See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359091962

AHP-GAUSSIAN AND VFT FOR SUPPLIER SELECTION IN BRAZILIAN AIRFORCE

LOAD PLANE PURCHASING AHP-GAUSSIANO Y VFT PARA LA SELECCIÓN DE
PROVEEDORES EN LA COMPRA DE AVIONES DE CARGA DE LA...

Conference Paper · February 2022

DOI: 10.15517/rmta.v28i1.00000

CITATIONS READS

0 78

3 authors, including:

Raphael Nascimento dos Santos Leandro de Mattos Bento Soares

Instituto Militar de Engenharia (IME) Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica Celso Suckow da Fonseca (CEFET/RJ)
10 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    12 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MULTICRITERIA DECISION, ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT View project

Rubens Walker View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raphael Nascimento dos Santos on 08 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

© R EVISTA DE M ATEMÁTICA : T EORÍA Y A PLICACIONES 2021 28(1) : 1–10
CIMPA – UCR ISSN : 1409-2433 (P RINT ), 2215-3373 (O NLINE )
DOI : https://doi.org/10.15517/rmta.v28i1.00000 preliminary

AHP-GAUSSIAN AND VFT FOR S UPPLIER

S ELECTION IN B RAZILIAN A IRFORCE LOAD
PLANE PURCHASING

AHP-G AUSSIANO Y VFT PARA LA SELECCIÓN

DE PROVEEDORES EN LA COMPRA DE AVIONES
DE CARGA DE LA FUERZA AÉREA BRASILEÑA

L EANDRO DE M ATTOS B ENTO S OARES *

R APHAEL NASCIMENTO DOS S ANTOS† M ARCOS DOS S ANTOS

Received: 01/Jan/2020; Revised: 01/Aug/2020;

Accepted: 01/Sep/2020

* Instituto de Pesquisas da Marinha, Rio de Janeiro. E-Mail: mattoslmb@yahoo.com

†
Instituto Militar de Engenharia, DCT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. E-Mail: pgt@ime.eb.br

1
2 S OARES , L.M.B.— S ANTOS , R.N. — SANTOS, M.

Abstract

The Brazilian Government issued an intention to acquire two large

cargo aircraft for use by the Brazilian Air Force, highlighting the tactical
importance of transporting troops, armaments and supplies in war missions
in a long-distance theater of operations, as well as its use in humanitarian
support relief missions as per COVID-19 pandemic requested a better vac-
cination delivery logistics. This article proposes a multi-methodological
approach with the combination of the Value Focused Thinking (VFT) and
the AHP Gaussian (AHP-G) multi-criteria method to solve supplier selec-
tion problem. The model could choose the best plane to be purchased six
different quantitative criteria and three distinct alternatives, being mathe-
matically able to solve supplier selection problems .

Keywords: Multicriteria Decsion Making; Supplier Selection; AHP-G

Mathematics Subject Classification: 90B50 Management decision making, in-

cluding multiple objectives

1 Introduction
The air modal in military operations are responsible for supplying troops or to
transport personnel or cargo, according to the nature of operations. The use of
military aircraft can be categorized either as wartime operations or peace time
operations. The Brazilian Air Force (FAB) defines as Logistics the action that
consists of using Aerospace and Air Force Resources to forecast, provide and
maintain resources and services of interest to military operations or governmen-
tal actions. Logistics activities are grouped into sets called Logistics Functions,
such as Engineering, Maintenance, Human Resources, Rescue, Health, Supply
and Transport [5]. Currently, there is a health crisis around the world with the ad-
vent of the Covid-19 virus pandemic and since its inception the Brazilian Armed
Forces, in cooperation with the Brazilian Government, provide logistical sup-
port in the fight against Covid-19 through hospital centered transport. After
approval of the emergency use of vaccines, the Brazilian Air Force, continuing
to fulfill its task in support of State actions, used its air resources to transport
them throughout the national territory [5]. However, with the need to search for
vaccines in India to later distribute them in the national territory, the pandemic
scenario showed a weakness in the transport capacity of the Brazilian Air Force:
the non-existence of large cargo planes in the fleet In Brazil, air cargo transport
in military operations is the responsibility of the FAB, which, according to the
Basic Doctrine of the Brazilian Air Force [5] seven tasks, namely: aerospace

