Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol.

12, 05-Special Issue, 2020

Supplier Selection in a Manufacturing

Industry Using AHP, Fuzzy and Neural
Network: A Study Using Multi Criteria
Decision Making Methods
R. Muruganandham, PSG College of Technology.
V. Sakthirama, PSG College of Technology. E-mail: srmwins@gmail.com, sakthirama@gmail.com
A. Mohammad Raheel Basha, Tata Consultancy Services.
S. Syath Abuthakeer, PSG College of Technology.
S.D. Sivakumar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University.
Abstract--- Supplier selection is one of the important and challenging task for manufacturing industry. Since by
deciding the best supplier, companies can increase productivity and also increase competitive advantage. In addition,
selecting the best supplier significantly reduces purchasing costs, increases revenue and profitability of the
manufacturing industry. Since this selection process mainly involves the evaluation of different criteria such as lead
time, logistics, fuel rate etc. and various supplier attributes it can be considered as a Multi Criteria Decision Making
(MCDM) problem. Also multiple criteria decision making is the method allocating with the ranking and selection of
one or more vendors from a list of providers. The MCDM provides an effective framework for vendor comparison
based on the evaluation of multiple conflict criteria This paper presents a case study in a manufacturing industry
using Neural Networks, Analytical Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Logic to rank and assess the vendor performance.
Keywords--- AHP, Fuzzy and Neural Network, Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods.

I. Introduction
In a competitive business environment, satisfying customers with the products which have lower price,
competitive quality, product variety, poses a professional challenge. Much flexibility is demanded win competition
for survival and respond to the rapidly changing market in order to survive. Therefore supplier selection is a major
risk in the supply chain management. Supplier selection is a systematic business process by which the buyer
identifies, evaluates, and agreements with suppliers. The supplier selection process includes both qualitative and
quantitative factors that is a multi-criteria decision making problem. The supplier selection deploys a tremendous
amount of a firm‟s financial resources. The firms expect a significant returns as benefits from suppliers through
contract which offering high value.

Dickson was one of pioneer researcher in the supplier selection problem and he suggested 23 different criteria
for selecting suppliers such as quality, delivery, performance history, warranties, price, technical capability and
financial position [1]. But it will be differ from one firm to another because each firm has a different supply chain
strategy based on the characteristic of the product‟s. Hence, it is not necessary that we take all 23 criteria of dickson
for final decision. As a whole, the MCDM provides an effective framework for vendor selection based on the
evaluation of multiple conflict criteria. The decision makers always expects good performances of suppliers as well
as they are in need to rank the suppliers based on the most desirable factors which leads their preferences in terms
best optimum alternatives or the required attributes of suppliers.

There are several models and methodology have been proposed to solve the supplier selection problem such as
the linear weighting methods, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the analytic network process (ANP), data
envelopment analysis (DEA), fuzzy set theory (FST), genetic algorithm (GA), artificial neural network (ANN) and
mathematical programming techniques (MP).

In this paper, the application of AHP, fuzzy logic and ANN have been deeply studied. A case study has been
demonstrated with ranking in each of AHP, fuzzy logic and ANN separately. The remainder of the paper is ordered

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP5/20201784
ISSN 1943-023X 489
Received: 10 Mar 2020/Accepted: 15 Apr 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 05-Special Issue, 2020

as follows: the literature review on supplier selection is presented in Section 2 , the methodology in which the
ranking is done using AHP, fuzzy logic and ANN are explained section 3.

II. Literature Review

Multi criteria decision making methods are popular among the researchers for decision making problems [64].
Many research methodologies of vendor analysis have been reported and applied. Some of the research reviews had
an extensive review [9] and the research works in [22], [10] and [11] are having intensive reviews of past researches
and contain desirable information. A new supplier selection problem called grey-based approach is presented in
[14]. In initial studies the terms vendor and supplier are often used interchangeably that mean same [38]–[39]. The
vendor selection has been identified one of the significant research topic in the research review [7]. In practice the
with supplier selection processes is not necessarily considered in all time, that has includes diversified supplier
selection situations associated with selection process of organization [8] and [12]. While looking into traditional
methods that evaluation of vendors has been done based on the experience of buyer. Later it has been improvised
with the qualitative models to measure the performance of vendors [20] - [28].
Meanwhile the qualitative methodologies also may be used for picturing and evaluating the perception of
decision-makers towards a vendor selection problem and helping tool for devising the possible alternatives. There
are plenty of research papers had discussed the domain of quantitative techniques and its application in the cost
optimization problems [4]-[6]. Few researcher had attempt of using multi objective programming model to decide
the number of suppliers or vendors in supply chain [25]-[26]. There are many researchers had adopted simple linear
programming to complex mathematical modelling to solve vendor selection problem situation. But in some
situation, it was realized that NP hard [40], [41], [42], [43] and [44]. Consequently, the industrial organizations were
preferred more realistic models for vendor selection. Correspondingly, determining qualitative factors of
quantitative techniques is a challenging process in the model development. The models which can combine
subjective and quantitative criteria are more useful for practical application. The vendor selection methods had
emphasized on the cost parameters, quality and time of delivery like hybrid system for vendor selection [22]-[23].
Latter there has been continuous development in the multi-level criteria of vendor selection process to attain the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP). As AHP system has been developed with the web applications [61] and
adaptation of eighteen important supplier evolution criteria [19] that has been recognized as widely used in the
industry. Nine evaluating criteria were followed in the five step AHP model for rating the suppliers [16]. In few
studies like [24] and [29] had been adopted a genetic algorithm (GA) along with AHP. Likewise cluster analysis
[54], categorical modelling[51]- [54], case based reasoning, linear programming, data envelopment techniques [43],
total cost of ownership based models, mathematical programming models, artificial intelligence (AI) based
modeling are used for supplier selection process. Though the Genetic Algorithm in vendor selection is not
considerably utilized in realistic problems, artificial neural network (ANN) has been developed as an evolutionary
optimization based algorithm modeling for this supplier management in dynamic situations[13], [18], [17] and [30].
Because of this ANN based algorithms are widely used for realistic situational applications. A neural network has
nodes and neurons. In every neural network, one or more input nodes and one or more neurons has been existed. The
outputs retrieved from the neurons are the output of the neural network. Most of the literatures have supported that
the neurons and their connections and weights are considered as base for network [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]
and [53]. Entirely neurons are structured into layers; the sequence of layers determines the order in which the
activations are computed. The organizations are adopted their own method of application of neural network
programs as shown in [2], [15], [31], [32] and [33]. Often in industry, the experience of management person
significantly influences on the decision making process.
The organizations mostly elude the acceptance of proved theoretical models due to the influence of managers‟
experiences. The substantial supplier selection model intelligent supplier relationship management system (ISRMS)
emphasizes selection and benchmarking criteria which includes case based reasoning (CBR) and artificial neural
networks (ANNs) techniques [3]. The performance of suppliers has been analyzed with the hybrid techniques like
data envelopment analysis (DEA), decision trees (DT) and neural networks (NNs) and also it has been evidenced in
the following reviews [27], [34], [36], [37] and [38]. The vendor performance is analyzed in hybrid model which
includes the application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and neural networks (NNs) [49],[50],[52],[55] and
[56]. The first initial component of the model consist of AHP applications along with the pair wise comparison of
vendor selection criteria and vendors. In this phase the each vendor performances has been analyzed and rated with
weightage for all criterions. The subsequently the weightage results of AHP has been employed into NNs model for
vendor selection. The results helps to select the best vendor based on appropriate performance score of each vendor

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP5/20201784
ISSN 1943-023X 490
Received: 10 Mar 2020/Accepted: 15 Apr 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 05-Special Issue, 2020

[61]–[62]. Furthermore, There has been very little evidence of research that combined application of AHP and NNs
methods to investigate the vendors [57], [58], [59] and [60]. It is very attractive to use AHP, FUZZY and ANNs
methodologies to formulate a optimum model. In this paper, we are going to rate the customer with the help of
MCDM tools such as AHP, FUZZY LOGIC and ANN.

