2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Logistics tool selection with two-phase fuzzy multi criteria decision making: A case study for personal digital assistant selection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, whereas suppliers 1, 3 and 4 failed to be selected, they were best in some criteria. Supplier 1 is best in criteria Lead time (C 31 ) and Service (C 5 ); Supplier 3 is best in Technology level (C 41 ) and Pollution production (C 62 ); Supplier 4 did best in Quality (C 1 ), Environmental management system (C 61 ) and Resource consumption (C 63 ), but did worst in Emission (C 23 ). On the basis of the results described above, the decision maker can give suggestions to the suppliers who do not satisfy the required criteria on how to improve their performances.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For instance, whereas suppliers 1, 3 and 4 failed to be selected, they were best in some criteria. Supplier 1 is best in criteria Lead time (C 31 ) and Service (C 5 ); Supplier 3 is best in Technology level (C 41 ) and Pollution production (C 62 ); Supplier 4 did best in Quality (C 1 ), Environmental management system (C 61 ) and Resource consumption (C 63 ), but did worst in Emission (C 23 ). On the basis of the results described above, the decision maker can give suggestions to the suppliers who do not satisfy the required criteria on how to improve their performances.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, seldom research has reported the use of FAD for supplier selection. The FAD approach has been applied to handling various decision making problems, such as selection of transportation companies [11], Sustainability 2017, 9, 650 4 of 13 ranking of intercity bus passenger seats [60], choice of the most appropriate technology [61], selection the best alternatives among shipyards [62], selection of logistics tool [63], However, there are only a few applications of FAD in supply chain management [64].…”
Section: Green Supplier Selection Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiple attribute decision making (MADM) is a hot research area of the decision theory domain, which has had wide applications in many fields, and attracted increasing attention [1,2]. Due to the fuzziness and uncertainty of the alternatives in different attributes, attribute values in decision making problems are not always represented as real numbers, and they can be described as fuzzy numbers in more suitable occasions, such as interval-valued numbers [3,4], triangular fuzzy variables [5][6][7][8], linguistic variables [9][10][11][12][13] or uncertain linguistic variables [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IFSs) [22][23][24][25][26][27] or interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (IVIFSs) [28][29][30][31], and SVNSs [32] or INSs [33].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To choose the best design solution, a direct search within the scanned design-solution space, may be the most reliable method, if an effective decision-making tool is selected. For instance, manufacturing technology selection (Gonçalves-Coelho & Mourão, 2007), multi-attribute comparison of advanced manufacturing systems (Kulak & Kahraman, 2005a), selection of the best transportation companies (Kulak & Kahraman, 2005b), performance evaluation model for docking facilities in shipbuilding industry (Celik & Kahraman, 2009), logistics tool selection with two-phase fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (Büyüközkan, Arsenyan, & Ruan, 2012), are examples on decision-making issues. This methodology is a powerful and flexible weighted scoring decision-making process to set priorities and make the best decision.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%