MPE Mathematical Problems in Engineering 1563-5147 1024-123X Hindawi Publishing Corporation 481202 10.1155/2013/481202 481202 Research Article A Method Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Dependent Aggregation Operators for Supplier Selection Wang Fen 1,2 Zeng Shouzhen 3 Zhang Chonghui 4 Nguyen-Xuan Hung 1 College of Business Administration, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018 China zjgsu.edu.cn 2 School of Management, Zhejiang Ocean University, Zhoushan 316004 China zjou.net.cn 3 College of Computer and Information Zhejiang Wanli University Ningbo 315100 China zwu.edu.cn 4 College of Statistics and Mathematics Zhejiang Gongshang University Hangzhou 310018 China zjgsu.edu.cn 2013 6 11 2013 2013 12 07 2013 23 09 2013 2013 Copyright © 2013 Fen Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Recently, resolving the decision making problem of evaluation and ranking the potential suppliers have become as a key strategic factor for business firms. In this paper, two new intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators are developed: dependent intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed averaging (DIFOWA) operator and dependent intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighed aggregation (DIFHWA) operator. Some of their main properties are studied. A method based on the DIFHWA operator for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making is presented. Finally, an illustrative example concerning supplier selection is given.

1. Introduction

As extension of Zadeh’s fuzzy set  whose basic component is only a membership function, Atanassov  introduced the concept of intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS). Bustince and Burillo  showed that IFS are vague sets . IFS has been proven to be highly useful to deal with uncertainty and vagueness, and a lot of work has been done to develop and enrich the IFS theory [7, 8]. In many complex decision making problems, the decision information provided by the decision maker is often imprecise or uncertain  due to time pressure, lack of data, or the decision maker’s limited attention and information processing capabilities. Thus, IFS is a very suitable tool to be used to describe imprecise or uncertain decision information. Recently, some approaches were investigated to multiple attribute decision making (MADM) problems based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets . One of the important things of the MADM problems is to aggregate the information provided by the experts. Aggregating intuitionistic fuzzy information has received more and more attention in recent years. Xu and Yager  developed some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets, such as intuitionistic fuzzy weighed geometric (IFWG) operator, intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed geometric (IFOWG) operator, intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid geometric (IFHG) operator and applied them to multiple attribute decision making. Xu  also developed some intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators, such as the intuitionistic fuzzy weighed averaging (IFWA) operator, intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed averaging (IFOWA) operator, and intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid averaging (IFHA) operator, Xu and Yager  developed an operator called dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighed averaging (DIFWA) operator and procedure to deal with the situations where all the attribute values are collected at different periods. Wei  proposed the dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy weighed geometric (DIFWG) operator and induced intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed geometric (I-IFOWG) operator . Zhao et al.  proposed the generalized intuitionistic fuzzy weighed averaging (GIFWA) operator, generalized intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed averaging (GIFOWA) operator, and generalized intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid averaging (GIFHA) operator. Based on the correlation properties of the Choquet integral, Xu  and Tan and Chen  proposed the intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator, respectively. Xia and Xu  developed a series of intuitionistic fuzzy point aggregation operators based on the idea of generalized aggregation. Xu and Yager  developed an intuitionistic fuzzy Bonferroni mean (IFBM) and applied the weighed IFBM to MADM. Xu  developed a series of intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators, whose weighing vectors depend upon the input arguments and allow values being aggregated to support and reinforce each other. Xu and Wang  developed the intuitionistic fuzzy induced generalized aggregation operators. On the basis of the idea of the ordered weighed averaging distance (OWAD) operator [27, 28], Zeng and Su  developed an intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed distance (IFOWD) operator. Zeng  developed the intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighed distance measure, and presented a consensus reaching process for group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference information. Yu  developed the intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized weighed average (IFPWA) and the intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized weighed geometric (IFPWG) operators. Yu  developed some new aggregation operators for intuitionisticfuzzy information are proposed, including the intuitionistic fuzzy geometric Heronian mean (IFGHM) operator and the intuitionistic fuzzy geometric weighed Heronian mean (IFGWHM) operator. Wei and Merigó  developed some probability intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. All the above operators are based on the algebraic operational laws of IFSs for carrying the combination process and are not consistent with the limiting case of ordinary fuzzy sets . Recently, Wang and Liu [35, 36] developed some intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators based on Einstein operations.

