Prioritisation of criteria for sustainable and agile global manufacturing outsourcing partner selection using simulation based stochastic fuzzy PIPRECIA method

Akhtar, Mohammad

doi:10.1590/0103-6513.20230035

Mohammad Akhtar ^* * mk71b@yahoo.com

School of Business, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3026-4181

* mk71b@yahoo.com

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Proposed Research Methodology.

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Criteria weight by F-PIPRECIAS method.

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Criteria Weight by F-PIPRECIAS and SF-PIPRECIAS.

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Criteria Rank by F-PIPRECIAS and SF-PIPRECIAS.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Fuzzy 1-2 Scale for Assessment of the Criteria.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Fuzzy 0-1 Scale for Assessment of the Criteria.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Agile and Sustainable Criteria for GOP selection from the literature.

Thumbnail

Table 4
Criteria Relative Importance Rating in Linguistic Terms by DMs.

Thumbnail

Table 5
Criteria Relative Importance Fuzzy Rating (s_j) by DMs.

Thumbnail

Table 6
Geometric Mean Fuzzy Relative Importance (S_j^¯), Coefficient (k_j^¯), Fuzzy Recalculated weight (q_j^¯) and Fuzzy Relative Weight (w_j^¯) and Defuzzified Weight (F-Weight) of the Criteria by F-PIPRECIAS method.

Thumbnail

Table 7
G.M. of Fuzzy Relative Importance (S_j^¯), Coefficient (k_j^¯), Fuzzy Recalculated weight (q_j^¯) and Fuzzy Relative Weight (w_j^¯) and Defuzzified Weight (SF-Weight) of the Criteria by SF-PIPRECIAS method.

Thumbnail

Table 8
Criteria Weight and Rank by F-PIPRECIAS and SF-PIPRECIAS method.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Linguistic Scale	Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN)
Linguistic Scale	l	m	u
Almost equal significant (AE)	1.000	1.000	1.050
Slightly more significant (SM)	1.100	1.150	1.200
Moderately more significant (MM)	1.200	1.300	1.350
More significant (M)	1.300	1.450	1.500
Much more significant (MR)	1.400	1.600	1.650
Dominantly more significant (DM)	1.500	1.750	1.800
Absolutely more significant (AM)	1.600	1.900	1.950

Linguistic Scale	Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN)
Linguistic Scale	l	m	u
Weakly less significant (WL)	0.667	1.000	1.000
Moderately less significant (MDL)	0.500	0.667	1.000
Less significant (L)	0.400	0.500	0.667
Really less significant (RL)	0.333	0.400	0.500
Much less significant (ML)	0.286	0.333	0.400
Dominantly less significant (DL)	0.250	0.286	0.333
Absolutely less significant (AL)	0.222	0.250	0.286

Criteria Category	Criteria Code	Criteria	Benefit/Non-benefit	Description	References
Agile Criteria	AG1	Production flexibility & capability	Benefit	The ability to produce variety of products in the quantities that customers demand.	Ulutas et al. (2016)Ulutas, A., Shukla, N., Kiridena, S., & Gibson, P. (2016). A utility-driven approach to supplier evaluation and selection: empirical validation of an integrated solution framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1554-1567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1098787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.... , Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Adalı & Işık (2017)Adalı, E. A., & Işık, A. T. (2017). CRITIC and MAUT methods for the contract manufacturer selection problem. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p93... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Goren (2018)Goren, H. G. (2018). A decision framework for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation with lost sales. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 1156-1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018...
	AG2	Service level	Benefit	Providing service without stock-out situation	Ulutas et al. (2016)Ulutas, A., Shukla, N., Kiridena, S., & Gibson, P. (2016). A utility-driven approach to supplier evaluation and selection: empirical validation of an integrated solution framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1554-1567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1098787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Garg & Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026... , Kabus et al. (2022)Kabus, J., Dziadkiewicz, M., Miciuła, I., & Mastalerz, M. (2022). Using Outsourcing Services in Manufacturing Companies. Resources, 11(3), 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources11030034. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources11030... .
	AG3	Lead time minimisation	Benefit	Lead time minimisation	Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Goren (2018)Goren, H. G. (2018). A decision framework for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation with lost sales. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 1156-1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018...
	AG4	Delivery flexibility	Benefit	The ability to exploit various dimensions of delivery	Ulutas et al. (2016)Ulutas, A., Shukla, N., Kiridena, S., & Gibson, P. (2016). A utility-driven approach to supplier evaluation and selection: empirical validation of an integrated solution framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1554-1567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1098787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.... , Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Adalı & Işık (2017)Adalı, E. A., & Işık, A. T. (2017). CRITIC and MAUT methods for the contract manufacturer selection problem. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p93... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Garg & Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026...
	AG5	Sourcing flexibility	Benefit	The availability of range of sourcing options	Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Garg & Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026...
	AG6	Multi-skilled and flexible workforce	Benefit	Multi-skilled workforce will provide flexibility in scheduling workers	Ulutas et al. (2016)Ulutas, A., Shukla, N., Kiridena, S., & Gibson, P. (2016). A utility-driven approach to supplier evaluation and selection: empirical validation of an integrated solution framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1554-1567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1098787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015....
	AG7	Collaboration with partners	Benefit	Collaboration with suppliers will enhance innovation and capability	Ulutas et al. (2016)Ulutas, A., Shukla, N., Kiridena, S., & Gibson, P. (2016). A utility-driven approach to supplier evaluation and selection: empirical validation of an integrated solution framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1554-1567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1098787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.... , Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Goren (2018)Goren, H. G. (2018). A decision framework for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation with lost sales. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 1156-1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018... , Garg & Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026...
	AG8	Customer driven innovation	Benefit	Customer need-based innovation	Sinha and Anand (2018)Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1587-1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018... .
`Environmental Criteria	EN1	Green product	Benefit	Product requiring less physical resources and low environmental impacts	Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Sinha & Anand (2018)Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1587-1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018...
	EN2	Green manufacturing process	Benefit	Manufacturing process that minimise waste, pollution, and energy use.	Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Sinha & Anand (2018)Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1587-1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018... , Garg & Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026...
	EN3	Cleaner Technology	Benefit	Technology and processes that use renewable energy and minimises resource use, waste and emission.	Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Sinha & Anand (2018)Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1587-1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018... , Garg & Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026...
	EN4	Environmental Management System (EMS)	Benefit	Planning, implementation, monitoring and controlling environmental protection	Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Sinha & Anand (2018)Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1587-1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018... , Garg and Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026... ,
Social Criteria	SO1	Worker's fair wages and welfare	Benefit	Workers’ wages and welfare at supplier’s firm	Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Garg & Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026... ,
	SO2	Worker's occupational health and safety	Benefit	Workers’ occupational health and safety at suppliers’ firm	Sinha & Anand (2018)Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1587-1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018... , Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Garg & Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026... ,
	SO3	Worker's training and career development	Benefit	Workers skill and career development	Rahman & Subramanian (2017)Rahman, M. M., & Subramanian, N. (2017). Factors influencing employee training in offshore outsourcing relationships: An exploratory study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(6), 978-1003., Faisal et al. (2017)Faisal, M. N., Banwet, D. K., & Shankar, R. (2017). A framework for sustainable outsourcing through social collaboration: a case study of Indian manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 803-815.
	SO4	Corporate Social responsibility	Benefit	Social welfare and community development	Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Sinha & Anand (2018)Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1587-1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018... , Garg and Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026...
Economic Criteria	EC1	Product price	Non-benefit	Product price	Ulutas et al. (2016)Ulutas, A., Shukla, N., Kiridena, S., & Gibson, P. (2016). A utility-driven approach to supplier evaluation and selection: empirical validation of an integrated solution framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1554-1567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1098787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.... , Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Adalı & Işık (2017)Adalı, E. A., & Işık, A. T. (2017). CRITIC and MAUT methods for the contract manufacturer selection problem. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p93... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Sinha & Anand (2018)Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1587-1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018... , Garg & Sharma (2020)Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-026... , Kabus et al. (2022)Kabus, J., Dziadkiewicz, M., Miciuła, I., & Mastalerz, M. (2022). Using Outsourcing Services in Manufacturing Companies. Resources, 11(3), 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources11030034. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources11030...
	EC2	Product quality	Benefit	Cost reduction	Ulutas et al. (2016)Ulutas, A., Shukla, N., Kiridena, S., & Gibson, P. (2016). A utility-driven approach to supplier evaluation and selection: empirical validation of an integrated solution framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1554-1567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1098787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.... , Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Adalı & Işık (2017)Adalı, E. A., & Işık, A. T. (2017). CRITIC and MAUT methods for the contract manufacturer selection problem. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p93... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Goren (2018)Goren, H. G. (2018). A decision framework for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation with lost sales. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 1156-1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018... , Sinha & Anand (2018)Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1587-1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018... ,
	EC3	Cost Reduction	Benefit	Product quality and reliability	Ulutas et al. (2016)Ulutas, A., Shukla, N., Kiridena, S., & Gibson, P. (2016). A utility-driven approach to supplier evaluation and selection: empirical validation of an integrated solution framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1554-1567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1098787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.... , Luthra et al. (2017)Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686-1698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016... , Adalı & Işık (2017)Adalı, E. A., & Işık, A. T. (2017). CRITIC and MAUT methods for the contract manufacturer selection problem. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p93-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejms.v5i1.p93... , Awasthi et al. (2018)Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10... , Sinha & Anand (2018)Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1587-1596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018...

Criteria	D1	D2	D3	D4	D5	D6	D7	D8	D9	D10
AG1
AG2	MM	MM	AM	DM	MM	MM	SM	MM	DM	M
AG3	WL	M	WL	MR	AM	M	MR	MM	AE	M
AG4	DM	MR	AM	MM	MM	M	MR	M	DM	DM
AG5	DM	SM	DM	AM	M	AE	MM	M	M	AE
AG6	AM	MR	MR	DM	AM	M	M	MR	M	MR
AG7	WL	MR	DM	DM	DM	MR	DM	DM	DM	MM
AG8	MR	AM	AM	AM	SM	AM	DM	DM	DM	AM
EC1	AM	MR	MDL	WL	WL	WL	MDL	AE	WL	WL
EC2	DM	WL	WL	MDL	DM	MDL	WL	WL	MDL	AE
EC3	MM	MDL	MR	M	WL	AE	MM	MM	WL	WL
EN1	MDL	AE	WL	WL	DM	MDL	WL	WL	WL	MDL
EN2	DM	MR	MM	M	AM	M	MR	MM	DM	MR
EN3	SM	MR	MR	DM	WL	MR	M	MM	M	M
EN4	WL	M	AM	M	MM	MM	M	M	MM	MM
SO1	DM	MM	MM	MR	DM	WL	AE	MM	AE	WL
SO2	WL	M	MR	DM	MR	MR	DM	DM	MR	MR
SO3	MR	MR	AM	MR	DM	MR	M	DM	AM	DM
SO4	M	M	M	M	MDL	M	MR	MR	M	M

Criteria	D1			D2			D3			D4			D5			D6			D7			D8			D9			D10
AG1
AG2	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.1	1.15	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.3	1.45	1.5
AG3	0.667	1	1	1.3	1.45	1.5	0.667	1	1	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.2	1.3	1.35	1	1	1.05	1.3	1.45	1.5
AG4	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.5	1.75	1.8
AG5	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.1	1.15	1.2	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.3	1.45	1.5	1	1	1.05	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.3	1.45	1.5	1	1	1.05
AG6	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.4	1.6	1.65
AG7	0.667	1	1	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.2	1.3	1.35
AG8	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.1	1.15	1.2	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.6	1.9	1.95
EC1	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.4	1.6	1.65	0.5	0.667	1	0.667	1	1	0.667	1	1	0.667	1	1	0.5	0.667	1	1	1	1.05	0.667	1	1	0.667	1	1
EC2	1.5	1.75	1.8	0.667	1	1	0.667	1	1	0.5	0.67	1	1.5	1.75	1.8	0.5	0.667	1	0.67	1	1	0.67	1	1	0.5	0.67	1	1	1	1.05
EC3	1.2	1.3	1.35	0.5	0.67	1	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.3	1.45	1.5	0.667	1	1	1	1	1.05	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.2	1.3	1.35	0.667	1	1	0.667	1	1
EN1	0.5	1.75	1.8	1	1	1.05	0.667	1	1	0.667	1	1	1.5	1.75	1.8	0.5	0.667	1	0.67	1	1	0.67	1	1	0.667	1	1	0.5	0.67	1
EN2	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.4	1.6	1.65
EN3	1.1	1.15	1.2	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.5	1.75	1.8	0.667	1	1	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.3	1.45	1.5
EN4	0.667	1	1	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.2	1.3	1.35
SO1	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.2	1.3	1.35	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.5	1.75	1.8	0.667	1	1	1	1	1.05	1.2	1.3	1.35	1	1	1.05	0.667	1	1
SO2	0.667	1	1	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.4	1.6	1.65
SO3	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.5	1.75	1.8	1.6	1.9	1.95	1.5	1.75	1.8
SO4	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.3	1.45	1.5	0.5	0.667	1	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.4	1.6	1.65	1.3	1.45	1.5	1.3	1.45	1.5

Criteria	G. Mean (S_j¯)			k_j¯			q_j¯			w_j¯			F-Weight	Weight (%)
AG1	1	1	1	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.040	0.028	0.025	0.030	2.99
AG2	1.290	1.431	1.482	0.710	0.569	0.518	1.409	1.758	1.929	0.057	0.050	0.049	0.051	5.09
AG3	1.139	1.344	1.382	0.861	0.656	0.618	1.162	1.525	1.618	0.047	0.043	0.041	0.044	4.35
AG4	1.384	1.573	1.623	0.616	0.427	0.377	1.623	2.341	2.654	0.065	0.067	0.067	0.066	6.64
AG5	1.264	1.388	1.439	0.736	0.612	0.561	1.359	1.634	1.783	0.055	0.046	0.045	0.048	4.76
AG6	1.416	1.622	1.672	0.584	0.378	0.328	1.712	2.647	3.053	0.069	0.075	0.077	0.075	7.45
AG7	1.334	1.578	1.621	0.666	0.422	0.379	1.502	2.368	2.636	0.060	0.067	0.066	0.066	6.61
AG8	1.492	1.733	1.783	0.508	0.267	0.217	1.967	3.744	4.618	0.079	0.106	0.116	0.104	10.36
EC1	0.771	1.031	1.129	1.229	0.969	0.871	0.813	1.032	1.149	0.033	0.029	0.029	0.030	2.98
EC2	0.749	0.990	1.130	1.251	1.010	0.870	0.799	0.991	1.150	0.032	0.028	0.029	0.029	2.90
EC3	0.927	1.130	1.204	1.073	0.870	0.796	0.932	1.150	1.256	0.037	0.033	0.032	0.033	3.33
EN1	0.691	1.031	1.130	1.309	0.969	0.870	0.764	1.032	1.150	0.031	0.029	0.029	0.030	2.95
EN2	1.374	1.559	1.609	0.626	0.441	0.391	1.598	2.266	2.558	0.064	0.064	0.064	0.064	6.44
EN3	1.231	1.417	1.461	0.769	0.583	0.539	1.300	1.716	1.854	0.052	0.049	0.047	0.049	4.90
EN4	1.202	1.374	1.418	0.798	0.626	0.582	1.254	1.598	1.717	0.050	0.045	0.043	0.046	4.59
SO1	1.092	1.268	1.307	0.908	0.732	0.693	1.102	1.367	1.442	0.044	0.039	0.036	0.039	3.94
SO2	1.317	1.553	1.596	0.683	0.447	0.404	1.465	2.236	2.473	0.059	0.064	0.062	0.063	6.26
SO3	1.457	1.684	1.735	0.543	0.316	0.265	1.842	3.169	3.767	0.074	0.090	0.095	0.088	8.83
SO4	1.199	1.368	1.468	0.801	0.632	0.532	1.249	1.583	1.880	0.050	0.045	0.047	0.046	4.63

Criteria	G. Mean (S_j¯)			k_j^¯¯			q_j^¯			w_j¯			SF-Weight	% Weight
AG1	1	1	1	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.042	0.030	0.026	0.031	3.13
AG2	1.263	1.529	1.573	0.737	0.471	0.427	1.357	2.123	2.342	0.058	0.063	0.061	0.062	6.20
AG3	1.15	1.452	1.511	0.850	0.548	0.489	1.176	1.825	2.045	0.050	0.054	0.053	0.054	5.35
AG4	1.385	1.582	1.618	0.615	0.418	0.382	1.626	2.392	2.618	0.069	0.071	0.068	0.070	7.05
AG5	1.334	1.452	1.474	0.666	0.548	0.526	1.502	1.825	1.901	0.064	0.054	0.050	0.055	5.52
AG6	1.439	1.658	1.700	0.561	0.342	0.3	1.783	2.924	3.333	0.076	0.087	0.087	0.085	8.53
AG7	1.069	1.348	1.392	0.931	0.652	0.608	1.074	1.534	1.645	0.046	0.046	0.043	0.045	4.53
AG8	1.325	1.529	1.573	0.675	0.471	0.427	1.481	2.123	2.342	0.063	0.063	0.061	0.063	6.29
EC1	1.031	1.23	1.511	0.969	0.77	0.489	1.032	1.299	2.045	0.044	0.039	0.053	0.042	4.20
EC2	0.913	1.202	1.392	1.087	0.798	0.608	0.920	1.253	1.645	0.039	0.037	0.043	0.039	3.86
EC3	0.947	1.089	1.306	1.053	0.911	0.694	0.950	1.098	1.441	0.040	0.033	0.038	0.035	3.48
EN1	0.913	1.202	1.392	1.087	0.798	0.608	0.920	1.253	1.645	0.039	0.037	0.043	0.039	3.86
EN2	1.385	1.582	1.618	0.615	0.418	0.382	1.626	2.392	2.618	0.069	0.071	0.068	0.070	7.05
EN3	1.069	1.348	1.392	0.931	0.652	0.608	1.074	1.534	1.645	0.046	0.046	0.043	0.045	4.53
EN4	1.15	1.452	1.511	0.850	0.548	0.489	1.176	1.825	2.045	0.050	0.054	0.053	0.054	5.35
SO1	1.069	1.348	1.392	0.931	0.652	0.608	1.074	1.534	1.645	0.046	0.046	0.043	0.045	4.53
SO2	1.069	1.348	1.392	0.931	0.652	0.608	1.074	1.534	1.645	0.046	0.046	0.043	0.045	4.53
SO3	1.439	1.658	1.700	0.561	0.342	0.3	1.783	2.924	3.333	0.076	0.087	0.087	0.085	8.53
SO4	0.947	1.089	1.306	1.053	0.911	0.694	0.950	1.098	1.441	0.040	0.033	0.038	0.035	3.48

Criteria	F-PIPRECIAS		SF-PIPRECIAS
Criteria	Weight	Rank	Weight	Rank
AG1	2.99	16	3.13	19
AG2	5.09	8	6.20	6
AG3	4.35	13	5.35	8
AG4	6.64	4	7.05	3
AG5	4.76	10	5.52	7
AG6	7.45	3	8.53	1
AG7	6.61	5	4.53	11
AG8	10.36	1	6.29	5
EC1	2.98	17	4.20	10
EC2	2.90	18	3.86	15
EC3	3.33	15	3.48	17
EN1	2.95	19	3.86	16
EN2	6.44	6	7.05	4
EN3	4.90	9	4.53	12
EN4	4.59	12	5.35	9
SO1	3.94	14	4.53	13
SO2	6.26	7	4.53	14
SO3	8.83	2	8.53	2
SO4	4.63	11	3.48	18

{\bar{s}}_{j}^{r} = \{\begin{matrix} > \bar{1,} i f C_{j} > C_{j - 1} \\ = \bar{1,} i f C_{j} = C_{j - 1} \\ < \bar{1,} i f C_{j} < C_{j - 1} \end{matrix}

[1] * mk71b@yahoo.com

Brasil

Brasil

Prioritisation of criteria for sustainable and agile global manufacturing outsourcing partner selection using simulation based stochastic fuzzy PIPRECIA method

Abstract

Paper aims

Originality

Research method

Main findings

Implications for theory and practice

Criteria	D1	D2	D3	D4	D5	D6	D7	D8	D9	D10
AG1
AG2	MM	MM	AM	DM	MM	MM	SM	MM	DM	M
AG3	WL	M	WL	MR	AM	M	MR	MM	AE	M
AG4	DM	MR	AM	MM	MM	M	MR	M	DM	DM
AG5	DM	SM	DM	AM	M	AE	MM	M	M	AE
AG6	AM	MR	MR	DM	AM	M	M	MR	M	MR
AG7	WL	MR	DM	DM	DM	MR	DM	DM	DM	MM
AG8	MR	AM	AM	AM	SM	AM	DM	DM	DM	AM
EC1	AM	MR	MDL	WL	WL	WL	MDL	AE	WL	WL
EC2	DM	WL	WL	MDL	DM	MDL	WL	WL	MDL	AE
EC3	MM	MDL	MR	M	WL	AE	MM	MM	WL	WL
EN1	MDL	AE	WL	WL	DM	MDL	WL	WL	WL	MDL
EN2	DM	MR	MM	M	AM	M	MR	MM	DM	MR
EN3	SM	MR	MR	DM	WL	MR	M	MM	M	M
EN4	WL	M	AM	M	MM	MM	M	M	MM	MM
SO1	DM	MM	MM	MR	DM	WL	AE	MM	AE	WL
SO2	WL	M	MR	DM	MR	MR	DM	DM	MR	MR
SO3	MR	MR	AM	MR	DM	MR	M	DM	AM	DM
SO4	M	M	M	M	MDL	M	MR	MR	M	M

Criteria	D1	D2	D3	D4	D5	D6	D7	D8	D9	D10
AG1
AG2	MM	MM	AM	DM	MM	MM	SM	MM	DM	M
AG3	WL	M	WL	MR	AM	M	MR	MM	AE	M
AG4	DM	MR	AM	MM	MM	M	MR	M	DM	DM
AG5	DM	SM	DM	AM	M	AE	MM	M	M	AE
AG6	AM	MR	MR	DM	AM	M	M	MR	M	MR
AG7	WL	MR	DM	DM	DM	MR	DM	DM	DM	MM
AG8	MR	AM	AM	AM	SM	AM	DM	DM	DM	AM
EC1	AM	MR	MDL	WL	WL	WL	MDL	AE	WL	WL
EC2	DM	WL	WL	MDL	DM	MDL	WL	WL	MDL	AE
EC3	MM	MDL	MR	M	WL	AE	MM	MM	WL	WL
EN1	MDL	AE	WL	WL	DM	MDL	WL	WL	WL	MDL
EN2	DM	MR	MM	M	AM	M	MR	MM	DM	MR
EN3	SM	MR	MR	DM	WL	MR	M	MM	M	M
EN4	WL	M	AM	M	MM	MM	M	M	MM	MM
SO1	DM	MM	MM	MR	DM	WL	AE	MM	AE	WL
SO2	WL	M	MR	DM	MR	MR	DM	DM	MR	MR
SO3	MR	MR	AM	MR	DM	MR	M	DM	AM	DM
SO4	M	M	M	M	MDL	M	MR	MR	M	M

Criteria	D1	D2	D3	D4	D5	D6	D7	D8	D9	D10
AG1
AG2	MM	MM	AM	DM	MM	MM	SM	MM	DM	M
AG3	WL	M	WL	MR	AM	M	MR	MM	AE	M
AG4	DM	MR	AM	MM	MM	M	MR	M	DM	DM
AG5	DM	SM	DM	AM	M	AE	MM	M	M	AE
AG6	AM	MR	MR	DM	AM	M	M	MR	M	MR
AG7	WL	MR	DM	DM	DM	MR	DM	DM	DM	MM
AG8	MR	AM	AM	AM	SM	AM	DM	DM	DM	AM
EC1	AM	MR	MDL	WL	WL	WL	MDL	AE	WL	WL
EC2	DM	WL	WL	MDL	DM	MDL	WL	WL	MDL	AE
EC3	MM	MDL	MR	M	WL	AE	MM	MM	WL	WL
EN1	MDL	AE	WL	WL	DM	MDL	WL	WL	WL	MDL
EN2	DM	MR	MM	M	AM	M	MR	MM	DM	MR
EN3	SM	MR	MR	DM	WL	MR	M	MM	M	M
EN4	WL	M	AM	M	MM	MM	M	M	MM	MM
SO1	DM	MM	MM	MR	DM	WL	AE	MM	AE	WL
SO2	WL	M	MR	DM	MR	MR	DM	DM	MR	MR
SO3	MR	MR	AM	MR	DM	MR	M	DM	AM	DM
SO4	M	M	M	M	MDL	M	MR	MR	M	M