Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Knowledge-Based Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/knosys

An investment evaluation of supply chain RFID technologies: A group

decision-making model with multiple information sources
Shian-Jong Chuu
Department of Business Administration, Taoyuan Innovation Institute of Technology, 414, Sec. 3, Chung-Shang E. Rd., Chungli, Taoyuan 320, Taiwan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 24 September 2013
Received in revised form 4 May 2014
Accepted 7 May 2014
Available online 14 May 2014
Keywords:
Radio frequency identication
Supply chain management
Group decision-making
2-Tuple linguistic representation
Maximum entropy ordered weighted
averaging

a b s t r a c t
Selection of radio frequency identication (RFID) technology is important to improving supply chain
competitiveness. The objective of this paper is to develop a group decision-making model using fuzzy
multiple attributes analysis to evaluate the suitability of supply chain RFID technology. Since numerous
attributes have been considered in evaluating the RFID technology suitability, most information available
in this stage exhibits imprecise, subjective and vague. Fuzzy set theory appears as an essential tool to provide a decision framework for modeling imprecision and vagueness inherent in the RFID technology
selection process. In this paper, a fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making algorithm using the
principles of fusion of fuzzy information, 2-tuple linguistic representation model, and maximum entropy
ordered weighted averaging operator is developed. The proposed method is apt to manage evaluation
information assessed using both linguistic and numerical scales in group decision making problem with
multiple information sources. The aggregation process is based on the unication of fuzzy information by
means of fuzzy sets on a basic linguistic term set. Then, the unied information is transformed into linguistic 2-tuple in a way to rectify the problem of loss information of other fuzzy linguistic approaches.
The proposed method can facilitate the complex RFID technology selection process and consolidate
efforts to enhance group decision-making process. Additionally, this study presents an example using
a case study to illustrate the availability of the proposed method and its advantages.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
As competition intensies and markets become global, organizations have begun to realize that improving efciencies within
an organization is insufcient, and their whole supply chain must
be made competitive [30,40]. Generally, a supply chain is a network of suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers
involved in creating a product/service and then moving it the consumer, and involves the complex ow of materials, products, services, information, and money across multiple functional areas
within and among the complex hierarchies of the participating
enterprises. Radio frequency identication (RFID) is an emerging
technology that is increasingly being used in supply chain management [62]. RFID technology is the most cutting edge technology for
supply chain integrity and traceability [26]. RFID technology shows
great potential for process improvement and cost reduction related
to supply chain management [28]. Supply chain RFID technology is
an emerging application that has attracted a lot of attention from
researchers and practitioners in the US, Europe, and Asia [28,45].
Tel.: +886 3 4361070x5616; fax: +886 3 4373959.
E-mail address: sjchuu@tiit.edu.tw
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.05.012
0950-7051/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Selecting a suitable RFID technology is important for supply chains

when making capital investment decisions to improve their
performance.
RFID has been identied as one of the ten greatest contributory
technologies of the 21st century [5]. RFID is a wireless automatic
identication, data collection and storage technology which is
mainly consists of three components: tags, readers, and middleware that bridges RFID hardware and enterprise applications. An
RFID tag consists of an integrated circuit chip that stores identication data of the item to which it is attach, connected with an
antenna to transmit this data via radio waves. RFID tags can be
active (with batteries) or passive (without batteries). An RFID
reader is a device that emits radio signals and collects data about
the item from the compatible tag. The reader then converts the
radio waves returned from the tag into digital data and forwards
them to a computer system [46]. A reader can scan an area for
any tags that are tuned to the same frequency as the reader.
Through radio waves, RFID technologies provide a real-time communication with numerous objects at the same time at a distance,
without contact or direct line of sight [14,42]. These advanced
identication and communication characteristics of RFID can support real-time control of goods in the supply chain including raw

S.-J. Chuu / Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

materials, work in process, and nished goods, thus enhancing

supply chain visibility. The enhanced supply chain visibility leads
to reduced stock-out, lower labor costs, reduced transaction costs,
and improved inventory management in their supply chains [48].
The contribution of RFID to supply chain is not only in increasing
the efciency of systems but also in supporting the reorganization
of the systems that become more efcient [42].
Despite the promising applications of RFID in supply chain
management, a number of challenges have hampered the adoption
of RFID: technology challenges, standard challenges, patent challenges, cost challenges, infrastructure challenges, return on investment challenges, and barcode to RFID migration challenges [55]. In
practice, while some organizations that adopt these technologies
report reaping considerable benets, others have been less successful, which indicates that RFID investment remains promising
but high risky [42]. Costs remain the largest impediment for the
widespread adoption of RFID [55]. Furthermore, the rapid growth
of the RFID industry is now creating problems. There are also
numerous different RFID systems obtained by combining different
types and number of tags, frequencies and readers, tagging levels,
open/closed loops, environment sensors. The costs and potential
benets of these technologies vary in a wide range [42]. Prospective rms now face the situation of having to decide among several
RFID technologies, all of which are capable of performing a specic
task. The development of appropriate assessment approaches is
crucial to ensuring that each RFID project is assessed from the perspective of all benets and costs. Many reviews have revealed difculties in justication of the RFID investment using traditional
economic technology [28,29], and a few existing methodologies
have provided satisfactory solutions [28,50].
Since RFID technology has recently received an emerging attention, there is a growing literature on RFID technology. Many
reviews have considered RFID technology, management issues in
RFID applications, functionality of RFID, major application of RFID,
privacy and security, challenges to RFID adoption, RFID technologies in supply chains [5,31,35,42,55,62]. However, the literature
on RFID applications in supply chains is limited, and most of the
existing studies were published in the last few years [42]. Relatively new to the eld, numerous precision-based methods of RFID
technology evaluation have recently been developed. These justication techniques are classied into analytical models, simulation
models, cases studies and experiments [42]. The challenge for
these methods is that the treatment of qualitative effects being
based on crisp evaluation, i.e., the evaluation values must be precise. However, in real life, the assessments of performance ratings
for subjective attributes (or the importance grades of all attributes)
are generally expressed via fuzzy linguistic assessment [59]. Therefore, the primary problem of the above methods is that they are
based on accurate measurement and crisp evaluation.
Classical methods of solving supply chain RFID technology
selection problems cannot effectively handle problems involving
imprecise, subjective and vague information. In fact, most decision-makers (or experts) view performance ratings for subjective
attributes as linguistic labels, such as high, middle, and low. Since
Zadeh [58] introduced fuzzy sets theory to deal with vagueness
problems, linguistic terms have been used in approximate reasoning within the fuzzy framework to handle imprecise data and
vague linguistic expression. Several researchers have utilized fuzzy
sets theory for supply chain RFID investment evaluation problems.
Kim et al. [23] proposed a genetic algorithm based on fuzzy cognitive map weight learning method. The proposed method used to
implement forward analysis (whatif analysis) and backward analysis (cause analysis) in a simulated RFID-enabled supply chain
environment. Lin [32] identied the key factors of RFID technology
development in the logistics and supply chain management. The
fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy analysis hierarchy process methods are

