Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 1136311368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier

selection with TOPSIS method
Fatih Emre Boran a,*, Serkan Gen a, Mustafa Kurt b, Diyar Akay b
a
Institute of Science and Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering, Gazi University, 06570 Ankara, Turkey
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Gazi University, 06570 Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Supplier selection, the process of nding the right suppliers who are able to provide the buyer with the
Intuitionistic fuzzy set right quality products and/or services at the right price, at the right time and in the right quantities, is one
Supplier selection of the most critical activities for establishing an effective supply chain. On the other hand, it is a hard
TOPSIS method problem since supplier selection is typically a multi criteria group decision-making problem involving
Group decision making
several conicting criteria on which decision makers knowledge is usually vague and imprecise. In this
study, TOPSIS method combined with intuitionistic fuzzy set is proposed to select appropriate supplier in
group decision making environment. Intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (IFWA) operator is utilized
to aggregate individual opinions of decision makers for rating the importance of criteria and alternatives.
Finally, a numerical example for supplier selection is given to illustrate application of intuitionistic fuzzy
TOPSIS method.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Supply Chain Management (SCM) has received recently consid-
erable attention in both academia and industry. The major aims of
SCM are to reduce supply chain (SC) risk, reduce production costs,
maximize revenue, improve customer service, optimize inventory
levels, business processes, and cycle times, and resulting in in-
creased competitiveness, customer satisfaction and protability
(Chou & Chang, 2008; Ha & Krishnan, 2008; Heizer & Render,
2004; Monczka, Trent, & Handeld, 2001; Simchi-Levi, Kaminsky,
& Simchi-Levi, 2003; Stevenson, 2005).
One of the important activities for SC success is an effective pur-
chasing function (Cakravastia & Takahashi, 2004; Chou & Chang,
2008; Giunipero & Brand, 1996; Porter & Millar, 1985). The pur-
chasing function has received a great deal of attention in the
SCM due to factors such as globalization, increased value added
in supply and accelerated technological change. The purchasing
function involves buying the raw materials, supplies and compo-
nents for the organization. The most important activity of the pur-
chasing function is the selection of appropriate supplier, since it
brings signicant savings for the organization (Haq & Kannan,
2006).
One of the well known studies on supplier selection belongs to
Dickson (1966) who identied 23 important evaluation criteria for
supplier selection. Weber, Current, and Benton (1991) reviewed
and classied 74 articles addressed the supplier selection problem.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 213 32 33; fax: +90 312 212 00 59.
E-mail address: feboran@gazi.edu.tr (F.E. Boran).
de Boer, Labro, and Morlacchi (2001) identied four stages for sup-
plier selection including denition of the problem, formulation of
criteria, qualication, and nal selection, respectively. They re-
viewed and classied MCDM approaches for supplier selection.
Several methodologies have been proposed for the supplier
selection problem. The systematic analysis for supplier selection
includes categorical method, weighted point method (Timmerman,
1986; Zenz, 1981), matrix approach (Gregory, 1986), vendor per-
formance matrix approach (Soukup, 1987) vendor prole analysis
(VPA) (Thompson, 1990), analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Barbar-
osoglu & Yazgac, 1997; Narasimhan, 1983; Nydick & Hill, 1992),
analytic network process (ANP) (Sarkis & Talluri, 2000), mathemat-
ical programming (Chaudhry, Forst, & Zydiak, 1993; Pan, 1989;
Rosenthal, Zydiak, & Chaudhry, 1995; Sadrian & Yoon, 1994; We-
ber & Current, 1993) and multiple objective programming (MOP)
(Buffa & Jackson, 1983; Feng, Wang, & Wang, 2001; Ghoudsypour
& OBrien, 1998; Sharma, Benton, & Srivastava, 1989; Weber & Ell-
ram, 1992).
Most of these methods do not seem to address the complex and
unstructured nature and context of many present day purchasing
decisions (de Boer, Van der Wegen, & Telgen, 1998). In many exist-
ing decision models in the literature, only quantitative criteria
have been considered for supplier selection. Several inuence fac-
tors are often not taken into account in the decision-making pro-
cess, such as incomplete information, additional qualitative
criteria and imprecision preferences (Chen, Lin, & Huang, 2006;
Zhang, Zhang, Lai, & Lu, 2009). Therefore, fuzzy set theory (FST)
has been applied to supplier selection recently. Li, Fun, and Hung
(1997) and Holt (1998) discussed the application of FST in supplier

