8.selection of

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

Selection
Selection of third-party reverse of 3PRLP
logistics provider using fuzzy
extent analysis
149
Kannan Govindan
Department of Business and Economics,
University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark, and
P. Murugesan
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Odaiyappa College of Engineering and Technology, Theni, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a structured model for the selection of a third-party
reverse logistics provider (3PRLP) under fuzzy environment for the battery industry, which establishes
the relative weights for attributes and sub-attributes.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses fuzzy extent analysis to solve the 3PRLP
selection problem.
Findings – Owing to growing environmental legislations, reverse logistics (RL) has attained more
importance among practitioners and academicians. The important decision related to RL is whether the
company should maintain the separate RL system or whether it can be outsourced. RL takes 12 times as
many steps to process returns as it does to manage outbound logistics (Accenture supply chain
management practice), consequently many companies decided to outsource the RL activities or
functions through 3PRLPs. The paper proposes a way of selecting the best 3PRLP using fuzzy extent
analysis.
Research limitations/implications – Fuzzy extent analysis is a highly multi-faceted methodology
which requires more numerical calculations and increases the time to take a decision. A limitation of
this work is that in this study only fuzzy extent analysis has been concentrated on and other
multi-criteria decision-making methods such as VIKOR, TOPSIS and ELECTRE can be applied in a
fuzzy environment for solving such problems.
Originality/value – In this research, seven attributes and 34 sub-attributes are considered and the
interpretation of RL attributes in terms of their pair-wise comparisons has been carried out. Those
attributes possessing lower priorities in the fuzzy extent analysis need to be taken care of on a
selection of the best 3PRLP.
Keywords Supply chain management, Fuzzy analysis, Operations management
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In the recent years, the importance of reverse logistics (RL) has increased the
responsibility of organizations. Because of changes in legislation, both for environmental
protection and for economic and service reasons, an increasing number of companies
now take into account reverse ﬂows, going backwards from customers to point of origin Benchmarking: An International
or recovery centers, within their logistics systems (Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 1998; Journal
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2011
Fleischmann et al., 2000). pp. 149-167
Given that RL is not the ﬁrm’s core activity, one of the most important decisions to be q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-5771
taken by any producer is whether or not to outsource such functions to a third-party DOI 10.1108/14635771111109869

BIJ reverse logistics provider (3PRLP). This typically is an irreversible decision, because the
18,1 chosen strategy, once adopted, will not be changed frequently. The management of returns
is complicated by the substantial uncertainties associated with their timing, volume and
condition (Serrato et al., 2007). Cardinali (2001a, b) examines a number of environments in
which strategic planning models, sometimes with associated regulatory intervention, have
been suggested to counter the growing problem of waste and its effects on the environment.
150 It is not a new industrial practice but has recently received growing attention, as more
companies are using it as a strategic tool to get more profit, to avoid any waste and even
benefit the customer relationship (Andel, 1997; Klausner and Hendrickson, 2000).
RL mainly concern with returned products. RL can be defined as the reverse process of
logistics (Luttwak, 1971). Traditionally, RL has been viewed primarily as the process of
recycling products. Recently, definitions vary depending on what company or segment
of industry is attempting to define it. Retailers see RL as a way to get product that has
been returned by a consumer back to the vendor (Buxbaum, 1998). Manufacturers tend
to view RL as the process of receiving defective products or reusable containers back
from the user. Council of Logistics Management (CLM, 1998) defines RL as:
The process of planning, implementing, and controlling the efficient, cost effective flow of
raw materials, in-process inventory, finished goods and related information from the point of
consumption to the point of origin for the purpose of recapturing value or proper disposal
(Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 1998).
RL has become an important entity and plays an important role in company’s
competitive advantage and making the pursuit of their function a strategic decision
(Schwartz, 2000). It does not include disposition management, administration time and
cost of converting unproductive returns into productive assets. This also gives rise to the
situation for outsourcing. Hence, RL is necessary for handling and disposition of
returned products and information. The general RL chain is shown in Figure 1.
Outsourcing to a 3PRLP has been identified as one of the most important management
strategies for RL networks in the recent years. While considering outsourcing decisions
for RL, the fundamental factor to be considered is whether there is a reliable 3PRLP for
the type of RL network required. Even though there are several 3PRLPs in some of the
scenarios such as pharmaceuticals, container reuse, cellular telephone reuse, electronic
goods, automobiles and computers, etc. one of the most important issues in RL systems
is that some of them are not really prepared to effectively address the service needs

Distribution Production Supply

Use

Collection Selection Re-processing Re-distribution Re-use

Figure 1.
The RL chain Disposal

due to the lack of knowledge in RL networks. Outsourcing makes the firm to concentrate Selection
on RL activities in order to earn the customers reputation through immediate response. of 3PRLP
Owing to the complexity of the process, RL activities can effectively be accomplished by
involving a 3PRLP, which specializes in these activities and can take advantage of the
economies of scale to convert RL functions in a profit-creating activity into the
closed-loop chain.
This paper presents a structured model for evaluating the 3PRLP selection for 151
battery industry located in southern part of India using fuzzy extent analysis. In this
research, after introduction of the literature review is given in Section 2. Section 3
describes the problem and 3PRLP model. Section 4 describes the solution methodology.
In Section 5, the application model and result analysis are discussed and conclusion of
the paper is discussed in Section 6.

2. Literature review
The literature review is mainly aimed at identifying the attributes and sub-attributes
that need to be considered in 3PRLP selection process, which has the impact on the
organizations strategic goal. Various attributes and sub-attributes used in this study has
been found in literature and finalized through discussions made with the
organization-outsourcing group.
Table I shows the attributes of selection criteria, relevance in 3PRLP selection
process and the references in detail. This table is adopted from the study done by
Kannan (2009) in his earlier work using analytical hierarchy process (AHP).
Based on the above literature, this paper presents a structured model for evaluating
the third-party RL selection using fuzzy extent analysis proposed by Chang (1996).