211

adopted in this research. Lee and Lee [28] proposed a normative

investment evaluation model for supply chain RFID technologies,
which capture intangible benets and integrate them into the
objective function. Trappey et al. [47] proposed a hybrid qualitative
and quantitative approach to model and evaluate the performance
of RFID-enabled reverse logistic operations. The proposed method
applied fuzzy cognitive maps and genetic algorithm to construct a
reverse logistics network decision model and assign weights,
respectively. Ustundag et al. [50] proposed a systematic framework
of the economic analysis for RFID investment. In this method, fuzzy
rule-based system and Monte-Carlo simulation method are used to
determine the revenue increase and expected net present value of
an RFID investment, respectively. Moreover, Lee and Lee [29] presented the fuzzy real option model to evaluate RFID adoption in the
supply chain, in which the present values of expected cash ows
and expected costs are estimated by trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
Qu et al. [41] proposed a Markov chain model for quantifying the
value of RFID in hospital equipment tracking, which estimates
the benet of RFID at item level. However, these methods allow
the group decision-making scenario to be ignored, which deter
management from using fuzzy multiple attributes analysis. Ideally,
groups should be able to achieve better decisions than individuals
because of having greater collective knowledge. Therefore, this
paper proposed a group decision-making model for resolving supply chain RFID investment evaluation problems.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2
we provide a methodological perspective focused on methods used
in supply chain RFID technology selection, and introduce some
basic denitions notations of fuzzy numbers, linguistic assessments, 2-tuple linguistic representation and operation, respectively. Section 3 then presents a fuzzy fusion method. A fuzzy
multiple attribute group decision-making model for evaluating
an appropriate RFID is proposed in Section 4. The process aggregates each parameter assessed by an individual, and aggregates
the results to determine the nal ranking order. In Section 5, an
example using a case of Taiwanese bicycle manufacturers is used
to illustrate the computational process of the proposed method.
Finally, the last section concludes this research.
2. Preliminaries
This section presents a methodology of supply chain RFID technology selection, some basic denitions and concepts of fuzzy
numbers, linguistic assessments, and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation and operation, respectively. These denitions and concepts will be used throughout the paper, unless stated otherwise.
2.1. Supply chain RFID technology selection methodology
From a methodological perspective, the supply chain RFID technology selection problem is a fuzzy multiple attribute and group
decision-making problem involving the consideration of fuzzy
assessments and the opinions of multiple decision makers (or
experts). In the supply chain RFID selection decision problem,
numerous effects (attributes) must be considered in justifying a
particular supply chain RFID technology [24,32]. Using RFID as an
exemplar technology, Bunduchi et al. [4] presented that the magnitude of benets and costs associated with technological process
innovation adoption within different industries varies as technology diffuses beyond early adopters to the early majority. These factors are classied into subjective and objective attributes, also seen
in Kim and Garrison [24], Lee and Lee [28], Lin [32], Ustundag et al.
[50]. Objective attributes are dened by using appropriate numerical terms, such as investment cost and cost reduction, used for
assessing the quantitative effects of RFID technology. Since precise

212

S.-J. Chuu / Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

quantitative information may not be available or computational

costs may be excessively high, these expert identied performance
ratings can be approximate numerical values, which can be
expressed by sentences such as approximately equal to, at least,
or approximately between [50]. Subjective attributes have qualitative denitions, e.g. process visibility, product traceability, etc.,
used for assessing the qualitative effects of RFID technology, which
may be unquantiable due to the nature of such technology. Expert
opinions can be represented linguistically, using terms such as
high, middle, or low. Consequently, with respect to multiple
attribute analysis, appropriate RFID technology selection is difcult
to synthesize. To improve the quality of decisions in fuzzy environments, contemporary organizations prefer group decision-making.
Group decision-making is a typical decision-making activity where
several experts are utilized alleviate some of the decision-making
difculties due to the problems complexity and uncertainty [60].
Obviously much real world knowledge is fuzzy rather than precise. In RFID technology selection problems, assessment data
employed in multiple attributes analysis are generally fuzzy linguistic, numerical, or some mixture of thereof. Hence, a useful
decision-making model is to provide the ability to handle multiple
fuzzy assessments, that is, by aggregating the opinions of multiple
experts. This study attempts to establish a useful group decisionmaking model by using fuzzy multiple attributes analysis to
improve the supply chain RFID technology selection process. In
order to effectively avoid the loss and distortion of fuzzy information, we propose a group decision-making algorithm based on
fusion method of fuzzy information, 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model, and maximum entropy ordered weighted averaging (MEOWA) operators.
Fusion method of fuzzy information is proposed by Herrera
et al. [16]. The method is used to manage information assessed
using different linguistic scales in a decision making problem with
multiple information sources. Chuu [7] has developed a fusion
method of fuzzy information assessed using both linguistic and
numerical scales. Dursun and Karsak [10] also proposed an aggregation process based on the unication of information by means of
fuzzy sets on a basic linguistic term set. Then, the unied information is transformed into linguistic 2-tuples in a way to manage
information assessed using both linguistic and numerical scales
in a decision making problem with multiple information sources.
More recently, Dursun and Karsak [11] presented a fuzzy weighted
average method for the fusion of imprecise and subjective information expressed as linguistic variables or fuzzy numbers.
The 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model that was proposed by Herrera and Martinez [17] is based on the concept of
symbolic translation. It is used for representing the linguistic
assessment information by means of a 2-tuples, which are composed of a linguistic term and a numerical value. The main advantage of this representation is to be continuous in its domain.
Therefore, it can express any counting of information in the universe of the discourse. In recent past, several studies have used
the 2-tuple linguistic representation model. Fan et al. [12] proposed a fuzzy linguistic approach based on 2-tuple linguistic representation model to evaluate the knowledge management
capability in a fuzzy environment. Dursun and Karsak [10] developed a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making algorithm using the
principles of fusion of fuzzy information, 2-tuple linguistic representation model, and technique for order preference by similarity
to ideal solution (TOPSIS) for personal selection. Wang [51] has
proposed a fuzzy linguistic computing approach based on 2-tuple
fuzzy linguistic information to evaluate the supplier performance.
Lately, Ju et al. [19] proposed a hybrid fuzzy method consisting
fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach to evaluate emergency response capacity. Wei and
Zhao [53] developed some dependent 2-tuple linguistic aggrega-