III. Methodology
A. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-criteria decision-making approach and it was developed by
Saaty [60]. Most of the researchers had prefered in using AHP because of its the easy mathematical models
AHP encompasses the following steps.
Step 1: Hierarchy Tree
In the hierarchy tree, the first level consist of objectives followed by the criteria and sub-criteria respectively in
subsequent levels two and three. The alternatives take the fourth level.
Step 2: Ranking of Criteria and Pairwise Comparison
In this step, we find out the priorities of criteria by making a pairwise comparison matrix. The decision maker
uses the fundamental 1-9 scale defined by Saaty. The numerical assessment and their corresponding linguistic
meanings are presented in the table below.
Step 3: Ranking of Priorities
Ranking of priorities involves two steps which results in a priority vector(). The first step involves the
conversion of pairwise comparison matrix to a normalized column and the second step involves conversion to a
priority vector by taking average of each row. To find the ranking of priorities, namely the Eigen Vector X:
1. Columns were normalized entries by dividing each entry by the sum of the column.
2. Overall averages have been considered.
Step 4: Checking for Consistency
AHP checks for inconsistency to reflect on the consistency of decision maker‟s judgment during the evaluation
phase. We have to calculate the consistency index to further calculate the consistency ratio to check the consistency.
The consistency index can be found by
CI= (max-n)/ (n-1)
The consistency ratio is calculated using the following expression
CR= CI/ RI
Random index can be found from the Saaty‟s scale. While the inconsistency value of 10% or less than 10%
denotes that the adjustment is lesser as related to the actual values of the eigenvector value. In addition, 90% of CA
value implies that the pairwise judgments are random and are completely undependable. The comparisons should be
repeated for this analysis. After this, pairwise comparison should be taken for each alternative corresponding to each
criteria. Then, the priority vectors are formed and a new matrix is formed with the priority vectors of each
alternative. Then this matrix has to be multiplied with the criteria‟s priority vector and a column matrix is obtained.
The highest value in the resulting column matrix gives the best alternative.
B. Fuzzy Logic Decision Making Method (FLDMM)
Initially, fuzzy set theory was derived by Zadeh first introduced and it put emphasis on the rationality of
uncertainty due to imprecision. The different faces of uncertainty are inexactness/imprecision, semantic ambiguity,
visual ambiguity, structural ambiguity etc. The important contribution of fuzzy set theory is that representing vague
knowledge and bringing out a decision in a simple way. The decision making using fuzzy logic includes the
following components.
1. A set of alternatives O
O = {o1, o2, o3…..ol}
= {oi} for i= 1, 2…., l
2. A set G describing goals associated with each option
3. The fuzzy graphs are drawn for each criteria and the membership grade of each action, oi in each
goal/constraint is determined
4. Then the membership function for each alternative is found using the expression

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP5/20201784
ISSN 1943-023X 491
Received: 10 Mar 2020/Accepted: 15 Apr 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 05-Special Issue, 2020

µ = Ʃ Wiµi
Where I = 1 to „n‟, Wi – weightings, µi – membership function
5. The alternative with the highest membership function is the best choice.
C. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
The neural networks is the concept that used to deal to a network of neurons and its biological circuits. This
neural network studies had been outlined in the late-1800s. Later often it has been called as artificial neural
networks, because of the bonding of artificial neurons or nodes. Further artificial neural network is an system of
information-processing that has enacted features of biological neural networks. Normally, neural networks offer a
way for extracting unknown charecteristics by using hidden layers and classification like multilayer perception. The
data is classified with specific criteria called parameters and output function. Basically, the perceptron is a linear
classifier function and tts parameters are adjusted with an ad-hoc rule alike to stochastic steepest gradient descent. In
this, the main function is a linear operator of the input space and the perceptron can play only role as classifier of a
dataset for which different classes are linearly separable in the input space, while it often fails completely for non-
separable data.
y_in = w1x1 + w2x2 + w3x3 - (1)

