Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

An innovative integration of fuzzy-logic and systems dynamics

in sustainable supplier selection: A case on manufacturing industry
Ifeyinwa Juliet Orji ⇑, Sun Wei
School of Mechanical Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, 116024, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Globally, supply chains compete in a complex and rapidly changing environment. Hence, sustainable
Received 13 July 2014 supplier selection has become a decisive variable in the firm’s financial success. This requires reliable
Received in revised form 29 April 2015 tools and techniques to select the best sustainable supplier and enhance understanding about how
Accepted 12 June 2015
supplier behavior evolves with time. System dynamics (SD) is an approach to investigate the dynamic
Available online 2 July 2015
behavior in which the system status alterations correspond to the system variable changes. Fuzzy logic
usually solves the challenges of imprecise data and ambiguous human judgment. Thus, this work pre-
Keywords:
sents a novel modeling approach of integrating information on supplier behavior in fuzzy environment
Fuzzy logic
Supplier selection
with system dynamics simulation modeling technique which results in a more reliable and responsible
Sustainability decision support system. Supplier behavior with respect to relevant sustainability criteria in the past,
Systems dynamics current and future time horizons were sourced through expert interviews and simulated in Vensim to
select the best possible sustainable supplier. Simulation results show that an increase in the rate of
investment in sustainability by the different suppliers causes an exponential increase in total sustainabil-
ity performance of the suppliers. Also, the growth rate of the total performance of suppliers outruns their
rate of investment in sustainability after about 12 months. A dynamic multi-criteria decision making
model was presented to compare results from the systems dynamics model.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction multi-criteria decision making models (Amindoust, Ahmed,

Saghafinia, & Bahreininejad, 2012; Awasthi, Chauhan, & Goyal,
Today, industries consider how to manage supply chain opera- 2010; Bottani & Rizzi, 2008; Büyüközkan & Çifçi, 2011;
tions more efficiently to improve organizational performance. Campanella, Pereira, Ribeiro, & Varela, 2012; Campanella &
Sustainable supplier selection is a very critical agent to ensuring Ribeiro, 2011; Chang, Chang, & Wu, 2011; Chen, 2009; Javad,
the profitability and survival of a company. However, a major prob- Rita, & Leonilde, 2014; Mani, Agrawal, & Sharma, 2014; Zhang,
lem while implementing sustainable supplier selection is how to Hamid, Bakar, & Thoo, 2014). The basic assumption in applying
insure that suppliers maintain their status for a long period. decision making models is that both criteria and alternatives are
The success of green manufacturing lies hugely on selecting fixed a priori and that decision occurs only once i.e., does not
sustainable suppliers. An effective supplier selection model is a involve spatial or temporal considerations. This assumption
critical success factor for supply chains in a complex environment undoubtedly limits the validity of the result, specifically when
by providing fast response to the business system changes in pre- the values change over time and the decision matrix is not fixed
dominant dynamic environment. A reliable decision making pro- or static as in sustainable supplier selection problems. In addi-
cess requires understanding of a complex situation of the tion, the multi-criteria decision-making model conception of the
business. Thus, static mathematical modeling techniques in opera- supplier selection problem focuses on the cause and effect rela-
tions research might not be deemed reliable given their inability to tionship between the system components individually; it is thus
integrate all the variables of a real situation into the decision sup- not regarded as a broad model. Multi-criteria decision making
port models. models usually does not provide a complete understanding of the
There exist in the literature many approaches to the topic of complex nature of the supplier selection problem with respect to
sustainable supplier selection most of which are based on economic, social and environmental factors. Thus, multi-criteria
decision making models cannot reliably provide information
⇑ Corresponding author. on insuring suppliers maintain their status for a long period of
E-mail address: [email protected] (I.J. Orji). time.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.06.019
0360-8352/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12