tion operators, in which the associated weights only depend on

the aggregated 2-tuple linguistic arguments, and then apply them
to develop some approaches for multiple attribute group decision
making. Ko [25] developed an failure modes and effects analysis
based on 2-tuple linguistic representation approach to treat the
assessments of the three risk indices: severity, occurrence, and
detectability. Park et al. [39] developed some 2-tuple linguistic
harmonic operators, which can be utilized to aggregate preference
information taking the form of linguistic variables, and their applications in multiple attribute group decision making. Doukas et al.
[8] also proposed a fuzzy method consisting TOPSIS and 2-tuple
fuzzy linguistic approach for assessing companies energy and
environmental policies.
The ordered weighting averaging (OWA) operators introduced
by Yager [56] provide a family of aggregation operators lying
between the and requiring all the criteria to be satised, and the
or requiring at least one of the criteria to be satised. With respect
to the OWA operator weights, Yager [56] also provided two measures, namely orness and dispersion (or entropy). The orness is a
value that lies in [0, 1], and measures the degree to which the
aggregation resembles an or operation, and can be considered a
gauge of decision-maker optimism. The more closely the orness
of an OWA operator approaches the or operator, the more the
optimistic decision-maker is about obtaining the best solution.
The dispersion measures the degree to which all the aggregates
are equally used. In the framework of multiple attribute group
decision-making under uncertainty, the OWA operators can be
provided for aggregating the attributes (or experts) associated with
some fuzzy linguistic quantiers [20], such as as many as possible,
most, average, almost all and at least half, used to determine the
weights. To determine OWA operator weights, OHagan [36] developed a maximum entropy approach, which formulates the problem
as a constraint nonlinear optimization model with a predened
degree of orness as its constraint and the entropy as its objective
function. The resultant weights and OWA operators are termed
the maximum entropy weights and MEOWA operators, respectively. Filev and Yager [13] examined the analytical properties of
MEOWA operators and proposed a two-step process for obtaining
the maximum entropy weights that generate some prescribed
orness without having to solve the constraint nonlinear optimization problem. In practice, Chuu [6] proposed a fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making model based on MEOWA operators for
evaluating manufacturing exibility. Mitchell and Estrakh [34] presented an application of MEOWA operators to lossless image compression, and found maximum entropy weights to be effective.
2.2. Fuzzy numbers
Fuzzy numbers are very useful in improving information representation and processing in a fuzzy environment. The most commonly used fuzzy numbers are triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers. Trapezoidal (or triangular) fuzzy numbers have been
used to characterize linguistic terms (or approximate numerical
values) used in approximate reasoning. It is obvious that triangular
fuzzy numbers are special cases of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers [15].
In this paper, trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are chosen for application
considering their intuitive representation, ease in computation,
and good enough to capture the vagueness of fuzzy assessment
[21,29,37,50]. A real fuzzy number A be a special fuzzy subset of
real number R with membership function lA(x), which is a continuous mapping from R to the closed interval [0, 1], and has the following properties with 1 < n1 6 n2 6 n3 6 n4 < 1 where n1, n2,
n3 and n4 are real numbers [9]:
1. lA (x) = 0, for all x 2 (1, n1] and [n4, 1).
2. lA (x) is strictly increasing on [n1, n2].

S.-J. Chuu / Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

3. lA (x) = 1, for all x 2 [n2, n3].

4. lA (x) is strictly decreasing on [n3, n4].
In this paper, it is assumes that A is convex, normal and
bounded, i.e. n1 > 1, n4 < 1 and a trapezoidal fuzzy number
A = (n1, n2, n3, n4) is represented by the membership function lA
(x) given below, where n1, n2, n3 and n4 are real numbers [3]

8
x  n1 =n2  n1 ;
>
>
>
< 1;
lA x
> x  n4 =n3  n4 ;
>
>
:
0;

n1 6 x 6 n2 ;
n2 6 x 6 n3 ;
n3 6 x 6 n4 ;

otherwise:

with 0 6 n1 6 n2 6 n3 6 n4. The x in interval [n2, n3] yields the maximal grade of lA (x), i.e., lA(x) = 1, which is the most likely value of
the evaluation data. Meanwhile, the n1 and n4 comprise the lower
and upper limits of the available area for the evaluation data,
respectively, which are used to reect the fuzziness of the assessment data.
Some basic arithmetic operations on positive trapezoidal fuzzy
number A1 = (a1, b1, c1, d1), where 0 6 a1 6 b1 6 c1 6 d1, and
A2 = (a2, b2, c2, d2), where 0 6 a2 6 b2 6 c2 6 d2, can be shown as follows [22]:
1. Addition:

A1  A2 a1 a2 ; b1 b2 ; c1 c2 ; d1 d2 :

2. Subtraction:

A1 HA2 a1  d2 ; b1  c2 ; c1  b2 ; d1  a2 :

3. Multiplication:

A1  A2 a1 a2 ; b1 b2 ; c1 c2 ; d1 d2 :

4. Division:

A1 /A2 a1 =d2 ; b1 =c2 ; c1 =b2 ; d1 =a2 :

Note that the results of Eqs. (4) and (5) are not trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers, trapezoidal fuzzy number approximations can be used
for many practical applications [3,22].
2.3. Linguistic assessments
The linguistic assessment is an approximate method based on
linguistic variables. A linguistic variable is a variable whose values
are not numbers but rather words or sentences in a natural or articial language [63]. For example, important is a linguistic term
whose values are high, middle, low, etc. Linguistic values can also
be dened by fuzzy numbers. The concept of linguistic variables is
very useful in dealing with decision situations, which are too complex or ill-dened to be described in conventional quantitative
expressions [59]. However, in the real world, the fuzzy linguistic
approach is appropriate for application to many decision situations; that is, while decision makers cannot generally specify precise numerical values, they can take the form of linguistic variables
or fuzzy numbers for several reasons. First, a decision should be
made to experience time pressure and lack of knowledge or data
[52]. Second, numerous attributes are subjective or intangible
owing to being unquantiable in nature [59]. Third, as for objective
attributes, precise quantitative or non-monetary information may
not be stated because it is either unavailable or too costly to compute [16, p. 43]. This approach allows the representation of expert
information more directly and adequately [16, p. 45].
Lately, Zhang [60] has presented a 2-tuple linguistic information representation model with the traditional TOPSIS for evaluat-

213

ing computer network security systems. Aydin et al. [1] proposed

an integrated approach based on fuzzy AHP and European Foundation for Quality Management model to evaluate the business performance excellence. Ju et al. [19] proposed a hybrid fuzzy
approach to evaluate emergency response capacity. The proposed
method uses fuzzy AHP to determine the weights of criteria, and
takes advantage of 2-tuple linguistic representation approach to
compute the overall emergency response capacity of the emergency alternative. Kutlu and Ekmekcioglu [27] proposed a fuzzy
approach for failure modes and effects analysis by applying fuzzy
TOPSIS integrated fuzzy AHP. Wu [54] has presented a fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method to
segment the critical factors for successful knowledge management
implementations. Zhang and Guo [61] proposed a method to solve
multi-granularity uncertain linguistic group decision making problems with incomplete weight information based on trapezoidal
fuzzy numbers and two optimization models. Shen et al. [43] proposed a fuzzy multi criteria decision making approach based on
fuzzy TOPSIS for green supplier selection and evaluation. Yue
[57] has proposed an approach to partner selection with linguistic
values and intuitionistic fuzzy information under a group decisionmaking environment. Doukas et al. [8] presented a methodological
multi-criteria framework based on 2-tuple TOPSIS method, using
linguistic variables, for assessing companies energy and environmental policies. Orduna et al. [38] developed a color image segmentation algorithm using the decision-making based on
linguistic 2-tuple. Therefore, the fuzzy linguistic approach is used
in different elds, and decision-making includes numerous
approaches based on linguistic information.
In applying a fuzzy linguistic approach to supply chain RFID
selection, since numerous attributes have been considered in evaluating RFID suitability, these attributes can be identied by considering specic supply chain requirements. In general, the attributes
are classied as subjective and objective. For each subjective attribute, expert opinions regarding individual alternative can be linguistic terms (labels), which are characterized by trapezoidal
fuzzy numbers. For objective attributes, expert opinions are
expressed as approximate numerical values characterized with
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
In order to establish the decision matrix for each expert, a
group of experts express their opinions (or preferences) for each
alternative with respect to each attribute. These opinions can be
obtained by direct assignment in utility functions, and can be
linguistic terms or approximate numerical values. With respect
to each alternative, the performance ratings and importance
grade for each subjective attribute should be rated scored on a
linguistic term set (or linguistic scale). The strongest assessment
is assigned the highest (or lowest) term Denitely high (or Definitely low) on a linguistic scale. The elements of the term set
determine the granularity of the uncertainty. Furthermore, let
S = {s0, s1, . . . , sT} be a nite and totally ordered term set with an
odd cardinal, where the middle term represents average, i.e., a
probability of approximately 0.5, and the remaining terms are
ordered symmetrically around it, and exhibit the following properties [16, p. 46].
1. The set is ordered: si = sj if i = j.
2. The negation operator is dened as Neg(si) = sj such that
j = T  i.
3. The maximization operator is Max(si, sj) = si if si = sj.
4. The minimization operator is Min(si, sj) = si if si 5 sj.
For example, a linguistic scale S1 comprising seven terms could
be represented as follows:

S1 fs0 DL; s1 VL; s2 L; s3 M; s4 H; s5 VH; s6 DHg

214

S.-J. Chuu / Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

where DL = Denitely Low, VL = Very Low, L = Low, M = Middle,

H = High, VH = Very High, DH = Denitely High.
As mentioned above, Mata et al. [33] proposed an adaptive consensus support system model for multi-granular fuzzy linguistic
group decision-making problems that improves the convergence
rate toward the consensus, and therefore decrease the number of
rounds to achieve it. It consists of four phases: making the information uniform, computing the consensus degree and control of the
consensus process, adaptive search for preference, and production
of advice. With respect to those presented in Mata et al. [33], the
proposed method is limited in that it uses an appropriate linguistic
scale chosen by experts using qualitative assessment versus subjective attributes. Future studies should focus on more detailed linguistic information about subjective attributes that could be
evaluated by multi-granular linguistic information, and more
effective consensus reaching process.
2.4. 2-Tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model

Denition 3. The comparison of linguistic information represented by 2-tuples is carried out according to an ordinary lexicographic order. Let (si, a1) and (sj, a2) be two linguistic 2-tuples,
with each one representing a linguistic assessment [17]:
(1) If i < j then (si, a1) is smaller than (sj, a2).
(2) If i = j then
(i) if a1 = a2 then (si, a1) and (sj, a2) represent the same
information.
(ii) if a1 < a2 then (si, a1) is smaller than (sj, a2).
(iii) if a1 > a2 then (si, a1) is bigger than (sj, a2).

Denition 4. Let U = {u0, u1, . . . , uG} be a fuzzy set dened in V,

which is a basic linguistic term set. A transformation function v
that transforms U into a numerical value in the interval of granularity of V, [0, G] is dened as [18]

v : FV ! 0; G;
The semantics of the terms of the linguistic scale is provided by
fuzzy numbers dened on the interval [0, 1], which are characterized by membership functions. The use of linguistic variables
increases the exibility and reliability of decision maker evaluations, but complicates the aggregation of the linguistic terms. Generally, the approach for dealing with linguistic information can be
classied into two categories [17]. The rst one is based on the
extension principle. It makes operations on the fuzzy numbers that
support the semantics of the linguistic terms. The second one is the
symbolic method. It makes computations on the indexes of the linguistic terms. In both approaches, some results may not exactly
match any of the initial linguistic terms, and then an approximation process must be developed to express the result in the initial
expression domain. This produces the consequent loss of information and hence the lack of precision [2,12,17]. To preserve all the
given information, Herrera and Martinez [17,18] develop a 2-tuple
fuzzy linguistic representation model based on the symbolic translation. The main advantage of this representation can be summaries as the continuous treatment of linguistic domain, and the
minimization of the loss of information and thus the lack of precision [10,12,51].
The 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model is based on
the concept of symbolic translation [17,18]. It is used for representing the linguistic assessment information by means of a 2-tuples
(si, ai), where si is a linguistic term from predened linguistic term
set S and ai is the value of symbolic translation, and ai e [0.5, 05).
Denition 1. Let S = {s0, s1, . . . , sT} be a linguistic term set and
b 2 [0, T] be a value representing the result of a symbolic
aggregation operation, then 2-tuple that express the equivalent
information to b is obtained with the following function [17,18]:

D : 0; T ! S  0:5; 05;

si ; i roundb
Db
a b  i; a 2 0:5; 05;

Denition 2. Let S = {s0, s1, . . . , sT} be a linguistic term set and (si, a)
be a linguistic 2-tuple, then there exists a function D1, such that,
from a 2-tuple it returns its equivalent numerical value b2 [0,
T] R. This function is dened as [17,18]

D1 si ; a i a b:

j  uj

j0
vFV vfuj ; v j ; j 0; 1; . . . ; Gg P
G

j0 uj

c:

where F(V) is the set of fuzzy sets dened in V.

Denition 5. Let A = {(r1, a1), (r2, a2), . . . , (rn, an)} be a set of linguistic 2-tuples and an associated maximum entropy weighting vector
P
W
= [w
1, w
2, . . . , wn
], with wi
2 [0, 1] and ni1 w
i = 1, then 2-tuple
e
MEOWA operation U is dened as

!
n
X

1
U r 1 ; a1 ; r 2 ; a2 ; . . . ; rn ; an D
wj D r rj ; arj ;
e

J1

where (r(1), r(2), . . . , r(n)) is the permutation of (1, 2, . . . , n), such

that (rr(j), ar(j)) P (rr(j+1), ar(j+1)) for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n  1.
3. Fusion of fuzzy information
Numerous effects can be considered in evaluating the suitability
of supply chain RFID technology. These effects in general are classied into subjective and objective attributes. Subjective attributes
are characterized by fuzzy linguistic assessments, and objective
attributes are these that can be evaluated numerical scales. In
order to ensure compatibility between approximate numerical values and linguistic terms, this study presents a fusion method of
fuzzy information, which is performed in two phases:
1. Making the information uniform.
2. Computing the collective information.
They are analyzed in the following subsections.

where round () is the usual round operation, si has the closest index
term to b and a is the value of the symbolic translation.

D1 : S  0:5; 05 ! 0; T;

PG

3.1. Making the information uniform

In order to manage the information assessed in multi-granularity linguistic term sets in decision making, Herrera et al. [16] proposed that the multi-granularity linguistic information is made
uniform using a basic linguistic term set (BLTS). Recently, in order
to handle the information assessed using both linguistic and
numerical scales, several studies have proposed that the information must be transformed (under a transformation function) into
a BLTS [7,10]. To ensure compatibility between approximate
numerical values and linguistic terms, all the fuzzy information
must be transformed into a BLTS. Each assessment value is dened
as a fuzzy set on the basic linguistic scale. With respect to the

215

S.-J. Chuu / Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

assessments made by linguistic terms in the linguistic term set, let

S = {s0, s1, . . . , sT} and V = {v0, v1, . . . , vG} be two linguistic term sets,
such that G P T. A transformation function hSV is then dened as
[16]:

Step 3: Compute the orness value a,

!
n
X
n  iWi =n  1:

14

i1

hSV : S ! FV;

Step 4: Compute the W

, using the two-step process.
4-1: Find one and only one positive solution h
of the algebraic
equation,

hSV si fuij ; v j =j 2 f0; 1; . . . ; Ggg for si 2 S;

uij max minflsi x; lv j xg;
x

10

where F(V) denotes the set of fuzzy sets dened in V, which is a

BLTS, and lsi(x), lvj(x) represents the membership functions of the
fuzzy sets associated with the terms si and vj, respectively.
As mentioned above, all the information sources using the same
scale ([0, 1]) are considered. Regarding the fuzzy assessments
assessed by approximate numerical values, the transformation
function also appropriately implemented to converting the standardized fuzzy assessments, the ranges of which belong to [0, 1],
into a BLTS. The maxmin operation has been used in hSV, because
it is a classical tool for setting the degree of matching between
fuzzy sets [63]. The following subsection presents how to obtain
the collective assessments for each attribute (or expert).
3.2. Computing the collective information
The converted information provided by an expert is dened as
the fuzzy set on the BLTS. The collection information of experts is
then obtained by aggregating these fuzzy sets. This information
is also a new fuzzy set dened on BLTS. This paper considers the
MEOWA operator as the aggregation operator.
An MEOWA operator of dimension n is a mapping:

U : Rn ! R
which has an associated maximum entropy weighting vector
P
W
= [w
1, w
2, . . . , wn
], with wi
2 [0, 1] and ni1 w
i 1 such that

Ua1 ; a2 ; . . . ; an

n
X
w
j bj ;

11

J1

where bj is the jth largest element in the collection {a1, a2, . . . , an}.
An algorithm for calculating W
is as follows [6,13,20,56]:
Step1: Determine a non-decreasing proportional linguistic
fuzzy quantier Q for representing the fuzzy majority over decision makers or attributes, as follows:

8
if r < a;
>
<0
Q r r  a=b  a if a5r5b;
>
:
1
if r > b;

12

n
X
ni
n  i=n  1  ah
0:

4-2: Obtain W
from the following equation, using b
= (n  1)ln
h
,

W
i eb

Wi Qi=n  Q i  1=n; for i 1; 2; . . . ; n:

13

ni=n1

n
X

= eb nj=n1 ;

for i 1; 2; . . . ; n:

j1

16

4. Evaluating the suitability of supply chain RFID technology

This section presents a new supply chain RFID technology selection method using 2-tuple linguistic representation model with
MEOWA operators to overcome above problems. This method
enables the experts fuzzy assessments with the linguistic and
numerical information corresponding to subjective and objective
attributes, respectively, can be considered in the aggregation process. The stepwise representation of the proposed evaluation
approach is given below, as shown in Fig. 1.
Step 1: Construct a decision-makers committee of K experts,
and identify the alternatives available for consideration, and
required selection attributes (subjective or objective) with
types (cost or benet) of them.
Step 2: Determine the appropriate linguistic term set chosen by
experts using qualitative assessment versus subjective attributes, and identify the appropriate numerical scales using
quantitative evaluation versus objective attributes.
Step 3: Construct the decision matrices for each expert that
denote the important grades of attributes, the linguistic assessments corresponding to subjective attributes, and the appropriate numerical values corresponding to objective attributes for
the performance ratings of considered alternatives.
Step 4: Normalize appropriated numerical values to obtain
unit-free and comparable objective attribute values. The normalized values for appropriate numerical values regarding benet-related as well as cost-related objective attributes are
calculated via a linear scale transformation as

eit =lt ; g it =lt ; hit =lt ; lit =lt ; t 2 sets of benefit  related objective attributes;
>
>
>
<
i 1; 2; . . . ; m; t 1; 2; . . . ; s
Rit
> et =eit ; et =g it ; et =hit ; et =lit ; t 2 sets of cost  related objective attributes;
>
>
:
i 1; 2; . . . ; m; t 1; 2; . . . ; s

with a, b, re [0, 1]. For example, some non-decreasing proportional linguistic fuzzy quantiers are typied by terms most,
at least half, and as many as possible, the respective parameters
(a, b) of which are (0.3, 0.8), (0, 0.5) and (0.5, 1), respectively.
Step 2: Compute the weighting vector W,

15

i1

17

where Rit denotes normalized values of Hit = (eit, git, hit, lit), which is
appropriated numerical values assigned to alternative i with
respect to the objective attribute t by experts, m is the number of
alternatives, s is the number of objective attributes, and lt+ =
max ilit, et = minieit.
Step 5: Considering the important grades of each attribute, calculate the weighted ratings of each alternative as

216

S.-J. Chuu / Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

Fig. 1. Flow chart of supply chain RFID technology evaluation process.

8
W jt  Rit ; t 2 sets of objective attributes; i 1; 2; . . . ; m;
>
>
>
<
j 1; 2; . . . ; n; t 1; 2; . . . ; s
X ijt
>
W

R
;
t
2
sets
of subjective attributes; i 1; 2; . . . ; m;
ijt
> jt
>
:
j 1; 2; . . . ; n; t s 1; s 2; . . . ; k;
18
where Xijt is weighted ratings of alternative i with respect to
expert j and attribute t, and  denotes the fuzzy multiplication
operator.
Step 6: Convert the weighted ratings Xijt into the BLTS (V) by
using Eq. (10). The fuzzy assessment vector on V, (F(Xijt)), can
be represented as

FX ijt uX ijt ; v 0 ; uX ijt ; v 1 ; . . . ; uX ijt ; v G ;

i 1; 2; . . . ; m; j 1; 2; . . . ; n; t 1; 2; . . . ; k

19

Step 7: Aggregate F(Xijt) to yield the fuzzy assessment vector

(F(XA(it))). The aggregated parameters obtained from the assessment data of n experts can be calculated by Eq. (11) as

X Ait v y UQ 1 uX i1t ; v y ; uX i2t ; v y ; . . . ; uX int ; v y ;

i 1; 2; . . . ; m;

t 1; 2; . . . ; k;

y 0; 1; . . . ; G

20

where UQ 1 denotes the MEOWA operator with the maximum

entropy weighting vector W
1, obtained from a fuzzy linguistic
quantier Q1, which represents the fuzzy majority over the n
experts. Then, the fuzzy assessment vector on V with respect
to attribute Ct, F(XA(it)) is dened as

FX Ait uX Ait ; v 0 ; uX Ait ; v 1 ; . . . ; uX Ait ; v G

for i 1; 2; . . . ; m;

t 1; 2; . . . ; k

21

Step 8: Compute the cit values of alternatives with respect to

attribute and transform these values into a linguistic 2-tuple,
(vit, ait), by using Eqs. (8) and (6), respectively.
Step 9: Aggregate (vit, ait) to yield the ranking index RIi of alternative i. Using the concept of fuzzy majority over the attributes
specied by a linguistic quantier Q2, and using the 2-tuple
MEOWA operator associated with W
2, yields the RIi for alternative i, by using Eq. (9), as follows:

217

S.-J. Chuu / Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

RIi UeQ 2 v i1 ; ai1 ; v i2 ; ai2 ; . . . ; v ik ; aik

!
n
X



1
w
wj D r rj ; arj v w
D
i ; ai

Table 1
The supply chain RFID technology selection attributes.

22

Objective attribute

J1

where (r(1), r(2), . . . , r(n)) is the permutation of (1, 2, . . . , n), such

that (rr(j), ar(j)) P (rr(j+1), ar(j+1)) for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n  1.
Step 10: Rank alternatives according to RIi values in descending
order. Identify the alternative with the highest RIi as the best
alternative.
Step 11: Decision analysis. According to a group of experts analyze the evaluation results, the process has to go back the initial
stages or has to accept the evaluation.
5. Illustrative example
In this section, the proposed methodology is applied to the case
of a G-company in the bicycle industry. The G-company has been
in operation for 40 years, employs approximately 2000 employees,
as well as its group revenues are approximately $130 million. Generally, a bike product consists of 11 subsystems including a frame,
suspension fork, derailleur shifters, brokers, hubs and rims, tires,
pedals, handle bar, stem, saddle, and seat post. Each subsystem
has several models that customers can select. Thus a bicycle supply
chain comprises bicycle parts suppliers, a bicycle assembly company, distributors and dealers (or retailers), and customers.
Recently, due to increasing customization, consumer demand for
global bicycle product markets has changed so rapidly that competitiveness of supply chain has become increasingly important.
To enhance its competitiveness G-company aims to effectively
manage inventory in its supply chain and prompt delivery time.
It expected that RFID technology/Electronic Product Code (EPC)
system combined with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) would
help achieve this goal. RFID is regarded as a promising technology
for the optimization of supply chain process since it improves
manufacturing and retail operations from forecasting demand to
planning, managing inventory, and distribution [49]. Following
preliminary screening, three competing RFID alternatives, A1, A2
and A3, are identied that are capable of performing this task. A
committee of three experts, E1, E2 and E3, has been formed to conduct further evaluation and select the most suitable RFID
alternative.
The effects of adopting a RFID system include both quantitative
and qualitative effects. Subjective attributes are used to assess the
qualitative effects of RFID system, while objective attributes are
used to evaluate the quantitative effects of RFID system. Objective
attributes have been considered including investment costs and
cost reductions. In the feasibility analysis, hardware costs, software
costs and services costs are regarded as main cost items of the
investment, and cost reductions include labor cost reduction,
inventory cost reduction and shrinkage cost reduction [50]. In
the industry considered, the subjective attributes identied are
operating efciency, accuracy, visibility, and security [44,49]. The
selection decision is made based on two objective attributes and
four subjective attributes. Table 1 lists the properties of these attributes, including attribute type and assessment type, which are
critical to RFID function. Since it is useful to develop a hierarchical
structure showing the overall goal, as well as the attributes and
alternatives, this hierarchy for the RFID system selection problem
is shown in Fig. 2. This research chooses a BLTS (V1) with 11 terms,
as listed in Table 2. The experts use the linguistic term set S1 presented in Table 3 to evaluate the suitability of the alternatives
under each of the subjective attributes, and to assess the importance of the attributes, respectively. The data related to RFID system selection problem is given in Table 4. The computational
process is summarized as follows.

C1: Investment
costs
($  10,000)
C2: Cost reductions
($  1000)

Type of assessment
Important
grade

Performance
rating

Linguistic

Fuzzy

(as approximately between)

Linguistic
Fuzzy
(as approximately between)

Type of
attribute

Cost

Benet

Type of assessment
Subjective attribute

Important grade

Performance rating

C3:
C4:
C5:
C6:

Linguistic
Linguistic
Linguistic
Linguistic

Linguistic
Linguistic
Linguistic
Linguistic

Operating efciency
Accuracy
Visibility
Security

Fig. 2. Decision hierarchy of supply chain RFID technology evaluation problem.

Table 2
Linguistic variables and fuzzy numbers of basic linguistic term set.
Linguistic variable

Fuzzy number

v0: Denitely low (DL)

v1: Extra low (EL)
v2: Very low (VL)
v3: Low (L)
v4: Slightly low (SL)
v5: Middle (M)
v6: Slightly high (SH)
v7: High (H)
v8: Very high (VH)
v9: Extra high (EH)
v10: Denitely high (DH)

(0.0,
(0.0,
(0.1,
(0.2,
(0.3,
(0.4,
(0.5,
(0.6,
(0.7,
(0.8,
(0.9,

0.0,
0.1,
0.2,
0.3,
0.4,
0.5,
0.6,
0.7,
0.8,
0.9,
1.0,

0.0, 0.1)
0.1, 0.2)
0.2, 0.3)
0.3, 0.4)
0.4, 0.5)
0.5, 0.6)
0.6, 0.7)
0.7, 0.8)
0.8, 0.9)
0.9, 1.0)
1.0, 1.0)

First, the fuzzy numerical values are normalized using Eq. (17).
Next, the weighted rating of each alternative are calculated using
Eq. (18). These fuzzy numbers are then converted into the BLTS
employing Eq. (19). The results for the rst alternative A1 are
obtained as
F(X111) = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.762, 1, 0.7143, 0, 0),
F(X112) = (0, 0, 0, 0.298, 0.7449, 0.9766, 0.4883, 0, 0, 0, 0),

218

S.-J. Chuu / Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

Table 3
Linguistic variables of performance rating and importance grade.
Seven ranks of performance rating

Fuzzy number

Seven ranks of importance grade

Fuzzy number

s0:
s1:
s2:
s3:
s4:
s5:
s6:

(0, 0, 0.1, 0.2)

(0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3)
(0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5)
(0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6)
(0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
(0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9)
(0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.0)

s0:
s1:
s2:
s3:
s4:
s5:
s6:

(0, 0, 0.1, 0.2)

(0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3))
(0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5)
(0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6)
(0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
(0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9)
(0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.0)

Denitely low (DL)

Very Low (VL)
Low (L)
Middle (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Denitely high (DH)

Denitely low (DL)

Very Low (VL)
Low (L)
Middle (M)
High (H)
Very High (VH)
Denitely high (DH)

Table 4
The importance grades and performance ratings evaluated by three experts for three alternatives.
Objective attribute

Importance grade

C1
C2
Subjective attribute

Performance rating

E1

E2

E3

A1

A2

A3

VH
VH

DH
H

VH
DH

(90, 100, 110, 120)

(50, 60, 65, 70)

(130, 140, 145, 150)

(75, 80, 85, 95)

(140, 150, 155, 160)

(80, 85, 95, 105)

Importance grade

Performance rating
E1

C3
C4
C5
C6

E2

E3

E1

E2

E3

A1

A2

A3

A1

A2

A3

A1

A2

A3

VH
H
DH
H

DH
M
VH
M

DH
M
DH
M

L
VL
VL
DL

M
M
H
H

DH
VH
VH
DH

VL
DL
L
VL

H
L
M
M

VH
DH
VH
VH

DL
L
VL
DL

L
M
M
H

VH
DH
DH
VH

Table 5
2-Tuple linguistic rating terms for each alternative.
Alternative

A1
A2
A3

F(X113)
F(X114)
F(X115)
F(X116)
F(X121)
F(X122)
F(X123)
F(X124)
F(X125)
F(X126)
F(X131)
F(X132)
F(X133)
F(X134)
F(X135)
F(X136)

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Attribute
C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

(v7, 0.3631)
(v5, 0.4102)
(v5, 0.0831)

(v5, 0.3325)
(v7, 0.0988)
(v7, 0.0443)

(v2, 0.1106)
(v5, 0.4506)
(v7, 0.3704)

(v1, 0.272)
(v3, 0.3988)
(v5, 0.1647)

(v2, 0.2216)
(v6, 0.4086)
(v7, 0.0297)

(v1, 0.2585)
(v4, 0.4586)
(v5, 0.1269)

(0, 0.3, 0.8, 1, 0.6522, 0.2174, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),

(0.2941, 08823, 0.7, 0.2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(0.1, 0.6, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(0, 0.8421, 0.3158, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.423, 0.846, 1, 1, 0.5),
(0, 0, 0.3024, 0.7909, 1, 0.6667, 0.1667, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(0.1, 0.6, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(1, 0.7059, 0.1176, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(0, 0.3, 0.8, 1, 0.6522, 0.2174, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(0.375, 1, 0.4444, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.3488, 0.814, 1, 0.7143, 0.3571, 0),
(0, 0, 0, 0.0184, 0.5101, 0.9387, 1, 0.4516, 0, 0, 0),
(1, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(0.1177, 07059, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(0.1, 0.6, 1, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
(1, 0.7059, 0.1176, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0).

