In the present marketing environment, choosing the right suppliers is very difficult for any construction company. Current supplier selection models in the construction industry often suffer from limitations such as incomplete criteria coverage, inadequate handling of uncertainties, and oversimplification of decision-making, leading to sub-optimal supplier choices and project risks. This paper aims in selecting the best suppliers among the different M-Sand environment suppliers. In this study 13 qualitative criterions are selected by the expert team. For handling the attributes, uncertainties, vagueness associated with supplier selection problems the Fuzzy Delphi, Fuzzy Analytical hierarchal Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) methods were chosen. In the first phase of this study, Fuzzy Delphi Method is employed to select the 5 significant criterions. These criterions can be used to help the construction company in the direction to choose the right suppliers at the end. During the second phase, one of the significant Multi-criteria Decision Making Method called AHP is employed with extended support of fuzzy logic to evaluate the weightage of each criterion. Further ranking of various alternative suppliers are done by Fuzzy TOPSIS model. The ranking results indicate that A2 is the best supplier followed by A1 and A2. The third phase of this study deals with analyzing both the qualitative and quantitative criteria, hence Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is adopted to correlate the criteria. This is done to select efficient suppliers. The develop model is demonstrated in the construction industry.
StorteboomA., WondimuP., LohneJ. and LædreO., Best Value Procurement - The Practical Approach In The Netherlands, Procedia Comput. Sci.121 (2017), 398–406, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.054.
2.
CengizA.E., AytekinO., OzdemirI., KusanH. and CabukA., A Multi-criteria Decision Model for Construction Material Supplier Selection, Procedia Eng.196 (2017), 294–301, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.202.
3.
ShaoM., HanZ., SunJ., XiaoC., ZhangS. and ZhaoY., A review of multi-criteria decision making applications for renewable energy site selection, Renew. Energy157 (2020), 377–403, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.137.
4.
SunR., GongZ., GaoG. and ShahA.A., Comparative analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods for flood disaster risk in the Yangtze River Delta, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.51 (2020), 101768, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101768.
5.
BaczkiewiczA., WątróbskiJ., KizielewiczB. and SałabunW., Towards Objectification of Multi-Criteria Assessments: a Comparative Study on MCDA Methods, in 2021 16th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS) (2021), 417–425. doi: 10.15439/2021F61.
6.
NaminF.S., GhadiA. and SakiF., A literature review of Multi Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) towards mining method selection (MMS), Resour. Policy77 (2022), 102676, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102676.
7.
Dos SantosP.H., NevesS.M., Sant’AnnaD.O., de OliveiraC.H. and CarvalhoH.D., The analytic hierarchy process supporting decision making for sustainable development: An overview of applications, J. Clean. Prod.212 (2019), 119–138, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.270.
8.
TilleyS., Systems Analysis and Design. Cengage Learning, 2019.
9.
JiF., CaoQ., LiH., FujitaH., LiangC. and WuJ., An online reviews-driven large-scale group decision making approach for evaluating user satisfaction of sharing accommodation, Expert Syst. Appl. (2022), doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118875.
10.
XingY., WuJ., ChiclanaF., YuG., CaoM. and Herrera-ViedmaE., A bargaining game based feedback mechanism to support consensus in dynamic social network group decision making, Inf. Fusion93 (2023), doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2023.01.004.
11.
FayekA.R., Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy Hybrid Techniques for Construction Engineering and Management, J. Constr. Eng. Manag.146(7) (2020), 04020064, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001854.
12.
Reza AfshariA., Selection of construction project manager by using Delphi and fuzzy linguistic decision making, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst.28(6) (2015), 2827–2838, doi: 10.3233/IFS-151562.
13.
WangJ.C., HuangK.-T. and KoM.Y., Using the Fuzzy Delphi Method to Study the Construction Needs of an Elementary Campus and Achieve Sustainability, Sustainability11(23) (2019), doi: 10.3390/su11236852.
14.
MeronN. and MeirI.A., Building green schools in Israel. Costs, economic benefits and teacher satisfaction, Energy Build.154 (2017), 12–18, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.07.044.
15.
ShuqinC., MinyanL., HongweiT., XiaoyuL. and JianG., Assessing sustainability on Chinese university campuses: Development of a campus sustainability evaluation system and its application with a case study, J. Build. Eng.24 (2019), 100747, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100747.
