2692-2967ISSN (Online)
2770-0216ISSN (Print)
Volume 8 , Issue 1 , PP: 08-15, 2022 | Cite this article as | XML | Html | PDF | Full Length Article
Mahmoud M. Ismail 1 * , Shimaa S. Said 2
Doi: https://doi.org/10.54216/AJBOR.080101
Businesses all across the globe are adopting sustainable supply chain practises in an effort to lessen their impact on the environment. Towards reaching that aim, suppliers in healthcare have a crucial role in creating a sustainable supply chain. One of the difficulties in achieving sustainability in supplier selection is the use of competing criteria. The use of several factors in making decisions is essential for sustainable supplier selection (MCDM). This study introduce the Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC) methodology to select best supplier in healthcare industry. The standards and substitutions are collected from the previous works. The weights of criteria are computed, then the alternatives are ranked by the MABAC method. MABAC is a common MCDM methodology for ordering substitutions. The criteria and substitutions are included the vague and incomplete data and information, so the nutrosophic environment is used to overcome uncertainty. The single valued neutrosophic numbers are used in the computations in this work.
Healthcare , Supplier Selection , Supply Chain , Neutrosophic Sets , MCDM
[1] A. Awasthi, K. Govindan, and S. Gold, “Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 195, pp. 106–117, 2018.
[2] L. De Boer, E. Labro, and P. Morlacchi, “A review of methods supporting supplier selection,” European journal of purchasing & supply management, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 75–89, 2001.
[3] Ž. Stević, D. Pamučar, A. Puška, and P. Chatterjee, “Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS),” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 140, p. 106231, 2020.
[4] P. Dutta, B. Jaikumar, and M. S. Arora, “Applications of data envelopment analysis in supplier selection between 2000 and 2020: A literature review,” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 315, no. 2, pp. 1399–1454, 2022.
[5] I. M. Cavalcante, E. M. Frazzon, F. A. Forcellini, and D. Ivanov, “A supervised machine learning approach to data-driven simulation of resilient supplier selection in digital manufacturing,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 49, pp. 86–97, 2019.
[6] R. Alikhani, S. A. Torabi, and N. Altay, “Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 208, pp. 69–82, 2019.
[7] E. B. Tirkolaee, A. Mardani, Z. Dashtian, M. Soltani, and G.-W. Weber, “A novel hybrid method using fuzzy decision making and multi-objective programming for sustainable-reliable supplier selection in two-echelon supply chain design,” Journal of cleaner production, vol. 250, p. 119517, 2020.
[8] A. Memari, A. Dargi, M. R. A. Jokar, R. Ahmad, and A. R. A. Rahim, “Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method,” Journal of manufacturing systems, vol. 50, pp. 9–24, 2019.
[9] C. Yu, Y. Shao, K. Wang, and L. Zhang, “A group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 121, pp. 1–17, 2019.
[10] K. Govindan, H. Mina, A. Esmaeili, and S. M. Gholami-Zanjani, “An integrated hybrid approach for circular supplier selection and closed loop supply chain network design under uncertainty,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 242, p. 118317, 2020.
[11] Q. Wu, L. Zhou, Y. Chen, and H. Chen, “An integrated approach to green supplier selection based on the interval type-2 fuzzy best-worst and extended VIKOR methods,” Information Sciences, vol. 502, pp. 394–417, 2019.
[12] S. V. Parkouhi, A. S. Ghadikolaei, and H. F. Lajimi, “Resilient supplier selection and segmentation in grey environment,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 207, pp. 1123–1137, 2019.
[13] H.-W. Lo, J. J. H. Liou, H.-S. Wang, and Y.-S. Tsai, “An integrated model for solving problems in green supplier selection and order allocation,” Journal of cleaner production, vol. 190, pp. 339–352, 2018.
[14] A. Arabsheybani, M. M. Paydar, and A. S. Safaei, “An integrated fuzzy MOORA method and FMEA technique for sustainable supplier selection considering quantity discounts and supplier’s risk,” Journal of cleaner production, vol. 190, pp. 577–591, 2018.
[15] N. Banaeian, H. Mobli, B. Fahimnia, I. E. Nielsen, and M. Omid, “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, 2018.
[16] N. Rahim, L. Abdullah, and B. Yusoff, “A border approximation area approach considering bipolar neutrosophic linguistic variable for sustainable energy selection,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 3971, 2020.
[17] R. Şahin and F. Altun, “Decision making with MABAC method under probabilistic single-valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy environment,” Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 4195–4212, 2020.
[18] P. Liu and S. Cheng, “An improved MABAC group decision-making method using regret theory and likelihood in probability multi-valued neutrosophic sets,” International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, vol. 19, no. 05, pp. 1353–1387, 2020.
[19] D. Pamucar, M. Yazdani, R. Obradovic, A. Kumar, and M. Torres‐Jiménez, “A novel fuzzy hybrid neutrosophic decision‐making approach for the resilient supplier selection problem,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 1934–1986, 2020.
[20] I. Irvanizam, N. N. Zi, R. Zuhra, A. Amrusi, and H. Sofyan, “An extended MABAC method based on triangular fuzzy neutrosophic numbers for multiple-criteria group decision making problems,” Axioms, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 104, 2020.
[21] L. Xu, Y. Liu, and F. Liu, “Improved MABAC method based on single-valued neutrosophic 2-tuple linguistic sets and Frank aggregation operators for MAGDM,” Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1–32, 2021.
[22] I. Irvanizam and N. N. Zi, “Improved MABAC method for multicriteria group decision making with trapezoidal fuzzy neutrosophic numbers,” in Handbook of Research on Advances and Applications of Fuzzy Sets and Logic, IGI Global, 2022, pp. 666–691.
[23] D. Pamučar and D. Božanić, Selection of a location for the development of multimodal logistics center: Application of single-valued neutrosophic MABAC model. Infinite Study, 2019.
[24] P. Ji, H. Zhang, and J. Wang, “Selecting an outsourcing provider based on the combined MABAC–ELECTRE method using single-valued neutrosophic linguistic sets,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 120, pp. 429–441, 2018.
