Power battery third-party reverse logistics provider selection: Fuzzy evidential reasoning

被引:0
|
作者
Zheng, Chaoyu [1 ,2 ]
Peng, Benhong [1 ]
Zhao, Xuan [1 ]
Wei, Guo [3 ]
Wan, Anxia [1 ]
Yue, Mu [2 ]
机构
[1] Wuxi Univ, Sch Digital Econ & Management, Wuxi, Peoples R China
[2] Singapore Univ Technol & Design, Engn Syst & Design ESD, Singapore, Singapore
[3] Univ North Carolina, Dept Math & Comp Sci, Pembroke, NC USA
关键词
Power battery; 3PRLPs; fuzzy belief structure; fuzzy evidential reasoning; fuzzy ranking; PARTNER SELECTION; DECISION-ANALYSIS; HYBRID MODEL; SUPPLY CHAIN; NETWORK; SWARA; RULE; SETS;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Massive power batteries (PBs) are crucial to new energy vehicle enterprises. Due to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), the third-party reverse logistics provider selection(3PRLPs) process has become an important decision to save cost. This paper uses an innovative combination of qualitative analysis and quantitative data integration to address the PB 3PRLPs problem by using Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and fuzzy evidential reasoning (FER). Firstly, the possible failures and potential effects in the PB 3PRLPs are identified by the FMEA to determine criteria and importance grades. Subsequently, AHP is utilized to calculate the criteria weight based on the importance of grades. FER is creatively applied to address the intersection of assessment grades and allocate the belief degree (BD) of the interaction to fuse heterogeneous data. Additionally, sensitivity analysis is done to look into the stability of the sequencing. Compared with other methods, the proposed method not only solves the subjectivity of AHP weighting but also manipulates probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties for multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). This method is useful in quantitatively analyzing the 3PRLPs problem and in providing auxiliary decision support for enterprises.
引用
收藏
页码:323 / 355
页数:33
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] WHAT DRIVES THE CHOICE OF A THIRD-PARTY LOGISTICS PROVIDER?
    Anderson, Edward J.
    Coltman, Tim
    Devinney, Timothy M.
    Keating, Byron
    JOURNAL OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT, 2011, 47 (02) : 97 - 115
  • [32] THIRD-PARTY LOGISTICS (3PLs) PROVIDER SELECTION VIA FUZZY AHP AND EDAS INTEGRATED MODEL
    Ecer, Fatih
    TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMY, 2018, 24 (02) : 615 - 634
  • [33] A third-party logistics provider: To be or not to be a highly reliable organization
    Zuniga, Roy
    Martinez, Carlos
    JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, 2016, 69 (10) : 4435 - 4453
  • [34] Should you use a third-party logistics provider?
    Verespej, Mike
    Frontline Solutions, 2002, JUNE
  • [35] A FUZZY DECISION-MAKING APPROACH FOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF THIRD PARTY REVERSE LOGISTICS PROVIDER USING FUZZY ARAS
    Rostamzadeh, Reza
    Esmaeili, Ahmad
    Sivilevicius, Henrikas
    Nobard, Hossein Bodaghi Khajeh
    TRANSPORT, 2020, 35 (06) : 635 - 657
  • [36] the grey comprehensive evaluation model of a third-party reverse ligistics provider selection
    Yin Zhi-hong
    Lu Qiang
    FIRST IITA INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, PROCEEDINGS, 2009, : 497 - +
  • [37] Third-party reverse logistics provider selection approach based on hybrid-information MCDM and cumulative prospect theory
    Li, Yan-Lai
    Ying, Cheng-Shuo
    Chin, Kwai-Sang
    Yang, Hong-Tai
    Xu, Jie
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 195 : 573 - 584
  • [38] A Hybrid MCDM Approach in Third-Party Logistics (3PL) Provider Selection
    Jovcic, Stefan
    Prusa, Petr
    MATHEMATICS, 2021, 9 (21)
  • [39] An analysis of integrated robust hybrid model for third-party reverse logistics partner selection under fuzzy environment
    Prakash, Chandra
    Barua, M. K.
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2016, 108 : 63 - 81
  • [40] Hybrid simulation-analytical modeling approaches for the reverse logistics network design of a third-party logistics provider
    Suyabatmaz, Ali Cetin
    Altekin, F. Tevhide
    Sahin, Guvenc
    COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, 2014, 70 : 74 - 89