A comparison between intuitionistic and hesitant fuzzy applied to supplier selection group decision-making problems

被引:0
|
作者
Del Rosso Calache L.D. [1 ]
Galo N.R. [2 ]
Carpinetti L.C.R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Production Engineering Department, São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo, Av. Trabalhador São-Carlense 400, São Carlos, SP
[2] Transportation Engineering Department, Faculty of Science and Technology, Federal University of Goiás, Rua Mucuri, S/N, Área 03, Aparecida de Goiânia, GO
基金
巴西圣保罗研究基金会;
关键词
Group decision; Hesitant fuzzy; Intuitionistic fuzzy; Supplier selection;
D O I
10.1504/ijads.2021.114965
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Supplier selection and evaluation is approached in the literature as a multi-criteria decision problem in which usually more than one decision-maker has to judge the importance of criteria and the performance of suppliers. Fuzzy techniques are commonly applied to deal with the uncertainty in the evaluation process. Intuitionistic and hesitant fuzzy representations have been applied to group decision problems. However, none of the studies in the literature presents a comparison of these two fuzzy representations when applied to multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) problems. Thus, this paper presents the results of a comparative study of the intuitionist fuzzy and the hesitant fuzzy representations applied to supplier selection problem. The techniques were implemented and tested in a pilot application to a textile manufacturing company. The comparison was based on congruency of results, adequacy to group decision, data collection effort and flexibility of judgement, computational complexity and modelling of uncertainty. Copyright © 2021 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:231 / 273
页数:42
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Computational approach for hesitant fuzzy group decision making problems
    Joshi, Dheeraj Kumar
    Kumar, Sanjay
    2017 4TH IEEE UTTAR PRADESH SECTION INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL, COMPUTER AND ELECTRONICS (UPCON), 2017, : 54 - 61
  • [32] Extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set with fuzzy confidence for solving group decision-making problems
    R. Krishankumar
    K. S. Ravichandran
    Manish Aggarwal
    Sanjay K. Tyagi
    Neural Computing and Applications, 2020, 32 : 2879 - 2896
  • [33] Extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set with fuzzy confidence for solving group decision-making problems
    Krishankumar, R.
    Ravichandran, K. S.
    Aggarwal, Manish
    Tyagi, Sanjay K.
    NEURAL COMPUTING & APPLICATIONS, 2020, 32 (07): : 2879 - 2896
  • [34] Complex intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations and their applications in individual and group decision-making problems
    Rani, Dimple
    Garg, Harish
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, 2021, 36 (04) : 1800 - 1830
  • [35] Entropy of interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy set and its application to group decision making problems
    Joshi D.K.
    Kumar S.
    Granular Computing, 2018, 3 (4) : 367 - 381
  • [36] A dynamic fuzzy group decision making method for supplier selection
    Zhang, Z., 1600, Asian Network for Scientific Information (13):
  • [37] Retraction Note: Linguistic hesitant intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making method based on VIKOR
    Wei Yang
    Yongfeng Pang
    Jiarong Shi
    Chengjun Wang
    Neural Computing and Applications, 2024, 36 (25) : 15943 - 15943
  • [38] Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach with Hesitant Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets
    Peng, Juan-juan
    Wang, Jian-qiang
    Wang, Jing
    Chen, Xiao-hong
    SCIENTIFIC WORLD JOURNAL, 2014,
  • [39] Hesitant-intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relation and Its Application in Group Decision Making
    Yu, Jintao
    Wang, Jinshan
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 31ST CHINESE CONTROL AND DECISION CONFERENCE (CCDC 2019), 2019, : 6111 - 6115
  • [40] A GROUP DECISION-MAKING MODEL FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANS SELECTION BASED ON INTUITIONISTIC FUZZY SETS
    Zhou, Zhexuan
    Dou, Yajie
    Zhang, Xiaoxiong
    Zhao, Danling
    Tan, Yuejin
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, 2018, 26 (04) : 251 - 260