In efforts towards ensuring more effective decision making, sustainability criteria. At the development of the systems dynamic
research efforts have involved applying soft operation research model, time and cost resources could be demanding, but once
modeling techniques like; strengths weaknesses opportunities installed, use of the model becomes less demanding. The remain-
and threats (SWOT) analysis, decision tree and system dynamics ing parts of this paper will discuss the novel approach which is
(SD). Techniques that are predominantly rational, interpretative, capable of: (a) Estimating supplier behavior with respect to sus-
structure and qualitative are employed by soft operations research tainability criteria in the past, present and future period. (b)
models which usually interpret, define, and explore various per- Providing insight into how supplier behavior evolves with time.
spectives of the problem (Heyer, 2004). It is believed that this work can support the selection of sustain-
System dynamics is one of the promising soft operation able suppliers and insuring suppliers maintains their status for a
research techniques. It was developed from the research carried long period of time.
out by Jay W. Forrester at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Jay W. Forrester defines Industrial Dynamics as involv-
ing the study of the information feedback characteristics of indus- 2. Literature review
trial activity to show how organizational structure, amplification
(in policies), and time delays (in decision and actions) interact to Although a rich supplier selection literature exists, there has
influence the success of the enterprise (Forrester, 1971). The gen- been relatively little research that investigates how to insure sus-
eral belief that systems dynamics modeling is more suitable for tainable suppliers maintain their status for a long period of time.
modeling at the strategic level was countered by the survey of Most past works employed multi-criteria decision making models
Tako and Robinson (2012) on the journal articles identified in the in solving supplier selection problems. Bottani and Rizzi (2008)
period (1996–2006) which shows that systems dynamics modeling integrated fuzzy with cluster analysis and multi-criteria decision
has been applied more in the operational level. Systems dynamics making model (MCDM) to solve the supplier selection problem.
modeling allows the researcher to analyze complex systems from a Awasthi et al. (2010) in their work integrated fuzzy with TOPSIS
dynamic viewpoint, rather than from a static perspective. The two to evaluate environmental performances of suppliers. Wu and Liu
main reasons for System Dynamics popularity are the complex nat- (2011) proposed a supplier selection application based on two
ure of the problem and the qualitative factors such as human methods: VIKOR algorithm and fuzzy TOPSIS with vague sets
beings evolvement in those processes (Khatie, Bulgak, & Segovia, methods. Khamseh and Mahmoodi (2014) presented hybrid model
2010). The systems dynamics approach considers system as a for green supplier selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS-TODIM employ-
whole by covering all of the interactions among the components ing fuzzy time functions. Aghajani and Ahmadpour (2011) pro-
of the system. It is a broad approach which incorporates all the ele- posed fuzzy-TOPSIS for ranking of suppliers in automobile
ments of a system and thus considered a reliable decision making companies in Iran. Wang, Cheng, and Huang (2009) presented a
approach. The system dynamics approach has the ability to effec- fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection which is capable
tively model the feedback and feed forward information in a com- of evaluating uncertainty and choosing the best supplier.
plex dynamic system. The expected outcomes of system dynamics Wittstruck and Teuteberg (2011) presented an integrated model
modeling are not necessarily quantitative point predictions for based on fuzzy-AHP-TOPSIS for recycling partner selection that
particular variable, but rather a measure of the pattern of dynamic accounts for sustainability factors. Azadnia, Saman, and Wong
behavior of the system, given the variables and conditions in the (2015) developed a mathematical programming model for sustain-
model (Wareef, 2013). The systems dynamics model incorporates able supplier selection and order-lot sizing. Büyüközkan and Çifçi
spatial or temporal considerations and assumes that criteria and (2011) presented a novel model based on fuzzy analytic network
alternatives are not fixed. Thus, the validity of the system dynam- process within multi-person decision-making environment under
ics model results is increased, specifically in sustainable supplier vague preference relations. Their model is able to make effective
selection where the supplier performance values change over time evaluations using available preference information and maintain
and the decision matrix is not static. Therefore, systems dynamics consistency level of evaluations. Verdecho, Alfaro-Siaz, and Rodrí
can be applied in the sustainable supplier selection problem to guez-Rodríguez (2010) proposed a performance management
insure suppliers can maintain their status for a long period of time. model based on ANP for supplier selection in automotive industry
A good decision-making model needs to tolerate vagueness or in Spain.
ambiguity because fuzziness and vagueness are common charac- Other decision approaches has been applied to supplier selec-
teristics in many decision-making problems (Lee, Chen, & Chang, tion problem. Jauhar, Pant, and Abraham (2014) presented a novel
2008). In proffering solution to many real world problems (like approach for sustainable supplier selection based on differential
supplier selection) that involve some degree of imprecision and evolution to select the efficient sustainable suppliers and provide
ambiguity, fuzzy logic is deemed essential (Bayrak, Celebi, & the maximum fulfillment for the sustainable criteria determined
Taskin, 2007; Bevilacqua & Petroni, 2002; Kahraman, Cebeci, & in a pulp and paper industry. Foerstl, Reuter, Hartmann, and
Ulukan, 2003; Ordoobadi, 2009). Fuzzy theory is most preferred Blome (2010) hinged on the dynamic capabilities view (DCV) to
to solve the problems of imprecise data and ambiguous human propose that management capabilities of sustainable suppliers
judgments in supplier selection (Chang et al., 2011). are critical agents able to give competitive advantage. However,
In this work, a novel modeling approach for integrating infor- their approaches do not provide information on whether suppliers
mation on supplier behavior in fuzzy environment with system can maintain their status for a long period of time.
dynamics simulation modeling technique was developed to pro- Several real world examples have proven the interdisciplinary
vide insight into how supplier behavior evolves with time. The pro- nature and capability of systems dynamics modeling in solving real
posed approach represents the total sustainability performance of world complex problems. Systems dynamics was applied in ana-
suppliers in the past, present and future period in a green manufac- lyzing the behavior of manufacturing in supply chain
turing environment. Simulation results show that an increase in (Vashiranwongpinyo, 2010). Systems dynamics simulation was
the rate of investment in sustainability by the different suppliers utilized to analyze the behavior of a generic short life cycle supply
causes an exponential increase in total sustainability performance chain (Briano, Caballini, Giribone, & Revetria, 2010). The systems
of the suppliers. The systems dynamics modeling approach pre- dynamics approach has been widely used to conduct policy exper-
sented in this study can be applied to any green manufacturing iments by many researches and policy makers for over 30 years
environment regardless of the number of alternatives and relevant (Trappey, Trappey, Hsiao, Ou, & Chang, 2012). System dynamics
 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12 3

models are also often used to address environmental problems and Simonovic, Wibe, MacGee, & Davies, 2011), learning effectiveness
sustainability issues. For instance, wildlife population dynamics, evaluation (Lan, Lan, Chen, Chen, & Lin, 2013), and
air polluting, and vehicle emissions has been studied (Ford, land-use/transport interactions (Haller, Emberger, & Mayerthaler,
1999). The global perspectives of environmental sustainability 2008). In this study, the software package of Vensim was employed
issues were contemplated with a broader scope (Forrester, 1971; to the model building of sustainable supplier behavior with respect
Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 1993). The SD approach has been to sustainability factors in different time horizons. Till date to the
utilized to investigate the effects of increasing human population best our knowledge, not much attention has been given to the
on the earth and natural resources (Meadows, Randers, & research of insuring suppliers maintain their status for a long per-
Meadows, 2004; Randers, 2000). Several other studies that utilized iod while implementing sustainable supplier selection. Thus, this
systems dynamics modeling approach includes the issues related work pioneers the application of integrated fuzzy logic and sys-
to regional sustainable development, environmental management, tems dynamics in the study of sustainable supplier selection.
water resource planning, urban planning, and ecological modeling
(Onat, Egilmez, & Tatari, 2014).
Vensim software is widely adopted in developing system
dynamics models for simulation applications which provide a 3. Methodology
user-friendly interface. In addition, it offers a flexible way to
dynamically map and provide information on how complex sys- The detailed presentation of the novel modeling approach pro-
tems and inputs really work by building a variety of simulation posed for the sustainable supplier selection problem is shown in
models. Vensim has been applied in electronic commerce risk Fig. 1.
mechanism research (Qiang, Hui, & Xiao-dong, 2013), environmen- Within the development of the proposed model for sustainable
tal modeling (Elsawah et al., 2012), single-stage inventory supplier selection, sustainability factors relevant to case study, lin-
system (Belhajali and Hachicha, 2013), climate system (Akhtar, guistic scale and alternatives were progressively defined.

Fig. 1. A novel approach for sustainable supplier selection.