3. Problem description
The company chosen for this study is to build a partner who is a third party for its RL
network. RL systems can be given to the 3PRLPs. An analysis should be made such that
the third party provider should be partnered or make alliance in RL systems to achieve
optimal result and multiple organizations might be involved in the RL function. The
attributes and sub-attributes have to be most prevalent and important in the third-party
selection process. Choosing the possible criteria for the third-party selection involves a
decision-making process which includes experts from various functional activities of the
organization. The attributes and sub-attributes involved in the third-party selection have
been chosen by conducting a survey. The selected attributes and sub-attributes are given
in Table I. The objective is to select a set of third parties, evaluate and rank them
according to pre-defined attributes. Figure 2 is comprised of four levels for selecting the
best third party. Level 1 represents the goal, i.e. selection of best third party. Level 2
represents the seven attributes such as third-party logistics (3PL) services, organizational
performance criteria, organizational role, user satisfaction, IT application, impact of
use of 3PL and RL functions. Level 3 represents 34 sub-attributes and Level 4 represents
the number of third parties (alternatives).

4. Solution methodology
In this work, fuzzy extent analysis is adopted to solve the problem of selection of 3PRLP.
The outline of the fuzzy extent analysis method (Chang, 1996) can be summarized
below.

BIJ
Attributes Sub-attributes
18,1
Third party logistics Inventory replenishment (3PLS1), Dowlatshahi (2000), van den Berg and
services (3PLS) warehouse management (3PLS2), Zijm (1999), Kleinsorge et al. (1991),
shipment consolidation (3PLS3), Gunasekaran et al. (2001), Davis and
carrier selection (3PLS4) and Gaither (1985), Gupta and Bagchi (1987),
152 direct transportation services Khoo and Mitsuru (2006) and Holguin-
(3PLS5) Veras (2002)
Reverse logistics Collection (RLF1), packing Schwartz (2000), Dowlatshahi (2000),
functions (RLF) (RLF2), storage (RLF3), sorting Jeffery and Ramanujam (2006),
(RLF4), transitional processing Kaliampakos et al. (2002), Schwartz (2000),
(RLF5) and delivery (RLF6) Jules (1990) and Stock (1990)
Organizational role Reclaim (OR1), recycle (OR2), Meade and Sarkis (2002), Dowlatshahi
(OR) remanufacture (OR3), re use (2000), Demir and Orhan (2003) and
(OR4) and disposal (OR5) Schwartz (2000)
User satisfaction (US) Effective communication (US1), Mohr and Spekman (1994), Bensaou
service improvement (US2), (1993), Monczka et al. (1993), Gunipero
cost saving (US3) and overall (1990), Lynch (2000), Boyson et al. (1999),
working relations (US4) Langley et al. (2002), Andersson and
Norrman (2002) and Boyson et al. (1999)
Impact of use of 3PL Customer satisfaction (IU3PL1), Razzaque and Sheng (1998), Hendrik et al.
(IU3PL) frequently updating (IU3PL2), (2006), Lynch (2000), Boyson et al. (1999)
profitability (IU3PL3) and and Mohrman and Von Glinow (1990)
employee morale (IU3PL4)
Organizational Quality (OPC1), cost (OPC2), time Kim et al. (2004), Kwang et al. (2007),
performance criteria (OPC3), flexibility (OPC4) and Andersson and Norrman (2002), Lynch
(OPC) customer satisfaction (OPC5) (2000), Boyson et al. (1999), Lynch (2000),
Langley et al. (2002), Boyson et al. (1999),
Stock et al. (1998), Kleindorfer and Partovi
(1990) and Stank and Daugherty (1997)
IT applications (IT) Warehouse management (IT1), Dowlatshahi (2000), van den Berg and
order management (IT2), supply Zijm (1999), Jing et al. (2006), Scalle and
Table I. chain planning (IT3), shipment Cotteleer (1999), Khoo and Mitsuru (2006),
Attributes and and tracking (IT4) and freight Holguin-Veras (2002) and Jeffery and
sub-attributes payment (IT5) Ramanujam (2006)

Let X ¼ {x1, x2, . . . , xn} be an object set, and U ¼ {u1, u2, . . . , um} be a goal set. As per
Chang (1992, 1996), each object is taken and analysis for each goal, gi, is performed,
respectively. Therefore, m extent analysis values for each object can be obtained, as
under:
M 1i ; M 2 i ; . . . ; M mi ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n
g g g ð1Þ
where all the M jgi ð j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; mÞ are triangular fuzzy numbers whose parameters
are, depicting least, most and largest possible values, respectively, and represented as
(a, b, c).
The following steps depicted by Kahraman et al. (2004) for Chang’s extent analysis:
.
Step 1. The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to ith object is defined as:
" #21
Xm XX
n m
Si ¼ M jgi ^ M jgi ð2Þ
j¼1 i¼1 j¼1

Level I
Selecting the best third party

IT 3PL Level II
Impact Organizational services
applications
of use role
of 3pl
Reverse Organizational
User performance
logistics satisfaction
functions criteria

OPC1
IU3PLI RLF1 OR1 US1 IT1
OPC2 3PLS1 Level III
IU3PL2 RLF2 OR2 US2 IT2
OPC3 3PLS2
OPC4 3PLS3
3PLS4
IT5 OPC5
RLF5 OR5 3PLS5
RLF6

Level IV
....... .. .
3PRLP 1 3PRLP 2 3PRLP n
of 3PRLP
Selection

analysis model
Proposed fuzzy extent
Figure 2.
153

P
BIJ To obtain m M jgi , perform the fuzzy addition operation of m extent analysis
j¼1
values for a particular matrix such that:
18,1 !
Xm X X X
m m m
j
M gi ¼ aj ; bj ; cj ; ð3Þ
j¼1 j¼1 j¼1 j¼1
hP i21
n Pm j
154 And to obtain i¼1 j¼1 M gi , perform the fuzzy addition operation of
M jgi ð j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; mÞ values such that:
!
XX
n m X X X
n n n
M jgi ¼ ai ; bi ; ci ð4Þ
i¼1 j¼1 i¼1 i¼1 i¼1

And then compute the inverse of the vector in the above equation such that:
" #21
XX
n m
1 1 1
j
M gi ¼ Pn ; Pn ; Pn ð5Þ
i¼1 j¼1 i¼1 ci i¼1 bi i¼1 ai

.
Step 2. The degree of possibility of M 2 ¼ ða2 ; b2 ; c2 Þ $ M 1 ¼ ða1 ; b1 ; c1 Þ is
deﬁned as:
V ðM 2 $ M 1 Þ ¼ sup½minðmM 1 ðxÞ; mM 2 ðxÞÞŠ ð6Þ
And can be equivalently expressed as follows:
V ðM 2 $ M 1 Þ ¼ hgtðM 1 M 2 Þ ¼ mM 2 ðd Þ
8
1; if b2 $ b1

¼ 0; if a1 $ c2 ð7Þ

a1 2c2
: ðb2 2c2 Þ2ðb1 2a1 Þ ; otherwise

where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D between mM 1 and mM 2
as shown in Figure 3.
To compare M1 and M2, both the values of V (M1 $ M2) and V (M2 $ M1).
.
Step 3. The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k
convex fuzzy numbers Mi (I ¼ 1, 2, . . . , k) can be deﬁned by:
V ðM $ M 1 ; M 2 ; . . . ; M k Þ
Â Ã
¼ V ðM $ M 1 Þ and ðM $ M 2 Þ and. . .ðM $ M k Þ ð8Þ
¼ min V ðM $ M i Þ; ði ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . ; kÞ:
Assuming that:
d0 ðAi Þ ¼ min V ðS i $ S k Þ ð9Þ
For k ¼ 1, 2, . . . , n; k – i. Then the weight vector is given by:
W 0 ¼ ðd0 ðA1 Þ; d0 ðA2 Þ; . . . ; d 0 ðAn ÞÞT ð10Þ
where Ai ¼ (1, 2, . . . , n) are n elements.

.
Step 4. By normalizing, the normalized weight vectors are: Selection
W ¼ ðdðA1 Þ; dðA2 Þ; . . . ; dðAn ÞÞT ð11Þ of 3PRLP
where W is a non-fuzzy number.

5. Application of the model and result analysis
An objective of this section is to illustrate how to choose the best 3PRPL’s using this 155
model and the model was applied to a battery company which is located in the
southern part of India.
The ﬁrst step in the fuzzy extent analysis is creating a pair-wise comparison matrix.
In order to perform a pair-wise comparison among the attributes and sub-attributes,
the linguistic scale for the triangular numbers and fuzzy conversion scales given in
Table II are used in the proposed model.
First, the pair-wise comparison matrix is constructed with the help of expert team
and the same is shown in Table III.

M2 M1
1
V (M2 ≥ M1)

D Figure 3.
The intersection between
0 M1 and M2
a2 b2 a1 d c2 b1 c1

Linguistics scale for importance Triangular fuzzy scale Triangular fuzzy reciprocal scale

Just equal ( JE) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)
Equally important (EI) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 2)
Weakly important (WI) (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1)
Strongly more important (SMI) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
Very strongly more important (VSMI) (2, 5/2, 3) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2)
Absolutely more important (AMI) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) Table II.
Triangular fuzzy
Source: Modiﬁed from Percin (2008)
¸ conversion scale

3PLS RLF OPC OR IT US IU3PL

3PLS (1, 1, 1) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2, 5/2, 3) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1/2, 1, 3/2)
RLF (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 3/2, 2)
OPC (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 3/2, 2) (2, 5/2, 3) (2, 5/2, 3)
OR (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 3/2, 2)
IT (2/3, 1, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2) (1, 1, 1)
US (2/3, 1, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2) Table III.
IU3PL (2/3, 1, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) Fuzzy evaluation matrix

BIJ By applying formula (2) given in Section 4:
18,1 S 3PLS ¼ ð9:50; 12:50; 15:50Þ^ð1=74:30; 55:70; 42:57Þ ¼ ð0:13; 0:22; 0:36Þ
S RLF ¼ ð5:79; 8:33; 10:90Þ^ð1=74:30; 55:70; 42:57Þ ¼ ð0:08; 0:15; 0:26Þ
S OPC ¼ ð7:45; 9:83; 12:90Þ^ð1=74:30; 55:70; 42:57Þ ¼ ð0:10; 0:18; 0:30Þ
S OR ¼ ð5:50; 7:07; 9:50Þ^ð1=74:30; 55:70; 42:57Þ ¼ ð0:07; 0:13; 0:22Þ
156 S IT ¼ ð5:67; 6:83; 9:00Þ^ð1=74:30; 55:70; 42:57Þ ¼ ð0:08; 0:12; 0:21Þ
S US ¼ ð4:00; 5:40; 8:00Þ^ð1=74:30; 55:70; 42:57Þ ¼ ð0:05; 0:10; 0:19Þ
S IU 3PL ¼ ð4:67; 5:73; 8:50Þ^ð1=74:30; 55:70; 42:57Þ ¼ ð0:06; 0:10; 0:20Þ

With the help of equations (7), (9) and (10) the minimum degree of possibility of
superiority of each criterion over another is obtained. This further decides the weight
vectors of the criteria. Therefore, the weight vector is given as:

W 0 ¼ ð1; 0:632; 0:785; 0:494; 0:451; 0:32; 0:372ÞT
The normalized value of this vector decides the priority weights of each criterion over
another. The normalized weight vectors are calculated using the equation (11) and the
same is given follow:
W ¼ ð0:24669; 0:15593; 0:1939; 0:12202; 0:11133; 0:07909; 0:09173Þ
Further the weights of sub-attributes and weights of alternatives with respect to each
sub-attribute are found using the similar procedure. The results are shown in
Tables IV and VI.
In this part, the result obtained through fuzzy extent analysis (Tables IV and VI) is
compared with solution obtained through AHP (Table V; Kannan, 2009). From Table VI,
it can be concluded that the calculated importance level of attributes for the case is in
the following order. 3PL service, organizational performance criteria, RL functions,
organizational role, IT applications, impact of use of 3PL and user satisfaction. This
result is compared with the previous study done by Kannan (2009) using AHP and it
shows that the top priority remains the same with little changes in the other attributes
priorities. Table VI gives the local priority vectors for the alternatives with respect to
attributes and sub-attributes.
The total weighted score is shown in the Table VI for the each alternative
(3PRLP1-3PRLP7) and it was obtained by multiplying the local priority vectors of
alternatives, priority vectors of attributes and sub-attributes. Based on the global
priority weight, the 3PRLP is selected when it has the highest overall priority. From
Table VI, it can be seen that 3PRLP1 is preferred which has the highest weight of (0.2176)
among seven third parties. Third party 2 is at the second choice (0.17779).

6. Conclusion
RL service provider problem becomes more important for most manufacturing
companies in today’s complex environment. The selection process in the RL service
provider involves both types of attributes like quantitative and qualitative attributes to
select the best possible provider.
However, the top-level management and managers are often uncertain about how to
share the key information to enhance the selection process. Fuzzy extent analysis

Local weights
Criteria Sub-criteria Weight 3PRLP1 3PRLP2 3PRLP3 3PRLP4 3PRLP5 3PRLP6 3PRLP7

Third party logistics services 0.24669 3PLS1 0.18595 0.19367 0.15159 0.12698 0.10069 0.05179 0.16028 0.21500
3PLS2 0.14605 0.20402 0.14329 0.10451 0.10960 0.06492 0.19458 0.17908
3PLS3 0.18741 0.18646 0.16558 0.12945 0.10064 0.08664 0.19131 0.13993
3PLS4 0.26654 0.20188 0.16652 0.12103 0.09920 0.06431 0.18495 0.16212
3PLS5 0.21404 0.20902 0.18035 0.13108 0.09728 0.05515 0.17255 0.15457
Reverse logistics function 0.15593 RLF1 0.18979 0.29465 0.20273 0.16971 0.11391 0.03827 0.10712 0.07361
RLF2 0.18043 0.29606 0.22043 0.16608 0.09711 0.04336 0.09694 0.08001
RLF3 0.18406 0.30903 0.20702 0.16422 0.10483 0.05243 0.08942 0.07305
RLF4 0.17435 0.30988 0.22856 0.18277 0.10003 0.03289 0.08807 0.05780
RLF5 0.06731 0.29096 0.20996 0.19456 0.07986 0.05149 0.08776 0.08542
RLF6 0.20406 0.31735 0.22300 0.14604 0.10213 0.04198 0.09320 0.07631
Organizational performance criteria 0.19390 OPC1 0.24187 0.19946 0.14852 0.11510 0.11372 0.05855 0.20423 0.16041
OPC2 0.17976 0.20358 0.18913 0.15786 0.09369 0.05238 0.15601 0.14735
OPC3 0.21974 0.22440 0.17770 0.14740 0.07985 0.05595 0.15348 0.16122
OPC4 0.28966 0.20118 0.20218 0.13382 0.12234 0.05916 0.17103 0.11030
OPC5 0.06897 0.22090 0.17287 0.13938 0.09202 0.05594 0.18065 0.13824
Organizational role 0.12202 OR1 0.26323 0.18798 0.15932 0.12973 0.09058 0.07387 0.20092 0.15760
OR2 0.20811 0.18425 0.16825 0.12218 0.09980 0.06768 0.18797 0.16987
OR3 0.25692 0.21915 0.18529 0.14303 0.10017 0.05982 0.16159 0.13095
OR4 0.17581 0.21008 0.15756 0.13036 0.11718 0.06102 0.18138 0.14242
OR5 0.09593 0.18230 0.15608 0.12889 0.10534 0.06600 0.20753 0.15386
(continued)
of 3PRLP
Selection

analysis)
Local rating of third
parties (fuzzy extent
157

Table IV.

BIJ
18,1

158

Table IV.
Local weights

IT application 0.11133 IT1 0.16784 0.18818 0.16290 0.12796 0.09160 0.06695 0.21730 0.14511
IT2 0.12206 0.18226 0.20273 0.11843 0.11179 0.05428 0.18089 0.14963
IT3 0.15780 0.18226 0.20273 0.11843 0.11179 0.05428 0.18089 0.14963
IT4 0.24015 0.19713 0.18829 0.16723 0.11815 0.06991 0.14248 0.11680
IT5 0.31214 0.20652 0.14661 0.14690 0.12319 0.06595 0.14799 0.16284
User satisfaction 0.07909 US1 0.44670 0.22060 0.21352 0.13531 0.12482 0.05924 0.13600 0.11049
US2 0.20914 0.20092 0.15995 0.12771 0.10733 0.05749 0.19438 0.15222
US3 0.32975 0.20395 0.15425 0.16382 0.08875 0.05854 0.17959 0.15111
US4 0.01441 0.19247 0.18834 0.14085 0.07150 0.08649 0.15405 0.16631
Impact of use of third party 0.09173 IU3PL1 0.33702 0.18015 0.14473 0.13498 0.11418 0.07158 0.18529 0.16908
IU3PL2 0.26312 0.21163 0.16889 0.16349 0.11577 0.05270 0.14426 0.14326
IU3PL3 0.16714 0.20900 0.18084 0.12427 0.09757 0.05274 0.16657 0.16902
IU3PL4 0.23273 0.20338 0.16166 0.12347 0.11467 0.05336 0.16201 0.18145
Note: Overall rating of third parties identiﬁed by the company

Global weights

Third party logistics services 0.384676 3PLS1 0.31199 0.04688 0.02315 0.01399 0.0105 0.00846 0.00753 0.0095
3PLS2 0.13732 0.02169 0.00945 0.00488 0.00522 0.00428 0.00372 0.00356
3PLS3 0.11118 0.01598 0.00869 0.00502 0.00348 0.00456 0.00287 0.00216
3PLS4 0.12997 0.0201 0.01026 0.00547 0.00406 0.00398 0.00322 0.00291
3PLS5 0.30953 0.04787 0.02553 0.01385 0.00947 0.00873 0.00722 0.00641
Reverse logistics function 0.186549 RLF1 0.32836 0.0229 0.01167 0.00825 0.00682 0.0047 0.00372 0.00319
RLF2 0.11374 0.00808 0.00432 0.00276 0.00186 0.00158 0.0013 0.00132
RLF3 0.10528 0.00757 0.00353 0.00238 0.00196 0.00185 0.00111 0.00125
RLF4 0.06966 0.00518 0.00285 0.00186 0.00117 0.00074 0.00072 0.00058
RLF5 0.19154 0.01333 0.0069 0.00542 0.00257 0.00316 0.00198 0.00237
RLF6 0.19143 0.01441 0.00727 0.00404 0.00326 0.00255 0.00208 0.0021
Organizational performance criteria 0.151992 OPC1 0.45094 0.02687 0.0132 0.00719 0.00698 0.00445 0.00483 0.00502
OPC2 0.18852 0.01119 0.00636 0.00389 0.00213 0.00203 0.00154 0.00151
OPC3 0.14968 0.00879 0.00398 0.00279 0.00247 0.00175 0.00167 0.00129
OPC4 0.15693 0.00913 0.0055 0.00265 0.00243 0.01704 0.00148 0.00096
OPC5 0.05393 0.00327 0.00159 0.00097 0.00075 0.0006 0.00062 0.00038
Organizational role 0.114938 OR1 0.32675 0.01398 0.00761 0.00448 0.00288 0.00396 0.00263 0.00201
OR2 0.14632 0.00631 0.00354 0.00191 0.00141 0.00145 0.00115 0.00105
OR3 0.13503 0.00627 0.00333 0.00177 0.00126 0.00119 0.00099 0.00071
OR4 0.08923 0.00419 0.00182 0.00116 0.0008 0.00081 0.00069 0.0008
OR5 0.30267 0.01283 0.00693 0.00405 0.00316 0.00327 0.00256 0.00198
(continued)
of 3PRLP
Selection

Overall rating of third
Table V.

parties (AHP)
159

BIJ
18,1

160

Table V.
Global weights

IT application 0.080647 IT1 0.33735 0.01095 0.00511 0.00354 0.0023 0.00207 0.00155 0.00169
IT2 0.13753 0.00409 0.00276 0.00117 0.00098 0.00076 0.00072 0.00061
IT3 0.1127 0.00379 0.00187 0.00093 0.00082 0.0006 0.00059 0.00048
IT4 0.14741 0.00472 0.00252 0.00166 0.00113 0.0008 0.00056 0.00049
IT5 0.26501 0.00861 0.00371 0.00274 0.00227 0.00166 0.00116 0.00122
US2 0.15763 0.0025 0.00122 0.00072 0.0006 0.00045 0.00042 0.00035
US3 0.17687 0.00279 0.00141 0.00096 0.00049 0.00053 0.00045 0.0004
US4 0.09324 0.00138 0.0008 0.00043 0.00031 0.00037 0.0002 0.00022
Impact of use of third party 0.041527 IU3PL1 0.56614 0.00893 0.0042 0.003 0.0023 0.00216 0.0017 0.00153
IU3PL2 0.24252 0.00413 0.00195 0.00143 0.00097 0.00057 0.00051 0.00051
IU3PL3 0.0903 0.00153 0.0008 0.00039 0.0003 0.00027 0.00023 0.00023
IU3PL4 0.10104 0.0017 0.00085 0.00046 0.0004 0.00026 0.00025 0.00028
Overall priority 0.39089 0.19995 0.11867 0.08987 0.09305 0.0631 0.0602
Rank 1 2 3 5 4 6 7
Source: Kannan (2009)

