Extended EDAS Method for Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision-making: An Application to Supplier Selection
AbstractIn the real-world problems, we are likely confronted with some alternatives that eed to be evaluated with respect to multiple conflicting criteria. Multi-criteria ecision-making (MCDM) refers to making decisions in such a situation. There are any methods and techniques available for solving MCDM problems. The evaluation ased on distance from average solution (EDAS) method is an efficient multi-criteria ecision-making method. Because the uncertainty is usually an inevitable part of he MCDM problems, fuzzy MCDM methods can be very useful for dealing with the eal-world decision-making problems. In this study, we extend the EDAS method o handle the MCDM problems in the fuzzy environment. A case study of supplier election is used to show the procedure of the proposed method and applicability of t. Also, we perform a sensitivity analysis by using simulated weights for criteria to xamine the stability and validity of the results of the proposed method. The results f this study show that the extended fuzzy EDAS method is efficient and has good tability for solving MCDM problems.
 Balezentis, A.; Balezentis T. (2011); An innovative multi-criteria supplier selection based on wo-tuple MULTIMOORA and hybrid data, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics tudies and Research, 2: 1-20.
 Balezentis, T. et al (2014); MULTIMOORA-IFN: A MCDM method based on intuitionistic uzzy number for performance management, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics tudies and Research, 48(4): 85-102.
 Bogdanovic, D.; Miletic S. (2014); Personnel evaluation and selection by multicriteria decision aking method, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 8(3): 179-196.
 Brauers, W.K.M. et al (2011); Multimoora for the EU member states updated with fuzzy umber theory, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(2): 259-290.
 Cagri Tolga, A. et al (2013); A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis approach for retail location election, International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making,12(4): 29-755.
 Chakraborty, S. et al (2015); Applications of WASPAS method as a multi-criteria decisionmaking ool, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 49(1): -17.
 Chen, S.J.; Hwang C.L. (1992); Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and pplications, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
 Dadelo, S. et al (2014); Algorithm of maximizing the set of common solutions for several CDM problems and it's application for security personnel scheduling, International Journal f Computers Communications & Control, 9(2): 151-159.
 Elsayed, A. et al (2015); Fuzzy linear physical programming for multiple criteria decisionmaking nder uncertainty, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 1(1): 26-38.
 Filip, F.G. et al (2014); DSS in numbers, Technological and Economic Development of conomy, 20(1): 154-164.
 Ho, W. et al (2010); Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and election: A literature review, European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1): 16-24.
 Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M. et al (2015); Genetic algorithm for solving bi-objective redundancy llocation problem with k-out-of-n subsystems, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39(20): 396-6409.
 Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.(2016); Developing an MCDM method for robot selection with nterval type-2 fuzzy sets, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 37: 221-232.
 Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M. et al (2014); Multiple criteria group decision-making for supplier election based on COPRAS method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, The International ournal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 75(5-8): 1115-1130.
 Kar, A.K. (2015); A hybrid group decision support system for supplier selection using nalytic hierarchy process, fuzzy set theory and neural network, Journal of Computational cience, 6: 23-33.
 Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M. et al (2015); Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new ethod of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS), Informatica, 26(3): 35-451.
 Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M. et al (2015); Multi-criteria project selection using an extended IKOR method with interval type-2 fuzzy sets, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 14(5): 993-1016. 70
 Kosareva, N. et al (2015); Personnel ranking and selection problem solution by application f KEMIRA method, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 11(1): 1-66.
 Nieto-Morote, A.; Ruz-Vila F. (2011); A fuzzy AHP multi-criteria decision-making approach pplied to combined cooling, heating, and power production systems, International Journal f Information Technology and Decision Making, 10(3): 497-517.
 Ölçer, A.Y.; Odabaşi A.Y. (2005); A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making ethodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem, uropean Journal of Operational Research, 166(1): 93-114.
 Pitchipoo, P. et al (2013); Fuzzy hybrid decision model for supplier evaluation and selection, nternational Journal of Production Research, 51(13): 3903-3919.
 Sedaghat, M. (2013); A productivity improvement evaluation model by integrating AHP, OPSIS and VIKOR methods under fuzzy environment (case study: State-owned, partially rivate and private banks in Iran), Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies nd Research, 47(1): 235-258.
 Stanujkic, D. (2015); Extension of the ARAS method for decision-making problems with nterval-valued triangular fuzzy numbers, Informatica, 26(2): 335-355.
 Stanujkic, D.; Zavadskas E.K. (2015); A modified weighted sum method based on the ecision-maker's preferred levels of performances, Studies in Informatics and Control, 24(4): 61-470.
 Turskis, Z. et al (2015); A hybrid model based on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for onstruction site selection, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 0(6): 113-128.
 Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas E.K. (2010); A new fuzzy additive ratio assessment method (ARASF). ase study: The analysis of fuzzy multiple criteria in order to select the logistic centers ocation, Transport, 25(4): 423-432.
 Wan, S.; Dong J. (2014); Multi-attribute group decision making with trapezoidal intuitionistic uzzy numbers and application to stock selection, Informatica, 25(4): 663-697.
 Wang, Y.J.; Lee H.S. (2007); Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multiple-criteria group decisionmaking, omputers & Mathematics with Applications, 53(11): 1762-1772.
 Yücenur, G.N. et al (2011); Supplier selection problem in global supply chains by AHP and NP approaches under fuzzy environment, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing echnology, 56(5-8): 823-833.
 Zadeh, L.A.(1965); Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, 8(3): 338-353.
 Zavadskas, E.K. et al (1995); Expert Systems in Construction Industry. Trends, Potential & pplications, Technika, Vilnius.
 Zavadskas, E.K. et al (2013); Multi-criteria assessment model of technologies, Studies in nformatics and Control, 22(4): 249-258.
 Zavadskas, E.K. et al (2015); Selecting a contractor by using a novel method for multiple ttribute analysis: weighted aggregated sum product assessment with grey values (WASPASG), tudies in Informatics and Control, 24(2): 141-150.
 Zavadskas, E.K. et al (2009); Multi-attribute decision-making model by applying grey numbers, nformatica, 20(2): 305-320.
 Zimmermann, H.J. (2010); Fuzzy set theory, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational tatistics, 2(3): 317-332.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
ONLINE OPEN ACCES: Acces to full text of each article and each issue are allowed for free in respect of Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0.
You are free to:
-Share: copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format;
-Adapt: remix, transform, and build upon the material.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
DISCLAIMER: The author(s) of each article appearing in International Journal of Computers Communications & Control is/are solely responsible for the content thereof; the publication of an article shall not constitute or be deemed to constitute any representation by the Editors or Agora University Press that the data presented therein are original, correct or sufficient to support the conclusions reached or that the experiment design or methodology is adequate.