IV. Case Study Using AHP, Fuzzy Logic and ANN

Let us consider the cost and purchase department of a manufacturing industry where it has to choose the best
supplier from the set of suppliers say A, B and C. Nowadays the firms are using aggregate percentage of multiple
criteria. Generally in a manufacturing industry, nearly 60% of the cost of a product depends on the material we are
buying from the supplier and the remaining 40% contribute to labor, freight etc. [8]. So selecting material becomes
an important criteria for a purchasing department. The company needs bearing and is in a state of confusion to select
the best supplier. The following criteria were considered: Total cost, quality, delivery, price, reputation, response
time, warranty, long term services, procedural compliance, communication system, on-time delivery and post sales
service. The table of input for bearings from suppliers A, B and C is given below. The pairwise comparison is given
in the following Table 2.
Table 1: Input for Bearings from Suppliers A, B and C
S.No Particulars A B C
1 Total cost (TC) 8000 8500 8800
2 Quality (Q) 81 91 83
3 Delivery (D) 92 94 94
4 Price (P) 68 78 63
5 Reputation (R) 3 3 2
6 Response time (RT) 5 5 5
7 Warranty (W) 2 3 6
8 Long term services (LTS) 5 8 9
9 Procedural compliance (PC) 1 5 4
10 Communication system (CS) 1 9 6
11 On-time delivery (OTD) 1 5 6
12 Post sales service (PSS) 4 8 9
Table 2: The Pairwise Comparison
TC Q D P R RT W LTS PC CS OTD PSS
TC 1 1/5 1/3 1/5 1/3 1/3 5 3 1/5 1/3 1/3 1/3
Q 3 1 4 3 5 2 2 4 1/3 3 1/3 3
D 3 1/4 1 1/4 3 3 7 1/4 1/3 2 1/5 1/3
P 1/5 1/3 4 1 1/3 4 1/3 1/5 1/5 1/2 3 3
R 3 1/5 1/3 3 1 1/3 1/4 1/2 1/3 4 3 5
RT 3 1/2 1/3 1/4 3 1 3 1/3 1/4 1/3 1/4 1/3
W 1/5 1/2 3 3 4 1/3 1 3 1/5 2 1/3 3
LTS 1/3 1/4 4 5 2 5 1/3 1 1/4 5 1/3 2
PC 5 9 3 5 3 4 5 4 1 3 5 5
CS 3 1/3 ½ 2 ¼ 3 1/2 3 1/3 1 1/3 1/3
OTD 3 1/3 5 3 1/3 4 3 3 1/5 3 1 4
PSS 2 1/3 3 1/3 1/5 3 1/3 1/2 1/5 3 1/4 1
The ranking of criteria are done and the priorities are shown in table below.

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP5/20201784
ISSN 1943-023X 492
Received: 10 Mar 2020/Accepted: 15 Apr 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 05-Special Issue, 2020

Table 3: The Ranking of Criteria are Done and the Priorities

TC Q D P R RT W LTS PC CS OTD PSS
0.06 .08 .1 .11 .08 .06 .08 .23 .2 .06 .1 .06
Then max is calculated and is found to be 17.44 and Consistency Index CI = 0.49. Then the consistency ratio
CR is calculated by taking Random Index from Saaty‟s scale and is found to be 0.033. Hence the evaluation is safe
and trustworthy. Similarly, the priorities for suppliers are found for each criteria. The final weights for each supplier
is found.
Table 4: Weightage and Rank of Suppliers
Supplier Weightage Rank
A .4 3
B .33 2
C .41 1
Obviously, supplier A is the best with highest score when compared with C and B.
Regarding fuzzy logic, the graphs are drawn for each criteria and their corresponding membership values are
found. The membership values for each criteria are (.7, 1, .6) for Total cost, (.6, 1, .8) for quality, (1, .7, .9) for
delivery, (.8, .4, .1) for reputation, (.8, .2, 1) for response time, (.1, .8, 1) for warranty, (1, .8, .3) for long-term
services, (.4, .8, 1) for procedural compliance, (1, .4, .3) for price, (.8, 1 ,.6) for communication system, (.4, .8, 1) for
On-time delivery and (1, .8, .4) for post sales service. Using μDi=min (μ (gi/ai)), the final membership values are
found to be (.3, .2, .1). Here supplier having higher corresponding membership value will be selected using μD=max
(μDi). Hence, supplier C is best with regard to fuzzy logic and the ranking table is shown below.
Table 5: Membership Value and Rank of Suppliers
Supplier Membership value Rank
A .3 3
B .2 2
C .1 1

Table 6: Inputs and Activations of Input Supplier

Supplier A Supplier B Supplier C
Pn Xn Pn Xn Pn Xn
5000 -1 4800 0 5200 1
85 0 93 1 87 -1
98 1 96 -1 97 0
68 -1 73 0 75 1
4 0 3 -1 5 1
4 -1 2 0 5 1
3 -1 5 0 6 1
5 1 4 0 2 -1
3 -1 4 0 5 1
4 0 5 1 3 -1
3 -1 4 0 5 1
5 1 4 0 3 -1
In neural networks, the activation functions are assigned for each criteria and equal weightage is given for each
criteria W1= W 2= W 3= W 4= W 5= W 6= W 7= W 8= W 9= W 10= W 11= W 12= 0.083. The 12 inputs to the
supplier (P1, P2…..P11, P12) A, B and C and their activations (X1, X2…. X11, X12) are given in the table below
with n= 1 to 12.
The summation function is calculated using Y = W1X1 + W2X2 + W3X3 + ……W12X12 + b where b is the
bias function and is assumed to be 1. The summation function for A, B and C are .751, .917 and 1.249 respectively.
The ranking table is given below.
Table 7: Fuzzy Logic Membership Values and Rank of Suppliers
Supplier ANN output Rank
A .751 3
B .917 2
C 1.249 1
Hence, the ranking with the help of AHP, fuzzy logic and ANN indicates that Supplier C is the best one with the
highest score.

