IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i4p1701-d1593948.html

A Hybrid Intuitionistic Fuzzy Entropy–BWM–WASPAS Approach for Supplier Selection in Shipbuilding Enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Qiankun Jiang

    (School of Transportation and Logistics Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430063, China)

  • Haiyan Wang

    (School of Transportation and Logistics Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430063, China)

Abstract

Supplier selection in the shipbuilding industry is a typical multicriteria group decision-making (MCGDM) problem, often characterized by significant uncertainty and fuzziness. To address this issue effectively, this paper proposes a novel integrated approach for supplier selection in shipbuilding enterprises by combining intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs) with the weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) method. The proposed method utilizes IFS operators alongside an innovative process for evaluating indicator weights. Initially, an intuitionistic fuzzy number approach is employed to obtain indicator data, which effectively captures the uncertainty of linguistic variables and ensures accurate reflection of real-world conditions. Subsequently, the indicator weights are evaluated by integrating subjective weights, derived through the best–worst method, with objective weights, calculated using an entropy-based approach, resulting in more balanced and realistic weight assignments. Subsequently, the WASPAS method is used to prioritize alternative suppliers, and a shipbuilding enterprise in Shanghai is taken as an example to verify the effectiveness of the model. In addition, to evaluate the stability of the proposed method, sensitivity analyses were performed for varying attribute values. The results demonstrate that the combination of subjective and objective weights enhances the stability of the method under varying attribute weights. Finally, a comparison with various existing methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy information proves that the proposed method exhibits certain advantages in solving the MCGDM problem under uncertain environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiankun Jiang & Haiyan Wang, 2025. "A Hybrid Intuitionistic Fuzzy Entropy–BWM–WASPAS Approach for Supplier Selection in Shipbuilding Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:4:p:1701-:d:1593948
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/4/1701/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/4/1701/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gia Sirbiladze & Anna Sikharulidze, 2018. "Extensions of Probability Intuitionistic Fuzzy Aggregation Operators in Fuzzy MCDM/MADM," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(02), pages 621-655, March.
    2. Centobelli, Piera & Cerchione, Roberto & Maglietta, Amedeo & Oropallo, Eugenio, 2023. "Sailing through a digital and resilient shipbuilding supply chain: An empirical investigation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Wu, Zhibin & Xu, Jiuping, 2016. "Managing consistency and consensus in group decision making with hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 28-40.
    4. Adel Hatami-Marbini & Siavash Hekmat & Per J. Agrell, 2022. "A strategy-based framework for supplier selection: a grey PCA-DEA approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 263-297, March.
    5. Xiang Ziquan & Yang Jiaqi & Muhammad Hamza Naseem & Xiang Zuquan & Liang Xueheng, 2021. "Supplier Selection of Shipbuilding Enterprises Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-11, July.
    6. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    7. van Valkenhoef, Gert & Tervonen, Tommi, 2016. "Entropy-optimal weight constraint elicitation with additive multi-attribute utility models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-12.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adis Puška & Nebojša Kojić & Aleksandra Pavlović & Ranko Bojanić & Ilija Stojanović & Vesna Krpina & Radivoj Prodanović & Miroslav Nedeljković, 2025. "Selection of Green Packaging Suppliers for Circular Economy Needs Using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-29, September.
    2. Adis Puška & Saša Igić & Nedeljko Prdić & Branislav Dudić & Ilija Stojanović & Lazar Stošić & Miroslav Nedeljković, 2025. "Application of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Approaches and Bonferroni Mean Operators in the Selection of Suppliers of Agricultural Equipment and Machinery for the Needs of the Agriculture 4.0 System," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-31, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lin, Xueshan & Huang, Tao & Bompard, Ettore & Wang, Beibei & Zheng, Yaxian, 2023. "Ex-ante market power evaluation and mitigation in day-ahead electricity market considering market maturity levels," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    2. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Heidary-Dahooie, Jalil & Rafiee, Mostafa & Mohammadi, Mehdi & Meidute-Kavaliauskienė, Ieva, 2022. "Proposing a new LSGDM framework based on BWM with hesitant fuzzy information for prioritizing blockchain adoption barriers in supply chain," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    4. Krishankumar, Raghunathan & Sundararajan, Dhruva & Ishizaka, Alessio & Ravichandran, Kattur Soundarapandian, 2025. "A double hierarchy fuzzy decision approach for solar farm ranking sites in India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    5. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    6. José Rui Figueira & José Luis García-Lapresta, 2026. "Relationships between the deck of cards method and the proximity measures approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Nitin Sahu & Garima Mittal, 2026. "Resilient supplier selection under operational and disruption risks: A multi-stage framework," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 359(3), pages 2617-2654, April.
    8. Nitesh Kumar & Ramesh Anbanandam, 2026. "Selection of Waste Disposal Vendor for Effective Municipal Solid Waste Management," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 1-28, April.
    9. Zarei, Esmaeil & Khan, Faisal & Abbassi, Rouzbeh, 2021. "Importance of human reliability in process operation: A critical analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    10. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Paul, Ananna & Shukla, Nagesh & Trianni, Andrea, 2023. "Modelling supply chain sustainability challenges in the food processing sector amid the COVID-19 outbreak," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    12. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    13. Martín-García, Jaime & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza, Manuel, 2024. "Conversion to organic farming: Does it change the economic and environmental performance of fruit farms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    14. Juuso Pajasmaa & Kaisa Miettinen & Johanna Silvennoinen, 2025. "Group Decision Making in Multiobjective Optimization: A Systematic Literature Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 329-371, April.
    15. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    16. Željko Stević & Irena Đalić & Dragan Pamučar & Zdravko Nunić & Slavko Vesković & Marko Vasiljević & Ilija Tanackov, 2019. "A new hybrid model for quality assessment of scientific conferences based on Rough BWM and SERVQUAL," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 1-30, April.
    17. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "Modeling personalized cognition of customers in online shopping," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    18. Ravindra Singh Saluja & Varinder Singh, 2023. "Attribute-based characterization, coding, and selection of joining processes using a novel MADM approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 616-655, June.
    19. Ignitia Motjolopane & Martin Chanza, 2023. "Digital transformation dimensions for evaluating SMEs' readiness for big data analytics and artificial intelligence: A review," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 12(7), pages 583-595, October.
    20. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:4:p:1701-:d:1593948. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.