Rev.Mate.Teor.Aplic. (ISSN print: 1409-2433; online: 2215-3373) Vol. 28(1): 1–10, Jan–Jun 2021
AHP-G AUSSIAN ALIGNED WITH VALUE F OCUSED T HINKING FOR
STRATEGICAL DECISION MAKING ... 3

control; interdiction, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; combat sup-

port; command, control, communication and information systems; and protec-
tion of force and support for State actions. The latter is regarded as contributions
by the Air Force to national development and to government operations in mat-
ters of a military or civil nature. Such actions are carried out by the Air Force
for reasons of economy for the State, the lack of capabilities of other public
bodies and for strategic reasons or in compliance with international commit-
ments assumed by Brazil, as well as in cases of civil defense . In this scenario,
multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) axiomatic structures and methods can
be useful for definition of scenarios and provide a transparent view of the prob-
lem faced alongside with a possible supplier selection and purchase of the new
aircraft having . The article main research question is: How can Brazilian Air
force choose the best aircraft purchasing operation? Having the main hyphoth-
esis : By structuring the problem by VFT method and applying AHP-Gaussian
to choose the best aircraft. After contextualization in chapter 1, chapter 2 will
present a literature review presenting how MCDM methods are being applied
in the Supplier Selection problem. Chapter 3 will present the methods applied
in this work, demonstrating the VFT method, AHP method and AHP-Gaussian
approach axiomatic structures and equations. On chapter 4, the numerical appli-
cation of the study will be presented. Chapter 5 shall present the results of the
applications and discuss them. Chapter 6 will draw the final considerations of
the work, noting a brief review, and new research needs.

2 Literature Review
The literature review shall approach three different subjects: (1) Supplier Choice
(SC) problem; (2) Multicriteria decision making Methods applied to (SC). Ac-
cording to Tao et al. [22] suppliers choice (SC) is discussed in the literature.
Vonderembse and Tracey [23] conducted a study involving 268 purchasing man-
agers in order to provide supplier selection criteria regarding products. Bhutta
and Huq [3] have indicated two main approaches to construct decision criteria
when facing supplier choices; one is the total cost of ownership, and the other
is based on hierarchical procedure. Sarkis and Talluri [21] used an analytic net-
work process (ANP) in order to choose a strategic supplier. Also, Fagundes et
al. [10] has applied a Fuzzy-AHP developing a computational tool to enable
a risk approach to the question. [12] indicated that linguistic evaluations are
used in decision matrix instead of numerical values using fuzzy set theory to
capture vagueness in evaluations that depends on linguistic entries, noting that
decision making science has a straight relation with supplier selection problem.

Rev.Mate.Teor.Aplic. (ISSN print: 1409-2433; online: 2215-3373) Vol. 28(1): 1–10, Jan–Jun 2021
4 S OARES , L.M.B.— S ANTOS , R.N. — SANTOS, M.

Another Supplier From a multicriteria decsion making (MCDM) perspective, SC

of green suppliers are an important task regarding Green supply chain manage-
ment (GSCM). [16] has used a hybrid MCDM using data mining techinicques to
find the core criteria and also integrated support vector machine (SVM), fuzzy
best worst method (FBWM) and fuzzy technique for order preference by simi-
larity to an ideal solution (FTOPSIS) to select most suitable green suppliers.
Researching in SCOPUS’s base with string TITLE-ABS-KEY ( supplier AND
selection AND ahp ) figure 2 demonstrates the number of articles published on
the theme of supplier selection and AHP from 1998 until 2020.

Figure 1: Numbers of articles published in SCOPUS

In a brief summary perspective, we can infer that MCDM methods are vastly
used alligned with SC problem.

3 Methodology
The methods applied in this study are (1) Value Focused Thinking (VFT) for
problem structuring; (2) AHP-Gaussian method for choosing which was the best
aircraft supplier for Brazilian Government issue.

Rev.Mate.Teor.Aplic. (ISSN print: 1409-2433; online: 2215-3373) Vol. 28(1): 1–10, Jan–Jun 2021
AHP-G AUSSIAN ALIGNED WITH VALUE F OCUSED T HINKING FOR
STRATEGICAL DECISION MAKING ... 5

3.1 Value Focused Thinking

According to [13], VFT is a different approach to decision making problems.
Typically, decision problems are carried by identifying alternatives and consider
the criteria, which is called alternative-focused thinking (AFT). According to
Keeney, this is a reactive way of thinking in a decision problem because it also
puts the identification of alternatives before the articulation of values. VFT is
designed to engage decision-makers on essential activities that should occur in
order to solve a decision problem, a comparison on results between AFT and
VFT can be observed in [8].
VFT helps to explore better communication and enhance coordination of
different roles in a project. One of the greatest benefits of VFT is the ability
to generate better alternatives for decision problems. VFT method usage for
decision-making problems structuring can be observed in [14],[15],[17].