16.
WangJ.C., Energy consumption in elementary and high schools in Taiwan, J. Clean. Prod.227 (2019), 1107–1116, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.254.
17.
SaatyT.L. and KearnsK.P., Analytical Planning: The Organization of System. Elsevier, 2014.
18.
KimJ., KimC., KimG., KimI., AbbasQ. and LeeJ., Probabilistic tunnel collapse risk evaluation model using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and Delphi survey technique, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.120 (2022), 104262, doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2021.104262.
19.
CaiS., MaZ., SkibniewskiM.J. and BaoS., Construction automation and robotics for high-rise buildings over the past decades: A comprehensive review, Adv. Eng. Inform.42 (2019), 100989, doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2019.100989.
20.
AfolayanA.H., OjokohB.A. and AdetunmbiA.O., Performance analysis of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process multi-criteria decision support models for contractor selection, Sci. Afr.9 (2020), e00471, doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00471.
21.
HeloP. and ShamsuzzohaA.H.M., Real-time supply chain—A blockchain architecture for project deliveries, Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf.63 (2020), 101909, doi: 10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101909.
22.
Sanni-AnibireM.O., MahmoudA.S., HassanainM.A. and SalamiB.A., A risk assessment approach for enhancing construction safety performance, Saf. Sci.121 (2021), 15–29, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.08.044.
23.
da SilvaS.L.C. and AmaralF.G., Critical factors of success and barriers to the implementation of occupational health and safety management systems: A systematic review of literature, Saf. Sci.117 (2019), 123–132, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.03.026.
AliS.M., BurneyS.M.A. and SumairaF.G., Fuzzy-AHP-TOPSIS: An integrated multi-criteria decision support system for supplier selection in Pakistan’s textile industry (2020).
26.
Al MohamedA.A., Al MohamedS. and ZinoM., Application of fuzzy multicriteria decision-making model in selecting pandemic hospital site, Future Bus. J.9(1) (2023), 14, doi: 10.1186/s43093-023-00185-5.
27.
TsaiC.K. and PhumchusriN., Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process for Supplier Selection: A Case Study in An Electronic Component Manufacturer, Eng. J.25(8) (2021), 73–86, doi: 10.4186/ej.2021.25.8.73.
28.
LiuY., EckertC.M. and EarlC., A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements, Expert Syst. Appl.161 (2020), 113738, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738.
29.
ParaskevasA., ZagorisK. and ChatzichristofisS., An intelligent decision support model for staff selection based on the application of the Fuzzy Delphi Method and the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process, 2022 13th Int. Conf. Inf. Intell. Syst. Appl. IISA (2022), 1–9, doi: 10.1109/IISA56318.2022.9904358.
30.
KumarM.B., ParameshwaranR., AntonyJ. and CudneyE., Framework for Lean Implementation Through Fuzzy AHP-COPRAS Integrated Approach, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. (2021), 1–13, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2021.3089691.
31.
RahimR., Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method for decision support system in top management, Int. J. Eng. Technol.7 (2018), 290–293.
32.
LinS.-S., ZhouA. and ShenS.-L., Safety assessment of excavation system via TOPSIS-based MCDM modelling in fuzzy environment, Appl. Soft Comput.138 (2023), 110206, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110206.
33.
MemariA., DargiA., Akbari JokarM.R., AhmadR. and Abd. Abdul RahimR., Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method, J. Manuf. Syst.50 (2019), 9–24, doi: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002.
34.
KarN.B., GhoshA., DasS. and BanerjeeD., Fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making approach for grading of mulberry silk cocoons, Indian J. Fibre Text. Res. IJFTR45(2) (2020), doi: 10.56042/ijftr.v45i2.25402.
35.
Hajiaghaei-KeshteliM., CenkZ., ErdebilliB., Selim ÖzdemirY. and Gholian-JouybariF., Pythagorean Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Green Supplier Selection in the Food Industry, Expert Syst. Appl.224 (2023), 120036, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120036.
36.
YeX., ChenB., LeeK., StoresundR. and ZhangB., An integrated offshore oil spill response decision making approach by human factor analysis and fuzzy preference evaluation, Environ. Pollut.262 (2020), 114294, doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114294.