However, most of the existing aggregation operators do not take into account the relationship between the values being fused. Xu  proposed some dependent OWA operators, in which the associated weights depend on the aggregated arguments. The prominent characteristic of this dependent OWA operator is that it can relieve the influence of unfair arguments on the aggregated results. Furthermore, Xu  developed some dependent uncertain ordered weighed aggregation operators, including dependent uncertain ordered weighed averaging (DUOWA) operators and dependent uncertain ordered weighed geometric (DUOWG) operators, in which the associated weights only depend on the aggregated interval arguments. Wei and Zhao  developed a dependent uncertain linguistic ordered weighed geometric (DULOWG) operator to aggregate uncertain linguistic variable. Liu  developed the intuitionistic linguistic generalized dependent ordered weighed average (ILGDOWA) operator and the intuitionistic linguistic generalized dependent hybrid weighed aggregation (ILGDHWA) operator.

Nowadays, the problem of supplier selection has emerged as an active research field where numerous research papers have been published around this area within the last few years. Supplier selection plays a key role in supply chain management (SCM) and deals with evaluation, ranking, and selection of the best option from a pool of potential suppliers especially in the presence of conflicting attribute. In the literature, supplier selection has been treated as a multiple attribute decision making (MADM) and a wide range of mathematical methods have been undertaken to provide the problems with sufficient and more accurate solutions. In this paper, motivated by the idea of dependent aggregation operator proposed by Xu [37, 38], we develop some new intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators, including dependent intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed averaging (DIFOWA) operator and dependent intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighed aggregation (DIFHWA) operator. Furthermore, we study some of their main desirable properties. We also apply the developed operators to multiple attribute decision making (MADM) problems concerning the supplier selection with intuitionistic fuzzy information.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we introduce some basic concepts related to intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Atanassov  introduced a generalized fuzzy set called intuitionistic fuzzy set, shown as follows.

An IFS in X is given by (1)A={x,μA(x),vA(x)xX} which is characterized by a membership function μA:X[0,1]  and a nonmembership function vA:X[0,1], with the condition (2)0μA(x)+vA(x)1,xX, where the numbers μA(x) and vA(x) represent, respectively, the degree of membership and the degree of nonmembership of the element x to the set A.

For each IFS A in X, if (3)πA(x)=1-μA(x)-vA(x),xX, then πA(x) is called the indeterminacy degree or hesitation degree of x to A.

For convenience, Xu and Yager  called α=(μα,vα) an intuitionistic fuzzy value (IFV), where μα[0,1], vα[0,1], and μα+vα1. For convenience, let Ω be the set of all IFVs.

Let α=(μα,vα) be an IFV; Chen and Tan  introduced a score function S, which can be represented as follows: (4)S(α)=μα-vα, where S(α)[-1,1].

For an IFV α=(μα,vα), it is clear that if the deviation between μα and vα gets greater, which means the value μα gets bigger and the value vα gets smaller, then the IFV α gets greater.

Later, Hong and Choi  noted that the score function alone cannot differentiate many IFVs even though they are obviously different. To make the comparison method more discriminatory, an accuracy function H to evaluate the degree of accuracy of the intuitionistic fuzzy value can be represented as follows: (5)H(α)=μα+vα, where H(α)[0,1]. The larger the value of H(α), the higher the degree of accuracy of the degree of membership of the IFV α.

The score function S and the accuracy function H are, respectively, defined as the difference and the sum of the membership function μA(x) and the nonmembership function vA(x).

To rank IFVs, Xu and Yager  and Xu  developed a method for the comparison between two IFVs, which is based on the score function S and the accuracy function H:

if S(α1)<S(α2), then α1<α2;

if S(α1)=S(α2), the

if H(α1)<H(α2), then α1<α2;

if H(α1)=H(α2), then α1=α2.

To aggregate intuitionistic preference information, Xu  defined the following operations.

Definition 1 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref>]).

Let α=(μα,vα) and β=(μβ,vβ) two IFVs; then

αβ=(μα+μβ-μα·μβ,vα·vβ);

αβ=(μα·μβ,vα+vβ-vα·vβ);

λα=(1-(1-μα)λ,vαλ), λ>0;

αλ=(μαλ,1-(1-vα)λ), λ>0.

Definition 2 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref>]).

