Supplier selection models using fuzzy hybrid methods in the clothing textile industry
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Application of models for supplier assessment and selection in the clothing industry remains relatively underexplored. To fill this gap, this research study introduces the following fuzzy hybrid models for evaluating and selecting suppliers for clothing manufacturing firms: fuzzy set theory, Analytic Hierarchy Process method–fuzzy-Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (AHP–fuzzy-TOPSIS), AHP–fuzzy-Weighted Sum Model (WSM), and AHP–fuzzy-Weighted Product Mean (WPM). Criteria weights were established utilizing these models, which were applied to identify the optimal supplier. A practical study was conducted within a clothing firm to evaluate the effectiveness of these fuzzy hybrid models. The main results reveal that the AHP–fuzzy-TOPSIS model outperforms the AHP–fuzzy-WSM and AHP–fuzzy-WPM models in selecting the optimal alternative. Indeed, this approach has the potential to be adapted to different industrial sectors, considering the specific criteria and conditions that govern their supplying processes.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Multi-Criteria Decision Making · Advanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization · Sustainable Supply Chain Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Textile Engineering Laboratory (LGTex), Monastir University , LR11ES42, 5070 , Ksar Helllal , Tunisia
Textile Engineering Department, ISET of Ksar Helal , 5070 , Ksar Hellal , Tunisia
Center of Excellence in Logistics (CELOG), School of Textile and Clothing (ESITH) , Casablanca , Morocco
LARILE ENSEM, Hassan II University of Casablanca , Casablanca , 20202 , Morocco
References (26)
Show source-provided references
1. Yildiz, A., Yayla, A. (2015). Multicriteria decision-making methods for supplier selection: A literature review. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 26(2), 158–177.10.7166/26-2-1010 ↗
2. Schramm, V. B., Cabral, L. P. B., Schramm, F. (2020). Approaches for supporting sustainable supplier selection – A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 123089.10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123089 ↗
3. Ho, W., Xu, X., Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision-making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16–24.10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009 ↗
4. Chan, F. T., Chan, H. K. (2010). An AHP model for the selection of suppliers in the fast-changing fashion market. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 51(9), 1195–1207.10.1007/s00170-010-2683-6 ↗
5. Amindoust, A., Saghafinia, A. (2017). Textile supplier selection in sustainable supply chain using a modular fuzzy inference system model. The Journal of the Textile Institute, 108(7), 1250–1258.
6. Burney, S. A., Ali, S. M. (2019). Fuzzy multi-criteria-based decision support system for supplier selection in textile industry. IJCSNS, 19(1), 239.
7. Utama, D. M., Maharani, B., Amallynda, I. (2021). Integration dematel and ANP for the supplier selection in the textile industry: A case study. Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Industri, 20(1), 119–130.10.23917/jiti.v20i1.13806 ↗
8. Yang, Y. P. O., Shieh, H. M., Leu, J. D., Tzeng, G. H. (2008). A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International Journal of Operations Research, 5(3), 160–168.
9. Guarnieri, P., Trojan, F. (2019). Decision making on supplier selection based on social, ethical, and environmental criteria: A study in the textile industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 347–361.10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.023 ↗
10. Selçuk, P. (2006). An application of the integrated AHP‐PGP model in supplier selection. Measuring Business Excellence, 10(4), 34–49.10.1108/13683040610719263 ↗
11. Kull, T. J., Talluri, S. (2008). A supply risk reduction model using integrated multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(3), 409–419.10.1109/TEM.2008.922627 ↗
12. Abraham M., Santiago, E., Ravindran, A. R. (2008). A three-phase multicriteria method to the supplier selection problem. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 15(2), 195–210.
13. Sasi, J. C., Digalwar, A. K. (2015). Application of AHP and TOPSIS method for supplier selection between India & China in the textile industry. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 2(4), 1730–1738.
14. Lahdhiri, M., Babay, A., Jmali, M. (2021). Development of subcontractor selection models using fuzzy and AHP methods in the apparel industry supply chain. Autex Research Journal, 21(4), 413–427.10.2478/aut-2020-0057 ↗
15. Liao, S. K., Chang, K. L., Tseng, T. W. (2010). Optimal selection of program suppliers for TV companies using an analytic network process (ANP) approach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 27(6), 753–767.10.1142/S0217595910002983 ↗
16. Gencer, C., Gürpinar, D. (2007). Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31(11), 2475–2486.10.1016/j.apm.2006.10.002 ↗
17. Arabsheybani, A., Paydar, M. M., Safaei, A. S. (2018). An integrated fuzzy MOORA method and FMEA technique for sustainable supplier selection considering quantity discounts and supplier’s risk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 577–591.10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.167 ↗
18. Vinodh, S., Ramiya, R. A., Gautham, S. G. (2011). Application of fuzzy analytic network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organization. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 272–280.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.057 ↗
19. Masoud G. R., Helmi, S. A., Hashemzahi, P. (2016). Supplier selection in automobile industry: A mixed balanced scorecard–fuzzy AHP approach. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 55(1), 93–100.10.1016/j.aej.2016.01.005 ↗
20. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Information and control. Fuzzy Sets, 8(3), 338–353.10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X ↗
21. Irine, J., Porchelvi, R. S. (2019). An application of fuzzy topsis method using trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Journal of Information and Computational Science, 9(10), 458–462.
22. Saaty, T. L., Peniwati, K. (2013). Group decision making: Drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
23. Hwang, C. L., Lai, Y. J., Liu, T. Y. (1993). A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Computers & Operations Research, 20(8), 889–899.10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-V ↗
24. Fishburn, P. C. (1967). Additive utilities with incomplete product sets: Application to priorities and assignments. Operations Research, 15(3), 537–542.10.1287/opre.15.3.537 ↗
25. Kabassi, K., Karydis, C., Botonis, A. (2020). Ahp, fuzzy saw, and fuzzy wpm for the evaluation of cultural websites. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(1), 5.10.3390/mti4010005 ↗
26. Mohd Safian, E. E., Nawawi, A. H. (2011). The evolution of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) as a decision making tool in property sectors. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 39442.