Int. J. Applied Decision Sciences, Vol. 13, No.

2, 2020 215

An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making

approach for evaluating suppliers’ co-design ability in
new product development

Detcharat Sumrit
The Cluster of Logistics and Rail Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
Mahidol University,
25/25 Phuttamonthon 4 Road,
Salaya, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand
Email: dettoy999@gmail.com

Abstract: There are many methods for managing the complexity and
challenges of new product development (NPD) under faster emerging
technology. Most firms use them to collaborate with external organisations for
their co-design on new products. This study purposes to provide a measurement
model by applying multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach to
evaluate suppliers’ co-design capabilities in NPD in terms of product structural
design and engineering, product concept and functional design, and process
design. This MCDM includes fuzzy step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis
(SWARA) to determine the relative weights of criteria and fuzzy technique for
order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) to rank the results
of suppliers’ capabilities regarding to their co-design in NPD. Given the result,
supplier with the highest collaboration performance rating is selected at first.
The evaluation of suppliers’ collaboration is regarded as an essential starting
point for management challenge to develop suppliers’ capabilities.

Keywords: fuzzy SWARA; fuzzy TOPSIS; multi-criteria decision making;

MCDM; new product development; NPD.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Sumrit, D. (2020)

‘An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for evaluating
suppliers’ co-design ability in new product development’, Int. J. Applied
Decision Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.215–246.

Biographical notes: Detcharat Sumrit is currently a Lecturer of Faculty of

Engineering, Mahidol University, Thailand. He graduated with an Engineering
Bachelor degree from Kasetsart University, Thailand. He holds a two Master
degrees: Master degree of Engineering from Chulalongkorn University,
Thailand and MBA from Thammasat University. Also, he obtained his PhD
from Technopreneurship and Innovation Management, Chulalongkorn
University. His current research interests are in multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM), supply chain management, performance measurement and
optimisation.

Copyright © 2020 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

216 D. Sumrit

1 Introduction

To effectively response customers’ requirements, firms now progressively interact with

their customers at many stages of the innovation development processes and activities,
such as co-development in innovation, product co-design, determine the demands and
require outcomes for products and services development (Johnston and Chandler, 2012;
Oinonen et al., 2018). In new product development process, the relationships among
customers, manufacturers and suppliers are naturally often created (Beugelsdijk et al.,
2017). As described by Chang (2019), Customers engagement in new product
development creates synergistic or destructive effect on performance of new product in
the market. During the collaboration development, this leads a change of more complex
product systems and modified solutions (Noordhoff et al., 2011; Ulaga and Reinartz,
2011; Farid et al., 2017; Banaeian et al., 2018). Moreover, the supply bases have
presently moved from providing the products or services to offering the extraordinary
know-how, knowledge resources, and expertise to their customers. This generates a
useful guideline for innovation management, and co-design in new product development
(NPD) (Blome et al., 2014). In early stage of NPD, the supplier collaboration is regarded
as an essential method to come across managing on technological complexity (Laursen
and Andersen, 2016). Cooper (2019) stressed that firms allow their suppliers to early and
extensive involvement in NPD collaboration leading to improve effectiveness and
efficiency in their NPD processes. In addition by Ağan et al. (2018), involvement of
suppliers on NPD creates productivity growth that is essential for the firm to gain
competitive advantage.
The suppliers’ collaboration and co-design should be promptly considered in NPD
process to achieve successful goals (Wu et al., 2016). Although it seems difficult to
organise, create, process for encourage supplier’s involvement in the development
process of company, this formal and structured NPD phase would need idea generation,
product definition, project evaluation, and refinement (Kim and Wilemon, 2002). Many
research viewed that a number of factors are essential to generate successful new
products (Peterson et al., 2005). Some of these include design for quality, design for
manufacturability, and design for supply chain (Wu et al., 2016). Moreover, prior
research supported that a faster development process had caused by the early and
extensive supplier involvement (Petersen et al., 2003). The supply chain design (Petersen
et al., 2003; Rajeev et al., 2017) is also determined when the product development stage
decisions on product, process and information systems is specified. Van Echtelt et al.,
(2008) also defined that many industrial companies have realised the importance of the
suppliers’ collaboration in NPD. Given the present business trends with shorten product
life cycles, increased rate of technological change and higher quality and service for
market requirement, Nassimbeni and Battain (2003) pointed that supplier involvement in
NPD could not be managed by short-term and price-based, as previous. Therefore, the
co-design activities and collaboration need continuous action between engineers and
designers to develop product and supply chain management process. Zhang et al. (2019)
suggested that suppliers must be properly selected for new product design corporation.
For NPD in automotive industry, there are many investments in research and
development and represent a large commitment of resources to assure the technology
advances via new products launches to the marketplace (Morgan et al., 2018). To
maintain competitive advantages among dynamic environment, both automotive makers
and suppliers have needed to develop and create innovative products to respond
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 217

customers’ demands in terms of faster, better, and cheaper. These increasing pressures
have led a rising involvement of suppliers and customers (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2018),
and requires a concentration in NPD efforts (He et al., 2014). Also, it is regarded that the
studies of suppliers’ co-design or collaboration benchmark involving NPD are quite few.
This research takes into account that the important criteria of suppliers’ co-design
abilities involving the NPD process and the different co-design abilities levels of three
suppliers in Thai automotive interior parts industry. This study mainly purposes to
explore the appropriated criteria for evaluating and comparing the levels of collaboration
capabilities in co-design of NPD process of automotive interior parts suppliers. Based on
several criteria related to supplier collaboration, the single evaluation techniques should
not be enough and appropriated. The supplier evaluation is one of important steps of
supplier management to solve the complex multiple-criteria decision making (MCDM)
problems, which firms could incorporate with suppliers as an essential part of core
competencies so as to optimise competitive advantage (Jajimoggala et al., 2011). MCDM
approach has been widely used in various ways like Kazemi et al. (2014) (a
multi-objective suppliers’ selection and order allocation under fuzzy environment);
Soleymani et al. (2016) (a new fuzzy multi-objective optimisation with desirability
function under uncertainty; Mousavi et al. (2018) (solving group decision-making
problems in manufacturing systems by an uncertain compromise ranking method); and Li
et al. (2017) (develop and apply of cycle economic early warning system based on fuzzy
comprehensive evaluation). Moreover, several researches have recently applied an
integration of MCDM and fuzzy approaches to support suppliers’ selection; for example,
Cheraghalipour et al. (2018) (to select supplier in the Iranian agricultural industry; Haeri
and Rezaei (2019) (to select green supplier); Alikhani et al. (2019) (to select strategic
supplier under sustainability and risk criteria); Sinha and Anand (2018) (to select
sustainable supplier for NPD); and Kazemi et al. (2014) (to select suppliers in a multi-
objective and order allocation under fuzzy environment).
This study applies MCDM approach by integrating fuzzy methods, i.e., fuzzy
step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) to calculate the relative weights of
selection criteria and fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal
solution (TOPSIS) to rank or benchmark suppliers’ co-design capabilities. According to
findings, a useful evaluation model is provided for successful adoption of NPD in
automotive interior parts suppliers. This paper is organised as follows. Next section
presents literature of supplier-customer co-design development. Followed section
describes the methodology. Then the findings and discussions are included. The paper
ends with conclusions.

2 Literature reviews

2.1 Supplier co-design or collaboration in NPD

Normally, suppliers provide creative idea for innovation, modify recommendations and
develop new products and services and innovation performance to generate new sales
(Song et al., 2011). Specially, firms co-develop knowledge-base or technology-intensive
products and services (Aarikka-Stenroos and Jaakkola, 2012; Ritala et al., 2013). While
customers offer preferences and requirements for market success (Song et al., 2011;
Morgan et al., 2018). Such relationships are presently complicated and sophisticated.
218 D. Sumrit

Literature proposes that the co-development with customers can bring both positive and
negative effects (Peled and Dvir, 2012). Positive or advantages are such as increased
innovation abilities, improved product quality, reduced product development stage,
and decreased development costs (Johnsen, 2009). While, the negative effects of
co-development are such as delay in the development process, decreased product
innovation capabilities and possibility of imitated products, increased production cost and
longer development time, as well as limited collaboration process (Carbonell et al., 2012;
Wu et al., 2016).
Some research addressed that the interaction between a firm and a supplier in NPD
project is to improve the cost efficiency and enlarge bargaining power and compensation
for supplier in the supply chain. Zhu et al. (2007) also examined the interaction in supply
chain between quality and operational decision including the effects of customer’s design
decisions on suppliers’ quality improvement. Many researches have supported the
extensive supplier involvement resulting in more rapid development process (Petersen
et al., 2003). Un et al. (2010) indicated that the supplier involvement in NPD project is
continuously important as product life cycles is shortening and requiring the acceleration
of sophisticated technological developments. Firms, thus, developed NPD to adjust with
supplier engagement. Mishra and Shah (2009) also supported that the conditions between
firms and suppliers are actually dynamic; hence NPD environments absolutely provides
high levels of uncertainty and complexity. Moreover, the significance of how products
are designed, produced and delivered can support the manufacturing or delivery of
designing process. Besides, the design of supply chain is effectively defined on the
product development stage, which process, product and information systems decisions
are determined (Peterson et al., 2005).
Apart from these potential negative effects, co-design or collaboration may be
complex the development process itself, due to the challenges of establishing trusted
partnerships, common goals agreement and engaging customers (Nicolajsen and Scupola,
2011). These challenges are deeply caused in the basic features of co-development
relationships, and it is essential to understand their emergence and how they can be
managed. In views of co-development, customer-supplier relations involve many
contradictory elements that can be considered paradoxes, and must be actively managed
(Oinonen et al., 2018). Supplier-customer co-development is referred to any situation
where a supplier involves its customers in the development of NPD or services (Coviello
and Joseph, 2012; Fang et al., 2015).
The literature on the early supplier involvement is a strategic motivation, causing to
enlarge the better design, firm financial performance and the effectiveness (Peterson
et al., 2005). Firms usually evaluate the suppliers’ capabilities and willing to cooperation,
as well as provide incentives and collaboration mechanisms in order to motivate
supplier’s action (Un et al., 2010). Also, the supplier co-design or collaboration is one of
important business process activities for long-term development in supply chain
management (Lembert et al., 1998). Most firms have focused on core processes and
suppliers outsourcing, which can bring about benefits or technical expertise in new
product and process design. The more advanced technologies a new product desires, the
more firm needs the suppliers’ collaboration. Basically, most firms have not produced all
products based on their inefficiency and lacking of related technologies to response
customers’ needs, resulting to NPD process be across industries and the supply chain, as
well as more involving a range collaboration of external partners (Schiele, 2006).
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 219

Several research investigated many benefits of supplier collaboration in NPD. Schiele

(2006) pointed out that NPD brought a lot of important benefits including to fresh
knowledge and resources outside company’s border, and collaborative arrangement with
outside partners, and product quality improvement (Hoegl and Wagner, 2005). Also,
there were some NPD studies deal with multi-attribute product design and technology
dependency of NPD (Carrillo, 2005). As the suppliers’ co-design or collaboration in NPD
brings out many interesting benefits as mentioned, this research is expected to strengthen
suppliers’ co-design capabilities in NPD process. For the evaluation of suppliers’
contribution, it is found that co-design development in many industries is currently one of
the most important collaborations between customers and suppliers. However, it is
scarcely explored for the assessment of the supplier contribution to product development
(Nassimbeni and Battain, 2003). The study of Argote and Hora (2017) indicated that
it is important to evaluate the suppliers’ capabilities for product design and
testing, prototyping, R&D, manufacturing engineering and overall technology and
innovativeness. Yoo et al. (2015) also displayed that the firms’ transactional inefficiency
is one of the most critical variables influencing the behaviours of NPD factors. It is also
only affected by design quality and supplier involvement. Notwithstanding, the sort and
nature of collaboration between firms and suppliers may affect transactional inefficiency.
For instance, Danese and Filippini (2013) defined that in the early stage of NPD, when
firms apply design and production technology, the collaboration in NPD project could
outstandingly reduce transaction costs.

2.2 Fuzzy set theory

In 1965, fuzzy set theory was introduced by Zadeh (1965) to deal with problems
involving uncertainty, vagueness, and the utilisation of linguistic terms to represent the
decision maker’s choices. The linguistic terms were also converted into triangular fuzzy
numbers (TFNs). Normally, TFNs were practically applied to handle the vagueness of the
linguistic assessments and to contribute the easy usage and computation (Kannan et al.,
2014). TFNs can be illustrated as a triplet (l, m, u); the membership function of the fuzzy
number F(x) is defined in Figure 1 and expressed as:

⎧ x −l
⎪ m − l ,l ≤ x ≤ m
⎪
u−x
F ( x) = ⎨⎪ ,m ≤ x ≤ u (1)
u−m
⎪
⎩0, otherwise
Some essential definitions and basic important properties of fuzzy sets are given, as
following:
Let A1 = (l1, m1, u1) and A2 = (l2, m2, u2) are two TFNs.
Then the functional rules of two TFNs are shown as below:
Fuzzy addition:
A1 ⊕ A2 = ( l1 + l2 , m1 + m2 , u1 + u2 ) (2)

Fuzzy subtraction:
220 D. Sumrit

A1 A2 = ( l1 − l2 , m1 − m2 , u1 − l2 ) (3)

Fuzzy multiplication:
A1 ⊗ A2 = ( l1l2 , m1m2 , u1u2 ) (4)

Fuzzy division:
A1∅A2 = ( l1 l2 , m1 m2 , u1 l2 ) (5)

Figure 1 Membership function of TFN

F(x

0 u x
l m

2.3 Linguistic variable

A linguistic variable is a variable that is expressed in linguistic terms such as artificial
words or natural sentences which are then displayed by TFNs (Kannan et al., 2014). This
study adopted linguistic scale from Table 1 to derive the relative important weight of
perspectives and criteria. And, Table 2 shows the linguistic scale to evaluate the ratings
of the alternative suppliers.
Table 1 The fuzzy scale for perspectives and criteria relative weight

Linguistic assessment scale Triangular fuzzy number

Equally important (1, 1, 1)
Moderately less important (2/3, 1, 3/2)
Less important (2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
Very less important (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
Much less important (2/9, 1/4, 2/7)
Source: Chang (1996)
Table 2 Linguistic scale to evaluate the ratings of the alternative suppliers

Linguistic assessment scale Triangular fuzzy number

Very low (VL) (0.0, 0.0, 2.5)
Low (L) (0.0, 2.5, 5.0)
Good (G) (2.5, 5.0, 7.5)
High (H) (5.0, 7.5, 10.0)
Excellent (EX) (7.5, 10.0, 10.0)
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 221

Figure 2 Full description of the fuzzy SWARA method

Start

Extraction of expert opinions:

Rank all criteria in a descending order based on expected significances

Determination of criteria final rank based on the mediocre value of experts’ ranks

Extraction of expert opinions:

Pairwise comparison between each pair of successive criteria on the final ranking

Presentation of criterion j

Presentation of criterion j +1

Evaluation of how much criterion j +1 is important than criterion j (Compare successive criteria to express
the relative importance)

Value of comparative importance of criterion j +1

j j +1

j ≥ n?
where n is the number of all No
criteria
Yes
Determination of criteria comparative importance vector, S

Determination of criteria coefficient vector, K

K1 = 1 & Kj = Sj + 1, ∀j ∈ {2,…,n}

Determination of criteria recalculated weight vector, q

q1 = 1 & q j =−1 , ∀ j ∈ {2,… , n}

Determination of criteria final weight vector, ~

~
~= , ∀ j ∈ {1, 2,… , n}
∑ ~
=1

end

Source: Ordoobadi (2009)

2.4 Fuzzy SWARA method

The SWARA approach was developed by Kersuliene et al. (2010) to determine relative
importance weight of criteria. Based on SWARA approach, the experts contribute their
222 D. Sumrit

own implicit knowledge, experience and information to conduct pairwise comparison

between each pair of successive criteria on final ranking (Nakhaei et al., 2016). From the
recent studies, SWARA has been applied to solve various problems, e.g., Zarbakhshnia
et al. (2018) (third-party reverse logistics provider selection); Eghbali-Zarch et al. (2018)
(pharmacological therapy selection of type 2 diabetes); and Popovic et al. (2019) (hotel
location selection). The full description of SWARA method is shown in Figure 2
(Ordoobadi, 2009). And the following steps elaborate SWARA process to calculate the
relative weights of selection criteria.
Step 1 Rank all the evaluation criteria in descending order based on experts’ expected
significance. The first criterion in ranking is considered as the most significant,
while the last criterion is the least significant.
Step 2 Begin from the second criteria where experts provide a comparative rating score
between zero and one of the criteria j in relation to the previous criterion (j–1).
The same procedure is applied for each factor. This ratio displays the
comparative importance of S j value (Kersuliene et al., 2010).

Step 3 Compute the coefficient of comparative importance k j as the formula (6):

⎧⎪ 1 if j = 1
kj = ⎨ (6)
⎪⎩ S j + 1 if j > 1

Step 4 Determine the recalculated intermediate weight q j as the formula (7):

⎧ 1 if j = 1
⎪
q j = ⎨ q j −1 (7)
⎪ k if j > 1
⎩ j
Step 5 Calculate the relative importance weights of the evaluation criteria as the
formula (8):
qj
wj = (8)
∑
n
qk
k =1

where w j indicates the relative weight of criterion j and n represents the number of
such criteria.

2.5 Fuzzy TOPSIS procedure

Hwang and Yoon (1981) originally introduced The TOPSIS method as a multi-criteria
decision analysis method and further be developed by Chen and Hwang (1992). The basic
concept of TOPSIS is that the selected alternative should have the simultaneous
satisfaction of the shortest Euclidean distances from the positive ideal solution (A+), and
the farthest Euclidean distances from the negative ideal solution (A–) in the
n-dimensional attribute space (Opricovic and Tzeng, 2004). Recently, the application of
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 223

fuzzy TOPSIS has been exploited by many scholars like; Rashidi and Cullinane (2019)
(selecting sustainable suppliers in context of sourcing strategy); Cavallaro et al. (2019)
[assessment of the concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies]; and Sirisawat and
Kiatcharoenpol (2018) (prioritise solutions for reverse logistics barriers).
The fuzzy TOPSIS procedure includes the following steps (Han and Trimi, 2018):
Step 1 Determine rating value for the linguistic variables with the respective criteria
and scale used for rating is given in Table 4, then to compute weight of
evaluation criteria, this study applied fuzzy SWARA to derive the fuzzy
preference weight.
Step 2 Construct the fuzzy performance/matrix for alternatives by considering a group
of K decision makers (DM1, DM2, DM3,…, DMk) containing m alternatives (A1,
A2, A3,…, Ai,…, Am); (i = 1, 2, 3,…, m) and n criteria (C1, C2, C3,…, Cj,…,Cn);
(j = 1, 2, 3,…, n)
C1 C2 Cn
A1 ⎛ r11 r12 r1n ⎞
⎜ ⎟
A r r22 r2 n ⎟ (9)
D = 2 ⎜ 21
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
Am ⎜⎝ rm1 rm 2 rmn ⎟⎠

where rmn is the rating of alternative Am with respect to criterion Cn.

Step 3 Aggregate fuzzy rating for the solutions

Fuzzy rating of the kth decision maker X ijk = (liijk , mijk , uijk ) where i = 1, 2, 3, 4,
5,…, m and j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,…, n then the fuzzy aggregated fuzzy rating X ij of
alternatives with respect to each criteria is given by X ij = (lij , mij , uij ), where

1
l = min K {lijk } , m = ∑ mijk , u = max K {uijk }
K
(10)
K k =1

Step 4 Normalised fuzzy decision matrix

The normalised fuzzy decision matrix denoted by B is denied as follows:

B = ⎡⎣ pij ⎤⎦ (11)
m× n

where i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,…, m and j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,…, n

⎛ lij mij uij ⎞

p = ⎜ * , * , * ⎟ and u *j = max uij (benefit criteria) (12)
⎜ uj uj uj ⎟
⎝ ⎠

⎛ l −j l −j l −j ⎞
p=⎜ , , ⎟ and l *j = max lij (cost criteria) (13)
⎜ uij mij lij ⎟
⎝ ⎠
224 D. Sumrit

Step 5 Weighted fuzzy normalised decision matrix is shown as follows:

V = ⎡⎣Vij ⎤⎦ i = 1, 2,3,… , m and j = 1, 2,3,… n (14)

m× n

where

V = pij × w j (15)

Step 6 Determine the fuzzy positive ideal solution (FPIS: A+) and fuzzy negative ideal
solution (FNIS: A–) as per the following formula:

{
A+ = {v1+ ,… , vn+ } , where v +j = max ( vij ) if j ∈ J ; min ( vij ) if j ∈ J , } (16)
J = 1, 2,3, 4,5,… n

{
A− = {v1− ,… , vn− } , where v −j = max ( vij ) if j ∈ J ; max ( vij ) if j ∈ J , } (17)
J = 1, 2,3, 4,5,… n

Step 7 Calculate the distance of each alternative from FPIS and FNIS

The calculation of distance (di+ ( Ai , A+ ) and di− ( Ai , A− )) of each alternative

from A+ and A–is computed as follows:

{∑ )}
1/ 2
di+ ( Ai A+ ) = (v
n 2
ij − vij+ , i = 1,… , m (18)
j =1

{∑ )}
1/ 2
di− ( Ai , A− ) = (v
n 2
ij − vij− , i = 1,… , m (19)
j =1

Step 8 Calculate the closeness coefficient (CCi) of each alternative by using the
following equation:

∑
n
d−
j =1 i
( Ai , A− )
CCi = , i = 1,… , m. Ci ∈ (0,1) (20)
∑ di− ( Ai , A− ) + ∑ di+ ( Ai , A+ )
n n
j =1 j =1

Step 9 Find the ranks of alternatives

The alternatives are ranked by their CCi to the ideal solution in descending
order. The metric of ‘relative closeness’ is a function of the Euclidean distances
of each alternative (Aj) from the positive ideal solution (A+) and the negative
ideal solution (A–). Figure 3 illustrated an example of two dimensional criteria
space where every alternative Ai possesses the coordinate equalling to
normalised values of the assigned attributes multiplied by normalised weight
coefficients. The best alternative should be the closet to the positive ideal and
the farthest from the negative ideal point. The relative closeness is measured by
the formula (20) in step 8, where di− and di+ are the distance of alternative Ai
from the negative deal and the positive ideal point, respectively.
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 225

Figure 3 Alternative as points in a two-dimensional space corresponding to criteria x and y and

their distances from the positive-ideal solution (A+) and the negative ideal solution (A–)
(see online version for colours)

A+ (positive ideal
solution)
Criterion y (increasing utility)

A1

A2

A- (negative ideal
solution)
Criterion x (increasing utility)

3 Problem description

According to government investment plan, Thailand auto parts industry is likely to grow
in line with the direction of production of cars and motorcycles, resulting from the
acceleration of sales and productions of eco-cars. Larger than 60% of the world’s top
biggest automotive parts suppliers have their productions based in Thailand. These
automotive makers include Japan, Europe, USA, and China vehicle assembling firms.
Moreover, they attract more than 2,400 local suppliers, consisting of 710 tier 1 suppliers
(automotive parts makers) and 1,700 tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers (the supporting firms).
Thailand auto parts exporting is then expanded well. With improved performance, this
circumstance will support business sales of automotive parts including interior parts, e.g.,
seats, roof headlining, sun visors, etc. Most automotive parts makers have currently paid
much attentions to the capabilities improvement through their co-design or collaboration
activities (Nitipathanapirak, 2017). It is observed that previous research have not yet
developed appropriated tools to evaluate suppliers’ capabilities in co-design in NPD
activities. This study, hence, purposes a MCDM framework to measure suppliers’
co-design capabilities among different automotive interior parts firms.

4 Empirical study

This study presents an example that demonstrates the standard interoperability of

suppliers in the NPD process of interior parts in Thai automotive parts industry. Since the
automobile manufacturing process in NPD involves several automotive parts, auto
manufacturing firms have effectively practiced at each step of NPD process to achieve
their objectives like; the lowest cost reduction, the shortest development cycle and the
226 D. Sumrit

fastest time to market. This lead the co-design and collaboration among suppliers more
significant. Moreover, car manufacturers are now typically dealing with many suppliers
and point out the importance of supplier risk management conceptual. Since the
sustainability pressures from many stakeholders, the requirement for sustainable suppliers
becomes more notable. Thus, the assessment of suppliers’ capabilities will help firms to
extend competitive advantages, based on key evaluation criteria.
For this study, three famous interior part suppliers were required to evaluate their co-
design capabilities. They are also tier 1 suppliers in Thailand. Names of these firms are
not disclosed hereby due to confidentiality. They are referred as Supplier A, Supplier B
and Supplier C. They are multi-national corporations (MNC) to operate as original design
manufacturing (ODM) companies. Their core businesses are to produce interior auto
parts, i.e., seat, roof headlining, and sun visor. They also play major roles in interior-
design of automotive parts industry.
In this section, the integrated process of Fuzzy set via Fuzzy SWARA and Fuzzy
TOPSIS is developed to assess the suppliers’ capabilities in NPD collaboration, to
benchmark their capabilities performances, and to select suppliers. The purpose of this
section is to present an integrated Fuzzy SWARA and Fuzzy TOPSIS for evaluating
supplier’s co-design capabilities by using automotive interior suppliers in Thailand as a
case study. The step of research procedure is categorised to four phases as demonstrated
in Figure 4.

Figure 4 The research procedure

Phase I: Phase II: Phase III: Phase IV:

Establishing a group Determining the Analyzing relative importance weight Evaluating suppliers’
of decision maker evaluation criteria of evaluation perspective and criteria co-design capabilities
in NPD

4.1 Phase I: establishing a group of decision maker

The evaluating process of suppliers’ co-design capabilities in NPD is crucial and
complicated, then the selection a group of decision maker is carefully established. In this
study, the group of decision makers consists of seven industrial experts who have more
than five-year experiences and knowledge in developing NPD project of automotive
interior parts. The experts include two managers from R&D department, three chief
production engineers, one senior production engineer and one manager from Thailand
Automotive Institution. Further, details about Information of experts are in Table A1 of
Appendix A.

4.2 Phase II: determining the evaluation criteria

From extensive literature review, main 14 assessment criteria under three perspectives are
determined, as shown in Table 3 and Figure 5.
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 227

Table 3 Perspectives and criteria for suppliers’ capabilities measurement in co-design NPD

Perspective/criteria Description Authors

Product concept and functional design
Technological Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
innovation capabilities to explore technological (2003), Handfield and
expertise innovation in NPD Lawson (2007), Tsai et al.
(2012) and Zhao and Cao
(2015)
New technologies Defined as the level of suppliers’ Rindova and Petkova (2007),
identification capabilities to identify suitable new Lau (2011), Abdolmalekia
technologies of products and processes in and Ahmadian (2016)
NPD
Development of Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
product capabilities to develop new engineering (2003), Lee and Wang (2012)
specifications attributes and new specifications of and Schoenherr and Wagner
component parts in NPD (2016)
Establishment of Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
VA/VE activities capabilities to initiate Value (2003) and Koufteros et al.
Analysis/Value Engineering activities (2007)
(VA/VE) in NPD
Product structural design and engineering
Simplification of Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
product capabilities to simplify product architecture (2003), Abdolmalekia and
architecture design in NPD Ahmadian (2016) and Le
Dain and Merminod (2014)
Designing of Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
modularisation capabilities to design product (2003), Zhao and Cao (2015),
parts modularisation in NPD Lau (2011) and
Abdolmalekia and Ahmadian
(2016)
Selection of new Defined as the level of the suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
component parts capabilities to select the appropriate new (2003) and Le Dain and
component parts in NPD Merminod (2014)
Development of Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
standardised capabilities to develop standardised (2003) and Zhao et al. (2013)
component parts component parts in NPD
Development of Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
product and process capabilities to develop compatibility (2003) and Zhao and Cao
compatibility between product and process in NPD (2015)
Development of Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
reliability prototype capabilities to develop reliable prototype (2003) and Abdolmalekia
parts NPD and Ahmadian (2016)
Engineering Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
changes and capabilities to effectively manage (2003) and Cagli et al.,
alteration engineering changes and alteration (2012)
management information in NPD
Establishment of Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
FMEA activities capabilities to establish Failure Mode (2003), Zhao and Cao (2015)
Effect Analysis (FMEA) activities in NPD and Abdolmalekia and
Ahmadian (2016)
228 D. Sumrit

Table 3 Perspectives and criteria for suppliers’ capabilities measurement in co-design NPD
(continued)

Perspective/criteria Description Authors

Process design and engineering
Establishment of Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
DFM/DFA capabilities to establish design for (2003), Zhao and Cao (2015)
activities manufacturing/design for assembly and Cagli et al. (2012)
(DFM/DFA) activities in NPD
Designing of Defined as the level of suppliers’ Nassimbeni and Battain
production process capabilities to design production process (2003), Zhao and Cao (2015)
facilities facilities e.g. tools, machines and material and Cagli et al. (2012)
handling equipment in NPD

Figure 5 The proposed effective model of suppliers’ co-design capabilities appraisal

Technological innovation expertise (C1)

New technologies identification (C2)

Product concept and Development of product

functional design specifications (C3)

Establishment of VA/VE activities (C4)

Simplification of product architecture

design (C5)

Measurement Designing of modularisation parts (C6)

of suppliers’
co-design Selection of new component parts (C7)
capabilities in Product structural
NPD design and engineering Development of standardised component
collaboration parts (C8)

Development of product and process

compatibility (C9)

Development of reliability prototype (C10)

Engineering changes and alteration

management (C11)

Establishment of FMEA activities (C12)

Establishment of DFM/DFA activities (C13)

Process design and
engineering
Designing of production process
facilities (C14)
 Table 4

qj
Comparative importance of Coefficient Recalculated weight Wj = n
Perspective
average value (Sj) (Kj) = Sj+1 Qj = Qj-1/Kj qk
∑ k =1

Product concept and - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.521 0.557 0.595

function design (P1)
Product structural 0.810 1.020 1.286 1.810 2.020 2.286 0.438 0.495 0.553 0.261 0.276 0.288
design and
engineering (P2)
Process design and 0.514 0.645 0.810 1.514 1.645 1.810 0.242 0.301 0.365 0.144 0.168 0.190
engineering (P3)
An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach

The relative weight of perspectives with fuzzy SWARA method

229
 230

Table 5
D. Sumrit

qj
Comparative importance Coefficient Recalculated weight Wj =
Criteria n Final weight
of average value (Sj) Kj = Sj+1 Qj = Qj-1/Kj qk
∑ k =1

Technological - - - 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.456 0.508 0.565 0.238 0.283 0.336
innovation expertise
(C1)
New technology 0.724 0.932 1.200 1.724 1.932 2.200 0.455 0.518 0.580 0.257 0.263 0.265 0.134 0.146 0.158
identification (C2)
Development of 0.590 0.863 1.262 1.590 1.863 2.262 0.201 0.278 0.365 0.114 0.141 0.166 0.059 0.079 0.099
product specification
(C3)
Establishment of 0.469 0.592 0.748 1.469 1.592 1.748 0.115 0.174 0.248 0.065 0.089 0.113 0.034 0.049 0.067
VA/VE activities (C4)
Final weight of criteria (C1–C4) with fuzzy SWARA method
 Table 6

qj
Comparative importance Coefficient Recalculated weight Wj = n
Criteria Final weight
of average value (Sj) Kj = Sj+1 Qj = Qj-1/Kj qk
∑ k =1

Simplification of product - - - 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.349 0.418 0.492 0.091 0.115 0.142
architecture design (C5)
Selection of new 0.444 0.606 0.829 1.444 1.606 1.829 0.547 0.623 0.693 0.242 0.260 0.341 0.063 0.072 0.098
component parts (C6)
Designing of 0.514 0.726 1.024 1.514 1.726 2.024 0.270 0.361 0.457 0.151 0.160 0.225 0.039 0.044 0.065
modularisation parts (C7)
Development of 0.667 1.000 1.500 1.667 2.000 2.500 0.108 0.180 0.274 0.075 0.096 0.135 0.020 0.026 0.039
standardised component
parts (C8)
Engineering changes and 0.438 0.572 0.748 1.438 1.572 1.748 0.062 0.115 0.191 0.048 0.067 0.094 0.012 0.018 0.027
alteration management
(C9)
Development of reliability 0.667 1.000 1.500 1.667 2.000 2.500 0.025 0.057 0.115 0.024 0.040 0.056 0.006 0.011 0.016
prototype (C10)
Development of product 0.514 0.726 1.024 1.514 1.726 2.024 0.012 0.033 0.076 0.014 0.026 0.037 0.004 0.007 0.011
and process compatibility
Final weight of criteria (C5-C12) with fuzzy SWARA method

(C11)
An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach

Establishment of FMEA 0.286 0.338 0.400 1.286 1.338 1.400 0.009 0.025 0.059 0.010 0.021 0.029 0.003 0.006 0.008
activities (C12)
231
 232

Table 7
D. Sumrit

Comparative qj
Coefficient Recalculated weight Wj =
Criteria importance of average n Final weight
Kj = Sj+1 Qj = Qj-1/Kj qk
value (Sj) ∑ k =1

Establishment of - - - 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.624 0.634 0.644 0.090 0.106 0.123
DEM/DFA activities (C13)
Designing of production 0.657 0.729 0.810 1.657 1.729 1.810 0.553 0.578 0.603 0.356 0.366 0.376 0.051 0.061 0.072
and process facilities (C14)
Final weight of criteria (C13-C14) with fuzzy SWARA method
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 233

4.3 Phase III: analysing relative importance weight of evaluation perspective

and criteria by using Fuzzy SWARA
To analyse the relative importance evaluating weight of each criteria and perspective in
Table 3, firstly, the same group of experts, was asked to express their judgment regarding
to the relative importance weight for each criteria and perspective by using Table 1. The
results of evaluation of experts’ opinions were shown in Appendix A (Table A2 to
Table A5, respectively). Then, fuzzy SWARA method (as described in Section 2.4) was
applied to incorporate with human judgment variation caused from vagueness, ambiguity
and subjectivity in group decision making process. It is typically applied as an MCDM
tool by the expert group to reach agreement and complicated problems where various
decision making factors exist (Mavi et al., 2017). The relative importance weight of each
criterion and each perspective were obtained by using the formula (6) to formula (8). The
results of fuzzy SWARA calculation is displayed in this phase. Table 4 represents the
relative weight of each perspective, i.e., product concept and functional design (P1),
product structural design and engineering (P2) and process design and engineering (P3),
respectively. Using these relative weights, the final weights of each criteria (C1–C14) for
fuzzy SWARA is represented in Tables 5 to 7. Accordingly, these weights are applied to
multiply with the normalised the decision making matrix in fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate
and rank suppliers’ co-design abilities in NPD.

4.4 Phase IV: evaluating and ranking suppliers’ co-design ability in NPD by
TOPSIS method
In this stage, the same group of experts were asked to evaluate three suppliers in terms of
co-design capabilities, according to criteria in Table 3. The ratings of the alternative
suppliers were performed by using linguistic assessment scale and TFN, as displayed in
Table 2. The experts’ preference of each criterion weight in the linguistic term for fuzzy
TOPSIS method was presented in Appendix A (Table A6). Then duzzy TOPSIS
procedure, as described in Section 2.5, was used to rank the suppliers’ co-design
capabilities. By using the formula (9) to (10), fuzzy numbers of the aggregated ratings of
three suppliers were calculated. The result was displayed in Table 8.
Table 8 Fuzzy numbers of the aggregated ratings of three suppliers

Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier

Criteria Criteria
A B C A B C
C1 l 5.000 2.500 0.000 C8 l 0.000 5.000 0.000
m 8.570 5.360 3.930 m 4.360 7.860 3.210
u 10.000 10.000 7.500 u 10.000 10.000 7.500
C2 l 5.000 0.000 0.000 C9 l 0.000 5.00 0.000
m 8.210 5.000 3.570 m 3.210 7.500 2.500
u 10.000 10.000 7.500 u 7.500 10.000 7.500
C3 l 2.500 5.000 0.000 C10 l 2.500 2.500 0.000
m 5.000 8.570 3.210 m 6.790 6.790 3.210
u 7.500 10.000 7.500 u 10.000 10.000 7.500
234 D. Sumrit

Table 8 Fuzzy numbers of the aggregated ratings of three suppliers (continued)

Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier

Criteria Criteria
A B C A B C
C4 l 0.000 2.500 0.000 C11 l 0.000 5.000 0.000
m 5.000 7.500 2.860 m 5.000 7.860 3.570
u 10.000 10.000 7.500 u 10.000 10.000 7.500
C5 l 0.000 5.000 0.000 C12 l 2.500 2.500 5.000
m 4.290 8.210 3.210 m 5.360 5.710 7.860
u 7.500 10.000 7.500 u 10.000 10.000 10.000
C6 l 5.000 0.000 0.000 C13 l 2.500 5.000 0.000
m 7.500 4.640 2.860 m 5.360 8.210 3.570
u 10.000 10.000 7.500 u 10.000 10.000 7.500
C7 l 5.000 2.500 0.000 C14 l 2.500 2.500 5.000
m 7.140 6.430 3.570 m 7.140 5.000 7.860
u 10.000 10.000 7.500 u 10.000 7.500 10.000

Table 9 Normalised fuzzy decision matrix

Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier

Criteria Criteria
A B C A B C
C1 l 0.500 0.250 0.000 C8 l 0.000 0.500 0.000
m 0.857 0.536 0.393 m 0.436 0.786 0.321
u 1.000 1.000 0.750 u 1.000 1.000 0.750
C2 l 0.500 0.000 0.000 C9 l 0.000 0.500 0.000
m 0.821 0.500 0.357 m 0.321 0.750 0.250
u 1.000 1.000 0.750 u 0.750 1.000 0.750
C3 l 0.250 0.500 0.000 C10 l 0.250 0.250 0.000
m 0.500 0.857 0.321 m 0.679 0.679 0.321
u 0.750 1.000 0.750 u 1.000 1.000 0.750
C4 l 0.000 0.250 0.000 C11 l 0.000 0.500 0.000
m 0.500 0.750 0.286 m 0.500 0.786 0.357
u 1.000 1.000 0.750 u 1.000 1.000 0.750
C5 l 0.000 0.500 0.000 C12 l 0.250 0.250 0.500
m 0.429 0.821 0.321 m 0.536 0.572 0.786
u 0.750 1.000 0.750 u 1.000 1.000 1.000
C6 l 0.500 0.000 0.000 C13 l 0.250 0.500 0.000
m 0.750 0.464 0.286 m 0.536 0.821 0.357
u 1.000 1.000 0.750 u 1.000 1.000 0.750
C7 l 0.500 0.250 0.000 C14 l 0.250 0.250 0.500
m 0.714 0.643 0.357 m 0.714 0.500 0.786
u 1.000 1.000 0.750 u 1.000 0.750 1.000
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 235

Based on benefit or cost criteria by the formula (12) or (13), all criteria from literature
were indicated as benefit criteria, therefore, the formula (12) was used to normalise fuzzy
decision matrix for three suppliers’ co-design capabilities scores, as resulted in Table 9.
According to criteria weights from Fuzzy SWARA method in Phase III, the weighted
normalised fuzzy decision matrix were calculated by using the formula (15), and the
result was given in Table 10.
Table 10 Weighted normalised fuzzy decision matrix

Weigh Supplier Supplier Supplier Weight Supplier Supplier Supplier

Criteria Criteria
t (wj) A B C (wj) A B C
C1 l 0.238 0.119 0.059 0.000 C8 l 0.020 0.000 0.010 0.000
m 0.283 0.242 0.151 0.111 m 0.026 0.012 0.021 0.008
u 0.336 0.336 0.336 0.252 u 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.029
C2 l 0.134 0.067 0.000 0.000 C9 l 0.012 0.000 0.006 0.000
m 0.146 0.120 0.073 0.052 m 0.018 0.006 0.014 0.005
u 0.158 0.158 0.158 0.118 u 0.027 0.020 0.027 0.020
C3 l 0.059 0.015 0.030 0.000 C10 l 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.000
m 0.079 0.039 0.067 0.025 m 0.011 0.007 0.007 0.004
u 0.099 0.074 0.099 0.074 u 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.012
C4 l 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 C11 l 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.000
m 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 m 0.007 0.004 0.006 0.003
u 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.051 u 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.008
C5 l 0.091 0.000 0.045 0.000 C12 l 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000
m 0.115 0.049 0.095 0.037 m 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000
u 0.142 0.106 0.142 0.106 u 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000
C6 l 0.063 0.032 0.000 0.000 C13 l 0.090 0.022 0.045 0.000
m 0.072 0.054 0.033 0.020 m 0.106 0.057 0.087 0.038
u 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.074 u 0.123 0.123 0.123 0.092
C7 l 0.039 0.020 0.010 0.000 C14 l 0.051 0.013 0.013 0.026
m 0.044 0.031 0.028 0.016 m 0.061 0.044 0.031 0.048
u 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.049 u 0.072 0.072 0.054 0.072

Table 11 Fuzzy positive ideal solution (FPIS: A+) and fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS: A– )

Criteria FPIS FNIS Criteria FPIS FNIS

C1 (0.34,0.34,0.34) (0.00,0.00,0.00) C8 (0.04,0.04,0.04) (0.00,0.00,0.00)
C2 (0.16,0.16,0.16) (0.00,0.00,0.00) C9 (0.03,0.03,0.03) (0.00,0.00,0.00)
C3 (0.10,0.10,0.10) (0.00,0.00,0.00) C10 (0.02,0.02,0.02) (0.00,0.00,0.00)
C4 (0.07,0.07,0.07) (0.00,0.00,0.00) C11 (0.00,0.00,0.00) (0.00,0.00,0.00)
C5 (0.14,0.14,0,14) (0.00,0.00,0.00) C12 (0.00,0.00,0.00) (0.00,0.00,0.00)
C6 (0.10,0.10,0.10) (0.00,0.00,0.00) C13 (0.12,0.12,0.12) (0.00,0.00,0.00)
C7 (0.06,0.06,0.06) (0.00,0.00,0.00) C14 (0.07,0.07,0.07) (0.01,0.01,0.01)
 236

Table 12
D. Sumrit

d1+ ( A1 , A+ ) d 2+ ( A2 , A+ ) d3+ ( A3 , A+ ) d1+ ( A1 , A+ ) d 2+ ( A2 , A+ ) d3+ ( A3 , A+ )

C1 0.137 0.192 0.238 C8 0.028 0.020 0.029

C2 0.057 0.267 0.283 C9 0.020 0.014 0.021
C3 0.061 0.044 0.073 C10 0.010 0.010 0.012
C4 0.034 0.028 0.046 C11 0.008 0.006 0.008
C5 0.100 0.062 0.104 C12 0.000 0.000 0.000
C6 0.046 0.068 0.073 C13 0.069 0.050 0.088
C7 0.033 0.038 0.048 C14 0.038 0.043 0.030
n 0.640 0.842 1.054
+ +
i
∑d ( A , A ) i
j =1
Distances of the ratings of each alternative from A+ with respect to each criterion
 Table 13

d1− ( A1 , A− ) d 2− ( A2 , A− ) d3− ( A3 , A− ) d1− ( A1 , A− ) d 2− ( A2 , A− ) d 3− ( A3 , A− )

C1 0.249 0.216 0.159 C8 0.023 0.036 0.018

C2 0.121 0.100 0.075 C9 0.012 0.018 0.012
C3 0.049 0.071 0.045 C10 0.010 0.010 0.007
C4 0.039 0.039 0.029 C11 0.007 0.007 0.005
C5 0.068 0.102 0.065 C12 0.000 0.000 0.000
C6 0.067 0.060 0.044 C13 0.079 0.091 0.057
C7 0.043 0.041 0.030 C14 0.038 0.026 0.040
n 0.806 0.807 0.586
− −
i
∑d ( A , A ) i
j =1
An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach

Distances of the ratings of each alternative from A– with respect to each criterion
237
238 D. Sumrit

Then the fuzzy positive ideal solution (FPIS: A+) and the fuzzy negative ideal solution
(FNIS: A–) were determined by using the formula (16) and (17), respectively. The result
was shown in Table 11. Next step was to calculate the distance of each alternative from
FPIS and FNIS by using the formulas (18) and (19) and the results were shown in
Tables 12–13 respectively. The closeness coefficient value (CCi) for final ranking of
suppliers were computed by using the formula (20) and the ranking of suppliers was
displayed in Table 14. The result of four-phase methodology indicated that Supplier A
was the best supplier among all three suppliers with respect to suppliers’ co-design ability
criteria. The ranking of all suppliers’ co-design ability was Supplier A > Supplier B >
Supplier C.
Table 14 Closeness coefficient of three suppliers

Supplier A Supplier B Supplier C

0.640 0.842 1.054
∑ di+ ( Ai , A+ )
n

j =1

0.806 0.807 0.586

∑ di− ( Ai , A− )
n

j =1

1.446 1.649 1.640

∑ di+ ( Ai , A+ ) + ∑ di− ( Ai , A− )
n n

j =1 j =1

CCi (closeness coefficient) 0.557 0.489 0.357

Ranking 1 2 3

5 Discussion

The performed research contributes to the body of NPD literature through proposing an
integrated fuzzy MCDM to evaluate suppliers’ co-design capabilities by using
automotive interior part suppliers in Thailand as case study. According to Table 4, Fuzzy
SWARA method was used to derive relative importance weight. The results were shown
that Product concept and function design (P1) has the highest relative important weights
of (0.521, 0.557, 0.595), followed by Product structural design and engineering (P2) of
(0.261, 0.276, 0.288), and Process design and engineering (P3) of (0.144, 0.168, 0.190).
This also implies that decision makers should emphasise on Product concept and function
design (P1) of suppliers’ co-design capabilities. Such technical alignment includes
Technological innovation expertise, New technologies identification, Development of
product specifications, and Establishment of VA/VE activities (Handfield and Lawson,
2007). Tables 5 to 7 displayed the final weights of criteria underlying each perspective.
The findings indicated that Technological innovation expertise (C1), New technology
identification (C2), Development of product specification (C3) were top three criteria with
the highest final weights of (0.238, 0.283, 0.336), (0.134, 0.146, 0.158) and (0.059, 0.079,
0.099), respectively (as displayed in Tables 5 to 7). Besides, these findings from this
study are also in conformance with past research in terms of technological innovation
capability and new technology identification pay the important role in NPD (Ghosh and
John, 2009; Koufteros et al., 2012). According to Table 14, the results of fuzzy TOPSIS
shows that supplier A is the first ranked among three suppliers with the highest closeness
coefficient index (CCi): Supplier A > Supplier B > Supplier C (0.557 > 0.489 > 0.357),
respectively.
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 239

6 Conclusion and future research directions

Due to rapid high cost production, most of manufacturers are seeking for new strategies
that not only decrease product development costs, but also develop innovative products
since the NPD stage. In this context, NPD process offers many opportunities to
incorporate the suppliers of sustainable development in business activities, such as
prescreening product ideas, simplifying of product architecture design, selecting of new
component parts, designing of modularisation parts, developing product specification,
engineering changes and alteration management. These activities support businesses to
accomplish competitive advantage and enhance NPD process, while generating profits
among co-suppliers and stakeholders. However, based on the complication related to
operation and development activities of NPD, many firms tend to express their needs to
their main suppliers. For this reason, the effective selection and evaluation of the ideal
suppliers’ capabilities has become an interesting research problem.
In this research, a MCDM model is proposed to evaluate and select suppliers for
co-designing capabilities in NPD, which the various criteria are considered. A fuzzy
SWARA method was applied to weight the criteria assessment and then a developed
Fuzzy TOPSIS method was proposed to rank and select the appropriated supplier in the
presence essential criteria. To assess the reliability of the proposed model, a real case
study from automobile parts industry with seven experts was selected. Three perspectives
and 14 underlying criteria were determined in order to validate and measure suppliers’
capabilities in collaboration of NPD process.
There are three main contributions are addressed in this research. First, in comparison
to existing literature, this paper develops a comprehensive framework for evaluating
suppliers’ co-design abilities for entire NPD stages including product concept and
functional design, product structural design and engineering as well as process design and
engineering. Second, this study applies an integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
approach to solve the vagueness and uncertainty of human opinions in decision making
process. Lastly, managers of other industries with familiar characteristics can apply this
framework to evaluate and select suppliers for NPD based on their co-design capabilities.
This study allows directions for future research. First, the proposed model is
suggested to apply in other industries or similar supplier selection applications. This can
give the valuable insights on the model validity in other contexts. Moreover, future
research can compare the reliability and validity of other MCDM approaches such as
TODIM, CORPAS, and PROMETHEE under various situations. This can support in
higher trends of many studies on suppliers’ selection.

References
Aarikka-Stenroos, L. and Jaakkola, E. (2012) ‘Value co-creation in knowledge intensive business
services: a dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process’, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.15–26.
Abdolmalekia, K. and Ahmadian, S. (2016) ‘The relationship between product characteristics,
customer and supplier involvement and new product development’, Procedia Economics and
Finance, Vol. 36, pp.147–156, DOI: 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30026-0.
Ağan, Y., Acar, M.F. and Erdogan, E. (2018) ‘Knowledge management, supplier integration, and
new product development’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 16, No. 1,
pp.105–117, DOI: 10.1080/14778238.2018.1428066.
240 D. Sumrit