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP5/20201784
ISSN 1943-023X 493
Received: 10 Mar 2020/Accepted: 15 Apr 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 05-Special Issue, 2020

Table 8: Comparison of AHP and Fuzzy Logic

S.No. AHP Fuzzy logic
1. It is based on weightages given by the people to It is based on how our end product should be and we
the different criteria proposed based on the will obtain the weights of each product accordingly.
questionnaire given to them
2. Formalised method of decision making that are Based on fuzzy preference degree, Supratim
capable of taking quantitative factors into Mukherjee et. al. developed a three phase supplier
consideration (Sergio Bedessi) compared to other selection problem which is a better method compared
tools. to others.
3. Besides hierarchical structure, AHP does a In fuzzy, we‟ll draw graphs and calculate the
pairwise comparison among the criteria to find the membership function based on questionnaire or the
weightage requirement by the buyer.
4. In cases with many criteria, more number of Can be easily done with many multiple criteria but the
pairwise comparisons are needed problem is that the result varies when we take different
scale in graph.
5. In case of multiple conflicting criteria, vagueness Fuzzy logic is specially used to solve vagueness and
of the experts‟ opinion an AHP based hybrid uncertain environments in the industry.
model is needed.
6. Can use both qualitative and quantitative factors It is somewhat difficult to bring the qualitative factors
in calculation. into consideration to find the membership value.
7. Fuzzy logic offers a method to create definite AHP also attempts to provide the definite conclusions
decisions based on imprecise and ambiguous input and is unambiguous.
data.
As seen above, it is inferred that both fuzzy logic and AHP have got disadvantages while selecting the best
supplier in a manufacturing industry. Here, we have tried to apply neural network for supplier selection and got
some results. As the name itself has neural, we can form n number of networks to help a decision maker. Like
biological neural network, the ANN considers many criteria and its sub-criteria. Weights are assigned according to
our requirement. Complicated problems can be solved using multi-layer net. The supplier rating is better done than
in other tools. Unlike fuzzy logic and AHP, equal weightage can be given to all criteria.

V. Conclusion
This paper has been considered as an evidence of to study and analyze the applications of MCDM tools called
fuzzy logic and AHP with a case study. Mainly, this study will characterize the usage of AHP and fuzzy logic in
supplier selection. The case study is about the selection of supplier for bearings from the suppliers A, B and C. Here
we take a list of 13 criteria which includes both qualitative and quantitative ones. The merits and demerits are
existing in the features of fuzzy logic and AHP separately. Total cost, quality, delivery, price, reputation, response
time, warranty, long term services, procedural compliance, communication system, on-time delivery and post sales
service were the thirteen criteria considered. A pairwise comparison matrix has been drawn for AHP and the
weightage for each criteria is calculated. Then the weightage for each supplier is calculated for each criteria and the
results are calculated as shown above. In fuzzy logic, separate graphs are drawn for each criteria and their
corresponding membership values are calculated. Then the final membership value for A, B and C is found and the
best supplier is found. In neural networks, unlike AHP and fuzzy logic we give equal weightage for each criteria.
The best supplier is also found
Furthermore, a comparative analysis of three approaches over supplier selection is conducted and discussed their
advantages and disadvantages. It proves that neural network is appropriate and expedient for multi criteria supplier
selection and it does not depend on the individual needs. In addition, the neural network is the one of the techniques
which outpaces both the fuzzy logic and AHP in supplier selection models. This proposes that ANN may be a useful
tool for multi-criteria supplier selection. It is believed that the comparative analysis conducted can offer the
reference for the three alternative methods and their applications.

References
[1] G. W. Dickson, “An analysis of vendor selection and the buying process”. Journal of Purchasing, Vol. 2,
issue1, pp. 5-17.1966.

