Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 283, Issue 1–2, pp 1517–1550 | Cite as

A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach to supply partner selection in continuous aid humanitarian supply chains

  • V. G. VenkateshEmail author
  • Abraham ZhangEmail author
  • Eric Deakins
  • Sunil Luthra
  • S. Mangla
S.I. : Applications of OR in Disaster Relief Operations, Part II


The selection of suitable supply partners is a strategic issue for managers working in humanitarian operations and has received little attention in the literature. In humanitarian operations, complexity characterizes the continuous-aid procurement operations, and the selection criteria can differ from those used in commercial supply chain settings. This paper advances knowledge by introducing a supply partner selection framework for continuous-aid procurement. A proposed multi-criteria decision-making model uses selection criteria attributes verified by the extant literature and by field experts. A fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process is then used to compute criterion weights, and a fuzzy Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution is used to rank supply partner alternatives. Even with elevated levels of subjectivity, these techniques enable humanitarian operation stakeholders to select the best supply partner effectively. An actual case illustrates how the proposed framework efficiently identifies the most suitable continuous-aid supply partner for the prevailing situation.


Supplier selection AHP TOPSIS Humanitarian supply chain Humanitarian logistics Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) Disaster relief chain 


  1. Abidi, H., de Leeuw, S., & Klumpp, M. (2015). The value of fourth-party logistics services in the humanitarian supply chain. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management,5(1), 35–60.Google Scholar
  2. Adebanjo, D., Laosirihongthong, T., & Samaranayake, P. (2016). Prioritizing lean supply chain management initiatives in healthcare service operations: A fuzzy AHP approach. Production Planning & Control,27(12), 953–966.Google Scholar
  3. Afshar, A., Mariño, M. A., Saadatpour, M., & Afshar, A. (2011). Fuzzy TOPSIS multi-criteria decision analysis applied to Karun reservoirs system. Water Resources Management,25(2), 545–563.Google Scholar
  4. Ahmadi, M., Seifi, A., & Tootooni, B. (2015). A humanitarian logistics model for disaster relief operation considering network failure and standard relief time: A case study on San Francisco district. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,75, 145–163.Google Scholar
  5. Akkihal, A. R. (2006). Inventory pre-positioning for humanitarian operations. Master’s thesis, MIT. [accessed on 16/4/2017].
  6. Aktan, H. E., & Tosun, Ö. (2013). An integrated fuzzy AHP–fuzzy TOPSIS approach for AS/RS selection. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management,11(2), 228–245.Google Scholar
  7. Altay, N., & Green, W. G. (2006). OR/MS research in disaster operations management. European Journal of Operational Research,175(1), 475–493.Google Scholar
  8. Avikal, S., Mishra, P. K., & Jain, R. (2014). A fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE method-based heuristic for disassembly line balancing problems. International Journal of Production Research,52(5), 1306–1317.Google Scholar
  9. Aydogan, E. K. (2011). Performance measurement model for Turkish aviation firms using the rough-AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications,38(4), 3992–3998.Google Scholar
  10. Bagchi, A., Paul, J. A., & Maloni, M. (2011). Improving bid efficiency for humanitarian food aid procurement. International Journal of Production Economics,134(1), 238–245.Google Scholar
  11. Bai, C., Fahimnia, B., & Sarkis, J. (2015). Sustainable transport fleet appraisal using a hybrid multi-objective decision-making approach. Annals of Operations Research,250(2), 1–32.Google Scholar
  12. Balcik, B., & Ak, D. (2014). Supplier selection for framework agreements in humanitarian relief. Production and Operations Management,23(6), 1028–1041.Google Scholar
  13. Balcik, B., & Beamon, B. M. (2008). Facility location in humanitarian relief. International Journal of Logistics,11(2), 101–121.Google Scholar
  14. Balcik, B., Beamon, B. M., Krejci, C. C., Muramatsu, K. M., & Ramirez, M. (2010). Coordination in humanitarian relief chains: Practices, challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Production Economics,126(1), 22–34.Google Scholar
  15. Barbarosoǧlu, G., & Arda, Y. (2004). A two-stage stochastic programming framework for transportation planning in disaster response. Journal of the Operational Research Society,55(1), 43–53.Google Scholar
  16. Beamon, B. M., & Balcik, B. (2008). Performance measurement in humanitarian relief chains. International Journal of Public Sector Management,21(1), 4–25.Google Scholar