4 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12

3.1. Case study and problem specifications sustainability criteria, sustainability pool rate adjustment and esti-
mation of supplier performance with respect to specific sustain-
A gear manufacturing company in China was used as the sample ability criteria. This diagram will serve as a basis for developing
population from which the purchasing unit was selected. The stock and flow model for sustainable supplier monitoring and
information used for the study was gathered from archival records selection that will be discussed in Section 4.
and interviews with personnel. The personnel considered in this The process of estimating supplier performance with respect to
study were 17 experts/purchasing managers. The gear manufactur- specific sustainability criteria starts with the total budget/invest-
ing company under study produces 2 MW wind power gear box ment of a particular supplier. The supplier performance with
and sources for gear wheel shaft as its main raw material. For this respect to sustainability criteria specific time periods is estimated
study, 4 suppliers are considered as alternatives for providing the by experts using fuzzy questionnaires. The aggregation of all the
gear wheel shaft. performances of a particular supplier with respect to the sustain-
The first step in developing a systems dynamics model is to ability criteria gives the final sustainability performance of the
define the causal loop diagram. Causal loop diagrams are useful supplier. The best sustainable supplier can be selected by employ-
for identifying the feedback loops involved in the process and also ing a simple average method to determine the highest final sus-
diagramming the feedback structure of systems. Fig. 2 shows a tainability performance of the suppliers in the past, current and
causal loop diagram for the sustainable supplier selection problem future time horizons.
focusing on green design and information disclosure criteria. The pool rate of sustainability criteria at the supplier level can
The causal loop diagram presented shows the variables for four be defined as the sustainability performance generation rate for
suppliers with respect to two sustainability criteria namely green each supplier with respect to sustainability criteria. The rate
design and information disclosure. The similar structure can be defines the total sustainability performance incurred by supplier
replicated for other relevant sustainability criteria. According to for a certain time horizon. The supplier level rate can be calculated
the developed causal loop diagram, the process consists of feed- from the total supplier performance and the total percentage of
back loops namely final performance of suppliers with respect to sustainability criteria driver in the past, current and future time

Fig. 2. Causal loop diagram for sustainable supplier selection.

 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12 5

horizons. The total percentage of sustainability criteria driver at Table 2

the supplier level is estimated based on the summation of the per- Supplier performance with respect to sustainability sub-criteria in a given time
horizon.
centages of the sustainability criteria driver for each respective
supplier within a specific time period. Alternatives Sub-criteria
S1 S2 S3 Sn

3.1.1. Sustainability factors A1 B11 B12 B13 B1n

The sustainability factors include economic, environmental and A2 B21 B22 B23 B2n
Am Bm1 Bm2 Bm3 Bmn
social factors. A deduction process was employed to ascertain the
relevant sustainability sub-criteria. Thus, economic factors
(Amindoust et al., 2012; Chang et al., 2011; Govindan,
Khodaverdi, & Jafarian, 2013; Ho, Xu, & Dey, 2010; Lee, Kang,
Hsu, & Hung, 2009; Yeh & Chuang, 2010) include quality; environ- scale in Table 1 is applied to obtain the decision matrix with ele-
mental factors (Amin & Zhang, 2012; Bai & Sarkis, 2009; Kuo, ments Ai, Si and Bij, shown in Table 2.
Wang, & Tien, 2010; Shen, Olfat, Govindan, Khodaverdi, & Diabat, (Ai, Si and Bij are sustainability sub-criteria, supplier alternatives
2013; Zhu & Sarkis, 2004) include environmental competencies and deducted supplier behavior with regards to the sustainability
(EC) and green design (GD) while social factors (Keskin, Ihan, & factor respectively).
Ozkan, 2010; Kuo et al., 2010) include respect for policy (RFP), The data in Table 2 will serve as input data to the system
information disclosure (ID), and worker’s safety (WS). dynamics model that will be developed.
Green design involves design process to enable ease of disas- A diffuzification process known as Converting Fuzzy data into
sembling and recycling at the product end of life. In the case study, Crisps Scores (CFCS) process is applied to diffuzify the fuzzy set
GD is embarked upon due to increased waste disposal costs and into crisp values. It is deemed to be more effective by researchers
environmental legislation. Environmental competences incorpo- for arriving at crisp values when compared to the centroid method
rate all knowledge and skills required for the effective environ- (Gharakhani, 2012). A triangular fuzzy number can be shown as
mental management. In the case study, workers undergo q = (a, b, c) and the triangular membership function u~0 q is defined
trainings to acquire skills to improve their environmental compe- as Eq. (1).
tencies. Disclosure of information about the economic effects of 8
manufacturing activities on the environment has become a signif- > if y < a
>
>
0
icant concern in business management (Bewley & Li, 2000). In the
>
> ðyaÞ
if a 6 y 6 b
>
<
case study information on environmental performance are dis- u~0 q ðyÞ ¼ ðbaÞ
ð1Þ
closed to assess the costs of pollution control. Worker’s safety is >
>
ðcyÞ
if b 6 y 6 c
>
> ðc  bÞ
emphasized to reduce workplace injuries/accidents and health >
>
:
hazards which tend o adversely affect operating efficiencies. 0 if y > c
Quality encompasses maximizing productivity and efficiency at
CFCS is based on determination of fuzzy maximum and minimum of
minimized defects. Respect for policy (RFP) incorporates the com-
pany’s policies with respect to human and workplace rights. In the the fuzzy number range. According to the membership function u~0 q ,
case study, RFP is emphasized thus placing a check on child labor, the total score is calculated with the weighted average. Given that U
and other vices that could lead to legal cases thereby destroying represents a fuzzy set, the fuzzy evaluation is given by
d
company image and causing financial loss. qdij ¼ ðadij ; bij ; cdij Þ for decision makers d = (1, 2, . . . , n) for the degree
of influence of sub-criterion i on sub-criterion j. The CFCS method
involves a five-step algorithm described as follows (Orji & Wei,
3.1.2. Linguistic scale
2014):
This is defined as a qualitative scale used to collect evaluator’s
Step one: Normalization:
judgment. The fuzzy linguistic scale employed has linguistic terms
n
of very weak, weak, medium, good and very good with scores of 1, xanij ¼ ðanij  mincij Þ=Dmax
min ð2Þ
2, 3, 4 and 5 and triangular fuzzy numbers of (0, 0, 0.25),
(0, 0.25, 0.50), (0.25, 0.50, 0.75), (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) and n n
xbij ¼ ðbij  mincij Þ=Dmax
n
ð3Þ
min
(0.75, 1.00, 1.00) respectively.
n
xcnij ¼ ðcnij  mincij Þ=Dmax
min ð4Þ
3.1.3. Alternatives
In this model, an alternative was defined as any supplier in the n
where Dmax n
min ¼ maxaij  mincij ð5Þ
gear manufacturing company.
The fuzzy linguistic scale for the study is shown in Table 1. Step two: Compute right (as) and left (cs) normalized values:
To obtain the information on the supplier behavior with respect n
xasnij ¼ xanij =ð1 þ xanij  xbij Þ ð6Þ
to deducted sustainability sub-criteria in a time horizon, fuzzy
design questionnaires were administered and the fuzzy linguistic n n
xcsnij ¼ xbij =ð1 þ xbij  xcnij Þ ð7Þ

Step three: Compute total normalized crisp values:

Table 1 xnij ¼ ½xcsnij ð1  xcsnij Þ þ xasnij X xasnij =½1  xcsnij þ xasnij  ð8Þ
Fuzzy linguistic scale.

