2015
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2015.1098787
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A utility-driven approach to supplier evaluation and selection: empirical validation of an integrated solution framework

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
28
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…[6] developed an integrated DEA enhanced Russell measure (ERM) model in fuzzy context to select the best sustainable suppliers. [56] proposed an integrated solution framework that can be…”
Section: Multiple Criteria Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[6] developed an integrated DEA enhanced Russell measure (ERM) model in fuzzy context to select the best sustainable suppliers. [56] proposed an integrated solution framework that can be…”
Section: Multiple Criteria Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, the FAHP and the fuzzy OCRA will be used to solve supplier selection problem. The FAHP (Calabrese et al, 2013;Ulutas et al, 2016) will be utilised to identify the weights of criteria. Decision makers utilised terms in Table 2 to compare criteria.…”
Section: Fuzzy Ahpmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Associated criteria Sen et al, 2009 Quality, Socio-economic, and technology Luo et al, 2009 Resource and financial quality, and management Kahraman et al, 2010 Service and product performance, and cost Guneri et al, 2011 Quality, delivery, supplier relationship, problem-solving capability, and cost Razaei et al, 2013 Supplier relationship, and exchange elements Arikan et al, 2013 Quality, price, delivery, and capacity Kumar Kar et al, 2014 Price, technology, financial management, delivery, E-transaction ability, and service product quality Deng et al, 2014 Quality, risk factors, supplier's benefits, and service performance Ulutas et al, 2016 Cost, financial position, delivery, flexibility, quality, technology, compliance with sectorial price, reputation, and communication issues…”
Section: Authorsmentioning
confidence: 99%