Let αj=(μαj,vαj)(j=1,2,,n) be a collection of IFVs and an intuitionistic fuzzy weighed averaging operator of dimension n is a mapping IFWA: ΩnΩ, if (6)IFWAw(α1,α2,,αn)=w1α1w2α2wnαn=(1-j=1n(1-μαj)wj,j=1n(vαj)wj), where w=(w1,w2,,wn)T is the weighing vector of αj(j=1,2,,n) such that wj[0,1], j=1,2,,n and j=1nwj=1.

The OWA operator introduced by Yager  is an aggregation operator that provides a parameterized family of aggregation operators between the maximum and the minimum. Since its introduction, lots of extensions of the OWA operator have been studied, such as the weighed OWA (WOWA) , the hybrid averaging (HA) operator , the ordered weighed averaging weighed averaging (OWAWA) operator , and the immediate weighed OWA distance (IWOWAD) operator . It can be defined as follows.

Definition 3 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B43">43</xref>]).

An OWA operator of dimension n is a mapping OWA: RnR that has an associated weighing W with wj[0,1] and j=1nwj=1, such that (7)OWA(a1,,an)=j=1nwjbj, where bj is the jth largest of the ai.

The OWA operator has been used in a wide range of applications, such as engineering, neural networks, data mining, decision making, image process, and expert systems. Consider that the OWA operator aggregates only the exact inputs having been reordered; Xu  extended the OWA operator to accommodate the situations where the input arguments are intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and developed the intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed averaging (IFOWA) operator.

Definition 4 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref>]).

Let αj=(μαj,vαj)(j=1,2,,n) be a collection of IFVs and an intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed averaging operator of dimension n is a mapping IFOWA: ΩnΩ, if (8)IFOWAw(α1,α2,,αn)=w1ασ(1)w2ασ(2)wnασ(n)=(1-j=1n(1-μασ(j))wj,j=1n(vασ(j))ωj), where (σ(1),σ(2),,σ(n)) is a permutation of (1,2,,n) such that ασ(j-1)ασ(j) for all j; w=(w1,w2,,wn)T is the weighing vector of IFOWA such that wj[0,1], j=1,2,,n, and j=1nwj=1.

3. Some Dependent Intuitionistic Fuzzy Aggregation Operators

As an interesting and important research topic in IFS theory, similarity measure between intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) has been receiving more and more attention in recent years. Recently, motivated by the idea of the TOPSIS of Hwang and Yoon , Xu and Yager  introduced an intuitionistic fuzzy similarity measure combining the distance measure as follows.

Definition 5 (see [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B44">44</xref>]).

Let α1=(μα1,να1) and α2=(μα2,να2) be two IFVs and α2c=(να2,μα2) the complement of α2; then (9)s(α1,α2)={0.5,α1=α2=α2cd(α1,α2c)d(α1,α2)+(α1,α2c),otherwise is called the similarity measure between α1 and α2, where (10)d(α1,α2)=12(|μα1-μα2|+|να1-να2|+|πα1-πα2|) is the Hamming distance between α1 and α2.

Definition 6.

Let αj=(μαj,vαj)(j=1,2,,n) be a collection of IFVs; the intuitionistic fuzzy arithmetic mean is computed as (11)α=1n(α1α2αn)=(1-i=1n(1-μj)1/n,i=1nvj1/n).

In real-life decision making problems, the decision making experts may have personal biases and some individuals may give unduly high or unduly low preference values to their preferred or repugnant objects. In such a case, we will assign very low weights to these false or biased opinions that is to say, the closer a preference value (argument) is to the mid one(s), the more the weight is. As a result, based on (8) and (10), we define the IFOWA weights as (12)wj=s(ασ(j),α)j=1ns(ασ(j),α). Obviously, wj0 and j=1nwj=1. In particular, if αi=αj for i,j=1,2,,n, then by (12), we have wj=(1/n)(j=1,2,,n).

Theorem 7.

Let αj=(μj,vj)(j=1,2,,n) be a set of IFV and α the arithmetic mean of these IFV (σ(1),σ(2),,σ(n)) is a permutation of (1,2,,n), such that σ(j-1)σ(j) for all j=1,2,,n. If s(ασ(j),α)s(ασ(i),α), then wjwi.

By (11), we have (13)IFOWA(α1,α2,,αn)=j=1ns(ασ(j),α)j=1ns(ασ(j),α)ασ(j)=j=1ns(ασ(j),α)ασ(j)j=1ns(ασ(j),α). Since (14)j=1ns(ασ(j),α)ασ(j)=j=1ns(αj,α)αj,j=1ns(ασ(j),α)=j=1ns(αj,α); then we can replace (13) by (15)IFOWA(α1,α2,,αn)=j=1ns(αj,α)αjj=1ns(αj,α).

We call (15) a dependent intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed averaging (DIFOWA) operator, which is a generalization of the dependent ordered weighed averaging (DOWA) operator . Consider that the aggregated value of the DIFOWA operator is independent of the ordering; thus it is also a neat operator. From (15) we know that all the associated weights of the DIFOWA operator only depend on the aggregated IFVs and can relieve the influence of unfair arguments on the aggregated results by assigning low weights to those “false” and “biased” ones and thus make the aggregated results more reasonable in the practical applications.

Similar to the DOWA operator, the DIFOWA operator has the following properties.

Theorem 8 (commutativity).

Let (α1,α2,,αn) be any permutation of (α1,α2,,αn); then (16) DIFOWA (α1,α2,,αn)= DIFOWA (α1,α2,,αn).

Proof.

Let (17)DIFOWA(α1,α2,,αn)=j=1ns(αj,α)αjj=1ns(αj,α),DIFOWA(α1,α2,,αn)=j=1ns(αj,α)αjj=1ns(αj,α). Since (α1,α2,,αn) is any permutation of (α1,α2,,αn), we have (18)j=1ns(αj,α)αj=j=1ns(αj,α)αj,j=1ns(αj,α)=j=1ns(αj,α). Thus (19)DIFOWA(α1,α2,,αn)=DIFOWA(α1,α2,,αn).

Theorem 9 (idempotency).

Let αj=α*(j=1,2,,n); then (20) DIFOWA (α1,α2,,αn)=α*.

Proof.

Since αj=α* for all j, we have (21)DIFOWA(α1,α2,,αn)=j=1ns(αj,α)αjj=1ns(αj,α)=j=1ns(α*,α)α*j=1ns(α*,α)=α*. This completes the proof of Theorem 9.

Theorem 10 (boundedness).

The IFDOWA operator lies between the max and min operators; that is, (22)min(α1,α2,,αn) DIFOWA (α1,α2,,αn)max(α1,α2,,αn).

Proof.

Let (23)a=min(α1,α2,,αn),b=max(α1,α2,,αn). Since aαjb, we have (24)j=1ns(αj,α)aj=1ns(αj,α)j=1ns(αj,α)αjj=1ns(αj,α)j=1ns(αj,α)bj=1ns(αj,α). That is, (25)aj=1ns(αj,α)αjj=1ns(αj,α)b; thus (26)min(α1,α2,,αn)DIFOWA(α1,α2,,αn)max(α1,α2,,αn).

The IFWA operator only considers the weight of the aggregated IFVs, and in IFDOWA operator, we assumed that all of the IFVs being aggregated were of equal importance. However, in many cases, the importance degrees should not be treated as equally important and thus need to be assigned different weights. Here, we will consider the effect on the dependent operations of having differing importance of the objects. So, in what follows, we will develop a new aggregation operator to process this case.

Definition 11.

Let αj=(μj,vj)(j=1,2,,n) be a collection of the IFV and DIFHWA: ΩnΩ. If (27)DIFHWA(α1,α2,,αn)=j=1nwjα˙σ(j)=j=1ns(ασ(j),α)α˙σ(j)j=1ns(ασ(j),α), where α˙j=nωjαj, (σ(1),σ(2),,σ(n)) is a permutation of (1,2,,n), such that α˙σ(j-1)α˙σ(j) for all j=1,2,,n and ω=(ω1,ω2,,ωn)T is the weight vector of αj=(μj,vj)(j=1,2,,n) with ωj[0,1] and j=1nωj=1; then DIFHWA is called the dependent intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighed aggregation operator. In particular, if ω=(1/n,1/n,,1/n)T, then DIFHWA is reduced to the DIFOWA operator.

Since (28)j=1ns(ασ(j),α)α˙σ(j)=j=1ns(αj,α)α˙j,j=1ns(ασ(j),α)=j=1ns(αj,α). So we can replace (27) by (29)DIFHWA(α1,α2,,αn)=j=1ns(αj,α)α˙jj=1ns(αj,α).

From (29), we can see that the DIFHWA operator can not only consider the object weight but also relieve the influence of unfair arguments on the aggregated results by assigning low weights to those “false” and “biased” ones.

Theorem 12.