Linguistic term Score Triangular fuzzy numbers Step four: Compute crisp values:
n
Very weak 1 (0, 0, 0.25) unij ¼ mincij þ xnij X Dmax
min ð9Þ
Weak 2 (0, 0.25, 0.50)
Medium 3 (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) Step five: Integrate crisp values:
Good 4 (0.50, 0.75, 1.00)
Very good 5 (0.75, 1.00, 1.00) uij ¼ 1=pðu1ij þ u2ij þ    þ upij Þ ð10Þ
6 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12

3.2. Multi-criteria decision making model (MCDM) ei

aij ¼ ð13Þ
Re j
A multi-criteria decision making model based on fuzzy TOPSIS
The divergence through of each criterion is computed from the
(Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution)
entropy measures Dj of the respective criterion as follows:
is presented to compare results from the system dynamics model.
TOPSIS is based on the concept of the measures of distance of the ej ¼ 1  Dj ð14Þ
alternatives from the positive and negative ideal solutions. It is
The entropy measures are calculated from the normalized eval-
most preferred as a straightforward multi-criteria decision making
uation index Pij for the alternative suppliers as shown:
model and has been extensively applied in literature (Awasthi
X
et al., 2010; Govindan et al., 2013; Khamseh & Mahmoodi, 2014; Pij ¼ K ½Pij  ln Pij  ð15Þ
Wang et al., 2009; Wittstruck & Teuteberg, 2011). i
The advantages of TOPSIS over other multi-criteria decision
where
making models include the following (Govindan et al., 2013):
K is a constant and the inverse of the natural logarithm of the
total number of supplier alternatives.
 An unlimited range of criteria and performance attributes can
Step three: Calculate the positive and negative ideal solutions.
be included.
The ideal (Vj+) and negative ideal (Vj) solutions are determined
 It allows explicit trade-offs and interactions among attributes.
as:
More precisely, changes in one attribute can be compensated
for in a direct or opposite manner by other attributes. V þj ¼ fv þi . . . v þn g ¼ ½ðmax v ij ji 2 I0 Þ; ðmin v ij ji 2 I00 Þ ð16Þ
 Preferential ranking of alternatives with numerical value that
provides a better understanding of differences and similarities
V j ¼ fv i . . . v n g ¼ ½ðmin v ij ji 2 I0 Þ; ðmax v ij ji 2 I00 Þ ð17Þ
between alternatives, whereas other multi-criteria decision
making techniques (such as the ELECTRE) only determine the where I0 is associated with advantage criteria, and I00 is associated
rank of each alternative. with cost criteria.
 TOPSIS avoids pair wise comparisons employed by other Step four: Compute the separation measures.
multi-criteria decision making techniques and thus can be þ 
The separation measures (di and di ) are computed using the
effectively employed when dealing with a large number of cri- n-dimensional Euclidean distance for the alternatives as:
teria and alternatives.
( )0:5
 TOPSIS is a straightforward and relatively simple computation þ
Xn
2
process with a systematic procedure. di ¼ ðv ij  v jÞ ð18Þ
j¼1
 TOPSIS has the fewest rank reversals when an alternative is
added or removed among the multi-criteria decision making where i = 1, 2, . . . , m; vj (in Eq. (12)) = vj+
techniques.
( )0:5

Xn
2
Typically, TOPSIS technique consists of the following steps: di ¼ ðv ij  v jÞ ð19Þ
j¼1
Step one: Develop a normalized decision matrix.
The normalized decision matrix is developed with element Pij where i = 1, 2, . . . , m; vj (in Eq. (13)) = vj.
which represents the normalized evaluation index for the alterna- Step five: Determine the relative closeness to the ideal solution
tive suppliers as shown in Table 3. for the supplier alternatives.
Pij is computed as: The relative closeness of the alternatives (aj) to the ideal (A⁄)
g ij solution is computed as:
Pij ¼ 0:5
ð11Þ 
ðg 2ij Þ di
Li ¼  þ 0 6 Li 6 1 ð20Þ
di þ di
where
gij is the performance of each alternative with respect to each where I0 is associated with advantage criteria, and I00 is associated
criterion. with cost criteria.
Step two: Calculate the weighted normalized decision matrix. Finally, the alternative suppliers are ranked with respect to
The weighted normalized decision matrix Vij is calculated as their relative closeness to the ideal solution in order of preference.
follows:

V ij ¼ Pij  aij ð12Þ 4. Results and discussion

where Data analysis was carried out using Microsoft EXCEL, MATLAB
aij is the normalized weight of indexes. and Vensim. Microsoft EXCEL was applied in the CFCS diffuzifica-
aij is calculated from the divergence through ej of each criterion tion process to convert fuzzy data sets in the time horizons to crisp
as shown below: scores. MATLAB was applied in the fuzzy-TOPSIS approach to
develop the normalized and weighted normalized decision matri-
ces. Vensim was applied to define the causal loop diagram, develop
Table 3
the systems dynamics model and run simulations in four scenarios.
Normalized decision matrix.
The four scenarios represent the different time horizons in this
Alternatives Sub-criteria study. Also Table 4 shows the triangular fuzzy numbers for sup-
S1 S2 S3 Sn plier performance for one of the experts in the past period.
A1 P11 P12 P13 P1n The triangular fuzzy numbers of experts were normalized using
A2 P21 P22 P23 P2n CFCS process into crisp values as shown in Eqs. (2)–(5). Table 5
Am Pm1 Pm2 Pm3 Pmn shows the normalized triangular fuzzy numbers of an expert in a
period.
 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12 7

Table 4
Triangular fuzzy numbers of an expert in a period.

A1 A2 A3 A4
WS (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) (0.50, 0.75, 1.00)
GD (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0.75, 1.00, 1.00)
Quality (0, 0.25, 0.50) (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) (0.75, 1.00, 1.00) (0, 0.25, 0.50)
RFP (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) (0.75, 1.00, 1.00) (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) (0.50, 0.75, 1.00)
ID (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) (0.25, 0.50, 0.75)
EC (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) (0.75, 1.00, 1.00) (0, 0, 0.25)

Table 5
Normalized triangular fuzzy numbers of an expert in a period.

A1 A2 A3 A4
WS (0, 0.33, 0.66) (0.33, 0.66, 1) (0, 0.33, 0.66) (0.33, 0.66, 1)
GD (0.5, 0.75, 1) (0, 0, 0.25) (0, 0, 0.25) (0.75, 1.00, 1.00)
Quality (0, 0.25, 0.5) (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) (0.75, 1.00, 1.00) (0, 0.25, 0.50)
RFP (0, 0.5, 1.5) (1.5, 1.00, 1.00) (0, 0.5, 1) (0, 0.5, 1)
ID (0, 0.33, 0.66) (0.33, 0.66, 1) (0, 0.33, 0.66) (0, 0.33, 0.66)
EC (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) (0.75, 1.00, 1.00) (0, 0, 0.25)

Table 6
Computed right and left normalized values of triangular fuzzy numbers of an expert in a period.

A1 A2 A3 A4
WS (0.24, 0.33, 0.49) (0.66, 0.66, 0.49) (0.24, 0.33, 0.49) (0.66, 0.66, 0.49)
GD (0.6, 0.75, 0.8) (0, 0, 0.2) (0, 0, 0.2) (0.8, 1, 1)
Quality (0.2, 0.25, 0.33) (0.6, 0.75, 0.8) (0.8, 1, 0.8) (0.2, 0.25, 0.33)
RFP (0.6, 0.5, 0.75) (0.2, 1.00, 0.66) (0.33, 0.5, 0.5) (0.33, 0.5, 0.5)
ID (0.24, 0.33, 0.66) (0.66, 0.66, 0.49) (0.24, 0.33, 0.66) (0.24, 0.33, 0.66)
EC (0.6, 0.75, 0.8) (0.4, 0.50, 0.5) (0.8, 1, 0.8) (0, 0, 0.2)

Table 8
Table 7
Supplier performance with respect to criteria in past period.
Total normalized crisp values of fuzzy numbers of an expert in a period.
A1 A2 A3 A4
A1 A2 A3 A4
WS 0.4390 0.5488 0.4390 0.3292
WS 0.338 0.559 0.338 0.559
GD 0.3638 0.1212 0.2425 0.4850
GD 0.733 0.333 0.333 0.966
Quality 0.3333 0.4444 0.5555 0.3333
Quality 0.237 0.733 0.800 0.237
RFP 0.2603 0.2603 0.5207 0.5207
RFP 0.979 0.407 0.210 0.210
ID 0.2500 0.2500 0.3750 0.3750
ID 0.435 0.559 0.435 0.435
EC 0.3831 0.2873 0.3831 0.2873
EC 0.733 0.454 0.800 0.333

Table 9
The left and right side normalized values were calculated using Supplier performances with respect to criteria in future horizon.
Eqs. (6) and (7) as shown in Table 6.
A1 A2 A3 A4
Table 7 shows the normalized crisp values of an expert within a
period which was calculated using Eq. (8). The total normalized WS 0.4780 0.5687 0.4780 0.3182
GD 0.3688 0.1249 0.2688 0.4850
crisp values were calculated using Eq. (9). Then the crisp values
Quality 0.3607 0.4125 0.5362 0.3332
were integrated using Eq. (10). The same process was employed RFP 0.2806 0.2662 0.5215 0.5215
to compute the total normalized crisp values and integrate the ID 0.2433 0.2600 0.3523 0.3523
crisp values of supplier behavior for all the experts. EC 0.3600 0.2658 0.3614 0.2658
A simple average method was then employed to estimate the
average value for supplier behavior in each time horizon. Table 8
shows the supplier performances with regards specific sustainabil-
ity criteria in the past period. work safety, environmental competencies, respect for policy, infor-
The same process can be repeated in the current and future mation disclosure, green design and quality. The similar structure
time horizons to obtain supplier behavior in the current and future could be replicated for additional suppliers and sustainability
period respectively. Table 9 states the predicted data on perfor- criteria.
mances of suppliers with regards to sustainability criteria in the For a proper understanding of how supplier behavior evolves
period from June 2014 to June 2016. with time, a comparative analysis of supplier performance with
Fig. 3 shows a Systems Dynamics Sustainable Supplier Selection respect to deducted sustainability criteria, in the past, current
Model in Vensim. and future time horizon has been carried out by simulations in
The systems dynamics model presented shows the variables for Vensim. Simulation is a method which contributes to innovation
four suppliers with respect to six sustainability criteria namely process by facilitation of virtual experimentation. Data presented
8 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12

Fig. 3. Systems dynamics model for sustainable supplier selection.

in Tables 4–9 were used as inputs for the simulation runs. The sup- in the different time horizons. As shown, the performance percent-
plier performance in the future horizon was captured using predic- age of a sustainability criterion remains constant in each time hori-
tions by experts based on the investment trends of the suppliers zon. This behavior of a criterion is due to the underlying
for the future period. Many decisions in companies are strategic assumption in this model that total budget of a supplier is fixed
decisions for the future, and these have been criticized for not con- and can only be altered at the beginning of each time horizon.
sidering future predictions, thus resulting in unrealistic decisions Hence, the percentage of each sustainability criterion is constant
(De Boer, Labro, & Morlacchi, 2001; Ho et al., 2010). Fig. 4 shows throughout the specific time horizon. Similar behavior was repli-
the behavior of a sustainability criterion for a particular supplier cated by other sustainability criteria irrespective of supplier.
 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12 9

.4 the different suppliers by their respective total sustainability per-

formance. Given the information on four suppliers (supplier num-
ber 1, supplier number 2, supplier number 3 and supplier number
.35
4
4), their percentage performance of sustainability criteria are 36%,
Percent

2 40%, 21% and 25% respectively.

.3
1 Fig. 6 shows the behavior of a supplier with respect to sustain-
ability criteria in the past period, current period, future period and
.25 the average sustainable supplier behavior for the three periods.
3 The average supplier behavior for the three periods was computed
.2 for the different suppliers using the simple average method.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 As shown in Fig. 6, total performance of a sustainable supplier
Time (Month) grows exponentially, because of the increase in the rate of invest-
"%of GD performance driver at the supplier level for supplier number1" : Average 1 1 1 1 1 ment in sustainability factors by the supplier. This leads to higher
"%of GD performance driver at the supplier level for supplier number1" : Future period 2 2 2 2
"%of GD performance driver at the supplier level for supplier number1" : Current period 3 3 3 3 total performance in the different time horizons. Also, the growth
"%of GD performance driver at the supplier level for supplier number1" : Past period 4 4 4 4
rate of the total performance of suppliers outruns their rate of
Fig. 4. Vensim simulation results of a sustainability criterion in the different time investment in sustainability after about 12 months. With respect
horizons. to the average of the total performance of the different suppliers
in the past, current and future periods, the best possible sustain-
able supplier can be selected.
Fig. 5 shows the behavior of rate of investment in sustainability Table 10 shows the ranking of suppliers in the different time
factors by a supplier. periods.
The rate of investment in sustainability factors increases contin- The ranking in the average column as shown in Table 10 was
uously for the suppliers alternatives because of continuous empha- used as the final ranking of the suppliers. Thus the supplier number
sis on sustainable development as shown in Fig. 5. Only the 2 ranks the highest with regards to the relevant sustainability cri-
behaviors of supplier alternatives involved in sustainable develop- teria. This is followed by supplier number 1, then supplier number
ment in their firms were analyzed in this work. The great increase 4. The least alternative with respect to the relevant sustainability
in the rate of investment in sustainability factors in the current criteria is supplier number 3.
period is caused by an increase in available total budget. The pre- A comparison analysis between the systems dynamics model
dicted data on supplier performances with respect to sustainability and the multi-criteria decision making model (MCDM) is proposed
criteria in the future period is similar to that of the past period, to provide insights on the viability of the systems dynamic model.
hence the similarity in performance curve in the both periods. The data inputs for the systems dynamics model is also used for
The percentage performance in sustainability criteria can be calcu- the MCDM. Table 11 shows the normalized decision matrix in
lated by dividing the rate of investment in sustainability factors of the current horizon.

70,000 200,000
(a) 3 (b)
52,500 150,000
CNY

CNY

35,000 3
100,000 3

17,500 3 50,000
3
3
1 3 1
3 1 4 2 3
0 3 3 3 1 2 4 1
2 4 1
2 4 2 0 3 3 1 1
4 2 1
4 2 4 2
2
1 4
3 2
1 3 4
1 3
2 4
1 2 4 1
2 4 1 2 4 2
1 4
3 2
1 3 4
1 3
2 4 2
1 3
4 2
1 4
1 2 1
4 2 4 2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Month) Time (Month)
rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number1 : Average 1 1 1 1 1 rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number2 : Average 1 1 1 1 1
rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number1 : Future period 2 2 2 2 2 rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number2 : Future period 2 2 2 2 2
rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number1 : Current period 3 3 3 3 3 rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number2 : Current period 3 3 3 3 3
rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number1 : Past period 4 4 4 4 4 rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number2 : Past period 4 4 4 4 4

20,000 30,000
(c) (d)
3 3
15,000 22,500
CNY

CNY

10,000 3 15,000 3

5000 3 7500 3

3 3
1 1
3 1 4 2 1 2
3 1 4 2 3 1 4 2 4
0 3 1 3 1 2 1
4 2 4 1
2 4 2 0 3 3 1
3
2 1
4 2 4 1
2 4 2
2
1 4
3 2
1 3 4
1 3
2 1
4 2 4 2 4 2
1 4
3 2
1 3 4
1 3
2 4
1 2 4 2
1 4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Month) Time (Month)

rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number3 : Average 1 1 1 1 1 rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number4 : Average 1 1 1 1 1
rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number3 : Future period 2 2 2 2 2 rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number4 : Future period 2 2 2 2 2
rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number3 : Current period 3 3 3 3 3 rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number4 : Current period 3 3 3 3 3
rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number3 : Past period 4 4 4 4 4 rate of investment in sustainability factors by supplier number4 : Past period 4 4 4 4 4

Fig. 5. Vensim simulation results of rate of investment in sustainability factors for (a) supplier number 1 (b) supplier number 2 (c) supplier number 3 (d) supplier number 4.
10 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12

200,000 400,000
(a) (b)
150,000 300,000
3 3
CNY

CNY
100,000 200,000

50,000 3
100,000
3
1
3 1
2 3
3 1 2
4 1 4 2
0 3 1 1
4 2 4 0 3 1 4 2
2
1 4
3 2
1 3 4
1 3
2 4 2
1 3
4 2
1 3 1
4 2 1
4 2 4 2 2
1 4
3 2
1 3 4
1 3
2 4 2
1 3
4 2
1 3 4
1 3
2 1
4 2 4 1
2 4 2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Month) Time (Month)
total performance of supplier number1 : Average 1 1 1 1 1 1 total performance of supplier number2 : Average 1 1 1 1 1 1
total performance of supplier number1 : Future period 2 2 2 2 2 2 total performance of supplier number2 : Future period 2 2 2 2 2 2
total performance of supplier number1 : Current period 3 3 3 3 3 total performance of supplier number2 : Current period 3 3 3 3 3
total performance of supplier number1 : Past period 4 4 4 4 4 total performance of supplier number2 : Past period 4 4 4 4 4

60,000 80,000 3
3
(c) (d)
45,000 60,000
CNY

CNY
3 3
30,000 40,000

3 3
15,000 20,000
3 1 3 1
2 2
1 4 1 2 4
3 1 4 2 3 1 4
0 3 4 1
2 4 2 0 3 1
2 4 2
3 1 2
3 4
1 2 3
4 2
1 3
4 1 2 1
4 2 3 4
1 2 3
4 2
1 3
4 1 2 1
4 2 4
2
1 4
3 2
1 4 2
1 4
3 2
1 3 4
1 2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Month) Time (Month)
total performance of supplier number3 : Average 1 1 1 1 1 1 total performance of supplier number4 : Average 1 1 1 1 1 1
total performance of supplier number3 : Future period 2 2 2 2 2 2 total performance of supplier number4 : Future period 2 2 2 2 2 2
total performance of supplier number3 : Current period 3 3 3 3 3 total performance of supplier number4 : Current period 3 3 3 3 3
total performance of supplier number3 : Past period 4 4 4 4 4 total performance of supplier number4 : Past period 4 4 4 4 4

Fig. 6. Vensim simulation results of total sustainability performance for (a) supplier number 1 (b) supplier number 2 (c) supplier number 3 (d) supplier number 4.

Table 10 Table 12
Ranking of suppliers in different time periods. Average scores for the weighted normalized decision matrix.

Past Current Future Average GD WS Quality RFP ID EC

A1 3 4 1 2 A1 0.5723 0.8977 0.6547 1.01 0.6949 0.5256
A2 2 2 2 1 A2 0.8412 0.4975 1.0536 1.01 0.6949 0.7147
A3 1 3 4 4 A3 1.0386 0.2312 0.8105 0.5156 0.5129 0.5256
A4 4 1 3 3 A4 0.7751 0.6826 0.7088 0.5434 0.4799 0.712

Table 11 Table 13
Normalized decision matrix in current time period. Total performance and ranking of suppliers in current period.
 þ þ 
A1 A2 A3 A4 di di di þ di Li Ranking
WS 0.3692 0.4164 0.5308 0.3029 A1 0.7218 0.732 1.4538 0.379459 4
GD 0.7603 0.4383 0.2129 0.5128 A2 0.631 0.4066 1.0376 0.608134 2
Quality 0.3906 0.6222 0.4346 0.4873 A3 0.805 0.705 1.51 0.5331 3
RFP 0.6234 0.6234 0.3135 0.3661 A4 0.4744 0.7758 1.2502 0.9692 1
ID 0.5146 0.5146 0.4393 0.3608
EC 0.3571 0.4993 0.3571 0.4634

From the ranking shown in Table 13, supplier number 4 (A4) is

identified as the best sustainable supplier. This is similar to the
The weighted normalized decision matrix as already stated in results of the systems dynamics model as shown in Table 10 for
Eq. (12) was calculated for the current period. Also the weighted the current period. The calculated relative closeness to the ideal
normalized decision matrix was computed as shown in Table 12. solutions Li (TOPSIS index) for the supplier alternatives in the
The positive and negative ideal solutions including were deter- average time are shown in Table 14.
mined using Eqs. (16) and (17) for the current time horizons. Also The results of the multi-criteria decision making model in the
þ 
the separation measures (di and di ) were computed using the average period shown in Table 14 differ from those of the systems
n-dimensional Euclidean distance for the alternatives in Eqs. (18) dynamics model in the average time horizon shown in Table 10.
and (19) for the suppliers in the current time horizon. Multi-criteria decision making model are able to give reliable
Finally, the relative closeness to the ideal solutions Li (TOPSIS results in the current time horizon. They do not provide adequate
index) which is the total performance of the respective suppliers information on how supplier behavior evolves with time. There is
were calculated using Eq. (20) in the respective time periods. The no doubt that the validity of the result is rather limited, specifically
calculated separation measures and relative closeness to the ideal when the values change over time and the decision matrix is not
solutions in the current time horizon are shown in Table 13. fixed or static as in sustainable supplier selection problems.
 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12 11

Table 14 Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S., Saghafinia, A., & Bahreininejad, A. (2012). Sustainable
Total performance and ranking of suppliers in average time. supplier selection: A ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Applied
Soft Computing, 12(6), 1668–1677.
 þ þ 
di di di þ di Li Ranking Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2010). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for
evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International Journal of
A1 0.805 0.705 1.51 0.533113 3 Production Economics, 126(2), 370–378.
A2 0.4744 0.7758 1.2502 0.379459 4 Azadnia, A. H., Saman, M. Z. M., & Wong, K. Y. (2015). Sustainable supplier selection
A3 0.7218 0.732 1.4538 0.9692 1 and order lot-sizing: An integrated multi-objective decision-making process.
A4 0.631 0.4066 1.0376 0.608134 2 International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 383–408.
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2009). Supplier selection and sustainability: A grey rough set
evaluation. Working paper no. 2009-05.
Bayrak, M. Y., Celebi, N., & Taskin, H. (2007). A fuzzy approach method for supplier
Hence, in this work, the systems dynamics model is advocated to selection. Production Planning and Control: The Management of Operations, 18(1),
54–63.
provide reliable information on how supplier behavior evolves Belhajali, I., & Hachicha, W. (2013). System dynamics simulation to determine safety
with time. stock for a single-stage inventory system. IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
ICAdLT.2013.6568507.
Bevilacqua, M., & Petroni, A. (2002). From traditional purchasing to supplier
management: A fuzzy logic-based approach to supplier selection. International
5. Conclusion Journal of Logistics Research and Applications: A Leading Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 5(3), 235–255.
Bewley, K., & Li, Y. (2000). Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian
Sustainable supplier selection is a very critical agent to ensuring manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective. Advances in
the profitability and survival of a company. However, a major prob- Environmental Accounting & Management, 1, 201–226.
Bottani, E., & Rizzi, A. (2008). An adapted multi-criteria approach to suppliers and
lem while implementing sustainable supplier selection is how to
products selection—An application oriented to lead-time reduction.
insure that suppliers maintain their status for a long period. International Journal of Production Economics, 111, 763–781.
Hence, this study presented an integrated fuzzy logic and systems Briano, E., Caballini, C., Giribone, P., & Revetria, R. (2010). Using system dynamics for
short life cycle supply chain evaluation. In Proceedings of winter simulation
dynamics modeling approach for sustainable supplier performance conference.
monitoring and selection in supply chain systems capable of insur- Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework
ing suppliers maintain their status for a long period. Supplier per- for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Computers in
Industry, 62(2), 164–174.
formance with respect to deducted sustainability criteria has been
Campanella, G., Pereira, A., Ribeiro, R. A., & Varela, L. R. (2012). Collaborative dynamic
estimated by experts using fuzzy questionnaires to serve as input decision making: A case study from B2B supplier selection. In J. E. Hernández, P.
data to systems dynamics model. Also a systems dynamics diagram Zarate, F. Dargam, B. Delibasic, S. Liu, & R. Ribeiro (Eds.), Decision support systems –
Collaborative models and approaches in real environments (pp. 88–102). Berlin:
in Vensim software has been developed and simulation runs
Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32191-7_7.
carried out in four different time horizons namely, past, current, Campanella, G., & Ribeiro, R. A. (2011). A framework for dynamic multiple criteria
future and average. decision making. Decision Support Systems, 52(1), 52–60. http://dx.doi.org/
The model provides an understanding of how supplier behavior 10.1016/j.dss.2011.05.003.
Chang, B., Chang, C.-W., & Wu, C.-H. (2011). Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing
evolves with time and selected the best possible sustainable supplier selection criteria. Expert Systems with Applications: An International
supplier. A multi-criteria decision making model based on fuzzy Journal, 38(3), 1850–1858.
TOPSIS (Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Chen, C. M. (2009). A fuzzy-based decision-support model for rebuy procurement.
International Journal of Production Economics, 122, 714–724.
Solution) was presented to compare results from the developed De Boer, L., Labro, E., & Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting
systems dynamics model. Vensim simulation results show that supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7,
an increase in the rate of investment in sustainability factors also 75–89.
Elsawah, S., Haase, D., Delden, H., Pierce, S., Elmahdi, A., Voinovo, A. A., et al. (2012).
causes an exponential increase in total performance of suppliers. Using system dynamics for environmental modelling: Lessons learnt from six
The results of the MCDM only show accurate supplier performance case studies. In International environmental modelling and software society
in the current time horizon. This is because the basic assumption in (iEMSs). International congress on environmental modelling and software
managing resources of a limited planet.
applying decision making models is that both criteria and alterna-
Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E., & Blome, C. (2010). Managing supplier
tives are fixed a priori and that decision occurs only once i.e., no sustainability risks in a dynamically changing environment—Sustainable
spatial or temporal considerations are included. Specifically when supplier management in the chemical industry. Journal of Purchasing and
the values change over time and the decision matrix is not fixed Supply Management, 16(2), 118–130.
Ford, A. (1999). Modeling the environment (2nd ed.). Island Press.
or static as in sustainable supplier selection problems, the validity Forrester, J. (1971). World dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen Press.
of the results are rather limited. Thus, MCDM does not provide Gharakhani, D. (2012). The evaluation of supplier selection criteria by fuzzy
adequate information on how supplier behavior evolves with time. DEMATEL method. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(4),
3215–3224.
Rather, systems dynamics model is advocated. Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach
The systems dynamics modeling approach presented in this for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom
study can be applied to any green manufacturing environment line approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 345–354.
Haller, R., Emberger, G., Mayerthaler, A. (2008). A system dynamics approach to
regardless of the number of alternatives and relevant sustainability model land-use/transport interactions on the national level. In REAL CORP 008
criteria. At the development of the systems dynamic model, time proceedings. <www.corp.at>.
and cost resources could be demanding, but once installed, use of Heyer, R. (2004). Understanding soft operations research: The methods, their
application and its future in the defence setting. Edinburgh South Australia:
the model becomes less demanding. DSTO Information Sciences Laboratory (working paper).
Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for
supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of
Operational Research, 202, 16–24.
References Jauhar, S. K., Pant, M., & Abraham, A. (2014). A novel approach for sustainable
supplier selection using differential evolution: A case on pulp and paper
Aghajani, H., & Ahmadpour, M. (2011). Application of fuzzy TOPSIS for ranking industry. Intelligent data analysis and its applications (Vol. II, pp. 105–117).
suppliers of supply chain in automobile manufacturing companies in Iran. Fuzzy Springer International Publishing.
Information and Engineering, 3(4), 433–444. Javad, J., Rita, A., & Leonilde, R. (2014). Dynamic MCDM with future knowledge for
Akhtar, M. H., Simonovic, S. P., Wibe, P., MacGee, J., & Davies, J. (2011). An integrated supplier selection. Journal of Decision Systems, Knowledge-Based Decision Systems,
system dynamics model for analyzing behavior of the social-energy-economic- 23(3).
climatic system: User’s manual. Report no: 076. Water resources research Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi-criteria supplier selection using
report. fuzzy AHP. Logistics Information Management, 16(6), 382–394.
Amin, S. H., & Zhang, G. (2012). An integrated model for closed-loop supply chain Keskin, G. A., Ihan, S., & Ozkan, C. (2010). The fuzzy art algorithm: A categorization
configuration and supplier selection: Multi-objective approach. Expert Systems method for supplier evaluation and selection. Expert Systems with Application,
with Applications, 39, 6782–6791. 37, 1235–1240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.004.
12 I.J. Orji, S. Wei / Computers & Industrial Engineering 88 (2015) 1–12