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP5/20201784
ISSN 1943-023X 494
Received: 10 Mar 2020/Accepted: 15 Apr 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 05-Special Issue, 2020

[2] J. Wang, J. Q. Yang, H. Lee, “Multi-criteria Order Acceptance Decision Support in Over-Demanded Job
Shops: A Neural Network Approach”, Mathematical Computer Modelling, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. l-19. 1994.
[3] Alberto Petroni, Antonio Rizzi, “A fuzzy logic based methodology to rank shop floor dispatching rules”.
Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 76,pp. 99–108. 2002.
[4] Rong-Ho Lin, “An integrated model for supplier selection under a fuzzy situation”. Int. J. Production
Economics 138, pp. 55–61. 2012.
[5] Wann –Yih Wu, Badri Munir sukoco, chia-ying li, shu hui chen, An integrated multi-objective decision
making process for supplier selection with bundling problem. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36,
pp. 2327-2337. 2009.
[6] Asli Aksoy, Eric Sucky and Nursel Ozturk , “Dynamic strategic supplier selection system with fuzzy
logic”. 2nd World Conference on Business, Economics and Management -WCBEM 2013. 2013.
[7] Ahmad Dargi, Ali Anjomshoae, Masoud Rahiminezhad Galankashi, Ashkan Memari, Masine Binti Md.
Tap, “Supplier Selection: A Fuzzy-ANP Approach”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 3, pp.1 691 – 700,
2014.
[8] Cevriye Gencer, Didem Gu¨rpinar, “Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an
electronic firm”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 31, pp. 2475–2486, 2007.
[9] Ali Kokangul, Zeynep Susuz, “Integrated analytical hierarch process and mathematical programming to
supplier selection problem with quantity discount”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 33, pp. 1417–
1429. 2009.
[10] Mostafa Setak, Samaneh Sharifi, Alireza Alimohammadian, “Supplier Selection and Order Allocation
Models in Supply Chain Management: A Review”. World Applied Sciences Journal , Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp.
55-72. 2012.
[11] Wang Lung Ng, “An efficient and simple model for multiple criteria supplier selection problem”. European
Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 186, pp. 1059-1067. 2008.
[12] Lee, W. Jin, Kim H. Soung,” Using analytic network process and goal programming for independent
information system project Selection”. 1998.
[13] K. Krishna Veni, R. Rajesh, S. Pugazhenthi,” Development of decision making model using integrated
AHP and DEA for vendor selection”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 38, pp. 3700 – 3708. 2012.
[14] Timothy J. Ross, “Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications”, Wiley India, Delhi, 2010.
[15] Laurene Fausett, “Fundamentals of neural networks and its applications”.
[16] Kerim Goztepe and Semra Boran , “A decision support system for supplier selection using fuzzy analytic
network process”, Fuzzy ANP and artificial neural network integration. 2012.
[17] Lazim Abdullah, “Fuzzy multi criteria decision making and its applications: A brief review of category”.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences ,Vol. 97, pp. 131 – 136, 2013.
[18] Ying-Ming Wang, Taha M.S. Elhag, “A comparison of neural network, evidential reasoning and multiple
regression analysis in modelling bridge risks”. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32, pp. 336–348.
2007.
[19] Gülçin Büyüközkan, Gizem Çifçi, “ A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy
ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers”. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, 3000–
3011. 2012.
[20] J. Ciurana, G. Quintana, M.L. Garcia-Romeu, “ Estimating the cost of vertical high-speed machining
centers, a comparison between multiple regression analysis and the neural networks approach”. Int. J.
Production Economics, Vol. 115, pp. 171– 178. 2008.
[21] Meysam Shaverdi, Mohammad Rasoul Heshmati, Iman Ramezani, “Application of Fuzzy AHP Approach
for Financial Performance Evaluation of Iranian Petrochemical Sector”. Procedia Computer Science. Vol.
31, pp. 995 – 1004. 2014.
[22] Turan Erman Erkan, Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh,” Curriculum Change Parameters Determined by Multi
Criteria Decision Making MCDM”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 116, pp. 1744 – 1747.
2014.
[23] Yasanur Kayikci,” A conceptual model for intermodal freight logistics centre location decisions”. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.2, pp. 6297–6311. 2010.
[24] S. Rouhani, Ahad Zare Ravasan,” ERP success prediction: An artificial neural network approach”, Scientia
Iranica, Vol. E 20, Issue 3, pp. 992–1001. 2013.
[25] Pezhman Ghadimi, Cathal Heavey, “ Sustainable Supplier Selection in Medical Device Industry: Toward
Sustainable Manufacturing”. Procedia CIRP , Vol.15, pp. 165 – 170. 2014.

