H, Yang Y (2014) The interval-valued triangular fuzzy soft set and its method of dynamic decision making. J Appl Math 2014.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/132806
  10. 10.
    Cornelis C, Deschrijver G, Kerre EE (2004) Implication in intuitionistic fuzzy and interval-valued fuzzy set theory: construction, classification, application. Int J Approx Reason 35(1):55–95MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cornelis C, Deschrijver G, Kerre EE (2006) Advances and challenges in interval-valued fuzzy logic. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157(5):622–627MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dalalah D, Hayajneh M, Batieha F (2011) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for supplier selection. Expert Syst Appl 38(7):8384–8391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deng X, Li R (2014) Gradually tolerant constraint method for fuzzy portfolio based on possibility theory. Inf Sci 259:16–24MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deschrijver G (2007) Arithmetic operators in interval-valued fuzzy set theory. Inf Sci 177(14):2906–2924MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ebrahimnejad S, Hashemi H, Mousavi SM, Vahdani B (2015) A new interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy model to group decision making for the selection of outsourcing providers. J Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 49(2):269–290Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faisal MN (2009) Prioritization of risks in supply chains. In: Managing supply chain risk and vulnerability. Springer, London, pp 41–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giannakis M, Papadopoulos T (2016) Supply chain sustainability: a risk management approach. Int J Prod Econ 171:455–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gitinavard H, Mousavi SM, Vahdani B, & Siadat A (2016a). A distance-based decision model in interval-valued hesitant fuzzy setting for industrial selection problems. Scientia Iranica. Transaction E, Industrial Engineering, 23(4):1928–1940Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gitinavard H, Mousavi SM, Vahdani B (2016b) A new multi-criteria weighting and ranking model for group decision-making analysis based on interval-valued hesitant fuzzy sets to selection problems. Neural Comput & Applic 27(6):1593–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gitinavard H, Mousavi SM, Vahdani B (2017) Soft computing-based new interval-valued hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria group assessment method with last aggregation to industrial decision problems. Soft Comput 21(12):3247–3265CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goebel P, Reuter C, Pibernik R, Sichtmann C (2012) The influence of ethical culture on supplier selection in the context of sustainable sourcing. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guijun W, Xiaoping L (1998) The applications of interval-valued fuzzy numbers and interval-distribution numbers. Fuzzy Sets Syst 98(3):331–335MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hajiagha SHR, Hashemi SS, Mohammadi Y, Zavadskas EK (2016) Fuzzy belief structure based VIKOR method: an application for ranking delay causes of Tehran metro system by FMEA criteria. Transport 31(1):108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hashemi H, Bazargan J, Mousavi SM (2013) A compromise ratio method with an application to water resources management: an intuitionistic fuzzy set. Water Resour Manag 27(7):2029–2051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hofmann H, Busse C, Bode C, & Henke M (2014). Sustainability‐related supply chain risks: conceptualization and management. Bus Strateg Environ 23(3):160–172Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jauhar SK, Pant M, Abraham A (2014) A novel approach for sustainable supplier selection using differential evolution: a case on pulp and paper industry. In: Intelligent data analysis and its applications, vol Volume II. Springer International Publishing, Basel, pp 105–117Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kamdem JS, Deffo CT, Fono LA (2012) Moments and semi-moments for fuzzy portfolio selection. Insur Math Econ 51(3):517–530MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kumar Jauhar S, Pant M, Nagar MC (2015) Differential evolution for sustainable supplier selection in pulp and paper industry: a DEA based approach. Comput Methods Mater Sci 15:118–126Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kumar D, Rahman Z, Chan FT (2017) A fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming model for order allocation in a sustainable supply chain: a case study. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 30(6):535–551Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lambert DM, Croxton KL, Garcı’a-Dastugue SJ, Knemeyer M, Rogers DS (2006) Supply chain management processes, partnerships, performance, 2nd edn. Hartley Press Inc., JacksonvilleGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li X, Qin Z, Kar S (2010) Mean-variance-skewness model for portfolio selection with fuzzy returns. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):239–247CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin YH, Tseng ML (2016) Assessing the competitive priorities within sustainable supply chain management under uncertainty. J Clean Prod 112:2133–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lolli F, Gamberini R, Rimini B, Pulga F (2016) A revised FMEA with application to a blow moulding process. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 33(7):900–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matusevych OO, et al (2016) Continuous improvement of technical servicing and repair system of railway substation on the basis of FMEA methodology. {http://eadnurt.diit.edu.ua/jspui/handle/123456789/8851 }
  35. 35.