  17. Beamon, B. M., & Kotleba, S. A. (2006). Inventory management support systems for emergency humanitarian relief operations in South Sudan. The International Journal of Logistics Management,17(2), 187–212.Google Scholar
  18. Belton, V. (1986). A comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and a simple multi-attribute value function. European Journal of Operational Research,26(1), 7–21.Google Scholar
  19. Bhutta, K. S., & Huq, F. (2002). Supplier selection problem: A comparison of the total cost of ownership and Analytic Hierarchy Process approaches. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,7(3), 126–135.Google Scholar
  20. Blecken, A. (2010). Supply chain process modelling for humanitarian organizations. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,40(8/9), 675–692.Google Scholar
  21. Bozorgi-Amiri, A., & Asvadi, S. (2015). A prioritization model for locating relief logistic centers using Analytic Hierarchy Process with interval comparison matrix. Knowledge-Based Systems,86, 173–181.Google Scholar
  22. Bozorgi-Amiri, A., Jabalameli, M. S., & Al-e-Hashem, S. M. (2013). A multi-objective robust stochastic programming model for disaster relief logistics under uncertainty. OR Spectrum,35(4), 905–933.Google Scholar
  23. Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1985). Note—A preference ranking organisation method: (The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Management Science,31(6), 647–656.Google Scholar
  24. Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O., & Nebol, E. (2008). Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain. International Journal of Production Economics,113(1), 148–158.Google Scholar
  25. Byman, D., Lesser, I. O., Pirnie, B. R., Benard, C., Waxman, M. (2000). Strengthening the partnership: Improving military coordination with relief agencies and allies in humanitarian operations. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. [accessed on 12 April, 2017].
  26. Çebi, F., & Bayraktar, D. (2003). An integrated approach for supplier selection. Logistics Information Management,16(6), 395–400.Google Scholar
  27. Celik, E., & Gumus, A. T. (2015). An assessment approach for non-governmental organizations in humanitarian relief logistics and an application in Turkey. Technological and Economic Development of Economy,24, 1–26.Google Scholar
  28. Celik, E., Gumus, A. T., & Alegoz, M. (2014). A trapezoidal type-2 fuzzy MCDM method to identify and evaluate critical success factors for humanitarian relief logistics management. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems,27(6), 2847–2855.Google Scholar
  29. Cevik Onar, S., Oztaysi, B., & Kahraman, C. (2014). Strategic decision selection using hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS and interval type-2 fuzzy AHP: a case study. International Journal of Computational intelligence systems,7(5), 1002–1021.Google Scholar
  30. Chai, J., Liu, J. N., & Ngai, E. W. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications,40(10), 3872–3885.Google Scholar
  31. Chakravarty, A. K. (2014). Humanitarian relief chain: Rapid response under uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics,151, 146–157.Google Scholar
  32. Chan, F. T., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M. K., Lau, H. C., & Choy, K. L. (2008). Global supplier selection: A fuzzy-AHP approach. International Journal of Production Research,46(14), 3825–3857.Google Scholar
  33. Chandes, J., & Paché, G. (2010). Investigating humanitarian logistics issues: From operations management to strategic action. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,21(3), 320–340.Google Scholar
  34. Chang, D. Y. (1992). Extent analysis and synthetic decision. Optimization Techniques and Applications,1(1), 352–355.Google Scholar
  35. Charles, A., Lauras, M., & Van Wassenhove, L. (2010). A model to define and assess the agility of supply chains: Building on humanitarian experience. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,40(8/9), 722–741.Google Scholar
  36. Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making methods. In D.-F. Li (Ed.), Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making (pp. 289–486). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Chen, J., Liang, L., & Yao, D. Q. (2017). Pre-positioning of relief inventories for non-profit organizations: A newsvendor approach. Annals of Operations Research. Scholar
  38. Chithambaranathan, P., Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A., & Palaniappan, P. K. (2015). Service supply chain environmental performance evaluation using grey based hybrid MCDM approach. International Journal of Production Economics,166, 163–176.Google Scholar
  39. Chiu, W. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Li, H. L. (2013). A new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR to improve e-store business. Knowledge-Based Systems,37, 48–61.Google Scholar
  40. Choudhary, D., & Shankar, R. (2012). An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India. Energy,42(1), 510–521.Google Scholar
  41. Christopher, M., & Towill, D. R. (2000). Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile and customized. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,5(4), 206–213.Google Scholar
  42. Dağdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., & Kılınç, N. (2009). Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications,36(4), 8143–8151.Google Scholar
  43. Davis, L. B., Samanlioglu, F., Qu, X., & Root, S. (2013). Inventory planning and coordination in disaster relief efforts. International Journal of Production Economics,141(2), 561–573.Google Scholar
  44. De Boer, L., van der Wegen, L., & Telgen, J. (1998). Outranking methods in support of supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management,4(2–3), 109–118.Google Scholar
  45. Dickson, G. W. (1966). An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management,2(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  46. Duran, S., Ergun, Ö., Keskinocak, P., & Swann, J. L. (2013). Humanitarian logistics: Advanced purchasing and pre-positioning of relief items. In J. H. Bookbinder (Ed.), Handbook of global logistics (pp. 447–462). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. El-Anwar, O., El-Rayes, K., & Elnashai, A. S. (2009). Maximizing the sustainability of integrated housing recovery efforts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(7), 794–802.Google Scholar
  48. Ertem, M. A., Buyurgan, N., & Rossetti, M. D. (2010). Multiple-buyer procurement auctions framework for humanitarian supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,40(3), 202–227.Google Scholar
  49. Eskigun, E., Uzsoy, R., Preckel, P. V., Beaujon, G., Krishnan, S., & Tew, J. D. (2005). Outbound supply chain network design with mode selection, lead times and capacitated vehicle distribution centers. European Journal of Operational Research,165(1), 182–206.Google Scholar
  50. Falasca, M., & Zobel, C. W. (2011). A two-stage procurement model for humanitarian relief supply chains. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management,1(2), 151–169.Google Scholar
  51. Foerstl, K., Azadegan, A., Leppelt, T., & Hartmann, E. (2015). Drivers of supplier sustainability: Moving beyond compliance to commitment. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(1), 67–92.Google Scholar
  52. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1972). World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Center.Google Scholar
  53. Gatignon, A., Van Wassenhove, L. N., & Charles, A. (2010). The Yogyakarta earthquake: Humanitarian relief through IFRC’s decentralized supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics,126(1), 102–110.Google Scholar
  54. Gimenez, C., & Ventura, E. (2005). Logistics-production, logistics-marketing and external integration: Their impact on performance. International journal of operations & Production Management,25(1), 20–38.Google Scholar
  55. Gutjahr, W. J., & Nolz, P. C. (2016). Multicriteria optimization in humanitarian aid. European Journal of Operational Research,252(2), 351–366.Google Scholar
  56. Harputlugil, T., Prins, M., Gultekin, T., & Topcu, I. (2011). Conceptual framework for potential implementations of multi criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods for design quality assessment. In: Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  57. Hay, R. L., Stavins, R. N., & Vietor, R. H. K. (2005). Environmental protection and the social responsibility of firms: Perspectives from law, Economics and business. Resources for the future. Washington DC: RFF Press.Google Scholar
  58. He, F., & Zhuang, J. (2016). Balancing pre-disaster preparedness and post-disaster relief. European Journal of Operational Research,252(1), 246–256.Google Scholar
  59. Ho Oh, E., Deshmukh, A., & Hastak, M. (2010). Disaster impact analysis based on inter-relationship of critical infrastructure and associated industries: A winter flood disaster event. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 1(1), 25–49.Google Scholar
  60. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple criteria decision-making (Vol. 186)., Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Iakovou, E., Vlachos, D., Keramydas, C., & Partsch, D. (2014). Dual sourcing for mitigating humanitarian supply chain disruptions. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management,4(2), 245–264.Google Scholar
  62. Ignizio, J. P. (1976). Goal programming and extensions. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  63. Institute, Fritz. (2005). Logistics and the effective delivery of humanitarian relief. San Francisco, CA: Fritz Institute.Google Scholar
