Skip to main content
Log in

A hybrid approach of neutrosophic sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria

  • Published:
Design Automation for Embedded Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For any organization, the selection of suppliers is a very important step to increase productivity and profitability. Any organization or company seeks to use the best methodology and the appropriate technology to achieve its strategies and objectives. The present study employs the neutrosophic set for decision making and evaluation method (DEMATEL) to analyze and determine the factors influencing the selection of SCM suppliers. DEMATEL is considered a proactive approach to improve performance and achieve competitive advantages. This study applies the neutrosophic set Theory to adjust general judgment, using a new scale to present each value. A case study implementing the proposed methodology is presented (i.e. selecting the best supplier for a distribution company). This research was designed by neutrosophic DEMATEL data collection survey of experts, interviewing professionals in management, procurement and production. The results analyzed in our research prove that quality is the most influential criterion in the selection of suppliers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gharakhani D (2012) The evaluation of supplier selection criteria by fuzzy DEMATEL method. J Basic Appl Sci Res 2(4):3215–3224

    Google Scholar 

  2. Askarany D et al (2010) Supply chain management, activity-based costing and organisational factors. Int J Prod Econ 127(2):238–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gunasekaran A et al (2004) A framework for supply chain performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 87(3):333–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arndt H (2004) Supply chain management. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Li X, Wang Q (2007) Coordination mechanisms of supply chain systems. Eur J Oper Res 179(1):1–16

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Shyur H-J, Shih H-S (2006) A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection. Math Comput Model 44(7):749–761

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Chang S-L et al (2007) Applying a direct multi-granularity linguistic and strategy-oriented aggregation approach on the assessment of supply performance. Eur J Oper Res 177(2):1013–1025

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Dickson GW (1996) An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. J Purch 2(1):5–17

  9. Gan J, Luo L (2017) Using DEMATEL and intuitionistic fuzzy sets to identify critical factors influencing the recycling rate of end-of-life vehicles in China. Sustainability 9(10):1873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chan FT et al (2006) An AHP approach in benchmarking logistics performance of the postal industry. Benchmark Int J 13(6):636–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang C et al (2017) Merger and acquisition target selection based on interval neutrosophic multigranulation rough sets over two universes. Symmetry 9(7):126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smarandache F (1999) A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability. American Research Press, Santa Fe

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Smarandache F (2005) A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability: neutrosophic logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability. Infinite study. American Research Press, Santa Fe

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Abdel-Basset M et al (2018) Future generation computer systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.03.014

  15. Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed M, Zhou Y, Hezam I (2017) Multi-criteria group decision making based onneutrosophic analytic hierarchy process. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 33(6):4055–4066

  16. Hezam IM, Abdel-Baset M, Smarandache F (2015) Taylor series approximation to solve neutrosophic multiobjective programming problem. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 10:39–46

    Google Scholar 

  17. Smarandache F (2010) Neutrosophic set-a generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set. J Defense Resour Manag 1(1):107

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Chang B et al (2011) Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Expert Syst Appl 38(3):1850–1858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dey S et al (2012) Supplier selection: integrated theory using DEMATEL and quality function deployment methodology. Procedia Eng 38:3560–3565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hsu C-W et al (2013) Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. J Clean Prod 56:164–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lin R-J (2013) Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices. J Clean Prod 40:32–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dalalah D et al (2011) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for supplier selection. Expert Syst Appl 38(7):8384–8391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Govindan K et al (2015) Intuitionistic fuzzy based DEMATEL method for developing green practices and performances in a green supply chain. Expert Syst Appl 42(20):7207–7220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Florentin S (1998) Neutrosophy. neutrosophic probability, set, and logic. ProQuest information & learning, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/eBook-neutrosophics6.pdf (online edition). Accessed 17 Feb 2018

  25. El-Hefenawy N, Metwally MA, Ahmed ZM, El-Henawy IM (2016) A review on the applications of neutrosophic sets. J Comput Theor Nanosci 13(1):936–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2006) Decision making with the analytic network process. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Abdel-Baset M, Hezam IM, Smarandache F (2016) Neutrosophic goal programming. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 11:112–118

  28. Mahdi IM, Riley MJ, Fereig SM, Alex AP (2002) A multi-criteria approach to contractor selection. Eng Constr Archit Manag 9(1):29–37

    Google Scholar 

  29. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Abdel-Basset M et al (2017) A novel group decision-making model based on triangular neutrosophic numbers. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2758-5

    Google Scholar 

  31. Abdel-Basset M et al (2017) Neutrosophic AHP-Delphi Group decision making model based on trapezoidal neutrosophic numbers. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-017-0548-7

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Abdel-Basset.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Gamal, A. et al. A hybrid approach of neutrosophic sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Des Autom Embed Syst 22, 257–278 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10617-018-9203-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10617-018-9203-6

Keywords

Navigation