Khamseh, A. A., & Mahmoodi, M. (2014). A new fuzzy TOPSIS-TODIM hybrid method Shen, L., Olfat, L., Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Diabat, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi-
for green supplier selection using fuzzy time function. Advances in Fuzzy criteria approach for evaluating green supplier’s performance in green supply
Systems. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/841405. chain with linguistic preferences. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 74,
Khatie, A. H., Bulgak, A., & Segovia, J. (2010). Advanced decision support tool by 170–179.
integrating activity-based costing and management to systems dynamics. IEEE. Tako, A., & Robinson, S. (2012). The application of discrete event simulation and
Kuo, R., Wang, Y., & Tien, F. (2010). Integration of artificial neutral network and system dynamics in the logistics and supply chain context. Decision Support
MADA methods for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, Systems, 52, 802–815.
18(12), 1161–1170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.03.020. Trappey, A., Trappey, C., Hsiao, C., Ou, J., & Chang, C. T. (2012). System dynamics
Lan, T.-S., Lan, Y.-H., Chen, K.-L., Chen, P.-C., & Lin, W.-C. (2013). A study of modeling of product carbon footprint life cycles for collaborative green supply
developing a system dynamics model for the learning effectiveness evaluation. chains. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 25, 934–945.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/298621. Vashiranwongpinyo, P., (2010). A systems dynamics model to analyze behavior of
Lee, A. H. I., Chen, W.-C., & Chang, C.-J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for manufacturing in supply chain. In Proceedings of the 2nd RMUTP international
evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in conference.
Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications (34), 96–107. Verdecho, M. J., Alfaro-Siaz, J. J., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R. (2010). An approach to
Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H.-Y., Hsu, C.-F., & Hung, H.-C. (2009). A green supplier selection select suppliers for sustainable collaborative networks. In IFIP international
model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 7917–7927. federation for information processing (pp. 304–311).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.052. Wang, J.-W., Cheng, C.-H., & Huang, K.-C. (2009). Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for
Mani, V., Agrawal, R., & Sharma, V. (2014). Supplier selection using social supplier selection. Applied Soft Computing, 9(1), 377–386.
sustainability: AHP based approach in India. International Strategic Wareef, A. N. (2013). A systems dynamics simulation model for forecasting energy
Management Review, 2(2), 98–112. demand in Pueblo County. MSc. Dissertation. Industrial and Systems Engineering
Meadows, J., Randers, D. L., & Meadows (1993). Beyond the limits: Confronting global Program, Colorado State University-Pueblo.
collapse, envisioning a sustainable future. Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Wittstruck, D., & Teuteberg, F. (2011). Governance and sustainability in information
Meadows, J., Randers, D. L., & Meadows (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. systems. Managing the transfer and diffusion of IT. In IFIP advances in
Chelsea Green. information and communication technology (Vol. 366, pp 45–69).
Onat, N., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Towards greening the U.S. residential Wu, M., & Liu, Z. (2011). The supplier selection application based on two methods:
building stock: A systems dynamics approach. Building and Environment, 78, VIKOR algorithm with entropy method and Fuzzy TOPSIS with vague sets
68–80. method. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
Ordoobadi, S. (2009). Development of a supplier selection model using fuzzy logic. Management, 6(2), 109–115.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(4), 314–327. Yeh, W. C., & Chuang, M. C. (2010). Using multi-objective genetic algorithm for
Orji, I. M. J., & Wei, S. (2014). A decision support tool for sustainable supplier partner selection in green supply chain problems. Expert System Application, 38,
selection in manufacturing firms. Journal of Industrial Engineering and 4244–4253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.091.
Management, 7(5), 1293–1315. Zhang, D. W., Hamid, A., Bakar, A., & Thoo, A. C. (2014). Sustainable supplier
Qiang, X., Hui, L., & Xiao-dong, Q. (2013). System dynamics simulation model for the selection: An international comparative literature review for future
electronic commerce credit risk mechanism research. International Journal of investigation. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 525, 787–790.
Computer Science Issues, 10(2). Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2004). Relationships between operational practices and
Randers, J. (2000). From limits to growth to sustainable development or SD performance among early adopters of green supply chain management
(sustainable development) in a SD (system dynamics) perspective. System practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations
Dynamics Review, 16, 213–224. Management, 22, 265–289.