  64. Jahre, M., & Jensen, L. M. (2010). Coordination in humanitarian logistics through clusters. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,40(8/9), 657–674.Google Scholar
  65. Jahre, M., Jensen, L. M., & Listou, T. (2009). Theory development in humanitarian logistics: A framework and three cases. Management Research News,32(11), 1008–1023.Google Scholar
  66. Jain, V., Sangaiah, A. K., Sakhuja, S., Thoduka, N., & Aggarwal, R. (2016). Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: A case study in the Indian automotive industry. Neural Computing and Applications,29(7), 1–10.Google Scholar
  67. Javid, A. A., & Azad, N. (2010). Incorporating location, routing and inventory decisions in supply chain network design. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,46(5), 582–597.Google Scholar
  68. John, L., Ramesh, A., & Sridharan, R. (2012). Humanitarian supply chain management: a critical review. International Journal of Services and Operations Management,13(4), 498–524.Google Scholar
  69. Ju, Y., Wang, A., & You, T. (2015). Emergency alternative evaluation and selection based on ANP, DEMATEL, and TL-TOPSIS. Natural Hazards,75(2), 347–379.Google Scholar
  70. Junior, F. R. L., Osiro, L., & Carpinetti, L. C. R. (2014). A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Applied Soft Computing,21, 194–209.Google Scholar
  71. Keeney, & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable operations management. Production and operations management,14(4), 482–492.Google Scholar
  73. Kovács, G., & Spens, K. M. (2007). Humanitarian logistics in disaster relief operations. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,37(2), 99–114.Google Scholar
  74. Kovács, G., & Spens, K. (2009). Identifying challenges in humanitarian logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,39(6), 506–528.Google Scholar
  75. Kovács, G., & Spens, K. M. (2011). Trends and developments in humanitarian logistics—A gap analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,41(1), 32–45.Google Scholar
  76. Kovács, G., & Tatham, P. (2009). Responding to disruptions in the supply network—From Dormant to action. Journal of Business Logistics,30(2), 215–229.Google Scholar
  77. Kuo, M. S., Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, W. C. (2007). Group decision-making based on concepts of ideal and anti-ideal points in a fuzzy environment. Mathematical and Computer Modelling,45(3), 324–339.Google Scholar
  78. Liou, J. J., Tamošaitienė, J., Zavadskas, E. K., & Tzeng, G. H. (2016). New hybrid COPRAS-G MADM Model for improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research,54(1), 114–134.Google Scholar
  79. Loken, E. (2007). Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,11(7), 1584–1595.Google Scholar
  80. Mandic, 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.Google Scholar
  81. Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Prioritizing the responses to manage risks in green supply chain: An Indian plastic manufacturer perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption,1, 67–86.Google Scholar
  82. Metaxas, I. N., Koulouriotis, D. E., & Spartalis, S. H. (2016). A multicriteria model on calculating the Sustainable Business Excellence Index of a firm with fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Benchmarking: An International Journal,23(6), 1522–1557.Google Scholar
  83. Nappi, M. M. L., & Souza, J. C. (2015). Disaster management: hierarchical structuring criteria for selection and location of temporary shelters. Natural Hazards,75(3), 2421–2436.Google Scholar
  84. Natarajarathinam, M., Capar, I., & Narayanan, A. (2009). Managing supply chains in times of crisis: A review of literature and insights. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,39(7), 535–573.Google Scholar
  85. Oloruntoba, R., & Gray, R. (2006). Humanitarian aid: An agile supply chain? Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,11(2), 115–120.Google Scholar
  86. Ozdamar, L. (2011). Planning helicopter logistics in disaster relief. OR Spectrum,33(3), 655–672.Google Scholar
  87. Özdamar, L., Ekinci, E., & Küçükyazici, B. (2004). Emergency logistics planning in natural disasters. Annals of Operations Research,129(1), 217–245.Google Scholar
  88. Özdamar, L., & Ertem, M. A. (2015). Models, solutions and enabling technologies in humanitarian logistics. European Journal of Operational Research,244(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
  89. PAHO. (2001). Humanitarian supply management in logistics in the health sector. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization.Google Scholar
  90. Patil, 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.Google Scholar
  91. Pettit, S., & Beresford, A. (2009). Critical success factors in the context of humanitarian aid supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,39(6), 450–468.Google Scholar
  92. Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. Journal of Manufacturing Systems,37, 599–615.Google Scholar
  93. Ramanathan, R. (2007). Supplier selection problem: Integrating DEA with the approaches of total cost of ownership and AHP. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,12(4), 258–261.Google Scholar
  94. Richardson, D. A., Leeuw, S., & Dullaert, W. (2016). Factors affecting global inventory prepositioning locations in humanitarian operations—a Delphi study. Journal of Business Logistics,37(1), 59–74.Google Scholar
  95. Roh, S., Pettit, S., Harris, I., & Beresford, A. (2015). The pre-positioning of warehouses at regional and local levels for a humanitarian relief organisation. International Journal of Production Economics,170, 616–628.Google Scholar
  96. Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue française d’automatique, d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle. Recherche opérationnelle,2(1), 57–75.Google Scholar
  97. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research,48(1), 9–26.Google Scholar
  98. Saksrisathaporn, K., Bouras, A., Reeveerakul, N., & Charles, A. (2016). Application of a decision model by using an integration of AHP and TOPSIS approaches within humanitarian operation life cycle. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision-making,15(04), 887–918.Google Scholar
  99. Samvedi, A., Jain, V., & Chan, F. T. (2013). Quantifying risks in a supply chain through integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Production Research,51(8), 2433–2442.Google Scholar
  100. Sangaiah, A. K., Subramaniam, P. R., & Zheng, X. (2015). A combined fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy TOPSIS approach for evaluating GSD project outcome factors. Neural Computing and Applications,26(5), 1025–1040.Google Scholar
  101. Sarmiento, R., & Thomas, A. (2010). Identifying improvement areas when implementing green initiatives using a multitier AHP approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal,17(3), 452–463.Google Scholar
  102. Schätter, F., Wiens, M., & Schultmann, F. (2015). A new focus on risk reduction: An ad hoc decision support system for humanitarian relief logistics. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability,1(3), 1–11.Google Scholar
  103. Schmitz, J., & Platts, K. W. (2004). Supplier logistics performance measurement: Indications from a study in the automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics,89(2), 231–243.Google Scholar
  104. Schulz, S. F., & Blecken, A. (2010). Horizontal cooperation in disaster relief logistics: Benefits and impediments. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,40(8/9), 636–656.Google Scholar
  105. Shaw, 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.Google Scholar
  106. Shipley, M. F., de Korvin, A., & Obid, R. (1991). A decision-making model for multi-attribute problems incorporating uncertainty and bias measures. Computers & Operations Research,18(4), 335–342.Google Scholar
  107. Shukla, R. K., Garg, D., & Agarwal, A. (2014). An integrated approach of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS in modeling supply chain coordination. Production & Manufacturing Research,2(1), 415–437.Google Scholar
  108. Shyur, H. J., & Shih, H. S. (2006). A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection. Mathematical and Computer Modelling,44(7), 749–761.Google Scholar
  109. Sindhu, S., Nehra, V., & Luthra, S. (2017). Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: Case study of India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, 496–511.Google Scholar
  110. Slack, N. (1991). The manufacturing advantage: Achieving competitive manufacturing operations. Mercury Books.Google Scholar
  111. Sun, C. C. (2010). A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications,37(12), 7745–7754.Google Scholar
  112. Tadić, S., Zečević, S., & Krstić, M. (2014). A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection. Expert Systems with Applications,41(18), 8112–8128.Google Scholar
  113. Tatham, P., & Kovács, G. (2010). The application of “swift trust” to humanitarian logistics. International Journal of Production Economics,126(1), 35–45.Google Scholar
  114. Tatham, P. H., & Pettit, S. J. (2010). Transforming humanitarian logistics: The journey to supply network management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,40(8/9), 609–622.Google Scholar
  115. Taupiac, C. (2001). Humanitarian and development procurement: A vast and growing market. International Trade Forum,4, 7–10.Google Scholar
  116. Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing,17, 105–116.Google Scholar
  117. Thomas, A. S., & Kopczak, L. R. (2005). From logistics to supply chain management: The path forward in the humanitarian sector. Fritz Institute, 15, 1–15.Google Scholar
  118. Thomas, A., & Mizushima, M. (2005). Logistics training: Necessity or luxury. Forced Migration Review,22(22), 60–61.Google Scholar