Alikhani, R., Torabi, S.A. and Altay, N. (2019) ‘Strategic supplier selection under sustainability
and risk criteria’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 208, pp.69–82, DOI:
10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.018.
Argote, L. and Hora, M. (2017) ‘Organizational learning and management of technology’,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.579–590.
Banaeian, N., Mobli, H., Fahimnia, B., Nielsen, I.E. and Omid, M. (2018) ‘Green supplier selection
using fuzzy group decision making methods: a case study from the agri-food industry’,
Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 89, pp.337–347, DOI:10.1016/j.cor.2016.02.015.
Beugelsdijk, S., Nell, P.C. and Ambos, B. (2017) ‘When do distance effects become empirically
observable? An investigation in the context of headquarters value creation for subsidiaries’,
Journal of International Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.255–267.
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T. and Eckstein, D. (2014) ‘The impact of knowledge transfer and
complexity on supply chain flexibility: a knowledge-based view’, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 147, pp.307–316, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.02.028.
Cagli, A. Kechidi, M. and Levy, R. (2012) ‘Complex product and supplier interfaces in
aeronautics’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp.717–732.
Carbonell, P. Rodriguez-Escudero, A.I. and Pujari, D. (2012) ‘Performance effects of involving
lead users and close customers in new service development’, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 26, No. 7, pp.497–509.
Carrillo, J.E. (2005) ‘Industry clockspeed and the pace of new product development’, Production
Operations Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.125–141.
Cavallaro, F., Zavadskas, E.K., Streimikiene, D. and Mardani, A. (2019) ‘Assessment of
concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies based on a modified intuitionistic fuzzy topsis
and trigonometric entropy weights’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 140,
pp.258–270, DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.009.
Chang, D.Y. (1996) ‘Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy ANP’, European Journal
Operational Research, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp.649–655.
Chang, W. (2019) ‘The joint effects of customer participation in various new product development
stages’, European Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.259–268.
Chen, S.J. and Hwang, C.L. (1992) Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Cheraghalipour, A., Paydar, M.M. and Mostafa, H.K. (2018) ‘Applying a hybrid BWM-VIKOR
approach to supplier selection: a case study in the Iranian agricultural implements industry’,
International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 3, p.274, DOI:
10.15.4/IJADS.2018.092796.
Cooper, R.G. (2019) ‘The drivers of success in new-product development’, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 76, pp.36–47, DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.005.
Coviello, N.E. and Joseph, R.M. (2012) ‘Creating major innovations with customers: insights from
small and young technology firms’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76, No. 6, pp.87–104.
Danese, P. and Filippini, R. (2013) ‘Direct and mediated effects of product modularity on
development time and product performance’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp.260–271.
Eghbali-Zarch, M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Esfahanian, F. and Sepehri, M.M. (2018)
‘Pharmacological therapy selection of type 2 diabetes based on the SWARA and modified
MULTIMOORA methods under a fuzzy environment’, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine,
Vol. 87, pp.20–33, DOI: 10.1016/ j.artmed.2018.03.003.
Fang, E., Lee, J. and Yang, Z. (2015) ‘The timing of codevelopment alliances in new product
development processes: returns for upstream and downstream partners’, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 79, No. 1, pp.64–82.
Farid, H., Hakimian, F., Ismail, M.N. and Nair, P.K. (2017) ‘Biotechnology firms-improvement in
innovation speed’, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 13, No. 2,
pp.167–180.
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 241

Ghosh, M. and John, G. (2009) ‘When should original equipment manufacturers use branded
component contracts with suppliers’, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 46,
No. 5, pp.597–611.
Haeri, S.A.S. and Rezaei, J. (2019) ‘A grey-based green supplier selection model for uncertain
environments’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 221, No. 1, pp.768–784.
Han, H. and Trimi, S. (2018) ‘A fuzzy TOPSIS method for performance evaluation of reverse
logistics in social commerce platforms’, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 103,
pp.133–145, DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.003.
Handfield, R.B. and Lawson, B. (2007) ‘Integrating suppliers into new product development’,
Research-Technology Management, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp.44–51.
He, Y., Lai, K.K., Sun, H. and Chen, Y. (2014) ‘The impact of supplier integration on customer
integration and new product performance: the mediating role of manufacturing flexibility
under trust theory’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147, pp.260–270,
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.044.
Hoegl, M. and Wagner, S.M. (2005) ‘Buyer – supplier collaboration in product development
projects’, Journal of Management, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.530–548.
Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K.S. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Method and
Applications, Springer, New York, USA.
Jajimoggala, S., Kesava Rao, V.V.S. and Beela, S. (2011) ‘Supplier evaluation using hybrid
multiple criteria decision making approach’, International Journal of Applied Decision
Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.260–279.
Johnsen, T.E. (2009) ‘Supplier involvement in new product development and innovation: taking
stock and looking to the future’, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 15,
No. 3, pp.187–197.
Johnston, W.J. and Chandler, J.D. (2012) ‘The organizational buying center: Innovation,
knowledge management and brand’, in Lilien, G.L. and Grewal, R. (Eds.): Handbook of
Business-To-Business Marketing, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, UK, pp.582–595.
Kannan, D., Jabbour, A.B.L.d.S. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2014) ‘Selecting green suppliers based on
GSCM practices: using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company’, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 233, No. 2, pp.432–447.
Kazemi, N., Ehsani, E. and Glock, C.H. (2014) ‘Multi-objective supplier selection and order
allocation under quantity discounts with fuzzy goals and fuzzy constraints’, International
Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.66–96.
Kersuliene, V. Zavadskas, E.K. and Turskis, Z. (2010) ‘Selection of rational dispute resolution
method by applying new step – wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA)’, Journal of
Business Economics and Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.243–258.
Kim, J. and Wilemon, D. (2002) ‘Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development’, R&D
Management Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.269–272.
Koufteros, X.A., Cheng, T.C.E. and Lai, K.H. (2007) ‘‘Black-box’ and ‘gray-box’ supplier
integration in product development: antecedents, consequences and the moderating role of
firm size’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.847–870.
Koufteros, X.A., Vickery, S. and Droge, C. (2012) ‘The effects of strategic supplier selection on
buyer competitive performance in matched domains: does supplier integration mediate the
relationships’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.93–115.
Lau, A.K.W. (2011) ‘Supplier and customer involvement on new product performance’, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 111, No. 6, pp.910–942.
Laursen, L.N. and Andersen, P.H. (2016) ‘Supplier involvement in NPD: a quasi-experiment at
Unilever’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 58, No. 10, pp.162–171.
Le Dain, M.A. and Merminod, V. (2014) ‘A knowledge sharing framework for black, grey and
white box supplier configurations in new product development’, Technovation, Vol. 34,
No. 11, pp.688–701.
242 D. Sumrit

Lee, Y.H. and Wang, K.J. (2012) ‘Performance impact of new product development processes for
distinct scenarios under different supplier-manufacturer relationships’, Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation, Vol. 82, pp.2096–2108, DOI: 10.1016/j.matcom.2012.04.008.
Lembert, D.M. Cooper, M.C. and Pagh, J.D. (1998) ‘Supply chain management: implementation
issue and research opportunities’, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9,
No. 2, pp.1–20.
Li, L., Ma, J. and Zhan, X. (2017) ‘The development and application of cycle economic early
warning system based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation’, International Journal of Applied
Decision Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.36–51.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Sudhakar, S. and Bhalotia, A. (2018) ‘Modeling the criteria for selection of
suppliers towards green aspect: a case in Indian automobile industry’, Operations Research &
Decision Theory, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.65–84.
Mavi, R.K., Goh, M. and Zarbakhshnia, N. (2017) ‘Sustainable third-party reverse logistic provider
selection with fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy MOORA in plastic industry’, International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 91, Nos. 5–8, pp.1–18.
Mishra, A.A. and Shah, R. (2009) ‘In union lies strength: collaborative competence in new product
development and its performance effects’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, No. 4,
pp.324–338.
Morgan, T., Anokhin, S.A., Song, C. and Chistyakova, N. (2018)’ The role of customer
participation in building new product development speed capabilities in turbulent
environments’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, DOI:
10.1007/s11365-018-0549-9.
Mousavi, S.M., Foroozesh, N., Gitinavard, H. and Vahdani B. (2018) ‘Solving group decision-
making problems in manufacturing systems by an uncertain compromise ranking method’,
International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.55–78.
Nakhaei, J., Arefi, S.L., Bitarafan, M. and Kildiene, S. (2016) ‘Evaluation of light supply in the
public underground safe spaces by using of COPRAS-SWARA methods’, International
Journal of Strategic Property Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.198–206.
Nassimbeni, G. and Battain, F. (2003) ‘Evaluation of supplier contribution to product development:
fuzzy and neuro-fuzzy based approaches’, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 41, No. 13, pp.2933–2956.
Nicolajsen, H.W. and Scupola, A. (2011) ‘Investigating issues and challenges for customer
involvement in business service innovation’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 26, No. 5, pp.368–376.
Nitipathanapirak. R. (2017) Thailand Automotive Industry Situation and Master Plan, Thailand
Automotive Institute, Automotive Intelligence Unit (AIU) (in Thai) [online]
http://www.sti.or.th (accessed 9 February 2019).
Noordhoff, C.S., Kyriakopoulos, K., Moorman, C., Pauwels, P. and Dellaert, B.G. (2011) ‘The
bright side and dark side of embedded ties in business-to-business innovation’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 75, No. 5, pp.34–52.
Oinonen, M., Ritala, P., Jalkala, A. and Blomqvist, K. (2018) ‘In search of paradox management
capability in supplier-customer co-development’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 74,
pp.102–114, DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.021.
Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. (2004) ‘Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative
analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 156,
pp.445–455, DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
Ordoobadi, S.M. (2009) ‘Outsourcing reverse logistics and remanufacturing functions: a conceptual
strategic model’, Management Research News, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp.831–845.
Peled, M. and Dvir, D. (2012) ‘Towards a contingent approach of customer involvement in defence
projects: an exploratory study’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30, No. 3,
pp.317–328.
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 243

