A Novel Integrated Provider Selection Multicriteria Model: The BWM-MABAC Model
The supply chain is a very complex area aimed at obtaining the optimum from the point of view of all participants. In order to achieve the overall optimum and satisfaction of all participants, it is necessary to make an adequate evaluation and selection of providers at the initial stage. In this paper, the selection of providers is based on a new approach in the field of multicriteria decision-making. The weight coefficients were determined using the Best-Worst Method (BWM), whereas provider evaluation and selection were performed using the Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC) method, which is one of more recent methods in this field. In order to determine the stability of the model and the applicability of the proposed hybrid BWM-MABAC model, the results were compared with the MAIRCA and VIKOR models, and the results of the comparative analysis are presented herein. In addition, a total of 18 different scenarios were formed in the sensitivity analysis, in which the criteria change their original value. At the end of the sensitivity analysis, the statistical dependence of the results was determined using Spearman's correlation coefficient, which confirmed the applicability of the proposed multicriteria approaches.
Ahmadi, S., & Amin, S. H. (2019). An integrated chance-constrained stochastic model for a mobile phone closed-loop supply chain network with provider selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 988-1003.
Alikhani, R., Torabi, S. A., & Altay, N. (2019). Strategic provider selection under sustainability and risk criteria. International Journal of Production Economics, 208, 69-82.
Azadnia, A. H., Saman, M. Z. M., & Wong, K. Y. (2015). Sustainable provider selection and order lot-sizing: an integrated multi-objective decision-making process. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 383-408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.935827
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Integrating sustainability into provider selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(1), 252–264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.11.023
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2011). Evaluating provider development programs with a grey based rough set methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 13505-13517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.137
Barata, J. F. F., Quelhas, O. L. G., Costa, H. G., Gutierrez, R. H., de Jesus Lameira, V., & Meiriño, M. J. (2014). Multicriteria indicator for sustainability rating in providers of the oil and gas industries in Brazil. Sustainability, 6(3), 1107-1128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031107
Buyukozkan, G., & Gocer, F. (2017). Application of a new combined intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach based on axiomatic design methodology for the provider selection problem. Appl. Soft Comput., 52, 1222-1238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.08.051
Chatterjee, K., Pamucar, D., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2018). Evaluating the performance of providers based on using the R'AMATEL-MAIRCA method for green supply chain implementation in electronics industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 101-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.186
Cox, A., & Ireland, P. (2002). Managing construction supply chains: the common sense approach. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 9(5‐6), 409-418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-232X.2002.00273.x
Dai, J., & Blackhurst, J. (2012). A four-phase AHP–QFD approach for provider assessment: a sustainability perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 50(19), 5474-5490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.639396
Dargi, A., Anjomshoae, A., Galankashi, M. R., & Memari, A. (2014). Provider slection: A fuzzy-ANP approach. Proc. Comput. Sci., 31, 691-700. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.317
Das, R., & Shaw, K. (2017). Uncertain supply chain network design considering carbon footprint and social factors using two-stage approach. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 19(10), 2491-2519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1446-6
Dobos, I., & Vorosmarty, G. (2019). Inventory-related costs in green provider selection problems with Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). International Journal of Production Economics, 209, 374-380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.03.022
Entezaminia, A., Heydari, M., & Rahmani, D. (2016). A multi-objective model for multi-product multi-site aggregate production planning in a green supply chain: Considering collection and recycling centers. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 40, 63-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.06.004
Erol, I., Sencer, S., & Sari, R. (2011). A new fuzzy multicriteria framework for measuring sustainability performance of a supply chain. Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1088-1100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.001
Fallahpour, A., Olugu, E. U., Musa, S. N., Wong, K. Y., & Noori, S. (2017). A decision support model for sustainable provider selection in sustainable supply chain management. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 105, 391-410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.01.005
Fashoto, S. G., Akinnuwesi, B., Owolabi, O., & Adelekan, D. (2016). Decision support model for provider selection in healthcare service delivery using analytical hierarchy process artificial neural network. African journal of business Management, 10, 209–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM2016.8030
Fu, Y. K. (2019). An integrated approach to catering provider selection using AHP-ARAS-MCGP methodology. Journal of Air Transport Management, 75, 164-169.
Gigovic, LJ., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., Ljubojević, S. (2017). Application of the GIS-DANP-MABAC multicriteria model for selecting the location of wind farms: A case study of Vojvodina, Serbia. Renewable Energy, 103, 501-521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.057
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a provider based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner production, 47, 345-354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014
Gupta, A. K., Singh, O. P., & Garg, R. K. (2015). Analytic network process (ANP): An approach for provider selection in an automobile organization. European journal of advances in engineering and technology, 2, 83-89.
Hsu, C. W., Kuo, T. C., Shyu, G. S., & Chen, P. S. (2014). Low carbon provider selection in the hotel industry. Sustainability, 6(5), 2658. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su6052658
Kuo, T. C., Hsu, C. W., & Li, J. Y. (2015). Developing a green provider selection model by using the DANP with VIKOR. Sustainability, 7(2), 1661. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su7021661
Kusi-Sarpong, S., Gupta, H., & Sarkis, J. (2018). A supply chain sustainability innovation framework and evaluation methodology. International Journal of Production Research, 1-19.
