Third-Party Cold Chain Medicine Logistics Provider Selection by a Rough Set-Based Gained and Lost Dominance Score Method

Choosing third-party cold chain logistics suppliers can be regarded as a multiple criteria group decision-making problem since multiple aspects of suppliers are required to be evaluated by multiple experts. This paper aims to address the problem of selecting the optimal third-party cold chain medicine logistics provider considering the uncertainties caused by the qualitative criteria that are difficult to accurately evaluate and the limitation of experts’ knowledge and cognition. We propose a rough set-based gained and lost dominance score method in which experts are supposed to use linguistic terms to express their information. First, we combine rough numbers with linguistic scale functions to depict the semantics of linguistic terms and convert the formal expression information of linguistic terms into numerical information, which has an advantage of expressing imprecision and subjective judgments of experts. In addition, given that different experts often have different emphases on different attributes, we investigate a rough set-based gained and lost dominance score method in which experts have different weights for different criteria. Finally, an illustrative example of selecting the optimal third-party cold chain medicine logistics is given with comparative analysis, showing the efficiency of the proposed method. This method provides a new way to solve the selection problem of third-party logistics suppliers.

[1]  Huchang Liao,et al.  A Q-RUNG ORTHOPAIR FUZZY GLDS METHOD FOR INVESTMENT EVALUATION OF BE ANGEL CAPITAL IN CHINA , 2020 .

[2]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making , 2016, Inf. Sci..

[3]  Ali Emrouznejad,et al.  Strategic logistics outsourcing: An integrated QFD and fuzzy AHP approach , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[4]  Seyed Jafar Sadjadi,et al.  A supplier selection model in pharmaceutical supply chain using PCA, Z-TOPSIS and MILP: A case study , 2018, PloS one.

[5]  Kenneth B. Ackerman,et al.  Third Party Logistics Choice , 1995 .

[6]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Rough approximation of a preference relation by dominance relations , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  S. Seuring,et al.  Environmental impacts as buying criteria for third party logistical services , 2010 .

[8]  Dragan Pamucar,et al.  Evaluation of a Third-Party Logistics (3PL) Provider Using a Rough SWARA-WASPAS Model Based on a New Rough Dombi Aggregator , 2018, Symmetry.

[9]  Wei-Kai Wang,et al.  An integrated fuzzy approach for provider evaluation and selection in third-party logistics , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[10]  Nima Esfandiari,et al.  Supplier evaluation and selection with QFD and FAHP in a pharmaceutical company , 2013 .

[11]  S. G. Deshmukh,et al.  Selection of Third-Party Logistics (3PL): A Hybrid Approach Using Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP) , 2005 .

[12]  Huchang Liao,et al.  A Choquet Integral-Based GLDS Method for Green Supplier Selection with Hesitant Fuzzy Information , 2019 .

[13]  Jin Qi,et al.  An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number , 2015, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[14]  Ravi Shankar,et al.  Selection of logistics service provider: An analytic network process (ANP) approach , 2007 .

[15]  Huchang Liao,et al.  A gained and lost dominance score II method for modelling group uncertainty: Case study of site selection of electric vehicle charging stations , 2020 .

[16]  Patrik Eklund,et al.  Consensus reaching in committees , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  Roberto Montanari,et al.  Cold chain tracking: a managerial perspective , 2008 .

[18]  Angappa Gunasekaran,et al.  Third party logistics (3PL) selection for cold chain management: a fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach , 2018, Ann. Oper. Res..

[19]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  Assessment of third-party logistics providers using a CRITIC–WASPAS approach with interval type-2 fuzzy sets , 2017 .

[20]  Hokey Min,et al.  Benchmarking the operational efficiency of third party logistics providers using data envelopment analysis , 2006 .

[21]  Christopher R. Moberg,et al.  Third‐Party Warehousing Selection: A Comparison of National and Regional Firms , 2004 .

[22]  Kim Hua Tan,et al.  Leveraging the supply chain flexibility of third party logistics - Hybrid knowledge-based system approach , 2008, Expert Syst. Appl..

[23]  Huchang Liao,et al.  Life satisfaction evaluation in earthquake-hit area by the probabilistic linguistic GLDS method integrated with the logarithm-multiplicative analytic hierarchy process , 2019, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.

[24]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Underground Mining Method Selection With the Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Gained and Lost Dominance Score Method , 2018, IEEE Access.

[25]  Huchang Liao,et al.  Cold Chain Logistics Management of Medicine with an Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method , 2019, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[26]  Jerzy W. Grzymala-Busse,et al.  Rough Sets , 1995, Commun. ACM.

[27]  Li Pheng Khoo,et al.  A rough set enhanced fuzzy approach to quality function deployment , 2008 .

[28]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  A comparative study on consensus measures in group decision making , 2018, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[29]  Zeshui Xu Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making , 2005 .

[30]  Huchang Liao,et al.  A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method , 2019, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[31]  PamuarDragan,et al.  Novel approach to group multi-criteria decision making based on interval rough numbers , 2017 .

[32]  Aicha Aguezzoul,et al.  Third-party logistics selection problem: A literature review on criteria and methods , 2014 .

[33]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets for Decision Making , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

[34]  Dragan Pamuar,et al.  Novel approach to group multi-criteria decision making based on interval rough numbers , 2017 .

[35]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words , 2000, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst..

[36]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A continuous interval-valued linguistic ORESTE method for multi-criteria group decision making , 2018, Knowl. Based Syst..

[37]  G. Kovács,et al.  The sustainable agenda and energy efficiency , 2010 .

[38]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Score-HeDLiSF: A score function of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set based on hesitant degrees and linguistic scale functions: An application to unbalanced hesitant fuzzy linguistic MULTIMOORA , 2019, Inf. Fusion.

[39]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-III , 1975, Inf. Sci..

[40]  Rassoul Dinarvand,et al.  Pharmaceutical supply chain risks: a systematic review , 2013, DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences.

[41]  Lin Li,et al.  Understanding the process parameter interactions in multiple-pass ultra-narrow-gap laser welding of thick-section stainless steels , 2013 .

[42]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set and Its Application in Decision Making: A State-of-the-Art Survey , 2017, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems.