The selection of appropriate suppliers in an uncertain environment influences the sustainability and the competitive advantage of the automotive industry and hence presents one of the significant management problems. In the literature, it is suggested that an acceptable supplier may be determined concerning many criteria. In this manuscript, criteria selection is based on the relevant literature. Handling of different uncertainties is performed by using the type-2 fuzzy sets that have the capability of handling more considered impreciseness and uncertainties. In the presented research, the two-state model is proposed. In the first stage, the relative importance of criteria and sub-criteria are described by pre-defined linguistic expressions which are modeled by the interval type-2 triangular fuzzy numbers (IT2TFNs). The fuzzy weights vectors are given by using the fuzzy Analytic Hierarchical Process with IT2TFNs (IT2FAHP). After that, the ranking of suppliers is based on the modified Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison method (MABAC) with IT2TFNs (IT2FMABAC). The extension of the conventional MABAC includes: (a) modeling of sub-criteria values of IT2TFNs, (b) the fuzzy criteria values are calculated by using fuzzy algebra rules, (c) belonging of each supplier to border approximation areas (BAAs) is given by using procedure, and (d) the distance of suppliers to BAAs is determined by using the normalized Euclidean distance formulas. The proposed model is tested on the real-life data from the automotive supply chain. Through the presented research, it is shown that the proposed IT2FMABAC is a useful and reliable tool for the rational purchasing decision-making process.
HeidarzadeAMahdaviIMahdavi-AmiriN. Supplier selection using a clustering method based on a new distance for interval type-2 fuzzy sets: a case study. Appl Soft Comput2016; 38:213–231.
2.
KumarSAnbanandamR. Impact of risk management culture on supply chain resilience: an empirical study from Indian manufacturing industry. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2020; 234(2): 246–259.
3.
KarsakEEDursunM. An integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for supplier evaluation and selection. Comput Ind Eng2015; 82:82–93.
4.
PhongNTPhucVNQuyenTTHLN. Application of fuzzy analytic network process and TOPSIS method for material supplier selection. Key Eng Mater2017; 728:411–415.
5.
ChaiJLiuJNKNgaiEWT. Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: a systematic review of literature. Expert Syst Appl2013; 40(10): 3872–3885.
6.
DjapanMJTadicDPMacuzicID, et al. A new fuzzy model for determining risk level on the workplaces in manufacturing small and medium enterprises. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2015; 229(5): 456–468.
7.
KarimiBNiakiSTANiknamfarAH, et al. Multi-objective optimization of job shops with automated guided vehicles: a non-dominated sorting cuckoo search algorithm. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2021; 235:306–328.
8.
NguyenPTVuNBVan NguyenL, et al. The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP) in engineering project management. In: 5th International Conference on Engineering Technologies and Applied Sciences (ICETAS), Bangkok, Thailand, 22 November 2018, pp.1–4. New York, NY: IEEE.
9.
MendelJM. Uncertain rule-based fuzzy systems. Introduction and new directions. 2nd ed.New York, NY: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
10.
CelikEGumusATAlegozM. A trapezoidal type-2 fuzzy MCDM method to identify and evaluate critical success factors for humanitarian relief logistics management. J Intell Fuzzy Syst2014; 27(6): 2847–2855.
11.
ZhongLYaoL. An ELECTRE I-based multi-criteria group decision making method with interval type-2 fuzzy numbers and its application to supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput2017; 57:556–576.
12.
PamučarDĆirovićG. The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Syst Appl2015; 42(6): 3016–3028.
13.
Stević PamučarDVasiljevićM, et al. Novel integrated multi-criteria model for supplier selection: case study construction company. Symmetry2017; 9(11): 279.
14.
HashemiSHKarimiATavanaM. An integrated green supplier selection approach with analytic network process and improved grey relational analysis. Int J Prod Econ2015; 159:178–191.
15.
GalankashiMRChegeniASoleimanynanadeganyA, et al. Prioritizing green supplier selection criteria using fuzzy analytical network process. Procedia CIRP2015; 26:689–694.
16.
MemonMSLeeYHMariSI. Group multi-criteria supplier selection using combined grey systems theory and uncertainty theory. Expert Syst Appl2015; 42(21): 7951–7959.
17.
TadicDMilanovicDDMisitaM, et al. New integrated approach to the problem of ranking and supplier selection under uncertainties. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2011; 225(9): 1713–1724.
18.
Kumar KarAK. PaniA. Exploring the importance of different supplier selection criteria. Manage Res Rev2014; 37:89–105.
19.
RezaeiJNispelingTSarkisJ, et al. A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. J Clean Prod2016; 135:577–588.
20.