0957-4174/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.039
11364 F.E. Boran et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 1136311368

selection. Chen et al. (2006) extended the concept of TOPSIS meth- 0 6 lA x mA x 6 1 1

od to develop a methodology for solving supplier selection prob-
A third parameter of IFS is pA(x), known as the intuitionistic fuzzy
lems in fuzzy environment. Haq and Kannan (2006) presented a
index or hesitation degree of whether x belongs to A or not
structured model for evaluating the supplier selection for the rub-
ber industry using AHP and the model is veried with the fuzzy pA 1  lA x  mA x 2
AHP. Bayrak, elebi, and Taskin (2007) presented a fuzzy multi-cri-
It is obviously seen that for every x 2 X:
teria group decision-making approach to supplier selection based
on fuzzy arithmetic operation. Chou and Chang (2008) presented 0 6 pA x 6 1 3
strategy-aligned fuzzy simple multi-attribute rating technique If the pA(x) is small, knowledge about x is more certain. If pA(x) is
(SMART) approach for solving the supplier selection problem from great, knowledge about x is more uncertain. Obviously, when
the perspective of strategic management of the SC. Chan, Kumar, lA(x) = 1  mA(x) for all elements of the universe, the ordinary fuzzy
Tiwari, Lau, and Choy (2008) presented fuzzy AHP to efciently set concept is recovered (Shu, Cheng, & Chang, 2006).
tackle both quantitative and qualitative decision factors involved Let A and B are IFSs of the set X, then multiplication operator is
in the selection of global supplier. nt, Kara, and Isk (2009) dened as follows (Atanassov, 1986):
developed a supplier evaluation approach based on ANP and TOP-  
SIS methods for the supplier selection. AB lA x  lB x; mA x mB x  mA x  mB xjx 2 X 4
This paper proposes an intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria group
decision making with TOPSIS method for supplier selection prob-
lem. The importance of the criteria and the impact of alternatives 3. Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS
on criteria provided by decision makers are difcult to precisely
express by crisp data in the selection of supplier problem. Intui- Let A = {A1, A2, . . . , Am} be a set of alternatives and
tionistic fuzzy sets introduced by Atanassov (1986) are suitable X = {X1, X2, . . . , Xn} be a set of criteria, the procedure for Intuitionistic
way to deal with this challenge and applied many decision-making Fuzzy TOPSIS method has been given as follows:
problem under uncertain environment. In group decision-making Step 1. Determine the weights of decision makers.
problems, aggregation of expert opinions is very important to Assume that decision group contains l decision makers. The
appropriately perform evaluation process. Therefore, IFWA opera- importance of the decision makers are considered as linguistic
tor is utilized to aggregate all individual decision makers opinions terms expressed in intuitionistic fuzzy numbers.
for rating the importance of criteria and the alternatives. The TOP- Let Dk = [lk, mk, pk] be an intuitionistic fuzzy number for rating of
SIS method considering both positive-ideal and negative-ideal kth decision maker. Then the weight of kth decision maker can be
solution is one of the popular methods in multi-attribute deci- obtained as:
sion-making problem. Therefore, TOPSIS method combined with   
lk
intuitionistic fuzzy set has enormous chance of success for supplier lk pk lk mk
kk P    5
selection process. l
lk pk lk
k1 lk mk
Rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, brief
description of intuitionistic fuzzy sets is given. Section 3 presents Pl
and k1 kk 1.
detailed description of intuitionsitic fuzzy TOPSIS method. In Sec-
tion 4, a numerical example is demonstrated. Finally conclusion Step 2. Construct aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision ma-
of this paper is presented in Section 5. trix based on the opinions of decision makers.
k
Let Rk r ij mxn is an intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix of
each decision maker. k = {k1, k2, k3, . . . , kl} is the weight of each deci-
2. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets Pl
sion maker and k1 kk 1; kk 2 0; 1. In group decision-making
process, all the individual decision opinions need to be fused into
Intuitionistic fuzzy set introduced by Atanassov (1986) is an
a group opinion to construct aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy deci-
extension of the classical FST, which is a suitable way to deal with
sion matrix. In order to do that, IFWA operator proposed by Xu
vagueness. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets have been applied many areas
(2007d) is used. R = (rij)mxn, where
such as; medical diagnosis (De, Biswas, & Roy, 2001; Szmidt &
Kacprzyk, 2001, 2004), decision-making problems (Atanassov, Pasi, 1 2 l
& Yager, 2005; Chen & Tan, 1994; Hong & Choi, 2000; Liu & Wang, rij IFWAk r ij ; r ij ; . . . ; r ij
2007; Szmidt & Kacprzyk, 2002, 2003; Wang, 2009; Xu, 2007a, 1 2 3
k1 r ij  k2 r ij  k3 r ij      kl r ij
l