37.
SaputroT.E., FigueiraG. and Almada-LoboB., Hybrid MCDM and simulation-optimization for strategic supplier selection, Expert Syst. Appl.219 (2023), 119624, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119624.
38.
WuP., WangY., ChiuY., LiY. and LinT.-Y., Production efficiency and geographical location of Chinese coal enterprises - undesirable EBM DEA, Resour. Policy64 (2019), 101527, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101527.
39.
VittalB., NellutlaR. and Krishna ReddyM., Selection and Analysis of Input-Output Variables using Data Envelopment Analysis of Decision Making Units - Indian Private Sector Banks, Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol.10 (2021), 119–127, doi: 10.35940/ijeat.E2674.0610521.
40.
Samadi-MiarkolaeiH., Samadi MiyarkolaeiH. and BastamiM., The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in Verification and Ranking of Effective Indexes on Organizational Entrepreneurship, J. Innov. Value Creat.11(11 (2019), 61.
41.
ParameshwaranR., BaskarC. and KarthikT., An integrated framework for mechatronics based product development in a fuzzy environment, Appl. Soft Comput.27 (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.013.
42.
Piubello OrsiniL., LeardiniC., VernizziS. and CampedelliB., Inefficiency of public hospitals: a multistage data envelopment analysis in an Italian region, BMC Health Serv. Res.21(1) (2021), 1281, doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07276-5.
43.
QinG., ZhangM., YanQ., XuC. and KammenD.M., Comprehensive evaluation of regional energy internet using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based on cloud model: A case in China, Energy228 (2021), 120569, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120569.
44.
ChenC.-T., Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets Syst.114(1) (2000), 1–9, doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1.
45.
BanerjeeJ.S., ChakrabortyA. and ChattopadhyayA., A decision model for selecting best reliable relay queue for cooperative relaying in cooperative cognitive radio networks: the extent analysis based fuzzy AHP solution, Wirel. Netw.27(4) (2021), 2909–2930, doi: 10.1007/s11276-021-02597-z.
46.
WangH., FangZ., WangD. and LiuS., An integrated fuzzy QFD and grey decision-making approach for supply chain collaborative quality design of large complex products, Comput. Ind. Eng.140 (2020), 106212, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106212.
47.
DarijaniM. and FekriH., Efficiency evaluation using fuzzy DEA-TOPSIS and possibility theory, in 2022 9th Iranian Joint Congress on Fuzzy and Intelligent Systems (CFIS) (2022), 1–7. doi: 10.1109/CFIS54774.2022.9756495.
48.
ParameshwaranR., BaskarC. and KarthikT., An integrated framework for mechatronics based product development in a fuzzy environment, Appl. Soft Comput.27 (2015), 376–390, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.013.
49.
RajivD., Banker AmirteimooriA. and SinhaR.P., An integrated Data Envelopment Analysis and generalized additive model for assessing managerial ability with application to the insurance industry, Decis. Anal. J.4 (2022), 100115, doi: 10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100115.
50.
NaushadM., FaridiM. and FaisalS., Measuring the Managerial Efficiency of Insurance Companies in Saudi Arabia: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach, J. Asian Finance Econ. Bus.07 (2020), 297–304, doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no6.297.
51.
KumarS., KumarS. and BarmanA.G., Supplier selection using fuzzy TOPSIS multi criteria model for a small scale steel manufacturing unit, Procedia Comput. Sci.133 (2018), 905–912, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.097.
52.
BeraA.K., JanaD.K., BanerjeeD. and NandyT., A Two-Phase Multi-criteria Fuzzy Group Decision Making Approach for Supplier Evaluation and Order Allocation Considering Multi-objective, Multi-product and Multi-period, Ann. Data Sci.8(3) (2021), 577–601, doi: 10.1007/s40745-020-00255-3.
53.
SunH., ZhangB. and NiW., A Hybrid Model Based on SEM and Fuzzy TOPSIS for Supplier Selection, Mathematics10(19) (2022), doi: 10.3390/math10193505.
54.
VermaM., PremP.R., RenP., LiaoH. and XuZ., Green supplier selection with a multiple criteria decision-making method based on thermodynamic features, Environ. Dev. Sustain. (2022), doi: 10.1007/s10668-022-02160-6.