The DIFOWA operator is a special case of the DIHHWA operator.

Proof.

Let ω=(1/n,1/n,,1/n)T; then α˙j=αj for all j=1,2,,n, and we have (30)DIFHWA(α1,α2,,αn)=j=1ns(αj,α)α˙jj=1ns(αj,α)=j=1ns(αj,α)αjj=1ns(αj,α)=DIFOWA(α1,α2,,αn). This completes the proof of Theorem 12.

4. An Approach to Multiple Attribute Decision Making Based on the DIFHWA Operator

For the multiple attribute decision making problems, in which both the attribute weights and the expert weights take the form of real numbers, and the attribute preference values take the form of IFVs, we will develop an approach based on the IFWA and DIFHWA operators to multiple attribute group decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy information processing.

Let A={A1,A2,,Am} be a discrete set of alternatives, let G={G1,G2,,Gn} be the set of attributes, let w=(w1,w2,,wn)T be the weighing vector of the attribute, where wj[0,1], j=1nwj=1, D={D1,D2,,Dt} be the set of decision makers, and, λ=(λ1,λ2,,λt) be the expert weight, with λk[0,1] and k=1tλk=1. Suppose that R(k)=(rij(k))m×n(k=1,2,,t) is the decision matrix, where rij(k)=(μij(k),νij(k)) takes the form of the IFV, given by the decision maker DkD, for alternative AiA with respect to the attribute GjG. The methods involve the following steps.

Step 1.

Utilize the decision information given in matrix R(k) and the IFWA operator (31)ri(k)=IFWAw(ri1(k),ri2(k),,rin(k)),i=1,2,,m;k=1,2,,t to derive the individual overall preference value ri(k) of the alternative Ai.

Step 2.

Utilize (9)–(11) to calculate the degree of similarity s(ri(k),xi): (32)s(ri(k),xi)={0.5,ri(k)=xi=xic,d(ri(k),xic)d(ri(k),xi)+d(ri(k),xic),otherwise, where xi is mean of the (ri(1),ri(2),,ri(t)).

Step 3.

Utilize the DIFHWA operator: (33)ri=DIFHWA(ri(1),ri(2),,ri(t))=k=1ts(ri(k),xi)(tλkri(k))k=1ts(ri(k),xi) to derive the collective overall preference values ri(i=1,2,,m) of the alternative Ai.

Step 4.

Rank all the alternatives Ai  (i=1,2,,m) and select the best one(s) in accordance with the collective overall preference values ri(i=1,2,,m).

Step 5.

End.

5. Illustrative Example

In this section, we discuss a problem concerning a manufacturing company, searching the best global supplier for one of its most critical parts used in assembling process (adapted from Chan and Kumar ). The attributes which are considered here in selection of five potential global suppliers Ai(i=1,2,3,4,5) are (1) G1: overall cost of the product; (2) G2: quality of the product; (3) G3: service performance of supplier; (4) G4: supplier’s profile; and (5) G5: risk factor. The five alternatives are to be evaluated using IFVs by four decision makers (whose weighing vector λ=(0.3,0.2,0.3,0.2)T) under the above five attributes (whose weighing vector w=(0.2,0.15,0.2,0.3,0.15)T), and construct, respectively, the intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrices as listed in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R(1).

G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5
A 1 (0.4, 0.5) (0.5, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3)
A 2 (0.6, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2) (0.3, 0.4) (0.5, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3)
A 3 (0.7, 0.3) (0.8, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5) (0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3)
A 4 (0.3, 0.4) (0.7, 0.1) (0.6, 0.1) (0.4, 0.3) (0.9, 0.1)
A 5 (0.8, 0.1) (0.3, 0.4) (0.4, 0.5) (0.7, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2)

Intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R(2).

G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5
A 1 (0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3) (0.7, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2)
A 2 (0.7, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4) (0.6, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3)
A 3 (0.5, 0.3) (0.7, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3) (0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.1)
A 4 (0.5, 0.4) (0.8, 0.1) (0.4, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3)
A 5 (0.7, 0.3) (0.5, 0.4) (0.6, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2) (0.5, 0.1)

Intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R(3).

G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5
A 1 (0.6, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2) (0.6, 0.4) (0.8, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3)
A 2 (0.8, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.4) (0.5, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3)
A 3 (0.6, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3) (0.4, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1)
A 4 (0.6, 0.3) (0.6, 0.1) (0.5, 0.4) (0.9, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2)
A 5 (0.8, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2) (0.7, 0.1)

Intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix R(4).