3.2 AHP-GAUSSIAN
The AHP-GAUSSIAN method (AHP-G) is a variation of AHP method [18]. It
was first proposted by Santos et al. [19] in order to aid the criteria weight gen-
eration from pairwise comparison. To use AHP method, a challenge identified
by [2] and [9] is to generate criteria weighing via pairwise comparison approach
because it would take a long time to generate the criteria weights and could lead
to errors. Considering this challenge, Santos et al. [19] proposed a different ap-
proach on criteria weighting using statistical treatment. The axiomatic structure
of the method is presented in table 1 [19].

Step Description
1 Establish the decision matrix
2 Calculate the average of the alternatives
3 Calculate the standard deviation of the alternatives for each criterion
4 Calculate the Gaussian Factor for each criterion
5 Multiply the Gaussian Factor by Decision Matrix
6 Normalize the Results
7 Obtain new Ranking

Table 1: Steps for AHP-G analysis

Let A = {ai |i ∈ I}, |I| = n, be the finite set of feasible actions or alternatives,
and let G = {gj |j ∈ J}, |J| = m the set of criteria considered for the purpose of
preference modelling, with gj : A → R, ∀j ∈ J, an interval scale measurement,
in order that gj (a) equals to the action a on the j − th criterion, the output of

Rev.Mate.Teor.Aplic. (ISSN print: 1409-2433; online: 2215-3373) Vol. 28(1): 1–10, Jan–Jun 2021
6 S OARES , L.M.B.— S ANTOS , R.N. — SANTOS, M.

this step is the decision matrix. The normalization procedure targets to re-scale
the values gj (ai ),∀j ∈ J and ∀i ∈ I within a common range between 0 and 1 in
order to maintain values not dependant of different width of measurement scale
[11]. A normalized value chj can be obtained after applying Eq. 1 and Eq. 2
in the decision matrix, forming a new one. On one hand, Eq. 1 shall be applied
if criterion gj ∈ G is has a maximization behavior (the more the better), on the
other hand, one can use Eq. 2 to obtain ghj if criteria is a minimization one, the
less the better.
a
P ij ∀M axgj (1)
i aij

a− 1
Pij ∀M ingj (2)
i aij

The criteria weighing takes place when considering gj in decision matrix, the av-
erage (Eq. 3) and the Standard Deviation (Eq. 4) are calculated. The considered
weights for the criteria will be the Gaussian Factor (or variation coefficient) (Eq.
5). After this the Gaussian factor will be multiplied by the normalized matrix
respecting (Eq. 6), which is the aggregation procedure. Then the last step (5) is
the finding of the new ranking of the best alternatives.
P
i g( ai )
µ= (3)
ni

sP
(g(ai ) − µ)2
σ= (4)
n−1

σ
cv = (5)
µ

i=1
X
gij wj (6)
j

After the application of this axiomatic structure, one should obtain the pref-
erence outranking of alternatives and choose the best supplier considering the
different criteria.

Rev.Mate.Teor.Aplic. (ISSN print: 1409-2433; online: 2215-3373) Vol. 28(1): 1–10, Jan–Jun 2021
AHP-G AUSSIAN ALIGNED WITH VALUE F OCUSED T HINKING FOR
STRATEGICAL DECISION MAKING ... 7

4 AHP-G Applications and Results

In order to obtain the main strategic goals and mean objetctives VFT method was
applied to the problem, the strategical objectives from Brazilian Airforce (BA)
were listed according to [6] p. 19. The expected results from BA were defined
as "strengthen the control and defense of airspace and the integration of the na-
tional territory", thus defined as the main goal by VFT approach. Three different
areas of interest were originated from this goal, which were the Operations, Air-
craft infrastrcucture and Training as objective-means, by researching those, the
network of means-ends for selecting a new aircraft could be established accord-
ing to figure 2. In order to amplify the operation promptness, the alternatives to

Figure 2: Network means-ends objectives for the Brazilian Airforce

make sure Brazilian vaccination air logistics could be improved, a scenario of

purchasing a new aircraft was considered, and then the supplier choosing. The
scenario considered a purchasing of new freight airplanes, with three possible

Rev.Mate.Teor.Aplic. (ISSN print: 1409-2433; online: 2215-3373) Vol. 28(1): 1–10, Jan–Jun 2021
8 S OARES , L.M.B.— S ANTOS , R.N. — SANTOS, M.

No Criteria Description Nature

The price required for
1 Price (BRL) Minimization
purchasing (both scnarios)
The maximum engine capacity
2 Cruising Speed Maximizaton
rendering speed (both scenarios)
Maximum distance that the aircraft
3 Autonomy Maximization
can travel without re-fueling
4 Length Total length of the aircraft Minimization
5 Wingspan Total wingspan of the aircraft wings Minimization

Table 2: Criteria considered in scenario 1

alternatives. AIRBUS A330-200F; BOEING B767-300F and BOEING B777-

200F. Table 2 demonstrates the criteria g(j) considered in the study.
Let table 3 be the decision matrix of scenario 1.

Cruise Max
Price Length Wingspan
Alternatives / Criteria Speed Autonomy
(in Million BRL) (meters) (meters)
(km/h) (km)
AIRBUS A330-200F 241,7 871 7400 58,8 60,30
BOEING B767-300F 200,3 850 6056 54,94 47,57
BOEING B777-200F 352,3 891 9065 63,7 64,80
Nature of Criteria Min Max Max Min Min

Table 3: Decision Matrix for scenario 1

After the presentation of the decision matrix, the AHP-G method is applied
and the best alternative is presented is BOEING-B767-300F second alternative
as per table 4.

MIN MAX MAX MIN MIN

Price C. Speed Autonomy Length Wingspan AHP-G
AIRBUS A330-200F 0,345691 0,333461 0,328582 0,334075 0,31268 0,331997
BOEING B767-300F 0,417142 0,325421 0,268905 0,357547 0,396355 0,363145
BOEING B777-200F 0,237166 0,341118 0,402513 0,308377 0,290966 0,304857
Average 0,333333 0,333333 0,333333 0,333333 0,333333
Std. Dev 0,090622 0,007849 0,066931 0,024593 0,055647
Gaussian Factor 0,271867 0,023548 0,200793 0,07378 0,166942
Normalized G. Factor 0,368919 0,031954 0,272472 0,100118 0,226537

Table 4: AHP-G method application in scenario 1

Rev.Mate.Teor.Aplic. (ISSN print: 1409-2433; online: 2215-3373) Vol. 28(1): 1–10, Jan–Jun 2021
AHP-G AUSSIAN ALIGNED WITH VALUE F OCUSED T HINKING FOR
STRATEGICAL DECISION MAKING ... 9

5 Conclusions
The outcome result is that Boeing B767-300F became the best alternative for car-
rying vaccination throughout Brazilian states considering the 5 criteria analysis
via AHP-G method. A supplier selection problem has been solved by appli-
caion of a MCDA method. After the application of VFT to structure the problem
via fundamental objectives of Brazilian Aiforce, it was possible to establish the
main criteria that would join the study, also, integrated the use of AHP-Gaussian
Method to assess the decision matrix regarding the data provided by specialists.
The AHP-Gaussian method assessed the mean of the criteria associated with al-
ternatives, the standard deviation and a normalization to establish the weighs of
the criteria, helping to overcome the difficulties of pairwise criterion compari-
son. The result was compared to the original AHP method and the results of the
best alternatives were the same.
The main limitation to this study was the lack of more time to assess the
impacts of a plane purchasing on Airforce personnel regarding trainings and im-
plications of purchasing new aircrafts. To assess the personnel acrivities, more
criteria could be raised as regarding the learning curve and more studies could
be performed. It would be interesting to collect data related to supplier selec-
tion problem from different levels of experts and positions to investigate post-
purchasing impacts. Finally, the proposed MCDA method application could be
applied as a decision support system for supplier selection and purchasing.

References
[1] Baldini, F., Santos, M. , Coelho, L. S., Mariani, V. C. AHP Gaussiano em
VBA (.1), 2021

[2] Belton, Valerie; Gear, Tony. On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of ana-

lytic hierarchies Omega, v. 11, n. 3, p. 228-230, 1983.

[3] Bhutta, Khurrum S.; HUQ, Faizul. Supplier selection problem: a com-
parison of the total cost of ownership and analytic hierarchy process ap-
proaches. Supply Chain Management: an international journal, 2002.