The results for other alternatives can be obtained in a similar

way. By using Eqs. (12)(16), respectively, the manager (moderator) of the decision problem assigns a linguistic quantier most
to the corresponding experts; i.e., the MEOWA operator UQ 1 guided
by most with its parameters (0.3, 0.8), and the algorithm for calculating the maximum entropy weighting vector yields the weighting
vector W1, orness value a 1 and maximum entropy weighting vector W
1, as follows:

W 1 0:0667; 0:6667; 0:2667; a1 0:4;

W
1 0:2384; 0:3233; 0:4383:

Then, we aggregate the fuzzy assessment vectors on BLTS, to obtain

the aggregated fuzzy assessment vectors of each alternative with
respect to each attribute using Eqs. (20) and (21). Then the results
are obtained:
F(XA(11)) = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.0832, 0.6259, 0.932, 0.7825, 0.3539,
0.1192),
F(XA(12)) = (0, 0, 0.0721, 0.293, 0.7029, 0.8286, 0.4678, 0.1077, 0, 0, 0),
F(XA(13)) = (0.2707, 0.5639, 0.7162, 0.4001, 0.1555, 0.0518, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0),
F(XA(14)) = (0.3815, 0.7448, 0.5127, 0.1821, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
F(XA(15)) = (0.0558, 0.4664, 0.9008, 0.6157, 0.1531, 0.051, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
F(XA(16)) = (0.7225, 0.8165, 0.258, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0),
The values of these vectors are computed and transformed into
a linguistic 2-tuple with Eqs. (8) and (6), respectively. The results
are shown in Table 5, where, the values c11 and (v11, a11) are
obtained by Eqs. (8) and (6), respectively:

c11 50:083260:625970:93280:782590:3539100:1192
7:3631
0:08320:62590:9320:78250:35390:1192
Dc11

v 7 ; 7 round7:3631;

0:3631 7:3631  7:
v 7 ; 0:3631

Using Eqs. (12)(16), respectively, the 2-tuple MEOWA operator

UeQ 2 guided by most with the pair (0.3, 0.8), and the algorithm for

calculating W
2 yields W2 = [0, 0.0667, 0.3333, 0.3333, 0.2667, 0],
a2 = 0.44, and W
2 = [0.1267, 0.1405, 0.1558, 0.1728, 0.1917,
0.2125]. Finally, the ranking index for each alternative is computed
using Eq. (22) as RI1 = (v3, 0.3373), RI2 = (v5, 0.4793), and RI3 = (v6,

S.-J. Chuu / Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

0.1548). For a group of experts, based on ranking index, the ranking order of the three alternatives is given as A3 A2 A1.
With respect to the detailed analysis of evaluation results such
as competing RFID system alternatives, effects of RFID system,
properties of attributes and computational process, the decisionmaking process will be completed if experts accept the evaluation
results. Otherwise, experts can modify their opinions step by step
through the collection of additional information, or modify the linguistic quantier until a consistent decision is obtained. After the
detailed decision analysis of this case study, group of experts
accepts that the best alternative is A3, while A2 and A1 are ranked
second and third, respectively.
6. Conclusions
RFID technology selection is important to improving supply
chain system competitiveness. Supply chain RFID technology
selection problem considers several individual attributes exhibiting vagueness and imprecision. The classical multiple attributes
decision-making methods that consider deterministic or random
processes cannot effectively handle group decision-making problems including imprecise and linguistic information. This study
rst identied two groups of attributes, and then classied them
as either subjective or objective. A fuzzy multiple attributes and
group decision-making scenario was modeled to solve the RFID
technology evaluation problem. The proposed fuzzy linguistic
method with the group decision-making, used to evaluate the suitability of RFID, is very useful in supply chain development. In this
paper, the proposed method is apt to manage information assessed
using both linguistic and numerical scales in the decision-making
problem with multiple information sources. Moreover, the proposed algorithm based on 2-tuple linguistic representation model
with MEOWA operators has the advantages that include avoiding
loss and distortion of experts assessment information, obtaining
the computation results as linguistic terms, and simplifying the
calculation process. A case study of RFID technology evaluation
has been conducted to exemplify the feasibility of the proposed
method.
Acknowledgements
This research is partially supported by Grant No. NSC 101-2410H-253-001 from the National Science Council of the Republic of
China. The author would very grateful to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments that have led to an improved
version of this paper.
References
[1] S. Aydin, C. Kahraman, I. Kaya, A new fuzzy multicriteria decision making
approach for European Quality Award assessment, Knowl.-Based Syst. 32
(2012) 3746.
[2] G. Bordogna, G. Pasi, A fuzzy approach generalizing Boolean information
retrieval: a model and its evaluation, J. Am. Soc. Informat. Sci. 4 (1993) 7082.
[3] J.J. Buckley, Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 17 (1985) 233247.
[4] R. Bunduchi, C. Weisshaart, A.U. Smart, Mapping the benets and costs
associated with process innovation: the case of RFID adoption, Technovation
31 (9) (2011) 505521.
[5] C.C. Chao, J.M. Yang, W.Y. Jen, Determining technology trends and forecasts of
RFID by a historical review and bibliometric analysis 1991 to 2005,
Technovation 27 (2007) (1991) 208279.
[6] S.J. Chuu, Fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making for evaluating manufacturing
exibility, Prod. Plann. Control 16 (3) (2005) 323335.
[7] S.J. Chuu, Group decision-making model using fuzzy multiple attributes
analysis for the evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology, Fuzzy
Sets Syst. 160 (2009) 586602.
[8] H. Doukas, A. Tsiousi, V. Marinakis, J. Psarras, Linguistic multi-criteria decision
making for energy and environmental corporate policy, Inf. Sci. 258 (2014)
328338.
[9] D. Dubois, H. Prade, Operations on fuzzy numbers, Int. J. Syst. Syst. 9 (1978)
613626.

