A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model Combining DANP with VIKOR for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Electronics Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author of this article uses DANP and VIKOR to analyze suppliers under the sustainable conditions of green operation, which is of high readability and research value.
Some suggestions are listed below to help improve the paper:
The analysis objects of the expert interviews conducted in this paper are 5, and the interview evaluation conducted by the 5 experts is the main axis of the research claim; it is obviously insufficient in terms of reliability and validity. The author also pointed out this point in line 407. This part is a structural problem in the research design, and the research structure should be greatly adjusted to meet the standards of reliability and validity.
From line 362 to line 394, this article provides a large amount of statistical interpretation of data and verifies the indicators claimed in this article; this spirit of careful dialectical research to increase reliability is commendable.
It is suggested that the author's explanation of statistical data should be presented to readers in a more concise, clear, concise, and mature way of writing, rather than just a pile of data.
Secondly, the accumulation of the above-mentioned data should be presented in a more detailed and clearer way of descriptive statistics, so as to meet the author's intention in this study.
The data collection method used is worthy of admiration; however , making it easy for readers to wonder what the research focus of this article is trying to express.
Proofreading is needed to correct the misspelling and other format mistakes.
If the author can improve on the problems raised above, I think this will be a classic paper worth reading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with the Sustainable Supplier Selection (SSS) by applying a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model combining DEMATEL- based on ANP (called DANP) with VIKOR. The existing dependence among the criteria for suppliers selecting and the aspects of sustainability are considered by the Authors. Finally, Authors apply the proposed approach to an empirical case related to an electronic manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Although the paper is very interesting its understanding is very complicated and several modifications are fundamental. A considerable effort has to be done in making the paper more readable and avoid confusion. Based on these considerations major revisions are necessary.
Some suggestions/required modifications are listed below:
1) The contribution of the different Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods used in the paper is unclear especially in the abstract and the introduction section. Only by reading the entire article I can suppose that Authors employ the DEMATEL to analyze the degree and type of dependence among criteria, the ANP to assess their weight, and finally the VIKOR to rank the different suppliers. I am not sure if this is the correct interpretation, but in any case, Authors have to make a great effort to clarify the contribution of the three implemented MCDM methods. In different sections of the paper different sentences contribute to the lack of these contributions’ clarity, for example:
1.a) The use of the VIKOR method is not clear. Is the VIKOR used to prioritize criteria, dimensions or providers (i.e. alternatives)? Sometimes Authors relay the implementation of the VIKOR method to the criteria, in other cases to the dimensions, in others to the alternatives. Some sentences that contribute to generate this confusion are reported in the following:
- “VIKOR methodology can be used to prioritize criteria and select the most suitable provider from the available alternatives” (lines 86-87).
- “Ranking and improving the dimensions or criteria prioritization using the VIKOR method can be found in [44, 45]” (lines 188-189).
- In line 253 during the explanation of the VIKOR method Authors refer to alternatives. Also, in line 288 Authors say “Compose a compromise solution by ranking or improving the alternatives”.
1.b) How does VIKOR assess the gap between criteria/dimensions? How the VIKOR assesses this gap is not clear. In particular, the following sentences are unclear:
-“… by reducing gaps across each dimension or criterion using VIKOR method” (lines 93-94)
-“….and the VIKOR method to assess the performance gaps in each criterion and dimension” (lines 180-181).
1.c) In Section 1 lines 94-99 it is not clear for which factors the interdependence is assessed. The reader will understand the factors for which this interdependence is assessed only in Section 4.
1.d) In Sub-section 3.3 line 253 the index n is referred to the criteria whereas in figure 1 (Section 2) this index is referred to the alternatives. This generates confusion.
In other words, in the entire paper the contribution of the three MCDMs is unclear, and there is a considerable confusion if they are applied to the criteria, dimensions, or alternatives. Authors have to make a great effort to clarify this aspect and avoid confusion.
2) With reference to the Section 2. Sustainable Supplier Selection Dimensions and Criteria
2.a) The criteria used in the paper are extrapolated by literature review, for this reason I consider necessary to report this analysis in a deeper way. In the paper Authors make explicit the key terms and databases used but they do not report, for example, the number of papers that have been analysed.
2.b) Authors mention only fifteen criteria but I assume that they result from a broader list of criteria. It would be appropriate to better explain the procedure of selecting criteria from the literature. Also in the Section 5 this aspect is unclear.
3) With reference to the Section 3. A Hybrid MCDM Model.
3.a) How Authors use the degree of influence evaluated by using the DEMATEL method to obtain the supermatrix of the ANP is not clear.
3.b) What do the authors mean by “Level of aspiration” (lines 194-195)?