Petersen, K., Handfield, R. and Ragatz, G. (2003) ‘A model of supplier integration into new
product development’, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 20, No. 4,
pp.284–299.
Peterson, K.J., Handfield, R.B. and Ragatz, G.L. (2005) ‘Supplier integration into new product
development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design’, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.371–388.
Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., Brzakovic, M. and Karabasevic, D. (2019) ‘A multiple-criteria
decision-making model for the selection of a hotel location’, Land Use Policy, Vol. 84,
pp.49–58, DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.001.
Rajeev, A., Pati, R.K., Padhi, S.S. and Kannan, G. (2017) ‘Evolution of sustainability in supply
chain management: a literature review’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 162,
pp.299–314, DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026.
Rashidi, K. and Cullinane, K. (2019) ‘A comparison of fuzzy DEA and fuzzy TOPSIS in
sustainable supplier selection: implications for sourcing strategy’, Expert Systems With
Applications, Vol. 121, pp.266–281, DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.025.
Rindova, V.P. and Petkova, A.P. (2007) ‘When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change,
product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations’, Organization Science
Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.217–232.
Ritala, P., Hyötylä, M. Blomqvist, K. and Kosonen, M. (2013) ‘Key capabilities in knowledge-
intensive service business’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 33, No.5, pp.486–500.
Schiele, H. (2006) ‘How to distinguish innovative suppliers? Identifying innovative suppliers as a
new task for purchasing’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp.925–935.
Schoenherr, T. and Wagner, S.M. (2016) ‘Supplier involvement in the fuzzy front end of new
product development: an investigation of homophily, benevolence and market turbulence’,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 180, pp.101–113, DOI:
10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.027.
Sinha, A.K. and Anand, A. (2018) ‘Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new
product development using multi criteria decision making’, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 197, No. 1, pp.1587–1596, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234.
Sirisawat, P. and Kiatcharoenpol, T. (2018) ‘Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches to prioritizing
solutions for reverse logistics barriers’, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 117,
pp.303–318, DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2018.01.015.
Soleymani, P., Mousavi, S.M., Vahdani, B. and Aboueimehrizi, A. (2016) ‘A new fuzzy
multi-objective optimization method with desirability function under uncertainty’,
International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.100–120.
Song, L.A., Song, M. And Di Bendetto, C.A. (2011) ‘Resources supplier investment, product
launch advantages, and first product performance’, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.86–104.
Tsai, K.H., Tsai, M.U. and Wang, J.C. (2012) ‘Supplier collaboration and new product
performance: a contingency model’, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2,
pp.268–289.
Ulaga, W. and Reinartz, W.J. (2011) ‘Hybrid offering: how manufacturing firms combine goods
and services successfully’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75, No. 6, pp.5–23.
Un, C.A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A. and Asakawa, K. (2010) ‘R&D collaborations and product
innovation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp.673–689.
Van Echtelt, F.E.A., Wynstra, F., Van Weele, A.J. and Duysters, G. (2008) ‘Managing supplier
involvement in new product development: a multiple-case study’, The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 25, pp.180–201, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00293.x.
Wu, L., Liu, H. and Zhang, J. (2016) ‘Bricolage effects on new-product development speed and
creativity: the moderating role of technological turbulence’, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 70, pp.127–135, DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.027.
244 D. Sumrit

Yoo, S.H., Shin, H. and Park, M.S. (2015) ‘New product development and the effect of supplier
involvement’, Omega, Vol. 51, pp.107–120, DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2014.09.005.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965) ‘Fuzzy sets’, Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.338–353.
Zarbakhshnia, N., Soleimani, H., Ghaderi, H. (2018) ‘Sustainable third-party reverse logistics
provider evaluation and selection using fuzzy SWARA and developed fuzzy COPRAS in the
presence of risk criteria’, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 65, pp.307–319, DOI:
10.1016/j.asoc.2018.01.023.
Zhang, X., Zhang, L., Fung, K.Y. and Ng, K.M. (2019) ‘Product design: incorporating make-or-
buy analysis and supplier selection’, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 202, pp.357–272,
DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2019.03.021.
Zhao, Y. and Cao, H. (2015) ‘Risk management on joint product development with power
asymmetry between supplier and manufacture’, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 33, pp.1812–1826, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.08.008.
Zhao, Y., Cavusgil, E. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2013) ‘An investigation of the black-box supplier
integration in new product development’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67, No. 6,
pp.1058–1064.
Zhu, K., Zhang, R.Q. and Tsung, F. (2007) ‘Pushing quality improvement along supply chains’,
Management Science, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp.421–436.

Appendix A

Table A1 Information of experts who are interviewed and fill out questionnaires

Experience in
Expert Education Major Position
NPD (years)
1 6 Master Engineer Chief production engineers in
Automotive Industry
2 5 Bachelor Engineer R&D department engineers in
Automotive Industry
3 10 Master Engineer Senior production engineer
engineers in Automotive Industry
4 8 Bachelor Engineer R&D department engineers in
Automotive Industry
5 7 Master Engineer Chief production engineers in
Automotive Industry
6 12 Master Engineer Senior officer of Thailand
Automotive Institution
7 7 Master Engineer Chief production engineers in
Automotive Industry.

Table A2 Results of linguistic assessment for perspective by experts’ opinions

Experts
Criteria
DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5 DM6 DM7
Product concept and - - - - - - -
function design (P1)
Product structural design MI EI MI MI MI EI EI
and engineering (P2)
Process design and MI LI MI LI LI MI LI
engineering (P3)
 An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach 245

Table A3 Results of linguistic assessment for criteria (C1–C4) by experts’ opinions

Experts
Criteria
DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5 DM6 DM7
Technological innovation - - - - - - -
Expertise (C1)
New technology MI MI MI LI MI EI EI
identification (C2)
Development of product MI LI LI MI MI MI MI
specification (C3)
Establishment of VA/VE LI LI MI LI VI LI LI
activities (C4)

Table A4 Results of linguistic assessment for criteria (C5–C12) by experts’ opinions

Experts
Criteria
DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5 DM6 DM7
Simplification of product - - - - - - -
architecture design (C5)
Selection of new component MI LI MI LI LI VL VL
parts (C6)
Designing of modularisation MI LI LI LI MI MI LI
parts (C7)
Development of standardised MI MI MI MI MI MI MI
component parts (C8)
Engineering changes and LI LI LI LI LI MI VI
Alteration management (C9)
Development of reliability MI MI MI MI MI MI MI
prototype (C10)
Development of product and MI LI LI LI MI MI LI
process compatibility (C11)
Establishment of FMEA VI VI VI VI VI VI VI
activities (C12)

Table A5 Results of linguistic assessment for criteria (C13–C14) by experts’ opinions

Experts
Criteria
DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5 DM6 DM7
Establishment of DEM/DFA - - - - - - -
activities (C13)
Designing of production and LI ML ML LI LI LI MI
process facilities (C14)
 246

Table A6
D. Sumrit

DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5 DM6 DM7

Criteria
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B
Supplier A
Supplier B

Supplier C
Supplier C
Supplier C
Supplier C
Supplier C
Supplier C
Supplier C
fuzzy TOPSIS method

C1 EX G L H H L EX G G H G L H G G EX G G H G G
C2 H G L H G L EX G G H G L H H G EX G G H L L
C3 G H L G H L G EX L G EX L G H G G H G G EX L
C4 L H L L H L H G L G EX G G H L G H L H H L
C5 L H L G EX L G H G G EX L G H G L H L G H L
C6 H L L H L L H H L H H G H L L H G L H G L
C7 H G G H H G H H L H H L G G L H G L H H G
C8 L H L G EX L G H L G H G L H L H H G G H L
C9 L H L L H VL VL H VL G H G G H G L H VL G H G
C10 G H L G G L H H G H H L H H G H EX L H H L
C11 L H VL G EX G G H G G H L G H L H H G G H G
C12 G G H G G H H G H G G EX G H H G G H G G H
C13 G H L G H L G EX G G H G H EX L G H L G H G
C14 H G H H G EX H G H G G H H G H H G H H G H
Experts’ preference of suppliers’ co-design capabilities rating in linguistic term for