[4] Brasil. Ministério da Defesa Comando da Aeronáutica. DCA 1-1 Doutrina

Básica da Força Aérea Brasileira, vol 2. 2020.

[5] Brasil. Ministério da Defesa. Estratégia Nacional de Defesa , 2012. Avail-

able at::<https://www.gov.br/defesa/pt-br/arquivos/
2012/mes07/end.pdf>, Accessed in: 25/09/2021.

Rev.Mate.Teor.Aplic. (ISSN print: 1409-2433; online: 2215-3373) Vol. 28(1): 1–10, Jan–Jun 2021
10 S OARES , L.M.B.— S ANTOS , R.N. — SANTOS, M.

[6] Brasil. Ministério da Defesa. Plano Estratégico da Aeronáutica - PEMAER

2010 a 2030, 2010.

[7] Cinelli, M., Kadzínzi, M., Gonzalez, M. Slowiński, R. How to support

the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a
comprehensive taxonomy, Omega , v. 96, 2020

[8] De Icaza, Rivelino. Decision support system for container port selection
using multiple-objective decision analysis. 2017.

[9] Dyer, James S. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management

science, v. 36, n. 3, p. 249-258, 1990.

[10] Fagundes, M. V. C., Keler, Á. C., TELES, E. O., Vieira de Melo, S. A.

B, Freires, F. G. M. Multicriteria Decision-Making System for Supplier
Selection Considering Risk: A computational Fuzzy AHP-Based approach,
IEEE Latin America Transactions, Vol 19, No. 9. pp. 1564 - 1572. 2021.

[11] GRECCO, S. A new pcca method: Idra European Journal of Operational

Research, 98(3), 587-601.

[12] Kahraman, C., Onar, S.C., OZTAYSI,B. Fuzzy multicriteria decision-

making: a literature review. International journal of computational intel-
ligence systems, v. 8, n.4, p. 637-666, 2015.

[13] Keeney, Ralph L. Value-focused thinking. Harvard University Press, 1996.

[14] Keeney, Ralph L.; RAIFFA, Howard; MEYER, Richard F. Decisions with
multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs Cambridge university
press, 1993.

[15] Keeney, Ralph L. Applying Value Focused Thinking. Military Operations

Research, v.13 N2, p.7-17, 2008.

[16] Liou, James JH et al. Application of an MCDM model with data mining
techniques for green supplier evaluation and selection. Applied Soft Com-
puting, p. 107534, 2021.

[17] Morais, Danielle C. et al. Using value-focused thinking in Brazil Pesquisa

Operacional, v. 33, n. 1, p. 73-88, 2013.

[18] Saaty, T. L., Vargas, L. Models, methods, Concepts & Applications of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process New York: Springer, 2012.

Rev.Mate.Teor.Aplic. (ISSN print: 1409-2433; online: 2215-3373) Vol. 28(1): 1–10, Jan–Jun 2021
 AHP-G AUSSIAN ALIGNED WITH VALUE F OCUSED T HINKING FOR
STRATEGICAL DECISION MAKING ... 11

[19] Santos, M. Costa, I. P. A., Gomes, C. F. S. Multicriteria decision making in

the selection of warships: a new approach to the AHP method. International
Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.: v.13, No 1, 2021.

[20] Santos, M., Silva, T. L. P., Gomes, C. F. S., Vieira, J. A. M., Walker, R. A.
Mapping the perception of users as the usability of Smartphones: Bench-
marking features through Borda Count method. New Global Perspectives
on Industrial Engineering and Management. 1 Ed. Springer International
Publishing, v, pp: 57-64, 2018

[21] Sarkis, J., Talluri, S. A model for strategic supplier selection. Journal of
supply chain management. v. 38, n.4, p. 18-28, 2002.

[22] Tao, Y.-J.; Lee, H.-S.; Tu, C.-S. Analytic Hierarchy Process-Based Air-
port Ground Handling Equipment Purchase Decision Model Sustainability
2021, 13, 2540.

[23] Vonderembse, M.A.; Tracey, M. The impact of supplier selection criteria

and supplier involvement on manufacturing performance J. Supply Chain
Manag. 1999, 35, 33 - 39.

Rev.Mate.Teor.Aplic. (ISSN print: 1409-2433; online: 2215-3373) Vol. 28(1): 1–10, Jan–Jun 2021

View publication stats