A Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS Model to Support Supplier Segmentation

Borges, William Viana; Lima Junior, Francisco Rodrigues; Peinado, Jurandir; Carpinetti, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro

doi:10.1590/1982-7849rac2022210133.en

person William Viana Borges *

schoolUniversidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.

0000-0001-5166-2846

person Francisco Rodrigues Lima Junior

schoolUniversidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.

0000-0001-7053-5519

person Jurandir Peinado

schoolUniversidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.

0000-0003-4777-6984

person Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti

schoolUniversidade de São Paulo, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, Departamento de Engenharia de Produção, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.

0000-0002-8357-2607

person* Corresponding Author

Editor-in-chief:

Marcelo de Souza Bispo (Universidade Federal da Paraíba, PPGA, Brazil)

Associate Editor:

Fernando Luiz Emerenciano Viana (Universidade de Fortaleza, Brazil)

Reviewers:

Nadya Regina Galo (Universidade Federal de Goiás, Brazil)

Luciano Ferreira da Silva (Universidade Nove de Julho, Brazil)

Authorship

William Viana Borges*

Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração

Av. Sete de Setembro, n. 3165, Rebouças, 80230-010, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

E-mail: williamvianaborges@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5166-2846

Francisco Rodrigues Lima Junior

Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração

Av. Sete de Setembro, n. 3165, Rebouças, 80230-010, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

E-mail: frjunior@utfpr.edu.br

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7053-5519

Jurandir Peinado

Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração

Av. Sete de Setembro, n. 3165, Rebouças, 80230-010, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

E-mail: jurandirpeinado@utfpr.edu.br

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4777-6984

Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti

Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, Departamento de Engenharia de Produção

Av. Trabalhador São-Carlense, n. 400, Parque Arnold Schimidt, 13566-590, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

E-mail: carpinet@sc.usp.br

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8357-2607

groupsAuthors' Contributions

1^st author: conceptualization (lead); formal analysis (lead); investigation (lead); methodology (lead); validation (lead); visualization (lead); writing - original draft (lead).

2^nd author: conceptualization (equal); methodology (equal); project administration (lead); supervision (equal); validation (lead); writing - original draft (supporting).

3^rd author: conceptualization (supporting); supervision (lead); validation (equal); writing - review & editing (equal).

4^th author: conceptualization (equal); supervision (equal); validation (supporting); writing - review & editing (lead).

Conflict of Interests

The authors have stated that there is no conflict of interest.

		Author(s)
Method(s)	AHP	Bianchini, Benci, Pellgrini and Rossi (2019), Park, Shin, Chang and Park (2010), Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018)
	AHP and fuzzy 2-tuple	Santos, Osiro and Lima (2017)
	AHP and fuzzy relations	Rezaei and Ortt (2013b)
	AHP, fuzzy c-means and VIKOR	Akman (2015)
	AHP, K-means and simulated annealing algorithm	Che (2011)
	AHP, PROMETHÉE and MAUT	Segura and Maroto (2017)
	Best-worst method	Rezaei and Lajimi (2019), Rezaei, Wang, and Tavasszy (2015)
	DEA	Restrepo and Villegas (2019)
	DEMATEL	Parkouhi, Ghadikolaei, and Lajimi (2019)
	ELECTRE TRI	Rezaei et al. (2017)
	Fuzzy-AHP	Lo and Sudjatmika (2015)
	Fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy c-means	Haghighi, Morad and Salahi (2014)
	Fuzzy c-means and fuzzy formal concept analysis	Jharkharia and Das (2019)
	Fuzzy-TOPSIS	Lima and Carpinetti (2016), Medeiros and Ferreira (2018)
	Fuzzy inference	Aloini, Dulmin, Mininno and Zerbino (2019), Osiro, Lima and Carpinetti (2014), Rezaei and Ortt (2013a)
	PROMETHÉE	Boujelben (2017)
	RST, VIKOR and fuzzy c-means	Bai, Rezaei and Sarkis (2017)
	VIKORSORT	Demir, Akpinar, Araz and Ilgin (2018)
Segmentation dimensions	Supplier attractiveness and strength of relationship	Aloini et al. (2019)
	Supplier capabilities and supplier willingness to collaborate	Bai et al. (2017), Boujelben (2017), Haghighi et al. (2014), Lo and Sudjatmika (2015), Rezaei and Ortt (2013a), Rezaei and Ortt (2013b), Rezaei, Kadzinski, Vana and Tavasszy (2017), Rezaei et al. (2015), Santos et al. (2017)
	Cost and delivery performance	Lima and Carpinetti (2016)
	Supplier investment decisions and supplier collaboration decisions	Jharkharia and Das (2019)
	Critical and strategic	Segura and Maroto (2017)
	Diversity efficiency and cross efficiency	Restrepo and Villegas (2019)
	Strategic importance and relationship attractiveness	Park, Shin, Chang and Park (2010)
	Resiliency enhancer and resiliency reducer	Parkouhi et al. (2019)
	Country, supplier business performance, and supplier E&S	Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018)
	Potential for partnership and delivery performance	Osiro et al. (2014)
	Supply risk and impact on profit	Bianchini et al. (2019), Medeiros and Ferreira (2018)
	Supply risk, profit impact, capabilities, and willingness to collaborate	Rezaei and Lajimi (2019)

Chosen criteria	Decision-maker 1		Decision-maker 2
Chosen criteria	Judgments	Conversion	Judgments	Conversion
C₁: Effort to reduce material waste	Between very low and low	[VL,L]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₂: Ability to work in a team	Between low and medium	[L,M]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₃: Commitment to quality	Between medium and high	[M,H]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₄: Willingness to share information, ideas, technology, and cost savings	Between very low and low	[VL,L]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₅: Long-term relationship	Between low and medium	[L,M]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₆: Honesty	Between medium and high	[M,H]	Between high and very high	[H,VH]
C₇: Safety auditorship	Between medium and high	[M,H]	Perfect	[P]
C₈: Ease of communication	Between very low and low	[VL,L]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₉: Compliance procedures	Between medium and high	[M,H]	Perfect	[P]

Criteria	S_p	S_q	$d (H_{S}^{1}, H_{S}^{2})$		D⁺	$d (H_{S}^{1}, H_{S}^{2})$		D^-	CC_i	CC_i normalized
C₁	2	3	3	4	7	1	1	2	0.222	0.057
C₂	3	3	3	3	6	1	2	3	0.333	0.086
C₃	3	4	2	3	5	2	2	4	0.444	0.114
C₄	2	3	3	4	7	1	1	2	0.222	0.057
C₅	3	3	3	3	6	1	2	3	0.333	0.086
C₆	4	4	2	2	4	2	3	5	0.556	0.143
C₇	4	6	0	2	2	4	3	7	0.778	0.200
C₈	2	3	3	4	7	1	1	2	0.222	0.057
C₉	4	6	0	2	2	4	3	7	0.778	0.200

Chosen criteria	Decision-maker 1		Decision-maker 2
Chosen criteria	Judgments	Conversion	Judgments	Conversion
C₁: Environmental certifications	Between high and very high	[M,H]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₂: Proper waste disposal	Between medium and high	[P]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₃: Disposal of hazardous materials	Between medium and high	[M,H]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₄: On-time shipment	Between medium and high	[M,H]	Between high and very high	[H,VH]
C₅: Technological capability	Between high and very high	[VL,L]	Between high and very high	[H,VH]
C₆: Quick problem solving	Between medium and high	[L,M]	Between high and very high	[H,VH]
C₇: Technical knowledge	Perfect	[M,H]	Between high and very high	[H,VH]
C₈: Productivity and efficiency	Between medium and high	[M,H]	Between high and very high	[H,VH]
C₉: Quality	Between medium and high	[H,VH]	Between high and very high	[H,VH]
C₁₀: Average training time per employee	Between very low and low	[P]	Between low and medium	[L,M]
C₁₁: Employees’ healthcare	Between low and medium	[M,H]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₁₂: Child labor	Between medium and high	[H,VH]	Between very low and low	[VL,L]
C₁₃: Work conditions	Between medium and high	[M,H]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₁₄: Safety training	Between high and very high	[M,H]	Perfect	[P]
C₁₅: Number of accidents	Perfect	[AB]	Between high and very high	[H,VH]
C₁₆: Employee satisfaction	Between medium and high	[M,A]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₁₇: Company reputation	Between high and very high	[A,MA]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₁₈: Technical structure	Between medium and high	[M,A]	Between medium and high	[M,H]
C₁₉: Financial situation	Between medium and high	[M,A]	Between low and medium	[L,M]

	C₁	C₂	C₃	C₄	C₅	C₆	C₇	C₈	C₉	C₁₀
CC_i	0.556	0.444	0.444	0.556	0.667	0.556	0.889	0.556	0.556	0.111
CC_i normalized	0.056	0.045	0.045	0.056	0.067	0.056	0.09	0.056	0.056	0.011
	C₁₁	C₁₂	C₁₃	C₁₄	C₁₅	C₁₆	C₁₇	C₁₈	C₁₉
CC_i	0.333	0.222	0.444	0.889	0.889	0.444	0.556	0.444	0.333
CC_i normalized	0.034	0.022	0.045	0.09	0.09	0.045	0.056	0.045	0.034

C_i	Decision-maker 1						Decision-maker 2
C_i	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆
C₁	[M,H]	[H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[L]	[H,VH]	[L]	[L,M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]
C₂	[M,H]	[H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[H,VH]	[M]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[M,H]
C₃	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[L]	[H,VH]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]
C₄	[L]	[L,M]	[VL,L]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[VL,L]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H,VH]
C₅	[L,M]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[P]	[L,M]	[H,VH]	[H,VH]	[P]
C₆	[L,M]	[H,VH]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H]	[P]	[H,VH]	[H,VH]	[P]	[P]
C₇	[M]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[P]	[P]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[P]
C₈	[L,M]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[P]	[L,M]	[H,VH]	[H,VH]	[L,M]
C₉	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]

C_i	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆
C₁	[2, 3]	[4, 4]	[2, 3]	[3, 4]	[3, 4]	[3, 3]
C₂	[3, 3]	[4, 4]	[3, 3]	[3, 4]	[4, 4]	[3, 4]
C₃	[2, 3]	[4, 5]	[3, 3]	[3, 4]	[3, 4]	[3, 3]
C₄	[2, 3]	[3, 3]	[2, 2]	[3, 3]	[3, 3]	[2, 4]
C₅	[2, 3]	[5, 6]	[3, 3]	[4, 4]	[4, 5]	[4, 6]
C₆	[3, 4]	[5, 6]	[3, 4]	[4, 4]	[4, 6]	[4, 6]
C₇	[3, 6]	[5, 6]	[4, 4]	[3, 4]	[3, 4]	[4, 6]
C₈	[2, 3]	[4, 6]	[3, 3]	[4, 4]	[4, 4]	[2, 3]
C₉	[4, 6]	[5, 6]	[4, 6]	[4, 6]	[4, 6]	[4, 6]

C_i	Distances from the PIS $\| \| h_{i j} - h_{j}^{+} \| \|$						C_i	Distances from the NIS $\| \| h_{i j} - h_{j}^{-} \| \|$
C_i	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆		F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆
C₁	0.114	0.029	0.114	0.057	0.057	0.086	C₁	0.029	0.114	0.029	0.086	0.086	0.057
C₂	0.129	0.043	0.129	0.086	0.043	0.086	C₂	0.043	0.129	0.043	0.086	0.129	0.086
C₃	0.229	0.000	0.171	0.114	0.114	0.171	C₃	0.057	0.286	0.114	0.171	0.171	0.114
C₄	0.114	0.086	0.143	0.086	0.086	0.086	C₄	0.057	0.086	0.029	0.086	0.086	0.086
C₅	0.300	0.043	0.257	0.171	0.129	0.086	C₅	0.000	0.257	0.043	0.129	0.171	0.214
C₆	0.357	0.071	0.357	0.286	0.143	0.143	C₆	0.143	0.429	0.143	0.214	0.357	0.357
C₇	0.300	0.100	0.400	0.500	0.500	0.200	C₇	0.300	0.500	0.200	0.100	0.100	0.400
C₈	0.200	0.057	0.171	0.114	0.114	0.200	C₈	0.000	0.143	0.029	0.086	0.086	0.000
C₉	0.200	0.100	0.200	0.200	0.200	0.200	C₉	0.300	0.400	0.300	0.300	0.300	0.300
D⁺	1.943	0.529	1.943	1.614	1.386	1.257	D^-	0.929	2.343	0.929	1.257	1.486	1.614

Supplier	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆
RC_i	0.323	0.816	0.323	0.438	0.517	0.562
RC_i normalized	0.281	0.849	0.281	0.421	0.528	0.588
Ranking	6^th	1^st	5^th	4^th	3^rd	2^nd

C_i	Decision-maker 1						Decision-maker 2
C_i	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆
C₁	[VL]	[VL]	[VL]	[VL]	[VL]	[VL]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[P]
C₂	[L,M]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[VL]	[L,M]	[P]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[VL,L,M]
C₃	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[VL,L]	[M,H]	[P]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[M,H,VH]
C₄	[L,M]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[H,VH]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[L,M]
C₅	[VL,L]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L,M,H]	[L,M,H]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[L,M,H]	[H,VH]
C₆	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[VL,L]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[L,M]
C₇	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H,VH]
C₈	[L,M]	[P]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[H,VH]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]
C₉	[L,M]	[P]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]
C₁₀	[L,M]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[VL,L]	[VL,L]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[VL,L]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[H,VH]
C₁₁	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[P]
C₁₂	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]
C₁₃	[L,M]	[H,VH]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[P]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[M,H]
C₁₄	[L,M]	[H,VH]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[P]
C₁₅	[VH]	[VH]	[VH]	[VH]	[VH]	[VH]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]	[P]
C₁₆	[VL]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[VL,L]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[H,VH]
C₁₇	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[L,M]	[H,VH]	[L,M]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[H,VH]
C₁₈	[M,H]	[H,VH]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[P]	[M,H]	[L,M]	[VL,L]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[H,VH]
C₁₉	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[M,H]	[P]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[L,M]	[H,VH]

Supplier	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆
Normalized RC_i	0.285	0.776	0.311	0.406	0.395	0.783
Ranking	6^th	2^nd	5^th	3^rd	4^th	1^st

Criteria	Scenario 1		Scenario 2		Scenario 3
Criteria	Decision-maker 1	Decision-maker 2	Decision-maker 1	Decision-maker 2	Decision-maker 1	Decision-maker 2
C₁: Effort to reduce material waste	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]
C₂: Ability to work in a team	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₃: Commitment to quality	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₄: Willingness to share information, ideas, technology, and cost savings	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₅: Long-term relationship	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₆: Honesty	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₇: Safety auditorship	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₈: Ease of communication	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₉: Compliance procedures	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]

Criteria	Scenario 1		Scenario 2		Scenario 3
Criteria	Decision-maker 1	Decision-maker 2	Decision-maker 1	Decision-maker 2	Decision-maker 1	Decision-maker 2
C₁: Environmental certifications	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]
C₂: Proper waste disposal	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]
C₃: Disposal of hazardous materials	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]
C₄: On-time shipment	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₅: Technological capability	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₆: Quick problem solving	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₇: Technical knowledge	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₈: Productivity and efficiency	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₉: Quality	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₁₀: Average training time per employee	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₁₁: Employees’ healthcare	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₁₂: Child labor	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₁₃: Work conditions	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₁₄: Safety training	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₁₅: Number of accidents	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₁₆: Employee satisfaction	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₁₇: Company reputation	[M]	[M]	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]
C₁₈: Technical structure	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]
C₁₉: Financial situation	[M]	[M]	[P]	[P]	[M]	[M]

F_i	Proposed model		Scenario 1		Scenario 2		Scenario 3
F_i	Willingness	Capabilities	Willingness	Capabilities	Willingness	Capabilities	Willingness	Capabilities
F₁	0.242	0.284	0.250	0.420	0.218	0.233	0.309	0.348
F₂	0.821	0.793	0.798	0.874	0.793	0.734	0.834	0.715
F₃	0.277	0.354	0.250	0.420	0.255	0.376	0.309	0.326
F₄	0.449	0.363	0.634	0.420	0.534	0.409	0.309	0.348
F₅	0.651	0.388	0.634	0.500	0.631	0.409	0.656	0.370
F₆	0.539	0.769	0.432	0.275	0.583	0.806	0.540	0.832

Supplier	Application case	Scenario 1	Scenario 2	Scenario 3
F₁	1	1	1	1
F₂	4	4	4	4
F₃	1	1	1	1
F₄	1	2	2	1
F₅	2	2	2	2
F₆	4	1	4	4

[TFN1] Note. Adapted from Borges and Lima (2020).