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP5/20201784
ISSN 1943-023X 495
Received: 10 Mar 2020/Accepted: 15 Apr 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 05-Special Issue, 2020

[26] J. Gosling, L.Purvis, M.M.Naim. “Supply chain flexibility as a determinant of supplier selection”. Int. J.
Production Economics. 2014.
[27] Amir Hossein Azadnia, Muhamad Zameri Mat Saman, Kuan Yew Wong, Pezhman Ghadimi, Norhayati
Zakuan,” Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on Self-organizing Map Neural network and Multi Criteria
Decision Making approaches”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 65, pp. 879 – 884. 2012.
[28] Dr. P .Parthiban, H. Abdul Zubar, Chintamani P. Garge, “A Multi Criteria Decision Making Approach for
Suppliers Selection”, Procedia Engineering , Vol.38, pp. 2312 – 2328. 2012.
[29] G. Rajesh, P. Malliga, “Supplier Selection Based on AHP QFD Methodology”. Procedia Engineering ,
Vol.64, pp. 1283 – 1292. 2013.
[30] Atefeh Amindousta, Shamsuddin Ahmeda, Ali Saghafinia, Ardeshir Bahreininejad 2012.” Sustainable
supplier selection: A ranking model based on fuzzy inference system”, Applied Soft Computing , Vol.12,
pp. 1668–1677. 2013.
[31] Sisi Yin, Tatsushi Nishi,” A Supply chain planning model with supplier selection under uncertain demands
and asymmetric information”. Procedia CIRP, Vol. 17, pp. 639 – 644. 2014.
[32] Mazaher Ghorbani, Mahdi Bahrami, S. Mohammad Arabzad, “An Integrated Model for Supplier Selection
and Order Allocation; Using Shannon Entropy, SWOT and Linear Programming”. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol.41, pp. 521 – 527. 2012.
[33] Mehran Sepehri, “ Strategic Selection and Empowerment of Supplier Portfolios Case: Oil and Gas
Industries in Iran”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 74, pp. 51 – 60. 2013.
[34] Mutlu Emir Bilisk, Nazan Caglar, Ozge Nalan Alp Bilisik , “A comparative performance analyze model
and supplier positioning in performance maps for supplier selection and evaluation”. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences , Vol.58, pp. 1434 – 1442. 2012.
[35] Wen-Pai Wang,”A fuzzy linguistic computing approach to supplier evaluation”. Applied Mathematical
Modelling, Vol. 34, pp.3130–3141. 2010.
[36] Ahmet Can Kutlu, “Outsourcing Contractor‟s Strategies from supplier‟s side: A Real Options Approach
Based on Transaction Costs”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , Vol.58, pp.1601 – 1610. 2012.
[37] Mazaher Ghorbani, S. Mohammad Arabzad, Mahdi Bahrami, “Applying a Neural Network algorithm to
Distributor selection problem”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 41, pp. 498 – 505. 2012.
[38] B. Lotfi Sadigh, F. Arikan, A. M. Ozbayoglu, H. O. Unver, S. E. Kilic,”A Multi-Agent System Model for
Partner Selection Process in Virtual Enterprise”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 36, pp. 367 – 372. 2014.
[39] Chun-Ying Shen, Kun-Tzu Yu, “Strategic vender selection criteria”. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 17,
pp. 350 – 356. 2013.
[40] Manuel Díaz-Madroñero, David Peidro, Pandian Vasant,” Vendor selection problem by using an interactive
fuzzy multi-objective approach with modified S-curve membership functions”. Computers and
Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 60, pp.1038-1048. 2010.
[41] J.L. García, A. Alvarado, J. Blanco, E. Jiménez, A.A. Maldonado, G. Cortés,” Multi-attribute evaluation
and selection of sites for agricultural
[42] product warehouses based on an Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,
Vol. 100, pp.60–69. 2014.
[43] Anna Sobotka, Piotr Jaskowski, Agata Czarnigowska,”Optimization of aggregate suppliers for road
projects”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , Vol.48, pp. 838 – 846. 2012.
[44] Yaobin Liu, Chengsheng Yao, Guixin Wang, Shuming Bao,”An integrated sustainable development
approach to modeling the eco-environmental effects from urbanization”. Ecological Indicators , Vol.11,
pp.1599–1608. 2011.
[45] Mahmoud S. Nasr, Medhat A.E. Moustafa, Hamdy A.E. Seif, Galal El Kobrosy. , “Application of Artificial
Neural Network ANN for the prediction of EL-AGAMY wastewater treatment plant performance-
EGYPT”, Alexandria Engineering Journal Vol.51, pp. 37–43. 2012.
[46] Ivo M.L. Ferreira, Paulo J.S. Gil., “Application and performance analysis of neural networks for decision
support in conceptual design”. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, pp. 7701–7708. 2012.
[47] Yuan Li, Zhifeng Yang.,”Network structure analysis for environmental flow toward sustainable water use”,
Procedia Environmental Sciences, Vol. 2, pp. 1737–1744. 2010.
[48] E. Lewis, C. Sheridan, M. O‟Farrell, D. King, C. Flanagan, W.B. Lyons, C. Fitzpatrick., “Principal
component analysis and artificial neural network based approach to analysing optical fibre sensors signals”.
Sensors and Actuators, Vol. A 136, pp. 28–38. 2007.
[49] Hyesung Seok, Shimon Y. Nof, Florin G. Filip.” Sustainability decision support system based on
collaborative control theory”. Annual Reviews in Control, Vol.36, pp. 85–100. 2012.