2007b, 2007c; Xu & Yager, 2006, 2008) and pattern recognition " #
Yl  k Y l  k Y l  k l 
Y k
(Hung & Yang, 2004; Li & Cheng, 2002; Liang & Shi, 2003; Vlachos k k k k k k k k
1 1  lij ; mij ; 1  lij  mij
& Sergiadis, 2007; Wang & Xin, 2005; Zhang & Fu, 2006). k1 k1 k1 k1
Intuitionistic fuzzy set A in a nite set X can be written as:
6
 
A hx; lA x; mA xijx 2 X
Here r ij lAi xj ; mAi xj ; pAi xj i 1; 2 . . . ; m; j 1; 2; . . . ; n.
where lA(x), vA(x): X ? [0, 1] are membership function and non- The aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix can be de-
membership function, respectively, such that ned as follows:

2     3
lA1 x1 ; mA1 x1 ; pA1 x1 lA1 x2 ; mA1 x2 ; pA1 x2  lA1 xn ; mA1 xn ; pA1 xn
6     7
6 7
6 l x1 ; mA x1 ; pA x1 lA2 x2 ; mA2 x2 ; pA2 x2    lA2 xn ; mA2 xn ; pA2 xn 7
6 A2 2 2 7
R6 7
6 . . . . 7
6 .. .. .. .. 7
4 5
   
lAm x1 ; mAm x1 ; pAm x1 lAm x2 ; mAm x2 ; pAm x2    lAm xn ; mAm xn ; pAm xn
 F.E. Boran et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 1136311368 11365

2 3 2 3
r 11 r 12 r13 . . . r 1m r011 r 012 r 013 . . . r 01j
6 7 6 7
6 r 21 r 22 r23 . . . r 2m 7 6 r0 r 022 r 023 . . . r 02j 7
6 7 6 21 7
6 . . . r 3m 7 6 7
R 6 r 31 r 32 r33 7 6 0 0 7
6 . .. 7 6r r 032 r 033 . . . r 3j 7
6 . .. .. .. 7 R0 6 31 7
4 . . . . . 5 6 7
6 . .. .. .. .. 7
r n1 r n2 r n3 . . . r nm 6 ..
6 . . . . 7 7
4 5
Step 3. Determine the weights of criteria. r 0i1 r 0i2 r 0i3 . . . r 0ij
All criteria may not be assumed to be equal importance. W rep-
resents a set of grades of importance. In order to obtain W, all the r0ij l0ij ; m0ij ; p0ij lAi W xj ; mAi W xj ; pAi W xj is an element of the
individual decision maker opinions for the importance of each cri- aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix.
teria need to hbe fused. i Step 5. Obtain intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution and
k k k k
Let wj lj ; mj ; pj be an intuitionistic fuzzy number as- intuitionistic fuzzy negative-ideal solution.
signed to criterion Xj by the kth decision maker. Then the weights Let J1 and J2 be benet criteria and cost criteria, respectively. A*
of the criteria are calculated by using IFWA operator: is intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution and A is intuitionistic
1 2 l fuzzy negative-ideal solution. Then A* and A are obtained as:
wj IFWAk wj ; wj ; . . . ; wj    
1 2 3 l A lA W xj ; mA W xj and A lA W xj ; mA W xj 10
k1 wj  k2 wj  k3 wj      kl wj
" # where
Yl  k Y l  kk Yl  k l 
Y k
k k k k k k



1 1  lj ; mk
j ; 1  l j  m j
k1 k1 k1 k1 lA W xj max lAi W xj jj 2 J1 ; min lAi W xj jj 2 J2 11
i i
7



 mA W xj min mAi W xj jj 2 J1 ; max mAi W xj jj 2 J2 12
W w1 ; w2 ; w3 ; . . . ; wj i i

Here wj = (lj, mj, pj) (j = 1, 2, . . . , n).



