Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Facility location selection is a multi-criteria decision problem and has a strategic importance for many companies. The conventional methods for facility location selection are inadequate for dealing with the imprecise or vague nature of linguistic assessment. To overcome this difficulty, fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods are proposed. The aim of this study is to use fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) methods for the selection of facility location. The proposed methods have been applied to a facility location selection problem of a textile company in Turkey. After determining the criteria that affect the facility location decisions, fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods are applied to the problem and results are presented. The similarities and differences of two methods are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yang J, Lee H (1997) An AHP decision model for facility location selection. Facilities 15(9/10):241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stevenson WJ (1993) Production / operations management, 4th edn. Richard D. Irwin Inc., Homewood

    Google Scholar 

  3. Krajewski LJ, Ritzman LP (1993) Operations management. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ulukan Z (2003) Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist Inf Manag 16(6):382–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liang GS (1999) Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts. Eur J Oper Res 112:682–691

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Chu TC (2002) Selecting plant location via a fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 20:859–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yong D (2006) Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28:839–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liang GS, Wang MJ (1991) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method for facility site selection. Int J Prod Res 29(11):2313–2330

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Kahraman C, Ruan D, Doğan İ (2003) Fuzzy group decision making for facility location selection. Inf Sci 157:135–153

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Chou SY, Chang YH, Shen CY (2007) A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/ subjective attributes. Eur J Oper Res, accepted paper, DOI 10.1016/ j.ejor.2007.05.006

  11. Ishii H, Lee YL, Yeh KY (2007) Fuzzy facility location problem with preference of candidate sites. Fuzzy Sets Syst, article in press, DOI 10.1016/j.fss.2007.04.022

  12. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Ertuğrul İ, Karakaşoğlu N (2006) Fuzzy TOPSIS method for academic member selection in engineering faculty. International Joint Conferences on Computer, Information, and Systems Sciences, and Engineering (CIS2E 06) December 4–14

  14. Bojadziev G, Bojadziev M (1998) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic applications. World Scientific, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ertuğrul İ, Tuş A (2007) Interactive fuzzy linear programming and an application sample at a textile firm. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 6:29–49

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Zimmermann HJ (1992) Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Inf Sci 8:199–249

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1977) Local and fuzzy logics. In: Dunn JM, Epstein G (eds) Modern uses of multiple-valued logic. Kluwer, Boston, pp 105–151, 158–165

  19. Deng H (1999) Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pair-wise comparison. Int J Approx Reason 21:215–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169:1–29

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang TC, Chen YH (2007) Applying consistent fuzzy preference relations to partnership selection. Omega 35:384–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Laarhoven PJM, Pedrcyz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11:229–241

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17:233–247

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhu K, Jing Y, Chang D (1999) A discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 116:450–456

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Leung L, Cao D (2000) On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 124:102–113

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Chou TY, Liang GS (2001) Application of a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for shipping company performance evaluation. Marit Policy Manage 28(4):375–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chang YH, Cheng CH, Wang TC (2003) Performance evaluation of international airports in the region of east Asia. Proceedings of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 4:213–230

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hsieh TY, Lu ST, Tzeng GH (2004) Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. Int J Proj Manag 22:573–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mikhailov L, Tsvetinov P (2004) Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Applied Soft Computing 5:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Enea M, Piazza T (2004) Project selection by constrained fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 3:39–62

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ruan D (2004) Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: the case of Turkey. Int J Prod Econ 87:171–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tang Y, Beynon MJ (2005) Application and development of a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process within a capital investment study. J Econ Manage 1(2):207–230

    Google Scholar 

  36. Tolga E, Demircan M, Kahraman C (2005) Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 97:89–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tang LL, Kuo YC, Lee ES (2005) A multi-objective model for Taiwan notebook computer distribution problem. In: Lan YC (ed) Global integrated supply chain systems. Idea, Hershey, pp 171–182

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gu X, Zhu Q (2006) Fuzzy multi-attribute decision making method based on eigenvector of fuzzy attribute evaluation space. Decis Support Syst 41:400–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tüysüz F, Kahraman C (2006) Project risk evaluation using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: an application to information technology projects. Int J Intell Syst 21:559–584

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Ayağ Z, Özdemir RG (2006) A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. J Intell Manuf 17:179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Haq AN, Kannan G (2006) Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 29:826–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Huang CC, Chu PY, Chiang YH (2006) A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. Omega The International Journal of Management Science, article in press, DOI 10.1016/j.omega.2006.05.003

  43. Chan FTS, Kumar N (2007) Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35:417–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lee AHI, Chen WC, Chang CJ (2008) A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Syst Appl 34(1):96–107

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wang YM, Elhag TMS (2006) Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Syst Appl 31:309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Triantaphyllou E, Lin CT (1996) Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision-making methods. Int J Approx Reason 14:281–310

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Tsaur SH, Chang TY, Yen CH (2002) The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tour Manage 23:107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Chu TC, Lin YC (2003) A fuzzy TOPSIS method for robot selection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 21:284–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Abo-Sinna MA, Amer AH (2005) Extensions of TOPSIS for multi-objective large-scale nonlinear programming problems. Appl Math Comput 162:243–256

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  51. Saghafian S, Hejazi SR (2005) Multi-criteria group decision making using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS procedure. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modeling, Control and Automation, and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce, IEEE

  52. Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh LF, Izadikhah M (2006) Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision-making problems with fuzzy data. Appl Math Comput 181:1544–1551

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Chen CT, Lin CT, Huang SF (2006) A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int J Prod Econ 102:289–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bottani E, Rizzi A (2006) A fuzzy TOPSIS methodology to support outsourcing of logistics services. Supply Chain Manag 11(4):294–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wang TC, Chang TH (2007) Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 33(4):870–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Li DF (2007) Compromise ratio method for fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making. Applied Soft Computing 7(3):807–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Benitez JM, Martin JC, Roman C (2007) Using fuzzy number for measuring quality of service in the hotel industry. Tour Manage 28:544–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Yang T, Hung CC (2007) Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem. Robot Comput-Integr Manuf 23:126–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wang YJ, Lee HS (2007) Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making. Comput Math Appl 53:1762–1772

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  60. Chen H (2004) A research based on fuzzy AHP for multi-criteria supplier selection in supply chain. Master thesis, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Department of Industrial Management

  61. Kahraman C, Ateş NY, Çevik S, Gülbay M, Erdoğan SA (2007) Hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS model for selection among logistics information technologies. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 20(2):143–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ertuğrul İ, Karakaşoğlu N (2006) The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection and an application in a textile company. Proceedings of 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, pp 195–207

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business Administration Department, Pamukkale University, 20070, Denizli, Turkey

    İrfan Ertuğrul & Nilsen Karakaşoğlu

Authors
  1. İrfan Ertuğrul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nilsen Karakaşoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to İrfan Ertuğrul.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ertuğrul, İ., Karakaşoğlu, N. Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 39, 783–795 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-1249-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-007-1249-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy