A hybrid approach of neutrosophic sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria

  • Mohamed Abdel-Basset
  • Gunasekaran Manogaran
  • Abduallah Gamal
  • Florentin Smarandache
Article
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

For any organization, the selection of suppliers is a very important step to increase productivity and profitability. Any organization or company seeks to use the best methodology and the appropriate technology to achieve its strategies and objectives. The present study employs the neutrosophic set for decision making and evaluation method (DEMATEL) to analyze and determine the factors influencing the selection of SCM suppliers. DEMATEL is considered a proactive approach to improve performance and achieve competitive advantages. This study applies the neutrosophic set Theory to adjust general judgment, using a new scale to present each value. A case study implementing the proposed methodology is presented (i.e. selecting the best supplier for a distribution company). This research was designed by neutrosophic DEMATEL data collection survey of experts, interviewing professionals in management, procurement and production. The results analyzed in our research prove that quality is the most influential criterion in the selection of suppliers.

Keywords

Supply chain management (SCM) Supplier selection Neutrosophic set DEMATEL 

References

  1. 1.
    Gharakhani D (2012) The evaluation of supplier selection criteria by fuzzy DEMATEL method. J Basic Appl Sci Res 2(4):3215–3224Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Askarany D et al (2010) Supply chain management, activity-based costing and organisational factors. Int J Prod Econ 127(2):238–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gunasekaran A et al (2004) A framework for supply chain performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 87(3):333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arndt H (2004) Supply chain management. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li X, Wang Q (2007) Coordination mechanisms of supply chain systems. Eur J Oper Res 179(1):1–16MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shyur H-J, Shih H-S (2006) A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection. Math Comput Model 44(7):749–761CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang S-L et al (2007) Applying a direct multi-granularity linguistic and strategy-oriented aggregation approach on the assessment of supply performance. Eur J Oper Res 177(2):1013–1025CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dickson GW (1996) An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. J Purch 2(1):5–17Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gan J, Luo L (2017) Using DEMATEL and intuitionistic fuzzy sets to identify critical factors influencing the recycling rate of end-of-life vehicles in China. Sustainability 9(10):1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chan FT et al (2006) An AHP approach in benchmarking logistics performance of the postal industry. Benchmark Int J 13(6):636–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang C et al (2017) Merger and acquisition target selection based on interval neutrosophic multigranulation rough sets over two universes. Symmetry 9(7):126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smarandache F (1999) A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability. American Research Press, Santa FeMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smarandache F (2005) A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability: neutrosophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability. Infinite study. American Research Press, Santa FeMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abdel-Basset M et al (2018) Future generation computer systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.03.014
  15. 15.
    Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed M, Zhou Y, Hezam I (2017) Multi-criteria group decision making based onneutrosophic analytic hierarchy process. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 33(6):4055–4066Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hezam IM, Abdel-Baset M, Smarandache F (2015) Taylor series approximation to solve neutrosophic multiobjective programming problem. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 10:39–46Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smarandache F (2010) Neutrosophic set-a generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set. J Defense Resour Manag 1(1):107Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang B et al (2011) Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):1850–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dey S et al (2012) Supplier selection: integrated theory using DEMATEL and quality function deployment methodology. Procedia Eng 38:3560–3565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hsu C-W et al (2013) Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. J Clean Prod 56:164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin R-J (2013) Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices. J Clean Prod 40:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dalalah D et al (2011) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for supplier selection. Expert Syst Appl 38(7):8384–8391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Govindan K et al (2015) Intuitionistic fuzzy based DEMATEL method for developing green practices and performances in a green supply chain. Expert Syst Appl 42(20):7207–7220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Florentin S (1998) Neutrosophy. neutrosophic probability, set, and logic. ProQuest information & learning, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/eBook-neutrosophics6.pdf (online edition). Accessed 17 Feb 2018
  25. 25.
    El-Hefenawy N, Metwally MA, Ahmed ZM, El-Henawy IM (2016) A review on the applications of neutrosophic sets. J Comput Theor Nanosci 13(1):936–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2006) Decision making with the analytic network process. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abdel-Baset M, Hezam IM, Smarandache F (2016) Neutrosophic goal programming. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 11:112–118Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mahdi IM, Riley MJ, Fereig SM, Alex AP (2002) A multi-criteria approach to contractor selection. Eng Constr Archit Manag 9(1):29–37Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abdel-Basset M et al (2017) A novel group decision-making model based on triangular neutrosophic numbers. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2758-5 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abdel-Basset M et al (2017) Neutrosophic AHP-Delphi Group decision making model based on trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-017-0548-7

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Abdel-Basset
    • 1
  • Gunasekaran Manogaran
    • 2
  • Abduallah Gamal
    • 1
  • Florentin Smarandache
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Operations Research, Faculty of Computers and InformaticsZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  3. 3.Mathematics & Science DepartmentUniversity of New MexicoGallupUSA

Personalised recommendations