Global weights

Third party logistics services 3PLS1 0.18595 0.00888 0.00695 0.00583 0.00462 0.00238 0.00735 0.00986
3PLS2 0.14605 0.00735 0.00516 0.00377 0.00395 0.00234 0.00701 0.00645
3PLS3 0.18741 0.00862 0.00766 0.00598 0.00465 0.00401 0.00884 0.00647
3PLS4 0.26654 0.01327 0.01095 0.00796 0.00652 0.00423 0.01216 0.01066
3PLS5 0.21404 0.01104 0.00952 0.00692 0.00514 0.00291 0.00911 0.00816
Reverse logistics function RLF1 0.18979 0.00872 0.00600 0.00502 0.00337 0.00113 0.00317 0.00218
RLF2 0.18043 0.00833 0.00620 0.00467 0.00273 0.00122 0.00273 0.00225
RLF3 0.18406 0.00887 0.00594 0.00471 0.00301 0.00150 0.00257 0.00210
RLF4 0.17435 0.00842 0.00621 0.00497 0.00272 0.00089 0.00239 0.00157
RLF5 0.06731 0.00305 0.00220 0.00204 0.00084 0.00054 0.00092 0.00090
RLF6 0.20406 0.01010 0.00710 0.00465 0.00325 0.00134 0.00297 0.00243
Organizational performance criteria OPC1 0.24187 0.00935 0.00697 0.00540 0.00533 0.00275 0.00958 0.00752
OPC2 0.17976 0.00710 0.00659 0.00550 0.00327 0.00183 0.00544 0.00514
OPC3 0.21974 0.00956 0.00757 0.00628 0.00340 0.00238 0.00654 0.00687
OPC4 0.28966 0.01130 0.01136 0.00752 0.00687 0.00332 0.00961 0.00619
OPC5 0.06897 0.00295 0.00231 0.00186 0.00123 0.00075 0.00242 0.00185
Organizational role OR1 0.26323 0.00604 0.00512 0.00417 0.00291 0.00237 0.00645 0.00506
OR2 0.20811 0.00468 0.00427 0.00310 0.00253 0.00172 0.00477 0.00431
OR3 0.25692 0.00687 0.00581 0.00448 0.00314 0.00188 0.00507 0.00411
OR4 0.17581 0.00451 0.00338 0.00280 0.00251 0.00131 0.00389 0.00306
OR5 0.09593 0.00213 0.00183 0.00151 0.00123 0.00077 0.00243 0.00180
(continued)
of 3PRLP
Selection

analysis)
Overall global rating of
third parties (fuzzy extent
161

Table VI.

BIJ
18,1

162

Table VI.
Global weights

IT application IT1 0.16784 0.00352 0.00304 0.00239 0.00171 0.00125 0.00406 0.00271
IT2 0.12206 0.00248 0.00276 0.00161 0.00152 0.00074 0.00246 0.00203
IT3 0.15780 0.00320 0.00356 0.00208 0.00196 0.00095 0.00318 0.00263
IT4 0.24015 0.00527 0.00503 0.00447 0.00316 0.00187 0.00381 0.00312
IT5 0.31214 0.00718 0.00509 0.00510 0.00428 0.00229 0.00514 0.00566
US2 0.20914 0.00332 0.00265 0.00211 0.00178 0.00095 0.00322 0.00252
US3 0.32975 0.00532 0.00402 0.00427 0.00231 0.00153 0.00468 0.00394
US4 0.01441 0.00022 0.00021 0.00016 0.00008 0.00010 0.00018 0.00019
Impact of use of third party IU3PL1 0.33702 0.00557 0.00447 0.00417 0.00353 0.00221 0.00573 0.00523
IU3PL2 0.26312 0.00511 0.00408 0.00395 0.00279 0.00127 0.00348 0.00346
IU3PL3 0.16714 0.00320 0.00277 0.00191 0.00150 0.00081 0.00255 0.00259
IU3PL4 0.23273 0.00434 0.00345 0.00264 0.00245 0.00114 0.00346 0.00387
Overall priority 0.21767 0.17779 0.13878 0.10472 0.05877 0.16216 0.14079
Rank 1 2 5 6 7 3 4

approach seems to be particularly effective in reducing the uncertainty in the Selection
determination of the relative weight given to the different attribute and in finding the of 3PRLP
impact of each alternative with respect to the attributes and sub-attributes which
are involved in the selection process.
This study utilizes a fuzzy extent analysis framework to select the best 3PRLP for a
battery manufacturing industry in India. While fuzzy AHP requires weighty computations,
it is a more systematic method than the others, and it is more capable of capturing a 163
human’s appraisal of ambiguity when complex multi-attribute decision-making problems
are considered. This is true because pair-wise comparisons provide a flexible and realistic
way to accommodate real-life data (Tolga et al., 2005).
For future research multi-criteria decision-making methods such as VIKOR, TOPSIS
and ELECTRE can be applied in a fuzzy environment for solving such a problem.

References
Andel, T. (1997), “Reverse logistics: a second chance to profit”, Transportation Distribution,
Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 61-3.
Andersson, D. and Norrman, A. (2002), “Procurement of logistics services a minutes work or a multi
year project”, European Journal of Purchasing Supply Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, p. 14.
Bensaou, M. (1993), “Interorganizational cooperation: the role of information technology.
An empirical comparison of US and Japanese supplier relations”, Proceedings on the
14th International Conference on Information Systems, Orland, FL, USA, pp. 117-27.
Boyson, S., Corsi, T., Dresner, M. and Rabinovich, E. (1999), “Managing third party logistics
relationships: what does it take”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 73-100.
Buxbaum, P. (1998), “The reverse logistics files”, Inbound Logistics, September, pp. 64-7.
Cardinali, R. (2001a), “Does the future of military logistics lie in outsourcing and privatization?
Accountants – the new gatekeepers of war-time operations”, Work Study, Vol. 50 No. 3,
pp. 105-11.
Cardinali, R. (2001b), “Waste management: a missing element in strategic planning”, Work Study,
Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 197-201.
Chang, D.Y. (1992), “Extent analysis and synthetic decision”, Optimization Techniques and
Applications, Vol. 1, World Scientific, Singapore, p. 352.
Chang, D.Y. (1996), “Application of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP”, European Journal
of Operation Research, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 649-55.
CLM (1998), What It’s All About, Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL, pp. 4-6.
Davis, R.A. and Gaither, N. (1985), “Optimal ordering policies under conditions of extended
payment privileges”, Management Science, Vol. 31, pp. 499-509.
Demir, I. and Orhan, M. (2003), “Reuse of waste bricks in the production line”, Building and
Environment, Vol. 38, pp. 1451-5.
Dowlatshahi, S. (2000), “Developing a theory of reverse logistics”, Interfaces, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 143-54.
Fleischmann, M., Beullens, P., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2000),
“The impact of product recovery on logistics network design”, Working Paper of the
Center for Integrated Manufacturing and Service Operations, 2000/33/TM/CIMSO.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E. (2001), “Performance measures and metrics in
a supply chain environment”, International Journal of Operations Production
Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 71-87.

BIJ Gunipero, L.C. (1990), “Motivating and monitoring JIT supplier performance”, Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 19-24.
18,1
Gupta, Y.P. and Bagchi, P.K. (1987), “Inbound freight consolidation under just-in-time
procurement: application of clearing models”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 74-94.
Hendrik, J., Matthias, Z., Marco, F. and Joachim, K. (2006), “Performance evaluation as an
164 influence factor for the determination of profit shares of competence cells in
non-hierarchical regional production networks”, Robotics Computer-integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 22, pp. 526-35.
Holguin-Veras, J. (2002), “Revealed preference analysis of the commercial vehicle choice process”,
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 128 No. 4, pp. 336-46.
Jeffery, K.C. and Ramanujam, B. (2006), “Carrier-mode logistics optimization of inbound supply
chains for electronics manufacturing”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 103, pp. 826-40.
Jing, A.L., Wu, Y., Kin, K.L. and Liu, K. (2006), “Optimal ordering policy in a distribution
system”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 103, pp. 527-34.
Jules, V.D. (1990), “Transitional management in an evolving European context”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 474-9.
Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U. and Ruan, D. (2004), “Multi-attribute comparison of catering service
companies using fuzzy AHP: the case of Turkey”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 171-84.
Kaliampakos, D.C., Benardos, A.G. and Mavrikos, A.A. (2002), “Underground storage
warehouses in Attica, Greece: a feasible long-term solution”, Proceedings of
9th International Conference on Urban Underground Space: A Resource for Cities,
Turin, Italy, November 14-16.
Kannan, G. (2009), “Fuzzy approach for the selection of third party reverse logistics provider”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 3, p. 20.
Khoo, K.B. and Mitsuru, I. (2006), Emerging Topic Tracking System in WWW, Department of
Information and Communication Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo.
Kim, M., Park, M. and Jeong, D. (2004), “The effects of customer satisfaction and switching
barrier on customer loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication services”,
Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 145-59.
Klausner, M. and Hendrickson, C.T. (2000), “Reverse-logistics strategy for product take-back”,
Interfaces, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 156-65.
Kleindorfer, P.R. and Partovi, F.Y. (1990), “Integrating manufacturing strategy and technology
choice”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 47, pp. 214-24.
Kleinsorge, I.K., Schary, P.B. and Tanner, R.D. (1991), “The shipper-carrier partnership: a new
tool for performance evaluation”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 35-58.
Kwang, J.K., Jeong, I.J., Park, J.C., Park, Y.J., Kim, C.G. and Kim, T.H. (2007), “The impact of
network service performance on customer satisfaction and loyalty: high-speed internet
service case in Korea”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32, pp. 822-31.
Langley, C.J., Allen, O.R. and Tyndall, O.R. (2002), Third Party Logistics Study 2002: Results and
Findings of the Seventh Annual Study, Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Luttwak, E. (1971), A Dictionary of Modern War, Harper Row, New York, NY.
Lynch, C.F. (2000), Logistics Outsourcing: A Management Guide, Council of Logistics
Management, Oak Brook, IL.

Meade, L.M. and Sarkis, J. (2002), “A conceptual model for selecting and evaluating third party Selection
reverse logistics provider”, International Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 7,
pp. 283-95. of 3PRLP
Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes,
communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-52.
Mohrman, S.A. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1990), “High technology organizations: a synthesis”, 165
in Von Glinow, M.A. and Mohrman, S.A. (Eds), Managing Complexity in High Technology
Organizations, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 278-95.
Monczka, R.M., Trent, R.J. and Callahan, T.J. (1993), “Supply base strategies to maximize
supplier performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution Logistics
Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 42-54.
Percin, S. (2008), “Use of fuzzy AHP for evaluating the benefits of information-sharing decisions
¸
in a supply chain”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 263-84.
Razzaque, M.A. and Sheng, C.C. (1998), “Outsourcing of logistics functions: a literature survey”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 89-107.
Rogers, D.S. and Tibben-Lembke, R.S. (1998), Going Backward: Reverse Logistics Trends and
Practices, The University of Nevada, Reno, NV.
Scalle, C.X. and Cotteleer, M.J. (1999), Enterprise Resources Planning ( ERP ), Harvard Business
School, Boston, MA.
Schwartz, B. (2000), “Reverse logistics strengthens supply chain”, Transportation Distribution,
Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 95-100.
´
Serrato, M.A., Ryan, S.M. and Gaytan, J. (2007), “A Markov decision model to evaluate
outsourcing in reverse logistics”, Int. J. Production Research, Vol. 45, pp. 4289-315.
Stank, T.P. and Daugherty, P.J. (1997), “The impact of operating environment on the formation of
cooperative logistics relationships”, Transportation Research (Logistics and
Transportation Review), Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Stock, J.R. (1990), “Managing computer, communication, and information technology
strategically: opportunities and challenges for warehousing”, Logistics and
Transportation Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 133-48.
Stock, O.N., Oreis, N.P. and Kasarda, J.D. (1998), “Logistics strategy and structure a conceptual
framework”, International Journal of Operations Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 37-52.
Tolga, E., Demircan, M.L. and Kahraman, C. (2005), “Operating system selection using fuzzy
replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 89-117.
van den Berg, J.P. and Zijm, W.H.M. (1999), “Models for warehouse management: classification
and examples”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 59, pp. 519-28.