Step 4. Construct aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy deci- lA W xj min lAi W xj jj 2 J1 ; max lAi W xj jj 2 J2 13
i i
sion matrix.
After the weights of criteria (W) and the aggregated intuitionis-



tic fuzzy decision matrix are determined, the aggregated weighted mA W xj max mAi W xj jj 2 J1 ; min mAi W xj jj 2 J2 14
i i
intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix is constructed according to the
following denition (Atanassov, 1986): Step 6. Calculate the separation measures.
n o In order to measure separation between alternatives on intui-
R  W hx; lAi x  lW x; mAi x mW x  mAi x  mW xijx 2 X tionistic fuzzy set, distance measures proposed by Atanassov
8 (1999), Szmidt and Kacprzyk (2000) and Grzegorzewski (2004),
and including the generalizations of Hamming distance, Euclidean
distance and their normalized distance measures can be used.
pAi W x 1  mAi x  mW x  lAi x  lW x mAi x  mW x 9 After selecting the distance measure, the separation measures,
Then the aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix Si and Si , of each alternative from intuitionistic fuzzy posi-
can be dened as follows:
2     3
l x1 ; mA1 W x1 ; pA1 W x1 lA1 W x2 ; mA1 W x2 ; pA1 W x2  lA1 W xn ; mA1 W xn ; pA1 W xn
6  A1 W     7
6 7
6 l x1 ; mA W x1 ; pA W x1 lA2 W x2 ; mA2 W x2 ; pA2 W x2    lA2 W xn ; mA2 W xn ; pA2 W xn 7
0 6 A2 W 2 2 7
R 6 7
6 .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . 7
4 5
   
lAm W x1 ; mAm W x1 ; pAm W x1 lAm W x2 ; mAm W x2 ; pAm W x2    lAm W xn ; mAm W xn ; pAm W xn

Table 1
The importance of decision makers and their weights.

DM1 DM2 DM3

Linguistic terms Very important Medium Important
Table 3
Weight 0.406 0.238 0.356
Linguistic terms for rating the alternatives.

Linguistic terms IFNs

Table 2 Extremely good (EG)/extremely high (EH) [1.00, 0.00]
Linguistic terms for rating the importance of criteria and the decision makers. Very very good (VVG)/very very high (VVH) [0.90, 0.10]
Linguistic terms IFNsa Very good (VG)/very high (VH) [0.80, 0.10]
Good (G)/high (H) [0.70, 0.20]
Very important (0.90, 0.10) Medium good (MG)/medium high (MH) [0.60, 0.30]
Important (0.75, 0.20) Fair (F)/medium (M) [0.50, 0.40]
Medium (0.50, 0.45) Medium bad (MB)/medium low (ML) [0.40, 0.50]
Unimportant (0.35, 0.60) Bad (B)/low (L) [0.25, 0.60]
Very unimportant (0.10, 0.90) Very bad (VB)/very low (VL) [0.10, 0.75]
a Very very bad (VVB)/very very low (VVL) [0.10, 0.90]
IFN Intuitionistic fuzzy number.
11366 F.E. Boran et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 1136311368

tive-ideal and negative-ideal solutions are calculated. In this pa- The linguistic terms shown in Table 3 are used to rate each
per, we use normalized Euclidean distance (Szmidt & Kacprzyk, alternative supplier with respect to each criterion by three decision
2000) makers.

v
u X 
u1 n  2    
S t lAi W xj  lA W xj mAi W xj  mA W xj 2 pAi W xj  pA W xj 2 15
2n j1

v
u X 
u1 n  2    
S t

lAi W xj  lA W xj mAi W xj  mA W xj 2 pAi W xj  pA W xj 2 16
2n j1

Step 7. Calculate the relative closeness coefcient to the intui- Table 4

tionistic ideal solution. The ratings of the alternatives.

The relative closeness coefcient of an alternative Ai with re- Criteria Suppliers Decision makers
spect to the intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution A* is dened DM1 DM2 DM3
as follows:
X1 A1 G VG G
A2 MG G F
Si  A3 VVG VG VG
C i where 0 6 C i 6 1 17 A4 MG G G
S i  Si 
A5 F MG MG
X2 A1 MG G MG
A2 F MG G
Step 8. Rank the alternatives.
A3 VG G VG
After the relative closeness coefcient of each alternative is A4 F F MG
determined, alternatives are ranked according to descending order A5 MB F F
of C i s. X3 A1 VG G VG
A2 G MG MG
A3 VG VG G
A4 VG G G
4. Numerical example
A5 G G MG
X4 A1 H H H
An automotive company is desired to select the most appropri-
A2 MH M MH
ate supplier for one of the key elements in its manufacturing A3 VH VH H
process. After pre-evaluation, ve suppliers have remained as A4 H MH MH
alternatives for further evaluation. In order to evaluate alternative A5 M MH M
suppliers, a committee composed of three decision makers has
been formed. Four criteria are considered as:

X1: Product quality.