219

[10] M. Dursun, E.E. Karsak, A fuzzy MCDA approach for personnel selection, Expert
Syst. Appl. 37 (2010) 43234330.
[11] M. Dursun, E.E. Karsak, A OFD-based fuzzy MCDA approach for supplier
selection, Appl. Math. Model. 37 (2013) 58645875.
[12] Z.P. Fan, B. Fen, Y.H. Sun, W. Ou, Evaluating knowledge management capability
of organizations: a fuzzy linguistic method, Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (2009) 3346
3354.
[13] D. Filev, R.R. Yager, Analytic properties of maximum entropy OWA operators,
Inf. Sci. 85 (1995) 1127.
[14] A. Garcia, Y. Chang, A. Abarca, C. Oh, RFID enhanced MAS for warehouse
management, Int. J. Log.: Res. Appl. 10 (2) (2007) 97107.
[15] A. Hadi-Vencheh, A. Mokhtarian, A new fuzzy MCDM approach based on
centroid of fuzzy numbers, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 52265230.
[16] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, L. Martinez, A fusion approach for managing
multi- granularity linguistic term sets in decision making, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114
(2000) 4358.
[17] F. Herrera, L. Martinez, A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for
computing with words, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 8 (6) (2000) 746752.
[18] F. Herrera, L. Martinez, An approach for combining linguistic and numerical
information based on 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model in
decision-making, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzz. Knowl.-Based Syst. 8 (5) (2000)
539562.
[19] Y. Ju, A. Wang, X. Liu, Evaluating emergency response capacity by fuzzy AHP
and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (2012) 69726981.
[20] J. Kacprzyk, Group decision making with a fuzzy linguistic majority, Fuzzy Sets
Syst. 18 (1986) 105118.
[21] E.E. Karsak, E. Tolga, Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making procedure for
evaluating advanced manufacturing system investments, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 69
(2001) 4964.
[22] A. Kaufmann, M.M. Gupta, Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic Theory and
Application, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991.
[23] M.C. Kim, C.O. Kim, S.R. Hong, I.H. Kwon, Forward-backward analysis of RFIDenabled supply chain using fuzzy cognitive map and genetic algorithm, Expert
Syst. Appl. 35 (2008) 11661177.
[24] S. Kim, G. Garrison, Understanding users behaviors regarding supply chain
technology: determinants impacting the adoption and implementation of RFID
technology in South Korea, Int. J. Inf. Manage. 30 (2010) 388398.
[25] W.C. Ko, Exploiting 2-tuple linguistic representational model for constructing
HOQ-based failure modes and effects analysis, Computer Ind. Eng. 64 (2013)
858865.
[26] S. Kumar, E.M. Budin, Prevention and management of product recalls in the
processed food industry: a case study based on an exporters perspective,
Technovation 26 (2006) 739750.
[27] A.C. Kutlu, M. Ekmekcioglu, Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using
fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (2012) 6167.
[28] I. Lee, B.C. Lee, An investment evaluation of supply chain RFID technology: a
normative modeling approach, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 125 (2010) 313323.
[29] Y.C. Lee, S.S. Lee, The valuation of RFID investment using fuzzy real option,
Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 1219512201.
[30] S. Li, S.S. Rao, T.S. Ragu-Nathan, B. Ragu-Nathan, Development and validation
of a measurement instrument for studying supply chain management
practices, J. Oper. Manage. 23 (2005) 618641.
[31] W.P. Liao, T.M.Y. Lin, S.H. Liao, Contributions to Radio Frequency Identication
(RFID) research: an assessment of SCI-, SSCI-indexed papers from 2004 to
2008, Decis. Support Syst. 50 (2011) (2004) 548556.
[32] L.C. Lin, An integrated framework for the development of radio frequency
identication technology in the logistics and supply chain management,
Computer Ind. Eng. 57 (2009) 832842.
[33] F. Mata, L. Martinez, E. Herrera-Viedma, An adaptive consensus support model
for group decision-making problems in a multigranular fuzzy linguistic
context, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 17 (2) (2009) 279290.
[34] H.B. Mitchell, D.D. Estrakh, A modied OWA operator and its use in lossless
DPCM image compression, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzz. Knowl.-Based Syst. 5 (4)
(1997) 429436.
[35] E.W.T. Ngai, K.K.L. Moon, RFID research: an academic literature review (1995
2005) and future research directions, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 112 (2008) 510520.
[36] M. OHagan, Aggregating template rule antecedents in real-time expert
systems with fuzzy set logic, in: Proceedings 22nd Annual IEEE Asilomar
Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacic Grove, CA, 1988.
[37] A.I. Olcer, A.Y. Odabasi, A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision
making methodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system
selection problem, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 166 (2005) 93114.
[38] R. Orduna, A. Jurio, D. Paternain, H. Bustince, P. Melo-Pinto, E. Barrenechea,
Segmentation of color images using a linguistic 2-tuples model, Inf. Sci. 258
(2014) 339352.
[39] J.H. Park, J.M. Park, Y.C. Kwun, 2-Tuple linguistic harmonic operators and their
applications in group decision making, Knowl.-Based Syst. 44 (2013) 1019.
[40] R.R. Patnayakuni, A. Rai, N. Seth, Relational antecedents of information ow
integration for supply chain coordination, J. Manage. Informat. Syst. 23 (1)
(2006) 1349.
[41] X. Qu, L.T. Simpson, P. Staned, A model for quantifying the value of
RFID-enabled equipment tracking in hospitals, Adv. Eng. Inform. 25 (2011)
2331.
[42] A. Sarac, N. Absi, S. Dauzere-Peres, A literature review on the impact of RFID
technologies on supply chain management, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128 (2010) 77
95.

220

S.-J. Chuu / Knowledge-Based Systems 66 (2014) 210220

[43] L. Shen, L. Olfat, K. Govindan, R. Khodaverdi, A. Diabat, A fuzzy multi criteria

approach for evaluating green suppliers performance in green supply chain
with linguistic preferences, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74 (2013) 170179.
[44] T. Singer, Understanding RFID: A Practical Guide for Supply Chain
Professionals, Tompkins Associates, 2003. <http://www.idii.com/wp/
TompkinsRFID.pdf>.
[45] C.B. Soon, J.A. Gutierrez, Effects of the RFID mandate on supply chain
management, J. Theor. Appl. Commer. Res. 3 (1) (2008) 8191.
[46] M. Tajima, Strategic value of RFID in supply chain management, J. Purchas.
Suppl. Manage. 13 (2007) 261273.
[47] A.J.C. Trappey, C.V. Trappey, C.R. Wu, Genetic algorithm dynamic performance
evaluation for RFID reverse logistic management, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010)
73297335.
[48] D.C. Twist, The impact of radio frequency identication on supply chain
facilities, J. Facilit. Manage. 3 (3) (2005) 226239.
[49] A. Ustundag, M. Tanyas, The impacts of radio frequency identication (RFID)
technology on supply chain costs, Transp. Res. Part E 45 (2009) 2938.
[50] A. Ustundag, M.C. Kilinc, E. Cevikcan, Fuzzy rule-based system for the
economic analysis of RFID investments, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010) 5300
5306.
[51] W.P. Wang, A fuzzy linguistic computing approach to supplier evaluation,
Appl. Math. Model. 34 (2010) 31303141.
[52] M. Weber, Decision making with incomplete information, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 28
(1987) 4457.
[53] G. Wei, X. Zhao, Some dependent aggregation operators with 2-tuple linguistic
information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making,
Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (2012) 58815886.

[54] W.W. Wu, Segmenting critical factors for successful knowledge management
implementation using the fuzzy DEMATEL method, Appl. Soft Comput. 12
(2012) 527535.
[55] N.C. Wu, M.A. Nystrom, T.R. Lin, H.C. Yu, Challenges to global RFID adoption,
Technovation 26 (2006) 13171323.
[56] R.R. Yager, On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybernet. 18 (1988) 183190.
[57] Z. Yue, An intuitionistic fuzzy projection-based approach for partner selection,
Appl. Math. Model. 37 (2013) 95389551.
[58] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy set, Inform. Control 8 (1965) 338353.
[59] L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
approximate reasoning, Inf. Sci. 8 (1975). 199249 (I), 301357 (II), 9 (1975)
4380 (III).
[60] S. Zhang, A model for evaluating computer network security systems with 2tuple linguistic information, Comput. Math. Appl. 62 (2011) 19161922.
[61] Z. Zhang, C. Guo, A method for multi-granularity uncertain linguistic group
decision making with incomplete weight information, Knowl.-Based Syst. 26
(2012) 111119.
[62] X. Zhu, S.K. Mukhopadhyay, H. Kurata, A review of RFID technology and its
managerial applications in different industries, J. Eng. Tech. Manage. 29 (2012)
152167.
[63] H.J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, 1996.