Further reading
Albayarakoglu, M.M. (1996), “Justification of new manufacturing technology: a strategic
approach using the analytical hierarchy process”, Production Inventory Management
Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 71-6.
Bloomberg, D.J., LeMay, S. and Hanna, J.B. (2002), Logistics, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

BIJ Blumberg, D. (1999), “Strategic examination of reverse logistics and repair service requirements,
needs, market size, and opportunities”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 141-59.
18,1
Brockmann, T. (1999), “21 warehousing trends in the 21st century”, IIE Solution, Vol. 21 No. 7,
pp. 36-40.
Carlsson, C. and Walden, P. (1995), “AHP in political group decisions: a study in the art of
possibilities”, Interfaces, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 14-29.
166 Cheng, E.W.L. and Li, H. (2001), “Information priority-setting for better resource allocation using
analytical hierarchy process (AHP)”, Information Management Computer Security,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 61-70.
Chin, K.S., Chin, S. and Tummala, V.M.R. (1999), “An evaluation of success factors using the
AHP to implement ISO 14001-based ESM”, International Journal of Quality Reliability
Management, Vol. 6, pp. 341-61.
Cottrill, K. (2000), “Return to sender”, Traffic World, Vol. 262 No. 7, pp. 17-18.
Crowe, T.J., Noble, J.S. and Machimada, J.S. (1998), “Multi-attribute analysis of ISO 9000
registration using AHP”, International Journal of Quality Reliability Management, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 205-22.
Discount Store News (1999), “Outsourcing: reverse logistics push into high gear”, Discount Store
News, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 8-10.
Drucker, P.F. (1998), “Managements new paradigms”, Forbes Management, Vol. 162, pp. 152-77.
Gooley, T.B. (1998), “Reverse logistics: five steps to success”, Logistics Management and
Distribution Report, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 49-55.
Hannon, D. (2002), Line Blurs between 3PLs and Contract Manufactures, Purchasing,
Boston, MA.
Haq, A.N. and Kannan, G. (2006), “Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating and
selecting vendor in supply chain model”, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 29, pp. 826-35.
Juma’h, A.H. and Wood, D. (2000), “Outsourcing implications on companies’ profitability and
liquidity: a sample of UK companies”, Work Study, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 265-75.
Kaufmann, A. (1991), Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic Theory and Application, Van Nostrand,
New York, NY.
Knemeyer, A.M., Ponzurick, T.G. and Logar, C.M. (2002), “A qualitative examination of factors
affecting reverse logistics systems for end-of-life computers”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 455-79.
Krumwiede, D.W. and Sheu, C. (2002), “A model for reverse logistics entry by third-party
providers”, OMEGA, Vol. 30, pp. 325-33.
Lieb, R.C., Millen, R.A. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (1993), “Third-party logistics services:
a comparison of experienced American and European manufacturing”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution Logistics Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 35-44.
Marien, E.J. (1998), “Reverse logistics as competitive strategy”, Supply Chain Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
Meyer, H. (1999), “Many happy returns”, The Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 27-31.
Minahan, T. (1998), “Manufacturing take aim at end of the supply chain”, Purchasing, Vol. 124
No. 6, p. 111.
Murpy, P. and Poist, R. (2000), “Third-party logistics: some user versus provider perspective”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 121-34.

Partovi, F.Y. (1994), “Determining what to benchmark: an analytic hierarchy process approach”, Selection
International Journal of Operations Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 25-39.
Qureshi, M.N., Kumar, D. and Kumar, P. (2007), “Modeling the logistics outsourcing relationship
of 3PRLP
variables to enhance shippers’ productivity and competitiveness in logistical supply
chain”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 8,
pp. 689-714.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2005), “Productivity improvement of a computer 167
hardware supply chain”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 239-55.
Roberts, K. (1994), “Choosing a quality contractor”, Logistics Supplement, September, pp. 4-5.
Rogers, D.S. and Tibben-Lembke, R.S. (2001), “An examination of reverse logistics practices”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 129-48.
Rosen, C. (2001), “Ready for returns?”, Information Week, January, pp. 22-4.
Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource
Allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Saaty, T.L. (1990), “How to make decision: the analytic decision process”, European Journal of
Operation Research, Vol. 48, pp. 9-26.
Saaty, T.L. (1994), “How to make decision: the analytic decision process”, Interfaces, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 19-43.
Saaty, T.L. (2000), Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory, 2nd ed., RWS,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Shepherd, C. and Gunter, H. (2006), “Measuring supply chain performance: current research and
future directions”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 55 Nos 3/4, pp. 242-58.
Sink, H. and Langely, C.J. Jr (1997), “A managerial framework for the acquisition of third-party
logistics services”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 163-89.
Sohail, S. and Sohal, A. (2003), “Third party logistics services: a Malaysian perspective”,
Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 401-8.
Weiss, E.N. and Rao, V.R. (1987), “AHP design issues for large-scale systems”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-57.
Zahedi, F. (1986), “The analytic hierarchy process – a survey of the method and its applications”,
Interfaces, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 96-108.
Zhu, K.J., Jing, Y. and Chang, D.Y. (1999), “A decision on extent analysis method and application
of fuzzy AHP”, European Journal of Operation Research, Vol. 116, pp. 450-6.

Corresponding author
Kannan Govindan can be contacted at: gov@sam.sdu.dk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

8.selection of

More Related Content

Similar to 8.selection of (20)

More from libfsb (20)

8.selection of