X2: Relationship closeness. Table 5
The importance weight of the criteria.
X3: Delivery performance.
X4: Price. Criteria DM1 DM2 DM3
X1 VI VI I
Procedure for the selection of supplier contains the following X2 I I I
X3 I I M
steps:
X4 M I M
Step 1. Determine the weights of the decision makers.
Importance degree of the decision makers on group deci-
sion was shown in Table 1. Linguistic terms used for the
ratings of the decision makers and criteria are given in Table 6
Table 2. Separation measures and the relative closeness coefcient of each alternative.
In order to obtain the weights of the decision makers, Eq. (5)
Alternatives S* S C i
were utilized:
Alt1 0.092 0.110 0.546
Alt2 0.131 0.082 0.385
0:9 Alt3 0.074 0.175 0.702
kDM1     0:406
0:9 0:75 0:05 0:75
0:95
0:50
0:50 0:05 0:95 Alt4 0.124 0.075 0.375
Alt5 0.174 0.074 0.300
 0:50

0:50 0:05 0:95
kDM2     0:238
0:9 0:50 0:05 0:50
0:95
0:75 0:05 0:75
0:95
 
0:75 0:05 0:75
0:95
kDM3     0:356 The ratings given by the decision makers to ve alternatives
0:9 0:50 0:05 0:50
0:95
0:75 0:05 0:75
0:95 were shown in Table 4.
The aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix based on
Step 2. Construct the aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision aggregation of decision makers opinions was constructed as
matrix based on the opinions of decision makers. follows:
 F.E. Boran et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 1136311368
Step 3. Determine the weights of the criteria.
The importance of the criteria represented as linguistic terms
were shown in Table 5.
Opinions of decision makers on criteria were aggregated using
Eq. (7) to determine the weight of each criterion.
2 3
0:861; 0:128; 0:011 T
6 0:750; 0:200; 0:050 7
6 7
W fX 1 ;X2 ;X3 ;X 4 g 6 7
4 0:680; 0:267; 0:053 5
0:576; 0:371; 0:053
Step 4. Construct the aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy
decision matrix.
After the weights of the criteria and the rating of the alternatives
had been determined, the aggregated weighted intuitionistic fuzzy
decision matrix was constructed by utilizing Eq. (8) as follows:
Step 5. Obtain intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution and
intuitionistic fuzzy negative-ideal solution.
Product quality, relationship closeness and delivery perfor-
mance are benet criteria J1 = {X1, X2, X3} and price is cost criteria
J2 = {X4}. Then intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal solution and intui-
tionistic fuzzy negative-ideal solution were obtained as follows:
A f0:731; 0:215; 0:054; 0:585; 0:294; 0:121;
0:530; 0:353; 0:117; 0:303; 0:606; 0:091g
A f0:484; 0:422; 0:094; 0:347; 0:550; 0:103;
0:438; 0:453; 0:109; 0:443; 0:452; 0:105g
Step 6. Calculate the separation measures.
Negative and positive separation measures based on normal-
ized Euclidean distance for each alternative were calculated in
Table 6.
Step 7. Rank the alternatives.
The relative closeness coefcients were determined, and then
ve alternatives were ranked according to descending order of
C i s. The alternatives were ranked as Alt3 > Alt1 > Alt2 > Alt4 > Alt5.
Alt3 was selected as appropriate supplier among the
alternatives.
11367
5. Conclusions
This study presents a multi-criteria group decision making for
evaluation of supplier using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS. Intuitionis-
tic fuzzy sets are suitable way to deal with uncertainty. In the
evaluation process, the ratings of each alternative with respect to
each criterion and the weights of each criterion were given as
linguistic terms characterized by intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Also
intuitionistic fuzzy averaging operator was utilized to aggregate
opinions of decision makers. After intuitionistic fuzzy positive-ideal
solution and intuitionistic fuzzy negative-ideal solution were calcu-
lated based on the euclidean distance, the relative closeness coef-
cients of alternatives were obtained and alternatives were ranked.
TOPSIS method combined with intuitionistic fuzzy set has
enormous chance of success for multi-criteria decision-making
problems due to containing vague perception of decision makers
opinions. Therefore, in future, intuitionistic fuzzy set can be used
for dealing with uncertainty in multi-criteria decision-making
problems such as project selection, manufacturing systems, per-
sonnel selection, and many other areas of management decision
problems.
References
Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20, 87
96.
Atanassov, K. T. (1999). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Heidelberg: Springer.
Atanassov, K., Pasi, G., & Yager, R. R. (2005). Intuitionistic fuzzy interpretations of
multi-criteria multi-person and multi-measurement tool decision making.
International Journal of Systems Science, 36(14), 859868.
Barbarosoglu, G., & Yazgac, T. (1997). An application of the analytic hierarchy
process to the supplier selection problem. Production and Inventory Management
Journal, 38(1), 1421.
Bayrak, M. Y., elebi, N., & Taskin, H. (2007). A fuzzy approach method for supplier