Lima-Junior, F. R., & Carpinetti, L. C. R. (2016). Combining SCOR model and fuzzy TOPSIS for provider evaluation and management. International Journal of Production Economics, 174, 128-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.01.023
Lin, C. T., Chen, C. B., & Ting, Y. C. (2011). An ERP model for provider selection in electronics industry. Expert Systems With Applications, 38 (3), 1760-1765. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.102
Liu, A., Xiao, Y., Ji, X., Wang, K., Tsai, S. B., Lu, H., & Wang, J. (2018). A Novel Two-Stage Integrated Model for Provider Selection of Green Fresh Product. Sustainability, 10(7), 2371.
Liu, H. C., Quan, M. Y., Li, Z. W., & Wang, Z. L. (2019). A new integrated MCDM model for sustainable provider selection under interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain linguistic environment. Information Sciences, 486, 254-270.
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable provider selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078
Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Chan, F. T., & Venkatesh, V. G. (2018). Evaluating the Drivers to Information and Communication Technology for Effective Sustainability Initiatives in Supply Chains. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision-making, 17(01), 311-338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622017500419
Memari, A., Dargi, A., Jokar, M. R. A., Ahmad, R., & Rahim, A. R. A. (2019). Sustainable provider selection: A multicriteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50, 9-24.
Padhi, S. S., Pati, R. K., & Rajeev, A. (2018). Framework for selecting sustainable supply chain processes and industries using an integrated approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 969-984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.306
Pamucar D, Stević, Ž., Sremac, S. (2018a). A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry, 10(9), 393, 1-22.
Pamucar, D., Badi, I., Korica, S., Obradović, R. (2018b). A novel approach for the selection of power generation technology using an linguistic neutrosophic combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method: A case study in Libya. Energies, 11(9), 2489, 1-25.
Pamucar, D., Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centres using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC), Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 3016- 3028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
Parkouhi, S. V., Ghadikolaei, A. S., & Lajimi, H. F. (2019). Resilient provider selection and segmentation in grey environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 1123-1137.
Ramanathan, R. (2007). Provider selection problem: Integrating DEA with the approaches of total cost of ownership and AHP. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(4), 258–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710759772
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multicriteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
Rezaei, J., & Haeri, S. A. S. (2019). A grey-based provider selection model for uncertain environments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 221, 768-784.
Rezaei, J., Nispeling, T., Sarkis, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2016). A provider selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 577-588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.125
Rouyendegh, B. D., & Saputro, T. E. (2014). Provider selection using integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP: A case study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3957-3970. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.874
Sarkar, S., Lakha, V., Ansari, I., & Maiti, J. (2017). Provider selection in uncertain environment: A fuzzy MCDM approach, in: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Communication, in: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Springer, Singapore, 257-266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2035-3_27
Soheilirad, S., Govindan, K., Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Nilashi, M., & Zakuan, N. (2017). Application of data envelopment analysis models in supply chain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 1-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2605-1
Stojicic, M., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., Pamucar, D., Stevic, Z., Mardani, A. (2019). Application of MCDM Methods in Sustainability Engineering: A Literature Review 2008–2018. Symmetry, 11(3), 350, 1-24.
Su, C. M., Horng, D. J., Tseng, M. L., Chiu, A. S., Wu, K. J., & Chen, H. P. (2016). Improving sustainable supply chain management using a novel hierarchical grey-DEMATEL approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 469-481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.080
Validi, S., Bhattacharya, A., & Byrne, P. J. (2014). A case analysis of a sustainable food supply chain distribution system—A multi-objective approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 71-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.02.003
Wu, Y., Ke, Y., Xu, C., & Li, L. (2019). An integrated decision-making model for sustainable photovoltaic module provider selection based on combined weight and cumulative prospect theory. Energy, 181, 1235-1251.
Yu, C., Shao, Y., Wang, K., & Zhang L. (2019). A group decision-making sustainable selection approach using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Expert Systems With Applications, 121, 1-17.
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014a). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037
Zhang, X., Deng, Y., Chan, F. T., & Mahadevan, S. (2015). A fuzzy extended analytic netwoek process-based approach for global provider selection. Application Intelligence, 43 (4), 760-772. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-015-0664-z
Zhao, H., & Guo, S. (2014). Selecting green provider of thermal power equipment by using a hybrid MCDM method for sustainability. Sustainability, 6(1), 217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su6010217
Zhong, L., & Yao, L. (2017). An ELECTRE I-based multicriteria group decision-making method with interval type-2 fuzzy numbers and its application to provider selection. Applied Soft Computing, 57, 556-576. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.04.001
Zolfani, S. H., Chen, I. S., Rezaeiniya, N., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2012). A hybrid MCDM model encompassing AHP and COPRAS-G methods for selecting company provider in Iran. Technological and economic development of economy, 18(3), 529-543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.709472