3.c) Figure 2 needs to be rearranged because in that form it is unclear. For example:
- with reference to the “questionnaire criteria” block, it seems that the questionnaire occurs before the application of the DEMATEL method, instead in lines 202-203 it is reported that the answers of that questionnaire constitute the input data of DEMATEL.
- same confusion arises for the blocks referred to the ANP. It seems that these blocks are external to the method.
- the block “select best suitable supplier and make improvements” represents the result of the VIKOR method, but the block referred to the VIKOR is reported earlier in the figure
This generates a great confusion. I recommend Authors to revise the figure. For example, they could enclose the blocks related to the DEMATEL, ANP and VIKOR in squares. In this way the reader can understand that they are integral parts of the methods and not blocks that come earlier.
4) With reference to the Sub-section 3.1. Stage I.
in line 201 Authors refer to different experts, in fact in Section 4 they report that the number of experts is equal to five. However, how the judgements of these experts are aggregated in not clear in the paper. In lines 206-207 Authors report “… average matrix … can be generated …” but in the equations no superscripts, subscripts or index related to experts appear.
5) With reference to the Sub-section 3.2. Stage II.
5.a) How the normalized matrix is obtained is not clear. Who is d11ci in equation (7) pag 7?
5.b) (8) (line 234) and (10) (line 240) are matrices and not equations
5.c) Authors have to better explain the sentence “Match the total-influence matrix and fill the interdependence dimensions” (lines 236-237).
5.d) Who is W11 in equation (9) pag 8?
5.d) Who is td11 in matrix (10) pag 8?
5.e) Authors have to uniform symbols. In line 241 the Authors say “For normalization purpose, do summation for each column of total-influence matrix TD”, but with reference to the total-influence matrix (sub-section 3.1. Stage I) the elements are named tij and not as in matrices (11).
The use of different notations makes the paper understanding difficult. In addition, the explanation of the ANP needs to be fully reviewed. An unfamiliar reader of ANP methodology would not be able to understand it by reading this sub-section. Then Authors have to make a considerable effort to explain the ANP method.
6) With reference to the Sub-section 3.3. Stage III.
6.a) Authors introduce f* and f- in equation (13) but they give their definition only in line 269. This complicates the understanding.
6.b) Authors refer to three rankings in step 4 (line 288) but they do not explain how they can obtain the final rank through them. Authors should better explain this procedure.
7) With reference to the Section 4. Results and Discussions
7.a) Authors report in lines 300-301 “we assessed 15 criteria across three dimensions and considered mutual relationship impacts as well”. Authors should explain how the data used are obtained. Do they come from the literature?
7.b) Authors in table 6 and table 5 (line 306) refer to dimensions and criteria respectively, whereas in line 304-305 they say “… comparing the influences and directions between criteria in pairwise comparisons”. I suppose that this pairwise comparison has to be carried out also for the dimensions.
7.c) How are the values of “Performance” and “Gap of aspired level” in Table 2 obtained?
7.d) What is the decision matrix that is the input data of the VIKOR? It is not clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The analysis objects of the expert interviews conducted in this paper are 5, and the interview evaluation conducted by the 5 experts is the main axis of the research claim; it is obviously insufficient in terms of reliability and validity. The author also pointed out this point in line 407. This part is a structural problem in the research design, and the research structure should be greatly adjusted to meet the standards of reliability and validity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank Authors for the considerable effort they made to improve the clarity and readability of the paper. The paper requires minor revision.
Some suggestions or clarifications request are listed below.
- Authors in table 2 report an “Overview of the expert profile”. What is the purpose of these information? Whether these information are useful to attribute a weight to the different experts Authors should clarify how in the evaluation of the average matrix A such weights are considered. The same consideration is valid for the sentence reported in lines 342-343 “Then, we calculated the average performance scores of each supplier and applied the VIKOR method to get the performance and aspired level gaps of alternative suppliers”
- in line 252 the total-influence matrix is denoted with TC whereas in line 239 is denoted T. Moreover, Authors should clarify the following sentence “… we have to normalize the total-influence matrix TC by dimensions” (lines 151-252)
- (7) (line 257) is not an equation
- Authors report “…for all alternatives by using the order” (line 313). Authors should specify which order they are referring to, since there are 3 orders
- Authors in the response file report “… for the dimensions (Table 6), we use the results from the total influence matrix for the criteria” whereas in the manuscript they report “The experts were asked through a criteria questionnaire to identify whether the relationships across dimensions and criteria had an influential effect” (lines 338-339). Considering the sentence reported in the manuscript it seems that the questionnaire is also used for the “dimensions” whereas looking at the responses file it doesn’t seem used in the same way. Authors should clarify better the role of the dimensions. It is not clear how the values reported in table 6 are obtained.
- Adjust the formatting in line 455
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
OK