G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5
A 1 (0.3, 0.4) (0.9, 0.1) (0.8, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5) (0.4, 0.6)
A 2 (0.7, 0.1) (0.7, 0.3) (0.4, 0.2) (0.8, 0.2) (0.3, 0.1)
A 3 (0.4, 0.1) (0.5, 0.2) (0.8, 0.1) (0.6, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3)
A 4 (0.8, 0.2) (0.5, 0.1) (0.6, 0.4) (0.7, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2)
A 5 (0.6, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2) (0.7, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3) (0.8, 0.1)

Calculate the comprehensive evaluation values ri(k): (34)r1(1)=(0.651,0.207),r2(1)=(0.483,0.187),r3(1)=(0.579,0.250),r4(1)=(0.607,0.183),r5(1)=(0.610,0.232),r1(2)=(0.674,0.172),r2(2)=(0.608,0.244),r3(2)=(0.548,0.212),r4(2)=(0.641,0.220),r5(2)=(0.596,0.235),r1(3)=(0.678,0.215),r2(3)=(0.631,0.244),r3(3)=(0.654,0.170),r4(3)=(0.727,0.182),r5(3)=(0.663,0.170),r1(4)=(0.641,0.280),r2(4)=(0.653,0.167),r3(4)=(0.610,0.161),r4(4)=(0.684,0.207),r5(4)=(0.693,0.177).

Calculate the degree of similarity s(ri(k),xi): (35)s(r1(1),x1)=0.961,s(r1(2),x1)=0.919,s(r1(3),x1)=0.965,s(r1(4),x1)=0.868,s(r2(1),x2)=0.750,s(r2(2),x2)=0.899,s(r2(3),x2)=0.862,s(r2(4),x2)=0.890,s(r3(1),x3)=0.866,s(r3(2),x3)=0.943,s(r3(3),x3)=0.900,s(r3(4),x3)=0.949,s(r4(1),x4)=0.928,s(r4(2),x4)=0.898,s(r4(3),x4)=0.938,s(r4(4),x4)=0.906,s(r5(1),x5)=0.962,s(r5(2),x5)=0.919,s(r5(3),x5)=0.965,s(r5(4),x5)=0.868.

Calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of each alternative: (36)r1=(0.665,0.211),r2=(0.592,0.213),r3=(0.603,0.197),r4=(0.667,0.197),r5=(0.643,0.200).

Calculate the score function S(ri) and rank ri(i=1,2,,5).

Since (37)S(r1)=0.454,S(r2)=0.379,S(r3)=0.406,S(r4)=0.467,S(r5)=0.443.

Then (38)S(r4)S(r1)S(r5)S(r3)S(r2).

Rank all the alternatives.

According to the ranking of score function S(ri), the ranking is (39)A4A1A5A3A2. Thus the best alternative is A4.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, we have investigated the multiple attribute decision making (MADM) problems in which both the attribute weights and the expert weights take the form of real numbers and attribute values take the form of intuitionistic fuzzy information. Motivated by the ideal of dependent aggregation operator, we develop two dependent intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators: the dependent intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighed averaging (DIFOWA) operator and the dependent intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid weighed aggregation (DIFHWA) operator, in which the associated weights only depend on the aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Furthermore, some desirable properties of the DIFOWA operator, such as commutativity and idempotency, are studied. Based on the DIFHWA operator, an approach to multiple attribute group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy information is proposed. Because the associated weights only depend on the aggregated input arguments, the method can relieve the influence of unfair input arguments on the aggregated results by assigning low weights to those “false” and “biased” ones. Finally, an illustrative example concerning the supplier selection is given to verify the developed approach. In the future, we will continue working in the extension and application of the developed operators to other domains.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This paper is supported by the Statistical Scientific Key Research Project of China (no. 2013363), the National Funds of Social Science of China (nos. 12ATJ001, 12&ZD211), the Key Research Center of Philosophy and Social Science of Zhejiang Province—Modern Port Service Industry and Creative Culture Research Center, Zhejiang Provincial Key Research Base for Humanities and Social Science Research (Statistics), Projects in Science and Technique of Ningbo Municipal (no. 2012B82003), Ningbo Soft Science Fund (no. 2011A1012), Ningbo Natural Science Foundation (no. 2011A610106), Zhejiang new generation mobile Internet client innovation team (no. 2012R10009-07), Projects in Association with Social Sciences Research of Zhejiang (no. 2013B069), Soft Science Key Project in Zhejiang (no. 2012C25099), Ningbo Natural Science Foundation (no. 2013A610286), the MOE Project of Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences in Universities (no. 13JJD910002), and the key research project of Zhejiang Wanli University.