  119. Tomasini, R. M., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2009). From preparedness to partnerships: Case study research on humanitarian logistics. International Transactions in Operational Research,16(5), 549–559.Google Scholar
  120. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management,14(3), 207–222.Google Scholar
  121. Tsai, W. H., Lee, P. L., Shen, Y. S., & Hwang, E. T. (2014). A combined evaluation model for encouraging entrepreneurship policies. Annals of Operations Research,221(1), 449–468.Google Scholar
  122. Tsui, C. W., Tzeng, G. H., & Wen, U. P. (2015). A hybrid MCDM approach for improving the performance of green suppliers in the TFT-LCD industry. International Journal of Production Research,53(21), 6436–6454.Google Scholar
  123. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research,169(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  124. Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006). Humanitarian aid logistics: Supply chain management in high gear. Journal of the Operational Research Society,57(5), 475–489.Google Scholar
  125. Venkatesh, V. G., Dubey, R., & Ali, S. S. (2014). Disaster relief operations and continuous aid program in humanitarian supply networks: are they congruent?—an analysis. In Proceedings of the third international conference on soft computing for problem solving (pp. 959–973). Springer India.Google Scholar
  126. Venkatesh, V. G., Dubey, R., Joy, P., Thomas, M., Vijeesh, V., & Moosa, A. (2015). Supplier selection in blood bags manufacturing industry using TOPSIS model. International Journal of Operational Research,24(4), 461–488.Google Scholar
  127. Victoria, J. F., Afsar, H. M., & Prins, C. (2015). Vehicle routing problem with time-dependent demand in humanitarian logistics. In International conference on Industrial engineering and systems management (IESM), 2015 (pp. 686–694). IEEE.Google Scholar
  128. Viswanadham, N., & Samvedi, A. (2013). Supplier selection based on supply chain ecosystem, performance and risk criteria. International Journal of Production Research,51(21), 6484–6498.Google Scholar
  129. Wang, T. C., & Chang, T. H. (2007). Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications,33(4), 870–880.Google Scholar
  130. Wang, J. W., Cheng, C. H., & Huang, K. C. (2009). Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection. Applied Soft Computing,9(1), 377–386.Google Scholar
  131. Wang, E. T., & Wei, H. L. (2007). Interorganizational governance value creation: Coordinating for information visibility and flexibility in supply chains. Decision Sciences,38(4), 647–674.Google Scholar
  132. Wilhelm, M. M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V., & Paulraj, A. (2016). Sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: Understanding the double agency role of the first-tier supplier. Journal of Operations Management,41, 42–60.Google Scholar
  133. Yi, W., & Özdamar, L. (2007). A dynamic logistics coordination model for evacuation and support in disaster response activities. European Journal of Operational Research,179(3), 1177–1193.Google Scholar
  134. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control,8(3), 338–353.Google Scholar
  135. Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., & Çobanoğlu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2741–2751.Google Scholar
  136. Zhan, S. L., Liu, N., & Ye, Y. (2014). Coordinating efficiency and equity in disaster relief logistics via information updates. International Journal of Systems Science,45(8), 1607–1621.Google Scholar
  137. Zhao, H., & Guo, S. (2014). Selecting green supplier of thermal power equipment by using a hybrid MCDM method for sustainability. Sustainability,6(1), 217–235.Google Scholar
  138. Zimmermann, H. J. (2011). Fuzzy set theory—and its applications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  139. Zobel, C. W. (2011). Representing perceived tradeoffs in defining disaster resilience. Decision Support Systems, 50(2), 394–403.Google Scholar
  140. Zyoud, S. H., Kaufmann, L. G., Shaheen, H., Samhan, S., & Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2016). A framework for water loss management in developing countries under fuzzy environment: Integration of Fuzzy AHP with Fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications,61, 86–105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Waikato Management SchoolThe University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Auckland University of Technology (AUT) Business SchoolAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringState Institute of Engineering & Technology (Formerly known as Government Engineering College)NilokheriIndia
  4. 4.Plymouth Business SchoolUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  5. 5.Lumen Research InstituteExcelsia College and Indiana Wesleyan UniversityMacquarie ParkAustralia

Personalised recommendations