PaulSK. Supplier selection for managing supply risks in supply chain: a fuzzy approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2015; 79(1–4): 657–664.
21.
Badri AhmadiHKusi-SarpongSRezaeiJ. Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using best worst method. Resourc Conservat Recycl2017; 126:99–106.
22.
BaiCKusi-SarpongSBadri AhmadiH, et al. Social sustainable supplier evaluation and selection: a group decision-support approach. Int J Prod Res2019; 57(22): 7046–7067.
23.
MohammedAHarrisIGovindanK. A hybrid MCDM-FMOO approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation. Int J Prod Econ2019; 217:171–184.
KahramanCÖztayşiBUçal Sarıİ, et al. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowl Based Syst2014; 59:48–57.
26.
SaatyTL. The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: the AHP/ANP approach. Oper Res2013; 61(5): 1101–1118.
27.
Cevik OnarSOztaysiBKahramanC. Strategic decision selection using hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS and interval type-2 fuzzy AHP: a case study. Int J Comput Intell Syst2014; 7(5): 1002–1021.
28.
PomerolJCBarba-RomeroS. Multicriterion decision in management: principles and practice. New York, NY: Springer, 2012.
29.
OztaysiB. A group decision making approach using interval type-2 fuzzy AHP for enterprise information systems project selection. J Mult Val Log Soft Comput2015; 24(5): 475–500.
30.
Kiliç M andKaya. Investment project evaluation by a decision making methodology based on type-2 fuzzy sets. Appl Soft Comput2015; 27:399–410.
31.
ÐurićGMitrović KomatinaN, et al. The hybrid MCDM model with the interval type-2 fuzzy sets for the software failure analysis. J Intell Fuzzy Syst2019; 37(6): 7747–7759.
32.
CelikEGumusAT. An assessment approach for non-governmental organizations in humanitarian relief logistics and an application in Turkey. Technol Econ Dev Econ2015; 24(1): 1–26.
33.
TsengMLLinYHTanK, et al. Using TODIM to evaluate green supply chain practices under uncertainty. Appl Math Model2014; 38(11–12): 2983–2995.
34.
XueYXYouJXLaiXD, et al. An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MABAC approach for material selection with incomplete weight information. Appl Soft Comput2016; 38:703–713.
35.
HashemiHBazarganJMousaviSM, et al. An extended compromise ratio model with an application to reservoir flood control operation under an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Appl Math Model2014; 38(14): 3495–3511.
36.
XuZSChenJ. An overview of distance and similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst2008; 16(4): 529–555.
37.
PengXYangY. Pythagorean fuzzy choquet integral based MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision making. Int J Intell Syst2016; 31(10): 989–1020.
38.
YagerRR. Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst2014; 22(4): 958–965.
39.
ZhangX. Multicriteria pythagorean fuzzy decision analysis: a hierarchical QUALIFLEX approach with the closeness index-based ranking methods. Inf Sci2016; 330:104–124.
40.
YuD. Multi-criteria decision making based on generalized prioritized aggregation operators under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Int J Fuzzy Syst2013; 15(1): 47–57.
41.
PamučarDPetrovićIĆirovićG. Modification of the best–Worst and MABAC methods: a novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers. Expert Syst Appl2018; 91:89–106.
42.
HuJChenPYangY. An interval type-2 fuzzy similarity-based MABAC approach for patient-centered care. Mathematics2019; 7(2): 140.
43.
LiangWZhaoGWuH, et al. Risk assessment of rockburst via an extended MABAC method under fuzzy environment. Tunnelling Undergr Space Technol2019; 83:533–544.
44.
ZhaoHZhaoHGuoS. Evaluating the comprehensive benefit of eco-industrial parks by employing multi-criteria decision making approach for circular economy. J Clean Prod2017; 142:2262–2276.
45.
ChenCT. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst2000; 114(1): 1–9.
46.
ChenCT. A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center. Fuzzy Sets Syst2001; 118(1): 65–73.
47.
ZhangHZhangWMeiC. Entropy of interval-valued fuzzy sets based on distance and its relationship with similarity measure. Knowl Based Syst2009; 22(6): 449–454.
48.
QinJLiuX. Multi-attribute group decision making using combined ranking value under interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Inf Sci2015; 297:293–315.
49.
ZhouSMJohnRIChiclanaF, et al. On aggregating uncertain information by type-2 OWA operators for soft decision making. Int J Intell Syst2010; 25(6): 540–558.
50.
ChenSMLeeLW. Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl2010; 37(4): 2790–2798.
51.
XuZS. A ranking arithmetic for fuzzy mutual complementary judgment matrices. J Syst Eng2001; 16(4): 311–314.