    Mousavi SM, Vahdani B, Behzadi SS (2016) Designing a model of intuitionistic fuzzy VIKOR in multi-attribute group decision-making problems. Iran J Fuzzy Syst 13(1):45–65MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Orji I, Wei S (2014) A decision support tool for sustainable supplier selection in manufacturing firms. J Ind Eng Manag 7(5):1293Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Orji IJ, Wei S (2015) An innovative integration of fuzzy-logic and systems dynamics in sustainable supplier selection: a case on manufacturing industry. Comput Ind Eng 88:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Paul SK (2015) Supplier selection for managing supply risks in supply chain: a fuzzy approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 79(1–4):657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rah JE, Manger RP, Yock AD, Kim GY (2016) A comparison of two prospective risk analysis methods: traditional FMEA and a modified healthcare FMEA. Med Phys 43(12):6347–6353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Renu R, Visotsky D, Knackstedt S, Mocko G, Summers JD, Schulte J (2016) A knowledge based FMEA to support identification and management of vehicle flexible component issues. Procedia CIRP 44:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Samvedi A, Jain V, Chan FT (2013) Quantifying risks in a supply chain through integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Prod Res 51(8):2433–2442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Selim H, Yunusoglu MG, Yılmaz Balaman Ş (2016) A dynamic maintenance planning framework based on fuzzy TOPSIS and FMEA: application in an international food company. Qual Reliab Eng Int 32(3):795–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sharma RK, Kumar D, Kumar P (2005) Systematic failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) using fuzzy linguistic modelling. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 22:986–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stamatis DH (1995) Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. ASQC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sutrisno A, Kwon HM, Gunawan I, Eldridge S, Lee TR (2016) Integrating SWOT analysis into the FMEA methodology to improve corrective action decision making. Int J Prod Qual Manag 17(1):104–126Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vahdani B, Salimi M, Charkhchian M (2015a) A new FMEA method by integrating fuzzy belief structure and TOPSIS to improve risk evaluation process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 77(1–4):357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vahdani B, Salimi M, Mousavi SM (2015b) A compromise decision-making model based on VIKOR for multi-objective large-scale nonlinear programming problems with a block angular structure under uncertainty. Scientia Iranica Trans E Ind Eng 22(6):2571Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wang JW, Cheng CH, Huang KC (2009) Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput 9(1):377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wei SH, Chen SM (2009) Fuzzy risk analysis based on interval-valued fuzzy numbers. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):2285–2299.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/519629
  50. 50.
    Yao JS, Lin FT (2002) Constructing a fuzzy flow-shop sequencing model based on statistical data. Int J Approx Reason 29(3):215–234MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ye F, Lin Q (2013) Partner selection in a virtual enterprise: a group multiattribute decision model with weighted possibilistic mean values. Math Probl Eng:2013Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhang WG, Wang YL, Chen ZP, Nie ZK (2007) Possibilistic mean–variance models and efficient frontiers for portfolio selection problem. Inf Sci 177(13):2787–2801MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhang DW, Hamid A, Bakar A, Thoo AC (2014) Sustainable supplier selection: an international comparative literature reviews for future investigation. In: Applied mechanics and materials, vol 525. Trans Tech Publications, pp 787–790Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Foroozesh
    • 1
  • R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Meysam Mousavi
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Industrial Engineering, College of EngineeringUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.LCFCArts et Métier Paris TechMetzFrance
  3. 3.Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringShahed UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations