IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/opsear/v62y2025i3d10.1007_s12597-024-00842-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A novel 4D hybrid decision-making approach and its applications in supplier selection problem

Author

Listed:
  • Garima Bisht

    (G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology)

  • A. K. Pal

    (G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology)

Abstract

Supplier selection is not just a challenge; it’s a critical strategic decision that significantly impacts an organization’s performance. The complexity arises from the involvement of multiple experts in decision-making, each with their own perspectives and priorities. This diversity often leads to conflicts and uncertainties that must be navigated effectively. One of the key gaps in existing approaches to supplier selection lies in handling these conflicting opinions among experts. To address the gap a novel 4-dimensional hybrid decision-making approach is proposed. By incorporating dynamic feedback mechanisms, dominance considerations, distance metrics, and degree measures, this framework provides a comprehensive solution to the challenges faced in multi-attribute group decision-making. The use of fuzzy set theory, particularly Triangular Fuzzy Numbers (TFNs), is pivotal in capturing the inherent vagueness and uncertainty present in expert’s initial opinions. This allows for a more nuanced and realistic representation of expert’s perspectives, enhancing the accuracy of the decision-making process. A key feature of the proposed approach is the implementation of an attitudinal consensus threshold (ACT) as part of the dynamic feedback mechanism. This threshold mechanism ensures that evolving opinions and consensus among experts are effectively incorporated into the decision-making process, making the model adaptable to changing circumstances and preferences. Moreover, the framework integrates various measures, including preference relations, distance metrics, and degree measures between alternatives. This holistic approach not only establishes a clear ranking order for alternatives but also provides a deeper understanding of the decision landscape, allowing experts to make more informed and effective choices. To validate the practicality and effectiveness of the proposed methodology, a real-world case study focusing on supplier selection is presented. Through comparative and sensitivity analyses, the research demonstrates how the proposed approach outperforms traditional methods, highlighting its potential to revolutionize decision-making processes in dynamic business environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Garima Bisht & A. K. Pal, 2025. "A novel 4D hybrid decision-making approach and its applications in supplier selection problem," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 62(3), pages 1517-1547, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:opsear:v:62:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s12597-024-00842-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s12597-024-00842-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12597-024-00842-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12597-024-00842-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dragan Pamucar & Ali Ebadi Torkayesh & Sanjib Biswas, 2023. "Supplier selection in healthcare supply chain management during the COVID-19 pandemic: a novel fuzzy rough decision-making approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 328(1), pages 977-1019, September.
    2. Santonab Chakraborty & Rakesh D. Raut & T. M. Rofin & Shankar Chakraborty, 2024. "On solving a healthcare supplier selection problem using MCDM methods in intuitionistic fuzzy environment," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 61(2), pages 680-708, June.
    3. Daniel O. Aikhuele, 2021. "Intuitionistic fuzzy hamming distance model for failure detection in a slewing gear system," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 12(5), pages 884-894, October.
    4. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    2. Zheng, Guozhong & Wang, Xiao, 2020. "The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    4. Pedro Ponce & Citlaly Pérez & Aminah Robinson Fayek & Arturo Molina, 2022. "Solar Energy Implementation in Manufacturing Industry Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Fuzzy TOPSIS and S4 Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    6. Wabukala, Benard M. & Bergland, Olvar & Mukisa, Nicholas & Adaramola, Muyiwa S. & Watundu, Susan & Orobia, Laura A. & Rudaheranwa, Nichodemus, 2024. "Electricity security in Uganda: Measurement and policy priorities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    7. Wei, Sen & Yang, Hanqing & Bai, Yu & Wang, Yuanqing, 2025. "Road safety assessment of small management units considering smart roadway retrofitting," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 28-41.
    8. Hisham Alidrisi, 2021. "An Innovative Job Evaluation Approach Using the VIKOR Algorithm," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Abbas Keramati & Fatemeh Shapouri, 2016. "Multidimensional appraisal of customer relationship management: integrating balanced scorecard and multi criteria decision making approaches," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 217-251, May.
    10. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    11. María Pilar de la Cruz López & Juan José Cartelle Barros & Alfredo del Caño Gochi & Manuel Lara Coira, 2021. "New Approach for Managing Sustainability in Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Khaled Alshehri & Mohadese Basirati & Devin Sapsford & Michael Harbottle & Peter Cleall, 2024. "Nature-Based Secondary Resource Recovery under Climate Change Uncertainty: A Robust Multi-Objective Optimisation Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-27, August.
    14. Lupo, Toni, 2015. "Fuzzy ServPerf model combined with ELECTRE III to comparatively evaluate service quality of international airports in Sicily," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 249-259.
    15. Jing Zhang & Xinglong Feng & Aixiang Wu & Haiyong Cheng & Zhengrong Li & Shaoyong Wang & Wei Sun & Chong Chen, 2025. "Critical early warning of underground debris flows in mines based on rainfall–collapse characteristics," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(1), pages 423-445, January.
    16. Alamoodi, A.H. & Zaidan, B.B. & Zaidan, A.A. & Albahri, O.S. & Chen, Juliana & Chyad, M.A. & Garfan, Salem & Aleesa, A.M., 2021. "Machine learning-based imputation soft computing approach for large missing scale and non-reference data imputation," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    17. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.
    18. Sirirat Sae Lim & Hong Ngoc Nguyen & Chia-Li Lin, 2022. "Exploring the Development Strategies of Science Parks Using the Hybrid MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-29, April.
    19. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    20. Zeynep Gamze Mert & Gülşen Akman, 2011. "The Profile of the Organized Industrial Zones in Kocaeli/TURKEY," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1137, European Regional Science Association.

    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:spr:opsear:v:62:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s12597-024-00842-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.