selection. Production Planning and Control: The Management of Operations, 18(1),
5463.
Buffa, F. P., & Jackson, W. M. (1983). A goal programming model for purchase
planning. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 19(3), 2734.
Cakravastia, A., & Takahashi, K. (2004). Integrated model for supplier selection and
negotiation in a make-to-order environment. International Journal of Production
Research, 42(21), 44574474.
Chan, F. T. S., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M. K., Lau, H. C. W., & Choy, K. L. (2008). Global
supplier selection: A fuzzy-AHP approach. International Journal of Production
Research, 46(14), 38253857.
Chaudhry, S. S., Forst, F. G., & Zydiak, J. L. (1993). Vendor selection with price breaks.
European Journal of Operational Research, 70, 5266.
11368 F.E. Boran et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2009) 1136311368
Chen, C. T., Lin, C. T., & Huang, S. F. (2006). A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation
and selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production
Economics, 102, 289301.
Chen, S. M., & Tan, J. M. (1994). Handling multi criteria fuzzy decision-making
problems based on vague set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 67, 163172.
Chou, S. Y., & Chang, Y. H. (2008). A decision support system for supplier selection
based on a strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach. Expert System with
Applications, 34, 22412253.
De, S. K., Biswas, R., & Roy, A. R. (2001). An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in
medical diagnosis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 117, 209213.
de Boer, L., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting
supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 7,
7589.
de Boer, L., Van der Wegen, L., & Telgen, J. (1998). Outranking methods in support of
supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 4(2
3), 109118.
Dickson, G. W. (1966). An analysis of vendor selection system and decisions. Journal
of Purchasing, 2(1), 2841.
Feng, C. X., Wang, J., & Wang, J. S. (2001). An optimization model for concurrent
selection of tolerances and suppliers. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 40,
1533.
Ghoudsypour, S. H., & OBrien, C. O. (1998). A decision support system for supplier
selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear
programming. International Journal of Production Economics, 5657(13),
199212.
Giunipero, L. C., & Brand, R. R. (1996). Purchasings role in supply chain
management. International Journal of Logistics management, 7(1), 2938.
Gregory, R. E. (1986). Source selection: A matrix approach. Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, 22(2), 2429.
Grzegorzewski, P. (2004). Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and/or
interval-valued fuzzy sets based on the Hausdorff metric. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 148, 319328.
Ha, S. H., & Krishnan, R. (2008). A hybrid approach to supplier selection for the
maintenance of a competitive supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications,
34(2), 13031311.
Haq, A. N., & Kannan, G. (2006). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating
and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 29, 826835.
Heizer, J., & Render, B. (2004). Principles of operations management. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Holt, G. D. (1998). Which contractor selection methodology? International Journal of
Project Management, 16(3), 153164.
Hong, D. H., & Choi, C. H. (2000). Multi criteria fuzzy decision-making problems
based on vague set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114, 103113.
Hung, W. L., & Yang, M. S. (2004). Similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets
based on Hausdorff distance. Pattern Recognition Letters, 25, 16031611.
Liang, Z. Z., & Shi, P. F. (2003). Similarity measures on intuitionistic fuzzy sets.
Pattern Recognition Letters, 24, 26872693.
Li, D. F., & Cheng, C. T. (2002). New similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets
and application to pattern recognitions. Pattern Recognition Letters, 23, 221225.
Li, C. C., Fun, Y. P., & Hung, J. S. (1997). A new measure for supplier performance
evaluation. IIE Transactions on Operations Engineering, 29, 753758.
Liu, H. W., & Wang, G. J. (2007). Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. European Journal of Operational Research, 179, 220233.
Monczka, R., Trent, R., & Handeld, R. (2001). Purchasing and supply chain
management (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Narasimhan, R. (1983). An analytic approach to supplier selection. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 1, 2732.
Nydick, R. L., & Hill, R. P. (1992). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to structure
the supplier selection procedure. International Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, 28(2), 3136.
nt, S., Kara, S. S., & Isk, 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), 38873895.
Pan, A. C. (1989). Allocation of order quantities among suppliers. Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management, 25(2), 3639.
Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive
advantage. Harvard Business Review, 63(4), 149160.
Rosenthal, E. C., Zydiak, J. L., & Chaudhry, S. S. (1995). Vendor selection with
bundling. Decision Sciences, 26(1), 3548.
Sadrian, A. A., & Yoon, Y. S. (1994). A procurement decision support system in
business volume discount environments. Operations Research, 42(1), 1423.
Sarkis, J., & Talluri, S. (2000). A model for strategic supplier selection. In M. Leenders
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th international IPSERA conference (pp. 652661).
London: Richard Ivey Business School.
Sharma, D., Benton, W. C., & Srivastava, R. (1989). Competitive strategy and
purchasing decisions. In Proceedings of the annual national conference of the
decision sciences institute (pp. 10881090).
Shu, M. S., Cheng, C. H., & Chang, J. R. (2006). Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for fault-
tree analysis on printed circuit board assembly. Microelectronics Reliability,
46(12), 21392148.
Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P., & Simchi-Levi, E. (2003). Designing and managing the
supply chain: Concepts, strategies, and case studies. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Soukup, W. R. (1987). Supplier selection strategies. Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, 23(3), 712.
Stevenson, W. J. (2005). Operations management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2000). Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, 114, 505518.
Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2001). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets in some medical
applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2206, 148151.
Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2002). Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets in group decision
making. Control and Cybernetics, 31, 10371053.
Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2003). A consensus-reaching process under intuitionistic
fuzzy preference relations. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18,
837852.
Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2004). A similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets
and its application in supporting medical diagnostic reasoning. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 3070, 388393.
Thompson, K. (1990). Vendor prole analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, 26(1), 1118.
Timmerman, E. (1986). An approach to vendor performance evaluation. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 1, 2732.
Vlachos, I. K., & Sergiadis, G. D. (2007). Intuitionistic fuzzy information
Applications to pattern recognition. Pattern Recognition Letters, 28, 197206.
Wang, P. (2009). QoS-aware web services selection with intuitionistic fuzzy set
under consumers vague perception. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3),
44604466.
Wang, W. Q., & Xin, X. L. (2005). Distance measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets.
Pattern Recognition Letters, 26, 20632069.
Weber, C. A., & Current, J. R. (1993). A multiobjective approach to vendor selection.
European Journal of Operational Research, 68, 173184.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and
methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), 218.
Weber, C. A., & Ellram, L. M. (1992). Supplier selection using multi-objective
programming: A decision support system approach. International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 23(2), 314.
Xu, Z. S. (2007a). Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group
decision making. Information Sciences, 177, 23632379.
Xu, Z. S. (2007b). Some similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their
applications to multiple attribute decision making. Fuzzy Optimization and
Decision Making, 6, 109121.
Xu, Z. S. (2007c). Models for multiple attribute decision making with intuitionistic
fuzzy information. International Journal of Uncertainty. Fuzziness and Knowledge-
Based Systems, 15, 285297.
Xu, Z. S. (2007d). Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEE Transaction of Fuzzy
Systems, 15(6), 11791187.
Xu, Z. S., & Yager, R. R. (2006). Some geometric aggregation operators based on
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of General Systems, 35, 417433.
Xu, Z. S., & Yager, R. R. (2008). Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision
making. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 48, 246262.
Zenz, G. (1981). Purchasing and the management of materials. New York: Wiley.
Zhang, D., Zhang, J., Lai, K. K., & Lu, Y. (2009). An novel approach to supplier selection
based on vague sets group decision. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5),
95579563.
Zhang, C. Y., & Fu, H. Y. (2006). Similarity measures on three kinds of fuzzy sets.
Pattern Recognition Letters, 27, 13071317.