Zadeh L. A. Fuzzy sets Information and Computation 1965 8 338 353 MR0219427 ZBL0139.24606 Atanassov K. T. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1986 20 1 87 96 10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3 MR852871 ZBL0631.03040 Atanassov K. T. More on intuitionistic fuzzy sets Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1989 33 1 37 45 10.1016/0165-0114(89)90215-7 MR1021121 ZBL0685.03037 Atanassov K. T. New operations defined over the intuitionistic fuzzy sets Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1994 61 2 137 142 10.1016/0165-0114(94)90229-1 MR1262464 ZBL0824.04004 Bustince H. Burillo P. Vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1996 79 3 403 405 10.1016/0165-0114(95)00154-9 MR1388413 ZBL0871.04006 Gau W. L. Buehrer D. J. Vague sets IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 1993 23 2 610 614 2-s2.0-0027555609 10.1109/21.229476 Atanassov K. T. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications 1999 35 Heidelberg, Germany Physica MR1718470 Ban A. I. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Measures: Theory and Applications 2006 New York, NY, USA Nova Science Publishers MR2341666 Klir G. J. Uncertainty and Information: Foundations of Generalized Information Theory 2006 Hoboken, NJ, USA Wiley-Interscience Li D. F. Extension of the LINMAP for multiattribute decision making under Atanassov's intuitionistic fuzzy environment Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making 2008 7 1 17 34 10.1007/s10700-007-9022-x MR2389085 ZBL1140.90430 Khaleie S. Fasanghari M. An intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making method using entropy and association coefficient Soft Computing 2012 16 1197 1211 2-s2.0-84856067727 10.1007/s00500-012-0806-8 Zeng S. Z. Su W. H. Sun L. R. A method based on similarity measures for interactive group decision-making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations Applied Mathematical Modelling 2013 37 6909 6917 10.1016/j.apm.2013.01.044 Jiang Y. Xu Z. S. Yu X. H. Compatibility measures and consensus models for group decision making with intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations Applied Soft Computing 2013 13 2075 2086 10.1016/j.asoc.2012.11.007 Xu Z. S. Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making: an interactive method IEEE Transcations on Fuzzy Systems 2012 20 514 525 10.1109/TFUZZ.2011.2177466 Xu Z. Yager R. R. Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets International Journal of General Systems 2006 35 4 417 433 10.1080/03081070600574353 MR2243887 ZBL1113.54003 Xu Z. Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 2007 15 6 1179 1187 2-s2.0-37249067095 10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.890678 Xu Z. Yager R. R. Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decison making International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 2008 48 1 246 262 10.1016/j.ijar.2007.08.008 MR2420670 Wei G. W. Some geometric aggregation functions and their application to dynamic multiple attribute decision making in the intuitionistic fuzzy setting International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 2009 17 2 179 196 10.1142/S0218488509005802 MR2512737 ZBL1162.90485 Wei G. Some induced geometric aggregation operators with intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to group decision making Applied Soft Computing Journal 2010 10 2 423 431 2-s2.0-70849120362 10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.009 Zhao H. Xu Z. Ni M. Liu S. Generalized aggregation operators for intuitionistic fuzzy sets International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2010 25 1 1 30 2-s2.0-73849149922 10.1002/int.20386 Xu Z. Choquet integrals of weighted intuitionistic fuzzy information Information Sciences 2010 180 5 726 736 10.1016/j.ins.2009.11.011 MR2574550 ZBL1186.68469 Tan C. Chen X. Intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator for multi-criteria decision making Expert Systems with Applications 2010 37 1 149 157 2-s2.0-70349466357 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.005 Xia M. M. Xu Z. S. Generalized point operators for aggregating intuitionistic fuzzy information International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2010 25 1061 1080 Xu Z. Yager R. R. Intuitionistic fuzzy bonferroni means IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics B 2011 41 2 568 578 2-s2.0-79952842717 10.1109/TSMCB.2010.2072918 Xu Z. Approaches to multiple attribute group decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy power aggregation operators Knowledge-Based Systems 2011 24 6 749 760 2-s2.0-79957508607 10.1016/j.knosys.2011.01.011 Xu Y. Wang H. The induced generalized aggregation operators for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application in group decision making Applied Soft Computing Journal 2012 12 3 1168 1179 2-s2.0-84855993886 10.1016/j.asoc.2011.11.003 Merigó J. M. Gil-Lafuente A. M. New decision-making techniques and their application in the selection of financial products Information Sciences 2010 180 11 2085 2094 10.1016/j.ins.2010.01.028 MR2602942 ZBL1194.91070 Xu Z. Chen J. Ordered weighted distance measure Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 2008 17 4 432 445 2-s2.0-57649245231 10.1007/s11518-008-5084-8 Zeng S. Su W. Intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted distance operator Knowledge-Based Systems 2011 24 8 1224 1232 2-s2.0-80051469258 10.1016/j.knosys.2011.05.013 Zeng S. Some intuitionistic fuzzy weighted distance measures and their application to group decision making Group Decision and Negotiation 2013 22 2 281 298 2-s2.0-79959664126 10.1007/s10726-011-9262-6 Yu D. J. Intuitionistic fuzzy prioritized operators and their application in multi-criteria group decision making Technological and Economic Development of Economy 2013 19 1 21 Yu D. J. Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric Heronian mean aggregation operators Applied Soft Computing 2013 13 1235 1246 Wei G. W. Merigó J. M. Methods for strategic decision-making problems with immediate probabilities in intuitionistic fuzzy setting Scientia Iranica E 2012 19 1936 1946 10.1016/j.scient.2012.07.017 Beliakov G. Bustince H. Goswami D. P. Mukherjee U. K. Pal N. R. On averaging operators for Atanassov's intuitionistic fuzzy sets Information Sciences 2011 181 6 1116 1124 10.1016/j.ins.2010.11.024 MR2765313 ZBL1215.03064 Wang W. Liu X. Intuitionistic fuzzy geometric aggregation operators based on einstein operations International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2011 26 11 1049 1075 2-s2.0-80053052371 10.1002/int.20498 Wang W. Z. Liu X. W. Intuitionistic fuzzy information aggregation using Einstein Operations IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 2012 20 923 938 Xu Z. Dependent OWA operators Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence 2006 3885 172 178 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2-s2.0-33745626086 Xu Z. Dependent uncertain ordered weighted aggregation operators Information Fusion 2008 9 2 310 316 2-s2.0-39749125581 10.1016/j.inffus.2006.10.008 Wei G. Zhao X. Some dependent aggregation operators with 2-tuple linguistic information and their application to multiple attribute group decision making Expert Systems with Applications 2012 39 5 5881 5886 2-s2.0-84855900986 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.120 Liu P. Some generalized dependent aggregation operators with intuitionistic linguistic numbers and their application to group decision making Journal of Computer and System Sciences 2013 79 1 131 143 10.1016/j.jcss.2012.07.001 MR2996353 ZBL1261.68116 Chen S. M. Tan J. M. Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1994 67 2 163 172 10.1016/0165-0114(94)90084-1 MR1302577 ZBL0845.90078 Hong D. H. Choi C. H. Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2000 114 1 103 113 2-s2.0-0346054710 Yager R. R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1988 18 1 183 190 10.1109/21.87068 MR931863 ZBL0637.90057 Torra V. The weighted OWA operator International Journal of Intelligent Systems 1997 12 2 153 166 2-s2.0-0031076775 Xu Z. S. Da Q. L. An Overview of Operators for Aggregating Information International Journal of Intelligent Systems 2003 18 9 953 969 2-s2.0-0141834862 10.1002/int.10127 Merigó J. M. A unified model between the weighted average and the induced OWA operator Expert Systems with Applications 2011 38 9 11560 11572 2-s2.0-79955606546 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.034 Merigó J. M. Gil-Lafuente A. M. Decision-making techniques with similarity measures and OWA operators Statistics and Operations Research Transactions 2012 36 1 81 101 MR2977937 Hwang C. L. Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making 1981 186 Berlin, Germany Springer MR610245 Xu Z. Yager R. R. Intuitionistic and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations and their measures of similarity for the evaluation of agreement within a group Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making 2009 8 2 123 139 10.1007/s10700-009-9056-3 MR2511471 ZBL1183.91038 Chan F. T. S. Kumar N. Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach Omega 2007 35 4 417 431 2-s2.0-33748889528 10.1016/j.omega.2005.08.004