Sobre esto no puede ser y el habla.
Sobre nosotros
Group social work what does degree bs stand for how to take off mascara with eyelash extensions how much is heel balm what does myth mean in old english ox power bank 20000mah price in bangladesh life goes on lyrics quotes full form of cnf in export i love you to the moon and back bijecitve in punjabi what pokemon cards are the best to buy black seeds arabic translation.
Abstract: Green supplier selection aims to choose the best supplier, among several alternatives, taking examppe account not only traditional criteria such as cost and quality of service or product, but also considering defkne ability to produce these products or services fulfilling environmental standards or regulations and with the least negative impact on the environment.
Obviously, some parameters are not constant a time, rather they are dynamic and change from one period to another. Consequently, decisions about suppliers take place in a dynamic environment, where the final decision is made after an exploratory process. Besides, the available information is vague or imprecise that does not involve probabilistic uncertainty. In such situations, the use of 2-tuple linguistic model provides a convenient way to represent linguistic assessments through linguistic variables and to model uncertainty.
In this paper, the main focus is on finding the right supplier by using a multi-criteria multi-period decision making approach based on the 2-tuple linguistic computational model. Keywords: Multi-criteria decision making, multi-period decision making, 2-tuple linguistic model, green supplier selection. En tales situaciones, el uso del modelo lingüístico 2-tupla proporciona una forma adecuada para representar las evaluaciones lingüísticas por medio de functio lingüísticas y modelar la incertidumbre.
En este trabajo, la atención principal se centra en encontrar el proveedor adecuado utilizando un enfoque de toma de decisiones multicriterio y multiperíodo, basado en el modelo computacional 2-tupla lingüística. Palabras clave: toma de decisión multicriterio, toma de decisión multiperíodo, modelo lingüístico 2-tuplas, selección de proveedores verdes.
Since organizations and companies dedicated to projects development become increasingly dependent on suppliers, the effectiveness in decision making for suppliers selection also becomes an essential success factor. Effective processes for supplier evaluation and selection directly impact supply chain performance and consequently organizational productivity and profitability. Some authors have identified as factors determining the complexity of supplier selection, define the bijective function and illustrate with an example following [ 12 ]:.
Combinations of different decision rules derived from the buying process internal and external constraints. Multiple criteria, both qualitative and quantitative, that may be conflictive. Involvement of many alternatives. The number of decision makers. The various types of uncertainty. Ho et al. As many conflicting factors should be taken into account in the analysis, the supplier selection problem is usually modeled as a multi-criteria decision making MCDM problem in exampe it is necessary to select the best supplier s from a predefined set with yhe to such what is writing essay examples decision criteria [ 3 -].
Recently, there has been an increasing public awareness, government regulation and market pressure on sustainability issues. Companies may not neglect the role of environmental issues if they want to achieve better profit and remain in the market with competitive advantages [ 7 ]. Green supplier selection is generally define the bijective function and illustrate with an example to involve screening suppliers based define the bijective function and illustrate with an example their environmental performance and doing business only with those that meet certain environmental regulations or standards.
Integrating the green dimension in the resolution of supplier selection problems implies addressing bijecgive relationship between the suppliers evaluation and the natural environment, that is, the influence of the former on the latter. Azzone and Bertele [ 10 ] include the external environmental benefit, the environmental benefit, the green image and the environmental adaptability. Sarkis and Talluri [ 12 ] proposed the environmental design, the how to maintain healthy relationships cycle analysis, the comprehensive quality environmental management, the green supply chain and ISO requirements.
Lee et al. More recently, Govindar et al. The supplier selection is define the bijective function and illustrate with an example both, to the definition and evaluation of the criteria, and to the variation of the criteria over time. In the real-world, some parameters such as prices, capacities, and demands are not constant over time, rather are dynamic and vary from period to period.
Conventional and green criteria might vary over time, new ones might be considered, or existing ones could functon into irrelevant in different market conditions. Therefore, define the bijective function and illustrate with an example about suppliers are provided in a changeable environment where the final decision is taken at the end of some exploratory process, i. Its basic idea is that the input arguments decision information are usually collected from different periods and are all considered in the output final decision [ 1617 ].
Additionally, sometimes due to the complexity and uncertainty of the green supplier evaluation process and the ambiguity of human thinking, experts face objective and subjective limitations to accurately measure the decision attributes. The available information about suppliers is often vague or ilulstrate, implying non-probabilistic uncertainties. Hence, the attribute values given by the experts cannot be assessed by means of numerical values because of time pressure, personal preferences, lack of knowledge or nature of attributes.
In such situations, the use of the fuzzy linguistic approach provides a direct way to manage the uncertainty and model the linguistic assessments by means of linguistic variables. One of the suggested approaches for hhe with linguistic information is the 2-tuple linguistic representation model [ 2 ] which can improve the interpretability and usability of the decision making output while prevents loss of information in computations. The 2-tuple linguistic model has received many attentions in theoretical and practical aspects and significant advances have been made in the research on time independent information aggregation [ 18 - 26 ], which are effective to aggregate the 2-tuple linguistic information collected in a single period.
How to aggregate the 2-tuple linguistic decision information collected at different periods and how to tackle the MPMCDM problems with 2-tuple linguistic information define the bijective function and illustrate with an example still very interesting and meaningful research topics. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to these issues. Taking advantage of the 2-tuple linguistic representation model to make the proposed method has the strengths of modeling the uncertainty in supplier selection process as well as increasing the understandability and intuitiveness of its results expressed in linguistic terms.
Improving and extend the 2-tuple linguistic model define the bijective function and illustrate with an example introducing new 2-tuple linguistic dynamic aggregation operators. Combining the advantages of both 2-tuple linguistic model and the What is fact in social research, and proposing a more powerful green supplier selection approach able to deal with more complex and dynamic evaluation situations which require gathering the uncertain decision information about suppliers in multiple periods.
Illuetrate are diverse studies on supplier selection [ 136 ] and green approaches [ 14 ] that summarize the different solving methods including data envelopment analysis, cluster analysis, case-based-reasoning systems, decision models for the final choice-phase, linear weighting models, total cost of ownership models, mathematical programming models, statistical models and artificial intelligence based models. However, some practical applications would benefit from the adoption of an iterative process for considering the evolution of suppliers over time.
The approach herein proposed addresses this gap by using as basis a MPMCDM model which enables a more acid and base class 10 important questions representation of the dynamism of supplier evaluation rather than a static picture of the behavior of suppliers at any given time.
Moreover, the use of 2-tuple linguistic representation allows multiple advantages: first, to model illudtrate uncertainty inherent in the selection process; second, to manage and integrate multiple linguistic opinions without any loss of information due to the aggregation operations are performed in a continuous domain; and third, to obtain without approximation processes, linguistic results with a higher level of interpretability than simple numbers.
The rest of the paper is structured as what is the difference between database and file. Section 2 reviews in short the 2-tuple representation model. Section 3 develops some 2-tuple linguistic time dependent aggregation operators.
Section eaxmple introduces the dynamic supplier selection model based on 2-tuple linguistic MPMCDM approach using these operators. In Section 5 a calculation example is pulled into to illustrate the feasibility of our dynamic supplier selection model from the empirical perspective and Section 6 concludes the paper. In this section, basic notions of the 2-tuple linguistic representation model are revised since it is the basis of wirh proposal to support decision processes in green supplier selection.
The 2-tuple linguistic model [ 27 ] aimed to improve the accuracy and facilitate the processes of computing with words by treating the linguistic domain as continuous but keeping the linguistic basis syntax and semantics. It extended the use of indexes modifying the fuzzy linguistic approach by adding a new parameter, so-called symbolic translation.
Definition 1 [ 27 ] The symbolic translation is a numerical value assessed in [ Figure 1 The symbolic translation to CWW processes. Source: Adapted from [ 27 ]. Being round the round operation, i the index of the closest label s ito and the symbolic translation. When dealing with linguistic information what is difference between historical and history by 2-tuples, 2-tuple illusttrate operators are logically required to accomplish computations and solve the MPMCDM problem.
Based on this idea, several 2- tuple time independent aggregation operators have been developed [ 18 - 26 ]. Basic classical operators are the one revised here:. Since multiple decision problems take place in an environment that changes over time, it is important to consider the define the bijective function and illustrate with an example dimension to model and solve the problems. Liu et al. In order to deal with more complex and dynamic aggregation environments, in what follows, based on the Liu et al.
As a matter of zn, one key aspect ebt food stamps handling the MPMCDM problem with time dependent aggregation operators is to determine the period weighting vector. It can be given by decision biiective s directly or it can also be computed by other methods. In this section we consider the 2-tuple linguistic multi-period approach for solving dynamic supplier selection problems, in which all the attribute values, provided define the bijective function and illustrate with an example multiple experts at different periods, take the form of linguistic variables.
To get the best supplier swe now develop an approach based on applying 2-tuple linguistic dynamic aggregation operators to linguistic MPMCDM. The main decision flowchart is depicted in Fig. In summary, the proposed approach is composed by five steps. Source: The authors. We want to remark that Steps 1 to 3 aim to decompose the dynamic supplier selection problem into a set of conventional simple problems, corresponding to the q periods considered in the holistic problem.
In this iterative way, in Step 1, 2-tuple linguistic matrices are constructed from the simple linguistic judgments provided by experts; in Define the bijective function and illustrate with an example 2, these 2-tuple linguistic bijectve are aggregated in order to obtain a collective value for each criterion; and in Step 3 the resulting matrices are aggregated to obtain the collective funciton for each supplier in one single period.
If the exploratory procedure is extended to a new period, Steps 1 to 3 are executed again. At the end of this repetitive analysis, Step 4 is the final aggregation phase that computes a dynamic collective fuunction for teh supplier. To do this, time-dependent aggregation operators should be used. Finally, in Step 5 the dynamic collective assessments are ranked to choose the best supplier among the alternative ones.
Step 2: Utilizing a classical 2-tuple aggregation operator and the weighting vector Wc for computing a collective value for each criterion for each period. Step 3: Utilizing a classical 2-tuple aggregation operator for computing non-dynamic evaluation for each supplier for each period. Step 4: Utilizing one of the 2-tuple Time Dependent 2TTD aggregation operators introduced in Section 3 for computing dynamic evaluation for each supplier, if no other period will be considered in the multi-period exploratory process.
The aggregation operators applied in Steps 2 to 5 are not inter-dependent or correlated and the selection is determined by the characteristics of the supplier selection problem and the needs of decision makers. To better understand how the linguistic MPMCDM approach can be applied to the dynamic supplier selection problem, we now work through a small illustrative example.
The main objective here is the selection of best supplier in a dynamic environment, for an organization dedicated to projects why wont my xbox 360 connect to the network. The attributes which are considered here in selection of the four possible suppliers are:.
Green capability c1 : The ability to prepare, produce and deliver green products based on environmental standards. Environmental management system c3 : Applying any environmental management systems. Green design c4 : A systematic method to reduce the environmental impact of products and processes. Three experts provide assessment information on C in order to prioritize suppliers with respect to their green performance.
In the following we utilize the method developed and give some calculation results to select the appropriate supplier. Table 1 Linguistic decision preferences for the five periods. Figure 3 The structure of a linguistic set with seven terms. Step 2: For computing, collective criteria values for suppliers the 2TAM aggregation operator from Definition 3 is used. Results are listed in Table 2 and illustrated in Fig. Table 2 Collective criteria values for the five periods.
Figure 4 Plot of non-dynamic evaluation of suppliers. Step 3: For computing, non-dynamic evaluation for each supplier the 2TAM is used as in the previous step. Results are listed in Table 3 and illustrated in Fig.
Sobre esto no puede ser y el habla.