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP5/20201784
ISSN 1943-023X 496
Received: 10 Mar 2020/Accepted: 15 Apr 2020
Jour of Adv Research in Dynamical & Control Systems, Vol. 12, 05-Special Issue, 2020

[50] YI-LI CHENG, YUAN-HSU LIN. “Performance Evaluation of Technological Innovation Capabilities in
Uncertainty”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 40, pp. 287 – 314. 2012.
[51] J. Ma, D. Ruan, Y. Xu, G. Zhang. 2007. “A fuzzy-set approach to treat determinacy and consistency of
linguistic terms in multi-criteria decision making”. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol.
44, pp. 165–181.
[52] Jinghua Zhou and Liang Wang. ”Analysis of influence factors of customer satisfaction on the third party
logistics enterprise”. Logistics Technology, pp. 30-33, October 2005.
[53] Ying Sun., “Constructing of the evaluation index system of third-party logistics operation efficiency”.
Special Zone Economy, pp. 58-60, July 2006.
[54] Xianhua Wu and Lieping Zhang, “Decision-making method and its strategic evaluation model on the
selection of dynamic alliance partner”. Systems Engineering, vol. 6, pp. 38-43, August 1998.
[55] Luitzen de Boer, Eva Labro and Pierangela Morlacchi, “A review of methods supporting supplier
selection”, European journal of purchasing & supply management, Vol.23, No.92, pp 75-238. 1996.
[56] Charles A. Weber, John R. Current and W. C. Benton., “Vendor selection criteria and methods”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol.50, No.1, pp 2-18. 1991 .
[57] Eon-Kyung Lee, Sungdo Ha, and Sheung-Kown Kim, “Supplier Selection and Management System
Considering Relationships in Supply Chain Management”. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, vol. 48, No. 3. 2001.
[58] William Ho, Xiaowei Xu and Prasanta K. Dey,”Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier
evaluation and selection: A literature review”. European Journal of Operational Research , 202, pp 16–24.
2010.
[59] M. Bevilacqua, F.E. Ciarapica, G. Giacchetta, “A fuzzy-QFD approach to supplier selection”, Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management Vol.12, pp. 14–27. 2006.
[60] S.H. Ha, R. Krishnan., “A hybrid approach to supplier selection for the maintenance of a competitive
supply chain”. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.34, Issue No. 2, pp.1303–1311. 2008.
[61] F. Faez, S.H. Ghodsypour and C.O‟ Brien, “Vendor selection and order allocation using an integrated fuzzy
case-based reasoning and mathematical programming model”, Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 121, pp.
395–408. 2009.
[62] Jianliang Peng, “Selection of Logistics Outsourcing Service Suppliers Based On AHP”, Energy Procedia ,
Vol.17, pp. 595 – 601. 2012.
[63] Weiqing Zhong and Qiang Hou, “A study on evaluation indicator system and evaluation model of
suppliers,” The Journal of Quantitative & Technical Economics, pp. 93-97, March 2003.
[64] Serap Akcan and Meral Guldes,” Integrated Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods to Solve Supplier
Selection Problem: A Case Study in a Hospital”, Hindawi Journal of Healthcare Engineering Volume
2019, Article ID 5614892, 10 pages

DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP5/20201784
ISSN 1943-023X 497
Received: 10 Mar 2020/Accepted: 15 Apr 2020